US fears defeat in Iran war

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

2. Can't handle Afghanistan? Have you been living under a rock the past 5 years? We took care of Afghanistan with only about 20,000 troops

Are you saying we should have killed everyone in Afghanistan or something? That wasn't and isn't the goal

I think roles have changed indeed. To destroy the facilities by air operations is an option, but what will happens if this scenario becomes reality?

Do you really think Iran won't hit back? Of course they will.

Furthermore, to quote you: Have you been living under a rock the past 5 years?

In Afghanistan, there are many other countries working together to create peace and fight terrorists.

I am Dutch and the Netherlands supports the US in almost every conflict.
Of course you can't compare the Dutch army quantitatively with the US army, but I want to prevent you from saying 'these small countries only serve in the relatively safe areas and aren't actively involved in fighting terrorists'

We've got quite some special forces working together with the US commando forces in the hunt for terrorists.

Furthermore, we're taking over one of the most violent provinces in Afghanistan, Uruzgan, where the level of Taliban activity is enormously high.

Sometimes I find it strange as it seems to be that many Americans have the idea they are the only country involved in the middle east conflict and the war against terror.




[edit on 22-3-2006 by Mdv2]

Originally posted by Mdv2
I think roles have changed indeed. To destroy the facilities by air operations is an option, but what will happens if this scenario becomes reality?

Do you really think Iran won't hit back? Of course they will.

Hit back at what?
Any move they make would only draw ire from the international community.

Furthermore, to quote you: Have you been living under a rock the past 5 years?

In Afghanistan, there are many other countries working together to create peace and fight terrorists.

No, I know that. And thanks for bring that up.
Any attack on Iran's facilities won't be done by the US alone.

Sometimes I find it strange as it seems to be that many Americans have the idea they are the only country involved in the middle east conflict and the war against terror.

The same could be said about the people (especially on this board) who are so against the U.S.
There are 40+ countries with us in Iraq and about 20 with us in Afghanistan. You would NEVER know that though if you were to look at the threads on this board.

Originally posted by iqonx

Originally posted by JoeTex
man i'm sick of all this crap, if you middle east people don't get in line we gonna have to send 20 drunk texans over there to straighten y'all out..

and if you americans dont behave we muslims will send you back micheal jackson whos currently in bahrain in the middle east.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by iqonx]

I'm from Canada, but still... Couldnt you just keep him there for a 'while'??? lmfao Sorry

We have to ask ourselves how would the U.S. deal with a conflict that was out of control. The biggest problem with attacking Iran is that the region itself is not really stable and could very well explode. The U.S. attacks Iran and then instead of just fighting Iran the war potentially spreads to other nations anywhere from Egypt to Pakistan and even including central asia. Meanwhile other nations in the region suffer from severe revolutions. The people attempt to overthrow their governments and if part of the militaries in these countries join these people then you can just forget about. Think of part of the Pakistani military joining its people in overthrowing the government. That counrty has 162 million people that's more than Russia I believe. Those siding with Musharraf would be outnumber. Picture these pro American leaders being replaced with anti-American ones, then what? Is the U.S. going to conquer all of the nations from Pakistan to Egypt. Can the U.S. conquer enough nations to get the rest in order. Not if the people are resisting. The U.S. is not even experiencing the worst of the worst in Iraq, so what if the whole region explodes. I think other nations know this along with our own government which is why they've been cautious so far.

The reason we have yet to do anything, is because unlike what the media and the rest of world would have us believe, our country (and the majority of it's leaders) would rather work conflicts out through diplomacy. If we wanted to, we very easily could take out Iran... and the whole Middle East for that matter. We have the military capability to do so... despite how many shoulder launched rockets the Iranians may have.

And about that... whoever it was that was talking about Iran's shoulder launched rockets... please spare me. You make it sound like the war would be a battle between rocketeers or something. Face the fact. Iran would be annihilated in a war with the U.S. The U.S. Military is the most advanced and capable war fighting machine to ever fight on the face of the earth. Period. The ONLY way this great nation will ever be defeated is if the people lose the will to fight for what's right.



[edit on 22-3-2006 by MegaDittos]

If anything, besides waging war -- which every nation fears --- the U.S. might actually fear winning a war against Iran. Look at Iraq -- the U.S. won (?) that war.

If the US causes catastrophic damage to Irans' infrastructure and creates a situation where there are millions of refugees, the US would be certainly strained to the breaking point trying to create housing and supply food and medicine to the people of Iran until order can be restored.

Nation building is a relatively new aspect to warfare and one that the US certainly hasn't mastered yet. Nevertheless, the task of restoring order in Iran and helping to rebuild a devastated Iran would be insurmountable, I'm sure.

So, I don't believe the U.S. fears losing a war with Iran. Technologically and militarily, the U.S. would win a war with Iran -- hands down. But to win a war with Iran would bring along a whole host of new problems and difficulties that the United States is simply not able to deal with as of yet.

[edit on 3/22/2006 by benevolent tyrant]

If your saying that the United States can just go out and conquer all the nations from Egypt to Pakistan well then I don't really see it. But even if I'm wrong that doesn't change the fact that the U.S. would be considering all consequences of its actions. Just because you have a powerful military doesn't mean you stop thinking. Why would the U.S. want to put itself in that position?

... it would be as one sided as the iraq war.3-4 weeks

3 weeks going on 4 years now.

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
I see ignorance is still running rampant on ATS...

Originally posted by HiddenReality
Yeah you did do a good job raping/killing the NAI children and women untill the point of their extinction... Maybe its you yank fools who should get in line and stop thinking you have the god given right to run the world.

lol
You have the Spanish and English to thank for that (the French...eh...not so much).

Blaming America for stuff before America even exsisted.
Brilliant!

Urm, I think your at least half wrong on that.

First of all, most of the early colonists from the British Isles to North America were Irish, not English (around 15:1).

Secondly, at least half of the American indian atrocities happened after the US became independent. The original preindependence USA states were East of the Missisipi. The Wild West and Mid-West happened after independence. I suggest you read 'Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee'.

I can't wait for Tehran Bob. Maybe the propaganda this time will be a little more Mullasque (ie: "the infidel dogs are dying by the tens of millions at our doorsteps, Iran is triumphant, long live Islam!!" while U.S. troops are preparing the stake to put Khomeini's head on )


ps: does Iran have UFO's too? How about that tessla canon the navy has been hiding for ages which could take down an Aegis cruiser in one fell swoop from miles away? Iran has at best the chance of striking first like a coward with a nuke in the heartland to cause an emp effect. Otherwise it is already defeated.

[edit on 22-3-2006 by Nakash]

some of this discussion kinda makes me sick when you think about how casual it can be talked about..the media sure has a done a good job of hiding the results of the war but really..I think the time has come, though overdue, that this can't be accepted any longer and to focus more on intent/action..not to mention that it really feels like a lot of this is being manipulated in the first place

Originally posted by HiddenReality

Originally posted by JoeTex
man i'm sick of all this crap, if you middle east people don't get in line we gonna have to send 20 drunk texans over there to straighten y'all out..

Yeah you did do a good job raping/killing the NAI children and women untill the point of their extinction... Maybe its you yank fools who should get in line and stop thinking you have the god given right to run the world.

Lets face it you cant control a bunch of armed civilians in Iraq nevermind Iran, your armed forces are a joke, despite the best technology in the world your incompetence shines thru, the USA always underestimates the small enemies they constantly attack and always come out looking like mongrol dogs with their tails between their legs.

yeah, maybe it's time we play cowboys and muslims.

you guys make me laugh. and i mean roll on the floor laugh...

if those pesky terrorist are so "badass" why do they keep hidding behind the women and children? because they know they could never stand up to real men. if we did things the way they do we would be monsters.

^^^^a cow is a female^^^^^

Why haven't the USAns responded to the cease-fire initiative promoted by CAUS?

Since there is a favorable response from so many Iraqi officials, and different elements opposing the occupation, why hasn't the US agreed to it?

Better yet, why haven't the American public even heard about it?

So the US, who arms usurper regimes with chemical and biological weapons, feels that Iran does not have a right to nuclear technology?

"We will move forward with pride upon the path of progress despite your rants."

President Ahmadenijad

[ removed inappropriate content] I know plenty of Iranians and can tell that the enlightened ones know Mr.A to be crazy and a dumb hick, on the other hand I can't help people who see Iranians on this board quoting that genocidal idiot and draw up the conclusion that Iran is a threat which must be dealt with fast.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Nakash]

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner ...

Mod Note: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 3/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by Nakash
dumb
[edit on 23-3-2006 by Nakash]

I wouldn't call him dumb...

He's a hick. Part of the old generation of the Iran-Iraq war which thinks it's virtuous and cool to send a a hundred million zillion children to get machined gunned if they get 72 virgins for each one killed. I have utter contempt for him. Of course he is crafty in his own way, but contempt is all I have for him.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Nakash]

OUR PLACE, scarecrow?(irony)

Ya mean pickin' cotton?


[edit on 23-3-2006 by pRoPhEcY]

Originally posted by Nakash
[removed inappropriate content ] I know plenty of Iranians and can tell that the enlightened ones know Mr.A to be crazy and a dumb hick, on the other hand I can't help people who see Iranians on this board quoting that genocidal idiot and draw up the conclusion that Iran is a threat which must be dealt with fast.

[edit on 23-3-2006 by Nakash]

Explain to us how it is that you describe Ahmadenijad as "genocidal"?

It is BUSH who is the filthy killer.

The US is what must be dealt with.

Bush would be passed out drunk in a gutter somewhere, were it not for...................................???????

[edit on 3/23/2006 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by iqonx
and if you americans dont behave we muslims will send you back micheal jackson whos currently in bahrain in the middle east.

I have am against the use of nuclear weapons, however there are some things that would definitely require a nuclear response.....