Not sure if this is a debate topic - maybe everyone here agrees with Kucinich. I think he is pretty much on the money. Invading Iraq and Afghanistan has been a disaster and so would invading Iran. The US should be more focussed on peaceful diplomatic solutions.
Has anyone seriously suggested invading Iran? The most I’d ever heard were proposals to bomb them.
I think (but am not sure) that it would be possible to invade and conquer in traditional land warfare (with tons of air support.) But it would not be pleasant; the butcher’s bill would be tremendous. Is the U.S. ready for Vietnam-level casualties?
Herman Cain said, in essence, we shouldn’t attack Iran because it’s too hilly. A naive way of phrasing it, but, seriously, the place is a lot bigger and more mountainous than Iraq.
Iran is one of those places that we could destroy…but not conquer. Simply bombing the aqueducts to Tehran would devastate the country’s political and economic existence. But “boots on the ground” invasion? Nuts!
I understand that doing so was part of the grand plan of the “Project for a New American Century”; but that presumed the occupation of Iraq would turn out much differently than it did.
I think it’s time for Kucinich to figure out what state he lives in, shut up and go home to it. Sanctions against Iran are not going to lead to war any more than sanctions against Cuba or North Korea have. The idea that the U.S. isn’t doing anything diplomatically here is kind of absurd given the amount of energy the Obama administration has put into sanctions and negotiations rather than bombing, and even after all of that the world still may have to get used to the idea of these repressive lunatics having nuclear weapons.
Sanctions are meant to prevent military conflict. Yet they mean many things to many people. Some people, like Kucinich, see clear failure and the sanctions are just a prelude to war. Others see sanctions as the best middle road considering that we have no solid evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program on the one hand, and certain elements of American society ready to bomb indefinitely on the other. The ones that want to bomb already see sanctions as the last point of “I told you so” before the campaign begins.
I am in Kucinich’s camp. Obama will be President for only so much longer. His predecessor may be a lot more militant. Given the Presidents I’ve lived with, I predict will be more militant. This continued hostility over a UN issue and a policy of not allowing nations to develop technology allowable by the NPT will lead to the killing of 100s to 1000s of Iranians for only the vaguest of reasons. I am probably in a tiny minority considering how disgusted I am at the killing of Iranian scientists though. In other words, the killing of a few 100 or few 1000 Iranians is probably a decent trade off for our poorly supported speculations.
Iran would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like a walk in the tulips, because they’re hilly, and have a loyalty, cohererence, and modernity that those two countries lack. Ironically sanctions might make an actual war even tougher in that starving and angry people are more likely to volunteer for suicidal/dangerous jobs. But it’s still not advisable under any circumstance, unless they attack us. Then I’m not sure if it would be better in the long run to invade, or put a carrier group in the Gulf permanently to pound literally anything that moves within a couple dozen miles of the water.
We’re invading Iran?
Afghanistan is also a little on the hilly side. And Iraq was very modern once. Then Saddam wrecked it by going to war with Iran and the 1991 coalition and bleeding the country dry while it sat there under international sanctions. Iran’s economy is not doing very well to begin with - there has been a ton of inflation over the last few years, and now the sanctions aren’t helping either. I’m doubtful that Iranians are feeling that much loyalty to their government.
I’m doubtful of this point, too.
Don’t you mean successor ? We already know his predecessor was a bit of a hawk 
I think you’re mistaken, but a cite can easily clear that up.
As for the OP, there is no serious discussion about invading Iran today. Kucinich is saying that there are calls to “get ready for war”, but that’s so generic as to be meaningless. The US is always getting ready for war.
Of course. But it’s a bit like the Jews and Jerusalem.
It’s been “Next year in Tehran” for, like, a decade now.
No. But it’s been commonplace for the far left to say so since about 2005, and now the far right can feel free to do the same because a Democrat is in the White House. Meanwhile I think Obama has done very well to ignore both groups and actually attempt diplomacy in trying to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons, which of course Iran would never even think of doing even it doesn’t want to accept any kind of limitations that would prevent it from doing so and has every right to do it and even if it did we’d have nothing to worry about and no right to criticize. Or so I’m told.
Whoops! Thank-you, ya, his successor.
I see here that you do not criticize at least 17 years of warnings that the Iranian nuke is months or just a few years away. Currently our intelligence is inconclusive and previously stated the weaponization work had ended. All the while, the talk has gone from Iran’s “nuclear weapon” to Iran’s “nuclear weapon capability”.
If you’re going to criticize the poor logic and goalpost shifts, criticize all of it.
Well, it starts there, you know . . . and experts wargamed that scenario and could find no way it does not escalate into a general regional war. Same if Israel does it. There would be boots on the ground eventually.
Possibly true, although at the last turn it seemed to be mostly urban students who didn’t like the government. Whether that translates into broad dissatisfaction with the government is another question.
And anyway,
“We don’t like our government” =/= “We would welcome Americans with rose petals.”
I don’t recall stating that the intelligence was conclusive or that weaponization work was ongoing. Starting and stopping that work seems to be pretty easy, so that doesn’t seem like a major issue to me. I was pointing out that some people are tying themselves up in knots on this issue.
Iran has a very young population, and like I said, since ‘last time’ the economy has slowed down and inflation has surged. Meanwhile Iran’s government presses ahead with a nuclear program in the face of sanctions that aren’t making things any better and the mullahs still run elections that are basically meaningless. I think more than urban students would be unhappy with the above.
I didn’t say anything about welcoming Americans with rose petals. I said I’m doubtful of this idea that Iranians would be more loyal to their awful government than Iraqis were to their awful government.
I think Iran has a much deeper reserve of national pride than Iraq ever did. I think this national pride transcends whatever awful government may be in power, and indeed may be something that said awful government can tap into with patriotic appeals. (The rally-round-the-flag effect.)
It might. Then again, the elections are a sham, the students get shot at when they protest, the women have to wear their religious garb, the gays get hanged, and I think the price of some foods has tripled in the last few years. So there might be some aggravated people there. I think Iranians are proud of Iran, but I’d be careful about thinking that means they’ll defend the schizophrenic government they have to deal with.
Iran feeds weapons to terrorists. I’d say we’re already at war with them on some level. Maybe if we just returned any of their unused munitions to them we could call it even.