What's the split on US invasion of Iran?

Listening to WFYI at the moment, and they’re going over US intransigence on resolving Iran’s nuclear activities. So, how close to election day will it be when the US invades Iran?

  1. That gives them time to organize the draft that’ll be needed to supplement military forces already stretched thin by occupying a nation with less than half the population of Iran.

I don’t think we will, but…

If we decide to go in, it will cost us more than a few soldiers a day. Political suicide for NeoCons and Repubs in general IMO. Anyone who brings back the draft will hang himself.

God forbid we ever do.

It would cost mucho American lives, would be utterly unjustifiable regarding Iran vs North Korea on the nuclear intransigance part. (NK already has them, against international law, has broken treaties with the US, and is threatening to use them. Iran is simply developing them undercover.)

It would further demonstrate to people in some sectors that the US is warring against Islam.

Democracy is already rearing its ugly head in Iran. Never intervene when your enemy is making a mistake.

We’re already stretched too thin.

Iran and Iraq are two different things altogether. The US had been actively engaged, militarily, in conatining Saddam for a more than a decade. There were many, many UN resolutions against Iraq before the lead-up to war. Yes, Bush bypassed the UN in the end, but he did try to work within that body for some time before starting the invasion.

Iran is no where near that level of confrontation. Not even close. Add to that the fact that Iran is a much larger country with a military more intact than Iraq by any measure.

I’m willing to wager any amount of money, at any odds that there will be no US invasion of Iran before the election. No attempt whatsoever to topple the regime there with military force.

Actually, somehow I don’t think congress would extend the money for an Iran war even if Bush were stupid enough to seriously suggest it. If nothing else, the fact they balked at the $87 billion payment(even though they did approve it) and the fact the US military is rather streched at the moment.

I still don’t understand why it is assumed that the US would make the first move against Iran. I would expect Israel to do so, depending on what the exact conditions are (bombing a reactor like in Iraq, for example, all the way to an attack by either side) with the US jumping in soon after that, if at all.

God, we couldn’t be that stupid, could we?

First as some of you have pointed out, taking on Iran would be a dicey proposition, with our troops already stretched in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. Iran is a large country with lots of mountains and a lot of low tech weaponry that would make our occupation of Iraq seem like a cakewalk.

Second, what the heck would be the point. The people of Iran like the U.S. and are already grumbling against their leaders. Best to let nature take its course. Sticking them in the “Axis of Evil” was asinine enough. A full scale invasion would be the stupidest thing concievable.

From Dogface

Unless there is some real provocation, it will never happen. I agree completely with John Mace’s assessment.

From John Mace

We invaded Iraq because we COULD…all the conditions were there that allowed the US to do what it did. We can and have debated till we are all blue in the face about whether it was right or wrong…but the fact remains that Bush couldn’t have done what he did without Iraq and SH helping out.

Iran is a whole different ball game. They have NOT been provoking either the US or anyone else. They didn’t launch a war of conquest into one of their neighbors and sign a cease fire treaty when they lost. They didn’t make themselves a royal pain in the ass for the last decade. Afaik, they didn’t openly and publically send money to Palistinian terrorists families after suicide bombings. Maybe Iran supported terrorists, maybe not, but if they did, they were at least discrete about it. The US would have zero justification to go into Iran atm. Congress would laugh at the President if he basically asked for the cash to do it. The people would go berserk if he tried anything like this now.

Most importantly, where are these mythical troops going to come from to do it? In case its slipped everyones mind, the majority of our combat strength is either in Iraq, or refitting/decompressing from Iraq. The cupboard is bare guys, and will be for a LONG time IMO…unless anyone really thinks that the situation in Iraq is going to calm down sometime soon.

So, where would we get the troops (we won’t even mention all the other stuff like tanks, planes, missiles, etc)? Strip them from Iraq? Sure, we’ll just pull them all out and let the country go up in flames. The draft? Don’t make me laugh…how do you suppose Bush would get Congress to approve that, even if he was crazy enough to even suggest it. Maybe our allies? Well, I’m not sure, but I think the British are strapped too atm…not to mention that TB would get laughed out of Parliment IMO if he even had the nerve to ask. Our OTHER allies?

Unless Iran does something monumentally stupid towards the US (which the aren’t gona do), its not gona happen guys. I’ll give you 10 to 1 odds against.

-XT

A giant leap made from the baseless assumptions of whom . . . some guys on talk radio ?
Next, please . . .

No, this isn’t a giant leap, and it’s more likely to be coming from the baseless assertions of Donald Rumsfeld. It wasn’t all that long ago. You got a bad memory L_C? Or a selective one?

Well, someone who writes for The Corner over on National Review Online sez that someone claims to have extremely good intel that bin Laden is hiding out, and planning stuff, in Iran. 'Course, that’s to be taken with about six gallons of salt, but if that were to be true, that could be used as a pretty good reason…

Compromise agreed

"And US negotiators have dropped demands that Iran be reported to the UN Security Council, reports say. "

  • not exactly keen to up the ante, I’d hazard.

Sure, you invaded. Now what? Bush and co deluded themselves into some fantasy about Iraq. It didn’t work out the way they thought it would, and nearly everyone else in the entire fucking world thought it was wrong and/or stupid to start with.

This bit is just nonsense. You’re taking Bush’s justifications for war on Iraq, stupid as they were, and narrowly saying that Iran is just a tiny bit different. Bush’s justifications on Iraq were just made up, they’re completely useless as a yardstick for measuring the merit of invading any other country…

Hopefully, even the morons in the administration will recognize that what you’re saying here is quite reasonable. I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on it, though. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect between ideology and reality somewhere in Bush’s camp.

Iran’s nuclear ambitions: Israel will do their best to take care of that.

The only reason we would ever get into a war with Iran is if Hezbollah pulled off a 9/11 type attack on us. And I don’t think many Americans would object to it at that point either.

Seeing that Hizbollah is based in Lebanon, don’t you think retaliating against Iran might have a certain geographical flaw, then again, it wouldn’t be the first time for this US Administration

From your own cite:

Although, those that actually support the terrorists are not necesarily those that get attacked…

There is no difference between using terrorists to attack another nation and using bombers. If a terrorist act is committed against us and we know who the sponsor or sponsors were, that nation has committed an act of war every bit as serious as Pearl Harbor or 9/11.

Tell that to Saudi Arabia

That is why if the Hizbollah in Lebanon do a 9/11 on Israel that Iran will be invaded ? Seems the US needs some geography lessons. I doubt Iran would sponsor such an attack directly… but again Bush doesn’t care about the truth.