Iran Versus the United States

originally posted by: paraphi

Actually, from the allies side, WW2 was run by politicians - even when the US joined. The difference was that it was all-out war, with the military given lee-way and the means to do the job.

In the US the military is civilian controlled, the key point is whether the military is given the thumbs up to engage in actual warfare and not warfare lite where the main goal is protecting the civilian population of the enemy.

Wont be a shooting war with Iran, because it would end up the west vs Russia and china, what we will end up with is another proxy war in the region while the politicians on all sides continue to line their pockets as the young die in a pointless war.


Cause lets be honest, Iran is not exactly a beacon of truth and honesty either.

a reply to: Fools

well the US keeps calling them a terrorist country and if they are then it stands to reason that they will carry on the war on the US soil

a reply to: Irishhaf

No it won't. Russia and China will not intervene and are equally terrified of Iran closing the Strait. Russia will back Iran with words, but will not get involved beyond selling weapons to Iran.

a reply to: mekhanics

The only internet tough guy here is you, calling everyone else down. You call everyone else weak and small so much, one could only guess as to your true stature. Give it up, your anger already proves you lost.

I'm here to defend those of whose opinions I agree with. You were unwarranted in your attack on members here, and quite frankly I highly doubt any of your perceived physical prowess. If you wanna be a real tough guy, you could meet me face to face. Or anyone else you pretend to be so much more powerful than.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: CharlesT

I think you've hit on the warhawk's conundrum.

On the one hand, they have to convince people that Iran is an immediate threat that has to be dealt with now, like North Korea was last year.

On the other hand, they want to assure the people that any conflict would be over quickly and be as bloodless as possible because they are no match for us.

Both statements can't be true, but they can both be false.

It actually is possible for both those statements to be true. Sorry.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I am quite sure we know where those missile batteries are- the NSA is kind of good at figuring this stuff out. This operation would not be costly at all, true these munitions cost more than dumb bombs but. the attack on Syria last year cost about 93 million dollars.Cost of Syrian air strike

That's because nobody pays attention to your drivel.

originally posted by: CharlesT
a reply to: Mach2

If you had watched the video you wouldn't have to ask if it is conventional weapons /forces or not.

Considering that the US wouldn't be fighting to gain territory, I'd say Iran comes out on top. If the US would be fighting for territory, then other parties would come into play. It's a lose-lose for America, and a big win for corporatocracy. If only the Senate would take back the powers of foreign wars... I know it's a pipe dream...

a reply to: CharlesT

Watch the video. It's not that long. About as long as a United States/Iran war would last.

Yeah , that's what Rumsfeld thought about Iraq and look what happened there , learn from past mistakes.