Is War With Iran Our Best Option?

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

There's no leap of logic here.

The Iranians will rise up and overthrow their government, joining the Americans with glee, just like the North Vietnamese did when they bombed Hanoi to smithereens. Or like the Cubans did after the Bay of Pigs. No leap of logic at all....

Not what he said.

[New Neros]

Every communist/socialist speech ever has THE PEOPLE in it, I'm sure.

According to some posters here, NS is a giant communist cesspool.

I am shocked! It's like the West hated Communism for the better half of an entire century or something.

According to some posters here, NS is a giant communist cesspool.

What are they talking about? We're clearly fascist zionist nazis! /sarcasm

socialist fascist zionist nazi revisionists*

Every communist/socialist speech ever has THE PEOPLE in it, I'm sure.

and if i recall correctly the thought process listed earlier resulted in a good few defeats for the red army and the french national guard.

And? Then what happened?

The Red Army was one of the most powerful forces on Earth regardless of k/d ratio. National Guard Frogs stopped being a major force in France after the Thermidorian Reaction, so are relatively irrelevant after the Revolution.

[Kubra]

The Iranians will rise up and overthrow their government, joining the Americans with glee, just like the North Vietnamese did when they bombed Hanoi to smithereens. Or like the Cubans did after the Bay of Pigs. No leap of logic at all....

Not what he said.

it's def what he said, bruh. Your claim that he's saying that war is unpredictable is the most laughable interpretation of a couple simple sentences.

[Land and Freedom]

The Iranians will rise up and overthrow their government, joining the Americans with glee, just like the North Vietnamese did when they bombed Hanoi to smithereens. Or like the Cubans did after the Bay of Pigs. No leap of logic at all....

Not what he said.

Exactly.

It's ridiculous just to assume that the people will roll over and bring down their government because of a bombing campaign or a military defeat. In practice that rarely happens.

[New Neros]

Not what he said.

it's def what he said, bruh. Your claim that he's saying that war is unpredictable is the most laughable interpretation of a couple simple sentences.

No one predicted the Soviets would came back against the Germans in '43. No one predicted Vietnam would be such an unwinnable war. No one predicted the US was curbstomp Iraq in under two-weeks during the First Gulf War. No one predicted the Miracle at the Marne would happen and save France in 1914.

You have no idea what you're talking about at all. Go join the Frozen thread and shitpost there or something.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Actually, nuking Binyamin Netanyahu, Iran, and ISIS is our best option. And Damascus. Gets rid of all of our enemies.
...and puts us back in the nuclear industry! Yaaay!
*blood n guts and mushroom clouds ensue*

[Equusia]

Oh god no! Iran is open to talk right now, they are willing to cut back on their nuclear program, and will only produce uranium that is capable for power, not missiles. Damn war hawks, put them on the frontline of their war and see how they like it, better yet bomb their house.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

Not what he said.

it's def what he said, bruh. Your claim that he's saying that war is unpredictable is the most laughable interpretation of a couple simple sentences.

Honestly, are you really that fucking stupid?

"Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists."

[Land and Freedom]

it's def what he said, bruh. Your claim that he's saying that war is unpredictable is the most laughable interpretation of a couple simple sentences.

Honestly, are you really that fucking stupid?

"Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps[/color], but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists."

He's more or less counting on the latter happening.

[Saiwania]

There would be no escalation, there would be no need for it. Russia might provide some under the table support to Iran, but otherwise they have no reason to do anything other than sit back and laugh as America throws blood and money into a black hole and completely destroys it's role as a 'leader' in international affairs.

That is precisely what I'm talking about, Russia has been going off the deep end since Crimea and are pulling more brazen stunts one after the other. I can see Russia giving Iran the S-300 and S-400 anyways even if a deal is reached with Iran over their nuclear program, just to spite Europe and the US over supporting Ukraine.

If there is to be an attack on Iran, Israel will have to do it, and in all likelihood it will cause hell to break lose throughout the region. I can't see how it can be done along the lines of Operation Mole Cricket 19 without extensive Israeli losses if the S-300 and S-400 is at least twice as effective as previous generation systems.

[Kubra]

According to some posters here, NS is a giant communist cesspool.

I am shocked! It's like the West hated Communism for the better half of an entire century or something.

What are they talking about? We're clearly fascist zionist nazis! /sarcasm

socialist fascist zionist nazi revisionists*

and if i recall correctly the thought process listed earlier resulted in a good few defeats for the red army and the french national guard.

And? Then what happened?

The Red Army was one of the most powerful forces on Earth regardless of k/d ratio. National Guard Frogs stopped being a major force in France after the Thermidorian Reaction, so are relatively irrelevant after the Revolution.

Not the Red Army of World War Two, The Red Army of the 1918 westward offensive and the Winter War. These were not the most well thought out conflicts.


Naw, national guard of the paris commune. Sure, they weren't exactly a powerful military force, but when almost the entire french military is rotting in prussian camps, you're the biggest kid on the block.
The new third republic had gathered its forces at Versailles, and the paris national guard took their sweet time getting an assault underway. By that time the prussians were already returning troops.
And, of course, the plan was "the people are with us", so when the versailles troops opened fire from positions the national guard swore were actually there's, you can imagine the result.

[New Neros]

it's def what he said, bruh. Your claim that he's saying that war is unpredictable is the most laughable interpretation of a couple simple sentences.

Honestly, are you really that fucking stupid?

"Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps, but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists."

War exhaustion and attrition causes civilian revolts, and Iran hasn't been in a major war since the Iraq-Iran Conflict, not mention the current regime is fairly popular with average Iranians (the ones you hear that are disgruntled are the ones that had to flee the regime and receive a massive voice for some reason).

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

Honestly, are you really that fucking stupid?

"Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps[/color], but military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists."

He's more or less counting on the latter happening.

He's not counting on anything. He's dealing with the argument that the only possible outcome of an invasion or airstrikes would be the regime gaining support. Again, there's not much to discuss here. You are just putting words in his mouth.

[Kubra]

it's def what he said, bruh. Your claim that he's saying that war is unpredictable is the most laughable interpretation of a couple simple sentences.

Honestly, are you really that fucking stupid?

"Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps,buuuuut military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists."

Are you?

[New Neros]

I am shocked! It's like the West hated Communism for the better half of an entire century or something.



socialist fascist zionist nazi revisionists*



And? Then what happened?

The Red Army was one of the most powerful forces on Earth regardless of k/d ratio. National Guard Frogs stopped being a major force in France after the Thermidorian Reaction, so are relatively irrelevant after the Revolution.

Not the Red Army of World War Two, The Red Army of the 1918 westward offensive and the Winter War. These were not the most well thought out conflicts.


Naw, national guard of the paris commune. Sure, they weren't exactly a powerful military force, but when the entire french military is rotting in prussian camps, you're the biggest kid on the block.
The new third republic had gathered its forces at Versailles, and the paris national guard took their sweet time getting an assault underway. By that time the prussians were already returning troops.
And, of course, the plan was "the people are with us", so when the versailles troops opened fire from positions the national guard swore were actually there's, you can imagine the result.

The Red Army suffered from a brain drain to the Whites, yet still managed to hold their own and defeat them in the Civil War, and past that, we get into Stalinist Era purges and ideas that have no place in military thought. You're blaming an entire army's failures on the inept policies of one man.

The National Guard did not go in expecting to defeat the Prussians, I have no idea why you think that. Their goal was to delay them from entering Paris. With most of the French Army captured, can you really expect a ragtag group of French misfits to launch a successful assault against the Prussian War Machine?

You're cherry picking your arguments, man, and they make no sense in their given context.

If you want to discuss revolutions, we need to look at the Iranian Revolution and not these European ones that have no influence on the current situation.

[Earl of Sandwich IV]

Honestly, are you really that fucking stupid?

"Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps,buuuuut military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists."

Are you?

So, yes. You are this stupid. So what? Both outcomes are possible in his opinion.

[Crezilivion]

How is invading Iran going to help us at all unless we discover they have some plot to attack us? I don't think Iran is stupid enough to attack us or our allies. I also don't think any President has the desire to invade it because the hate quite frankly could get him/her impeached easily. The majority of the people from all sides don't want another war, if another one occurred there would likely be an outrage.War on Iran is definitely not a good idea unless we are provoked.

Well the friendly neighbourhood Republicans seem to think it's a good idea. Pretty much wanting to throw diplomacy and negotiation out the window isn't exactly seen as diplomatic; in fact it's interpreted as wanting to invade.

I don't buy this, I'll call their bluff so to speak. People (after the numerous Middle Eastern conflicts) are not going to support this. Even if a few politicians think its a good idea they won't do it if they want to get elected. I don't know a single Republican or Democrat who still thinks invasion is a good idea. Over half of the people I know are Republicans by the way. I honestly can't think of a better way to anger the U.S. as a whole right now than say "We are going to war again." Would any politician really do this if they realized how angry people would be? I believe the public will quickly correct anyone who tried to attack Iran unprovoked.

[Kubra]

Not the Red Army of World War Two, The Red Army of the 1918 westward offensive and the Winter War. These were not the most well thought out conflicts.


Naw, national guard of the paris commune. Sure, they weren't exactly a powerful military force, but when the entire french military is rotting in prussian camps, you're the biggest kid on the block.
The new third republic had gathered its forces at Versailles, and the paris national guard took their sweet time getting an assault underway. By that time the prussians were already returning troops.
And, of course, the plan was "the people are with us", so when the versailles troops opened fire from positions the national guard swore were actually there's, you can imagine the result.

The Red Army suffered from a brain drain to the Whites, yet still managed to hold their own and defeat them in the Civil War, and past that, we get into Stalinist Era purges and ideas that have no place in military thought. You're blaming an entire army's failures on the inept policies of one man.

The National Guard did not go in expecting to defeat the Prussians, I have no idea why you think that. Their goal was to delay them from entering Paris. With most of the French Army captured, can you really expect a ragtag group of French misfits to launch a successful assault against the Prussian War Machine?

You're cherry picking your arguments, man, and they make no sense in their given context.

If you want to discuss revolutions, we need to look at the Iranian Revolution and not these European ones that have no influence on the current situation.

Whites? Brain drain? Funny. Not an ounce of military leadership worth anything in the white armies. The bolsheviks weren't exactly masters of war (but you know, one eyed man among the blind and all), but you've already lost if your enemy (before the reorganization as the Red Army, when it was the red guard) that realizes that it's enough to simply tell your soldiers they don't actually have to fight for you. Disciplined, effective white units came later, in inverse proportion to the effectiveness of red army units after reorganization.
But after that, it was the hope that proletarian internationalism would ring true. Even during the Winter War the rhetoric was not abandoned, despite the more overtly "military" nature of the Winter War.

They didn't go in expecting to defeat the prussians (ah, well, not then, anyways). They went in expecting to fight frenchman. The attack on Versailles wasn't against Bismark, but the new french republican government (the third) that negotiated peace with Bismark. It wasn't a delaying action, it was an actual offensive with the majority of their active fighting force in order to put Theirs and the lot on trial or on a pike or whatever (can't blame em tho)

It's not a principle that exists only for one culture, bruh. Saying "and then the people will rise with us" is a bad decision for every culture in every historical period.

Are you?

So, yes. You are this stupid. So what? Both outcomes are possible in his opinion.

Oh yeah, definitely possible. Everythings possible.
Are you going to spontaneously combust tomorrow? Perhaps. But you might also remain alive and unburnt, like me or president Obama.
But, you know, it's unpredictable.

[The Lone Alliance]

Well the friendly neighbourhood Republicans seem to think it's a good idea. Pretty much wanting to throw diplomacy and negotiation out the window isn't exactly seen as diplomatic; in fact it's interpreted as wanting to invade.

I don't buy this, I'll call their bluff so to speak. People (after the numerous Middle Eastern conflicts) are not going to support this. Even if a few politicians think its a good idea they won't do it if they want to get elected. I don't know a single Republican or Democrat who still thinks invasion is a good idea. Over half of the people I know are Republicans by the way. I honestly can't think of a better way to anger the U.S. as a whole right now than say "We are going to war again." Would any politician really do this if they realized how angry people would be? I believe the public will quickly correct anyone who tried to attack Iran unprovoked.

This, people on both sides of the political fence said no to Syria even after the supposed "Red Line" of chemical weapons were used.

If NBC usage by Syria didn't get the American people to care, then the supposed rumors the so called fears of Iran's nuclear program, which all evidence points to slowing down and reversing in some cases, aren't enough to convince the average American that it's a threat to them.

The worst Iran will get is more sanctions if they dick around again.

The US will not invade or attack Iran simply because Israel wants them too, there's just not enough in it for the US and Israel isn't seen as a critical ally as they used to be.

[Washington Resistance Army]

He layed out the case pretty good. I agree with him, if war is the only option to stop the Iranian nuclear program, which seems to be the case, we shouldn't hesitate.

Why is everything you say so immensely retarded that I feel like my IQ goes down when I read it? There is no evidence Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons program, and if they really did want to get nukes they could just ask Best Korea for a Nuclear Weapons For Dummies manual.

[Socialist Tera]

No way! That is crazy. America needs to stop going to war.

[The Archregimancy]

Honestly, are you really that fucking stupid?

"Wouldn’t an attack cause ordinary Iranians to rally behind the regime? Perhaps,buuuuut military losses have also served to undermine regimes, including the Greek and Argentine juntas, the Russian czar and the Russian communists."

So, yes. You are this stupid. So what? Both outcomes are possible in his opinion.

*** Warned for flaming. ***

[Ashmoria]

Not sure if you people have already discussed this, but last week there was a bit of a stir over this article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

Where a neo-con writer insists that invading Iran is a far better idea than sanctions and diplomacy. Said writer insists it wouldn't even be that hard. Just a little aerial campaign to bomb their reactors and associated infrastructure. A cakewalk if you will...

What do you people think? Good idea or not? Should I start training for the draft?

you should start working to elect more democrats. its not a sure thing that they will oppose war with iran but those republicans are getting scary in their calls for war.

we should have learned our lesson with Iraq, eh? it is wrong to start a war when the other country has done nothing to you. it wouldn't be easy and it wouldn't solve anything.

[Norstal]

Not sure if you people have already discussed this, but last week there was a bit of a stir over this article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

Where a neo-con writer insists that invading Iran is a far better idea than sanctions and diplomacy. Said writer insists it wouldn't even be that hard. Just a little aerial campaign to bomb their reactors and associated infrastructure. A cakewalk if you will...

What do you people think? Good idea or not? Should I start training for the draft?

you should start working to elect more democrats. its not a sure thing that they will oppose war with iran but those republicans are getting scary in their calls for war.

we should have learned our lesson with Iraq, eh? it is wrong to start a war when the other country has done nothing to you. it wouldn't be easy and it wouldn't solve anything.

The biggest problem with Iraq was that we didn't have an exit strategy. We totes have an exit strategy for Iran now guys.

[Zilam]

Not sure if you people have already discussed this, but last week there was a bit of a stir over this article in the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/war-with-iran-is-probably-our-best-option/2015/03/13/fb112eb0-c725-11e4-a199-6cb5e63819d2_story.html

Where a neo-con writer insists that invading Iran is a far better idea than sanctions and diplomacy. Said writer insists it wouldn't even be that hard. Just a little aerial campaign to bomb their reactors and associated infrastructure. A cakewalk if you will...

What do you people think? Good idea or not? Should I start training for the draft?

Not at all a good option. Right now things aren't peachy, but they are on a right track. If this were EUIV, Iran would have had an opinion of us of -200. Over the last few months, it was warmed to probably -175. Still can't trust each other, and we won't be friends anytime soon, but there is absolutely no reason to start a war with them, unless they attack us.