Somethin's Happenin' Here

[notyoueither]

Then we might as well get the war going, shouldn't we?

[notyoueither]

300 generations would still be a very long time to be at it.

I don't think Sicilians have been at it that long.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Yeah, if we can pick the right targets. We should have cleaned up in Afghanistan first, rather than driven OBL and the Taleban into sanctuary areas in the territory of our nominal ally.

[notyoueither]

If there is going to be a fight, why not fight it in their front yards, and not 'ours'?

[MRT144]

cause you get all the neighbors involved when you take it to their ghetto ass hood. they come out the house with baseball bats and unleashed badgers. sure you got a gun but they got the welfare and theyre popping out kiddos faster than your shallow dumb wife can pop them out due to cosmetic considerations.

[Deity Dude]

I wonder if anyone ever considered that ONE (one of many) of the reasons for going into Iraq was so that if/when we had to face Iran we would have a military force trained and acclimated on the western border.

If it becomes necessary to put serious pressure on Iran, I would rather have veteran troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel and Saudi Arabia along with a navy in the Persian Gulf than nothing in the region.

I also don't mind the idea that the Iranians believe that Bush might attack if they continue to insist on building a nuclear arsenal, test long-range missles and have a stated policy that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth . Ironically, the strength of his lame duck status is that he can engage Iran if necessary without fear of not being re-relected.

[MRT144]

Lets invade china to position ourselves to better handle russia when we finally fight them! Thats what youre suggesting.

Fighting a badger to gain position on a wolverine

[MRT144]

also attributing factors for invasion after another situation arises is a fallacy.

[MRT144]

and god, creating a unified **** puddle from afghanistan to Iraq with a fresh iran would be disasterous for our country

[MRT144]

I mean diety, with everything that the past 3 years has shown you, what leads you to believe that our military can go toe to toe in a war with iran on irans terms, in irans territory, at length?

jesus, youre also setting up a false dichotomy with either a ****sandwich and troops in iraq and afghanistan or nothing at all in terms of military presence in any of the persian area. are you doing this on purpose?

[MRT144]

also, while you may agree with bush's policy you have to see that the way he approached this whole situation has made everyone less willing to go along with his ideas or comprimise, which whether you like it or not, is the duty of a politician and diplomat. Bush has alienated even moderates that supported him in the beginning. anyone that turned heel on iraq most certainly is going to be flabbergasted if we attempt to tangle with Iran

[Drake Tungsten]

what leads you to believe that our military can go toe to toe in a war with iran on irans terms, in irans territory, at length?

We'd kick the **** out of Iran in any conventional war (and they know that). Occupying Iran for any length of time would prove very difficult, but why would we want to do that?

[MRT144]

anything short of that (occupying) and they can thumb their nose at us.

[Drake Tungsten]

Who's going to thumb their noses at us if we go in and kill or capture as much of their leadership as possible before leaving again?

The real difficulty with Iran is that our presence and goals in Iraq make it much more difficult for us to wage a war on Iran. Sure, we could use Iraq as a convenient staging point for attacking Iran. And we'd kick their asses. But while our troops are busy in Iran, Iraq would be going to hell in a handbasket behind them, which is a cost America isn't going to be willing to pay except in the direst of circumstances. Our involvement in Iraq gives the Iranians a significant advantage in playing hardball with us.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
I wonder if anyone ever considered that ONE (one of many) of the reasons for going into Iraq was so that if/when we had to face Iran we would have a military force trained and acclimated on the western border.

Yeah, back in the right-wing wet dream days of Iraq being "a beacon of democracy," Iraq supplanting Saudi as the swing producer for OPEC, and the (non-existent) "Iraqi people" and (non-functional) Iraqi "government" welcoming us to maintain permanent, or at least indefinite, bases in Iraq.

Even then, that ignored the logistical reality that the only conduits for sustained large-scale military supply into Iraq was overland through Saudi, or up the Gulf past the Iranian coastal presence.

If it becomes necessary to put serious pressure on Iran, I would rather have veteran troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Israel and Saudi Arabia along with a navy in the Persian Gulf than nothing in the region.

Israel has nothing to do with it - they can't power project, and we can't operate from there against Iran without violating other nation's airspace. Unless you want to just make this officially the "War Against Ragheads." We had basing, port, supply, and other military arrangements in Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain to begin with, the Saudis won't let us operate from their territory against Iran any more than they would let us do so against Iraq the second time. Our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq have nothing to do with those pre-existing situations.

Wrt Iraq and Afghanistan, our "veteran" troops there don't have a sufficient footprint to stabilize the countries they're in, let alone use those countries as a basis for projecting power on the ground elsewhere. What we've managed to do, other than exposing limits in our MOUT doctrine, and equipment vulnerabilities, is strain the combat readiness of our force, make it difficult to sustain adequate numbers of troops in the recruitment/retention process, and tie up so much of our force that the fallacy of the old "win, hold, win" doctrine is exposed.

If anything, Iran is more uppity (in tandem with the North Koreans) because we are so heavily tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and because our weaknesses and limitations are exposed. They're never going to get right in our face - that's not their goal. They are going to push and dance right along the limits of the envelope, and assert themselves as a regional power to an extent they haven't done since there was a Persian empire. Yeah, that's the goal we wanted.

I also don't mind the idea that the Iranians believe that Bush might attack if they continue to insist on building a nuclear arsenal, test long-range missles and have a stated policy that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth.

They don't believe it for a minute, as long as they don't do anything stupid. The Iranians are moving for gradual provocation, to push the envelope and assert themselves as a regional power.

Ironically, the strength of his lame duck status is that he can engage Iran if necessary without fear of not being re-relected.

One pill makes you larger, one pill makes you small... You must have access to some real interesting pharmaceuticals. Bush may be a lame duck, but the Congress sure as hell isn't. We don't have the combat-ready, deployable forces, the popular support, support from allies or host countries, or any degree of international support, unless the Iranians escalate in a way that is collossally stupid. They're not that dumb.