Now Iran?!?!

[NewTeaBag]

Designating Iran as one of the "state sponsors of terror" is one thing. Agree or disagree with it but at least there is a prima facie evidence it is true.

Designating the most professional and well trained segment of their armed forces as a "terroist orginazation" is approaching absolute ludicrousity. Small elements of the republican gaurd surely do provide some level of support for pro Iranian/Shia insurgents groups in Iraq. This by no means should comdemn the whole force. Just in te same way that rouge elements of the US Military conducted their own shenanigns in Nicaragua and numerous other places shouldn't condemn the entire US Military.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

But after another major terrorist attack the political climate won't be the current one. What may change due to the experience in Iraq is strength of a worldwide coalition and a change of strategy, not necessarily to nukes but to sustained air attacks and MOABs that level vast areas followed by a real sealing off of the borders.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

But after another major terrorist attack the political climate won't be the current one. What may change due to the experience in Iraq is strength of a worldwide coalition and a change of strategy, not necessarily to nukes but to sustained air attacks and MOABs that level vast areas followed by a real sealing off of the borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Iranian Navy and it's coastal defence forces and it's air force would sit idle whilst any sort of heavy bombing campaign was going on over Iran.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

But after another major terrorist attack the political climate won't be the current one. What may change due to the experience in Iraq is strength of a worldwide coalition and a change of strategy, not necessarily to nukes but to sustained air attacks and MOABs that level vast areas followed by a real sealing off of the borders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Iranian Navy and it's coastal defence forces and it's air force would sit idle whilst any sort of heavy bombing campaign was going on over Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

and you dont think we can take them out with minimal loss?

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]

and you dont think we can take them out with minimal loss?

[/ QUOTE ]

They do have state of the art 80s Russian weaponry.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad none of the arguments against invasion is that it is wrong.

[NewTeaBag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad none of the arguments against invasion is that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad you don't support your one line posts with any sort of discussion.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think that the USA government wont go into Iran? Bush has been hinting at this since 911. If a Republican gets elected in 2008, any terrorist attack against the USA will probably result in a attacks on Iran.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't say they won't, BUT, militarily it's a WHOLLY different escapade. I wrote a lengthy post about the complications months back but can't find via search. Let's just say the picture includes destroyed aircraft carriers (7000 dead in one shot along with the $5B strateic asset caput) casualties on a scale that make the mounting death toll in Iraq look tiny and insignificant, not to mention a serious threat to the world's oils supply as most of it has to transit the Straight of Hormuz, right by good old Iranian shores.

Conventionally it could be done, but the cost in assets, lives, and economic disaster, make it a far less likely undertaking, especially in the current political climate within the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

Too bad none of the arguments against invasion is that it is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because thats not an argument unless you can prove that its "wrong", which you can't since "wrong" is subjective.