A few thoughts for those who think engaging Iran militarily would be disastrous for America

page: 13
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformorePlease. Go and read a history book or find some decent WW2 historical sites on the net and learn about what happened instead of posting what you think you know.


The U.S. didn't save Europe, but they helped out a LOT; without the U.S. mass manufacturing capacity, imports, man power and various other resources, the war would have either be greatly prolonged or lost on the western front. The question of Russia is a different topic, and the eastern front would have been greatly decided on how fast the Germans could conquer their western enemies, and how fast their manufacturing capacity could recover and evolve to the latest machinery such as jet engine aircraft or possibly nuclear weaponry. In the end though, Germany beat themselves and their fate was sealed inevitably probably before American intervention.

[edit on 26-9-2007 by yellowcard]




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
The U.S. didn't save Europe, but they helped out a LOT; without the U.S. mass manufacturing capacity, imports, man power and various other resources, the war would have either be greatly prolonged or lost on the western front. The question of Russia is a different topic, and the eastern front would have been greatly decided on how fast the Germans could conquer their western enemies, and how fast their manufacturing capacity could recover and evolve to the latest machinery such as jet engine aircraft or possibly nuclear weaponry. In the end though, Germany beat themselves and their fate was sealed inevitably probably before American intervention.


At last! A sensible post about WW2! Thank you!

There was, to be frank, no way in hell Hitler was going to roll over Russia. It was a straight out fight between German resources and manpower and Russian ones. The Russians actually had territory they could afford to concede whilst rebuilding and re-equipping. The Germans never really had that luxury.

Britain was slow to mobilise the Empire at the start of WW2 but also had the resources available there to duke it out if need be. People seem to forget that the RAF was sending out a thousand bombers regularly over targets, and that the Royal Navy was the largest, most capable and most powerful navy on the planet at the time.

What America did was provide material and technical assistance that was out of the range of German attacks and as such could breach the gaps in production and provide an established industrial base. After that the US assisted with bombing raids of its own and with the manpower to carry out the Normandy landings.

America's contribution to the fighting in Europe in WW2 should never be forgotten, and the assistance provided in material resources and equipment certainly helped to shorten the war.

However, even without US intervention Hitler had been fought to a standstill at the channel, and the Russians had moved entire factories and production lines out of the range of German bombers and had a massive strategic reserve of manpower to call on. The British had an atomic weapons programme that was equal to that of the Nazi's, so its likely that the two powers may have developed nukes at the same time. The British were also developing jet aircraft at a similar pace to the Germans.

Without US intervention its likely that the war would have gone on for four or five years more, but the outcome would have been the same for Germany. Europe would have been devastated and Germany and other Eastern European countries would have been annexed into the USSR, possibly with only France and the Scandinavian Countries still existing as seperate entities. Britain would have retained its empire, and the world map would look slightly different than it does today.

[edit] - I realise this was way off topic. Its just that there is a whole slew of ignorance about WW2, and maybe it deserves its own topic. I do apologise.


[edit on 27/0907/07 by neformore]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

HIFIGUY wrote
Kindred linked a great video worth watching...

Before we go marching off to war, and killing people on all sides including our own troops, take a close look at the back peddling and the Lies this administration has put out..

After watching this, its hard for me not to be just pissed as hell..but dammit Truth will prevail The lie will come back to bite, and justice will correct. Not by this administration..but by those who walk a higher standard.

Before we say Iran, Lets recall history for a minute...


Thanks
Well put. It appears that people are so set in their ways and are obviously not interested in the truth. How can anyone believe anything the Bush admin says after all the blatant lies they have told? Now they are using the same propaganda tactics to drum up public support for an attack on Iran.

The Bush admins - compulsive liars video:

video.google.com...

Why are people arguing over who contributed most to winning WW2. This thread is about IRAN. Please stick to the topic.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:07 AM
link   
The US confidence in their military supremacy will be it's downfall.

To say it as simple as possible;

"From within the once proud Eagle of the land will succumb.
Its pride and quest for power and control caused it to plant deception and corruption,
spelling its own doom - coming from within."



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by LoneGunMan
 


Human? Not sure if he is.. But it seems he has the mentality of a 12 year old by that comment he made. "By bombing us to the stone age" you will be bombing Americas reputation & respect back to the stone age, not to mention your economy.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Stellar I'm done arguing with your communist views because its a waste of


Define what you mean by 'communist' as i know that everyone means something different.



everyones time and i got a warning for over quoting you when you had done it ten times more than me.


If you wish to quote the entire text of the post you are supposed to quote no more than four lines at a time . I know it can look silly if you wish to make silly one line responses to four lines but that's the rules as they were passed on to me.


I know your views and you know mine so lets just leave it at that.


I wish i could but since your views does not in my opinion correspond well or at all with reality i can't do much other than respond when i happen to be reading a given thread. As always the best way to prevent me from responding to your posts is for you to at least study school and general history textbooks. If you did that odds are i will have MUCH less reason to intervene and will have to do far more sourcing and explaining when i do still happen to disagree.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by yellowcard
The U.S. didn't save Europe, but they helped out a LOT; without the U.S. mass manufacturing capacity, imports, man power and various other resources, the war would have either be greatly prolonged or lost on the western front.


By late mid 1943 the Germans were largely spent and the Western Allies had at that point done relatively little to bring about that situation. The SU could and would not have won the war in 1945 had it not been for the air campaign against Germany and the Invasion of Italy and later Normandy but i do not believe that they could have lost it either. The German Electric boats probably came too late to still force the Brits out of the war and with them there slowly building up to a invasion somewhere the SU were set to have a very real long term advantage. At that stage even German Nuclear weapons were probably too late to change the course of the war.



The question of Russia is a different topic, and the eastern front would have been greatly decided on how fast the Germans could conquer their western enemies,


The fact that Germany managed to take France was never a likely scenario and i think too many people have presumed that it was preordained. Without that very quick victory the SU would probably have invaded Germany in late 1941 ( or later if the Germans were still having the best of it against France and Britain) and given that their arms were expressly designed with attack in mind they would have done far better against a enemy that were fighting desperately on two fronts.


and how fast their manufacturing capacity could recover and evolve to the latest machinery such as jet engine aircraft or possibly nuclear weaponry. In the end though, Germany beat themselves and their fate was sealed inevitably probably before American intervention.


Maybe i should have read your entire post before starting to disagree as i do agree with your last sentence if by intervention you mean their declaration of war on Germany
Mostly inevitably is probably more accurate but i don't wish to split any more hairs. ...

Thanks for posting and having apparently read a good number of books on the subject.


Stellar



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I am not mistaken ,the person who proposed the idea was Zhirinovsky, he is a joke, no one will listen to him. You think I don't know about Pak-Fa? I speak Russian fluently. Don't teach me about how my gov works and how the duma thinks, I have the mentality from that country, you don't. RUssia will NEVER consider selling S-400 to Iran, their most advanced AA, use a common sense.

Originally posted by FaxMachine

Originally posted by Odessit
I can bet you 100% that Russian gov will never consider selling S-400 to a country such as Iran. I know their mentality pretty well because I am from around there. Su-47 won't even for sale and Russia has only 1 of them. They already shut the idea of producing Su-47.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Odessit]


You are mistaken, they were talking about selling S-400 to iran in duma week ago or something like that, it was on the news. Also, i know Russians have not one but two Su-47's, and they are just for show. I mentioned it cause i wanted to compare Su-47 to F-22. The real plane that is coming to production 2008 is Sukhoi PAK FA, that will most likely be superior to all US planes. Look it up at wikipedia if you wan't more information, it will be the raptor killer.




[edit on 27-9-2007 by Odessit]

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Odessit]

[edit on 27-9-2007 by Odessit]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odessit
RUssia will NEVER consider selling S-400 to Iran, their most advanced AA, you a common sense.
[edit on 27-9-2007 by Odessit]


or course not ...Russia would never sell to Iran.


( Janes Defense 2001 )To make matters worse, Pentagon officials quietly confirmed that Russia has also sold S-300 missiles to Iran. According to defense intelligence officials, joint Russian/Iranian crews currently man two S-300 units just outside of Tehran and Iranian Army soldiers are now undergoing operational training on the advanced missile system in Moscow


S300, now..for the right amount of money in a Capitalist system, S400 around the corner. Its the way the world runs bro. Not Russia. Dont feel bad, we have an American firm possibly selling Arms to the other side in Iraq. America is one of the largest Arms exporters in the world.

I personally could care less about the S300 or S400 Missile defense system. Its defense. It stops ICBMS. Thats a good thing.

As far as war, we can barely handle Iraq, which is about 1/4th the size of Iran in Size. Visualize attacking Alaska. The Population of Iraq is about 28 Million while Iran is 70 Million.

Here in America, were already upset about the long tours of duty for our men, and were concerned about the body counts. The Iran thing isnt going to happen over night just like Iraq.

Observe yea the Locust, how he mounts an attack without a leader....

Door to door, and an invisible enemy. With Capitalism and money as your enemy, guns will ALWAYS find their way into the hands of the opponent. Even if its Blackwater, which is an American firm.

The Palestinian conflict with Israel should indicate to the US this may be a never ending war with random cases of violence and bombings. Like that situation, the problem needs to be addressed with diplomacy. Same goes here.

The truth is, the nuclear equation sometime in the next decade will be out of balance. Eventually the wrong people will have the Bomb, or the right people that have the Bomb today, become the wrong people tomorrow. Either way, eventually we will be forced to deal with it. So rather then creating more enemies now and trying to stop the development of the technology, why not try to stop the potential for a developing conflict.

Iran and Iraq is a no win situation.

In Iraq, we won the battle but lost the War in terms of public opinion.

Its really sad. This whole thing reads like a Mike Tyson Fight. Strong as Hell, but dumb as a box of rocks.

Dumbest president in history with the most powerful military on the planet. An administration of dishonesty and deceit while noble young Americans fight and die in a war improperly conceived.

Peace


[edit on 27-9-2007 by HIFIGUY]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

The Russians actually had territory they could afford to concede whilst rebuilding and re-equipping. The Germans never really had that luxury.


No one can really afford to concede territory and the NATO cold war plans to stage a fighting withdrawal from West German borders were never realistic given that the Germans were going to fight for every inch knowing that they would never have the ability to take it back. Given the massive and overwhelming Russian superiority in Artillery and short range tactical nuclear weapons manning lines densely enough to prevent serious penetration would have mostly resulted in the destruction of those formations. Basically the USSR did not retreat in 1941 because it wanted to trade space for time but because their forward formations were simply crushed and annihilated. As most countries would they stood and they fought and it simply didn't work; that they had enough space to regroup and occasional retreat back into was entirely incidental.


Britain was slow to mobilise the Empire at the start of WW2 but also had the resources available there to duke it out if need be.


It is not commonly known , even by those who read plenty of books, that Britain bankrupted itself in it's preparations for world war two and that the money coffers would have been more than empty by late 1939 -1940 no matter what the Germans did...


People seem to forget that the RAF was sending out a thousand bombers regularly over targets, and that the Royal Navy was the largest, most capable and most powerful navy on the planet at the time.


That is surely so British bombers were no match for German fighters and in daytime they were as good as annihilated over Germany hence the bombing in the darkness that made such efforts almost entirely ineffective in terms of doing damage to German industry. The British navy was large but it had much to protect and three enemy navies to contend with. The Italian navy lacked many things but to ensure that it did not get 'lucky' in the Med against the vital convoy lines still cost the Royal navy dozens of capital and escort ships. The IJN were not treated with much respect but even then they could not be ignored and many more capital ships had to guard the approaches to India and Australia to say nothing of the holdings they gained from Holland and the other low countries...

The cost of guarding all that while guarding against the U-boat menace in the Atlantic and possible breakouts of German capital ships left Britain so exposed that there was a few months were a German invasion were in my opinion not only possible but probably enough to result in a invasion of Britain that they British simply lacked the means to reduce once established.


What America did was provide material and technical assistance that was out of the range of German attacks and as such could breach the gaps in production and provide an established industrial base.


Without American assistance Britain would not in my opinion have been able to sustain the attrition for very long and would have been reduced to mere survival while they kept open their lines of communication with India,Australia and Canada. Britain could probably in good time have raised armies and industries in those countries but not in my opinion anything that could seriously threaten a victorious German reich stretching to the Urals and slowly moving on Egypt. The American 'assistance' was thus not enough without the benefit of their manpower and physical industrial capacity...


After that the US assisted with bombing raids of its own and with the manpower to carry out the Normandy landings.
America's contribution to the fighting in Europe in WW2 should never be forgotten,


And i believe the contributions of many others are far worse understood or known than that of the US...


and the assistance provided in material resources and equipment certainly helped to shorten the war.


That is certainly so but Germany could best have been defeated if American corporations interest were not allowed to continue functioning in service of the Nazi war machine. Given that REPARATIONS were paid to these corporations, by the US government for destruction of their properties in Germany, after the second it's pretty clear that that the US government were not really all that interested in bringing to war to it's fastest possible conclusion.


However, even without US intervention Hitler had been fought to a standstill at the channel, and the Russians had moved entire factories and production lines out of the range of German bombers and had a massive strategic reserve of manpower to call on.


Hitler was no more fought to a standstill at Dunkirk than he was fought to standstill at the gates of Moscow and in both instances it was in my opinion political considerations that allowed both Britain and the SU to recover in ways that would have otherwise been impossible to explain.


The British had an atomic weapons programme that was equal to that of the Nazi's, so its likely that the two powers may have developed nukes at the same time.


The British program could not have been completed with US funds and possible not without US direct assistance. There is plenty of information that indicates that the Nazi atomic weapons program were in fact quite advanced but since i do not have the time to defend that as the fact i believe it to be i will claim it as my opinion only.


The British were also developing jet aircraft at a similar pace to the Germans.


Despite the war moving closer to home the Germans were faster and their operational result were 'better' by a significant margin...


Without US intervention its likely that the war would have gone on for four or five years more, but the outcome would have been the same for Germany.


If there were no serious threat of invasion in Normandy ( which would not have happened for years without US manpower) or the direct aid to the SU Germany would probably have been able to defend successive lines and possibly even fighting the SU to a virtual standstill in 1943 and 44. I am not sure how long they could have kept that up but the SU would have been bled white if Germany did not have to defend Italy and Normandy with such large formations of combat divisions. Germany could afford occupation divisions ( little or no fuel expenditure and older soldiers that were reinforced by whatever formations were resting and retraining in the region after combat attrition) but not such a drain fighting on multiple fronts with tens of millions of tons worth of explosives being consumed in defense against the day bombing air campaign that would not have been possible without the USAF. This is not counting the tens of thousands of barrels consumed or the fact that the the resources taken up by the ten odd thousands flak guns could not have been employed to massively improve the combat performance of German divisions against the Soviet tank armies.

Either way that what ifs and could-have-been's can keep any of us busy for a few years.



Europe would have been devastated and Germany and other Eastern European countries would have been annexed into the USSR, possibly with only France and the Scandinavian Countries still existing as seperate entities.


Europe would have been occupied entirely and given the skilled citizens and vast industrial and resource base the US would have been hard pressed to fund the type of cold war expenditures that could have protected them for as long as it in fact did...


Britain would have retained its empire, and the world map would look slightly different than it does today.


If the SU took Germany the ME would have been quick to follow and without that direct link India could no longer have kept Britain afloat thus probably making the British isle's untenable. Given that i don't know how much of the world Stalin was really bent on taking i wont argue that that was ever going to happen but if Stalin wanted to i doubt the US could have made Atomic weapons fast enough to stop him...

[edit] - I realise this was way off topic. Its just that there is a whole slew of ignorance about WW2, and maybe it deserves its own topic. I do apologise.

I'll just say you started it as i am already in hot water for my alleged off topic remarks.


I hope my post is somehow 'useful' to you and that any apparent insult will be forgiven as unintended and largely due to high speed typing and no proof reading...

Sorry..

Stellar



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Why are you still discussing World War II in a thread about Iran and the United States?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Just finish the Iran campaign quick and with complete devastation. Syria should also be targeted. Dragging the war in the name of PC war is going to kill more of our troops and even more civilian casualties.

7 days, 300 bombers, 2,700 smart bombs.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Or, don't start a war with Iran at all. Their leaders are not very popular with their people, the U.S., Iran, and the entire world if we just helped the people form a new revolution. We've "helped" remove one of their leaders from power before, we can do it again. This time for the right reasons.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Im still just pissed that the OP was banned for what seems like no reason at all..
If theres been a reason posted since i originally asked then I havent seen it..



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Im still just pissed that the OP was banned for what seems like no reason at all..
If theres been a reason posted since i originally asked then I havent seen it..


Reasons why a particular member is banned is rarely revealed publicly here. It may have nothing to do with this thread, or even any public post.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Can disagree with a few other things but why bother as long as some still believe the following!


Dumbest president in history with the most powerful military on the planet. An administration of dishonesty and deceit while noble young Americans fight and die in a war improperly conceived.

Peace


If Bush and his gang were really that dumb they would not be this rich and powerful and they would not have managed to fool the American public into sending their boys and fathers to fight a completely illegal war at great cost to not only the empty US treasury but to it's armed forces.

If people will believe me on only one issue related to the war in Iran or Iraq i hope it will be in accepting that those who start and prosecute these conflagrations are by no means dumb, ignorant, uninformed, 'unlucky' or any of those epitaphs that some would employ to make all of this seem to be a 'unfortunate' happenstance that arose completely incidentally from perfectly honest and or logical reasoning.

Don't buy it and don't let these people off the hook.

Stellar



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
First and foremost. American air power would bring the Iranian military to its knees in a massive bombing campaign, If they try to send so called massive divisions of troops to the Iraqi border they would be bombed over and over again something no army can just sit and take. A so called Shina up rising in Iraq would do much of nothing to our troops in Iraq if they were in battle formations out in the desert waiting for an attack from Iran witch I hope would be done. If our troops in Iraq were trying to go on business as usual then they are going to pay for that stupidity.
If and it looks like its a big if we attack Iran I believe that you would see the nuke sites, Missile and air force sites hit then a pause to see how the Iranians respond and more importantly how the everyday people respond. If the Iranians are crazy enough to fight back then they will loose big time. It wont be pretty however everyone that isn't in dreamland knows this.
And last but not least. We are not going to try and occupy Iran, we may cross the border to do battle but everyone knows it would be a huge undertaking to get to Tehran through the mountains it protected by and the American people wont go along with that.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Sky watcher
were passed on to me.

I wish i could but since your views does not in my opinion correspond well or at all with reality i can't do much other than respond when i happen to be reading a given thread. As always the best way to prevent me from responding to your posts is for you to at least study school and general history textbooks. If you did that odds are i will have MUCH less reason to intervene and will have to do far more sourcing and explaining when i do still happen to disagree.

Stellar


And where did you study? I was taught here in America not some third world country. You don't like America and you think just about everyone can beat us and thats your opinion. We here in America back up what we say with action not some Communist propaganda from the Internet. If things come to blows with Iran and the U.S. beats the tar out of them I will be here laughing thinking about the frown on your face.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
so a question

which US city or cities are you willing to lose?
because with a border the size of america it should be easy to get a couple in.

its only fair if the cowboys get trigger happy and start bombing Iran (back to the stone age as some have been saying)

its only fair that a couple of US majour Cities are nuked to the stone age.

alls fair in love and war


(this questions mostly to the arm chair generals who advocate war)
maybe it could be their neigbourhood/city



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Skywatcher: So you think your country is so invincible. Reality check! Where was this superior technology and military might on 9-11.
Stop deluding yourself.

Actions have consequences. I suggest you remember that or your actions might just come back to haunt you.





new topics
top topics
 
10
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join