Oxford Research Group on "War Against Iran"
 

Yep.
Acting indecisive & late usually costs more blood & misery than acting decisive & early.

The longer the Iranian nuclear program continues the more difficult to erase. So why not attack and damage the most essential installatiuons and then make those area's a no-go zone, just like the no-fly zone above Iraq, patrolled by western UAV's and enforced by cruise missiles and an Allied Air Force, including a nimber of European countries (and Russia?).

I just hope that going into Iran doesn't start a bigger war. By the way, I was just wondering, are we going into China after we are done with the invasion of Iran ?????????

I'm with Skybird on the point that ground war is not an option. Just forget it, it's not happening, unless someone is willing to put up with huge casualties - and I don't think the West is desperate enough to be willing to pay the price.

That said, I've turned around to see a controlled, well-planned air war as a decent option. Certainly a good option in real political and military terms for the west.

Otherwise, for the states or West in general - "invasion of Iran" would be a stupid and costly idea; "going into china" - impossibly retarded. :hmm:

Oxford Research Group on "War Against Iran"
 

It should not be a "War against Iran", certainly not against the Iranian people, not even an regime change. That should be left to the people itself. It should be an air campaign (including cruise missiles) that might be extended for months with intermitted attacks to deny Iran the possibility to repair damaged sites... hopefully followed by new IAEA inspections on the ground.

Is that a joke?

Iran’s leaders like to remain in their positions of power for them to stay their, they will not start a war they like to keep their nice postions. And if the western Powers invade don’t expect Iran to roll over like Iraq did, they have greater numbers and they will fight until they are forced to surrender. Then it will become a guerrilla war (car bombs) to say one. So Air strikes first and what will bombing them back to the Stone Age achieve? nothing apart from select few idiots will delight in that fact.

Then start up the old propaganda machine again I suspect Syria next then who after them are yes North Korea. Let’s take some time out for the moment and go back to Afghanistan which is still in a mess and no progress, what about Iraq all signs show that it’s still a battle ground. We in the west have made mistake after mistake how many more are we going to make? We are very good in destroying another country but when it comes to clearing up the mess we created and all the aftermath issues even more errors, going around and stamping your authority on the world is a big mistake. Who ever is doing it.

Now picture Steed saying that in a similar context in around early 1938.

Sounds familiar. :yep:

Let's sign the Munich Pact, sorry Czechs you're getting handed over again, to Iran! :dead:

Oxford Research Group on "War Against Iran"
 

Really?
How do you know that?
Did they tell you?
If so do you believe them?
I heard that they wanted to eradicate Israel from the face of the Earth. Should I believe that or not?
If not, why not?
Do you perhaps believe that governments always behave rational?
Don't you believe the current Iranian leadership is dogmatic?
Do you realise that up till the day that Hitler attacked the Soviet Union he was provided by Stalin with more raw material per month than he was ever able to extract from Russia during the war. So also for that reason Operation Barbarossa was unnecassairy from a German point of view. Isn't that proof of irrational behaviour or at least dogmatically induced behaviour?

I hear nobody speaking about as ground war - perhaps apart from scouting & targetting by special forces. Surgical air and cruise missile strikes against potential nuclear installations is the word.

No need to do that this time. Iran is quite openly giving plenty of causes for a tough response itself.

I find Afghanistan a country where a lot of progress has been made, especially in the central area. It is not a free state for Al Qaida anymore, there were elections, women have far more freedom than under the Taliban and countless terrorists have been caught and their basis destroyed. Furthermore there are many reconstruction programs by NATO and the EU. Don't come with the obvious argument that a lot more has to be achieved; can you imaging the situation if Afghanistan had not been attacked after 9/11, the US had been kept sitting on it's hand and Osama preaching and planning from Kabul or Kandahar?
Because that seems to be your alternative.

The Avon Lady and TteFAboB compared your argumentation with the pre-World War II attitude towards Hitler. Indeed many people in those days thought that Hitler would be foolish to start a new World war, that he had no reason to do so, that he was just happy to be the Führer of a Great Germany and that his tough talk about the Jews was rancy but only for 'internal political consumption'.
And indeed, Hitler did not want the Second World War to start on September 1st, 1939. But the weakness of the Western response before his attack on Poland led him to believe that he could get away with it. Indeed the British (!) and French (!) ultimata were quite a surprise for him.

There may be a lesson in history every now and then...

Abraham thanks for your constructive remarks,

Point one, we know their leaders are keeping the general population down and how by deflecting their attention away from their own problems they have been muck racking for years. But I will not rule out one day they will have leaders that will start a war, and that war will be with Israel and they will be beaten by Israel.

Point two, I was suggesting if there was a ground war this would be a mistake by the way my own Prime Minister has stated a ground war can not be ruled out.

Point three, all I see from my news from time to time Afghanistan progress is slower than a snail we have so much wealth and resources in the west why are we so slow to react to help out to much Red Tape I say get rid of it out right and give them all the help they need.

Point Four have you seen Mein Kampf Hitler states his people need room that is western Russia and Poland was in the way. I do agree with you the Western leaders went around with their eyes shut, Churchill on the other hand saw what Hitler was up to and he was put down for rocking the boat. If Hitler did not want war why the hell did he re-arm Germany?

But your alternative is to bomb Iran right? That's not really okey dokey. Not even for Israel as a country (because it might probably end it in worst case!) :-? :( I mean.. I don't know, but nothing wrong with suggesting that war is not a way out and a solution no matter what it is has to be found without going to war is not so horrible.

Please, what's your alternative?

And why is war not a solution? Why is war not "okey-dokey" under the circumstances? Why might it not be a "worst-case" by allowing Iran to develop nuclear bombs?

He did want a war eventually, but was hoping to delay it until 1944 or 1945. At least from what I have read. :yep:

His Generals not him!