Moderators: eCat, hedge, Cletus
crashcourse wrote:eventually the iranian younger generation will take care of the mullah and ruling class of iran
and iranian leaders with us on the border will have to be very careful as the uprising reignite as they will again someday
the way we are chasing kaddafi around after taking out ben laden and saddm in the last 10 years I think iranian leadership will think twice about brutally taking out ther own people
the seeds are planted
No war is a cakewalk. Both sides thought the Civil War would be cakewalk. Both sides in World War I thought it would be over by Christmas 1914. Four years and 30 million dead later, it was whole lot more. As a military father, the last thing in the world I want is Gold Star on my front door and on the back windshield of my car.innocentbystander wrote:No.Fifer wrote:Iran is a nation of 100 million people. It's bigger thn Germany, France, and Great Britian. It would take an army of 10 million to conquer and occupy a nation that size. To build a military big enough would mean a draft, which send the youth of American into a revolt that would make the sixties look tame. The casualties would make Viet Nam look like a bar room brawl. To attack Iran and fight a long term war of occupation would be national suicide. We just don't have the means, financially, militarly, or politically for a war of that magnitude.Dora wrote:>Saudi Arabia has made if very clear if anyone is going to attack Iran then it must be Israel as that gives their Shiites someone else to focus on aside from a US-cozy Saudi Royal family.
Well, according to Wikileaks, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, & Bahrain all urged the US to attack Iran. The Saudi king referred to it as 'cutting the head off the snake'.
Iran has 78,000,000 people. You are paying it's government and military the same respect you would a 1st world nation. Don't do that. Iran is 3rd world with 3rd world military technology.
Baghdad fell in 4 weeks. Iraq cost the United States just under 3000 lives over a span of eight years, 2900 of those lives AFTER we raised the US flag in their capital. We have a veteran Army and Marine Corps (led by battle hardened veteran officers) that knows how to handle itself exactly, PRECISELY, in fighting Islamic militants in both flat desert ground and mountainous terrain. We have troops garrisoned on either side of Iran.
Iran would be a cakewalk for our military. We don't attack them because of the financial cost and our nation lacks the political will to be involved in a 4th warzone theater, simultaneously.
Both sides in the US Civil War had nearly similar military technology. Air power played no part so sheer numbers of dead on the ground (war of attrition) were the result of both sides thinking they would win. One side won because it had twice the numbers of the other side plus it had a real navy. That was basically it.Fifer wrote:No war is a cakewalk. Both sides thought the Civil War would be cakewalk. Both sides in World War I thought it would be over by Christmas 1914. Four years and 30 million dead later, it was whole lot more. As a military father, the last thing in the world I want is Gold Star on my front door and on the back windshield of my car.innocentbystander wrote:No.Fifer wrote:Iran is a nation of 100 million people. It's bigger thn Germany, France, and Great Britian. It would take an army of 10 million to conquer and occupy a nation that size. To build a military big enough would mean a draft, which send the youth of American into a revolt that would make the sixties look tame. The casualties would make Viet Nam look like a bar room brawl. To attack Iran and fight a long term war of occupation would be national suicide. We just don't have the means, financially, militarly, or politically for a war of that magnitude.
Iran has 78,000,000 people. You are paying it's government and military the same respect you would a 1st world nation. Don't do that. Iran is 3rd world with 3rd world military technology.
Baghdad fell in 4 weeks. Iraq cost the United States just under 3000 lives over a span of eight years, 2900 of those lives AFTER we raised the US flag in their capital. We have a veteran Army and Marine Corps (led by battle hardened veteran officers) that knows how to handle itself exactly, PRECISELY, in fighting Islamic militants in both flat desert ground and mountainous terrain. We have troops garrisoned on either side of Iran.
Iran would be a cakewalk for our military. We don't attack them because of the financial cost and our nation lacks the political will to be involved in a 4th warzone theater, simultaneously.
Once, over dinner, I asked him what it's like to have the entire U.S. Army after you, and he thought for a moment and said slowly, "It's like I'm carrying a heavy rock in my backpack." This is as close to introspection as McDowell gets. Most of the time, if you ask why he did it, why he refused his command and fled his country, he'll just shrug his shoulders and say, "I couldn't do it anymore—it was wrong." By it, of course, he means a lot of things: the army, the war, the orders he received; the price he's paid, and the even bigger price to come. But it's the things McDowell doesn't say which make his story so perplexing: the things he's never said before; the things no one ever asked; the things that, when his orders came down, left him with no other way to protest except his suitcase and his feet.
I always thought Tricky Dick's military strategy of preserving American lives while still dealing with the NVA...Hizzy III wrote:And now a word from our sponsor...
"You see, the idea is to shove it up their sandy asses before they get too full of themselves. Shove it up there nice and deep so that the bastards can't even scream out for Allah."
Storm,Stormaktstiden wrote:Innocent bystander (as is Dora) are obviously Wiki-warriors that don't have a clue as to what they are talking about. I'm not going to waste a couple hours resolving their naivety, but let me state the obvious so as even a brain dead imbecile can comprehend it:
Saudi Arabia has a very vocal and very restless Shiite minority population (10-15% of Saudi population) that is mostly centered in the Eastern oil producing region of Saudi Arabia and they are highly sensitive to how cozy the Saudis are with the United States. If the US attacks Iran DIRECTLY then that will inflame the Saudi Shiites into violence against the Saudi government. The same Saudi Arabia that is the largest oil producing state in the world.
...the United States does not alter it's national security policy because a bunch of 3rd world savages might become "violent" at the Great Satan if we do something they don't like. We don't allow Islamic extremists to dictate the terms and boundaries of our national security, because if we do, we only further encourage savage behavior of the lowest common denominator of the world.
Which is which?we do it every day. Our policy toward arab states is based on oil and Israel. We'll let one burn to the ground while protecting the other based on their strategic importance to us.
