It sounds to me like the Iranians are just spouting propaganda in order to try to avoid being invaded, because they have no chance of victory in face of an invasion. Of course, by announcing that they are closer to development nuclear weapons, they are just inviting America to invade all the more. I am no political theorist, and this is all probably obvious…but those are my thoughts.
I am certainly not in favour of America invading other sovereign countries, but I have no doubts about an invasion of Iran.
Infonick: I ask this out of curiosity, but what sort of tactics do think that American forces will use in the invasion. Obviously, with American forces in both neighbouring Iraq and Afghanistan, that opens up the possibility of a war on multiple fronts. However, once in Iran, what will they do? Since Iran is mountainous, that undoubtedly creates problems.
Invasion is comparatively easy. Especialy with the might of our Air Force and thus the ability to “prepare the battlefield”.
Conquest and “pacification” would be more difficult in Iran than Iraq. (And we’re all seeing how easy THAT has been.)
THe former is a matter of engaging and defeating the other army, which we are really really good at. The latter is a matter of winning over the hearts and minds of the common people. A difficult task made all the more difficult by the fact that nobody reallly likes seeing somebody else’s army marching around in their country.
Iran’s statement sounds like a lizard flashing its color pattern to ward off predators. But Bush & co. seem more like the primate that takes that sort of thing as a challenge for territory/primacy.
What I meant is, we don’t have any say in the matter, the neocons are going to go to war over there no matter what we do. A democracy doesn’t mean I can call Bush up and tell him this war isn’t cricket.
Exactly why I said anything long term would be difficult. If we could manage to beat Iran in a couple of months (we beat Iraq in a month), and the occupation went smoothly (which I doubt it would), we would be fine. If we invade Iran, we should have more allies since Europe has already been dealing with Iran in talks and that would take a lot of the burden off of us. You are mixing and confusing the Iranian people with the Iranian military. I’m looking at Iran and seeing the military and the threat of nuclear weapons. You are looking at insurgents and the military. Those are two very different things and the way you engage each is very different. I also don’t want Iran to get nuclear weapons, which is add a lot of drive. Also, you are talking like I can control this situation. I can’t, all I can do is prepare for war. If I’m not confident that we can beat them, our performance will suffer and we’ll have already lost as a result. I’m sure you’ve heard that a chain is only as strong as its weastest link, we’ll if I’m a strong link, then we can move to the next link (in this case troops) and find out how strong it is and so on to find the weakest one.
It’s like CH said, we don’t really have a say. It is up to the top government officials on if we go or not. Besides, the Bush administration doesn’t know the meaning of diplomacy, you saw what diplomacy meant to them with Iraq. I don’t control whether we go to war or not. All I can do is be prepared to go if necessary.
Perc, I won’t go into specifics. However, watch Black Hawk Down and also recall our operations in Kosovo. Such as in Black Hawk down we lost less than 20 out of about 100 troops fighting a whole city. That is pretty good and you can see some tactics we use. If you look at Kosovo, you’ll see the strategic bombing that crippled the forces and made it impossible for them to successfully fight.
Shimo, read what I said to Perc and you’ll see the difference between insurgents and a military. If we fight the Iranian military, we’ll have actual targets to fight and be able to know who the enemy is. An insurgency would be a whole other thing. Also, the size of the country still wouldn’t be that big of an issue as you are making it because: 1. We have control of two of the borders 2. There would still be hot spots to focus on.
What do you wanna tell me, Infonick? That there’re no insurgents Iran?
To the “choice”-question: You had a choice: Vote for Kerry, but apparently the majority prefered Bush (yes I know that you ain’t a supporter of Bush :o).
We are already in flush cycle. With other nations looking at us in a different light because of the way we attacked Iraq with no provocation, we will now, at least for a while, have stressful relations with them. And those relations bleed over into imports and exports, the value of the dollar vs. their currency, and how favorably they look at us as potential international investments or investors. Maybe if we don’t continue this stupidity by going to war with Iran, we can save face, and make up some of the damage. If not, we will be shunned by many who were once our frineds, because they will be thinking, “Are we next?”
I also think that the world economy can find a way around the US, it may take a hiccup, but they will get over us.
It was certainly a failed campaign, but despite that, it shows that sometimes superior logistics and tactics win the battle despite overwhelming odds shown by numbers.
Every single American offensive campaign failed, and nearly every British campaign failed. I don’t call that a victory. A stalemate, perhaps, but definetly not a victory.
America became independant in 1776, so it had already been independant by the beginning of the war in 1812. The result of the war was a stalemate, which means the situation after the war was the same which it had been before the war.
That isn’t a choice about war with Iran. Also, believe it or not, Kerry wasn’t the best of Presidential candidates. I did vote for Kerry so I used the one choice you said I had and we are still headed for war. Many that voted for Bush didn’t necessarily want to go to Iran, but they just didn’t like Kerry’s policy. You are taking a very high or idealistic view. You act as if the government is accountable for every little thing it does and listens to the people on every issue. It isn’t, government mostly does what it wants until it it close to reelection since most people don’t follow what goes on. War is also a very high level government thing that people have even less control over. Also Iran has become a much bigger issue than it was prior to Bush’s reelection since this is Bush’s last term and he doesn’t have to worry about his popularity or reelection anymore. Also, I’m not telling you that there are no insurgents in Iran. I’m saying that we could beat the Iranian MILITARY fucktard. I don’t know how many times I have to say that. There is a big difference between fighting insurgents and fighting a military. The statement in the article was made by the Iranian military. Also, I’m saying that even if there was a chance that they could beat us, I still have to believe that we’ll win because if I don’t, that will affect my perforamnce and they will have already won. The mind has a great impact on performance. In a sports game, if the team goes in thinking they’ll lose, it’ll probably happen. If they go in truly believing they’ll win, they got a fighting chance. America is already the bigger and more powerful military so we’ve got the advantage. Also, technicailly there are no insurgents in Iran since we aren’t fighting people rebelling against us or whatever you want to call what the insurgents in Iraq are doing.
So you don’t think that forcing the most powerful military into a stalemate where they weren’t able to conquer is a victory? The War of 1812 is a victory for the same reason Vietnam is considered a loss. If America had lost the war, America wouldn’t be America. Also, America hadn’t been setup too long (a little over 20 years at its present state).
Shimo, America delcared its independance, it didn’t have it until after the Revolutionary War.
Hades, if the White House burning is considered a defeat to you, America doesn’t exist period since we lost the Revloution then. The British kept burnign and taking over the areas where we had the government setup. Britain also lost WW2 since parliment was bombed to hell. A government building being destroyed is not a loss. If the British had made the American government inoperable, that would be a different situation.
Uh, no, I do, in fact, call “forcing the other side into a stalemate” (whatever that means), a stalemate.
The war of 1812 may have exemplified the heavy losses that come with fighting without the regard of tactics and shows stupidity on both sides, but the United States was a sovereign nation before 1812, and the Treaty of Ghent didn’t make the U.S. any more of one.
You are looking at it as America was free before the war and free after. I’m looking at it as if America had lost, America would not be America. America couldn’t afford to lose the war. Retaining sovereignty is the victory of the war. America did not lose land, its government, its way of life. If the British had won the war, history would be quite different, and not in America’s favor. I guess America lost WW2 since America wasn’t any freer after it. America lost a lot of wars then sicne we didn’t gain any new freedom or land in many of them. Iraq will be a defeat at its current pace unless we decide to just conquer the country and make it another part of America. Ah, the 51st state…Iraq.
To judge who won a war is difficult. The definition you seem to be using (freedom) is very narrow. Instead of what looking at what is, you sometimes have to look at what would have been had the outcome been different and see if what happened is better than the other possibel outcomes.
The problem is that we are from different parts of the world, and politics work different in Germany than in America. Because here, the government IS accountable for every thing it does, and in fact, the opposition threatened to sue the government because it didn’t do what it had promised before the election. Also, I don’t know whether people have any control over war or not because since I’m alive, the country I live in hasn’t been involved in any war.
And I do recognize that beating the Iranian forces isn’t a big problem, I do agree with you in that point, but you don’t see that there are militant groups in Iran who will commit attacks in an Iran occupied by American forces. It’s simply the same thing as in Iraq. You were like “There is practically no Army in Iraq, and after we’ve overturned Saddam, the people will be happy to be freed by us.” But it wasn’t like that. A small religious minority in Iraq, the Sunni Muslim, have been committing attacks since you overturned Saddam. One shouldn’t forget that the Shi’a Muslims, formerly surpressed in Iraq and excpected to support the US forces are not being surpressed in Iran. The relations between the United States and Iran are very bad, hence the people in Iran wouldn’t welcome an occupied Iran, even if the Mullahs get overturned.
Actually, that is pretty far from what I’m thinking. My whole point about this thread is that Iran is almost trying to provoke a war. America can’t handle any long term engagements right now with Iraq and Afgahnistan going on. Iran would probably be long since they’ve seen how insurgency works in Iraq. Iran would be similar to Iraq in that there most likely would be an insurgency and that would prolong the engagement, which America can’t handle right now, however, it would probably at least delay, if not prevent, Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Also, in Iraq, it isn’t just the small Sunni faction that we have been fighting. What is going on with the insurgency is not really covered much in the news. Don’t event ry to talk about it being a small group or labeling the Sunni’s as the insurgents. Not only that, but one of the reasons the insurgency is hard to fight is and America is losing so many lives is because of the rules of war. If America didn’t have rules ot follow, casualties would greatly decrease.
No… the USA was the aggressor, not Great Britain. None of the things that actually started the war (trade restrictions) got resolved in the treaty that ended the war. It wasn’t the heroic fight against a foreign power invading and threatening the freedom of USA as you’re making it out to be. There would be no major difference, whether the war was fought or not, really.
I guess America lost WW2 since America wasn’t any freer after it. America lost a lot of wars then sicne we didn’t gain any new freedom or land in many of them.
You’re writing almost as if I stated that USA lost the 1812 war.
Let’s see in how many ways this example doesn’t apply:
Germany started occupations and annexations of nearby European countires, whereas England was simply having a trade war with France
The USA actually accomplished some of its offensive campaigns, whereas almost every offensive in the war of 1812 were miserable failures
Germany surrendered unconditionally, whereas in the war of 1812, that useless piece of paper, the Treaty of Ghent, was signed
Iraq will be a defeat at its current pace unless we decide to just conquer the country and make it another part of America. Ah, the 51st state…Iraq.
And what? Kill off the entire native population? Well… I guess that isn’t so farfetched, considering how North America got populated by Europeans in the first place
The difference is that if America HAD LOST, America would have been in deep shit, but it didn’t. The war happened, but the oputcome was one of the better possibilities for the time. Also, considering how Britain was the most powerful country in the world, not losing is a pretty big accomplishment. Had America lsot the war, America would have lost its freedoms. Besides, America was still a fledgling country and couldn’t handle what Britain was doing do it at the time.
England wasn’t simply having a trade war with France, so that pint is invalid.
Yes, but the British had done things (such as impressment and attacks on ships) prior to the war. I say it was a victory since we maintained our sovreignty and freedom. By this definition we lost WWI since we lost numerous lvies and just tipped the war in favor of France and Britain.
Ending a war is useless? That is pretty fucked up Cless.
I’m just saying that with Iraq we won’t gain anything unelss we do that, so it is loss by the logic you’ve been using.
