I can't imagine why, but reading this reminded me of the Bush Campaign's strategy for reelection. And your second point reminded me of the "reasons" why we invaded Iraq. I would put nothing past Bush, and his ever smaller group of advisors. And I wouldn't put anything past the religious theocracy sitting on the majority in Iran who want democracy. If anything, this is yet another example of why we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. Where is the credibility behind a US threat to Iran's Ayatollahs? I would argue that the invasion of Iraq has them less afraid of us than they were before. Before, our power was seen as nearly limitless... we were a colossus bestride the world. The sole superpower. Today, we see our military stretched nearly to the breaking point by an adversary that, before the invasion, was very weak compared to Iran. And that is now "just" an insurgency. With what do we take on Iran? And with which allies?? Bush has pissed off most of them, and the others are paying steep political prices at home. Keep D&D Civil!!
The U.S. millitary can take Iran, if it were absolutely necessary but A. probably see some sort of draft B. we would be in actual danger should any other real threats emerge C. we would be unable/unwilling to rebuild Iran, and we'd leave it and Afganistan in their respective shambles because of B D. we would be wise to not call upon Israel for support for fear of the entire Middle East picking up the fight and starting WWIII E. I'm no economic expert (or any other kind of expert for that matter) but if we're in Iran and Iraq for an extended period, we can fight ourselves broke the long term effects of flattening Iran is beyond me but it's within (just) our capabilities, on the military side
I've been looking at signatures today, Hayes, and yours brought this thought to mind... where is Bush's Kissinger?? Keep D&D Civil!!
Oh, I agree that we could "take" Iran, if we put forth a maximum effort. You give several good reasons why it would be a disaster for the US. My point was that, in my opinion, Iraq has emboldened Iran's Ayatollahs. And that is the opposite of what most Iraq Invasion supporters, I would guess, expected to be the case, post invasion. And, besides your points, what would we do if anything else were to happen elsewhere in the world that required an American projection of power? We better hope that our carrier battle groups are at sea, and ready. Bush intends to retire one battle group already. I don't think that's a very good idea. Hayes, can you answer your own question? Keep D&D Civil!!
Ironically, Iran stated they would sign a treaty agreeing to have the entire middle east be Nuclear Weapon free. The US did not agree to this b/c it would have meant that Isreal would have to give up its Nuclear Weapons. Isreal also publicly stated that they would use Nuclear Weapons if attacked at home. So we gave up having Iran sign a treaty so Israel could keep their weapons. I know that Isreal is our ally (though they've spied on us before and stolen nuclear weapons secrets and recieve billions in aid annually), but for the 7 million people in Isreal we're being placed in some very compromising situations. I say we agree w/ Iran's treaty and force Isreal to give up their weapons as well. Iran has been threatened by Isreal so should be able to defend itself.
I think of poker when I see this situation. When you are down to 3 people in a tourney and you are the middle stack, the short stack makes a move. Do you take him down or do you wait for the big stack to do it? Like it or not, U.S. to it's foreign actions in the past few years made it known that we are the top dog. Hence anybody that hates us will see us as the foremost enemy. It's usually balanced out with us having plenty of allies that share our views and looks to us as the leader. But that's gone now. So the EU will just sit back and see what happens to us first, and then they will react accordingly. The same is true with NKorea. While China has concerns with N. Korea, they know that they are buying them off with aid, and the U.S. (Bush) just slashed the N. Korea aids program. So if N. Korea did get a nuke and get mad for some reason, U.S. would provide a buffer for China to react.
I think it's political games once again. The only people that the millitants/extremists dislikes more than us would probably be Israel. So while we are a good buffer for the EU, Israel is a good buffer for us. You don't give up a good buffer just because Iran would sign a treaty that they can just ignore.
Seems implausible that we will ever attack. We have no legitimate reason to fight other than a percieved threat. .
Iraq! Perceived threat is the minimum threshold. We would have to change the line about bring democracy to the region (since Iran is a democracy already) but hey that is just a question of marketing which we all know is an area that the W Admin excels in. Bring it on.
Isreal has i think the fourth largest stocKpile of NUKES IN THE WORLD. Just for those who did not know. And yes the U.S helped them develop and test these. They always tend to forget about South Korea. But hey they already have them. so you can't **** with them. only those that don't have it. I believe it will be Iran then Syria....then WWIII.
Unless the U.S. reinstitutes the draft or the EU, Russia or China send massive amounts of troops, their isn't enough manpower available to invade Iran much less occupy it.
Uh, no. We didn't. It was the French. Please check your facts. I'm curious who the participants in this doomday WWIII are going to be? Before we intervened in Iraq it was said the backlash would cause all ME regimes to fail and the world would be consumed in a WW conflaguration. Ain't seen it.
