Iraq's army was if I recall, #5 when we took it down in the first time. Why do you think the rest of the region was so damn glad to see it squashed ? And there is a large difference between an army and a gang. gangs dont have MIGs etc.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Iran warnes US to not return carrier to Persian Gulf
- Thread starter dogtowner
- Start date
Iraq's army was if I recall, #5 when we took it down in the first time. Why do you think the rest of the region was so damn glad to see it squashed ? And there is a large difference between an army and a gang. gangs dont have MIGs etc.
Werbung:
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
its so good that you have no influence on military and political policy. You just live in that past and think its the early 80s...maybe you should recall also how long and how deadly that war was.. Also oddly, the military they had in the late 70's early 80;s...not the same one as today.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
You live in a world where you think you need migs to win wars. Iran does not..Vietnam we had f-4's...we lost that war. Iraq was 5 in size...but Iran has better tech today, and is better trained, and could spread the war to far outside its borders...That was Iraq's plan as well...bring in Israel and gain allies...Iran already beat Israel in a small war in the last few years...and it did not even use everything it had...or even close.
we also have better tech today and they can do nothing to act on their threat with IEDs, takes real military hardware. anything else they're already doing.
they are using all they can sneak into Syria & Lebanon, anything serious would/has been addressed before it arrived.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
its funny, you think they actuly have to move anything into those areas...they are there..and they have many ways to get more there...But yes we will stop them...just like we stop arms from getting for Shia militias in Iraq and stop the Taliban from getting more arms, and stoped the VeitCong from getting arms from China and RUssia....
wishful hopeful thinking will lead to more Dead American troops and a Crushed US Econ. ...even if we win.
transporting spitball shooters is easier than artillery pieces and serious hardware. and as to VietNam its easier if you share a border as opposed to going through unsympathetic countries.
steveox
Well-Known Member
Its like this,, If Napolean never attacked Russia he might had won Europe and Africa. Africans didnt have guns. They used spears and sheilds,,Just like how Indians lost the war they used bows,Arrows and tomahawks. If Napolean invaded Northern Africa and work way down might had won that whiole african continent and those people today wouldnt be going hungry. Africa might have been the first communist continent if Napolean didnt invade Russia.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
Iraq is Sympathetic, Syria is a Proxy state, Lebanon is run buy Hezbollah, no one likes Israel.. You have such a narrow and limited scope of what actually could happen with no understanding of the middle east it seems...Again just like how you end up in Iraq spending Trillions wasting lives, and basically giving power to the bigger and real threat....
Forgin Policy is about more then just going to war to make you seem manly
dude are you forgetting the the Iran-Iraq war ? they are not buddy buddy and until very recently it would have involved getting past US Military. even without that there is a massive difference beteween crossi ng one border than two. I have a very good sense or reality of what is possible under parameters given while you are shooting guys in the legs without knowledge of the fullness of the situation.
pocketfullofshells
Well-Known Member
I am guessing you don't realy know much about the Iraq Iran war...Factions within Iraq sided with Iran...aka Shia Groups...Iran has since added 20 years of backing and funding of Shia groups...even more so since the US took down Saddam...there are parts in South Iraq that Basically are ruled By Iran even right now. Iraq controls them in terms of a pretty map with lines saying Iraq....Iran controls the money and the minds of the population.
The only thing IRAN is doing is to cover their domestic weakness by sabre rattling. They would never be able to even attak an American ship without an retaliation worse enough to not let em do it again, ever. All this Iranian military action in the last weeks is just some nice PR for home. You don't have to take it that serious.
RoccoR
Well-Known Member
et al,
Sometimes, the implementation of US Policy is too militaristic. The constant and continuous use of military intervention is a grave commentary on our diplomatic skills. In the carrot and stick approach, we simply have to use the stick all too often because our carrot sucks (diplomatically speaking). War is an admission that our diplomatic efforts have failed. And we fail all to often.
And in only many cases, we have often forgot the lessons learned in the past: You can win every battle and still lose miss the military objective.
I think it is coming to a point where we have too many issues to consider when we jump to this stage. There are other options we should consider and other factors that come into play.
Let's be realistic. The national security decision making processes that took us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been very predictive of the actual outcomes. Iraq, while not at war, is not the stable country we envisioned a decade ago. And in Iraq, the Prime Minister owes his current position to the Iranians; with al-Maliki now using the US trained military to arrest his opposition. Afghanistan is not much better. The government is in open negotiations with the Taliban. And as far as corruption goes - we've taught both countries how to better promote criminal activity in office. The chief anti-corruption officer in Afghanistan has resigned and the one in Iran is threatening to resign.
No, we cannot trust the leadership and decision making processes of Washington.
Most Respectfully,
R
Sometimes, the implementation of US Policy is too militaristic. The constant and continuous use of military intervention is a grave commentary on our diplomatic skills. In the carrot and stick approach, we simply have to use the stick all too often because our carrot sucks (diplomatically speaking). War is an admission that our diplomatic efforts have failed. And we fail all to often.
And in only many cases, we have often forgot the lessons learned in the past: You can win every battle and still lose miss the military objective.
When the US uses military force to achieve its foreign policy, each action we take has certain consequences.
I think it is coming to a point where we have too many issues to consider when we jump to this stage. There are other options we should consider and other factors that come into play.
- The Middle East and Persian Gulf states need to take a greater role and more responsibility in policing their own neighborhood. If the US is going to act as the World Police, then it needs to make that clear --- not only to the world --- but to the domestic audience. It is a very expensive proposition and one that can be extremely hazardous.
- The US needs to adjust its Non-Proliferation program. Sovereignty actually means something. And the US military enforcement of the Non-Proliferation Agreements is not always the right solution. A sovereign nation like Iran still has the right to control its destiny; no matter how much we disagree or oppose their activity.
Let's be realistic. The national security decision making processes that took us to war in Iraq and Afghanistan have not been very predictive of the actual outcomes. Iraq, while not at war, is not the stable country we envisioned a decade ago. And in Iraq, the Prime Minister owes his current position to the Iranians; with al-Maliki now using the US trained military to arrest his opposition. Afghanistan is not much better. The government is in open negotiations with the Taliban. And as far as corruption goes - we've taught both countries how to better promote criminal activity in office. The chief anti-corruption officer in Afghanistan has resigned and the one in Iran is threatening to resign.
No, we cannot trust the leadership and decision making processes of Washington.
Most Respectfully,
R
Rocco sounds like you are OK with Iran being a nuclear combatant. I'm not and I do believe there are some matters such as this that are just too important to leave to diplomacy. Diplomacy has been under way with Iran for quite some time and have been less than fruitless as Iran has no intention to stop.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Pocket, what is your position on Iran obtaining nuclear weapons?
Dogtowner, you see Iran obtaining nuclear weapons as a threat to US and Israeli national security, correct? What other, if any, nations would a nuclear armed Iran pose a threat to national security?
Dogtowner, you see Iran obtaining nuclear weapons as a threat to US and Israeli national security, correct? What other, if any, nations would a nuclear armed Iran pose a threat to national security?
Werbung:
NATO but mainly those rather nearby. But more to the point it makes them the bully state Hussein always wished too be but we prevented from becoming.
