See rules 1, 3, and 6...son.Macbeth wrote:
okay dadFEOS wrote:
but you still shouldn't call people fucking morons for that.
Good luck on implementing the next "Marshall plan" then...-Sh1fty- wrote:
I don't want that to happen, but I acknowledge that the U.S. has the capacity to do so if desired. How many B2s do we have anyway? 21 IIRC. Get 21 of those babies flying over Iran at one time and dropping JDAMs and bunker-busters on desired targets and their government wouldn't exist in no-time.
Have fun patrolling Tehran.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I don't want that to happen, but I acknowledge that the U.S. has the capacity to do so if desired. How many B2s do we have anyway? 21 IIRC. Get 21 of those babies flying over Iran at one time and dropping JDAMs and bunker-busters on desired targets and their government wouldn't exist in no-time.
Yeah, weather can be a bitch. Ask Napoleon and Hitler about it.-Sh1fty- wrote:
(during good weather)
Don't you think that the government and military would be hiding in bunkers and coordinate from there?-Sh1fty- wrote:
If Iran doesn't have any roads, factories, bridges, etc. how are they going to right a war? We can also take out their head government buildings, communications, etc. and they'll have no way too coordinate. Hell after doing all that via B2s I wouldn't even bother sending in ground forces since they couldn't do anything.
They're talking about Israel doing it themselves. How exactly is that "us doing it for them at no cost to them and no benefit for us"?Dilbert_X wrote:
As long as we take down another of Israel's enemies for no cost to them and no benefit to ourselves - thats whats important.
FEOS wrote:
They're talking about Israel doing it themselves. How exactly is that "us doing it for them at no cost to them and no benefit for us"?Dilbert_X wrote:
As long as we take down another of Israel's enemies for no cost to them and no benefit to ourselves - thats whats important.
Too bad reality--once again--confounds your conspiracy theories.
OP wrote:
If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?
Important bits bolded for you, I don't see any mention of Israel doing any fighting.Sh1fty wrote:
We can also take out their head government buildings, communications, etc. and they'll have no way too coordinate.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-02-21 04:16:26)
Napoleon lost most of his troops on the way to Moscow in the summer and fall. It's a complete myth that his army was wiped out by winter.globefish23 wrote:
Yeah, weather can be a bitch. Ask Napoleon and Hitler about it.-Sh1fty- wrote:
(during good weather)
hmm i don't know. how about a wild 100 royal marines appear to support the SAS?jord wrote:
depends on the details ted, i mean can the SAS recruit. train and fight alongside an indiginous force or is their number just the 100
depends on the details ted, i mean can the royal marines recruit. train and fight alongside an indiginous force or is their number just the 100FatherTed wrote:
hmm i don't know. how about a wild 100 royal marines appear to support the SAS?jord wrote:
depends on the details ted, i mean can the SAS recruit. train and fight alongside an indiginous force or is their number just the 100
Nah...just watching the news. You should try it sometime.Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
They're talking about Israel doing it themselves. How exactly is that "us doing it for them at no cost to them and no benefit for us"?Dilbert_X wrote:
As long as we take down another of Israel's enemies for no cost to them and no benefit to ourselves - thats whats important.
Too bad reality--once again--confounds your conspiracy theories.OP wrote:
If the US decided to fight Iran, would Iran's military have a chance?Important bits bolded for you, I don't see any mention of Israel doing any fighting.Sh1fty wrote:
We can also take out their head government buildings, communications, etc. and they'll have no way too coordinate.
(I do hope you're not the one analysing intel or aerial photos )
Ah OK, I was referring to the discussion in this thread.FEOS wrote:
Nah...just watching the news. You should try it sometime.
This. Even in retreat the weather was mostly above freezing.Macbeth wrote:
Napoleon lost most of his troops on the way to Moscow in the summer and fall. It's a complete myth that his army was wiped out by winter.globefish23 wrote:
Yeah, weather can be a bitch. Ask Napoleon and Hitler about it.-Sh1fty- wrote:
(during good weather)
Perhaps most importantly, Napoleon's reputation of invincibility was shattered (Chandler 1966). Napoleon attempted to make the best of a horrific circumstance. He blamed his misfortune on the Russian winter. On 20 December, he reported to the Senate, "My army had had some losses, but this was due to the premature rigors of the season." Chandler (1966) stated, "From these words...a celebrated historical myth has emerged." At the time, his supporters believed him. Madame Junot, wife of General Junot, wrote in her memoirs (1901), "Muscovite vanity was reluctant to acknowledge that THE WEATHER had had a large share of the victory; though it was a general remark among the common people in Russia that it was not General Kutusov, but General FROST, who had destroyed the French army." Cartwright (1972) stated that "...this is the accepted opinion but, to make the picture complete, we should add the name of General Typhus and General Napoleon."
well didn't in all wars before like WWII (or was it I?) more soldiers died from disease than from combat?Kmar wrote:
actually I posted the wrong link I was looking for Shifty..lol
http://entomology.montana.edu/historybu … russia.htmPerhaps most importantly, Napoleon's reputation of invincibility was shattered (Chandler 1966). Napoleon attempted to make the best of a horrific circumstance. He blamed his misfortune on the Russian winter. On 20 December, he reported to the Senate, "My army had had some losses, but this was due to the premature rigors of the season." Chandler (1966) stated, "From these words...a celebrated historical myth has emerged." At the time, his supporters believed him. Madame Junot, wife of General Junot, wrote in her memoirs (1901), "Muscovite vanity was reluctant to acknowledge that THE WEATHER had had a large share of the victory; though it was a general remark among the common people in Russia that it was not General Kutusov, but General FROST, who had destroyed the French army." Cartwright (1972) stated that "...this is the accepted opinion but, to make the picture complete, we should add the name of General Typhus and General Napoleon."
