US troops 'to target Iranians in Iraq'

Originally posted by endgame2
Iran has no business being in Iraq.

That didn't stop us. Why should Iran be held to a higher standard than us?

Originally posted by wingman77

In a full scale war with Iran, it is possible that we would be facing 15,665,725 Iranian troops (CIA Factbook). That number may also be bolstered through support by Iranian aligned nations and NGOs.

And the iranians would be facing thousands of air delivered weapons that would quickly lower that number to a very small percentage willing to stand and fight. I doubt any U.S. ground troops beyond special forces would be required. Hence most likely no need for a draft.

How many of you are of eligible age for the draft? I am. How many of you have sons, daughters, nephews, and nieces of draft age? If we go to war with Iran there must be a draft.

I have both a son and a daughter close to that age. Neither of them, however, seem to be as scared as you. Guess your fears explain your post(s). You sound almost desperate.

BTW, Please print your reliable mainstream news source (no anti-war rags) proving we'd have to have a draft.

[edit on 1/26/2007 by centurion1211]

centurion1211:
Neither of them, however, seem to be as scared as you.

There is no need to interpret my statements as fear. Perhaps your children would be as concerned as I am if they were students of International Relations. I am not afraid to die defending the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I never stated that my comment was not speculation, I am logically inferring that in order to fight such a sizable force a draft may be necessary.

Where is the 15 million figure coming from?

www.globalsecurity.org...

By 2004 the Iranian Army had some 350,000 men (200,000 conscripts).

Are you talking about men of military age? Well in theory, the US has a much larger population pool, if sheer numbers are involved.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

That didn't stop us. Why should Iran be held to a higher standard than us?

This bring me to one question.

Who has the right to be in the middle east.

Let's see with the eception of Israel, for obvious reasons.

l will say, Anybody that is either Arab or Persian or both, now India and Pakistan have another background I believe.

That makes US The invadors, I think I found the problem.



[edit on 26-1-2007 by marg6043]

If Iranians are in Iraq, are they not invaders too? What about foreign fighters from elsewhere, or is the USA the only country that can be considered an invader?

If Iranians of foreign nationals are ASSISTING the insurgency I have the feeling there probably welcomed, or even invited to join the struggle.

Where as the US Decided to intervene on its own merrits.

Welcomed by the rank and file Iraqis, or the other insurgents?

rank and file iraqi's?

Well they are obviously welcomed, does it matter by which iraqi's?
The insurgents consider the iraqi army traitors.
and % wise im sure the army would be minute compared the number of iraqi citizens.


But, if the iraqi's were really AGAINST the insurgency, and really wanted to WELCOME America with open arms...

they wouldnt allow foreigners to enter and fight.
they wouldnt allow insurgent groups to run free.

America doesnt belong in Iraq, and the sooner we stop forcing it, the sooner we start saving lives.

It is understood that Iran and Syria are suppling the insurgency, but are there others? If Saudi Arabia is supplying the Sunni insurgency then they are at fault as surely as Iran is.

At one point in history it was well understood that Saddam had ties to AL-Queda and that Osama Bin Laden was the perpetrator of the events of 9/11, though now we know that very little proof of either or has become candid. Some of the more respected news agencies such as the BBC have saved themselves from future trouble by continued reference to this fact of non-facticity. The U.S needs to bring forth hard physical evidence to the table which they fail to do by and by.

Luxifero

I dont get it,
In the begining you say that it is understood at one point in history Alqaeda had ties to Iraq.
Then you continue to say there isnt actually any proof.

Yet, Osama hated Saddam, he didnt bond with his values, and they wernt friends or allies in any cause.

They never had ties to each other. My point was how easily we've been duped in the past and how naive we seem at the moment as we listen to more nonsense from this administration and the Pentagon.

Luxifero

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by endgame2
Iran has no business being in Iraq.

That didn't stop us. Why should Iran be held to a higher standard than us?

I don't understand this point. The statement is fundamentally based on whether one is in support or not of the war, not based in objective reasoning. That was an argument fought out a long time ago and irrelevant now, and I personally do not want to get back into it.

The only reason I can think of that is objectively acceptable is that we are trying to stabilize the country and they are trying to undermine that stabilization and the entire region.

Even if you did not support starting the war, and even if you think that it was poorly managed (which I think any reasonable person now would agree with), the fact that we are now trying to clean up the mess we made and stabilize the region should argue for why a sustained presence is needed and why Iran needs to be stopped from undermining the country.

Originally posted by centurion1211

And the iranians would be facing thousands of air delivered weapons that would quickly lower that number to a very small percentage willing to stand and fight. I doubt any U.S. ground troops beyond special forces would be required. Hence most likely no need for a draft.

[edit on 1/26/2007 by centurion1211]

To be fair, that was the same argument that we used before we went into Iraq. It didn't pan out that way, and that assumption must be re-evaluated.

While I agree that there is a low likelihood that we will need to re-instate the draft under such circumstances because their military is not as well-trained and well-organized as us, that particular point is not as true as we once thought it was.

[edit on 1/26/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Togetic
the fact that we are now trying to clean up the mess we made and stabilize the region should argue for why a sustained presence is needed and why Iran needs to be stopped from undermining the country.

No, no really, how can US can clean up a mess while trying to create another in Iran?

No, it makes no sense US presence in the area is one of the factors of the instability.

Originally posted by marg6043
No, no really, how can US can clean up a mess while trying to create another in Iran?

As I understand the story, we are merely targeting Iranians who cross the border. There is no stated policy that we will be tussling with Iran any time soon. I am well-versed in political discourse, and I know deep-down that stated policy is much different from reality, but reality in this case is too uncertain to assume that we are muddling in Iran and therefore making a mess of it.

No, it makes no sense US presence in the area is one of the factors of the instability.

If the US forces were to pull out tomorrow, it is most likely that Iran will use its ideological and military might to bring Iraq into line. This is based on the analysis in the Baker Commission Report. This position is a poor one for most of the region and the western world because Iran will have control over a sizable percentage of the global oil supply, will be in a prime position to attack Saudi Arabia and Turkey, and will undo any chance of stabilizing the region. I make no argument whether we were right in the beginning--or even right now. But the alternative is worse.

Many of the arguments in this forum are based on emotion and ideology. With tensions in the world so high right now, it falls partly to us to raise the tone. I believe and hope that can happen.

[edit on 1/26/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
If Iranians of foreign nationals are ASSISTING the insurgency I have the feeling there probably welcomed, or even invited to join the struggle.

Where as the US Decided to intervene on its own merrits.

What is this assumption based on? In many parts of the country outside of the Sunni Triangle there is relative calm, and the government has a strong presence there. Is it a large portion of the population about which you speak, or a certain segment? And is there polling or other data to back that up?

Just trying to get a clear picture.

Those sort of answers cannot be given.
I mean, I beleive the insurgency are welcoming and allowing foreigners to help them against the US.
But then you have to catergorize the insurgency.
They blend into the general population to such a degree, that you cannot distinguish.
I mean, is the mother who aides and hides an insurgent male in her house while US tanks roll past an insurgent?
Outside provinces might be more stable, but you might as well ignore them when talking about Iraq.
Every city/province is cut off, Baghdad used to run Iraq, now it does not.

Iraq = Baghdad, and the immediate outlying areas.

What happens in Halabja for example has no bearing on Baghdad.
The same with Basra.

but back to my point,

America is seen as the foreign invader. And rightfully so.
The fellow arabs that are in Iraq, fighting WITH iraq against the occupation, may be foreign forces, but they are fighting FOR Iraq

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
America is seen as the foreign invader. And rightfully so.
The fellow arabs that are in Iraq, fighting WITH iraq against the occupation, may be foreign forces, but they are fighting FOR Iraq

The statement "they are fighting for Iraq" is based merely on your personal opinion and not objective facts.

What exactly is the value that those in Iraq are fighting for? If it is self-determination, I support you, but argue that Iranian forces backed by Iran will not achieve the value of self-determination. In fact, it will make it a puppet state of Iran. Of course, you would argue that Iraq now is a puppet state of the United States. But from there follows must be the assumption that a puppet state of the United States is worse than that of Iraq. This must be considered through the statement of the US that they want to eventually leave Iraq to its own devices.

You also need to address the question of what will happen if Iraq falls to Iran. Does that serve the value, or does it undermine it? If your interest is truly the welfare of the Iraqi people, then you must recognize, even if you believe that the US presence is detrimental, that Iranian influence must be equally detrimental.

Furthermore, how does the insurgent position further the interests of the Iraqi people when they killed 30-some-odd thousand of them last year? And if the US leaves, will that number decrease? Perhaps so. But, again, is the loss of Iraqi self-determination, or the loss of the value in favor of an Iranian value, a sufficient price to pay?