In my opinion a war with Iran would last about a month. We don't have the interest in occupying them, but we sure as shit could blow them back to the stone age and incapacitate them if we wished to do so. Don't kid yourselves, Israelis are already on the ground secretly and they would know exactly where the leaders of the country are--a few missiles decapitates the freakshow government they have. A million or so missiles raining down from the sky on their military and you have 1991's Highway of Death repeated, only 10x worse.

As for North Korea teaming up with Iran... that's be pretty fucking stupid on their part, but they'd be blown away too, and a few million would die in North and South Korea combined. But China would stop the war by telling N Korea to STFU. China knows that S Korea/Japan/USA would win the war and ultimately a pro-Democracy Korea would arise and be on the border with China. China doesn't want any thriving democracies next to it, and they would pull the plug on North Korea's suicide before a war happened.

If Syria entered, Israel would roll tanks straight through to Damascus and there wouldn't be a thing they could do about it.

So you have Syria and Iran vs. US, Israel, (maybe NATO). We win 100% of the time.

The amount of insurgents Iran would put around the Middle East is probably the scariest aspect of this. From Tel Aviv to Dubai to Kabul, people would be blowing themselves up and causing widespread panic and fear. I would hope that the leaders of Iran and Syria would be dead by then and a populist leader would lead a domestic rebellion.

Just my thoughts..

LOL @ lasting a month. Curious how long the administration said the Iraq/Afghanistan war would last? This is Iran, a much stronger country than both Iraq and Afgahnistan combined. It would take maybe a month to destroy the country, and 15+ years to rebuild it.

sjmvsfscs08;1063381 wrote:So you have Syria and Iran vs. US, Israel, (maybe NATO). We win 100% of the time.

The amount of insurgents Iran would put around the Middle East is probably the scariest aspect of this. From Tel Aviv to Dubai to Kabul, people would be blowing themselves up and causing widespread panic and fear.

These are the key issues. No doubt we'd win any head-to-head military conflict. But we also won that stage of Iraq/Afghanistan, too, and that isn't exactly working out too well. Doing the same thing to Iran would be a debacle.

Edit: And sleeper beat me to it. So we go and blow up Iran's infrastructure. Then what?

sleeper;1063384 wrote:LOL @ lasting a month. Curious how long the administration said the Iraq/Afghanistan war would last? This is Iran, a much stronger country than both Iraq and Afgahnistan combined. It would take maybe a month to destroy the country, and 15+ years to rebuild it.

Reduced to shiny glass in about 17 days, with nary a single boot on the ground.

sleeper;1063200 wrote:+1 It's just to give LJ more power than he deserves.

Also, a war with Iran would be the end of this country. We'd win, no doubt, but it'd be a long, bloody, expensive war that would push this country over the edge of fiscal sanity.

Pick6;1063231 wrote:If WWIII were to ever happen, I think it would be us and Europe against Iran, North Korea, and some of these Middle East countries. The thought of Iran and North Korea having nukes scares the **** out of me, to be honest.

fan_from_texas;1063387 wrote:These are the key issues. No doubt we'd win any head-to-head military conflict. But we also won that stage of Iraq/Afghanistan, too, and that isn't exactly working out too well. Doing the same thing to Iran would be a debacle.

Edit: And sleeper beat me to it. So we go and blow up Iran's infrastructure. Then what?

Only if we were to try and rebuild the country. We could carpet bomb the shit out of the country, leave it in rubble and be done with it. It would be the matter of a month to do that. Iraq and Afghanistan is different because we are rebuilding their infrastructure.

IMO, we should not be involved with any of them.

fish82;1063390 wrote:Reduced to shiny glass in about 17 days, with nary a single boot on the ground.

And the islamic world is just going to roll over and give up. I see, that's worked in the past.

dwccrew;1063391 wrote:Only if we were to try and rebuild the country. We could carpet bomb the **** out of the country, leave it in rubble and be done with it. It would be the matter of a month to do that. Iraq and Afghanistan is different because we are rebuilding their infrastructure.

IMO, we should not be involved with any of them.

Or we could just mind our own business and not engage in conflicts that don't directly affect us. I'd rather save the money and strengthen our defense, not waste a bunch of money on something the collective international community is against.

sleeper;1063394 wrote:Or we could just mind our own business and not engage in conflicts that don't directly affect us. I'd rather save the money and strengthen our defense, not waste a bunch of money on something the collective international community is against.

Or we could just do a pinky promise with Iran not to fight or be mean.

#ronpaule'd

sleeper;1063394 wrote:Or we could just mind our own business and not engage in conflicts that don't directly affect us. I'd rather save the money and strengthen our defense, not waste a bunch of money on something the collective international community is against.

Read the last sentence in my post that you quoted.

Skyhook79;1063397 wrote:Or we could just do a pinky promise with Iran not to fight or be mean.

#ronpaule'd

Or we could trade with Iran, strengthen them to be a strong US ally in the middle east so that the Islamic world heralds the US as a great and respectable nation. A strong Iran negates terrorists. A weak Iran under US attack builds the terrorists of tomorrow. This is called blowback and its well documented by the CIA.

fan_from_texas;1063357 wrote:There is zero chance that they created a multi-million dollar virus they then implanted into their nuclear reactors to slightly alter the speed at which they spin, causing millions of dollars in damage. There are only a handful of places in the world with the technology to do that, and they're probably not one of them.

That's what they say happened. Remember the Iraqi press secretary?

sleeper;1063384 wrote:LOL @ lasting a month.

Can you read?

dwccrew;1063391 wrote:Only if we were to try and rebuild the country. We could carpet bomb the shit out of the country, leave it in rubble and be done with it. It would be the matter of a month to do that. Iraq and Afghanistan is different because we are rebuilding their infrastructure.

IMO, we should not be involved with any of them.

This.

fan_from_texas;1063387 wrote:These are the key issues. No doubt we'd win any head-to-head military conflict. But we also won that stage of Iraq/Afghanistan, too, and that isn't exactly working out too well. Doing the same thing to Iran would be a debacle.

Edit: And sleeper beat me to it. So we go and blow up Iran's infrastructure. Then what?

If it looked like they had no way out and the regime was falling, chances are they start bombing oil infrastructures around the middle east (which they could easily do) and create enough chaos to destroy the world economy and bring it to its knees.

That is the danger.

We can easily win the war, but what good is it going to do in a world that is largely unlivable because the energy infrastructure has been sabotaged.

Iraq and Afghanistan are classic examples of why just because you can easily win the war doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Besides, the boogy man in the room is what happens if we bomb Iran big time and don't even get all their nuclear sites. Our intelligence is sketchy at best in that country, and many of the facilities are built so far under ground with the idea of a bombing campaign in mind that it isn't even a sure thing we can get them all, assuming we even know where all of them are.

The best hope is that the citizens of Iran don't want the war and after their military is blown to bits and there leaders are dead, they say "Ok! We have it from here!"

Now, that is the exact thought process leading up to Iraq. The difference is that 1) we rebuilt Iraq, we don't have to rebuild Iran. We wouldn't be there to make friends. 2) Iran was sending insurgents into Iraq, who would send them into Iran?

I'm in favor of no war, and/or letting the Israelis do it. There will be a best-selling book out in about 30 years about the incredible espionage the US/Israel had going on in Iran.

sjmvsfscs08;1063414 wrote:The best hope is that the citizens of Iran don't want the war and after their military is blown to bits and there leaders are dead, they say "Ok! We have it from here!"

Now, that is the exact thought process leading up to Iraq. The difference is that 1) we rebuilt Iraq, we don't have to rebuild Iran. We wouldn't be there to make friends. 2) Iran was sending insurgents into Iraq, who would send them into Iran?

I'm in favor of no war, and/or letting the Israelis do it. There will be a best-selling book out in about 30 years about the incredible espionage the US/Israel had going on in Iran.

Sounds like a brilliant plan. Bomb the shit out of the country and leave it for Iranians to rebuild. They won't just make it easier for Iranian citizens to turn their countries problems on the big bad USA who ruined their country. That won't create the next generation of terrorists who have a vendetta and a determination to bring down the US for killing innocent family members and bankrupting the country. The great part is, 40 years from now when some Iranians decide to fly planes into more US buildings(best case scenario) we can sit here and simply say "They attack us because we are free!".

LOL GTFO.

A war with Iran could very well start another world war.

I highly doubt it's a war that would "break" the US, I just don't think that's a feasible outcome.

If we go to war with Iran, North Korea likely sides with them. This creates even more tension with South Korea and North Korea and then I believe all hell breaks loose.

Has anybody played the video game Homefront? The game was "ok", but the story, while somewhat absurd, was very interesting.

In 2013, one year (according to the game's fictional timeline) after the death of Kim Jong-Il, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un reunites North and South Korea to form the Greater Korean Republic. The United States withdraws overseas troops to deal with domestic instability. By 2022, the United States faces extreme economic turmoil and massive social unrest, culminating in complete economic collapse. On January 16, 2025, a Korean satellite, launched under the cover of a program to replace the decaying Global Positioning System, detonates a high-altitude nuclear weapon over the continental United States. The destruction of above-ground electronics across the country by the massive resulting electromagnetic pulse is followed by the Greater Korean Republic invading the country to divide the United States in half, leaving the American military isolated and scattered and U.S. residents to resist the invasion on their own.

And yes, the game nearly predicted Kim Jong Il's death lol.

sjmvsfscs08;1063414 wrote:The best hope is that the citizens of Iran don't want the war and after their military is blown to bits and there leaders are dead, they say "Ok! We have it from here!"

Now, that is the exact thought process leading up to Iraq. The difference is that 1) we rebuilt Iraq, we don't have to rebuild Iran. We wouldn't be there to make friends. 2) Iran was sending insurgents into Iraq, who would send them into Iran?

I'm in favor of no war, and/or letting the Israelis do it. There will be a best-selling book out in about 30 years about the incredible espionage the US/Israel had going on in Iran.

All the insurgents came from Iran?

Or how about probably every teenage and above Iraqi who's house was blown up or friends or family or schoolmates were killed even if accidentally by us?

Us being in the region creates terrorists.

Decisively winning a war means ruthlessly killing people, destroying infrastructure, destroying equipment, and taking control of real estate. Paying for it means "taking the spoils of war". Loser pays. If a nation choses to engage in war and deviates from any of these principles they will exact a greater cost on themselves in blood and treasure.

Before anyone wants to label me a warmonger, I will be clear. Only congress has the constitutional authority to commit the nation to war. They can be politically weak when doing so by authorizing the president to use force or they can be crystal clear and declare an official state of war. War and politics are intertwined. If you are going to commit to war on a politically weak footing you will be forced to fight the war on the same weak foot.

sjmvsfscs08;1063381 wrote:In my opinion a war with Iran would last about a month. We don't have the interest in occupying them, but we sure as shit could blow them back to the stone age and incapacitate them if we wished to do so. Don't kid yourselves, Israelis are already on the ground secretly and they would know exactly where the leaders of the country are--a few missiles decapitates the freakshow government they have. A million or so missiles raining down from the sky on their military and you have 1991's Highway of Death repeated, only 10x worse.

As for North Korea teaming up with Iran... that's be pretty fucking stupid on their part, but they'd be blown away too, and a few million would die in North and South Korea combined. But China would stop the war by telling N Korea to STFU. China knows that S Korea/Japan/USA would win the war and ultimately a pro-Democracy Korea would arise and be on the border with China. China doesn't want any thriving democracies next to it, and they would pull the plug on North Korea's suicide before a war happened.

If Syria entered, Israel would roll tanks straight through to Damascus and there wouldn't be a thing they could do about it.

So you have Syria and Iran vs. US, Israel, (maybe NATO). We win 100% of the time.

The amount of insurgents Iran would put around the Middle East is probably the scariest aspect of this. From Tel Aviv to Dubai to Kabul, people would be blowing themselves up and causing widespread panic and fear. I would hope that the leaders of Iran and Syria would be dead by then and a populist leader would lead a domestic rebellion.

Just my thoughts..

The last time Iran had a populist leader we put him out of power for a dictator.

I Wear Pants;1063661 wrote:The last time Iran had a populist leader we put him out of power for a dictator.

And that was a favor to the British and a huge mistake.

I Wear Pants;1063591 wrote:All the insurgents came from Iran?

Or how about probably every teenage and above Iraqi who's house was blown up or friends or family or schoolmates were killed even if accidentally by us?

Us being in the region creates terrorists.

Valid point, but where would they insurge (not a word..) if we didn't even put boots on the ground and occupied them.

sleeper;1063480 wrote:Sounds like a brilliant plan. Bomb the shit out of the country and leave it for Iranians to rebuild. They won't just make it easier for Iranian citizens to turn their countries problems on the big bad USA who ruined their country. That won't create the next generation of terrorists who have a vendetta and a determination to bring down the US for killing innocent family members and bankrupting the country. The great part is, 40 years from now when some Iranians decide to fly planes into more US buildings(best case scenario) we can sit here and simply say "They attack us because we are free!".

LOL GTFO.

Did I say I was in favor of it? LOL GTFO yourself, dumbass.

Also you're assuming that we'd carpet bomb Tehran or something. Iran has a legitimate military and they are clear targets. Precision weapons + legitimate military targets = country's infrastructure not destroyed.

Again, I'm not in favor of it. But to be realistic I am not afraid of the war, at least I'm not afraid of what would happen on the battlefields. The US military machine would eat right through the Iranian army and navy. Hell, many soldiers there would probably dessert as the first site of trouble.

I think you are seriously underestimating the precision and efficiency of our military when dealing with a uniformed opponent.


The Iranian military isn't this:


It is this:


Certainly you see the difference? The Iranian military would be target practice for our weapons. That much is basically a fact. They would die in droves if they didn't abandon their post first. The US, and the world, has a huge amount of motivation to get Iran's military taken out quickly. They don't want a repeat of Iraq's oil situation from the Gulf War.

Iran could, when you think about it, launch missiles not only at our troops, but at the oil fields of Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/etc and hopefully (for them) make the oil markets explode and it shuts down the American economy. And I mean shut down the economy, strategic oil reserves last roughly a month (without rations), so should Iran's leaders play a "not to lose" cat-and-mouse game while shutting off the world's oil America could take a massive, massive hit, no? How many Americans have enough food to last a while without oil? Our food comes from thousands of miles away. The sheer amount of panic, starvation, etc would cripple this country as if it were 1932 again.

All of the blowback concerns are valid and realistic. I get that. I am not in favor of a war with Iran. I think we should let Israel handle it.

sjmvsfscs08;1063708 wrote: Did I say I was in favor of it? LOL GTFO yourself, dumbass.

Also you're assuming that we'd carpet bomb Tehran or something. Iran has a legitimate military and they are clear targets. Precision weapons + legitimate military targets = country's infrastructure not destroyed.

Again, I'm not in favor of it. But to be realistic I am not afraid of the war, at least I'm not afraid of what would happen on the battlefields. The US military machine would eat right through the Iranian army and navy. Hell, many soldiers there would probably dessert as the first site of trouble.

I think you are seriously underestimating the precision and efficiency of our military when dealing with a uniformed opponent.

Certainly you see the difference? The Iranian military would be target practice for our weapons. That much is basically a fact. They would die in droves if they didn't abandon their post first. The US, and the world, has a huge amount of motivation to get Iran's military taken out quickly. They don't want a repeat of Iraq's oil situation from the Gulf War.

Iran could, when you think about it, launch missiles not only at our troops, but at the oil fields of Iraq/Saudi Arabia/Kuwait/etc and hopefully (for them) make the oil markets explode and it shuts down the American economy. And I mean shut down the economy, strategic oil reserves last roughly a month (without rations), so should Iran's leaders play a "not to lose" cat-and-mouse game while shutting off the world's oil America could take a massive, massive hit, no? How many Americans have enough food to last a while without oil? Our food comes from thousands of miles away. The sheer amount of panic, starvation, etc would cripple this country as if it were 1932 again.

All of the blowback concerns are valid and realistic. I get that. I am not in favor of a war with Iran. I think we should let Israel handle it.

Then why support Romney? He'll go to war with Iran, he said so himself.

Also, the arrogance and ignorance in this post is OUTSTANDING. I don't care if you went to Knowlton School of Architecture, no freaking chance anyone gives you a job.

Your exact sentiments were shared by many Americans before the Iraq, there's no doubt we would win but they would be "target practice"? LOL. Iran is no Iraq. Iran actually has a very strong military and the same exact kind of attitude that Iraqi insurgents had. Like I said, we would win the war. There isn't a country on the planet the US wouldn't "win" a war against. It's the rebuilding process that would absolutely cripple this country. We can't afford another $1 trillion+ war with a country that is not a direct threat to us.

Also, interesting that you note our precision bombs, etc. Those same bombs were used in Iraq, their infrastructure is still ruined and costs trillions to replace. Anyone who wants to go to war with Iran should be forced to sign up and sent to the front lines. I mean why not? It's only target practice after all. Don't be so ignorant. Something tells me a country with 8x the GDP as Iraq, double the people, 3x the military, and 3x land area would be a little more difficult to destroy, occupy, and rebuild.

You are wrong, how does it feel?

He will NOT start a war before the election.

No Way.


I think any sort of aggression would be missiles to take out any suspected nuclear spots and that is about it. Maybe some SF in country, but n real ground troops. Most def a possiblity that Israel would do the bidding.

fan_from_texas;1063387 wrote:These are the key issues. No doubt we'd win any head-to-head military conflict. But we also won that stage of Iraq/Afghanistan, too, and that isn't exactly working out too well. Doing the same thing to Iran would be a debacle.

This. I was young enough during Vietnam that the reports of casualties being substantially higher for "them" meant we were winning the war. Not nearly so simple in reality.

sleeper;1063812 wrote:Then why support Romney? He'll go to war with Iran, he said so himself.

Also, the arrogance and ignorance in this post is OUTSTANDING. I don't care if you went to Knowlton School of Architecture, no freaking chance anyone gives you a job.

Your exact sentiments were shared by many Americans before the Iraq, there's no doubt we would win but they would be "target practice"? LOL. Iran is no Iraq. Iran actually has a very strong military and the same exact kind of attitude that Iraqi insurgents had. Like I said, we would win the war. There isn't a country on the planet the US wouldn't "win" a war against. It's the rebuilding process that would absolutely cripple this country. We can't afford another $1 trillion+ war with a country that is not a direct threat to us.

Also, interesting that you note our precision bombs, etc. Those same bombs were used in Iraq, their infrastructure is still ruined and costs trillions to replace. Anyone who wants to go to war with Iran should be forced to sign up and sent to the front lines. I mean why not? It's only target practice after all. Don't be so ignorant. Something tells me a country with 8x the GDP as Iraq, double the people, 3x the military, and 3x land area would be a little more difficult to destroy, occupy, and rebuild.

You are wrong, how does it feel?

Can I get some sources that show Romney said he "will go to war with Iran." Romney has never been a warmonger, he took a hardline stance to win over SC primaries voters. It failed miserably.

The only ignorance I see is the fact that you can't comprehend what I'm saying. I never said I supported the idea of waging war with Iran. I explicitly said the opposite. I also never said that we would occupy the country, or that it would even be smart.

There's nothing to be wrong about since I haven't taken a stance that is for the war. And how can I be wrong when I agree with you about blowback and the idiocy of trying to occupy Iran?

The facts are that the US military would wipe the floor with the Iranian army/navy/air force. No one has ever seen the full might of the US military on display, or even half of the might for that matter. We have been busy being bogged down in urban warfare against a largely invisible enemy who put civilians in harm's way and make us follow stricter rules of war. I am simply talking about what would happen in a war with Iran. IRAN WOULD NOT STAND A CHANCE AGAINST US ON A BATTLEFIELD. You're oblivious to the point of my post and it's laughable, your ignorance is legendary. The US hasn't lost a notable battle against a conventional military (i.e. uniformed combatants) in how many years? I honestly can't think of the last time a foreign military was dumb enough to stand up against the US and walk away from it still alive.

Iran couldn't invade our bases in Afghanistan/Middle East, and any marked military personnel/vehicles would be obliterated by our ridiculous technological advantage. I could give a shit if Iran has 3x the military as Iraq, that would be 3x the casualties for them, they are inferior across the board and the real generals know.

Iran could cause widespread panic with insurgents across the region and temporarily disrupt the world's oil supply (well, really China's since 85% of it goes there. That's about it.

I also wouldn't need anyone to give me a job, ever, and be completely safe financially. That's for the kind words though, leading off a rebuttal with an ad hominem attack normally looks like you know what you're talking about...

sjmvsfscs08;1063903 wrote:The facts are that the US military would wipe the floor with the Iranian army/navy/air force. No one has ever seen the full might of the US military on display, or even half of the might for that matter. We have been busy being bogged down in urban warfare against a largely invisible enemy who put civilians in harm's way and make us follow stricter rules of war. I am simply talking about what would happen in a war with Iran. IRAN WOULD NOT STAND A CHANCE AGAINST US ON A BATTLEFIELD. You're oblivious to the point of my post and it's laughable, your ignorance is legendary. The US hasn't lost a notable battle against a conventional military (i.e. uniformed combatants) in how many years? I honestly can't think of the last time a foreign military was dumb enough to stand up against the US and walk away from it still alive.

Right, but there's a difference between winning a battle and winning a war, inasmuch as the latter requires you to have some sort of goal that you accomplish. We won every battle in Vietnam--do you think we won the war there by accomplishing our aims? We've won every "battle" in Iraq/Afghanistan, yet a decade later we're still paying untold billions. If that counts as winning, are we sure we want to win?

The problem isn't winning the conflict on the ground. The problem, as Powell pointed out (and was ignored at the time), is figuring out what to do next (remember, you break it, you own it?). If we go in and destroy the Iranian military and infrastructure, but refuse to rebuild or do anything else afterward, what do you think the odds are that a friendly, democratic government is installed that keeps national terrorists in check?