Dittohead Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 It wouldn't be as easy as them crushing Iran like a "bug". They already are suffering from the Iraq war and they got fracked in Vietnam, so I don't see them crushing Iran. Man, people in here seem to only have observed a war from their PS3. Also, with so many US bases around Iran and in the Middle East, they would suffer a lot more casualties. The difference would be due to the fact that Iran is already prepared for a war while Iraq never saw the oncoming US invasion and was never really prepared for it. Also, Iran is looking for its self-interest so it isn't like they are pro or anti - terrorist or whatever propaganda you are made to believe. Terrorist is mainly a relative term. In fact Iran views US and Israel as terrorist nations because of the fact that they like to provoke a war while Israel and US have their own interpretation of terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
key2thecup Posted September 3, 2012 Author Share Posted September 3, 2012 Not till after the US elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 What i mean by 'crushing like a bug' is bomb the living sh out of them, walk in with tanks, encounter little resistance due to psi-ops and other american battle toys, 'declare victory' after a week, then operate a police state while dealing with insurgents for decades. I remember Iraq being a threat back in '91. Yeah, right. The US is spending those trillions on something, and it ain't handouts, bailouts or healthcare. It's their end-of-days world-policing military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 It took 21 days to crush Iraq's army would take 4-5 weeks to crush Irans. sending in troops is another story and is'nt going to happen anytime soon. No reason too send troops into these countries as you can't trust anyone, they don't trust each other so what you do is take out the military and let them kill each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 What i mean by 'crushing like a bug' is bomb the living sh out of them, walk in with tanks, encounter little resistance due to psi-ops and other american battle toys, 'declare victory' after a week, then operate a police state while dealing with insurgents for decades. I remember Iraq being a threat back in '91. Yeah, right. The US is spending those trillions on something, and it ain't handouts, bailouts or healthcare. It's their end-of-days world-policing military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 The problem with Iran is that they will not distinguish between Israel and America. They will respond to an Israeli attack by attacking American forces in the region. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 The only reason it hasn't been done yet is entirely political. Ie. They can't justify it at this point. But a dirty bomb in a US city? Free pass to invade whoever they want. No. We are quite safe from your pitiful band of troops. Don't forget, no commie support = No vietnam repeat. Just a neverending occupation and insurgency. Who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 How would you know that it will take about 4-5 weeks to crush Iran? Are you the defense minster of US? Do you have intel on Iran's defense, army and weaponary? As I said, Iraq's attack was more of a surprise attack while Iran has already prepared for a war for many years. Iran's landscape and terrain is also much different than Iraq since it is more mountainous and has wide variety of weather conditions. You have to think of logistics and aftermath and also Iran allies and secret network that might attack US bases. Its not as easy as dropping a damn bomb and calling it a day. Iraq didn't have squat and they had trouble with them, you really think it will be that easy to go against Iran? Especially since they have received so much military equipment from Russia. US might be a military power but you guys talk about it like they are invincible. It wasn't too long ago that they lost the vietnam war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red Light Racicot Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 It took 21 days to crush Iraq's army would take 4-5 weeks to crush Irans. sending in troops is another story and is'nt going to happen anytime soon. No reason too send troops into these countries as you can't trust anyone, they don't trust each other so what you do is take out the military and let them kill each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Much of Iraq is flat and arid. Iran's terrain is drastically different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 lol lost the vietnam war. lost interest in it became a political nightmare so they left. they never lost a battle. so enough about losing vietnam. Uh...does Khe Sanh ring a bell? US won the tactical battle, but couldn't hold it. All part of the Tet Offensive. The US didn't get the people of South Vietnam to trust them (what a surprise). The US saw themselves as liberators. The Vietnamese saw them as replacing the French as colonial forces. The US might have won battles, but the strategic objectives were never met. I sure would never consider Vietnam a military victory. The sad part is all the lessons learned from that war is now being ignored, and the US is reverting back to the type of military pre-Vietnam, where it's not prepared for different conditions, and different tactics. It's easy in a desert to spot your enemy with UAV's and Air Forces. In the jungle or forested terrain, I bet the US wouldn't have as much success. A determined guerrilla war would be a lot more bloody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 The only reason it hasn't been done yet is entirely political. Ie. They can't justify it at this point. But a dirty bomb in a US city? Free pass to invade whoever they want. No. We are quite safe from your pitiful band of troops. Don't forget, no commie support = No vietnam repeat. Just a neverending occupation and insurgency. Who cares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 lol lost the vietnam war. lost interest in it became a political nightmare so they left. they never lost a battle. so enough about losing vietnam. You are deluded if you think the USA can't defeat Iran's military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 oh ok, 4-6 months then. still same result. But. it's not happening anytime soon. there's an election and Iran does'nt have a nuke yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pouria Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 lol lost the vietnam war. lost interest in it became a political nightmare so they left. they never lost a battle. so enough about losing vietnam. Uh...does Khe Sanh ring a bell? US won the tactical battle, but couldn't hold it. All part of the Tet Offensive. The US didn't get the people of South Vietnam to trust them (what a surprise). The US saw themselves as liberators. The Vietnamese saw them as replacing the French as colonial forces. The US might have won battles, but the strategic objectives were never met. I sure would never consider Vietnam a military victory. The sad part is all the lessons learned from that war is now being ignored, and the US is reverting back to the type of military pre-Vietnam, where it's not prepared for different conditions, and different tactics. It's easy in a desert to spot your enemy with UAV's and Air Forces. In the jungle or forested terrain, I bet the US wouldn't have as much success. A determined guerrilla war would be a lot more bloody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 lol lost the vietnam war. lost interest in it became a political nightmare so they left. they never lost a battle. so enough about losing vietnam. Uh...does Khe Sanh ring a bell? US won the tactical battle, but couldn't hold it. All part of the Tet Offensive. The US didn't get the people of South Vietnam to trust them (what a surprise). The US saw themselves as liberators. The Vietnamese saw them as replacing the French as colonial forces. The US might have won battles, but the strategic objectives were never met. I sure would never consider Vietnam a military victory. The sad part is all the lessons learned from that war is now being ignored, and the US is reverting back to the type of military pre-Vietnam, where it's not prepared for different conditions, and different tactics. It's easy in a desert to spot your enemy with UAV's and Air Forces. In the jungle or forested terrain, I bet the US wouldn't have as much success. A determined guerrilla war would be a lot more bloody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NikiShiz Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Please consider the cost of war, and NOT just in the monitary literal sense. As someone else already mentioned, the US will not just come in bomb the country and leave, that wouldn't explain why they are still in Iraq + Afghanistan. There are rebuilding phases, democratic transition, (which could actually result in the intensification of resentment towards the west), a population of over 74 million (in comparison to 35mill in both Afghanistan and Iraq), regime change and these are just some of the costs to consider. I don't think Americans (general population) even WANT to go through another war. Personally, I don't anticipate a war against Iran anytime soon, especially, with the US elections coming up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 That is the stupidest thing that I've ever heard. So if a bomb goes off in a US city, they would automatically attack Iran? Maybe in your mind that is how its played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TOMapleLaughs Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 PS. Not all of Iraq is flat. And it's desert, not dessert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skolozsy2 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 Please consider the cost of war, and NOT just in the monitary literal sense. As someone else already mentioned, the US will not just come in bomb the country and leave, that wouldn't explain why they are still in Iraq + Afghanistan. There are rebuilding phases, democratic transition, (which could actually result in the intensification of resentment towards the west), a population of over 74 million (in comparison to 35mill in both Afghanistan and Iraq), regime change and these are just some of the costs to consider. I don't think Americans (general population) even WANT to go through another war. Personally, I don't anticipate a war against Iran anytime soon, especially, with the US elections coming up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.