Should we Invade Iran?

• BoatShoes

  Should the United States Military just stick it out and get rid of the last evil dictator in the Middle East and kick start the moderate Iranian movement into having power in a democratic state? If it is true that we believe the right to life liberty and to pursue happiness and fundamentally endowed rights in all human beings, should we use the most dominant military force in history to help our fellow humans in Iran realize these rights since they cannot achieve them for themselves because of authoritarian leadership?
  
  Should we do the same for North Korea and eliminate that dictatorship as well?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  I'll answer in a bit, but offer another option/ question:
  Should we bomb Iran? Strategic bombing, but not a full invasion.
• Bigdogg

  There is a better chance we will find WMD and Al-Qaeda there then we did in Iraq.
• fish82

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: I'll answer in a bit, but offer another option/ question:
  Should we bomb Iran? Strategic bombing, but not a full invasion.

  Nah. I'd like to think we've learned our lesson with this schtick by now. He's a loon, but not a threat. If he starts getting too uppity, Israel will be more than happy to layeth the smacketh down.
• sjmvsfscs08

  No. Israel can more than handle Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon on their own.
• Belly35

  

  Support Israel and let Israel take them out....
  Obama only wanted the America Jews votes not Gods's People Oh! That right Obama what faith is that again?
• I Wear Pants

  God no.
  
  Offensive wars in the name of "preemptive strikes" are abhorrent.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote: No. Israel can more than handle Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon on their own.

  Lebanon 2006?
  
  
  
  As to the OP, no. As Admiral Mullen stated, bombing or invading Iran is almost as bad as Iran obtaining the bomb itself.
  
  Iran has learned from Iraq, in that it has buried and split up all their sites to the point where in order to destroy them would take a massive bombing raid. Also, unless you are using B-2, some planes will probably get shot down due to all the AA fire that Iran has around the facility. Plus, Iran has put some facilities in population centers, which would lead to civilians dead-leading to the nation to come together and rally against the U.S.
  
  That said, the threat of some sort of military action should be on the table, whether that be bombing their launch facilities or something like that.
  
  Main point though is there is no good option.
• queencitybuckeye

  I Wear Pants wrote: God no.
  
  Offensive wars in the name of "preemptive strikes" are abhorrent.

  Where do you draw that line? Self-defense != retaliation after the fact - agreed?
• BoatShoes

  But what about the under lying moral question? We have the most dominant military force in the world...the means to help human beings with hopes, fears and dreams be rid of a tyrant...is there perhaps a moral responsibility? I, by no choice of my own was born into a jurisdiction surrounded my imaginary political boundaries wherein I have multiple freedoms guaranteed. If I had been born in Iran, I would not have these same freedoms...If we believe that these freedoms are fundamental rights, and if the world is governed by "aggressive use of force" as Majorspark likes to say...should we use it to ensure the rights of Iranians to experience the freedom we enjoy while also getting the added benefit of removing an international annoyance??
• I Wear Pants

  "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed; those who are cold and are not clothed" - President Dwight D.Eisenhower
  
  But I guess Eisenhower was probably a pussy right?
• IggyPride00

  

  just about every bomb Israel drops has made in the U.S.A on it. Iran will retaliate against us in Iraq and Afghanistan and make an already perilous situation there even worse.
  
  Patreus and Gates have both aknowledged that any Israeli behavior will be tied directly to us, so to think that they can bomb Iran without significant blowback to the U.S is absurd.
  
  An Israeli strike on Iran will not kill their nuclear program, but will cost Oil to go through the moon as Iran has grumbled about retaliating against oil installations in certain places as well as sabotaging the straight through which a large portion of the world's oil goes through.
  
  So the question to ask is what do we gain from an Israeli strike that will lead to chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan while spiking oil prices to $150+ at a time when the world economy is reeling? The strike will only set their nuclear program back a few years, not end it. That is assuming we even know where all the targets are buried and that is highly debatable in intelligence circles.
  
  We have alot of troops in the Middle East that will be sitting ducks, and if we overthrow the regime in Iran we will need another couple hundred thousand troops we don't have. The situation will likely spin completely out of control in a way in which we can't get a lid back on it, and it is not worth it given the outcome is anything but certain.
• iclfan2

  

  No. What has Iran done to us? Oh no they don't like Israel, who cares? American lives are too valuable to go fight in the desert some more for no reason.
• J-Dover

  

  One place I have never been, although I wouldn't mind going. AAAAAAAA Lets do it!!!
• sjmvsfscs08

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Lebanon 2006?

  I'm under the impression that Israel didn't flex its muscles fully as it would in an all-out war against Syria/Iran/Hezbollah.
  
  I really don't see a likely scenario that forces the United States to strike Iran, Israel will do it though if nothing changes. I think the bigger question is what does Iran do after Israel bombs them? Do they have their pawns in Beirut and Damascus attack Israel and start a war on the scale of the Yom Kippur War. I think they do (which explains the buildup of scuds there), and Israel really tears into Syria and Lebanon. There's no doubt they'd take casualties, but I don't think there's a military force in the region that can handle an IDF that doesn't care about global perceptions (I really think there are some guys in Jerusalem waiting for a chance to take out Hezbollah and Syria completely, they just need a legitimate war so they don't have to worry about "overreaction" accusations from the western world.)
  
  Does Iran retaliate against the US? Does Iran attack oil lanes? I really think it's a no. But if Iran attacks the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, they'd be going to war with those countries as well. Another Iraq vs. Iran situation could really unite Iraq at this time--or tear it down the center due to Shiite and Sunni differences. That would be a mess. But Nouri al-Maliki is a Shi'a, so I think it have a unifying effect. Afghanistan would get hairy, but simply due to the the lack of population and geographical importance it's not nearly as much of a problem.
  
  If Iran attacks oil lanes, doesn't that only further isolate Iran? And isn't an attack on the US an attack on NATO? Does Obama have the stones or the pull to form a coalition to finally slay the Iranian beast?
  
  It's scary to image what could happen. Revelation does point out that Israel would be invaded from the north (Syria/Lebanon) before a gigantic war prior to the end of time. 2012? :s
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote:

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Lebanon 2006?

  I'm under the impression that Israel didn't flex its muscles fully as it would in an all-out war against Syria/Iran/Hezbollah.

  Israel tried, but failed. They bombed Hezbollah strongholds for days (I had a friend in Beirut at the time). They also used heavy armor. But, the Israelis were surprised at how strong, fierce and coordinated Hezbollah was. This was not the same loose terror organization Israel fought in the 80s and 90s. Hezbollah had well fortified bunkers, good artillery, and quasi guerrilla tactics. Israel was more caught off course than anything else.
  
  Israel relied too much on air power, and as a result did not use its ground forces in a coordinated way, leaving them vulnerable and they suffered causalities.
  Point: Israel met its match really fir the first time in a long time. Yes, they did not go all out on the ground. But, remember, Israelis still remember 1982 and the disaster that that turned into.
  Really good examination of how Hezbollah used both military and insurgent tactics:
  http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/Pubs/display.cfm?pubid=882

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote: I really don't see a likely scenario that forces the United States to strike Iran, Israel will do it though if nothing changes. I think the bigger question is what does Iran do after Israel bombs them?

  I still don't think Israel has the capabilities to do it. The attack on the Iraqi reactor was simple: It was one place.
  Iran is at least 15-20 facilities and will take many, many sorties to be truly effective.
  
  I'm sure Israel has it in its warplanes, but I doubt if their bombing runs will be more than 20% effective. They simply do not have the bombs, air craft or means to do it.
  

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Do they have their pawns in Beirut and Damascus attack Israel and start a war on the scale of the Yom Kippur War. I think they do (which explains the buildup of scuds there), and Israel really tears into Syria and Lebanon.
  There's no doubt they'd take casualties, but I don't think there's a military force in the region that can handle an IDF that doesn't care about global perceptions (I really think there are some guys in Jerusalem waiting for a chance to take out Hezbollah and Syria completely, they just need a legitimate war so they don't have to worry about "overreaction" accusations from the western world.)

  Again, I really think Hezbollah can stand toe to toe with the Israeli army. Hezbollah has shown through the 2006 that it can inflict causalities before Israel can fully retaliate. And even then, can do enough damage for a stalemate.
  What will be interesting is Hezbollah is now part of the Lebanese government, so that would let the Lebanese government be fair game. That could lead to an another civil war in Lebanon and Israel finds itself in 1982 all over again.
  
  Syria on the otherhand, can be wiped out in a matter or hours. Israel has all the high ground in the Golan and can launch raids to destroy Syria's weak defense force.
  

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote:Does Iran retaliate against the US? Does Iran attack oil lanes? I really think it's a no. But if Iran attacks the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, they'd be going to war with those countries as well. Another Iraq vs. Iran situation could really unite Iraq at this time--or tear it down the center due to Shiite and Sunni differences. That would be a mess. But Nouri al-Maliki is a Shi'a, so I think it have a unifying effect. Afghanistan would get hairy, but simply due to the the lack of population and geographical importance it's not nearly as much of a problem.
  
  If Iran attacks oil lanes, doesn't that only further isolate Iran? And isn't an attack on the US an attack on NATO? Does Obama have the stones or the pull to form a coalition to finally slay the Iranian beast?
  
  It's scary to image what could happen. Revelation does point out that Israel would be invaded from the north (Syria/Lebanon) before a gigantic war prior to the end of time. 2012? :s

  I'd agree on the last parts. Iran can not attack the U.S. mainland, but can seriously screw up oil shipping lanes, Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. Although, with their neighbors, they risk the problem of spillover and blowback if it gets out of hand. NATO could inflict an Article V, but it depends on the circumstances.
• IggyPride00

  

  NATO could inflict an Article V, but it depends on the circumstances.

  If Israel initiates the conflict with a bombing raid, I wouldn't look for any help from NATO were we to be attacked. More than likely they will be scolding the U.S for allowing the situation to happen in the first place given our special relationship with Israel and the perception in the world that if we don't want the bombing to happen it won't, regardless of what Bibi wants. Any Israeli strike will be done with the green light of the U.S, and Europe will not be there to help us deal with the blowback as they want no part it.
• GeneralsIcer89

  I think it would be incredibly unwise for the U.S. to attack Iran. I'd rather not see another pre-emptive strike, anyway.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Well ptown do you think Israel is going to sit by as Iran gets a nuke? I don't see that happening. I also don't see Obama sending our planes, he has the backbone of Neville Chamberlain. I still think Israel will do whatever it can to disrupt Iran's nuclear abilities before this is all said and done.
• BCSbunk

  Yes considering that Iran at this moment has its military fighting in several countries and is a threat to our sovereignty.
  
  OH WAIT................. The US is the one out attacking and invading nations at their whim and fancy.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Well ptown do you think Israel is going to sit by as Iran gets a nuke? I don't see that happening. I also don't see Obama sending our planes, he has the backbone of Neville Chamberlain. I still think Israel will do whatever it can to disrupt Iran's nuclear abilities before this is all said and done.

  I don't think so, but they will fail. They will not do any damage and cannot stop the drive Iran has. Israel simply does not have the means to do it.
  
  Note: An interesting view on what would happen is Israel did strike:
  http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack.pdf
  I disagree with the premise that Israel could do it, but the conclusions are very interesting.
  
  I see it as Israel is going to have to deal with a near nuclear or nuclear Iran whether they like it or not. The U.S. dealt with a nuclear Soviet Union for 60 years and has dealt with a nuclear China for over 40.
  
  Bombing will not solve anything, as it will not cease the drive for Iran's program. It will only worsen things.
  
  I doubt Obama is like Chamberlin, otherwise he would have pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately and not conducted strikes in Pakistan.
  
  Point is short of a full blown invasion, which the U.S. cannot physically do, there is nothing stopping Iran from being a nuclear or near nuclear problem.
  
  Now, the question for Israel is how do you deal with that? What are the implications of that? SECDEF Gates leaked memo over the weekend was trying to answer those questions.
• BCSbunk

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote: Well ptown do you think Israel is going to sit by as Iran gets a nuke? I don't see that happening. I also don't see Obama sending our planes, he has the backbone of Neville Chamberlain. I still think Israel will do whatever it can to disrupt Iran's nuclear abilities before this is all said and done.

  I don't think so, but they will fail. They will not do any damage and cannot stop the drive Iran has. Israel simply does not have the means to do it.
  
  Note: An interesting view on what would happen is Israel did strike:
  http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack/02_iran_israel_strike_pollack.pdf
  I disagree with the premise that Israel could do it, but the conclusions are very interesting.
  
  I see it as Israel is going to have to deal with a near nuclear or nuclear Iran whether they like it or not. The U.S. dealt with a nuclear Soviet Union for 60 years and has dealt with a nuclear China for over 40.
  
  Bombing will not solve anything, as it will not cease the drive for Iran's program. It will only worsen things.
  
  I doubt Obama is like Chamberlin, otherwise he would have pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately and not conducted strikes in Pakistan.
  
  Point is short of a full blown invasion, which the U.S. cannot physically do, there is nothing stopping Iran from being a nuclear or near nuclear problem.
  
  Now, the question for Israel is how do you deal with that? What are the implications of that? SECDEF Gates leaked memo over the weekend was trying to answer those questions.

  nuclear problem? Oh yeah kind of like DPRK oh yeah they now have nukes and we were told they are part of an axis of evil, yet they have attacked no one?????
  
  Oh yeah but we have not fucked with them now that they can do some serious damage. Hopefully Iran gets some nukes and quick it will save many innocent lives if they do and stop the US from launching their evil assualt on them.
  
  When you are the bully on the playground and have a stick to smack the shit out of other kids you do not want some other kid getting a stick or that might end your spree of wantonly smacking the shit out of people.
• IggyPride00

  

  Anyone aggitated right now (Kristol, Krauthammer, Barnes and the like) that we aren't considering a military option more seriously right now have no one but themselves and Bush to blame. By bogging us down in Iraq a credible military option was taken off the table, as Iran knew that with the amount of troops and resources we had committed to Iraq and Afghanistan that we couldn't ever credibly invade them, and outside of a few airstrikes they were pretty much home free.
  
  The U.S army is not equipped to fight a 3 front war that has the potential to spin into a regional catastrophe. Gates and Mullen know that they can't just bomb Iran without being prepared to deal with severe retaliation (and an Israeli strike is a defacto U.S strike).
  
  We will not be greeted as liberators, and we will be in it completely alone as there will be no help from anyone outside the situation. China and Russia would be sitting back and secretly laughing because empires crumble when they become overstretched, and the combination of further war spending and (higher deficit) and skyrocketing oil prices will cripple the world economy and probably serve the death blow to the U.S.
  
  The best thing we can do at this point is extend the U.S nuclear umbrella to every middle eastern country, and make it clear to Iran that they will be held 100% accountable (I.E blown back into the stone age) if they ever use the bomb or transfer it to a terrorist organization.
  
  If Israel doesn't like it, tell them tough luck. The world economy, specifically the U.S can't deal with the oil price explosion that would happen with a strike on Iran. Oil will become the weapon of choice, and to pretend that the economic consequences of a strike on them shouldn't be considered is incredibly naive.
• sjmvsfscs08

  BCSbunk wrote: OH WAIT................. The US is the one out attacking and invading nations at their whim and fancy.

  Do you believe that? Really?
• I Wear Pants

  sjmvsfscs08 wrote:

  BCSbunk wrote: OH WAIT................. The US is the one out attacking and invading nations at their whim and fancy.

  Do you believe that? Really?

  Nothing to believe. It's what we've done.