If we go to war with Iran, how extensive will it be

[bluestateguy]

It now seems clear that Team Bush has plans for Iran to be war number 3. The question becomes, will it be an invasion, overthrow of their government and occupation? That won't be easy, and would surely require more warm bodies through a reinstitution of the draft. Or will they just launch some "surgical" air strikes to take out Iranian nuclear plants, resulting in few (American) casualties so they can claim victory in the latest chapter in the "war on turrur".

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

1. Iran will have to do something horrible first

I don't think even joe redneck would support another pre-emptive war from bushie knowing how he lied us into the last one.

[Kanary]

2. Oh, they could probably arrange something "horrible"

And, I wouldn't be too sure about the masses....... they're so bizzzy at the mall, and so well conditioned to salute if threatened......

Ah, crud-a-rama--- it's too late to get so pessimistic....

Kanary

[UdoKier]

3. Very unlikely

We're already bogged down in two messy wars. Logistically it ain't gonna happen.

[sleipnir]

4. Who the hell is going to fight it? Dick Cheney and Rove?

There's no one left. The armed forces are stretched to a breaking point, no way they can invade a country the size of California. Conscription of US citizens would take at least a year before combat ready-troops could be deployed, but hell, I don't think my barista could even figure out how to shoot a gun let alone go into battle.

No, Iran is over as are all of the PNAC plans because Bush Co failed to effectively conquer Iraq. In an odd twist of fate and irony, they were more worried about public opinion about the number of troops in Iraq than the were about quickly eradicating Iraq. Had they another 40,000 troops in Iraq, my guess is that the "war" would have ended long ago. This prolonged occupation without a decisive victory has killed PNAC for the next 5-10 years, if not forever.

For Iran to be next, Bush Co. needed a quick roll-though Iraq as a dress rehearsal for the real fight, Iran and N. Korea. But, they couldn't even invade and conquer a helpless country how they hell do they expect to defeat nuclear powers without resorting to nuclear weapons and risking global thermal-nuclear warfare?

[central scrutinizer]

7. another big difference -

Iran was not isolated by UN sanctions for the last decade so we can be sure that its military has not rusted into uselessness like Iraq's. Remember the quote from some general a while back, "Anybody can conquer Baghdad, it takes real men to roll into Teheran."

[moobu2]

5. Iran will have to be solved through the UN

I agree that a pre-emptive war with ANY country is highly unlikely due to the poor intelligence which led to the Iraq invasion...how could we trust that Iran was even working on N. weapons? That is unless the entire UN counsel authorizes it.

They were talking about this with an expert on CNN earlier and he said Iran had much of it's weapons manufacturing facilities underground, so an air strike would be ineffective.

[BonjourUSA]

6. More than 70% of the Iran population is less 30 years old

and was beginning to sap the religious power and looked toward western before Bush puts Iran in Evil camp.

Help this youth. That will be more efficient than fighting a country of 62 million of inhabitants with all the concequences for the world peace. Russia, Pakistan, India and even China couldn't be without reactions with a war close to their borders