Image of the day

From the
ATWB Customer Gallery

Comet Neowise setting over Mt. Princeton, July 18

My Account

New to Astromart?

Register an account...

Need Help?

Will we be in Iran next year?

Started by tiafolla, 12/15/2005 09:06PM
Posted 12/15/2005 09:06PM Opening Post
I haven't seen this scenario discussed but it seems fairly plausible. Here it is, what do you think?

The Iraqi elections are successful, and over the course of the next 6 to 12 months we get our wish and Iraq starts to quiet down...fewer insurgent attacks, enough Iraqi police and militia become trained to start keeping the peace between the various factions, and a viable civil government starts to assert itself. So we pull out the bulk of our troops and send them home, leaving in place a few hundred military advisers and a few thousand civilian contractors.

A month later Iran, seeing its neighbor barely controlled by a weak Western proxy government, rumbles over the border with a few thousand tanks, an air force, and a half million or so infantry. Remember that we have left Iraq with no military command structure, and no tanks, artillery, air force, or arms industry.

So Iran successfully invades. Some of our citizens are killed during the invasion, the bulk are held hostage.

What happens next? Do we have the will to act militarily, and if so, do we have the military strength immediately available to repel the invasion and dismantle Iran's army? Keep in mind that Iran has LOTS of chemical weapons and possibly nukes.

I'm just thinking about yet another set of consequences that Bush may have set in motion when he chose to invade Iraq. Or am I all wet that this is a plausible scenario?

Tim Iafolla
Posted 12/16/2005 07:50AM #1
Why would Iran invade Iraq?

It would not be an invasion if there were merely sending some (maybe 500,000) peacekeeping police at the request of the newly elected Shiite government.

I hear religion runs deep there.

Posted 12/16/2005 09:15AM | Edited 12/16/2005 09:19AM #2
Well, I could respond to your quote in several ways, but just as a contrast I'll keep it short and factual:

There is NO evidence that Saddam was paying suicide bombers. This is one of the misleading contentions put forth by the Bush administration and later shown to be untrue. That didn't stop the Bushies from continuing to say it.

Saddam may have had ambitions of using WMD against the west, but had no WMD's, nor the means to deliver them. Another Bush lie that was repeated so often and with such conviction it became "fact".

I'm not sure how you figure that Libya's actions were related to the Iraq invasion.

We probably would have found out about the UN's unsavory financial actions anyway, and don't sound so self-righteous...remember there were some very large US firms participating, some of them closely tied with administratyion officials.

- his sons would still be running the rape rooms...probably true, but this was an internal matter that had nothing to do with the invasion, except as a post-hoc excuse. Saddam's regime was just as nasty and brutal while the Reagan administration was supporting him during the Iran-Iraq war, and we had no problem overlooking his actions then.

I also resent the oft-repeated charge that anybody speaking against the invasion is "happy" about Bush's troubles, and that we're pissed off now that things seem to be improving a little. Bush's problems have cost American lives and LOTS of American treasure, and we would like nothing more than for him to be quickly successful in wrapping up our involvement there.

My son will be of draft age in under 2 you still think I'm looking forward to a long, messy outcome just so I can gloat over Bush's misfortune?

Tim Iafolla