Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   
While I agree we do have a distinct military and technological advantage over
Iran and for that matter most (I am not a defense analyst so I don't know for sure) of the countries in the world I do have common sense and use it to analyze the news from all over the world and it does not mirror the news we see here in the states..

What I know is this yes we knocked Sadam out of power but let's face it
it was more of a house of cards than a fortress.. However we have been there for 5 years and have set ourselves in the middle of a civil war as a result of our actions.. (well maybe not quite but at what point do you call a fire a fire right)

With all of our technology we are still not very good at guerrilla warfare
I am not sure if this is because of the restrictions imposed by the Iraqi government or if by the choice of our leaders who refuse to send enough troops to get the job done right once and for all..

I agree in whole heart that we are a very formidable force to have bearing down on you but we are not invincible and the thought that we are makes us even less invincible..

All of the above being said your average American doesn't want to be bothered with war and politics or even with voting it is sad but true
We have become a country of soft (specially in the waste line) lazy greedy people who Have, and peer down our noses at the rest of the world as have nots...

one last thought if the fight were here I totally agree we would win but it is not so I am unsure... and remember we liberated this country with sticks and stones compared the the superior british technology

Later
GEO


[edit on 9/23/2007 by geocom]

[edit on 9/23/2007 by geocom]




posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAOTU789
reply to post by fweshcawfee
 


I have a question; do you think that America can fiscally afford another war in the Middle East?


*Devil's Advocate Mode*

This may seem silly, but didn't wars historically stimulated the American economy? It seems like occupations (or stabilization if you prefer) that seem to drag it back down.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by fweshcawfee
 


I honestly find it most amusing that you are so uber-confident about the United States ability to "simultaneiously trample" of multiple Middle Esatern countries. In case you havent been paying attention we may have, in your mind, trampled over Afghanistan, Iraq and the Taliban, but in reality we merely curtailed their activities, not eliminated them. There is still years worth of work to be done.

As for Americas military might, I would agree that we are a mighty nation, but after a bunch of years fighting the endless fight, if we were to invade another country at this point, say Iran, there is no way that we could handle things given the fact that we are stretched so thinly right now.

If you want us to invade Iran, then might I suggest getting on the side of Charles Rangel in NY and push his innane agenda for the draft to be reinstated. You can be the first in line!That is the only way that we would have enough troops to invade. We would still be entrenched in Iran as we are in Iraq no matter how many troops we have.

It has been plainly identified by the Pentagon and the administration that the post invasion planning was flawed at best, and that we never could have estimated the level of resistance that would be shown by the Iraqis. This would be even greater if we invaded Iran, as they are a more technologically advanced nation. While we're at it, we might as well invade Syria, since they are all terrorists as well, right? I mean according to your theory, there is no limit to the number of nations we can invade because we are AMERICA!

I hate to break it to you bud, but every powerful nation has its breaking point and we are dangerously close to that point right now. You need to unplug from the Bush machine and snap back into reality.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
fweshcafee blurts out statements, ...and subsequently ignores valuable points. No, I´ll not be dragged into a discussion where the OP will not even reply to points made.

We are America. Resistance is futile. You will be annihilated.

I would start a global fund and troop raiser before even thinking of starting yet another war.

USD-EUR 1.40925 right now at this minute. Invoices for advanced imported weaponry are in Euros right?

Hmm.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
If the politicians would let the US military actually fight 'total' war, rather than playing to war-profiteering and other special interests, we could wipe out Iran in a blink of an eye. I don't think it's a question of military might.

However, the politicians like long, drawn out wars these days, it allows maximum profit to be made from the war, all for their buddies. The military hates being held back by the politics. It used to be that you go in, kill everyone until they succumb and make it your own. Now, there are so many private interests in war, wars just seem to go on and on, no end in sight.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by fweshcawfee
 


Yep, I agree with you 100%.. if we do go to war with Iran, which I do not believe we need to do but if we did, we would roll over them just as fast as we rolled over the Iraq Republican Guard. Both times!
Never underestimate the US and dont even bother to threaten us with potential invasion by China or Russia because they no better as well.
Even if they were to get past our military, which is doubtful, the next force they will face is 250 million armed civilians.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Beachcoma
 


Yes in the short term. The possible war with Iran won't be a short skirmish, imo, and with the estimates of the war in Iraq costing $726 million a day, I don't think the US could afford a long drawn out engagement with Iran on top of this.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
yeah it would be aq disaster if we invaded irean we blow up all there military bases in a "shock and awe-esque" air raid and then what we would have nowhere near the time to secure all of those loose weapons before terrorists got there hands on them and were not talking guns and mortar shells were talking tanks and medium short and long range missiles surface to air missiles anti tank guns anti aircraft weaponry and possibly the terrorists taking the uranium theyve enriched...would you really wanna see that happenn?



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by fweshcawfee


Going further, say hypothetically that America were to go it alone against Iran without help from friends, it could still simultaneously trample over multiple middle eastern nations at once if it felt the need to do so. Iran and any sympathetic neighbors it could recruit to it's side wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. America may suffer casualties but the other side will suffer annihilation if it comes down to all out war.






I love how you say that we can trample over any possible enemy. As for Iraq, I have yet to see that proven. You can't use Iraq's Republican Guard as an example either, as Iraq had a hugely lacking force in the first place that you could hardly call an army. With our extended stay in Iraq, and the trouble we are having with the terrorists we have attracted there, I'd say a "snowballs chance in hell" is what we have.

[edit on 23-9-2007 by Right to Rebel]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by fweshcawfee
 

I did put some thought into it. So did many of the experts that have the same opinion as me. I also researched history and found that Guerilla warfare works wonders.

I've got Sun Tzu and many experts backing my opinion. Sorry that my one liner is a one liner yet somehow has merit.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
every super power in the history of this world has fell,what makes you think we can change history? if it was our will to change history we would have left alot of countries alone and minded our own business.... we would have mad america alot stronger then it is...

yea we might have 250+ million armed civilans... but how many do you honestly have the kahunaz to use them?.. most of the owners have never so much as pointed one at another human with intent to kill.... besides.. it would take alot more then a war in the U.S. to get these lazy freaks away from their flat screens and lazyboys... heck... most dont even know theres a war going on right now!

as sad as it is true... i would worry if we had a fight on the soil of the U.S. 99% of the U.S. population couldnt even fathom or mentally handel the stuff going on in iraq...let-a-lone what went down in nam... SHELL SHOCK for everyone!



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:29 PM
link   
A lot of people here are confusing Iraq and Afghanistan with what we would do with Iran. First, let me summarize:

Iraq - Deposed their government...can't just blow them up and leave, we need to stay and help otherwise it's all for nothing. Whether it's a war for oil or not is irrelivant. This is why we're still there.

Afghanistan - Man hunt. Only reason we're still there.

Given that information, we have NO reason to stay in Iran. You can't use Iraq and Afghanistan as a comparison with quotes like "We can't even win the war in Iraq, how can we win one in Iran?" The "War" in Iraq was over 3 days after it began. The "occupation" is still ongoing. The "War" in Afghanistan was never a "War"...we knocked out the Taliban government, and stuck around to hunt Bin Laden. If/When we hit Iran, we will steam roll them and leave them in their ashes. We'd have no reason to stay there.

Am I suggesting we SHOULD do this? Absolutely not. Although I think we could demolish them without much of a fight, I think everyone can agree that war should only be a last resort. So before anyone decides to flame the bejesus out of me for my above comment, at least keep in mind that I'm not FOR attacking Iran, but if it comes to it, we will do it swiftly and efficiently.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 08:38 PM
link   
It's stuff like this thread that make the rest of the world think all we care about is war and violence.

You obviously haven't thought very hard about the damage one well placed nuke or EMP could do to the US or any country for that matter. One simple EMP bomb could take out the electronics of a good chunk of the US and open us up to other types of attacks around the country, like a large nuke or multiple small suitcase bombs in key locations.

The only part I agree with is that we have a very powerful military that we haven't seen in full blast in years.

By the way...is MILITARILY your new favorite word? You used it how many times?

[edit on 23-9-2007 by nightmare_david]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
Ok just look how well we destroyed Afghanistan and the Talaiban. oh wait we are still fighting in Afghanistan, against the Talaiban. oh never mind that.

Look how we got bin-laden...oh wait we didn't get him. He doesn't matter anymore anyway.

Look how well we did in Iraq. oh wait we are still fighting in Iraq, plus Iraq has a little civil war going and Al-queida is there now. ok bad example Iraq is a disaster.

Well Look how well we responded to hurricane Katrina, and how we Rebuild New Orleans. oh wait


I bet you believe that war with Iran would be fun like Ann Coulter ?


nice post i agree with u do u guys think all the allies will be happy to keep going wene is the war gona end what is the american goverment achiving thay did one thing only take saddam what did that do not much change so yeh the us has spent million and trillions on the war so lets see what happens now



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
sorry how do u del a double post cant find the del button?

[edit on 9/23/2007 by SoFunkyMe]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by nightmare_david
 


i agree totally the cold war caused us to harden our equipment against emp attacks though in case of a nuclear exchange but other then that yeah the real thing im worried about as ive said over and over is that we are going to eliminate there army yes but that doesnt mean that all of there equipment is going to be destroyed in the attacks too which terrorists know this too and would be going over the destroyed bases finding all sorts of stuff to arm themselves to the teeth with and thats not a maybe we would not be able to move in fast enough to secure the loose weaponry



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
We are not yet at war, and the sides are bieng picked. We are in conflict. If we went to war, you can guarantee our air power would make Shock and Awe look like a flea fart.

We ended WW2 with a nuclear weapon, and no one else has ever done that. No one. we did it once and there is no reason to do it again. We will not engage Iran in street to street warfare, we jsut want to take the military back to the 60's. Nothing wrong there.

There would be retalitation, but remember when we were worried about the mass casualties going into Iraq with it's bio/chem warfare. We called the bluff. Iran is surrounded. I just worry about our troops in Iraq right now.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   


Going further, the problems with the post-invasion Iraq war which you and those like you want to put a spin on to make it reflect negatively on the U.S., aren't the U.S.'s fault. We've had to cater to and coddle the flimsy new Iraqi government and military which has been far more of a hindrance to progress there than whatever small measure of actual benefit they've provided.


But because the establishment of a stable Iraqi government was one of our objectives (not to mention our occupation of the country), what you just mentioned is the fault of the U.S., by default.

Anyway, I'm very disturbed by all the responses here. Most of you seem to have a very elementary, sci-fi perspective and understanding of war. Which amounts to absolutely no understanding of war or the military. I was especially shocked that someone would advocate a strategy of total war. Ask yourself, would you want total war? Do you have any idea what that truly means? The answer is clearly no.

I could turn this into a several-hours-long seminar, but instead, I will force you all to ask yourselves two fundamental questions, questions that pretty much sum of how wars are fought and who wins. Its more for those who support war against Iran as well as those who think all we have to do is "crush them."

If we go to war with Iran:

1. Who will pay for it? How much will they pay for it? And why?
2. Who will fight the war? How many people will fight? And why?

Unless those two questions are effectively answered, all this talk of "technological superiority" and whatever other space cadet dribble is out there is meaningless. Where will the money come from? Who is going to sacrifice their lives for this war? Those are the important questions.

Looking forward to the responses.



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:02 PM
link   

[I]Originally posted by fweshcawfee[/I]
Apparently there are a few people around who still don't quite comprehend the true strength and might of the United States of America.

We are given a daily update from the streets of Baghdad just how effective the US military is at winning hearts and minds, and defeating an occupied nation.
Wars are only won in the true sense if you have an honest belief worth fighting for.
You lose a war as soon as it begins, when your morals and values are for greed or gain, instead of survival.



Quite frankly, the U.S. if backed by other nations (which it would be) could annihilate Iran and its buddies just as easily as they obliterated Iraq's entire former government. If you disagree, you're naive and hardly perceptive of actual reality.


Simply bombing someone to Stone Age does not classify as a win.
The reality is, for every bomb you drop, you create another enemy.
You seem to believe if you drop enough bombs you will beat the enemy.
Id say your perception or reality is the one that’s naive.



Militarily, technologically and economically the combined might of the United States and its freedom loving, democracy defending allies are an invincible force that no foe or group of foes on Earth could withstand.


Id call America a lot of things, but one thing id not call them is democratic, and defenders of allies.



And don't even bother to preach to me about Russia and China potentially working together at some future point to defeat us either, see the preceeding paragraph above.


Is that just wishful thinking?



Going further, say hypothetically that America were to go it alone against Iran without help from friends, it could still simultaneously trample over multiple middle eastern nations at once if it felt the need to do so. Iran and any sympathetic neighbors it could recruit to it's side wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell. America may suffer casualties but the other side will suffer annihilation if it comes down to all out war.


IF you do go it alone, and are insane enough to actually use your 'tactical' / 'bunker-buster' nukes.. You think the world will just sit by and let you occupy another important global resource?



America was already prepared to wage multiple wars simultaneously when the N. Korea controversy was heating up, do you really think this country doesn't know it's current and modern capabilities? America knows it's capabilities and it knows it's limitations as well so to the leaders of all nations, I say underestimate this country at your own peril.


Your right, its very very stupid to under-estimate the stupidity of American leaders.
I believe them to be unbelievably stupid enough to actually believe dropping the nuclear weapon, to convince a nation to NOT BUILD nuclear weapons is the right choice.
America obviously has no clue about its capabilities, your army's going bust and you still argue Iraq’s for the better good.



You people talk so much about the "disaster" it would be for America if it decides to engage Iran militarily. You are completely out of touch with reality if you honestly think so. Are you really so incapable of adequately assessing the history of world events over the past 200+ years???


No, but your economy is faltering with a $600, billion + bill.. How much more will Iran cost, and how much more can your economy take?
Not much I believe.

200+ years???? You are aware the world has been fighting wars and holding back leaders for centuries prior to the USA's entrance?
I believe once again the world will find a way to limit a crazy and evil empire.
Unfortunately I never saw it being the American empire that the world tries to stop.





Stop hoping so much for the devastation of America because in actuality what you're praying for is the effective annihilation of Planet Earth. Or do you naively believe that America could dare be brought to it's knees without slamming her enemies face first in the dirt in the process.



WOW that horse must be pretty damn high.
The world lasted for a long time without American capitalism, and it will survive long after its gone.
Yes, when crap happens crap happens, but some crap is just plain unavoidable.

For the greater good?

As for America, well its not as if the world MADE you commit crimes of humanity, we simply got fooled by your lies.

You can damn well believe we won’t get fooled again, and if worse comes to worse im willing to accept a re-made economy after a crash, and a few other nations calling the shots, if it means America can’t commit these same crimes again.

- Apologies for typo's I was in a rush and will fix up in a minute.


[edit on 24-9-2007 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 23 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Sometimes a topic is so clear, a one liner is all that is needed...


[edit on 23-9-2007 by Redge777]









 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join