I'm kinda confused about this whole "Let's attack Iran" talk...

[Tuukka]

Can comeone please explain how a war against Iran would have good results?

The thing is, the USA military is already stretched as it is, and were not going to see any stability in Iraq for at least another 5 years. And if USA attacks Iran it will decrease stability in Iraq even more.

Iran is a BIG nation, with fairly strong military. Conquering it won't be a walk in the park.

And even if USA manages to wage war and conquer Iran, what then? Keep it occupied for the next 10 years? And even if you do, what THEN? You can't keep it occupied forever.

The thing is, Iraqi people hated Saddam. The Iranese don't seem to have that kind of hatred for their leaders. If USA attacks Iran, it means that hundreds of thousands of Iranese civilians and normal soldiers (people with families) will get killed both in battle, in "collateral damage" and in the aftermatch of the war (lack of water, food, medicine and healhcare). Also expect the collapsing of their infrastructure, huge unemployment rates, and massive poordom.

There are going to be a lot of bitter people there.

If you replace the Iran goverment and organize free elections with no ayatollah, what happens when the Iranese people choose an anti-American goverment (Which they most certainly will, especially after USA has conquered their country)? Or do you prevent them from choosing an anti-american goverment? Then that's not a free election, and you will still need to keep them conquered and under iron fist.

If you keep the occupied for the next 10 years and make USA bankrupt, what then? Organize free elections, get an anti-american goverment, and go home? What exactly has been achieved at that point? Nothing?

That's how it seems to me.

I can't see an logical good results from waging war with Iran. It's a major fuck-up waiting to happen. So 'm interested in hearing what exactly would be the benefits of war for USA. What can be gained? Even if you might rip the off from WMD's (Which they might not even have), they start building new ones once USA has left, if that really is their intention.

I just don't get it. Anyone care to explain?

[Lynn7]

I don't think anyone wants to go to war with Iran. But there is a serious concern about a nation getting nukes who will use them against people it hates. Israel will probably go to war with them before anyone else even begins to think about it. They are not about to leave their nation's fate in the hands of this evil leader in Iran. And once someone like this gets nukes,fighting them will always carry the possibility of nuke attacks by them which is a horrifying thought.

[free]

This is what I posted at the forum of a local radio show (http://attackmachine.proboards56.com/index.cgi?board=onair&action=display&thread=1177628514) a few weeks ago about how I felt about pretty much the whole situation in the middle east.

I do think that most of my party is a tad naive when it comes to peace talks with places like Iran, Syria, Palestine, ect. But if that's all we are doing, just talking, what is so bad about that. Should we just start bombing the hell out of everyone that does something we don't like.

You have to remember too, though, in the case of Palestine, Israel basically came in, took it over, then said, "God said we could have it." I don't agree with the reasonings they have for claiming that land, but I do understand and respect their right to defend it, since it is theirs now.

(I should also note here that I would support a war with Iran because I believe that they have been assisting to kill our troops and are the biggest threat in the WOT, much more so than Iraq ever was.)

I find it even more interesting that Bush would ignore input from his former Generals, surround himself with yes-men, then replace the head General with someone who believes in the "surge", after realizing that the advice he previously ignored could have helped, if not end, then speed up a conclusion to this war.


I am an avid fan of history, and I understand how war works. Adding 20,000 troops now is like adding salt to a big vat of shit stew (niceo ne Jon) to try and make it palatable. What he should have done (if not getting out completely and concentrating on Iran) was send 250,000 more troops to Iraq, 100,000 to the Iran border, 50,000 to the Syrian border, and 100,000 to Baghdad.

If he's not willing to take massive collateral damage, then he isn't going to win this war in Iraq. The best alternative would be to pull all our troops out of Iraq and send them to Iran.

Once Iraq sorted itself out via the civil war (free from Iran's influence), we could then pursue diplomatic relations (if that's turns out to be impossible, try to at least work out a non-aggression pact).

Once Iran falls, it should be much easier in places like Syria, Lebanon, ect., since Iran is (IMO) the "man behind the curtain" so to speak. With Iran out of the way, it may even be possible to accomplish this with little military effort.

Again, though, this would require massive amounts of collateral damage, but if we do end up killing around a few hundred thousand civilians, but succeed in bringing about stability and peace for, say, 60 or 70 years, wouldn't it be worth it?

[free]

BTW, Tuukka, every point you made about the economic and civic ruin a war in Iran would cause and the relative strength of it's army is valid.

The same could be said, though, about the Japanese/ US situation during and after WWII. It seems like we were able to work out our differences pretty well.

Besides, like Lynn7 said, crazy people don't need access to things that make big boom-booms.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by free
BTW, Tuukka, every point you made about the economic and civic ruin a war in Iran would cause and the relative strength of it's army is valid.

The same could be said, though, about the Japanese/ US situation during and after WWII. It seems like we were able to work out our differences pretty well.

Besides, like Lynn7 said, crazy people don't need access to things that make big boom-booms.

Not sure what you mean with this - Japan was trying to conquer parts of USA, and there isn't any reason to assume that Iran would be trying to do the same. If USA attacks Iran, it means that USA is the agressor, trying to conquer them.

I don't really see how the two situations are in any way comparable, unless you are trying to say that USA is playing the part of Japan in here.

Besides, who exactly is Iran trying to nuke? Iran KNOWS that if they try to nuke anyone, it means their own destruction. If Iran sends even one nuclear missile against another nation, ENTIRE WORLD is against them after that point. At least every nation that can make any difference. Nobody cares what someone like Syria does.

Do you think that India, Pakistan, China, Russia, etc, are going to watch a nation go bonkers next to them, sending out nuclear missiles?

Iran sending out nukes = bye bye Iran.

Hell, before USA manages to do anything, the other nuclear states have already blown Iran to small pieces. The idea that Russia, or China, or India would side with Iran just seems silly to me. They don't share Iran's interests. They are fully aware of the fact that Iran hopes their destruction and Islam revolution. If Iran would ever start sending out nukes, those countries would immdiately realize what a threat Iran is to them.

Lot's of world leaders are corrupt and immoral. But very few of them are retarded.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by free
I do think that most of my party is a tad naive when it comes to peace talks with places like Iran, Syria, Palestine, ect. But if that's all we are doing, just talking, what is so bad about that. Should we just start bombing the hell out of everyone that does something we don't like.

You have to remember too, though, in the case of Palestine, Israel basically came in, took it over, then said, "God said we could have it." I don't agree with the reasonings they have for claiming that land, but I do understand and respect their right to defend it, since it is theirs now.

(I should also note here that I would support a war with Iran because I believe that they have been assisting to kill our troops and are the biggest threat in the WOT, much more so than Iraq ever was.)

I find it even more interesting that Bush would ignore input from his former Generals, surround himself with yes-men, then replace the head General with someone who believes in the "surge", after realizing that the advice he previously ignored could have helped, if not end, then speed up a conclusion to this war.


I am an avid fan of history, and I understand how war works. Adding 20,000 troops now is like adding salt to a big vat of shit stew (niceo ne Jon) to try and make it palatable. What he should have done (if not getting out completely and concentrating on Iran) was send 250,000 more troops to Iraq, 100,000 to the Iran border, 50,000 to the Syrian border, and 100,000 to Baghdad.

If he's not willing to take massive collateral damage, then he isn't going to win this war in Iraq. The best alternative would be to pull all our troops out of Iraq and send them to Iran.

Once Iraq sorted itself out via the civil war (free from Iran's influence), we could then pursue diplomatic relations (if that's turns out to be impossible, try to at least work out a non-aggression pact).

Once Iran falls, it should be much easier in places like Syria, Lebanon, ect., since Iran is (IMO) the "man behind the curtain" so to speak. With Iran out of the way, it may even be possible to accomplish this with little military effort.

Again, though, this would require massive amounts of collateral damage, but if we do end up killing around a few hundred thousand civilians, but succeed in bringing about stability and peace for, say, 60 or 70 years, wouldn't it be worth it?

To be honest, that sounds like an extremely silly plan.

So USA organizes mobilizes it's army to the Iran border. Iraq falls into chaos and starts the rather inevitable civil war, with large Iran-supportive segments attacking USA forces. Which means that USA is in the middle of two separate hostile forces, coming from two sides.

That itself is an awful tactical decision. Everyone knows how bad strategy it is two fight a war on two frontiers. That's what brought Nazi Germany down.

Since Iraq is in the middle of civil war, the USA army can't anymore use the ground level support it has so far had in Iraq (army bases, oil, roads, established ammunition, food and water distribution). The only logical solution I can see would be to use Kuwait as a base for infantry, along Iraqi Al Basrah province. There are several major cities in Al Basrah and 2.6 million people. The USA army most likely would probably face constant rebellion even in it's own conquered area.

There is over 1000 miles of border between Iraq and Iran. Since Iraq would be in the middle of civi war, USA couldn't guard that border - The troops would be stretched out, and they would be attacked from two sides.

So the Iran would have free access to Iraq, where at least 1/4 of the population (including a great deal of the best trained and equipped troops) would welcome them with open arms. The fanatic muslim segment of Iraq might suddenly be the strongest of all segments, pushing the country even furher towards Muslim theocracy and alliance with Iran.

Iran is FOUR TIMES bigger county than Iraq, with a population THREE TIMES bigger than Iraq. That's 70 million. And unlike Iraq, Iran is united. That's quite a lot of land to conquer, and a lot of people to contol.

And things get even worse: Where as Iraq is mostly open desert except for the relatively unimportant northern regions, Iran is one of the world's most mountainous countries, including the heartkand around the capital. Difficult terrain to travel and conquer, easy terrain to defend.

Despite all the modern technology we have, some realities of the war still remain the same: You can conquer territory only with infantry. You can maintain territory only with infantry. The worse the terrain, the more fucked you are, if you are the agressor (Guess why USA never managed to beat Vietkong).

As you can see, there are MANY problems with the military plan your post suggest. Personally I think it sounds like a major fuck-up.

I'm not a military expert, and maybe I'm making some major mistakes in this scenario. But I AM aware of the political situation both in Iran and Iraq, and I am aware of the geography of the region. Who ever wrote that suggestion as a military plan doesn't seem to have even a basic grasp of what kind of countries Iraq and Iran are.

[free]

The point I was making with Japan was that we killed hundreds of thousand of their civilians, caused devastating social and financial problems, and yet today 60 years later, they are one of our closest allies. They hated us with a passion, too. They (the military) would have fought us to every one of them was dead before they surrendered.

Japan was trying to conquer parts of USA, and there isn't any reason to assume that Iran would be trying to do the same. If USA attacks Iran, it means that USA is the agressor, trying to conquer them.

They are fully aware of the fact that Iran hopes their destruction and Islam revolution.

Do you understand how contradictory those two statements are? Have you heard the things that the guy has said?

He IS bonkers. Hell, if he launches nukes and kills, say, 500,000 infidels, he's got a spot saved in paradise. I consider anyone that views the death of another person as his or her ticket to paradise to be certifiably insane, and real threat if given power.

I am very liberal in most of my social views, but for the life of me, I can't see how people can defend anything the crazy Muslims do, and I can't see how us or anyone else doing away with them by any means necessary is a bad thing. They want us DEAD. They want our FREEDOM taken from us, and unlike us, there are willing to do whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals, even if it means that they are killed in the process.

Sometimes, the only thing that can bring a lasting peace is a devastating war. Sometimes, the only way to win the devastating war is to accept that a lot of civilians are going to die, and a lot of people's lives are going to be completely destroyed.

War truly is hell, but sometimes that’s the only way that any kind of progress can be made. It sucks and it may not be fair, but it is just the way it is.

[Vong]

War with Iran would not be a walk in the park. Iran not only has a standing army, but it also has the Islamic Guard; some 120,000 men created during the Iran-Iraq war. These men are basically the CIA ops of Iran. If the US were to invade Iran, they would not only meet the Iranian military, but forces from its allies AND enemies. Ahmadinejad might not be popular in the Middle East, but old alliances die hard in the region and he could easily call on other countries within the Middle East to help him against the US. The US probably would not go in alone. Another "Coalition of the Willing" will more than likely be created, thus evening out the military fronts on both sides. Attacking Iran would certainly lead to World War III.

Economically speaking, Iran is worse for wear. The sanctions on Iran have decreased the equipment needed for their agriculture. On top of Ahmadinejad's failure to shrink the gap between the rich and poor, the sanctions are adding fuel to the fire. Iran is in better shape than Iraq was pre-2003 invasion, but no doubt the US will fix that by destroying local schools, hospitals and other public buildings like they did in the first and second (2003) Gulf War.

As I noted in a previous thread, it's highly unlikely that Iran is using their primitive nuclear technology to create a nuclear weapon. Not only has Khamenei issued a fatwa against nuclear weapons, but Ahmadinejad has said it is not in their government's policy or plans to create one. Ahmadinejad might be crazy, but Khamenei is not; he would not allow something so harmful to be built in an already crippled society. And Ahmadinejad would not go against the Supreme religious leader in his country to build a nuclear weapon.

All the hype we are hearing is from the hegemonic forces of the US fixing on another target to continue churning the military industrial complex. Like the neo-conservatives did in the 1970's and 80's with the Soviet Union and not too long ago with Iraq in 2002-03, they are painting a dark picture on Iran to make them look more dangerous than they really are. And of course, the US media is picking up on it and furthering the government's cause of supporting action against Iran.

[free]

Tuukka we are already fighting this war on 2 fronts, it just not as apparent. We have people coming from different countries to aid in the fighting.

I think you're confusing what I meant (and it easy because I think I wrote that very late at night). I meant that either we should have deployed those troops (100,000 to Iranian border, 50,000 to Syrian border, 100,000 to Baghdad), or we should mobilize the troops we have in Iraq and only concentrate on Iran.

If we kept our position in Iraq, those troops along the border would only be used to quell the attempts by the Iranians and Syrians (along with whoever else) to interfere in the Iraq war.

Despite all the modern technology we have, some realities of the war still remain the same: You can conquer territory only with infantry. You can maintain territory only with infantry. The worse the terrain, the more fucked you are, if you are the agressor (Guess why USA never managed to beat Vietkong).


That's what I meant when I said what I said about collateral damage. We obviously would have to take out all the military installation we could in Iran, and several key populated cities, just like we had to do in Japan. In my plan, the loss of life would be far greater than anything since WWII. We'd have to take a lot of there moral out of the fighting. (BTW, we couldn't beat the Vietcong because we weren't willing to do what was necessary).

But I AM aware of the political situation both in Iran and Iraq, and I am aware of the geography of the region.

Honestly, I think that where we differ is that you are considering a course that would protect as many civilians as possible. I'm not.

I know how bad that sounds, but to win a war against people like we are fighting, we are going to have to accept that a lot of innocent people are going to die.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by free
The point I was making with Japan was that we killed hundreds of thousand of their civilians, caused devastating social and financial problems, and yet today 60 years later, they are one of our closest allies. They hated us with a passion, too. They (the military) would have fought us to every one of them was dead before they surrendered.

Do you understand how contradictory those two statements are? Have you heard the things that the guy has said?

He IS bonkers. Hell, if he launches nukes and kills, say, 500,000 infidels, he's got a spot saved in paradise. I consider anyone that views the death of another person as his or her ticket to paradise to be certifiably insane, and real threat if given power.

I am very liberal in most of my social views, but for the life of me, I can't see how people can defend anything the crazy Muslims do, and I can't see how us or anyone else doing away with them by any means necessary is a bad thing. They want us DEAD. They want our FREEDOM taken from us, and unlike us, there are willing to do whatever is necessary to accomplish those goals, even if it means that they are killed in the process.

Sometimes, the only thing that can bring a lasting peace is a devastating war. Sometimes, the only way to win the devastating war is to accept that a lot of civilians are going to die, and a lot of people's lives are going to be completely destroyed.

War truly is hell, but sometimes that’s the only way that any kind of progress can be made. It sucks and it may not be fair, but it is just the way it is.

I'm still not following your Japan logic. So it's ok attack a country in the hopes of them being your friend 60 years from now? That doesn't make a slightest sense. What if they are not your friend 60 years from now? Can you really predict that? As a justification for war that sounds extremely silly.

Japanese were extremely adaptive. We have no reason to assume that Iranese people are the same. Waging a massive war based on a vague hunch feels extremely irresponsible.

Also a key difference: Japanese knew they were responsible for their own destruction, because they were the agressors. The japanese had an internal "correcting" process after the war, they were determined in their idea that they had made a terrible mistake, and would not do one again. Germany went throug the exact same process.

But if USA attacks Iran, then Iranese people don't feel the need to correct themselves. After all, in their mind it wasn't their fault, the "evil" USA simply attacked them.

That makes quite a difference: Are you the agressor, or are you just defending yourself?

My statements were not contradictionary.

I said that Iran doesn't feel the need to conquer USA territory, and there isn't any kind of proof that they would. What are they trying to conquer? Alaska?

And I said that if Iran would start a nuclear offense against another country (They most likely would do it against Israel) then the rest of the world would blow Iran to smitheneers. USA wouldn't even need to do anything, there are many nuclear countries who are not particularly diplomatic in their approach to nuclear threat...

Also, what makes you think that the President of Iran would even be allowed to do a nuclear strike, if his country had the capability for it? HE ISN'T CAPABLE OF IT. He is not in a position to make such a decision. Besides, he might be out of office in 2009, or at 2013 the latest . He can't run for presidency after that. Even if Iran would be actively making nuclear weapons (which we don't know for sure), we have no idea when they would actually have one. And once they would have one, only the ayatollah can make the decision to use one.

So crazy muslims want to take away your "FREEDOM"? Newsflash: They can't take it. They can't even try to conquer you, because you are on the other side of the fucking world. What do you think Iran is going to do? Send all their infantry on row boats over the Atlantic? Give me a break. So they want your death? Is the solution for that to kill INNOCENT muslims who don't want you death? You see, roughly 98% of the world's muslims don't want you die. And how exactly does it prevent death to kill american soldiers in a pointless war? Do you have ANY idea how many of them would die, along with arabi soldiers and civilians?

Even if Iran would send out a nuclear missile and it would kill 500.000 infidels, that would still be less than what this war would kill.

And I find it rather unlikely the missile would be directed towards USA. And while I'm not familiar with the current air defence systems, I'm guessing there is a good chance that the missile would be destroyed before it would actually hit an american population center. Half a world is a long journey to fly, even for a nuclear missile.

You seem to be falling to the trap of "THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOM!" nonsense. There is a reason they didn't target the statue of freedom during 9/11, and instead attacked symbols of military and financial power. Because the extremely small segment of USA-hating fanatic muslims don't hate you for your freedom. They hate you because your military has attacked them, and because your military has served the financial interests on USA.

And the great majority muslims don't really care about USA in any way, if you would just leave the alone.

If you really want to kill millions people in this war, and destroy at least two big countries (Iraq and Iran) along with your own country (in economical sense), then at least try to use logic instead of blind emotion in your arguments.

[free]

I said that Iran doesn't feel the need to conquer USA territory, and there isn't any kind of proof that they would. What are they trying to conquer? Alaska?

Why does one country want to conquer another? I don't see any glaring difference in what Hitler tried to do than with what the Jihadist terrorists want to do. They both felt their way of thinking should be the only way of thinking, and were willing to do whatever it took to spread their belief.

And I said that if Iran would start a nuclear offense against another country (They most likely would do it against Israel) then the rest of the world would blow Iran to smitheneers.

I doubt it. China and Russia have a lot to gain by a war with the US and Iran. I also doubt that India would risk getting involved.

Is the solution for that to kill INNOCENT muslims who don't want you death?

Sometimes killing innocent people is unavoidable.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by free
Tuukka we are already fighting this war on 2 fronts, it just not as apparent. We have people coming from different countries to aid in the fighting.

I think you're confusing what I meant (and it easy because I think I wrote that very late at night). I meant that either we should have deployed those troops (100,000 to Iranian border, 50,000 to Syrian border, 100,000 to Baghdad), or we should mobilize the troops we have in Iraq and only concentrate on Iran.

If we kept our position in Iraq, those troops along the border would only be used to quell the attempts by the Iranians and Syrians (along with whoever else) to interfere in the Iraq war.

That's what I meant when I said what I said about collateral damage. We obviously would have to take out all the military installation we could in Iran, and several key populated cities, just like we had to do in Japan. In my plan, the loss of life would be far greater than anything since WWII. We'd have to take a lot of there moral out of the fighting. (BTW, we couldn't beat the Vietcong because we weren't willing to do what was necessary).

Honestly, I think that where we differ is that you are considering a course that would protect as many civilians as possible. I'm not.

I know how bad that sounds, but to win a war against people like we are fighting, we are going to have to accept that a lot of innocent people are going to die.

What the hell?

You would "take out" several of the biggest cities in Iran not with infantry, but with bombings? So you would intentionally destroy major civilian cities in a country which hasn't attacked you? Prepared to kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of civilians.

Dude... That's some deeply fucked up shit. That's just plaing immoral and evil. Hell, even the fanatic muslims you talk about don't come off as that immoral. And the funniest thing is, you suggest doing it even when you haven't been provoked.

And how the hell do you except Iran to react? Just take it all in?

How exactly do you imagine that 100.000 USA infantry troops would able to withhold the massive strike of the entire Iranese army? That's unrealistic. This is the real world, not Rambo III.

And the only way to take out Vietkong would have been to destroy every single forest in Vietman, or alternatively keep the war going for years and years (which you already had done). You couldn't beat them, because they used the terrain against you. You simply couldn't find them. What the hell you are suggesting that you should have done in Vietnam? Kill everyone in sight? A genocide? How exactly would it have helped USA's interest to kill every vietnamese person? You were supposedly there to help them, remember?

And no, you are not fighting on "two sides" right now. If you really think that fighting an open battle against two large countries from two opposite directions equals the current insurgence, then I don't know what to say. Another completely unrealistic comment.

And the scenario you are suggesting still means that USA forces would be attached by Iraqi's. A lot of them hate americans, remember? A lot of them would side with Iran, remember? The idea that there would be hundrends of thousands of Americans soldiers in Iraq and they wouldn't be drawn into the battle, is completely unrealistic and irrational.

And do you realize what would be the result of all of this? Dozens of millions of angry muslims who have lost everything they got. They lost their families, their children, the parents. They lost their homes, their money, their jobs. They have nothing left, and nothing left to lose. And who is responsible? USA. So what exactly do you think all these people will do... Where do terrorists come from? What motivates them?

Maybe you get what I mean? By trying to solve a problem by acting like a delusional madman you only make the problem worse. Do you support terrorism? If not, why do you want to create more terrorists?

All in all, I'm happy that the american leaders are more inclined to think with reason than you do. And they are not willing to commit such vile and evil crimes against humanity that you are suggesting. Thank God for that.

My post might seem harsh towards you, but you deserve it. I'm not being personally insulting, I'm just stating the fact that the things you are suggesting are idiotic, delusional, unrealistic, and just plain evil.

And also: They are strictly against interests of USA and will hurt your country.

[Tuukka]

Originally posted by free
Why does one country want to conquer another? I don't see any glaring difference in what Hitler tried to do than with what the Jihadist terrorists want to do. They both felt their way of thinking should be the only way of thinking, and were willing to do whatever it took to spread their belief.

I doubt it. China and Russia have a lot to gain by a war with the US and Iran. I also doubt that India would risk getting involved.

Sometimes killing innocent people is unavoidable.

Do you ever actually read any information about this subject? Or do you just invent things as you go along?

When the hell did "Jihadist terrorists" equal the entire nation of Iran? I mean, what?

You can't see a difference between Nazi-Germany, which agressively conquered several other countries and committed a genocide... As opposed to small cells of people who operate independently from any goverment?

Seriously.

China and Russia don't have a lot to gain from an instable, madman-lead neighboring country which attacks other countries with nuclear missiles. Try to be logical, please. The leaders in China and Russia are corrupted, but they are not retarded. Every leader knows that a nearby country which considers them as infidels and wants them to have a muslim revolution (with nuclear weapons) is not a good friend to have.

BTW, India has a big problem with it's muslim population. India most certainly DO NOT want Iran to start a holy war against infidels.

Also, Pakistan is a nuclear power and it has a long land border with Iran. Thanks to their close proximity Pakistan most certainly DOES NOT want Iran to become an offensive nuclear power, attacking others with the excuse of a holy war. Pakistan essentially wants Iran to fuck itself, it that ever happens.

Not to mention that Israel has roughly 400 nuclear weapons. Enough to nuke the hell out of Iran.

If Iran ever starts using nuclear weapons against others, it will be a alone. Even the couple of allies it has now are very likely to abandon it. It would be suicide for Iran.

I'm also rather suspicious that Iran would bomb Israel (the only logical target it might have). First of all, nuking any Israel city would mean also killing a lot of muslims. 1/8 of Israel citizens are muslims. And they can't nuke Jerusalem, because it's a holy city for all muslims (I'm guessing that some other Israel cities have holy monuments in them as well). The nuclear fallout would reach the neihboring muslim countries, killing horseloads of palestians, Saudi-Arabians, Jordanians, Egyptians... You take your pick.

The entire muslim world would say a big FUCK YOU to Iran if that ever happend. And no, that isn't even speculation. That's simply a fact, supported by every single detail.

The other approach is of course "Let's ignore all reason! All muslims are EVIL and they want to take away our FREEDOM!". But I already stated what I think of that.

[Tuukka]

BTW, for anyone reading this thread:

I'm not even against an invasion of Iran. It just want to know if there is actuallly a logical plan that can be executed in order to build peace in Middle-East and prevent Iran from creating nukes - Even if this plan requires a short term war.

In other words, I would like to hear a plan which isn't completely retarded and impossible to execute.