Iran Can Win a War Against the U.S. with Help From Syria & the DPRK

Originally posted by centurion1211
Obviously OOPS is on the loose again, posting trash about the U.S.

We must have deported him or denied him a visa or something.

Why feed his ego and give him points by responding to his ridiculous rantings?

A better tactic is to put him on ignore like I did.

These kinds of posts don't add to the discussion and I strongly encourage people to post relevant information about the topic. Instead of talking about me Centurion, please respond to the postings.

How would we access the mile and a half deep tunnels that are supposedly hiding their would be nuke arsenal?

Why would we attack something that doesn't exist?

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

How would we access the mile and a half deep tunnels that are supposedly hiding their would be nuke arsenal?

Why would we attack something that doesn't exist?

I'm not sure if they exist. That's why I sad supposed hiding their would be aresenal there. But it's proof that North Korea has them. So invasion of N.K. would be necessary to actually make sure their weapons are destroyed.

North Korea does not have tunnels like you're talking about. They have a tunnel network mostly for small groups of special forces to move. And for those, America has created bunker busters.

Um...question, my friend. They CANNOT defeat the U.S.

Are you serious? Let's take in the facts.

If, in fact, they did attack us, the U.S. would pull out of Iraq, attack them, and go with a FULLSCALE war.

Not this politically correct stuff in Iraq - I'm talking fullscale.

We would, and I promise this, decimate their countries. Believe me, they will not be able to defeat the U.S.

We would not stay in Iraq if we needed those troops. Simple as that.

-wD

Im all for your beliefs and views on America OOPS but those three countries could NOT kick the US's ass. Im sorry but thats the truth, no matter what tactics they used. We have the latest and greatest technology and in battle that usually means a lot. Guerilla tactics are very useful but you cant expect a whole army using these tactics alone to defeat a nation barging in with super weapons and high technology. But yeah, America should be wiped clearly off the map! hahaha

Originally posted by CmptrN3rd5
Im all for your beliefs and views on America OOPS but those three countries could NOT kick the US's ass. Im sorry but thats the truth, no matter what tactics they used. We have the latest and greatest technology and in battle that usually means a lot. Guerilla tactics are very useful but you cant expect a whole army using these tactics alone to defeat a nation barging in with super weapons and high technology. But yeah, America should be wiped clearly off the map! hahaha

I thank you ComputerNerd, I often feel like a loner around here. But I also throw out ideas to argue them and understand them better. It doesn't mean they are my heartfelt beliefs. Just the thought of the day. It seems that no one is questioning the ability of an allied axis fighting the USA and actually winning.

i believe the topic is a real liked before,i think the USA should learn somemore in history lesson such liked battle of NORTH KOREA where USA have been defeated and asking help from united nation.i think that is a real proof enuff for all of us

Yeah, Great Contribution to the Thread...be prepared. Pro American Forces 'Holy Enterprises' are getting ready to bombard you with flame attacks... Don't mind them. You have really added something great to the discussion.

Americans like to forget when they lose...It's the superiority mentality.

Yeah America needs to lose one again so the sheep of America can stop acting so cocky and better than everyone else. I know there are a lot of people who talk crap because they live in Babylon and whatnot but you know some day soon theres gonna be nukes going off and they'll never know why. Poor bastards! lol

Well germany was fighting on two sides. It also lost alot of troops, invading russia. What america though was just a weakning army. British and the french got pounded simply's because they were no match to the german's at the start of the war. So you can't say french were crappy, blame the british too, they are were also the guys that where successful on d-day againist weakning german army. So infact america has never really demostrated being an successful armry.

They failed in vietnam, and couldn't really handle the north korean's. They lose heaps soilders in japan so they decided to use a nuke. Because the army wasn't strong enought. to take on the short japanese. They though againist the iraq army which is just another weak army.

The only successful army in 20 century has been the germany's.

I think the Communist Revolution is a good example of a Successful Army. The United States was helping the GuoMingDan but MaoZiDong's Peasant rebellion with rifles and cannons won against the GuoMingDan and the American planes. Once again the Americans didn't really demonstrate victory...

Oops the hatred you have for the nation of your birth becomes more and more glaringly obvious with every post, and I for one are glad you fled to that bastion of freedom China.
How happy you must be not to be repressed anymore. How happy you must be to have escaped our facist government.
I only hope you stay there for the rest of your days, content in the communist paradise you now reside in.
As for your laughable notion, even if Syria, Iran, and N. Korea were to ally, they would be unable to help each other.
The US Navy and Arforce would prevent supllies and troops from being sent from N.kore to the ME and vice versa. Our airpower would destroy each countries infrastucture from above.economic sancton which would be leveled if any of those you mentoned attacked us would cripple thier economies even worse than they are now.
Without sending in a sngle ground troop we could bring all three to thier knees.
Economic sanctions backed up by Naval and Air blocades, coupled with airstrikes would brng thier entire industrial appartus to a grnding halt, the lack of any imports/exports would destroy thier economy, Within a few months thier citizens would be lving without power, water, food , or telecomunnications. Within a half a yer those scieties would be so isolated tyey would have no choice but to flee the cities and devolve into completly agrarian societies just to survive.
All without a single boot on the ground.

I would certainly think that a coordinated attack Pearl Harbour style could do some initial heavy damage, but ultimately, a wounded eagle would start carpetbombing nukes. So, for neither parties the cost/profit balance seems attractive to start a full scale war?

Also these states tend to be ruled by persons with big ego, wich is why their alliances tend to be loose, they can never agree who gets the title of villainboss, to coordinate the effort, so how are they supposed to make a clenching fist instead of annoying poking fingers ?

Even the Germans and the Japanese were a loose alliance in the sense that they fought their own war in their part of the hemisphere, suppose they really tuned their attacks and the Japanese would have left alone the American and instead start Stabbing Stalin in the back while the Germans knock on the front door ??? Perhaps they would have given the Russian bear a run for the money...

The only viable option for states like Syria/Iran/Nkorea etc to start a massive uproar, would be if they would be supported and supremely coordinated by china (especially in about a decade or two of further technological catching up of the chinese army) , but I don't think they are interested, just think of the mess and the loss of bussiness, why would they ? The chinese will rather just buy out the Taiwanese and might expand on the moon instead.

These, what Bush likes to refer to as roguestatess striving for the possesion of nukes must first of all be seen as a deterrent against invasion and regime change rather than building towards an actual planned shootout with the usa, but naturally with the religious component of the muslims, willing to die in carbombings, many people still would feel uneasy about the prospect of a mad mullah and a red button.



[edit on 7-3-2005 by Countermeasures]

To anyone bringing up the Korean War:

Pick up a history book. We kind of won that war. We had almost completely dismantled our military prior to the war, rebuilt it, and managed to demolish the North Koreans. The Chinese had to launch a surprise attack, in which we managed to fight back to the original starting positions. Not bad for a military outnumbered, lacking in equipment, training and leadership.

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
This has done next to nothing to moral in the American army, and I doubt it's done much to the UK's, either. It's the people like you, back at home, who are affected most.

Yeah the troops dont really hear all the bad things or do they?
When you have a war weary nation it slowly transfers to the troops.

86 dead when you are at war is a blessing.

Not to us...255 dead is a very high loss, as I have said we are a small nation the numbers we take cant really be compared with the US....

It would not be hard. Honestly, where do people think our military budget goes?

I'm not saying blowing it up is difficult, I'm saying trying to get troops in is.

Do you think we just throw it away? According to you we don't have training to equal European nations (in spite of spending more per man), a small technological gap, and are equaled by nations like Russia that spend half as much as we do, and our decades behind us in electronics.

You spend the most on the airforce I believe, you spend more on a man because your buying MORE for the man not giveing him the same level of training.
Tell me the AK74U needs electronics.
If you did try and get into both you'll need a bigger number of troops and more weapons.

Iran could not destroy our fleet.

Yes not all but a large portion.

Iran does not have the capability to get into foreign nations.

So these large number of suicide bombers cant get into saudi arabia?
Every countries military can get into another country.

Yeah the troops dont really hear all the bad things or do they?
When you have a war weary nation it slowly transfers to the troops.

Surveys have been done showing moral in the American army is the exact same before the war started.

Not to us...255 dead is a very high loss, as I have said we are a small nation the numbers we take cant really be compared with the US....

That's not even remotely true. It's not even a percent of your entire forces. Your nation could replenish multiple times those losses with complete ease.

I'm not saying blowing it up is difficult, I'm saying trying to get troops in is.

Our normal troops dominated Iraq's elites. Why would Iran, Syria or North Korea be any different?

You spend the most on the airforce I believe, you spend more on a man because your buying MORE for the man not giveing him the same level of training.

You get this just by looking at basic training times. That's not a fair measure of anything. When you spend years in service getting more training, and of a better quality then anyone else, you're going to gain more experience.

You spend the most on the airforce I believe, you spend more on a man because your buying MORE for the man not giveing him the same level of training.

According to you even our airforce is inferior to yours in training.

Tell me the AK74U needs electronics.

What's so impressive about that? It's not even that great a gun.

Yes not all but a large portion.

Like Iraqi scuds, right? Honestly, there is no threat to America's fleet from Iran.

So these large number of suicide bombers cant get into saudi arabia?
Every countries military can get into another country.

Suicide bombers aren't typical military. They won't do any damage to America's military. And no, Iran probably not get many, if any men into Saudi Arabia during a war. They'd have to go through several nations to do it.

Yeah America needs to lose one again so the sheep of America can stop acting so cocky and better than everyone else. I know there are a lot of people who talk crap because they live in Babylon and whatnot but you know some day soon theres gonna be nukes going off and they'll never know why. Poor bastards! lol

I'm thinking about doing a long study showing the dumbing down of ATS over the past year or so and how the quality of posts and new posters has decreased. You can be my prime example.
You talk about us living in "Babylon" (I'm guessing the US)....but you live there too.
You talk about nukes going off.....but you live in NOVA. DC is right there buddy.
You talk about us needing to lose another war....we lose a war, you die more than likely.

Originally posted by TheTruth123
Well germany was fighting on two sides.

So were we.....across two oceans....

What america though was just a weakning army.

"What america though"?
What is that?

If you're saying America was a weakening army, you don't know your history very well. WW2 was one of the main reasons why we're a superpower today.

So infact america has never really demostrated being an successful armry.

You're a genius.
1. WW2 wasn't the first war the US was in
2. Please read a history book any history book...please....I'm begging you.
3. America's army has always demostrated to be successful. Sometimes politics and faulty leadership get in the way, however I'm not sure how you can say that statement with a straight face.
You seriously don't know your history...

They failed in vietnam

Vietnam wasn't as successful as it could have been because of politics, not our army.

and couldn't really handle the north korean's.

Again, read a book.
And what DD said.

They lose heaps soilders in japan so they decided to use a nuke.

wow...
Uh....


...wow....

Because the army wasn't strong enought. to take on the short japanese.

Are you stereotyping the Japanese?

They though againist the iraq army which is just another weak army.

Is "they though" new internet speak I haven't learned yet?
What are you saying?

The only successful army in 20 century has been the germany's.

They lost 2 major wars last century. How is that being successful?

In which war was actually declared the US lost none.

[edit on 7-3-2005 by ThatsJustWeird]

Originally posted by TheTruth123
They lose heaps soilders in japan so they decided to use a nuke. Because the army wasn't strong enought. to take on the short japanese. They though againist the iraq army which is just another weak army.

The only successful army in 20 century has been the germany's.

Wow. More idiotic statements.

The USA used the A-bombs in WW2 b/c a land invasion of Japan would cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of American men. We asked ourselves THEM OR US, and we chose them. After the first bomb went down, Japan didn't give up immediately, so they paid for it with tens of thousands of lives. The American army WAS strong enough to take on the Japs, but we WEREN'T stupid. The A-bombs were brilliant tactical decisions. The war came to an end solely because of them.

Funny how the only successful army of the 20th century, GERMANY, was defeated and dismantled. They had a great army, don't get me wrong, but Hitler's war machine fell short when the eagle swooped in baby.

Call me an arrogant American. Go ahead. I know i am. But you know what? I love my country and will defend it's beliefs, principles, and history until the day i die. God bless the USA, the greatest country on the face of the earth!

Using the nukes didn't just save American lives, but Japanese lives. The Japanese were extremists willing to fight to the last man. How many do you think would have been killed in the end? A lot more then two bombs.

Besides that, the Russians were approaching. Had we not used the bombs, and ended the war quickly, we would have seen a very good chance of Japan ending up divided like Germany. The Russians were not trusted to leave the territories they entered.