The Iranian government actually does like current Iraq. A lot of the current Iraqi leaders were exiles who lived in iran during Sadam Hussein's rule. Iran's ruler just got back from a visit to Iraq... like today...

Iran was happy the US took out Sadam Hussein. They just don't give the US any credit because well... America and Iran hate each other.

Infact.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7274199.stm

Sure they may have trouble down the line. But as of now...

That's why i'm not sure i buy the Iran supporting insurgents thing.  I'm sure some of it's army officals are happy that americans are being attacked, and they may be supporting the ones that are purely anti-american, but i don't see them supply any of the forces that would be there after the US left, the ones who would start a civil war. 

Any attacking of Iran's nuclear programs should be done exactly how things like this have been done in the past. Bombing of facilities with no use of ground forces... or at the most, startegic raids via superior air power to get in and out.

 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.

The US still lost the war, they admitted defeat and only gained a huge deficit from the war. Vietnam lost alot, maybe too much, but atleast they still ended up having control over their own country.

@Hus

The justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was that Saddam Hussein's government was building weapons of mass destruction.. which were an imminent threat to the US. The object was to take out Hussein's regime, which was accomplished very quickly. Surely you remember that? Iraq was supposedly invaded to destroy a dictatorship and its ability to make war. To be sure, helping the Iraqi people was part of the rhetoric but the major reason was the supposed WMDs. Over four thousand coalition soldiers and countless Iraqis have died. Nearly five years and $500,000,000,000 have been spent. For what?

Do you really think it would be a good idea to fight another war, for the exact same supposed reasons, against a larger, more populous nation?

Again, If Israel is attacked.. it has the right to defend itself. Quite frankly, the US and European nations have been bankrolling Israel since its founding in 1947. It has demonstrated, time and time again, to have a competent military and be able to hold its own against hostile neighbors. Why should the US send troops to help out Israel? What have they done to help the US?

This Is vey important.

I won't argue with you about war tactics as you clearly know more about that than me. I get lost in COD4 when i have to go around a tank lol...

But your thinking is a little too one dimensional. Thinking like that is the reason why Iran has nuclear facilities to begin with. 

Damn some of you are way to delusional about US military capability, especially Griffin.  You might want to read up on their defense capability, Russia pretty much sale them the best they got.

 I would have though you learned a lesson in Vietman, Soviet failure in Afganistan and your debacle in Iraq.

Let me just clear something up that most people seem to be confusing.

-Could the U.S. militarily take out Iran? Lol, hell yes.

-Could the U.S. stick around and police Iran like it is doing in Iraq? No. Well maybe but it would bloodier than Vietnam


Critics of the U.S. military see it's failures at policing Iraq and go ahead and say the US military sucks. Oh please, army are made and trained to kill other armies, they are not made to police a terrorist run state.
Critics say Napoleon and Hitler had armies that were more powerful and successful
than the US. I argue this, Hitler could simply carpet bomb entire cities and kill entire civilian populations. The U.S. spends billions and risks its soldiers lives to protect the civilians of enemy nations. Heck half the time an American soldier shoots an enemy and then 10 seconds later runs over and carries him to a hospital. This is a slight exaggeration but you get the point, part of the reason the US gets bogged down in these "policing wars" is because unlike Hitler or any of the large armies of past, the US can't simply kill everyone in the countries it invades... because my god if it was allowed to just kill anyone like the armies of past could (and thank god it can't) the U.S. would rip the Middle East to shreds.

 that is so stupid that i wonder if your are being serious or just screwing with people.

Iraq had 1.2 million ground troops with about 5,800 tanks, 5,100 other armored vehicles, and 3,850 artillery pieces made for impressive ground strength. With 750 fighters and bombers, 200 other aircraft, and elaborate missile and gun defenses, this was at the start of the Gulf war with the US. 

I also found numbers on the war with Iran and Iraq.