Election over; now it's Iran's turn!

[Provost Harrison]

Won't someone get a move on and assassinate him? Failing that, impeachment would be nice

[Dinner]

Invasion of Iran won't happen for the simple reason that they don't have the land forces to do it.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Invasion of Iran won't happen for the simple reason that they don't have the land forces to do it.

It's not so much that we don't have enough land forces left to do the job, but that committing another 250K would sacrifice the two-theater capability that's been a cornerstone of our military strategy for a half-century (potentially emboldening North Korea, or perhaps even China wrt Taiwan). Whether this administration would be foolish enough to make that sacrifice is anyone's guess.

[Dinner]

10 of 11 Army divisions are either deployed or on standby for the next rotation. Where exactly are the soldiers?

We don't have a two theater capability any more even if politicians continue to insist that we do.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
I have serious doubts about the Bush Administration trying to start hostilities with Iran directly. He'd have a full-scale uprising in Congress

Wrong. The Democrats would be falling all over themselves to see who could be praising him for his bold leadership first and loudest. Only after large scale demonstrations would the Democratic leadership begin to question, just slightly, the Bush Administration, and not on the fundamentals, but on the President not doing enough to ensure victory. Even now, most Democratic leaders are urging a harsher line against Iran.

I ****ing hate the Democrats.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Except most of the left opposition that in 1979 were the spiritual heirs of Mossadegh, have been crushed by the Islamist regime.

[Odin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
I have serious doubts about the Bush Administration trying to start hostilities with Iran directly. He'd have a full-scale uprising in Congress

Wrong. The Democrats would be falling all over themselves to see who could be praising him for his bold leadership first and loudest. Only after large scale demonstrations would the Democratic leadership begin to question, just slightly, the Bush Administration, and not on the fundamentals, but on the President not doing enough to ensure victory. Even now, most Democratic leaders are urging a harsher line against Iran.

I ****ing hate the Democrats.

Methinks you are too cynical.

[GePap]

Various democrats ran to the right of Bush on Iran. The main democratic leadership would support an attack on Iran, IF (this is the key) the admin. could show they would not **** it up like they did Iraq.

That said, the admin. can do airstrikes, but they would not seriously slow the Iranians in any significant way, and would leave the US isolated. The only force that can stop Iran if they decide to go nuclear is full invasion.

[DRoseDARs]

I'm not quite ready to be that cynical. The US public really doesn't want to get involved in another war right now unless either A) there is a clear and present danger (ie actual nukes being used by Iran) or B) Bush pulls a rabbit out of Cheney's ass and turns it into a UN dog-and-pony show just like the one Powell gave. I feel there's still time to stop this nonsense. Iraq was going to happen, no matter how much protesting was done. Now that we've seen how much a cluster**** that country was going to be, I have to believe there are enough people not willing to do it all again, even for airstrikes by the US. I can see Israel getting into it and dragging the US in with them (thanks, assh*les), but the Bush Administration stands to lose a lot more in directly starting hostilities with Iran rather than just letting Israel start sh*t and militarily backing them up.

[Dinner]

I don't see how they can attack Iran and ask for Iran's help in Iraq. Obviously getting out of Iraq will be the main focus and if worst comes to worse Congress will force the issue by the 2008 election. Neither party wants another election where Iraq is the main issue.

[Ninot]

Everytime I see this thread, i think it says "now it's Imran's turn!"

It confuses me. I might be dyslexic?

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Won't someone get a move on and assassinate him? Failing that, impeachment would be nice

Exactly. If USA wants to make world safe from a retarded militaristic leaders who are a threat to a world safety, they should start it with overthrowing regime in their own country.