What WAR with IRAN will do for us..

@soadnot (1606)
Canada
October 13, 2007 9:26am CST
i was having a discussion with some people about iran.. here is the discussion.. now you can join.. i dont know what iran is trying to pull..but i am telling you now, if we go into iran, many many things will go wrong. 1) say goodbye to any hope of a student revolution. something like 60-70% of iranians are students under 20.. imagine when they get a little older and try to revolt.. an american invasion would destroy that. 2) iranian army is well trained, they are much much more advanced than the iraqi army, they are a force to be reckoned with. not to mention the "terrorist?" influences that they have in iraq and palestine.. and their allies like Syria and Venezuela will also do their best to keep america under wraps... not to mention the obvious opposition to the war that the Chinese and the Russians have with it.. and can we ever really trust those two countries? 3) the american army is stretched.. how can we occupy 3 countries? we dont have the numbers.. so we will need to resort to hiring mercenaries.. with our crappy economy.. taxes will go up blah blah blah.. then BAM! inflation.. lol.. so yea.. there is absolutely no chance that we are going to war with iran in anyway that will benefit the american people without giving up our civil liberties. and screwing up are economy.. on the other hand, looking at the economy, its about to collapse, so the elites of society may want to go to war.. to transfer money to the private industries.. and they are not obliged or required to follow any sort of law.. never mind international law.. if you really still think going to war with iran is a good thing.. i have no choice but to consider you "INSANE."
6 people like this
16 responses
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
17 Oct 07
Hello soadnot! I would tend to agree with most of what you have said except…, “there is absolutely ‘no chance’ that we are going to war with iran in anyway that will benefit the american people without giving up our civil liberties.” I don’t think that there is ‘absolutely no chance’ but I do think that it is improbable. I have written on this issue some 7 months ago and most of that still holds true. If you like you can read it here: http://www.mylot.com/w/discussions/901444.aspx I have also read other comments here and I would agree that America has sufficient military muscle to even attack China, let alone Iran. But, in military strategy, power and capability to attack isn’t the only thing considered for going to war. There are many more other parameters which affect the decision. You have underlined some of those factors and some I have covered in my discussion that I referenced above. One such factor and parameter is aftermath of war. However, I won’t agree with some naïve comments made here, that it will be like going in and coming out quickly, not only on American side but also from Iranian side. America sure can start the war but once started, it will not end on American terms and time of choosing. Iran will surely retaliate in it’s own terms and the war will convolute such that one event will cause another, for quite a while. America has a history of quick successes but strategic losses in long term in last 50-60 years. America celebrated the victory in over throwing democratically elected government in Iran in early 1950s and placing a Monarch there but what followed is nothing less than a strategic loss for America in Iran. Same happened in Vietnam, an apparent quick victory turned out to be a strategic loss claiming at least 60,000 of American servicemen lives. Same happened in it’s support in Afghanistan against Russia, surely Russia suffered a devastating defeat but all those who were provided with weapons, intelligence and support turned against America and America is suffering losses till date. History showed another moral, ethical and military defeat of America in Iran-Iraq war, where America put in stakes and Iraq did dominate the war for first two years but rest of the war was fought on Iraqi soil and despite American wishes and support, Saddam couldn’t win. America has also employed terroristic, immoral and unethical engagement in central and Latin America but today, it has turned to the left, again a strategic defeat. China is slowly creeping into the this Area despite the fact that it had earlier been declared a no go zone by America for other world powers. In conclusion, only military might is, in no way, the only defining point of success and victory in any conflict. Had it been so, USSR would never fall which was more strong, militarily, than America when it collapsed. I do consider it a very important factor though. People, sometimes, overestimate American abilities and underestimate Iranian capabilities. General Americans have no idea, what so ever, who they are dealing with. Iran is not Iraq…unlike Iraq, People in Iran are much more united and are with Government, ready to sacrifice their lives on one single order of their supreme leader whom many Iranians love more than their lives. Even non-Shias (Shias are majority Islamic denomination there) in Iran are very nationalistic, be it the other Islamic denomination, the Sunnis, or minorities like Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. Iranian supreme leader very rightly said a few years ago (probably 2002, I don’t remember exactly and these are not exact words, I am recalling from my memory) that “there is no threat, as of now, of any American attack until they break our unity which they will try to intrude into first. So the real threat, in coming years would be of maintaining unity not of any American ground forces.” He admitted the possibility of Air strikes but vowed to retaliate in any such event. And, when HE says something, people should be paying attention, really! And this, being known to American establishment, gives me reasons to believe that the strikes won’t be limited to just nuclear sites, it will be all out against almost all military installations as well as dual use facilities of Iran so as to reduce the impact of retaliation. Thus, the concept of surgical strike that too only on nuclear sites, is not at all in American interests and it won’t be conducive for the safety of it’s armed forces deployed in the region. On military and defense side, Iran has moved much ahead than what it was a decade ago, despite all the ever growing sanctions against Iran. First of all, a successful leadership policy of least American-Iranian interaction, which was actually initiated by America but Iranian leadership used it for their benefit, have made the intelligence information about Iran scarce. There is a considerable lack of intelligence information over Iranian facilities. For this very reason both Israeli and American generals, in military top brass, have voiced their opinions that even the surgical strikes won’t achieve the purpose. Israeli general spoke in the last quarter of last year saying that strike against nuclear installations against Iran won’t be effective and successful owing to lack of crucial intelligence. On the other side, The Sunday Times in UK reported on the basis of intelligence and defence sources, I quote, “SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece Moeover, Iranian facilities are well protected and well underground such that usual conventional weapons won’t work, So America will have to use some weapons, illegal under Geneva Convention, making it’s strikes illegitimate, though the action itself is/will be illegitimate. Iranians have already installed Tor-M1 missiles on it’s nuclear sites, though not enough against American military might but still they serve as a deterrence against Air-Strikes to some extent. They have also acquired torpedo missiles (Missile would be an illusive term here since these Torpedo don’t have effective guidance mechanism ); which, if fired with skill, No-Ship could escape them owing to their speed. They have also acquired Cruise and Anti-Ship missiles. The Iranian retaliatory plans that have come to my information are very intelligent and believe me that, if ever, America is going to attack Iran, America would suffer it’s greatest military loss after Vietnam in recent past. I am also seeing peoples’ uprising in the region in many Governments allied with America, like in Egypt, Jordan and especially in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is already in trouble will be doomed as will Afghanistan. In conclusion, American ‘surgical strikes’ is not a viable option, in my humble opinion, even if America initially goes for ‘surgical strikes’ it would not remain as such and, inevitably, there will be succession of hostilities on both sides. In the long run, it will be a great strategic defeat for American interest, not only in the region but through out the globe. Have my WORDS on it!!! I have been predicting on security issues of the region ever since the rise of Taliban in Afghanistan, some 12 years ago, and fortunately none of my predictions till date have failed be it downfall of Taliban, aftermath of 9/11, Afghanistan war, Iraq war, plan to divide Iraq, Israel-Hizbullah war or CIA manipulations. However I am not a prophet, I only use certain principles and my knowledge of the region. Any body can do it, any Tom, Dickk and Harry can do it who have modest knowledge of the region, it’s populace and security issues. Principles that I use aren’t secret either, they are universal. I only know that any unfair means, any manipulation, any injustice, and any illegitimate treatment can never give fruitful and peaceful results…Violence breeds violence…any unnatural alliance is bound to fall…Human are great, basically, ethically and morally so any immoral, unethical and base action won’t be accepted in the long term. American foreign policy has been immoral, unethical, illegitimate, unjust and unfair for which America is paying now and she will surely pay a heavy price, in case Iran is attacked…You can have my words on it! Iran and Iranians have seen the worst times under American-Shah coalition and in Iran-Iraq war. They have lost over two million of their citizens. They have born the ever growing sanctions. Having seen all that, they are not afraid now, not at all! America can’t show them worst than what they have already seen and if they could sustain all that, they can sustain milder problems now. But, Do you think that fighting is the only way?!:-)
2 people like this
• United States
20 Oct 07
"Iran is not Iraq…unlike Iraq, People in Iran are much more united and are with Government, ready to sacrifice their lives on one single order of their supreme leader whom many Iranians love more than their lives." Do you really have any idea why the USA attack on Iraq was over so quickly? Apparently, you do not. Iraqi's were willing to die for their country. They quickly learned as the battle progressed that their dying made no difference. Once they saw they could die for nothing or stop fighting and live, the invasion was over. It will be the same in Iran, if it comes to that. Like yourself, I hope it does not.
1 person likes this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
20 Oct 07
:-) Hello redyellowblackdog, I hope to come back tomorrow to answer your post here. You are taking an assumption here which I'll address tomorrow. I just came to check if there is something new and it seems there are many things. I an preparng for an event tomorrow and hope to have that finished by tomorrow evening!
1 person likes this
@kamran12 (5555)
• Pakistan
21 Oct 07
Hello redyellowblackdog! "Iraqi's were willing to die for their country." True! Iraqis not only were but ARE willing to die for their country. However, if you conclude that their willingness to die for their country is/was equal to their willingness to die for Saddam Hussain, then you have a gross misperception. Saddam Hussain was hated by Shias of Iraq who are more than 60% of the country. Saddam Hussain was hated by Kurds (Sunnis) also, who make up around 20% of the country. I don't know how much support Saddam Hussain had among the remaining 20% of the population, but it is sure that he didn't have support and was hated by more than 80% of Iraqi population. Hate from the Kurds comes from Saddams' treatment of the Kurds and his use of WMDs against them, provided by US and aided by Europe. However the Hate from Shias was multifaceted. From desaceration of Holy Shia Shrines, killing of Shia clergy and ellite, brutal tactics against Shias in general and Shia leaders in particular, bulldozing Shia revered clergy members' graves etc. Far from dying for Saddam Hussain, majority of the population wanted him removed/killed. Saddam wasn't a brave leader or an intelligent tactician at all. He was popularized for his war against Iran which he fought on the behest of Major world Powers with their support. Over $40 billion, Small weapons aid from Russia and China, Chemical and biological weapons and dual use materials from America and Europe. Financial services from some European bank and all. Even then, He couldn't win a war over Iran. Iran fought alone and indigenously, and all the world powers combined, couldn't make Iraq win over Iran in 8 years. They not only couldn't win over Iran, but after 2 years of fight, Iran remained on dominant side beside world's Material, Moral, Diplomatic and Political support for Saddam Hussain. All this, despite the fact that much of Iranian military hardware was not useable owing to the fact that it lacked spare parts and materials. Iran didn't have specialized professional force either, to keep the Military hardware running. If you know, all the military equipment provided by America during the reign of Shah was to be maintained by American Engineers and work force because Iranians didn't have required education and skills. All of above rendered much of Iranian military equipment useless. Iran didn't either have skilled and experienced military leadership. The war was led by militia type officers and voluntary fighters, including the current spiritual leader of Iran Ayatullah Khamenie. Despite all that lacking and weakness on Iranian part and international strength and support on Saddam’s part couldn’t make Iran Lose in 8 years of War. So what do you think made Iran resilient against almost, virtually, all of the world??? It was unity and determination in Iranian Population which made Iran, “Not lose” and which made Iran “be dominant” after two years of War till it’s end. “It will be the same in Iran, if it comes to that.” I have said before that…I quote! “I would agree that America has sufficient military muscle to even attack China, let alone Iran. But, in military strategy, power and capability to attack isn’t the only thing considered for going to war. There are many more other parameters which affect the decision.…..One such factor and parameter is aftermath of war.” While I certainly agree, as I said above, that American Military might is over whelming, there is no escape from this fact for anyone. If any body denies this reality, he/she isn’t informed about the technological advances and military assets of America. Yet, again, as I said that having sufficient Military Might isn’t the only thing seen in a planning for war, neither it is the only deciding factor. US administrations had a habit of miscalculating and underestimating enemies’ strengths and strategy owing to either lack of it’s knowledge or if known, it’s unwillingness to accept that knowledge. Why do you think America hasn’t attacked Iran as yet? Opposition to America is far less than what it was in case of Iraq. France and Germany are too, riding the boat with America. So, why this lesser pressure hasn’t yet moved America? Why do you think that Israeli general said that Strikes against Iran won’t be successful and effective. Why, if true, has 5 American generals among top military brass signaled resignation, should Iran be attacked? Why do you think that Central Command has expressed concerns in communications with Pentagon about the vulnerability of American forces in gulf region, in the event of war against Iran, especially after recent Iranian exercises, described as professional and accurate? While I don’t have a doubt about American ability to attack Iran, I don’t have a doubt either, that it will be devastating for America itself in many ways. And, I do hope that it doesn’t happen. My hope is not only for the good of Iran and Iranians but also for America and Americans.
1 person likes this
@ElicBxn (60894)
• United States
13 Oct 07
I didn't have a BIG problem, a problem, but not a big one, going into Afganistan. I did have a big problem with going into Iraq. I'm absolutely opposed to messing with Iran.
2 people like this
@Destiny007 (5820)
• United States
14 Oct 07
Since you are from Canada, I am curious about the "we" and "our economy" since we already know that Canada would not be involved in the first place. No one to my knowledge is seriously considering an attack on Iran at the present time, so I really fail to see the point of this discussion. Since it is here, lets lay it out for you. In the event of an attack on Iran, the Army or any other ground forces most likely would not be used, as it would be consisting of bombing missions from the air. The Iranian airforce would be destroyed in a very short time with little casualties to the US forces. It would consist of military targets, and most likely any nuclear facilities, and it would be swift and devastating. Our forces would be quickly in and out again, and there would be none of this nation building crap like what is going on in Iraq, nor would there be any concerns about stability. Reagan sank their navy, and that can be done again, because they are no match for us in that regard either. As I said, no one is seriously considering an attack on Iran other than the normal contingency plans... or if they are considering it, they sure aren't talking about it. You give Iran too much credit, and the power of the US military too little. A war in Iran would be a full scale no holds barred affair, and there is no military capable of surviving an all out attack by US forces.
1 person likes this
14 Oct 07
Anything that affects the US economy affects other nations economies also. Quickly in and out is what they said about Iraq. If we attack any more Islamic states we're going to see thousands more Islamic resistance fighters popping up because that's how they see it, the west V's the Islamic nations. It's not like we don't have enough of them fighting us already. There may be no military that could survive against the US forces. But militaries arn't the only problem. The insurgents don't adhere to the geneva convention.
1 person likes this
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
14 Oct 07
1) nationalism is stupid 2) canada = USA.. well, cali + newyork anyways 3) im an american citizen.. i thought that would be pretty much self explanitory. i beg to differ.. "all options are on the table" you really think the US would not take over the oil resorces? so we would just go and kill innocent people and get out? lol..wow, this is the last thing they would do. just as we have advanced..so have they, do not underestemate the enemy, its better to overestimate..SunTzu knew this.. and im pretty sure china could withstand it.. but is what your considering also known as genocide? killing everyone, and getting out?
2 people like this
• United States
14 Oct 07
My you really are uninformed aren't you? You are aware that we are capable of delivering a payload down a chimney, and have done so? What is this nonsense of killing everyone and genocide? Any targets would be military installations and nuclear facilities. The US is not in the habit of making war on civilians, although sometimes a few get in the way. That is the way of war. Genocide does not even enter into the picture and is a nothing more than a poor attempt by you to muddy the water. Our weapons systems are extremely accurate, so your objections and assumptions are laughable. Know this... if the decision is ever made to attack Iran, whether as a coalition or alone... once that decision is made, then it will be done... and it will be decisive and devastating to the intended targets.
1 person likes this
@MrNiceGuy (4147)
• United States
2 Nov 07
Your questions by number: 1) Students caused the Iranian revolution of 1979 in the first place..... der. 2) So danger means we shouldn't do anything to stop them from being more dangerous? 3) mercenaries are hired by private companies and contractors.
1 person likes this
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
3 Nov 07
1) no... everyone didnt like the shah, you know why? because the americans and british put him in.. guess who brought in the ayatollah. 2) they are not a threat to any western body, isreal can beat them easily.. im just saying, it would be a longer war which would involve other nations as well. 3) paid for by American tax money.
2 people like this
@MrNiceGuy (4147)
• United States
6 Nov 07
students brought in the ayatollah, the embassy takeover where US citizens were held catpive for 444 days was ALL students. students historically, are usually a catalytic point of revolution, but in 79 students were the reason the ayatollah came to power. He wasn't even in the country at that time. And look where that got Iran....
1 person likes this
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
7 Nov 07
the british and the french brought in the ayatollah.. where was he when the revolution was happening?
2 people like this
@Aussies2007 (5339)
• Australia
24 Oct 07
Wow... no offence... but when I read this dicussion... it sound like a bunch of teenagers arguing over nonsense. To answer your questions... 1) The Iran government is run by a bunch of extremists religious fanatics of the same blood than the taliban and any other terrorist. If we were not going to allow Saddam Hussein to have a few missiles and some nerve gaz... I fail to see how we could allow some mad people to have a nuclear bomb. 2) China is not a treat to us anymore... as it has its act together and wants to be part of our economy. Russia however is another story as it is still unstable and could be re-taken over by its military. 3) The mother of all war... we heard it all before... twice. War today is fought from the air. The one who has air supremacy is the winner. And the west is the only one who has air supremacy. 4) America's economy strives on war. Its whole economy depends on it. America has been at war every day since Pearl Harbor. When Bush spend a billion on war... it is to pay for military equipment which is manufactured in America... and to pay military personel... who spend their salary in America. 5) America should be broke after the billions it has spent in Iraq. But Iraq is not the cause of America's problem. The problem is greed from the banks. Because some people still believe that greed is good. 6) The Iranians students had 30 years to overthrow their government... and they did not. Just like we gave 10 years to the Iraqis people to overthrow Saddam Hussein... and they did not. 7) Going to war with Iran... is not about benefiting America... it is about keeping stability in the world and prevent a third world war... or rather... a nuclear war. Giving a nuclear bomb to a country which sponsor terrorism would be insane indeed. You are the one who is insane. 8) If indeed Iran is the major sponsor of terrorism... removing the source might be the solution to put an end to terrorism.
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
3 Nov 07
1. religion is used to appease the people, those people are too smart to believe in that BS. 2. lol...china and russia run OFFENSIVE military practices together.. what does that tell you? 3. they gota land sooner or later.. 4. its not AMERICA that is thriving on it, its the banks and the private sectors. 5. i dont get your point.. 6. they already had a revolution, it takes alot for a second one.. 7. iran only has ONE oil refinery... what does that tell you? and your telling me they are spending money on nukes? lol.. yea right.. 8. iran sponsors hezbolah... look at who america sponsors around the world ..
2 people like this
@jennybianca (12914)
• Australia
14 Oct 07
Although I detest the Iranian President, a man who says that his country have no Gays (because they are killed) & he does not believe the holocaust occured, I would seriously think that the US can not be involved in any more wars at the moment. The Iraq War is bad enough for the tropops already there, resources are being streched, & besdides, our Country would just follow the US if it went to war in Iran. However, significant world pressure needs to be brought on this man. There needs to be non-invasion way of capitulating him from power.
1 person likes this
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
14 Oct 07
he thinks the holocaust is overrated, and says why palestinians need to pay for it.. and he thinks palestinians should get a referendum.. it kinda makes sense what he is saying tho..
2 people like this
@aries_0325 (3062)
• Philippines
2 Jan 08
I think if that will happen, many poor people around the world will suffer a heavy burden specially in the price of commodities. I will say this because everytime they are a conflict in the middle east. The price of crude oil will go up. If the price of crude oil will up, then the price of all basic commodities in the market will go up simultaneously. And that is the big inflication of having a conflict in the middle east.
1 person likes this
@salam1 (1475)
• Malaysia
9 Dec 07
If US attacks Iran then this country will kill more innocent people. The family of this innocent people will pray for the destruction of US, whoever God is the pray of these innocent people will be heared. As a consequent, you will US will slowly dissolve maybe from inside. There will be unexplain economic and social problems. And dont forget there will be more unexplain natural catastropies will happen in US, will see..
1 person likes this
@segomi (43)
• United States
5 Nov 07
Let's hope that this country doesn't consider it anytime soon. Once Bush is out of office it may not happen. Unfortunately he has a way of being above the law and getting everyone all stirred up about how much we "Need" to protect ourselves. Then after all his bullcrap rhetoric about how if we don't go his way the whole world will end and it will be a Nuclear Disaster. All we're doing is just pissing off the world even more. So many people I talk to from foreign countries have such a bad image of us now. We're kind of like the bad house on the block now that none of the neighbors want around.
1 person likes this
@latinvari (192)
• Turkey
24 Oct 07
hey heey you have not to go to iran also you have not to go any country for war because if america go somewhere this country will has a civil war and they will be a hell and your stupid president (i m sorry ) i know irani peoples they don t afraid to die for country and they don t know to what is mean war they know just jihad do you know what is jihad jihad is war for your religion in Islamic system and in the Islam culture if you die for your religion you will go to haven (offcourse in Islamic system ) i was have to few irani friends and all irani peoples r so dangereous Now iran has a nuclear weapons and i guess they can use this weapons because they don t afraid to kill or don t afraid to die. And do you know what if some irani s son die for country or religion they r don t cry or don t be sad for son because this son "Die For Allah" and and irani know son is go to hevaen. well america have to stay in america if america go somewhere i guess super power will be ower.
• United States
24 Oct 07
this is a good point but the average american will not decide if we go to war or not...these decesions will be done on a higher level and it does not matter what party is in office...there will be wars and rumors of war...but all the average citizen can hope for is that their family is not put in harms way...i agree war is "insane" but i don't see where we will get a chance to "Vote" on this issue. I did not vote for the current President either times but since he is the President I feel obligated to follow him but in reality what did we gain from the wars since WWII? I served in the Air Force during Viet Nam but I spent all my time in Michigan after trainning in Texas...the war then was like it is now..it just kept going from bad to worse with no end in sight...i think this war is worse then Viet Nam or Korea..this war will only bring everyone down...
1 person likes this
@xParanoiax (6998)
• United States
15 Oct 07
I agree, attacking Iran's not a good idea. Whether America does it, or Israel. It's not justified either. I certainly don't agree with the Iranian President's philosophy's. I personally believe he's a religious bigot, and probably a jerk...but it isn't up to me or anyone but the Iranian people to judge him for that. And "maybe" nuclear power in a few years isn't enough to start wiping out military groups and nuclear sites...which would also mean "accidental" strikes on places with sattelites or anywhere else useful since a smart military general wouldn't want them coming after us or being able to present a credible tale. Israel would take the opportunity, since Iran would then be vulnerable. Iran is a very proud and strong country. Not the most intelligent or advanced, but those people have determination and they've pride...which can translate into self-righteous indignation. If this event doesn't take our the oil, we'd be fine. But if someone blows it up.."If I can't have it, no one can." and it's got..maybe a sevnty something percent chance of something happening to that oil...then there will be alot of strain on the remaining oil resources all over the world, and yes. I'll be surprised if the economy doesn't splat itself within the year. Weeks. Really... Anyway, we wouldn't be wasting our military resources. We'd be using the airforce, bombs. And yeah...the situation for the common man after that, not only in America...Canada...but anywhere, will be alot more tense and a whole lot more different than what people would normally be acostumed to. I agree also with one of the previous posters. Odds are sometime in the near future this will happen. Unless we can get someone to do something to stop it. Unfortunately, alot of people in the government...politicians..seem to be FOR going after Iran. Things have gone quiet recently, but it'll get noisy again about it soon enough. I have no idea when, but...it's the near future unless a miracle happens. I hope it never does but...I just tell what I see, man. I'm usually pretty accurate with trends. The larger an event is, the harder it is to predict, though. Two many key people, too many more you can't see. Tough. Aaanyway. You've heard lots of talk about this? Um..mainstream? Or...among co-workers.. or? I get all my information from the underground and alternative...internet, contacts...only occasionally the mainstream and Sleepers (folks who aren't normally aware of the truth about the world).
1 person likes this
@soccermom (3200)
• United States
14 Oct 07
I don't think a war with Iran would be a good thing either, but I also think that it will be inevitable. Even if we stood back and let Israel, Germany and France try to take vcare of it you know they would have our backing and eventually that's where our troops would end up.
1 person likes this
@asgtswife04 (2482)
• United States
14 Oct 07
I am in no way saying that i think it's a good idea to go to war with Iran, but the reality is that eventually one day it's gonna happen. It's inevitable. My husband is military, currently serving in iraq, and he for one thinks that there is no doubt that one day it's gonna happen. I have to agree with him, even though i do not see the need in it as of right now. i do believe that we need to get our troops together again instead of having them spread out in 20 different countries though
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Oct 07
I dont remember reading where anyone said it was a good thing to go to war with anyone, let alone Iran. I think you make some very good points, they are definately a country to be reckoned with, and we would probably have to have a draft to do it. I dont think the democrats would nec go for it so they better make sure a republican president wins if they want to go to war with them. I think Iran is a major threat to us, but I am not sure if war will solve the issue
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27240)
• United States
20 Oct 07
I agree with you on the points you made there. As far as it being "over" quickly, that's exactly what they said about Iraq and look how that one turned out. Annie
• United States
21 Oct 07
We defeated Iraq and Saddam in under 30 days. Iraq and Iran fought for 8 years with no winner. You figure that one out. We are now in Iraq to provide stability for the new government, and that is what is taking do long. There would be no such issue with Iran.
1 person likes this
@anniepa (27240)
• United States
21 Oct 07
I hope we don't have to find out if you're right. But, seriously, how can you be so sure that wouldn't be the case? I doubt there will ever be a "stable" government in Iraq because they just don't want it to be. I really do hope I'm wrong but I don't think the people there really want "democracy" as we know it. Annie
@soadnot (1606)
• Canada
21 Oct 07
wow, 8 years... do you know anything about history? who was supplying iraq???? USA and all iranian generals were killed after the 1979 revolution, so they had commanders and non-military personal controlling the iranian armies.. wow, go read something, really, [other than the frkn bible]
2 people like this