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.

 

Why the US needs to go into Iran NOW with all guns blazing

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   
First off, i’d like to thank The_Voice for giving me the impetus to write this article on the US’s ability to fight and win conflicts on it’s own terms or on the terms of the particular bad guy they’re fighting against on any given day.

The other day, he made this prophetic comment in a thread about the US in Asia, and the possibility of the US having to fight on Asian turf against, presumably, the Chinese; “As far as Im concerned, the US sucks at wars...” It was a very short statement, and it wasn’t elaborated on. Neither did he back it up with any concepts relating to the study of international relations and world politics. But he didn’t really need to, did he?

Put plain and simple, the US has indeed, historically, sucked at fighting and winning wars.

The Chinese ground the US led UN forces to a standstill in Korea - the US couldn't win the war on the ground in Vietnam (nor the did the country as a whole have the stamina to last it out in Vietnam - the Americans didn't despose Saddam in 1991; they merely booted the Iraqi's out of Kuwait - the Americans left Somalia with their tales between their legs - if you remember, the Americans didn't technically win a war in Afghanistan (it was a war, in the traditional sense of the word, but for the crucial first months of the conflict, they only had army special forces and the CIA on the ground working together with the Northern Alliance to root the Taliban out of the major cities. Afghanistan wasn't secured on the ground, which is one of the reasons the Taliban are now coming back into play in the South of the country) - then you had Iraq. The Americans went all the way this time - defeating Iraq's conventional forces on the ground, securing the entire country and the capital in a matter of weeks. Then they topped that off with the capture of Saddam....but three years later, the Americans are still in Iraq, fighting a bunch of [OFFENSIVE ETHNIC LABLE REMOVED] with AKs and mortars.

What I want to briefly discuss now is why the US’s potential foes no longer respect the United States of America. There’s a Russian proverb that goes along the lines of “If you fear me, you respect me.” That’s what the US requires now; some respect from Europe, the Middle East, Russia and Asia.

We all the know the Americans are contemplating invading Iran; what they need to do is go the whole hog this time. No pussy-footing around; if you're gonna go to war with another country, use all the aces you've got up your sleeve. Whatever Donald's faults, I respect the man for what he is - a master military strategist and politician. But it appears the Rumsfeld Pentagon's got some sort of hard-on for special forces and other unconventional weapons systems and processes. The Americans, if they're going to go into Iraq, need to put a good number of armoured and mechanized regular and national guard units on the ground. The rest of the world will be left with no misunderstanding that the Americans aren't ready to commit to a fight and win it. Wars aren't supposed to be fair or fun - you're supposed to fight them and pick up the pieces afterward.

We live in a rough world my friends. It’d be nice if we didn’t have to fight wars for political reasons or resources, but that’s the way of life. We need those resources (oil, for example) to fuel our cars, public transport, planes etc. Those same people who protested so vocally against the War in Iraq, undoubtedly drive cars and undoubtedly sit around in pubs on the weekends bitching to their friends about the price of petrol at the pump. In a stable world, you simply can’t have unstable and erratic governments sitting on top the world’s largest oil reserves. That’s partly why Saddam had to go, and that’s partly why the current government in Iran needs to go - by force if necessary.

This is the nature of real politics - if you show weakness (in the US’s case, an inability to fully commit to and win wars), your foes will jump on you.

[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:53 PM
link   
Well considering that Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq have all been fought amoungst civillians you can't exactly 'win' a war so to speak. Unless you just bombed the living hell out of a country and wiped it off the map you can't win a war... but you can't lose it either. You end up with a stalemate.

The USA has the capacity to knock any country off the map within 45 minutes (depending if they use Nuclear weapons or not) and that is why, along with technlology, they are the superpower.

And I don't think the US is contemplating invading Iran... I think it has already been decided



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeoldehomer
Well considering that Vietnam, Somalia and Iraq have all been fought amoungst civillians you can't exactly 'win' a war so to speak. Unless you just bombed the living hell out of a country and wiped it off the map you can't win a war... but you can't lose it either. You end up with a stalemate.

The USA has the capacity to knock any country off the map within 45 minutes (depending if they use Nuclear weapons or not) and that is why, along with technlology, they are the superpower.

And I don't think the US is contemplating invading Iran... I think it has already been decided


Nothing's a certainty. I doubt the US would go into Iran now, what with the raging civil war in Iraq and the approaching summer heat. They'll leave it until later in the year.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
We all the know the Americans are contemplating invading Iran


Oh really? Please provide one shred of evidence that America is considering INVADING Iran. That implies ground troops, LOTS of them, and a draft more than likely.

Now limited strikes against their nuclear program- maybe, if Iran won't come clean with the IAEA. And even limited strikes are risky, most likely non-fulfilling, and at max will only set the Iranian program back for some years.

[edit on 19-3-2006 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueAmerican



Now limited strikes against their nuclear program- maybe, if Iran won't come clean with the IAEA. And even limited strikes are risky, most likely non-fulfilling, and at max will only set the Iranian program back for some years.


and could very well be hard to verify as to the total effectiveness of the strikes in absolutely stopping their ability to create a weapon. As I understand it, one has to only shred a portion of the production infrastructure, but I have also heard that some of those facilities may be buried deep, deep under any number of Iran's mountain ranges (sorry about all the "weasal words" but I don't have time to look up the links to this info and I know that is an ATS no-no...)


That is another thing many who are for "invasion" don't seem to be considering: the terrain in Iran is a great deal different than Iraq...tons of mountainous terrain...just look at a map for that one.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
Lanton, your statement "Put plain and simple, the US has indeed, historically, sucked at fighting and winning wars, " is about as far from the truth as it is possible to get. Historically, the U.S. is great at winning wars, but lousy at winning the peace. I can't think of any single war the U.S. has ever lost when they have been allowed to fight.

You cite Korea as an example of where the Chinese fought us to a standstill, but you are dead wrong. We were kicking the Chinese in the butt big time when that war ended. Why do you think they wanted a cease fire? Because they were winning?, not likely! You cite Vietnam as another example and again you are dead wrong. Militarily we could have won that war within 2 weeks if we had been allowed to fight it like a war. Somalia, our dear President Clinton pulled the boys out because he was unwilling to support them. Nope, you are just totally off the mark.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
First off, i’d like to thank The_Voice for giving me the impetus to write this article on the US’s ability to fight and win conflicts on it’s own terms or on the terms of the particular bad guy they’re fighting against on any given day.

The other day, he made this prophetic comment in a thread about the US in Asia, and the possibility of the US having to fight on Asian turf against, presumably, the Chinese; “As far as Im concerned, the US sucks at wars...” It was a very short statement, and it wasn’t elaborated on. Neither did he back it up with any concepts relating to the study of international relations and world politics. But he didn’t really need to, did he?

Put plain and simple, the US has indeed, historically, sucked at fighting and winning wars.



If the US did indeed suck at fighting wars, let me assure you my friend that it wouldln't be the only super power at the moment.


Originally posted by Lanton
The Chinese ground the US led UN forces to a standstill in Korea - the US couldn't win the war on the ground in Vietnam (nor the did the country as a whole have the stamina to last it out in Vietnam - the Americans didn't despose Saddam in 1991; they merely booted the Iraqi's out of Kuwait - the Americans left Somalia with their tales between their legs - if you remember, the Americans didn't technically win a war in Afghanistan (it was a war, in the traditional sense of the word, but for the crucial first months of the conflict, they only had army special forces and the CIA on the ground working together with the Northern Alliance to root the Taliban out of the major cities. Afghanistan wasn't secured on the ground, which is one of the reasons the Taliban are now coming back into play in the South of the country) - then you had Iraq. The Americans went all the way this time - defeating Iraq's conventional forces on the ground, securing the entire country and the capital in a matter of weeks. Then they topped that off with the capture of Saddam....but three years later, the Americans are still in Iraq, fighting a bunch of [REMOVED OFFENSIVE ETHNIC LABLE] with AKs and mortars.


Lol, I can't believe you even said this. First, let me address the war scenarios you mentioned.

The Korean War:
- The US did not lose this war, as a matter of fact, they successfully accomplished their objective, which was to prevent North Korea from taking over South Korea.

Vietnam War:
- I agree, we didn't win there, but we didn't lose either.

Gulf War I:
- Saddam lost, we won. Iraq's forces were decimated withing weeks. The US could have gone straight to Baghdad if it wanted to. I don't see how you can even argue the US didn't win there.

Somalia:
- US was never fully at war in Somalia. We just had some peacekeepers there, that was all. The peacekeeping mission proved to be a fiasco though.

Afghanistan:
- Taliban was removed from power, thanks to the US. US won, period.

Gulf War II:
- Saddam's forces were once again defeated within weeks. We're now fighting an insurgency, but it's not a war in the traditional sense of the word.

Funny how you only mentioned those.

What about Kosovo? WWI? WWII? Panama? Spanish-American war? Mexican-American war? Cold war? British-American war?



Originally posted by Lanton

We all the know the Americans are contemplating invading Iran; what they need to do is go the whole hog this time. No pussy-footing around; if you're gonna go to war with another country, use all the aces you've got up your sleeve. Whatever Donald's faults, I respect the man for what he is - a master military strategist and politician. But it appears the Rumsfeld Pentagon's got some sort of hard-on for special forces and other unconventional weapons systems and processes. The Americans, if they're going to go into Iraq, need to put a good number of armoured and mechanized regular and national guard units on the ground. The rest of the world will be left with no misunderstanding that the Americans aren't ready to commit to a fight and win it. Wars aren't supposed to be fair or fun - you're supposed to fight them and pick up the pieces afterward.


Do you really think Iran merits a full out war?



Originally posted by Lanton
This is the nature of real politics - if you show weakness (in the US’s case, an inability to fully commit to and win wars), your foes will jump on you.


You need to understand this isn't as easy as it sounds. You can't just go all out on a country that's not even a direct threat to you.




[edit on 20-3-2006 by NuclearHead]

[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   
There's a view, shared with much of the Islamic world, that the United States is a military weakling;

1. There was the blunder at Desert One in 1980
2. Reagan's decision to withdraw troops from Beiru after the bombing of the embassy
3. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia after a handful of casulaties
4. A decade of ineffective air action against Iraq
5. Extremely weak military responses to the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the USS Cole attack
6. The Afghan war, which was regarded by Americans as a success but was seen by most fo the Islamic world as simply another half-hearted, incomplete mission
7. The Iraq war, where the Americans beat a third-rate army and are now beind dicked around by a bunch of [REMOVED OFFENSIVE ETHNIC LABLE] with AKs and mortars

There's a latent sense that the United States lacks both the power and the moral character to impose its will in the long run. There was the Korean War, the U.S. defeat in Vietnam and then the failure to depose Saddam in 1991.


[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
There's a view, shared with much of the Islamic world, that the United States is a military weakling;

7. The Iraq war, where the Americans beat a third-rate army and are now beind dicked around by a bunch of [REMOVED OFFENSIVE ETHNIC LABLE] with AKs and mortars


That's because we don't let the troops do their job. We're at the mercy of a very vocal bunch of apologists and sympathizers that have a microscope on every little thing we do in Iraq.

We have to "fight fair" while the "[REMOVED OFFENSIVE ETHNIC LABLE]", as you put it, laugh at our notion that somehow we're the moral superior because we follow rules that they spit on.

[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Interesting thread, I'm not saying I agree with you, not at all, but one thing I really disagree with is your coinage of a highly offensive ethnic slur.

This is disgusting, if I were a moderator, I would ban you, if I were a semitic person, I would be deeply disgusted, its things like this that turn moderate religious people into extremists, whether Christian, Muslim or Jew.





[edit on 20-3-2006 by DrBones666]

[edit on 20-3-2006 by DrBones666]

[edit on 20-3-2006 by DrBones666]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
There's a view, shared with much of the Islamic world, that the United States is a military weakling;

1. There was the blunder at Desert One in 1980
2. Reagan's decision to withdraw troops from Beiru after the bombing of the embassy
3. The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Somalia after a handful of casulaties
4. A decade of ineffective air action against Iraq
5. Extremely weak military responses to the bombing of the embassies in Africa and the USS Cole attack
6. The Afghan war, which was regarded by Americans as a success but was seen by most fo the Islamic world as simply another half-hearted, incomplete mission
7. The Iraq war, where the Americans beat a third-rate army and are now beind dicked around by a bunch of [REMOVED OFFENSIVE ETHNIC LABLE] with AKs and mortars

There's a latent sense that the United States lacks both the power and the moral character to impose its will in the long run. There was the Korean War, the U.S. defeat in Vietnam and then the failure to depose Saddam in 1991.


But the US deposed of Saddam in 2003 didn't they? They ran right through the country within 3 weeks didn't they? They also forced the Taliban out of Afghanistan didn't they?

The USA over ran Afghanistan. Many people believe that part of Al-Queda's reason for attacking the USA was to show the world that, not only could they beat Russia, but they could also defeat the US. Well they were horribly wrong. The Taliban and Al-Queda never stood a chance against the USA in Uniformed combat (eg. Not hiding in a house then blowing yourself up in civillian clothes). It happened in Fallujah too. 4,000 Insurgent Deaths vs 32 US deaths. Somalia had some crazy amount like 19 US deaths vs 20,000 - 40,000 rebel deaths. The US army is the strongest in the world and Iran does not have a chance.

[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Please take notice I have purged the offensive ethnic names from the previous posts, please refrain from this behavior from here on out.

Thank you.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Lanton
There's a view, shared with much of the Islamic world, that the United States is a military weakling;

7. The Iraq war, where the Americans beat a third-rate army and are now beind dicked around by a bunch of [REMOVED OFFENSIVE ETHNIC LABLE] with AKs and mortars


That's because we don't let the troops do their job. We're at the mercy of a very vocal bunch of apologists and sympathizers that have a microscope on every little thing we do in Iraq.

We have to "fight fair" while the "[REMOVED OFFENSIVE ETHNIC LABLE]", as you put it, laugh at our notion that somehow we're the moral superior because we follow rules that they spit on.

[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]



So you call torturing prisoners and killing civilians playing by the rules? DU rounds by the rules? White Phosphourus by the rules? You make the rules as you see fit, then when you get your butts kicked by a bunch of peseants with old school russian weaponry you whine like little babies....uuuuu, not faiiiiiir, nuke-em mommy!!!!

Bwahahaha, RIDICULOUS, your turtle like soldiers with 50kg of equipment in the middle of the desert....YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE ! [YET ANOTHER BAD NAME REMOVED]! Sitting Ducks! Go back to sea world!



[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 07:12 AM
link   
Just for the record..nukunuku. My request to refrain from lables with negative connotations included just outright non-ethnic secular name-calling.

Please refrain from name-calling.

[edit on 3-20-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The US may have defeated Saddam's army, but the US is still there, fighting an insurgency.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

So you call torturing prisoners and killing civilians playing by the rules? DU rounds by the rules? White Phosphourus by the rules? You make the rules as you see fit, then when you get your butts kicked by a bunch of peseants with old school russian weaponry you whine like little babies....uuuuu, not faiiiiiir, nuke-em mommy!!!!

Bwahahaha, RIDICULOUS, your turtle like soldiers with 50kg of equipment in the middle of the desert....YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE ! [YET ANOTHER BAD NAME REMOVED]! Sitting Ducks! Go back to sea world!

War's not supposed to be fair or humane. War's about defeating the enemy and making them think twice about engaging you in conflict again. I don't see what's wrong with employing DU rounds, white phosphourus or other similiar weapon's systems.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton

War's not supposed to be fair or humane. War's about defeating the enemy and making them think twice about engaging you in conflict again. I don't see what's wrong with employing DU rounds, white phosphourus or other similiar weapon's systems.


Well then there should be no problem in the middle-east countries having whatever weapons they deem necessary for their use during warfare, right?

Kind of takes the wind out of our sails, now doesn't it? Don't you just hate those Catch-22's?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Lanton

War's not supposed to be fair or humane. War's about defeating the enemy and making them think twice about engaging you in conflict again. I don't see what's wrong with employing DU rounds, white phosphourus or other similiar weapon's systems.


Well then there should be no problem in the middle-east countries having whatever weapons they deem necessary for their use during warfare, right?

Kind of takes the wind out of our sails, now doesn't it? Don't you just hate those Catch-22's?

So you don't see the difference between nerve gas, or low-yield nukes and phosphourus. Do you even know the origins of WP or that despite it being classified as a chemical agent, it's been used by armed forces worldwide in numerous conflicts (used a lot against the Japanese in the Pacific during WWII)?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I thought the same thing about 3 months ago but now i think becasue of china and russia we should go the diplomatic route




War's not supposed to be fair or humane. War's about defeating the enemy and making them think twice about engaging you in conflict again. I don't see what's wrong with employing DU rounds, white phosphourus or other similiar weapon's systems.


So if some invading army came running in firing radoiactive rounds and white hot rounds you would see there side and see that they only want your country not attck them again?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton




So you call torturing prisoners and killing civilians playing by the rules? DU rounds by the rules? White Phosphourus by the rules? You make the rules as you see fit, then when you get your butts kicked by a bunch of peseants with old school russian weaponry you whine like little babies....uuuuu, not faiiiiiir, nuke-em mommy!!!!

Bwahahaha, RIDICULOUS, your turtle like soldiers with 50kg of equipment in the middle of the desert....YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE ! [YET ANOTHER BAD NAME REMOVED]! Sitting Ducks! Go back to sea world!

War's not supposed to be fair or humane. War's about defeating the enemy and making them think twice about engaging you in conflict again. I don't see what's wrong with employing DU rounds, white phosphourus or other similiar weapon's systems.


Say that to the liberals and they'll tear you to pieces.

I understand your point, and it does make sense. But we currently live in a world governed by certain rules that shouldn't be broken. There's something called the Geneva Convention. Maybe you should do some research on it.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join