I just don't get it. I keep reading these lib blogs saying that we are less capable of taking out Iran since invading Iraq and Afghanistan and virtually surrounding them with hundreds of thousands of well equipped, battle hardened US armed forces. Isn’t surrounding ones enemy a good thing to do in war? These boggers either gotta by nuts or on something. Can you explain this foolishness?
2006-08-09 13:21:17 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
My guess is that these people are not even aware that Iran borders those tow countries.
BTW - one of the previous posters needs to learn enough about military operations to understand what it means to 'control the ground.'
2006-08-09 14:50:03 · answer #1 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no no listen we if we wanted to we could hold the land in Iraq and Afghanistan, its just we are afraid to politically. We would have to kill a lot Innocent. Well worth it if u ask me. But the problem is Iran's nuclear sites. They have some kind of technology to screen them. If we attack and miss one we could get nailed by a bomb. And then threes Russia china and north Korea who would fight with Iran.
2006-08-09 13:51:55 · answer #2 · answered by John V 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
One of the key elements of surrounding your enemy is being in control of the ground you "hold" that surrounds them. We dont hold Afghanistan and you sure as hell dont hold Iraq.
2006-08-09 13:28:57 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Their false premise is that we must fight a ground war in Iran. We don't. We win if we bomb their nuke facilities and eliminate other military targets. Why occupy? They're no trouble without their military.
2006-08-09 14:12:40 · answer #4 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋