Replies

"It is larger both in land area and population."

Maps tend to show the truth of the matter. What is not shown in the map is the large mountain range that is located along the western border region. And a lot of mountains within the country eastward. Many areas condusive for placing underground bunkers, defense grids (ga radar/SAM sites), etc.. Those taking the cakewalk approach either seem to think it is a hollywood picture. They don't seem to realize one would have to basically have a full air/ground war to remove Iran's military,industrial capabilities as has been mentioned by a few folks here. Cyclopdia-Squid for instance.
Those that think one can send in some Special Ops teams to take out the military and government, simply do not have any idea as to what they are talking about. Taking a armored Division into Iran as suggested by one person who made it sound like it is equivelant to the whole third Army which is obviously totally inaccurte, think folks, dozens of armored divisions where under the Patton's 3rd Army, along with some 200,000 infantry plus, depending one what months, and who was borrowing who's divisions, thinks one armored division could take out Iran is again hollywood. To travel those thousands of miles of roads through high mountain passes, etc., would be total hell on our guys.
Iraq was a cakewalk. BECAUASE it was in a flat alluvian plane. The road grid as is allowed our armor, infantry, and light armored recon units etc., to quickly, take out the remaining enemy forces our Air element did not already deal with. Think Afghanistan. Think very difficult air/ground operations to remove sometimes only a few individuals. Iran would be a very difficult country to disarm. Then you have the same deal as others have mentioned so ably, where you have to deal with the total population. Do folks here realize their are over a million Arabs in Persia, that constantly give the government trouble? Do you realize if we went into Iran, they would be fighting us much like the insurgency in Iraq. If perchance 50% of the Iranians that want freedom, just stayed in place, and did nothing you still have a few million Muslims that hate us, will fight to the end just like in Iraq. So perhaps, IMHO, we should realize GWB and the DoD have very good reasons not to "just go in to Iran". It would have to be a fully planned war. The logistics of course would be a bit easier since we are already in Iraq. But don't think it would be a cake walk.
Nuclear option. That is for those that have not a clue as how things work. They with surely most of our symphathies, have no option in their thinking. They think one can just drop perhaps a hundred thermal nuclear devices on key cities, and above ground military installations, defense grid structures, hundreds of key industrial sites that contain nuclear and weapon program materials and personel, etc., and not have world opinion against us.
It has always been a rather complicated world. Things are not as easy as one may believe. Now, should we go through the same basic scenario for Syria? Of course they would fold quite quickly, admitably for a number of good reasons, but still, think how many fresh troops would be required. Do we want really want to fight three seperate wars at the same time? For those of you that insists we can just grab some Battalions out of Iraq and march into Syria and Iran and defeat them.
OK.
PUT UP. Give us a good analysis, troop movements, who can be freed up and why. How many fresh divisions must be sent? Give us a good feel as to the balance of naval/airforce pre-emptive airstrikes, number of cruise missiles verse stealth aircraft requirements to go in to remove lots of stuff prior to any ground engagement. It is so easy to say well just send in a divison or worse some (what does some mean) special ops teams to take out a whole country.
Obviously Ernest my verbosity is not directed at you.