[aldo_14]

Is that a pet name?

[vyper]

Tight.

[Unknown Target]

Originally posted by Rictor
You're just jealous you can't participate



Looks like the Pentagon is denying it. And when they out of their way, and to such length, to deny allegations made by journalists, which they rarely do at all, that tells me something may be up.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/671eed44-6864-11d9-9183-00000e2511c8.html

There's always "something up". If they didn't say anything, there'd be "something up". The reason they're going out of their way to disprove the theories is that this is very serious, and it's not like they can just wave it off. They have to actively say that nothing's going on.


And Ghostavo: The reason they have such a big army is to defend themselves. If all you have is one giant bomb that'll blow both you and them up, wouldn't you want that as a last resort? The first resort is always to fight it out, and if that doesn't work, then maybe you'd use nukes. We are getting to a point where this situation might actually happen, but thus far, no one knows what would happen if a nuclear-wielding country was actually invaded.


EDIT: And Tiara, that argument you're starting is pretty dumb and unessesary..

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Unknown Target

EDIT: And Tiara, that argument you're starting is pretty dumb and unessesary..

It's just to reflect how equally dumb and unessecary that dickwaving contest is that was on about half a page back.

[Unknown Target]

Doesn't mean you have to comment on it

[Janos]

Originally posted by Tiara

It's just to reflect how equally dumb and unessecary that dickwaving contest is that was on about half a page back.

Praytell, what dickwaving contest? And if you found it so insultingly bad, why would you then proceed to derail the thread?

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Doesn't mean you have to comment on it

Errm, it's me we're talking about.

Anyway, let us not drag this topic off course any further.

[Unknown Target]

Yes, anyway.


The US will not attak Iran. It'd be suicidal, and they know it.

[pyro-manic]

I wish I could share your optimism....

[Janos]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
Yes, anyway.


The US will not attak Iran. It'd be suicidal, and they know it.

US Military could propably demolish the Iranian army pretty fast and seize their objectives with little difficulties - but nowhere near the Iraq war, Iran is much bigger and by no means level. Also, it is unlikely that US attack - be it airstrikes, small infiltration ops or full-scale invasion - would give Iran opposition the much-needed momentum to start a revolution by their own. Usually people rally against the invading parties.

The problem is not the military campaign itself, but rather what comes after that - that should be pretty clear to everyone by now. Tinfoil "ZOMG DRAFT" aside, US would have pretty ****ing immense problems if they really tried to invade and occupy Iran. Someone in another forum said roughly that by now every ME country knows how to defend against US - just open your arms and let the insurgency do it's work.

OK, why not just steamroll into Teheran, topple the government, retreat and declare "mission accomplished"? Well, even I believe that even though the neocons are apparently utterly ****ty in foreign politics, they have some idea of cause and effect.
Leaving a power vacuum in area like Iran is a Bad Idea. Chances are that after the collapse of government and following US retreat, those with most power (usually loyalists to former government, seeing as they often have the Army on the leash, make their grab for power. Theoretically removing the government COULD be the window of opportunity for the opposition, but realistically speaking it is unlikely. The result would be a nice mix of current Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan mixed - a nice new breeding ground for different fundamentalist forces, much like Iraq is now.

BTW, Iran declared that they could "repel an US attack" (source), but what that really means is open for debate. Some people think it's barely panic-filled boosting of national ego (THE AMERICAN DOGS ARE COMMITING SUICIDE BY HUNDREDS), some people think it as semiopen threat to use nuclear weapons if needed, some people don't think at all! Intriguing! Needless to say, using even tactical-level nuclear weapons would cause rather grave consequences to your average Iranian, as propable result would most likely be answering on the same scale.

[Unknown Target]

It's not because of Iran, Iran, while it has a sizable military, would be simply squashed from the air by the US tech superiority, and the massive mechanized army would roll in afterwards.

You were right on one point, though: What would happen afterward would be suicide. The US would lose everything, sactions would be imposed by the Western powers. The entire Middle East (barring probably Israel) would in some way or another declare war or fight against the US. China, North Korea, and other such areas would probably capitalize on the frenzy and launch their own attacks on the US and possibly her allies.
I'm tending to agree with my history teacher: It would basically be World War III.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by Janos


US Military could propably demolish the Iranian army pretty fast and seize their objectives with little difficulties

I wouldnt bet on it... in fact I'd be tempted to wager against it. I wouldnt. but I'd be tempted.

I have no doubt they would win eventually but I highly doubt it will be a "demolishing"

[Gank]

The US is having enough problems in Iraq even with the compliance of 80% of its 25 million people, it is NOT going to invade a country of near 70 million, the majority of whom hate the US, draft or no draft.It cant, plain and simple.

And those of you who think aerial bombardment is the **** need to read up a little bit on how effective it actually was in kosovo and Iraq.

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by Tiara

You mean in the ChopMachine™ Mk.II?

OUCH!

Other than that, I have nothing to contribute.

Probably better that way.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Gank
The US is having enough problems in Iraq even with the compliance of 80% of its 25 million people, it is NOT going to invade a country of near 70 million, the majority of whom hate the US, draft or no draft.It cant, plain and simple.

And those of you who think aerial bombardment is the **** need to read up a little bit on how effective it actually was in kosovo and Iraq.

What he said. I think you're being overly dramatic UT. Western powers imposing sanctions? China launching an attack? Get real.

The US is having trouble fighting against an insurgency in a country of 25 million, which has spent 13 years under sanctions. What do you think it would be like to fight a much larger population, better armed (since the obvious tactic would be for the government to distrubte the arms prior to an invasion) and with more support internationally (both greater opposition to the war and greater support for Iran from the likes of China, not probably not militarilly.)

[Unknown Target]

China wouldn't launch an all-out attack, they would slowly start to subvert the US's power structures.

And the EU already imposed sanctions, which were just recently lifted (and they're threatening to put them back on). It's nowhere near inconcievable.

[Janos]

I really, really doubt that EU, China, India, Russia or any bigger country would impose anything bigger than a slap-on-the-wrist sanctions, simply due to economics. US is pretty vital - at least for now - to all of them, and removing a player that large would have rather grave consequences for them. Iran might be important, at least to EU who wish to have at least SOME stability in the ME area, but it's not an EU member and a country we all love. People generally agree that Iran's government is a piece of **** that world should get rid of rather quickly, but usually the appreciated strategy is long-term change via peaceful coexistence and negotiations, with stick.
On the long run it's better to stay quiet than to sprout something stupid that I might be embarrased of in the future. US could beat Iran in TRADITIONAL SENSE (see: war), but the real problem would be the likely insurgence and PR hit that would occur afterwards. Sure, let's initiate the draft again! Although no one would support it - not the opposition, not those Reps who aim for the next elections, and definately not the population. Neither the military - the efficiency of US's military lies within it's experienced staff and soldiers. Just pushing more rifle grunts into the frontlines propably had no positive effect.

[Unknown Target]

That's not actually true, the real effeciency of the US military is it's experience in modern warfare. Coming late into the whole century, and both world wars (relatively speaking), the US never had it's cities devastated, and has the biggest production capability of any nation on the planet.

No, I say the real strength of the United States lies in her technology, numbers, and training.

It's not like when a US soldier is trained he's just "pushed into the field". That may be so in times of war, when soldiers are scarce and citizen soldiers are numerous, but since that's not the fact now, all our soldiers have gone through lots of training, and any future soldiers would have that same opportunity.

[Gank]

Umm, hate to burst peoples bubbles but the US military hasnt exactly got a great track record since ww2. The ability to bring more firepower than the other guy doesnt always win the war.

[Zarax]

Actually since WW2 their only clearly won conflict is the gulf war...