It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by FredT
Disturbed Deliverer,
No army on the face of the earth could defeat the American Military in a standup war. However, as we have seen in Iraq, winning the war and winning the peace are dramaticaly different items unto themselves.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Prince_Machiavelli
I don't need to read your sources because they won't say anything I don't already know.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The Iran-Iraq war is brought up a lot, but in reality, the people were forced to go fight.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You can go take a look at the past. Iran has been conquered by many different forces, and the Iranians (or "Persians") have welcomed them with open arms. Alexander the Great is a pretty good example.
When people were desprate they accepted a foreigner to rule them. But you are going too far back. How about a hundred years ago, when Russia invaded Iran's capital city and tried to put up a puppet dictator? Do you know what happened, with all your history lessons I am sure you do. A few men named Sattar Khan, Bagher Khan and another man whose name I cannot remember now, who were civilians, created an army and attacked the Russians and threw them out. Now does that sound like a country that opens its arms to foreign aggressors?
You dont know much about the Iran-Iraq war do you? 90% of the force that fought the war was a volunteered to fight. These people are know as Basijis and Sepahe Pasdaran. They volunteered in their millions and died in their millions. Dont insult them by saying they were forced to fight. No one forced them to go under the tanks and blow themselves up. No one forced them to run in their thousands towards the enemy and die. They volunteered for all of that.
I always have a chuckle when I see posts declaring how superior the US military is and how it can kick anyones butt. You then look at the "wars" it has fought over the last few decades and one thing stands out.... they haven't actually gone up against anyone with a similar, or even near, capability.
It's grand to be an armchair warrior and quote numbers and equipment specs but that's a far cry from reality. On Tarmac a Camel is no match for a Ferrari.... but try taking that Ferrari off road. War isn't so simplistic as having superior equipment and firepower. Who'd be daft enough to go toe to toe with the US military?
It's argueable if the terrorists won the war or if America did. I would say the terrorist won, just look at American now and before 9/11. That's not comparable.
Disturbed, your opinion maybe patriotic and daddy will be proud of you but when it comes to the real life it's useless propaganda. Read your own posts, don't you think you are a bit uppity?
Saddam's elite Republican Guard with their advanced T-72's faced off against M1A1's, and were completely destroyed with a single loss of an Abram.
We have the best trained
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
The British didn't have any overwhelming advantage. Other powers in the world were on par with them in economic and military means. They were also fighting wars on multiple fronts at the time and couldn't use all of their military strength.
America's military dominance is on par with Rome's, or even the Mongols.
I would call the largest organized Navy in the world, the most organized, well-armed, and experienced army in the world, - and about a 1000 to 1 odds on the cannon stores AN ADVANTAGE.
Saigon 1975 would be another one....an we had a draft then, and military supplies....two things we don't have today.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say military supplies. We're far better equipped today then during Vietnam. Vietnam was over before 1975, as well.
A draft isn't a good thing for a military, either. All volunteer armies are more disciplined, and have higher morale.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
I think you need to go review history some. Sattar Khan wasn't fighting a foreign threat, but the tyranical Shah who was undermining the new Iranian constitution. At the time Iran was divided in sphere of influence between the British and the Russians. The only time he was involved with foreign troops was when he was working with them. The British invaded Russia from 'Persia' to put a stop to the Russian Revolution. They staged a coup with British support, and formed a parliament in Iran.
Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Iran was still basically a puppet of the the British. What happened after British control ended? You had the American puppets.
Well if you say so it must be right. So you are saying that the freedom fighters from the north never recieved a threat from both the British and Russian embassies? When they invaded the entire north of Iran?
So you are saying Reza Khan never came to power and we never became friends with Germany and we were British pupets? If we were why would the British invade Iran (illeagally) at the start world war two for not cooprating with them?
Originally posted by Valhall
WHAT!?!
I would call the largest organized Navy in the world, the most organized, well-armed, and experienced army in the world, - and about a 1000 to 1 odds on the cannon stores AN ADVANTAGE.
The Revolutionary war is, in fact, an awesome example of why you should never, ever assume the outcome in a military conflict.
Saigon 1975 would be another one....an we had a draft then, and military supplies....two things we don't have today.