user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
It would be a disaster.
It looks larger than West Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan combined.
  Let's do it, Rummy!
Not the mention the military is already stretched.
It would be idiocy.
In other words, break out the magnetic yellow ribbons.
I doubt it.
no
thanks to the follies of bush & co., no. besides, i seriously don't think that military action is the answer. engaging them in fair and open talks is. why is that the bush crew always stomps its feet and refuses to talk directly to our supposed enemies? has that ever worked? no.
Not a chance in hell. Plus, if we occupy Iran, the fundie Muslims will REALLY come out in droves at us. If we're not already in World War III, that would seal the deal.
Let us be realistic here at the current time we do not have enough troops to invade and occupy Iran,however this does not mean we can not take military action against Iran.We still have cruise missles,smart bombs and predator drones that could possible reach the nuclear reactors hidden in Iran.
What happened to my War on Drugs?
Geez how I miss it!
And Dickhead Rumsfeld will probably claim we can do it with fewer troops than we are using in Iraq.
No, it wouldn't work.
-The army is stretched out and unequipped (or it isn't as equipped as it was when it just started the Iraq war)
-Iran is huge and the terrain is a lot different
-Iran has a larger population which means more insurgents
-Iranians are far more religious than Iraqis, they are extreme about it so they're gonna put up a bigger front and a stronger will to defeat the US
-Iran has a stronger national army. You see, the Iraqi army saw no improvements (b/c of embargo) from 1991 to 2003 so they were no challenge. The Iranian army is more updated, better equipped and it has better numbers than Iraq's 2003 army.
-There's less ethnic diversity in Iran so that means less dissent. Iraq has dozens of different ethnic groups, religious groups, political groups so the US was able to pull off the "divide and conquer" tactic.
-Iran will probably get more foreign aid (military/economically) and foreign fighters. It's has a strong religious setting so more of the Jihadists will be attracted to it. Iraq was "socialist" under Saddam so religion wasn't as strong. Iran is a bit different.
I think that the US could definately beat Iran on the short term, but a stay there would just bring more attrition to the ground forces.
We don't have the troops for it, the resources, the supply lines. It would be an exercise in stupidity taken to the nth degree. And, unfortunately, we have just the administration it takes for the job.
No one in the Bush regime is pushing "occupation". This wouldn't be the intent of any military occupation. The goal would be to take out their nuclear program.
An invasion of Iran by the U.S. is not feasible at this time for a variety of political and economic reasons.
What is more likely is a protracted bombing assault similar to the NATO bombing of Bosnia.
Those attacks brought down a modern army and air force in 40 days.
Iran is more diffuse, but no country can withstand a total anniliation of its infrastructure.
Yes read the document rebuilding Americas defenses by project for a new American century.
by seon on Thu May 18, 06 3:50pm
[+]
And Dickhead Rumsfeld will probably claim we can do it with fewer troops than we are using in Iraq.
by cranky on May 18, 2006 12:31pm
Thats funny! 
I doubt an occupation would be necessary, tactical nukes should suffice.
Yes read the document rebuilding Americas defenses by project for a new American century.
by seon on May 18, 2006 3:50pm
What? That is NOT what the Project for a New American Century is about? Rebuilding? What? How can you rebuild something that is already so massively overwhelming that it boggles the mind? Uhh, you do know that collectivley the world spends $1 Trillion on the military annualy, and the US spends $500 Billion of that alone. Seems a bit like over-kill. Its not about rebuilding anything. Its about Ultra Conservatives being so paranoid that in their effort to extend world domination, they have actually weakened us beyond belief.
yep no arguments here but thats what its called. it was written in 2000 and said they wanted to invade Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Serya. Something about the defence budget or something I haven’t read them for a while but its evidence there lying about wanting to resolve the Iran problem diplomatically.
by seon on Thu May 18, 06 7:42pm
[+]
Seon, you have no idea what you're talking about! The "document" says no such thing!! You need to get a grip! Its a public document Seon, I suggest you read it before you go misquoting it. Geesh.
Seon, on second thought, don't reply. If you're going to go around spouting "conspiracy theories" at least have the bandwidth to quote a document that is not available for all to read. Where do you come up with this stuff? You need a hobby.
Go to their web-site Seon. newamericancentury. org
Here are the "leaders" of PNAC. NOTE: They are PRIVATE citizens. Umm, did you know that? Or did you MISTAKENLY think it was a government organization?
THE PROJECT FOR THE
NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
Established in the spring of 1997, the Project for the New American Century is a non-profit, educational organization whose goal is to promote American global leadership. The Project is an initiative of the New Citizenship Project (501c3); the New Citizenship Project's chairman is William Kristol and its president is Gary Schmitt.
Project Directors
William Kristol, Chairman
Robert Kagan
Bruce P. Jackson
Mark Gerson
Randy Scheunemann
Project Staff
Ellen Bork, Acting Executive Director
Gary Schmitt, Senior Fellow
Thomas Donnelly, Senior Fellow
Reuel Marc Gerecht, Senior Fellow, Director of the Middle East Initiative
Timothy Lehmann, Assistant Director
Michael Goldfarb, Research Associate
But everything it talked about happened, the new pearl harbour to help the transformation, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and the coming war in Iran.
I mean do you really believe the propaganda about Iran and the lies about them wanting a peaceful resolution? Remember it’s said by the same people who lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
by seon on Thu May 18, 06 8:25pm
[+]
FiddleFaddleOnLSD- "No one in the Bush regime is pushing "occupation". This wouldn't be the intent of any military occupation. The goal would be to take out their nuclear program."
- And if Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons? I'm afraid Bush would have to fall back on the 'nation-building' and 'spread democracy' exuses again, and that would require an occupation wouldn't it?
Socrates if Iran doesn’t have the nuclear weapons Bush will just lie about them like the so called weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
But to be fair Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction. Reagan soled them to Saddam in the 80’s.
by seon on Thu May 18, 06 11:42pm
[+]
Seon, the whole freaking document is on-line at their site. PNAC is the most ridiculous and laughable "organization."Instead of spreading conspiracy theories, go read the darn thing and find out for yourself. You really should read the documents in question and not the absurd falsehoods ABOUT the documents in question.
Well Iran's army would be destroyed in a few weeks. Once air suppremacy is achieved they are screwed. Occuping the Nation is possible. The military is not as stretched as you think. the United States has a military of 2.5 million personnel. Iraq is using just 150 thousand soldiers at the moment. It would be dangerous and the occupation would be expensive. The military would have to leave sometime. But it is possible for a limited period of time. At least long enough to take out all of their powerful weapons.
USRocks- "At least long enough to take out all of their powerful weapons."
- That is assuming they have any nuclear weapons.
Besides which, would this involve an overthrow of the current regime? If not, how do you know that as soon as the US leaves that the regime would not try to get nukes again (probably more determined after being attacked directly)? That would ahve made the war against Iran a waste of time. Or would the US declare war again? And if the US decided to bring down the regime in Tehran (which is a populist regime, not unpopular like Saddam was), then an occupation/nation building would be necessary which would be a long-term commitment.
You say the US military is not really over-stretched? True, but after an attempt at occupying Iran, it would certainly be over-stretched.
Seeing this weakness I'm sure China would increase its rhetoric against Taiwan, North Korea would develop even better technology, Sudan would strike down harder on Darfur, Burma would intensify its human rights abuses, Syria will see this as an oppurtunity to continue to interfere with Lebanon.
And what for? IN CASE Iran has nuclear weapons? Does that not seem a bit risky at drastic? It just seems like the US flexing its muscles to the world. Really, that is not necessary, we already are aware of American ultra dominance.
An occupation of Iran would be foolish.
I did read it. Re building Americas defenses calls for a new pearl harbor and calls for “theatre wars” which made me realise that’s just what Iraq is.
by seon on Sat May 20, 06 5:44pm
[+]
|
|
