posted
If I were Iran, I would use my influence with opposition groups in Iraq and Afghanistan to ramp up the resistances there, further tying down American troops.
While the American troops would still be in the region, they couldn't move without possibly losing one or both of the countries already occupied. Actually, that may be what is already happening.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If there had been as many troops in Afghanistan as there are in Iraq currently I don't think there'd be the same problem. However, the Afghani population is much more dispersed, and the terrain much more difficult.
Still, in the end it comes down to the fact that warlords are slowly regaining control of Afghanistan, and they are growing bolder in their attacks of allied forces.
Hitler's mistake wasn't necessarily too many fronts, it was doing too much too fast. I guess that's the same thing in a way, but if he had waited until Britain was in shambles and the home fleet destroyed, America would have been hard pressed to launch an invasion without a real assembly area. He should have pacified them, then taken on Russia with no reservations. He could have done so without worrying about America.
Bush's mistake isn't either one. Bush's mistake is attacking the wrong bad guy at the wrong time. It would've been like if Hitler had invaded France and then sent troops to South Africa. (Well, that wouldn't have been THAT stupid, he would have gotten a lot of gold out of it, but relatively...) I suppose a better example would have been:
Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and FDR declares war on Spain.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A declaration of war on Spain would make more sense because Roosevelt wanted to get the US into the European war. Fortunately, Hitler was stupid enough to declare war on the US after the US declared war on its TripartitePact partner Japan.
Could be that Dubya&Gang went into Iraq in expectation that Iran's desire to become a nuclear power would collapse in fear of knowing that there were UStroops next door after the demonstration of a quick&easy takeover of Iraq. The flaw being that the IraqOccupation has been neither quick nor easy.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Meh, my opinion is that Iran isn't going to be making any sort of aggressive moves with their nuclear technologies.
The President can gain more by not using his nukes, than by using them. Let's say Iran finishes the nuclear program. The world becomes angry with Iran and starts threatening them. Then the president calls for more executive powers saying that they're in a time of crisis. He can build himself up to the point that he's no longer just an elected official, but a dictator.
Ahmadinejad's power will only stay with him as long as he doesn't fire his nuclear missiles. He'd just need to threaten everyone, saying his finger is on the button waiting, and people will have to at least listen to his demands to a certain extent.
If we're going to stop them, we'd need to do so before they finish their program.
By the way, I love the google ad at the bottom for this.
We're all gonna die Ahmadinejad Iranian fashion apparel T-shirts, tote bags and more.
Edit: For clarity.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with nuclear weapons technology is it stays in the state's hands whether the leader is belligerant but largely sane or fanatical and willing to commit his entire nation to martyrdom. I tend to hope that Iran's current leadership is the former, using the nuclear threat as a bargaining chip and a means to lessen what they view as western interference. But there's no guarantees of what Iran's leadership will look like, say, ten years from now. My old world politics prof, who had once been an advisor to the Shah, would probably agree.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After Iran gets it's first weapon, or starts coming close, if they really become that threatening, I could still see them being invaded. They have more of a real fighting force than the Iraqis had, but this is the same country that got pummeled by IRAQ during their war in the 80's.
They wouldn't stand a chance against an American shock force. The Europeans would have to do the cleanup.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We could certainly invade sucessfully, even with everything going on in Iraq. That said, we would not be able to maintain any kind of occupation, and I don't really see anyone else being in a hurry to jump in when we leave. I just don't see Europe being willing to commit themselves militarily.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well there's always another option. Rush in, pound them flat, remove their weapons building capability, detroy all documentation, level all the buildings and bunkers, then just leave and let them pick up the pieces. Why bother staying at all?
Another option, where are they getting their uranium from? Australia? That's where the majority of the world's stockpiles are. Get whoever is selling it to them to stop. We'll buy it instead if it's the money they are worried about.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
