Iran the next strategic target for America?

[hrscowboy]

heck dc taveapont the whole usa isnt behind this deal in iraq how the heck we gonna rally the people for iran? My daughter is an attorney and she told me just yesterday you would not believe the women that filing for divorce because of this war. what the heck is that going to do to moral to these men when they get there divorce papers served on them in a combat zone. She also told me the military is not giving out any hardship discharges that the men and woman are going to fulfill this committment in iraq. If i was a judge on the bench i would tell these attorneys that there will be NO divorces granted to anyone in the military until this fight is done and the service people return..

[hrscowboy]

This very same crap went on in Vietnam also...

[gwladgarwr]

Originally posted by yellowwing
They keep talking about that the Exit Strategy is to set up an Iraq that can protect itself from insurgents.

What they are not saying is anything about setting up an Iraq that can protect itself from IRAN! That's a much bigger job.

The current high-low number of trained Iraqis is 120,000-4,000. Even the high optimistic number is nowhere near enough to stave off Iran.

I won't go into what I saw when I was in Iraq, but I will say that in towns and areas I was in near the Iranian border showed me that Iran has a much bigger influence on the opinion of the average Iraqi than people think. The border was and still is so porous that our own southern border would be a role model for the Iranians. The Shi'ites in Iran definitely have a vested interest in Iraq that many Westerners fail to grasp, and those Iraqis who live near the border have much more in common with Iran than they do with most other Iraqis, even more so than Shi'ites who live far from the Iranian border.

The question is: is the United States prepared to go head-in with an Iranian Shi'ite revolutionary power before Iraq is "pacified"? That remains to be seen. However, those in the media who "leaked" the alleged ulterior motives and plans of the United States government with regard to the Iranian issue are not exactly doing anyone a favor. Sure, he/they have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but in a very limited sense, you may consider some of these "First Amendment proponents'" actions as lending "aid and comfort" to the enemy (the United States still does not have relations with Iran and trade restrictions are still in place). Witness Jane Fonda's actions during Vietnam.

And yes, some of my views may be taken for "liberal". "Liberal" does not mean "doormat" to international bias and hatred for the United States, and "liberalism" MUST not be equated with "hatred of the United States within its own borders." However, many seem to confuse the abuse of our freedoms and liberties with "liberalism". That is not liberalism - to me, that is sedition and espionage. And those out there in the Middle East are quick to take advantage of and make use of our freedoms while simultaneously trying to destroy them and the newly-established democracies elsewhere.

There is a high level of individual responsiblity in exercising any kind of freedom or liberties that seem to be lacking in this country and everywhere else. It is very hard to watch people such as the person who made his public announcement in the press regarding the U.S. government's intentions vis-a-vis Iran and see countries such as Iran take advantage of such an announcement by proclaiming that such revelations obviously justify Iran's continuing development of a nuclear policy.

Suppression of the press is exactly what Iran and similar countries practice consistently. We will not have that here in this country. However, there must be a balance. The means by which we strike a balance is the fly in the ointment.

[hrscowboy]

The buttom line is that the powers that be need to think this deal with iran real real close before they decide to take on iran head to head..

[yellowwing]

Yes, we can redirect our I MEF to Iran and kick thir ass. It would really would be great if we had a few Pakistani and Turkish Divisions to help along theway.

We can count on the Hebrews, either way! But they may be busy with Syria-Lebanon. We could only give them air support, at first.

[hrscowboy]

I say nuke the rag heads and lets get that show in iran over..

[yellowwing]

Rumsfeld: Iraq Needs Time for Military
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON Feb 7, 2005
Once its internal security forces are trained to handle violent insurgents, Iraq will require more time to build a military force strong enough to meet any threats from Iran or other neighbors, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says...."It will take some time after that before they would have the kind of capability to dissuade Iran, for example, if Iran decided to try to conduct a war with them again."


And we brought up this issue almost three weeks ago! Our Marine Corps mindset was thinking about it, we know SecDef was thinking about it. It took the Media this long to bring it up?