Holding territory, occupation, is part of a land war. Also Iraq population wise is much smaller than Iran and terrain is much more forgiving to mechanized warfare. If we were to invade its highly doubtful they would just meet us out in the field of battle with tanks. More likely Iranian militaries will retreat to the mountains and cities and fight a protracted guerilla war. We simply don't have the resources for that anymore.
Your confusing the US vs Iran in a war (fight to the death or surrender) with our current tactics of occupying and installing our democracy and belief structures while rebuilding the damn country. That's the dumbest thing ever to try, a path to certain failure. If Iran finds a way to nuke Isreal, and a real, non-nicety WWIII style event happens - Iran could be wiped off the face of the earth easily - with or without nukes. Russia and China are a different story but Iran's military is pathetic compared to ours.
Just curious. Have you read or heard about those leaks that came out somewhat recently. Wish I could remember the name, there was one about Israel and how they have already taken action against Iran and we just don't know about it. Apparently half the leaks are true and the other are fake and you don't know which are which. So it could be fake, or it could be the truth. I say it's fake because there are many other people with a keen eye on Iran and I doubt everyone could miss such an event. The leak says that Iran is keeping it a secret too because they're ashamed. How ridiculous would it be if this were true?! Anyone else heard any of these leak rumors?
It will be easier than it was to bomb Iraq in Desert Storm. They have a worse air defense, and we have better planes.
In terms of work to physically bomb them, sure it won't be hard. Just like it wouldn't be hard to bomb an ally that is allowing us to fly-over. The physical ability for us is not that only consideration that goes into the statement it won't be easy to bomb Iran.
Sure we could just nuke them but do you think the rest of the world would sit idly by if we just leveled Iran? If we invaded Iran we would have to occupy them and at least make some show of rebuilding. Also given that Iran has buried their nuke facilities to a depth that makes it difficult to just bomb them we would have to occupy the area around those facilities to be destroy them. In an all out war with Iran we have two choices. Either occupation or genocide. Sure they could that is MAD. That said we are talking about militarily stopping them now before they get a nuke. Even though we have the capability we won't nuke them before hand. So was the Vietcong / Minh and so is the Taliban. We are in an age of assymetric warfare and no country with the exception of the two you name are going to go toe to toe with us in a conventional war. If anything an assymetric war makes things much harder to fight.
Just to add to this, you can't bomb the knowledge of how to build a nuclear weapon out of someone. From most articles I've read, its estimate that any bombing would push them back at most 10 years. So is bombing them every decade a responsible course of action? I think you are referring to the virus attacks, there is a 0% chance that any bombings would go unnoticed.
Who actually believes that Iran would nuke Israel when they get a bomb? They would be scared of the reprocussions. Why hasn't a single country (expect the US) used a nuke? Since United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel al have nuclear weapons, I think our world would survive a nuclear Iran.
So you believe that: - the presence of most Palestinians in and around Israel, - as well as all these massive INVESTMENTS that Iran is allegedly making into that region, as well as - Khamenei not wanting to lose his position as well as - The person (singular) who made the alleged threat only has 8 years (1 year to go) in office (versus your back to back 10 year invasions/wars/murder of some of the most brilliant Iranian minds) - that person does not have the power to do anything of the sort anyway... - Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Persian Jews, Israeli-Iranians, etc ... all this will not deter the Iranian government from nuking Israel? You are essentially the Dream Customer in a capitalistic society, you know that right? You are like the All Star of consumers. There is only one country (100% democratic) ever that has deemed a situation fit to launch a nuclear attack, and that's the U.S.. There is only one country (100% democratic) ever that has deemed a situation fit to massacre millions of Jews, and that's Germany. Iranians and Israelis were friends way before when Germany was squabbling to purge its Nazis and terrorists and international murderers and various countries in the Western world were (and continue to this day) shielding some of those who actually participated in the holocaust. >> FYI, this was 0% democratic for Iranians, and 100% democratic for the "West" since the Shah was 100% installed be elected officials of their countries. *puts on serious face* but yes you're right, the better way to solve the "Iranian" issue is to bomb them every 10 years unless they obey us.
You are a lying sack of ****. I wouldn't trust you more than Ahmadinejad. Iran must not have a nuclear bomb (Pakistan shouldn't either, but oh well). I say bomb these bomb-making facilities.
The problem is not the facilities (or the potential for producing nuclear weapons), the underlying problem is actually the political system. How then can the solution be to bomb these ultra expensive facilities which were (according to anti-government Iranians) built with money that was stolen from them? Why should they suffer this additional loss of DAMAGED stolen assets? Any logical human would assume the solution is to replace the political system. Instead, you're just supporting the murder of coerced civilians, until the next ones are put in place to do the same thing all over again. If the permission is merit-based, then the problem is the system, because in a merit based system and according to media propaganda, responsible countries are allowed to possess nuclear weapons. It would be interesting to hear your opinion if you ever decide to take a break from taking jabs at me personally. What is the criteria for a country to receive "permission" to develop nuclear weapons? At the end of the day, there are people for example who prefer that their government instills fear in other governments as a means of preventing the feeling of fear themselves. This unfortunately has the added effect of dramatically reduced sympathy and empathy towards terrorized people. That's exactlty what this is about. I guess some people's "fear" is more precious than others.
Well, there is the NNPT which Iran signed and ratified, whose answer is "never." Should that treaty be scrapped and countries be free to develop nuclear weapons as they like? That article, btw, completely handwaves my objection to a nuclear Iran, which has absolutely nothing to do with Israel but everything to do with if Iran gets nukes, there's a good chance that the other states in the Middle East gets nukes, and I'm sure everyone here can understand that to have a region as unstable as the Middle East toting nuclear weapons around is incredibly bad for everyone.
You are ok with china, Russia and North Korea having nuclear bombs? So far only one country ever used nuclear bombs, maybe they are the country who we shouldn't trust with Nuclear weapons. I would prefer that no country has these type of weapons, but that is not tha case. it is sort of strange that the US would start a war over another country developing a weapon which they already have and also used. Maybe Iran feels that they need a nuclear weapon to protect them from a US invasion.
Me too, but I would rather see the US have one than Iran. And if the only way to guarantee that Iran will not get one is that the US have them, I'm ok with that. Huge moral dilemma all-around, one of the main problems is that once a technology has been developed, how do you prevent it from spreading... I think we all agree (even Mathloom) that the one thing we do NOT want to see is a nuclear weapon ever being used again.
First of all, no. I was talking about real agreements, not fantasy agreements where the enforcer of the agreement (conflicted) and the most dominant Middle Eastern and only Middle East nuclear force are not a party. So if you want that taken seriously, then you take it seriously. Yes IMO countries should be free to develop peaceful nuclear technology. If some countries are allowed to have weapons of mass destruction, then everyone should be allowed to build them. Every abuser of this technology should be punished. No I don't prefer that a small group of powerful countries forcefully take control of that power and dictate terms to other countries, the citizens of which are worth no less. This is historically the pattern taken by every empire wishing to expand into sovereign nations, and you are well aware of this based on what I've read from your posts. I'm also not going to play along with your scenario and act like a total global disarmment is any less realistic than total compliance with partial disarmment. This is only realistic to you because you are biased, and obviously seems like a joke to me because of my bias, but that doesn't mean any of us are right/wrong.
