World War III looms on the horizon...

[KenpoEMT]

Does anyone actually doubt that we will wage war against Iran? If war with Iran is looming in the horizon, then war with Syria will follow suit. Then what?

http://reuters.myway.com/article/20050813/2005-08-13T092731Z_01_SPI329552_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAN-BUSH-DC.html

Well, the one good thing (if there can be a good thing) about all of this war is that the jihad warriors seem more interested in fighting us in the middle east rather than in New York, Dallas, Boston, or Los Angeles; although, try telling that to the residents of London...

I just have the feeling that our military is being purposefully handi-capped in their efforts. Really, I would rather the gloves come off. Let our troops wage war viciously and quickly. Let them put an end to all aggression. Permanently. Ho-hum, modern American society does not have the stomach for such an endeavor. Instead, our combat infantry/marines are being used as policemen in a war torn country (as usual).

We can take out their governments, but that will not put an end to terrorist activity. If it is truely an issue of life long religious indoctrination then should we eradicate the religion? I don't think so. History has shown that religious persecution only ensures the survival of religious sects. I digress.

What happens when we move into Iran and Syria? I imagine that this will make China somewhat nervous. This "united" effort is being fought primarily with American forces (as it seems that most of the actions of the UN are enforced with the blood of American soldiers). China is the next superpower; will China rest in a peaceful manner while we slowly eliminate the governments of all of the major middle-east oil producing nations? ...I doubt it... [Warning! Random Humor Follows] I really don't think that this is a war for oil, but looking at the recent prices of gasoline, I wouldn't mind one [end random humor].

Did anyone see the report about China and Russia engaging in a joint military exercise? If I recall correctly, I saw the report in the last couple of weeks, and the exercise involved some 10,000 troops. That bothers me a bit. I think that this could be closely related to our possible future actions against Iran and other nations of the middle-east.

I am no expert on any of this. My judgements may be clouded by some presuppositions. Feel free to tear my statements apart. Don't mind at all as long as you include some proper facts with solid logic.

 

[MA-Caver]

I just have the feeling that our military is being purposefully handi-capped in their efforts. Really, I would rather the gloves come off. Let our troops wage war viciously and quickly. Let them put an end to all aggression. Permanently. Ho-hum, modern American society does not have the stomach for such an endeavor. Instead, our combat infantry/marines are being used as policemen in a war torn country (as usual).

You make it sound like another Vietnam here. Fighting with strict rules of engagement, proving to the rest of the world that we're willing to sacrifice our young men (and women) to show we got the guts to do so. And probably be calling it a police action.
IMO Iran isn't threatening us, even if they harbor terrorists and dispite Bush's assertion that we will hunt down terrorist where-ever they maybe... waging a full scale war against the country that is hiding them isn't, IMO the way to go. We're supposed to have some of the top "black-ops" teams in the world. Specialist that go on specialized missions hunting specific men. Surely the world cannot fault us or condemn us for doing a man hunt rather than a full blown regiem change.

When the Iranians took over the U.S. Embassy during the Carter administration basically by rights they were invading U.S. soil and we had rights to take whatever actions necessary (an act of war by the Iranians) and the world probably wouldn't have said boo to a goose. But we didn't. Tried a rescue mission that failed miserably and let a bunch of radical students and an old man dictate to us what we should do to retrieve our American blood. We could've done something then... it probably would've sent a message to the islamic community as well. :idunno: Who am I to try and figgure out what's in a politican's head?

 

[KenpoEMT]

I find the thought of Iran having weapons grade plutonium very threatening.

I don't think Iraq is a "new vietnam," but having re-read my initial post with vietnam in mind, I see how that could easily be misconstued.

With regard to handi-capping our troops, the first couple of weeks involving Faluja comes to mind.

Oh yes, if Carter would've grabbed his gonads and acted decisively perhaps Iran would have learned a valuable lesson. Instead, the hostages had to wait for Pres. Reagan to come to power.

 

[Tgace]

Another prophet of disaster
Who says the ship is lost
Another prophet of disaster
Leaving you to count the cost
Taunting us with visions
Afflicting us with fear
Predicting war for millions
In the hope that one appears

No point asking when it is
No point asking who’s to go
No point asking what’s the game
No point asking who’s to blame
’cos if you’re gonna die, if you’re gonna die
’cos if you’re gonna die, if you’re gonna die

If you’re gonna die, die with your boots on
If you’re gonna try, just stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you’re gonna die, you’re gonna die

In 13 the beast is rising
The frenchman did surmise
Through earthquakes and starvation
The warlord will arise
Terror, death, destruction
Pour from the eastern sands
But the truth of all predictions
Is always in your hands

If you’re gonna die, die with your boots on
If you’re gonna try, just stick around
Gonna cry, just move along
If you’re gonna die, you’re gonna die

-Iron Maiden

 

[Tgace]

I keep my boots clean...and black.

Here buy a pair...
http://www.altama.com/

Or just move along.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Invading Iraq was always a strategic move as much as an end in itself. Iran was as big a threat as Iraq ever was, but we weren't in a position to deal with Iran directly.

Iran has overtly or covertly been involved in virtually every single major terrorist attack on the US since 1979, with a few notable exceptions.

Evidence exists to suggest that Iran even aided Al-Queda with planning and logistics for 9/11. Further, it is believed that Iran is currently harboring high ranking members of Al-Queda, to include Osama bin Laden. Iran even sent hit teams in to Afghanistan to kill US troops, a plot foiled by a double agent. This possible Al-Queda/Iran alliance is extremely disturbing, and it clearly shows the short-sightedness of intelligence analysts who believe that a Shiite/Wahhabi alliance is impossible due to sectionalist tensions. That belief flies clear in the face, however, of past behavior in the islamic world where different sects have commonly joined together to defeat non-muslim threats.

Further, Iran is on the verge of developing and testing it's first nuclear device, the unveiling of which will no doubt lead to a new era in world wide terrorism.

Iran will need to be dealt with one way or another in the near future. If that is by diplomacy, so be it, though i'm not sure how to negotiate with a state that routinely sends out hit teams in to Europe to kill dissidents and political enemies. We ignore Iran at our peril.

 

[arnisador]

I don't think we'll go to war against Iran-even though perhaps we should--because the war against Iraq will have eroded all support for it. Look at the recruiting issues now--try starting a new war!

The Iran thing really worries me, but I just don't see it happening.

 

[KenpoEMT]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/20/D8C3QATG0.html

The Army is planning for the possibility of keeping the current number of soldiers in Iraq _ well over 100,000 _ for four more years, the Army's top general said Saturday.

Sounds like a descent base of operations for continued action against nations of the middle-east, no? If the new Iraqi government is supposed to handle internal/domestic security, why on earth would we need to maintain such a large 'peace keeping' force there?