Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

US fears defeat in Iran war

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
The way I saw it the Iraqi army during Desert Storm in 1990 couldn't surrender fast enough. They were supposed to be one of the top armies. The same was said this time and nothing. How long would the insurgents last if the US was aloud to fight without any restrants.
I really don't think the Iranians will be any harder to beat. When the going gets tough they will get outa there.




posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:31 AM
link   


You kidding? You can’t break the morale of American soldiers, regardless of what some dictator who watched Blackhawk Down one too many time thinks. We are a nation of psychopaths, and our ground forces are our elite psychopaths. Morale? Not when you fight for pride. Know of any people more prideful than Americans? American soldiers KNOW they can win, and so they do. American soldiers, as a whole, do not fight for their country, for oil, for family, or for God. We fight to be the best, because we are the best. I don’t support the war (I was in Sadr City 2003-2004, BTW) and I am not a nationalist however I (and you too) still must face facts.



We shot through Iraq in what, 3 weeks? I guess that means Iran will take a full month if done properly. NEVER underestimate the ferocity and the will of the American fighting soldier/Marine. I don't support this war or Bush's policies at all, I do very much support my brothers who are over there living it and dieing for it. I want our troops to be able to fight with both hands for once. Take off the gloves and let our guys do what needs to be done. Either all out or pull out. Get it done and come home.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:36 AM
link   
If the USA went through Iran killing everything they saw, and bombing the living hell out of it. You better believe they'd be able to do it.

Like the 2 posts above me said, the US army should never be underestimated. The only constraints in Iraq at the moment are the civillians. If every civillian evacuated Iraq the USA could take down the insurgency extremley fast.

Like in Somalia, I think it was something like 19 American deaths to 20,000 - 30,000 Somalian (90-95% combatants) deaths.

The only armies that would give the USA some trouble dealing with are the Russian, Chinese and Indian armies. Mainly due to their sheer numbers.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Let there be no mistake. Fighting a war with Iran would certainly not be a cakewalk. A war with Iran would be a much different war than fighting the first Iraq war or the Shock and Awe war against Iraq the second time around. Iran is a very sophisticated country with a long and esteemed history and culture.

The years that Iran was governed by the Shah meant that Iran developed close ties with the U.S. and many of Iran's military strategists actually studied in the U.S. The Iranian air force is certainly first rate when compared with other such forces in the region. In other words, unlike the Iraqi Air force, the Iranians will not turn and run. They will be in the fight with modern, well-maintained aircraft piloted by well-trained and highly disciplined pilots. And for you eugenicists, keep in mind that that Iranians are not Arabs. Iranians are Aryans.

This said, the United States will still manage to win a war against Iran mainly because of the fact that the United States will probably not set foot into that large and varied terrain country. As good as Iranian air defences are, they will be no match for the United States Air Force. Keep in mind that Iranian pilots, under the Shah, were often trained in the U.S. Likewise, American airmen did a lot of training in Iranian airspace. We know the region well.

Cruise missiles and strategic ballistic missiles will do the rest in Iran; striking at military targets, missile silos, factories, bases, airports, roads and infrastructure with unerring accuracy. Of course, the U.S. will also be targeting Iran's nuclear research facilities, you can count on that. But let us not ever mistake a war with Iran as being a "walk in the park" as some posters may have suggested. Iran is a real country as opposed to the makeshift land mass, formerly known as Mesopotamia; Iraq.

There will be losses in lives and materiel on both sides. There would surely be unexpected developments that would adversely affect the U.S. timetable in Iran. No conflict is without the accompanying fog of war. Just look at Iraq for a perfect example. The U.S. was simply unprepared for the prolonged insurgency that they are currently fighting. Did the U.S. even expect this?

No, an Iran war would not be a pic=nic. It would be a difficult and hard fought conflict against a modern, well trained enemy. Of course, the same goes for Iran. The U.S. is not Iraq. And, to confuse things for Iran, there is a large "underground", so to speak, of dissidents who oppose the Clerical Muslim state and there are many who clearly remember the freedoms that they enjoyed under the Shah (yes, the Shah was a leader who was actually liked by many of his people -- primarily the intelligentsia. Keep in mind that he was opposed by the Ayatollah Khomeini and his band of Muslim clerics and devout fanatics). This "silent majority" could also prove to be a problem for the current government should a war break out between the U.S. and Iran.

It certainly looks like a fine kettle of fish that both the U.S. and Iran find themselves in. The U.S. is facing a two front war which will be a difficult sell at home and an economic blow. Iran is facing certain defeat, the destruction of it infrastructure and an insurgency from within by those who long for the days of the Shah as well as for personal and intellectual freedoms akin to those enjoyed in the West. This will be a difficult war.

All in all, I can unequivocally state for the record that the U.S. will win this war, inflicting extremely heavy damage upon Iran's ability to wage war and to suppress her people.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Not to nit pick but I believe the proper term for the Iranian ethnicity is Persian. The Aryans were an acient people who conquered parts of what is know Pakistan and India.

Back on topic. I'll echoe what has been said before. Iran won't be a push over but they simply don't have the resources or technology to withstand a prolonged air campaign against them. From what I've been able to find on Iran's Air Force their top notch when compared to other third world nations. But their going to be up against the USAF and the USN. They most technologically and well funded branches of the most powerful military on earth.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
Not to nit pick but I believe the proper term for the Iranian ethnicity is Persian. The Aryans were an acient people who conquered parts of what is know Pakistan and India.



You are correct in linking Iran with Persia. They both refer to the same geographic area and country. However, the people of Iran have referred to their country as Iran ever since the Sassanian Empire (200 - 659 AD). In fact, the word Iran means "Land of the Aryans". They use the term Aryan to describe their country and their ethnic lineage. The term Persia came from the Greek Persis and later from the Latin, Persia.

Incidentally, you are correct in pointing out that the Aryans were an ancient people who conquered Pakistan and India but the ancient Aryans also conquered "Persia" and must have influenced the Persians significantly enough that these people identified themselves with their conquerors. I would suppose that the original Persians must have been assimulated into the Aryan culture.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that the Aryans also have links with Europe -- and I am not referring to the Germans. The Baltic countries of Latvia and Lithuania have, it would seem, Aryan roots as well. Linguists studying the language of these two Baltic countries have identified their language as being, essentially, Sanskrit in origin and both have key lingual markers that link them with the Aryan race.

The Germans may have sought to adopt the Aryan title as Aryan has been said to mean "the superior ones". The Germans, quick to spot a good mythos, may have adopted the Aryan culture as their own from their association with Prussia. Prussia, incidentally is NOT Germanic but is one of the Baltic group of cultures. Actually, Prussia at one time was one of the tribal cultures of Lithuania, thus they would be considered as being Aryan.

I hope that this clears up my association of Persia/Iran with the Aryan ethnic group.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   
You have voted benevolent tyrant for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
The Iraqi National Resistance has not ONLY defeated the US,
it has HUMILIATED THEM!!!

The Iraqi people had their first free elections in ~ 40 years.
They were threatened with death by the insurgent terrorists.
They voted anyways. The people HATE the insurgents.
The insurgents have already lost.


You say these things as though the Resistance
were not freedom fighters and patriots.

They aren't. They are murderers, thugs, and terrorists.
They don't fight for a free Iraq. If they did, they would be
glad the people were freely voting. AND they'd stop killing
all those Iraqi civilians so that we could actually leave that
country. The insurgents must LOVE Americans, because THEY
are the only thing keeping us in that country right now!


I thought Americans fond of these qualities,
fighting for ones country.


They are killing civilians, children, police, freely elected officials.
They threaten Iraqis with death if they dare vote in free elections.
They blow up infrastructure. They harm the economy.
They aren't fighting FOR their country. They are fighting against it.
Learn the difference. They aren't freedom fighters, they are
terrorists and they are HATED by the Iraqis.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by pRoPhEcY
the Neocons have had their eye on Tehran ever since
their puppet the Shah was removed.


You mean to invade?
Yeah, right. He left a very long
time ago. If America wanted Tehran so badly, we would
have been there by now. There have been MANY opportunities
(excuses) that could have been used before now. We had
8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush 41 and almost 8 years of
Bush 43. If 'neocons' were so hell bent on taking Tehran
it would have been done already.


[edit on 3/20/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Look speaking as a Persian, there is no way that Iran would possibly be able to defeat the US in a war, occupation im sure is not something that the US is even considering since it would require a draft goodluck trying to get that one through (unless a few convienent terrorist attacks were to take place on our soil.

There is a quote by a member on the boards that goes something like this, "nuclear weapons are not a right given to those with the means to aquire them but rather to those with the abilty to handle having them"

Iran right now is a backwards governed country who would like to if anything use worldwide emp's to knock everything back to the dark ages which is were its at now.

I would love to see America knock out Irans government and nuclear facilities. The people of Iran, Persians are much more civilized and pro-western idealogies than perhaps any other country in the region.

But like America the people are a victim of their government, really makes you think about the ENTIRE POWER STRUCTURE IN THE WORLD AND IF ITS NOT ALL CONNECTED.

Im going to work now.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Thanks for the reply Benevolent Tyrant great info



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   
The US would not invade Iran for certain, but it would attack Iran however, huge difference. There will be no occupation or anything simular planned for Iran. It will be nothing more or less than an all out strike on its military and nuclear assets with the sole purpose of destroying them.

And that my friends, is what the USA does best. Massive air strikes until Irans ability to wage an offensive attack of any nature is nil. Iran would have 0% chance of winning that kind of attack.

I would expect 1-3 months of airstrikes and Irans "bite" would be totally inert. Actaully, Irans air deffenses would be destroyed in a matter of a few days, but it would take many weeks to be certain everything else was acounted for and destroyed.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx

Originally posted by JoeTex
man i'm sick of all this crap, if you middle east people don't get in line we gonna have to send 20 drunk texans over there to straighten y'all out..


and if you americans dont behave we muslims will send you back micheal jackson whos currently in bahrain in the middle east.

[edit on 18-3-2006 by iqonx]



he came back a week ago or so. please... i beg of you please take him back. and make him put his burka on again



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:35 PM
link   

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



Political analysts believe that Americans are much frightened of being defeated in another war and its consequent loss of prestige, and thus, they try to win Iran's nuclear case through ways other than war.

Speaking to FNA, political expert Mohammad Reza Rahim Nezhad stated that the United States does not view military measures as the best or the only option for wining Iran's nuclear case.

He added that Americans hope to do so through ways other than war.

The university professor stressed that Americans are much afraid of being defeated in a war which can cost their prestige, adding, "therefore, they may not resort to military option so far as they are not assured of a guaranteed victory."

Reminding that the United States has sustained billions of Dollars of costs and hundreds of casualties to remain in Iraq, he stressed, "such influential and determining parameters make Bush refrain from any kind of withdrawal from Iraq and, meantime, stick to the issue of Iran and refrain from removing pressures from the Islamic Republic."

"As a matter of fact, no matter US president is a democrat or republican, he can not remove pressures from Iran or withdraw from Iraq after such an astonishingly heavy price that his country has paid," he stated.

www.farsnews.com...


Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 18/3/2006 by Mirthful Me]


All I'm gonna say is two words...seal team

edit: sorry one liner and I've been warned about this sooo....

that makes two lines


[edit on 20/3/06 by OneGodJesus]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
I hate to break it too all the Islamo-fascists out there but we haven't lost in Iraq quite yet. We've made some bad decisions but Bush still has about two years to get things back on track. And even if things get worse I still highly doubt we'd pull out.

And I have to ask this question. Is what you call happening in Iraq victory. The country has been reduced over the past quarter century from a modern and relatively properous nation to an obsolute hellhole. What ever you want to call it the same thing is going to happen to Iran if they don't wise up.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 11:16 PM
link   
It appears we are losing the war in Iraq. Do we want war with Iran too? I doubt even Bush and Cheney would want it (fingers crossed).

[edit on 20-3-2006 by rizla]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by scarecrow19d


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.


you know what ? i think France should'nt have supported that british colony with millions and millions in the late 18th century and send troops and instructors and Lafayette....... this basically would have made everything unhappened

do i make sense ?

this whole thing sounds like two kids fighting over whose father's stronger and better

the US doesn't fear defeat in Iran for the simple and very good reason that they won't go in there , for a whole bunch of reasons .

But i'm sure they will give Israel a hand for a few bomb raids just like what happened in the 80´s with the Iraqi nuclear installations

Oh yes btw. Israel Iraq Iran can be thankful to France for their help building these . Israel got the plans for their bomb from de Gaulle . Technology has been provided to Iraq and Iran by numerous western countries at a time when it was politically clever , times change of course



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hvitserk


the US doesn't fear defeat in Iran for the simple and very good reason that they won't go in there , for a whole bunch of reasons .

But i'm sure they will give Israel a hand for a few bomb raids just like what happened in the 80´s with the Iraqi nuclear installations

Oh yes btw. Israel Iraq Iran can be thankful to France for their help building these . Israel got the plans for their bomb from de Gaulle . Technology has been provided to Iraq and Iran by numerous western countries at a time when it was politically clever , times change of course


You aren't totally right here. The Iranian Atomic program is based on stolen nuclear technology by the spy Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

en.wikipedia.org...

I am sure the western world will attack Iran in the near future if it doesn't stop its activities for the very simple reason that we won't be nuked ourselves.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
It appears we are losing the war in Iraq. Do we want war with Iran too? I doubt even Bush and Cheney would want it (fingers crossed).

[edit on 20-3-2006 by rizla]


Now the situation differs, the whole Western society is being treated by one single country.

Many leaders knew Sadam wasn't a real treat, and thus didn't support the war on Iraq. I suspect the oil interests were more import than the so-called 'chemical weapons'.

Ahmadinejad is another case, if we don't hit first, he will surely hit us, no doubt about that. You'll see that this campaign will include many countries that weren't involved in the war on Iraq. Think of France, Germany and maybe even Russia.

I wouldn't be surprised if it all starts earlier than we currently expect.

Furthermore, this is just the beginning of the third world war, with the western society on one side and an Eastern coalition on the other side.


[edit on 21-3-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Turning off the oil would be a bad thing for Iran. Iran’s economy absolutely depends on the oil transfer taking place. Iran can only afford ~0.78% of America’s military budget now. Turning off the oil would destroy their economy and, accordingly, their military budget. Not that it was much of a budget to begin with. Assuming that would be a 43% budget loss, which I think is a very conservative number, they would only be able to afford ~0.44% of America’s military budget.

America would take a temporary economic hit by the oil being cut off; however, America could recover. America would simply need to build more CIGS photovoltaic solar panel manufacturing plants. The only reason the solar panel technology is expensive is because it cannot be mass-produced due to low demand. If oil became difficult to attain then the demand for such things would increase dramatically. As the demand grows the product is produced in more massive quantities making them cheaper to produce. The government could then reduce the tax credit they give to people who use solar power so that there is still a mighty incentive but America gets more funding for the military. Not only would America be able to recover but they would be more independent and stronger than before and Iran would have proverbially murdered their own economy.

But my figures did not include possible black project budgets. Who can truly say what this budget funds? One possible black project budget is that for the development of the Lockheed X-22A antigravity fighter disc under King’s Peak. The Lockheed X-22A may have been seen in Operation Desert Storm where the disk floated alongside the American aircraft and then shot a bright beam out disintegrating everything it touched leaving nothing but a circular burn mark on the ground. The atmosphere gets thinner near the edge of space and affects the performance of jet aircraft but the Lockheed X-22A can effortlessly glide through that section of the atmosphere. Flying at this distance makes it undetectable with radar and invisible to the human eye. It would destroy the target at the very moment the target became aware of the threat. That technology was available to us nearly 15 years ago—what do we have now? If you think our military technology has been sitting still since that time then you would be sadly mistaken. Do you still wonder why they surrendered so quickly during Operation Desert Storm?

Most modern warfare is driven, and governed, by politics. America has not truly shown its full military capabilities because it places regulations upon itself when engaging in warfare. We certainly do not like to kill people. If there is reason to believe Iran will fire a nuclear weapon from a specific location then the warfare would no longer be driven by politics but driven by the survival of the fittest where America has no choice but to kill lots of people. Iran, nor America, would want to engage in such a war. But America is a country of humans that have the same self-preserving survival instincts of any animal or human upon this Earth and will fight back with all its might should we be forced into a corner. It seems those who are trying to call a “bluff” are forgetting that Americans are human too and that they are begging for their peoples’ blood to shed and we don’t want to do that. It is truly sad that people would choose for death to be brought upon their own people than to stop developing their war toys.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join