I don't agree with them but....

[Lockesdonkey]

Just for the record, I don't support nuking Iran. I support invasion. Of course, if we brought 50%+ of our army, we would win quick, so we would have to finish Iraq off first.

Where do you get the idea Iran can stand with the US. My issue with the war isn't that we're fighting it, but that we haven't finished the job already, I mean, we have like 90% of our army at home. IIRC.

Ah. That would be worse. Much, much worse. Check out the [wiki]Iran-Iraq War[/wiki]. Both sides had a million troops, fighting a total war against each other. Iraq was getting top-of-the-line American, French, and Soviet arms (long story). The Iranians already had top-of-the-line American arms, the US having given them to the Shah. The war lasted eight years and very little territory was taken by either side.

Of course, the sides aren't quite so evenly matched between Iran and the US, you might say, and you're right--on paper. Nothing would get the Iranians behind Ahmedinejad, Khamenei, and the entire Islamic government quicker than an American invasion. As I said, Iranians are very proud, and do not like being shoved about by outsiders at all. (In that respect, they're kind of like us).

Additionally, Iran is 4-5 times larger than Iraq by area and over twice as large by population. Additionally, while Iraq's population is concentrated between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the population of Iran is scattered all about the country. Also, Iran has three kinds of landform (mostly): Wide desert, difficult hill, and impossible mountain. The parts of Iraq that matter are basically flat. Good luck.

What I'm trying to say is this: Invading Iran will be a massive pain in the ass, and then occupying Iran will prove more difficult than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the government was legitimately not very popular. In Iran, the invasion would make it popular. We'd get kicked out. It would be worse than Vietnam. No amount of force would be able to keep the Iranians from kicking us out eventually even if we did manage to conquer the country.

What do you think should be done about the persecution then? Do you support letting it go? If not, what measures would you take if you were president?

I'm afraid that simple persecution is well within Iran's rights as long as it's not directly telling these people to convert or die (which it isn't). I would be more or less forced to do nothing except perhaps to make noises.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I honestly have no idea what to do with this situation. I don't believe that the United States could afford to mount an invasion of Iran. I also have a tremendous aversion to using nuclear weapons against anyone, but on the other hand, I have tremendous fear of what will happen with nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranian Gov't.

I think if that was what was necessary, I'd support it, if that was the only way to stop them, although I think we have time to avoid it.

To the posters saying we couldn't easily beat Iran on their soil, we seem to be winning in Afghanistan and Iraq (Though slowly) with under 10% of our army deployed. I shudder to think of what we could do if say, two-thirds of our army was in the field.

Whether the people would welcome us or not is a separate debate, and that one I can see an argument on, but the sheer fact we could win and relatively quickly is unquestionable.

 

[JollyRoger]

To the posters saying we couldn't easily beat Iran on their soil, we seem to be winning in Afghanistan and Iraq (Though slowly) with under 10% of our army deployed. I shudder to think of what we could do if say, two-thirds of our army was in the field.

Fail from lack of equipment, supplies, and stateside military support.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Ah. That would be worse. Much, much worse. Check out the [wiki]Iran-Iraq War[/wiki]. Both sides had a million troops, fighting a total war against each other. Iraq was getting top-of-the-line American, French, and Soviet arms (long story). The Iranians already had top-of-the-line American arms, the US having given them to the Shah. The war lasted eight years and very little territory was taken by either side.

Of course, the sides aren't quite so evenly matched between Iran and the US, you might say, and you're right--on paper. Nothing would get the Iranians behind Ahmedinejad, Khamenei, and the entire Islamic government quicker than an American invasion. As I said, Iranians are very proud, and do not like being shoved about by outsiders at all. (In that respect, they're kind of like us).

Additionally, Iran is 4-5 times larger than Iraq by area and over twice as large by population. Additionally, while Iraq's population is concentrated between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, the population of Iran is scattered all about the country. Also, Iran has three kinds of landform (mostly): Wide desert, difficult hill, and impossible mountain. The parts of Iraq that matter are basically flat. Good luck.

What I'm trying to say is this: Invading Iran will be a massive pain in the ass, and then occupying Iran will prove more difficult than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the government was legitimately not very popular. In Iran, the invasion would make it popular. We'd get kicked out. It would be worse than Vietnam. No amount of force would be able to keep the Iranians from kicking us out eventually even if we did manage to conquer the country.



I'm afraid that simple persecution is well within Iran's rights as long as it's not directly telling these people to convert or die (which it isn't). I would be more or less forced to do nothing except perhaps to make noises.

I wouldn't WANT to stay. I'd want to overthrow their dictatorship, destroy their nuclear facilities, and set up a democratic government, then get out. Within a year, two at most, and doubtfully that long.

EDIT: About persecution, its not anyone's right to actively persecute another religion. You might argue its not our business, but its still wrong. Very wrong.

 

[sophie]

I wouldn't WANT to stay. I'd want to overthrow their dictatorship, destroy their nuclear facilities, and set up a democratic government, then get out. Within a year, two at most, and doubtfully that long.

EDIT: About persecution, its not anyone's right to actively persecute another religion. You might argue its not our business, but its still wrong. Very wrong.

You do realize that that would be even more idiotic than staying there, right?

 

[GhostWriter16]

You do realize that that would be even more idiotic than staying there, right?

Why????

 

[sophie]

Why????

Well, let's see:

If you just go in and topple a government, you're going to have a very hard time ensuring a stable transition. I'd predict either you end up with anarchy for several years, or you'll end up with the first leader assuming power, and turning your democracy into a authoritarian dictatorship.

Furthermore, if you go in and invade a nation, without any just cause (and trust me, "they have nukes and are Muslim" is not going to cut it), you are going to ruin world relations with the entire world for the rest of time. We'd be completely alone.

Do I need to go on, or do you get the picture?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, let's see:

If you just go in and topple a government, you're going to have a very hard time ensuring a stable transition. I'd predict either you end up with anarchy for several years, or you'll end up with the first leader assuming power, and turning your democracy into a authoritarian dictatorship.

Furthermore, if you go in and invade a nation, without any just cause (and trust me, "they have nukes and are Muslim" is not going to cut it), you are going to ruin world relations with the entire world for the rest of time. We'd be completely alone.

Do I need to go on, or do you get the picture?

Obviously, we would need to stay in long enough to ensure the transition of government.

I could care less what the world thinks! I don't think anyone can do a thing about it. I am interested in whether its right or not, and whether its reasonable or not, but I could care less if the world doesn't like it, our allies will deal with it, Britain I'm pretty sure is always supporting us.

I am convinced nobody in the world can touch us. We can destroy it five times over, and even if the entire world declared war on us it would end in a draw. I have no fear in the military. Our economy, however, could kill us, as could a growing faction of those not wanting to lose liberty, which could lead to secession, which would make us vulnerable, but could be better in the long run.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

I wouldn't WANT to stay. I'd want to overthrow their dictatorship, destroy their nuclear facilities, and set up a democratic government, then get out. Within a year, two at most, and doubtfully that long.

You couldn't establish a democratic government without occupying the country for quite some time. Democracy is a habit of mind. The Iranians are closer to it than the Iraqis were in 2003 or the Afghans in 2002, but make no mistake any democratic regime set up in Iraq would quickly devolve into illiberal democracy that dislikes America at best and a dictatorship that actively hates America at worst. Like I said, the Iranians are very proud; they wouldn't care whether or not we had been very nice about setting up a democracy there, they would oppose our even being there on principle.

EDIT: About persecution, its not anyone's right to actively persecute another religion. You might argue its not our business, but its still wrong. Very wrong.

Perhaps "within its rights" wasn't exactly the right phrasing. I'm speaking as a student of international relations here; the small matter of state sovereignty and the whole nine yards. Either way, doing something about it isn't our business as long as it doesn't spill over and cause regional instability. Sad but true.

 

[PiMan]

Obviously, we would need to stay in long enough to ensure the transition of government

It is this bit which is why Iraq and Afghanistan are still ongoing. This bit takes years.

 

[Grimz101]

Obviously, we would need to stay in long enough to ensure the transition of government.

I could care less what the world thinks! I don't think anyone can do a thing about it. I am interested in whether its right or not, and whether its reasonable or not, but I could care less if the world doesn't like it, our allies will deal with it, Britain I'm pretty sure is always supporting us.

I am convinced nobody in the world can touch us. We can destroy it five times over, and even if the entire world declared war on us it would end in a draw. I have no fear in the military. Our economy, however, could kill us, as could a growing faction of those not wanting to lose liberty, which could lead to secession, which would make us vulnerable, but could be better in the long run.

I don't know why I'm posting, because you seem to ignore some posts (Maybe you can't answer them?)
But for the love of the flying spaghetti monster, you clearly underestimate how hard it is to stage a successful transition into democracy, infact the majority of the time it fails especially when brought about by war. Look at Afghanistan, you've been there that long and it's complete rubbish.
Not to mention as previous posters have explained, (which you have seemed to brushed over) Iran is a whole lot bigger then Iraq, and if you thought the insurgency in Afghanistan was bad, the one in Iran would make it seem like heaven.

I can tell you now Britain wouldn't raise a finger to help you thankfully, let alone the rest of the world.

It never fails to amaze me that the people that constantly talk about cutting back the deficit are so ready to goto war, which would make any dollars saved wasted on sending your armed forces out to die. At the same time tanking your economy ever further.

The fact you think America can take on the entire world's military on just shows how deluded you are.

 

[sophie]

Obviously, we would need to stay in long enough to ensure the transition of government.

I could care less what the world thinks! I don't think anyone can do a thing about it. I am interested in whether its right or not, and whether its reasonable or not, but I could care less if the world doesn't like it, our allies will deal with it, Britain I'm pretty sure is always supporting us.

lol, that's funny. The European nations alone would be enough to topple us. There was a reason why we were afraid of the USSR in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Although their power has diminished to an extent, they are still strong (why do you think we didn't invade them over Georgia?), and let's not forget England, Germany, and France, which are all potent powers. Then if you add in China, and India, it would be game over. There's a reason we don't invade a nation every time they do something we don't like.

 

[GhostWriter16]

lol, that's funny. The European nations alone would be enough to topple us. There was a reason why we were afraid of the USSR in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Although their power has diminished to an extent, they are still strong (why do you think we didn't invade them over Georgia?), and let's not forget England, Germany, and France, which are all potent powers. Then if you add in China, and India, it would be game over. There's a reason we don't invade a nation every time they do something we don't like.

A: I don't support invading everyone I don't like, only when its practical and they're living in authoritarian government.

B: I didn't say we could win, I said it would be a tie. Because with our ICBMs we could destroy everything if we had to. This alone should make everyone know not to mess with the US of A!

That being said, my main reason to deal with Iran now would be to avoid them having nukes. Giving them republicanism is important too, but secondary.

Also, I admire Churchill's courage, but he had to have believed America would come in to help him at some point, and if we hadn't, Britain would be Nazi (So would we by now, but, them first) I think they owe us everything, and I think for the sheer friendship of our two nations if we deemed it necessary to disarm Iran, I believe England would help us.

 

[mechaerik]

Yeah, an invasion of Iran would be a very, very, very bad idea.

As others have said, Iran is bigger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Overthrowing a government and installing a democratic one is not something as simple as you seem to believe. An invasion would instantly turn large segments of the population against the invader. An insurgency would form quickly, attacking US-controlled areas. Iran's military is also fairly powerful. If the US were to take control of the entire country (no easy prospect), the invader would be faced with a strong insurgency.

Internationally, this would totally wreck the invader's reputation (especially since Iran hasn't really done anything). Do you really believe the US's allies would continue support something like that? It would also piss off large segments of the rest of the world. This would strengthen anti-american resolve around the world.

Also, shipping large numbers of soldiers to the other side of the world (and supporting them with fuel and other supplies) would prove insanely expensive. Gas prices would skyrocket as well. The price for prolonged military operations (and they would be prolonged, its not just get in, get out) would be astronomical.

The cost of the war in Iraq to the time of this post (according to Cost of War) is $724,148,400,000). And that's not counting Afghanistan (which is around a third of that). And apparently, that's only around 10% of the military (as you say). I shudder to think how much your "two-thirds"s would cost.

EDIT: Also, I highly doubt Nazi Germany would have managed to take over Britain. They made a huge mistake invading the Soviet Union.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Yeah, an invasion of Iran would be a very, very, very bad idea.

As others have said, Iran is bigger and more populous than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Overthrowing a government and installing a democratic one is not something as simple as you seem to believe. An invasion would instantly turn large segments of the population against the invader. An insurgency would form quickly, attacking US-controlled areas. Iran's military is also fairly powerful. If the US were to take control of the entire country (no easy prospect), the invader would be faced with a strong insurgency.

Internationally, this would totally wreck the invader's reputation (especially since Iran hasn't really done anything). Do you really believe the US's allies would continue support something like that? It would also piss off large segments of the rest of the world. This would strengthen anti-american resolve around the world.

Also, shipping large numbers of soldiers to the other side of the world (and supporting them with fuel and other supplies) would prove insanely expensive. Gas prices would skyrocket as well. The price for prolonged military operations (and they would be prolonged, its not just get in, get out) would be astronomical.

The cost of the war in Iraq to the time of this post (according to Cost of War) is $724,148,400,000). And that's not counting Afghanistan (which is around a third of that). And apparently, that's only around 10% of the military (as you say). I shudder to think how much your "two-thirds"s would cost.

EDIT: Also, I highly doubt Nazi Germany would have managed to take over Britain. They made a huge mistake invading the Soviet Union.

Yet we waste so much on big government at home. I would stop this also. Presently, with medicare and Medicaid alone we spend more money than national defense.

 

[JollyRoger]

Yet we waste so much on big government at home. I would stop this also. Presently, with medicare and Medicaid alone we spend more money than national defense.

Not true. Plus, when you subtract out the payroll tax specifically going to medicare and medicaid, it is nowhere near the amount we spend from the general fund for defense.

 

[Grimz101]

Not true. Plus, when you subtract out the payroll tax specifically going to medicare and medicaid, it is nowhere near the amount we spend from the general fund for defense.

He's a saint! willing to make thousands upon thousands in his own country-men suffer by pulling the plug of Medicare, and then using that money to invade Iran and have an equal number of The United States military forces die. Then to eclispe it all, hundreds of thousands of muslims 6 feet under, or in most cases blown to pieces. The pope would be proud! (Not to mention all the new recruits terrorist cells would obtain seeking to destroy America) I wish Dom could be our Prime Minister

 

[Glassfan]

There's no need to actually invade Iran - or Nuke it. Should Iran actually develop the atomic bomb and threaten its' neighbors, there is an alternate method.

The US has a squadron of B2 stealth bombers. These planes are virtually unstoppable given Iran's older SAM technology. We've been mapping out their nuclear facilities for years now, and a surgical strike could destroy their nuclear facilities, infrastructure, and weapons storage.

The downside is well-known middle eastern practice of going off at a tangent and attacking innocent bystanders. Since they couldn't counter attack America, they're likely to attack some other nearby middle eastern victim. The results have to overbalance the consequences.

In any case, President Obama is not the kind of man to take such a risk.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Guys, I think we're forgetting the crux of the issue, which is whether Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. He's never denied it, which would be something he could do very easily, and this is very suspicious. All of this makes me quite concerned...

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I am sorry I offended you, but I will say I know the majority of Muslims do not believe in this, but I am fairly certain there's something in the Koran that the Terrorists at least think they are following by attacking us.

Can you explain something though, according to your religion, how are we not infidels if we follow the "Wrong religion." Doesn't Islam teach that all non-Muslims are going to hell (I will not be offended by the same answer, Christians teach the same thing about non-Christians.)

Anyway, if this is true, why do they attack us so faithfully?



I'm not a troll first of all. Second of all, if we start bombing, maybe they'll surrender before they're completely destroyed, the people will get a republican government, and there will be no fear of Iran trying to nuke us.

To Useless: Considering you called me Dominion, neither do you. I am Domination. Thank you.

Moderator Action: Watch your language, please.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Most schools of Muslim thought don't believe that anyone will do to their equivalent of hell eternally.

I forget whether it is in the Koran or some Hadith, but Mohammad is thought to have taught that a larger fraction of those who consider themselves Jews will go to paradise than those calling themselves Christians, and a larger fraction of those calling themselves Christians will go than those calling themselves Muslims. God does not care what men call their religion, so long as they submit to His will. They consider the ancient Israelites and the early Christians to have been submitted to God, which makes them Muslims in their view. They also consider those today who faithfully follow the teachings of the Jewish Prophets and/or Christ to be true Muslims, even if they never learn enough about Muhammad to convert.


If we follow the teachings of Jesus and turn the other cheek rather than preemptively retaliating it become significantly harder for the extremists to convince anyone to fight against us.

Note however that the Koran does not teach Muslims to turn the other cheek, but rather to fight back to protect any fellow Muslims under attack. They are not supposed to surrender to anyone but Allah. They definitely have permission to fight back against Christians who attack them, but are to leave all monotheists willing to leave peaceably alone.