 |
|
Ramo
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
quote:
Well, GePap, even if it is not treason, it must be serious criminal violation of law. If Graner of Abu Grahib gets 10 years for abusing enemy prisoners, the people who did this should get at least 20 years. If any US soldier is captured or killed because of this leak, I would raise the penalty to death.
As to Hersh, he should be lynched. |
Yes, the people who are working to stop the torture of prisoners (and thus, reduce hatred against American soldiers) should be executed, while grunts who torture prisoners should get 10 years, and a gov't that tortures prisoners should be re-elected. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ramo
|
|
Austin, Texas, USA
Oct 1999
time: 23:30
|
|
Regarding the merits of a strike like Hersh describes, there's broad support among the Iranian population, among conservatives and reformists alike, to get nuclear weapons. Any such attack would inevitably strengthen Khamenei's gov't. And if the attack escalates to outright war, it'd get pretty damn nasty for us (incidentally, there's an article describing a wargame against Iran in either the latest New Yorker or Atlantic Monthly - haven't had a chance to read it). Since they're far richer, more populous, have a more stable gov't, and have fewer sectarian tensions to exploit than 2003 Iraq, we probably wouldn't have British support this time, and our army is kind of occupied right now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Well, GePap, even if it is not treason, it must be serious criminal violation of law. If Graner of Abu Grahib gets 10 years for abusing enemy prisoners, the people who did this should get at least 20 years. If any US soldier is captured or killed because of this leak, I would raise the penalty to death.
As to Hersh, he should be lynched. |
But the President sending our troops into a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war is just fine and dandy. 'cause, like, they're the ENEMY, and stuff, or something.
The President can lie and/or spin his way into an unnecessary war that costs the lives of thousands of our troops (not to mention the civvies), but he doesn't get the death penalty. No, he is an American Hero (tm)! Get your GWB Combat Flight Suit Action Figure today!
Yet this reporter should be strung up!
The Nedaverse, baby, yeah!
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:30
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Well, not really, as the insurgency shows. |
Which I specifically discounted in the post you quoted.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Saddams army fell so easily not only because of the wide technological disparity, but because the army melted away. The significant casualties suffered by the military against a small force poorly equipped show that troops with high morale, even when badly equiped, can make for a tought fight. Of course, there is also the issue of Iran's terrain, which is not nice and flat like Iraq's, but mountanous. |
They were going to melt away under bombs if they didn't do so voluntarily. They went down to an understrength U.S. attack which was planned very quickly and reorganized ad hoc after one entire invasion axis and a large proportion of the invasion force were scrubbed due to the dithering of the Turks.
The casualties we suffered were not significant, and a large percentage of them were caused not by the Iraqi army but by the fedayeen Sadam. The Iraqi army was not a small force, nor was it poorly equipped by world standards. But it was heavily outmatched by its opponents in technology and quality and did not have the initiative.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
So, IF the Iranian army stood to fight to the death the war would be a LOT harder and more vicious, specially if the US had to take a large urban area from a trully determined enemy made up of regular forces equipped as regular forces (better body armor, better and heavier weapons, better C&C). Baghdad is a city of 5 million. Tehran is a city of 14 million. |
They can't defend their skies from American air power, nor can they export their oil or import ammunition, spares, food etc. We hold all the strategic weaponry cards even if they have a nuclear weapon or two. So they are going to lose the war even if not one American soldier sets foot on Iran.
But if we did choose to invade they would still be in desperate trouble. For starters we can invade from Iraq, Afghanistan and / or the Persian gulf. They can't effectively move their forces at will about their own country on a strategic scale because of U.S. interdiction. Which means that we'll be able to strike where we please and defeat the forces on any particular front in detail.
Tactically I don't see how they would fare that much better than the Iraqis. Their numeric advantage will be difficult to press due to their inability to challenge the airspace over the battlefield. Though their C3I may be better than that of the Iraqis, it won't be enough to turn the tide as so many other crucial factors are in America's favor. The numerical advantage will tell in the wear and tear on U.S. equipment, ammunition supplies and troops though. This will not be nearly as quick a thing as the blitz across Iraq.
If it is a fierce battle with every Iranian fighting to the death then the U.S. will simply hit them where they aint and strangle the economy. Tehran's population will become a liability as it is cut off from its hinterland while being unable to strike effective blows against the nimble American forces with their massive firepower.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2005 21:52
|