America getting ready for Iranian strike?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Undecided, Jan 16, 2005.

  1. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Why are Europeans such wimps? Why do Europeans roll over at the first gun shot or aircraft hijacking?

    Well apart from your hubris, the Europeans have been much more successful thus far on WMD then the US. Europe is gaining in power while the US' power is shrinking...I think Europe would use its military once it became expedient, not while it was negotiable. If the Europeans are a bunch of pussies then the US is a bunch of brain-dead dicks…overgeneralizations don’t help anyone.

    Ah! The spirit of Chamberlin is alive and well.

    Actually why did the US settle for Libya WMD being dismantled? Isn’t American policy “democracy?” sounds ball-less to me.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. travis Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    160
    We are just as wimpy. We do exactly as Israel tells us, which is why we are in the fix we are in.
    Bush is a puppet and will do whatever Israel tells him. Here are his latest orders:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sharon Wants Iran, Libya,
    And Syria Disarmed Next
    Ha-aretz Daily
    2-18-3

    Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

    Sharon told the congressmen that Israel was not involved in the war with Iraq "but the American action is of vital importance."

    In a meeting with U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton yesterday, Sharon said that Israel was concerned about the security threat posed by Iran, and stressed that it was important to deal with Iran even while American attention was focused on Iraq.

    Bolton said in meetings with Israeli officials that he had no doubt America would attack Iraq, and that it would be necessary thereafter to deal with threats from Syria, Iran and North Korea.

    Bolton, who is undersecretary for arms control and international security, is in Israel for meetings on preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

    Bolton said Syria would get a chance to prove it was behaving in a way worthy of the international community and that dealing with North Korea had not been pushed aside, but postponed.

    Bolton said the United States was striving to get a new UN Security Council resolution regarding Iraq and that the result of the vote would affect the U.S.'s relations with Western Europe and Russia, after the war in Iraq.

    Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.

    Sharansky warned Bolton that the Quartet's (U.S., UN, European Union and Russia) plan for the Israelis and Palestinians deviated from President Bush's vision.

    http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...l?itemNo=263941
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Umm...I hate to point out the obvious, but those latest orders are two years old!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. candy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,016
    Iran is in a rather difficult position with the USA in both Iraq and Afganistan. The forces are already deployed in her sphere; the logistics are in place it is only a matter of the timing. It is important to remember that the USA loss of life total is still less than the total for 9-11.
    I do not expect any major diplomatic push for disarmament until after the Iraqi elecctions and the conclusion of the tsunami relief efforts but then there will be a confrontation.
     
  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    May I remind you that US troops are also nicely deployed all around Europe. Does that mean that they should invade a European country? Why not go for Russia? They have WMD for sure.
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    The French in Indo-China and countless 'little wars' in Africa since then.
    The Brits: well our wimps defeated our S.E.Asian communist insurgency. Then there's Kenya, Aden, Korea, The Falklands, the list goes on. Didn't I see something in the papers about UK troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And are you name calling on the strength of the 14-18 and 39-45 conflicts? Sorry, that's 17-18 and 41-45 wars to you.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    And do you recall a little affair at the Iranian embassy in London?
     
  10. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    My favorite movie "zinger" from "We Were Soldiers":
    (Colonel to General) "...and don't forget the NVA defeated the French army."
    (General to Colonel) "The French army? What's that?"​
    Never forget that De Gaul asked Eisenhower for US military support in Indochine in 1953. Eisenhower refused but agreed to logistical support. The first Americans to die in Vietnam were two USAF pilots flying re-supply missions in 1953. In '55, the French thought they were still in Europe fighting on a fixed field of battle and got their asses chewed (hell, they can't even defend Paris, let alone France). Many never came back from captivity.

    In '48, Truman and Acheson announced the "domino" theory. I was in Laos with the USAF in '59 when the seventh American died in a helicopter crash. Between '58 and '62, we defeated a communist coup in Laos. In effect, the "domino" theory was vindicated and the battle won. But I'll concede that the Vietnam War was the result of the arrogance of a Democrat American President named Lyndon Johnson.

    The Falklands? Argentina and England were both treaty partners with the US, so we were obliged to "stay out" of the fight. But, of course, there were always satelite and spy plane surveilance photos and intel intercepts that "somehow" managed to get to the British.

    In Korea, Afganistan and Iraq and elsewhere around the world, The Brits have always been our greatest ally from the other side of the lake. So when I say European, I refer to the continent! I can't even think of the Brits as "Euro-pee-ons"!

    BTW, my heritage is German-French. Or is that Kraut-Frog?
     
  11. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Well to be fair Marv...one must consider European history. If you back on the 50 years prior to 1945 it was the deadliest place on Earth. I wouldn't call European pussies after the massacres of WWI, or the holocaust of WWII. They had more balls then the US could handle, and they couldn't handle it either. Europe unlike the United States has learned its lessons the hard way, fighting wars in the end serve no purpose but to destroy ur nation, and its morale. No one won after WWI, Europe really lost after WWII, soon the US will learn her lessons with her WWI which is what she calls "war on terror". You must remember that the Europeans thought you were pussies as well especially the Brits.
     
  12. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Except for the paras, the bulk of the French forces at Dien Bien Phu were the Foreign Legion, made up of Germans who had joined the Legion after the war and eastern Europeans, and there were some Moroccans and Algerians, about 14,000 troops in all. In fairness to the French, they under-estimated the capabilities of the Viet Minh, much as US leadership would continually underestimate the NVA. And I don't know if I would say they got their asses chewed. Since Giap had about 70,000 men, they were outnumbered 5-1 and held out for almost 2 months, even though VietMinh anti-air artillery made it virtually impossible to resupply. The French artillery officer who believed the base was indefensible committed suicide early into the seige, but the general leadership from the officers was quite good. And I can't think of anything braver than the two French para battalions parachuting into the camp about 6 weeks into the seige, at night and during an enemy artillery barrage. I sort of 'ran into' two French paras in a bar in Saigon in 1970, and I will testify personally that they were two of the toughest SOBs I've ever met.
     
  13. Overdose From the steppes of Mongolia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    213
    Wake up young man..it's time to wake up.... You are in a dream world and still think that US can send a country like Iran back to the stone age. Thats the problem of most of the Americans. US couldnt win a war against Iraq which doesnt have half the military force what Iran has right now. And i can assure you that Iran won't be alone in a possible war. The brothers are watching and are eager to join these war games of the US
     
  14. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    The US can win the 'war' at any time it chooses. Attempting to 'nation-build' is another thing entirely.
     
  15. Overdose From the steppes of Mongolia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    213
    When was Turkey bribed?
    Turkey will not give permission to any US forces to use the Incirlik base in a Iran/US war. US thouht that they could easily use the Incirlik base and have a northern front in the Iraq war but the parliamnt voted against it and US couldnt use the base for attacking purposes.
    Turkey cares much more about what Europe wants since its so close to join the EU and would do what the EU countries would do. Staying out of a war!
     
  16. Overdose From the steppes of Mongolia Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    213
    So, you think US actually won the Iraq war?!?!

    This is a Guerilla war and US is loosing it again like it lost in Vietnam.
     
  17. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    The Neo-cons are looking to invade Iran, and are scouting for reasons to do so. The Axis of Evil speech should have told us that. They will invade Iran, count on it, especially since Bush is a lame duck (with a capitol L). Someone leaked this info to the press because they were concerned, perhaps scared they would actually do it. It would be a huge mistake, and serve to radicalize the significant numbers of moderate Iranians under a banner of nationalism. The most we could do is blow stuff up. The military is already overextended. Bush is a delusional warmonger.

    Not true, Iran is a modern society, not a third world backwater. The 'cons, however, don't even believe in science.

    So, would it be a good thing or a bad thing in the war on terrorism to leave a relatively advanced muslim nation in chaos and anarchy?
     
  18. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Yes, we could knock Iran back to the stone age. We could break its economy, wipe all life from its major population and infrastructure centers, and truely break the country's back. It wouldn't be too hard at all.

    Our problem comes when we try to use a light handed method, as opposed to shoot everything that moves. We can destroy a city along with everything in it in a few minutes plus travel time. The problem comes when we try to kill combatants and only combatants without so much as scratching someone's paint job. That is when we have difficulties.

    Oh, and most of Iran and the Middle east in general isn't that far from the Stone Age right now. Masy still seem to be living life just as they did in 13th century, if not even more backwards. The only difference seems to be the AK-47. Some of the cities have modern conveniences, but once you leave them.... its another matter entirely.
     
  19. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Every citizen of Iran would become a combatant if we invaded, wouldn't you? Hasn't anyone seen Red Dawn? The war on terrorism isn't the traditional style of war, which is mostly obsolete (see- The Transformation of War by Martin van Creveld ). But this fact doesn't sit well with the military industrial complex's need for war, so they plow on like the dinosaurs they are. Don't we want to win the hearts and minds of these people? I don't care how many weapons you have, unless all you are after is a barren wasteland, you can't win if the people are against you.
     
  20. Spyke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,006
    Read it again, a little closer this time...

    The US can win the 'war' at any time it chooses. Attempting to 'nation-build' is another thing entirely.

    I said if the US wanted to fight this as a real war, and unleash its firepower, they could take virtual control of the country. If that was the intention. As it is, they are trying to nation-build, meaning they are fighting a small percentage of the population as delicately as they can to avoid inflicting as much as possible damage on a civilian population. They are using a fraction of their firepower. Do I think they will be successful in nation-building in Iraq. I highly doubt it. Do I think they could win this war if they actually chose to fight it as a war instead of a police action. Yes.
     
  21. skywalker 3 @ T M 3 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    994

    Thanks for calling me an American. I take it as a compliment. But, it is you who need to wake up. Not me. No one needs to win the war. Just bombed the hell out of them. Simple isn't it? And the so called Brothers eager to join? can join the fate of rest of this so called Ummah. Stupidity has no bounderies. If those stupid brothers of yours TRY to get some Decent education and literate themselves and their Families, it would be better than anything they would have ever done.

    If you are from middle east, I have an advice for you, educate your self and your nations. If you want to win a war, you need to start from your own home. You can't win a war from borrowed weapons.
     
  22. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Can't remember exactly, but turkey was first extremely reluctant to let the US use it bases, because of the kurdish problem they are having. And suddenly a large deal of this reluctance disappeared. I can't remember what they got in return for this, but they got something.

    And about the confusion surrounding winning a war:

    The US is good at winning battles, pitched battles, but that is not the same as winning a war.
     
  23. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    it was assurances that the US wouldnt let the kurds in iraq form there own state
     

Share This Page