US fears defeat in Iran war

page: 13
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I believe Iran is a threat. Ahmadinejad is crazy

crazy leader + military capability =


(Admin Edit)See photo below GRAPHIC PHOTO WARNING

Holocaust Photo

Let's not take risks.

[edit on 29-3-2006 by Nakash]



[edit on 3-31-2006 by Springer]




posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
Let's not take risks.


a group of dead people with soldiers standing around? is this what will be avoided by going to war with iran? i always thought that people got killed in wars.

[edit on 30-3-2006 by snyddogg]



posted on Mar, 30 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
That's a pic of a massacre by a War criminal who was crazy (this case Hitler).



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Can't be long now...
www.cbc.ca...
Israeli-cruise vs Iranian "knuckle-ball" trajectory...
Could be a smokey Easter in the Middle-east.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by V Kaminski]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Can't be long now...
www.cbc.ca...
Israeli-cruise vs Iranian "knuckle-ball" trajectory...
Could be a smokey Easter in the Middle-east.

Probably bs...

If not, who cares. Ahmadinejad may be a head case, but do you honestly think he would use that which would only provoke the west and turn the countries currently trying to stop any confrontation away?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
You talk about Air-Strikes, but where are these US airstrikes going to come from? In ALL recent US Air assaults-Gulf War,Yugoslavia,Iraq War-the US has been allowed to launch the bulk of their air-strikes from neighboring secure countrys like Kuwait and Turkey..This time they'll only have their bases in Iraq which are limited and too close to ran, as they are in range of Iranian missiles and will be hit repeatedly..Aircraft carriers can launch some strikes but they are not enough to hold the situation in Iraq and at the same time assault all the Iranian targets, cruise missiles can be launched from the sea but again they are expensive and in limited supply.


During GW1, GW2, and Afghanistan there were many airstrikes flown from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Guam, and even the continental United States by B-1, B-2, and B-52s. They're long, but the aircraft are perfectly capable of flying the missions repeatedly, and there are enough of them that we can pretty much continuously have them over Iran. We would use the closer airbases for tactical strikes and SEAD missions, which could be flown from the carriers. If the mission was to take out the nuclear reactors, then we could easily fly in from Barksdale Louissiana, and Whiteman Missouri with B-52s and B-2s.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Intersting how some countrys are looking out presumeably benevolently for other countys, are considering how to partition assets.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:39 PM
link   
I realize the US can launch large planes from very far away, but the most effective air-strikes are done by fighter-planes that attack from nearby-which will be almost non..secondly Irans air-defenses are much more sophesticated than Yugo,Iraq..they will will blow those b-52s out of the sky and carpet bombing is not an option because it could lead to a tactical nuke strike on a US base in Iraq.

Iran just test fired a new missile that can evade anti-missile systems and deliver warheads on multiple target..and it can even reach Israel..in case you doubt just how technologically capable this country is becoming.


Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by jajabinks
You talk about Air-Strikes, but where are these US airstrikes going to come from? In ALL recent US Air assaults-Gulf War,Yugoslavia,Iraq War-the US has been allowed to launch the bulk of their air-strikes from neighboring secure countrys like Kuwait and Turkey..This time they'll only have their bases in Iraq which are limited and too close to ran, as they are in range of Iranian missiles and will be hit repeatedly..Aircraft carriers can launch some strikes but they are not enough to hold the situation in Iraq and at the same time assault all the Iranian targets, cruise missiles can be launched from the sea but again they are expensive and in limited supply.


During GW1, GW2, and Afghanistan there were many airstrikes flown from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Guam, and even the continental United States by B-1, B-2, and B-52s. They're long, but the aircraft are perfectly capable of flying the missions repeatedly, and there are enough of them that we can pretty much continuously have them over Iran. We would use the closer airbases for tactical strikes and SEAD missions, which could be flown from the carriers. If the mission was to take out the nuclear reactors, then we could easily fly in from Barksdale Louissiana, and Whiteman Missouri with B-52s and B-2s.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 08:56 PM
link   
An attack on Iran by the US would most likely be to remove the nuclear reactors, in which case it would be strategic bombing. Strategic bombers would come from one of those three locations, and be supported off the carriers in the Gulf.


The distinction between tactical and strategic bombing can be easily blurred. Strategic bombing missions usually attack targets such as factories, railroads, oil refineries and cities, while tactical bombing missions attack targets such as troop concentrations, command and control facilities, airfields, and ammunition dumps. The act of traveling to the target and dropping bombs, even if part of a strategic bombing campaign, is a tactical event. Strategic bombers tend to be large, long-range aircraft; tactical bombers are mostly relatively small. However, the distinction does not lie in the aircraft type used or the assigned target, it lies in the purpose of the attack. Tactical bombing aims to defeat individual enemy military forces. Strategic bombing aims to undermine a nation-state's ability to wage war, historically as a part of a total war strategy.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:20 PM
link   
A war between Iran and America will never happen unless Iran strikes first. Before going into Iraq Intelligence knew that Iraq had a sloppy military.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nakash
err... no, Iran would be toppled overnight, . Shows how different the West is than the Islamic world which given military superiority would try to wipe out everyone it hates.

No doubt!! They stand no chance. Also so true they would have wiped us out if they could already.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 07:27 PM
link   
Some of these responses are totally out there.....Some people need to read more from many other sources.....Just because you can level a country with brute force and call that winning, You can lose a war by many more ways and many would call that defeat.....Iraq is a perfect example....Sure we can level anything with our military...Iran or any of the middle east would never attack us and they have no intention to! Iran is not going to be another Iraq I think thats the biggest point some people need to understand. But some peope are oblivious to the real facts, don't you know the next big step here in war will bring police state security hell here, to our homes, towns, citys etc. And no that won't be the arabs fault, it'll be the globalists who care nothing about us, but no people only think it's the "evil terrorists"...the terrorists are going to be the contracted cops dragging you out of your homes, taking your guns, taking your children, beating the piss out of you, putting you in FEMA camps, while the economy collaspes. The defeat weather it be in Iran or not, is really going to be here, in our country in our home, and you'll have the globalists to thank for it.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Some say it heap bad idea to rock the casbah.


Pressure On Iran May Spur Attacks
Experts Wary as U.S. Urges End to Nuclear Program

As tensions increase between the United States and Iran, U.S. intelligence and terrorism experts say they believe Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide.

Because Iran's nuclear facilities are scattered around the country, some military specialists doubt a strike could effectively end the program and would require hundreds of strikes beforehand to disable Iran's vast air defenses. They say airstrikes would most likely inflame the Muslim world, alienate reformers within Iran and could serve to unite Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, which have only limited contact currently.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Any bets when Iran shows the world a nuclear test?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Any bets when Iran shows the world a nuclear test?

According to Iranian President Ahmadinejad, that will be sometime before this year has passed.

Ask him if he is taking any bets, Regenmacher.




seekerof



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Government in secret talks about strike against Iran

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent

(Filed: 02/04/2006)

The (British) Government is to hold secret talks with defence chiefs tomorrow to discuss possible military strikes against Iran.

A high-level meeting will take place in the Ministry of Defence at which senior defence chiefs and government officials will consider the consequences of an attack on Iran.

It is believed that an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is "inevitable" if Teheran's leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.

Full article




The United States government is hopeful that the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support. British military chiefs believe an attack would be limited to a series of air strikes against nuclear plants - a land assault is not being considered at the moment.


[edit on 1-4-2006 by Ross Cross]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
I realize the US can launch large planes from very far away, but the most effective air-strikes are done by fighter-planes that attack from nearby-which will be almost non..secondly Irans air-defenses are much more sophesticated than Yugo,Iraq..they will will blow those b-52s out of the sky and carpet bombing is not an option because it could lead to a tactical nuke strike on a US base in Iraq.

Iran just test fired a new missile that can evade anti-missile systems and deliver warheads on multiple target..and it can even reach Israel..in case you doubt just how technologically capable this country is becoming.


Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by jajabinks
You talk about Air-Strikes, but where are these US airstrikes going to come from? In ALL recent US Air assaults-Gulf War,Yugoslavia,Iraq War-the US has been allowed to launch the bulk of their air-strikes from neighboring secure countrys like Kuwait and Turkey..This time they'll only have their bases in Iraq which are limited and too close to ran, as they are in range of Iranian missiles and will be hit repeatedly..Aircraft carriers can launch some strikes but they are not enough to hold the situation in Iraq and at the same time assault all the Iranian targets, cruise missiles can be launched from the sea but again they are expensive and in limited supply.


During GW1, GW2, and Afghanistan there were many airstrikes flown from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, Guam, and even the continental United States by B-1, B-2, and B-52s. They're long, but the aircraft are perfectly capable of flying the missions repeatedly, and there are enough of them that we can pretty much continuously have them over Iran. We would use the closer airbases for tactical strikes and SEAD missions, which could be flown from the carriers. If the mission was to take out the nuclear reactors, then we could easily fly in from Barksdale Louissiana, and Whiteman Missouri with B-52s and B-2s.


Obviously you have never heard of stealth technology........or high altitude flying....or the STARWARS program.......



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 08:58 AM
link   
With its attitude, Iran is slowly forcing our hand. As unsavoury as it might seem,
unless one side blinks, or diplomacy prevails, there are two likely outcomes. Either Iran gets the bomb, or the US strikes first. Of these hideous choices, the second is the greater threat to world stability.



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 11:33 AM
link   
This one's for duck huntin'... very busy these Iranian folks...
www.foxnews.com...
I wonder about "aftershocks" - earthquake time again?



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Any guesses when the bombings begin?
Some think it's this month.

War Against Iran, April 2006: Jorge Hirsch


[edit on 2-4-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
dear everybody,

i have read the first 8 pages of this thread and have found it to be quite entertaining. one particular interesting passage was when one poster (i think scarecrow) said that iraqis were cowards for planting bombs underneath vehicles and another poster (i think prophecy) immediately responded perfectly with, paraphrasing, "then what the hell was 'shock and awe.'" i believe that pressing a button to send a missile to kill another person or peoples is inconsistent with bravery. the u.s. offensive posture today is nothing to be proud of in my opinion.

anyway.

i basically do not see a happy outcome to the iranian theatre from the american standpoint. the iranina missile threat is severely underestimated still (i haven't read the most recent pages of this thread, but surely the new developments have to have been discussed endlessly).

the u.s. has enormous interests in the area (most importantly 130K so troops). how will they handle the shock and awe? shock and awe in reverse lol.

had the u.s. not had these interests in the area (which in addition to the troops include israel, oil, and american infrastructure in friendly states), the u.s. would have had less to loose. now it has a lot to loose.

as far as china and russia go, i think that they are going to try to destroy the u.s. "without spilling any blood." they will not "draw the line" with iran, but their master plan will come to fruitition soon later. iran as a proxy, etc. etc.

i am not a self-hating american. i love my country, but i do think that infectious hubris has gotten the best of us. we will become a second-rank power real soon.


db330





top topics
 
1
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join