Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US military.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Just how strong is the US military.
In some posts they are going to loss to Iran,they are already losing in Iraq.
How can the US be a super power if all you guys say is they are going to lose what ever happens.




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by steve99
Just how strong is the US military.
In some posts they are going to loss to Iran,they are already losing in Iraq.
How can the US be a super power if all you guys say is they are going to lose what ever happens.


Just because a country is a superpower ( "sovereign state with dominant status on the globe and a very advanced military" according to the Wikitionary), doesn't mean it can do anything it wants to. It just means that it will have a fair chance of getting people to change their minds, and have a little bite to back up their bark.
That's pretty much the whole shebang about being a superpower.

As far as Iran/Iraq is going. The US will probably lose both unless the military is taken off the leash and allowed to do its job without the poli-chickens having their say in everything. In war, soldiers should judge a situation on what is good for the battle they are in, not by a bunch of rules and regulations set on them from a bunch of people who don't understand what goes on in a war like that being fought in Iraq, and would be fought in Iran.

Ok, that last part was a bit of a rant on my part, but I think it still is a valid statement, since most of the people around me think the same thing, and the thing is, were all Americans!



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:32 PM
link   
I dont mean this as an insult, but you really dont know much about how these things work

First up, you assume that the US is losing. But thats not my point. The point is that occupying and destroying are two entirely different things. In WAR, i.e. a military fight, the US is nearly unstoppable and an attack on Iran would decimate its military EASILY. But to occupy a nation like Iran would be nearly impossible. But that wouldnt be the goal.

The USA is very very very good at one thing: Destroying enemy militaries.

For you to confuse whats going on in Iraq with a military action against another military is ignorance.

Occupations as a rule dont work, never have.

WHEN the attack on Iran happens, you will see massive air attacks until Irans air defenses are utterly decimated. Then you will see a systematic termination of all of Irans nuclear and offensive military capabilities from the air. The only forces on the ground will be a handfull of special ops, thats it.

If you confuse that with the occupation of Iraq I dont know what to say. Oh, and if you actually take the time to sit and speak wioth soldiers returning from Iraq, I think they will tell you a different story than the "the US is losing" .



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Unless I am wrong we are still in Japan/Germany/Korea/Phillipines/Okinawa/Panama/Grenda...

Occupations work when done well.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:16 AM
link   


Occupations work when done well.


True, Occupations can work.

One factor that helps, is that the civilian population has been battered to the point of losing interest in fighting.

Take Japan for example. After years of fighting, then having many cities leveled by conventional means then atomic, the people in general had lost the will to keep fighting.

Makes occupation much easier when the population doesn't want to fight anymore.

Germany was the same. Years of fighting and having your cities leveled made most people realize that it was not in their best interest to keep going.

Germany was able to occupy France because afer many wars the French really didn't want to fight anymore. They had had enough in WW1, (I'm not trying to put down the French here) They realized that it wasn't worth many people dying.

In short, you can beat the military, but unless the population as a whole beaten, occupation won't work.



[edit on 21/3/06 by Skibum]


bih

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I dont mean this as an insult, but you really dont know much about how these things work

First up, you assume that the US is losing. But thats not my point. The point is that occupying and destroying are two entirely different things. In WAR, i.e. a military fight, the US is nearly unstoppable and an attack on Iran would decimate its military EASILY. But to occupy a nation like Iran would be nearly impossible. But that wouldnt be the goal.

The USA is very very very good at one thing: Destroying enemy militaries.

For you to confuse whats going on in Iraq with a military action against another military is ignorance.

Occupations as a rule dont work, never have.

WHEN the attack on Iran happens, you will see massive air attacks until Irans air defenses are utterly decimated. Then you will see a systematic termination of all of Irans nuclear and offensive military capabilities from the air. The only forces on the ground will be a handfull of special ops, thats it.

If you confuse that with the occupation of Iraq I dont know what to say. Oh, and if you actually take the time to sit and speak wioth soldiers returning from Iraq, I think they will tell you a different story than the "the US is losing" .


hmm did us win any wars??? I dont remember



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc
I dont mean this as an insult, but you really dont know much about how these things work

First up, you assume that the US is losing. But thats not my point. The point is that occupying and destroying are two entirely different things. In WAR, i.e. a military fight, the US is nearly unstoppable and an attack on Iran would decimate its military EASILY. But to occupy a nation like Iran would be nearly impossible. But that wouldnt be the goal.

The USA is very very very good at one thing: Destroying enemy militaries.

For you to confuse whats going on in Iraq with a military action against another military is ignorance.

Occupations as a rule dont work, never have.

WHEN the attack on Iran happens, you will see massive air attacks until Irans air defenses are utterly decimated. Then you will see a systematic termination of all of Irans nuclear and offensive military capabilities from the air. The only forces on the ground will be a handfull of special ops, thats it.

If you confuse that with the occupation of Iraq I dont know what to say. Oh, and if you actually take the time to sit and speak wioth soldiers returning from Iraq, I think they will tell you a different story than the "the US is losing" .


You should read my post again.I didn't say I thought we were losing I said that there are some posts that say the US would lose against Iran and are losing in Iraq. Believe me I know how it works. I don't think there is a possibility that the US would lose to Iran. Thats if the military is allowed to function like a military and not have to fight with one hand behind it's back. And I don't think the US is going to lose in Iraq and is not losing now. And I am not confusing a military action with occupation.
My question was"how strong is the US military". And the question was asked because of all the posts that I have read stating that it would lose to a third world country like Iran.

[edit on 21-3-2006 by steve99]

[edit on 21-3-2006 by steve99]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by steve99
Just how strong is the US military.
In some posts they are going to loss to Iran,they are already losing in Iraq.
How can the US be a super power if all you guys say is they are going to lose what ever happens.


We are as strong as any nation who has existed and then some. What makes us strong, training. Unfortunatly, we don't spend nearly (IMHO) on live training with troops across the board. I was in the Chari Force as an elisted man. I deployed with Rangers and SF and others of the other service. We are woefully undertrained for combat as troopers in this branch. That being said, can we go toe to toe with ANY nation and win...yes. Any group of nations....maybe. The world ...no. We could in theory win, but the world would be a smoldering slag heap uninhabitable for a half life of 10,000 years...


FNF

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
OneGodJesus - US is by far not the strongest nation that ever existed.
The British, Roman, Greek-Macedonian nations/empires were far more impressive for example.

Also part of the reaosn why Iraq is in such a state is that the US don't have the experience/knowledge required to occupy a country. The US became so 'powerfull' due to their economy, not through military achievements, so they never really developed in the required way.
The biggest mistake the US made was to disband the Iraqi police/military. By doing this they let chaos have breathing space while they reorganised everything. Policemen/soldiers generally work for whoever pays them.

Back to original topic - the US has the best military equipment in the world. Man for man they could beat Iran with ease, and probably every other nation. However, it's unlikely they will be successfull in Iran - sure they can blow up some tanks and stuff, but they will never win the hearts and minds of the people, which is by far more important.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by FNF
OneGodJesus - US is by far not the strongest nation that ever existed.
The British, Roman, Greek-Macedonian nations/empires were far more impressive for example.

Also part of the reaosn why Iraq is in such a state is that the US don't have the experience/knowledge required to occupy a country. The US became so 'powerfull' due to their economy, not through military achievements, so they never really developed in the required way.
The biggest mistake the US made was to disband the Iraqi police/military. By doing this they let chaos have breathing space while they reorganised everything. Policemen/soldiers generally work for whoever pays them.

Back to original topic - the US has the best military equipment in the world. Man for man they could beat Iran with ease, and probably every other nation. However, it's unlikely they will be successfull in Iran - sure they can blow up some tanks and stuff, but they will never win the hearts and minds of the people, which is by far more important.


Yeah yeah yeah...but we got cable tv....


BTW you have read the history books lately right? I remember Germany and Japan being whooped and we occupied them just fine.


I do agree however, about the disbanding the police force and military i Iraq. You get my kudos there for keen observation (if you didn't just pigeon it from somewhere else that is).



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The reason you are seeing so many threads on here about the US losing in Iraq, and potentially losing in Iran, is because there is quite a large anti-American, anti-Military, anti-war, anti-Bush Administration contingent here on ATS. I'm sure my post will be followed up by those very people denying my assertions. But that's neither here nor there.

Just because you read something on ATS, even if its said over and over again by countless people, doesn't make it true. In fact, a majority of the claims made on here are completely unsubstantiated. But that's all part of the conspiracy discussion- there isn't always going to be proof. But here I am wondering off topic. The second point I'm trying to make here is that there are few, if any, military "experts" on here. When someone says that the US will lose in Iran, they are making many assumptions. They are assuming that they know the full strength of the US military and how it is we will handle any military engagement with Iran. They also assume that they are fully aware of Iran's military might, and how they will respond to a US attack.

No one knows any of those things for sure, especially here on ATS. They may know some of those things, but not one knows all. In the end its all guesswork on their part, with a few "facts" thrown in to make it look good. But in the end, it almost always comes back to politics. And I know this isn't the board to be discussing politics on, so I will do my best to tred lightly. Basically you will find that the very same people who say that we will lose a war with Iran are the same ones who are against a war with Iran. Same goes for the situation in Iraq. The majority of these people have always been against this administration, and they are likely the same ones who predicted defeat in Afghanistan and were calling it a quagmire a month into the campaign.

So in the end what you're seeing on here about the US losing, or even winning for that matter, has its roots in the author's political persuasions. Take everything you read on here with a grain of salt, even what I'm telling you right now. Everyone, despite what they tell you, has their own agenda. It's your job to read every side of the argument on here, research as much as possible, never ignore history, and ultimately make your own decision and form your own opinion on that. So when you read someone's post on here saying that Iran will mop the floor with the US military in any invasion scenareo, read some of that member's other posts. You will often see a similar and consistent message, based on personal/political beliefs, throughout their writings.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   


You have voted Rasputin13 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Hit the nail on the head.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
You have voted Rasputin13 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join