Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US fears defeat in Iran war

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Americans are deluding themselves if they believe they can win a war with Iran. Why?

The US is experiencing troop shortages. The military is having a difficult time recruiting people to die in Iraq, a locale where the US is already fighting Vietnam II. This is another war of attrition. Vietnam III will be no different.

Hitler spread his troops too thin and underestimated his enemies. Bush is doing the same thing in the new millenium in a slightly different theatre. He is trying to defeat a people who have a different set of values. Muslims are willing to sacrifice everything for their cause and their countries.

There is no reason for the US to violate the sovereignty of yet another nation to exercise its empire-building ideology under the guise of spreading freedom and enforcing disarmament.

The rest of the civilized world is not that gullible. It sees exactly what Bush is up to and where his agenda will lead his country. America is on the wane.




posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Hopefully, diplomacy is the answer and Iran will become fully transparent to the IAEA and move on.


Originally posted by Mehran
it tells you about the consenquences of another war and so on.....


For the sake of discussion, Iran would most likely sustain heavy damages from a prolonged aerial bombardment campaign. Drawing "these" conclusions based upon an assumptive invasion of scale is misleading.


Originally posted by brEaDITOR
The US is experiencing troop shortages. The military is having a difficult time recruiting people to die in Iraq, a locale where the US is already fighting Vietnam II. This is another war of attrition. Vietnam III will be no different.



Active duty recruiting. All services exceeded their recruiting goals in February. The Navy’s recruiting goal was 2,593, and it enlisted 2,696 (104 percent). The Marine Corps’ goal was 1,661, and it recruited 1,734 (104 percent). The Air Force goal was 2,353, and it recruited 2,375 (101 percent). The Army's goal was 6,000, and it recruited 6,114 (102 percent).

Active duty retention. All services are projected to meet their retention (reenlistment) goals for the current fiscal year.
March 10, 2006.


The US Navy and US Air Force are currently under utilized assets and available.

The US and or ‘other’ forces would target specifically the nuclear facilities, related research centers and military installations; oil related facilities would most likely left to remain intact as the specific goal in this case would be nuclear disarmament

If an attack does indeed occur, Iran’s knee-jerk reaction would be to shut down shipping through the strait, however the exercise Arabian Gauntlet has been rehearsed each year for such an event. Iran may also attempt a few reprised land incursions, but having US and coalition forces inside defensive postures and positions would be a lethal blow to Iran’s military tantamount to a meat grinder for her.

I wouldn’t bank too heavily on either China or Russia immediately coming to the aide of Iran given if the objectives are clearly laid in front of each interested party.


mg



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by missed_gear

Active duty recruiting. All services exceeded their recruiting goals in February. The Navy’s recruiting goal was 2,593, and it enlisted 2,696 (104 percent). The Marine Corps’ goal was 1,661, and it recruited 1,734 (104 percent). The Air Force goal was 2,353, and it recruited 2,375 (101 percent). The Army's goal was 6,000, and it recruited 6,114 (102 percent).

Active duty retention. All services are projected to meet their retention (reenlistment) goals for the current fiscal year.


Please note that the original source is the DOD. I'm sorry, but I don't believe a d*mn thing the US government says about anything.

In my neck of the woods, recruiters are having a hard time finding people dumb enough to volunteer to be blown up by the Iraqis.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
thats because we arent supporting the insurgents.



right. iran would never stoop to something so low as to support terrorist or insurgents. and you know this how?



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:23 PM
link   
It is absolutely insane for the US to think about attacking Iran

If the US attacks Iran;

Iran will turn the "Green Zone" in Iraq into a gigantic pothole.

Israel is finished.

Venezuela will completely stop it's oil flow to the US and shut down every Citgo. A gallon of gas will AT LEAST double.

Hizbullah Exploding Guerilla Cookies. All over the world.

China will put out a sell order.

Strait of Hormuz closed for how long?? A gallon of gas in the US approaches 10 dollars.

Global economic collapse.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RaiderJose
there is no way that iran could defeat the USA in any type of war. i don,t belive that the us can occupy iran for any amount of time but in a war i think it would be as one sided as the iraq war.3-4 weeks


Yes, Iran would "fall" quickly. And then we'd be entrenched in the country trying to dig out, ahem, "terrorists" for how long, do you think?

We would not lose a military conflict. But by the time we finished, we wouldn't have much aof a military left, nor would we have much of an economy, much world standing, or much moral superiority.

Iraq is already close to breaking us in all these respects. Going after Iran would be nothing more than a ruinous attempt to pull up those 30% approval ratings. We know hoe Americans love dead muslims.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
There will be no war.

I personally think several surgical air strikes at key enrichment facilities will do the job and if Iran tries to hit back then you would see what modern western technology does too ex soviet and far east copies. (lets face it they need to test out new tech on someone"

Of course there will be casulties prob on both sides, but the edge Iran has at the moment is the lack of a clear US voter backed political campaign. I mean by that the US civilians are fed up with middle eastern problems and the last thing they want is a war with Iran (I dont think the military think that way though ;-) ). So why push like you want a war Mr iranian president?

If bush could get a head of steam up in the US then Iran watch out, as a lot of euro countries would help him out on this one.

Iran has riches and the wolves are circling.

The Iranian guys should think that running a campaign like the insurgents are doing in Iraq is a pain in the. However its a bit like a wasp stinging an elephant annoying and causes pain but no real problem. I would estimate it would take the US airforce a matter of 2 weeks to completely destroy the main Iranian military infrastructure and several more to put the country in serious bother.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
US fears defeat in Iran war

vs.

Iran fears defeat in Iran-US war.







seekerof



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Baghdad Bob was the MAN!



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Short of sending in nukes via sub the only advantage the US posesses is possibly an air campaign. However lets remember Iran has the best Russian military hardware money can buy. Russia, China and N. Korea have been selling stuff to Iran for sometime. Considering many if not all electronic components are fabricated in China it is plausible that there weaponry may be halfway decent. Russia has been using Iran as proxy for sometime. And N. Korea needs the cash. Plus European countries have sold stuff to Iran as well. So really any conflict could be a test of the latest and greatest advances in defence products... Come to think of it an air campaign may be risky...humm



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
israelcd, you and Baghdad Bob have a few things in common: one asserted the "Mother of all Battles" and how vaunted their military was--which had those up-to-date Russian military hardwares, while the other (you) are likewise stipulating the same thing now.

Question: Will there be a "Mother of all Battles" coming soon, as well?


Originally posted by israelcd
So really any conflict could be a test of the latest and greatest advances in defence products...

Umm, no, it will not.




Come to think of it an air campaign may be risky...humm

Umm, no, it will not.





seekerof

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
No offense intended here man, but historically, Russian made equipment hasnt fared very well in a conflict with American and Western made equipment. Look at the first Iraq war, all those lovely T-72's were turned into scrap in 100 hours, along with the rest of their army. If you ask me, militarily Iran can not defeat the US. Irans AF would be out of action in fairly quickly. The US navy could own the waters. Iran does have 3 Kilos, which are quiet boats. They may put up a bit of a fight but I dont think they would last very long with an ASW unit on their rear, along with our attack subs.

Next point, once again someone makes the completely wrong assumption that the US has troop shortages. Of our 2.25 million military personnell(reserves and national guard inclded), there are 240,000(roughly) in Iraq. The US has 1.4 million troops on active duty from all branches. Not to mention Reserves who can be combat ready with some crash course training, in say a month or so. This is like the 20th time someone has falsely stated the US has troop shortages, and its getting a bit annoying to have to correct such statements.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:41 PM
link   
SeekerOf please do a google search and see for yourself what Iran has or does not...

You and many others on this forum and in this country consistently underestimate your enemy...a very unwise thing to do... My personal opinion is I don't give of rats a**... who or what country suffers the worst. And as such I am able to give an honest unbiased opinion. It is unrealistic to think any person of any country would resign themselves to defeat before the first shot is fired... So Bahgdad Bob should be "hyping" his side...

Minimize arrogance and maximize understanding and you might have a chance...



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
It is absolutely insane for the US to think about attacking Iran

If the US attacks Iran;

Iran will turn the "Green Zone" in Iraq into a gigantic pothole.

With what? If Iran is attacked then they will be bunkered up inside their own nation trying to survive against far superior aircraft and other weapons. Missiles that we have can hit any target in Iran, also if the US went all out, convential no non-convential forces, then Iran would be in very serious trouble. No matter what Iran has, it is outright silly to think that the US doesn't have far better equipment, not to mention that what we have is battle proven. Against an enemy that Iran couldn't defeat in 8 years of war.



Israel is finished.
How? With what? To get to Israel Iran would have to get through US forces. Sorry but that isn't about to happen. Plus Israel is far more then capable of protecting itself as has been proven time and time again.


Venezuela will completely stop it's oil flow to the US and shut down every Citgo. A gallon of gas will AT LEAST double.

Yes that is a real concern. I mean it isn't like the US can't get oil or gas from anywhere else in the world. And do you really think the Citgo's will close? Cmon get real.



Hizbullah Exploding Guerilla Cookies. All over the world.

Well they aren't worldwide just in Israel, and if war comes and Iran lets them loose, Israel can easily run roughshod over them and it would give them an excuse to finally erase that long standing thorn in their side.



China will put out a sell order.
China will do no such thing. China needs the US far more then they need Iran. China has bigger plans for themselves and they will not risk them for Iran.



Strait of Hormuz closed for how long?? A gallon of gas in the US approaches 10 dollars.

See you are quite mistaken here as well. Iran does not have the capability to shut the straits down for a day let alone longer. The US Navy is the strongest most advanced Navy in the world. The US Navy and the Marines will take the straits in the first hours of any war for the simple fact that they know this is a major target for Iran.



Global economic collapse.


Yep the world revolves around Iran.....LOL



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by israelcd
SeekerOf please do a google search and see for yourself what Iran has or does not...

Umm, I know pretty much what all Iran has.
As such, perhaps you need to use Google to do a comparative research on what Iran currently has and what Iraq previously had?




You and many others on this forum and in this country consistently underestimate your enemy...a very unwise thing to do...

Having served in the first Gulf War and having to repeatedly listen to my commanding officers repeatedly assert that Iraq was one of the biggest dogs on the block behind the Russians, I highly doubt that the US underestimates its foes. I would go as far as saying that the US OVER-estimates its foes. The Cold War is a prime example of such OVER-estimating. Hello?




My personal opinion is I don't give of rats a**... who or what country suffers the worst. And as such I am able to give an honest unbiased opinion.


Again, having actual battlefield experience, I gave my honest unbiased opinion.




It is unrealistic to think any person of any country would resign themselves to defeat before the first shot is fired... So Bahgdad Bob should be "hyping" his side...

Accordingly, just as you are 'unrealistically' hyping Iran's side, eh?




Minimize arrogance and maximize understanding and you might have a chance...

Likewise, israelcd + add some actual applicable battlefield or military experience to your speculations, and you might have a chance.







seekerof

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mehran
an air-strike will lead to war and possibly means invasion which russia and china have said many times over, they simply wont allow it. seriously, i dont want to be offensive and be an a** but an air-strike on iran will mean no more iraq democracy nor afghanistan.


I asked you about the stealth aircraft in another thread but you never answered me. Were you talking about this aircraft


No need for that, I am asking you a serious question. Is the plane you are referring to the Shafaq?

As you may have read in my earlier post where I quoted from GlobalSecurity, that this plane has some radar absorbing materials, but is not a full stealth aircraft.

Do you have more information or details about this plane?


Iran may stir up some trouble in Iraq, but to say they can stop democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is simply wrong and overstating Iran's capability in the region. The only problem the US would have with Iran is trying to occupy them, but then we don't have to do that to win a war with Iran.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
It is absolutely insane for the US to think about attacking Iran

If the US attacks Iran;

Iran will turn the "Green Zone" in Iraq into a gigantic pothole.

Israel is finished.

Venezuela will completely stop it's oil flow to the US and shut down every Citgo. A gallon of gas will AT LEAST double.

Hizbullah Exploding Guerilla Cookies. All over the world.

China will put out a sell order.

Strait of Hormuz closed for how long?? A gallon of gas in the US approaches 10 dollars.

Global economic collapse.


Yes and all the allied nations would do nothing!
ALl your 3rd world # hole countries will be wipped of the face of the earth.

MOD SAYS: Have a little respect for other countries.


[edit on 18-3-2006 by TheBandit795]



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   

With what? If Iran is attacked then they will be bunkered up inside their own nation trying to survive against far superior aircraft and other weapons. Missiles that we have can hit any target in Iran, also if the US went all out, convential no non-convential forces, then Iran would be in very serious trouble. No matter what Iran has, it is outright silly to think that the US doesn't have far better equipment, not to mention that what we have is battle proven. Against an enemy that Iran couldn't defeat in 8 years of war.

If France, Israel and the US had not given their help to Saddam?

How? With what? To get to Israel Iran would have to get through US forces. Sorry but that isn't about to happen. Plus Israel is far more then capable of protecting itself as has been proven time and time again.

Apparently you are unaware of Iran's missile capability, which is where they have invested themselves, as opposed to fighter jets etc.


I mean it isn't like the US can't get oil or gas from anywhere else in the world. And do you really think the Citgo's will close? Cmon get real.

Citgo is owned by Venezuela. What happens when the price of a gallon of gas is 5 or 6 dollars?

Well they aren't worldwide just in Israel, and if war comes and Iran lets them loose, Israel can easily run roughshod over them and it would give them an excuse to finally erase that long standing thorn in their side.

Hizbullah is worldwide for certain. They are in Israel?



China will do no such thing. China needs the US far more then they need Iran. China has bigger plans for themselves and they will not risk them for Iran.

The US needs China. From whom will you borrow $2,000,000,000 a day? Why is China diversifying it's currency basket? If China puts out a sell order, what will happen in the money markets?


See you are quite mistaken here as well. Iran does not have the capability to shut the straits down for a day let alone longer. The US Navy is the strongest most advanced Navy in the world. The US Navy and the Marines will take the straits in the first hours of any war for the simple fact that they know this is a major target for Iran.

Then Bush can pose in front of a "mission accomplished" banner.

Iran could EASILY hold the Strait of Hormuz. Do you think they have their defenses just sitting there, waiting to be bombed? Again, you are unaware of Iran's missile capability. Sunburn?



Yep the world revolves around Iran.....LOL


No, the world revolves around the US. You are like a blindfolded man swinging a big stick at what he thinks is a pinata, not realizing it is a hornets nest.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wask

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
It is absolutely insane for the US to think about attacking Iran

If the US attacks Iran;

Iran will turn the "Green Zone" in Iraq into a gigantic pothole.

Israel is finished.

Venezuela will completely stop it's oil flow to the US and shut down every Citgo. A gallon of gas will AT LEAST double.

Hizbullah Exploding Guerilla Cookies. All over the world.

China will put out a sell order.

Strait of Hormuz closed for how long?? A gallon of gas in the US approaches 10 dollars.

Global economic collapse.


Yes and all the allied nations would do nothing!
ALl your 3rd world # hole countries will be wipped of the face of the earth.


Like you wiped all the Red Indians off the face of the Earth?

Who are your "allies"? France?

Do you know DPRK can reach the US with nukes?

By the way, what are you waiting for? Hasn't Ahmedinejad said "bring it on?"

What are you waiting 4?



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
Like you wiped all the Red Indians off the face of the Earth?

"All" is an absolute and implies simply what it does: ALL.
My understanding is that not "all the Red Indians" were wiped out in America. Correct me if I am wrong here, k?
As such, the use of absolutes, such as "all," must be purposely ambiguous, deceptive, and unfactual.




Who are your "allies"?

Simple answer: anyone who is still apart of NATO, since of course, the US is still apart of NATO. Umm, NATO is an alliance, implying "allies."





Do you know DPRK can reach the US with nukes?

Link your valid source for which missile DPRK has that can reach mainland USA.





By the way, what are you waiting for? Hasn't Ahmedinejad said "bring it on?"

Diplomacy is still in play here. Is it not fun to watch it play out as the Iranians are simply bartering for time. Yep, diplomacy at work....how lovely would'nt you say?








seekerof

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Seekerof]





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join