Well, Iran is the main backer of Hizbollah which is a mortal enemy of Israel. Therefore they are Israel's enemy and therefore they are our enemy. Terrorist nation is just an euphemism of enemy state, so Iran is a terrorist nation. Does this sound right?
So any supporter of an enemy makes them terrorists! I guess thats why it was ok for Fox news to suggest funding muslims in Iran to use car bombs.
Its slightly more complicated than that. They did hold our embassy personel hostage for more than a year and have been funnelling weapons to Iraqi insurgents. Their rhetoric has been extremely hostile too us and it seems at time as one of the defining aspects of the Iranian Islamic Republic is anti-Americanism. I agree the US has done a lot to earn the enmity of Iran but its not as though this is a one way street.
Wasn't that in the early 80's, lets not forget we were supporting a brutal Shah regime (not that the people who replaced them are any better) but it's not like we weren't doing anything to influence the political process.. When one of the most powerful nations ever invades a neighboring country wouldn’t the countries beside them fear the aggressors? Hell we can’t even explain what we went in Iraq for….. If Iraq was a successful mission would we be hesitating to get into Iran? Probably not. I personally think Iraq/Iran were never issues to begin with, we made them into issues by doing what we did…..who cares if Iran has nuclear weapons….they aren’t just going to bomb us? It’ll be completely irrational; the world would put them back into the stone ages once they did it. It would accomplish nothing for them. Therefore I don’t see why we fear them having it.
I think there is a pretty compelling track record in international relations which shows that if you trust that the other guy is rational and logical, you will regret it.
Um. again this started with the whole overthrowing their government and supplying Suddam with weapons and money to invade Iraq. They saw it as a revolution. Basically it was the equivalent to the militia men holding a british diplomat as a hostage. Btw, who is the one with the hostile rhetoric? We, even before invading Iraq, declared Iran as part of the axis of evil. How would you feel if China overthrew our government and installed a puppet government of their own. Would you view revolutionaries that fight the government and hold the chinese embassy diplomats hostage as patriots or terrorists. You can't just think of things from one side. There are usually two sides to the issue. That said, I'm not justifying the stupidity of Ahmedinijad. In fact, a lot of Iranians here think he's an idiot too. But, we can't sink to that level. Remember when Ahmedinijad went to speak at the University of Columbia? The university president pretty much insulted all Iranians by going on a tirade and declaring Ahmedinijad a dictator. To call him a dictator would be to insult their democratic process that they fought for when they overthrew our government installed shah. There was an article I read somewhere about a gay Persian who despises Ahmedinijad and lives here in the U.S. After the whole University of Columbia speach, he felt pretty much insulted. It is this type of alienation that the U.S. continues to show because of our arrogance. Their selling of weapons to Iraq is no more different then our selling of weapons to Israel or any other nation in confict for that matter. Hell, we even sold weapons to Iran during the ban. I also didn't see the outrage when Israel sold stolen U.S. Technology to the Russians.
It's not about whether they're going to bomb us out of a whim, but the leverage and prestige they'll gain from the entire region by attaining nukes and subcontinental missiles. I highly doubt China or Russia would like a fanatical regime encouraging their Muslim neighbors to rise up against the infidels. Let alone the reaction from Europe, Israel, or Saudi Arabia...
Except that it seems like you and Chris Bosh are looking at it only from the Iranian side. While yes you call Ahmedinajad an idiot you go on to say how we in American should treat him with respect. I agree as a guest we should but at the same time shouldn't Ahmedinajad also be more diplomatic in his rhetoric? I totally agree that the US has done a lot to earn the enmity of the Iranians but this is a two way street. The Iranians could also have decided to be more diplomatic and open to the US rather than callling us the great Satan. Rapproachment takes two.
I don't understand why you guys think just because we have alot of troops in Iraq means we could not easily run through Iran. 1.Remember how long it took the troops to get to Iraq? Well, now all they have to do is drive over land they already own. 2.If we engage Iran we would just leave a small contingent in Iraq to safeguard high value property (like our bases) all our missions would be limited to critical and above for less exposure. Right now we are seeking and detroying targets, running investigations, and train soldiers (Iraq forces) in real world missions. This exposes our troops to IED's like crazy. 3.Our supply chain into the region is well established and trained, for years now. 4Plus you overestimate the number of troops needed to do a pure spearhead into Iran to destroy high value targets like Nukes. Divide and run through it not surround it. As long as : Our force and fighting ability>theirs then we will move ahead. 5.And last our war machine is MADE to do stuff like take targets. Its the whole urban occupation we sucked at. Iran has an Army, it would be us Vs the guys the in other color coats. Guess what? That would be over faster than you think. Our tanks, Helo's and APC's are generations ahead of their old russian tech. So in conclusion our occupation of Iraq helps our ability to take Iran. I hope we do not take Iran though because war is a crap sandwich.
Who cares? I hope we never go in there. I was just trying to argue against the "Well to bad we are fighting in Iraq or we could get Iran"
Two wrongs don't make a right, either. If U.S. policy toward Iran had been better over the years, it's possible we wouldn't be at such a high level of animosity. Yes, the failed relationship is a two-way street but it's too bad we contributed so much to the failure. CaseyH, your post is so wrong I won't bother with a detailed reply. No insult intended but you are incredibly uninformed.
Of course not - if somebody puts a turd in front of you, you don't have to pick it apart to know what it is. I suggest you do some research as to the current state of the US Army.
Since I'm up and it is several hours to football, I'll give you a point-by-point because I have nothing better to do. Here is a relief map of Iran: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iran_rel_1973.jpg See all those bumpy things? Those are mountains. Here is the one for Iraq: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/iraq_rel_2004.jpg Notice the difference? No bumpy things. You are deluded from watching Operation:CNN. You have bought the propaganda. Iraq is a big wide open desert. It is really easy to drive across it. Because it is wide open and flat your targets are easily apparent and superior American tools have no problem targeting them while they are far enough away that they can't target us. Also, there are no local residents to sneak up and snipe on you. Mountains? You can't go barreling across mountains at full speed. You have to go up and over them and pick out passes which equal choke points which equal kill zones. Mountains negate long range targeting tools and provide cover. Mountains are slow to cross. See Tora Bora and that was a bunch of anemic rejects with gear that makes the Iranian stuff look like super-advanced alien ray guns. These two points actually deserve to be discussed together. First you want to completely pull back to American bases. This will allow the opponents to organize and plan. Then you want to run the supply chain out of Iraq, where we have just pulled back to our bases. The supply chain would be an exposed, soft underbelly. Following this plan I think we could actually be defeated in the tactical phase of an attack by the Iranians, which would be a difficult thing to do. Nice job von Clausewitz. Again, it was easy to run gasoline trucks 500 miles across uninhabited deserts without worrying about them getting shot up. Driving from a hostile populated country, across mountains into another populated hostile country is simply stupid. If we were playing Command and Conquer where the level ends and all action stops after you blow up the other guys base, then maybe you would be on to something. Unfortunately, in the real world you are confronted with the fact that things will continue to occur once you've won the level. If there is a hornet's nest in my back yard I can run a spearhead at it and defeat it with the military might of my pokey stick. Unfortunately, after destroying the high value targets, there will be a whole bunch of angry hornets who are not too friendly to me, and who are in close proximity. See above. Nothing exists in a void. We could even nuke them and 'win' militarily, but the outcomes for the US would could not in any way be described as favorable if we chose that sort of 'victory'. "Amateurs talk about tactics. Professionals talk about logistics” -Aleks Hindin
