War with Iran.

[Cotala Studios 10]

well, Iran is a country that has attacked no other country for more than 200 years. In addition their religious leaders have prohibited the use of atomic weapons.

The inspectors of WMDs have found nothing at the moment and all the reports for the CIA and secret agancies have stated that there is no proof that Iran has WMDs.

Now, they are stubborn and US does not like them as they are a country that can defend herself, so its not good for their geostrategic plans, so they are trying to demonize them.

On the other hand they know Iran will defend herself with all their potential if they are attacked, so i hesiste they will dare to attack.

They better disarm their prey dog in the region, Israel, and there will not be Muslim countries planning to desire developing WMDs, since the only cause that can make them choose that option is having a aggresive neighbour who is constantly colonizing other countries and attacking civilians.

If I was you guys I would be more worried about the most dangerous country, which is not Iran, but Pakistan. Where do you think the most of bad guys are hidden while Afghanistan population is being punished by Us UAVs?

So you know, forget worrying about Iran and worry about these other 2 countries.

Regards

Gmork

You honestly think that the US is "afraid" of invading Iran? They are afraid of what the voters will say for starting up another war in the middle east, not the war itself.

Here in the UK we have special BBC channel that we all pay for. Only it's not available in the UK and it isn't broadcast in English.

Make no mistake, this European country is actively involved in an effort to incite a revolution in Iran, (just as we were in Iraq).

The idea that the CIA is not, seems a little far fetched to me.

Of course the CIA is meddling in Iran. As much as I want to see all these hikers released from North Korea and Iran, Americans are stupid, but not many are stupid enough to hike on the borders of a country hostile of the Untied States unless of course they were sent there by the CIA. Ain't no one hiking in the mountains of Iraq on vacation, I'm sorry

Edited September 14, 2010 by Cotala Studios

[maturin 12]

You honestly think that the US is "afraid" of invading Iran? They are afraid of what the voters will say for starting up another war in the middle east, not the war itself.

Iraq pushed our army to the 'breaking point' in 2005. Iran would actually fight and we would never be able to occupy the country even if we could invade them.

[jeza 5416]

Iraq pushed our army to the 'breaking point' in 2005. Iran would actually fight and we would never be able to occupy the country even if we could invade them.

Possibly, but id say the US would be in a prime position in a conventional warfare, as we did see in both iraq wars we're the iraqi army and airforce were destroyed in a matter of days/hours, iraq is/was an insurgency. Not sure if iran would be the same.

[Dwarden 1125]

the premptive strike window for aerial attack

with actual 'known' generation of airplanes israel own

was several years ago ...

today w/o use of some 'not seen to date' strategy / technology / airplane

is such attack deemed to fail as Iran AA system was upgraded, is on constant alert and the Iran is too far for any easy operation

remember today you can know easily when planes are leaving base (Iran has own spy sats already)

for Israel this pose different dilema

for decades Israel is silent about ownership of nuclear weapons

reason is simply ... money ...

Israel receives up to 3bn / yearly in funds which would be ceased

if they acknowledge ownership of nuclear WMD arsenal ...

Iran is fully aware the any attack on Israel would result into devastating strike back

the question is more likely if someone is fanatical enough to try it against logic

[Daniel 0]

Possibly, but id say the US would be in a prime position in a conventional warfare... Not sure if iran would be the same.

I dunno, i'd say Iran have had quite a bit of experience from dabbling in insurgencies recently...

[jeza 5416]

I dunno, i'd say Iran have had quite a bit of experience from dabbling in insurgencies recently...

Ah yer good point!

[Akira 0]

There is no way that we would get involved in a land war in Iran (which is technically Asia and you know how that goes...). We just don't have the military capability to do it right now. Our armed forces are still dealing with the double blow Bush The Brainiac dealt them.

Not to mention the civil unrest that would be caused. Iran would have to do something like nuke a city for us to care enough. From a civilian stand point, I don't even think an attack on Israel would rally us enough.

Not to mention it would completely destroy what support we have there now...

[Iraqi Bob 10]

If you peddle enough bullshit for truth on enough channels, people will eventually accept it.

[walker 0]

Hi all

It would appear that America is considering making friends with Iran in order to tackle Al Qaeda and the Taliban and stabilize Afghanistan and combat drug running.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/04/AR2010080406238.html

With the instability of Pakistan, and its history of supporting Al Qaeda and the drug running that takes place on its pourous border, the US may be worried about the influence of Wahhabi Al Qaeda in Nuclear equipped Pakistan.

Kind Regards walker

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Iraq pushed our army to the 'breaking point' in 2005. Iran would actually fight and we would never be able to occupy the country even if we could invade them.

I was in Iraq in 2005. Tell me, at what point were we "at the breaking point"?

It would appear that America is considering making friends with Iran in order to tackle Al Qaeda and the Taliban and stabilize Afghanistan and combat drug running.

Yeah? We cooperated with Iran in 2001. Iran was a supporter of Ismail Khan and the Northern Alliance (along with Russia). Iran has a vested interest in stabilizing their Eastern border, and that means getting rid of the Taliban.

[maturin 12]

I was in Iraq in 2005. Tell me, at what point were we "at the breaking point"?

I'm not talking about defeat or strategic threats, just over-extension of resources, with tours of duty being extended, the VA overloaded and generally just running out of troops due to PTSD and rest periods. It was the volunteer institution that was in trouble, not the war effort. And it's not like I just made this up. IIRC there was a Pentagon report.

[HyperU2 11]

10%

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/7/1.2.short

Yeah, totally back breaking.

[maturin 12]

10%

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/41/7/1.2.short

Yeah, totally back breaking.

The number is thirty percent for mental issues in general. If that figure represented causalities, no one would sneeze at it. And are you really going to tell me the military didn't go through a crisis of manpower? They were scooping felons off the streets like the British in 1776.

[HyperU2 11]

Yes I am and no, they weren't. If there was a crisis my cozy ass would have gotten a call before the felons did.

[maturin 12]

Yes I am and no, they weren't. If there was a crisis my cozy ass would have gotten a call before the felons did.

Just google it, ffs. Maybe they just thought you were gay.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10954/us_militarys_manpower_crisis.html

[HyperU2 11]

That didn't stop them the first 8 years I was in.

[Cotala Studios 10]

Just google it, ffs. Maybe they just thought you were gay.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/10954/us_militarys_manpower_crisis.html

Your "evidence" was written in 2006, 3 years after the initial invasion ended. And IIRC, the shortage was because that was one of the years when bush, in his infinite wisdom, decided to pull a troop surge in order to help his buddies get elected into congress.

Edit: And as far as "the Iranians would actually fight", they said the same thing about Iraq and her "million man" army before that invasion, did they not? And how long exactly did it take for them to capitulate?

[Baff1 0]

They were still fighting in Fallujah this week.

[Gmork 10]

The iraquies have won the war and will keep fighting until the last invader is out, and so will the afghans.

and the fighters from the iraqui army did not capitulate. Paul Wolfowich and the Pentagon clever guys decided to dismantle the iraqui army. That was the biggest error the Americans did and the beginning of the end for them. Even without a proper army, many leaders of Baaz party in the shadows still command fighters, and more than 200 different groups from different faiths and ideas, the iraqui resistance, have been coordinated by them.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Gmork
spelling mistakes

[maturin 12]

Your "evidence" was written in 2006, 3 years after the initial invasion ended.

Well, yeah. Because it was the prolonged insurgency and not the invasion that caused the strain. And I notice your quotations. I'm sure all those stolidly mainstream publications and the Pentagon are part of a leftist conspiracy to slander the might of the United States Military.

And as far as "the Iranians would actually fight", they said the same thing about Iraq and her "million man" army before that invasion, did they not? And how long exactly did it take for them to capitulate?

We didn't kill a million men or even a tenth of a million. I don't think they would capitulate because the Iranians don't have a dictator's boot stamped on their faces. In any case the regime would resist long enough to slaughter anyone capable of forming a government in the aftermath. It would make Iraq look like the Glorious Revolution and afterwards we would be stuck with occupying a country greater in population and area than Iraq, with plenty of terrain like Afghanistan. And with anything short of a nuke in Tel Aviv, (in which case there would be nothing to invade) we would have no allies, not even a bad-joke Coalition of the Willing.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

I'm not talking about defeat or strategic threats, just over-extension of resources, with tours of duty being extended, the VA overloaded and generally just running out of troops due to PTSD and rest periods. It was the volunteer institution that was in trouble, not the war effort. And it's not like I just made this up. IIRC there was a Pentagon report.

There were no deployments extended in 2005 except possibly a few outliers. The vast majority of deployments in 2005 were scheduled for 12(+/- for movement) months. I can't think of one major unit or command that was extended. Perhaps you can share one? Quite a few guys were there for their second trip (from 2003) and some were there for their third (6 month rotations). Many, including myself, where there for their first. Sounds like any other deployment I can think of.

The VA doesn't have anything to do with the Army.

There was no "running out of troops due to PTSD"

They were scooping felons off the streets like the British in 1776.

This is inaccurate and sensationalist at best. There was a brief period where certain non-violent felonies had a better chance than normal to receive a waiver, but it was canceled shortly after when everyone remembered why those particular felonies were excluded in the first place (poor atitude, work ethic, etc). Many of those guys never finish training or find ways out of the Army; some go on to become good soldiers.

The iraquies have won the war and will keep fighting until the last invader is out, and so will the afghans.

Please. The Afghan fighter is the most over-hyped and under-performing warrior of the 20th and 21st centuries. You can hardly make the claim that the Iraqis "have won" when the insurgency was largely comprised, and supported, by foreign agencies and states that are actively working against Iraq's best interests.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Clavicula_nox4817

[Big Mac 19]

This is inaccurate and sensationalist at best. There was a brief period where certain non-violent felonies had a better chance than normal to receive a waiver, but it was canceled shortly after when everyone remembered why those particular felonies were excluded in the first place (poor atitude, work ethic, etc). Many of those guys never finish training or find ways out of the Army; some go on to become good soldiers.

That may have been true in 1776 in America, but in the 1920s the british formed a unit called the Black and Tans which was made up of violent felons, but mainly WW1 vets who's sole purpose was to terrorize the irish people into submission.

Still though many criminals have been given the option of military service in lieu of prison time for non-violent crimes or for problems with juvenile delinquency. I believe it's still done today.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Big Mac

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

That may have been true in 1776 in America, but in the 1920s the british formed a unit called the Black and Tans which was made up of violent felons, but mainly WW1 vets who's sole purpose was to terrorize the irish people into submission.

Still though many criminals have been given the option of military service in lieu of prison time for non-violent crimes or for problems with juvenile delinquency. I believe it's still done today.

Right, I was saying that the actual rate, and details, of recruiting felons was nowhere near what maturin was implying. I don't know if the "Go to war or go to jail" plea is still used; I've never heard of it happening in the last 6 years which doesn't mean it hasn't, of course.

[maturin 12]

Right, I was saying that the actual rate, and details, of recruiting felons was nowhere near what maturin was implying. I don't know if the "Go to war or go to jail" plea is still used; I've never heard of it happening in the last 6 years which doesn't mean it hasn't, of course.

Well, that was hyperbole.

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Well, that was hyperbole.

I know what it was; it was also inaccurate and did not, in any way, shape, or form, reflect the reality on the ground.