Why is everybody so stuck on this invasion thing, there will be no invasion. There will only be precision, heavy hit strikes on suspected facilities if anything. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia gives us a wink and a nod to do so, that way they can rebuild Iran's facilities and make more cash. Think Russia gives a rats # about Iran other than for their money? It's not their ideology that Russia is in line with, they have their own problems with fundamentalists.

I agree Bush screwed up, and continues to do so, but Iran is a unique problem and is not Iraq. I'm not willing to put mine and my child's future on the line because I disagree with Bush. Nuclear proliferation is a bad idea, and if we're gonna set a precedent that everybody can have nukes, mankind is done for. It has nothing to do with Bush, this is an issue that is way beyond politics.

I don't want people to get me wrong and thinking that I support whatever the hell ahmadinejad is doing. I'm being critical here and analysing both arguments without being biased. Iran has the right to use nuclear for peaceful purposes but doesn't have the right to further the nuclear program to create nuclear weapons. Now U.S' side of the story : they want Iran, a country notorious for being a haven for terror, to not have anything to do with nuclear even if it is meant for peaceful or energy purposes. You and I should understand their overwhelming paranoia about the whole issue.

But then again, that's just the tip of the iceberg. It could be about hidden motives that both sides have planned that each sides is anticipating and trying to stop.

By the way, I think U.S is wasting her money and economy on trying too hard to keep the world free of evil until people have the perception that they are evil and I don't know why Iran is being so immature about the nuclear programs.

Originally posted by 27jd
Why is everybody so stuck on this invasion thing, there will be no invasion. There will only be precision, heavy hit strikes on suspected facilities if anything. I wouldn't be surprised if Russia gives us a wink and a nod to do so, that way they can rebuild Iran's facilities and make more cash. Think Russia gives a rats # about Iran other than for their money? It's not their ideology that Russia is in line with, they have their own problems with fundamentalists.

I agree Bush screwed up, and continues to do so, but Iran is a unique problem and is not Iraq. I'm not willing to put mine and my child's future on the line because I disagree with Bush. Nuclear proliferation is a bad idea, and if we're gonna set a precedent that everybody can have nukes, mankind is done for. It has nothing to do with Bush, this is an issue that is way beyond politics.

Very well put man, couldnt have said it any better myself. Iran is very possibly the biggest threat in the Middle East. Add to that fact that if they reach the ability technologically to produce a nuke(someone enlighten me if they already have, or think so) their president(cant spell his name) has said publicly he would share this technology with other Islamic nations. Scary thought if they all truly share with his ideology, but in reality I doubt thats true.

yea biggest threat to america isreal and anyone in between that might get caught in the middle. think china and russia see them as a big a threat as us? how about south america countries? no isreal is afraid, and we back isreal. i bet iran would say the isreal is the biggest threat considering they are the ones with nukes already. they are on US side though so its ok? maybe for us its ok but not for other countries over there.

we brought nukes into this world, and since getting rid of them isnt a big priority for these bullies, getting them is a big priority in victims eyes.

id feel alot more reassured knowin everyone had nukes, that way theres no guess, no excuse to go to war for that reason. no more fear mongering or running around being police power. constant threat of nukes would keep them in check. unless a country for some reason goes suicidal, then the world just bombs it to hell before it does much.

Sorry Lud, but I won't take war advice from somebody who can't even spell the name of the president of the country being attacked. Why should I trust your opinion? This is no triviality, thousands of lives can be at stake here, maybe millions. A strike on Iran can trigger a world war at the moment (why? Because the only way to take out the facilities is through bunker buster nukes or a mossad job which will aim for Iran's leaders as well, and even if the plant is taken out, the radioactivity would spread over the middle east).

This thing with Iran is a sticky issue, to be sure. It ain't even in the same ballpark with Iraq. Iran's leader is acting crazy as a bed bug and our government cannot be trusted. Am trying to read foreign intel. That's hard, too.

As I've said before, I've despised Iran's government for many, many years and distrusted them. At this point, though, the stakes are so high, and I've seen stuff, now, that I never thought I'd see before. Within our own government. I'm not rushing to any conclusions. Afterall, when we talk of war, we're not talking of tiny wax figures. We're talking lives.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Isreal is in contravention of a lot of UN resolutions, itself. It simply defies and ignores them. How can we demand Iran bow to the international community if there are nations out there, the US included, who are allowed to duck scrutiny?

You make a good point but I think that's why my explanation of the need to reform the UN is valid.
In at least some cases (I'm not making a blanket defense of all Israeli actions) Israel has had to skirt the law in order to ensure it's continued existence. However compulsory enforcement of international law would protect Israel from attack. For example, if the US had authorization before the fact to intervene against an illegal attack on Israel, and there were nuclear weapons and defenses under UN control to prevent a nuclear war over such an incident, Israel would have no leg to stand on in maintaining a nuclear program, nor if the same system had existed in the late 60s, would Israel have had to occupy the West Bank and Gaza strip to deny their enemies staging areas.

I do not insist that Iran should bow to international law at this time because in practice there is no such thing presently. Law is enforceable. Right now we have international suggestion.
Under the present system, Iran has the ability to pursue nukes and the US has the ability to kick their teeth in for it.

Now if we empower the UN and remove the ability of the Security Council members to unilaterally pick and choose who is fit to be protected by international law, via their veto, then Israel, Iran, and America will all have to comply with international law.

As you said, pie in the sky, but worth working for.

Iran is ruled by unpopular Mullahs, and their president has to from time to time give an "axis of evil speech" to the crowds. Does that qualify for military action? This isn't the Khomeini era, Iran is fairly liberal compared to say, Saudi Arabia or some of the Arab principalities. Example? You can worship as a jew, Christian, Zoroastrian without problems. You are not treated as a second class citizen (for the most part) as in Saudi Arabia. You can live without being bothered 99% of the time (drinking is the big no which the religious authority does not give concessions. Why Arab nations have a prohibition style mafia of liquor dealers in them) I wonder why so much interest in Iran by the Bush administration? Must be a storm brewing....

Yes i keep preaching that to, there will be no Invasion of Iran it will be continual and unabated shock and awe Aerial Bombardment of Military and political targets.

Hell if chatter is anything to go by, Young Iranians have had a gut full of there Leadership as well.

I agree Russia despite some heavy talk if it gos ahead wouldnt care less, money and honey is what Russia wants most atm.

Originally posted by Nakash
I wonder why so much interest in Iran by the Bush administration? Must be a storm brewing....

That is the million dollar question. Is it because of the PNAC agenda expressly? Oil? Opec? Keeping Iran from converting their petro dollars into Euros, perhaps?

The question on why all this talk of 'ground invasion' is b/c at some point it would come to that. Iraq is proof of what I'm saying. No one thought we'd be fighting a sustained insurgency at this point. That is how it will shake out in Iran, too; but worse.

Originally posted by Heartagram
Iran has the right to use nuclear for peaceful purposes but doesn't have the right to further the nuclear program to create nuclear weapons. Now U.S' side of the story : they want Iran, a country notorious for being a haven for terror, to not have anything to do with nuclear even if it is meant for peaceful or energy purposes. You and I should understand their overwhelming paranoia about the whole issue.

That's not true though. The U.S. was in support of the proposal by Russia to enrich Iran's uranium and ship it back, so Iran could have nuclear energy, and nothing else. If Iran was truly only seeking nuclear energy, they could have avoided the U.S. having any reason whatsoever to attack, as well as secure a deal with Russia, strengthening their ties. But Iran rejected Russia's offer.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The question on why all this talk of 'ground invasion' is b/c at some point it would come to that. Iraq is proof of what I'm saying. No one thought we'd be fighting a sustained insurgency at this point. That is how it will shake out in Iran, too; but worse.

Why do you think it would come to an invasion? The objective in Iraq was regime change, the objective in Iran as far as I can tell will be destruction of facilities capable of being used to produce nuclear weapons. Even if regime change became the goal, the concerns over a nuclear Iran are shared by Europe as well as the U.S., including France. I think if Iran was really trying to push it, there would be a much larger coalition to go in.

I think Israel and US's number one goal is to eliminate the current Iranian leadership: to decapitate it, in Rumsfeld's vernacular. Everything else would be gravy. It would flow, supposedly in Wolfowitzland.

That may be what they want, but I doubt that's what they'll get. Remember the run up to the Iraq war? It was all about removing Saddam from power, I haven't heard any mention of that in the case of Iran. They have to know it will never fly, strikes on facilities yes, invasion no.

Originally posted by 27jd
That may be what they want, but I doubt that's what they'll get. Remember the run up to the Iraq war? It was all about removing Saddam from power

No I don't. From my perch in the rightly maligned mainstream media, I distinctly remember a lot of talk about non-existent weapons of mass destruction. The rationale changed when they could not be found.

I will feed this bone to my detractors: in the run-up to the invastion of Iraq, even I wrote in print, that we could not know what chemical or biological weapons Saddam had. I did protest fully, though, that they had no literal WMD (certain class missiles). I gave them the benefit of the doubt. They blew it. It was all a line of BS. Why should I get crazy 'cos they start saying the same thing about Iran (even though I know how despotic their government is)?

Well, the trouble with Iran is, they do have the power to escalate a conflict beyond a simple series of airstrikes. They can and probably will find ways to retaliate beyond their borders, unlike any foe the US has faced in recent decades. Once the ball is rolling, whether it's part of the original plan or not, full scale warfare and eventually invasion and may prove unavoidable.

While Iran's ability to project power is limited, they do have options for retaliation and escalation. They could use their Kilo subs and airpower to raise hell with shipping in the Persian Gulf. They can take much more aggressive steps than they have already to destabilize the situation in Iraq, with significant support from both parts of the Iraqi population and the (quite pro-Iranian) Iraqi government we've put in place.

Considering that, post-Iraq, the US can count on very little support from it's traditional allies, and also that Iran can expect material & political support from China and possibly even Russia (though almost certainly not direct military support), a "simple set of airstrikes" could turn into something very sticky indeed. Especially at a time when much of the world (including traditional allies) would not mind seeing the US taken down a peg or two.

I'll tell you one thing. Nobody, not even our very closest allies, is comfortable with the talk of "full spectrum dominance" and the like emanating out of the beltway these days. A lot of people would like to see us grind our teeth down on something hard to chew. And Iran would fit the bill perfectly. Very few countries want to see a nuclear armed Iran. Even fewer want to be ruled from Washington. A messy war between the US and Iran would serve both ends handily.

[edit on 1/5/06 by xmotex]

I think we're both correct, they used WMD's as justification for removing him from power, but they made that goal perfectly clear.

In the case of Iran, it's not just the U.S. and Israel that are concerned. And unlike the neutered Saddam (thanks to you guys), no fly zones, etc., Iran is making their intent much more clear, IMO. I'm not trying to change your mind about anything, I'm just stating my irrelevant position on the matter. And I want to stress again and again, it's not just Iran, I don't want to see any new nuclear powers emerge, and I want to see the old ones give up nukes.

Originally posted by xmotex
While Iran's ability to project power is limited, they do have options for retaliation and escalation. They could use their Kilo subs and airpower to raise hell with shipping in the Persian Gulf.

How long do you honestly think Iran's subs and airpower would last against our navy and air force? I think not long at all.

They can take much more aggressive steps than they have already to destabilize the situation in Iraq, with significant support from both parts of the Iraqi population and the (quite pro-Iranian) Iraqi government we've put in place.

Any steps they can take, I believe they've taken.

Considering that, post-Iraq, the US can count on very little support from it's traditional allies, and also that Iran can expect material & political support from China and possibly even Russia (though almost certainly not direct military support), a "simple set of airstrikes" could turn into something very sticky indeed. Especially at a time when much of the world (including traditional allies) would not mind seeing the US taken down a peg or two.

Our traditional allies are on board as far as Iran is concerned at this point, political support from China and Russia amounts to empty talk, as it always has. I hope an agreement can be reached with Iran so all this discussion proves pointless, I don't want to see another war anymore than anybody else here, but I'm very much against further nuclear proliferation on earth.

Originally posted by xmotex
Well, the trouble with Iran is, they do have the power to escalate a conflict beyond a simple series of airstrikes. They can and probably will find ways to retaliate beyond their borders, unlike any foe the US has faced in recent decades. Once the ball is rolling, whether it's part of the original plan or not, full scale warfare and eventually invasion and may prove unavoidable.

I completely agree with you on this. Iran may not be a superpower, but hey can cuase alot of havoc, covertly. I don't see it worth stirring up, if it can be avoided through diplomatic channels.

While Iran's ability to project power is limited, they do have options for retaliation and escalation. They could use their Kilo
subs and airpower to raise hell with shipping in the Persian Gulf.

I disagree with you on this point: Our navy would wipe their seafaring butts easy. Their sea "power" is nothing compared to ours. That would not be an issue. AT least, not for long.

You're also right on you last point, there are alot of folks out there waiting for the USA to fall into its own pile of steaming expletive. That's not good.

I agree with 27jd in that nuclear weapons ought to be eliminated from the arsenals of the world nations - for the good of everyone involved. However..is it right to start conventional wars to prevent countries from acquiring nuclear weapons?

Why have we not disarmed Israel? They've proven themselves capable of protecting themselves with conventional weapons, what use do their nukes serve, other than instilling in nearby nations the desire for equivalency?

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe Iran has said in the past that they would abandon their pursuit of nuclear weapons under the condition that the state of Israel scraps their nukes. What's wrong with that scenario? (Besides the obvious..who lays down their weapon first?)

One last point, if pushed into open warfare, Iran could indeed shut down the gulf and make the Americans in Iraq wish for ruby slippers. A ground invasion would be massively expensive, in terms of lives and equipment. The America of WWII could pull it off, but not the America of today. People here want the same thing people in Iran want, something to eat, a job, and cable television. The people aren't prepared to sacrifice in pursuit of victory, because most don't trust our leaders to point out enemies responsibly.

All in all I think we'll see an invasion of Syria before an invasion of Iran. It would be a logical stepping stone to compensate for a lack of carrier access in the gulf.