By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The Folly of Attacking Iran

disolitude on 03 March 2008

eab said:
Let me just clear something up that most people seem to be confusing.

-Could the U.S. militarily take out Iran? Lol, hell yes.

-Could the U.S. stick around and police Iran like it is doing in Iraq? No. Well maybe but it would bloodier than Vietnam


Critics of the U.S. military see it's failures at policing Iraq and go ahead and say the US military sucks. Oh please, army are made and trained to kill other armies, they are not made to police a terrorist run state.
Critics say Napoleon and Hitler had armies that were more powerful and successful
than the US. I argue this, Hitler could simply carpet bomb entire cities and kill entire civilian populations. The U.S. spends billions and risks its soldiers lives to protect the civilians of enemy nations. Heck half the time an American soldier shoots an enemy and then 10 seconds later runs over and carries him to a hospital. This is a slight exaggeration but you get the point, part of the reason the US gets bogged down in these "policing wars" is because unlike Hitler or any of the large armies of past, the US can't simply kill everyone in the countries it invades... because my god if it was allowed to just kill anyone like the armies of past could (and thank god it can't) the U.S. would rip the Middle East to shreds 

Well sorry, but this sounds like excuses to me... US should have thought of that before they decided they wanted to be a nation that respects freedom and liberty of civilians and doesn't want to harbour killers and baby murderers in its army. Sorry, better luck next time US...



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 03 March 2008
disolitude said:

eab said:
Let me just clear something up that most people seem to be confusing.

-Could the U.S. militarily take out Iran? Lol, hell yes.

-Could the U.S. stick around and police Iran like it is doing in Iraq? No. Well maybe but it would bloodier than Vietnam


Critics of the U.S. military see it's failures at policing Iraq and go ahead and say the US military sucks. Oh please, army are made and trained to kill other armies, they are not made to police a terrorist run state.
Critics say Napoleon and Hitler had armies that were more powerful and successful
than the US. I argue this, Hitler could simply carpet bomb entire cities and kill entire civilian populations. The U.S. spends billions and risks its soldiers lives to protect the civilians of enemy nations. Heck half the time an American soldier shoots an enemy and then 10 seconds later runs over and carries him to a hospital. This is a slight exaggeration but you get the point, part of the reason the US gets bogged down in these "policing wars" is because unlike Hitler or any of the large armies of past, the US can't simply kill everyone in the countries it invades... because my god if it was allowed to just kill anyone like the armies of past could (and thank god it can't) the U.S. would rip the Middle East to shreds

Well sorry, but this sounds like excuses to me... US should have thought of that before they decided they wanted to be a nation that respects freedom and liberty of civilians and doesn't want to harbour killers and baby murderers in its army. Sorry, better luck next time US...


 Are you actually supporting that armies should not respect enemy civilians or do you just dislike America that  much that you are seemingly taking that position.

I'm hoping it's the latter. 



Griffin on 03 March 2008
Mars said:

Damn some of you are way to delusional about US military capability, especially Griffin. You might want to read up on their defense capability, Russia pretty much sale them the best they got.

I would have though you learned a lesson in Vietman, Soviet failure in Afganistan and your debacle in Iraq.


 The US spends over 500bil on military each year compared to the 40bil the Russians spend.



disolitude on 03 March 2008
Kasz216 said:
disolitude said:

eab said:
Let me just clear something up that most people seem to be confusing.

-Could the U.S. militarily take out Iran? Lol, hell yes.

-Could the U.S. stick around and police Iran like it is doing in Iraq? No. Well maybe but it would bloodier than Vietnam


Critics of the U.S. military see it's failures at policing Iraq and go ahead and say the US military sucks. Oh please, army are made and trained to kill other armies, they are not made to police a terrorist run state.
Critics say Napoleon and Hitler had armies that were more powerful and successful
than the US. I argue this, Hitler could simply carpet bomb entire cities and kill entire civilian populations. The U.S. spends billions and risks its soldiers lives to protect the civilians of enemy nations. Heck half the time an American soldier shoots an enemy and then 10 seconds later runs over and carries him to a hospital. This is a slight exaggeration but you get the point, part of the reason the US gets bogged down in these "policing wars" is because unlike Hitler or any of the large armies of past, the US can't simply kill everyone in the countries it invades... because my god if it was allowed to just kill anyone like the armies of past could (and thank god it can't) the U.S. would rip the Middle East to shreds

Well sorry, but this sounds like excuses to me... US should have thought of that before they decided they wanted to be a nation that respects freedom and liberty of civilians and doesn't want to harbour killers and baby murderers in its army. Sorry, better luck next time US...


Are you actually supporting that armies should not respect enemy civilians or do you just dislike America that much that you are seemingly taking that position.

I'm hoping it's the latter.


 I was being sarcastic to the idiotic post I quoted.



Griffin on 03 March 2008

 

Its been fun talking to you guys, but i need to log off,  lets just hope no wars start tonight, i want to watch them live on TV  



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 03 March 2008
Griffin said:

 

Its been fun talking to you guys, but i need to log off, lets just hope no wars start tonight, i want to watch them live on TV


If a war started tonight it'd be more likely be Colombia vs Venzula & Ecuador.

Well if you don't count the latest Israeli vs Palestine clashes.



kenzomatic on 03 March 2008

General Douglas MacArthur

Farewell Address to Congress 

I think you all might enjoy this.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/douglasmacarthurfarewelladdress.htm

I always do



"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."

Your theories are the worst kind of popular tripe, your methods are sloppy, and your conclusions are highly questionable! You are a poor scientist. Especially if you think the moon landing was faked.

ioi + 1
z64dan on 03 March 2008

The main thing stopping the US from winning wouldn't be from lack of ability. It mostly stems from lack of government willingness to just fight a war to win it. Gulf War 2 should be in the history books already as a conflict that lasted from April 2003 - November 2003 or so. We didn't put the right amount of troops in and messed up and allowed the Iraq/Iran border to remain unsecure. Then we let an insurgency build.

We COULD have won the war alot quicker, with some better planning. We have the highly trained troops, the highly expensive equipment, the food, the water, the fuel, and everything else you need to win a war... But right now all that stuff is being used to fix mistakes that were made in 2003.



famousringo on 03 March 2008

The US won't attack Iran, because Iran is capable of sinking any oil tanker in the Persian Gulf. The missiles which are capable of these strikes cannot be effectively countered, and the economic damage would be catastrophic.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

Rab on 03 March 2008

Did anybody actually watch the video?

 

From all the comments I would be surprised if anyone did!

 

The "folly of attacking Iran" isn't about the military situation it's about the fact that a diplomatic solution is possible, and going to war is the folly

The video basically lay's the full blame on the Britsh and US for destroying Iran's democracy because of oil control in the 50's and putting in a government that went bad (bit like Iraq, the US helped Saddam to power)

The Britsh and US have meddled so much in Irans development that the situation is a mess, they never let these countries develop naturally

US and Britsh greed are to blame for the situation today according to the video, and the high standard of living of many western countries is due to the raped resources of these troubled countries

Iran is not to blame, the US is to blame for this situation getting out of control according to the video