can america win their first ever war with iran ??

a reply to: chishuppu

I'm talking about Iran before the revolution, a shift that had long-lasting and far-reaching implications.

Iran back in the 60/70s was a vibrant, cosmopolitan kingdom.

originally posted by: notsure1

originally posted by: SATURN66

originally posted by: expatwhite

originally posted by: SATURN66
lets have some fun with this...

america keeps Threatening a war with iran when they have never won a war to date??

with that in mind .

why waste billions of dollars of army equitment and thousands of lifes milatry and civilians and destroy whole citys which america will pay to rebuild afterwords just to try to win their first war in history ??
is it worth all that to try to get something you know you will never have ??
you must remeber you are the youngest country in this battle, that you belittle other countrys that will not support this, just remeber the countrys you belittle are alot older and wisser when it comes to war, so they are not so eager to indulge your fantasy of getting your first war victory....


NOW LET THE BATTLE OF WORDS BEGIN

Didn't they win the "first" war they fought - the revolutionary war?

i think if you read your hitory before they change it yet again the mercinarions won that battle only 25% were american

Lol history.. What an idiot..

i guess you are one of these history changers lol

originally posted by: SATURN66

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: SATURN66

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt
Define "win a war".
The military might of the US could collapse the Iranian government in under a week with conventional weapons and cyberwarfare. 100%. Nothing short of a full declaration of war against Nato by russian and direct hostilities could stop that. Sorry but that is a fact.

Sustaining all the stuff that comes after that? Thats another case entirely. One i dont think the american people have the will for. The middle east would likely turn into one giant sunni vs #e bloodbathe.

i go back to the last posts if that were true and the us milatry machine was so over welming why you still bogged down in those inferier countrys??

Because the US has prescence... it’s a base. They do it all around the world. Plus the money to be made by the MIC.

Can you also explain how you claim Russia helped Trump in NK?

Thanks

russia /china get rid of Us preance now that north and south have signed the peace treaty, no war no reason to stay there win win for russia

the south koreans dont want US troops on their soil fact,japan dont want US troops on their land fact,their only reason for being there was north korea and that problem is being sorted, so do you really think they will let you guys stay and spoil it i dont think so do you ??

I asked HOW did Russia help... Do you have sources to back this claim? You answered the WHY, which I could get behind but I do not see the connected dots here...

a reply to: SATURN66

Up until the information age in which we live, and even now to a certain extent, history is written by the victors, seldom the vanquished.

History is more like shades of grey, dependant on perspective, just like truth.

We write it all down and meticulously catalog, record, even study past events.

Yet seldom do we ever learn from our past historical transgressions and seem doomed to repeat previous generations mistakes, time and time again.

If history teaches us anything, its that humanity does not pay attention.

a reply to: Whereismypassword

Absolutely agree that is the problem with all the recent wars. It’s not about winning the war it’s about winning hearts and minds. That’s difficult when you try to remove a ‘terrorist’ entity hiding within a civilian population you’re obliged to protect.

However if the object was to win no matter what the cost to local populace, there aren’t many that would last too long.

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: SATURN66

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: SATURN66

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt
Define "win a war".
The military might of the US could collapse the Iranian government in under a week with conventional weapons and cyberwarfare. 100%. Nothing short of a full declaration of war against Nato by russian and direct hostilities could stop that. Sorry but that is a fact.

Sustaining all the stuff that comes after that? Thats another case entirely. One i dont think the american people have the will for. The middle east would likely turn into one giant sunni vs #e bloodbathe.

i go back to the last posts if that were true and the us milatry machine was so over welming why you still bogged down in those inferier countrys??

Because the US has prescence... it’s a base. They do it all around the world. Plus the money to be made by the MIC.

Can you also explain how you claim Russia helped Trump in NK?

Thanks

russia /china get rid of Us preance now that north and south have signed the peace treaty, no war no reason to stay there win win for russia

the south koreans dont want US troops on their soil fact,japan dont want US troops on their land fact,their only reason for being there was north korea and that problem is being sorted, so do you really think they will let you guys stay and spoil it i dont think so do you ??

I asked HOW did Russia help... Do you have sources to back this claim? You answered the WHY, which I could get behind but I do not see the connected dots here...

all info is out there you just have to look in the right places and as you put it join the dots.

at the the moment what ever i tell you about russia you will not believe so follow dots and keep an open mind it might supprise you, life is not always like cnn paints it

sorry to go off topic but just saw this and WTF

The 'Boy' Scouts of America are changing their name, after more than hundred years of history. Now, as the organisation [sic] is allowing girls to join it, the word 'Boy' is set to be dropped. Meanwhile the Girl Scouts have said they will be keeping their name.

only in america i guess pmsl

I highly doubt you will ever see US attack Iran alone. They will drag NATO into the equation. If Israel gets involved the rest of the world will because Israel is going too far from its own land.

Let say US does it alone. I doubt US will win at all without causing WW3. Plus Iran is too far from US homeland, trade routes can be blocked by other countries.
Iran has 80 million people.

www.worldometers.info...

If US wants to invade they have to do conscription meaning all you guys including me have to join fight. There is this other issue which is under International Law or UN that US cannot and will not go mass genocide mode. If US breaks this, WW3 will be at US door step.


#1 Will be conscription issue to combat 80 million people.
#2 US will have to go genocide mode to even win Iran.
#3 Iran is simply too far from US mainland to supply.

So no, US will not be able to take on Iran alone unless it can go conscript people and go on a genocide.

originally posted by: SATURN66

originally posted by: GraffikPleasure

originally posted by: SATURN66

originally posted by: Whoisjohngalt
Define "win a war".
The military might of the US could collapse the Iranian government in under a week with conventional weapons and cyberwarfare. 100%. Nothing short of a full declaration of war against Nato by russian and direct hostilities could stop that. Sorry but that is a fact.

Sustaining all the stuff that comes after that? Thats another case entirely. One i dont think the american people have the will for. The middle east would likely turn into one giant sunni vs #e bloodbathe.

i go back to the last posts if that were true and the us milatry machine was so over welming why you still bogged down in those inferier countrys??

Because the US has prescence... it’s a base. They do it all around the world. Plus the money to be made by the MIC.

Can you also explain how you claim Russia helped Trump in NK?

Thanks

russia /china get rid of Us preance now that north and south have signed the peace treaty, no war no reason to stay there win win for russia

the south koreans dont want US troops on their soil fact,japan dont want US troops on their land fact,their only reason for being there was north korea and that problem is being sorted, so do you really think they will let you guys stay and spoil it i dont think so do you ??

Japan DEFINITELY wants the Us there. Even if it means a marine is going to get drunk and run over a girl leaving a club every few weeks. The hatred for Japan by china and korea is REAL. If they werent a US ally with american force projection to back that alliance up, you would be looking at a new sino-japanese war.

originally posted by: SATURN66
lets have some fun with this...

are alot older and wisser when it comes to war,

This get used a lot... It's like EU has some kind of America is still a young one attitude. It is funny that they used this same thing before they invited immigrant in large numbers from the Middle East.. Gave America a hard time saying they know better because they are older and wiser, now look where that got them...lol

Iraq was on par with Iran and it took us two weeks for that war, so how long for Iran? In any case we should never have gone into Iraq to begin with since as evil as Saddam was he was still stability, same with Assad as in, yes he is a bad man, but look to ISIS as his replacement, and they make him look like a Boy Scout.

japan and china have a long history or wars/violance long before america was born and they are still there so that dont really apply

originally posted by: makemap
#1 Will be conscription issue to combat 80 million people.
#2 US will have to go genocide mode to even win Iran.
#3 Iran is simply too far from US mainland to supply.

So no, US will not be able to take on Iran alone unless it can go conscript people and go on a genocide.

Stage out of Iraq... easy
I'm not sure if the population of Iran would all want to fight the US. They are an religious extremist society that were not that way back in the 70s. Hell women wore mini skirts there in the 70s, so I wonder how does most of the young population feel about a regime change?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: SATURN66
lets have some fun with this...

are alot older and wisser when it comes to war,

This get used a lot... It's like EU has some kind of America is still a young one attitude. It is funny that they used this same thing before they invited immigrant in large numbers from the Middle East.. Gave America a hard time saying they know better because they are older and wiser, now look where that got them...lol

Iraq was on par with Iran and it took us two weeks for that war, so how long for Iran? In any case we should never have gone into Iraq to begin with since as evil as Saddam was he was still stability, same with Assad as in, yes he is a bad man, but look to ISIS as his replacement, and they make him look like a Boy Scout.

omg 2 weeks lol i think a few years have past and you still have not sorted iraq.

iraq and iran had a 8 year war neither side gained anything america thought they could take advantage of iraq thinking 8 years of fighting they had nothing left, funny how iraq sent all its planes and milatry equiment to iran when america waded in, funny how after 8 years of fighting each other they would back each other when a western force invaded them. there history/religeon and their beliefs are far stronger, they might war amongst themselfs but they will never let a western country take any arab land we have been tryin since the holy wars

originally posted by: SATURN66
japan and china have a long history or wars/violance long before america was born and they are still there so that dont really apply

Iran of today isnt the persian empire it used to be. We defeat Iran by destroying their ability to transport troops across the desert or water or air. A blockade. Remove all restrictions on engaging Iranians or people coming from Irans direction to make sure no infiltrators get by pretending to be refugees.

Next destroy Fuel production,water production,and electricity production. S-300? the Israelis flew against them with nary a missile firing at them using the new aircraft. Tomohawks are not Stealthy or those other missiles they used. The 73 percentile interception rate is most likely bogus though.

SHips in the gulf will pull back before a attack on Iran to avoid having to use Anti shipping missiles. we can strike outside the persian gulf instead.

Of course this isnt to say there wont be american losses,but they wont be too serious.

originally posted by: SATURN66


omg 2 weeks lol i think a few years have past and you still have not sorted iraq.

As wars go we are good, as occupation goes we suck. The actual fighting in the Gulf War was 100 hours, the actual war with Iraq lasted about 2 weeks before they were done. I was in both

Winning a war and sorting out the country were two different things. If we went into Iran we would have a short war, but like Iraq/Afghanistan what do we do now after we won becomes the bigger issue.

they might war amongst themselfs but they will never let a western country take any arab land we have been tryin since the holy wars

It doesn't matter it is not like America wanted to make a 51 state and we are unwilling to do what they do and kill the population down. The largest number of deaths was the internal fighting against each other and not against America after the removal of Saddam.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: SATURN66
japan and china have a long history or wars/violance long before america was born and they are still there so that dont really apply

Iran of today isnt the persian empire it used to be. We defeat Iran by destroying their ability to transport troops across the desert or water or air. A blockade. Remove all restrictions on engaging Iranians or people coming from Irans direction to make sure no infiltrators get by pretending to be refugees.

Next destroy Fuel production,water production,and electricity production. S-300? the Israelis flew against them with nary a missile firing at them using the new aircraft. Tomohawks are not Stealthy or those other missiles they used. The 73 percentile interception rate is most likely bogus though.

SHips in the gulf will pull back before a attack on Iran to avoid having to use Anti shipping missiles. we can strike outside the persian gulf instead.

Of course this isnt to say there wont be american losses,but they wont be too serious.

omg this is going from bad to worse.

your first remark what would you bloke iran controls the canal they shut all countrys will suffer as its the main shipping route for the world, plus you country moans that stopping any [snipped] from movement is racist hows that working for you in the US courts

your secand well thats even more floored as america is only interest in these countrys becouse of their oil so can you really see america hitting their main goal, as for the s300 russia controls them so they will not fire on israeli planes as for the tommer hawks verses the s300 you will see which countrys are trying to buy the s300 rather than the tommer hawks check your sales on the tommer hawks i think you will find they have drpped rappidly

your 3rd stament why did they not pull back when they tried to hit syria and russia threatered to hit the carriers on the missile, so you are say that iran has better odds that russia mmmm sounds logical

and your last statement its just so funny its not worth a good reply, but i will say this superman was just a film i hope you know this just a film

a reply to: SATURN66

Kinda oversimplifying things to say its all about the oil. Its geopolitical and jockeying for positions of strength. Every country does it.

a reply to: SATURN66

So you are a Iranian shill then.

1. SHutting the Canal wouldnt last more than a few weeks because the Shipping missiles have a limited range. And Outside of the straight in the ocean is outside their engagement zone. I guess thats too hard to grasp though eh?

If we go to war with Iran Immigration and refugee laws do not apply in Total war doctrine. Iranians would all be declared COmbatants and war resources.
The US dont want Iran for anything. we dont need their Resources.
The S-300.s in Syria were not Russian controlled. the S-400s were though,and none even locked on to any AIrcraft.

And the TOMOHAWKS are not ANTI MISSILE MISSILES.

Russia didnt strike back because they were not the targeted party and didnt suffer any losses at all.
4th. your english is very poor for someone living in England,which is a dead giveaway you are not actually from there.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: SATURN66


omg 2 weeks lol i think a few years have past and you still have not sorted iraq.

As wars go we are good, as occupation goes we suck. The actual fighting in the Gulf War was 100 hours, the actual war with Iraq lasted about 2 weeks before they were done. I was in both

Winning a war and sorting out the country were two different things. If we went into Iran we would have a short war, but like Iraq/Afghanistan what do we do now after we won becomes the bigger issue.

they might war amongst themselfs but they will never let a western country take any arab land we have been tryin since the holy wars

It doesn't matter it is not like America wanted to make a 51 state and we are unwilling to do what they do and kill the population down. The largest number of deaths was the internal fighting against each other and not against America after the removal of Saddam.

i see a couple of problems there

when you rolled through iraq as you put it there was in your 2 week glory run there was not oppertion there were only a few part time army grunts and outdated weponry that if they used it would have blown up in their faces, where was the 300 thousand iraqie army and the 250 thousand persanal gaurd oh and all their main equitment and planes?? did you find them no becouse they were moved to iran and syria becouse america anonce it was comming neat trick

you say about you dont want 51 states and about internal deaths, that reminds me of country that has death on its streets everyday and if you did not want thne land why the hell did you invade i dont think it was to protect the people of iraq becouse surly you would want to pratice what you preach and sort your own countrys internal killings everyday which as i am wringhting this another mall shooting in nashview sounds a bit hippercritical to me should the un invade you for they same reason you push on other countrys??

and removing sadam how did that work out for you same as gaddafy how you doin on that front , basicly you took a bad situation and made it worse

originally posted by: SATURN66


when you rolled through iraq as you put it there was in your 2 week glory run there was not oppertion there were only a few part time army grunts and outdated weponry that if they used it would have blown up in their faces, where was the 300 thousand iraqie army and the 250 thousand persanal gaurd oh and all their main equitment and planes?? did you find them no becouse they were moved to iran and syria becouse america anonce it was comming neat trick

So Iran and Iraq became all buddie buddie after a few 1000 years of fighting...cool

you say about you dont want 51 states and about internal deaths, that reminds me of country that has death on its streets everyday and if you did not want thne land why the hell did you invade i dont think it was to protect the people of iraq becouse surly you would want to pratice what you preach and sort your own countrys internal killings everyday which as i am wringhting this another mall shooting in nashview sounds a bit hippercritical to me should the un invade you for they same reason you push on other countrys??

My post wasn't about why, or about whatever in America...it was a plain factual statement of how long the wars were, and most likely the fighting in Iran would be short too... I'm not saying I want to fight Iran in anyway, just stating what would happen if we did.

and removing sadam how did that work out for you same as gaddafy how you doin on that front , basicly you took a bad situation and made it worse

Well true and I said the same thing in my post so why are you debating me on that...I said we were good at war, but bad on occupation...lol