I keep hearing about them potentially having an Nuclear Capability Are going to invade Iran? Should we? Rocket River
I don't think we have the manpower to occupy two countries right now. We'd have to either pull out of Iraq or institute a draft. Pulling out would be a disaster and essentially cede Iraq's oil to interests that we can't control and that despise us. Doesn't seem likely. A draft would probably lead to rioting in the streets, so that doesn't seem likely either. If this "invasion" thing were about nukes, wouldn't North Korea be at the top of the pack, seeing as how they actually admit they have them?
If Bush wins there is a 50-50 chance. Pat Buchanan, who usually has his fingers on the Bush crowd, thnks we will do so, especially since Bush will need to blame the Iraq fiasco on the Iranians. A vote for Bush is a vote for more war and a draft. He will view his reelection as another sign by God that he has been chosen to lead other crusades. If Kerry wins, no as more pragmatic concerns like troop strength and whether we have an imminent mortal threat will come into play.
I think Iran can be handled with diplomacy, but if those nutjobs got the bomb they would be a big problem. However, not sure it is our place to tell people who can and can't have the bomb. DD
this could get real messy, Israel will attack Iran if it becomes known they have WMD, no doubt and if that happens....*shudders
Growing up . . . 'reagan era' I got the impression that Iran was worse that Iraq as far as fundamentalist nutjobs SO how do we figure they can be handled diplomatically when Saddam could not. as for the bomb . . .isn't that why we took out Saddam all the liberating of people aside. . . . he WMDs was the issue for us I just see iran getting more press Rocket River
this bothers me too If Israel attacks. .then countries like Syria [who we think got Iraq's WMDs] and maybe the other Muslim countries will Attack Israel. We will defend them. . .[opening ourselves up for attack] This could cause a domino effect of people just falling in WWIII? no . .I'm no chicken little but the potential is there Rocket River
We absolutely do not have the military power to occupy Iran. The stategy of mutually assured destruction worked with the Soviet Union and should work with a rational Iranian government. I'm pretty sure the greybeards understand the seriousness of maintaining security around the weapons. If they allowed some rouge ayatollah to set one off that affected the US there would be hell to pay. The lost nukes of the USSR are probably a bigger risk. Iran just wants the bomb to counter the Jewish bomb, They cannot stand being bested by Jews. But the truth is governments cannot afford to use nukes, the damage from reprisals is just too high.
Iran has been one of our arch-enemies for 25 yrs now. Iran is the clear-as-day example for why we have steadfastly propped up blatantly crooked and oppressive regimes like the Saudi and Kuwaiti royals. Shht, we poured truckloads of cash and weaponry into Saddam's army expressly for the purpose of waging a protracted war against the Mullahs of Iran. This is b/c if the Islamic Revolution that took place in Iran had ever spread across the rest of the Middle East, our access to cheap oil would be in severe jeopardy. I could easily see us going there. Even despite the fact that Iran is no pushover. They are a self-sustaining country that has never been much dependent on foreign investment or foreign technology. They have their own resources - both material and human. I would not f#*k with them. But I wouldn't put it past our govt. to do so, either bush or kerry.
didn't we do the same thing in Iran before the revolution by supporting the Shah? Maybe that's why they are one of our arch-enemies? and maybe that's why we shouldn't be supporting the Saudi/Kuwaiti royals so closely as we have because it could happen again there.
October: Some terrorist will be spotted in Iran. November: Election coup. February: Intelligence says Iraq shipped weapons to Iran. March: Bush orders Iran to give up weapons. April: Troops invade Iran. Repeat cycle with Syria in 2006.
America's dependence on imported oil means we have no choice but to ally ourselves with the Saudi Royal family. But the thing that gets me is they would have enough money to make a comfortable life every Saudi citizen. If they would reform to a constitutional monarchy and institute a citizen dividend plan like Alaska they could be the Switzerland of the Middle East, But no, the have's won't share with the halve nots ( and certainly not with women)
Yes, we were integral in bring both the Shah AND Saddam to power. In fact at the conclusion of the 8yr Iraq-Iran war, when Saddam asked the US and Saudies/Kuwaitis/UAE's to help pay Iraq's huge debts incurred from fighting the war (largely on behalf of those countries' mutual interest), they all told Saddam essentially to go to hell. That's when he said FU back and decided to invade Kuwait. Until that point he was our best buddy ally. In fact, only a few months after he reportedly gassed the Kurds in the north in '87, we were supplying him w/ even better weaponry and cash. As far as not "supporting the Saudi/Kuwaiti royals so closely as we have because it could happen again there.".......imo, the minute we cut those royals off from our protection they'll all get drawn and quartered by the masses. If we want guaranteed cheap and readily accessible oil to keep flowing then we need our puppet regimes in there to maintain OPEC. The Mullahs in Iran were able to stage their revolution IN SPITE of our protection of the Shah.
