Iran stopping part of the implementation of the nuclear deal

[Gaidin]

I posted a relatively small scale blunder, you posted a huge scale blunder. Israeli warmongers insist Iran won't end up like Iraq if we keep things small scale. Just showing we manage to screw up both ways.

The invasion itself went very well. Once the rules changed from "Shoot all the military" to "Act nice and here are your strict rules of engagement" things did indeed change. Let's be straight about which parts crashed and burned.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

The invasion itself went very well. Once the rules changed from "Shoot all the military" to "Act nice and here are your strict rules of engagement" things did indeed change. Let's be straight about which parts crashed and burned.

Well, unlike the relatively flat Iraq, Iran's geography is similar to that of Afghanistan, bit more humid though so insurgents don't need to just hide in caves, they can use forests and jungles too. Plus it's also 2.5 times larger (1,65M km2 vs 650K km2), and 2.5 times more populous (81.5M vs 31.5M) than Afghanistan.

It safe to assume that invasion would be more difficult due to the terrain, additionally one shouldn't discount the military advantages present day Iran has over the Saddam's Iraq, both in terms of numbers and equipment.

Therefore after Iran is occupied and victory declared, while the people greet the liberators, who I assume would have suffered thousands of casualties, the "nation-builders" would have to hope that everything will go swell, not like in Iraq with the insurgency, and definitely not like in Afghanistan today, where the US is trying to negotiate with the same group it toppled, failing to annihilate them despite the fact that the war started 19 years ago and they have an overwhelming technological superiority.

To me that doesn't sound like victory, unless the aim is perpetual war, in that case it's going swell.

Also, did I mention that Iran is larger and has more population than Iraq and Afghanistan together, on top of that it also has an extra 20M people and an extra 500K km2 territory.
I admit not being the expert, but seeing US, and Coalition forces, success record in those two countries makes me think that in Iran's case it might be a bit more difficult to declare victory.

Also refugees, I guess the US won't be the one taking them, no, that would be the EU, refugees from country that has as many people as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan combined.

[Gaidin]

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of militaries in the world capable of accounting for...of all things...terrain. Again, my point is, if you really think we can't find a way to invade Iran...you really need a better argument than...you know...a lot of the things we've historically done very well very quickly many times over the past 30 years. You want to say we can't occupy Iran? I'm game. But you want to say we can't invade. Move the frak along.

Hell, so little of the modern world is dependent on Iran after 60 years of them being economically walled off, we could literally go in and wreck the place and leave. For all politically bad, not like, it'd be economically bad either.

[Caduet]

Let's be straight about which parts crashed and burned.

Yea, the American helicopters sacrificed for israel in Operation Eagle Claw.

[Gaidin]

Yea, the American helicopters sacrificed for israel in Operation Eagle Claw.

Now you’re being purposely deceptive about what I’m saying while you try to say that a special forces mission is the same as a ground invasion. Are you always this way.

[Infidel144]

Yea, the American helicopters sacrificed for israel in Operation Eagle Claw.

How were they "sacrificed for israel"?

[Gigantus]

Anything the US does (not only) in the Middle East is on behest of Israel, didn't you know that?

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

if you really think we can't find a way to invade Iran...you really need a better argument than...you know...a lot of the things we've historically done very well very quickly many times over the past 30 years. You want to say we can't occupy Iran? I'm game.

Where did I say that the US can't invade Iran? - I didn't. What I did say is that there's gonna be lot more dead and wounded invaders than that's been the case in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined. I make this assumption based on the state of Iran's military, available equipment and manpower, all greater than in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan.

But you want to say we can't invade.

Of course you can, it is the US's God-given right to invade any country it wishes, however the difficulty of invasion is not a factor dependent on the US, but on the invaded party.
One might imagine Grenada while painfully realizing they've got Afghanistan on steroids. Occupying and controlling 81.5M people spread over 1,65M km2, piece of cake according to some.

Move the frak along.

Which is what the US is telling in vain to the Taliban.

Hell, so little of the modern world is dependent on Iran after 60 years of them being economically walled off,

60 years? There's been 40 years since the revolution, and they been "walled off" only after Ahmadinejad.

we could literally go in and wreck the place and leave.

That seems so financially wasteful and callous towards US personnel, why would you need to go in, just drop a few nukes.
Also if the US did that, the question - "We're the good guys, right?" becomes more difficult to answer, given the fact US would go there because liberation and human rights and stuff.

Which is why, because of liberation, human rights and stuff, if the US does invade and occupy, it will stay there, just like in Afghanistan, forever. Just like Sen. Lindsey Graham puts it, - You don't leave, you stay, as long as it takes.

For all politically bad, not like, it'd be economically bad either.

Yep, they're fairly primitive country, it's not as if they have higher human development index than Turkey, India, China. I'm sure their living conditions couldn't get worse by an Invasion, it's not like they'll have less food, medicine and potable water afterwards. Also, who needs schools and hospitals, definitely not them, they don't even have those currently, do they?

[Bethrezen]

Best joke is that we, in Romania, have American Patriot missiles and American military bases to protect us and Europe against Iran.

[RandomPerson2000]

How were they "sacrificed for israel"?

Because apparently it must be an Israeli conspiracy even though the country supplied hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in order to prevent Saddam Hussein's Iraq from being victorious in the conflict.
QUOTE=Infidel144;15784217]How were they "sacrificed for israel"?[/QUOTE]
Because apparently it must be an Israeli conspiracy even though the country supplied hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in order to prevent Saddam Hussein's Iraq from being victorious in the conflict.

That's a good example of just why israel is so dangerous and needs to be brought to heel. Its clear the israeli plan here was to get iran and iraq to bleed each other as much as possible and make a few shekels along the way. The blowback of that greedy little plot is what we see with modern Iran. "We played with fire and got burned, again" is the best way to summarize the history of israel over the millennia. The problem is that non-jews are getting far worse burns along the way.

I'm pretty sure that the main reason why Israel aided Iran during the war wasn't some Machiavellian scheme but rather out of a fear that Iraq, a country that had previously attacked the country multiple times could become powerful enough to the point where it could threaten Israel through a large military, chemical and potentially nuclear weapons. But then again you'll probably claim that the Soviets and the U S aided Iraq out of Israel's bidding even though the former had actively supplied weapons to the Arab coalition during the Six Day and Yom Kippur Wars that sought out to destroy Israel in the Six Day War while the latter had geopolitical interests in Iran that was completely independent of any country.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/article...ions-with-iran

[Heathen Hammer]

I'm pretty sure there are a lot of militaries in the world capable of accounting for...of all things...terrain. Again, my point is, if you really think we can't find a way to invade Iran...you really need a better argument than...you know...a lot of the things we've historically done very well very quickly many times over the past 30 years. You want to say we can't occupy Iran? I'm game. But you want to say we can't invade. Move the frak along.

Hell, so little of the modern world is dependent on Iran after 60 years of them being economically walled off, we could literally go in and wreck the place and leave. For all politically bad, not like, it'd be economically bad either.

In theory US could invade Iran, but given how it would be denied most of its usual advantages and it would lead to a very expensive and somewhat embarrassing stalemate, especially once China and Russia throw in their support. Even if US ends up defeating Iranian military, it would come at a very high cost. Only the dumbest of politicians, I'm talking about McCain/Bush tier of morons, would think it is a good idea because they are mentally stuck sometime during early cold war where illegal wars don't have domestic consequences or that for decades US isn't already viewed by majority of the world as a much bigger threat then Iran. Heck, even Obama didn't do it, and he was pretty dumb and incompetent, although not as bad as McCain or Bush.

[Caduet]

Now youÂ’re being purposely deceptive about what IÂ’m saying while you try to say that a special forces mission is the same as a ground invasion. Are you always this way.

I stopped taking your posts seriously when you decided to insist on the pointless dick swinging contest. Obviously, if the US Armed Forces commits every ounce of its power into invading Iran, it will likely manage to get troops on the ground and into Tehran or whatever. Everyone who follows this, especially the Iranians themselves, acknowledge it and any scenario involving takes this into account. But that's just the opening battle of a longer war that America is guaranteed to lose. The initial success of the invasion is so inevitable it is practically irrelevant. It only matters to dick-swingers.

Clearly I differentiate between the two, unless you think "small-scale" and "huge-scale" mean the same thing. In which case, let me be the first to let you know that "small" and "huge" mean different things.

How were they "sacrificed for israel"?

Anything the US does (not only) in the Middle East is on behest of Israel, didn't you know that?

Gigs has you covered, infi. Toppling democratic elections to install a dictator (the root cause of the revolution) was not the will of the American people. America should have welcomed the Iranian display of self-determination, not sent in the Marines. israeli influnce has been the ultimate source of many of our poor foreign policy decisions.

Because apparently it must be an Israeli conspiracy even though the country supplied hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Iran during the Iran-Iraq War in order to prevent Saddam Hussein's Iraq from being victorious in the conflict.

That's a good example of just why israel is so dangerous and needs to be brought to heel. Its clear the israeli plan here was to get iran and iraq to bleed each other as much as possible and make a few shekels along the way. The blowback of that greedy little plot is what we see with modern Iran. "We played with fire and got burned, again" is the best way to summarize the history of israel over the millennia. The problem is that non-jews are getting far worse burns along the way.

[Gigantus]

Gigs has you covered, infi.

Note to self: always add emoticon when being facetious, even when not subtle, someone is bound to take\use it literal.

[Aexodus]

Caduet believes the Jews control the world anyway, we tried to intervene but they said nothing could be done for him

[Common Soldier]

Well, unlike the relatively flat Iraq, Iran's geography is similar to that of Afghanistan, bit more humid though so insurgents don't need to just hide in caves, they can use forests and jungles too. Plus it's also 2.5 times larger (1,65M km2 vs 650K km2), and 2.5 times more populous (81.5M vs 31.5M) than Afghanistan.

It safe to assume that invasion would be more difficult due to the terrain, additionally one shouldn't discount the military advantages present day Iran has over the Saddam's Iraq, both in terms of numbers and equipment.

Therefore after Iran is occupied and victory declared, while the people greet the liberators, who I assume would have suffered thousands of casualties, the "nation-builders" would have to hope that everything will go swell, not like in Iraq with the insurgency, and definitely not like in Afghanistan today, where the US is trying to negotiate with the same group it toppled, failing to annihilate them despite the fact that the war started 19 years ago and they have an overwhelming technological superiority.

To me that doesn't sound like victory, unless the aim is perpetual war, in that case it's going swell.

Also, did I mention that Iran is larger and has more population than Iraq and Afghanistan together, on top of that it also has an extra 20M people and an extra 500K km2 territory.
I admit not being the expert, but seeing US, and Coalition forces, success record in those two countries makes me think that in Iran's case it might be a bit more difficult to declare victory.

Also refugees, I guess the US won't be the one taking them, no, that would be the EU, refugees from country that has as many people as Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan combined.

One thing Iran has is a strong national identity, so the US and any Coallition forces would not be into nation building. However I think any government the US set up would be regarded as a puppet government, and while there are many Iranians who don't necessarily like the Islamic Republic, most people in Iran probably support the Islamic government
The US would have to treat Iran the same way it treated German and Japan in WW2, the people of those countries did not feel liberated for the most part.

The US A d some Coallition forces could defeat Iran, did defeated Japan, and Japan was a much tougher than Irsn, but as you imply it would take a lot more resources to do so, more than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. On the other hand, if the goal is not regime change, but merely to eliminate the Iranians nuclear program, that might be achieved with much less effort
Surgical.air.strikes might be able to destroy those nuclear fscilities. I seem to recall Israel launched an air strike against Iran in the 1980's to destroy Iran's nuclear program at the time.

Americans are tired of the Middle East, so.I.dont see any support for a large Iraq style ground invasion. Air and cruise missiles strikes, which could still be pretty devastating.

[Caduet]

Note to self: always add emoticon when being facetious, even when not subtle, someone is bound to take\use it literal.

being facetious doesn't mean you were wrong. i'd have said the same thing no mater how many emoticons you employed. the truth is the truth, even if you'd rather just laugh at it.

Caduet believes the Jews control the world anyway, we tried to intervene but they said nothing could be done for him

No one really argues against me when I say israel wields massive (and malign) influence over many aspects of American government, media, academia, finance and other institutions. You guys just clutch your pearls or ignore me and then when I post facts I get banned for "insulting others" and "hate speech" and, on one particularly memorable occasion, "anti-semitic punctuation".

[Gigantus]

...and then when I post facts I get banned for "insulting others" and "hate speech" and, on one particularly memorable occasion, "anti-semitic punctuation".

Blessed are the righteous who know how to post facts without getting penalized. (I'll skip the smiley, too much bother).

[Common Soldier]

Is it just me, or are we making too much out of Iran having nuclear weapons? If a country like Pakistan, whose military is riddled with Taliban and Al-Qaeda supporters and helped North Korea in their nuclear weapons development, had nuclear weapons, how much worse is Iran having them?

Yes, it would be better if Iran didn't, but while we may not like them, Iranian leaders don't seem like nut jobs like the head of North Korea. Sure, they would probably like to use them against Israel, but they wouldn't because their leaders are rational enough to know Israel has its own nukes and would retaliate, and if not Isael, then I he US, and Iran would come out the loser. I don't know how many bombs Israel has, but the US has a whole lot more nuclear bombs and missiles than Iran would ever have.

It would be a risk I guess, if the Iranians gave atomic bombs to terrorist use, but Iran could be made to understand that if terrorist ever did a had of Irans nukes, Iran would be completely wiped off. Sure, we might lose Need York, but Iran would be completely wiped out, and Irsnian leaders are not that reckless. If the Iranians still want nuclear bombs under those terms, that they now become a legitimate targets for complete annihilation, and hey still want to build the bomb anyways, maybe we should let them.

Let's face it, if Iran really, really wants a nuclear bokb, sooner or later they will find way to build one, sanctions or no sanctions.

[Prodromos]

Sometime after World War II, a Jewish survivor was asked, "What did you learn from it?" He answered, "I learned that when someone says he wants to kill you, believe him." Are we making too much of the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, a regime relentlessly seeking to annihilate or subjugate its neighbors, developing nuclear weapons? Not at all. If anything, we are not taking the threat seriously enough. Iran also doesn't need to launch their nukes to make use of them; nuclear arms ensure that Iran's regime will never be overthrown from the outside, essentially freeing them up to radically ratchet up their plans to export their Islamic revolution worldwide.

[Cookiegod]

Sometime after World War II, a Jewish survivor was asked, "What did you learn from it?" He answered, "I learned that when someone says he wants to kill you, believe him." Are we making too much of the world's largest sponsor of terrorism, a regime relentlessly seeking to annihilate or subjugate its neighbors, developing nuclear weapons? Not at all. If anything, we are not taking the threat seriously enough. Iran also doesn't need to launch their nukes to make use of them; nuclear arms ensure that Iran's regime will never be overthrown from the outside, essentially freeing them up to radically ratchet up their plans to export their Islamic revolution worldwide.

So when an endless string of American, Israeli and Saudi politicians/despots call for Iran to be bombed (including with nukes), Iran should better believe them.

That's the reason why any country would be a fool not to go for nukes when threatened by the US. Deterrence is the only thing that works. Give your WMD's away and the US will attack you, as history has proven repeatedly.

Iran isn't the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism, the US is. By a huge margin that is bigger than the relative spending on military.

You feel threatened by Iran spreading some "Islamist revolution" world wide even though you wouldn't even be able to provide a single example for that. The US has been supporting and facilitating the rise of Wahhabi & Salafi Islamism worldwide since the Eisenhower days (1950s) at the latest. It is still supporting radical islamist groups in e.g. Syria, whereas Iran supports a secular government.

Not to mention the fact that the difference between Irani Shiite Islam and Wahhabi/Salafi Islamism is about as huge as that between Quakers and Westboro Baptist church.

You hands down prefer fantasy to reality, don't you?