DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**kranfid** · 11-03-2007, 01:44 AM

Every candidate for president seems to believe that they have to talk tough to get elected. It's because they have no respect for the intelligence of the voter, and unfortunately, the voters have proven their point time and time again.

Surgical strikes aren't feasible, because we aren't sure where to hit.
Invasion isn't feasible because Iran would be tougher than Iraq, and we couldn't even make that work. Iran is mountainous, armor would be of little use, and the effectiveness of air power is greatly reduced in mountainous terrain. Nobody is foolish enough to expect songs and flowers this time, it would be spirited resistance the whole way way in. Now if the Iraqis could defeat 150,000 US troops, it's pretty clear we don't have the manpower to take on Iran and win.

I've heard people say that the only feasible operation that would guarantee we took out their capability would involve inserting large numbers of troops quickly to secure the nuclear facilities, destroy them completely and then leave quickly. This operation would be fraught with risk, and undoubtedly it would incur high casualties, and the possibility of devastating failure would be very high, and there is a real question as to whether the military is capable of pulling it off.

11-03-2007, 01:44 AM	#5
kranfid Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 531 Senior Member	Every candidate for president seems to believe that they have to talk tough to get elected. It's because they have no respect for the intelligence of the voter, and unfortunately, the voters have proven their point time and time again. Surgical strikes aren't feasible, because we aren't sure where to hit. Invasion isn't feasible because Iran would be tougher than Iraq, and we couldn't even make that work. Iran is mountainous, armor would be of little use, and the effectiveness of air power is greatly reduced in mountainous terrain. Nobody is foolish enough to expect songs and flowers this time, it would be spirited resistance the whole way way in. Now if the Iraqis could defeat 150,000 US troops, it's pretty clear we don't have the manpower to take on Iran and win. I've heard people say that the only feasible operation that would guarantee we took out their capability would involve inserting large numbers of troops quickly to secure the nuclear facilities, destroy them completely and then leave quickly. This operation would be fraught with risk, and undoubtedly it would incur high casualties, and the possibility of devastating failure would be very high, and there is a real question as to whether the military is capable of pulling it off.
	Quote