The Folly of Attacking Iran

[bdbdbd]

Griffin said:

disolitude said:
Do you guys think American troops have the desire to go and fight another war at this point. I mean, the bullshit Iraq has turned in to and all... plus Bush is on his way out anyways. He won't be able to get congress to approve this unless Iran gives him a damn good reason to attack. And thus far I don't see one.
Bush had his swing at good international policy in the 8 years he was in the office and he missed it by a mile. Once he's gone things will get better with Iran.

 If and when US troops get on the ground in Iran they will not be fighting like they were in Iraq, they will not be going door to door looking for retards hiding weapons under there beds.  They will set-up defensive postions in Iran, Iraq or Afghanistan and launch massive air attacks around the clock from bases in the US, Europe, South Pacific, middle east, air craft carries and cruise missiles from subs and battleships.

The plan for Iraq was a good plan, but the US was too busy fighting the war the insugents wanted and not fighting the war they wanted.  Saddam and the Iraqi government just had to accept the rules of the UN and not their run around with the weapons inspectors, saddam could of stepped down and allowed the UN to do its job and the war would of never happened.

I doubt things will get better with Iran, they will never change their minds and say their was a holocaust and that Jews don't need to be wiped from the planet, and allow UN inspectors to vist their Nuclear planets and Nuclear facilities.

If you are talking about the second war, that's what Iraq did. They let the UN inspectors do they job. UN did their job and said there are no WMD. If you want to think how USA would attack Iran, it would be pretty similar with how they attacked Iraq in the early 90:s. This time the technological gap wouldn't be what it was back then. The reason why USA got so easy victory was because of their supreme tech, mainly the GPS guided missiles. Yes, i agree, the possible attack would be massive tactical missile and air strikes and they succeed, then would be the turn for landtroops. But nothing guarantees they succeed and Iran can always strike back. And if you want to justify by moral a country in middle-east which should be attacked, it would be Israel. And the brits were sent to scout are Iranians aware. They were and had followed the british movements, waiting for them to cross border. It's pretty obvious that it was just a publicity stunt, which Ahmadinejad pulled out pretty damn good. @eab: The reason why armies can "respect the civilian", is todays technology makes it possible up to a certain point. Besides, it's much more efficient. After all, the only way to "respect civilian" is not to fight. Since you mentioned the WW2 bombings, it basically is equal to shooting GPS guided missiles to strategic locations. That's as close as you could get with the tech that time. I think nobody is saying that USA couldn't take Iran out, the point is that can USA take the cost of it. They could nuke the whole Iran down tomorrow if they want to, but the cost would be too much. They could put their whole army with everything they got to Irans border and attack ignoring losses, but expect high casualties. They could attack Iran with everything they got by air from sea, but expect few carriers becoming fishfood. Nothing new in the video. Didn't watch it, but by your description. But yes, getting a diplomatical solution is the best thing to do in the situation.