Could America destroy any country on the planet? Maybe.

But more importantly, do those in power, REAL power, actually want the U.S to win?
War is a constantly changing process.
If you think war just pops up out of nowhere and isn't planned to the finest detail, your forgetting that those who start, control and finish wars have more to lose than the mere lives that their wealth sustain.

Thats what it ALL comes down to. VERY wealthy people doing "business" to maintain and more to the point, expand that wealth. It has NOTHING to do with religion, politics or any of the myriad of reasons we think war is about.

If we knew the truth was simply, we fight and die to maintain and expand the wealth and power of those who "own" us - would we freely fight and die for them to maintain and expand that wealth?

We see the current economical environment and scream "the crash is coming" says who?
What we see happening by those who control the money? ....think about it.
EVERYTHING is not as it seems. If America is losing trillions of dollars, then you can count on it being planned well in advance. Why? As I said, everything is not as it seems, and I dont think anyone, but those who know why, could even begin to formulate the answer. The only clue we have IS the money and the trail it leaves.

The stock market crashes came before and war soon followed. We cry about the current state of our economical affairs and how we cannot afford another war? think again.

On the question of will we fight?

Personally I think the U.S is gearing towards a military system where we wont have to. To take as much of the human factor out of war as possible.
Not in the death and destruction side of the conflict, thats got many benefits for the victors in the rebuilding process, but the actual fighting side of conflict. Never before have we seen such destructive weaponry. And amazingly it is with very little human effort in its deployment. The air domination and missile technology shows the U.S has been busy replacing the human factor of war with technology, where possible.
Its not to say there wont be casualties, there will be of coarse. But I think the need for massive numbers of troops in a conflict to get the job done is changing.

I dont believe attacking anyone would be disastrous for the U.S, as crazy as the current environment would suggest the opposite, it is more than likely that scenario is already well thought out and planned in advance. Its not to say the U.S is some uber world spanking unbeatable force, its just that we work on a global scale now. Its not a matter of the U.S this or the U.S that, its a lot bigger and much more complex than that.


[edit on 23-9-2007 by Burginthorn]

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Unfortuantely I never saw it being the American empire that the world tries to stop.

Chilling statement.

Its like some grade-b Hollywood movie...MY AMERICA becoming a greedy evil empire. Growing up I never would have dreamed it possible. I do believe if we do much more damage to the precarious state of the world, the world will take us down like the rabid dog we are rapidly becoming.

Iran will create one hell of a crunch in our already faltering economy. If enough Americans lose our comfort, shelter and way to make a decent wage those 250 million gun owners will visit D.C.

To the OP: Have you ever heard of the Sunburn anti-ship missile? There is a very good possibility it could sink one of our Aircraft Carriers in the gulf. Can you imagine that mess?

WE need to fix our nation, not attack another. I want my country back from morons that think we can do what we want, without consequences.

Sure, US is one of the most powerful nations on Earth. Thanks for reminding us over, and over, and over again. Is that the reason why US is in debt? Who is going to support the fund for another war, the taxpayers, who might I add are still in debt? The wars from Iraq, Afghanistan drained too much money, and the house market is draining too much as well. Another war can lead to the fall of United States, but who really knows now? I mean if what the OP says is true, then we have nothing to fear from Russia, and China.

Originally posted by geocom


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..


[edit on 9/23/2007 by geocom]

this is because of the Geneva Conventions. its not that we dont know how to match these tactics. its because when or militay does there job too good we are too quick to hang them.. the rules we follow in combat are much diffrent than it is for them. in a conventinal war we would most likely destroy any army on this planet.

[edit on 15pmu112007 by DaleGribble]

Originally posted by fweshcawfee
I keep seeing comments illuding to some type of mythical devastation for America if it engages Iran (and possible Iranian allies) militarily.

Apparently there are a few people around who still don't quite comprehend the true strength and might of the United States of America. I'm unsure if it comes from actual stupidity and ignorance, or just a refusal to acknowledge the truth because you don't want to flatter a country you hate.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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???

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.

Oh dear, you seem to be out of reality your self. I regulary visit defensetalk.com and few other military forums to discuss strategy etc.. kinda hobby of mine. Defensetalk.com has several (real) generals posting at their board and one of them said that USA would have serious damage in air raids and if it would try to invade we would be talking about million or more dead Americans. On a side note, did you know they have russian cruise missiles that are impossible to intercept, they are 3 times faster than your tomahawk and 9 times more deadly (bye bye aircraft carriers). Also they have better missile defense system than your patriot (S300 and they will get 400 series soon as duma decides on it), and one of the most advanced radar systems in the world. Russians are going past you in weapons tech on many fields, you are just too self centered to know it. Many professional fighter pilots say that SU-47 make's total killing against F-22 and others, oh and by the way it has 400km range on it's air to air missles, something americans can only dream of, and SU-47 can see all stealth planes. (s300 and 400 series can too), there is lot more tech i can explane to you that beats the #out of american competition, and i would like to remind you that Iran (Persia) has not been conquered in the past 1500 years, and they have fought lot of more wars than americans. I'm really waiting to see american's attack, they will be taught a lesson.

my 2cents...

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

Unfortuantely I never saw it being the American empire that the world tries to stop.

To the OP: Have you ever heard of the Sunburn anti-ship missile? There is a very good possibility it could sink one of our Aircraft Carriers in the gulf. Can you imagine that mess?

Eh, what iranians have is better than Sunburn, and uses ramjet tech! Cheers! I will finally see a diving carriers....

Any move against Iran needs to be something quick, mainly by airpower.

Completely destroy their government infrastructure and military research, development, and production capability by air and with limited special forces as needed.

The Iranian threat would then be taken out in less than a week.

No more of this nation building or humanitarian crap we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan any more though. Just keep bombing them back to the stone age over and over as needed -- it's easier and cheaper.

[edit on 9/24/2007 by djohnsto77]

Originally posted by djohnsto77

The Iranian threat would then be taken out in less than a week.

[edit on 9/24/2007 by djohnsto77]

One day, one week, I doubt one month. That sounds familiar...

Originally posted by djohnsto77

No more of this nation building or humanitarian crap we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan any more though. Just keep bombing them back to the stone age over and over as needed -- it's easier and cheaper.

[edit on 9/24/2007 by djohnsto77]

You are human right?

You should check yourself and make sure.

Bomb those children! Yeah baby!

How about we bomb Israel instead, now that would be cheaper and save everyone a lot of grief.

By disastrous i mean like the iraq war.

Fweshcoffee I find your comments and opinions most disconcerting. You believe your opinions and views to be the most correct in the face of other posters who find these modalities quite incorrect. I would suggest you keep an open mind to others who think our current foreign policy and occupation of middle eastern lands not the long term answer. Either for our well being or theres or the worlds for that matter. If we had a world coalition that acted democratically to resolve issues that would be more prudent than saying 'we don't need the UN to tell us what to do' cowboy style. Mistakes were made, oh boy were they ever.

Originally posted by Jaruseleh
Given that information, we have NO reason to stay in Iran.

No? Once again, what would be the official motive for engaging in war with Iran? So-called WMDs.

Now you read this:

Then Bush asked about the possibility of a successful attack on Iran's nuclear capability. He was told that the U.S. could launch a devastating air attack on Iran's government and military, wiping out the Iranian air force, the command and control structure and some of the more obvious nuclear facilities. But the Chiefs were -- once again -- unanimously opposed to taking that course of action.

Why? Because our intelligence inside Iran is very sketchy. There was no way to be sure that we could take out all of Iran's nuclear facilities. Furthermore, the Chiefs warned, the Iranian response in Iraq and, quite possibly, in terrorist attacks on the U.S. could be devastating. Bush apparently took this advice to heart and went to Plan B -- a covert destabilization campaign reported earlier this week by ABC News.

No let me ask you what woud happen to weapons that won't get destroyed by a US air campaign. 1+1=? Angry mobs / terrorists + chemical and/or other WMDs = attacks on the US and US targets abroad.

It's so hard for people to understand that the US is mainly responsible for the increase of enemies who are motivated by hatred against its creator.



[edit on 24-9-2007 by Mdv2]

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Bomb those children! Yeah baby!

Oh please spare me the BS. Unless Iran's government, military and weapons programs are all run by children, I said nothing of the sort!

How about we bomb Israel instead, now that would be cheaper and save everyone a lot of grief.

Apparently you have no problems with indiscriminate bombing though, I guess if they're Jews it's all ok, right?

[edit on 9/24/2007 by djohnsto77]

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.

One thing which is pretty interesting is that Iranians are not Arabs, they are Persians and they are Most and I am talking about MOST mOsT Fanatic nation. The attacking Iran would be devastating for US.
I know that Russia won't be in a war this is 100% they are not stupid, they have chosen a new path which is an economical war.
The S-300 yes is pretty good weapon I am sure and is more advanced than Patriot but the problem is that there is not many of them.

You also have to take into consideration Kolchuga, a Ukrainian jammer and they have more than dozens of them, not like Iraqis which had few of them.

The war against Iran would cause huge instability in the Muslim world and that region and besides, that would really piss off Muslims.

Why even try starting war with them? They are not touching you, don't touch them. The only reason Iran has threatened Israel is because Israel warned them if they will try to develop nuclear weapons, that they(Israel) will strike nuclear sites. We have no proof that Iranian gov does actually developing Nuclear Weapons, will just have to wait and see.

[edit on 24-9-2007 by Odessit]