A few thoughts for those who think engaging Iran militarily would be disastrous for America, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 24-9-2007 @ 02:27 AM by Odessit
Do you even know WHO is Vladimir Zhirinovsky, he is like Rosie only in RUssia. this guy is a joke. The gov won't take him seriously.

look at him
www.youtube.com...
He is the older one.
www.youtube.com...

and in this one he is in the military uniform.
are you kidding me?
I share the Slavic Mentality let's say.


Originally posted by Mdv2
Originally posted by Odessit
I can bet you 100% that Russian gov will never consider selling S-400 to a country such as Iran. I know their mentality pretty well because I am from around there.


Obviously, the Russian government doesn't share your 'mentality':

Vice Chairman of Russia's State Duma Vladimir Zhirinovsky has urged the fast delivery of the magnificent S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems to Iran.

Speaking at the open session of Russia's State Duma on Wednesday, Zhirinovsky stated, "S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems should be delivered as soon as possible to enable Iran to defend its airspace."

The S-400 is a new generation of anti-aircraft/anti-missile weapon system developed by the Russian Almaz Central Design Bureau.

The S-400 is capable of detecting and destroying targets out to a range of 400km (250 miles), such as aircrafts, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, including those with a range of 3,500 km.

Sources confirm that the S-400 is capable of detecting and destroying aircraft made with low observable materials such as the American 'stealth' aircraft.

Russia provided Belarus with the same system a short time ago.

The S-400 is so sophisticated and powerful that it can change the military balance of a region since it is capable of hitting targets previously considered untouchable.

The anti missile system has the incredible speed of 4.8 km per second which is faster than a bullet leaving a Kalashnikov machine gun.
Source [/q



reply posted on 24-9-2007 @ 06:42 AM by Regensturm
Originally posted by fweshcawfee
Apparently there are a few people around who still don't quite comprehend the true strength and might of the United States of America.




Your mistake, and the mistake of all empires that have fallen, is to underestimate your weakness and overestimate your strength.



The US Militarily, is much stronger than Iran, but if the US attacks Iran, Iran will be hurt, and will strike back to hurt it's attacker.


US military bases in The Middle East? Consider itself a target for Iranian counter-attack. Missile barrages, perhaps a jet fighter strike even.


Oil exports blockaded, naval battles, perhaps lose a few US Navy ships.


Lebanon. Hezbollah, who are Shia, will unite with Iran, their Shia brethren, and may well strike Israel, perhaps also entering Syria to get into Iraq to support their Shia brethren against US forces, bringing technological and military know-how.


And, indeed, what about Iraq?


Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani of Iraq, the most senior influential Shia cleric in Iraq, who is considered a moderate, who encouraged women to vote in the Iraqi elections, who encouraged the Shias of Iraq to not hinder US forces when they invaded in 2003, has said that if the US attacks Israel, it will be the duty of every Shia Iraqi to kill and American soldier in Iraq.


Imagine that, and how that will impact the Iraqi insurgency.


Every Shia Iraqi, tasked by religious decree to kill US soldiers.


Akin to The Mahdi Army, increased millions fold.



Following a US attack on Iran, Iranians may well be tasked with forming cells striking the US and it's interests all over the world in response.


Americans attacked Iran, Iranians attack America, fair play, they will say.


Iran is not a threat now to the US. But if attacked, they will do their hardest to make sure they will be, to make sure the US regrets every second the decision it took to hit and hurt Iran.


And Iranians, perhaps having lost loved ones and fiercely proud of their nation, will do their damnest to make the US, their attacker, will hurt as America hurt them.


Still confident it's still going to be a pain-free walk in the park?


And the more nations America attacks, the more energy consuming it will find it. And it will weary. It will tire. Be it in the near future, or after my lifespan, it's empire will fall.


It's how it's empire falls will be interesting, be it through the rising and victory of a new empire, or from the American Empire's sheer exhaustion.


reply posted on 24-9-2007 @ 07:16 AM by Redge777
reply to post by neformore




Iran also has larger population, more cultural identity, and follow their leaders out of respect not fear. At least the Islams do, seculer part I don't know.

And don't think when we bomb them they will just hunker down, they might just send 20 or 30 divisions into southern Iraq to cut off our supply routes.

just look at the numbers

Iraq
Available Military Manpower: 5,870,640
Total Military Personnel: 77,000
Active Frontline Personnel: 35,000

Iran
Available Military Manpower: 18,319,545
Total Military Personnel: 11,770,000
Active Frontline Personnel: 420,000

www.globalfirepower.com...


[edit on 24-9-2007 by Redge777]


reply posted on 24-9-2007 @ 08:11 AM by Kaliayev
Sure, America could win a conventional war against Iran. I dont think anyone would deny that. But they sure as hell would lose the occupation.

Iran is mountainous countryside, interspersed with large urban areas. The two best terrains for fighting a guerrilla war. It has a population three times the size of Iraq, and little in the way of ethnic divides that would concentrate fighting on each other rather than US forces.

Iran is also well integrated into the world economic system. Any attack would have severe economic consequences. You ready for the $200 oil barrel? That's just what would happen in an invasion of Iran, never mind what happens should their proxies in the Saudi Arabian oil fields destroy a pipeline or two.

Iran's population is also advantageous to them. They had a massive birthrate in the 80s and 90s, but a much lower one now. So, lots of young men and women, but not many babies who need looking after. Roughly speaking, there is a fighting pool of 18 million men, potentially.

Their navy may throw a couple of surprises too. A US war game in 2002 designed to replicate the Iranian navy's capabilities ended in a humiliating defeat for the designated US forces. Iran will certainly cause trouble for oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz, too.

The will to fight is an interesting question. Iranian youths and liberal groups are mostly pro-American, but if Americans are bombing them and invading their country, patriotism will likely trump ideology. Generally speaking, bombing campaigns unify nations against their attacker, not divide them. Plus, this is Iran. Thousands of their troops charged across minefields while fighting Iraq, and while the religious fervour may have died down somewhat, they are still Shi'ites, who historically favour martyrdom over winning.

And let us consider the international situation. Iran would be the third Muslim country attacked by the USA in 7 years. You may as well dress your troops up in white tunics with red crosses. There will be fallout with Syria, with Muslim populations all over the Middle East. Shi'ite Iraq will go up in flames and...well, you can never discount Hezbollah being part of any retaliation.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



You heard of SOPA and PIPA.Now ACTA! Must read.
  Posted 19 days ago with 25 member flags
On why America is in denial and Ron Paul will not be elected
  Posted 17 days ago with 21 member flags
Study says racists and conservatives are dumb
  Posted 6 days ago with 16 member flags
Is ‘anti-Canadianism’ the new ‘anti-Americanism?’
  Posted 16 days ago with 8 member flags
Clarification on the definition of "natural born citizen"
  Posted 14 days ago with 7 member flags