Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We should have first sent more troops to iraq as well as not getting distracted by nation-building once we had occupied Iraq. After conquering Iraq, we should have then marched into Iran.
We should have first sent more troops to iraq as well as not getting distracted by nation-building once we had occupied Iraq. After conquering Iraq, we should have then marched into Iran.
And that area of the world would be even more of a power vacuum for groups like ISIS, the US would have lost tens of thousands of troops and already pulled out of the region in defeat.
We should have first sent more troops to iraq as well as not getting distracted by nation-building once we had occupied Iraq. After conquering Iraq, we should have then marched into Iran.
Marched into Iran for what? To get American troops slaughtered by the tens of thousands?
There's a reason why we didn't do that, and we never will. That reason is because we aren't capable of subduing Iran. Not in a million years.
And that area of the world would be even more of a power vacuum for groups like ISIS, the US would have lost tens of thousands of troops and already pulled out of the region in defeat.
Iraq was a cakewalk. Iran wouldn't be.
These people think that all we have to do is land in a foreign country, and as soon as the opposing army sees the American flag, they'll all faint at the same time. Lol!
Air raids and bombing from afar won't do anything, land troops need to go in and hold the land, and that will be very hard to do in Iran. So no one will win, the Iranians won't invade the US either, they would probably retaliate by bombing Israel.
On the contrary, Every bridge, every power plant, every military base, Every ship larger than 100 ft, all infrastructure could be destroyed within hours with prior planning. Iran would be a shell unable to recover for decades. Why would we have to invade?
The Iraq invasion was based on lies and fake justifications. What would have been the excuse to invade Iran?
The US could barely hang on to Iraq - a desert nation of 36 million. Iran is 80 million and mountainous.
Lies? No more lies than Somalia, Bosnia, Syria, Libya, and Yemen. Many people were very upset when we didn't try to save lives in Rwanda too. It would have ended badly as it always seems to. You show gassed Children and genocide, we have a tendency to get involved.
Hillary put it succinctly in her debate with Bernie.
On the contrary, Every bridge, every power plant, every military base, Every ship larger than 100 ft, all infrastructure could be destroyed within hours with prior planning. Iran would be a shell unable to recover for decades. Why would we have to invade?
Lol... I like how so many of you are addicted to the idea of air strikes!
That would solve nothing, and Iran would easily recover because that would do nothing but mobilize the people to furiously get to work and fix it all. If air strikes are so effective, why didn't we just use them to run Saddam Hussein out of the country so that we could walk into Iraq unopposed?
The Air strike has become the American way to conduct war without consequences, and it needs to stop. For those of us that served, we understand what air strikes are supposed to be....a way to soften up targets before inserting ground troops into an area. They aren't a be all/end all and they aren't a way to conduct foreign policy unless you're lazy or cowardly.
If you're gonna deal with Iran, you've gotta invade and mop up the old fashioned way....or don't do it at all. But you're not gonna do it from thousands of feet in the air.
Lol... I like how so many of you are addicted to the idea of air strikes!
That would solve nothing, and Iran would easily recover because that would do nothing but mobilize the people to furiously get to work and fix it all. If air strikes are so effective, why didn't we just use them to run Saddam Hussein out of the country so that we could walk into Iraq unopposed?
The Air strike has become the American way to conduct war without consequences, and it needs to stop. For those of us that served, we understand what air strikes are supposed to be....a way to soften up targets before inserting ground troops into an area. They aren't a be all/end all and they aren't a way to conduct foreign policy unless you're lazy or cowardly.
If you're gonna deal with Iran, you've gotta invade and mop up the old fashioned way....or don't do it at all. But you're not gonna do it from thousands of feet in the air.
Did I say we should? Being an Aerospace Engineer working on Missiles and Guided munitions for the last 17 years I know what our capabilities are. I've worked with most all branches of of our military and I know our capabilities, whether we have to Occupy a country is for the Politicians and Generals to decide. I'm guessing you were a military Strategist and probably served in Afghanistan or Iraq so you must have experience on the receiving end?
Did I say we should? Being an Aerospace Engineer working on Missiles and Guided munitions for the last 17 years I know what our capabilities are. I've worked with most all branches of of our military and I know our capabilities, whether we have to Occupy a country is for the Politicians and Generals to decide. I'm guessing you were a military Strategist and probably served in Afghanistan or Iraq so you must have experience on the receiving end?
Air strikes are for softening up targets for ground troops...not to conduct foreign policy. That's all there is to it.
And what happens when the air strikes don't disable a target? What happens when pilots get shot down and taken hostage? What then?
I don't care what kind of engineer you are, there is only ONE way to conduct a proper war where you cover all of your bases: ground war! That's it. That's the only way to ensure that you've mopped up an area properly. Raining in bombs and missiles is nothing but an attempt to conduct war without consequences. It's cowardly. The Pentagon has become addicted to it because taking casualties would make the American people stand up and demand accountability.
I don't doubt that you know what our capabilities are, but I know what they aren't. We aren't going to take down Iran with missiles. Ain't gonna happen. If we could, we would've done it by now. We haven't because we know that it's not that simple. We're afraid of the long game should we do something so stupid.
It ain't like the Iranians are just gonna sit around and let that happen and not respond. You think terrorism is bad now? Iran has the capability to unleash terror on a scale that you're not prepared to deal with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
