griftadan

okayyyyyy, lets pretend for a second that were in the real world. first of all, were talking about if iran invades US occupied iraq, not if we attack them. if they did attack our forces, not only would we defeat them, we would crush them. sure, iran has a large army, and if they got the element of surprise, they could probably gain ground for about a week or so, until we kicked into full swing. and i think your forgetting about the sheer bumber of aircraft we have in saudi arabia and floating in the persian gulf, that would decimate any force trying to cross the border. with air support, our ground troops alone could defeat iran

Aryan

I certainly don't doubt that, they have chemical/biological weapons.

Even if that Mullah AQ Khan did hand the blueprints of an implosion device personally, I doubt the Iranians have nuclear weapons. Actually creating working nuclear weapons requires a lot of know how, which I doubt the Iranians have, in addition to the lack of enriched uranium. They might be closer than they were say 10 years ago, but still nowhere near being a nuclear capable state.

Absolutely, but that is why I think America or Israel will not invade.

There are plenty of religious/ethnic/lingual struggles going on in Iran, America could turn Iran inside out without sending in a single soldier. Increase funding for student organisations, arm right wing nationalists, give a few AKs to Balochis, Turks and Arabestanis and you've got a failed state on your hands. America can do what it did in Afghanistan.

I think its more to do with the political situation in Iran. Invading now may as you say, unite the Iranians under the Mullahs, much like how Russians united under Stalin to fight off the Nazis.

Confed999

There aren't enough troops in Iraq to properly take Iraq. I believe OfficerOfEngineers characterized it as fighting a 250,000 man war with 100,000 men. It seems to me, if Iran moved enough troops to the border for a successful invasion, the US would have to strike first with overwhelming air power to destroy the troops, infrastructure and leadership of Iran.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Ray

Us can pulverise Iran, but they cannot occupy it. Already there is no more troops available for any other campaign.

As it is the Islamic world is coalescing against the others. Therefore, visualise the scenario of US troops alone in Iraq and the Islamist moving in from all around!

Conventional warfare is striaght forward, but not assymetrical warfare and guerilla tactics. It will be a military nightmare.

Then will come the FINAL solution - Nuke them!

US may still hesitate to do so, but not the Israelis. They have more at stake - their very existence!

A very horrendous scenario indeed!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

smilingassassin

Lull completely overlooksthe fact that the U.S. has the grand daddy of all WMD's.
If Iran uses thier pitifull WMD's, Iran will be the biggest neon sign in the world at night andf the biggest stain glass window by day.

Lull....quit trying to make Iran look like a big player, your ignorance is showing.

If you like the ME so much why don't you go to Iraq and fight those "bafoons"?

I know why...two words....NO GONADS.

lulldapull

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! Lower caste draftee gettin riled up for nothin

Hey Neocon lover go ask your chimps in the White house to go and Invade Iran and North Korea! What are you waitin for??? Christmas???

how about calming down Iraq and Afghanistan first ya mental giant? Both them countries are infinitely more unstable and hotbeds of terror now, and he is thinking about invading othe countries!

Are we any safer as claimed by the Neocons??? god -damn liars!

Confed999

Stop fighting guys... Attack the message, not the messenger.
Who is? And did "he"say when?
Caught too many terrorists, and took too much of their money and safe haven not to be.

Ray

I quote from an US poet Rober Frost and it is my favourite quote when I am in a quandry.

The woods are lovely dark and deep.

I have many promises to keep.

and miles to go before I sleep
And miles to go before I sleep.

visioninthedark

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug20...4/world/w1.htm

Iran says defence minister’s threats against US misunderstood

TEHERAN: Tehran on Saturday disputed remarks by Defence Minister Ali Shamkhani apparently warning of pre-emptive Iranian strikes on US troops in neighbouring countries, claiming they were misinterpreted.

"The statements of the defence minister have not been reported accurately — to some extent they have been altered," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reze Asefi was quoted as saying by the state news agency IRNA.

"We will not sit (with arms folded) to wait for what others will do to us," Shamkhani told Al-Jazeera TV on Wednesday when asked if Iran would respond to a US attack on its nuclear facilities, speaking in Farsi through an interpreter into Arabic.

"Some military commanders in Iran are convinced that preventive operations which the Americans talk about are not their monopoly," he added, according to the translator. "America is not the only one present in the region. We are also present, from Khost to Kandahar in Afghanistan; we are present in the Gulf and we can be present in Iraq."

But Asefi said there had been "misinterpretations", adding, "Mr Shamkhani said that we would defend our territory and national interests and would allow no one to attack the Islamic republic.

"If anyone attacks our country, we will respond with determination." Shamkhani’s remarks were seen as an extension of an exchange of threats between Israel and Iran in recent weeks focussing on Iran’s nuclear programme me.

Iran insists that the programme me, centred on the construction of a nuclear power plant at Bushehr, is purely peaceful but the United States and Israel in particular fear it conceals efforts to develop atomic weapons.

Speculation has arisen that Israel may strike at Bushehr, in a repeat of its attack against Iraqi nuclear facilities at Osirak in 1981. Shamkhani added: "We will consider any strike against our nuclear installations as an attack on Iran as a whole, and we will retaliate with all our strength.

"Where Israel is concerned, we have no doubt that it is an evil entity, and it will not be able to launch any military operation without an American green light. You cannot separate the two." "The US military presence (in Iraq) will not become an element of strength (for Washington) at our expense. The opposite is true, because their forces would turn into a hostage" in Iranian hands in the event of an attack, he said.

Earlier in the week, a commander of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying that Tehran would strike the Israeli reactor at Dimona if Israel attacks the Islamic republic’s own burgeoning nuclear facilities.

The United States on Thursday reassured Tehran that US troops in Iraq pose no threat to Iran and that Washington will use diplomacy to address its concerns over Iran’s nuclear programme.

US State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Iran’s concerns that it was threatened by the troops were "unwarranted", and sought to appease what he called Tehran’s "rhetoric concerning strikes and counterstrokes over Iran’s nuclear programme."

"From the United States point of view, this is a programme that is of serious concern and it is something that we are committed to pursuing through diplomatic means, as evidenced by our active diplomacy through the International Atomic Energy Agency," Ereli said.

__________________

Please visit http://www.visiongwadar.com/platinum/index.html

Ray

Vision,

The mullahs are backtracking because they have been caught out as they didn't put the money where their mouth is . No guts. Fooling who?

Those headlines doesn't impress me. It will impress only those who are braindead and thus media driven.

If they have guts, let them go for Israel. Has anyone stopped them? If it is that important, then they should do ahead. Davy Crockett said, " If you are right, then go ahead'.

If they do it, there will be damnation rained on them - fire and brimstones! Take it or leave it.

No big talk, please.

Cut out the gas and get on with the order. Dying to see that happen from the over clothed mullahmen sweating in their underclothes. Actually they are emitting green refuse from their posteriors or as Americans would say ' Shitting green', which the British might cover up as 'Green diarrhoea', while sipping tea delicately from bone china cups at a country club!

We are tired of your oversized headlines like a paid publicist of the media.

Anyway, how mucho peso they pay you fo this?

Tuchkoo that you are!

phalanx

No matter how we look at this the fact stares straight back at us. Iran will have Nukes soon. Is that acceptable?

I don't think anyone in their right mind would say yes. If we don't somehow stop their program, the israeli's will. And i believe whether we like it or not. So I can only pray we don't get stuck in the middle of it.

btw israel has the new i think the newest gen. of patriot is the PAC-3? if so i wonder how it would do defending Israel.

__________________
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
--Benjamin Franklin

There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.--John Adams

Trooth

Seeing as GWB has plans to sort out Iran, it can't be acceptable to US foreign policy for Iran to have Nukes even as a defensive deterrant, because that is clearly a defence against the US's intentions.

It will be excellent from a propaganda basis which is of course the partiots major strength, but perhaps the new generations will be more successful in operation.

Confed999

So you're saying the Iranian government is trustworthy enough to have nukes, and it's just the US that doesn't want them to?

Trooth

Iran's trustworthiness is in the eyes of the beholder as with any nation. However the US has constructed the "Axis of Evil" and implied Iranian complicity in 9/11. Therefore them having nukes even if they genuinely had no need for them other than defence and it had never crossed the Iranian's minds to use them or any other purpose, is a problem to the US that has made statements to the effect that it will resolve the Iranian problem. Taking this to its logical conclusion, the US would attack Iran which might use its nuclear defence in an attempt to repel the US.

Since you ask, i class Iran as a rogue nuclear state along (in no particular order) with Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea.

Confed999

I can't agree with that, nobody that treats their own people that badly can be trusted.
That's what I was looking for, I couldn't believe you would think it was ok for Iran to have nukes.