So as not to derail the "would Russia back Iran in a war?" thread even more, starting this doozy:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45209267/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/
So Iran is in direct violation of the non-proliferation treaty that they signed. What now? Sanctions, or strikes?
@Midnight Rambler - who said I don't want a long, bloody war?
It wouldn't just be us, anyway. I think we'd have Israel on our side at least, but let's not go too far down that path lest we derail again.
Also, it's not the 1960-70s anymore. We have more and better weapons, a better understanding about all levels of warfare, and Iran isn't a jungle. It's not really comparable. Also, there will be Iranians sympathetic to us if we invade. Just like in Vietnam, I know, but I think in this case we could pull it off, as long as we have continued political support - unlike Vietnam. It seems like every time we get into a war, everybody screams "OMG! It's gonna be another Vietnam!" Well, clearly Iraq wasn't really a "quagmire," and we're pulling out of A-stan too.
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:17:06 AM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.
edited 3rd Apr '12 7:23:31 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Lemme clarify: I am operating from the position that long and bloody wars suck, the Iranians who want to change or overthrow the Iranian government are absolutely against any foreign involvement because they remember what happened the last time the U.S. got up in their business, we lost Vietnam because pretty much everyone realized it was an inhumane waste of time and lives, and Iraq was a quagmire we took too long to leave. I feel I have a decent support for those positions.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Well, you know what? I've realized this conversation has moved into that weird zone for me where I can't really discuss the subject with civilians and hope for them to understand where I'm coming from. So, it's been fun, but I'll be over there in other threads talking about how awesome sex is or how much everyone should like guns.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.I just love this American version of the Dolchstoßlegende
.
Grrr. On one hand, I don't want to pressure anyone out of a discussion thread. On the other hand, I really want to ask what he'd have to say if I was a servicemember. On a third hand, this is all off topic.
So I'll return to a more relevant tangent. I'm pretty sure the Iranian Opposition and Green Revolution types do NOT want a U.S. intervention, but I'd appreciate data on that, whether in support or to the contrary.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Sure thing, Coriolanus.
And not to derail this topic, but the fact that people still think Walter Cronkite and Jane Fonda single-handedly sabotaged the war effort is a sign of our deep-seated propaganda at every level. Twenty years and five Presidents, people. That war blundered on with no discernible goal and did nothing to slow or speed the collapse of the Soviet Union.
edited 3rd Apr '12 9:58:15 AM by johnnyfog
I'm a skeptical squirrelOk, so I made the mistake of succumbing to curiosity and taking a look back in here after I made that post. Let me just clarify what I was saying - I'm not trying to say that I'm better than all you lazy civilians or anything stupid like that. I just feel that there are certain aspects of war that those who haven't been there just can't or maybe don't want to understand. For me to try to explain how I feel about it would be similar to smashing my forehead against a brick wall. And I'll admit I don't get the Coriolanus reference since I never read or watched the play. I assume it was meant to be some sort of insult, but to what part of my statement I'm not sure.
I still am not willing to discuss the points you brought up, Taoist. I just want to be clear on why.
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.The premise of the play is that Coriolanus does not think civilians have a clear grasp of what's going on, or even deserve to have a say in what goes on, because they haven't put their balls out there and done military service. It's at least a somewhat sympathetic position, especially to anyone who's fed up with a democracy and the story is rather ambivalent about it.
In my opinion, being a solider gives you insight into lots of things but geopolitics is not necessarily one of them.
Taken too far, Coriolanus is the rationale for military juntas.
I'm a skeptical squirrelOk, well I certainly didn't say any of those things so I'm not sure how it applies.
And you're absolutely right, many soldiers don't know geopolitics from the top side of their dicks.
edited 3rd Apr '12 10:16:21 AM by Martello
"Did anybody invent this stuff on purpose?" - Phillip Marlowe on tequila, Finger Man by Raymond Chandler.Ugh, you leave a bad taste in my mouth.
Guys, not all of us think that a long, bloody war would be a good thing. And anyone who thinks that an invasion of Iran wouldn't be a long, bloody affair is either delusional or is knowingly lieing.
Sure, Iran may not be jungle, but it's worse: It's full of mountain ranges. On top of that, they're some of the most rugged mountain ranges in the world. All our fancy equipment doesn't do shit if it has to look through solid rock to find a target. And don't kid yourself, even if we quickly defeated the Iranian army* there are enough people who hate us that someone would fund the insurgency that would no doubt develop.
As for the idea of going in, beating the hell out of them, taking what we want and then leaving... yeah, that's worked really really well before*.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.I still don't see it happening. Note that I referred to Vietnam because its population is about the same size as Iran's; the last time America took on a nation with such power was in World War Two, and then they only won with the help of Britain, Russia, Russia and Russia. Hell, even in Afghanistan and Iraq, they had to drum up a 'Coalition of the Willing'. This time, Uncle Sam would be on his own except for Little Nephew Benji; Russia and China seem to be either indifferent or pro-Iran, and most European countries have other things on their minds.
Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...Anyone got data on that last question I asked? Re: the Iranian opposition?
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.![]()
The coalition of the willing was'nt NEEDED, per say. It was helpful and showed we had international support. Having the political support of other nations was more important than the military assistance. EG, the polish, they sent about 70 sepc ops. troops. They're political support was the main thing.
We could defeat any other nation around, but they'd usually require a full mobilization. Having the help of others just makes it easier and less expensive, as well as demonstrating we have serious support.
I'm baaaaaaackIt was pathetic political window dressing in a desperate attempt to gain some (non-existant) legitimacy for the war, nothing more.
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficIranians would not be supportive of the US if they invaded. Not on THIS issue (they may have issues with the theocracy, but they haven't a single problem with Tehran pursuing nukes, primarily because they're surrounded on all sides by nuclear-wielding powers and also because its a source of nationalist pride), so let us not make the fallacy AGAIN that we made for Iraq.
Also, we should not underestimate the lack of willpower among the US public. They're weary of the constant wars, particularly when the economy isn't completely recovered. As far as most are concerned, they will see this war as one of convienience.
As to whether we CAN invade Iran, that depends. If you mean we could take out their military, yes. But after? No. There isn't enough troops without pulling from other locations or from drafting (and we will have no military help from those who are diplomatically supporting us, not after Iraq). And don't no one tell me that's irrelevant, since Iraq disproved THAT thinking quite quickly. Have to have an after-conflict plan and that requires more resources than we can reasonably provide.
This whole thing started because the Israelis and Saudis got antsy (or, if you want to be cynical, because Bibi got pissed at Obama and decided to light a flame up his ass by pulling this shit in an election year), and on a VERY shaky premise. At worst, Iran is allowing themselves the option in case they need to, at best they really are just developing nuclear power. No where has there been proof about them actually getting nukes.
I know for sure those sanctions won't work (Pakistan is too desperate for energy to heed the US, and China and India are both struggling to find alternative fuel sources to match their growth), and I think most others know that too. I don't want a war shoved down my throat for the sake of another state when we're still trying to extricate ourselves from Afghanistan. Maybe if we had a break of five years or something, but otherwise I just don't see this ending well for anyone.
edited 3rd Apr '12 5:35:51 PM by FFShinra
Excuse me while I don't care if they have nukes or not. If Israel, china, Russia, Germany, France, the US, and countless other places can have them then so can Iran.
Untitled Power Rangers StoryNo, and the "countless others" that weren't in the list are India, Pakistan and the UK.
Well, South Africa had theirs but decided that it would be better to dismantle them, and Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan had lots but decided to give 'em all to Russia. That's about it.
edited 4th Apr '12 5:52:38 PM by BestOf
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

A war with Iran would almost certainly hurt all participants more than the Iraq war did.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.