Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Deja vu. We had this thread a year ago when similar stories about attacking Iran were in the news. Must have been a slow news day to dig this one out again.

America simply can't afford a war with Iran. It isn't guaranteed we would win either. We are having some trouble with anything that isn't France or Germany. Either way, Some crazy feth in Iran would press some shiny red button and kill us all.

It's hard to predict what would happen if we truly seperated religion from state. Removing God and Jesus from pretty much everything. People probably wouldn't be cool with it. Thank Ignorance for that one. On the other hand, people might accept it completely.

halonachos wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"

Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.

I really have no idea why you made this point. I don't know if you remember where Australia and New Zealand are or how the pacific theatre was fought, but armor didn't exactly play a crucial role. A valid point may have been if the Aussies or Ziwis were unable to build their own naval units, them being islands and such.

I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.

As sure as I have a hole in my backside, Iran will not be attacked. And you can quote me on that!

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As sure as I have a hole in my backside, Iran will not be attacked. And you can quote me on that!

Maybe not by the states but Israel is crazy enough to sortie some aircraft.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As sure as I have a hole in my backside, Iran will not be attacked. And you can quote me on that!

Just in case.

Jihadin wrote:I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.

Didn't France launch the first strikes..?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.

Didn't France launch the first strikes..?

France was the first to say that the rebels were the legitimate government, now I don't know who threw the first missile but I know the US threw the most.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.

Didn't France launch the first strikes..?

Yeah, closely followed by the UK and Canada. It's not like the USA military swooped in right at the last minute though, they were involved pretty much from the get-go. It was a difference of days, at most, iirc.

AustonT wrote:

halonachos wrote:

ParatrooperSimon wrote:Just another day in America "Who should we attack next" "who should we cruise missle next" "any ideas anyone?" "Ahhh I know ... Iran!... its in the middle east and their is profit to be gained!"

Says the man who's country produced zero armor for their own forces during the second world war. But Halonachos, the Australians had tanks during WW2. Yes they did and they came with a big ol' "Made in America" stamped on the side. America, saving the day since 1917.

I really have no idea why you made this point. I don't know if you remember where Australia and New Zealand are or how the pacific theatre was fought, but armor didn't exactly play a crucial role. A valid point may have been if the Aussies or Ziwis were unable to build their own naval units, them being islands and such.

Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.

Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:I think we probaly deploy boots on ground on the southern border....course we can go isolationism(sp?) and stop pouring out aid to a lot of country...I'm for pulling out the UN. Every major operation seems to have the US in a lead role. So when Iran has a luanch nukable missile(s) someone else can lead that. If you bring up Libya not being US lead we got the ball rolling on that one before it was turned over to NATO...still supported/executed most of the missions.

Didn't France launch the first strikes..?

Yeah, closely followed by the UK and Canada. It's not like the USA military swooped in right at the last minute though, they were involved pretty much from the get-go. It was a difference of days, at most, iirc.

We dropped the most bombs and missiles and apparently it was also a US drone strike that actually stalled the convoy.

Excellent. You must have a large penis, after all.

Albatross wrote:Excellent. You must have a large penis, after all.

Only on the internet, in real life its only slightly above average.

halonachos wrote:

Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.

Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.

It was a more of a case of "we can't let the opposing ideology/power gain leverage in this part of the world, so let's fight". And the end result was an entire nation practically levelled to the ground, and more than a million people killed. For some reason civil wars always seem to be more bloody and hard-fought, the end result is almost beyond comprehension. I think the human mind is not built to imagine destruction and misery on such a scale.

Both the Soviets and US were to blame, it was the case of giving the natives guns, a pat on the back and a suitcase full of money, and sending them off to fight their countrymen.

It's no wonder so many Koreans (especially the older generation) have such an inherent dislike of foreigners, when they were essentially driven towards destruction by foreign powers for more than 60 years. It's a wonder that any kind nature remains amongst the people at all, and it's a testament to their character.

halonachos wrote:

Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.

Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.

and WTF does THAT have to do with bringing up Australian Tanks?
Wait I'll answer for you:

halonachos wrote: random quote about a random war, with no context to previous comments

Pacific wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.

Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.

It was a more of a case of "we can't let the opposing ideology/power gain leverage in this part of the world, so let's fight". And the end result was an entire nation practically levelled to the ground, and more than a million people killed. For some reason civil wars always seem to be more bloody and hard-fought, the end result is almost beyond comprehension. I think the human mind is not built to imagine destruction and misery on such a scale.

Both the Soviets and US were to blame, it was the case of giving the natives guns, a pat on the back and a suitcase full of money, and sending them off to fight their countrymen.

It's no wonder so many Koreans (especially the older generation) have such an inherent dislike of foreigners, when they were essentially driven towards destruction by foreign powers for more than 60 years. It's a wonder that any kind nature remains amongst the people at all, and it's a testament to their character.

Wow bucko really? Perhaps you would like to tell my grandpa that the reason he has no more feeling in his left leg is because the US wanted South Korea to destroy North Korea and wanted the two nations to go at it on their own. I'll also tell my friend's dad that the Agent Orange he was exposed to was because the US wanted the two Vietnams to destroy each other. Seriously, the US builds up the infrastructure of the two countries so they can actually drive around and then evacuate loyal citizens so they don't get executed by the Northern aggressors and the citizens don't trust other nations. Man if the US had not been there you wouldn't have that computer you're using, you'd be part of "Best Korea".

halonachos wrote:
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.

In the case of Korea, you might look up the Potsdam Conference.

Vietnam is far too complicated to be classified as either offensive or defensive, particularly given how close the United States had been to Diem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
Wow bucko really? Perhaps you would like to tell my grandpa that the reason he has no more feeling in his left leg is because the US wanted South Korea to destroy North Korea and wanted the two nations to go at it on their own. I'll also tell my friend's dad that the Agent Orange he was exposed to was because the US wanted the two Vietnams to destroy each other. Seriously, the US builds up the infrastructure of the two countries so they can actually drive around and then evacuate loyal citizens so they don't get executed by the Northern aggressors and the citizens don't trust other nations.

I am, occasionally, still surprised at this poster's ability to completely and utterly misunderstand what others have written.

I'm surprised that you can still be surprised. It's a Festivus miracle!

Festivus, it's for the rest of us.

Pacific wrote:

halonachos wrote:

Yes I know how they were fought, mostly by the Brits and Americans.

Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.

It was a more of a case of "we can't let the opposing ideology/power gain leverage in this part of the world, so let's fight". And the end result was an entire nation practically levelled to the ground, and more than a million people killed. For some reason civil wars always seem to be more bloody and hard-fought, the end result is almost beyond comprehension. I think the human mind is not built to imagine destruction and misery on such a scale.

Both the Soviets and US were to blame, it was the case of giving the natives guns, a pat on the back and a suitcase full of money, and sending them off to fight their countrymen.
It's no wonder so many Koreans (especially the older generation) have such an inherent dislike of foreigners, when they were essentially driven towards destruction by foreign powers for more than 60 years. It's a wonder that any kind nature remains amongst the people at all, and it's a testament to their character.

I dont understand how you can say that. I can understand a disliking to Russians, or even the Chinese, but the Americans? We spent countless lives to ensure that youre living under the safety of your own government, and not the oppressive and destructive powers of North Korea. Without US intervention, you wouldnt even be posting on this website right now.

Pacific isn't Korean, iirc.

I think that if Iran wants a nuclear weapon, it's inevitable that they will have one. We can only slow them down, but at the end of the day, it's just a 60 year old physics problem and even airstrikes won't stop that. They'll just delay them, and not even for that long.

I don't know what the solution is, mind you. I just don't think military action will work. I'm not opposed to military force in general, but I don't wish to engage in a futile engagement we don't have the political will to win. We (literally) cannot afford a conventional war - we'd need easily twice what Iraq took; and we will not annihilate them with nuclear weapons. I'm not sure where that leaves us. Maybe try to destabilize the government some more? It seems shaky. On the other hand, it could just get worse. On the other, other hand, it's already a pretty undesirable regime as far as US concerns go.

This is why I hate today's Western Society. The idealogy of "We shall intervene when ever possible" makes me questions whether there is a New World Order, which is made to enslave humanity or not. If so, it is probably some kind of Liberal Censorship which has nothing to do with Communism but everything to do with Slavery of the common people.

we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.

Damn that Northern Aggression....eerrr wrong time period

SInce we sold some Improved Bunker Buster to Isreal a month back I think the Isrealies more then likely give it a go since Iran stated that it will give it a go nuking Isreal

halonachos wrote:
Now the Vietnamese and Korean Wars were actually defensive wars, we didn't pick on anyone there we were trying to stop the northern forces from overwhelming the southern forces.

US Attitude of Vietnam summed up in First Person(1945-1955)
Sure, we will train the Viet Minh to rebell against Japan and France because Japan is evil and we must win the war. Sure, we will back the French defeating the Viet Minh, we hate those Communist yet we love liberty and freedom yet Capitalism opposes that... Oh wait! We lost, let's split the country. They are invading South Vietnam to unite the country yet we tried to destroy their Nationalism, how dare they want a unified Vietname but we are allowed a Unified America.

Do you see the stupidity in that? American was acting out of fear of communism and not out of defense.

Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!

Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!

Reason we dropped the atomic bomb on both japanese cities was to force them to surrender to avoid invading main land Japan. Causualty estimate were in the million. Imperial Japan was quite willing to fight to the last. As for Iran having nukes well they stated they're quite willing to nuke Isreal. Whats to stop them from expanding their target list?

Jihadin wrote:

Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!

Reason we dropped the atomic bomb on both japanese cities was to force them to surrender to avoid invading main land Japan. Causualty estimate were in the million. Imperial Japan was quite willing to fight to the last. As for Iran having nukes well they stated they're quite willing to nuke Isreal. Whats to stop them from expanding their target list?

Consider what Israel is currently doing to Palestine.

Phototoxin wrote:Does no one else think it's hypocritical that the US is the only country to drop nukes on another country and yet they're against other countries developing them? What business is it of the US if Iran makes nukes. It might keep the US from invading!

On the other hand, we know first hand what it means to nuke someone. Not that I'd ever suggest we're in the whole 'stop nuclear development' game for humanitarian reasons. I don't particularly care why we oppose it. Finger pointing and name calling are the basis of weak arguments. Regardless of our motives, nuclear proliferation is a bad thing and I don't have a problem with trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.

Consider what Israel is currently doing to Palestine.

Palestinians are not making a nuclear bomb. The Palestinian gov't already stated that there will be no jews living in their "state/nation" once/if it goes formal. Yet there's palestinian living in jewish areas....