Iran Opinions

[The Man From G.O.P.]

?

[Frodo]

Of all these options, option 1 seems the least evil of them. If we did not have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be vulnerable to any Iranian retaliation for an air strike I would be more open to using military measures.  And as for a conventional invasion -as long as we have no draft, we have not the manpower for an invasion (and subsequent occupation) of Iran at the same time we are occupying and fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Of all these options, option 1 seems the least evil of them. If we did not have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be vulnerable to any Iranian retaliation for a military strike I would be more open to using military measures.  And as for a conventional invasion -as long as we have no draft, we have not the manpower for an invasion of Iran at the same time we are occupying and fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So you vote you're willing to do nothing to stop Iran? Brilliant

[Frodo]

Of all these options, option 1 seems the least evil of them. If we did not have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be vulnerable to any Iranian retaliation for a military strike I would be more open to using military measures.  And as for a conventional invasion -as long as we have no draft, we have not the manpower for an invasion of Iran at the same time we are occupying and fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So you vote you're willing to do nothing to stop Iran?

Considering the other options, yes.  There are no other feasible alternatives.  We could, however, try to contain a nuclear-armed Iran. The fact that it will attain nuclear weapons is pretty much a foregone conclusion -and we cannot wipe out their nuclear capabilities in one fell swoop the way Israel did to Iraq in 1982.

[MODU]

I will go with a conventional air strike.  Combine that with an incursion of special forces into the Kurdish North/West, and among the pro-Western youths, and finally spark off the much needed revolution.

[The Man From G.O.P.]

Of all these options, option 1 seems the least evil of them. If we did not have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be vulnerable to any Iranian retaliation for a military strike I would be more open to using military measures.  And as for a conventional invasion -as long as we have no draft, we have not the manpower for an invasion of Iran at the same time we are occupying and fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So you vote you're willing to do nothing to stop Iran?

Considering the other options, yes.  There are no other feasible alternatives.  We could, however, try to contain a nuclear-armed Iran. The fact that it will attain nuclear weapons is pretty much a foregone conclusion -and we cannot wipe out their nuclear capabilities in one fell swoop the way Israel did to Iraq in 1982.

Don't be daft, between American, British, Isreali, and pro-west Iranian Intelligence we can find the sites they currently have and wipe them all out without ever putting anyone in danger, you can't build these things in closets.

[Frodo]

Of all these options, option 1 seems the least evil of them. If we did not have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan that would be vulnerable to any Iranian retaliation for a military strike I would be more open to using military measures.  And as for a conventional invasion -as long as we have no draft, we have not the manpower for an invasion of Iran at the same time we are occupying and fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So you vote you're willing to do nothing to stop Iran?

Considering the other options, yes.  There are no other feasible alternatives.  We could, however, try to contain a nuclear-armed Iran. The fact that it will attain nuclear weapons is pretty much a foregone conclusion -and we cannot wipe out their nuclear capabilities in one fell swoop the way Israel did to Iraq in 1982.

Don't be daft, between American, British, Isreali, and pro-west Iranian Intelligence we can find the sites they currently have and wipe them all out without ever putting anyone in danger, you can't build these things in closets.

You mean the same intelligence teams that suggested that Saddam still had weapons of mass destruction?  And those same intelligence teams would have us believe that they know where every last nuclear installation is throughout Iran?

Please.  You are apparently as credulous as ever.   

[WalterMitty]

I will go with a conventional air strike.  Combine that with an incursion of special forces into the Kurdish North/West, and among the pro-Western youths, and finally spark off the much needed revolution.

pro-western youths will no longer be pro western if we attack.

[Frodo]

I will go with a conventional air strike.  Combine that with an incursion of special forces into the Kurdish North/West, and among the pro-Western youths, and finally spark off the much needed revolution.

pro-western youths will no longer be pro western if we attack.

Exactly -they may disagree with their government but they are first and foremost nationalists.   

[Frodo]

If we launch any kind of military strike on Iran, be it by air or on land, we should make contigency plans to reinstate the draft because we will surely need the extra manpower -desperately. 

[MODU]

I will go with a conventional air strike.  Combine that with an incursion of special forces into the Kurdish North/West, and among the pro-Western youths, and finally spark off the much needed revolution.

pro-western youths will no longer be pro western if we attack.

Which is why I didn't choose a nuclear strike.  A conventional strike would go over a lot better with some, especially if it is done in conjunction with the revolutionaries.

[WalterMitty]

I will go with a conventional air strike.  Combine that with an incursion of special forces into the Kurdish North/West, and among the pro-Western youths, and finally spark off the much needed revolution.

pro-western youths will no longer be pro western if we attack.

Which is why I didn't choose a nuclear strike.  A conventional strike would go over a lot better with some, especially if it is done in conjunction with the revolutionaries.

that is the don rumsfeld school of thought.  say, will they greet us with candies and roses?

as for the draft, it is impractical.  where would we train the new draftees? 

[WMS]

If we're absolutely forced to it - and please, let's not get hysterical here, there's a lot of international posturing going on as Iran and the U.S. manuever in their discussions over Iraq - it would actually be better to try and overthrow the mullahs via popular revolution and let them keep their nukes (which ALL Iranians support having, don't forget that) under a friendly regime. Unless one of you has a better option?

[Frodo]

as for the draft, it is impractical.  where would we train the new draftees? 

That's beside the point. The point is that the military option is highly impractical.  Any military strike we make on Iran will invite retaliatory attacks that could have the potential of destroying our scattered units throughout Iraq in detail -and then we would be honor-bound to avenge them by scraping together another army to retake the lost territory.  And where would that extra manpower come from then?  Where do we get the extra manpower if we choose to invade and occupy Iran?

Seriously, have we learned nothing from our experience in Iraq?

 

[© tweed]

Nothing.  Much like North Korea, they have no interest in nuking the USA because if they did, they'd cease to exist in minutes.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nothing.  Much like North Korea, they have no interest in nuking the USA because if they did, they'd cease to exist in minutes.

I doubt they have the capabilities to fire missles that far either.

They aren't much of a threat to Israel either, Israel is capable of defending itself. It has nukes too, which everyone knows, even if they'll never admit it.

[Frodo]

It's so easy advocating a military solution when you know you will likely not be expected to put your life on the line, when you have no personal stake in its outcome. 

[WMS]

It's so easy advocating a military solution when you know you will likely not be expected to put your life on the line, when you have no personal stake in its outcome. 

That's the quandary faced by anyone over drafing age. And I did try to join the intelligence agencies, many times, after graduate school...they said no. And look where they are now.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Anyway I would not support a draft under any circumstances whatsoever. So it's Option 1, although under an adminstration ran by me I'd pull all troops out of Iraq instantly (And send the Iraqi government a message basically "F**k off, and you will never earn any support whatsoever from us until you elect a secular government. Until then, go to hell"). In that case I'd be willing to do Option 2.

[Frodo]

It's so easy advocating a military solution when you know you will likely not be expected to put your life on the line, when you have no personal stake in its outcome. 

That's the quandary faced by anyone over drafing age. And I did try to join the intelligence agencies, many times, after graduate school...they said no. And look where they are now.

It is as if we don't have enough on our plate with fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a covert war on terrorism in other parts of the world, that we feel the need to add still more burdens to our itinerary. 

Let us finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan before switching our attention to Iran -this isn't too much to ask, is it?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I don't support any invasion of Iran, but I would pull all troops out of Iraq ASAP, and would tell the Afghan government that a pullout would be coming there soon as well unless they reform their laws and get rid of that "converts from Islam are executed" crap.

No American soldiers should EVER prop up such an awful government like that.

[WMS]

It's so easy advocating a military solution when you know you will likely not be expected to put your life on the line, when you have no personal stake in its outcome. 

That's the quandary faced by anyone over drafing age. And I did try to join the intelligence agencies, many times, after graduate school...they said no. And look where they are now.

It is as if we don't have enough on our plate with fighting insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as a covert war on terrorism in other parts of the world, that we feel the need to add still more burdens to our itinerary. 

Let us finish the job in Iraq and Afghanistan before switching our attention to Iran -this isn't too much to ask, is it?

I've never defended the tactical competence of the Bushies and Iran really is the one pushing on this issue but don't worry, I don't think there's gonna be another war

And of course it's too much to ask! You're expecting the Cheney-Rumsfeld Administration to use common sense?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

conventional and nuke

[The Man From G.O.P.]

as for the draft, it is impractical.  where would we train the new draftees? 

  Any military strike we make on Iran will invite retaliatory attacks that could have the potential of destroying our scattered units throughout Iraq in detail -and then we would be honor-bound to avenge them by scraping together another army to retake the lost territory.  And where would that extra manpower come from then? 

 

First off, American units are never scattered, It would be impossible for Iranian units to do anything but piss us off in a case where they attack us in Iraq, thier military quality is that of the Iraqis, Second, we would never be engaged in DETAIL one after another, we have these communication devices called PHONES that allow things to be a little more organized than the dark ages. Also to assume that we dont have many satillites focused on Iran is crazy, we would know about any mobilization they made, and have the capability to wipe it out long before it could reach us in Iraq. Your mis-understanding of modern military tactics and status is too great for you to be talking like this.

[phk]

We'd have to deal with a new Shiite insurgency in Iraq.