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.
Sure we heard that before in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam. It’s not that easy and Iran is a step up, you don’t win wars just in the air.
Absolutely not. We had a heck of a lot more than six B-52s operating over Vietnam, a nation the size of Florida, and it didn't win it for us. As a matter of fact, trying to rely on air-power alone in North Vietnam should have taught us a lesson.
Absolutely it does. Crush their economy and after they burn through the rest of that Obama money they won't be able to fund their global terrorism network anymore even if their next government is just as bad.
On top of that, China and Russia likely move into the power vacuum and seek to make the country profitable for them which would mean a more stable, friendly government.
There's no need for a long engagement in Iran, the damage can be done quickly and with few to no casualties on the US side. The Iranians know this so don't be shocked if they don't pick suicide.
Absolutely not. We had a heck of a lot more than six B-52s operating in Vietnam, a nation the size of Florida, and it didn't win it for us. As a matter of fact, trying to rely on air-power alone in North Vietnam should have taught us a lesson.
People have always overestimated our military ability since WW2.
Absolutely not. We had a heck of a lot more than six B-52s operating in Vietnam, a nation the size of Florida, and it didn't win it for us. As a matter of fact, trying to rely on air-power alone in North Vietnam should have taught us a lesson.
The goals were different in Vietnam and that was a ground war.
The goal in Iran should be to merely cripple them militarily and economically while destroying the infrastructure of their society. All of that can be done with missile attacks and air strikes.
The prospect of that clearly has you shook so even you know it to be true even if you won't admit it.
... such strategy would certainly NOT resolve the issue.
What problem with Iran?
Perpetual low intensity war, rare or no casualties, expensive weaponry on full production. What's the problem?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree
If Iran deescalates it will probably be the end of their regime.
The Mullahs need to act.
Yes, all they have to do is explode a car or drone bomb here and there (e.g. Yemen, Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia) and call it an act, should be enough as far as that aspect of remaining in power goes.
The goals were different in Vietnam and that was a ground war.
The goal in Iran should be to merely cripple them militarily and economically while destroying the infrastructure of their society. All of that can be done with missile attacks and air strikes.
The prospect of that clearly has you shook so even you know it to be true even if you won't admit it.
That was the same goal in North Vietnam too. It didn't work.
Can you name one war which was won by air-power alone?
Why are people glamouring for war with them if there is no issue?
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.
