[vyper]

Or Vietnam... but then again the other guy won.

Or Korea.

[Zarax]

Korea was more of a stall, while Vietnam fell short from a total disaster.

[vyper]

Korea we lost the north, Vietnam you lot managed to lose completely.

[Fergus]

(Strolls into thread, thinks about attempting to make a evolutionist point to change the thread, but it isn't ready...yet)

[Unknown Target]

World War II -won

Korea - Won (we never had the North, the North invaded the South. We tried to take over the North, but China said no, under threat of a new World War).

Vietnam - A total disaster.

Operation Desert Storm - A clear-cut victory.

Operation Desert Fox - A small one or so week conflict that no one really remembers. Ended in victory, although it was basically just police work.

Operation Iraqi Freedom - Technically a victory, but nowhere near so.

And don't derail the thread with some pointless, stupid and unessesary argument, Fergus.

[Gloriano]

US Military could propably demolish the Iranian army pretty fast and seize their objectives with little difficulties - but nowhere near the Iraq war, Iran is much bigger and by no means level. Also, it is unlikely that US attack - be it airstrikes, small infiltration ops or full-scale invasion - would give Iran opposition the much-needed momentum to start a revolution by their own. Usually people rally against the invading parties.

Actually USA don't have enough forces to do full scale invasion to Iran in few years so I think heavy military target bombing is only way or they can just wait until problems in Iraq and Afganistan are solved

[Unknown Target]

You don't need a massive army to invade a country, you need one to keep it. You blow the hell out of it from the air, then send in tanks to take out whatever armor's left. You don't use troops as a front line force, you use them to take and hold small points, leaving the big fighting to the mechanized divisions.

[deep_eyes]

not for nothing, I was reading wesley clarks book, how to win modern wars, and he states that a high ranking general in the pentagon, mind you he mentions no names, stated and listed targets the bush administration was aiming at over the course of 8 years (granted he wins, which he did, his second term).

It began with:
Afganistan
Libya (was next but they willingfully complied with us)
Iraq
Iran
North Korea

mind you, everything that has happened, happened after the book was released, and further more, in this same order. if they are tryin to mount anything against Iran, it will be all strategic. sure they can enmass troops to hit us in iraq or afganistan, but they wouldnt have access to there higher end stuff theyre developing now. kinda makes u think, "all the forces u need are right here, besides US troops u got Iraqs new police/army guys whom hate iran even more lol, and then u got in afganistan those guys who dont like Iran either".

iran is basically in the middle on both ends. sorta a combo of containment and everything in between. if this does happen, i garentee you, NK will be next.

[Unknown Target]

But here's the question, if that's true---why?

He has the oil from Iraq---why does he need to go after Iran? And after Iran, North Korea? Granted, maybe he should've hit them when they first talked about their nukes, and never gone after Iraq--now that would've been a war that probably more people would've supported.

But why would he go after two countries, right next to each other? Doesn't Iraq have even more oil than Iran?

If that's true, there's gotta be something else, and it's  not imperialism, before anyone says it.

[Genryu]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
You don't need a massive army to invade a country, you need one to keep it. You blow the hell out of it from the air, then send in tanks to take out whatever armor's left. You don't use troops as a front line force, you use them to take and hold small points, leaving the big fighting to the mechanized divisions.

And if the US do that, it will have to deal with the entire ME against them, and I doubt there will be a country to help them defend themselves. I'm just stating facts here. After the ****-up job they've done in Iraq, trying to attack another country would be just stupid until they've managed to get back a little credibility with their reasons.

[Gank]

Israel.

Btw, your history is a bit dodgy, US did capture North Korea, and the Chinese didnt threaten war, they attacked and routed the US army back to the 38th parallel. Best you can claim that one as is a draw, which isnt very good against peasant armys.

And desert fox wasnt really "police work", unless you count dropping bombs from 30,000 feet policing. And theres been a good few other interventions bigger than that since ww2.

[Unknown Target]

I was referring to the "police work" bit, in reference to the relative amount of forces, and length of the campaign, all which were pretty small.


And you're right about China pushing us back, but the reason we didn't actually push into China was because of the war threat. My bad

[Gank]

Umm, the reason you didnt actually push into China was because the Chinese attacked and pushed you back when you got near the border. You were never in a position to push into China.

[Unknown Target]

MacArthur was about to disobey direct orders and do just that. The Chinese did push him back, but he was arguing with the brass about attacking. If he had, I'm sure the outcome would've been much different.


EDIT: I'm not saying we should've, though, I'm just saying that I really do believe that the US, maybe more so today than in past times, would be more than a match for China.

[Gank]

Eh, no, the outcome wouldnt have been any different, MacArthur was never in a position to attack China for a start, and even if he had have been he had no more forces at his disposal than those the Chinese routed when they attacked. It was the longest retreat in the history of the US and they suffered 2/3 casualties. The US attacking first would have had little or no effect on the outcome. Might have resulted in more Chinese dead, but the Chinese have got plenty of people.

[YodaSean]

I bet George Bush could learn a lot by playing a few games of Civilization.  

What profound thoughts I have

[Corsair]

Not really. He'd learn that if he had enough guys or enough technology, he'd be able to win any war he wanted and it wouldn't really have much of an impact on how the rest of the world views him.

[deep_eyes]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
But here's the question, if that's true---why?

He has the oil from Iraq---why does he need to go after Iran? And after Iran, North Korea? Granted, maybe he should've hit them when they first talked about their nukes, and never gone after Iraq--now that would've been a war that probably more people would've supported.

But why would he go after two countries, right next to each other? Doesn't Iraq have even more oil than Iran?

If that's true, there's gotta be something else, and it's  not imperialism, before anyone says it.

emass and destroy the dogs of war before they have a chance to attempt to come at us thus restarting a Endless Waltz of one ideology/culture/political system vs another.

every other century all types of religions and cultures war'd with each other in the past such as the crusades and so forth, but nowadays, its more than just Oil, its the fact that, NK and Iran alone would be a handful. imo i believe that if things were left alone like the former European nations did prior to WW2 for exaple, these countries would eventually target every nation around them, and could possibly do a great deal of damage abroad, sophisticated or not.

another reason is, its possible, the US now has a dedicated and more profound force in the region. if you think about it, u got US troops "protecting" US assets (ie oil, blah blah), as well as have a force ready to make an example of the enemies (or made up ones) of this country just to prove a point.

Wether or not the US has backup now and in the future is irelevant, its not going to stop this man for the next 4 years from achieveing whatever goals hes setting out to achieve. and personally i think its one of those LONG TERM things where as the middle class bites the dust, the country is gonna make millions and billions of the OIL as well as new energy sources that are only decades away, and controlling a greater portion of the worlds energy. i dunnowhere this is goin its scaery now.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by Unknown Target
But here's the question, if that's true---why?

He has the oil from Iraq---why does he need to go after Iran? And after Iran, North Korea? Granted, maybe he should've hit them when they first talked about their nukes, and never gone after Iraq--now that would've been a war that probably more people would've supported.

But why would he go after two countries, right next to each other? Doesn't Iraq have even more oil than Iran?

If that's true, there's gotta be something else, and it's  not imperialism, before anyone says it.

Hegemony is its own end. Every empire has sought to expand and if possible, control the entire world (note that there are different ways of control, but military seems to be the oldest and surest way).

It is the nature of an empire to conquer. Any other reasons for doing so (resources for example) are secondary. Thats what they do. Even if NK and Iran were conquered, there would always be a new enemy to fight and conquer.

----

or to actually answer the question, Iran is I think the world's 2nd biggest oil exporter (after Saudi). I think. It certainly has more than Iraq.

And the name of the game is getting control of as much oil as possible, even if its not needed, just to keep it away from China. They're hoping to starve the Chinese push forward, because as China industrialized its going to need vast amount of oil. They don't have that within their own borders, so they have to look elsewhere. Which is why they signed a mutlibillion dollar oil deal with Iran. Keeping it out out of Chinese hands is I think a priority at this point.

[Gank]

Its the second biggest in opec, not sure about the world, plus it has 10% of the worlds proven reserves.