The Invasion of Iran-An ArchDuke Ferdinand Moment!.

[ev]

Winning a war is not about defeating the enemy's army.

At Borodino, Napoleon defeated the Russian Army, but lost the war, lost the war.

In 1941, Hitler defeated the Russian Army, but eventually lost the war.

Even the war against Japan was won without ever engaging the bulk of the Japanese Army... though the Navy was defeated, and, difficult battles were fought in different islands around the Pacific... and in Burma, the bulk of the Japanese Army remained largely unengaged by the US.

In Vietnam, the US Army won every major engagement, but eventually lost the war.

In Iraq, the US Army won every major engagement, but right now even Bush accepts victory is not quite around the corner.

However, the US won the cold war without ever defeating the Russian Army. The US also won the war of 1812 before winning any engagement in the war (the only victory came after the treaty had been agreed to and was totally irrelevant).

War is a complicated social process. It has to do with armies, but also with the poltics, economics, and the culture of each country, and with the politics, economics, and cultures of every other country affected by the conflict. Quite frankly, it is hard to say what if anything was won in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, or whatever other war of the 20-21st century you may chose.

During WWII the U.S. gained enormous prestige, but on every other count it was a net loser: it lost lives and huge capital resources, it also lost important trading partners which were obliterated by the war. I will readily grant the U.S. had a moral imperative to jion the Allies in WWII, but, the term "winning" does not match reality very well.

As far as Iran is concern, I don't see anything to be gainned or "won" by defeating the Iranian army, except more and more problems further down the line...

..., and, I hope enough people at the White House, in Congress and in the military realize this by now.

[ev]

I made a mistake when I copy pasted one of the paragraphs above. Th text should read as follows:

Originally posted by ev:

Winning a war is not about defeating the enemy's army.

At Borodino, Napoleon defeated the Russian Army, but lost the war, lost the war.

In 1941, Hitler defeated the Russian Army, but eventually lost the war.

In Vietnam, the US Army won every major engagement, but eventually lost the war.

In Iraq, the US Army won every major engagement, but right now even Bush accepts victory is not quite around the corner.

However, the US won the cold war without ever defeating the Russian Army. The US also won the war of 1812 before winning any engagement in the war (the only victory came after the treaty had been agreed to and was totally irrelevant).

Even the war against Japan was won without ever engaging the bulk of the Japanese Army... though the Navy was defeated, and, difficult battles were fought in different islands around the Pacific... and in Burma, the bulk of the Japanese Army remained largely unengaged by the US.

War is a complicated social process. It has to do with armies, but also with the poltics, economics, and the culture of each country, and with the politics, economics, and cultures of every other country affected by the conflict. Quite frankly, it is hard to say what if anything was won in WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, or whatever other war of the 20-21st century you may chose.

During WWII the U.S. gained enormous prestige, but on every other count it was a net loser: it lost lives and huge capital resources, it also lost important trading partners which were obliterated by the war. I will readily grant the U.S. had a moral imperative to jion the Allies in WWII, but, the term "winning" does not match reality very well.

As far as Iran is concern, I don't see anything to be gainned or "won" by defeating the Iranian army, except more and more problems further down the line...

...,and, I hope enough people at the White House, in Congress and in the military realize this by now.

[Canuck_TAR]

Originally posted by ev:

I made a mistake when I copy pasted one of the paragraphs above. Th text should read as follows:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ev:

The US also won the war of 1812 before winning any engagement in the war (the only victory came after the treaty had been agreed to and was totally irrelevant).

</font>

[ev]

Originally posted by Canuck_TAR:

BBWWAHAHAHAHA..............check your history ev.........who declared and invaded who and seems we still Canada!!

Not sure what counts as a victory but that ain't it.

[Liam]

Politics is definitely a factor in Warfare. The Culture or rather the People of each opposing Nation is also... War wears on an economy... which makes that a factor and thatis how! Generally, there are cases when war is part of a culture or people and benefits it.

In particular the war of 1812 was pretty painful from what I recall. Ole IronSide smooshed the Capitol ship of the Opposition? There were engagements and wasn't the White House Burnt to the ground?

I do not think you can say damage is general, but rather personal. So we only lost a few thousand men in one engagement and a few hundred thousand in another... Relatively that can be a HUGE loss depending on the Nation. I.E. Napoleon could afford to lose whatever he wanted at Waterloo, the French public wouldn't cry that much over it. Meanwhile Wellington could not! A small Island Nation who was invulnerable to attack would feel this way. Meanwhile a Massive Nation like France with unmatched Manpower and a DemiGod like Boneparte makes the situations quite different.

As far as Iran.. why would the USA invade? They'd pay off the Isreali's to. Who knows what's in our secret arsenal, this isn't 1944 and isn't the Luftwaffe, the American's have some things you do not even know exist! Probably Laserbeams from space! LOL

Iran is our favorite trading partner, we send thousands of their boys to school here and we want their oil.

They have millions of Extremists, and come on? Are you ever going to kill every Muslim Extremist? It's like Invading Japan, which my friends never happened.

Japan was forced to surrender, had we invaded it would've costed Millions of Allied Lives, including British, Aussie, American, Indian, etc... Endless

[arado234]

Do any of you think that if america is foolish enough to attack iran russai and china will just sit back and say go ahead.I bet not.

[Retributar]

I bet 'NOT' also arada234 , there is still an 'Age-Old-Effort' or 'Power-Struggle' to 'Control The World!'.

Big Boy's with Big Toy's just cannot stop being tempted in the SandBox of the world to achieve the Ultimate Victory![Total World Control].

[ChrisND]

Speaking from a combat vet's perspective (82nd ABN went to Afghanistan/Iraq), scrictly military combat speaking, Iran wouldn't stand a chance in the face of a determined US attack. The Iranians don't know how to use their haevy equipment properly, and the good equipment they do have has severe supply and maintenance problems.

If it did come down to it, China couldnt do crap militarily speaking. They no force projection past a short distance outside their borders. Russia is in no condition for fighting, nor do I think they would want to. However, the political climate would probably become quite hellish.

The occupation however, could be a hellish experience based on the political climate, indiginous culture, and the terrain, and the amount of troops required to hold the ground would be more than the small US army alone could support.

However, I'm not in the Pentagon/Intel with all the information at my fingertips, none of us are, so my/our predictions are tentative at best. : )

I think the idea that the US will be invading Iran soon has no merit. There are plenty of other, easier ways to resolve this issue, which i am sure are being pursued right now.

[Liam]

The best way to deal with Terrorist States is to fund insurgent OPs, Commando Precision Strikes, Air strikes. Direct Ground Intervention in a situation like Iran is just not going to do any good longterm. Iraq was a similar case! 3000 Commandos or mercenaries would do more damage

than hundreds of thousands of American Targets.

Iran has it's Fundamentalists, as does many Foreign nations, if you want to destroy you must hunt them, and not alienate the locals. That is the problem with the Bush Campaign, it's lack of Intel and at the same point, Intelligence

Though, besides the point, done already. If you want to clean up a mess you'll have to stick around killing Martyrs for 20 years until they run out, which at the rate these Arabs produce them will never happen so inevitably unless you intend to sterilize and Evacuate the MiddleEast of Muslims you will be eternally occuppying the whole of it. France and Great Britian did a portion and the Ottoman Empire, never succeeding. Even our Earlier Ancestors with the Crusader Knights attempted it

Jews will stay in Isreal I think from what I can tell they feel it more a home than Palestinians and will fight harder to keep it! So as far as that's concerned we really aren't going to change much. The only longterm goal of the Wars produced by the USA in the MidEast was to kill off the Terrorists, but it's only splintered their Cells, and created more of them due to the Murder of Innocent Muslims. The Governments there are Corrupt and the People are Self Righteous, much like the People here but to a greater degree, as we were behind them in the Crusades, they're behind us in current times. What can I say, fact is you must kill those responsible for inciting terror in your nation as best you can and if you cannot then do not bother...

as far as I can say of the Bush Administration. There are more jobs than ever for Middle and Upper Class. The Economy is Bankrupt but the poor are getting Social Security. Also on top of it all Saddam, Osama and the Taliban are all gone. The only objective I can say that has been achieved is making life a little easier for a few MiddleEastern Nations that really don't mean diddly squat to us, but our Gas Tank! 36 bucks for a full tank sucks, screw Iraqi Freedom and hell with saving you Euros who're closer to Missile Striking Range than North America Let the Fundamentalists take it on you when they get Tacticals with Range! I'm tired of European Indifference, I wonder what would've happened had we turned our nose up at them during World War II. Sprecken Sie Deutsch? Euros fight like Girls, I can only say the Russians, Germans and British had any spring in their step!

Low Grade Nuclear Weapons that'll take 25 years to be at the level able to reach the USA are hardly a pressing matter. Who cares if they Nuke Isreal, then MiddleEastern Genocide will be achieved with a Miniature WW3 in the MidEast

Who really cares when Isreal lauches 300 Nukes and the Arabs launch their 30 Nukes? 250 Million Dead, and all the Oil gone. Thank the Lord Quite personally there goes the problem, and that Lifeless Desert will nolonger be discussed

I will be happy to remain in the West, where My Government is stable...and probably has learned it's lesson. Russia and the USA will never fire nukes on one another, neither with China or India. Let's just hope those Allahfearing folk in the MidEast are not all as psycho as Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler, we destroyed those DemiDevils.

P.S. Not pointing fingers at people, I just notice how some tend to be overly self righteous. Hmmm, Looks at self, I know noone is Completely right, but I do not like this new Snooty attitude amongst people who claim they know it all or their Country is Holier than Now. It's the Responsible Worlds responsability to do the right thing, and to figure it out. Leave that to the Intellectuals though now George Bush or Vladimir Putin or anyone else self proclaimed Leaders. They lack the ability to Govern a City!

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Speaking from a combat vet's perspective (82nd ABN went to Afghanistan/Iraq), scrictly military combat speaking, Iran wouldn't stand a chance in the face of a determined US attack. The Iranians don't know how to use their haevy equipment properly, and the good equipment they do have has severe supply and maintenance problems.

If it did come down to it, China couldnt do crap militarily speaking. They no force projection past a short distance outside their borders. Russia is in no condition for fighting, nor do I think they would want to. However, the political climate would probably become quite hellish.

The occupation however, could be a hellish experience based on the political climate, indiginous culture, and the terrain, and the amount of troops required to hold the ground would be more than the small US army alone could support.

However, I'm not in the Pentagon/Intel with all the information at my fingertips, none of us are, so my/our predictions are tentative at best. : )

I think the idea that the US will be invading Iran soon has no merit. There are plenty of other, easier ways to resolve this issue, which i am sure are being pursued right now.

[ January 18, 2007, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[arado234]

Well put liam.Normal dude i hope and think you are right, but do we really know what russia and china are capeable of?They to have intel.and they to still do invest money in high tech,military hardware.Your talking about well over 1 billion people.Also china and russia especially are much closer to iran.This time(i hope there isnt a this time)the local population will be on thier side.Remember the americans thought iraq had W.M.D.s and were wrong.Maybe iran has somehow gotten ahold of some nukes that they would be more than willing to use on any invading army,or possibly biological weapons.I thnk retributar last comment makes alot of sense.

[Guest Mike]

It might pay to remember that it is not just "Foreign nations" (sic) that have fundamentalist nutjobs.

[ChrisND]

Arado,

I would put money on Russia's and China's capabilities, let's say that. They are superpowers in their own territory, and within a short distance from their territories, but not any further. They can have all the troops they want, but they have to project them over a very long distance without nearly the facilities or transport fleet (or experience at doing such things) that we have.

A well-placed surprise nuke from Iran would be their only chance to really hurt an American campaign, even that wouldn't cripple the attack but the political fallout that's another matter.

[arado234]

It sounds like we are all hoping that this DOESNOT develop into a major conflict.NormalDude i hope we never find out what russia,china,america are really capable of militarily or otherwise.Yes if iran did use a nuke on the americans that would really liven it up.

[ev]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Iran wouldn't stand a chance in the face of a determined US attack. The Iranians don't know how to use their haevy equipment properly, and the good equipment they do have has severe supply and maintenance problems....

However, the political climate would probably become quite hellish....

The occupation however, could be a hellish experience....

However, I'm not in the Pentagon/Intel with all the information at my fingertips, none of us are, so my/our predictions are tentative at best. : )

I think the idea that the US will be invading Iran soon has no merit...

I the Iranian army does not have a chance, but, that would not be the end of it. As you say. the occupation and the international landscape would become hellish. Nothing would be gained but an endless accumulation of problems, death and suffering for everybody.

As far as your next point: Pentagon Intel... well quite frankly, we should question how good that is.

Finally, I agree that the invasion of Iran has no merit.

In a wargame, the game ends when you defeat the enemy chips in the board, or when time runs out. In real life, it is not quite that simple.

[ChrisND]

The point I was trying to make when refering to the Pentagon was that someone in the position to make those types of decisions has far more information at their disposal than the teeming masses.

[jon_j_rambo]

You guys must be watching season #6 of 24? All roads lead to Zion in the end of the age.

[Liam]

Iran is a really boring campaign with Nukes, I have a huge preference to remove that aspect, say a Treaty? You could have a limited campaign with the Sunni Iraqi SoCalled Democracy backed by the USA. The Kurdish People's Republic, Independant and threatened by Turkey...backed by the USA as well as the USSR

Fighting against the Shi'ite Majority Southern State fully armed by Iranians and much like the Koreas! I do not see it much differently, perhaps a limited campaign with a similar outcome? Limited Fighting within Iraqi borders.. That or a Major World War Erupting with Russia and MidEast Tensions sizzling.

Meanwhile to add in some spice you could use Isreal as a base and the Opposition could use Syria/Jordan and Egypt

Kuwait of course along with the Saudis would be Puppets for the USA, they serve their true King, Bush

As far as American Fundamentalists, I know just one thing. We have yet to start a World War we just threatened to... The Hippie movement started here and I think many American's want Peace not War, they don't really want their boys dying on the other side of the Earth, despite the ability to create a war there. They'd more than likely use the CIA to incite a rebellion, I think that more feesible and Likely. Right now majority of us are looking for an exit strategy, remeber folks that the Russians are still in the Caucasus as bad as we're in the MidEast and over OIL killing children! and selling their daughters to pay for it! And JUSTIFYING IT Publicly

[jon_j_rambo]

I love the USA.

[Moonslayer]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

I love the USA.

Now that has to qualify as the biggest 'No s**t, Sherlock' statement, ever!

[arado234]

As far as tech.goes.china just test fired(successfully)a S.A.M.that was able to and did shoot down a satelite way up in space.Nobody new they are capable of this.So i think maybe china has alot more in their arsenal then we know of.

[Retributar]

The Saudies & Jordanian's are also threatening to get involved in Iraq if the Shi'ites start slaughtering their Sunni breatheren there.

So Mahmoud Amadinejad's hopeful take-over/Control of Iraq might not now be quite as easy as he was hoping it was going to be!.

China i think displayed their Satellite Killing Ability in a timely fashion...to make the U.S. think twice about venturing forth against their Buddy Mahmoud Amadinejad!. The Chinese Government Owned State Oil Companies have just recently invested $20-Billion Dollars in Iran in order to aquire Oil Supplies!.

If Iran was to have contol over Iraq, then China would stand to benefit greatly from this new additional source of Oil, which would now 'Not' be controlled by the U.S. .

A last important note!, the Russian's are reported to have 6 Submarines in the Persian Gulf!.

Recently the Russian's also made a Major-Delivery of Defensive-Missiles to Iran as well as a shipment of Missiles that have the Range or capability of reaching Tel-Aviv!.

[ January 20, 2007, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[arado234]

Oboy.So i guess what your saying Retributar is that america(israel)had better think twice if thier plan is to attack iran.

[Retributar]

Yes!... arado234 , as this situation could escalate into an all-out Nuclear Exchange. I really hope that the leaders in this world are not that crazy!.

If Israel goes it alone, perhap's the scenario or result that i just mentioned might not happen, but if the U.S. get's involved,...that i think might be another story!.

If you believe in the Bible at all, it mention's that the 'Earth was made for man, and that it will not be destroyed, but remain forever!'.

However it does not mean that limited nuclear exchanges will not happen. Another verse explains that God will bring to ruin those ruining the Earth [Nuclear Weapons use would also apply i would think...as in "Ruining The Earth".]

I am as well, very fearful of this combustible situation,...and i hope that it will not happen!.

[ January 20, 2007, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Bible tells us things will be "normal" before Rapture. As the days of Noah...

[Retributar]

YES Jon_j_rambo ,...it will start off as in 'The Days of Noah',... then when they are crying 'Peace and Security', continued> 'Then the End Will Come'.

I can't even make myself see/understand how there will ever be cries of 'Peace and Security?????'. How could that ever happen?. Our 'ENTIRE' history has been contrary to that!.