What odds are you giving on Iran being our next battlefield within the

[cidliz2004]

next 6 months or so?

I am hearing much about this "under the radar", what do you honestly think the possibilities are for this to actually happen?

It sounds plausible, but what about Iraq? Aren't we bogged down there and even if the draft is put back in place, the draft won't produce instantaneous troops.... How would we put troops in Iran when there aren't any? I know we can start with a bombing campaign, but how long can that actually go on before ground troops are needed?

[Gyre]

1. Tinfoil hat time.

I think Iran will get massively air-attacked by Israel. Probably June. Iran will respond with missles; nukes if they got them, and the US carrier/battle groups will immediately pounce on mainland Iran while their attention is on Israel. The primary goal is clear: show them who their "daddy" is. That would be Israel of course with it's hand up Uncle Sam's ass making us do all the heavy lifting. Secondary goal: tear the country up enough that the brave little continent of dissidents can walk into Tehran and take over. That's what the Kool-Aids telling them anyways.



Gyre

[shraby]

4. The only way we can take on

Iran which will include Syria because Iran and Syria have made an agreement to assist one another, is with nukes and this is a horrible thought. My guess is the administration in collusion with Israel will trick us into it somehow. I don't trust the whole lot of em.

[Benno]

2. i think...

well Iran is for sure plausible. I'm of the opinion that a war with Iran is going to need many more troops than what is currently available. And be a hell of a lot bloodier war for American soldiers anyway.
I'm not sure that Bush at this point in time would re-institute a draft, but at the same time it wouldn't surprise me either... might wake up America some if he did, though who knows what kind of patriotism propaganda he would spew to gain support for it. I'm thinking shit may still happen with Syria, but one can only guess...

[saskatoon]

11. Iran

Simple, we'll just get Israel to do the bombing for us.

[Last Lemming]

3. An all air war?

Because there's no boots on the ground.
Are these guys crazy? Is the military going along with this?

[kineneb]

5. Ja,sure, wasn't that what they said in Vietnam?

"We will just go in and bomb them to bits and we win." It did not work then and will not work now. How many bombs were dropped on Vietnam during our little adventure?

Back to tham thar histry buks, boz.

[OneBlueSky]

6. rumor has it that Iran has some kind of Russian missile . . .

that can take out aircraft carriers and that is virtually impossible to intercept . . . I'm just sayin' . ..

[kineneb]

9. Sunburn, I believe. n/t

[mikelewis]

7. The US will not invade Iran

If we invade Iran, Afghanistan will collapse into civil war. Right now, the majority of the Afghan Poppie is sent to Iran for processing and transhipment to the Balkans. The second we attack Iran, they not only close the door on the flow of drugs through thier country, they will attack the other supply routes. Once that Poppy stops flowing, the Afghan Warlords will start a civil war. If we attack anyone, it'll be Syria and not Iran. I doubt an attack on Syria will be necessary, they seem to be capitulating to our control but that didn't stop them from invading Iraq. Invading Iran risks too much while invading Syria puts another ally on the border of Isreal. Which would you choose, the bank shot or the duck?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[PurityOfEssence]

10. We may bomb or do surgical commando raids, but Syria's the next

bunch of ingrates to be taught a lesson by the friendly folks down at the Project for a New Israeli-American Century.

[KayLaw]

12. I think Syria, too

They tend to go for the weakest first.