Russian Leader Calls For Urgent Delivery Of Anti-aircraft Missile Systems To Iran

Originally posted by Vanguard223
I love threads like this. They bring the irrational, frothing at the mouth, America haters out of the wood work. It's especially funny to hear people complain about how "violent" the U.S. is when it's the Europeans who started BOTH world wars. Anyone who thinks the U.S. is committing genocide in Iraq or Afghanistan, needs to look up that word. If we just wanted to kill civilians there would be B-52 raids day and night over population centers. THAT would be genocide. The few civilians that are dying over there are usually killed by IED's or suicide bombers, not U.S. forces. You people need to get a grip on reality.

Another thing, please stop touting Russian military equipment as being up to par with U.S. equipment. It's not. Not even close. Even the newest Russian crap rolling off the assembly doesn't stand up to Western, let alone U.S., standards. Anyone that thinks a few Russian SAMS are going to even slow down the U.S. Air Force, is smoking something. The U.S. is the best in the world at supressing enemy air defenses. All those Russian SAMS mean is there will be more dead Iranian radar operators. Bank on it.

Thank You!

Russia is putting out yesterdays best weapons today, while the USA already put out todays best weapons 20 years ago. It is not even close. USA tech is battle tested of course it was tested on Russian tech which got beaten to a pulp.

Even North Vietnam and and pre gulf war iraq with their heavily saturated air defenses could not stop american planes.


And yeah its pathetic to hear people talk about genocide when if that was the USA strategy it could easily be implemented, though it seems to be the strategy of our enemies.

Originally posted by Pellevoisin

Originally posted by deltaboy
O you that brave enough to kill couple of young ten year old boys and girls head on? Bravo for you.

Of course, I never said any such thing.

Since the US American government doesn't care about 10 year old boys and girls being killed in Iraq, Afghanistan or in its own minority population at home,

Do you live in America?

Or do you soak up that propaganda on a foreign news channel?

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

by souljah
With ALL these U.S. military presence in and around Persian Gulf, if I would be Iran, I would also want to buy every possible anti-aircraft weapon there is.

The sad part is, those are all targets for Iranian missiles. I don't pretend to know why you would put such a big part of your military on your enemies doorstep when you know they have missiles capable of hitting them. Unless they're cannon fodder to be used as a reason for a full scale invasion of the Middle East? The Energy War rages on!

More like those bases can be protected and allow for offensive strikes.

The USA unlike say russia or china or africa or any muslim middle east country does not use human waves. Cannon fodder is the target that the USA chooses.

Originally posted by YASKY
I think you need to go reread Russia's weapons, I assure you U.S. will not last 2 weeks against Russia, Iraq's SAMs were old delapitated 60's era SAM's, if Iran had 2000 S-400 the U.S. would'nt last unless they launch 2000 drones, in 1999 NATO was forced to fly no less than 15K feet above ground over Serbia because of the well kept 60's era SAMs,

[edit on 12-9-2007 by YASKY]

Is that why Russia lost the cold war and its empire dissolved.

GPS weapons are accurate at altitudes higher then 20,000 feet.

And why would we not last more then 2 weeks? Because we get caught with our pants down laughing our collective butts off because you tried to win a war with weapons that exist solely on paper or are only available in numbers you can count on your fingers and toes.

Wake up comrade.

More like those bases can be protected and allow for offensive strikes.

reply to post by dmxny


Pride goes before a fall. The way you talk reminds me of the rent a cop at work who always talks about his martial arts and ninja crap. Empires have come and gone throughout history. Underestimating your enemies is dangerous.

reply to post by HimWhoHathAnEar



We're not underestimating our enemies. We're just acknowledging the FACT that U.S. equipment and training far surpasses that of any potential enemies. A fact that some people are blind to or in denial about. Some of you people need to get a grip on reality.

If you think we're underestimating anyone, reading my signature should set you straight.

Thought some of you might find this interesting:

Interesting that they claim it can see stealth technology.
Also interesting to note that they say the weapon will not be available for export before 2009...

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

More like those bases can be protected and allow for offensive strikes.

reply to post by dmxny

 

Pride goes before a fall. The way you talk reminds me of the rent a cop at work who always talks about his martial arts and ninja crap. Empires have come and gone throughout history. Underestimating your enemies is dangerous.

You are correct.

I do not think I underestimate them though. I believe that the USA would not be able to occupy Iran successfully. I do believe that as a military stand up force Iran is not a threat. Iran's power lies in its ability to fight a proxy war with terrorist organizations ot official forces.

Empires have come and gone. The USA's greatest liability is its greatest strength which is its people. It may dissolve through civil dissent sh. happens but it will be reborn.

If America wasn't so dominant in a traditional sense my opinion would be different, but you can not tell me Iran has a chance in head on collision.

reply to post by Vanguard223

We're not underestimating our enemies. We're just acknowledging the FACT that U.S. equipment and training far surpasses that of any potential enemies. A fact that some people are blind to or in denial about. Some of you people need to get a grip on reality.

I'm a bit confused, you refer to yourself as 'we', or do you speak for someone else here? One FACT does not negate all other FACTS. Like the fact that the chinese took down a satellite not long ago. Who's 'equipment' depends the most heavily on satellites? What counter measures do you suggest for SS-N-22 Sunburns or Chinese made bottom tethered mines?

As to your signature, I believe Jefferson was refering to vigilance of ones Government, the same one that's put our boys in the crosshairs of Shahab missiles armed with chemicals.

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar

I'm a bit confused, you refer to yourself as 'we', or do you speak for someone else here? One FACT does not negate all other FACTS. Like the fact that the chinese took down a satellite not long ago. Who's 'equipment' depends the most heavily on satellites? What counter measures do you suggest for SS-N-22 Sunburns or Chinese made bottom tethered mines?

As to your signature, I believe Jefferson was refering to vigilance of ones Government, the same one that's put our boys in the crosshairs of Shahab missiles armed with chemicals.

Yes, you are a bit confused. I was refering to others in this thread who are echoing my sentiment on the issue. Should I make it a little more clear for you? The U.S. would steamroll Iran if came down to it. You mention Sunburns, mines and chemical armed rockets? Laughable. The Iranian military would be hit hard on the first day and kept on their heels for the remainder of any conflict. Do you really think the Iranians would be able to keep an aircraft in the air long enough to launch a single ASM attack, let alone sustained, coordinated attacks? Again, laughable.

Mines?! Mines are an area denial weapon. Not very effective against a well equiped navy with it's ships stationed in deep water.

We already know how effective chemical weapons are....not very. Besides, the use of chemical weapons would take the conflict to a whole new level. A level the Iranians don't want to escalate to against the U.S. Any use of chemical weapons by Iran would bring the conflict to an abrupt end for the Iranians. Chemical weapons are no no.

Oh, and I believe Jefferson was speaking both of internal and external vigilance. Do you think he meant we should be vigilent in one area and lax in others? I don't.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by Vanguard223]

reply to post by Vanguard223


While others may echo your sentiment on this issue, I believe they are still individuals and should have the right to speak for themselves. Unless of course they've assigned you the right to speak for them.

Mines are an area denial weapon. Deny ships access to the oil coming out of the Gulf and you destroy the US economy aka $10 gallon gas. Fight your war with no money! Like it or not, this is an Energy War.

You put alot of stock in Iran's 'restraint' when it comes to WMD. The leaders of the country are religious zealots who believe that the Mahdi or 12th Imam will return after an apocalyptic battle. I don't gain a whole lot confidence from that, maybe you do.

When it comes to viligance, how can our borders be basically wide open to any potential enemy while we've got half our Army on the other side of the planet. Someones priorities are all screwed up. That's why Jefferson said we needed to be vigilant, because government takes on a life of its own.