Iran to 'blow up heart' of Israel if attacked

reply to post by dooper


Korea a "police action"? Whatever.. I thought you branded yourself as some expert in the "Masters of Warfare", Dooper? You stretching it somewhat thin here. There were over a million combatants on each side and total casualties in the region of 3 million (not including civilians)

I would hardly call Vietnam a "police action"..

I'll give you a true example of a "police action" and that is Northern Ireland. Compare that to Korea then come back and say that.

[edit on 10/10/09 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason

You'll have to take that argument up with those who defined the action in the day it was undertaken. The UN defined Korea as a "Police Action."

Numbers don't count. You have to go with those who defined it.

Ah, the action in Vietnam.

Again, the numbers don't matter. The US helped man positions in South Vietnam.

We only crossed one border - and that was in Cambodia for the purpose of destroying supplies where North Vietnam stockpiled them.

No war.

Fighting? Yes.

Did the US declare war on anyone?

Nope.

Maybe you should get a better understanding of the terminologies as used in context, rather than blathering your opinion.

We've already seen where that's gone.

reply to post by nenothtu



Oh I guess that "war" that almost called nuclear armageddon was insignificant?

lthough the primary participants' military forces never officially clashed directly, they expressed the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, a nuclear arms race, espionage, proxy wars, propaganda, and technological competition, e.g. the Space Race.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Zosynspiracy]

reply to post by dooper


You'd have thought you'd be better read, being a self-proclaimed expert Dooper.

The "police action" was the intial stages where the US/UN had very little in the way of troops on the ground, transferred arms to ROK forces, provided air cover to ROK forces and aided evacuation of US civilians. This early stage saw the almost repulsion of US/UN forces from Korea around Pusan.

After this point, with the reinforcement of US/UN forces and the subsequent counter attack and Battle of Incheon, Korea ceased to be called a Police action and was reffered to around the world as the "Korean War". It was, after all, the invasion of ROK by the North and the UN resolutions of the time call for the "withdrawl" of Northern forces from the south.

Besides, "Police Action" is merely a US euphenism used so Presidents can deploy troops without the approval of Congress. It really has no more meaning beyond that, so trying to use it as an example of the US not being in a major war is a weak attempt at diversion. Whichever way you spin it and whichever label you assign it, Korea was a major war, declaration or not.

I mean, using your logic, you could define Gulf War 1 and 2 as "Police Actions" as no formal War declaration took place, but it is really a technical detail used so Presidents can bomb somewhere and circumvent your constitution. It has no bearing in anything else.

EDIT: The UK, I know for certain, calls it the Korean war . Also, the Falklands is called a war, even without the formal declaration required. It is a US term almost exclusively and even the USN calls Korea a War.


[edit on 10/10/09 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason

Well, Stu, as any good lawyer will tell you, it's those pesky "technicalities" that make all the difference.

I met a lady once who looked every bit the lady, smelled like a lady, walked like a lady, dressed like a lady, but son - technically - she was a whore.

Technically, these were not "wars."

Technically.

I stand by my statements.

reply to post by dooper


In US technical parlance, maybe, but elsewhere in the world, it's called a war. My Grandad certainly didn't view his service there as a "police action" and I am certain Vietnam Vets don't like their "War" being called a "police action", as it belittles it.

Whichever way you want to spin it, they were wars in the very definition of the term.

War is a reciprocated, armed conflict, between two or more non-congruous entities, aimed at reorganising a subjectively designed, geo-politically desired result.

You're hanging on to a technical description used solely by US Presidents to avoid going through the hassle of asking Congress. That is it, end of.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Oh I guess that "war" that almost called nuclear armageddon was insignificant?

lthough the primary participants' military forces never officially clashed directly, they expressed the conflict through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, a nuclear arms race, espionage, proxy wars, propaganda, and technological competition, e.g. the Space Race.

[edit on 10-10-2009 by Zosynspiracy]

As one who stood in that "war" you refer to (and ducked as appropriate ), yeah, it was insignificant, and no, it wasn't a "war".

Unless one has a might broad definition of war.

Everything you mention as symptomatic of a "war" occurs every day, war or not, even to this day, and even in areas where the US does not tread. By those criteria, China is at war with the world, right now. I don't hear too many people complaining overmuch about it.

And "almost" caused a "nuclear armageddon"? First, "almost" doesn't count for anything, except in horseshoes. Second, "nuclear armageddon" was nothing more than a phrase that leftists used to scare college children into getting on "their" side. There never was any serious danger of that, because of the paucity of nuclear weapons available, and the fact that the effects of said weapons aren't nearly what they were claimed by the fearmongers to be.

Yeah, it could have been a hell of an exchange, but nothing like an "armageddon".

reply to post by stumason


Stu, we agree on the nature of the conflicts.

They were, and had, the nature of wars.

I can assure you, that those men who served in combat, got shot at, withstood artillery barrages, froze their asses off, or sweated in the jungles, trying to get a breath in nearly 100% relative humidity, felt like it was war.

And it was. In form, behavior, genesis, and violence.

But not technically.

That was my point.

I can assure you, that none of the SOB's that called these "Police Actions," or "Conflicts" had their asses in the boonies with the troops.

Or they would have come to a different terminology.

reply to post by nenothtu


I don't know how you say it wasn't a war when US President Johnson said in his statement it's a war.

Excerpts from Speech Given by President Johnson at Johns Hopkins University, April 7,1965.

Viet Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives, on Viet-Nam's steaming soil.

Source: vietnam.vassar.edu...

and

The War In America

One of the greatest ironies in a war rich in ironies was that Washington had also moved toward a limited war in Vietnam. The Johnson administration wanted to fight this war in "cold blood." This meant that America would go to war in Vietnam with the precision of a surgeon with little noticeable impact on domestic culture. A limited war called for confined mobilization of resources, material and human, and caused little disruption in everyday life in America. With the advent of the Cold War and an increase in nuclear weapons, a limited war made sense to many strategic thinkers in and out of Washington. Protest march in Washington, D.C., early '70. Photo courtesy of E. Kenneth Hoffman.Of course, these goals were never met. The Vietnam War did have a major impact on everyday life in America and the Johnson administration was forced to consider the domestic consequences of its decisions everyday. Eventually, there simply were not enough volunteers to continue to fight a protracted war and the government instituted a draft. As the deaths mounted and Americans continued to leave for Southeast Asia, the Johnson administration was met with the full weight of American anti-war sentiments.

Source:vietnam.vassar.edu...

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Fewer than 300 Special Forces, TACP's, and Company branch operatives working with the Northern Alliance caused the Taliban government to fall.

Hmm is that why the US soldiers dead gona be hittin 1000 soon?

And i wonder what would your little N.Alliance pals do if israel decides to attack iran.Ahh the word 'shias' comes to my mind and i don't think the mahdis will be sitting idol in iraq either.Damn i also forgot to mention hamas and hezbollah.

israel is normally very quick to attack its neighbours who don't have the defence tools to protect themselves.But i wonder whats taking israel soo long with iran who are blatently planning to develop a nuke.

reply to post by merkava


English isn't your first language, is it?

Read my statement again. Slowly. Read only what it says.

I specifically stated that they caused the Taliban government to fall. And they did.

You're referring to Afghanistan, PART TWO.

We were fine until our generals wanted a piece of the action. They always require divisions to do what SF can do with teams.

Generals always - always **** up a good effort by interjecting themselves and their stupidity into the fight.

So now we're doing "civil" duties, rebuilding, educating, and all sorts of crap that non-military personnel should be doing.

Thus, all the casualties.

Get it?

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I don't know how you say it wasn't a war when US President Johnson said in his statement it's a war.

Excerpts from Speech Given by President Johnson at Johns Hopkins University, April 7,1965.

Viet Nam is far away from this quiet campus. We have no territory there, nor do we seek any. The war is dirty and brutal and difficult. And some 400 young men, born into an America that is bursting with opportunity and promise, have ended their lives, on Viet-Nam's steaming soil.

Source: vietnam.vassar.edu...

and

The War In America

One of the greatest ironies in a war rich in ironies was that Washington had also moved toward a limited war in Vietnam. ... anti-war sentiments.

Source:vietnam.vassar.edu...

Hello again!

What my esteemed opponent above was referring to was the "Cold War", specifically the period I mentioned between 1973 and 1991, not the Vietnam conflict. I never said Vietnam wasn't a "war", which is why I began that time period with 1973, when US combat troops withdrew.

I left it to politicians to label it other than a war. Made them feel better, I guess.

Two other minor points: 1) I didn't fight in Vietnam. I have family who did, but not me. My wars fall under the category of "other", and are mostly footnotes to history.

The other point I'd like to make, and one which I'm sure that you are by now aware of, is that Lyndon Johnson and I don't necessarily see eye to eye on everything. Well, we don't see eye to eye on much at all. I'm still waiting on him to fight his "War on Poverty" in the Appalachians where he announced it. I think he may be dead now, so I'll probably be waiting a long time on THAT "war".

reply to post by dooper


That assessment is dead on.

By "mahdis" I DO hope he was referring to Al-Sadr's militia, since I don't want to be the one to have to tell him the Mahdi is dead, and ain't coming back just because Amedinajad says so.

He probably should have clarified that point.

And in answer to his question of "what will this militia do? what will that militia do?" I think you were remarkably restrained in not hurting his feelings by stating blunt facts in response: DIE if they jump.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by merkava

 

I specifically stated that they caused the Taliban government to fall. And they did.

Fall? Maybe you should ask your british pals of how much territory is controlled by the talib at the moment.Hell there are even areas that are still under their rule.And now NATO is in a state of exhaustion because those talibs with flip flops really doing them in with their 50 buck IED's.

reply to post by merkava

No one ever said that these three hundred killed all the Taliban.

They brought the government of the Taliban down.

What's with the weed up your ass? Blocking your ability to read and comprehend words. Specifically stated?

Ever read any of the other posts?

The ones about where we are now?

In Afghanistan PART TWO?

Jesus Christ!

It's like kindergarten here sometimes!

Originally posted by habfan1968


The minute Iran started supporting Hamas they put themselves in the cross hairs. If they really want peace they need to stop supporting Hamas against Isreal

Hamas is the predictable violent rejection of locals who obviously did not, do not, appreciate elitists re-drawing the map. After 1000s of years of culture the people who lived there were kinda liking it... go figure.

Iran supports shadowy militia, just like the US does.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by merkava

 

No one ever said that these three hundred killed all the Taliban.

They brought the government of the Taliban down.

What's with the weed up your ass? Blocking your ability to read and comprehend words. Specifically stated?

Ever read any of the other posts?

The ones about where we are now?

In Afghanistan PART TWO?

Jesus Christ!

It's like kindergarten here sometimes!

i should know, i was one of the first on the ground there. Afghanistan is a SOF conflict. conventional forces should have never came in; between SOF and CA, we could have had this conflict resolved within 2 years after the initial push, just like Bosnia-Herzegovina (where i have also been). could you imagine what Bosnia would have ended up like with a main-body conventional divison presence?

If you buy into that, and think that this man is anything other than a raving anti-semite with nuclear ambitions, supported by officials capable only of threatening Israel with annihilation, then you, along with the rest of us are going to learn some very painful lessons about how things end when you allow racists to own nuclear weapons.

Perhaps when Tel Aviv is a smoking cinder, you'll be satisfied that right has been done.

It was hard deciding which of your feeble attempts at Zionist propaganda would be best to quote as the utmost demonstration of your ignorance, but I think this one will suffice quite nicely. Are you even aware of what the definition of the word SEMITE is? Or is it my mistake in not correctly understanding your stance and not seeing that by suggesting Ahmadinejad is anti-semite that he is fighting a war against himself? Is he playing his inner struggle out on the world stage for all humanity to see, witnesses to a great national play of Shakespearian proportions with those oh-so-thoughtful subtleties about life, death, passion and war? No. You are in fact a parrot who doesn't realize that Iranians are by definition semites. Maybe you also don't realize the disinformational "quote" you try to hold on to for dear life is not a life preserver, but an anchor you hope to latch your validation on. Unfortunately, anchors are meant to sink, and your ship is going nowhere. Here's a cracker, please try not to choke on it.

Iraq absolutely has the right to defend itself and launch a counter-attack. That doesn't change the fact that they are still severely disadvantaged. The Israeli Hetz anti-missile system is reportedly capable of detecting inbound targets at a range of up to 650mi, and with them being provocateurs by setting a deadline, almost undoubtedly has their systems in eastern-facing deployments. For a launch-to-hit time of 6+ minutes, there may not be much of a chance to get anything through unless Iran has a large stockpile and staggers them appropriately to score some hits during reload cycles. Not to mention flying over Iraq, Saudi Arabia or Turkey subjects the Iranian missiles to attack by US Forces.

Hopefully we(the US) can put sufficient pressure on Israel to back off of such a belligerent and foolhardy plan, but it seems doubtful that will happen. For weeks prior, and even subsequent to, the UN meeting, some Republicans in Congress have been calling for getting bills to the floor for vote that are sanctions against Iran to "give the President some tools to use in dealing with them." The same tactic used to set the stage for raping Iraq, and yes, it is rape what we are doing there.

I hope my fellow Americans are also writing their congressional and senate representatives to urge them against yet another war for an unworthy cause. If Zionists want to put their people in danger for false accusations, they should be free to do so without help from the world body, especially the USA.

Oh, also, as far as racists owning nuclear weapons, what do you call the United States of America? You don't believe we are racist? How many "special interest" groups do we have based on racial guidelines? You see, separation of people according to ethnic background perpetuates racism as it creates classes of people instead of just people. Chew on that after you finish your cracker.

reply to post by nenothtu

First, "almost" doesn't count for anything, except in horseshoes.

And... hand grenades.

Iran is saying what any nation would if it were threatened with war.

When did this thread become a discussion about what constitutes an actual 'war'.

reply to post by stumason


In the US, the war was officially described as a police action (a Korean Conflict, not a Korean War) owing to the lack of a legitimate declaration of war by the US Congress. Colloquially, it is also The Forgotten War and The Unknown War, because it ended in stalemate, and unlike the Second World War and the Vietnam War, it is culturally forgotten.


so unlike the rest of the planet who call it a war - the USA call it a police action


its the same with the vietnam war - again there was no legitimate declaration of war by the US Congress - so again whilst the rest of the planet say its the vietnam war.

in fact - every invasion by the USA since WW2 is called a `police action`

which quite honestly is an insult to every veteran everywhere.