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.

 

Iran Can Win a War Against the U.S. with Help From Syria & the DPRK

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Surveys have been done showing moral in the American army is the exact same before the war started.

Hmm oh well, still you have to admit they are doing a very good job of killing our troops.



That's not even remotely true. It's not even a percent of your entire forces. Your nation could replenish multiple times those losses with complete ease.

Its not about replenishment, its not about percentage of our entire forces.
Its about what happens to the families and the friends of that soldier, EVERY death over here is a tradgedy.



Our normal troops dominated Iraq's elites. Why would Iran, Syria or North Korea be any different?

Iraq = 1 country, Syria and iran = 2 countries.
The US is already haveing troop number troubles , imagine how much It would be like after invadeing another 2 countries.



You get this just by looking at basic training times. That's not a fair measure of anything. When you spend years in service getting more training, and of a better quality then anyone else, you're going to gain more experience.

I'm not, I am baseing it on specialist training.



According to you even our airforce is inferior to yours in training.

Whats so difficult about that to believe?



What's so impressive about that? It's not even that great a gun.

Its a reliable gun, much more reliable than the M-16 or SA-80.




Like Iraqi scuds, right? Honestly, there is no threat to America's fleet from Iran.

No, iraq scuds can hit a city NOT a fleet.
The threat is new russian sunburn missiles, the US has no defense for them except aegis.



Suicide bombers aren't typical military. They won't do any damage to America's military.

...So a large suicide bomber getting into a US airbase wouldnt cause damage?
...What about these bombers in iraq? They're killing troops quite well.


And no, Iran probably not get many, if any men into Saudi Arabia during a war. They'd have to go through several nations to do it.

Iran COULD get them through before the war and would get in no bother.




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:00 AM
link   
devilwasp, 10 years from now, if you haven't been kicked off, you are gonna look back at these posts and be mortied at how ignorant you were.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwm1331
devilwasp, 10 years from now, if you haven't been kicked off, you are gonna look back at these posts and be mortied at how ignorant you were.

Dont worry I wont be kicked off, aint broken any ATS rules.
Not really, you call me ignorant but in reality its you who is ignorant of my view and my life, opinions make up everything.
The way a war is fought, the way a country is run and how we judge situations.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
DPRK doesn't have the bomb. They were caught in a bluff when the US requested that they prove they had the bomb.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Its not about replenishment, its not about percentage of our entire forces.
Its about what happens to the families and the friends of that soldier, EVERY death over here is a tradgedy.


You do nothing to strengthen your nations war efforts, just weaken it. There's a difference between appreciating a soldiers death, and acting like a woman over it. There's probably nothing worse for a soldier then to call the cause he's fighting worthless, or to then put an end to the cause because of his death. If I died for something, I'd sure as hell want to know it at least was successful.


Iraq = 1 country, Syria and iran = 2 countries.
The US is already haveing troop number troubles , imagine how much It would be like after invadeing another 2 countries.


No, we have an artificial problem. We don't want to send all of our troops in theatre, when we easily could. We have some 500,000 in the army, and another 100,000 in the marines (or at least close to that). Of all that, just 150,000 men are in Iraq. We have as many men as that in other nations. We have no reason to keep them there.

America is not using anywhere near its full strength in Iraq. Like always, we've hindered our own efforts more then the enemy.


I'm not, I am baseing it on specialist training.


That's great. It addresses nothing I said, though.


Whats so difficult about that to believe?


Americans receive the top of the line training. We put our men in the air more than anyone. We have more actual combat exerpience.


Its a reliable gun, much more reliable than the M-16 or SA-80.


It's not even a frontline weapon for the Russians. It's used for security forces and such. The thing is less accurate, and has a less consistant rate of fire then the basic AK47. It is not better than a M-16.


No, iraq scuds can hit a city NOT a fleet.
The threat is new russian sunburn missiles, the US has no defense for them except aegis.


You're like a broken record. You bring this up in every topic, and it gets shot down every time.

First, it's not new. Second, a defense system has been put in place to deal with this, and future threats. Third, it's ridiculous to put so much faith in a missile which Iran may or may not have. No weapon in modern history has been as dangerous as you think the Sunburn is. It's laughable.

And I never meant the Scuds were used for the same thing as the Sunburn, but that they were as overhyped as it is.


...So a large suicide bomber getting into a US airbase wouldnt cause damage?
...What about these bombers in iraq? They're killing troops quite well.


A large suicide bomber isn't getting into a military base. They don't get into bases in Iraq. And they aren't doing a good job of killing anyone but Iraqis. The number of American troops lost is meaningless in every sense. A lot more of them have died, as well. And these guys can target American troops on patrols or checkpoints. They don't go to bases.


Iran COULD get them through before the war and would get in no bother.


Right. They'll get hundreds of thousands of well trained suicide bombers across the borders of multiple nations, none of which are friendly with Iran, then attack American bases, somehow stopping America from launching airstrikes on Iran...



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
You do nothing to strengthen your nations war efforts, just weaken it. There's a difference between appreciating a soldiers death, and acting like a woman over it. There's probably nothing worse for a soldier then to call the cause he's fighting worthless, or to then put an end to the cause because of his death. If I died for something, I'd sure as hell want to know it at least was successful.

Actually that aint true, the less bad news we print the less chance of morale beng hit bad.
Wait your saying that the UK and the USA act like women over fallen troops?



No, we have an artificial problem. We don't want to send all of our troops in theatre, when we easily could. We have some 500,000 in the army, and another 100,000 in the marines (or at least close to that). Of all that, just 150,000 men are in Iraq. We have as many men as that in other nations. We have no reason to keep them there.

Yes you have them in other countries doing other jobs, face it you would need to seriosly redeploy troops and man power just to take syria.


America is not using anywhere near its full strength in Iraq. Like always, we've hindered our own efforts more then the enemy.

No ofcourse not but trying totake and hold syria an iran is going to be a struggle a VERY hard one.




That's great. It addresses nothing I said, though.

Actually It does, you said I was baseing it on basic training, I responded correcting that statement.
Also you spend more per man on what exactly?
Ammo?
Training?
Armour?


Americans receive the top of the line training. We put our men in the air more than anyone. We have more actual combat exerpience.

Your fighting guys with mirages, and shooting them down 100 miles away...



It's not even a frontline weapon for the Russians. It's used for security forces and such. The thing is less accurate, and has a less consistant rate of fire then the basic AK47. It is not better than a M-16.

Its reliable, far more reliable than any rifle I know of.



You're like a broken record. You bring this up in every topic, and it gets shot down every time.

Really?


First, it's not new. Second, a defense system has been put in place to deal with this, and future threats. Third, it's ridiculous to put so much faith in a missile which Iran may or may not have. No weapon in modern history has been as dangerous as you think the Sunburn is. It's laughable.

Its been out for less than 6 months.
Really? Metal storm or point defense because both are not in operation yet.
You say HARM can destroy any land based radar site, your putting the same amout of faith in that..


And I never meant the Scuds were used for the same thing as the Sunburn, but that they were as overhyped as it is.

Oh come one, ofcourse they where overhyped, when missiles rein down or in the case shot down over a city ofcourse the people reporting will overhhype it.
Its not as overhyped since it hasnt even reached the news yet.



A large suicide bomber isn't getting into a military base. They don't get into bases in Iraq. And they aren't doing a good job of killing anyone but Iraqis. The number of American troops lost is meaningless in every sense. A lot more of them have died, as well. And these guys can target American troops on patrols or checkpoints. They don't go to bases.

Yes if blows up the main gate.
They dont get into bases they just use mortars instead.
Yeah they can but hitting them while they sleep is a good tactic.



Right. They'll get hundreds of thousands of well trained suicide bombers across the borders of multiple nations, none of which are friendly with Iran, then attack American bases, somehow stopping America from launching airstrikes on Iran...

No I said they would get some through, not thousands.
I also said it would damage not stop.
I also said that its easy to get into a country like saudi arabia , chris ryan done it.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Oh no.. should we all start heading for the hills? ... lol

Even the US itself could win a war against itself it's so damn divided... same thing goes for Canada... All the poor people hate our Governments...
The governments ... how should I say ..... Walking On Egg Shells... and SECRETLY using a wire to relieve some pressure (Secret Missions/Services..)



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Actually that aint true, the less bad news we print the less chance of morale beng hit bad.
Wait your saying that the UK and the USA act like women over fallen troops?


Liberals do.


Yes you have them in other countries doing other jobs, face it you would need to seriosly redeploy troops and man power just to take syria.


Yea, those 30,000 troops in Japan are performing real urgent tasks...Same with the 70,000 in Germany. Right there, along with our forces in Iraq, we more than enough to destroy Iran and Syria's armies.


No ofcourse not but trying totake and hold syria an iran is going to be a struggle a VERY hard one.


Only if we did it like Iraq. None of these nations have people hard to subdue, we simply haven't been willing to do whats necessary.


Actually It does, you said I was baseing it on basic training, I responded correcting that statement.
Also you spend more per man on what exactly?
Ammo?
Training?
Armour?


We spend more on everything.


Your fighting guys with mirages, and shooting them down 100 miles away...


We've been fighting MiG-29's, and advanced Russian SAM's. Not to mention the advanced simulations our airforce has now days, as well as the training we're able to get in with MiG-29's.


Its reliable, far more reliable than any rifle I know of.


That's why its not even a frontline weapon, right?


Its been out for less than 6 months.
Really? Metal storm or point defense because both are not in operation yet.
You say HARM can destroy any land based radar site, your putting the same amout of faith in that..


The new defense systems will be deployed in a short time, especially if we were going to war and they were needed. And I've never said HARM can destroy every land based radar site. You don't need to destroy every land based radar site. You only need to hit a couple, and the entire network becomes vulnerable.


Oh come one, ofcourse they where overhyped, when missiles rein down or in the case shot down over a city ofcourse the people reporting will overhhype it.
Its not as overhyped since it hasnt even reached the news yet.


Ok, then it's overhyped like Exocet missiles...


Yes if blows up the main gate.
They dont get into bases they just use mortars instead.
Yeah they can but hitting them while they sleep is a good tactic


No one gets near the gate of a military base. Anyone suspicious coming close will be shot. The mortar fire in Iraq is largely ineffective except for the occasional lucky shot. And something like that would require a lot more then a few people. Honestly, are Iranians going to waste what few people they can get into foreign nations firing mortars at our bases? And there is always someone on guard at a military base. With modern technology, it's kind of hard to surprise one.


No I said they would get some through, not thousands.
I also said it would damage not stop.
I also said that its easy to get into a country like saudi arabia , chris ryan done it.


Some isn't going to do much. And what damage will they do? Are they going to kill one or two soldiers (that would be an extremely lucky scenario), or maybe scratch the walls of our bases?



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Liberals do.

This is your opinion.
Also are you calling Paddy Ashdown , an SBS man a "women" when it comes to people dieing?



Yea, those 30,000 troops in Japan are performing real urgent tasks...Same with the 70,000 in Germany. Right there, along with our forces in Iraq, we more than enough to destroy Iran and Syria's armies.

Yeah and how many of these are actual combat and not support troops, americas troops are mainly made up of support troops.



Only if we did it like Iraq. None of these nations have people hard to subdue, we simply haven't been willing to do whats necessary.

Yeah and would the american people stand for it?



We spend more on everything.

Really?



We've been fighting MiG-29's, and advanced Russian SAM's. Not to mention the advanced simulations our airforce has now days, as well as the training we're able to get in with MiG-29's.

Yes guys in Mig-29's with pilots who are of what calibre and recieve what level of training?



That's why its not even a frontline weapon, right?

Funny last time I checked werent the iraqi's using AK-74U'S and AK-47's?



The new defense systems will be deployed in a short time, especially if we were going to war and they were needed. And I've never said HARM can destroy every land based radar site. You don't need to destroy every land based radar site. You only need to hit a couple, and the entire network becomes vulnerable.

Yes....shortly, how long's It going to take to fit the US task force?

Your still placeing the same faith in HARM as I am in the sunburn.



Ok, then it's overhyped like Exocet missiles...

Probably...



No one gets near the gate of a military base. Anyone suspicious coming close will be shot.

How do you define , suspicious?
If this was that paraniod then there would be a pile of bodies in iraq and across the world thanks to green peace and just passers by.



The mortar fire in Iraq is largely ineffective except for the occasional lucky shot. And something like that would require a lot more then a few people.
[/qutoe]
Not really, the troops of 45 comando came under quite nasty mortar fire in iraq during their stay, one even landed in an armoury pile.


Honestly, are Iranians going to waste what few people they can get into foreign nations firing mortars at our bases?

You make it sound like every nation has guards at every airport waiting to arrest an iranian.



And there is always someone on guard at a military base. With modern technology, it's kind of hard to surprise one.

...An air base does NOT have tech designed to track incomeing mortars.



Some isn't going to do much. And what damage will they do? Are they going to kill one or two soldiers (that would be an extremely lucky scenario), or maybe scratch the walls of our bases?

One suicide bomber gets a big hole in fence , with lots of troops or even just ONE well placed mortar could wreck havoc on the planes stored at the base and put them out of commision.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:37 PM
link   

This is your opinion.
Also are you calling Paddy Ashdown , an SBS man a "women" when it comes to people dieing?


Guess so.


Yeah and how many of these are actual combat and not support troops, americas troops are mainly made up of support troops.


These are simply combat troops. America has some 2 million men in its military overall.


Yeah and would the american people stand for it?


Yes, they would.


Yes guys in Mig-29's with pilots who are of what calibre and recieve what level of training?


We've flown exercises with German MiG-29 pilots who are better then most Russians. We've had our own pilots fly these things. We know the MiG's capabilities completely. Our simulations are very realistic, and most of our pilots know these planes better then Russians who fly them.


Funny last time I checked werent the iraqi's using AK-74U'S and AK-47's? [//quote]

I've never heard of AK74U's being used. And what's your point? This isn't some great fighting force. The kill ratio against the Iraqis has been completely in America's favor.


Yes....shortly, how long's It going to take to fit the US task force?


I doubt it would be that long. If you really think it'll take so long, go take a look for yourself. If we went to war, and felt a real threat from Iranian sunburns, we'd have it.


Your still placeing the same faith in HARM as I am in the sunburn.


I never once called the HARM an ultimate, unstoppable weapon. It doesn't have to be. These SAM networks are vulnerable. The radar sites big and bulky.


How do you define , suspicious?
If this was that paraniod then there would be a pile of bodies in iraq and across the world thanks to green peace and just passers by.


There's really no reason for people going near a military base. They aren't kept in the middle of cities. Vehicles that don't slow down as they get close are suspicious.


Not really, the troops of 45 comando came under quite nasty mortar fire in iraq during their stay, one even landed in an armoury pile.


How many actually died? And you're talking about near an ubran environment in a makeshift camp in a warzone where the enemy can fire and retreat easily.


You make it sound like every nation has guards at every airport waiting to arrest an iranian.


No, I make it out like reality, where the Iranians can't just train people and ship them off to every corner of the world without anyone knowing.


...An air base does NOT have tech designed to track incomeing mortars.


A mortar isn't going to be able to hit anything important.


One suicide bomber gets a big hole in fence , with lots of troops or even just ONE well placed mortar could wreck havoc on the planes stored at the base and put them out of commision.


How is a hole going to do any of that? Iraqis with great numbers and a hostile environment can't infiltrate US bases, how are they going to do it in Germany?



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
First off, I'm not taking sides in this one. I'm just correcting some errors.

1) Suicide bombers have gotten onto bases in Iraq. In December one got on a base and blew up a chow hall.

2) The US is running out of troops. Army recruiting missed mission last month. All of those troops that are in Germany are rotating through Iraq, the Army even pulled a Brigade out of Korea to go on a tour of Iraq.

You have to remember that the troops can't stay in theater forever they need to rotate back home to take a break. In order to keep this many troops in Iraq you need to have an equal number in the rear ready to rotate in. You can't just send all the troops in at once. Without good recruiting, keeping a high level of troops in Iraq is not sustainable.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:07 PM
link   

1) Suicide bombers have gotten onto bases in Iraq. In December one got on a base and blew up a chow hall.


A rarity that was only possibly by dressing up as an Iraqi soldier.


2) The US is running out of troops. Army recruiting missed mission last month. All of those troops that are in Germany are rotating through Iraq, the Army even pulled a Brigade out of Korea to go on a tour of Iraq.


We can keep our troops in theatre a lot longer then a year. The idea of rotating soldiers is a luxury, not necessity. Troops didn't get to come off the frontlines in WW2 because they were tired.

And honestly, America kept a military multiple times the size of the one we currently have during the Cold War. To doubt the capability to get men is absurd.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 00PS
The Ability to Defeat the United States in War

Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis and Koreans of the DPRK are able to defeat the USA with an attack of opportunity.

How do they defend aginst global thermonuclear war?


will not be able to committ Americas fire power and boots on the ground to every region and she will be drug down into the ground.

What do you mean every region? Its only the iraq area and the north pacific. There's already massive troop pressence there.

even their superior fire power will be neutralized.

You can't 'neutralize' mobil armor and and unopposed airforce, especially not without an actual army. If the iranians can't defeat the americans in the field, then they are lost. They know this. They can't do like teh north vietnamese did, because they don't have the popular support, or the outside weapons supply. I have no doubt that the situation in iran could get bad enough that the US abandons it, iraq, syria, all of it. But the people in power now will not be better off afterwards, they'll be much weaker, and at teh mercy of the people they've been brutalizing for years. And some of those people are going to be fighting with american weapons and money.
So why in the heck would the leaders of any of these countries want to do this?

The strength of the USA as a sole superpower is a myth created by Western Media

So the nukes do not exist or there are no carrier battle groups or something?

The US wiped out iraq under hussein. The iranians couldn't defeat him, and the syrians are probably weaker than him. They can not win a war against the US, even if iraq was still under hussein and jordan and egypt joined in.


that being the case why doesn't the third world take the opportunity to strip the myth from the Americans.

Because the third world is weak, unmotivated, and incapable.

They'll lose more than they could actually gain even if they won all their wars. America would lose militarily, morally and financially.

And the mullahs will be better off how exactly? Because they made the americans 'look bad'?

edit to add
this is a long thread, i may have missed something. I really want to see an explananation as to how Nuke Detterence plays into this, because its being entirely ignored. The three countries mentioned have no power projection abilites, they are regional powers. And you posit china will supply north korea, but thats absurd. Its not the korean war, the chinese aren't all that interested in communism and aren't going to overcome nuke detterence to give aid to NK in a military adventure that at best results in a protracted war and ignominious US withdrawl.

I'm sure I missed it, but why isn't the US going to engage in global thermonuclear war, or at least a nuclear exchange with NK alone, in this situation?

[edit on 8-3-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
To defend my post, rotating troops is a necessity in an all volunteer Army. The US supported high troop level with a draft throughout most of the cold war. And the troops didn't get a rest in WWII because there was no choice, Germany and Japan were actual threats to the US.

My take on the topic of the thread, could the US defeat all these countries at the same time? Yes, with little difficulty.

Could the US conquer these countries? Not all at once.

The United States has the power to defeat any other country in the world but not the power to conquer them.

And for clarity, by conquer I mean total military and political victory. US troops occupying a foreign nation, with a US supported government in control, similar to Japan or Germany post WWII.

By defeat I mean military victory, no regime change but eliminating the country as a threat, along the lines of Iraq post Gulf War I.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
America could conquer them, we just aren't willing to. Honestly, if other military forces could do it in the past, why can't America? It makes no sense when people say that.

The reason we struggled with insurgency in Iraq is our political weaknesses, not military or economic ones. If we raised a few cities to the ground, or massacred rebels like Saddam did, do you honestly think they'd resist us anymore then they did him? This doesn't factor in the economic and social freedom we'd be bringing in with us.

The only thing limiting America is America.

As for rotating troops, how many military machines in the past did that? We claim to have professional army, so we should treat our soldiers like real soldiers, and not civillians.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:48 AM
link   
I agree with soldier. We are getting thin on troops. Yes we have Thermonukes but that's war against the world, not just one country. Nukes will devestate the planet, not just an army.

The USA has enough problems as it is in the world. If they try to gang up on Iran, Syria and NK many nations will not assist the U.S. and they'll have to go-it-alone. There will be no coalition of the willing...there will be the coalition of the watching and waiting to congratulate the victor.

To underestimate our enemy is to show the true weakness within...Disturbed Believer, do you respect the enemy or look down upon them? An avid warrior knows the difference between gloating in defeat before a battle is won and prepared caution to advance an army to victory.

Do you like the sound of that? I made it up myself!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Guess so.

Shows how much you know....



These are simply combat troops. America has some 2 million men in its military overall.

Those number of troops will be doing something important otherwise they wouldnt be there wouldnt they?



Yes, they would.

How can you be so sure of that?



We've flown exercises with German MiG-29 pilots who are better then most Russians. We've had our own pilots fly these things. We know the MiG's capabilities completely. Our simulations are very realistic, and most of our pilots know these planes better then Russians who fly them.

As you americans like to point out, russians get little flight time.
You've flown against people in war games but in actual combat have you flown against well trained pilots in a time of war?



I've never heard of AK74U's being used. And what's your point? This isn't some great fighting force. The kill ratio against the Iraqis has been completely in America's favor.

Most of the middle east use AK series.
The kill ratio in iraq doesnt prove anything other than america has more weapons.




I doubt it would be that long. If you really think it'll take so long, go take a look for yourself. If we went to war, and felt a real threat from Iranian sunburns, we'd have it.

It takes weeks to get new tech in and out, weeks america wouldnt have if they wanted shock and awe tactics.



I never once called the HARM an ultimate, unstoppable weapon. It doesn't have to be. These SAM networks are vulnerable. The radar sites big and bulky.

Nethier have I said sunburn is unstoppable.
Same with sunburn, put the carrier out of commision, dont need to sink it but to put it out of air flying capability and america's lost a big force multiplyer.



There's really no reason for people going near a military base. They aren't kept in the middle of cities. Vehicles that don't slow down as they get close are suspicious.

There is a reason to walk past it, besides MP's dont just shoot on site.
Cars dont need to slow down near it.



How many actually died?

None thanks to the troops quick thinking, the ammount of dead is not what is at question the ability to hit a military base is.
Although 3 black watch troops with them died.



And you're talking about near an ubran environment in a makeshift camp in a warzone where the enemy can fire and retreat easily.

Its easy in any base...



No, I make it out like reality, where the Iranians can't just train people and ship them off to every corner of the world without anyone knowing.

No your makeing it out like iran has no capabilities what so ever.



A mortar isn't going to be able to hit anything important.

Is a plane important?



How is a hole going to do any of that? Iraqis with great numbers and a hostile environment can't infiltrate US bases, how are they going to do it in Germany?

Same way same style, whats stopping them?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer, If we treat our soldiers like "real soldiers" as you call it we won't have any soldiers left. We have an all volunteer Army so you can't treat them like conscripts. The only way the American people, to include the Armed Forces, will accept a prolonged deployment and occupation of another country is if that country directly threatened the United States. Soldiers accept the Iraq war because they know they only go for a year.

Now before you pull the whole "they need to act like real soldiers" BS, keep in mind that it is the fact that our military is all volunteer that makes it so powerful. We would not have the same capabilities with a conscript army.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   
The only way that Iran, Syria and North Korea (even China) can win a war with the United States is in the mind of a demented person's dreams!

Also, on the paper of a demented person's writings or the typing of word's on a demented person's word processor!

HEH!! Put that in your banana and smoke it!

[edit on 9/3/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Disturbed Deliverer, If we treat our soldiers like "real soldiers" as you call it we won't have any soldiers left. We have an all volunteer Army so you can't treat them like conscripts. The only way the American people, to include the Armed Forces, will accept a prolonged deployment and occupation of another country is if that country directly threatened the United States. Soldiers accept the Iraq war because they know they only go for a year.

Now before you pull the whole "they need to act like real soldiers" BS, keep in mind that it is the fact that our military is all volunteer that makes it so powerful. We would not have the same capabilities with a conscript army.


You don't seem to actually understand the concept of a professional army. That means that being a soldier is the guy's life. It doesn't mean its a part time job like it is now. You pamper a conscript army, not a professional army. Conscript armies aren't made for long deployment, professional ones are.


Those number of troops will be doing something important otherwise they wouldnt be there wouldnt they?


They're there for long term strategic purposes, not for anything immediate. Most are just where they are because they were left there at the end of the Cold War. Russia isn't capable of invading Western Europe on short term notice anymore, so there isn't exactly an immediate reason to have 70,000 troops in Germany. Same with the troops in Japan. The troops in Korea could have been removed decades ago, as the South Korean military has become more then capable of handling the North. We leave them there simply in case there's a war we have an excuse to enter. We have no real reason to do the fighting, though.


As you americans like to point out, russians get little flight time.
You've flown against people in war games but in actual combat have you flown against well trained pilots in a time of war?


No one else has even flown against poorly trained pilots in actual war.


It takes weeks to get new tech in and out, weeks america wouldnt have if they wanted shock and awe tactics.


Our carriers can operate well out of Iran's range. It's more than enough to have appropriate air cover for a defensive role. If we were playing offensive, we could take as long as we want to just bomb the hell out of Iran well out of their range.


Nethier have I said sunburn is unstoppable.
Same with sunburn, put the carrier out of commision, dont need to sink it but to put it out of air flying capability and america's lost a big force multiplyer.


There's a huge difference between a well guarded carrier and an immovable radar site.


None thanks to the troops quick thinking, the ammount of dead is not what is at question the ability to hit a military base is.
Although 3 black watch troops with them died.


If you're fighting a war, reality is that a few lucky shots aren't going to do anything, and you're in a very good position. You're basiing this argument off of some idiotic idea that the number one goal is to prevent loss of life. You're talking about minor wars we've seen in the past few decades, not true, all out war.


No your makeing it out like iran has no capabilities what so ever.


Offensively they don't. Defensively they are very limited. No one in the world could face America heads-up.


Is a plane important?


A mortar doesn't have the accuracy, range or firepower to do damage to ap lane. These aren't just lined up in a row right near a little fence for them to eye-up and shoot at.


Same way same style, whats stopping them?


They've been unable to do it. They've never gotten near any of our major equipment. There's a large difference between sneaking in one guy in a crowded messhole where Iraqis are normally around, and getting an Arab in a base in Germany. Not just in the base, either, but getting near million dollar pieces of equipment.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join