PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Is Iran next? (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=183240)

Seeing as how they grabbed some British sailors today? I'm sure the cowboy is eager to move the troops there next:eek:.

I don't think so, Iran is a nut best left to crack itself.

I'm sure Bill Kristol would love for us to invade Iran, but whose army would we use? Ours is stretched thin at the moment: http://www.spokesmanreview.com/local/story.asp?ID=179980

Quote:

Shortfalls hobble military readiness

Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post
March 19, 2007

WASHINGTON – Four years after the invasion of Iraq, the high and growing demand for U.S. troops there and in Afghanistan has left ground forces in the United States short of the training, personnel and equipment necessary to fight a major ground conflict elsewhere, senior U.S. military and government officials acknowledge.

More troubling, the officials say, is that it will take years for the Army and Marine Corps to recover from what some officials privately have called a "death spiral," in which the ever-more-rapid pace of war-zone rotations has consumed 40 percent of their total gear, wearied troops and left no time to train to fight anything other than the insurgencies at hand.

Advertisement

The risk to the nation is serious and deepening, senior officers warn, because the U.S. military now lacks a large strategic reserve of ground troops ready to respond quickly and decisively to other foreign crises.

"We have a strategy right now that is outstripping the means to execute it," Gen. Peter Schoomaker, Army chief of staff, said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Thursday.

The Army's vice chief of staff, Gen. Richard Cody, described as "stark" the level of readiness of Army units in the United States, which would be called on if another war breaks out. "The readiness continues to decline of our next-to-deploy forces," Cody told the House Armed Services Committee's readiness panel last week. "And those forces, by the way, are ... also your strategic reserve."

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked last month by a House panel whether he was comfortable with the preparedness of Army units in the United States. He stated simply: "No ... I am not comfortable."

Pace said the unexpected demand for more troops in Iraq – from the 10 brigades that commanders last year projected they would need by the end of 2006, to the 20 brigades scheduled to be there by June – prompted him to recommend permanently adding 92,000 troops to the Army and Marine Corps, saying it would "make a large difference in our ability to be prepared for unforeseen contingencies."

Indeed, the recent increase of more than 32,000 U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has pushed already severe readiness problems to what some officials and lawmakers consider a crisis point. Schoomaker said last week that sustaining the troop increase in Iraq beyond August would be "a challenge."

The troop increase has also created an acute shortfall in the Army's equipment stored overseas – known as "pre-positioned stock" – which would be critical to outfit U.S. combat forces quickly should another conflict erupt, officials said.

The Army should have five full combat brigades' worth of such equipment: two stocks in Kuwait, one in South Korea, and two aboard ships in Guam and at the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean. But the Army had to empty the afloat stocks to support the troop increase in Iraq, and the Kuwait stocks are being used as units rotate in and out of the country.

[the rest of the article requires a password, but you get the idea]

We've wasted our military might and national treasury on a mission that will never be accomplished. Thank you George W. Bush, we couldn't have done this without you.

when the dems force him to take our troops out of iraq, maybe he will send them to iran.

that'll show those pesky dems.

and the voters.

tom w

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 1459541)

when the dems force him to take our troops out of iraq, maybe he will send them to iran.

that'll show those pesky dems.

and the voters.

tom w

As long as GWB in Commander in Chief we'll never leave Iraq. He doesn't give a damn about anything except for soothing is over inflated ego.

On the plus side the military is getting great on the job training, and we are dumping all the old cold war and WW2 era munitions.

Nothing like a battle hardened and experianced army when the **** hits the fan. Remember all those depleted German divisions that held our guys up in Normandy? Or in North Africa? Experiance.

The cost in both treasure and blood is rather high though, hopefully we can start pulling back soon.

I think this all started for little "w" back when he was tooting the blow at Yale & listening to an George Carlin album.....

"PULL OUT ??? Doesn't sound manly to me....!!!!!

.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy (Post 1459561)

what ww2 munitions would you think we are using now?

tom w

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy (Post 1459425)

I don't think so, Iran is a nut best left to crack itself.

Wisely put.

W understands that Iran's leadership is a lost cause. They can't be reasoned with. Eventually the people of Iran will figure this out and change it from within.

When a country like Iran takes British prisoners from a ship legally in place, it is a sign of desperation. There is no need to invade the country.

However the Brits might just wake up and recognize the loonies for who they are and keep up the diplomatic pressure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 1459734)

what ww2 munitions would you think we are using now?

tom w

Quite a bit, but most are gone now. I know someone who flew C130's and he said the Army and Air Force pretty much cleaned house. All the old dumb bombs, shells, even old torpedo's left over from the war were dropped. Any old explosive you can think off that was stock pilled from WW2 to the end of the Cold War was used. They fitted smart bomb heads and fins to all of them and sent them over to the sand box. He said they were moving crates that hadn't been touched since 1943. They even found a few vintage WW2 torpedo's and someone figured out how to stick a smart bomb head and tail on them, and they dropped them in Iraq. Blew up.:D

Now they are filling the warehouses with new stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith (Post 1459750)

...W understands that Iran's leadership is a lost cause. They can't be reasoned with...

Quote:

... When a country like Iran takes British prisoners from a ship legally in place, it is a sign of desperation. There is no need to invade the country...

How do you know that they were legally in place? The Iranians say otherwise. This is from http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070324132921.v0bpjlp8&show_article=1, I can't vouch for its accuracy:

Quote:

Fifteen British sailors and marines detained off Iraq by the Iranian navy have admitted illegally entering Iranian waters, senior Iranian commander General Alireza Afshar said Saturday.
"They are currently being questioned and have admitted to violating the territorial waters of the Islamic repubic," Afshar, the official spokesman of the army chief of staff, told the semi-official Fars news agency.

He told the Arabic language service of state television: "We have solid evidence that they were detained in our territorial waters. They themselves have confessed and admitted their mistake."

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith (Post 1459750)

However the Brits might just wake up and recognize the loonies for who they are and keep up the diplomatic pressure.

Which loonies? If you are talking about the American loonies, then I agree. If you are talking about the Iranian loonies, then I wonder how you reconcile your call for them to keep up the diplomatic pressure and your view that "They can't be reasoned with."

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin (Post 1459836)

I don't know how W would understand anything about them when he refuses to even speak with them. I've seen evidence that they are willing to do business (so to speak), but we refuse to engage them in any discussions. Seems foolish to me.How do you know that they were legally in place? The Iranians say otherwise. This is from http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070324132921.v0bpjlp8&show_article=1, I can't vouch for its accuracy:Which loonies? If you are talking about the American loonies, then I agree. If you are talking about the Iranian loonies, then I wonder how you reconcile your call for them to keep up the diplomatic pressure and your view that "They can't be reasoned with."

Lets see, a country bent on destroying Israel and all Jews everywhere can be reasoned with? Get a clue.

Bush did what his Dad *should* have done. Run Saddam out and plant a free foot in the region. If you Bush bashers could understand the big picture in even the slightest way, you wouldn't make so many dumb-ass comments.

This war is won, we cannot be defeated militarily. Only pathetic iditos bent on defeat (Dems, media) can reverse this fact. Iran and N Korea are next. This was just a warmup.

I could respect a true anti-war stance, even though it is an unrealistic way to live your life, it always assumes the other guy is rational and doesn't want you dead. But nothing you hear today is true anti-war, its just anti-Bush, and in case nobody noticed, thats not an idealogy, is a sickness.

It'll be the Jews in Isreal that start the Iran thing. Of course we'll be right behind them.,,,,,

Quote:

Originally Posted by mespe (Post 1459871)

It'll be the Jews in Isreal that start the Iran thing. Of course we'll be right behind them.,,,,,

I like Isreal a lot, I have met quite a few Isreal's and can't say anything bad about them. As far as I'm concerned its the best country in the region, and I have no proble supporting them.

But their army is pretty good, chances are they won't need much of our help. Maybe some air raids.