Should America invade Iran?

[srebbe64]

I think not - it sounds worryingly familiar:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4396457.stm

[406]

Personally, I dont give a toss.

[TheLemming]

Should America Invade Iran?

Only if they want to pull back a bloody stump....

Invading Iran would be several times worse than Vietnam for casualties, the Iranians, unlike the Iraquis havent been weakened by decades of sanctions and remain fanatic haters of the americans.

Big Big Mistake...

[KB_S1]

They will just send Israel in instead and deny all knowledge.
Wait I think some people are at the front door, be back in a...

[simpo two]

Too much. I think they've got enough on their plate already.

Mind you, if this was Civilisation 2, I'd be in there by lunchtime

[JagLover]

Probably not

The Iranian Regime is simply another dictatorship masquerading as a democracy-but America should accept it cannot set the world to rights by itself.

[raf dug]

TheLemming said:

Should America Invade Iran? Only if they want to pull back a bloody stump.... Invading Iran would be several times worse than Vietnam for casualties, the Iranians, unlike the Iraquis havent been weakened by decades of sanctions and remain fanatic haters of the americans. Big Big Mistake...

The Iranians took one hell of a beating off the iraqi's and look what happened to them when they took on the Americans and thier allies.

[c c]

The EU’s softly softly approach might be more beneficial. Lots of ordinary Iranians are desperate for a more democratic less hard line government. American interference will do nothing except alienate these people and strengthen the hard-liners hold on the country.

[shirley temple]

why not?, then Syria and anywhere else that harbours rag head loonies. Just like the crusades, but in CNN technicolor wise screen!!


lights blue touch paper and scarpers

[JagLover]

c c said:

The EU’s softly softly approach might be more beneficial. Lots of ordinary Iranians are desperate for a more democratic less hard line government. American interference will do nothing except alienate these people and strengthen the hard-liners hold on the country.

Sometimes force is the answer sometimes not-Iran, unlike Iraq, has not attacked any of its neighbours apart from supporting Hizbullah which targets Israel.

Sure there alot of thuggish dictarships in the world-should we topple every one?

[alexkp]

JagLover said:

Sure there alot of thuggish dictarships in the world-should we topple every one?

There is a significant part of my conscience that says yes...

[billb]

can't we start with the african ones as they are the worst human rights offenders would be a lot easier to beat and u never know might have some oil?!? mind u it'll soon start happening looking at who's gonna be head of world bank..

[simpo two]

TheLemming said:

Invading Iran would be several times worse than Vietnam for casualties

Funny how someone says that before every conflict now... What happened to Saddam's 'Mother of all Battles' promised for 1991? Wind and piss: the US went straight through them. The Iraqi army staged a partially successful raid on the animals in the Kuwait City Zoo, and set a couple of hundred oil wells on fire, before grabbing the first jeep, bus or bicycle back to Baghdad. And because they were allowed to go home, it all blew up again 10 years later. They may make good terrorists, and be good at firing AK47s in the air and shouting about Allah, but they're not a professional and united fighting force.

[billb]

simpo two said:

TheLemming said: Invading Iran would be several times worse than Vietnam for casualties Funny how someone says that before every conflict now... What happened to Saddam's 'Mother of all Battles' promised for 1991? Wind and piss: the US went straight through them. The Iraqi army staged a partially successful raid on the animals in the Kuwait City Zoo, and set a couple of hundred oil wells on fire, before grabbing the first jeep, bus or bicycle back to Baghdad. And because they were allowed to go home, it all blew up again 10 years later. They may make good terrorists, and be good at firing AK47s in the air and shouting about Allah, but they're not a professional and united fighting force.

true but theyre good terrorists looking at how many have died since the "end" of the war...

[JagLover]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

But there are limits to Western power-Britain barely has an army any more-the rest of Europe no longer even have that, and America cannot shoulder the burden alone.

Therefore military force has to be reserved for the vilest of regimes , Taliban, Saddam, and those that pose a threat to their neighbours, again Saddam

[billb]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

am sure rwanda et al would argue for some force then?!

[AlexH]

TheLemming said:

Should America Invade Iran? Only if they want to pull back a bloody stump.... Invading Iran would be several times worse than Vietnam for casualties, the Iranians, unlike the Iraquis havent been weakened by decades of sanctions and remain fanatic haters of the americans. Big Big Mistake...

Ermmmm no. Militarily the U.S. would kick seven shades out of them, the landscape also being a superb setting to allow them to use their technological superiority to the full, as opposed to the dense jungles of South East Asia. Politically both during and after, in Iran itself, the Middle East and the world as a whole however, I can't see any outcome other than a massive cluster.

[JagLover]

billb said:

am sure rwanda et al would argue for some force then?!

Of course

[parrot of doom]

Empires have been built and died for millenia. The latest one is not really any different.

People actually wanted to live under Roman rule you know.