So when do we invade Iran?

[Alexander's Horse]

Denmark is expendable

[Colonâ„¢]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You're only saying that because you hope your anglosaxon buddies will get the opportunity to take Hans Ø.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by GePap
Vince has simply said "yeah, I know", and then nothing else.

Thats right. No comment.

Originally posted by GePap
Saying you were in the military means nothing. I have an uncle who made it to Sergeant-Mayor.

Sergeant-Mayor? Is that like Lt. Governor?

Originally posted by GePap
its incredible what documents, videos, and tapes can show in relation to the stories some people can tell.

Riiiiight! There is also documentary evidence that UFOs exist, Jesus had a child, God is real, God is not real, ad nausem. Give everything, even your own beliefs, the same grain of salt that you take everyone else's opinions with.

Originally posted by GePap
In short, I am not one to simply accept other's statements of fact unless at the end of the day, they can back them up.

How?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The US finished the war in the pacific without a ground invasion of Japan.

An excellent point.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Destroyer
Okay, here is a different question.

If the Iranians developed a nuclear capability, and sold this onto terrorists, who is to say the target would be America?

Islamic Terrorists have enemies in just about every country on the planet.

What would happen if they nuked Denmark? What would the response be? Denmark has no nuclear capability. What would the US resonse be?

The US (under the current administration) would try to whip it's allies into responding with all out support on an effort to topple every potentially hostile party (ie excluding great powers) that could have possibly manufactured the nukes. It would see the act as an opportunity to implement the unfair ideals of the NPT by brute military force with the broad backing of the entire western world. I think armies in the millions would be the objective to allow for broad unlimited occupation and scouring of any suspected country.

There would also be massive investment world wide in radioactive substance detection and hugely thorough cargo searches until every last stray bomb were uncovered.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I think all bush would want to "accomplish" would be to make it a logistical impossibility for Iran to build nukes.

It depends on how Iran is proceeding with it. For all we know their plan could have factored in hostile interventions, such as bombing raids.

Iran is not exactly an easy target, and there are other things it can do.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


It depends on how Iran is proceeding with it. For all we know their plan could have factored in hostile interventions, such as bombing raids.

Iran is not exactly an easy target, and there are other things it can do.

I completely agree. There are no certainties of success regardless of what military approach would be used. Sadly the fact that Iran certainly knows this probably makes the likelihood of diplomacy failing and war breaking out much higher.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I countered that we did in fact have thousands of troops occupying the territory next door after having intervened against the serbs in that territory to end the war there. You then started posting about how we didn't have our army entrenched in hostile territory in bosnia because Americans were being killed in Iraq while the opposition in Bosnia wasn't killing americans. I guess this brings us back to your original point which I now need you to clarify. What exactly about our armed forces being in iraq makes an air campaign against Iran impossible that didn't make an air campaign against Serbia impossible when we had our forces occupying Bosnia?

Live in your little make believe world of semantics. Insisting ..."pffft... Iraq isn't hostile!" and then trying to argue "Bosnia was hostile!"

give it up. Bosnia was not hostile. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. There is an OBVIOUS difference, to even the most uneducated of current event watchers, between Bosnia and Iraq. If you can't see it, then it is pointless to take any respect for anything more you post on this subject.

For now I'm discussing what military options the US administration might be mulling and I find myself convinced they would go for a massive air campaign long before contemplating a ground invasion of Iran with another occupation to follow it.

Occupation? Probably not. Ground war, inevitable.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by NeOmega


Live in your little make believe world of semantics. Insisting ..."pffft... Iraq isn't hostile!" and then trying to argue "Bosnia was hostile!"

give it up. Bosnia was not hostile. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. There is an OBVIOUS difference, to even the most uneducated of current event watchers, between Bosnia and Iraq. If you can't see it, then it is pointless to take any respect for anything more you post on this subject.

I asked how this difference mattered. I originally interpreted your reference to "hostile" territory to mean an occupation in a territory next to the theatre of planned conflict where military opposition friendly to the enemy was present. It seemed obvious that in Serbia just such situation existed. Now it appears by hostile you mean a place where american soldiers are getting killed or wounded. Then certainly there is a difference, and I'm not claiming to not see it. Instead I'm asking you given such a difference how does it effect the feasibility of a prolonged air campaign against Iran?

Originally posted by NeOmega
Occupation? Probably not. Ground war, inevitable.

And if you have intended that a ground invasion of Iran is not inevitable then I'm not sure we really have much ground to debate. I have said all along that a ground invasion of Iran would be vastly less attractive to the Bush administration than a prolonged air assault. I also said in my opening post that I expect that Iran might respond with an attempt to invade the iraq and later suggested this could be far more ruinous to Iran's ground forces than a US invasion/occupation of Iran would be. Where exactly do you disagree?

[NeOmega]

the point is, and where everything ties together is:

A bombing campaign alone is not an option. It would cause reactions, that would lead to an inevitable ground war, because American troops are right there.... and in a vulnerable position.



Iraq is hostile, not only in the sense of the insurgency, but in the sense that the shiites could very well rise up against America as well, both in terms of actual armed resistance, and by giving intelligence and aid to the inevitable Iranian counter-attack. This is what makes Iraq hostile. The shiite south is a hornets nest, calm right now, but a bombing campaign against Iran would definitely be the metaphorical rock.

The neocons expected a much greater deal of support from the Iraqis. They have gotten complacency, but Iraq is hardly a solid base to defend from.

So would America actually attempt a ground offensive? I don't know. Either way, defensive or offensive, they would have nowhere to hide, nowhere to restock.

[Sandman]

So would America actually attempt a ground offensive? I don't know. Either way, defensive or offensive, they would have nowhere to hide, nowhere to restock.

You've got the sea. A naval invasion must be tempting option for military planners, if only for propaganda purposes. Afghanistan and Iraq didn't give the USN a chance to really let rip.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vince278
Riiiiight! There is also documentary evidence that UFOs exist, Jesus had a child, God is real, God is not real, ad nausem. Give everything, even your own beliefs, the same grain of salt that you take everyone else's opinions with.

If the discussion is the quality of Saudi Arabia's air defenses, you can use a variety of web sources, including articles from military and defense themed sites, or you can use simple and publicly available fatcs, like what systems have been purchased, or the amount of money being spent, period.

You know, the way you make an arguement, as opposed to just stating an opinion.

How?

Re: look above.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Sandman
You've got the sea. A naval invasion must be tempting option for military planners, if only for propaganda purposes. Afghanistan and Iraq didn't give the USN a chance to really let rip.

That would be madness.

[techumseh]

I realize I'm getting into this one pretty late, and I've not read the entire thread. Has anyone dealt with the theory that Iran is looking for a war with the US? This has surfaced a number of times lately in Canadian coverage of the issue. Today I see that Iran has rejected the Russian proposal to refine Iran's uranium on it's territory.

[NeOmega]

I haven't seen it, but it does seem Iran is trying to goad the US into war.

And why not, at any other time, America could beat teh crap out of Iran without much loss, but with our army next door, this is one of the few chances Iran has at really defeating the United States.

I am sure Iran hopes to have nukes before America leaves Iraq.