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.
That’s more territory that a military has to conquer and hold. Mountainous territory at that....the most daunting of all landscapes.
Come on...I know you’re smarter than this.
And you're smart enough to know you don't have to conquer and hold all of the territory. Good grief, how do you think Japan subdued China and the Pacific region in WWII? Even if you buy into the false premise that you have to "occupy" in the first place, it only needs to be strategic locations.
What's the relevance? Are you correlating military strength with land area?
Yea, land area and terrain type is pretty damn important. I can tell you have zero experience and knowledge in this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobdreamz
As soon as I saw Bolton added to this Administration I said it's only a matter of time before we are in another War.
The clock has started ticking.
Lol, yea, that guy is like the king of neocons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oceangaia
And you're smart enough to know you don't have to conquer and hold all of the territory. Good grief, how do you think Japan subdued China and the Pacific region in WWII? Even if you buy into the false premise that you have to "occupy" in the first place, it only needs to be strategic locations.
Japan did not subdue all of China or even close to it, I have no idea where you get this from. Japan advanced some, stalemated, then China (this is where the communists got their foothold) drive the Japanese back. At no point ever did Japan subdue China nor remotely close to it.
And you're smart enough to know you don't have to conquer and hold all of the territory. Good grief, how do you think Japan subdued China and the Pacific region in WWII? Even if you buy into the false premise that you have to "occupy" in the first place, it only needs to be strategic locations.
You just don’t get it, do you?
If we attack Iran, there’s no just sitting around in “strategic locations.” We will have to take Tehran, the center of power. Then other important cities in the other regions have to be taken. Cities like Isfahan and Shiraz. You think this is some kinda game where Americans wave the flag and the Iranians just lie down and spread their cheeks? They are gonna fight to the last man and take thousands of American troops with them.
Jihadists from all over the world will POUR across the border from every direction to kill Americans. It’s a border that we can’t secure no matter what we do. They will attack American targets relentlessly.
Iran will have to be occupied after invading it. If you think otherwise, you’re just clueless about war.
If we attack Iran, there’s no just sitting around in “strategic locations.” We will have to take Tehran, the center of power. Then other important cities in the other regions have to be taken. Cities like Isfahan and Shiraz. You think this is some kinda game where Americans wave the flag and the Iranians just lie down and spread their cheeks? They are gonna fight to the last man and take thousands of American troops with them.
Jihadists from all over the world will POUR across the border from every direction to kill Americans. It’s a border that we can’t secure no matter what we do. They will attack American targets relentlessly.
Iran will have to be occupied after invading it. If you think otherwise, you’re just clueless about war.
You're clueless. We do NOT have to occupy. We do not have to take cities. Occupation is precisely what creates the scenario you describe. What border are you talking about securing?
You're clueless. We do NOT have to occupy. We do not have to take cities. Occupation is precisely what creates the scenario you describe. What border are you talking about securing?
What, do some airstrikes? If that was so effective, then that is all we would ever do...
What, do some airstrikes? If that was so effective, then that is all we would ever do...
Effective in doing what? You're flapping your trap and haven't even mentioned what mission you have in mind? Are you thinking total regime change and nation rebuilding? We are sending a carrier group to deter, and respond to if necessary, Iranian military action in the region. That can be accomplished with air strikes. We can certainly neutralize Iranian military threat to it's neighbors without occupation.
Effective in doing what? You're flapping your trap and haven't even mentioned what mission you have in mind? Are you thinking total regime change and nation rebuilding? We are sending a carrier group to deter, and respond to if necessary, Iranian military action in the region. That can be accomplished with air strikes. We can certainly neutralize Iranian military threat to it's neighbors without occupation.
Goodness, you cannot even follow your own line of thought, lol.
Wag The Dog II. This is all about distracting from the upcoming testimony of Muller, McGahn, etc. And if things turn much worse for Trump, he'll start a war with Iran to try to save himself.
Aircraft carrier sent to Middle East after indications Iran planned attack on US forces
Wag the dog ...
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.
