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.

 

Can the U.S.A. fight on two fronts Iran and North Korea!!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
If we can fight on two fronts how will it effect the draft. Would we fight 3 wars all at once.



ape

posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
yes easily, if we dont occupy those countries and enable revolutions to occur which would happen in iran (maybe ) if we disable the government by bombardment, but that could backfire like it did on saddam ( when saddam attacked iran thinking he would have the support of certain groups in iran only to find find massive resistance from these groups.)

but if you're talking about brute force without occupation I think the US could easily do it, the US specialty is total destruction but it's hardly ever used.

[edit on 16-12-2006 by ape]



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Yes could easily Fight Three Wars, remeber US has plenty of Allys dispite what the ney sayers would have you believe.

Occupation could be a different story though, but Fighting Modern wars, NP !



posted on Dec, 16 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   


posted by NumberCruncher

Yes [the US] could easily Fight Three Wars, remember the US has plenty of Allies despite what the naysayers would have you believe. Occupation would be a different story though, but Fighting Modern wars, NP! [Edited by Don W]



There was a lot of “overkill” in Iraq War 1. But we followed the Powell Doctrine - deploying massive forces - which resulted in fewer casualties because the enemy is overwhelmed. You can attack in strength across several fronts at one time. It worked and it worked well. We quit after 100 hours of on-the-ground combat. While some critics say we should have proceeded on to Baghdad, the fact is we had accomplished our goal, the liberation of Kuwait, and our UN Mandate had run out. There was no strong impulse in the Bush41 government to continue the war past the 100 hours.

We - the coalition - were walking on egg-shells too, over the possibility of an Israeli strike on Iraq. We did not want that. I hold to the “fact” our quick deployment of the Patriot anti-missile system was a total failure, militarily, but an instant success politically, thanks to long in the tooth Scuds, to Iraqi ineptness, the cooperative media and some very welcome good luck.

Iraq 2 looked to be a re-run of Iraq 1, but this time, we’d stay on long enough to topple Saddam and his two sons, personally. Iraq 2 began prematurely when information later found to be wrong, pointed to the 3 men being at a bunker type fortress in Baghdad. We launched Operation Decapitation on March 18, 2003. It now seems likely that our source was a double agent working for Saddam. Although our ground forces lost the element of surprise - intended to preserve valuable infrastructure - it turned out we were able to secure all the important way-points used to ship Iraqi oil.

By May 1, we were able to call a cessation to hostilities and to proclaim “Mission Accomplished.” it was at that point in time the American failure in Iraq began. Bush43, Cheney and Rumsfeld had chosen to follow Ahmed Chalabi over our own CIA and other intelligence sources. Chalabi, a quintessential confidence man, getting $250,000 a month to report to the Rumsfeld DoD intelligence unit on Iraq. Chalabi fed Bush43, Cheney and Rumsfeld exactly the information they wanted to hear. We know the consequences of that case of bad judgment. The Bush43 War Team ignored the CIA and by-passed the State Department. We are now stumbling around trying to find a way out of the quagmire without losing all the face we have left, which is not much. 3,000 KIA and counting. Thank you B43 and team.

We now have 140,000 men out of the 400,000 men the Army in Iraq. (I do not know the USMC contribution nor its total strength). I think we may have only 5,000 men in Afghan, were we have persuaded NATO to send in forces in strength. I don’t know what price we paid for that 4,000 mile journey away from home, but you can be sure we have paid and paid well. In 2000, we had 38,000 men in South Korea, but I have not heard how many are still there. That force, by the bye, is one of the major irritants North Korea complains about. We have muffed that - NK - to the point they now have or had at least 1 nuclear device. Note: a nuclear device is not a nuclear weapon. The former is easy to detonate, the latter is a work of art.

If we have learned anything at all, it is that “fighting modern wars, NP” as Mr N/C asserts, is just the beginning and not the end. Iraq 2 is the perfect storm as far as “fighting modern wars, NP” is concerned. I think Mr N/C is confusing Panama and the illegal abduction of Noriega or the botched invasion of Granada to rescue 400 medical school students with war. The two are not at all the same. The first two were police actions, but the Iraq 2 was a genuine war.

Mr N/C says we have “allies” to go with us and to do their fair share of the heavy lifting. You don’t have to be very bright to see the US has made a deal with our so-called allies, “We [the US] will take the heat, you get the soft touches.” We have no idea how much money we have paid to each of our so-called allies.

Tony Blair has lost his post as leader of the UK’s Labor Party and was forced to step down as Prime Minster for backing Bush43. They gave him until May, 2007, to keep it decent in part but more importantly, to avoid a vote of confidence which would have more likely than not, resulted in the Labor government falling and an early election being called. Labor had just lost half its majority in the early 2006 election and were in no mood to risk another rebuff at the polls.

From an outside source.


Non-U.S. military forces contributing armed forces to the Coalition in Iraq. The 22 countries are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. The UK is the largest contingent, at 7,200 men.

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); The Netherlands (Mar. 2005); Hungary (Mar. 2005); Singapore (Mar. 2005); Norway (Oct. 2005); Ukraine (Dec. 2005); Japan (July 17, 2006); Italy (Nov. 2006)

1) Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland had earlier claimed that it would withdraw all soldiers by the end of 2006. It however extended the mandate of its contingent through at least mid-2007.
2) Countries which have recently reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: South Korea is planning to withdraw up to 1000 soldiers by the end of 2006. Poland withdrew 700 soldiers in Feb. 2005. Between May 2005 and May 2006, the United Kingdom reduced the size of its contingent by 1,300. The United Kingdom also is planning to reduce significantly the size of its contingent by the end of 2007.
3) Countries supporting UNAMI: Fiji (150); Georgia (550) On November 27, 2006, UK Defense Secretary Des Browne announced that Britain's contribution to operations in Iraq would be significantly reduced by next year's end. August 3, 2006, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld described the coalition in Iraq as composed of 34 allies plus the US. Since that time, Japan has withdrawn all of its forces from Iraq.
www.globalsecurity.org...



[edit on 12/16/2006 by donwhite]



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join