Yes, it is true that in this era of 'preemtive war', a nation does not even have to posses the convieved threat to illicit a response. There is no doubt that my country's government will use this to persue a military action, if not in the current administration, in the next.

What dismays me is that the United States is not directly threatened by a nuclear Iran. It is highly unlikely that the Iranian government would supply terrorists with material and/or weapons, as this is counter to it's current aims of being a major player on the world stage. Any such action would be suidical to that objective.

Iran also does not posses ICBM technology, and is incapable of striking the US homeland. Israel is the primary target of Iran. To this, I say that Israel has nukes, let them use them. I am weary of the Middle East. Besides, if Israel and Iran destroy each other, our troubles are solved.**

**Meant as 'tongue in cheek'. No solutions are ever this simple.

I wholeheartedly agree but I'll also say this. If America does not do it or lead it who will?
The U.K. citizens would raise holy hell. They will go jointly.
France? :rotfl:
Germany? Just wouldn't do it period. They might lend logistical support.
Spain? Nope. Might supply a token force but doubtful.
Russia? They will give intel and arms to the Iranians.
China? Nope.
Canada? They'll supply a token force but never lead.
Italy? Might supply a token force but I doubt it.

So who does that leave?

And just air won't do it. Some of the places will have to be taken out by troops on the ground.
Most of the world will look at the U.S. hip-deep in $hit in Iraq and just won't want to be involved fearing terrorist repercussion and then if Iran builds and uses a nuke everyone will blame the U.S. for not doing something about it. :doh:
So what do we do?

Special ops - sure, even if there's a bad history of American special ops in Iran, there's definitely a key role for them there. They could even do a big operation with a lot of Marines - and then leave once their targets are out.

I think we're talking more in terms of a full-scale operation "for keeps". It's out of question. The American military can handle it, but the cost of fighting a large-scale war against an organized enemy in the type of terrain you have in Iran will be terrible and not worth it. It's not the same as desert warfare; and it's certainly not going to work on a Blitzkrieg level. It would probably be an equivalent of the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and we know how that ended up...

Europe - yeah, they won't do much. Who expects them to anymore? That said, they aren't particularly needed there.

To answer first question, as already stated in my first post: Let GOD decide ! For once and for own sake: USA, dont play God ;)

To last question: Maybe it's time to do simply nothing. Ever seriously wondered about that option. Maybe the world order is about to change. I am not saying I like it, but I dont see the USA forcing its power on anyone (because of interests CCIP referred to) like this 100 years longer. The USA can live lower profile but in peace in between the great oceans :lol: Europe is about to face the music tho'... as direct neighbour to Israel/ME)

Bingo, this is the core issue. No wonder AL is so worked up all the time.

But in all fairness -I honestly HATE to say it- how much longer can and will the West cope with the Israel vs Islam-fascism ? I say we stand by Israel but damn, what a price we pay for that..... :-? :hmm: :stare: :doh:

The do-nothing scenario:

-Iran gets nukes
-Iraq is left alone and goes into civil war for a while, probably emerging in some re-arranged form as a Shia state friendly with Iran.
-It's highly unlikely that there will be a nuclear war between Israel and Iran. It is likely that Israel will feel greater pressure from its neighbours, but that's also not likely to result in another major war. Main reason why I think so: Israel under pressure is not an Israel you want to be at war with, and any war with Israel will certainly cost Iran or anyone else a heavy price at questionable gain.
-It is possible that a nervous Israel would take matters into their own hands and try to take out Iran's nuclear capacity in time themselves. Which will spark a lot of fiery talk but, again, not likely an actual major war.
-It is likely that there will be an increasingly-conservative Islamic middle east, but only to an extent.
-It is unlikely that there will be any serious change to present patterns of trade between the west and middle east. They both benefit.

The result is an uncomfortable stalemate, but a stalemate nevertheless. As we know, noone wins in a stalemate, but noone loses either.

A realistic and reasonable outcome, sure, but it's not likely to inspire anyone's imagination. I don't think the American public is quite ready to accept such mediocrity :88)

Quote:

Joseph Stalin A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic

That's one way to sum up war. :yep:

It's better that Iran develops it's nuclear weapons, now, rather than later. I say go for it.

The US shouldn't get involved if anything other than Air-Strikes and non-nuclear weapons are needed.

The cost would be too high.

It's cheaper to rebuild Europe through another Marshall plan, meanwhile, Israel can be temporarily transfered to Iceland, we'll call it Iced-Israel, it's like Iced-Tea, but kosher.

The Cold War is gone and the 3 new threats to Democracy and Freedom cannot be defeated on a battlefield (they actually can, but the human and financial cost is absurd), so, let America go back in time before the Cold War and listen to Fuk-u-yama, that's how you pronounce it right? Juvenile jokes aside, it's time to sit quiet and wait for the call for help, isolationism at its finest, it's not that you don't want to intervene, you simply wait for them to come begging down your doorstep when they have no more options left.

Let the world decide, and learn the lesson. Then you won't have singleplayer interventions anymore.

Not a history just a royal CF at desert one. A thrown together group that had never worked or trained together.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. But I say it would be the biggest air assualt in history. Go in, totaly destroy everthing and pray you can evac fast enough. Air assault to perform blocking action and special ops to do the business. Course this is a hell of lot easier said then done.

*SIGH* You know, I don't like the idea of going to war with Iran, either, and I like the idea of pre-emptive wars by the U.S. even less. American tourists overseas can be arrogant and our foreign policy is sometimes heavy handed. But I will say this.

I've had it with people in countries overrun in World War II telling me how my country ought to do things. If the U.S. had sat that one out, think of all the trouble we could have saved ourselves. All the millions of sons, fathers, and brothers who might have gone on to cure cancer, find a way to unite the world in peace, end famine, or a hundred other worthwhile things. Assuming they'd have been free to do those things, of course, which I doubt.

Instead, we helped to save the nations who are now our loudest critics. You were mighty glad to have us save your bacon; now that it's about trying to make sure future generations still have a planet to live on, you sing a different tune.

I'm not saying U.S. foreign policy is always best or that I always agree with it; I'm just saying that current events are always part of a larger picture. There are some nations in the world today that would not hesitate to use WMDs - almost on a whim - against anybody, not just the U.S.

I'm not responding to any post in particular, here, because I hear stuff like this over and over, often from people whose countries are unwilling or unable to shoulder the load they want us to drop. Their complaints and their criticisms are not without merit, but while they condemn us for our leadership, which of them could do any better? Pray tell, which bastion nation of human rights will take action and lead by example if the U.S. doesn't? I'd be thrilled if France, Germany, Holland, and the rest could stop discussing and proposing and being officious long enough to actually implement a sound strategy for dealing with the very real threats North Korea, India, Pakistan, and the Middle East pose to the entire globe.

It's always easier to follow and complain about the leadership is than it is to lead yourself.

The US has been criticized by countries who fought in WWII and were not "overrun". How would you silence those from Canada, for instance, who were critical of the Iraq invasion and would not participate in it, but who did fight in WWII from start to finish and were not "overrun" (and who I might add, joined in Sept '39 rather than first waiting until late '41 for Japan to attack them and having Germany declare war on them before joining to save everyone else's "bacon").

Not to dimish the US's contribution, which was at least as significant as the USSR's, but I'd imagine there are at least as many people who are sick of Americans throwing this red herring out whenever anyone dares to disagree with them.

So if we act first, we're heavy handed, but if we wait until we're attacked, we're what? Cowardly? Lazy?

You want the Canadians running the show? Fine, a curling contest sounds like a great way to settle things. Seriously, if the Canadians want to lead the world into utopia, fine. Ante up. Pay for it. Equip it. Defend it. We'll help. No, really.

Which was quite surprising, considering the extremely weak relations Canada had with the UK, the world never saw that one coming.

Is that what the US is doing by invading countries like Iraq, leading the world into Utopia?