English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

and can not confront Iran.

2007-02-03 23:36:44 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

What about iran? evidently, USA can not do anything about this government, they are going to be a super-power and apparently they can

2007-02-04 00:26:50 · update #1

14 answers

They are damned if they do and damned if they don't! The US can do no right! If they help too much they are taking over. If they do too little they have no backbone.

2007-02-03 23:43:46 · answer #1 · answered by Mr.Know It All 4 · 4 0

You mistake discretion for weakness. Our goal in Iraq is not to engage in unrestricted warfare against the populace. If it were we would have destroyed this country several times over by now. The people of Iraq could not stand up to a full scale onslaught from any force as competent as the United States military. However, unrestricted warfare is not our goal at this time. Our goal is to make Iraq a free standing democracy capable of self rule. This is definitely not going as we would hope, but it still does not denote a humbleness on our part. In fact it shows a resolute strength in the fact that we have not reverted back to open warfare in an attempt to cut our own loses and end the conflict by any means at our disposal.

Edit: Iran a superpower? You are disillusioned aren't you. Iran may develope nuclear weapons, but they are light years away from being a super power. Here again, we could fight Iran if necessary and in the end they would not pose any more a signifigant threat to us than Iraq did. Remeber that Iraq had the largest standing military in the world in 91 and they were leveled within a month. Stop mistaking discretion for weakness. Attacking Iran would be a mistake for several reason, but none of them are because we couldn't defeat them militarily.

2007-02-04 00:16:52 · answer #2 · answered by Bryan 7 · 1 0

Our armed forces are the most powerful in the world on a "man-per-man" or "weapon-per-weapon" basis. That's not the problem.

The problem is that our overall manpower of all the armed forces on 9-11 was 40% smaller than it was in 1991 when we pushed Iraq out of Kuwait. The post cold-war reduction from 1991-2001 was the cause of that.

Think about it, we sent over a half-million men to the Gulf in 1990 to just liberate tiny Kuwait, but sent only 130,000 troops to invade and occupy Iraq.

2007-02-04 02:23:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Soldiers live by a higher code of honor. They don't just run away because bumps in the road or they fear dying. They fight knowing they serve a cause far greater than themselves and if necessary will die protecting those they love. Something a lot of people have lost in this country. I myself am joining during this war because I believe inaction is worst than action in this instance, and the longer we sit back and just let the terrorist be, the more powerful they will become just as happened during the 90's. As for the soldiers that have fled to canada and and such based on being anti-war. It doesn't matter. They're all cowards. Greedy little self preserving cowards. I don't care if you believe in the war or not. Every man that goes AWOL makes it that much more dangerous for his fellow soldier. You betray them when you leave, all to save yourself. I'd rather die standing tall next to my friend then live knowing I turned my back on him. But I guess I've been brought up with old customs and morals.

2016-05-24 02:36:18 · answer #4 · answered by Rhonda 4 · 0 0

First to Meathead: America a civilised society?? A country which show the execution ( actually lynching ) of a former ruler on video. And the so called 'executioners' taunting the victim who is hand cuffed. A country which allow the publication of the bullet ridden bodies of the sons of Saddam on some morgue table. Civilized?? HA HA.
Why are you occupying Iraq even with public clamoring to 'bring the
boys back home'?? Helicopters are raining down on Iraq nowadays. Why not taking on DPRK ?? Afraid?? They demonstrated that they got nukes. Said they were even willing to use them on america if attacked. Afraid?? If america attacks Iran , that will hasten the death of the so called 'super power' . In Iraq america is slowly bleeding to its death. World's biggest debtor , ain't it ?? Next olympics , america will not head the medal table for sure. americans are in a fools paradise. The world will go on without america and its pimping allies. Don't they know that now , other than Russia , China can also knock down their satellites??
Saw the super power in its true light after hurricane Katrina.

2007-02-04 01:33:50 · answer #5 · answered by jaco 3 · 0 2

We have nothing to be humble about. We can wipe out Iraq in a flash with our military might. We are showing patient and restraint to help that country once more get to its feet with a democratic government. That is something to be admired and be proud about.

2007-02-04 00:16:51 · answer #6 · answered by insp.clouseau 2 · 3 1

Rules of engagement, and being a civilized society that respects life sometimes deters us from fighting the fight to the enemy. How would a civilized society fight people that want to blow up innocent people. Our Military are anything but humble. They are winning every fight they engage in. Over 90% of the killings that are going on in Iraq are from innocent people being killed by terrorist action, Most of the deaths of our soldiers are from IED's or other terrorists actions. "week Stomached" is more what our country is. "Thin skinned" is what our politicians are. Our soldiers are brave and doing every good thing they can do, we just need to let do their job so they can finish the job.

2007-02-03 23:54:10 · answer #7 · answered by meathead 5 · 3 1

Because US care for civilians. If we could bomb the whole countries to the ground, it would been cheaper and faster with little casualties. Look at the weapon we are using. They are all design to hit the target within a yard; All to reduce civilian casualties.

2007-02-04 03:05:25 · answer #8 · answered by novak-9 4 · 0 0

Humble? i dont see how they are. They're occupying the country, you can't get much less humble. And the US is confronting Iran- do you not watch the news? they're making demands- just not being listened to. If you mean military engagement, it's because theres a number of combat operations already running that a re diverting resources, and also, invasion of another mid-eastern country on suspicion of the possession of nuclear weaponry would have the public in uproar- who's gonna fall for it twice?

2007-02-03 23:42:59 · answer #9 · answered by majjeugh 2 · 1 2

Because the U.S. has to pussy foot around. If they were were able to put enough troops on the ground and weren't constantly handcuffed with impossible restritctions it would be a lot different. Take a look at the countries they U.S. occupied and rebuilt after WW II.

2007-02-03 23:51:23 · answer #10 · answered by ekosmo72 2 · 3 1

do you call it humble when Bush asked for another 130 Billion US dollars for hawkish reasons? and another carrier to the gulf?

2007-02-03 23:53:15 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers