Ok what the

[Jude]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6998602.stm

Didn't we just see this same movie about 5 years ago but with USA and Iraq starring

and FRANCE wtf

[lunchforthesky]

If we could actually win. I wouldn't be completely against a war because Iran is a horrible country, undemocratic and treats women and opponents badly etc..

But we will lose....again. So no, bad idea.

[PerpetualBurn]

Lol @ surrender monkey

[WhoDidTheElf]

I don't think we should go to complete war with them. Just bomb the nuclear "power plants", along with other targets, and let the Iranian people deal with it.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

It wouldn't be an all-out war. There won't even be boots on the ground, other than possibly some special forces operations

[Reaganista]

iran vs. france would be very different from us vs. iraq

[Akira]

Iran is flexing its muscles. I doubt it will do anything stupid.

[Independent_CA]

If we could actually win. I wouldn't be completely against a war because Iran is a horrible country, undemocratic and treats women and opponents badly etc..

But we will lose....again. So no, bad idea.

Iran couldn't possibly hope to defeat the West so no, we wouldn't lose.

France could probably do this by itself if it wanted to but it wouldn't have to. The US, UK, and probably a few other NATO and allied countries would join in. The US was just off by a letter, that's not THAT bad.

[BridgeToSolace]

I wonder if Americans will still think the French are complete pussies if the French go through with this.

Probably.

[VomitStainedCretin]

Iran couldn't possibly hope to defeat the West so no, we wouldn't lose.I would predict a war would follow a similar pattern to the current conflict. Easy early victories(though more costly than the early days in Iraq), followed by possible regime collapse, followed by constant insurgency, except, since Iran has a vast militia wing, supposedly numbering 13 million, and since it is a much larger country than Iraq, this insurgency would be of a much greater scale. A serious war against Iran would also need therefore a vast occupation force which the US alone could not supply without great public outcry.

[lunchforthesky]

Iran couldn't possibly hope to defeat the West so no, we wouldn't lose.

France could probably do this by itself if it wanted to but it wouldn't have to. The US, UK, and probably a few other NATO and allied countries would join in. The US was just off by a letter, that's not THAT bad.

You're an idiot. Defeating us does not mean they haven't stopped us winning. For example Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc..

[Iscariot]

who wants to take bets on how long it'll take for france to switch sides

[Jude]

Iran couldn't possibly hope to defeat the West so no, we wouldn't lose.



Are you kidding?

Iraq could never "defeat" the West, but we got our asses kicked in the war there.

[Reaganista]

except there would be no occupation

[Independent_CA]

I would predict a war would follow a similar pattern to the current conflict. Easy early victories(though more costly than the early days in Iraq), followed by possible regime collapse, followed by constant insurgency, except, since Iran has a vast militia wing, supposedly numbering 13 million, and since it is a much larger country than Iraq, this insurgency would be of a much greater scale. A serious war against Iran would also need therefore a vast occupation force which the US alone could not supply without great public outcry.
The best and most likely option is to completely destroy or cripple the Iranian government and military using air and sea power and limited ground assaults when necessary. The West is more than capable of doing this, even today.


You're an idiot. Defeating us does not mean they haven't stopped us winning. For example Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam etc..
No I'm not an idiot. Winning doesn't mean we invade Iran and turn it into a satellite state. It means we destroy their nuclear weapons program and their ability to project power and retaliate with any significance. That doesn't really require that much of an occupation force. Asymmetrical warfare (what you see in those conflicts mentioned) only works if the opposing force is decentralized. Iran is not.


Are you kidding?

Iraq could never "defeat" the West, but we got our asses kicked in the war there.
We are not "getting our asses kicked", we just won't commit the manpower to finish the job. There's no real reason to either if you ask me.


except there would be no occupation
Exactly!

In any event, if military action were taken against Iran because of it's nuclear program, it would likely have much more international backing than the invasion of Iraq. If that was the case there would likely be a much better result due to the contributions of multiple nations that could do the job. Think in terms of the 1st Gulf War.

[shaqadelic]

The best and most likely option is to completely destroy or cripple the Iranian government and military using air and sea power and limited ground assaults when necessary. The West is more than capable of doing this, even today.

US can't destroy the entire Iran army and government without a large scale land invasion.

Anyways...

At a conference of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in Austria, Mohamed ElBaradei said he saw no clear and present danger, and that talk of force was counter-productive

Do you guys just ignore this or something?

[WhoDidTheElf]

US can't destroy the entire Iran army and government without a large scale land invasion.

Maybe not the entire army, but it sure as hell would cripple it.

[Independent_CA]

US can't destroy the entire Iran army and government without a large scale land invasion.

Anyways...
Yes it can. And the more countries that joined in, the more complete that destruction would be.


Do you guys just ignore this or something?
No. I'm not trying to promote a violent solution in regards to Iran. I'm simply saying that if it came to that, the West would most likely achieve it's objectives.