Echo, that is not proof that they can conquer the world Like I've said before, what is the proof that they can conquer the world? If they even tried, they'd get slapped in the face so hard that it isn't even funny And also, Iraq's military was not only handicapped before the invasion, but it wasn't anywhere near the US's quality. Iran would be a MUCH harder target imo.
Why is this even a debate? The USA is tearing itself apart over Iraq as it is. We can barely staff the Army right now and Iraq has half the population of Iran. The only surefire way to conquer Iran easily is through nuclear annihilation and, no matter what people on either side of this argument say, THAT is not going to happen anytime soon. The US is posturing, hoping that Iran will come to the table. There is no war planned for Iran. However, if Iran attacks the USA, then American opinion may shift and THAT would spell disaster for Iran. Iran, however, knows this fact. They may not be "western" but they are hardly uninformed idiots. So, barring any huge attacks on Iran's part, there won't be a war, which war, the US can ill afford right now. ~String
Iran's army is in the same level as Saddams was in 1990, and they got their ass's kicked so far up their spines they used there assholes for a hat band, Iran would suffer the same fate.
What didn't allow the U.S. to defeat the communist is Vietnam was the political will of the Democrat Liberals, we had defeated the Communist on the battle field, the politicians sold us out at the Peace Table, and if you check your history, the N.Vietnams waited until all the major combat forces of the U.S. had with drawn under the terms of the Paris Peace Treaty, and then broke the treaty, and the Democrats screwed the South Vietnamese, and failed to honor the defense commitment that we had signed to come to the aid of the South Vietnamese should the North start the war again. The V.C. was never a factor after Tet of 68, so the Idea of insurgents winning the war is a crock of bull shit, after we signed the Peace Accords in Paris, and with drew the North invaded the south in a classic war of fire and maneuver, it used regular army divisions, and tank, infantry, and artillery, in a combined arms attack, at the time there were less than 4000 U.S. advisors in Vietnam and no combat troops, and the democratic congress abandoned the South to the North.
Why was the US in Vietnam? For what reason was it killing people there? I always hear so much rhetoric about winning the war, but no reason for why they begin it. Is it justified to invade someone's country for following a different way of life? For making profit? Its sick, that is what it is.Local people become insurgents and terrorists, and Americans are liberators. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
True. Except an attack would not be a disaster for Iran. Nothing would unite Iran more and nothing would turn the world even more against the USA. America has no real friends left except for Israel. Allies grit their teeth when smiling and shaking hands. Even our Conservative PM in Canada walks a fine line between nodding politely at the President and looking over his shoulder at public opinion. He knows that any support for American policy is an election death nail. I'd think that leaders in Europe are in an equally precarious position and any attack on Iran would be loudly condemned. Iran becomes the David in the David and Goliath saga and would receive economic and moral support not only from China, Russia and Muslim nations but also from Western nations other than the USA. As Pat Buchanan wisely said....Every night the Iranian leader gets down on his knees and prays for an attack by the USA. George the Moron Bush may be even more stupid than he has been to date and take the bait.
Foxnews today: "Germany — a pivotal player among three European nations to rein in Iran's nuclear program over the last two-and-a-half years through a mixture of diplomacy and sanctions supported by the United States — notified its allies last week that the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel refuses to support the imposition of any further sanctions against Iran that could be imposed by the U.N. Security Council.' The German chancellor is a conservative. Like our PM, however, she will distance herself from American aggression and bullying. This has given further strength to the Russians and Chinese to stand firm against the taunts from American jingoists. It's a bit sad that the USA has reached such a moral low in the 21st century after being such as beacon of light during much of the 20th. The American bully is chomping at the bit to beat up his next victim but it's a plus to see countries such as Germany no longer willing to cave to American arm twisting.
My Lai was two months after Tet - it was an attack on VC hamlets. The VC were not harmed much by the My Lai offensive. They continued to be a factor for several more years. All an insurgent has to do to win is hang on. Just as all Iran has to do to "win" is survive the US bombing, if it comes. The main worry here is that there is still a group of advisors in the the upper levels of the US government who may believe that a war with Iran can be won by bombing alone.
Never (or so they say), I'm just saying they can't. I think Iran would be a formidable opponent to the US. It's alot more sophisticated than Iraq's cavemen army, and it even probably challenges Israel's military. Plus, we will win in the endPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
As well he should! For starters a conservative in Canada/Europe is something quite different than a conservative in the USA. Second off, they are still elected officials who have to look out for their jobs. Who can blame them. Bush's forte isn't exactly global politics. America's stance against Iran is one of the few SMART things about US foreign policy right now. The whole Iraq blunder has so tarnished the US reputation that even when this nation is right on the money with regards to Iran, everybody looks on with suspicion. It's a shame. And, well, it is what it is. There is no way the USA could or should get away with attacking Iran, but the sanctions are the best way to deal with that regime. Moreover, just because Germany has said that they won't agree with any increase in sanctions, that doesn't mean they won't support the current ones. ~String
In response to Spidergoats many infraction warnings to me: If calling someone a "twit" is a personal attack, and a tongue in cheek comment in response to a fucking pinheaded little dweeb is a flame, then go shove your forum up your weed-infested ass. And while you're at it - look up "Bias". You're not fit to be a moderator. Whoever placed you in a position where you have power enough to exercise your own prejudices without being reigned in needs their head examined. It's a sad state of affairs when idiocy is not only tolerated but condoned, but the word "twit" is grounds for infraction. On that point alone, maintaining that your forum is one of "intelligent debate" becomes a source of much amusement. Now watch him delete this the same way he deleted the last post I made telling him to go fuck himself.
Well, exactly. Thus my "mailed fist versus velvet glove" post earlier in this thread. All I am saying is that the US military has performed admirably in all accounts given the way it has been managed by the political establishment to which it answers. Thank you for providing us with this textbook example of a strawman argument. Of course. Which is one of the many other reasons why you will never see a landed invasion of Iran in the same manner as Iraq, and it is ridiculous to even suggest that it is possible in the current situation. At the very most, direct military action would consist of US airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities, which is a realistic objective that could be accomplished by air and naval power alone. I still consider such actions unlikely, however, given Bush's lame duck political status in Washington as an unpopular president in the latter half of his last term in office. Also, it is interesting to see you including Iranians (who are Persian) as part of the Arab world. ("We will win in the end") Why is this?
Also, Tet was a spectacular failure for the Vietcong and left their forces in ruins. Due to the way they botched Tet, the VC ceased to be a cohesive fighting force for the remainder of the conflict.
Right policy? What threat is Iran to the USA? What friggin business is it of the USA. Iran is a potential threat to pro USA thug dictorships...the thugs that the Americans call 'our good friends' (women-abusing Saudis, etc,). As for Israel, they can take care of themselves and will if necessary. Yankees should 'f' off and go home.
American ignorance is astounding. It certainly does, however, help explain Americans today. Pretend Americans didn't leave Vietnam with their tails between the legs and still pretend it isn't going to happen in Iraq. The US military was defeated by Third world guerillas in Vietnam and in Iraq they can't even secure the road from Baghdad to the airport after 4 and a half years. Rumsfeld's 'handfull of criminals and malcontents' have defeated the U.S. mission.
Is there a reason why you felt the need to type this in response to my post? Or did you simply mash the Reply button without bothering to read what you were responding to?
So? You keep insisting you can distinguish between military success and political victory , and then you overlook the Vietnamese victory of Tet. Recall the context: the US government had repeatedly, for months, claimed that the Vietnam war was soon to be over, and the North Vietnamese were exhausted. The US government had been denying, all along, that the forces they were fighting in the South were South Vietnamese, and had popular support. The US government claimed to be fighting in support of the South Vietnamese against their enemy, the North, and in favor of popular government, against unwanted oppression. The Tet offensive, a military defeat for the VC, proved at least three things that gutted the US justification for involvement: that the Vietnamese War was not going to be over soon, and was not close to being "won". That the people fighting the US were and had been large numbers of South Vietnamese. That these South Vietnamese had a great deal of (almost universal, even among allegedly allied armed forces) hometown popular support (the attacks were launched from months of preparation in locations all over South Vietnam, some quite close to US bases). The subsequent commission and exposure of various atrocities and slaughters by US soldiers, mostly committed against South Vietnamese, just nailed down the coffin lid on US political defeat. That "history" lesson I've received many times, usually at a VFW club bar. To point out just the obvious: the South Vietnamese army was large, far better equipped and supported (throughout the war and even after the US left), than the North, and it was (supposedly, in your little "history"), fighting a defensive war - an easier task - in a secure area with a friendly population. Yet it did not fight well, or often, either before or after the US left. Why was that, do you suppose?
It was a somewhat pedantic correction directed at your assertion that "[the VC] continued to be a factor for several more years". After Tet they were basically a non-factor. Tet was the Viet Cong's last hurrah, in which they immolated themselves against a superior enemy in a display that shook American public confidence in its leadership. That was a good explanation on your part. Something similar happened in Iraq in the summer of 2004 when we were about to roll into Falluja and fighting broke out in Ramadi at the same time. Media were covering both events, and while the insurgent gangs who perpetrated the violence in both cities were summarily obliterated, the bang they went out with echoed across American television sets, invalidating claims that were being made at the time by political leaders. In other words, the American public's perception was shaped by the media into something that was the polar opposite of the overall reality in-theater, yet it didn't matter one iota because that was (or should have been) what the more organized elements of the insurgency were trying to do all along.
