Should the west attack Iran?

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Winston

- The US can't handle Iraq, and it can't handle Afghanistan (with some minor help from UN troops).

Ahem. Afghanistan is a NATO operation. And non-U.S. contributions in Afghanistan are hardly 'minor'.

Ah my bad... doesn't matter, it would have been a western military coalition anyhow.

Originally posted by Patroklos


Find me one person, on or off this board, advocating occupying Iran.

First of all, even considering an attack on Iran means that you have a motive and a possible intention of attacking. Secondly there are plenty of Americans pushing for a confrontation, gotta be honest about that. Finally I only said that attacking Iran would be a silly thing to do from the US's viewpoint, nothing more.

[Proteus_MST]

I think Patrokols meant that they don´t want to occupy it but instead raze the cities and plant their own settlers there.

Maybe however they should just build some cathedrals and radio stations in Iraq and then send some great artists to accomplish great works there and wait till the Iran culture flips

[BeBMan]

If it comes to war with Iran we should send the Macedonians again.

[Wezil]

Send the spartans. They got in shape to make that movie. They're ready.

[BeBMan]

Nah, they're only useful when playing stupid metal songs during battles.

[PLATO]

Okay...Here is the list of the top ten US Defense Contractors:

1.) Lockheed Martin Corp.
2.) Boeing Co.
3.) Northrop Grumman Corp.
4.) Raytheon Co.
5.) General Dynamics Corp.
6.) United Technologies Corp.
7.) Science Applications International Corp.
8.) TRW Inc.
9.) Health Net, Inc.
10.) L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.

Watch their stock...if it starts to go down significantly, then we are goin' in!

[Dis]

First of all, even considering an attack on Iran means that you have a motive and a possible intention of attacking. Secondly there are plenty of Americans pushing for a confrontation, gotta be honest about that. Finally I only said that attacking Iran would be a silly thing to do from the US's viewpoint, nothing more.

we also have attack plans on Canada, does that mean we are going to attack?

[Aeson]

We should let/force Texas to secede... and then have them invade Iran.

[Arrian]

I doubt they're dumb enough to try. They seem to be developing the things as a deterrent, nothing more. There are crazier people out there with nuclear weapons already, and they haven't used them. We don't have the manpower for a real war anyway, and I can't see us bringing back the draft for this crap. We're sick of war, and we've proven that we don't know squat about the management of a middle eastern country.

Elok

Well said.

-Arrian

[Heraclitus]

The guys advocating bombing Iran back to the Dark age are forgetting that: Teh oil must flow!

[germanos]

While relying on airpower alone to 'crush' the Iranians is a silly notion (think Saddam), it may even be another war launched based on phoney WMD's:
BBC: US report plays down Iran threat

[Patroklos]

While relying on airpower alone to 'crush' the Iranians is a silly notion (think Saddam), it may even be another war launched based on phoney WMD's:

Which air war didn't crush Saddam?

[Dis]

he's probably saying Saddam didn't buckle until we moved land forces in both Gulf War 1 and Gulf war 2.

but I think at some point the troops would have cracked. They might not have withdrawn, but that wouldn't be necessary seeing as we aren't interested in occupying the country. The only objective is to destroy infrastructure that may be used against other nation.

But even that is dicey. Isn't Iran developing their nukes underground? I just don't think we have the capability even with our bunker busters, to bomb down that deep.

[Wezil]

I have little doubt a bombing campaign would cripple any nuke program. I just worry about the ****storm that could follow.

[germanos]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Which air war didn't crush Saddam?

Which one did?
Why occupy the place if it wasn't to crush Saddam?