War with Iran: spell it out.

[Exsubmariner]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I don't think this question can be answered because "war with Iran" can mean so many things. If we decided to fight a proxy war like we did in Afganistan then I think the numbers could be very low. If a war with Iran ignites an escalation into into a WW3 senario involving China, Russia, Pakistan, India, North Korea, Syria, Turkey, and Europe then I think the highest estimate above is too low by atleast a factor of ten maybe by a factor of a hundred. In 2002 the Congress approved the use of nuclear weapons by the military in preemptive moves. What if the only way to bomb the nuclear sites is to use nukes and we go ahead and do it and Russia, China, and North Korea panic and all hell breaks loose?


[/ QUOTE ]

You are of course right about the above. To clarify my estimates, however, I was considering a conventional campaign which does not stall out the way the Iraqi invasion did. I was considering a fight against every man, woman, and child who could defend the country city by city, mountain pass by mountain pass, and having to destroy the entire Iranian military. It would not be some poor army depending on poppy sales like in Afghanistan. We are talking about a well funded and trained military with a domestic supply of oil. This army has experience defending it's terrain against an invasion. My estimates of Iraqi deaths include indirect deaths due to loss of electricity, water supply, food distribution, sanitation and medical care. This is also an attack against a "Muslim Republic," not some secular dictator like Iraq. This would be more of a magnet for a real Jihad movement, not just Al Queada recruits coming to kill Americans. So you have to also kill every rich Saudi 19th cousin to the crown who wants to live the life of jihad. No doubt about it, this scenario is the toughest I can envision short of all out WW3 breaking out. In which case, all bets are off.

[twowords]

[ QUOTE ]
There have been estimated 30,000 to 100,000 total Iraqi deaths since the invasion. There have been 2000 American soldiers killed. That means we have caused Iraqi's and foriegn fighters to die at anywhere from 15-50 to 1. This has been consistent with previous casualty ratios in Korea, Vietnam, and Gulf War 1.



[/ QUOTE ]

You include Iraqi civilian deaths in your calculation of our kill ratio? Hah little do those terrorists who bomb Iraqi police stations know that they are merely padding our "stats." If you actually thought that we may have killed 100,000 insurgents and terrorists, then you are out of touch with reality.

[Exsubmariner]

See below. I am including indirect casualties as well.

[LadyWrestler]

The only sensible answer to this question is, of course, I do not know...and neither does anyone else. I do know (from history) that appeasement does not work with terrorists...and so do many Democrats...if they are as intelligent as many of them seem to be. Al Gore lost and John Kerry lost...George W, Bush is president, the Republicans are in charge of the White House, have a majority in Congress...and may gain a majority in the High Court as well...and that obviously upsets many (whose party was in charge of all 3 for most of the last 60 years). Be that as it may, we were attacked, our country is in danger, and some people really should give some thought to dredging up at least pretend shadows of patriotism for their country and give the appearance of being behind their president and other leaders (or at least stop verbally comforting our enemies) during this terrible war.

I am a Republican, and proud of it. I do, however, believe in the checks and balances a two party system preserves. I fear the Dems are in the early stages of losing their place in that type of system altogether. I do not know what party, if any, would replace them if that happened, but it is a scary thought...at least to me.

As with all things, in a free society, there is a time for attacking the party in power. This is not that time, as intelligent Democrats who really care about freedom should know. Intelligent and brave Dems need to rise to a level where their ideals, and their party, can survive.

Have a great day!

[QuadsOverQuads]

[ QUOTE ]
The only sensible answer to this question is, of course, I do not know...and neither does anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then give me your best estimate.

Can a war with Iran be waged for $5? $5 thousand? $5 billion?

Bear in mind that Iran is MUCH more heavily armed than Iraq, and that the Iraq war has already run up a quarter trillion in government debt plus over 2000 dead US soldiers.

That is simply for reference.

Military invasions aren't free or effortless affairs. Nor are the subsequent occupations, as Iraq has once again demonstrated.

The point being: if you have absolutely no idea what the cost of invading another country is going to be, then I would suggest that you need to think a little harder about the question before you blindly commit your support to the idea.

Somebody's kid is going to fight that war.

Somebody's taxes are going to pay for it.

Think about that, then give me at least a ballpark idea of what you expect the price of such a war to be. Doesn't have to be perfect, but throwing up your hands and professing ignorance isn't going to rally the rest of us to your cause.

Give me your best numbers, so the rest of us can weigh your plans accordingly.


q/q

[Roybert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
$ cost of conducting war on Iran - In excess of 2 Trillion

Lives lost in war with Iran - Innumerable. Far less of ours than theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of loss of life, you're at "innumerable" and "far less". Can you give me some actual rough numbers of what you expect? Are we talking dozens dead? Millions? Let's get down to some actual expectations here. How many Iranian deaths? How many American deaths? As I said, spell it out.


q/q

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on dude, don't you think that you are asking the impossible?

However, I am sure it would be far less than what you lib's estimated for Iraq. Remember the "tens of thousands" that those in your party estimated?


"A liberal is a man too broadminded to side with himself in a quarrel."

[/ QUOTE ]
Tens of thousands of people have died in Iraq. Why turn every issue into a partisan bitching contest?

[/ QUOTE ]

In his defense, his point was well sourced. I mean, it was in quotes. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]