Is the fight against Iran too familiar?

Question

Most stunning and disturbing description of a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran.” It would, he suggested, involve “Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan."

http://www.ichblog.eu/text/content/view/337/1/

Answer 1

Only time will tell...

Answer 2

The US fighting in the Middle East is hardly a defensive act and is pretty useless endeavor. The US fully backed Saddam some years back because of American Interests. The tided turned and the US began backing Iran; Training their fighter pilots in the US, selling them military equipment with knowledge on how to make their own. Does the US think ahead at all? It certainly is troublesome having the US as an ally who knows what they might do next.
It is up to the US to keep its armed forces away from the Middle East and let things settle out as they will. Western armed influence in the Middle East will only demand more and more resources. Can the Western countries afford to sustain a prolonged presence. It is now costing the US 170 billion dollars a year to keep this war going. What could you do with this much money at home?
Why can't the west use their intelligence departments to infiltrate and roust these terrorist camps?

Answer 3

The situation in Iraq is very bad and there are no shortage of opinions on what to do. Since I cannot keep my mouth shut, I will offer my 2 cents.

One aspect is the American's military strategy of heavy firepower and high technology. While this is highly effective at destroying the enemy's high tech weapons, it does not always destroy the morale of enemy foot-soldiers as we saw in Vietnam and Somalia and are now seeing in Iraq. The only way to fight guerillas is with a "cop-on-the beat' approach. That is, increase the number of ground infantry. Bush is now trying to do this with the troop surge. He is asking for 20 000, but he needs 500 000 to do what needs to be done. Obviously, that would never get past the house.

This all calls into question the entire policy of fighting terrorism at its source. The arguement for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was that we had to attack the 'breeding ground' terrorism. The result is that our soldiers are being drawn into centuries old blood feuds without any positive result. Perhaps a containment approach might work better. Dedicate all our resources towards preventing the extremists from leaving their own countries and let them kill each other. Strengthen visitation and immigration laws to prevent hostiles from getting into our country.

I am a Canadian, yet our troops are fighting in Afghanistan also.

Answer 4

Yes it is.

Bush is trigger happy, again. He has to get one more "dig" before his time is up.
He has depleted the trust of the USA to the rest of the world.
I just can't believe what I see, or hear anymore.
They doctor up the truth to their lies. I don't even know if I trust the photos they show us. Photoshop can do wonders. CG too, on videos.

All of this, to protect us US citizens. Protect us from what? Another airplane crash? Isn't that what Homeland security is for, with or without the war in Iraq? More people died "protecting us" (soldiers and Iraqi families), than what any terrorist have killed in our homeland.

I'd rather see the 1,000+ troops alive in the USA protecting our borders and coastlines, instead of being dead in Iraq, fighting terrorists who would have not existed, if the war in Iraq never started in the first place.

Answer 5

nope. see, lets get everything in order for a second. the US army destroyed a very large Iraqi army in a number of weeks. The US is now fighting civilians who have taken up arms. essentially, that is what an insurgent is. Now, if the US were to go to war with Iran, we wouldn't be talking about "liberation" anymore. it would be your standard war. two militaries out to decimate each other. and lets be frank, Iran doesn't stand a chance. After the destruction of their military and their surrender, we will leave, not occupy (Iraq). That is the main difference.

Answer 6

Bush is a not job who couldnt control 25 million people in iraq, how the f* is he going to control 80 million in iran who are three years prepared for war plus have the backing of russia and china. good luck i say

http://ca.blog.360.yahoo.com/antiwar_girl

Answer 7

us of a hasn't ever received a conflict, so I somewhat doubt it. I wager they gave funds to Iran to advance the weapon interior the first position. They did they similar with the Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Osama bin weighted down.

Answer 8

I think now the worst action in middle east is fighting against iran. Usa had fired the world. when it give up the war? i wish the next war never hppen in anywhere.

Answer 9

I say the fight in iran is a bit over board, But I agree with every trooper that is there. If they believe in the cause, I believe in the cause. they are my heroes, We all need them to watch america when it is at war. There they have stop sooo much violence and horror.

Answer 10

iran is committing acts of war against the us in iraq and against the iraqi people.
what do you think the usa should do?
irans intentions are clear,they have been openly stated more than once.
thank G-d for america and its brave lonely soldiers!!

Answer 11

Too familiar? Not at all. I wish that it were not so. I wish we could say, "Hey Mr. Iranian Prez. You swear your going to wipe us out. Well, we are not going to wait till you have the means to do so, so we'll settle this now."

But those days are long gone.