> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> Firstly does anyone have an actual sources to backup claims

A.K.A. Links or stfu

They send orders to IC using carrier pigeon

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> > 1: No, you didn't say that.  Your actual statement was that we could not
> determine whether the initial offensive would be a success without an overall
> picture.

> This is due to our differing opinions on what success is.

Nope.  I specified a distinction between success in a single operation (controlling territory) and success in the overall mission, clearly stating that I was only taking a stance on the effectiveness of the one mission, and not necessarily the other.  The only time when the two cross paths is when you decided to twist my words.

> So:
1. Why would the U.S. send in ground troops to blow up a NUCLEAR FACILITY?
2. Why would the U.S. send in ground troops at all? Its not necessary.
3. You MUST look at the big picture. I don't care what scenario you are rambling about.
4. Why would the U.S. send in ground troops to take Iran?

The 4th one is repetitive but think about this:
- Iraq is mostly flat.
- Iran isn't.
- Iraqis hated their government, which quickly toppled.
- Iranians will side with a government they don't like, then the U.S. (see: history).
- Iran is bigger then Iraq and Afghanistan combined (land-mass).

A: Discussion at hand was a hypothetical scenario.  We don't need to justify why it would happen, but only the question of if it would happen.
B: Any ground invasion could be justified by non-military justifications.
C: Now going one by one:
1: Because an air strike is more likely to blow radiation into urban areas than a more controlled disassembling of the facility?  Control the nuclear facility in order to gather evidence about other operations, such as possible import and export links for nuclear material?  Take your pick
2: First, the answers to #1 are applicable here.  In addition,
A: Air strikes have proven to be more prone to misfires, especially empirically proven in Afghanistan.  In addition, the results of air strike misfires are much more dangerous than ground troop misfires, having caused the bombing of a Chinese embassy in Serbia and extensive civilian damage.
B: Air strikes allow the Iranian government to retain control of information domestically, whether via radio messages, television, or newspapers.  Either way, the government is able to frame an air strike as some evil Western invasion, rallying public support for the government.  Ground forces allow us to exorcise the government from regions, vastly mitigating their propaganda capabilities.
3: Answered previously, and you ignored it.
4: Divvying this one up to answer your specific stuff:
Mountains: A: Urban regions are the most important regions to control.  Once you control these areas, it buys time to control mountainous areas.
B: It's called the 10th Mountain Brigade.  We've had troops specialized in mountain warfare for a long time.
Population support: A: Iran's population is increasingly anti-establishment.  Three reasons.
1: The last election shows there is an increasing buildup against Ahmadinejad.
2: Ahmadinejad managed to isolate many people last year through poor economic policies, such as the lack of a reserve fund from oil and excessive spending, which brought the nation to a recession as oil prices fell.  Significant protests, including division among the clerics, further entrenched this.
3: You have to give distinctions between populations.  Nowadays, the younger populations (the ones born during or after the '79 Revolution) are increasingly separated from the propaganda of the revolution, lacking the Shah's government as a frame of reference for anti-Americanism.  Multiple studies have shown that among this population, at least, the pro-Westernism is rising, due simply to the desire for economic integration with other nations.
B: Also go back to the propaganda argument: Whether by air strikes or ground offensive, the issue of anti-Americanism in Iran is inevitable.  The only way to reduce this risk is by being able to control the stream of propaganda in Iran.
Territory: Not all of the territory is actually used.  Urbanization and control of key regions is more important.  In addition, if there's significant public support, it means the Iranian people will more likely be able to take control of their government.  Unlike Iraq, Iran already has some establishments of a democratic society, so the transition would be simpler.

Answer this one question.  Yes or no:
If the US were to launch a ground offensive at Iran from both Afghanistan and Iran, would it be more likely to result in the control of territory than a ground offensive at Iran from just Afghanistan?

This is THE ONLY question I took a stand on, and thus the only issue I actually give a shit about.  Answer this yes or no, and make a specific reply of why.

How is that even remotely related to the issue I was talking about: the initial military offensive?

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> Without a larger picture that scenario
is just absurd...

Because...?

> Simon wrote:

> How long would it take to transport our troops in Afghanistan over to Iran?

Would Iraq join in on the hypothetical strike against Iran?

Trick question:
It would take a matter of hours to get troops from any area of Afghanistan to the Iranian border, assuming use of helicopters.  Ground transport may take a bit longer, both due to the terrain and safety measures associated with ongoing resistance.

But here's the catch: the troops currently in Afghanistan wouldn't be the same troops equipped for invading Iran.  Much more heavy weaponry, such as tanks and artillery pieces, would need to be shipped from other regions into Afghanistan.

As for Iraq joining, that's probably unlikely:
1: The Iraqi military is still stabilizing its own nation.  The last thing it needs is to fight ANOTHER Iran-Iraq war.
2: The current government is largely Shiite, creating cultural ties between Iran and Iraq.

However, it's perfectly reasonable to envision a situation where the US mobilized attacks on Iran both from Afghanistan and Iraq, forcing Iran to divide its troops between two fronts for an easy military victory.

> Mace wrote:

> Norway has built up a $400bn fund off of its gas and oil, Abu Dhabi around $800bn (a lot for 1 million people). Russia has about $150bn (though this amounts to little for 140 million people). These economies are diversifying. Norway has a very strong economy, Russia doesn't ... yet. But Medvedeev and Putin are aware of the dangers of relying upon oil and gas.

Iran's fund, meanwhile, is dead empty.  (It used to have a sizable amount, actually, except that Ahmadinejad withdrew much of the funds during high oil price seasons to pay for social programs).

@everyone

This discussion, as of the original post, isn't talking about what consumer nations will do when their resources run out.  The question at hand was from the other perspective: When nations which rely on particular natural resources for their economies later run out of their resources, how will they cope?

The issue of consumer dependence on resources, though interesting, isn't part of the topic at hand.  Can we please focus on this one issue?  (Frankly, I think this particular angle in the resource question isn't looked at enough, so we should at least take some time on this)

> Petrolstone wrote:

> Pot is a waste of time. Get a job. Get a girl. Make Babies.

Remember, in this specific case, it's talking about medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana.

Nope

> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:

> > someone explain to me any peaceful purpose
> that would justify Iran publicly announcing they
> would build these

So that the IAEA can't complain. Everything is out in the
open -- Iran has learnt from previous mistakes.

Now you have to justify 10 new nuke facilities, then.