War Game Shows Dangers of Attacking Iran

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Did you even read my post? You are comparing what I said to politically correct wars for money. Lets just say we don't care anymore and let the pieces fall where they may? We could turn that place into a mall parking lot on a Sunday afternoon if we had the will to do it.

You clearly don't understand that sheer airpower alone does not win wars and we have been very agressive in prosecuting air wars.

So much so in both Iraq and Afghanistan we actually ran out of targets.

We have also killed millions of civilians so my best advice to you is to read the actual history of warfare and learn to understand under what political scenarios people can actually be conquered.

What you fail to understand is juggernauts like Germany and Japan during World War II eventually started loosing when petrol become a problem.

You really think Iran is going to run out of oil?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Trust me I am a great judge of charachter, and I can't think of a thing in the world where I would have any need of your advice, so why would your credentials be important to me.

You have no idea how useful my advice could be because you won't look up my credentials. That and I think your ego is getting in the way.

You haven't presented anything coherent or relevant beyond a coordinated Israeli Internet Defense Force attack on a thread.

I took your own evidence and turned it around on you and this is how you respond? I am not even Israeli for crying out loud.

No rocket science involved there just hooliganism.

So, you're not going to share that info that we are supposed to hang ourselves with are you?

Thanks for bumping the thread and presenting such a weak case for attacking Iran!

How did I ever show that? Where are you getting some of this stuff from?

Care to discuss this in chat? I am getting tired of giving you free points.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
What you fail to understand is juggernauts like Germany and Japan during World War II eventually started loosing when petrol become a problem.

Wow, now you really show how ignorant you are.
Our ability to saturate them with people and equipment was what started losing the war for them long before they had problems with fuel shortages.

But you just keep dropping those ignorant off topic comments and I will be there to point you in the right direction.

reply to post by COOL HAND

You have no idea how useful my advice could be because you won't look up my credentials. That and I think your ego is getting in the way.

Laugh out Loud look up an anonymous psuedonym's credentials on ATS!

Sounds like your ego is getting in the way.

Its all good though, you have been so helpful at bumping the thread.

Which reminds me why would I exactly be impressed with the credentials of someone so easily played!



Oh but I lead a charmed life!

So how are you doing with getting through to the Pentagon and working out this situation in Iraq and Iran or did you want to fight a three front war?

reply to post by COOL HAND

Our ability to saturate them with people and equipment was what started losing the war for them long before they had problems with fuel shortages.

Well all I can say is thank goodness they ran out of fuel during the Ardennes offensive then!

The Battle of the Bulge salient wasn't going to good for us until they did.

Accusing someone of ignorant statements and proving them to be ignorant are two different things.

Tanks, Trucks, Planes, APV's all need gas and oil. Lots and lots of it.

Or ae you planning a horse cavalry attack on Iran as part of your three front war?

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Laugh out Loud look up an anonymous psuedonym's credentials on ATS!

Would you rather I just tell them to you so that you can immediately discredit them and demand proof?

Its all good though, you have been so helpful at bumping the thread.

Wow, sounds to me like you are not interested in debating. You'd rather just keep racking up the points.

So how are you doing with getting through to the Pentagon and working out this situation in Iraq and Iran or did you want to fight a three front war?

About as well as you are doing proving any of your claims.

reply to post by COOL HAND

When did they say that nuclear weapons were not allowed due to their religion? I must have missed that.

Let me bring you up to date.

Ahmadinejad says a-bombs religiously forbidden February 20, 8:39 AM President Ahmadinejad says that Iran would not want nuclear weapons. He said his religion forbids it.

www.examiner.com...

Iran Supreme Leader Denies Nuclear Bomb Plan, Says ‘Forbidden’

“Our religious beliefs consider such weapons forbidden as symbols of destruction,” Khamenei said today after he presided at a ceremony where Iran’s first domestically made guided- missile destroyer was put into service from a base in the Persian Gulf. “We don’t believe in atomic bombs and we do not seek one.”

www.businessweek.com...

The whole thing with Afghanistan wanting us there could be looked at too. I saw a special on National Geographic channel where our special forces were trying to meet up with Northern Alliance troops. They were very leery of working with us because they said we left them the last time. I could find sources if you really want.

reply to post by COOL HAND

Would you rather I just tell them to you so that you can immediately discredit them and demand proof?

Doesn't matter to me if you are the queen of England!

As far as the debate you lost that on your first post.

You can't actually outline any credible scenario where we could attack Iran and not suffer the consequences as laid out in the Report the thread is authored on.

The minute you started in with the Daisy Cutter you proved that.

Amatuers!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Well all I can say is thank goodness they ran out of fuel during the Ardennes offensive then!

Had they been able to execute their plan as planned (they didn't) they would have merely extended the war. There was no hope of them chaning the course of the war or altering it's outcome.

The Battle of the Bulge salient wasn't going to good for us until they did.

Actually it was going quite well except for where the Germans made their penetration attack. Our fuel problems at the time were much worse than the Germans.

This thread is not based in truth no matter how many times we show this OP the error of there logic they will not get it. So why even argue with a person that does not see simple truth and logic it is like arguing with a crazy person. We heard the same thing about Iraq remember.


I have noticed this OP is more about stirring the pot than substance. I am sorry but when you refuse to look at logic and then when you are wrong change the terms you are nothing but a shill plain and simple.

Originally posted by jackflap

Ahmadinejad says a-bombs religiously forbidden February 20, 8:39 AM President Ahmadinejad says that Iran would not want nuclear weapons. He said his religion forbids it.

Then why is he hiding his program from the IAEA? Why is he enriching uranium?

Islam allows you to lie for the benefits of war. Hmm

The whole thing with Afghanistan wanting us there could be looked at too. I saw a special on National Geographic channel where our special forces were trying to meet up with Northern Alliance troops. They were very leery of working with us because they said we left them the last time. I could find sources if you really want.

I don't think that was from the Russian timeframe, that was from earlier in the current war where we tried to let them fight it without our help.

reply to post by COOL HAND

Had they been able to execute their plan as planned (they didn't) they would have merely extended the war. There was no hope of them chaning the course of the war or altering it's outcome.

Only because they were resource starved and foolishly fought a two front war in a desperate bid for resources that backfired.

Conversely we have failed to make headway in either Iraq or Iran because we are fighting a two front war there, extending it to a third front would be sheer madness in attacking Iran.

There are no similiar desperate moments with having to save England from Germany and ourselves from Japan at play.

Yet to clearly display how critical Oil is in modern warfare the first front we opened up in the European War was actually to assist the British in Africa to deny the Germans Middle East oil fields.

So yeah Iran sitting on top of so much oil is clearly not a good thing, especially when our forces are on the Korean Border, still maintaining a large European presence and in combat theatres in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Only a madman would extend them out further.

reply to post by Subjective Truth


What logic the Israeli Internet Defense Force pressing for American public opinion to attack Iran.

Come up with an example of any nation being conquered with airpower alone?

Didn't think so.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
You can't actually outline any credible scenario where we could attack Iran and not suffer the consequences as laid out in the Report the thread is authored on.

The minute you started in with the Daisy Cutter you proved that.

The Daisy Cutter posts have nothing to do with Iran, so how are you able to link the two and come up with this?

You really aren't after the truth or denying ignorance here are you?

reply to post by Subjective Truth

I have noticed this OP is more about stirring the pot than substance. I am sorry but when you refuse to look at logic and then when you are wrong change the terms you are nothing but a shill plain and simple.

So when a well thought out logistical plan of "All we have to do is take the kid gloves of" fails to influence someone you just attack them?



Too funny. I should charge you guys really!

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
This thread is not based in truth no matter how many times we show this OP the error of there logic they will not get it. So why even argue with a person that does not see simple truth and logic it is like arguing with a crazy person. We heard the same thing about Iraq remember.

Whatever you do don't bring up Pittsburgh. He gets obsessed with Pittsburgh and Tea parties.

On topic. Nobody keeps bumping this thread for their egos. People would like answers to their queries about claims the OP made.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Only because they were resource starved and foolishly fought a two front war in a desperate bid for resources that backfired.

They launched that campaign to buy themselves time to get forces reequipped and retrained. They had plenty of fuel to mount a credible defense of Germany had they gone that route.

Conversely we have failed to make headway in either Iraq or Iran because we are fighting a two front war there, extending it to a third front would be sheer madness in attacking Iran.

We have made plenty of headway there. I've seen it with my own eyes, have you?

Yet to clearly display how critical Oil is in modern warfare the first front we opened up in the European War was actually to assist the British in Africa to deny the Germans Middle East oil fields.

The Germans got most of their fuel from the Romania area. The reason we went to Africa first was because it was an easier nut to crack and we were going to have to go there eventually. Why not do it sooner and open a southern front against the Axis powers.

You don't read much history do you?

reply to post by COOL HAND

Islam allows you to lie for the benefits of war. Hmm

Are you sure? How sure are you that the UN approved the second invasion of Iraq? How sure are we that North Korea isn't going to give someone else their nuclear know how?

Not to mention the will of the people for the second invasion. Not to mention the fact that A.Q. Khan saw to it that others knew how to proliferate, supposedly right under our noses. Pakistan has nukes, India has nukes. Why wasn't their such a strict non proliferation policy with them? Why Iran?

I submit to you that we are being played. The real supposed threats are still there and the imaginary ones that they want us to see are exposed. What's the reason? Israel has nukes and does not cooperate with anyone.

reply to post by SLAYER69

Whatever you do don't bring up Pittsburgh. He gets obsessed with Pittsburgh and Tea parties.

Pittsburgh shall be a blight and a shame on the old and forgotten spirit of this once proud and great nation that shall live in infamy for ever.

The good people bombarded with Sound Cannons, Bean Bag Projectiles, Rubber Bullets, Tear Gas, Pepper Spray, Truncheons and Batons after being order to disperse from peacefully walking their own streets by a boradcast computerized voice and you people want to attack Iran?

How much do the Russians pay you!

Thank goodness they didn't use Daisy Cutters on the protestors at the G-20 like they did on those Iraqi bunkers!

This is so cool, I love all this attention, thanks guys!

reply to post by COOL HAND

We have made plenty of headway there. I've seen it with my own eyes, have you?

No remember they decided not to allow American Coffins to be photographed anymore coming back from the War Zones!

Yeah that's headway alright.

Laugh out loud we beat Germany and Japan in under 5 years and we are still struggling with the Iraqis and Afghanis after 10!

Which gum ball machine did those credentials come from?

Was it the .25 cent or .50 cent variety!