can america win their first ever war with iran ??

originally posted by: FredT
Nope........ The US would win whatever battles were fought. They are simply technologically more capable and have vast forces. But as we found with Iraq and Afghanistan winning battles is not enough to win a war

First off look at Iraq as a comparison.

The vast majority of Iraqi's supported the initial invasion. We will not have that luck here. Just ask the ghost of Saddam about how his invasion of Iraq went. Most Americans will not have the stomach for the war of attrition it would take. The Iranian people will unite against any invader. You CANNOT defeat an enemy that is willing to die for country. It was true for the British in the revolutionary war and lets face it does anybody want to call Afghanistan a victory?

Look at Baghdad. We barely were able to control the green zone. Now imagine Tehran with 3 times the population.

America has cool military technology. So does Iran. Iran is Aryan. Sons of Arias.

originally posted by: FredT
Nope........ The US would win whatever battles were fought. They are simply technologically more capable and have vast forces. But as we found with Iraq and Afghanistan winning battles is not enough to win a war

First off look at Iraq as a comparison.

The vast majority of Iraqi's supported the initial invasion. We will not have that luck here. Just ask the ghost of Saddam about how his invasion of Iraq went. Most Americans will not have the stomach for the war of attrition it would take. The Iranian people will unite against any invader. You CANNOT defeat an enemy that is willing to die for country. It was true for the British in the revolutionary war and lets face it does anybody want to call Afghanistan a victory?

Look at Baghdad. We barely were able to control the green zone. Now imagine Tehran with 3 times the population.

Some US generals want to control China too since McArthur Nuke tactics which would destroy the world. , that is like 10x the population.
Fact: US will never win China without a Chinese army of its own.
Another fact: US has no Chinese army, not even a Chinese general in the military.
Another fact: Taiwan is a joke and democracy is seen as regime change, nothing Chinese since Chiang Kai died. US lost its opportunity by screwing with China in WW2.

Puppet of Japan just like the 2nd Sino-Jap war.

thediplomat.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: FredT
Nope........ The US would win whatever battles were fought. They are simply technologically more capable and have vast forces. But as we found with Iraq and Afghanistan winning battles is not enough to win a war

First off look at Iraq as a comparison.

The vast majority of Iraqi's supported the initial invasion. We will not have that luck here. Just ask the ghost of Saddam about how his invasion of Iraq went. Most Americans will not have the stomach for the war of attrition it would take. The Iranian people will unite against any invader. You CANNOT defeat an enemy that is willing to die for country. It was true for the British in the revolutionary war and lets face it does anybody want to call Afghanistan a victory?

Look at Baghdad. We barely were able to control the green zone. Now imagine Tehran with 3 times the population.

Well if we didnt try to rebuild their nation and left it as a smoldering crater instead and left it at that we could had declared a win in Iraq. If we hit Iran it should be to win,and not try to win hearts and minds.

No they won't/wouldn't.

a reply to: SATURN66
Not sure how you guys are measuring success here. The United States and its citizens have managed to remain unaffected at home, with a stable infrastructure, intact supply chain, and standard method of governance.

Those we fight against have only piles of rubble, masses of dead, completely devastated infrastructure , citizen exodus, disrupted supply chains, closed markets, no running water, etc.. to show for it.

If you want to call those victories for them, I will gladly accept what you would consider a loss for us. War seeks to accomplish very specific goals. In the end, the only nation since 9/11 that does not have a leader sitting in their capitol who answers to the Global Empire is Syria. Lebanon is currently split between its official government pretty much bending over for Israel/USA and its unofficial government/Hezbollah fighting against us. The capitol still answers to us though.

I guess we use different metrics though. Apparently a ruined society whose government now answers to a higher outside human authority is considered a victory to some people. I disagree.

originally posted by: makemap

originally posted by: Cds434
It's already war with America has started 30+ years ago with gulf war #1, gulf war #2, Syria war, Libya, and the cities of Iraq are being rebuilt or expansion new suburbs already taking place in Iraq. Now let's look at the Chaos, destruction, millions killed, immigration of refugees all over Western countries with numerous Van attacks killing others civilians.
Now was it worth it to displace and get influx of refugees into western nations because more van violence attacks will occur?

Iran is no win country for America.

They either take it or get out. Simple as that. Any longer the US troops will realize they are going genocide mode which the Gov doesn't want just like Vietnam War. Keep invading for your landlords boys, there is nothing to do at home.

a reply to: makeup

Yes until they unable to take it, as for landlord boys they're just wanna be rulers from inheritance of their father's who were real rulers.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: SATURN66
Not sure how you guys are measuring success here. The United States and its citizens have managed to remain unaffected at home, with a stable infrastructure, intact supply chain, and standard method of governance.

I'm with you on that, the US didn't suffer at all from the conflict in Vietnam, aside from loss of life and probably billions of dollars. But did the US 'win' though?
I'll shout a British example, in 1982 the UK won the conflict in the Falklands and reclaimed it's land back. That was a clear win compared to the muddied waters of the Vietnam situation.
Not being a dick here honestly, just using an example of a clear win compared to a 'not sure who really won' type scenario.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
The loser is the one who pays with more blood. As much life and equipment we lost, we returned the favor ten fold. We are therefore, technical winners, even if our objectives were not achieved. If someone were to beat down a random citizen in a robbery, but fail to take his money for whatever reason, lets say a badge came upon the scene and the culprit is required to flee. That man still wins because the victim is bloody and broken, and the perp is unscathed and got away.

He did not achieve his goal, but he is not the one needing a visit to the ER.

originally posted by: yuppa
Well if we didnt try to rebuild their nation and left it as a smoldering crater instead and left it at that we could had declared a win in Iraq. If we hit Iran it should be to win,and not try to win hearts and minds.

True but that just kicks the can down the road. If you take a historical view of that tactic it has seldom worked beyond a decade or so.

WW-I Not really rebuilding Germany etc leads to the rise of Hitler and WWII
Afghanistan - failure to rebuild and our support of a warlord to run the country leads to Taliban resurgence / ISIS
Iraq - see above

WWII Europe and Japan in ruins. Rebuilt with the Marshall Plan. Stable democratic governments for 7 plus decades

a reply to: FredT

And that there is the issue at hand across time. The bill has to be paid somewhere. Someone gets that one on one tutoring, the rest of the students are left to survive by any means necessary at the hands of bullies, thus creating the environment which proliferates the next generation quagmire.

Can't save the whole world, but we can sure keep those we choose in power with our backing.

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
a reply to: SATURN66
Not sure how you guys are measuring success here. The United States and its citizens have managed to remain unaffected at home, with a stable infrastructure, intact supply chain, and standard method of governance.

Those we fight against have only piles of rubble, masses of dead, completely devastated infrastructure , citizen exodus, disrupted supply chains, closed markets, no running water, etc.. to show for it.

If you want to call those victories for them, I will gladly accept what you would consider a loss for us. War seeks to accomplish very specific goals. In the end, the only nation since 9/11 that does not have a leader sitting in their capitol who answers to the Global Empire is Syria. Lebanon is currently split between its official government pretty much bending over for Israel/USA and its unofficial government/Hezbollah fighting against us. The capitol still answers to us though.

I guess we use different metrics though. Apparently a ruined society whose government now answers to a higher outside human authority is considered a victory to some people. I disagree.

Srry, but US is not a success either, it has been hit by assassinations and terror bombs. It has not ended and will not end especially when gangs/corrupt corporations run USA. The military will either have to come in for martial law one day or live in a dystopia which is coming to real life the way US keeps up with its pollution and expanding desert wasteland. School shootings is a prime example of the beginning.
The next war will either bring the war to US soils as no one likes USA anymore. If not will be done by doomsday devices by countries such as Russia blowing up half the planet therefore depleted the planet from its atmosphere and everyone dies from lack of oxygen. US can't win anymore because it had already invited the enemy over since WW2.

God forbids USA to win any Earthly Wars unless it was an alien invasion.

a reply to: makemap
You believe what you want. I go by the loyalty of a nation's captial to our interests. Everybody likes to focus on Vietnam because it is probably the only state besides cuba and North Korea who managed to keep their leadership independent. We did spend the latter half of the twentieth capturing the loyalty of many capitol's, without even have to use our own troops most the time. If we have to, we will split Afghanistan exactly the way we have now split Syria.


By 2050, it may even be an option coming to Iran 😀