War in The Middle East

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East





Please tell me two things:

1. Who is surrounded?

2. How will Iran deliver these "heavy blows" and with what?

America bogged down by insurgents? Fallujah was probably the best chance the insurgents had, and we all know the result there. I suggest you read No True Glory by Bing West which is an account of the battle for Fallujah to see what bogs down American forces.

Finally, Anyone who believes Iranian ground forces stand a chance in a conventional engagement with US military forces is deluded. It would be costly (and this is why it is unlikely there will be any ground invasion against Iran), the scenario that keeps coming to my mind is one of widespread incidents similar to the "Battle for An Nasirayah" during the Iraq invasion, but there is no question as to who will come out with the upperhand, just as in that engagement.

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

Please tell me two things:

1. Who is surrounded?

2. How will Iran deliver these "heavy blows" and with what?

America bogged down by insurgents? Fallujah was probably the best chance the insurgent had a chance, and we all know the result there. I suggest you read No True Glory by Bing West which is an account of the battle for Fallujah to see what bogs down American forces.

Finally, Anyone who believes Iranian ground forces stand a chance in a conventional engagement with US military forces is deluded. It would be costly (and this is why it is unlikely there will be any ground invasion against Iran), the scenario that keeps coming to my mind is one of widespread incidents similar to the "Battle for An Nasirayah" during the Iraq invasion, but there is no question as to who will come out with the upperhand, just as in that engagement.

You are being in denial simply to advance your argument because why admit that you are misinformed than to keep trumpeting your claim? You overlook the geopolitical, military and tactical situation of the whole region regarding the U.S.

The U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are small in number compared to the fresh and numerically and strategically superior forces of Iran. It's called home field advantage. The U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot do anything as they are already open to strikes, outstretched and unfamiliar with the terrain and territory. They are penetrated and stretched deep inside enemy territory. Those are the troops that stand to lose the most if Iran does engage and Iran knows this.

As far as Fallujah, that is why the U.S. suffered the heaviest casualties in that battle, and which is also why the U.S. may have temporarily captured it, but once the battle was over, the insurgents were back.

First of all, the U.S. cannot defeat insurgents/terrorists/guerrillas as this is what we call fourth generation warfare, in which conventional and vertically structured systems and armies are being replaced by chaotic and amorphous horizontal networks. This is why any 'war on terror' is meaningless, vague and with no clear defined goal or enemy. Moreover, terrorism is a tactic not an entity. Declaring war on a tactic is stupid, much less rying to single out people as 'terrorists' which is no more stupider than trying to single out an enemy based on the fact that the certain people use alot of hand gestures or sign language. Terrorism is a tactic and one which is not simply used by A-rabs or Muslims, but in fact, more often employed in what we call the state terrorism of Israel and America.

Since the end of the World War II, the United States has fought three "small" wars...we lost all three of them and for the same reason--hubris. ~Andrew Greely

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

The argument that the use of the A-bomb saved lives is a thoroughly debunked one. Perhaps we need an all purpose thread about WWII to get this discussion going as this is already diverting the coherence of the thread

For a long time I used to think it was disgusting that people could defend the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but...
The Battle of Iwo Jima left 6800 US dead, 18000 Japanese dead and tens of thousands wounded on both sides. This is just over an island that is around 20 square kilometres. Please feel free to read up on the casualty figures from the Battle of Saipan, Okinawa etc. How many would have died from a full scale invasion of Japan? The Battle of Okinawa left 110000 Japanese dead alone!
As sad as it is 250,000 Japanese deaths from the atomic bombings seems like the lesser of two evils to me.

[Anonymouse]

Re: War in The Middle East

For a long time I used to think it was disgusting that people could defend the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but...
The Battle of Iwo Jima left 6800 US dead, 18000 Japanese dead and tens of thousands wounded on both sides. This is just over an island that is around 20 square kilometres. Please feel free to read up on the casualty figures from the Battle of Saipan, Okinawa etc. How many would have died from a full scale invasion of Japan? The Battle of Okinawa left 110000 Japanese dead alone!
As sad as it is 250,000 Japanese deaths from the atomic bombings seems like the lesser of two evils to me.

I asked not to divert the thread further. You forget that Japan had already surrendered, and the estimates for invading Japan's home islands were far lower than what Truman believed as his number was grossly exaggerated. I will get the info for this soon.

[chika]

Re: War in The Middle East

Lipanahais are not a "proud" people, they are a superficial bunch. If they had any "pride" in themselves they would see Hayastan as their homeland, not that hell-hole called Lebanon.

you can't just make conclusions. Lebanbon is the place where they were born. thats their country of course they'd rather chose lebanon over armenia.

[D3ADSY]

Re: War in The Middle East

The U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are small in number compared to the fresh and numerically and strategically superior forces of Iran. It's called home field advantage. The U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq cannot do anything as they are already open to strikes, outstretched and unfamiliar with the terrain and territory. They are penetrated and stretched deep inside enemy territory. Those are the troops that stand to lose the most if Iran does engage and Iran knows this.
.

Oh come on. Who is in denial to advance their argument? Surely not the one claiming that Iranian forces are superior because they have more numbers. After seeing the two maps/diagrams you must also be delusional if you still believe it is US forces who are surrounded. You have also failed to show how Iran will carry out strikes yet you still persist with this argument.
I am far from a pro-war rightwing patriot, and I find it sad that this thread is probably making me look like one. I am simply frustrated by some of the comments. There are some simple facts, one of these is that the armed forces of the United States of America are not considered superior to most if not all others because of "Hollywood war movies".
Everyone is also overlooking something I have stated atleast once before already; it is unlikely that Iran will be invaded, an air campaign is much more likely and makes more sense.

As far as Fallujah, that is why the U.S. suffered the heaviest casualties in that battle, and which is also why the U.S. may have temporarily captured it, but once the battle was over, the insurgents were back.

You obviously do not know what you are talking about. I'll walk you through it.

Fallujah was a relatively untouched, peaceful place after the invasion with a mayor that supported the Americans. Things changed a little after Airborne units decided to base themselves inside the city. Then came the killing of protestors who were defying a curfew by said Airborne units. Control of the city passed from Airborne to Armoured to Marine etc a number of times. Then there was the killing of the Blackwater private contractors, this led to the siege of Fallujah and Operation Vigilan Resolve. Because of political pressure this was called off (hence my comments about reading the book to understand what really bogs down US forces), around 80 Marines and hundreds of insurgents aswell civilians had died. Had the marines been allowed to finish things off, just as they wanted to, that would have been the end of it.
When you say the US captured it only temporarily and that the insurgents were back as soon as they pulled out you are correct up to this point, but even then it nothing to do with the Insurgents and their capabilities.
After things kept getting worse for months, Operation Phantom Fury was launched, effectively taking the leash off the USMC/Army/Iraqi forces. To call the outcome of Phantom Fury anything but a US victory is wrong. Around 90 Marines died and 1000 insurgents were killed with approxiametely another 1000 captured.
So my point is, Fallujah was the most intense combat since Vietnam that US forces had faced, the biggest resistance put forth by Insurgent forces, and this is the end result; less than two hundred US dead and thousands of insurgents killed or captured.

First of all, the U.S. cannot defeat insurgents/terrorists/guerrillas as this is what we call fourth generation warfare, in which conventional and vertically structured systems and armies are being replaced by chaotic and amorphous horizontal networks. This is why any 'war on terror' is meaningless, vague and with no clear defined goal or enemy. Moreover, terrorism is a tactic not an entity. Declaring war on a tactic is stupid, much less rying to single out people as 'terrorists' which is no more stupider than trying to single out an enemy based on the fact that the certain people use alot of hand gestures or sign language. Terrorism is a tactic and one which is not simply used by A-rabs or Muslims, but in fact, more often employed in what we call the state terrorism of Israel and America.

I do not agree with nor do I really support the "war on terror", but this is a different subject altogether. One point I would like to make however is concerning your statement that the US cannot defeat insurgents/terrorists/guerrillas. I disagree, and I use the city of Fallujah as my proof.

Since the end of the World War II, the United States has fought three "small" wars...we lost all three of them and for the same reason--hubris. ~Andrew Greely

One could argue that you could replace hubris with media.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

Let me tell you something, simonchik

And try to remember this because it’s very important for you, and for all those like yourself who, for whatever reason, have “chips on their shoulders” with regards to Hayastan and her people (Hayastantzis).

Hayastan equals LIFE for everything Armenian while Spyurq, sadly but inevitably, equals slow death for everything Armenian.

…Now, due to respect to this forum and its rules, I will go back to the topic “War in the Middle East”…

The Lebanese people are the victims of Israeli aggression against their country.

I have a great deal of admiration for the people of Lebanon who opened their doors and their hearts to thousands of Armenian refugees fleeing the horrors of the Genocide.

Quite frankly our brothers from Lebanon are among the most patriotic Armenians in the world.

I think that if Israel makes our community to suffer even more than they have already suffered in the last few weeks, some of our people will join forces with Hizballah and the Lebanese army to defend their country.

Khorhin shnorhakalutun.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

I am relying on facts here, not Hollywood movies.
You are the one who is pushing an argument that is telling me to simply "trust you". The fact remains that not only what I said is true, the sunburn has never even seen combat. How many sunburn missiles does Iran have? In what way will they use them? Shipborne? Airborne?...

Obviously, you are a teenager.

During the past 50-60 years Americans have only been able to fight tiny, weak, impoverished, isolated nations - Granada, Panama, Somalia. In the case of Iraq, it was an isolated nation in 1991 and an utterly broken nation in 2003 when Washinton DC and several other criminal entities decided to wage war on it. Also, in 1991, it was modern technology that defeated Iraq's 70s era weapons on the open desert.

Consider Serbia: American and NATO forces knew full well that if they entered Serbia on land they would have been shattered to pieces. That is why those chose the criminal way out - bombing from afar for over a month until their dicator decided to give up. When they have been faced with a tought foe witin a rugged terrain - Korea, Vietnam - American military has been useless. Even now in Iraq, a bunch of sandal wearing rag-heads are freely running circles around hight tech American forces. Iraq is a great disaster for America. Yet you think America has "enricled" something.

In their criminal frenzy they rushed into Iraq and Afghanistan but they ended up being the ones that got encircled. Take a good look at AFghanistan - supposedly the only bright spot in the whole "War On Terror" - the only land American forces control is their compound in Kabul. Iran is surrounded? Don't make me laugh. In reality, it is American forces are encircled, surrounded and isolated - but obviously you dont know this because you are too busy watching Rambo. American military forces have not been in such a bad state since the Vietnam war.

I have no doubt in my mind that the only way America can defeat Iran is if it uses a nuclear device on them. I also have no doubt in my mind that they will never be able to do such a thing without Israel getting hit as well. I also don't have a doubt in my mind that Russia (and China) will never allow such a thing to occur to Iran. Thus, Americans are technically and strategically sitting ducks in the Perisan Gulf.

I will no longer discuss this matter with a stubborn teenager. You are diverting attention from the real topic at hand. Please go argue your Rambo case eslewhere.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

you can't just make conclusions. Lebanbon is the place where they were born. thats their country of course they'd rather chose lebanon over armenia.

I can make "conclusions" because that is where I'm from. Regardless of where an Armenian is born, Armenia is needs to be the only homeland for self-respecting Armenians. Now, say something conserning the topic of discussion - or leave.

[Armenian]

Re: War in The Middle East

This is different topic but it's quite possible those two atomic bombs ended up saving lives. Besides, conventional bombing on cities like Dresden killed more innocent civilians than those two atomic bombs did. No.

The bomb was dropped for two reasons.

1) To end the war because Washington knew they would never be able to invade and hold Japan.

2) To scare the Soviet Union.

Nonetheless, the action was a major crime against humanity. Much like Dresden, unarmed civilians were the ones that got targeted.