Do you think that the U.S. will go to war with Iran in 2013?

[The Tiger Kingdom]

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." -- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

That's nice.

[R0MAN0VA]

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY." -- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

That's nice.

yeah, I'm just not in one of those moods to make an hour long rebuttal. Sorry for lazy response, just wanted to put my views out there. Had it been some other day I would of gone into more detail and rebutted but just too darn lazy

[Zynthian Covenant]

Screw it. It would just be a set up by the stupid committee of 300 and the elites and most satanic secret societies. If the us did go to war with Iran though, I hope the us gets slapped out of their god dang mind.

[Seleucas]

I hope that the US would have the sense not to start a war with Iran, even if it is arm-twisting Iran over this nuclear nonsense. If it does decide to go ahead and attack Iran, then I hope the US suffers greatly for it.

[Alien Space Bats]

It wouldn't surprise me if this happens sometime Between May-August. Anyway, if the U.S. does go to war with Iran, do you think that a military draft including men and women will be put into place. The idea of a war with Iran and a military draft scares me to death!

No.

It is possible that there will be a joint strike by Israeli and American forces, resulting in a brief conflict in the Persian Gulf. But the U.S. will not follow up on any fighting that takes place in the Gulf by landing troops in Iran; the whole fight will be allowed to run down into angry words.

And that's assuming that it happens at all.

I think that Iran is further from having a working nuke than many on the right believe it to be; consequently, there is room for the U.S. to wait at least through this summer, in order to see who wins the Iranian Presidential elections (in June) and to follow up on that change in government to see if the matter can be resolved through negotiation.

Besides, I think we'll probably be to busy in Korea after the DPRK invades the ROK this August.

[Obamacult]

Russia has enough nukes to kill every American many times over.

And so do we, for them.
That's deterrence for you.

If that doesn't give you pause, then nothing will.

They also don't trust their own people, so why should we trust them?

They may be erratic, but they have nothing to gain from opposing us (especially on a nuclear level). This isn't the Cold War, we're not on the opposite side of an ideological gulf anymore. They're frankly far more reasonable than they were pre-1991.
And I don't even know what you're talking about in the last sentence there.

First, the Russian leadership is not erratic -- it is pragmatic and rational. It is no less or more so than in the communist era. The only difference is that the Russian economy is more free and hence stronger than in the communist era and that the govt. spends less on defense. Nonetheless, the Russian nuclear threat is a potent today as it was pre-1990, hence the USA must be diligent regarding this potential survival level threat.

Second, if they had nothing to gain from opposing us, the Russian wouldn't be opposed to us in the first place. Indeed, the Russians and Chinese are prudent to balance USA strategic power.

Third, your ad hominem is noted, however let me explain it is a bad idea to put your trust in a govt. that doesn't trust you or their own people.

[Divair]

I hope that the US would have the sense not to start a war with Iran, even if it is arm-twisting Iran over this nuclear nonsense. If it does decide to go ahead and attack Iran, then I hope the US suffers greatly for it.

The US will just walk away with a few thousand deaths and a bunch of debt. I'm more concerned about the war's impact on me and my family.

[Obamacult]

It wouldn't surprise me if this happens sometime Between May-August. Anyway, if the U.S. does go to war with Iran, do you think that a military draft including men and women will be put into place. The idea of a war with Iran and a military draft scares me to death!

No.

It is possible that there will be a joint strike by Israeli and American forces, resulting in a brief conflict in the Persian Gulf. But the U.S. will not follow up on any fighting that takes place in the Gulf by landing troops in Iran; the whole fight will be allowed to run down into angry words.

And that's assuming that it happens at all.

I think that Iran is further from having a working nuke than many on the right believe it to be; consequently, there is room for the U.S. to wait at least through this summer, in order to see who wins the Iranian Presidential elections (in June) and to follow up on that change in government to see if the matter can be resolved through negotiation.

Besides, I think we'll probably be to busy in Korea after the DPRK invades the ROK this August.

First, do you have substantive and objective evidence to support your claim regarding Iran's nuke program?

Second, it doesn't really matter who wins the election because the primary center of power is outside this office.

Third, barring any change in the leadership situation in Pyongyang or Beijing, North Korea will NOT invade South Korea anytime soon. They are expected to engage in bluster and threats, but this is part and parcel of their foreign policy for decades. When they stopped bellowing and move military assets forward is when you need to start worrying. None of this has happened, hence your statement as hollow as the North Korean threats.

[Kleomentia]

No.

[Obamacult]

I hope that the US would have the sense not to start a war with Iran, even if it is arm-twisting Iran over this nuclear nonsense. If it does decide to go ahead and attack Iran, then I hope the US suffers greatly for it.

The US will just walk away with a few thousand deaths and a bunch of debt. I'm more concerned about the war's impact on me and my family.

Smart weapon technology developed at a cost of tens of billions of dollars specifically designed and motivated by the most humane and benevolent hegemon in recent history will insure that far fewer than a 'few thousand deaths' will occur. In most cases, the US military will signal to the enemy when and where attacks will occur to avert innocent deaths (the Israelis do the same thing when able).

Second, the exercise in Libya was conducted at a cost of less than 2 hours of federal spending. A somewhat more technical and expanded effort in Iran wouldn't cost much more. The real costs occur with supporting ground operations and nation building --- and that is not going to happen in Iran.

[Divair]

Smart weapon technology developed at a cost of tens of billions of dollars specifically designed and motivated by the most humane and benevolent hegemon in recent history will insure that far fewer than a 'few thousand deaths' will occur. In most cases, the US military will signal to the enemy when and where attacks will occur to avert innocent deaths (the Israelis do the same thing when able).

Iraq War cost 4,800 lives, Afghanistan War cost 3,200 lives. Iran is far more prepared than Saddam and a bunch of terrorists in caves. A few thousand is a fair estimate.

Second, the exercise in Libya was conducted at a cost of less than 2 hours of federal spending. A somewhat more technical and expanded effort in Iran wouldn't cost much more. The real costs occur with supporting ground operations and nation building --- and that is not going to happen in Iran.

Says who?

[Sucrati]

No, the majority of the populace, which would cover all areas of the political spectrum, will probably go to Washington DC and riot.

Only those who are real war hawks or are 'influenced' by big oil will seek more war.

Then again... our leadership isn't opposed from 'leading from behind' through 'Kinetic Military Action'... We didn't go to war with Iran when they asked for our support in getting rid of their leaders, why would we bother now? We have bigger things to worry about, like Syria!

[Kleomentia]

No, the majority of the populace, which would cover all areas of the political spectrum, will probably go to Washington DC and riot.

Only those who are real war hawks or are 'influenced' by big oil will seek more war.

Then again... our leadership isn't opposed from 'leading from behind' through 'Kinetic Military Action'... We didn't go to war with Iran when they asked for our support in getting rid of their leaders, why would we bother now? We have bigger things to worry about, like Syria!

How about China and Russia saying "Screw you, USA." and attacking them for that? It could cause WWIII, and the US isn't that stupid. Or so i hope.

[Obamacult]

Smart weapon technology developed at a cost of tens of billions of dollars specifically designed and motivated by the most humane and benevolent hegemon in recent history will insure that far fewer than a 'few thousand deaths' will occur. In most cases, the US military will signal to the enemy when and where attacks will occur to avert innocent deaths (the Israelis do the same thing when able).

Iraq War cost 4,800 lives, Afghanistan War cost 3,200 lives. Iran is far more prepared than Saddam and a bunch of terrorists in caves. A few thousand is a fair estimate.

Second, the exercise in Libya was conducted at a cost of less than 2 hours of federal spending. A somewhat more technical and expanded effort in Iran wouldn't cost much more. The real costs occur with supporting ground operations and nation building --- and that is not going to happen in Iran.

Says who?

The USA is not going to employ conventional ground troops in Iran. Our primary goal would be to disrupt/destroy the Iranian nuke program -- this can be accomplished without the use of ground troops.

We can accomplish this end with standoff weaponry with minimal cost in blood and treasure.

[Samuraikoku]

The USA is not going to employ conventional ground troops in Iran. Our primary goal would be to disrupt/destroy the Iranian nuke program -- this can be accomplished without the use of ground troops.

We can accomplish this end with standoff weaponry with minimal cost in blood and treasure.

I didn't know you were a general.

[Divair]

The USA is not going to employ conventional ground troops in Iran. Our primary goal would be to disrupt/destroy the Iranian nuke program -- this can be accomplished without the use of ground troops.

We can accomplish this end with standoff weaponry with minimal cost in blood and treasure.

lol

You think they are perfectly rational? If they were, Iraq wouldn't have happened and Afghanistan would have been handled far differently. And Vietnam wouldn't have been a complete failure.



Doesn't matter to me. Any type of attack on Iran will trigger a response, and their primary target is where I live. Shit outcome for me either way.

[Samuraikoku]

And Vietnam wouldn't have been a complete failure.

It wasn't a failure, it was a scheduled honorable retreat. *nods*

[Obamacult]

No, the majority of the populace, which would cover all areas of the political spectrum, will probably go to Washington DC and riot.

Only those who are real war hawks or are 'influenced' by big oil will seek more war.

Then again... our leadership isn't opposed from 'leading from behind' through 'Kinetic Military Action'... We didn't go to war with Iran when they asked for our support in getting rid of their leaders, why would we bother now? We have bigger things to worry about, like Syria!

Syria is important (WMD, al qaeda, Hezbollah, Turkey, etc) but it is a sideshow compared to a nuclear armed Iran that will lead to the mother of all arms races smack dab in the middle of the world's most volatile region dominated by myriad non-state, faith-based terror groups and astride 70% of the globe's most accessible and cheapest oil reserves.

If you don't think that nuclear instability in this region will have any impact on your life and the pacifist drones that are expected to flock to Washington in protest after the first cruise missile hits fordow, bonab, etc. then you don't understand the implications of an Iranian, Persian, Shia bomb.

These disparate political, religious and secular groups hate each other as much as they hate us.

[Divair]

And Vietnam wouldn't have been a complete failure.

It wasn't a failure, it was a scheduled honorable retreat. *nods*

My mistake.

[Obamacult]

The USA is not going to employ conventional ground troops in Iran. Our primary goal would be to disrupt/destroy the Iranian nuke program -- this can be accomplished without the use of ground troops.

We can accomplish this end with standoff weaponry with minimal cost in blood and treasure.

lol

You think they are perfectly rational? If they were, Iraq wouldn't have happened and Afghanistan would have been handled far differently. And Vietnam wouldn't have been a complete failure.



Doesn't matter to me. Any type of attack on Iran will trigger a response, and their primary target is where I live. Shit outcome for me either way.

Iraq and Afghanistan necessitate regime change -- Vietnam necessitate troops to prevent a communist takeover.

Iraq and Afghanistan were largely successful operations that is saving innocent lives to this day and offering some measure of stability within the most unstable and volatile region on the planet.

While every death is tragic, particularly when it is one of our brave heroes in uniform, the costs in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively where less than many of the volcanic ash heaps inthe Pacific during WWII.

Indeed, the USA has lost over 4000 troops in Iraq over ten years stabilizing a nation of over 20 million in the most volatile region on the planet astride 70% of the globe's most accessible oil reserves, the life blood to Western commerce. In contrast, in the US Marines lost 7000 troops fighting for a 10 sq mile island of ash in a single month of fighting.

You do the math.

Indeed, pacifists frequently neglect to consider the opportunity costs of Inaction when engaging in their knee jerk opposition to war.

[Obamacult]

It wasn't a failure, it was a scheduled honorable retreat. *nods*

My mistake.

With any war, certain campaigns do not bear immediate fruit. In the case of Vietnam, the enemy was attrited and the global communist offensive in South East Asia and the Pacific checked in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Eventually the West won this critical war for freedom from the most murderous and brutal tyranny the world has yet known -- state communism.

Vietnam was an ill-fated campaign in this war that necessitated a strategic withdrawal after great cost (greater to the enemy). In the overall scheme, it was part of a great global victory for freedom and prosperity.

[Samuraikoku]

With any war, certain campaigns do not bear immediate fruit. In the case of Vietnam, the enemy was attrited and the global communist offensive in South East Asia and the Pacific checked in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Eventually the West won this critical war for freedom from the most murderous and brutal tyranny the world has yet known -- state communism.

Vietnam was an ill-fated campaign in this war that necessitated a strategic withdrawal after great cost (greater to the enemy). In the overall scheme, it was part of a great global victory for freedom and prosperity.

Ho Chi Minh laughs at this statement.

[Alien Space Bats]

First, do you have substantive and objective evidence to support your claim regarding Iran's nuke program?

As we (should have) learned from the Iraq debacle, it's called a general lack of proof that the Iranian nuclear program is close to testing a device. There's a reason why sensible people reject the "prove they're not <X>" line of argument as a matter of course.

And — BTW — compare the amount of "noise" we had coming from North Korea before their first test: There were all kinds of warnings that Pyonyang was close to testing a device before they did. Now consider the degree to which the DPRK is a closed society, and the degree to which the Islamic Republic of Iran is not.

The long and the short of it is that we'll know when they're close.

Second, it doesn't really matter who wins the election because the primary center of power is outside this office.

Yet the principal driver behind the current program was Ahmedinejad, who hoped that it would bring him political power; it didn't.

More that that, though, the outcome of the next election will tell us more about the direction the Supreme Leader wants to go, because he's unlikely to team up with another loose cannon; next time, Khamenei is going to want to see someone elected to the Presidency who's going to be more in line with his thinking. That makes the election an important signal.

Third, barring any change in the leadership situation in Pyongyang or Beijing, North Korea will NOT invade South Korea anytime soon. They are expected to engage in bluster and threats, but this is part and parcel of their foreign policy for decades. When they stopped bellowing and move military assets forward is when you need to start worrying. None of this has happened, hence your statement as hollow as the North Korean threats.

I don't expect them to move until late summer; it's the wrong time of year to act now.

Now let me ask you a question: Do you think the current political row in Washington — in which Democrats and Republicans can't agree on anything — creates a provocative impression of indecision and weakness in the eyes of foreign leaders?

For my part, I believe that it does.

---

ADDENDUM: Then, too, the ROK has its first female President. Historically speaking, misogynist asshole dictators always think they can pull shit over on female leaders (Argentina invading the Falklands [during Margaret Thatcher's 3rd year as the U.K.'s 1st female Prime Minister], Pakistan massacring thousands of Bengalis and creating a refugee crisis in West Bengal in complete disregard of Indian warnings [during Indira Gandhi's 5th year as India's 1st female Prime Minister], Arabs launching a surprise attack on Israel during Yom Kippur in spite of having had their asses roundly kicked just six years earlier[during Golda Meir's 4th year as Israel's 1st female Prime Minister]; I could add examples from as far back as the 16th Century [eg., the Anglo-Spanish War of 1585-1604 (hello, Phillip...) and the War of the Austrian Succession of 1740-1748 (hello, Frederick)]); indeed, it's rare that a woman takes charge for the first time in any country and doesn't find her nation's rivals thinking they can roll her (Catherine I of Russia is one of the few exceptions, probably because it was widely understood that she was pretty much a puppet of her advisers, quite unlike her later female successors). Given Kim Jong-un's stereotypical frat-boy behavior, he seems a perfect candidate to fall into the same trap.

Notably, the second female leader to run a country that's already had one female leader hardly ever gets challenged by foreign rivals. Something about having one's ass handed back on a silver platter (and yes, in Frederick's case, having to spend seven years defending his kingdom from attack at a cost of over a quarter million dead and wounded for no territorial gain does constitute having one's ass handed back on a silver platter, even if Prussia emerged from the war a respected power nobody was going to attack if it could be avoided — because it left the Prussians with no further taste for war, either), or watching someone else get the treatment tends to correct that point of view rather rapidly.

Sadly, though, it still seems to need to be tested for each and every country: "Yeah, O.K., SO messing with English queens is a bad idea, but how about Austrian queens? Maybe they're pushovers. And just because it's a bad idea to fuck with an Indian or Israeli female P.M., well, does that mean it's a bad idea to fuck with a British female P.M., too?"

[Obamacult]

With any war, certain campaigns do not bear immediate fruit. In the case of Vietnam, the enemy was attrited and the global communist offensive in South East Asia and the Pacific checked in Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. Eventually the West won this critical war for freedom from the most murderous and brutal tyranny the world has yet known -- state communism.

Vietnam was an ill-fated campaign in this war that necessitated a strategic withdrawal after great cost (greater to the enemy). In the overall scheme, it was part of a great global victory for freedom and prosperity.

Ho Chi Minh laughs at this statement.

Both Ho Chi Minh and global communism are dead.

[Samuraikoku]

Both Ho Chi Minh and global communism are dead.

Doesn't matter. He laughed when America withdrew.