In 1991 the US defeated one of the largest armed forces in the entire world in less than 100 hours.
If by US you mean 34 Nations in a coalition, and by 100 hours you mean 40 days and 40 nights of aerial bombardment, then yes you would be correct.
In 1991 the US defeated one of the largest armed forces in the entire world in less than 100 hours.
In iraq the us military was held back by humanitarian reasons, we actually thought the population was glad to see us, and the whole "shock and awe" thing doesn't work when there are no military targets to bomb.
If the us military waged all out conventional warfare, they'd be unstoppable. In iraq we got bogged down as sitting ducks. The reason the surge worked as well as it did was because we were going on offense again. We're like the LA Lakers of military superpowers.
When was the last time a situation like this came up with less than a year left in a Presidents term? It is a unique situation, and politically whether or not you believe it will happen, there is growing evidence that it will indeed happen.
You're a real history buff.
There has never been any type of major crisis happening in the last year of a Presidential term. Never. Especially not involving Iran.
I'm actually opposing Stimpson?!!??!!
In iraq the us military was held back by humanitarian reasons, we actually thought the population was glad to see us, and the whole "shock and awe" thing doesn't work when there are no military targets to bomb.
If the us military waged all out conventional warfare, they'd be unstoppable. In iraq we got bogged down as sitting ducks. The reason the surge worked as well as it did was because we were going on offense again. We're like the LA Lakers of military superpowers.
TseTse, you'll always see world events through your narrow-minded worldview, and thats fine. But don't expect the rest of us to take it all in as fact, mmk?
I know when you start talking in CAPS towards the end of the post, you're kind of raging out and all, but I just don't have the energy to deal with your bullshit.
that's sort of what negotiating and diplomacy is all about.
diplomacy is called diplomacy because you're basically negotiating instead of waging war. If diplomacy fails, what then? You either puss out or you don't.
Look at north korea - diplomacy instead of war. In that case, it worked. In iraq's case, it didn't.
negotiations between sovereign countries have no force behind them if there is not the threat of action, either. Especially when dealing with nukes. This is world ending shit, you better believe the west would use military means in dealing with it.
TseTse, you'll always see world events through your narrow-minded worldview, and thats fine.
I think the correct strategy is not replacing a government - its far too longterm and costly. It also creates the insurgencies as we've seen.
The best situation is making the current government surrender under your terms. And to do that, you need to beat the shit out of them.
3. As a high-risk step to derail the accommodations Washington and Tehran are on the way to reaching in their secret talks on a wide range of issues, with the exception of the nuclear controversy, as revealed by DEBKA-Net-Weekly and DEBKAfile. Israel fears being abandoned and left out in the cold on all its fronts against Iran by these accommodations.
Tehran may well seize on the Israeli disclosure as a pretext to ditch the nuclear negotiations on all levels, unless all six powers offer guarantees against their pursuit of military initiatives.
I don't think anyone is against base line communication between assorted diplomats, when the time is right, but you got the left talking about presidential talks, secretary of state visits. The guy wholesale supports international terrorism, murdering jews, all that good stuff. This is not a person you dignify with a presidential sit down. Obama won't even go on fox news, but iran, oh sure no problem!
Uh, tsetse, north korea announced it had nukes in what, 02?
Bush was president from when, jan 01?
You think they went from drawing board to test in 12 months? Who's the idiot?
Anyways, they're demolishing their nuclear plants now. Bush's diplomacy worked, but you wouldn't know that because you don't read the news.
Uh, tsetse, north korea announced it had nukes in what, 02?
Bush was president from when, jan 01?
You think they went from drawing board to test in 12 months? Who's the idiot?
Anyways, they're demolishing their nuclear plants now. Bush's diplomacy worked, but you wouldn't know that because you don't read the news.
Obama is not talking about personally going over to Iran to talk with the Ayatollah without major concessions or leverage.