US WARNS IRAN OF CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR AMBITION

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Great Spirit

I read on Rense.com that the US actually did a mock war simulation with North Korea, and North Korea won!

---

So much for the credibility of Rense.com......hilarious post, keep em' comin'!!:thumbsup:

I think it depends on what the goal is and what the definition of "win" is. In any case we couldn't just roll the tanks in and take over in a few days like we did in Iraq. A loss for DPRK would most likley mean the demise of their country so they'd fight back like a cornered animal. They'd probably use everything at their disposal and, unlike Iraq, this animal has much bigger teeth and claws to do it with.

Plus, going back to the definition of "win", you have to consider what the American public considers. The new definition of winning seems to be completely destroying the enemy with only a few hundred losses. People are appalled that we've had 2300+ U.S. casualties over the last three years. What happens when we have this many llosses within thing the first few days of fighting the North Koreans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fengzi

People are appalled that we've had 2300+ U.S. casualties over the last three years. What happens when we have this many llosses within thing the first few days of fighting the North Koreans?

---

Do you happen to remember the first gulf war? 380 Coallition deaths in 100 days....which was the duration of the war. The objective in Iran would be to take out the nuclear sites and the chemical weapon sites. Before that of course would be radar and air defenses.
The very same would hold true to N. Korea but an invasion of N. Korea would never happen without the blessings of China. Japan has it's hands full there!:thumbsup:

Here is a good read.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Sounds like a plan!! Tick Tick Tick...

LOL Bush is a coward? and I suppose Clinton was brave?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amsterdam

Here is a good read.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Sounds like a plan!! Tick Tick Tick...

---

The only flaw in the plan was the help from European countries. Since Iran is one of their top supplies of bubblin' crude, I wouldn't count on much more than a silent pat on the back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mont974x4

LOL Bush is a coward? and I suppose Clinton was brave?

---

Both sides are bitches. Nobody can deny Saddam was a terrible man who slaughtered millions. The WMD thing was dumb as hell I admit but the Dems should back this operation up. Just like the Republicans are bitches for going against Clinton when he stopped Milosavich(spelling???) from killing all those poor people.

I was in the Kosovo Campaign and helped collect warcrimes evidence. There is no doubt that the Balkans missions were necessary. The problem I had with Clinton was his halfassed way of doing these things. (I lost comrades in Somalia) I also didn't believe he was right in giving control of our troops to NATO or the UN. In fact, I don't think any president should do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psycho4Bud

So what your saying is that Iraq and Iran were part of the U.S. at one time like Poland and Parts of Czechoslovakia were parts of Germany before the Versailles Treaty? Interesting, I didn't even know that we losed two states in the middle east because of an international agreement!

I can really see how these are "equivalent"!!!:thumbsup:

---

I guess you're right, the German invasion of Poland was more justifiable the the US invasion od Iraq. Odd, this is not the general tone of your posts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by weadboy420

I guess you're right, the German invasion of Poland was more justifiable the the US invasion od Iraq. Odd, this is not the general tone of your posts.

---

That is the most ignorant post I have seen all day. I bet you wouldn't say that to a polish jew or their family.:o