can america win their first ever war with iran ??

oh and just to give you nightmares trump want to put America back into the British colonies once again

In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas , which she does not fancy).

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.



"To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect":

The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' [...] Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary') [...] There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know n your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'

The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.

Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America . Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket.

You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season.

God Save the Queen!



*Frantically Googles whether US independence can be rescinded, by order of Queen Elizabeth II (and all of us)*.

pmsl

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

originally posted by: tovenar but liberal US leadership discontinued the policy as "inhumane."

If America was willing to conquer, it would also win. Quickly.

Exactly

The thing that defeats western military action is not having the balls to wage proper war. Third world # holes like Iran are easy meat for any civilized state as long they don't let the liberals hold them back. The resettlement plan for Iranians is actually a very workable idea. Hey what about making the carcass of Iran the 51st state and letting loads of eastern Europeans settle the place as they are really leaving for other countries. Relocate Iranians to Pakistan and India where they actually belong

That's not going to happen because US troops in Afghanistan is blocking the road. So, good try attempting relocation.

Sure its been said but wars in this day and age with the technology held by the US (and not a soul DOESN'T AGREE that the government and military have at their disposal several technology from about 2075 figuratively speaking) plus the backdoor access help to enter pretty much any electronic communications device worldwide and a network of spies just everywhere, wars like the one in Iraq for example are totally unnecessary and a joke. 1.3 or so million Iraqi civilians for Gods sake to get to one man, and the most prolific man in the entire region nonetheless. Its silly to believe that it took so much destruction to get to him. No, they simply needed to destroy certain infrastructure to install Halliburton, a Rothschild central bank, and some other elite buddies into the controlling locales for those industries. In fact once again we see the same people investing heavily in both sides and making a killing. There were only about rlevem countries in which the central bank system and,the currency was not owned by the Rothschild and entities who own the US and British central banks and those countries just happened to include Egypt, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and five or six others which I am sure will be the next nations who attack us in a way that makes no sense yet has Americans demanding blood for blood from that country or at least one that rhymes with it, in a thousand years they will laugh in elementary history classes when they tell the story of what occured last time and think us the buffoonest buffoons of buffoonery.

Iran could be dismantled with nearly no loss of life and like the Persian Gulf war which was won in 48 hours,surrender could be accomplished no nukes necessary. But I am certain since they stay out of our affairs but we still demonize and bully them senselessly, we would be more likely to obliterate certain industries and key cities so uh oh, looks like we gotta take billion dollar bids for who gets the construction contracts and whoever is in office at the end I have a feeling will see "campaign donations" and "personal loans" transferred into their Cayman Islands bank account by the CEO of the company that just coincidentally wins the bid.

I think that the biggest weakness of US forces has been and still is their overconfidence. Yes they have bigger military budget then the next top20 countries combined, but would they win a war against the next top20 countries? Fat chance of that happening..
US military budget just isn't very effective. A big part of it goes to lobby workers and other non-military people who make the military industrial complex run. The system is plagued by legal corruption in this way.
And never forget that a talented warrior can always find ways to turn his opponents strengths into weaknesses, and his own weaknesses as strength. US forces biggest strength is their aircraft carriers and the Air Force. This is where advanced tech and production capabilities come into play the most. But during 2005 military exercise a small Swedish submarine, costing only couple of million $ successfully simulated the sinking of USS Ronald Reagan, a 6,2 billion $ costing aircraft carrier. It only needed to be quiet and stealthy enough, while using old known technology to achieve it. Or how North Korea is still using AN-2, a soviet aircraft from the year 1940 as their own little stealth aircraft. The trick is that AN-2 wings generate so much lift that it can fly so slow and low that it will remain undetectable to radars.
These are just some examples of talented warriors using very little resources and old tech to achieve great effect. The general sentiment of US forces is cultivated in a form that "we are the best and the strongest". This builds overconfidence and makes people forget the fact on just how deadly can a talented warrior be.

a reply to: SATURN66

Why on earth does the US want to go to war against Iran? Iran has not invaded any country in last 2-3 hundred years.

What "cause of action" is the US showing to the world to justify invading Iran?

Compare Irans history to that of the US> The US is the most war like nation on earth?

‘The greatest purveyor of violence on earth is my own government.’Martin Luther King (1929-1968)

I think it's mostly answered in the other posts. Can America? certainly. Would America?probably not. We as the "good" guys, would not be able to take Iran out with the current geopolitical stances.( I would be more confident after Wednesday, when Israel meets with Russia, that will be significant) America proper has Geneva rules and a public relations problem that prevents it from attaining a win here. Coalition wise, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UAE, Jordan. Can probably take Iranian interests in Lebanon and Yemen. Leaving Iran square on America with the limited French defence stabilizing syrian interests. If Russia interferes indirectly or supports Iran, It would not save Iranian infrastructure but it would put a victory out of reach due to our other commitments globally. Further if Chinese leverage anything it could spiral into American global retreat. With current political unrest in America today, It would be dangerous to over play our hand, if we do attempt military backed regime change, the Russians could just as likely pounce on stabilization of the region weakening our foothold in the ME dramatically. Likely cutting a deal with Turkey to expel SDF, KPP, and American interests in Syria. Putting Israel in a impossible win senario later down the line. That said, as an American, if pushed we would dine on the blood of the innocents with sadistic glee, and everyone in the world knows this.(see Yemen, Vietnam, Palestine) Iran would cut a deal to save their loved ones from this fate. Just my thoughts, only speculation.

a reply to: yuppa

"You assume we would march in troops."

That's because wars are not won without boots on the ground, that's a fact!

"We destroy their ability to clothe feed and water their people you will see a surrender soon after o r overthrow due to their people dying and starving to death."

How would that be accomplished, keeping in mind those people have been there for 1000s of years and know the land and terrain implicitly.

"We destroy their Oil production,gas production and electricity production as well."

But that's the reason we would be going to war in the first place! You don't destroy the spoils of war, that's just plain silly and counterproductive.

"Vietnam was a lesson and just keeping them without necessities will suffice."

Vietnam was a defeat, plain and simple, American was shown how to lose, so i guess it was indeed a lesson learned.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Vietnam was a defeat, plain and simple

And not much different to the proxy war in Syria. One thing I'll say is Trump doesn't seem to want fighting like previous bloodthirsty US presidents, so I remain hopeful the orange businessman will not go down the road of attacking Iran.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Hope in one hand, crap in the other, see which one fills up first?

Trump is a megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur beyond his mental capacity to facilitate.

Guys about to take the American people down a one-way road to who knows what.

My bet is Irans next unless they roll over and let Trump scratch their belly, and i don't see that happening with Russia behind them.

a reply to: andy06shake

I'm not so sure mate, I'm more drawn towards thinking he'll strike some kind of deal where the Iranians & US both save face. NK/SK, what happened there? I think he's sharper than people are making out, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall behind the scenes.
Yes he talks the bluster, but seems to be less bloodthirsty than that old hag Hilary would be had she won the election.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

America needs a war to be happening somewhere, or at least there military industrial complex does, it's just how "They" function. Trump's masters require Iran's downfall, that's just the way the cookie is crumbling.

The only way Iran will be left alone is if they implement a central banking system in line with our own, which is not going to happen without a significant regime change.

They will also be required to cease and desist developing their nuclear capability, which why the hell should they considering our own?

Irans not going to be left alone, that's a given.

a reply to: andy06shake

From what I've been reading though it seems 'higher ups' want the war but Trump is defying them, acting instead more towards business deals and saving cash on expensive wars.
NK/SK said it all to me, I wonder what he said behind closed doors to make rocket man come to the table.
You gotta admit old hag Hillary would be at war by now, with us in the UK lamely tailing behind in token support.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: yuppa

"You assume we would march in troops."

That's because wars are not won without boots on the ground, that's a fact!

"We destroy their ability to clothe feed and water their people you will see a surrender soon after o r overthrow due to their people dying and starving to death."

How would that be accomplished, keeping in mind those people have been there for 1000s of years and know the land and terrain implicitly.

"We destroy their Oil production,gas production and electricity production as well."

But that's the reason we would be going to war in the first place! You don't destroy the spoils of war, that's just plain silly and counterproductive.

"Vietnam was a lesson and just keeping them without necessities will suffice."

Vietnam was a defeat, plain and simple, American was shown how to lose, so i guess it was indeed a lesson learned.

Troops are AFTER they surrender. How long will it take to starve and thirst take their toll on the Iranians?

You totally ignore the destruction of all their resources i see. Destroying their ability to transport water,food,medicine,and weapons in large shipments or at all is a easy way to win.

Vietnam was a POLITICAL LOSS. The VC commander said himself in a interview that IF the US would had stayed another few weeks they would had won. they had them on the ropes he said.

Also Destroying their resource production still leaves the resources...it just removes their ability to capitilize on them in a strategic way. Cant have a army thats dying on their feet from lack of food and water marching through the desert lugging 100 lbs of weapons and ammo and still win.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

The NK situation is simple economics really, keep in mind Little Kim did not grow up in NK, he knows which side the bread is buttered. His posturing may well bring a new age of prosperity to the north, Trump was just a silly orange pawn really.

Yes, i imagine the U.K will be in tow with the U.S no matter the scenario, but that's because we have the same bankers waging the dogs tail from afar.

Trump/Clinton, no matter really, considering the two-party system at play, that's not choice, that's simply the lesser of two evils, which quite frankly remains to be seen.

Trump will have his war, if for no other reason than 4 more years in power.

a reply to: yuppa

Well let's just say it won't be the cakewalk many imagine.

It's already war with America has started 30+ years ago with gulf war #1, gulf war #2, Syria war, Libya, and the cities of Iraq are being rebuilt or expansion new suburbs already taking place in Iraq. Now let's look at the Chaos, destruction, millions killed, immigration of refugees all over Western countries with numerous Van attacks killing others civilians.
Now was it worth it to displace and get influx of refugees into western nations because more van violence attacks will occur?

Iran is no win country for America.

originally posted by: Cds434
It's already war with America has started 30+ years ago with gulf war #1, gulf war #2, Syria war, Libya, and the cities of Iraq are being rebuilt or expansion new suburbs already taking place in Iraq. Now let's look at the Chaos, destruction, millions killed, immigration of refugees all over Western countries with numerous Van attacks killing others civilians.
Now was it worth it to displace and get influx of refugees into western nations because more van violence attacks will occur?

Iran is no win country for America.

They either take it or get out. Simple as that. Any longer the US troops will realize they are going genocide mode which the Gov doesn't want just like Vietnam War. Keep invading for your landlords boys, there is nothing to do at home.

a reply to: makemap

Hahahhaa you take me too seriously but I think you are quite non serious too. The Iranian people well Iran is there home, no need to move them. The average man in the street, they are people just human beings same as us. It's the mad leaders world wide who brainwash us through their media to gang up into monkey ape behaviour and attack other monker chimp groups. We gonna need a new way in this world to get through the geo political climate a new way is needed.

Nope........ The US would win whatever battles were fought. They are simply technologically more capable and have vast forces. But as we found with Iraq and Afghanistan winning battles is not enough to win a war

First off look at Iraq as a comparison.

The vast majority of Iraqi's supported the initial invasion. We will not have that luck here. Just ask the ghost of Saddam about how his invasion of Iraq went. Most Americans will not have the stomach for the war of attrition it would take. The Iranian people will unite against any invader. You CANNOT defeat an enemy that is willing to die for country. It was true for the British in the revolutionary war and lets face it does anybody want to call Afghanistan a victory?

Look at Baghdad. We barely were able to control the green zone. Now imagine Tehran with 3 times the population.