So when do we invade Iran?

[C0ckney]

Originally posted by Colonâ„¢


That's new for me too.

yeah, i wouldn't exactly take it as gospel though

[Alexander's Horse]

Israel says it will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. Israel does not bluff.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Joseph
One boat carries 24 missile with 10 ea. warhead. What would Iran look like after 240 warheads hit.

Iran has alot more than 240 bunkers along the Persian gulf, I am sure.

Oh, and those cruise missiles really are not as accurate as the pentagon wants everyone to believe.... worse, to plant them correctly, you need good intelligence, something the US does not have, especially in Iran. But you can see ships from the shores of Iran, you just need eyeballs.

And while we are on the topic of intelligence, let talk about Irans peeps on Amerian forces in the gulf region. Do you doubt for one minute, they don't know the location of every base, every bunker, even every secret project?

That's what you get fro trying to build bases with outsourcing to the Iraqi people.

What would the American Army in Iraq look like without the complacency of the Shiite population?

How would they gaurd their airbases and supply lines? And as the Iranian army started to pour over the fleeing, poorly trained and Iranian friendly shiite Iraqi army, how could America retaliate without blowing Iraq up to bits?


Who would support an invasion of Iran? Even with an "incident".

The only incident which could precipitate a world war would be a ruthless surprise attack by Iran, which could cost the US half her naval fleet, and half her air-power.

[Alexander's Horse]

Nonsense - Iran's defences are a joke - their armed forces are dilapidated - there's an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone - deliver a humiliation to the hardliners in Teheran from which they might not recover and cripple Iran's nuclear program with one well aimed blow.

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Nonsense - Iran's defences are a joke - their armed forces are dilapidated - there's an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone - deliver a humiliation to the hardliners in Teheran from which they might not recover and cripple Iran's nuclear program with one well aimed blow.

Such blind arrogance.

[Alexander's Horse]

er no, unlike you, I've seen the specs

[NeOmega]

whatever...

specs aside, there are still huge political and intelligence weaknesses on the part of the United States that hardware cannot overcome so easily.

not to mention our spuds onthe grill in Iraq.

Indeed, you have adressed none of my major points with your "specs".

[Alexander's Horse]

indeed

[GePap]

Originally posted by Vince278


They're not necessarily top of the line.

Neither are Israel's

[GePap]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Nonsense - Iran's defences are a joke - their armed forces are dilapidated - there's an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone - deliver a humiliation to the hardliners in Teheran from which they might not recover and cripple Iran's nuclear program with one well aimed blow.

Except Israel does not have the necessary air power to actually stop Iran's program.

And a miss is worse than a hit in this case, as any Israeli strike on Iran will make the area more volitile.

You can call it, calling up two hydras with one miss.

[Geronimo]

I wonder what would happen if Bush were to follow the example Bill Clinton set in Serbia and shy away from a ground invasion in favor of a prolonged massive air campaign against Iran. The attack on Serbia was totally unwarranted certainly, but it might be seen as a successful use of air power to 'solve' a diplomatic impasse by the administration. Would Iran's air defenses be able to withstand all those stealth plane attacks enough to remain sufficiently functional to seriously curtail an air offensive? Could Iran successfully counter such an attack by launching an offensive against Iraq or would such an attack be far harder to win than 'winning' a defensive war by unconventional attrition has been in iraq?

[NeOmega]

there is no need for an offensive.

If Iran is Washington's next target, then civil war would be, as Rumsfeld coined 9-11, a "blessing in disguise". It would give the United States something to fight the Shiites with.

However, if that civil war does not get full scale, the United States would end up fighting two insurgencies, and one of them would be between Kuwait and Baghdad.

It's not a guarantee..... teh Shiites in Iraq are not completely loyal to Iran, and Sistani has petty differences with Iran, however, an invasion of Iran might as well look like a blitzkreig into Poland, and an unquestionable outlook of the New American Century's ambitions.

[GePap]

The US army does not have the manpower to hold Iran. Invading Iran might not to totally out of the question, but the cost would be so obscenely high that it is highly unlikely at best. Add the fact tha there won't be "coolotion partners" and that most Muslim states will be even more reluctant to aide the US, including the new Iraqi regime, which would be the base for our invasion.

[Colonâ„¢]

Iran's military equipment may or may not be worth much, but I wouldn't discount the Revolutionary Guard's fanaticism (as shown in the first Gulf War) nor the difficulties fighting in mountainous terrain.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by GePap
Neither are Israel's

I'll place my bets on Israel any day.