You make some good points geetrue.

I guess from the looks of things Iraq is about to loose the support from Iran if america and jerusalem have their way, and fair play to both of em for planning such attacks.

From what Iran has claimed it will do, i think the sooner their bombed down a few pegs the better.

Bush's speech, what i think summerized in cartoon form:
--------
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/IraqSurg...ges/plante.gif
-------
http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/IraqSurg.../siers6789.jpg
-----

If what this article says is true, im not very optimistic..

Well, depends on how you mean by optimistic i suppose. In a lot of ways, I think that it is about time Iran learnt a nice lesson. My wallet doesnt like this idea, because the price of crude will skyrocket straight away, but i do think its time certain nations learn what is and isnt acceptable.

If you mean a military action, where are all these extra troops going to come from? It's not like we have a limitless manpower pool to draw from. It's pretty telling when part of that 20K extra troops are created by extending indefinatly / involnuntarily extending peoples tours.


Somewhere in this thread i saw a remark that Iraq isn't another vietnam. *shrug* I dont know really, but i found this an interesting read on that comparision:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6245851.stm

First we take out the Iranian subs with the Russia support members training the Iranian crews. Then we fake a beach landing in the Indian Ocean drawing upon the poor 3rd world countries for ten thousand men. Hiring soliders of fortune you can find in any bar in the African/Indonesia area, dress them up with fake U.S. Marine uniforms, promise them full back up and support.

Send C-130's to scatter alumiumn foil along the Iran/Afgan border to fake out their Mirages and various other (useless without enough spare parts) airplanes. Mobile launcher AA waiting for them to cross the border.

Air drop a division of tech's and US Army Airborne to secure the oil fields ... After the first landing zone is considered safe ... bring in the newst chic jeans, fad clothes, Gucci bags etc. for the rebeleous students.

Negoitate the use of our own nukes for any country besides our own (like we did with UK back in the 1960's)(did you know UK can't target American on purpose) and speak peace to withdraw with all WMD's in echange for free Madonna and Sting concerts.

Price of gas comes down to $1.50 cents again, so the world can pollute itself even faster than it has already.

This is so good I might send it to the defense department ... :lol:

I'll be completely frank, and say yes military action - but lets be serious about it too, there cant be any troop involvement without reintroducing conscription (something i believe in, but is another kettle of fish).

Airstrikes against leadership and military targets, strikes against naval assets, yes. but to actually send in troops will result in casualty rates that people simply will not accept, both on western forces parts and enemy casualties. It is something i feel must change as well, in war people will die but we dont seem to understand that. And so, in the meantime, i feel every option excluding troops should be used.

Its all a political shell game. One day the deomocrats want more troops in country the next they don't. One day the republicans want to stay the course the next redeploy. Unfortunately the army, navy, marines, and air force people are at the whim of the politicians who are grand standing for votes and personal gain and celebrity.


Troop level in Jan 2005.....troop strength in Iraq at the current level of about 120,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Jan24.html
Troop level in Nov 2004...153,000 American troops now in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/20/po...rssnyt&emc=rss
Troop level in Nov 2003...about 132,000.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1120-03.htm
Troop level in Aug 2003...about 140,000 U.S. troops and Lawmakers and other officials have begun questioning whether that was enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html

Troop levels since march of 2003
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...q_orbat_es.htm

Conscript armies are bad armies for the most part. The real problem is our teeth to tail ratio. There are huge numbers of people in the military already, but the problem is that there aren't enough combat formations. Part of that is the result of the whole "using the military as a free trade school" deal that happened over the last couple of decades and the other part is a shortsightedness about the sort of military we'd need in a Post-Cold War environment.

I mean the current US Army has about the same number of active duty combat divisions as the Marine Corps did in WWII. On paper the current Marine Corps should be more stretched than the Army is, but they aren't due to the fact that they've always been a combat arms heavy service, whereas the Army isn't.