You sure Bush won't be the one to bomb Iran???

Hopefully, this doesn't have to happen. Hopefully, there is a peacfull solution, but I doubt that. If it has to happen to prevent a nuclear Iran, then it had better happen in time. If it has to happen, several other problems can be addressed simultaneously regarding the fact that Iran is and has been the biggest state sponsor of terrorism for the last twenty five years or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pow4Brains

Will someone figure out how to make the UN work so I don't have to pay for all of this.

---

The UN hasn't really worked since the 50s.

It will never work so long as Sudan can be on the UN Council for Human Rights.

It will never work so long as China and Russia can continuously stymie any attempt to use the UN to support peace becaues they would rather only use their votes to hedge against the West and to pay off their dictator supplier countries.

We should have a UDN... a United Democratic Nations...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

What is the absolute worst thing that can happen in Iraq right now? Perhaps the Iranian Army crossing the border and wreaking havoc on our already overextended troops in Iraq. If you think Iraq is a shitshow now, just wait until 5 minutes after the first bombs drop.

---

You are an idiot. The Iranian Army would be utterly crushed by the US. Fighting armies is what the US Army is best at.

Crossing the border might unite the Iraqis against the Iranians.

The Iranians won't do this because it is regime suicide. We will decapitate their regime and crush their armies. We may or may not invade at length, but we'll decimate the regime.

As much as I think attacking Iran is a horrible, horrible idea, the iranians trucking across the open desert would be guaranteed suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

Fuck people. Wake the hell up. The LAST thing in the world we should be thinking about is attacking Iran. It'll make the Crusades look like a god damned picnic.

---

Right, because when the radical fundamentalists have nukes things will be better:nonono2:

You can stick your head in the sand and play the pacifist if you want to but that won't solve anything, nor will your belief about Iran's good will toward Israel keep Tel Aviv from glowing in the dark.

Nations have been attacking each other for all of human history. Why do you suddenly think that it isn't possible now?

Serious question: If it is possible then why do you oppose the non-religious fanatics preventing the religious fanatics from accuiring the most destructive weapon known to man?

Remind me again. What was the last nation that Iran invaded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

You are an idiot.

---

and perhaps you would be better served learning how to hold a mature and civil debate without instantly resorting to name-calling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pow4Brains

Will someone figure out how to make the UN work so I don't have to pay for all of this.

---

Jesus christ, fucking /signed.

does this help?
http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/files/OGL98076.jpg

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ir...ges/energy.gif

Could someone please remind me, what was the last country that tried to infleunse Irans leaders... and ended up messing things so badly that radical islamists rose to power...

Yuo weep what you sow... just like in Afganistan and Iraq...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roo

Remind me again. What was the last nation that Iran invaded?

---

Possibly Lebanon by proxy?

If you consider sending armed militia or spies into another country to do harm to others, it could be argued that they have invaded Iraq and are committing acts or war against the Iraqi, US, and British Governments.

I'm not passionate about this but it would not be a stretch.

When the leader of Iran states that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth? And provides financial incentive to carry out violent acts against people in Israel, Lebanon and Iraq that could easily be considered and act of war.
I hear they have a hand in allot of ugliness in some North African Countries also

The sad part is that I know that generally Iranian people are a very decent intelligent people who I find very pleasant to be around.

Just sayin.

I am really tied of the USA always being in the forefront when it comes to taking action against all the injustice around the world.

It would be nice to sit back ond let the UN and other free Countries deal with this shit.
When is that gonna happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTT

I am really tired of the USA always being in the forefront when it comes to taking action against all the injustice around the world.

---

You and a lot of other people... But oddly enough, most of the "injustice" in the world that the US seems to fight, is actually a product of their own fumblings... Happened with Iran, Iraq and with Afganistan...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

You and a lot of other people... But oddly enough, most of the "injustice" in the world that the US seems to fight, is actually a product of their own fumblings... Happened with Iran, Iraq and with Afganistan...

---

That’s what is said.

I can't help but think that if The US decided that Sudan was a human tragedy and that we could not stand by and watch, we decide to invade the country disarm the militia’s Provide a quarter million troops to protect and police. Feed everyone, help them rebuild the infrastructure. (We could do that)

And while we were doing this the rest of the world would be saying this same kind of shit!! It would somehow be our fault that it happened.

I wonder how many more idle threats will come from the UN and how much more money UN lackeys will steal from the mouths of the peoples of Darfur?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTT

That’s what is said.

I can't help but think that if The US decided that Sudan was a human tragedy and that we could not stand by and watch, we decide to invade the country disarm the militia’s Provide a quarter million troops to protect and police. Feed everyone, help them rebuild the infrastructure. (We could do that)

And while we were doing this the rest of the world would be saying this same kind of shit!! It would somehow be our fault that it happened.

I wonder how many more idle threats will come from the UN and how much more money UN lackeys will steal from the mouths of the peoples of Darfur?

---

Since US intervention went so well in Somalia.. US "interventions" around the globe have never really worked out, have they? Fuck Iran, fuck Iraq, fuck Israel and fuck Palestine. Let them blow themselves to pieces.

The US wouldn´t be threatened if they kept their cocks in their pants, instead of trying to force themselves on all tight spots of the globe. That´s how simple it is.

And hell, call me socialist all you want - Your leaders and those of you who elected them made this happen, not pinko commies and liberals.

For the OP question/statement: I wouldn´t doubt GWB and his puppeteers´abilities to bomb the fuck out of Iran, but I´d hate to see it happen. The US would distance themselves even more from the rest of the world (except weapons manufacturors).
I love the US, but to hell with your leaders!

MTT, my point was that when the US tried to "fix" something, they've only made things worse...

The sole reason US is involved in these messes, has nothing to do with injustice (eg. Darfur, as you pointed out would be one). The US got involved because the REAL leaders of US though it would make them a lot of money... And from the looks of it, it has been working... Ever since helping the Shan to gain power in the mid 50s and starting the prelude to islamic revolution...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

Since US intervention went so well in Somalia.. US "interventions" around the globe have never really worked out, have they? Fuck Iran, fuck Iraq, fuck Israel and fuck Palestine. Let them blow themselves to pieces.

The US wouldn´t be threatened if they kept their cocks in their pants, instead of trying to force themselves on all tight spots of the globe. That´s how simple it is.

And hell, call me socialist all you want - Your leaders and those of you who elected them made this happen, not pinko commies and liberals.

For the OP question/statement: I wouldn´t doubt GWB and his puppeteers´abilities to bomb the fuck out of Iran, but I´d hate to see it happen. The US would distance themselves even more from the rest of the world (except weapons manufacturors).
I love the US, but to hell with your leaders!

---

If I dig far enough back into history your words ring True
So what are we supposed to do now? We can't take all the bolts out of the bridge and then just walk away

Do you know who George Marshal was??
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105017.htm
Read this stuff
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0591/9105017.htm
Marshall and a majority of diplomats at the UN saw a direct UN trusteeship, succeeding the British mandate, as the only solution to halt the bloodshed. Otherwise, they knew, neighboring Arab states would send military units across the border into Palestine the day the British withdrew, in an attempt to reoccupy the Arab towns and villages seized by Jewish forces. The State Department urged Truman not to grant diplomatic recognition to the Jewish state when the British withdrew, but instead to side with rapidly growing sentiment in the United Nations in favor of trusteeship. Truman wavered and, for a time, both sides in a bitter battle for the president's ear thought they had his support.

Forty-four years after these events, Clifford, Truman's principal domestic advisor, has produced his memoir. Written in two parts with Richard Holbrooke, the first part of the memoir was published in the March 25, 1991 New Yorker. It covers events from 1944, when Clifford, a 37-year-old lawyer and newly commissioned lieutenant, junior grade, in the naval reserve from St. Louis, MO, Truman's home town, took up duties in the White House, through the decision to recognize Israel on May 14, 1948.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTT

by proxy

---

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...an_o_worms.jpg

Instead of doing a whole bunch of googling, save yourself the time and energy when it comes to the Middle East. Blame the British and/or the French. Guilty as charged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroPax

Wrong. More like USAF TACP's.

Regardless, last time I checked JDAM's are GPS guided. I don't think those Iranian nuke facilities will be moving around very much.

Obviously, you don't have a clue, so stop acting like you know what you are talking about.

USAF TACP:

-Astro

---

dude, you implied that air power alone would erase iranian nuke facilities without boots on the ground.

then when i remind you that in afghanistan we had roughly 100 army guys working with various afghani militias to put munitions on top of the taliban in october of 2001, you respond with a "yeah, boots were on the ground, but they were TACP/ETAC."

whatever. my point was made -- we can't plink nuclear targets in iran without boots on the ground.

don't worry about what i do or don't know about tactical capabilities, because it doesn't matter when we are talking about attacking another nation when we have SO much to lose in this instance.

keep beating on your war drum, homie!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roo

and perhaps you would be better served learning how to hold a mature and civil debate without instantly resorting to name-calling.

---

Did you forget that this is TGR and the padded room. Carry on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toadman

Did you forget that this is TGR and the padded room. Carry on...

---

Roo = fucking idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

"No shortage of efforts?" Are you kidding me. We haven't done jack squat to sit down and talk with them. I'd laugh if this weren't such a serious matter.

Oh and dear Mr. AstroPax and others who say this will just be a simple bombing campaign,

What is the absolute worst thing that can happen in Iraq right now? Perhaps the Iranian Army crossing the border and wreaking havoc on our already overextended troops in Iraq. If you think Iraq is a shitshow now, just wait until 5 minutes after the first bombs drop.

Fuck people. Wake the hell up. The LAST thing in the world we should be thinking about is attacking Iran. It'll make the Crusades look like a god damned picnic.

Edit: Oh and Mr. Ohmert should shut up or put up. I don't see any Israeli troops in Iraq and I'm willing to bet there won't be any in Iran either.

---

Arty, our diplomatic superiors:rolleyes2 from Britain, France and Germany have been speaking with Iran for how long?

but you're right we should wait. The question is whether or not we go with the failed North Korea playbook or with the failed UN playbook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MTT

When the leader of Iran states that Israel should be wiped from the face of the earth?

---

Just so this has been mentioned... You know that Ahmadinejad as President in Iran and his "power" would be a closer equivalent to our say, Nancy Pelosi? The "real power" is held in another branch of the government. It's the religious leadership, headed by the Supreme Leader, that has the real power. They have the last say for all internal and foreign policies, and would include for example being commander-in-chief of the Iranian armed forces. Most importantly the power to declare war (or peace) is also held by the Supreme Leader

And again for full notice, I assume you are also aware there is some controversy over the translation of the Persian statements regards Israel? It's very clear he despises the government of Israel, but that he called for death to the citizens of that state and region is probably NOT supported by the evidence. I'm not excusing the shithead, he's said a number of stupid things but is probably an embarrassment to much of their more moderate population - much as GWB is such to much of ours. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

dude, you implied that air power alone would erase iranian nuke facilities without boots on the ground.

then when i remind you that in afghanistan we had roughly 100 army guys working with various afghani militias to put munitions on top of the taliban in october of 2001, you respond with a "yeah, boots were on the ground, but they were TACP/ETAC."

whatever. my point was made -- we can't plink nuclear targets in iran without boots on the ground.

---

You are really nitpicking and avoiding any real point here. Static targets (nuclear facilities) don't need combat controllers on the ground or TACP/ETAC (I don't know those acronymns). If we were going to put a dozen of the most highly trained covert guys on the ground to hide, I'd imagine they'd be in the west to help target mobile missile batteries. A dozen guys with laser pointers and radios does not an invasion make. Do you actually have a point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

don't worry about what i do or don't know about tactical capabilities, because it doesn't matter when we are talking about attacking another nation when we have SO much to lose in this instance.

---

So when the stakes go up, the relevance of knowledge goes down? Is that your whole point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timvwcom

You know that Ahmadinejad as President in Iran and his "power" would be a closer equivalent to our say, Nancy Pelosi? The "real power" is held in another branch of the government.

...

It's very clear he despises the government of Israel, but that he called for death to the citizens of that state and region is probably NOT supported by the evidence.

---

I see a lot of blah blah blah about AM's statements about Israel. Yes, your statements about his position are somewhat true, but that isn't a free speech democracy. The Ayatollas can tell him to STFU at any time. Have they?

That's all besides the point. Actions speak louder than words. There is tons of evidence of Iranian material, monetary, and training support of the Iraqi insurgency, Iranian border incursions and military attacks into Iraq, and Iranian material, monetary, and training support of Hezbollah which has been busy fighting Israel and Lebanon. Iran IS and has been the largest state sponsor of terrorism for the last 25 years. Now they are working toward nukes. They cannot be allowed to have nukes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

Could someone please remind me, what was the last country that tried to infleunse Irans leaders... and ended up messing things so badly that radical islamists rose to power...

---

So you are saying this is all the US's fault and the US has a responsibility to fix it? Or are you saying we should leave it be so that if Iran does get and use nukes, then we can ultimately blame the US for that too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Do you actually have a point?

---

yes. refer to my original post in this thread -- i think APax was oversimplifying when counter-arguing someone else's point that our military is stretched pretty thin already.

if that's nitpicking, oh well. by the way, plenty of static targets need boots on the ground for strikes, be they in afghanistan or iraq. and although it was a israeli job, last year's strike on the suspected syrian nuclear facility (operation orchard) also comes to mind.

it's really not that big of a deal, but honestly, do you really think we can foresee the potential consequences if we obliterate iranian nuclear infrastructure? i'd rather not find out and i think diplomatic pressure needs to continue. i can't remember, but have they detonated a nuclear device yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roo

Remind me again. What was the last nation that Iran invaded?

---

Well, that's the sneaky thing about nuclear weapons, if one has nuclear weapons, one does not need to invade a country to destroy a city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. One only has to attack the country, and as MTT pointed out Iran has been attacking other countries in the region for quite some time now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

Your leaders and those of you who elected them made this happen, not pinko commies and liberals.

---

What are you fucking kidding???? Us having to single handely fight Soviet communists and European liberals for half a century has nothing to do with current day problems in Central Asia and the Mid-East???? Are you just fucking stupid or have you never read a history book before?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hemas

You and a lot of other people... But oddly enough, most of the "injustice" in the world that the US seems to fight, is actually a product of their own fumblings... Happened with Iran, Iraq and with Afganistan...

---

You know I really fucking hate it when you and your pussy European neighbors act all high and mighty while you enjoy a free lunch off our defense. You fucking pussies weren't even willing or able to stop ethnic cleansing on your own fucking continent! Don't act high and mighty when you don't even give a shit about women and children being slaughtered across the street from you in Bosinia. I fucking hate Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Well, that's the sneaky thing about nuclear weapons, if one has nuclear weapons, one does not need to invade a country to destroy a city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. One only has to attack the country, and as MTT pointed out Iran has been attacking other countries in the region for quite some time now.

---

...inviting retaliation and mutual destruction. Yeah - they want that.

The reason why any country, including Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea, want nuclear bombs is to be taken seriously by the original Atomic Powers -- the permanent members of the Security Council. Nobody has ever used a nuclear weapon for its intended purpose other than the United States.

If you are worried about suitcase nukes igniting in the heartland then the Russian isolationism and shift toward totalitarianism should worry you much more than anything else. There are 'stans out there with nukes, in the control of their mafias most likely,and none of them have been mentioned yet.

This message is hidden because Big Balls is on your ignore list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

...inviting retaliation and mutual destruction. Yeah - they want that.

---

Expecting rational behavior out of fatalistic religious fanatics who consider it an honor to die for their faith doesn't seem like the safest bet, and considering there are 100,000's of lives on the line it's not a bet I am willing to take.

Quote:

---

The reason why any country, including Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea, want nuclear bombs is to be taken seriously by the original Atomic Powers -- the permanent members of the Security Council.

---

I disagree about Israel's motivation but do agree that that's why any secular country who is interested in gaining status in the world community wants nukes. The ruling party in Iran is not secular and I doubt the Mullahs are overly concerned with gaining status among the Infidels. Maybe I'm wrong about this but to date I haven't really seen any evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

---

Nobody has ever used a nuclear weapon for its intended purpose other than the United States.

---

I've heard this mentioned often and it reminds me of a book I read several years ago called The Geography of Thought by Richard E Nisbett. It contrasted the thinking habits of Easterners(Asians) and Westerners(European and N. Americans). In one of the studies the participants were given information about different situations and then asked to predict the future course of events.

When a situation had been stable for a long time the Asian participants consistently expected change and the longer the situation had existed in a stable state the more sure they were that change would happen very soon. But Westerners were just the opposite. The longer a situation had remained stable the more sure they were that it would continue unchanged.

I think this is a bad assumption to make. Nothing happens until it happens. The future is not constrained to only repeat the patterns of the past.

Quote:

---

If you are worried about suitcase nukes igniting in the heartland then the Russian isolationism and shift toward totalitarianism should worry you much more than anything else. There are 'stans out there with nukes, in the control of their mafias most likely,and none of them have been mentioned yet.

---

Not so worried about the suitcase nukes. Thinking more of Israel. Besides, the USSR might have dissolved but the mafias didn't and the last thing they want is for the city they live in to be vaporised by a retaliatory strike from us. Not that we would, but they don't know that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tippster

...inviting retaliation and mutual destruction. Yeah - they want that.

---

IF you know where it came from.

IF they attack another nuclear power and didn't disarm them in the strike.

If you are talking about an allied response, only if the originally attacker has no ability to check your retaliation with their own second strike OR with prepositioned weapons.

Quote:

---

The reason why any country, including Pakistan, India, Israel, and North Korea, want nuclear bombs is to be taken seriously by the original Atomic Powers -- the permanent members of the Security Council. Nobody has ever used a nuclear weapon for its intended purpose other than the United States.

---

You have little understanding of this subject. I'll try and help.

First, EVERYONE who has a nuke has used it for its intended purpose except South Africa. The intended purpose, excepting WWII when everyone else thought of them as just bigger bombs, is as a strategic deterrent. Any power presently in possession, except NK, has nuclear weapons intended primarily as a deterrent. NK is a trickier subject as it is more of a coercive piece/bargaining chip (and it gives KJI a hardon).

South Africa never told anyone they had the bombs until after they got rid of them.

These other states don't have nukes to "be taken seriously" by the original atomic club except maybe India (who was trying to check China). Pakistan's bombs are to check India. Israel's bombs are to check it's numerically superior nonnuclear neighbors (who have chemical and biological weapons).

Iran's motivation is, if you assume a rational actor, to give it a freer hand to act even more aggressively in the region and the world. If you assume a less than rational actor (since they have religious fanatics at the helm) would be to bring out the hidden imam (armageddeon) or at least distribution to some of the many terror groups that Iran supports. NONE of these scenarios are good for the free world.

Quote:

---

If you are worried about suitcase nukes igniting in the heartland then the Russian isolationism and shift toward totalitarianism should worry you much more than anything else. There are 'stans out there with nukes, in the control of their mafias most likely,and none of them have been mentioned yet.

---

Not working weapons...

This thread has successfully attracted the scariest people in this community. The way that nuclear war and the technologies of murder excite a few of you is frightening.

That said, carry on with your war boners.

Where's The Nuclear Option with all those pictures of 'dos beautiful nuclear explosionses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 13

by the way, plenty of static targets need boots on the ground for strikes

---

Your "boots on the ground" terminal controllers are used primarily for close air support (verbally cued and laser designated), and dynamic battlefield environments. Of course, for close air support, you want someone actually directing the strike aircraft.

Furthermore, there are alternative methods to "acquire" tactical targets including satellite imagery, and JSTARS.

You don't necessarily need someone in the terminal phase for big, stationary targets, such as a nuke facility that is disgusted as a cement factory, etc.

JDAM's are good to within 13 meters, a PIP to within 3.

CALCM's are good to within something like 3.5 meters, and I suppose TLAM's are about the same.

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

Since US intervention went so well in Somalia.. US "interventions" around the globe have never really worked out, have they?

---

Somalia was a failure of the gutless American president, not the military. Since our presidents change so often that is an important distinction to make.

I didn't care to put out the effort to dig this up when you originally posted this but since AstroPax did the work in another thread, I'll just quote him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroPax

You left out some other recent military actions. Military failures?

- Grenada: 1983, Operation Urgent Fury.

- Libya: 1986, Operation El Dorado Canyon.

- Panama: 1989, Operation Just Cause.

- Persian Gulf War: 1990-1991, Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

- Kosovo: 1999, Operation Allied Force

About Afghanistan: 2001 - present, I have some friends that are stationed at Bagram. They are kicking ass, contrary to your insinuation. What makes you think that the military actions in Afghanistan are a failure?

About the Philippines: 2001 - present, not widely reported, but we are in fact in the southern Philippines working successfully with their armed forces against Abu Sayyaf.

About Iraq: 2003 - present, in case you haven't noticed, not a whole lot of news being reported about Iraq lately. That's because the surge is actually working. Funny thing how the mainstream media won't report, for the most part, the good news. I wonder why?

---

I don't know where you get your education/information from arild, but wherever it is you should seriously consider finding a new source. This is not the first time you have run off at the mouth and demonstrated how little you know about the world you live in and how it came to be the way it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Somalia was a failure of the gutless American president, not the military.

---

...and a dumbass SECDEF, Les Aspin, who refused to approve the request of the U.S. commander in Somalia for tanks, armored vehicles and AC-130 gunships for his forces. This was before the Battle of Mogadishu.

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arild

Since US intervention went so well in Somalia.. US "interventions" around the globe have never really worked out, have they?

---

Worked out pretty well for Kosovo (and by proxy, Montenegro) after Europe dropped the ball....

Have you done any reading on what has been going on in the Philippines? I suggest you choose your examples/words a bit wiser.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mr_gyptian

Arty, our diplomatic superiors:rolleyes2 from Britain, France and Germany have been speaking with Iran for how long?

but you're right we should wait. The question is whether or not we go with the failed North Korea playbook or with the failed UN playbook.

---

What I'm saying is we have only two viable options. Either we continue diplomacy or we do nothing. A "limited military action" is not a viable option. If you think it's going to remain limited, I have a bridge to sell you.

Iraq cannot currently defend it's own borders, nor can the US Military presence there. Heck, we can barely contain the shitshow within the country. Considering the fact the whole world knows this, I'd say it's a good bet Iran does also. Also consider the fact that said airstrike will probably originate from a US airfield in Iraq. What's the natural course of action when someone attacks you from next door, you go over there and beat their ass so they either can't do it again or don't want to.

Let me put this another way. Remember what happened when China warned the US not to cross the 38th parallel, but we did anyway. Now imagine we had just said, "Fuck it, let's forget about North Korea entirely and just go straight for Red China." Attacking Iran would amount to one of the greatest blunders in history.

But hey, let's do it anyway just because...

And just to lighten this up a bit:
"You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

What's the natural course of action when someone attacks you from next door, you go over there and beat their ass so they either can't do it again or don't want to.

---

The Iranians would beat our ass? Yeah, just like the Iranians kicked the Iraqi asses during the Iran-Iraq war?

You really don't have a clue.

The Iranian Air Force (very weak to begin with) would be decimated within a matter of hours, as would the Iranian Navy. Lacking air power, how in the world would you expect the Iranian Army to move, anywhere, except east?

I don't think you understand the magnitude of force that could potentially be delivered against Iran. One think tank study I read estimates that if the US (without Israel) attacked Iran, right now, there would be AT LEAST 10,000 strikes within a very short period of time, with the primary objective of neutralizing any potential for an effective Iranian counter-attack.

Not a viable option? Think again.

-Astro

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

A "limited military action" is not a viable option.

---

Is this your gut feeling or do you have some reasoning/information you are using to form an opinion?

Quote:

---

Heck, we can barely contain the shitshow within the country.

---

You are mistaking Whack-A-Mole for fighting a war.

Quote:

---

you go over there and beat their ass so they either can't do it again or don't want to.

---

Exactly how do you expect Iran to do this with conventional forces? Iraq and Iran duked it out for years with neither side able to make any real progress against the other. You saw what we did to the Iraqi military and how long it took. Yet you fear Iran? That doesn't make any sense.