Quote:
You made two very sensible posts. I like you and the author was pro_Iraq invasion originally. I thought that Saddam was dangerous ; I believed the WMD lies; and I thought that there was a chance for Democracy there. I never liked Bush but did not realize how we were lied to on the WMD issue or how incompetently they would manage Iraq. The Iranians are both happy that Saddam is gone and unhappy that America stands, armed, to the East and the West. They also have a right to be fearful of the US based on their unhappy history in 1953 and the Shah that we foisted on them.
But I do not believe that it is possible for the US to invade Iran or even do a major air campaign against Iran (perhaps a bombing of nuclear facilities might be possible). The Iraqi and Afghani wars have been disasters and are more and more unpopular in the US.
|
bikeman,
well, i am still pro-iraq invasion. saddam was indeed dangerous. WMD, everyone believed in them (as did I). but i thought the best thing that would and should have come from the war was a decisive, and positive, shake to the region. those effects have been dulled by the bad post-war decisions of 2003-4.
however, to be fair, i do not believe either war qualifies as a "disaster". as measured by economic, human, and military costs, both wars are actually small critters compared to even the likes of a limited Vietnam War.
as for iran,
i do believe that military options are on the table. the question remains, though, is this the most effective path? and is it worth the costs?
AT THIS POINT IN TIME, based upon what i believe to be the aims of iran, i do not believe it is so. but this can change.
as for iranian views towards the US, the people themselves are not fearful of the US, and are actually fairly warm towards the US. the US intervention is small, once again, compared to what the british and the russians were doing in iran.