Yes interesting topic indeed.
Now how would they invade by ground after the air attacks though?
Afganistan? I don't think so as their isn't much control over that country by the US.
Iraq? I would have tohught this would be difficult becuase well the Iranians could easily start guerilla warfare there (not that there isn't any)
making it difficult to invade from there. And even then what will the Iraqi government/people think of this.
Azerbaijan? I wouldn't think so lol. I don't think the Russians would like that either.
That leaves Turkmenistan which I don't know anything about so I can't make a point. Pakistan? hmm.
Now this is just my opinion so don't flame my post. I am only 17 and not as experienced as the rest of you on specific points. I just talk to my
grandad a lot who is highly experienced in this. I am still learning and don't make many post but just read for hours upon end.  
|
the chinese government has many different envoys of commercial exchange through all of its country. assault invasion would be for nought.
|
 Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
I've noticed here in the past two months that it seems as if Iran is going ahead with it's nuclear program and is still on the dangerous path of
making weapons grade material. What I would like is your input and any new and fresh ideas or ponderings. The following questions should give up quite
a few good ideas. Here goes:
A. Should the U.S. approach from the West from Iraq and East from Afganistan to carry out an invasion keeping Iran in the middle, basically flanking
both sides? Would this be a viable option considering that we already have a presence in the area.?
B. Does anyone really think the E.U. is realistically going to make Iran cave in to the desires of most of the worlds "normal" countries by taking
the matter to the Security Counsel and at the same time putting harsh economic sacntions in place?
C. How much aid in weapons systems and money would Russia be willing to give to Iran considering up to now, it is it's favorite trading partner?
Also would the U.S. still have some faith in Russia doing the right thing?
D. Considering the fact that Putin is a wolf in sheeps clothing (being old KGB), how and at what point would the U.S. and it's allies draw the
dreaded "red line in the sand.?"
I'll be back in a few...
[edit on 18-12-2005 by FLYIN HIGH] 
Honestly, when I read this post I was overcome by a feeling of deep sadness.....
The way you phrased your questions sickened me the second I read the first sentence of question a.
The real question is: Should the U.S. invade Iran?
NO
War ain't the answer buddy....
|
A. No neighboring country will allow the US to launch an invasion from their territory. They will have to live next to Iran in the future and don't
want problems with them. That includes Iraq. The US would have to have an amphibious landing from the Persian Gulf and establish a foothold. But I
don't think that this is what will happen.
An airstrike will not solve the long-term problem. Iran could simply pull out of the NPT, legally reconstitute their nuclear weapons program, and
continue to support Hizbollah, Hamas, Syria, & Al Sadr. Israel's existential threat would be put off for 5-10 years but that's all.
Only regime change solves the long-term problem. But this has significant problems. Another pre-emptive attack, occupying a country with plenty of
fanatical Shias, inevitably getting bogged down, loosing more of our troops, some sort of Abu Ghraib/Haditha/etc incidents, and a continuous supply of
negative stories in the liberal mainstream media will completely erode support for the war if there ever would be support to begin with.
HOWEVER, the thing we need to remember is that, whereas we cannot make the uncontroverted argument that Iran is an imminent threat to us, we and the
world would be more understanding if Israel felt that Iran was an imminent threat to them. So an Israeli airstrike against Iran would be supported by
the Israelis and understood by the West.
Iran would feel honor bound to strike back at Israel and maybe (Ahmadinejad has threatened) strike American interests as well. Any resulting harm
could be used as a justification to eliminate the Iranian military -- something that I tend to believe is well within America's capacity.
Regime change becomes the policy of the US but we don't invade and get stuck in a quagmire. Instead we encourage, finance, and maybe equip and train
an Iranian (e.g. Azeri, Arab, Kurd?) insurgency. We could even let the insurgency call in our close air support and make them unbeatable.
Another alternative would be to wring our hands, let them continue doing whatever secret work they are doing and hope for the best.
|
