Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: RAIDER14 on February 04, 2006, 09:11:59 AM
-
just saw the news they said Iran was gonna rusume their nuclear program
a U.S. general said we might go ahead with th military option Note this would be a coalition war on Iran
-
Strange they'd do that, from what the media shows at least, they could've really taken advantage of this.
Keep refusing to play their cards on the table by principle, then prove their hand as benine once the UN & co have crossed the line.
-
Iran totally ignored the U.N. so the brits and the U.S. along with probaly some other countries if the War is on
Iran will get Pwned
-
Three questions.
#1. Would Russia be apart of the coalition?
#2. Assuming the U.S. would be the majority of the military strength in any militaryt actions. Could we support both Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, and any other small nations we are keeping the peace in? Such as how much of our military strengh is being used already.
#3. Would this be mainly a air war? Instead of putting more lives at risk in a ground war, would coalition forces simply attack key points throughout Iran using aircraft and missles.
-
#3 Bluejay
-
Actually, I agree with the air strikes. I believe we should just explode any important entity in Iran. (Whoops, there goes the presidential palace)
-
I see the return of the draft .......
-
The problem is, that the situation is far more complicated.
If there is no invasion against Iran - and after the desaster in iraq or Afghanistan I doubt that there will be an allied invasion against Iran - the only other military option would be air strikes.
And this would help the mullah regime, because then the iranians will support their government against the foreign attackers.
The same happened when the arabs under Saddam attacked Iran and started the 8year Iran-Iraq War. With this action the Khomeini-regime was stabilzed, because before the attack there were many iranian parties and groups fighting for power. But when foreigner like the arabs attacked Iran all iranian groups stopped the inner-political fighting and fought against the foreigners. The same will happen here.
Also there is the question, if all iranian installations could be destroyed.
What will happen in Iraq, where the Mullahs from Teheran have extreme influence on teh iraqui shi Žites.
Their political party - the shiŽite Alliance was the winner of the iraqi elections - despite of all attempts of the western nations to push their liberal candidate, Mr Allawi (who failed bitterly).
Actually the sunnite minority causes so much problems in Iraq.
What will happen if the religious leader of the iraqui shiŽites, Grandajatollah Sistani (by the way, he is an iranian and gets much support from Teheran), decides to help the shi Žites brothers and sisters in Iran.
This could result in a total nightmare.
So - its really not easy.
The only effective solution would be an invasion and installation of a pro-western puppet regime.
But it seems that after Iraq there are not so many people left who would support such a solution.
Military attacks will fail - also embargos from western nations.
An embargo from China and Russia would impress Iran - but how likely is such an embargo?
Or the USA could raise their support for the MEK-terrorists, who already are operating from theire bases in Iraq and perform bomb-attacks in Iran, killing civilians.
But an open war would only help the mullahs in Teheran.
-
Isn't it funny how everyone just throws out "The disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan?"
I say we completely take out Iran's infrastructure. If the UN wants to "Peacekeep," let them.
-
Hmm...either piss off Muslims who are already pissed at the world. Or we can do nothing, and stock in the UK for radiation suits and bomb shelter will increase.
-
A war isn't likely for some time to come. Most likely there will be sanctions and Iran will end up even more of a pariah state. Somewhat like North Korea.
-
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/f-16i-pic01.jpg)
what do u think those things are on the back of the plane?
Iran will not have nukes....I`m sure of that.Here people don`t worry about pissing mullahs off, they`re pissed at us because we exist.
-
Those bulges..is that where they keep their gold?
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/f-16i-pic01.jpg)what do u think those things are on the back of the plane?
I would fill them with Danish cartoons and distribute them all over Iran etc.:)
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/israel/images/f-16i-pic01.jpg)
what do u think those things are on the back of the plane?
Iran will not have nukes....I`m sure of that.Here people don`t worry about pissing mullahs off, they`re pissed at us because we exist.
:aok
-
conformal fuel tanks
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
conformal fuel tanks
bingo!
these f16 i were put to service 2 years ago. i guess someone had a good idea of things coming.
-
with nearly 2/3 iranian popular under 25, i think military action against iran is retarded. it was relatively close to a decent, more democratic future outside of this recent fascist ****, a favorable outcome will show itself in a matter of time... from an internal solution.
-
Originally posted by Octavius
with nearly 2/3 iranian popular under 25, i think military action against iran is retarded. it was relatively close to a decent, more democratic future outside of this recent fascist ****, a favorable outcome will show itself in a matter of time... from an internal solution.
i hope u`re right...but i still don`t want chances taken.i live in that digraceful blob that their president`s bent on erasing from the map.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
A war isn't likely for some time to come. Most likely there will be sanctions and Iran will end up even more of a pariah state. Somewhat like North Korea.
Unless Iran pops off a nuke, or some sort of chemical weapon in Isreal.
-
We're about 8 months short of 5 years into operations in Afghanistan, given where it started, and what kind of shape the country was in, it hardly qualifies as a disaster. Sure, some of the upper echelon of al Queada and the Taliban are still breathing, and that's a shame. No, it isn't even close to totally secure. But a disaster? No, it isn't. We're almost three years into Iraq. Just knocking Saddam off his throne was supposed to take years and tens of thousands of casualties. It didn't. Not even close. And nine months later, he was captured. Perfect? No. Quick, clean and painless? Not hardly. But to hear everyone tell it, this is supposed to be the next "Vietnam" for the U.S. Then again, so was Afghanistan.
Now lets move to the subject at hand. Iran. Currently run by some Holocaust denying sociopath. This is a staredown. Either they blink, or they get wasted. No way the free world allows the next incarnation of Hitler to go nuclear. If the idiot hadn't already been running about screaming that the Holocaust never happened, and it was a myth used by Europe to force the Arabs to let the Jews on "Arab land", not to mention threatening to wipe "the Zionist entity" of the map forever, then maybe they could have pulled it off, maybe. They aren't going to wait till he gets a nuke and launches it on Israel. Because they can't be sure Israel will be his first target. I doubt supporting Hamas is going to get him anywhere either.
I'm not too sure the whole rest of the world isn't going to get real tired of all the crap going on pretty damned soon.
-
imho irans plan is to play the martyr and take a hit to seriously fire up the islamic cheekboness into going the extra mile ... taking this whole thing to the next level ... we ain't talking bus or train bombs or a plane into a building or two ......
hopefully when that happens, the countries that can do something about it will have leaders in power who have the stomach to do what is needed to nip them in the bud .... it will not be pretty...
-
with nearly 2/3 iranian popular under 25, i think military action against iran is retarded. it was relatively close to a decent, more democratic future outside of this recent fascist ****, a favorable outcome will show itself in a matter of time... from an internal solution.
If you would have payed attention to the news over the past few years, there have been countless protests and rallies PRO-DEMOCRACY by STUDENTS. If you take out the military leadership and the religious leadership, Iran would be 95% of the way into a democracy without ever setting foot in it.
-
Originally posted by babek-
The problem is, that the situation is far more complicated.
If there is no invasion against Iran - and after the desaster in iraq or Afghanistan I doubt that there will be an allied invasion against Iran - the only other military option would be air strikes.
And this would help the mullah regime, because then the iranians will support their government against the foreign attackers.
The same happened when the arabs under Saddam attacked Iran and started the 8year Iran-Iraq War. With this action the Khomeini-regime was stabilzed, because before the attack there were many iranian parties and groups fighting for power. But when foreigner like the arabs attacked Iran all iranian groups stopped the inner-political fighting and fought against the foreigners. The same will happen here.
Also there is the question, if all iranian installations could be destroyed.
What will happen in Iraq, where the Mullahs from Teheran have extreme influence on teh iraqui shi Žites.
Their political party - the shiŽite Alliance was the winner of the iraqi elections - despite of all attempts of the western nations to push their liberal candidate, Mr Allawi (who failed bitterly).
Actually the sunnite minority causes so much problems in Iraq.
What will happen if the religious leader of the iraqui shiŽites, Grandajatollah Sistani (by the way, he is an iranian and gets much support from Teheran), decides to help the shi Žites brothers and sisters in Iran.
This could result in a total nightmare.
So - its really not easy.
The only effective solution would be an invasion and installation of a pro-western puppet regime.
But it seems that after Iraq there are not so many people left who would support such a solution.
Military attacks will fail - also embargos from western nations.
An embargo from China and Russia would impress Iran - but how likely is such an embargo?
Or the USA could raise their support for the MEK-terrorists, who already are operating from theire bases in Iraq and perform bomb-attacks in Iran, killing civilians.
But an open war would only help the mullahs in Teheran.
Taliban is on the run in Afghanistan. Disaster, hardly, now crawl back into your cave, I mean hole.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
A war isn't likely for some time to come. Most likely there will be sanctions and Iran will end up even more of a pariah state. Somewhat like North Korea.
you should not forget, that russia and china supported voting during last session only because it doesnt impose any sanctions. Iran is very important market for them as well as for Germany and UK.
anyway i came back from iran 2 days ago... its funny how some of our brainwashed friends already living in war time.
what has babek posted is very accurate.
Even kurdish separatists will support Iranian goverment agains US.
You should not forget, what has cause the revolution.
Cheap tries like US did in Iraq and Afghanistan are not possible in Iran. Even in Iraq people voted out US brought politics.
btw. acording to latest legislation change, it will be more open for foreigners and way easier to invest money over there. I dont think, that they might become something like NK.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you would have payed attention to the news over the past few years, there have been countless protests and rallies PRO-DEMOCRACY by STUDENTS. If you take out the military leadership and the religious leadership, Iran would be 95% of the way into a democracy without ever setting foot in it.
well yes. If there is no external thread, things will change. Since Iran has been bullied, power of current regime grow up. Their reputation dont go down that fast.
Do you know who&why started "anti-shah" revolution in 79 ?
anyway i dont think, that things will change by revolution. Even contemporary supreme leader said in public, that if current president will be unable to handle coruption, people will not tolerate current "setup" anymore.
btw military leadership and religious leadership are the same. Top comander of the army is supreme leader and not the president. So if they will abandon guardian council and transfer military command to president, you will get clasic democratic model.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
If you would have payed attention to the news over the past few years, there have been countless protests and rallies PRO-DEMOCRACY by STUDENTS. If you take out the military leadership and the religious leadership, Iran would be 95% of the way into a democracy without ever setting foot in it.
You have forgotten or are to young to remember the brutal dictatorship of the US backed shah of Iran. Iranians hate the US. They do not want our army to invade thier country. If you really believe that they do, you are naive, at least.
-
Originally posted by WhiteHawk
Iranians hate the US.
Just to make it more exact. They hate the Goverment, not the people.
Shah was something like SH.
-
The iranians dont hate the US.
Many of them dont like the actual government because of what they see in TV from iraq and Afghanistan.
While here in the western nations the pictures of Abu Graib, where people in US-uniforms forced iraqi prisoners in pervert homosexual positions and made fotos of them are forgotten, this was still a discussed when I was in Iran in December 2005.
But they dont blame the US people for this.
And like Iada said: The Shah regime was terroristic.
There was a time when Iran could became a real democracy. That was in the 50ties, when Prime Minister Mossadegh, a noble man, deposed the Shah in a unbloody revolution and forced him to italian exile. He then started to continue to turn Iran to a democratic system.
Could you imagine how this would have stabilized the region? A non-arab nation, which created its own democracy instead of being forced to turn to something which they call democracy but which isnt.
But then the secret services of USA and UK started their Operation Ajax, Mossadegh was deposed and the Shah was reinstalled and started his terror regime.
His secret police, the SAVAK, was like the Gestapo: Tenthousands of iranian democrats were killed and tortured. The Evin-prison in Teheran was for decades the torture centre where liberal prisoners were killed. Or why do you think there was such a hate in the bloody revolution when the Shah was deposed the second time and Khomeini came? The people just wanted him thrown out. They were unlucky that the next terror regime followed and so the Evin is still in action today.
Most of the iranians dont like the actual regime. But if there is any military attack on Iran they will support it. And that would help the Council of the Guardians (if I translated it right) and their puppet Ahmadinedjad.
And most of them surely dont want help from the so called civilized nations after they saw the effect of this "help" in their neighbor countries.
iran canonly becom a real democracy if the iranians in Iran (and not these funny exiles in Los Angeles) finally succed.
And i am sure that they will win one day - without the help of foreigners.
-
the question is: when?
That "council of guardians" is wasting the country`s resorces on projects that are going to be turned into rubble. People have to reallize who`s their real enemy.
-
I have some news for you. At this point, with the sociopath they have in power pursuing nuclear weapons and promoting the extermination of a country, race, and religion, the world cannot afford to wait for the pro democracy movement to remove the current regime in Iran. There is no way waiting can be justified when they are enriching uranium and holding blueprints for nuclear warhads, both of which they admit, no brag about, doing. If the pro democracy movement wishes to do something, they'd best do it soon.
The Muslim world is creating their own problems, and will likely create their own demise. Everyone else is getting sick of the violent insatiable radical element of Islam, and the supposed silent majority's unwillingness to do anything about it. They can either change directions, or prepare for something they won't like.
-
Originally posted by babek-
While here in the western nations the pictures of Abu Graib, where people in US-uniforms forced iraqi prisoners in pervert homosexual positions and made fotos of them are forgotten, this was still a discussed when I was in Iran in December 2005.
So what do they make of the beheading video's?
What would they do if we in the western world started capturing any random Islamics/Arabs, chopping off their heads and broadcasting the video's on CNN/BBC?
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The Muslim world is creating their own problems, and will likely create their own demise. Everyone else is getting sick of the violent insatiable radical element of Islam, and the supposed silent majority's unwillingness to do anything about it. They can either change directions, or prepare for something they won't like.
I'm glad I'm not the only one posting this.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Furball
So what do they make of the beheading video's?
What would they do if we in the western world started capturing any random Islamics/Arabs, chopping off their heads and broadcasting the video's on CNN/BBC?
If they invaded our country, crapped out our water electric food and medical infrastructure and was trying to install a muslim religious extremist govt here and telling the world that we really want this to happen, im sure they would understand how upset we really were, unlike most of us who just cant unerstand why a group of citizens would try to defend their country from an invading hoarde. Wouldnt it be nice if the insurgents in iraq would just try to ram thier heads against our tanks? So they fight the best war they can with what they got. And take a look, they are holding thier own.
-
Their infrastructure was wasted long before we got there. We've been rebuilding and improving it. They have more and better water, sewer, electricity, communications, and schools than before March 2003, and it improves more every day.
Oh, and last headcount I got from soldiers over there with boots on the ground, and not the media, the insurgency dies at a rate of around 10 for every coalition soldier even wounded. I doubt they are ven close to holding their own. They are now at their most violent because they are on their last legs. They fight hard because they are being destroyed. Remember the kamakazis?
-
I wasn't saying that the democratic movement should take over. I was saying that if the current infrastructure was destroyed, I think they would step up.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Their infrastructure was wasted long before we got there. We've been rebuilding and improving it. They have more and better water, sewer, electricity, communications, and schools than before March 2003, and it improves more every day.
Oh, and last headcount I got from soldiers over there with boots on the ground, and not the media, the insurgency dies at a rate of around 10 for every coalition soldier even wounded. I doubt they are ven close to holding their own. They are now at their most violent because they are on their last legs. They fight hard because they are being destroyed. Remember the kamakazis?
And the US marines are dying at a rate equal to or greater than that of before the war was declared over. They are not dying of old age either. That is the best indicator of progress against the insurgents.
What was left of the iraqi infrastructure was devastated by the US led invasion of Iraq. We are making an effort, pitiful as it may be, to rebuild some of this, but to suggest that the iraqi people are better off today than they were before the war is incorrect. The insurgents main goal is to destablize the US installed govt, and keeping the iraqi infrastructure destroyed is one of thier objectives. The waiting game is in full gear.
-
Originally posted by Furball
So what do they make of the beheading video's?
they say, that it has not been done by human beeing nor muslim.
anyother question ?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I wasn't saying that the democratic movement should take over. I was saying that if the current infrastructure was destroyed, I think they would step up.
The stakes are high. Take a look at iraq, we were supposed to be hailed as the great liberators. $400,000,000,000.00 later, we have no idea how to get out of this with our objectives secured. A nuclear Iran is unacceptable, but it is not a US problem. Mutually assured destruction is a potent peacekeeper.
-
Yes. The troops in Iraq are failing. CNN says so, it must be true, right whitehawk?
-
Originally posted by Furball
So what do they make of the beheading video's?
What would they do if we in the western world started capturing any random Islamics/Arabs, chopping off their heads and broadcasting the video's on CNN/BBC?
What do you think they are thinking? That they are happy to see innocents suffering or being tortured?
They are also angry and disgusted by seeing these scenes.
And they condemn the criminals who do this.
But these are only criminals, terrorists. Its not surprising that such creatures behave like terrorists.
But it is suprising and shocking, when you have to see pictures of soldiers of the army which came to liberate the (iraqi) people and bring democracy force prisoners to pose like homosexual or other pervert things like this pyramid made of naked bodies.
-
Russia would do what its best at...staving off any meaningful progress unless they gain, somehow. If, at best, to shrug and say "Gee Iran, we tried"...they do a lot of business together, I really dont see Russia stepping up to the plate anytime soon.
Iran...Id like to think we're not going to have to do any military strikes on them because, for one, I think the world is tired of the idea of another Iraq showdown. Iraq is shaking its fist around in some sort of national pride that doesnt seem substanciated. If anything, orchestrated. What have they to gain from this showdown? A landscape that rivals that of the moon?
-
Mutually assured destruction is a potent peacekeeper.
====
Against entire nations infected with the islam virus? a land where blowing oneself up killing as many civilians as possible is considered honerable before the eyes of God? You accept these folks armed with nuclear weapons?
-
Ya know, with all this crap going on in the world right now, Iran and the nukes, Iraq war, Afganistan, and the whole muslim community up in arms over a freakin cartoon, it reminded me of a joke I heard awhile back.
At a film preview in Hollywood, an Arab banker that was looking at investing in the movie industry ran across William Shatner (Capt Kirk). As his son is a huge Star Trek fan he stopped Mr. Shatner to talk to him.
Arab, "Mr. Shatner my son loves Star Trek and he would love to have your autograph."
Mr. Shatner, "Sure thing....it would be....my pleasure."
Arab, "Also I was wondering if you could answer a question my son and I both have about Star Trek? In the TV show and all of the motion pictures, we have noticed that there are many different people. Russians, Scottsman, Africans, and many many aliens, but we have never seen an arab. Could you tell me why this is?"
Mr. Shatner, "Well you see...the reason there are...no arabs...is because...Star Trek happens in...the future."
-
good one Hornet! :)
-
So there is at least hope for iranians in Star Trek, because we are no arabs :)
-
Originally posted by babek-
But it is suprising and shocking, when you have to see pictures of soldiers of the army which came to liberate the (iraqi) people and bring democracy force prisoners to pose like homosexual or other pervert things like this pyramid made of naked bodies.
So, the actions of a few individuals taint the entire view to the other side?
Create pyramids, print magazine articles or chop innocent charity worker's heads off... hmmm... where are our protests in the street?
-
Originally posted by lada
you should not forget, that russia and china supported voting during last session only because it doesnt impose any sanctions. Iran is very important market for them as well as for Germany and UK.
anyway i came back from iran 2 days ago... its funny how some of our brainwashed friends already living in war time.
what has babek posted is very accurate.
Even kurdish separatists will support Iranian goverment agains US.
You should not forget, what has cause the revolution.
Cheap tries like US did in Iraq and Afghanistan are not possible in Iran. Even in Iraq people voted out US brought politics.
btw. acording to latest legislation change, it will be more open for foreigners and way easier to invest money over there. I dont think, that they might become something like NK.
But then again how important would a radiated hole in the ground be for a trading partner, Israel has nukes and can deliver them very accurately.
-
folks, dont let the radicals win, what they want is a war against the whole west.
It is so laughable what they tried to achieve with the posted comics,
it just shows how immature they are. But they are not representing
the whole islam. What? where are the protests from real islamist against this all?
hey wait where are the protest from us against chop innocent charity worker's heads off ??
-
Ok this is my question.
Can we afford teh manpower to fight a war in Iran considering that we're already in Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea, and those little countries that used to be part of the USSR?
I'm not a military stratigest, but I do remember 12th grade history when the teacher told us that Germany lost WW2 partly because Hitler had the military spread out on too many fronts.
Isn't that what were doing now? trying to fight too many fronts at once?
-
yes but it is not only U.S. Troops theres troops from the U.K. and Canada and...
-
Originally posted by dmf
Ok this is my question.
Can we afford teh manpower to fight a war in Iran considering that we're already in Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea, and those little countries that used to be part of the USSR?
I'm not a military stratigest, but I do remember 12th grade history when the teacher told us that Germany lost WW2 partly because Hitler had the military spread out on too many fronts.
Isn't that what were doing now? trying to fight too many fronts at once?
Did your History teacher also tell you we were on two fronts 1. Pacific, Japan 2. Germany and Italy, Europe. You mean to tell me you where a senior in high school before studying the history of WWII.
We have over One million available troops at this time and can put as many as required underarms if necessary. Did you forget? You registered for the draft.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
yes but it is not only U.S. Troops theres troops from the U.K. and Canada and...
Canada...? I think they sent both of them home.:t
-
Originally posted by dmf
Ok this is my question.
Can we afford teh manpower
:lol
-
A strike at Iran would probably be an air strike to the nuclear research and support buildings and at their missle defense, military aircraft, communications, airfields and energy sources. Much of it could be handled in a similar way as Shock & Awe.
Sooner the better.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Did your History teacher also tell you we were on two fronts 1. Pacific, Japan 2. Germany and Italy, Europe. You mean to tell me you where a senior in high school before studying the history of WWII.
We have over One million available troops at this time and can put as many as required underarms if necessary. Did you forget? You registered for the draft.
I don't remember everything he said that was like 7 years ago
And no I'm not registered for the draft.
-
Yes, you really are...
Unless you aren't an American.
Oh wait, I vaguely remember you saying you were a girl. So no, she probably isn't registered for the draft after all.
-
vaguely
-
Originally posted by Urchin
Yes, you really are...
Unless you aren't an American.
Oh wait, I vaguely remember you saying you were a girl. So no, she probably isn't registered for the draft after all.
Girl? I'm not a girl, I'm a woman, girls have pig tails and play with barbie dolls, I still have my barbie but I left the pigtails behind a long time ago.
But don't worry when they start the draft back up it won't be long before every woman between 18 and 35 has to register along with men.
-
By the way, its' not over dmf.... Pro Bowl next week, and Arena Football is just starting.
-
Not wanting to rain on your parade or anything, but...
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Their infrastructure was wasted long before we got there. We've been rebuilding and improving it. They have more and better water, sewer, electricity, communications, and schools than before March 2003, and it improves more every day.
Most of Iraq's power, communication, water treatment and waste disposal infrastructure were destroyed in the 1991 air campaign. Most of what was left was left with no availability of spares or repair due to the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq after the first Gulf War. The US coalition and the Iraqis themselves are nowhere near close to achieving the pre-1991 level of public infrastructure or education.
Whether this is solely the fault of the US or others is another issue.
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
Oh, and last headcount I got from soldiers over there with boots on the ground, and not the media, the insurgency dies at a rate of around 10 for every coalition soldier even wounded. I doubt they are ven close to holding their own. They are now at their most violent because they are on their last legs. They fight hard because they are being destroyed. Remember the kamakazis?
If we're going to make historical parallels: 10 to one? That's about the same rate as in Vietnam. Look how well that went.
-
All this sounds like some Clancy Book g damn that man's an Oracle :D
-
Sorry but I don't thing Mutually Assured Destruction will work against the Islamic people.
If some of them die to take us down, fine, they live in heaven afterwords with 9 houri women.
Give them 24 hours warning to remove people from the area/s.
Then put a cruise missle into any nucular reactors enriching fuel.
China Syndrome with a twist.
-
"All this sounds like some Clancy Book. G damn that man's an Oracle "
Seems like the guys sure has some insight doesn't he? :)
Only major problem is that for sure aint Jack Ryan in office.
Given the track record of incompetence in the US adminstration I wince thinking just how bad the stink-tank that brought us Iraq could screw things up in Iran - a country three times bigger than Iraq, who has allies in Syria, China and Russia and whose military didn't get a pummeling back in 1991 from which it never recovered from.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
yes but it is not only U.S. Troops theres troops from the U.K. and Canada and...
Cameroon, I'm sure they'll once again join the coalition. :lol
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
By the way, its' not over dmf.... Pro Bowl next week, and Arena Football is just starting.
Yea but the main football is gone. :)
-
Originally posted by Red Tail 444
Cameroon, I'm sure they'll once again join the coalition. :lol
yep Canada will rejoin the coalition when hockey season is over
-
Being the second son, I won't get drafted if it ever comes to that.
I fear that if we start a "military action" in Iran, they'll impose the draft just to fills the ranks out with tirgger fingers and bullet sponges.
-
they'll impose the draft just to fills the ranks out with tirgger fingers and bullet sponges.
So he will get drafted?
(http://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/+2005/larry-cableguyLO.jpg)
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Voting for a draft is political suicide.
Unless that is the foreign army steps foot on american soil. There will be no draft unless Iran invades America.
-
Can we afford teh manpower to fight a war in Iran considering that we're already in Iraq, Afganistan, North Korea, and those little countries that used to be part of the USSR?
I must have missed some major news cuz I didnt know we had troops in North Korea heh.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I must have missed some major news cuz I didnt know we had troops in North Korea heh.
We don't I thought crazy old North Korean guy died:confused:
-
Originally posted by texace
Being the second son, I won't get drafted if it ever comes to that.
I fear that if we start a "military action" in Iran, they'll impose the draft just to fills the ranks out with tirgger fingers and bullet sponges.
Don't worry bout it Bud....Someone else will do the job. You go on and stay home...with the women.
-
I think we learned our lesson about the draft in Vietnam. Overall, you get inferior quality troops with low morale. These take higher losses. Higher losses lead to political defeat (sans a dictatorship and "total war"), stifling and/or ending your war effort.
As for the Iranians... people do realise this is the same army that only fought the Iraqis to a standstill, devolving into a war of attrition.. right? I'd give them about the same chances people gave the elite Medina Division... very strong... until the steel rain started.
I'm all for the Israeli's dropping a smart bomb on Iran's nutcase president before he turns into the next Kim Il-Jong... but if they do, and their's a coallition invasion, wow... gas is going to get *really* expensive. Everybody add Exxon, Shell, Occidental, & BP to their portfolios yet??
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Voting for a draft is political suicide.
Unless that is the foreign army steps foot on american soil. There will be no draft unless Iran invades America.
They don't have to "vote for a draft" lol...all American men 18 to 25...
BEHOLD YOUR FATE (http://www.sss.gov/FSwho.htm)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I must have missed some major news cuz I didnt know we had troops in North Korea heh.
Oops, sorry, I meant South Korea
-
They don't have to "vote for a draft" lol...all American men 18 to 25...
Yeah, ummm...
No one has been drafted since 1973, and it would require an act of Congress to reinstate the draft.
http://www.sss.gov/FSdraftcd.htm
So about that...
Btw, I am registered with Selective Service. To be eligible for loans and grants from the government for college I had to register.
-
Originally posted by texace
Being the second son, I won't get drafted if it ever comes to that.
Also....I think you may want to check on that. Maybe your misunderstanding that.
-
Everybody's draft happy again?
-
If I remember correctly, they will not draft more than one son per household. They usually draft the oldest. Since I am the youngest of two, I will not be drafted unless they come to me first.
I think...
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
just saw the news they said Iran was gonna rusume their nuclear program
a U.S. general said we might go ahead with th military option Note this would be a coalition war on Iran
imop They should be stoped asap
Watching the news last few days i was thinking: Those monkeys would nuke the whole western world for some stupid cartoons,
-
Those nukes aren't powerful enough to reach the United States
-
No, those missiles aren't powerful enough to reach the US.
There's a lot of misinformation going around about the Draft. I'll address them one by one.
Being the second son, I won't get drafted if it ever comes to that.
"The lottery would establish the priority of call based on the birth dates of registrants. The first men drafted would be those turning age 20 during the calendar year of the lottery. For example, if a draft were held in 1998, those men born in 1978 would be considered first. If a young man turns 21 in the year of the draft, he would be in the second priority, in turning 22 he would be in the third priority, and so forth until the year in which he turns 26 at which time he is over the age of liability. Younger men would not be called in that year until men in the 20-25 age group are called."
20 year olds get drafted first, then 21's, then 22's... and then 26's. Then they go 19's, and 18's.
In the past, being in College would automatically mean you cannot be drafted. But after the debacle and problems of Vietnam *cough CLINTON! cough*. This is no longer a way out of the draft.
-
That certainly clears that up. Thanks, mate. :)
-
"In the past, being in College would automatically mean you cannot be drafted. But after the debacle and problems of Vietnam *cough CLINTON! cough*. This is no longer a way out of the draft."
lol. Whadda party-puppet.
Rove matched Clintons one deferment but Cheney cashed in for five! Four times as a student then one for paternity.
Then again you knew that.
-
Originally posted by indy007
I think we learned our lesson about the draft in Vietnam. Overall, you get inferior quality troops with low morale. These take higher losses. Higher losses lead to political defeat (sans a dictatorship and "total war"), stifling and/or ending your war effort.
WWI and WWII were fought with a draft.
The problem with the draft was it was discriminitory, and people realised that during Vietnam. It took the poor and the working class while those attending college could avoid it.
Now it's a significantly different type of conscription, but the chances of it being reinstated are about as high as surviving a free fall re-entry into the atmosphere in swimming trunks.
-SW