1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is war with Iran probable?

Discussion in 'Political Debates' started by drekmed, Oct 26, 2005.

  1. drekmed

    drekmed Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    164
    Ratings:
    +26
    this is complete speculation, and i hope it wont happen, but a few news stories that have printed up recently, and the current administrations policies lead me to think it is only a matter of time.

    i believe there will be a major push from our government to invade iran within 2 years. we are currently set up surrounding them, we have troops in turkey, afghanistan, iraq, saudi arabia, and pakistan most likely will let us use them to stage actions. it would have to be a total war concept, with ground troops invading on all sides, major bombing and air superiority campaigns, a draft would have to be implimented, and we would need russian/chinese help to make it successful. due to the lack of support from iranian people for this, it would require a longterm occupation, similar to the occupation of germany after WW2.
    my estimate on the timetable, 2-4 weeks of heavy bombing to cripple the infrastructure, 4-10 months of minor bombing and close air support for ground assault, 5-10 years of insurgency and 10 years of recovery/rebuilding in conjuction with 30 years of occupation. the hitch in this is the relationship between russia and iran, not completely up to date on it, but i think they some kind of pact or another. also iran may have nukes, they have nuclear power plants, which we would have to bomb, causing massive fallout in that country and possibly others. looking at about a 30-40 year commitment for just that country.

    as i said, i hope things can be settled with civility, but im not sure they can be with our current administration. i just hope it doesn't come to this.

    what do ya'll think?

    Drekmed
     
  2. The Black Whirlwind

    The Black Whirlwind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,348
    Ratings:
    +139
    why would we have to go in at all when we could nuke them from afar? The only reason i see to go in is their constat want of nuclear technology. If they don't abandon this quest, invade. I would rather invade Iran than have them bomb us later. Same thing with those commies in north Korea. It is only a matter of time before we punish them both for their insolence.
     
  3. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,074
    Ratings:
    +1,661
    Religion:
    Something else
    I'm uncertain as to your tone, is this a serious offering?

    Regarding the topic, it seems plausible to me that the US (with the UK humping its heels) will invade Iran. Bombing s have already begun, and military press releases are holding Iran responsible for coalition deaths in Iraq.
     
  4. delta0021

    delta0021 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2005
    Messages:
    27
    Ratings:
    +7
    As of now the invasion of Iran would be highly improbably for the United States. The IAEC has just voted to take Iran to the Security Council so the United States has no right to invade Iran. If anyone thought the international impact was bad from Iraq it would be nothing compared to Iran. We would be blatantly ignoring international law and policies by going around the U.N. Also in Iraq the majority of the population did not support Saddam Hussein where as in Iran the public still supports the current administration. The revolt against the U.S. forces would be astronomical. Another point is that Iran is over three times the size of Iraq, which would be impossible to occupy. With regards to Russia as someone mentioned; Russia abstained from the vote to simply take Iran to the Security Council so most certainly they would not support a war with Iran. I do agree that the Bush foreign policy strategy does point to something happening in Iran but the fact is the United Stats doesnÂ’t even begin to have the assets for a war of that magnitude. This will have to be one conflict left up to the Security Council.
     
  5. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,193
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Is Bush still in the Whitehouse?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Feathers in Hair

    Feathers in Hair World's Tallest Hobbit

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2004
    Messages:
    14,605
    Ratings:
    +1,796
    With his administration's approval ratings and support for the war in Iraq dwindling, I'm not sure if I could fathom the political logic in doing this.
     
  7. The Black Whirlwind

    The Black Whirlwind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,348
    Ratings:
    +139
    We have plenty of right to invade Iran, it says so right in our Constitution (or is it the Delcaration?). If it is benefitital to the u.s., we will invade Iran, regardless of what the U.N. says. I think it is short in coming.
     
  8. almifkhar

    almifkhar Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    985
    Ratings:
    +105
    i was watching bbc today on pbs and they had a story about how finland is building a nuclear power plant and how this is great! it got me to thinking why it is alright for finland to build a nuclear power plant and it is evil and wrong for iran to do the same thing? i don't see the bush administration making a case of war against finland for doing the same thing iran wants to do. sounds a bit racial to me. its as if it is totally alright if some christian white europeen country wants nuclear power but it is not alright for some muslim brown asian country to want the same thing.

    as far as the u.s. going to war with iran, i think it is just a matter of time, however, i think when it happens, it will for sure bring on ww3. and if my prediction is right, all of us had better get ready for life as we know it to change drasticly. bottom line for me is this, if we invade masses of people will die as a direct result of this stupid action of bush and his pals
     
  9. The Black Whirlwind

    The Black Whirlwind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,348
    Ratings:
    +139
    While race may be an issue, its mostly because the finnish aren't going to go insane and say, "oh, lets make a bomb with our power plant and blow up the u.s., those damn dirty cappies!", while Iran probabaly would, at least Israel anyway. and since we are allies with Israel, that wouldn't be good at all. the iranians can't be trusted, while the finnish most lifely can. They don't pose a threat.
     
  10. almifkhar

    almifkhar Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    985
    Ratings:
    +105
    fat matt

    how do we really know this for sure? as far as israel goes, i recall back in 91 they did infact threaten iraq with nuclear weapons. wasn't that one of the reasons we invaded iraq the first time around? besides, look at the nut who has control of our little red button. this is the same nut who thinks it is ethically fine to put depleated uranium in our bombs and bullets in iraq right now which not only seriously harms iraqis and their land, but our own troops fighting over there and there offspring, etc. yet this same nut thinks he can police the world and say who can and cannot have nuclear power? sounds hypricritical to me.
     
  11. The Black Whirlwind

    The Black Whirlwind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,348
    Ratings:
    +139
    hey, people get angry when we do try to police the world, and angry when we don't. They're angry we invade Iraq, angry as well we don't invade Darfur. If we didn't go around and impose our will as Grand Bully of the Universe, all these kook countries like Iran and Afganistan and all those other stans would have bombs by now. Though i am pissed that North Korea slipped us by. Would you rather have Iran have bombs and kill everyone or have us telling them NO and they don't kill anyone? safety supercedes supposed "nuclear rights".
     
  12. almifkhar

    almifkhar Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Messages:
    985
    Ratings:
    +105
    i look at it like this, if these men in power would simply do business in an honest way we wouldn't have these problems. i dig what you are saying but if we kept our noses out of these countries political affairs we wouldn't be in this situation. in my little ideal world, nuclear tech. would be outlawed, but my ideal world is not the reality of life. i just dont see how we can decide who can and cannot have nuclear tech. who are we to decide this?
     
  13. Fluffy

    Fluffy A fool

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    7,572
    Ratings:
    +1,007
    A piece of paper does not give you the right to do anything. That is the same rationale as that used behind justifying the crusades.

    I find a war on Iran, similar in nature to that on Iraq, very difficult to predict. I feel that, as long as there is no more large scale terrorist attacks against America, such a war is unlikely but how can we know whether such an attack is likely to occur or not?
     
  14. Darkdale

    Darkdale World Leader Pretend

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,216
    Ratings:
    +413
    I agree 100%. Invading Iran within the next two years is a terrible idea. What we need to do is hope and pray democracy works in Iraq (chances remain dubious). If democracy works in Iraq, there is a very real chance that democratic activists in Iran would either vote in more democracy or start a civil war to overthrow the Islamic Socialist regime. With Iran wavering on its' desire to create nuclear weapons and it's placing of its' nuclear energy research in the hands of its' military, the United Nations will be eager to see stability and democracy in Iran. The only way we should go into Iran is as a member state of the United Nations. This is the only way we can do it without causes panick in the Arab Street. If we attack Iran, the message will not be "the spreading of democracy" or even "peace through strength". The message will be, America attacks Muslim countries. Why? Because we are angry about 9/11; and while that may actually be justified, it's certainly a **** poor international politics and it will do little to further our actual agendas.

    As someone who can typically be counted on to support military efforts to make America safe, no Administration will have my personal support to invade Iran and if this is an issue in 2008, I will vote for the person with the most practical foreign policy (i.e. someone who agrees with me). :)

    If Iran begins a weaponized nuclear program, the result will be Israel bombing those facilities and the United Nations protecting Israel. However, if democracy works in Iraq and if Afghanistan continues to progress and if Egypt and Pakistan continue to make efforts to join the West in business, in economics and in cooperation, Iran will be forced to either come along, or fall behind (something even it's Islamic Socialist leaders know they cannot afford to do).

    The biggest threats to US National Security are Syria and Saudi Arabia. I would be interested in knowing how our current administration and our futures ones plan on dealing with those two hostile countries.
     
  15. Murf661

    Murf661 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    26
    Ratings:
    +2
    The U.S is gonna do it because you have a sadistic twit (wow I didn't even swear) controlling the country, and as the U.S invades then Tony Blair and the U.K are gonna start aswell. Its happened before and its gonna happen again. Why do they invade though?..They COULD just bomb the whole place and then get all the oil, which is what they want to do...

    ..One of my mates lost his brother in the Iraq war, and there were lots of needless,losses of life...Why bother???
     
  16. Darkdale

    Darkdale World Leader Pretend

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,216
    Ratings:
    +413
    Your propensity for making intellectual statements is truly fascinating. :rolleyes:
     
  17. Ori

    Ori Angel slayer

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,947
    Ratings:
    +362
    Anger is of the darkside.
     
  18. The Black Whirlwind

    The Black Whirlwind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,348
    Ratings:
    +139
    ah, but is righteous anger of the dark side? anger to prevent world tragedy (angry because we couldn't keep bombs out of the commies hands) the dark side? Anger for evil purposes, rage, hate, malice, are the dark side.
     
  19. Darkdale

    Darkdale World Leader Pretend

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2005
    Messages:
    3,216
    Ratings:
    +413
    Anger as a result of fear or hatred is always stupid. We can't nuke Iran unless it is the smart thing to do and you better have a damn convincing argument for why it is smart to do.
     
  20. The Black Whirlwind

    The Black Whirlwind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,348
    Ratings:
    +139
    I never said we should do it now, but that it is probable that we will have to later on. If they start making nukes anyway, then i think if diplomacy doesn't work, we should attack. i wouldn't trust a hostile muslim nation with nukes, would you?
     
Loading...