NationStates Jolt Archive

So how long does everyone here think it'll be before something happens (an attack on Israel, the discovery of a possible "threat to America," or maybe just an Iranian Statesman spitting wrong) before an American force at least makes tactical Airstrikes on Iranian soil?

My guess is by January of 2009.

Any other ideas?

23 A N S G

3...2...1... turn on fox news. :)

23 A N S G

ANSG?

3...2...1... turn on fox news. :)

I don't have a TV.

This isn't sounding good.

So how long does everyone here think it'll be before something happens (an attack on Israel, the discovery of a possible "threat to America," or maybe just an Iranian Statesman spitting wrong) before an American force at least makes tactical Airstrikes on Iranian soil?

My guess is by January of 2009.

Any other ideas?

at least 15 minutes.

I'm waiting for "Iraq is our ally. Iraq has always been our ally. We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran."

I really need to stop reading Orwell so often...

I'm waiting for "Iraq is our ally. Iraq has always been our ally. We are at war with Iran. We have always been at war with Iran."

I really need to stop reading Orwell so often...

Animal farm?

Animal farm?
I was thinking 1984.

I was thinking 1984.

Could come from either.

But I'm thinking, I really think thats gonna be Bush's last move before he gets out of office; he's gonna try and go into Iran, maybe a few months before he leaves.

Couldn't tell you why, but thats what I'm thinking.

If the IDF soldiers go to Iran, so does Israel. And chances are, so do we. If it happens next year around this time, so might I.

If the IDF soldiers go to Iran, so does Israel. And chances are, so do we. If it happens next year around this time, so might I.

For some reason you don't sound excited about that.

I think thats a fair analysis of it though, so you give it a year?

If Israel and the U.S. get involved in anything together it's WW3. Us and Israel vs the world. Mark my words.

If Israel and the U.S. get involved in anything together it's WW3. Us and Israel vs the world. Mark my words.

Thats a pretty strong statement there. So what do you think the odds are that those two get together, and when do you think?

Any money on that one?

If Israel and the U.S. get involved in anything together it's WW3. Us and Israel vs the world. Mark my words.
Doubtful. There's no reason why Russia, China, and Europe should get involved against the US and Israel, or even get actively involved. Plus India, Africa, and the rest of America would not care much about the whole thing at all.

How long before we go to Iran?

it depends on how soon Iran loses its mind and tries to go further with its nukes....being in controll of Hezbollah and Jihadis are Us makes them a PRIME target for preemption.

Imagine Hezbollah with a nuke ?

If Israel and the U.S. get involved in anything together it's WW3. Us and Israel vs the world. Mark my words.

it depends on how soon Iran loses its mind and tries to go further with its nukes....being in controll of Hezbollah and Jihadis are Us makes them a PRIME target for preemption.

Imagine Hezbollah with a nuke ?

Yeah, bad shit would go down.

But really, anyone who uses a nuke is bad news. Doesn't matter who does it, the nuke still bombs the fuck out of people. Know what I mean?

Personally I don't think America will go to War with Iran (at-least not in the next 5 to 10 years). You see the American Military is already Totally Overstretched in Iraq and elsewhere, and in order to have enough Troops to invade Iran (which would be many times more than what was used against Iraq) they would have to introduce a huge draft, and we all know that's just not politically acceptable today.

Now there is no way, and I mean NO WAY, that there will be such a War within Bush's remaining term (2008), he just wouldn't get the country or the congress to follow him.

It depends on a few circumstances...
1) Who will be the next president? If it's a Democrat then a war is highly unlikely, if it's another Republican Neo-Con, then it is possible (although still somewhat unlikely).
2) What will be the condition of Iraq in 2009? From the way things are going the answer will probably be, Even worse than today. And America (or it's allies) CANNOT go to war on Iran if it still has an unstable situation in Iraq, it would be Catastrophic for them.
3) Will Iran still be developing Nukes (or accused of it) at this time? It's possible that they will stop via diplomacy. It's also possible that the actually get an A-Bomb, in which case of-course War is impossible.

Now I am fairly confident that it wont happen anytime soon, some sort of confrontation will probably occur between the 2 some time in the Future but not now. (Probably...)

Doubtful. There's no reason why Russia, China, and Europe should get involved against the US and Israel, or even get actively involved. Plus India, Africa, and the rest of America would not care much about the whole thing at all.
Europe would cry injustice and try to correct it's "mistake". Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

For some reason you don't sound excited about that.

I think thats a fair analysis of it though, so you give it a year?

Iran isn't Iraq.Gov't is much stronger, although they do hang gay people, so that might silence the hippies temporarily. If poo does hit the occilating electrical appliance the Army and Marine corps will be there.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. I'd go for it.

Personally I don't think America will go to War with Iran (at-least not in the next 5 to 10 years). You see the American Military is already Totally Overstretched in Iraq and elsewhere, and in order to have enough Troops to invade Iran (which would be many times more than what was used against Iraq) they would have to introduce a huge draft, and we all know that's just not politically acceptable today.

Now there is no way, and I mean NO WAY, that there will be such a War within Bush's remaining term (2008), he just wouldn't get the country or the congress to follow him.

It depends on a few circumstances...
1) Who will be the next president? If it's a Democrat then a war is highly unlikely, if it's another Republican Neo-Con, then it is possible (although still somewhat unlikely).
2) What will be the condition of Iraq in 2009? From the way things are going the answer will probably be, Even worse than today. And America (or it's allies) CANNOT go to war on Iran if it still has an unstable situation in Iraq, it would be Catastrophic for them.
3) Will Iran still be developing Nukes (or accused of it) at this time? It's possible that they will stop via diplomacy. It's also possible that the actually get an A-Bomb, in which case of-course War is impossible.

Now I am fairly confident that it wont happen anytime soon, some sort of confrontation will probably occur between the 2 some time in the Future but not now. (Probably...)

I personally think that Bush is calling for diplomacy as a ploy; just so the Iranians won't take it. That way, he's got an excuse for limited action, shaky as it may be.

Then, after a few casualties in this limited action, a discovery of an Iranian war crime will cause a mass movement of troops to the border of Iraq and Iran, even though our Troops our so badly stretched. Our Air Support can hold its own in a full blown war; the reason things are so bad over in Iraq right now is that our Airstrikes are minimally effective. Yes, they kill what they're aiming for, but the Iraqis are keeping their heads ducked for the most part. Thats why you rarely hear of an effective air raid from over in Iraq.

On the other hand, the US military can handle a full blown war I think. Theres just no possibility of handling another occupation attempt.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. I'd go for it.
I know what you mean. I think I'm going military, though cutting my hair will suck. Got nothing better to do, and I sure as hell will not work a desk job.

If Israel and the U.S. get involved in anything together it's WW3. Us and Israel vs the world. Mark my words.

No, it would be Iran/Syria/Hezz/AQ/Hamas Vs Israel/US/Iraq

I personally think that Bush is calling for diplomacy as a ploy; just so the Iranians won't take it. That way, he's got an excuse for limited action, shaky as it may be.

Then, after a few casualties in this limited action, a discovery of an Iranian war crime will cause a mass movement of troops to the border of Iraq and Iran, even though our Troops our so badly stretched. Our Air Support can hold its own in a full blown war; the reason things are so bad over in Iraq right now is that our Airstrikes are minimally effective. Yes, they kill what they're aiming for, but the Iraqis are keeping their heads ducked for the most part. Thats why you rarely hear of an effective air raid from over in Iraq.

On the other hand, the US military can handle a full blown war I think. Theres just no possibility of handling another occupation attempt.


I know what you mean. I think I'm going military, though cutting my hair will suck. Got nothing better to do, and I sure as hell will not work a desk job.

Combat arms is the only way to go.


I'll stand on those yellow foot prints soon enough.

No, it would be Iran/Syria/Hezz/AQ/Hamas Vs Israel/US/Iraq

Marksman, do you think China would play into this? As their economy grows and their foreign interests increase, they're gonna need more oil. Hell, their consumption is rivaling ours now. I think they'd get into it, though I can't tell who's side they'd be on.

Combat arms is the only way to go.


How well can you shoot? Apparently I'm not bad... I've won a few local competitions and whatnot.

Not bad for a long-haired hippy freak eh?

After the Israelis and the Syrians tangle, Iran will intervene on behalf of Syria. Of course, to get Iranian troops to Syria there are only two overland routes, one of them goes directly through Turkey, a NATO ally, and another goes directly through Iraq. If Iranian ground forces should find themselves attempting to punch their way through either, then they'll find themselves in a world of hurt, brought to them courtesy of the US Military.

Marksman, do you think China would play into this? As their economy grows and their foreign interests increase, they're gonna need more oil. Hell, their consumption is rivaling ours now. I think they'd get into it, though I can't tell who's side they'd be on.

The PRC has an increasingly vested interest in stability, and a Middle East dominated by Iran is not going to serve that interest. They would not intervene.

The PRC has an increasingly vested interest in stability, and a Middle East dominated by Iran is not going to serve that interest. They would not intervene.

China likes stability. Good economy means more stability. Energy needed for good economy. Energy comes from oil. Oil comes from middle east. China needs oil for good economy. China intervenes somehow.

After the Israelis and the Syrians tangle, Iran will intervene on behalf of Syria. Of course, to get Iranian troops to Syria there are only two overland routes, one of them goes directly through Turkey, a NATO ally, and another goes directly through Iraq. If Iranian ground forces should find themselves attempting to punch their way through either, then they'll find themselves in a world of hurt, brought to them courtesy of the US Military.

I tend to agree, but there is a very real possible.

Personally I don't think America will go to War with Iran (at-least not in the next 5 to 10 years).

-snip-

Now I am fairly confident that it wont happen anytime soon, some sort of confrontation will probably occur between the 2 some time in the Future but not now. (Probably...)

Exactly so.

I was thinking 1984.

Could come from either.

It was pretty much an exact quote from something repeated several times in 1984 but I don't remember anything similar in Animal Farm.

I personally think that Bush is calling for diplomacy as a ploy; just so the Iranians won't take it. That way, he's got an excuse for limited action, shaky as it may be.

Then, after a few casualties in this limited action, a discovery of an Iranian war crime will cause a mass movement of troops to the border of Iraq and Iran, even though our Troops our so badly stretched. Our Air Support can hold its own in a full blown war; the reason things are so bad over in Iraq right now is that our Airstrikes are minimally effective. Yes, they kill what they're aiming for, but the Iraqis are keeping their heads ducked for the most part. Thats why you rarely hear of an effective air raid from over in Iraq.

On the other hand, the US military can handle a full blown war I think. Theres just no possibility of handling another occupation attempt.

As long as we've got such a high number of our combat brigades in Iraq, we won't be able to put boots on the ground in Iran without a) a real casus belli (building and even testing nukes won't be good enough - it would a real and credible threat to use them), b) pulling forces out if Iraq and Korea (threatening the "stability" of both), and c) pulling forces out of their rotation cycle (which means serious morale, training, maintanance, and even health problems).

Airstrikes would likewise be unteniable.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200605/fallows-iran
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iran.htm

After the Israelis and the Syrians tangle, Iran will intervene on behalf of Syria. Of course, to get Iranian troops to Syria there are only two overland routes, one of them goes directly through Turkey, a NATO ally, and another goes directly through Iraq. If Iranian ground forces should find themselves attempting to punch their way through either, then they'll find themselves in a world of hurt, brought to them courtesy of the US Military.

Which is why they will continue to help with money and munitions.

China likes stability. Good economy means more stability. Energy needed for good economy. Energy comes from oil. Oil comes from middle east. China needs oil for good economy. China intervenes somehow.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no.

Andaluciae had it right that that's why they won't intervene - at least not directly.

It was pretty much an exact quote from something repeated several times in 1984 but I don't remember anything similar in Animal Farm.

I was thinking about how they changed the farm slogan/rules throughout the book... "4 legs good, 2 legs better/" I haven't read 1984 in a while, but just re-read Animal Farm today.







As long as we've got such a high number of our combat brigades in Iraq, we won't be able to put boots on the ground in Iran without a) a real casus belli (building and even testing nukes won't be good enough - it would a real and credible threat to use them), b) pulling forces out if Iraq and Korea (threatening the "stability" of both), and c) pulling forces out of their rotation cycle (which means serious morale, training, maintanance, and even health problems).

Airstrikes would likewise be unteniable.


Leaving Iraq would mean seriously destabilizing the are...wait. Whats going on there now? Its already pretty unstable there. Yeah, it'd make things worse, but I think its somewhere along the lines of blowing up the dam instead of letting it burst on its own.

Sometimes its better to do that and take minimal losses, though minimal is an extremely loose word, and what sort of reprocussions we'll see in the future will certainly be higher if we cut out now, so it may not be worth it.

However, it wouldn't be incredibly difficult to throw a few armored divisions over the border at a time, providing them with air support to take out the hardest targets. Limited action like that could help contain an Iranian threat without an actual invasion; no full blown war.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no.

Andaluciae had it right that that's why they won't intervene - at least not directly.

I don't see how China can't intervene. They're economical interests lie in the Middle East at the moment. They need oil, like I said, and a war there would seriously destabilize their stability (sounds like a classic Bushism there). So out of their own interest, they would enter with at least a containment role, making sure their oil interests didn't get blown up.

Leaving Iraq would mean seriously destabilizing the are...wait. Whats going on there now? Its already pretty unstable there. Yeah, it'd make things worse, but I think its somewhere along the lines of blowing up the dam instead of letting it burst on its own.

Sometimes its better to do that and take minimal losses, though minimal is an extremely loose word, and what sort of reprocussions we'll see in the future will certainly be higher if we cut out now, so it may not be worth it.

However, it wouldn't be incredibly difficult to throw a few armored divisions over the border at a time, providing them with air support to take out the hardest targets. Limited action like that could help contain an Iranian threat without an actual invasion; no full blown war.

I've got to go get ready for work, so I can't reply in full, but there are serious problems with that suggestion.

I've got to go get ready for work, so I can't reply in full, but there are serious problems with that suggestion.

There are, its a rough suggestion, and I'm no military expert. But I do know that US tanks are best in the world. I also know they're incredibly fuel dependant, so they need to be followed by a supply convoy almost constantly. Be that as it may, our ground forces outmatch just about anything anyone can give to us. Be that as it may, occupation would be my biggest concern in any military action (such as the one we're in now).

But hey, I'm no expert.

It was pretty much an exact quote from something repeated several times in 1984 but I don't remember anything similar in Animal Farm.

There was. As Napolean was deciding which neighboring farm to deal with, the propaganda varied by the day; one farm defamed and the other exalted, then the reverse. Of course, there was never a mention of the fact that both were run by humans, and thus it would compromise the principles of the Rebellion to deal with either.

Lots of implications for present-day US foreign policy, though of course it was a reference to Stalin and his dealings with Nazi Germany and the liberal capitalist states.

it depends on how soon Iran loses its mind and tries to go further with its nukes....being in controll of Hezbollah and Jihadis are Us makes them a PRIME target for preemption.

Imagine Hezbollah with a nuke ?

We should be doing what they're doing in Iraq, but in reverse: supplying arms to revolutionary groups inside Iran, encouraging them to attack the moolah-crats wherever they can. At the right time we should help instigate a revolution to destroy the moolah-crats--most of the younger generation HATES them already. We wouldn't need to invade. At most, recognize a revolutionary government and then provide tactical air support.

Whenever it happens, payback's gonna be hell. Khamanei, Ahmadinejad et al. better say their prayers, 'cause they're going down :mp5:

There was. As Napolean was deciding which neighboring farm to deal with, the propaganda varied by the day; one farm defamed and the other exalted, then the reverse. Of course, there was never a mention of the fact that both were run by humans, and thus it would compromise the principles of the Rebellion to deal with either.

Lots of implications for present-day US foreign policy, though of course it was a reference to Stalin and his dealings with Nazi Germany and the liberal capitalist states.

Thank you Soheran. I thought there were lots of similarities between the two books. Ah well.

We should be doing what they're doing in Iraq, but in reverse: supplying arms to revolutionary groups inside Iran, encouraging them to attack the moolah-crats wherever they can. At the right time we should help instigate a revolution to destroy the moolah-crats--most of the younger generation HATES them already. We wouldn't need to invade. At most, recognize a revolutionary government and then provide tactical air support.

Whenever it happens, payback's gonna be hell. Khamanei, Ahmadinejad et al. better say their prayers, 'cause they're going down :mp5:

Its been attempted...happened a lot in Reagan's regime, especially down in Central America. Revolutionary groups supported by outsiders are generally looked down upon.

I figure something will happen before the U.S. elections in November.

Not likely, of course...just a feeling.

<_<

>_>

America sends this message to developing countries. "if you have a nuke, we can't invade you". There is nothing that America can do to prevent nuclear development in Iran unless we physically go there to stop them. The reason we don't do anything but threaten sanctions and reprisals is because there is a school of thought in the white house that Iran already has the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. Also, if by taking action against Iran we inadvertantly piss off Saudi Arabia, what is to stop them from restricting our supply of oil, or worse, what is to stop them from ceasing to buy the treasury bonds and notes that allow our country to maintain such huge levels of debt?

We (the US) simply need to instigate a nuclear war. Lets just nuke Iran to shit. Seriously. Then we will see if anyone really does have the balls to nuke us. If they even do, it'll start a nuclear world war three, which is GOOD. cause afterwards we wont have to bitch about nukes any more and all the worlds problems will be over cause everyone will be dead, except for a few wack jobs like me who will live on, like the road warrior...

World war three will be fought with hightech cruise missles, jets, and nuclear weapons, world war four will be fought with sticks and stones- Albert Einstien.

Apsodi']America sends this message to developing countries. "if you have a nuke, we can't invade you". There is nothing that America can do to prevent nuclear development in Iran unless we physically go there to stop them. The reason we don't do anything but threaten sanctions and reprisals is because there is a school of thought in the white house that Iran already has the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. Also, if by taking action against Iran we inadvertantly piss off Saudi Arabia, what is to stop them from restricting our supply of oil, or worse, what is to stop them from ceasing to buy the treasury bonds and notes that allow our country to maintain such huge levels of debt?

Saudi Arabia won't do anything...they would likely be glad if we were to instigate an Iranian conflict.

The map speaks for itself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Islam-by-country-smooth.png

Saudi Arabia has always been concerned that Iranian expansion will result in a major Sunni/Shia conflict. The last thing they want is to have to fight Iran.

If Iran DOES get it's hands on nukes...expect Saudi Arabia to be next in line to try and get some.

Saudi Arabia won't do anything...they would likely be glad if we were to instigate an Iranian conflict.

The map speaks for itself...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Islam-by-country-smooth.png

Saudi Arabia has always been concerned that Iranian expansion will result in a major Sunni/Shia conflict. The last thing they want is to have to fight Iran.

If Iran DOES get it's hands on nukes...expect Saudi Arabia to be next in line to try and get some.

Interesting map. I see your point and recognize that it has validity. However, the clerics in Saudi Arabia could interpret a move against Iran as a move against Islam. This is not so far fetched. The different sects of Islam as a whole are much more unified than say the different sects of Christianity. If a move is made against Iran it must be done with extreme caution and precision to prevent just this scenario. If such an interpretation occurs we have a much bigger problem on our hands. If the clerics feel that thier theological control of the population is threatened by U.S. support for more secular states in Iraq and subsequently Iran you had better bet we'll have a lot more pissed off Saudis than we did before.

it depends on how soon Iran loses its mind and tries to go further with its nukes....being in controll of Hezbollah and Jihadis are Us makes them a PRIME target for preemption.

Imagine Hezbollah with a nuke ?
Your friend Scott Ritter suggests that 2007 will be the year:

Audio of his speech (http://www.mirror1.jagflyhosting.com/traprock/ritter_talk_17nov05.mp3)

Transcript of his speech. (http://www.traprockpeace.org/podcasts_transcripts/index.php/2005/11/28/4/)

an excerpt:

Iran has a population of almost 50 million people, and we’re talking about putting 60-80,000 troops on the ground. We can’t control a nation of 25 million people with 161,000 troops. What makes us think we’re going to control 50 million with 80,000? It’s not going to happen. Now is where it gets really frightening, because the Bush administration, if they go down this course of action, will have no choice at that point in time but to use nuclear weapons, and they have already developed the weapons — they call them usable nukes. It’s funny that term, usable. This is not about mutually assured destruction anymore. This is not about deterrence. The Bush administration has radically departed from past doctrine to say that we will have a family of nuclear weapons that are usable nuclear weapons, meaning that we can conceive of using them, and then they’ll say we could use them preemptively in a non-nuclear environment, meaning that it’s not about opposing somebody with nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons, it’s we can use them any time we want to if it’s in the strategic national interest of the United States.

Peace groups mobilize against usable nukes (http://www.pww.org/article/view/3496/1/164/)

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate voted 51 to 43 to lift a ban on research on so-called “low yield” nuclear weapons, caving in to Bush administration plans to develop a new generation of “usable” nuclear warheads as part of George W. Bush’s preemptive war doctrine.
No wonder the nuclear arms race is heating up?

The PRC has an increasingly vested interest in stability, and a Middle East dominated by Iran is not going to serve that interest. They would not intervene.

A Middle East dominated by the US and Israel isn't exactly a shining beacon of stability either you know.

We should be doing what they're doing in Iraq, but in reverse: supplying arms to revolutionary groups inside Iran, encouraging them to attack the moolah-crats wherever they can.

Like we did with the sananistas?
Or like we did with Osama and Al-Qeada against the Soviet Union?
Or like we did with Sadam, against Iran back in the 80's?

Maybe you've guessed by now that that tactic has been performed before, with less than stellar results each time.





At the right time we should help instigate a revolution to destroy the moolah-crats--most of the younger generation HATES them already. We wouldn't need to invade. At most, recognize a revolutionary government and then provide tactical air support.

and then just deal with whatever whackjob group that takes them over, and gets access to any weapons they might have?
BAD idea.



Whenever it happens, payback's gonna be hell. Khamanei, Ahmadinejad et al. better say their prayers, 'cause they're going down :mp5:

Easy there Cowboy!
You may not like the results of such a conflict.
Iran wont roll over the way Iraq did.
With our troops, and efforts stretched out too far already, we would be putting much faith into Isreal, to secure American oil interests.
Is that a risk your willing to make?

A Middle East dominated by the US and Israel isn't exactly a shining beacon of stability either you know.


No it is not.

But rest assured, that is indeed the goal.

Every oil-dependant nation in the world would support it too.

Well the US does have Iran surrounded, (Iraq to the west Afghan to the east)

Since the US considers Iran and Syria to be the ones running the entire middle East Terror groups (That don't support the US of course) In the "War on Terror" taking out the leaders, and the nations they run, is the FINAL step.


Imagine Hezbollah with a nuke ?
*Shivers*


----
The US has restarted its Neutron Bomb projects again??!!

3...2...1... turn on fox news. :)
no way. its so biased.

prolly not too long before that happens, and also to the start of world war 3.

prolly not too long before that happens, and also to the start of world war 3.


*whistles*

Mine eyes have seen the Glory...

soon everybody is going to cry.
That would make us human again

So how long does everyone here think it'll be before something happens (an attack on Israel, the discovery of a possible "threat to America," or maybe just an Iranian Statesman spitting wrong) before an American force at least makes tactical Airstrikes on Iranian soil?

My guess is by January of 2009.

Any other ideas?
A few months before that... that's the month Bush leaves office.

If the IDF soldiers go to Iran, so does Israel. And chances are, so do we. If it happens next year around this time, so might I.
When has the US military ever fought alongside the IDF in a war?

There will be no invasion of Iran.

It's a once in a lifetime opportunity. I'd go for it.
Are you talking about you being in the military, or the invasion?

Just because you can start a war, doesn't mean that you should start a war.

Well the US does have Iran surrounded, (Iraq to the west Afghan to the east)

Since the US considers Iran and Syria to be the ones running the entire middle East Terror groups (That don't support the US of course) In the "War on Terror" taking out the leaders, and the nations they run, is the FINAL step.


*Shivers*


----
The US has restarted its Neutron Bomb projects again??!!

Yep, efficiency and progress is ours once more...

Yep, efficiency and progress is ours once more...

you sound communist,may be the us are, but i really have a doubt about it.:D

There was. As Napolean was deciding which neighboring farm to deal with, the propaganda varied by the day; one farm defamed and the other exalted, then the reverse. Of course, there was never a mention of the fact that both were run by humans, and thus it would compromise the principles of the Rebellion to deal with either.

Lots of implications for present-day US foreign policy, though of course it was a reference to Stalin and his dealings with Nazi Germany and the liberal capitalist states.

Could you provide the quotes, please. (I'd search it up, but I'm not sure what quotes to look for...)

Leaving Iraq would mean seriously destabilizing the are...wait. Whats going on there now? Its already pretty unstable there.

Hence the quotation marks. I didn't say it was stable. But it would blow away the little bits of stability that have been built up

Yeah, it'd make things worse, but I think its somewhere along the lines of blowing up the dam instead of letting it burst on its own.

More like blowing up the dikes, after having already breached the dam.

Sometimes its better to do that and take minimal losses, though minimal is an extremely loose word, and what sort of reprocussions we'll see in the future will certainly be higher if we cut out now, so it may not be worth it.

Making a non-problem into a Very BAD problem isn't going to help us sort out a bad problem, and trying to do so by stripping the forces needed from Iraq just makes for two very bad problems.

However, it wouldn't be incredibly difficult to throw a few armored divisions over the border at a time, providing them with air support to take out the hardest targets. Limited action like that could help contain an Iranian threat without an actual invasion; no full blown war.

This is where you have the serious problem.

1) We don't have "a few armored divisions" available right off hand.

2) Making them available means taking forces from elsewhere. And that essentially means we'd have to give up on Iraq all together for at least a year. If we decided to go back to Iraq, it'd mean starting over again from less than scratch. Yes, we could do this. Yes, we would do this if there was suffucient reason. No, there is not, and will not be, sufficient reason short of a direct attack on US interests by Iran.

3) The operation you describe, even with a single armored division, would be an invasion of a sovereign nation which has made no attack or even threat of attack, and would absolutely mean a major full blown war. One that would almost (99.999%) suck in several other states.

Please go back and look at the articles I posted before. They explain quite clearly and reasonably why the US cannot (notee: that's cannot, as it does not have the ability to do so) not will not invade Iran.

Once Israel slaughters enough people for Iran and/or Syria to come to the aid of Lebanon. Then we have a "legitimate" reason to attack Iran.

Once Israel slaughters enough people for Iran and/or Syria to come to the aid of Lebanon. Then we have a "legitimate" reason to attack Iran.
Something like that

So how long does everyone here think it'll be before something happens (an attack on Israel, the discovery of a possible "threat to America," or maybe just an Iranian Statesman spitting wrong) before an American force at least makes tactical Airstrikes on Iranian soil?

My guess is by January of 2009.

Any other ideas?


Never Iran will go into you!

Or I say 23/06/2007