USA set to invade Iran?

[Daradon]

As bad as the U.S. is looking now because of Iraq both at home and abroad, they wouldn't invade Iran. THere would be no public support for it even in their own country.

Add to the fact the are spread to thin already and they are still spending way to much money on the Iraq war, they probably couldn't even if they were inclined to.

Was looking like a possibility a few months ago, but since the Iraq report came out and the midterm elections cleaned out a bunch of republicans and Bush has had to go backwards on his stance on Iraq, I don't think it will happen.

Not to say a lot of inner circle guys don't want to. But they won't be able to pull it off.

Not unless there is another attack on American soil...

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Coelah

The Americans could win a conventional war easily against Iran. They may not be the pushovers Iraq was, but the American army is the most technologically advanced in the world. Their navy and air force are unmatched. It would be a quick victory.

Yeah, because all of that technology has done such a great job on the ground over the past 60 years!~

Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, Iraq.... ALL of them ~1/100 or less as powerful as Iran and all of them ****-shows for America.

What was the last successful large scale operation? Panama? Pulease...


America does a lot better with soft power then they do with hard power.

And who fights 'conventional wars' anymore anyways? Terrorism (and Guerilla warfare) is literally a manisfestation of the most effective defensive weapon to counter American tech superiority. By its very nature it cannot be defeated (at least easily) with the type of power America projects.



Claeren.

[Azure]

Thats funny Claeren, in Vietnam, US Navy SEALs had a kill ratio of 200:1.

Not good enough to win a guerilla war?

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thats funny Claeren, in Vietnam, US Navy SEALs had a kill ratio of 200:1.

Not good enough to win a guerilla war?

Ah... apparently not. Unless i missed something about them retreating with their tails between their legs?

I realize America is better at killing massive amounts of people, innocent and not - directly and indirectly, then any other nation currently on earth but that doesn't mean they can take the actual strategically needed step of subdueing a given group of people. Most people opposed to America hate them SO much they would rather strap explosives to themselves and die than stay under America-led occupied rule.

The real point though was that Iran is a much harder foe then Vietnam or Iraq (for example) so 'victory' is hardly assured.


And 200/1 from their best fighters? Do you really think that Americans will allow 10's and then 100's of thousands of Americans to die in Iran? Because when you do the math that is what you are looking at! And what about the hundreds of thousands of young DRAFTED American college kids being shipped off to fight this war? Their upper-middle class parents are going to tolarate that for how long? 80,000,000 people in Iran, less then 30,000,000 in Iraq. 85,000,000 in Vietnam, 47,000,000 in Korea, and only 3,000,000 in Panama.

3,000 dead Americans and counting in Iraq and that is in a country a fraction of the size, with a fraction of the wealth, that was under sanctions for 10 years and that had already been devestated before that that they have no chance of defeating.


Unless the goal is to simply destablilize Iran America has little chance of winning a war there.

And how would America pay for the war in Iran? Oil would skyrocket, the debt would ballon even more and interest rates in turn would spike, and you would be dealing with a VERY ****ed off China that has lost an important pillar of it energy ally, that has close to 1 TRILLION in foreign USD reserves.


Claeren.

[Azure]

The government retreated with their tails between their legs...actually, make that the Democrats.

Nixon was doing a pretty good job getting out of Vietnam until Watergate.

The SEALs did their job...and probably can, better then any other Special Forces group in the world.

And I doubt Iran would be harder then Vietnam...Iraq is a small compared to what happened in Vietnam. 4000 deaths compared to 50,000...makes a big difference.

[Looger]

i didn't think US leadership was stupid / crazy enough to go into iraq, but after the fact i realized that winning is not their goal.

you can never, EVER win this kind of war - the war itself is the goal.

unless by win you mean totally exterminate and/or displace, that is doable with enough explosives and passive will of your hometown fans.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Azure

The government retreated with their tails between their legs...actually, make that the Democrats.

Nixon was doing a pretty good job getting out of Vietnam until Watergate.

The SEALs did their job...and probably can, better then any other Special Forces group in the world.

And I doubt Iran would be harder then Vietnam...Iraq is a small compared to what happened in Vietnam. 4000 deaths compared to 50,000...makes a big difference.

um... Iraq is also small compared to IRAN!

Also, while only 3,000 have died in Iraq, the medical care is such that far less die but many of those that do not are permanently crippled. That number is now into the tens of thousands in Iraq - especially because of the proliferation of explosive devices.

And you are seriously dellusional if you think that America was just barely losing in Vietnam and that victory was still possible. For the Vietnamese American involvement was merely an afterthought in a 100 year war.... they fought before they got there and they fended off China after they left.


Claeren.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Claeren

um... Iraq is also small compared to IRAN!


Claeren.

Well no kidding.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well no kidding.

Well you compared Iraq to Vietnam as justification for why Iran would be easy compared to Vietnam. 'If one is easy so is the other'

And I doubt Iran would be harder then Vietnam...Iraq is a small compared to what happened in Vietnam. 4000 deaths compared to 50,000...makes a big difference.

So if Iran is more like Vietnam than Iraq (as you now acknowledge) then you are actually now admitting that Iran WOULD be hard. Admittedly as you qualify, maybe not 'harder', BUT America lost in Vietnam after how many lives lost and years spent there?! So it better not be harder....


Claeren.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

The government retreated with their tails between their legs...actually, make that the Democrats.

congress cut the funding, ending the war.

Originally Posted by Azure

Nixon was doing a pretty good job getting out of Vietnam until Watergate.

'vietnamization'. yeah, carpet bombing your way to retreat.

Originally Posted by Azure

The SEALs did their job...and probably can, better then any other Special Forces group in the world.

properly applied they are at best a mediocre special force, far inferior to british SAS to name only one. they have fancy goggles though.

Originally Posted by Azure

And I doubt Iran would be harder then Vietnam...Iraq is a small compared to what happened in Vietnam. 4000 deaths compared to 50,000...makes a big difference.

3000+ is only the guys that die on the field of battle, KIA's. when you die on a plane to germany or on a hospital operating table you're not counted. try maybe 10,000.

and the actual combat intensity, or average engagements per soldier per day, iraq is way more taxing than vietnam, where most of the soldiers were guarding the whorehouses and supply depots and opium dens and staging bases from enemy encroachment. if every one of the million men had trooped through the jungle on a massive 'sweep and clear', well, it wouldn't have dragged on forever and ever, and the million hueys wouldn't have been made by johnson's best buddy, etc.

kill ratios are very useless when fighting a guerilla war, where you can win every battle and still lose. the only successful counter-insurgencies i can think of are the brits in malaysia - probably more but that's the one that springs to mind. problem is, they actually tried to win that one.

[Claeren]

Originally Posted by Looger

kill ratios are very useless when fighting a guerilla war, where you can win every battle and still lose. the only successful counter-insurgencies i can think of are the brits in malaysia - probably more but that's the one that springs to mind. problem is, they actually tried to win that one.

I too believe that is the only significant 'successful engagement' as well. And it was still many many years long and the British still wanted out as soon as it was over.

And that was back before weapon proliferation like we see today.



Claeren.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Claeren

Well you compared Iraq to Vietnam as justification for why Iran would be easy compared to Vietnam. 'If one is easy so is the other'

Many people compare Iraq to Vietnam...some call it similar.

If you look only at the deaths of American troops...Iraq is very small compared to Vietnam. Of course the length of each war has a lot to do with it.

So if Iran is more like Vietnam than Iraq (as you now acknowledge) then you are actually now admitting that Iran WOULD be hard. Admittedly as you qualify, maybe not 'harder', BUT America lost in Vietnam after how many lives lost and years spent there?! So it better not be harder....

Of course Iran would be hard/harder.

I seriously doubt the US would invade.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

congress cut the funding, ending the war.

Yep, the government gave up on it...

'vietnamization'. yeah, carpet bombing your way to retreat.

It was working, wasn't it? Nixon knew he had to get out of Vietnam.

properly applied they are at best a mediocre special force, far inferior to british SAS to name only one. they have fancy goggles though.

Far inferior? What makes you say that?

Maybe we should ask someone in that field...oh wait...

Nice of you to make comparisons though...

3000+ is only the guys that die on the field of battle, KIA's. when you die on a plane to germany or on a hospital operating table you're not counted. try maybe 10,000.

3000 some troops have died in Iraq. US troops...2957 seems to be the official count right now...but 6 more died last night...

Unless you believe the DoD is misleading us all...and 10,000 US troops have actually died in Iraq...

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yep, the government gave up on it...

i thought it was 'the democrats'...

Originally Posted by Azure

It was working, wasn't it? Nixon knew he had to get out of Vietnam.

if you call 'working' doing nothing but killing civilians and driving up recruitment for your enemy. oh yeah, that is the point!

Originally Posted by Azure

Far inferior? What makes you say that?

Maybe we should ask someone in that field...oh wait...

Nice of you to make comparisons though...

results make me say that.

CaptainCrunch i would consider an expert, i don't claim to be but to call the SEALs the best in the world i disagree with.

Originally Posted by Azure

3000 some troops have died in Iraq. US troops...2957 seems to be the official count right now...but 6 more died last night...

Unless you believe the DoD is misleading us all...and 10,000 US troops have actually died in Iraq...

i honestly hope not but there's been some news like this breaking here and there, who really knows. it usually comes out later, i guess we'll have to wait and see. the daily reporting for vietnam would more than once reverse the bodycounts.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

i thought it was 'the democrats'...

We'll stay with the government...

if you call 'working' doing nothing but killing civilians and driving up recruitment for your enemy. oh yeah, that is the point!

http://faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/Change-Viet4.html

results make me say that.

CaptainCrunch i would consider an expert, i don't claim to be but to call the SEALs the best in the world i disagree with.

Results?

As in sucess...where exactly have the SEALs failed? I do believe SAS has way more experiance as well.

i honestly hope not but there's been some news like this breaking here and there, who really knows. it usually comes out later, i guess we'll have to wait and see. the daily reporting for vietnam would more than once reverse the bodycounts.

I realize that. Hopefully the numbers are consistant...

I really wonder what will happen in the next 5 years.

[Looger]

all i can say Azure, is that if the next five years are performed with the same logic as the last five, then that bodycount will be almost immaterial compared to what will follow.

iran can kill more sailors iin one day with their sunburn missiles than troops that iraqi insurgents have been able to kill in almost four years, no matter what numbers you use. not to mention the potential escalation with russia and even china.

iran is not iraq.

iran has one thing that iraq had zero of - committment by the troops to the government. what was that joke from the first gulf war, and the second too?

'for sale: iraqi AK-47, never been fired, dropped only once!'

iran's troops will not break immediately from airstrikes. they have many defensive positions, they have more mountainous terrain, they have morale and they have supplies. iran has really good air defense, the S-300 SAM sites in particular. during the first gulf war america was blowing up and jamming command and control that they themselves had installed in many cases! iran reinvented their entire order of battle, doctrine, etc. in the late 1990s. their air force will be completely outmatched but i'm sure they won't throw the towel in either, making things like assault helicopters too costly to use right away.

on top of all that iran's immediate response to missile strikes would be shahab missiles with allah-knows-what on the warheads - though in my opinion they'll be more of a psychologically effective weapon.

this is not a winnable war - the only question is how much will you lose, and how many nukes will you drop on them before the rest of the world has had enough.

[Claeren]

The other question is how much Isreal would stand to lose.

I would anticipate a full out assault on Isreal from both Palestine indirectly and Iran directly.



Claeren.

[Looger]

come on claeren, where's your team spirit? don't you know that when the third temple falls that the faithful will be whisked away???

i'm a comin' jesus!

let the missiles fly, hallelujah!

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Not unless there is another attack on American soil...

we passed a MAJOR danger zone in late october, a confluence of military exercises not seen since 9/11.

have to see what's in the pipe i guess, maybe they've used that trick one time too many ( 7/7 ).

[eazyduzzit]

Nobody will invade Iran, it just isn't realistic.

But somebody will strike it's nuclear facilities and it's long range missile capabilities. Whether it be the United States, or Israel. This is inevitable that it will result in an Iranian retaliation so it's also realistic to think the region will be brought into war. Nevertheless, if Israel excersises this option as a last resort, most will see it as self defense measures and any retaliation by Iran would be condemed by many countries as well as Israel recieving support - financially or militarily.

It will happen if they continue to proceed with this "Nuclear Power" to "Whipe Israel off the map".

IMO, we are already witnessing Israel taking drastic steps for peace with the Palestinians - things they have not offered in years - as well as offering in-depth talks with Syria. This is just the first steps in securing friend terms with their neighbours because it's obvious Iran will soon be the biggest threat and demand the most attention.