|
|
#11
08-15-2007, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ 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. 
|
|
#12
08-15-2007, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ 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 ] It won't matter what party is in office if they intend to stay in office. The American public has a short memory for pain, but reacts very strongly when that pain is first inflicted.
|
|
#13
08-15-2007, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ 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.
|
|
#15
08-15-2007, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ QUOTE ]
I think this whole article amounts to nothing. ... I think what it might be doing, with the whole classification deal, is to help in the upcoming election process. . [/ QUOTE ] Ah yes, the grand fun of destabilizing the world in order to scare people before elections. Such a noble country we live in.
|
|
#16
08-15-2007, 09:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ 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.
|
|
#17
08-15-2007, 09:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ 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.
|
|
#18
08-15-2007, 09:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ 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.
|
|
#19
08-15-2007, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ 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.
|
|
#20
08-15-2007, 09:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Now Iran?!?!
[ 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?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
