As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Invading Iran.

Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4toArlington, VARegistered User regular
edited May 2007 in Debate and/or Discourse
This is an idea I got from the "When will we go to war with Iran?"

Because I personally see it very differently, not so much 'when' as 'how'. If the USA's top brass were more intelligent, than it is quite possible that the strike into Iraq wouldn't have failed. We needed more soldiers, simply enough. Now, however, we can think of a plan to successfully attack Iran, and in 2011, we'll be all 'told you so'.

Personally, I don't know that much about logistics (being that I'm 16), however, it seems that a couple obvious things would need to be fullfilled for an attack on Iran to work-

Democracy in Iraq-You don't attack from a weak base, simply enough. We will need to have an Iraq that supports our country, supports the West, and doesn't kill Americans before we can even THINK of expansion.

An ally in the region-Israel obviously has its hands full, and Turkey also would have problems if they were seen openly supporting American Imperialists. Personally, I'm thinking India, but we'd need to subdue or otherwise make it so Pakistan wouldn't just attack the exposed flank left by a military abroad.

That's all I can think of. What about you guys?

Note-This is not about morals, so no posts about "Attacking Iraq is bad!" or "Bush r dum lolz". I personally am against the war and I think it was started for the wrong reasons. However, its an interesting military situtation, and I'd like discussion on that.

Ethan Smith on

Posts

  • Options
    Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    India has traditionally been pro-Iran, as the country serves to help keep Pakistan in check.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    India has traditionally been pro-Iran, as the country serves to help keep Pakistan in check.

    The thing is that if the risk works out, and America has a close amount of control over a pair of middle eastern countries, that'd keep Pakistan in check far more.

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    Nexus ZeroNexus Zero Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I don't think it's possible to successfully occupy a country of that size any more, we've proved that with Iraq and we'd now have to wait years before an attack on Iran would be in any way viable.

    Nexus Zero on
    sig.jpg
  • Options
    Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Andrew_Jay wrote: »
    India has traditionally been pro-Iran, as the country serves to help keep Pakistan in check.
    The thing is that if the risk works out, and America has a close amount of control over a pair of middle eastern countries, that'd keep Pakistan in check far more.
    It's not going to happen.

    Policy in South Asia is precarious enough as it is, with Pakistan as a nominal ally in Afghanistan and the president's new Indian stance (including nuclear co-operation) last year.

    There's no occupying Iran. At best, the country's military can be beaten into submission from the air and at the Iraqi border in some kind of vain hope that it will prompt people to overthrow the Ayatollahs. That won't happen either. Despite being the most pro-western population in the entire Middle East, any good-will the Iranians harbour will vanish with the outbreak of hostilities.

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Options
    Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    We needed more soldiers, simply enough.

    I think it's not as simple as you think.

    Marty81 on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Doesn't iran also have an insanely large civilian milita?

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited May 2007
    Nexus Zero wrote: »
    I don't think it's possible to successfully occupy a country of that size any more, we've proved that with Iraq and we'd now have to wait years before an attack on Iran would be in any way viable.

    Well, considering that we pledged -- approximately -- the minimum sacrifice we could fool ourselves into believing was necessary, I don't think it's really been given a fair shot.

    Now, you throw 750,000 troops and $10 trillion into that hellhole, and it still goes to shit, and then I'll agree with you.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    sdrawkcaB emaNsdrawkcaB emaN regular
    edited May 2007
    Doesn't iran also have an insanely large civilian milita?

    And, like, a real army.

    With tanks and jets and shit.

    And they don't surrender as soon as an opposing force rolls over the horizon. You can bet that the initial invasion'd be a hell of a lot bloodier, for both the Iranians and Americans, than the invasion of Iraq was.

    Not to mention that they control strategic oil shipping lanes, which they could promptly mine, driving prices well beyond the triple-digit-per-barrel mark. Which would kind of fuck us over.

    sdrawkcaB emaN on
  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    If push came to shove the Us has the balls to fight a real war. A decade long insurgency not so much.

    nexuscrawler on
  • Options
    Ethan SmithEthan Smith Origin name: Beart4to Arlington, VARegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Marty81 wrote: »
    We needed more soldiers, simply enough.

    I think it's not as simple as you think.

    As do I, but I'm not about to give a massive explanation about shit which I have no actual knowledge about.

    edit-The problem is that there's shittons more of national pride in Iran then there is and was in Iraq. The Iraqis didn't have that strong a cultural identity, and look at what's happening now. Alright, I accept that it's going to be insanely impossible for it to work, but are there any other ideas?

    Ethan Smith on
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I'm starting to think it would be more likely that we would nuke them than try to repeat what we did in Iraq. Fortunately, I don't think it is very likely that we will nuke them either.

    Savant on
  • Options
    MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    I think its more likely that we'll see another 'cold war' rather than anything significant. Well I think that's better, who knows when it'll happen.

    The best situation for everyone is to get Iran to stop babbling about their need for nuclear energy and giving them alternatives. We probably could cook up a solution for them in exchange for cheap-ass oil until we get our asses in gear. They're no China and they don't need massive amounts of energy yesterday. We can string each other along for years before one side can walk away. That would give us enough time to either figure out Iraq and Afghanistan or straight up leave re-organize and prepare for Judgement Day.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • Options
    SavantSavant Simply Barbaric Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    Malkor wrote: »
    I think its more likely that we'll see another 'cold war' rather than anything significant. Well I think that's better, who knows when it'll happen.

    The best situation for everyone is to get Iran to stop babbling about their need for nuclear energy and giving them alternatives. We probably could cook up a solution for them in exchange for cheap-ass oil until we get our asses in gear. They're no China and they don't need massive amounts of energy yesterday. We can string each other along for years before one side can walk away. That would give us enough time to either figure out Iraq and Afghanistan or straight up leave re-organize and prepare for Judgement Day.

    I seriously doubt they are completely on the level with their nuclear programs. There were talks and offers to the Iranians for the programs (unfortunately I don't know the exact details) but instead of making couter offers they stonewalled and walked out of the discussions. They probably aren't developing nuclear weapons right at this moment, but are hoping to get enough know how and materials such that they can quickly put together the bomb if we blink or they deem it necessary.

    But yeah, low level conflict or cold hostilities seem to be the most likely result of this stuff. As long as no one does anything too stupid (the hostage taking was close), I doubt it will explode in the near future.

    Savant on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited May 2007
    There's no way. We'd get our asses handed to us in the current scenario, both militarily and economically. I just plain do not see it working under any circumstances whatsoever. At all.

    And yet Hillary, Guiliani and McCain all seem to think it's somewhere between 'on the table' and 'critical to national security'.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    CarnivoreCarnivore Registered User regular
    edited May 2007
    America wont invade Iran.

    If they do the UN will seriously start taking action. By then you wont have the UK as a lackey either, or France. Both will have replaced their leaders with much more anti-america ones.

    Carnivore on
    hihi.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.