Will america go to war with china or iran

[cunobelinus]

There has been speculation that america will wage war with iran for a while but i only relised a while ago that china are the next up and coming super power of the world .China apparently will be richer and more powerful that america within 2 to 3 years if they keep making money like they are.So will america try and attack china to stop them being more powerful than themselves because everybody knows how much of any idiot george bush is .So Do you think that america will wage war on iran or even china because it seems that george bush will do anything to stop anyone being more powerful or threating the U.S.

[rory_20_uk]

In a word: no.

Unless they are prepared to be villified by the rest of the world for the rest of eternity (or close) for that, I doubt it.

Let's face it: against China the only thing that would work would be a nuclear strike. Sure the quality of Chinese forces isn't yet up to American, but the quantity is greater, as is the will to loose lives, and the supply lines are massive for America and almost none for China.

So, unless a strike purely of missiles is planned that wouldn't win against a country the size of China (unless nuclear) it would have to be conventional as well. Which would probably require many ships... Going close to massed batteries of ground to ground missiles as well as the world's largest Airforce. Not the best, but numbers would take their toll.

Then there's the economic fall out. Suddenly the Dollar isn't stable. The Far east either dumps it out of fear or protest, causing a run on the dollar.
The massive trade America receives from China dissappears. Who replaces it? Japan or South Korea? When China is fighting the USA? Hardly.

America is finding fighting in Iraq and afghanistan difficult. Would the population accept a far more massive war (bigger than any since WW2) because of a potential economic threat???

[Mithrandir]

China, no. The oil wouldn't pay back the costs of the war ;).

Iran: PLEASE NO! Gasoline is expensive enough as it is...

besides that I'm against war.

[cunobelinus]

Well i dno just what people have been hinting about i know that it is unluckly but to be honest i wouldnt put anything past bush .Does everyone else think the same or different.Also i think that iran may be chance they go to war with them because they already have threatened them and george bush has said that they will if they dont back down on there nuclear enrichment

[AntiochusIII]

Actually, if you watch the news, the Administration is going to try to pass the Bill on another massive expansion on the military budget with a clear, written purpose of "containing Iran." Clearly it is preparing for the declaration of war. This has been a main issue since the new Iranian President has been elected.

It is actually easy to notice the pattern of encirclement that the USA has been establishing with the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq: all other countries surrounding Iran are US allies.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

China apparently will be richer and more powerful that america within 2 to 3 years if they keep making money like they are.

eh, no.

[Kagemusha]

With China,i dont think there is imminent danger of War.Against Iran,If US is capable of building a strong alliance otherwise it will take long time to deploy enough troops to area. My personal opinion at the moment is that its highly unlikely that there will be a War.But im known to be wrong sometimes so its still a possibility.

[Mithrandir]

Vs. China they will not be able to pull it off, not military, since China has enough nukes to bomb every single planet in the galaxy to bits, and not economicly, since they're too dependent upon one another.

Iran as new Lebensraum for Bush..hopefuly not.

[yesdachi]

China – No, any action against China from the US (or vice versa) would be economic. A fist fight with them would really be stupid, plus (regrettably), we are co-dependant on each other right now. And any fighting would be very damaging to both of us. Politically on a global scale, The US is greatly disliked for our policy of butting in but China IMO, is disliked because everyone fears that given the oppertunitythey would devour them like a bowl of chow mein!

Iran – Yes, we are already next door and they seem to pose a threat, chances are we will keep “policing” the neighborhood. I don’t think it will be as ground troop intensive as Iraq has been thou, it would probably be more of a bomb the heck out of them and only touch foot to dirt in key areas. That way we can still spend tons of money on bombs and missiles (keeps the government contracts happy) without endangering lots of soldiers (keeps the public happy).


Where did you pull this notion from?

China apparently will be richer and more powerful that America within 2 to 3 years

[Lemur]

I don't see why we have to choose -- we can go to war with both! And then we can "stay the course." That works every time ...

[cunobelinus]

So china is a no war people think and iran is a possbility as they seem to be thinking about getting ready to go to war after the iraq war has finished.

[yesdachi]

...after the iraq war has finished.

The Iraq war is gunna finish?

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

I've read some things recently that suggest China may want a small regional conflict to show the U.S. who's boss.

I have no idea if that's rubbish or not though, maybe some Chinese politician/high ranking soldiers/civil servants on the board could let us know...

[CBR]

Invading Iran will be sheer lunacy. 4 times bigger than Iraq and with more than twice the population. USA has lost most of its credibilty because of the invasion of Iraq so not much chance of allies helping out. A US president that isnt the most popular among his own people because of Iraq and a US military already stretched pretty thin.

Even a limited military action like bombing isnt gonna be the greatest thing to do. There are 100k+ US troops in Iraq that can expect even more insurgent attacks, as Iran most likely will do whatever it can to hurt US interests as revenge.

IIRC China will reach USA in something like 30-35 years if their current rate can be sustained. Right now the only likely scenario for a war between USA and China would be over Taiwan, and its not likely for some time as China simply doesnt have the navy or airforce to succeed in invading Taiwan. That might take one or two decades before China will reach that level.


CBR

[Redleg]

Actually, if you watch the news, the Administration is going to try to pass the Bill on another massive expansion on the military budget with a clear, written purpose of "containing Iran." Clearly it is preparing for the declaration of war. This has been a main issue since the new Iranian President has been elected.

It is actually easy to notice the pattern of encirclement that the USA has been establishing with the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq: all other countries surrounding Iran are US allies.

The goal of the United States since the 1979 invasion of the embassy has been to contain Iran - so don't read to much into the words "containing Iran."


http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=120427

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

WASHINGTON - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday that the United States must persevere in Iraq and Afghanistan to contain "the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."
Rumsfeld linked the costly and unpopular US efforts to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan to US concerns about Iran's nuclear program and its regional might, in an interview with the Pentagon's in-house television channel.

He said those who believe that US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are too costly or are taking too long need to understand that "success in Afghanistan and success in Iraq is critical to containing the extreme impulses that we see emanating from Iran."

His comments came amid a sharpening diplomatic confrontation over Iran's nuclear program, which Washington insists is aimed at developing atomic weapons.

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier refused calls for a halt to its uranium enrichment program and warned Iran could withdraw from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The United States, meanwhile, said the UN Security Council would consider a draft resolution that would oblige Iran to comply or face possible military action.

Rumsfeld did not allude to military options in the interview, instead portraying US efforts in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan as a bulwark against Iranian extremism.

"The last thing Iran wants is to have successful regimes, representative systems, free people in Afghanistan and Iraq," he said. "It is harmful to their view of the world, to their extreme view of the world."

"So most people who suggest that the cost is too great or it's taking too long, and we should not stay the course, it seems to me you have to think what it would mean to Iran and how it would advance their cause, and their cause is a cause that is dangerous to the world."

Rumsfeld hailed the end of a four month political impasse over who should be Iraq's next prime minister as "a thrilling accomplishment."

At the same time, he said it was reasonable to expect that insurgents would try to sabotage the seating of a new government under Shiite leader Jawad al-Maliki, who has 30 days to form a cabinet.

"The new ministries named, and then approved by the parliament, will have to begin that difficult task of governing," he said. "It's a difficult assignment and it won't be easy for them."

If Iraq's interior and defense ministers are competent and govern from the center, Rumsfeld said, Iraqi forces will continue to take over responsibility for security.

"As we are able to pass over more responsibility, one would think we would be able to continue reducing down our forces," he said.

Containing Iran does not necessarily equate to invading Iran.


The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

[Lemur]

The United States would make an extremely stupid move if we try to invade Iran while we are fighting two conflicts within the same region.

But Redleg, we're already deep in two countries that border on Iran ... I don't know, maybe we should invade Iran too, just for neatness' sake. You know, have one unified swath of regime-change ...

[Mithrandir]

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

Like CBR said, there's not enough support fo it anyway, unless ofcourse Bush succeeds in another "Osama is there!...oh wait...You're producing WMD's,let us send in observers....oh,we can send in observers?...it takes too long, we need to take action now or they'll bomb us!"

Besides the above, even if the Us would go in on it's own, they still have troops in Iraq&afghanistan, to send in another time that number would thus double the costs, good luck on the fundings.

[Redleg]

But Redleg, we're already deep in two countries that border on Iran ... I don't know, maybe we should invade Iran too, just for neatness' sake. You know, have one unified swath of regime-change ...

Are you ready to institute the draft to raise the necessary forces to accomplish such a thing?

[Redleg]

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

Try reviewing the history of the last 20 odd years - it will give you a clue. Here let me list a few for you.

Bosnia
Kosovo
Somilia
Kuwait

I could list some others - but should provide you a clue. And before you attempt to retort - what nation lead others to do the right thing in Bosnia and Kosovo?

Like CBR said, there's not enough support fo it anyway, unless ofcourse Bush succeeds in another "Osama is there!...oh wait...You're producing WMD's,let us send in observers....oh,we can send in observers?...it takes too long, we need to take action now or they'll bomb us!"

So lets see Iran refuses to allow observers in? And that is the United States fault. Nice spin...not.

Besides the above, even if the Us would go in on it's own, they still have troops in Iraq&afghanistan, to send in another time that number would thus double the costs, good luck on the fundings.

Funding is not the issue - troops would be the major problem.

[Lemur]

Are you ready to institute the draft to raise the necessary forces to accomplish such a thing?

Anything for neatness. You know that.

[Redleg]

Anything for neatness. You know that.

President: Congress I want you to pass a measure to initiate a draft of all eligible young men so that I can go to war with Iran. I figure-out with Rumy that it will require about 20 divisions, and we all know how well he plans so this time lets just double it to 40 divisions.

Congress: Mr. President why do you want to invade Iran.

President: Well we have troops in Iraq and Afganstan - and this pesty nation is right in the middle - distrupting our logisticial chain. Oh and they keep wanting to build a nuclear weapon. So for neatness sake we should just go ahead and invade Iran also......

[Lemur]

Works for me. Neatness counts!

[yesdachi]

Neatness is like cleanliness and like the old saying goes, cleanliness is next to godliness. Now see there, God just told us to invade Iran!

[Avicenna]

Now you Americans are playing Jean of Arc?

[BHCWarman88]

Why would we do China,See Nothing Wrong with Them,yet.... Iran and North Korea are the Major Threats for now..

[cunobelinus]

For one the chinise goverment aint exactly a stable one is it and also if china becomes the richest in the world america are bound to jump to that and see them as a threat and they may end up joining with north korea if the americans start on the koreans.

Also iran is passing weapons over the border to help fight the americans so they are bound to be the next target in george bushes rain of evil

[scooter_the_shooter]

Personal note : I think the US has no right whatsoever to tell other countries what to do on it's own.Where did they get the notion from that they're the "world's policeagent", puh-lease.

.

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2! We should have just wiped japan out and let you guys rot, no money no nothing. And when the terrorist start blowing stuff up in europe and you beg for help, I hope our government remembers comments like this.




*put on flame suit*

[English assassin]

And when the terrorist start blowing stuff up in europe and you beg for help, I hope our government remembers comments like this.

What, begging something like "please, Americans, stop funding the IRA to blow up British soldiers and civilians. Please proscribe NORAID"

"XXXX off limeys, hope you rot."

Contrast with: "Please UK, may we use bases in your country to launch a retaliatory F-111 strike against Libya even though other European states won't let the planes through their airspace and you have no way to know you will not be subject to retaliation as a result?"

"Why sure, anything for an ally"

We'll be quits when you let us bomb Boston, not before.

NB lest anyone forgets I hate America and love Satan.

[Keba]

Don't worry I every day I start to regret we helped you euros with anything at all during ww2! We should have just wiped japan out and let you guys rot, no money no nothing.

Actually, you really had no choice ... Germany declared war on you, not the other way around.

[Shadow]

Seriously i don't see why US can have a ton of nukes while other countries like Iran can have any