Ain't it a good thing that we didn't feel that way about Germany and Japan during World War II? Baron Max
We felt pretty much the same way, but the way of life of our allies was threatened. I don't think the equation is the same if we invade a country that wasn't blitzkrieging across a continent.
I think I understand what you mean by: "Iranians would be fighting on their own soil, for their own lives, and would win in the end." Let me see if I do...Iranians would be fighting on there own soil and for there own lives and would win in the end because they are essentially the same?; I hope you mean by the fact they are both Muslim, because Iran and Iraq came from totally different pasts and are not of the same origin. Iraq use to be Babylon and Iran use to be Persia, so they are Persians and Iraqis are essentially Babylonian. But I don’t know if you meant through the fact they are both Muslim or through the false fact they are of the same heritage. So if you could explain to me so that way I know what you meant and I don’t end up assuming you are wrong?
"I don't think the equation is the same if we invade a country that wasn't blitzkrieg across a continent."- If you’re referring to Iraq you still can't, logically anyway, deny the fact that Saddam Hussein was a tyrant to his own people. He would constantly shell Northern Iraq and Southern Iraq where the large majority of Sunnis lived. Not only did he fire conventional shells upon his own people but he also shelled and released from modified attack helicopters chemical substances on to the population. I agree with removing Hussein from power but whether we should have stayed and tried to install a democratically run Gov. that’s another story. But if we didn't stay to do that we couldn't just leave totally because the Sunnis would have been in threat for lives. Also, once we removed Saddam Hussein from power, were we just to leave a Country in despair with the destruction that was left from us having to go in and remove him our selves; seeing how Saddam Hussein wouldn’t remove him self from power even when we ask him to leave Iraq or else. But if you’re talking about Iran that’s another story and before I give my opinion on that, I’d like to make sure you’re not talking Iran first; which you might be, seeing how this topic has Iran in it and you used the possibility of invading ("...if we invade...") in you post.
lol, I don't think that is what the lyrics say, but if your joking it's pretty funny. It's hard to portay sacrasim, even in a joke.
We didn't enter WWII until Japan bombed us, and then we declared war on Japan, the Blitzkrieg in Europe was already over and Germany controlled the Continent, and was invading Russia, and we still didn't get involved Militarily, we supplied cash and carry weapons to the British, and they had to come and get them, we actually didn't go to war with Germany and Italy until after they declared war on the U.S. and our allies way of life was in threat from July, 1937, when Japan invaded China, and we didn't declare war, to Sep.1939, when Germany invaded Poland, and we didn't go to war, to 1940, Germany captured Denmark and Norway in the spring, and then in the early summer France and the Low Countries. The United Kingdom was then targeted; the Germans attempted to cut the island off from vitally needed supplies and obtain air superiority in order to make a seaborne invasion possible, and we didn't go to war, to June 1941, when the war expanded dramatically and Germany invaded the Soviet Union, bringing the Soviet Union into alliance with the United Kingdom. The German attack started strong, overrunning great tracts of Soviet territory, and we still didn't go to war, to December 1941, when the war expanded again as Japan, already into its fifth year of war with China, and we still hadn't gone to war to defend our allies, launched near simultaneous attacks against the United States and British assets in Southeast Asia; four days later, Germany and Italy, declared war on the United States, and we finally declared a State of War existed between us and Germany and Italy on, Dec. 11, 1941, followed by Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania on June 5, 1942. So tell me were you learned your history? and why you didn't do, as you so often have failed to do, and check the history, and sequence, of what really took place.
E3R: ""The disparity in combat power that existed around the time of Praying Mantis has only grown in the two decades since the Tanker War, and the US Navy is far better equipped to deal with a brown water threat now than it was then." There can be no certainty of that. War with Iran would not heave an outcome solely determined by superiority of military force. The US nuclear arsenal, and the entire history of conflict since WWII reveal the silliness of such an assumption. The deciding factor is how much economic and political blowback either side can absorb. Iran can absorb considerable military punishment, while the economic and strategic vulnerabilities of the United States could be assailed. The USA is already overextended, and is in no rational position to pick on a country that (unlike Saddam's Iraq) can and will hit us back. "You're getting way above what I was talking about." You're not considering the big picture. "I was discussing a hypothetical naval engagement between IRGC/IN and USN elements at the tactical level. While I agree with a lot of what you say in this paragraph, it isn't really relevant to what I am discussing, nor does it address any of it." Tactics can't ignore strategics and be expected to achieve a desired outcome. If provoking Iran presently presents more problems for the USA than can be resolved militarily, then there very simply is no effective confrontational military tactic for the USA to apply in the present situation. Iran will not make the first military move. But if provoked, Iran is strategically poised to severely disrupt the US economy, disrupt the occupation of Iraq, and foment a Shi'a-majority rebellion all along the Sunni-dominated, petroleum-prize, Western shores of the Gulf. Any tactics that ignore this reality are seriously flawed.
But that's precisely what I mean by winning. Perhaps not the "official" war, but in truth, we are stronger. In the end, we the Semites win.
I'm doing that on purpose. This tangent began back on page ten with countezero and Norsefire talking about how a a conventional conflict between Iran and western powers would play out. Whether or not it would damage the US economy, elicit long-term regional blowback, or make our milk last longer without spoiling...those are other issues. I'm not interested in discussing that. What I am interested in discussing, based on years of professional experience, and a great deal of related education, is the ways and means that Iran can inflict harm upon the US should they decide they want to. Conventional warfare against the US naval presence in the gulf, or in the air, heads a list entitled "easiest ways we can get wrecked". In that domain the best metric for combat power is how much money and technology you have, and if there is one thing the US military has plenty of it is money and technology. This really goes back to what I was saying earlier in the thread about discriminating between political issues and military ones. Here is what they teach you in Military Science 101 (this one is the battle of 73rd Easting in 1991): Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! National strategy is the realm of the executive branch. The two levels below that are still largely at the behest of the executive, though they tend to be (or should be, if the politicians know their place) heavily influenced by guys with stars on their collars. I'm focusing mostly on the tactical level. Remember also what I said when this tangent began. "[Iranian] leadership is not stupid enough to confront the US, Israel, or any other western power directly unless absolutely necessary". It isn't like they have a track record as an aggressor. Iran hasn't invaded anyone in over 200 years. I also cautioned that if the US were to instigate something with Iran, that they have the capacity to make things in Iraq significantly worse than they are now by ratcheting up their support of Shiite insurgent elements. So, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you're saying about the overall picture.
I'm guessing you went to a war college? If so where did you go? As of right now, the superiority of military might and technology that we (USA) have over potentially hostile nations combined with, like Echo3Romeo mentioned, our vast resources, is enough to crush any one threat. Not to mention our intelligence and war strategists are defiantly nothing to laugh at. So it is not our military that will loose a war, but the will of the people. Which if allowed, can be broken or swayed by ignorant and selfish politicians, who use the media for there own agendas. This nonsense, no doubt, is severely hampering what actions are put into place to end and win this war. Cough. Cough…cripple Iran’s capabilities to produce weapons and destroy there stock piles so no weapons and or equipment capable of arming the insurgency crosses the border. That’s just one country who deserves a spanking though….
Dunn11x: "As of right now, the superiority of military might and technology that we (USA) have over potentially hostile nations combined with, like Echo3Romeo mentioned, our vast resources, is enough to crush any one threat." That just isn't true. Just because the USA wields history's greatest military hammer does not mean that every threat can be nailed with it. Sometimes whacking a problem makes it worse. For example, the United States presently lacks the troops necessary for successfully occupying any single, sizeable foreign country for the purpose of "nation-building", or overtly-controlled regime change. Popular insurgency is a threat predictably exacerbated by escalation. Heavier application of firepower, especially in the absence of reliable intelligence, only compounds popular resentment, even to the point of degeneration into terrorism. In a nutshell, we can't blast Iraqis into grateful getting along, nor can we successfully threaten to do so. In the case of Iran- and absent the capability of commencing a third simultaneous foreign occupation- punitive strikes are most likely to deepen the entrenchment and popular authority of the present regime. Some threats are strengthened by the application of inappropriate force. Maybe you should both go back to your War Colleges, and demand your tuition back, since they failed to provide you with a basic grounding in the modern limits of military power.
The military might of the USA will bleed through a thousand cuts if it invades another country, simply because it will be fighting 2 insurgencies at the same time.
That's a completely asinine statement, but you truly seem to believe it so why bother pointing out to you how foolish it is? As mentioned previously, Iranian military equipment is mostly old and Soviet. Its tanks are no match for Israeli M1-A1's...
Who in the world would take what I said as occupation. I'm not talking about "Nation-Building", I'm talking about eliminating the threat by destroying there means of attacking. If the enemy has nothing more than there bodies and what ever is left of there small arms, then there is not a big enough threat to do anything. The only reason why Iraq is a real problem is because of the weaponry coming over the border. If the insurgents don’t have bombs then they can’t go boom boom.
Nope, what would Israel be without the US? Nothing. Now, now, Egypt has M1's as well. Israeli M1's? I believe the M1 is made by the US, not Israel. But the point is, Israel deserves no glory. We deserve far more glory.
Very true....but also...who ever controls the sky has a major advantage. And no Middle Eastern country has anything near what Israel has; F-16's out the butt, F-22 Raptors (the latest in stealth fighter tech. with the capability to double as a bomber), and etc.
Well the Israel has the US so they are something. Yea well I believe the AK is made by Russia and apparently it’s very popular in the Middle East. So it seems there aren’t the only ones who depend on other countries. Why do you deserve the glory? Glory belongs to God. And God chose the Israelies.
