err... no, Iran would be toppled overnight, but nobody is going to start a war over ridiculously flimsy reasons. Shows how different the West is than the Islamic world which given military superiority would try to wipe out everyone it hates.

I always wondered whatever happened to Baghdad Bob. He was a funny guy.

Mehran, since you're relatively new to ATS, you should know that usually when you post an article such as this, the only thing they expect is your comments and analysis of the article. Otherwise, you can go to any news organization to get the stories. It's the comments and analysis that make ATS special. Could you add your thoughts on the article please?

To me this article pretty much sounds like a propaganda rally cry, from someone that has nothing better to do than cook up reasons why Americans on the overall prefer diplomacy first and military action last. Even though I am no fan of our administration or the Iraq war, one thing is very true: America has tried for a very long time every avenue of diplomacy first with Iran over the nuclear issue. And still, despite Iran's stalling tactics, the US pursues a solution through further diplomacy, albeit with more pressure and heated warnings, rather than through an immediate war.

Make no mistake. America is not afraid of Iran, or of losing a war with Iran. Losing is simply a calculated risk that any nation must consider when taking preemptive action. But remember, a full scale war or invasion of Iran is not what at issue here. If anything, limited strikes to curtail Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions are at issue, which is why this article IMO is useless, inflamatory rhetoric. It is almost as if the author is trying to penalize America for using diplomacy first rather just going over and wiping Iran off the map. Oh no...off the map? Now where have we heard that before?

You see, Mehran, with attitudes such as your author here displays, is it any wonder that Israel will not tolerate your country obtaining nuclear weapons? They know that in Iran, if it obtains the bomb, diplomacy may well take a back seat. Nuclear weapons and "shoot first, ask questions later" should never be subject to the same mentality. Ever. If the human race is to survive.

And yet on the same token, I will turn that right back on this administration as well as Israel, and any intentions they may have of using tactical nukes on Iran. It MUST not happen.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]

there is no way that iran could defeat the USA in any type of war. i don,t belive that the us can occupy iran for any amount of time but in a war i think it would be as one sided as the iraq war.3-4 weeks

Originally posted by TrueAmerican a full scale war or invasion of Iran is not what at issue here. If anything, limited strikes to curtail Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions are at issue, which is why this article IMO is useless, inflamatory rhetoric.

Spoken as a true American! I think our political views differ somewhat TrueAmerican, but I whole-heartedly agree with that statement (it "owns" you Mehran!)!

America doesn't have to "invade" Iran nor fight a war. All she has to do is what she wants.........keep a radical state like Iran from getting nukes! Airstrikes would be within reason, and as for all that Iranian rhetoric about how America will be consumed by flames and blown to bits/shaved like a monkey/whipped like a red-headed stepchild-- America has NEVER heard THAT ONE BEFORE!!!!!!

an air-strike will lead to war and possibly means invasion which russia and china have said many times over, they simply wont allow it. seriously, i dont want to be offensive and be an a** but an air-strike on iran will mean no more iraq democracy nor afghanistan.

Originally posted by Mehran
an air-strike will lead to war and possibly means invasion which russia and china have said many times over, they simply wont allow it. seriously, i dont want to be offensive and be an a** but an air-strike on iran will mean no more iraq democracy nor afghanistan.

Russia would capitulate and a destroyed Iran would give the US a barganing chip: Control of Iranian oil in the Caspian given to Russia.

A back channel deal undoubtedly; but it'd buy their compliance entirely.

Mene dolzhen znat'.

thats because we arent supporting the insurgents. just pointing incase bush does something stupid to iran

If a war against Iran by the US was going badly or the prospect of retreat was getting into the equasion, the nuclear option would always be the last second winner of that war.

The US with its current administration would not retreat, they would go all out and asure the complete destruction of the Iranian establishment.

This is one of the reasons I'm totaly against any type of war against Iran.

Iraq was a sanction and war ravaged country and its taken the US years with no vision of an end.

If they attack Iran, they'll have a country on their hands that has been expecting this very attack for years and is well prepared, not to mention its a relativly rich country with intact military and industrial capabilities.

man i'm sick of all this crap, if you middle east people don't get in line we gonna have to send 20 drunk texans over there to straighten y'all out..

Originally posted by JoeTex
man i'm sick of all this crap, if you middle east people don't get in line we gonna have to send 20 drunk texans over there to straighten y'all out..

and if you americans dont behave we muslims will send you back micheal jackson whos currently in bahrain in the middle east.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by iqonx]

I think the US would lose in a war vs Iran, and they know this, and thats why they are not contemplating any kind of military action vs Iran. Some of the American people in this forum keep saying that the US can just launch a few measily air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities and be done with it..and then we can all just sit around and asses to what extent their alledged WMD program has been set back and maybe they'll give the insurgents in Iraq a little more help and thats it.
WRONG!
In reality if the US launches air-strikes vs Iran, Iran will immediatly launch it's own ballistic missiles at US bases, and with 13X,000 troops on 100's of bases, and many thousands more 'contractors' in Iraq..they will have many targets in missile range, and these missiles will kill many people..the US could then launch more air-strikes but be assured Iran has sophesticated anti-ship missiles that will cause a great deal of damage and to US shipping. They can also immediatly export to Iraq missiles like the SA-16 with the insurgents don't currently have in large numbers..If they are to get many of these many more US helicopters will be lost in Iraq..The US will be in a war of attrition, on top of the war of attrition that it is already in, and it would be forced to cease-fire early before sustaining additional damage, even though the US itself inflicted damage.

Then some Amercans in the forum think, well then we could just nuke em..
WRONG!
The US would be in no political or strategic position to deploy nuclear bombs..Once millions of Iranians are killed, well there would still be millions and millions more still alive..and they would be very angry and so would many other muslims and even non-muslims..at that point an American city suddenly goes up in a mushroom cloud..the bomb could have been delivered by a small boat, or snuck in on a small jet or on a cruise-missile, possible even shipping crate..who knows who did it.. but people would say enough and the nuclear game stopped..the President and his staff know this so they would never enter into a nuclear contest with Iran and they would be forced to suspend their war of attrition first.