NationStates Jolt Archive

is Iran next on the "Bush war hit list"?

No, the United States will not invade Iran within the forseeable future. Period.

Of course he will. It has oil and there are rumors that it is housing some US wanted people.

no. he hasn't got the troops or the support - his resources and over-stretched in Iraq as it is, and, more importantly, there isn't an election coming up :D

Iran is a whole different story to Iraq....For one they have an actual capable military..

Maybe world war III will erupt...?

At worst China and Russia will defend Iran, or the E.U nations.

Of course he will. It has oil and there are rumors that it is housing some US wanted people.
No, he won't. Your reasoning makes no sense.

No we won't invade Iran anytime soon.

Iran has a better chance of collapsing from within than the US invading it.

no. he hasn't got the troops or the support - his resources and over-stretched in Iraq as it is, and, more importantly, there isn't an election coming up :D

Yet he is still in Iraq

At worst China and Russia will defend Iran, or the E.U nations.
In the U.N., you mean?

Iran is a whole different story to Iraq....For one they have an actual capable military..

Maybe world war III will erupt...?

At worst China and Russia will defend Iran, or the E.U nations.

Russia won't defend Iran. They don't like eachother. Iran would attack Russia though if given the opportunity.

China probably won't defend them because of Ideology.

As for the EU, some might others won't!

Yet he is still in Iraq
To withdraw from Iraq now would be devastating for the people there.

no. he hasn't got the troops or the support - his resources and over-stretched in Iraq as it is, and, more importantly, there isn't an election coming up :D

Why do you think he is doing his charming offensive. I have a feeling he is trying to get the U.N to help take the load off some american forces, whilst training Iraqi's own.

But Iran like I said is a somewhat decent nation.

Russia won't defend Iran. They don't like eachother. Iran would attack Russia though if given the opportunity.

China probably won't defend them because of Ideology.

As for the EU, some might others won't!

Lol they may not like each other on personal terms......However, Iran is the only oil-rich nation that is not in Americas pocket as they say...

And considering Russia sees Iran as a good economic investment, they may get involved. Although I doubt it will be with the armed forces, but perhaps by supplying them.

E.G " Similar to the Syria style sale...."

China may defend them because of the Hostile policy the U.S carries against them. Two is better than One.

And I agree to the E.U point, its like a lottery. You can be sure France will object though :p

Iran isn't next...

Syria is...

Mark my words...

I voted yes though I'm not completely sure. Anyone else here seen Bush's speech in Europe where he went:

No, we will not invade Iran. That Idea is presposterous.

Which he then followed by:

This said, all options are on the table.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Iran isn't next...

Syria is...

Mark my words...

Syria is the weaker opponent...Although considering they have formed a united arab front with Iran...Any attack would be deemed difficult.....

I voted yes though I'm not completely sure. Anyone else here seen Bush's speech in Europe where he went:



Which he then followed by:



:confused: :confused: :confused:

lol

is Iran next on the "Bush war hit list"?
From what I understand, it will be sometime in June (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399985)?

But Iran like I said is a somewhat decent nation.


What? :rolleyes:

I dont think the US will invade Iran or Syria only because of a lack of public support, and a war with either of those countries would be very very expensive.

What? :rolleyes:

If you read my earlier posts you would understand...I was just referring to the Armed forces of Iran, and how they are no pushover.

I dont think the US will invade Iran or Syria only because of a lack of public support, and a war with either of those countries would be very very expensive.

Mind you....Bush's speech does not exactly spur confidence when he preaches about spreading freedom....

Iran is a whole different story to Iraq....For one they have an actual capable military..

Maybe world war III will erupt...?

At worst China and Russia will defend Iran, or the E.U nations.

for 1 china does not have there own military the U.S owns the military there and the russians are a bunch of #$@%%! and they would not do any thing :upyours: :headbang:

If you read my earlier posts you would understand...I was just referring to the Armed forces of Iran, and how they are no pushover.

They actually would be a pushover. Are you one of those people who said that we would so many bodybags when we were going into Iraq the first time?

Sorry Spetsialnoye Nazacheny, though I understand what you mean, the reason you cited "and a war with either of those countries would be very very expensive." doesn't really matter. As you may have noticed, Bush doesn't exactly care about how expensive it is. May I remind everyone that he is the only president capapble of turning the biggest surplus into the biggest deficit. Ever. Public support is a bigger factor but it depends what public you mean. the U.N? He didn't listen to them the first time, why now? the EU? Do you really think he cares what the EU thinks? As for China and Russia, they'd pounce at the opportunity to attack Iran.

No-ones mentioned the fact that Iran's trying to build nukes. Trying quite hard.

1. Our army is in pieces, beaten, etc
2. We don't have the funding to supply our army thanks to Bush's wonderful tax cut plan.
3. We dont have enough mid rank soldiers (Captains, majors)

for 1 china does not have there own military the U.S owns the military there and the russians are a bunch of #$@%%! and they would not do any thing :upyours: :headbang:

I see.........

1. Our army is in pieces, beaten, etc


How so?

well, i to say it, i dont think we should, and i am moving to canada (if that helps at all), but of course, "the shrub" is our president. of course we're going to go to war with iran because after all they have weapons just as iraq had weapons that according to condeliza and mr. president himself, never were in iraq in the first place (good luck interpreting that one). So i'm going to end it with, I'M GOING TO CANANDA! ANYONE WANNA JOIN ME? bottom line in a few words...(or one)...yes

Iran is the only oil-rich nation that is not in Americas pocket as they say...

What about Russia? Norway? China? Nigeria? Algeria? Indonesia? Libya?

Each of those countries produce more than 1,000,000 bbl/day, and yet they do not seem to be "in America's pocket".

I voted yes though I'm not completely sure. Anyone else here seen Bush's speech in Europe where he went:



Which he then followed by:



:confused: :confused: :confused:

You keep all your option on the table. Wether or not you use the options is another matter. That's diplomacy.

No, the United States will not invade Iran within the forseeable future. Period.
So three months until Iran invasion it is

They actually would be a pushover. Are you one of those people who said that we would so many bodybags when we were going into Iraq the first time?

Well considering that Iraq did not have really anything but an out-dated air defense system, you would expect them to be push overs.

As for the first Gulf war, that is a different kettle of fish to discuss.

Now onto the Iranian subject. First they have a somewhat decent missile defence system, so they will provide a reasonable defence. Second Iran is highly mountainous, thus airstrikes will not be as effective as in Iraq.

And although America would likely win, a good tactical counter could result in bodybags where they are least strong, such as Afganistan, Iraq etc..

Like I said, Iran is no pushover.

What about Russia? Norway? China? Nigeria? Algeria? Indonesia? Libya?

Each of those countries produce more than 1,000,000 bbl/day, and yet they do not seem to be "in America's pocket".

True...but with the Chinese economic need for power, Iran is a good option. Wheras libya is begining to open up to the world etc..

But it really depends how much the other nations are willing to go.

Remember, the killing of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 caused world war 1. So anything is possible.

I do not believe that Bush will lead the US into a unilateral invasion of either Iran or Syria. Our military is reaching the limit of how much it can do, and there is simply no money for it. The people both at home and abroad would become outraged, and make the massive protests for the Iraq war look like a Sunday picnic.

He will push hard to solve the Iranian nuclear issue internationally, whether through diplomacy or force, and will continue to pressure Syria. Syria is rumored to have just given up a key figure in the Iraq insurgency, indicating that it is bending under international pressure.

Airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities are a possibility should diplomacy fail.

Lol they may not like each other on personal terms......However, Iran is the only oil-rich nation that is not in Americas pocket as they say...

Actually, Iran is more natural gas than oil. We have an abundance of Natural Gas in the USA but the greenie-weenies won't let us tap into it.

And considering Russia sees Iran as a good economic investment, they may get involved. Although I doubt it will be with the armed forces, but perhaps by supplying them.

Iran still has a grudge against Russia. Economic investment yea but Russia had an economic investment in Iraq too.

E.G " Similar to the Syria style sale...."

Syria style sale? Explane.

China may defend them because of the Hostile policy the U.S carries against them. Two is better than One.

China won't get involved. China doesn't want to upset the applecart they have with the USA. If China gets involved against us, US will probably stop importing and exporting products to and from China. That won't be good for either economy.

And I agree to the E.U point, its like a lottery. You can be sure France will object though :p

France would surrender to Iran AND to the US in any fight. LOL

Iran isn't next...

Syria is...

Mark my words...

Syria would be an easier nut to crack and I'm sure Lebanon would appreciate it too as would Israel.

Syria is the weaker opponent...Although considering they have formed a united arab front with Iran...Any attack would be deemed difficult.....

That alliance is a joke. Iran can't really do anything to help Syria and Syria doesn't have the ability to help Iran.

From what I understand, it will be sometime in June (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399985)?

The attack won't happen in June. I doubt it'll happen within 4 years.

If you read my earlier posts you would understand...I was just referring to the Armed forces of Iran, and how they are no pushover.

Their Air Force isn't worth much:

Air Superiority? One day maybe two.

I doubt they'll get planes off the ground before their airbases get hit.

Their ground forces may cause some trouble but how many will fight is a question.

True...but with the Chinese economic need for power, Iran is a good option. Wheras libya is begining to open up to the world etc..

But it really depends how much the other nations are willing to go.

Remember, the killing of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 caused world war 1. So anything is possible.

I think we are talking about completely different things. I was providing examples of oil-rich countries that the US is not controlling in any way. They stand as glaring inconsistencies in the argument that the US is "taking over" oil-rich countries for greedy imperialistic aims. Note also that Afghanistan has no oil whatsoever. None.

Syria is the weaker opponent...Although considering they have formed a united arab front with Iran...Any attack would be deemed difficult.....
Iran isn't an Arab country.

1. Our army is in pieces, beaten, etc

What the hell are you smoking? Our army is not in pieces nor is it beaten.

2. We don't have the funding to supply our army thanks to Bush's wonderful tax cut plan.

BS! The funding is there and it is being used to fund it. Want to try again?

3. We dont have enough mid rank soldiers (Captains, majors)

Care to bet?

However, Iran is the only oil-rich nation that is not in Americas pocket as they say...
Are you stupid?

Iran isn't an Arab country.

Did they really form an arab union then? That would be irony up the posterior.

Probably a unified Islamic front.

So three months until Iran invasion it is

Nope! No invasion in 3 months.

Well considering that Iraq did not have really anything but an out-dated air defense system, you would expect them to be push overs.

As for the first Gulf war, that is a different kettle of fish to discuss.

Now onto the Iranian subject. First they have a somewhat decent missile defence system, so they will provide a reasonable defence. Second Iran is highly mountainous, thus airstrikes will not be as effective as in Iraq.

And although America would likely win, a good tactical counter could result in bodybags where they are least strong, such as Afganistan, Iraq etc..

Like I said, Iran is no pushover.

Their air defense system is good at best. Our weasels would surely sweep away all of the SAM sites. You said they have a decent air defense system. Guess what? It takes more then mediocrity to defeat the best airforce in the world. Iran is much like Iraq in this sense, plus when you have to defend two or more of your borders from invasion, shit will hit the fan. I seriously doubt that the Iranian troops would stick around and fight when we have total air superiority. Just remember Iraq and the highway of death. (http://www.frugalsworld.com/reviews/images/Highway_of_Deatht.jpg) Remember Iraq was said to have the 4th largest army with "seasoned war veterans". They were absolutely slaughtered.

How could Iran counter when they are defending their own nation from let's say a three pronged attack. They would only be able to attempt a counter attack which would most likely result in their utter decimation.

1. Our army is in pieces, beaten, etc

No it isn't.

2. We don't have the funding to supply our army thanks to Bush's wonderful tax cut plan.

Which had no effect whatsoever on military expenditures.

3. We dont have enough mid rank soldiers (Captains, majors)
Yes, the military DOES.

Iran isn't an Arab country.

Actually it is Battlestar

Actually it is Battlestar
Atually, Corneliu, it is not. The population is predominently Persian.

Atually, Corneliu, it is not. The population is predominently Persian.

No kidding but it is still part of the Arab community. They are a muslim nation and is part of the Middle East. So yea it is part of the arab world.

1. Our army is in pieces, beaten, etc
2. We don't have the funding to supply our army thanks to Bush's wonderful tax cut plan.
3. We dont have enough mid rank soldiers (Captains, majors)

first our army is not in peices its probably as strong as it will be in its current position given that just about every soldier marine sailor and airman has had some type of battle field expeience,

second we have plenty of funding why do you think Bush started up his nuclear bunker buster program, which i have to say i love with all my heart.

and we have plenty of mid rank soldiers dont know you know that most people join the army for the college benefits and thats how you get into officer candidate school or are commisioned as a 2nd lietunant.

as for Russia helping Iran no in case you guys didnt notice they have a small... ok big problem with the middle east countries the hard part with russia would be making them get out of Iran, which they would do under political pressure

China also wouldnt help Iran they would sit back and watch the show while looking out their window keeping an eye on North Korea, the two have been growing in hostilities for awhile now. and china wouldnt want to risk moving her troops away even a small percentage of the army.

and United Nations wouldnt make us do anything theyd demand that we leave but we make up half of their budget so they wouldnt risk trying to cut themselves off from our precious dollars.

and Europe probably wouldnt do anything. the Britts would support us hell theyve got better policies on dealing with terrorists nations than we do. Zero Tolerance. but theyre too small an army to go in on their own no matter how much more advanced they are.

and Iran really isnt that good of a millitary sure wed have to use more tactics because one after the bulk of their millitary is defeated theyll try doing what Iraq did... is doing. and use gurella tactics, booby trapping roads, cars, bodies, etc.

honestly i dont think Iran would be next on the list not because of any tactical disadvantages. but because i think you can expect our attention to be turned on a budhist country or whatever religion the N. Koreans are. sure Iran is devolping Nuclear weapons, but Korea is trying to make inter- continental nukes. its like shooting those duck targets at a fair you always shoot the one about to pass the curtain, so it doesnt get away from you.

No kidding but it is still part of the Arab community. They are a muslim nation and is part of the Middle East. So yea it is part of the arab world.
Well the Arabs don't count Iran as being part of 'Arab world'. But the Arabs lie constantly, so probably it is. Isn't Israel part of Middle East too... must be an Arab nation...

Well the Arabs don't count Iran as being part of 'Arab world'. But the Arabs lie constantly, so probably it is. Isn't Israel part of Middle East too... must be an Arab nation...

I consider the arab world to be muslim. Israel isn't muslim! Iran is.

The US military doesn't have the capability to take on Iran at the moment. It would only ever take it on if it could win comfortably with a minimum of casualties, as it was able to do in Iraq. The US couldn't spare the number of troops required, which would be far more than for Iraq, while keeping its commitments in Iraq and having troops available to counter threats from Korea or possibly even China, which is its stated policy to keep. Iran is a tougher prospect because it isn't such a tin pot dictatorship, its soldiers don't hate their own regime and the terrain is much tougher than the open plains of Iraq.

The expense would also either force tax rises or the collapse of the dollar, neither of which Bush wants.

No kidding but it is still part of the Arab community. They are a muslim nation and is part of the Middle East. So yea it is part of the arab world.
Then so is Israel because they have arabs and are in teh middle east, thus they are part of the Arab world.

Then so is Israel because they have arabs and are in teh middle east, thus they are part of the Arab world.

I consider the arab world to be muslim. Israel isn't muslim! Iran is.

my response

I consider the arab world to be muslim. Israel isn't muslim! Iran is.

The Arabs are an ethnic group. Islam is a religion. Iran is not an Arab country, as they are predominantly ethnic Persians.

No kidding but it is still part of the Arab community.
No it isn't.
[QUOTE=Corneliu]
They are a muslim nation and is part of the Middle East.
So yea it is part of the arab world.
...no. No no no, a thousand times no! Their predominant religion and geographic location does not change the fact that Iran is NOT an Arab country! Neither, by the way, is Turkey.

The Arabs are an ethnic group. Islam is a religion. Iran is not an Arab country, as they are predominantly ethnic Persians.

Most people consider Iran part of the arab world because of their religious ideals. That is why I include them.

my response
Which is irrelevant. Muslim does not equate to arabian. Iran is not Arab

The US will not invade Iran. Syria, maybe, but not Iran. Iran is a country on the verge of great change. The religious leaders are losing their grip as the youth of the nation gain power and desire freedom. The US doesn't have to do anything but sit and watch.
That said, the idea that the US military is over-extended is just not true. Sure, the military is pressed with fighting terrorists in Iraq and covering our other overseas commitments but as a nation we are not pressed at all.
When compared with previous conflicts the US is not even breaking a sweat. WWII and WWI effected the country far more.
We have no draft, our industries are not being converted to war production and we have no rationing. The conflict in Iraq is not effecting the country very much overall.
I think this is one of the things that worry other nations so much. The fact that the US can fight a war like this and station troops around the globe and maintain a large fleet without really putting pressure on the nation. If the US ever really became imperialistic only the threat of nuclear conflict would pose a strategic threat. (that and a land war with China or India).
What I think is disturbing though is that the unrelenting criticism and hatred of the world only further pushes America toward becoming imperialistic. We feel we are trying to help, the world screams hatred at us, so we start to hate the world back so they hate us more, so we hate them more and becomne even more indifferent to them so they hate us more and so on and so on in a vicious circle.
Neither side really tries to step back and correct thee situation.

honestly i dont think Iran would be next on the list not because of any tactical disadvantages. but because i think you can expect our attention to be turned on a budhist country or whatever religion the N. Koreans are. sure Iran is devolping Nuclear weapons, but Korea is trying to make inter- continental nukes. its like shooting those duck targets at a fair you always shoot the one about to pass the curtain, so it doesnt get away from you.
We would be hesitant to attack North Korea. They have nukes, and nothing to lose. Anyway, I heard that we already had people inside Iran picking out targets...

I consider the arab world to be muslim. Israel isn't muslim! Iran is.
What you're probably meaning to say is that you "consider the Muslim world to be Arab." Well buddy, it doesn't matter what you think, because you're wrong.

Most people consider Iran part of the arab world

No they don't.

because of their religious ideals. That is why I include them.
Religion is irrelevent. Iran is not a part of the Arab world. Neither is Somalia or Turkey, despite a shared geographic proximity and religion.

What you're probably meaning to say is that you "consider the Muslim world to be Arab." Well buddy, it doesn't matter what you think, because you're wrong.

I was going to say exactly this. Ignorance is no argument. If Corneliu doesn't know what an Arab is then that doesn't change the definition of the word 'Arab.'

Well, maybe Iran is an Arab country according to Corneliu's definition. Most people, most importantly the Iranians, don't share his definition.

Bernard Lewis, a historian who has studied the Arab world, has this to say: Alone among the Middle Eastern peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Iranians did not lose their language or their identity. Ethnic Persians make up 60 percent of modern Iran, and modern Persian is the official language. (Persian also has official status in Afghanistan, where Dari, or Afghan Persian, is one of two official languages.) In addition, the majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. So Iran fails most of the four-part test of language, ancestry, religion, and culture.

Of course Corneliu is a prominent historian too, so maybe the scientific community will soon see the error of their ways and adopt Corneliu's definition.

The US will not invade Iran. Syria, maybe, but not Iran. Iran is a country on the verge of great change. The religious leaders are losing their grip as the youth of the nation gain power and desire freedom. The US doesn't have to do anything but sit and watch.
That said, the idea that the US military is over-extended is just not true. Sure, the military is pressed with fighting terrorists in Iraq and covering our other overseas commitments but as a nation we are not pressed at all.
When compared with previous conflicts the US is not even breaking a sweat. WWII and WWI effected the country far more.
We have no draft, our industries are not being converted to war production and we have no rationing. The conflict in Iraq is not effecting the country very much overall.
I think this is one of the things that worry other nations so much. The fact that the US can fight a war like this and station troops around the globe and maintain a large fleet without really putting pressure on the nation. If the US ever really became imperialistic only the threat of nuclear conflict would pose a strategic threat. (that and a land war with China or India).
What I think is disturbing though is that the unrelenting criticism and hatred of the world only further pushes America toward becoming imperialistic. We feel we are trying to help, the world screams hatred at us, so we start to hate the world back so they hate us more, so we hate them more and becomne even more indifferent to them so they hate us more and so on and so on in a vicious circle.
Neither side really tries to step back and correct thee situation.


If the US introduced the draft and geared its economy towards war, as in WWII, then I have absolutely no doubt that it could take on Iran. In fact, I think that it would probably beat it in a war now (though winning a war these days is far, far harder than not losing). But you won't introduce the draft and you won't go in with the forces that you could bring to bear at the moment.

We would be hesitant to attack North Korea. They have nukes, and nothing to lose. Anyway, I heard that we already had people inside Iran picking out targets...

Are you 100% positive that they have nukes? Have they tested on yet? They could be bluffing.

I was going to say exactly this. Ignorance is no argument. If Corneliu doesn't know what an Arab is then that doesn't change the definition of the word 'Arab.'

There is one thing wrong with this statement. I am not ignorant. I DO KNOW what an arab is.

No kidding but it is still part of the Arab community. They are a muslim nation and is part of the Middle East. So yea it is part of the arab world.

I disagree. Iran has a long rich Persian history before Islam came to that country. The Iran-Iraq war was about ARAB-PERSIAN tension in addition to shi'a-sunni issues.

Iran is Persian, it is not part of the Arab community. It IS part of the Muslim community, and is a very important part of the Middle East.

If the US introduced the draft and geared its economy towards war, as in WWII, then I have absolutely no doubt that it could take on Iran. In fact, I think that it would probably beat it in a war now (though winning a war these days is far, far harder than not losing). But you won't introduce the draft and you won't go in with the forces that you could bring to bear at the moment.

Westmorlandia, intersting name. You a Vietnam vet or have interest in it?
Yeah, we won't intro the draft which is a good thing. Should only be done when the nation is faced with a complete threat to its existence.
I agree that winning a war has become increasingly difficult. Guerilla tactics and terrorism mixed media that generally loathe their own nations, countries find it increasingly difficult to maintain moral and force of will amoung the people.
Also, western nation no longer find it exceptable to be cruel to the extent you must be to win a win completely. This is both a weakness and a strength of western nations.

arab/persian debate...

If you think of the Arab world as defined by Islam, then don't forget to include the northern half of Africa, Central and Eastern Europe, Central and Southern Asia, and significant minority populations in the major cities of the US and Western Europe.

This debate isn't really important. It's about what different people call something.

Most people consider Iran part of the arab world because of their religious ideals. That is why I include them.
Who are these so called "most people"?

This has been beaten to death so can we get back on subject here?

No Iran will not be attacked.

Westmorlandia, intersting name. You a Vietnam vet or have interest in it?
Yeah, we won't intro the draft which is a good thing. Should only be done when the nation is faced with a complete threat to its existence.
I agree that winning a war has become increasingly difficult. Guerilla tactics and terrorism mixed media that generally loathe their own nations, countries find it increasingly difficult to maintain moral and force of will amoung the people.
Also, western nation no longer find it exceptable to be cruel to the extent you must be to win a win completely. This is both a weakness and a strength of western nations.

I'm from Cumbria in the UK, a new county that is made up of the old counties of Cumberland and Westmorland. I don't really get the Vietnam reference, I have to admit, but I suspect that whatever or whoever had that name probably originally got it from my little part of the world.

By the way, when we say the US military is stretched or overextended or can't spare enough hardware to invade Iran, we mean to say that we can't do it without gearing up the old war machine and pouring money into the military.

If we did that and set all of our resources to strengthening our military, we would stand a pretty darn good chance at taking over the world! Now THAT would make us a "war nation", which we are not.

I'm from Cumbria in the UK, a new county that is made up of the old counties of Cumberland and Westmorland. I don't really get the Vietnam reference, I have to admit, but I suspect that whatever or whoever had that name probably originally got it from my little part of the world.

Westmorland was the overall commander of US forces in S. Vietnam. I just jumped to a conclusion.

back on topic. . .Iran won't be attacked, etc. etc. etc.

By the way, when we say the US military is stretched or overextended or can't spare enough hardware to invade Iran, we mean to say that we can't do it without gearing up the old war machine and pouring money into the military.

If we did that and set all of our resources to strengthening our military, we would stand a pretty darn good chance at taking over the world! Now THAT would make us a "war nation", which we are not.

yep, and I think the prospect of this frightens quite a few people.

Iran is a whole different story to Iraq....For one they have an actual capable military..

Maybe world war III will erupt...?

At worst China and Russia will defend Iran, or the E.U nations.

No comrades, Russia would not support Iran in a war against the United States. The Russian military is not interested in Iran, Russia has the worlds second largest oil reserve, second only to Saudi Arabia. Also, no Russian boys will fight and die for Islamic scum, nor would they be ordered to by President Putin. In case anyone doesn't know this, Russia is having its own difficulties in Chechnya with muslims and isn't concerned in helping their brotherin in Iran. This is where Russians and Americans differ in politics towards the middle east...when a terrorist group in say Afghanistan declares a Jihad (holy war) between Islam and the West, American soldiers will kill the terrorists, but will not burn down Mosques, kill the muslim children, "arrest" the elders, rape the women (in islamic tradition, if a woman is raped, she is dirty and has discraced her family), or kill the civilians. The Russians will. When Chechen scum declared an all-out war on the Motherland, that's excatly what they got. In my opinion, American servicemen should be praised for each Muslim they kill, man woman or child. A child now is a decoy/suicide bomber/gunman/lookout/theif/insurgent/informant tomorrow. As we said in Chechnya, the only way to stop the wolves is to kill the cubs :mp5: . Personally, I'd like to see US Marines alongside our Spetsnaz in Chechnya storming terrorist buildings together. :sniper:

Yet he is still in Iraq


And Syria is still in Lebanon!(1979- )

No comrades, Russia would not support Iran in a war against the United States. The Russian military is not interested in Iran, Russia has the worlds second largest oil reserve, second only to Saudi Arabia. Also, no Russian boys will fight and die for Islamic scum, nor would they be ordered to by President Putin. In case anyone doesn't know this, Russia is having its own difficulties in Chechnya with muslims and isn't concerned in helping their brotherin in Iran. This is where Russians and Americans differ in politics towards the middle east...when a terrorist group in say Afghanistan declares a Jihad (holy war) between Islam and the West, American soldiers will kill the terrorists, but will not burn down Mosques, kill the muslim children, "arrest" the elders, rape the women (in islamic tradition, if a woman is raped, she is dirty and has discraced her family), or kill the civilians. The Russians will. When Chechen scum declared an all-out war on the Motherland, that's excatly what they got. In my opinion, American servicemen should be praised for each Muslim they kill, man woman or child. A child now is a decoy/suicide bomber/gunman/lookout/theif/insurgent/informant tomorrow. As we said in Chechnya, the only way to stop the wolves is to kill the cubs :mp5: . Personally, I'd like to see US Marines alongside our Spetsnaz in Chechnya storming terrorist buildings together. :sniper:

This post sickens me. I guess the Russian have no morals after all.

No comrades, Russia would not support Iran in a war against the United States. The Russian military is not interested in Iran, Russia has the worlds second largest oil reserve, second only to Saudi Arabia. Also, no Russian boys will fight and die for Islamic scum, nor would they be ordered to by President Putin. In case anyone doesn't know this, Russia is having its own difficulties in Chechnya with muslims and isn't concerned in helping their brotherin in Iran. This is where Russians and Americans differ in politics towards the middle east...when a terrorist group in say Afghanistan declares a Jihad (holy war) between Islam and the West, American soldiers will kill the terrorists, but will not burn down Mosques, kill the muslim children, "arrest" the elders, rape the women (in islamic tradition, if a woman is raped, she is dirty and has discraced her family), or kill the civilians. The Russians will. When Chechen scum declared an all-out war on the Motherland, that's excatly what they got. In my opinion, American servicemen should be praised for each Muslim they kill, man woman or child. A child now is a decoy/suicide bomber/gunman/lookout/theif/insurgent/informant tomorrow. As we said in Chechnya, the only way to stop the wolves is to kill the cubs :mp5: . Personally, I'd like to see US Marines alongside our Spetsnaz in Chechnya storming terrorist buildings together. :sniper:

Ouch. . .well your method might win the war but make you nation the bad guy in much of the world's eye. If you as a nation are willing to take that then. . .

How so?

Uh, lets see. We have no mid ranking officers. We took a enough casulties to make a differents. Were poorly equipped. We are in no position to go to war unless we go world war two style.

Uh, lets see. We have no mid ranking officers. We took a enough casulties to make a differents. Were poorly equipped. We are in no position to go to war unless we go world war two style.

We have PLENTY of mid-rankofficers! Your second sentence is BS! Look at Casualties in past American Wars. We're not even close to them all. We ARE NOT POORLY equiped. As for going into another war, watchout for those bombs from the Navy, Marines, and Air Force Planes. I hear they can give you a headache.

Iran is a whole different story to Iraq....For one they have an actual capable military..

Maybe world war III will erupt...?

At worst China and Russia will defend Iran, or the E.U nations.
Nobody would defend Iran, except possibly Syria, but even that is unlikely.

Bush won't invade Iran. He can't.

I really hope that the UN deals with Iran and North Korea. They obviously need to be dealt with, and the only other options are indecision and hoping for the best (do I really need to say why this is bad?), or letting the US deal with it, which pisses off everyone.

It's really put-up-or-shut-up time for the UN. Will they fullfil their role to keep the peace in our modern world?

Uh, lets see. We have no mid ranking officers. We took a enough casulties to make a differents. Were poorly equipped. We are in no position to go to war unless we go world war two style.

I beg to differ. When you say "mid ranking officers", you mean Captain to Lt.Col? If so, then you are incorrect. All branches of the US Military have a very healthy amount of both trained officers, high and low, as well as the NCO (non-commissioned officer) ranks. A lack of trained personell is one problem the military does not have.

[QUOTE=Bernard Lewis, a historian who has studied the Arab world, has this to say: Alone among the Middle Eastern peoples conquered by the Arabs, the Iranians did not lose their language or their identity. Ethnic Persians make up 60 percent of modern Iran, and modern Persian is the official language. (Persian also has official status in Afghanistan, where Dari, or Afghan Persian, is one of two official languages.) In addition, the majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. So Iran fails most of the four-part test of language, ancestry, religion, and culture.QUOTE]

percentages dont really matter look at South Africa, its dominated by blacks, but controlled by whites, and i thought the Iraqis just elected some kurdish guy

I really hope that the UN deals with Iran and North Korea. They obviously need to be dealt with, and the only other options are indecision and hoping for the best (do I really need to say why this is bad?), or letting the US deal with it, which pisses off everyone.

It's really put-up-or-shut-up time for the UN. Will they fullfil their role to keep the peace in our modern world?

no they won't despite the U.N. being called a "world police force" they really dont do much besides say someone has to do something. and when they don't everyone looks at the U.S. guy. then he drops his head and says "I'll get the president on it." if you think thats wrong, then your wrong look at all the stuff the U.S. has done that the U.N. has said no to. and what did they do. nothing they just cried their little hearts out.

everyone in the U.N. is scared of the U.S. anyway because of what someone said before were not really putting a strain on the nation and were already covering the whole dam world. and china is basically the new russia, we wont attack them because the Army wouldnt stand a chance against their numbers. and they wouldnt attack because they couldnt get any troops over here. thats why if theirs a conflict over taiwan the U.S. will take a defensive posture around the little island.

Well it all depends on what order he's taking out the 'Axis of Evil'.

1. Our army is in pieces, beaten, etc
2. We don't have the funding to supply our army thanks to Bush's wonderful tax cut plan.
3. We dont have enough mid rank soldiers (Captains, majors)

1. America's far from beaten

2. America has plenty of funding thanks to the tax cuts. Study some economics

3. America has plenty of officers. They're not meeting recruiting goals for enlisted folks.

That being said, nobody's attacking Iran unless they use the nukes already developed.

Are you 100% positive that they have nukes? Have they tested on yet? They could be bluffing.
Either way, attacking N. Korea or Iran would cost america a great deal of soldiers.