Here's a little strength comparison.....remember Iraq was considered the 4th strongest military before the Gulf War.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/count...son_detail.asp
Printable View
Here's a little strength comparison.....remember Iraq was considered the 4th strongest military before the Gulf War.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/count...son_detail.asp
Gumby hates Americans? If these Countries are doing this nuclear stuff then why are we not doing anything with Iran? Gumby you mess up my train of thought with the confusion on Iran and Iraq..who are you talking about?
heres one for ya. We will be in for a fight, but after about 6 months of smart bombs and cruise missles we will see whats up.
United States of America Country /Iran
$399 Billion Yearly Military Expense $4.3 Billion
3.9% % of GNP 3.3%
18 Min. Enlist Age 21
73,597,731 Available Manpower 20,937,348
471,500 Active Military 325,000
220,000 Frontline Personnel 240,000
18,169 Aircraft 954
29,920 Armor 2,380
5,178 Artillery 4,594
35,324 Missile Defense 1,760
2,441 Infantry Support 12,500
an iran/china/russia/north korea alliance would be formidable..
but the US has allies too, which combined keep them stronger.
Hey, but none of these countries have a strong economy because they are not utilizing legalized drugs..they are all wasting their economy on drug enforcement, prison systems and inferior healthcare
First country to get wise..cash in on the hemp industry, recreational drug industry, enthogen enchanced science, and drug enchanced soliders
will have a severe upper hand on the competition
hheh enhanced*
Wow Euphoric...could I hire you and psycho to speak at some "social gatherings" here at home? I am serious..Sometimes I read posts that make me want to actually meet the "real person"....some of you on here are very articulate at putting the right words together that actually are truth. There are a few people on here I would love to see "debate" with the alcoholics here that think they have all the answers haha.....you know that saying.."I would pay to see the look on their faces"...I would! haha...I guess I could just start having my napkins for social niceties printed with posts and daily factoids I read from CC....then watch their faces..uh-oh..I am really thinking now..haha..thanks.:thumbsup:
I was agreeing with Shelby, talking about Iran... we would not go into Iran like we did with Iraq. We would not have allies because they would not support another war. Look at how popular Iraq is right now, you really think we'd have other nations wanting to fight on our side?
We lied about fighting Iraq because the reason we went into war was becaues we believed they had WMDs... but they didn't and it was a lie covered up by our government. I just wish people would notice that we aren't the biggest dog in the park. We have an military that would destroy any other, but when the nation and other nations do not support the war you will not have the forces needed to fight, that's why they have a draft.
here are some numbers from your post psycho...And they don't even list the facts for Afghanistan our first war (that we still haven't won)
US/China
man power -
73,597,731/379,524,688 - that's 300,000,000 more than we have....
active military -
471,500/1,750,000 - that's 1,300,000 more than us
frontline personnel -
220,000/1,400,000 - that's 1,200,000 more than us
US/Iran
Active military -
471,500/325,000 - that's only 150,000 more than them
Frontline personnel -
220,000/240,000 - that's 20,000 LESS then Iran
US/Iraq
active -
471,500/375,000 (it's pre invasion #'s) - 100,000 more them, still not won...
frontline personnel -
220,000/280,000 - 60,000 MORE than the US (maybe why we haven't won??)
Do we have a better military... the best in the world... but when you have to kill that many people, it's not about who has the better bombs, it's who has the better reason for going to war. You cannot kill that many people without someone wondering why... people are starting to wonder why people are dying, which is why Bush's rating is at 32%... you cannot CANNOT fight a global war when your country does not support you, and even more when the world doesn't support you (that's what Hitler tried).
ps. you could line up the chineese and shoot one a second and it would take 202,777 hours or 8,450 days or 23 YEARS to become even in man power... and that's if they stopped breeding... so why don't we go and bomb them next... We're the best around right??
The U.S. has the most technologcally advanced military in the world. We also have enough money to make sure our people are fully trained. This really becomes an issue when it comes to air power. It takes a shitload of cash every time an F-14 goes up for a training mission. Same goes for driving taks around and blowing things up with them. Most countries just can't afford to give their military the training we do.
The problem comes when we start to define what "winning the war" really means. No country in the world could invade the U.S or any of our possesions and "win". We won the first war with Iraq, the goal was to get Iraq out of Kuwait and we did it. But what does "winning" this current war with Iraq mean?
If "winning" in Iraq means a regime change than we have already won. If it means turning Iraq into the 51st state with a Taco Bell and 7-11 on every corner there's no way we can do it. The U.S. has never been an effective occupying force. We do not have, nor would the rest of the world support, the pure brutality it would take to completely conquer and take over another nation.
There will always be a signifigant number of people in a defeated country that will resent our presence and fight back. Vietnam is a perfect example. It's not a very popular idea but many educated people now say that we basically won the war for the communists and that there is a very good chance that the communists would not be in power today if we had not started to mess with Vietnam as soon as WWII was over. Think about it, for hundreds of years Vietnam had been under foriegn control: first China, then Japan, then France. Then, as soon as it looks like they'll be on their own we set up a puppet government and start telling them what to do. Many of the Vietnamese fighting against us were not fighting for the communists per se. Instead, they were simply fighting against yet another foriegn power trying to control them.
Which brings us back to Iraq and how do we define "winning" the current war? When should we pull out entirely and declare victory. We can't leave too soon or the country will fall apart. But, if we stay too long we are likely to continue to build up resentment in the people we are trying to help. I really don't know what's best in this case. I just hope whatever happens it works out in everyone's best interests.
As far as Iran is concerned, it looks like the big concern is one nuclear facility, right? So our goal would be to shut that facility down. A few well targeted cruise missles and the goal has been accomplished. Maybe. But would that just stir up a hornet's nest of it's own?
Bottom line, nothings simple in this game. We like to say the President should do this or do that but every action has a reaction. From what I can see, there are no right answers. We can only hope that the lesser of two evils is what is chosen
The thing is this; it's not about invading Iran, it's about taking out their nuclear capabilities. Destroyers with cruise missles to take out the radar and air defense followed by a strike from stealth aircraft will be hard for the Iranian military to deal with. Remember, they are using Russian garbage.
Have a good one!:thumbsup:
but do you really think they will stop after we attack them?? And do you think we'd have support doing that?? Much less resistance in doing that?? Don't forget that Russia and China wouldn't be too happy with us if we bombed Iran... I'm sure most other countries wouldn't be as well... we only have the greatest power because we have support not resistance. If other countries figure out that we are killing people and failing to complete what we set out to do they will become unwilling to support us in the decisions we make and that is not good... We do still have UN and we are not incharge of the world... after the neuclear power was obtained JFK made it a fact that no one country would ever be able to win a global war without killing everyone, which is why there are agreements with other countries. Which is why we do not want Iran to break those agreements... but we should go through due process before we go bomb someone else... it's set up that way so we don't have another world war, because the next one will be worse than the last...
they have done nothing wrong and we should not charge them or plan on bombing them until they do... they are free to create nueclear power... it's a free wolrd right?? Why should we not allow them to have power, yet allow North Korea?? Why not bomb them first?? They are much more of a threat than Iran... Iran is still 3-10 years from coming up with a bomb... yet we still allow a dictator to control bombs in North Korea
"North Korea has come under pressure to curb its nuclear ambitions. U.S. intelligence sources say the nation has enough weapons grade plutonium for two to five nuclear devices."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...9/korea.china/
that was two years ago and we haven't bombed them yet... I say either bomb the shit out of them as well... or use the same path for Iran and try not to get more people killed.