President Bush opens options for use of force on Iran!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by faded glory
A cakewalk would be an understatement, Iraqi army but up a pretty well fight in OIF, per wars go since vietnam.

This particular cake makes Dwarven war breads look like cream puffs.

[Az]

don't care if it is the USA, Israel, Germany, Russia, Timbuktoo,

Israel-Germany-Timbuktoo Axis

[Thucydides]

evidence that Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article305741.ece

However, Iran is about to receive a major boost from the results of a scientific analysis that will prove that the country's authorities were telling the truth when they said they were not developing a nuclear weapon. The discovery of traces of weapons-grade uranium in Iran by UN inspectors in August 2003 set off alarm bells in Western capitals where it was feared that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon under cover of a civil programme. The inspectors took the samples from Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, which had been concealed from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for 18 years.

But Iran maintained that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes, and that the traces must have been contamination from the Pakistani-based black market network of scientist AQ Khan. He is the father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb.

The analysis of components from Pakistan, obtained last May by the IAEA, is now almost complete and is set to conclude that the traces of weapons-grade uranium match those found in Iran. "The investigation is likely to show that they came from Pakistan," a Vienna-based diplomat told The Independent on Sunday.

[TheStinger]

Q-how to make the price of oil high enough to cause a worldwide recession.
A- Invade Iran

Brilliant

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Thorn]IRAN WILL USE ITS WEAPONS I'M POSITIVE THEY WOULD.[/q]

Well... as long as you are positive...

[GePap]

Invading Iran is utterly out of the question. That said, the Iranians would be a hell of a lot tougher to beat that Iraq was in 2003.

1. Iran's forces are large and better equiped (Iran has not faced a hard sanctions regime for 12 years)

2. Iran is mountainous, not flat like most of Iraq.

3. Iran's regime is more popular internally than Iraq's regime was.


Iran's violation of the NPT, for which they should be taken to the UNSC was having secret nuclear facilities outside of IAEA inspection. Enriching Uranium in itself is not a violation of anything unless you have specifically signed treaties saying you would not, something Iran has not done.

[el freako]

I may be wrong in this, but it seems to me that the recent timing of Iran's resumption of it's nuclear programme came shortly after the US dropped it's sanctions against India and Pakistan for their nuclear weapons programmes.

I think that may have been the 'trigger' that made Iran go for it.

[Combat Ingrid]

I think the real reason to invade Iran would be to prevent them from switching to using euros in their oil trade

[Ted Striker]

Let's be honest here -- the Iranians would kick our asses.

The only way to beat them would to be to send in a million man army with popular support back home AND world support. If they detonated a nuke in one of our cities, that's the only way that's gonna happen.

it would be like Iraq times 10, we'd whoop them on the ground, but good luck occupying the place. World opinion would be overwhelmingly against us and we'd be doing it all by ourselves. Good luck finding soldiers that sign up for that.

The best that could be hoped for would be precision airstrikes and maybe some special forces. But even then, you know they're going to get revenge and start causing a very highly escalated amount of trouble in Iraq, and even Afghanistan.

The whole concept of having a valid pretext is very important for a Republic, without it, your mission is doomed from the start. It's just like Civ, literally. A valid pretext is important.

LIKE NOT MAKING SH1T UP AND LYING TO YOUR PEOPLE ABOUT IT MISTER BUSH! DUMBASS

[Edan]

Does anyone really think Iran would use nukes if they got them?

When political leaders have openly speculated that Iran could absorb a nuclear response (including the moderate candidate of the last election), I think it's a very valid concern.

But even if Iran doesn't use the nukes, it's still a threat. Iran is a country that currently supports and aids terrorist groups. How much more will they use terrorism when they have nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a reprisal?

[Edan]

Shouldn't Uzbekistan be white?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan
When political leaders have openly speculated that Iran could absorb a nuclear response (including the moderate candidate of the last election), I think it's a very valid concern.

You mean like Mao back in the 1960's?

But even if Iran doesn't use the nukes, it's still a threat. Iran is a country that currently supports and aids terrorist groups. How much more will they use terrorism when they have nuclear weapons to protect themselves from a reprisal?

And what further aid would they give said groups under this scenerio?

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


You mean like Mao back in the 1960's?

We weren't concerned?

And what further aid would they give said groups under this scenerio?

More money and arms, TV stations to broadcast propoganda from and safe harbor and locations to set up terrorist camps?

[GePap]

Like more money would matter. The group we know they support is Hizbullah, and HIzbullah is a party in the Lebanese government and they aren;t going anywhere.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
... it would be like Iraq times 10, we'd whoop them on the ground, but good luck occupying the place ...

Why occupy the place? Just go Mongol on 'em. Persians still have nightmares about that dark period in their history.

In all seriousness, there isn't going to an invasion of Iran. The world likes to say America is a hyperpower, but I don't believe it. Our hands are full with just Afghanistan and Iraq. That doesn't sound like hyperpower material to me. So go find another boogeyman, please.

Gatekeeper