http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Two_Iraqi_generals_suspected_of_complicity_0201.html
Two Iraqi generals suspected of complicity in attack on US GIs .
This thing just keeps getting worse, doesn’t it?
Has he ever actually said that?
He hasn’t backed off from the unitary-executive defense-responsibility stuff, a.k.a. rule by decree, has he? Well, there you have it.
When do we get to see the Keyboard Division of the Elite Republican Guard telling us here that Iran has *already * attacked American forces, hence has declared jihad, etc.?
When come back, bring credible cite.
(“Raw Story” citing Fox News? Why not just link to Little Green Footballs while you’re at it?)
I think Bush himself said it best:
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee – I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee – that says fool me once, shame on…shame on you…fool me, you don’t get fooled again.”
How exactly do you see the Iranians capturing “tens of thousands” of American soldiers?
We have 140,000 in the field. If they lost to the Iranians and weren’t all killed, what else would be the outcome?
A retreat into Saudi Arabia?
Iran’s army isn’t THAT good. I can’t see them winning a full scale ground war outright, so dramatically as to take that many prisoners. You’d be talking about not just a defeat, Brai0n, but a military debacle of historical magnitude.
Plausible. Unless they get captured trying to invade Iran. And retreating into SA . . . might lead to an even worse outcome. Remember how this whole thing started.
That is exactly what W has set us up for.
Oh come on. we’re talking about the same Iranian army that Saddam’s boys fought to a standstill for eight years. Plus we have far superior air power. So it’s not realistic to fret about Iran invading Iraq and overwhelming our troops there.
I’m much more concerned about US troops being sent into Iran (and yet another quagmire).
Saddam’s boys didn’t have to worry about attack from the rear.
Saddam’s forces took 375,000+ casualties.
How many did the Iranians take?
And how many did we take in defeating Saddam’s army in conventional combat?
And that was with the US backing him up.
About 500,000 with the help of chemical weapons.
We didn’t engage in that much conventional combat with Saddam’s army. Iran is a different kettle of fish, though.
Not that different. Our air power would overwhelm them in a conventional war.
I am much more worried about unconventional warfare.
The US military is ranked #1 in the world:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=1
Iran is ranked #16:
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country_detail.asp?country_id=25
This is not a close fight. We can destroy the Iranian military. Note that to date I’ve seen no rational justification for doing so, and if it happened, I might have to attend the first political protest event of my life.
The US military is spread over the world, and according to its own senior command is near “breaking” from the Iraq war. The Iranian army is well rested and has nothing to do but defend its own homeland from an invader/would-be occupier.
Plus, if they’ve got nukes, that’s an equalizer, and if they don’t, why would we want to go in there anyway?
Oh, all right, let’s get a little closer: The Iraqi Army hasn’t even *existed * for over 3 years - but how’s that war over there going for us these days?
You mean, guerilla?