war with Iran, what would it mean?

[KnowLedge]

kmA, you forget that all of NATO will help USA.

[[KMA]Avenger]

You still hatin' on the poppies

Where do you think we get things like morphine, and poppy seeds from?

those can be grown in controlled environments on military bases based at home, we don't need to be giving money to Afghans to grow huge fields of the stuff and then have our troops guard those fields.
as i said and as we all know, its ending up on our streets.

Afghanistan went from zero production of heroin under the Taliban to the worlds largest producer of heroin, some 90+% of the worlds heroin is coming out of that hell-hole...you don't see anything wrong with that picture?

kmA, you forget that all of NATO will help USA.

like NATO helped out in Iraq and Afghanistan? a few k troops here and there will not be much use when you war mongers attack a nation like Iran.
and dont forget that many of the NATO members were dead against the war in Iraq and will not go along with an attack against Iran anyway.

[Ashu]

NATO has a total of 6 mil deployable troops and some 7 aircraft carriers.
The US would not need NATO's help.

[[KMA]Avenger]

forgetting Russia and Chinas promise to defend their trade agreements with Iran, and their promises to come to Iran's aid if they are attacked by anyone...1, the US and UK don't have the personnel for such an attack at this point in time. 2, the US is on the verge of economic collapse because of QE2 (quantitative easing 2, AKA, 2nd round of bailouts which i warned you all about some time ago). 3 Brazil Argentina, China and the rest of the world are starting a currency war against "cheap dollars" because of the FEDS policy of printing money out of thin air...

the point is that, unlike the Afghan and Iraq wars, this will not be a simple matter, there are many facets to an attack on Iran. if it was a simple matter it would have been done already.

if Afghanistan is a bottomless pit as far as any kind of victory goes (as was warned by the Russians), Iran will be on a magnitude even deeper than Afghanistan has turned out to be.

[KnowLedge]

anything can happen, but also remember that iran has been threatening isreal and usa of over 10 years now.. without taking a single action... Nato is considering Iranian threats a joke now.

im sure iran will not be the cause of ww3 and USA will not be a part of it. 2012 might take us all before it happens.

[The Murkar]

If you want to get into the logic of it without actually having a single event to talk about which would spark a war, Iran is a pretty nonsensical target when you think of all of the other countries in the world the US could wage war with.

Everybody loves to pick on the middle east - but if you're talking about WW3 as in the first post here (sorry if I've missed something, I've just skimmed the section because this is my first post) then it makes more sense to me that the US would have to be warring one of the nuclear powers of the world (for a war nowadays to be on the scale of a world war, I'm thinking somebody would dorp the bomb before things get as out of control as they were at the end of WWII).

But if we're talking strictly Iran, it's almost a safe bet to say it won't happen for the reason listed above. If the US needed to spark a war (as was said before about Clinton and Bush somewhere in this thread) in order to maintain stability, they certainlty would NOT go after a country who has trade agreements which are pledged to be defended by two of the five world nuclear powers.

[Demeisen]

some good posts there lol killing the unemployed?

depends entirely on what type of war it is. there be many options:

Regime change = ground troops, massive cost in blood and treasure aswel a long fight. however, the ideal regime change is fantastic for the west and therefore desirable.

Reduction of capacity = bombing key infrastructure again and again until the iranians decide its a bright idea to stop rebuilding. by selective destruction irans ability to build capable weapons can be stopped. this can be done from afar with minimal risks to the coalition forces attacking iran.

Hardcore bombing (lol) = taking off the gloves and really trying to bomb iran until it is no longer a threat. cost to iranians very very high. obviously the coalition would risk suffering losses.


there are many things that could be done. severe sanctions with chinese/russian could even become a possibility. considering all thats occured in the last month or so, would it surprise anyone if there will come a time when **** gets busy again and iran gets sorted.

id guess maybe...perhaps either
1> india and pakistan kick off and drag more nations in ie muslim countries/israel. in such a war, might it be wise for nato, china, russia to all just chill. once the dust settles thats a lot of competition taken care of.

2> israel attacks iran because of perceived nuclear threat, some muslim countries attack israel and basically the middleeast gets wasted. israel has nukes after all and are pretty much one of the most powerful and capable military nations around.


what about south america going loco and starting some war?

i think any conventional war that involved nato would be won be the same. well equipped, well trained, veteren soldiers from experienced militaries do well.

finally i must remind you of the sleeping dragon. china? nay. chuck norris. if he becomes involved i doubt he would initiate conflict. chuck norris doesnt start wars, he finishes them. his roundhouse kick is a WMD. nato are too scared to regime change him tho eh

peaceout

[Jack]

WishList for ww3:
at most, we can hope that other muslim countries retaliate together and give USA a reason to finally rid them from this world, which is of course what we all want

who is this "we"? you may want to change that statement for obvious reasons!

what i will say in response to that is this...if you think the US can fight the 2 wars they have g.oing now, support all of its bases and fight Iran as well you are VERY sadly mistaken.

Its 1 war now. Iraq is over with, We have stopped all combat operations in Iraq. The new operation is now called Operation New Dawn and there are less than 125K troops in Iraq( or I think its less than 75K troops).

There are more soldiers in Iraq now than during the so called war.