- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Russia??? Afghanistan? Pakistan? India? THE PERSIAN GULF???
Called FEMA buddy.
I wasn't going to, but apdst did a wonderful job for me. He even provided sources I didn't immediately have. :2razz:Code for, "I can't rebute any of that."
LOL...you need to look at a map of Asia sometime and rethink those ideas.
And, you want the government to run health care???
I wasn't going to, but apdst did a wonderful job for me. He even provided sources I didn't immediately have. :2razz:
13) No Child Left Behind
I cant keep going if you'd like...
Are you sure you're no talking about North Korea? Because Iran has a coast. And we have kick a** amphibious assault boats, and hovercrafts.
I don't want a Republican Government to run health care. :doh
Are you sure you want to invade a country, the size of Iran, with a completely amphibious force? You need to think about that one from a tactical stand point. The dangers involved in an amphibious assault are the reason that we didn't do it during Desert Storm.
The reason we didn't do it during Desert Storm, was because we used it instaed as the diversion. Note that the Iraqi Army was held in check, because they were scared we were going to launch an amphib assault. And for the means of taking down the government in Iran, and amphib assault/air mobile attack would be perfect. Some Ospreys to penetrate inland, with LCAC's carrying the heavy fire power in...they wouldn't stand a chance. It worked for WWII, and Korea, it'll work now as well.
The reason we didn't do it, was because we had an alternative. An amphibious assault is a last resort tactic, as history has shown. You might want to do a little more research about the amphib assaults made during WW2 and Korea and the casualties that resulted. Do some reading about the landing at Anzio, while you're at it.
We didn't do it in Desert Storm, because our commander noticed that while the Amphibs were more then capable of taking on the Republican Guard, we had a much bigger force already on the ground, and ready to go behind the Iraqis. In Iran, we can land about 800 miles from Tehran. Our carriers would destroy any air power the enemy could muster, and then our men could go in, with heavy air support.
And I looked into Anzio, and I saw something saying that some 83% of the casualties were inflicted by artillery, and air strikes. Artillery is defeated by our blitzkrieg, and their air force would die.
D-Day, we took casualties, because we had to fight against enemies in bunkers, enemies who were battle-hardened, and throughly competent. Korea, we didn't take significant casualties, distinguishable from any other military operation.
And you'll also note that in Korea and WWII, the amphib assaults worked.
If you do the proper research, you'll notice that WW2 and Korean War amphib assault had more chance of failure than success. Do you want to the theater commander, in this day and age, that ordered an unsuccessful amphibious assult? You would be crucified.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?