i dont think name calling is quite the same as overthrowing a democratically elected government and installing and supporting a brutal regime which killed/disappeared hundreds of thousands. or providing their enemy (saddam) with weapons, intel, economic aid and logistical support in a war which killed 1 million of its citizens.
Agree two wrongs don't make a right but I don't buy the idea that it is totally up to the US to make raproachment withthte Iranians. If the Iranians want peace they need to take steps too. Agree on that too and Ottomaton has already provided a pretty good response.
Name calling matters in diplomatic circles but beyond name calling Iran hasn't made many steps at diplomatic out reach to the US and has also armed insurgents fighting US troops. As I said before the US has certainly done a lot to the Iranians but its not as though the Iranians have been nothing but friendly to the US.
1. Yeah its much harder to cross a mountain range than an ocean and turkey. See this thing? Its called a CH-47. We have a few of these also. 2. The supply line is the one into Iraq. Once initial forces own an airport in Iran the destination is simply moved to the Airport in Iran. No need to go on the ground. We own the air. 3. The angry hornets will have no base, tanks, air support or time to organize. The end game point is, if we wanted to take them, being in Iraq is actually a good thing. Getting 800 CH-47's to the middle east takes time. Moving them once they are there is easy. Same with troops, tanks etc. Mountains? What do you think this is WWII?
I think all of you should just stop. The way I see it, America is trying to look for a fight. Why? Firstly, the military industry is a huge industry and they need business. They want to create and maintain the demanding of their products and unfortunately USA is their biggest customer. Secondly, the republicans know they can't win this election. And their strategy? "If I have to die, then I have to die. I will give them the hell before I die!". They are trying to create a big mess for the democratics so that the republicans will win election 2012. Make sense?
Can't carry an M1. Can't carry an M2. But if you want to invade Iran with several unmounted infantry divisions and some wheeled artillery pieces from circa Vietnam, be my guest. And if you really think you can continuously air lift an entire supply train directly to forward bases you are an on crack. The idea that you would just jump over all the Iranian units stationed in the mountains is absurd. When you have a real enemy you don't let them get behind you and you don't set it up intentionally so that you can only be supplied by air. See basically every battle involving a firebase in the Vietnam War if you want to know why, though the best example would be the French at Dien Bien Phu. That you seriously think airlifting several divisions and all support personel with CH-47's is a legitimate option speaks volumes for how out of touch you are with what the reality here is. Even the division designed for helecopter assault, the 101st Airborne, doesn't have the kind of capability you talk about. The Army would laugh you out of the room if you proposed it. You are living in the fantasy world that CNN/FOX News created for you around the invasion of Iraq.
Didn't I post 2 pictures? I can;t seem to remember....hmmm. ALL our supply lines are by AIR. Its the distribution that happens on the ground.
You did not post a picture of anything that can carry an M1 or M2. And most of our supply lines are by sea by Military Sealift Command.
What is your point? Do you want me to post a pic of every aircraft we need (and have)? I also didn;t post anything that can kill Iran's fighters and tanks. Accept that holding a position in Iraq is better than begging permission to cross other countries borders.
It can, its just faster to take the coast. It actually almost did happen in the First Iraq war till they took got the rest of the armor in via the coast.
I don't need to post a bunch of pictures to know that an army that is already "broken" in the description of its generals and has about zero undeployed combat ready divisions, and has run out of troops to send to Iraq can somehow scrounge up an additional army that can invade and occupy a country that is twice as big geographically and population wise. Close the thread.
As said by Sam and Otto, we don't have anywhere near the airlift capacity to invade Iran. We don't have the airlift capacity to haul the required amount of fuel for M1's let alone the actual tanks. AMC has it's hands completely full with Iraq. We don't have a single battalion ready to fight, that isn't currently deployed. All the U.S. has the ability to do, is drop bombs.
i dont know...what did the synagogue in buenos aires do that made the iranian government decide it needed to go boom?
You might be thinking of the hastily established Operation Desert Shield to prevent a possible push by Saddam into Saudi Arabia but that was defensive. It was always understood that the heavy US buildup would have to be done by sea which is why it took 5 months to build up US forces to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. The problem with what you are suggesting is that it isn't supported historically. If the US had that capability don't you think that would've been used to open up a Northern Front in Iraq? While Turkey didn't allow a ground invasion from their territory they still allowed the US to use Incilrik and the US could've used that wonderful airlift capability you claim we have to airlift the 4th ID into Northern Iraq.
He he... I knew something was wrong with this picture. I couldn't figure out what this plane was and it bothered me because I thought I would be able to recognize the various cargo aircraft used by the US military on sight. It nagged at the edge of my mind until I had to trace the photo. After looking it up at its source I can say that contrary to your statement we don't have a few of these also. The reason is that this is a photo of a German/French cargo plane.
