dude, bush and cheney are that stupid. the thing is that they don't have enough time(thank god) next year is election year and hopefully not even they cannot start a war until then.
iran just has to play it safe(eat less sugar, switch to decaffeinated coffee, maybe slow down on the "nucular" program and "US are servitors of Satan"😉 and they could make it.
Originally posted by ZahlanziIran has to play it safe? Play it safe until a Democrap (oops, Democrat) gets the white house, because they know Democrats won't do anything about it?
dude, bush and cheney are that stupid. the thing is that they don't have enough time(thank god) next year is election year and hopefully not even they cannot start a war until then.
iran just has to play it safe(eat less sugar, switch to decaffeinated coffee, maybe slow down on the "nucular" program and "US are servitors of Satan"😉 and they could make it.
well kind off. i am not saying that iran should own "nucular weapons". it is like giving a grenade to a mental case, only in this case the grenade is quite big.
but certainly not bomb first, invade later, install a puppet regime, witness chaos and ask questions much later. in iraq, bush is at the "witness chaos" step of the program. i say he should finish that program and leave a "democrap" to maybe come up with a better program.
Originally posted by Bad wolfWe are trying not to have war with Iran, because we couldn't take control of Iran very easily like we did with Iraq. Iran is much more organized and powerful, and could defend themselves. To answer your question I would have to say no, but I am not a military expert.
Does your military have enough strength to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and have a war with Iran?
Originally posted by Bad wolfi would say yes, america could invade, iran, n.koreea, syria, and still allow soldiers to come home on vacations so others could join the fun.
Does your military have enough strength to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and have a war with Iran?
Originally posted by Bad wolfYes but why keep them in Iraq and Afghanistan? Classic pinser move with all the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan through Iran. We could then treat it like one country, Iraqiranistan. Sure the world would be mad but that's okay. 😛
Does your military have enough strength to keep troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and have a war with Iran?
Originally posted by ZahlanziI hope that you have lived in America part of your life, or even been in America, because your profile says you are not in America.
i would say yes, america could invade, iran, n.koreea, syria, and still allow soldiers to come home on vacations so others could join the fun.
Originally posted by ZahlanziYeah we could and don't you forget it. If America goes down, we will bring you all with us. We got the solution to global warming: nuclear winter.
i would say yes, america could invade, iran, n.koreea, syria, and still allow soldiers to come home on vacations so others could join the fun.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI don't hink he will invade. That's beyond foolish. I know the war in Iraq has been managed foolishly, but it's not enough foolishness to make me think he'll invade Iran. The big reason is that we do not have anywhere near enough soldiers in theatre to hold Iraq and invade Iran. Also, those reports about troops massing on the border don't seem to be all that solid - yet.
I think we have a few things going on here.
1) Posturing over the captive Brits.
2) Posturing over our own troops. As in "Don't try that crap with our people"
And the one I think this ends up at.
3) Getting assets in theatre for a possible strike against their nuclear program.
If Iran decided to retaliate for a strike by sinking a couple ships in the straits, it could take months to clear the mess and get shipping (oil) back up to current levels. Hormuz is maybe the most economically important piece of water in the world. It would the USNs job to keep it open. That's one of the reasons the carrier groups are there. The other being part of the strike force. Striking their nuclear facilities will also require taking out their air defense. A third carrier group would be nice, and indeed a thrid is on it's way. As a regularly scheduled relief for the Eisenhower. If the Nimitz and the Eisenhower overlap more than the couple of days it normally takes to rotate a group, then it's time to start paying attention.
One more thing to pay attention too is that in order to protect the carrier groups during a strike, I'm sure the U.S. will want to try to prevent land based anti-ship missiles, which would require ground forces. The 4th and the 10th are due in Iraq in June - well after the the carrier rotation, so, the pieces aren't falling together perfectly, but they are coming together.
In my opinion, it's all in the carrier overlap. The Eisenhower will arrive too late for the next new moon and too early for new the troops.
Though another wild card here is that part of the 82nd is already in Iraq and if I remember correctly, so is part of the 101st. (Sorry, I'm having a hard time keeping up with deployments.) I can imagine no better forces to drop in Iran and go after anti-ship missiles, but again, who's gonna replace them in Iraq?
Originally posted by slappy115No sale. The minute troops started rolling toward Iran form Afghanistan or Iraq the jig would be up.
Yes but why keep them in Iraq and Afghanistan? Classic pinser move with all the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan through Iran. We could then treat it like one country, Iraqiranistan. Sure the world would be mad but that's okay. 😛