War with Iran. Here's what it would look like...

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Pat Hurley, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. Pat Hurley

    Pat Hurley Former Guest

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2006
    Messages:
    987
    Location:
    Naples, Florida
  2. Light Coat

    Light Coat New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Middle of Nowhere, KS
    I would like for someone to define, "within days" the last time we engaged the navy of all mighty Iran we sank every ship that could be targeted within the 15 minutes of fighting allowed. With a whole whopping 3 ships on our side. I think it was something to the tune of 50 ships sunk in that engeagement.
  3. Mark

    Mark New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    314
    I don't know of ANY war the US has been involved in, where the war has been won without putting troops on the ground. I know there are some pretty sharp historians that are members here, maybe they could correct me?

    The Iraq war was misguided by Rumsfeld. IMO, the first 3 1/2 years were wasted by his direction. My opinion is formed by a class I took, taught by a Lutheran pastor. His main point was how little understanding the American people, and the west, have of the Muslims in the mid-east. Rumsfeld would have done much better to sit at this pastor's feet for 45 minutes, instead of taking the advice he was given.

    The US has impressive ordinance, to be sure, however, our enemy was taught in Viet Nam how to hurt us. Just as the colonial army whupped the stand up fighting British, our ememies strike us with non standard methods of warfare. Because of world opinion, and other reasons, our armies cannot use all means at their disposal.

    War with Iran would decidedly be won by the US. But only if we were totally committed, and this would involve sending in troups.
    Mark
  4. I don't know of any, Mark. Boots on mud is the only way a war can actually be "won," short of simply using nukes to eradicate all life in enemy territory, and so far at least, no one has ever done that, nor, I think, would we. One question does arise here though: Would we really want, or need, to "win" such a war in the traditional meaning of that term, as in the occupation of the enemy's territory? One thing that does seem clear is that, if we wished to do do, we could, without committing ground troops, utterly destroy Iran's infrastructure, its naval forces, and its nuclear facilities. That, in itself, might be sufficient to accomplish our basic purpose and prevent the Iranians from instigating further terror in the Middle East. Just a thought.
  5. Mark

    Mark New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    314
    Pistol,
    I was hoping you would reply.

    Just going in to destroy nuclear plants, terrorist training camps, and other infrastructure would do us a world of good.... if we got it all.
    I just don't know about that whole mid east situation. There are currently Taliban forces in Pakistan gaining power. Remember, Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and with the money from the sale of oil, the whole area is awash in money. Or should I say power?

    The more doors we kick in, the more rooms we have to secure.

    With the current political climate and the news media, how could anything be finished properly?

    George Bush Sr. woefully underestimated the money reserves of Sadam Hussein the first time we were there. We were in Iran, we punched through the border into Iraq, and Schwartzkopf (sp) was 76 miles from Baghdad with absolutely nothing standing in his way. George Sr. called him off, and Sadam not only recovered, he flourished. Well, here we are.

    Now the politicians are involved, stupidly thinking this conflict cannot be won without them. What a nightmare mess!
    If George Jr. would go into Iran, which may not be wrong to do, how could he secure the support of congress and the American people. What about going into Pakistan? That could be right around the corner.

    On an unrelated, related topic, I heard Nancy Pelosi (sp) the other night. Wow! What a bitch! I don't care if you hate George Bush's guts, he's still the president. Slick Willy was never disrespected like that! That's because he was the president!

    Even if you don't like Bush, what about our soldiers?

    Sorry for the rant.
    Mark
  6. You make some excellent points, Mark. Despite the vast resources of this nation, even we do not have the capability to fight a a dozen brushfire wars all over the globe, not unless we are willing to fully mobilize for war as we did in WWII. I don't believe the American people would support such a move unless we were directly attacked. One of the mistakes we have so often made, I think, is simply not being ruthless enough. By that I mean, if we hit them, we must be willing to hit them hard enough to actually destroy their ability to make war. In the case of Iran, I believe we could do that if we had the will to do it. Some sort of limited campaign--just a few targets to convey a message--might well do little more than open a new can of worms.
  7. WarSteed

    WarSteed New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    188
    I didn't see the part in that article where Iran sets off a nuke somewhere on American soil, Isreali soil, british soil. Their primary method of war is through terrorism, that's the primary way they are going to fight it, they know we'd kick their butts militarily.
  8. Hoss, I suspect your may well be right. The risk they run, if they ever do get and use a nuke though, is what action in return the American people would demand: specifically, make a glass-covered, self-lighting parking lot out of whatever country originated the terrorists.
  9. WarSteed

    WarSteed New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    188
    Thats the sad part though, what if the prez decides it was "Iran" that nuked us, when really it was some small sect in Iran.

    That's akin to PETA going crazy and setting off a huge paint bomb in Siberia because the people wear fur parka's and Russia deciding it was the "USA" who was at fault and sending nukes our way. :p


    Goooo paint bombs!
  10. Mark

    Mark New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    314
    I am absolutely NO fan of the NAZI's in WWII. The point to be made about them is their resolve. I can't imagine a people with that resolve getting whupped in Viet Nam, or having the current problems the US is having around the world.

    I'm sure this is stretching reality to fit a parallel, but can you imagine the Werhmacht (sp) having this trouble?
    Mark
  11. Close on the spelling, Mark; it's spelled "Wehrmacht." :D You are quite correct, I think. The Germans of World War II were many things, but inefficiency and lack of thoroughness weren't among their faults, nor was their political leadership unwilling to use the force available to it, however vile the cause for which they fought.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 6, 2007
  12. chemist308

    chemist308 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    Pocono Mts, PA
    From the article:
    I don't doubt it'd be a near instant win. But didn't we get fed the same line of BS about Iraq. And look what we got now--our own little gaza strip complete with suicide bombers and insurgents. Now I agree that we need to get a little payback for the hostage crap we went through with Iran some 30 years ago :eek: But what we really have over there is another weaker country with a crazy gov regime that's scared and angry now that our country took over their neighbor. We keep doing this crap and in 10 - 15 years we'll have a world of people raising armies and hating America because of their dead fathers. Just my 2 cents...
  13. Welcome to TFF, Chem. Glad to have you with us. :)

    You make a valid point I think. Playing the role of world policeman works to our advantage sometimes, but only up to a point. If we're not very careful, we'll end up committing ourselves to a perpetual state of war, and that is something I do not believe the people of this country will support for long. I do not believe we should commit to any long-term military operation in Iran. If it becomes necessary for our own security--and that may well happen--to destroy Iran's ability to attack us, then do it quickly and efficiently using the weapons available to us. Another ground war though, would not be wise.
  14. catfish83861

    catfish83861 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    2,019
    Location:
    North Idaho
    Well I might as well throw in my ideas. Might not be worth a spit but here I go.
    1) We wait until lives are lost, maybe a lot of lives.
    2)Our military is arguably the most well trained and equipped in the world.
    3)Our military personnel will and have fought bravely in many instances.
    4)Once engaged with an enemy we are forced by our own leaders (politicians) not to engage with total overwhelming might.
    5)When some SOB shoots at me, the fact the shooter runs into a Mosque only tells me that he is going in there to kiss his A_ _ goodbye,or at the very least to atone for his/her sins. I firmly intend to allow him to meet Allah as early as possible.

    Now for the real meat of my thoughts. If we are going to go into a conflict we have to be ready to take what ever means necessary to terminate the enemies ability to harm us,not just for now but permanently.A declaration of war should be required in my opinion here.Iran isn't Afghanistan,it has a standing Army. Kind of goes with the thought that I am going to eat Beef steak but I don't want the animal hurt. You can not have your cake and eat it too. Either fish or cut bait. Once in, go for the complete win and throw the damn reporters out of any fire zone:mad: . I mean completely out. Why do we have military reporters for anyway. Kind of redundant isn't it. OK now I will get off my soap box.;) catfish
  15. Here's the answer, Cat, summarized in a song:
    :D ;) :p

    NUKE 'EM ALL
    (Sung to the tune of "Bless 'Em ALL" by Irving Berlin)

    Nuke 'em all, nuke 'em all
    The long and the short and the tall
    Nuke all the Mullahs and Al-Qaeda-like ones
    Nuke all the terrorists and their blinking sons
    For we're saying good-bye to them all
    As back to the silos we crawl
    You'll get no promotion this side of the ocean
    So cheer up my lads nuke 'em all!
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum The Lewis & Clark Girandoni Air Rifle... Amazing!! Feb 21, 2011
General Military Arms & History Forum Could Israel knock out Iran's nuke program? Sep 4, 2009
General Military Arms & History Forum Will Israel strike Iran? Nov 22, 2007
General Military Arms & History Forum Taking out Iran's nuke facilities Sep 21, 2007
General Military Arms & History Forum FW 190 Where's the love ? Jun 11, 2008

Share This Page