I hear you SeekerOF...

Iraq having been in a war, under massive sanctions, and having control over 1/3 their airspace was a formidable enemy... OOH I really like how their soldiers wore those thong sandals with their fatigues...

I guess we can agree to disagree... But I'll bet given the unknowns involed with regard to Irans Capability, given those incompetent bastards conducting such endeavors, given the worn status of US Troops, Short of a massive nuke attack to totally neutralize Iran the US will find itself in a smelly situation...

judging from the wonderful job the US has done in iraq. Any Iran misadventure should only take ....ooh say.....FOREVER

"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.

OK. 98%.

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."

There will only be bombing. How will this attack affect US soldiers in Iraq?

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?

There is nothing Iran can do. They are legally producing nuclear power.

Let us pray.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by pRoPhEcY]

Originally posted by israelcd
Iraq having been in a war, under massive sanctions, and having control over 1/3 their airspace was a formidable enemy... OOH I really like how their soldiers wore those thong sandals with their fatigues...

Did you read that somewhere or were you over there and saw such?
Further, was this applicable across the board for the Iraqi military?
Your attempt at down-playing is a joke.
Iraq was ranked as having the 4th largest and capable military in the world, Israelcd. As such, it took the US led Coalition how long to defeat them?
When the US led Coalition went into Iraq the second time around, how many days did it take to get to Baghdad and defeat Iraq?
You have gone from insinuating that the US underestimates Iraq to now you simply playing into that underestimation by citing sanctions and sandel clad Iraq troops.
Anything else?

I guess we can agree to disagree... But I'll bet given the unknowns involed with regard to Irans Capability, given those incompetent bastards conducting such endeavors, given the worn status of US Troops, Short of a massive nuke attack to totally neutralize Iran the US will find itself in a smelly situation...

Your own speculation rivals those that you have just criticized. Ironic, huh?
Again, "those incompetent bastards" planned and defeated Iraq twice and in short order. That does not sound like something "incompetent bastards" would or could do or have envisioned. The more I read what you are attempting to peddle, the more I see you as an armchair general.

judging from the wonderful job the US has done in iraq. Any Iran misadventure should only take ....ooh say.....FOREVER

This rhetorical comment by you simply confirms my own speculation that indeed, you are an armchair general, who has much in common with those alleged "incompetent bastards" that you haphazardly attempt to criticize.







seekerof

[edit on 18-3-2006 by Seekerof]

But the fact we are already talking tactics ,force dispositions,weapon comparatives means that war was decided.
That's not surprising..the Iranian military is on full alert from some time now and the dates are pretty clear:by the end of this month,the month of Mars,god of war.
Personally I think that the Iranian conventional army has no chance to stand in front of US military;however their Shahab missiles,having ranges up to 4300 km may touch Israel and Europe with conventional and non-conventional loads.
This threat raises some serious concerns about the extent of this war:will be all NATO countries involved ? will be Russia and China involved,out of fear of oil monopoly and mostly,retribution from NATO? what will be Israel's reaction to Iranian bombings? what's the chance of nuclear escalation? what does mean "bunker buster with nuclear warhead"? what's the chance of global economic collapse in the 20-26 week?
Of course,all these are political questions.And politicians must answer them.But the fact we have so many unknowns makes this war a risky one.
Sun Tzu said" Know yourself and know your enemy and you should win a hundred battles",but if "you don't know yourself,you're an ignorant and will be defeated in a hundred battles"
This war was announced ,as the Iraq war,a long time ago;little doubt remained about US intentions on Iran;they had time to prepare themselves and to secure allies and to stockpile weapons and resources.
Of course,the situation in the Middle East,regarding oil supplies and instability,must be addressed.
What is worrying me the most is that the US administration does not take into account the history of the Persian Empire when planning their assault.

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
They are legally producing nuclear power.

Yeah, of course they are. Likewise, in the same token as they are illegally attempting to produce nuclear weapons, eh?





seekerof

I don't think the government fear anything about Iran.

If destabilization of the country is what is needed and wanted a few air attacks on specific targets will do.

If taken away nuclear plants is desire the same applies.

I don't believe that the Administration is looking for an invasion of Iran.

All it wants to do is shake the country good enough and then sit back and let the the desire evens unfold and hope that they go well.

No, I don't think that US fears defeat in Iran war

Is not doubt as the US air superiority and weapons capability.



[edit on 18-3-2006 by marg6043]

Originally posted by Seekerof

Did you read that somewhere or were you over there and saw such?
Further, was this applicable across the board for the Iraqi military?
Your attempt at down-playing is a joke.
Iraq was ranked as having the 4th largest and capable military in the world, Israelcd. As such, it took the US led Coalition how long to defeat them?

i would like to point out once again even though iraq had the 4th largest army in the world it was out of date with obsolete technology the majority of the air defence where anti-air artillery which was basically ww2 style and there missile systems where old and outdated also combined with the lack of IR guided missiles and shoulder launched IR SAM its not surprising they got destoryed by air although it wouldnt have made that big of a difference becuase of the amount of countries involved.

i could easily build the world 1st more largest army no problem all i need is to arm 3 million soldiers with ak-47 and rpgs no need for bullet proof vest or helmets get thousands of obsolete air defence cannons and get 20,000 t-55 tanks and on papper i will have a huger army but in reality i will get decimated even by a small well equiped force and thats exactly what the problem with iraq was they where huge but outdated and obsolete and the wets acts as if they had any chance no way could they have withstood any 1st world nation in an attack.

what i find funny is how people always claim american superiorty against iraq when there was 1 iraq verses 5 of the world most powerfull countries combined + all the other additional allies the west had no wonder iraq got destoryed so fast. america 100% on its own the war would have taken much much longer and would have looked completely different although america would still have won.

Originally posted by scarecrow19d
I am aware, I am also aware that they are just now starting to get solid fuel based missiles, you know, something the US has had for decades now. Also Air Power is far more useful, and versatile not to mention the superior missiles we can employ from that air power.

actually iran has had solid fuel ballistic missiles decades ago they have been slowly making larger and larger longer range solid fuel missiles there first solid fuel ballistic missile was about 90km then to 125km then too 280km then slowly it grew to 500km range and so on and so on up to now which they are now working on 2500km solid fuel rockets.
take a look in my signiture to see there solid fuel ballistic missiles.
also take a look at irans surafce to air missile collection.

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

I dont agree with you.
United states can drop bombs by air and never set foot in iran.
If United States trully wants to turn iran to dust it will hapen, all it takes is a high altitude boming.
I understand that you supor u'r country? but I dont think you would want an outcome where air raids ruled the skies night after night.
They dont even need to set foot in Iran, it can be done by air.

one thing you havent learnt yet is that wars are more then just weopons they are about intelligence gathering and targeting locations united states recived huge amounts of help from britain and europe in those fields also lets not forget SAS in there SCUD hunt missions. also the runway busting that the RAF carried out. im not going to list all the missions carrie dout by the allies but the attidue that most americans have is really annoying that they single handedly do everything just like ww2 from the america perpective is that america won ww2 single handedly.

this is why im against britain helping america because americans dont appreciate any sacrafices made by anyone for them they only care about themselves and this shows in every post they make.

Yes those damn Americans they never did nothing for nobody. I mean the Allies had Germany right where they wanted them before the US stuck their noses into it. And don't get me started about the war in Asia. I mean the US just got in the way there. Korea?? Don't get me started there. If the US had stayed out of it then North Korea wouldn't exist today.

Vietnam? See we should have stayed out of that and let the French deal with it in the 50s and we should have left it alone. No sarcasm there either. I mean that too.

Kuwait. Oh they didn't need the US. I mean they were well on their way to winning that one without us.

People,

Please have a civilised discussion or this thread will be closed.

I guess the Iranians and others don't really analyze what they see on TV about US military power. The US military is an astute student of the philosophies of war from around the world and really makes use of Sun Tzu's work all the time.

Sun Tzu - All warfare is based on deception.
US military allows media to carry on with reports of weakness, while also allowing it to hype Iran's supposed strengths.

also

Sun Tsu - Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable, when using our forces we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.

Sun Tzu - Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

Oh, that sounds like recruiting problems, supply shortages and political strife to me...

Sun Tzu - If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.

hmmmm, that sounds familiar....that new leader of yours is going to get somebody whooped, and it won't be the US...

Iran plans to vigorously defend I suppose, so...

Sun Tzu - Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy. Hence, the saying: One may "know" how to conquer without being able to do it. Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength. The general who is skilled in defence hides in the most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven. Thus on the one hand we have the ability to protect ourselves; on the other hand, a victory that is complete.

So I wouldn't believe everything you see on TV or read on the internet.
I mean, look how Saddam got played in the first Gulf war, when he watched a CNN report tell about a coming invasion from the south and he moved a lot of his forces to meet this phantom invasion, and what happened, they were blindsided from an attack that came from the west.

Besides, how do a bunch of devout believers in Allah make allies with the godless, communist, xenophobic rulers of China? Do you think they really care about you? Their chief resource is coal, and its a little difficult to power tanks, warships, and fighter jets on coal. So they are only playing nice with you. If they had their way, they would take your stupid oil and kill everybody to boot. If the US promises them some spoils, they'll stay out if it. As for Russia, they're just making money selling you guys some weapons and nuke technology. What you do with it is your own business.
Sure, Russia and China may hoo and haa in your defense, but at the end of the day, they'll wheel and deal with the US about what they'll get from you.

Yet another My dad can beat your dad up in a fight. Surprisingly everyone always picks thier country. So I guess I pick USA to beat up Iran using a suplex to a head lock to pin Iran down. Sorry Mehran. No one really wants to invade Iran, but if you might make us want to with your positive outlook. Because my dad can beat up your dad.

Originally posted by iqonx
what i find funny is how people always claim american superiorty against iraq when there was 1 iraq verses 5 of the world most powerfull countries combined + all the other additional allies the west had no wonder iraq got destoryed so fast. america 100% on its own the war would have taken much much longer and would have looked completely different although america would still have won.

You mean it would have taken 6 days instead of the 3 it did?

Do you not see the irony in what you just said.
The way Iran is positioning itself is quite possibly building up an even larger alliance against Iran than Iraq did in the first Gulf War. If Iran were to launch a IRBM all the way to Southern Europe or Russia, what response do you think would happen? I know there are proud people on both sides but to please face facts.

The U.S. military budget for 2006 is over 439 BILLION dollars vs 4.3 Billion for Iran. That one fact alone should be enough but I will continue. There is not any military that is as technologically advanced and battle tested as the Combined forces of the U.S.A. and the U.K. (don't want to imply you guys are slackers in any respect). To even suggest that 1st and 2nd generation weapons and stale tactics will be able to compete against top of the line 3rd and 4th generation weapons employed with superior tactics is laughable. Sober up and take a cold hard look at what would happen should warfare break out. There is no pretty solution for Iran if that happens.

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.

As I recall, Iran was unable to defeat Iraq in a pretty long war, a number of years ago, when Iraq was standing as a sovereign nation. Interesting to think that keyboard warriors, such as yourself, could now turn anything, at all, into a pothole ... No offense intended, but after reading some of the stuff you Pro-Irani's are posting here as truth, justice, etc... I suspect you are more likely to create a small pothole and fall in it.