Real soldiers

www.presstv.com...

This is disturbing if true. However, that being said, what we do know to be true is this comment:

He advised the US and its allies to realize Iran's incredible might and know that in the event of a war the Islamic Republic will teach the Americans what war really is and what soldiers are supposed to be like.

WE do know that their soldiers are trained martyrs. We in the west do not train our soldiers to be suicide bombers, they do. If their missles don't strike, their soldiers will.

I would just like to point out..

Iran is REACTING. It seems people want to paint Iran as this evil country that wants us all dead.. Well, history has shown Iran to be compliant with inspections and their nuclear programs, although the latest IAEA report goes against this.

If someone was threatening to come in your back yard and destroy your bird bath would you let them or would you defend your property?

So the US/NATO has pretty much taken care of all the countries that can't defend themselves. Now we will get to see what happens when they attack a country that has the means and the allies to at least put up a fight. Hopefully it doesn't go this far, but with how aggressive the US/NATO/Israel is, I am pretty sure this thing will run it's course.

Originally posted by Jerisa
www.presstv.com...


WE do know that their soldiers are trained martyrs. We in the west do not train our soldiers to be suicide bombers, they do. If their missles don't strike, their soldiers will.

Please provide a quote or a source that states that Iranian Military are taught to be suicide bombers.

Otherwise it's just ingrained propaganda.

reply to post by Jerisa


"Real" soldiers are not martyrs.

Iran fought Iraq for several years to a draw. We took two weeks. The Russians fought Afghanistan for years and years and finally retreated. We took a few weeks.

I do not think we should invade Iran. I do not think we need to be in the area at all.

BUT, if we do invade, we will win in a few weeks. Their military is not in the same league as ours. This is the Green Bay Packers against your local High School. This Michael Jordan vs. your nephew. This is not any kind of "war," this is just us marching in and taking over.

reply to post by Jerisa


to paraphrase general patton : soldiers jobs are to kill the enemy , not themselves

and on l lighter note :

external vid

a clip from the life of brian [ monty python movie ]

reply to post by getreadyalready

I remember Iraq's pre-war blustering. Human shields. WMDs. Three rings around Baghdad. The elite Republican Guard. The eliter Special Republican Guard. The elitest Fedayeen. The mother of all battles. I remember how quickly it was all over, too. If Iran happens, it'll probably be faster. An air campaign, and maybe a quick raid to verify destruction of their nuclear capability. More Osirak than OIF.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Jerisa

 

"Real" soldiers are not martyrs.

Iran fought Iraq for several years to a draw. We took two weeks.

The Russians fought Afghanistan for years and years and finally retreated. We took a few weeks.

I do not think we should invade Iran. I do not think we need to be in the area at all.

BUT, if we do invade, we will win in a few weeks. Their military is not in the same league as ours. This is the Green Bay Packers against your local High School. This Michael Jordan vs. your nephew. This is not any kind of "war," this is just us marching in and taking over.

Both China and Russia have stated they will not allow an attack on Iran. I don't think we're looking at two weeks - more like a never ended occupation like we see in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Afghanistan took a few weeks? We still have troops there, still carrying out daily combat ops, etc.. I'd say it took 10+ years and is still ongoing.

Iraq took a few weeks? There have been more US troops killed since victory was declared than in the actual official combat mission. I would say Iraq has taken 10+ years and is still ongoing.

Just because our country is quick to DECLARE victory, doesn't mean we've been victorious whatsoever. I would say we sustained some self-inflicted wounds in our latest attempts at franchising that we are no where even close to recovering from.

I wish Iran would demonstrate that they do in fact have the means to defend themselves so we can just forget about it. It's become obvious that the USA has no interest in attacking countries that can defend themselves, just the ones that have resources but very little power due to puppet governments and long standing sanctions.

I don't think Iran is a saint or anything, but I agree they have the right to defend themselves.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


You make a good point, and that is exactly why we don't need to be there.

Defeating the Taliban, and defeating Saddam's government and military was easy. Occupying the Nation is a whole different issue, and it will likely never be over.

I don't believe Russia and China would actually step in to help Iran. They will sell them weapons, they will be there to rebuild, they will make a ton of profit from the whole thing, but their militaries will never get involved.

If we invade Iran, we will topple the regime very quickly, but we'll probably have an even worse time than Iraq in occupying the nation and putting a new government in place.

The Iraq and the "few weeks' thing could be referring to the Gulf War. There are many things Bush shouldn't have done, and declaring the war in Iraq "over" in 2003 is a mistake that will haunt him until his end.

It is true that more US Troops have been killed there since the "end" than the Gulf War and the invasion in 2003 combined and multiplied by 50. The problem is Rules of Engagement. Currently our Troops are made to act in the way that they CANNOT fire unless fired upon. In order to fire your weapon, you must have positive identification on the target, positive "proof" of the "target's" intent to cause death or serious bodily harm to you or others, and two or three other things that I cannot remember exactly what they were and I don't want to look them up because I want this post to be based on my experience.

In America, citizens with a concealed carry permit may draw and fire their weapon to prevent a violent felony from taking place (i.e.; rape, armed robbery, murder, breaking and entering with intent to murder, and so forth). Of course there is always the "I felt threatened" defense that most likely would work. Over there -- They basically must shoot at you first, miss, then attempt to shoot at you again before you are allowed to fire. Those rules are there for a reason, yes. But it gets more Americans killed than need be!

If they "took the gloves off" I do believe we are capable of inflicting widespread devastation in a short amount of time. But what about the innocents? Are there innocents? If so, how can they be handled? We could drop leaflets telling civilians to leave the area and anyone left after such and such date will be considered an enemy, but would that work? It would do more harm than good by letting the "martyrs" know we are coming. These "martyrs"....maybe one in a thousand actually do not fear death. You would be surprised how quickly their temperament changes once they catch a glimpse of their demise.

I don't want to run off on a tangent so I will get right to the point. 1) If they "took the gloves off" and gave unit commanders permission to destroy anything they deem to be a threat -- then, yes the damage done to them in a matter of three weeks would be unbelievable. 2) It's hard to "take the gloves off" without killing innocents. Just my input. Do with it as you wish.

I don't think Iran has the might "yet" to make the world back down and try other non violent means of stopping their nuclear ambitions. So they have to try and scare and bluff with words what their so close to reality technology can't accomplish at this time as they ramp up their science and military infrastructure.

Its the quite countries that scare the most IMO. Building up defense and offensive capabilities in a hurry and running more than usual training exercises or aggressive activity at suspected weapon and research sites. And not caring if other country's satellites are watching from above. Let the pics tell the story and make em sweat.

The weekly bluster out of Iran shows to me that they are aware of the bluster from other countries concerned of where their nuclear ambitions are leaning and they ratchet up the rhetoric in hopes of making them step back and give it another thought before they do something drastic. There has been a lot of saber rattling and UN actions lately between the adversaries and I think all sides are wary of certain scenarios.

Real soldiers? If that story back during the Iraqi/Iranian war was true about the kids and the minefield then they are not real soldiers.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


As you wish...
www.meforum.org...

More than five years after President George W. Bush's declaration of a global war against terrorism, the Iranian regime continues to embrace suicide terrorism as an important component of its military doctrine. In order to promote suicide bombing and other terrorism, the regime's theoreticians have utilized religion both to recruit suicide bombers and to justify their actions. But as some factions within the Islamic Republic support the development of these so-called martyrdom brigades, their structure and activities suggest their purpose is not only to serve as a strategic asset in either deterring or striking at the West, but also to derail domestic attempts to dilute the Islamic Republic's revolutionary legacy. Such strategy is apparent in the work of the Doctrinal Analysis Center for Security without Borders (Markaz-e barresiha-ye doktrinyal-e amniyat bedun marz), an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps think tank.[1] Its director, Hassan Abbasi, has embraced the utility of suicide terrorism. On February 19, 2006, he keynoted a Khajeh-Nasir University seminar celebrating the anniversary of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's fatwa (religious edict) calling for the murder of British author Salman Rushdie. As Khomeini often did, Abbasi began his lecture with literary criticism. He analyzed a U.S. publication from 2004 that, according to Abbasi, "depicts the prophet of Islam as the prophet of blood and violence." Rhetorically, he asked, "Will the Western man be able to understand martyrdom with such prejudice? [Can he] interpret Islam as anything but terrorism?" The West sees suicide bombings as terrorism but, to Abbasi, they are a noble expression of Islam. So what is terrorism if not suicide bombing? To Abbasi, terrorism includes any speech and expression he deems insulting to Islam. According to press coverage of his lecture, Abbasi noted that "[German chancellor] Merkel and [U.S. president] Bush's support of the Danish newspaper, which insults Islam's prophet, has damaged their reputation in the Islamic world and has raised the question of whether Christianity, rather than Islam, is of terrorist nature."[2] From the Iranian leadership's perspective, therefore, Jyllands-Posten's cartoons are evidence of Christian terrorism. By Abbasi's definition, Iran may not sponsor terrorism, but it does not hesitate to promote suicide attacks. He announced that approximately 40,000 Iranian estesh-hadiyun (martyrdom-seekers) were ready to carry out suicide operations against "twenty-nine identified Western targets" should the U.S. military strike Iranian nuclear installations.[3] Such threats are not new. According to an interview with Iran's Fars News Agency released on Abbasi's weblog, he has propagated haras-e moghaddas (sacred terror) at least since 2004. "The front of unbelief," Abbasi wrote, "is the front of the enemies of God and Muslims. Any deed which might instigate terror and horror among them is sacred and honorable."[4] On June 5, 2004, he spoke of how suicide operations could overcome superior military force: "In ‘deo-centric' thought, there is no need for military parity to face the enemy … Deo-centric man prepares himself for martyrdom while humanist man struggles to kill."[5] Abbasi's rise to prominence in the state-controlled Iranian media coincides with the growth of a number of organizations that have constrained those prone to moderation within the Islamic Republic. Take, for example, the Headquarters Commemorating the Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement (Setad-e Pasdasht-e Shohada-ye Nehzat-e Eslami), an organization founded in 2004 as a protest against President Mohammad Khatami's attempts at improving Iran's relations with Egypt.[6] The organization's prominence continued to grow throughout the year. On June 5, 2004, the reformist daily Shargh granted Mohammad-Ali Samadi, Headquarters' spokesman, a front page interview.[7] Samadi has a pedigree of hard-line revolutionary credentials. He is a member of the editorial boards of Shalamche and Bahar magazines, affiliated with the hard-line Ansar-e Hezbollah (Followers of the Party of God) vigilante group, as well as the newspaper Jomhouri-ye Eslami, considered the voice of the intelligence ministry.[8] Samadi said he had registered 2,000 volunteers for suicide operations at a seminar the previous day.[9] Copies of the registration forms (see Figure 1) show that the "martyrdom-seekers" could volunteer for suicide operations against three targets: operations against U.S. forces in the Shi‘ite holy cities in Iraq; against Israelis in Jerusalem; and against Rushdie. The registration forms also quote Khomeini's declaration that "[I]f the enemy assaults the lands of the Muslims and its frontiers, it is mandatory for all Muslims to defend it by all means possi

edit on 28-11-2011 by Jerisa because: See link for the rest, it is too long to post here...