Skip to comments.
Pentagon Encircles Iran: Victory Would Take 3 Weeks
Russia Today ^
| May 2, 2012
Posted on 05/02/2012 7:50:41 AM PDT by Strategy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
1
posted on
05/02/2012 7:50:49 AM PDT
by
Strategy
To: Strategy
And about 100 years to “nation build”.
2
posted on
05/02/2012 7:53:52 AM PDT
by
headstamp 2
(Liberalism: Carrying adolescent values and behavior into adult life.)
To: Strategy
Does that count the time it would take to get O’bama off the golf course, into a jacket and in front of the TV?
3
posted on
05/02/2012 7:53:52 AM PDT
by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: Strategy
Victory would take 3 weeks.
Peace would take a decade or more.
Our government is still of the Vietnam War mentality. It took days to take down Saddam Hussein — twice. Iraq, a decade later, is still not at peace.
4
posted on
05/02/2012 7:53:59 AM PDT
by
TomGuy
To: Strategy
"We plan for any eventuality we can and provide options to the president,"With this President?....DREAM ON!
5
posted on
05/02/2012 7:55:47 AM PDT
by
Minutemen
("It's a Religion of Peace")
To: Strategy
How long to wipe out the Islamic infrastructure and imam leadership?
6
posted on
05/02/2012 7:56:40 AM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: TomGuy
If total victory is not our goal, then stay the hell out of the Middle East. Those people do not want peace, they want conflict. I don’t want to see any troops on the ground over there unless they are given the orders to win without this administrations Rules of Engagement.
7
posted on
05/02/2012 8:00:37 AM PDT
by
RC2
(Buy American and support the Wounded Warrior Project whenever possible.)
To: Strategy
Depends on what you call victory. Thoroughly trashing the place so that they are incapable of any industrial production, much less high end uranium refining, sure we could do that in three weeks. Undo the damage of radical Islam on the Persian people, we couldn't do that in a century.
Nation building is a pipe dream. People talk about the Marshal plan as being nation building, but the nations already existed. It was just fixing broken buildings. Creating a civilized nation state where one has not existed in centuries isn't nearly so straight forward. It is difficult to comprehend what needs to be done and nearly impossible to do it.
Nation wrecking on the other hand is quite simple in theory and easy in execution.
8
posted on
05/02/2012 8:01:06 AM PDT
by
GonzoGOP
(There are millions of paranoid people in the world and they are all out to get me.)
To: headstamp 2
Yup.
I really hate nation building. Our military should be used to break things and to kill people. Make the other nation weaker, and very reluctant to tussle with us ever again. Then leave.
That's victory. That's how wars are won.
9
posted on
05/02/2012 8:01:46 AM PDT
by
ClearCase_guy
(Like Emmett Till, Trayvon Martin has become simply a stick with which to beat Whites.)
To: Strategy
I hate these type of predictions. It makes me think of "the Battle of Manassas" during the Civil War when the Washington Elite showed up with picnic baskets to watch the quick defeat of the Rebel forces that didn't happen.
Watching a real war with people getting killed and maimed, how sick is that?
Anyway, I think we could beat Iran quickly, but what if we can't? What if more countries get dragged into the war? War often isn't predictable.
10
posted on
05/02/2012 8:04:08 AM PDT
by
FreeAtlanta
(Liberty and Justice for ALL)
To: ClearCase_guy
Let the defeated nations rebuild themselves.
That way they may have a better appreciation for what they have and more reluctance to lose it again.
11
posted on
05/02/2012 8:07:52 AM PDT
by
BitWielder1
(Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
To: GonzoGOP
-The Marshall plan worked because Germany, even defeated, was predominately Christian, civilized and very ordered in it's social structure.
Nation building, by contrast in the Middle East, has to deal with tribalism, an uneducated and superstitious population and most detrimental, a religious base rooted in the seventh century.
12
posted on
05/02/2012 8:08:16 AM PDT
by
pfflier
To: ClearCase_guy
The flaw in this three weeks plan is that it leaves the Ayotollahs in charge (unless Iranians rise up from within). This is not a nation building plan, it’s a plan to reduce Iran’s military so they stop making trouble.
We did not win in Germany and Japan by defeating them and leaving. We wrote the Japanese constitution. I believe political subjugation has been the more common historical model.
To: Strategy; headstamp 2; Gilbo_3
Three weeks to ‘Mission Accomplished’ then 15-20 years to weed out the dissenters/partisans/terrorists and rebuild the nation and then abandon it when the next Dem POTUS takes over after demonizing the idea for years.
This sounds familiar for some reason.
Did abandoning Iraq make any sense?
14
posted on
05/02/2012 8:09:30 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
To: Strategy
Like every where, 3 weeks and 10 years for the American people to buy and build all the water, power, schools etc, etc etc.
We should have been out of the ME three weeks after the first bomb landed but nope.
15
posted on
05/02/2012 8:09:45 AM PDT
by
edcoil
(It is not over until I win.)
To: ClearCase_guy
I agree. Especially when dealing with backward Islamist. The only place we should occupy is their oil fields, pipelines and seaways to get the oil out.
If they have other valuable mineral deposits, then we should mine it and extract it. Leave them with nothing that can help them to fight and kill us later.
If they have nothing, then just bomb and kill their leaders, then leave. Repeat as necessary.
16
posted on
05/02/2012 8:09:50 AM PDT
by
FreeAtlanta
(Liberty and Justice for ALL)
To: Strategy; headstamp 2; Gilbo_3
Three weeks to ‘Mission Accomplished’ then 15-20 years to weed out the dissenters/partisans/terrorists and then rebuild the nation $$$$$$ and then abandon it when the next Dem POTUS takes over after demonizing the idea for years.
This sounds familiar for some reason.
Did abandoning Iraq make any sense?
17
posted on
05/02/2012 8:09:50 AM PDT
by
sickoflibs
(Romney is a liberal. Just watch him closely try to screw us.)
To: sickoflibs
Three weeks to Mission Accomplished then 15-20 years to weed out the dissenters/partisans/terrorists and then rebuild the nation $$$$$$
We're certainly not physically invading the Iranian mainland on the ground and overthrowing the government. That's not what the article discusses, and we're not actually capable of doing so, anyway.
To: FreeAtlanta
The only place we should occupy is their oil fields, pipelines and seaways to get the oil out.Hey, you stole my idea for Iraq!
To: headstamp 2
Bingo. Iraq proved we could take down any regime in about 3 weeks. It’s what comes next that’s the sticky wicket.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-96 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson