Iran
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:22pm
Thread Topic: Iran
-
The fact that people like Reaper Six actually decide our foreign policy is why Iraq was such a miserable failure.
-
Bro, I was against Iraq Two. Bush wanted Saddam dead, and while Saddam was a bad guy, there are better ways to kill him than a full on invasion. We don't need thousands of men to topple a government. We should have hot Saddam, left a small, residual special forces group in the warzone to take care of things the Iraqis couldn't do themselves. Same story with Afganistan. I am supportive of diplomacy first, but you need something to back diplomacy up with, that is force. If a stereotypical nerd approaches a stereotypical football player and starts making comments about how they could take the football player in a fight, the football player is going to laugh in his face and walk off. The nerd has nothing to back himself up with. We have tried diplomacy, I respect that, I like the smell of napalm in the morning as much as the next guy, but I don't like to see lives wasted in an avoidable war.
-
Excuse me, line six. Hot should be got, sorry.
-
Ok, but in your metaphor, we're the big scary jock, and Iran is the wimpy little nerd. They think they can hang with us, but by the time they're staring down the barrel of a thousand guns and facing imminent destruction, they'll know they can't take us on.
-
And I mention Iraq because your mentality was basically that of Donald Rumsfeld and much of the Bush administration. Rumsfeld wanted the military to strike as quickly as possible, which was successful in bringing down the regime in Iraq, but he was oblivious to the fact that you don't just overthrow a regime without there being consequences within the country. So I'll repeat my point: there will have to be an occupying force in Iran to maintain order of any kind, and given that occupying forces in foreign countries are almost always a messy thing, it isn't prudent of us to put our troops in harm's way when Iran may be as many as ten years away from developing a bomb, or may be horribly incorrect in their current science.
-
What you don't understand is that I'm any somewhat knowledgeable regime there is a line of succession should something go wrong. Hell, maybe the Islamic regime will fall and we get a better one. The Odyssey Dawn strikes in Libya are exact proof of my point. We took out strategic targets, without an invasion. We cripple the chain of command, and let political instability tear Iran apart and put itself back together. What would probably happen is a military takeover by the surviving generals. Generals are smart, and they'll think that while nuclear weapons would be nice, it's not worth ruin for your country. Plus, they'll have the fear in the back of their minds that should they continue on that path, they will die.
-
Yes, but Libya is still playing itself out, and the government in Libya that comes to power could be just as bad as Khadaffi, maybe worse. There is no order in the country right now, it is basically run by the militias that overthrew Khaddafi, which are made up of Islamic fascists.
-
However, that is not the situation in Iran.
Pages:
- 1
- 2
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
