True story .... and we also had fewer General Officers and Flag Admirals then ... than we do now.
What does THAT tell you .... about fighting and winning???
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Joint Chiefs Chairman Says U.S. Preparing Military Options Against Iran
- Thread starter Tex_Hill
- Start date
True story .... and we also had fewer General Officers and Flag Admirals then ... than we do now.
What does THAT tell you .... about fighting and winning???
But ... but ... but .... Don't you guys get paid for "full time" employment???
Full time, as in almost everyone in the military working on the Iran job.
I wouldn't put too much stock in "making war plans" from the media. They always bring that out to sensationalize any crisis. Hell, there's probably a plan in the vault to finally take out those pesky Luxembourgers once and for all.
I wouldn't put too much stock in "making war plans" from the media. They always bring that out to sensationalize any crisis. Hell, there's probably a plan in the vault to finally take out those pesky Luxembourgers once and for all.
The idea of launching ICBMs to take out tactical targets is, pardon the expression, F*CKING RETARDED. What, Russia is going to sit idly by while missiles on a ballistic trajectory are headed up?
Tex_Hill
Airborne All the Way!!!
^^^ One more thought, Tex ....
Do ya'll realize that @ 64 years ago ... i.e., in 1944 ... with significantly less population and/or overall resources than we have now .... we kicked in the front door on Fortress Europe, rolled into Rome, and kicked the J's asses in the Phillipine Sea ... all in the same month.
Do you know that??
And now ... we can't figure out how to throttle a couple of second (third?) rate Islamic loser-states??? I thought we called this a "war"???
Something is the matter here. Or am I the only one expressing it??? :sleep_125
The biggest difference between then & now is that then the entire country was at war, not just the military.
Pearl was bombed on my dad's 6th birthday. Within 3 months his dad, who was 4F, had packed up their family of 6 & moved them from Nocona, TX, to Oakland so he could work in a shipyard. My grandfather was self employed and didn't have to move, but he did it because he felt it was his duty.
Back then they rationed everything from gasoline to paper. They held collection drives where women donated their pots, pans, aluminum foil, and even yarn. They sold war bonds to fund the war & folks bought them on top of paying their taxes. All this & more was done mostly to make the public feel like they were a part of the war effort.
Today we may be at war but "we don't want for nothin'" as my dad likes to say. There's no rationing, collection, or war bond drives so the war doesn't impact "Joe Public" unless he's got a family member serving in the military.
Then we're not at war, period. Just like in Korea, just like in Vietnam.
We didn't "win" those, either. We need to re-acquaint ourselves with the concept of "winning".
Just like the boys ... and the country .... did in WW2 ....
We need to keep clarity here ...
Saber rattling.
When you start to see 7 or so aircraft carriers at sea at once then you know something is going down.
I don't think the joint chiefs would seriously consider a ground war in Iran at this point. There could be tactical punishing strikes, and we could even roll back their whole air force, navy and Air Defense structure without setting a single foot in Iran. But what would that accomplish if we weren't in it to win it. It would just galvanize their fractured population and make afghanistan and Iraq very painful as well as shutting down the gulf. Think gas prices are high now?...
When you start to see 7 or so aircraft carriers at sea at once then you know something is going down.
I don't think the joint chiefs would seriously consider a ground war in Iran at this point. There could be tactical punishing strikes, and we could even roll back their whole air force, navy and Air Defense structure without setting a single foot in Iran. But what would that accomplish if we weren't in it to win it. It would just galvanize their fractured population and make afghanistan and Iraq very painful as well as shutting down the gulf. Think gas prices are high now?...
It was truly fun as an OOD in the Persian Gulf during Desert Storm playing bumper cars while conducting flight ops with 4 carriers in close proximity and lookouts identifying every floating trash bag as a mine.
You think?!?:icon_tong
Hmm, I wouldn't neccessarily agree that military airstrikes against Iran would neccessarily galvanize the Iranian population against us. There does exist a sizeable dissident population of Iranians (as well as large populations of others who have and currently are the victims of ethnic cleansing programs of Mr. Ahmedinejad). In fact as early as 2005 Iranian dissedents (such as Ghassem Shola Sadi who hopes for a US military intervention, or Mohsen Sazegara founder of the IRG who has turned towards the US) have been asking for assurances from President Bush that he would welcome a democratic regime and have been asking for aid from the US to accomplish this goal through mass demonstrations (which are very brutally put down) Not to mention that the US has been cultivating nationalist Iranian groups ('read terrorists') who have been actively fighting the Iranian regime for decades... IMHO (yes I laughed when I wrote that too) there is a critical mass in Iran that would be supportive of regime change with the backing of the US... Our biggest challenge would be to insure we have the structures of legitimate government to take charge from the moment the bombs stop falling...