Iran proposes missile shield against U.S., Israel

Sorry got cutoff...as i was saying ...the reason we wont switch to alternate fuels now is the same reason we havent in the past, and the same reasons our cars have crappy mileage. The oil industry has its hand in politics and their votes count for more than ours.

And to west coast...yes, prior to our current war, Iraq was "dissarmed" in the way of having no armored vehicles, air power, or real ballistic explosive types. So no, they had no way to fight back against a military force, and so yes they resort to the same methods of any poor weak country being oppressed and occupied by a strong rich foe...with "terrorist" suicide attacks and guerrilla tactics, just like in vietnam, korea, japan, and just like we would most likely do if it happened here.

Mr. Pexx, please do not distort the facts. Furthermore, the swift victory over Iraqs military was not predicted by Russian Generals.

as to distorting the facts, i stated the facts. If iraq had a military, with conventional weapons and vehicles no one i know (and i was in the military at the time and had many friends in the forward area) ever saw them. They were all distroyed in the first iraq war, and iraq has been kept destitute and on a short chain since then.
As to russia....cast off your indoctrination, read some history, and realize the USSR was never a feasable threat to the United states. Our economy dwarfed theirs, and their military spending never even approached HALF of ours, even during the height of the cold war. In fact, im sure our own propaganda about the "great red threat" did WAY more damage than the soviets themselves truly ever did. the soviets actually rarely even bothered to support other communistic or socialistic governments against us, as we methodically campaigned against almost EVERY single country that tried to enact any form of communistic or socialistic reform (being that americans cant even tell the difference between communism and socialism).
Russia was a big red hype back then to force americans to vote certain ways, and to use against dissenters, and to take contrary politicians out of power. The same way iraq is now...our country uses Scare tactics in order to get the people behind the current governments agenda, just like bird flu is being used to get us to support the vaccine industry, like "support our troops" is used to get us to support their policy.
During the red scare, many innocent americans were deprived of jobs, had their lives destroyed, were thrown in prison, and the majority of them had never even heard russion spoken in person.
Go pander your false blind patriotism, and alien fear mongering elsewhere, for propaganda is but a tool to convince the stupid and blind. i once read an article talking about behavior patterns of people with higher iq's and one of the things it listed stood out to me, and that is their lack of patience for propaganda. Never buy anything you see or hear, do research and question everything.

Originally posted by West Coast
Mikeyboyed already answered that question. The US is not overextended in regards to the Marines, airforce, and Navy.

Most of the poor guys getting their faces blown off by IEDs in Iraq are mostly National Guardsman and regular Army. I have no idea where the Marines, Air Force, and Navy are. They're probabably scattered all over the World engaged in other illegal actions, and of little use to anyone in the Middle East.

DISARMED??? As in no weapons?!

If you seriously think that Iraq has been disarmed, you are ignorant (I call it like I see it) and grossly mistaken.

The Iraqis have $50 Ak's, no RPGS, tanks, or planes to speak of. But for some reason, we're still getting our butts kicked with all our high tech gear by what amounts to caveman with sticks and rocks.. BTW, you're name calling says a lot about your intelligence level.

Conventional warfare is where America really excels 'second to none,' please do not speak of things you have no clue about.

You mean like Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran in the 80's, Vitenam in the 60's and Korea in the 50's? I think we got chased out in all the abovementioned instances. Is that what you meant by we excel at conventional warfare?

Yes, let us talk about the logistical nightmare that would be for Russia, and China whose militarys are both made primarily up of obsolete soviet union era weaponry...

We got our supply lines cut off in Iraq during the initial invasion, so tell me some more about our superior logistics.. We have a few new toys, but most of them are junk. Helicopters with radios that don't work unless you fly at a certain angle, tanks that sink, unarmored personnel carriers, etc.. I also read an article stating that most of our own airplanes are old and decrepit too, and need to be replaced, just like Russians.

Please, you have already managed to show us so much ignorance, there is no need to show us your ignorance on history.

I don't need to show my ignorance, you're doing well enough for the both of us.

Originally posted by West Coast
Define military might.

I'd define it as the ability to quickly and decisively end a battle due to superior weapons and troops. We have very little of either apparently.

I get the distinct impression that you would love nothing more than the US to just simply evaporate into thin air.

No, I'd prefer we withdrew our troops, and put the money being wasted over there to better uses like helping Americans in need of food, shelter, and medical care.

However, you to a degree, are correct. The US is not considered a superpower, but a hyperpower.

We're a has-been. We're a civilization in decline just like Rome. You do remember the Roman Empire don't you?

the US has nearly $14T in GNP, no other nation compares, or even comes close to that.

We're a country on the verge of bankruptcy, that keeps printing out fiat currency nobody seems to want anymore..

Americas technological prowess over much of the world is considered a strategic (arms) advantage.

I call it smoke and mirrors myself..

Nevermind the successful campaignes in toppling the Iraqi and Afghanistan governments...

You call Iraq and Afghanistan successes? I guess you also believed Bush's "Mission Accomplished" rhetoric too.. We still haven't gained full contro; of either country, and probably won't for a very long time.

The thing about WWII, was the American people were willing participants who supported the "cause."

I guess we Americans have had our fill of BS, and would now like to get on with the rest of our lives.

do you even understand what carpet bombing is?

Yeah, it's what you do when you s_ck at ground fighting.

[edit on 4/8/08 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
So you think were not a superpower. I have to say many many experts American and non American would have to highly disagree with you on that.

Let them disagree, it's all conjecture anyhow..

Should I mention our Super Carriers that travel with our numerous Carrier battle groups. No one on earth has anything remotley like it.

Should I mention our Bomber forces with numerous B-2 stealth bombers that are way beyond anything out there. Plus our large strategic bomber forces of B-1s and B-52s.

Should I mention we have over 7000 modern combat tanks. The Russians may have 20,000 but most of their tanks are anywhere from 50 to 40 years old. One M-1 company could take on a Brigade of T-55s and T-62s.

Please don't. They're all overpriced pieces of junk that will fall apart when their warranties expires. Why do we still use Vietnam era equipment if this stuff is really worth it's price tag?

How do you think we beat the Germans and Japanese? It wasn't surgical strikes. It was carpet bombing and atomic bombs. Real carpet bombing where no target is off limits. Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki.

We had lots of help, soldiers that believed in what they were fighting for, and a supportive country.

We dont do that anymore. We havn't done it since WW2 and we havn't had a total victory since WW2 either. Hmm.

So what was Shock & Awe at the beginning of the war? It was the new and improved version of carpet bombing using million dollar cruise missiles.

reply to post by MikeboydUS


nonsense, most German battalions were fighting on Soviet front 85% of Germans brigades where in the Eastern Europe ! all US do is mostly supply weapons to Russia and UK, Nazis' tanks were demolishing 3-4 American and British tanks in North Africa, US may be did a lot against Japese, but Soviets did the most then everyone when fighting against the Nazis. They also lost most of the people.


[edit on 8-4-2008 by Odessit]

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
You can't really compare Iraq with Iran. Iraq's military was defeated swiftly. Their government collapsed just as fast.

Yes that is right.

According to the U.S. leaders they were supposed to be some kind of major world threat at the time right?

Nothing really to brag about it turns out.

- Lee

reply to post by pexx421


They had conventional weapons. I saw the burning and charred hulls of vehicles when we crossed the border in 2003. Third Infantry and 1st Marine Expeditinary did a fine job, along with the US Air Force of wiping out Iraqs ground forces.

If the USSR was never a threat due to our massive budget, look at this way our Military Budget now dwarfs the entire Earth's. Our economy as well still dwarfs most of the Earth. In other words the rest of the planet isn't much of threat. I mean if you use your USSR reasoning.

Not if it really means anything but my IQ is high enough to be in MENSA and I do question everything.

[edit on 9/4/08 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by LLoyd45


Most of our troops are actually not deployed anywhere but are constantly training or doing routine work.

The Insurgents have lots of RPGs, AK-47s, AK-74s, RPKs, PKMs, Mortars, Mines, SA-7s, Grenades, Rockets, Vehicle Bombs, Technicals, Suicide Bombers, 12.7mm and 14.5mm heavy machine guns, and Sniper rifles both in 7.62mm and 12.7mm. They arn't kicking any American butts, I have never seen or heard of an American retreat or defeat at the hands of insurgents. Not once. We engage them when we can and they usually run their butts off, often vanishing among the locals.

Since they use guerilla tactics and asymetrical warfighting it is difficult to track them down and destroy them. The Tactics and Strategies required to be succesful against them would be what the British did in the Boer war and what we did in the Phillipines. As of this time, American citizens, politicians and even soldiers are not ready to stomach the atrocities that would be required to wipe out the insurgency.

Conventional War is on the battlefields and no one comes close to us. Guerilla Warfare is a whole other matter. Since we are much more Humane we dont fare so well against guerillas who hide among the people.

Tanks that sink? Sink into what? I never had my Abrams sink into anything in Iraq.

Vietnam era equipment. hmm. Well your right about B-52s, C-130s, and M-109s. M113s are old too. CH-47s are old. M-16s are old.

M-1s, Humvees, M-2s, AH-64s, UH-60s, OH-58s, F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s, F-117s, B-1s, B-2s, M270s, are all younger than Vietnam. Those Nimitz SuperCarriers all 9 and soon to be ten of them are younger than Vietnam.

Shock and Awe was psychological. Was Baghdad flattened? Heck no. We hit some ministry and other government buildings. Thats not carpet bombing. If you want a modern "Carpet" bomb look to the Fuel Air explosive like the Daisycutter, which we used and actual carpet bombing on the Taliban in Afghanistan far away from any villages or civilians.



[edit on 9/4/08 by MikeboydUS]

reply to post by Odessit


I dont disagree with you about the Soviet contributions to WW2. When I mean how did "we" win WW2, I mean allied forces which includes Russia which absorbed the majority of the Nazi War Machine. The Russian patriots who lost their lives in the Great Patriotic War should be remembered for the sacrifices fighting against the Third Reich and paving the road to victory for the allies.

Come on now lloyd you are negatively exagerrating alot of things about America.

I believe if the world launched an attack on the American mainland tomorrow, we would be able to hold off the entire thing. Anything that lands would not make it more than a few miles inland. The oceans would become the watery graves of millions.

We are definetly at minimum a super power. I just do not believe we are invulnerable from strategic miscalculations. for instance, if we began launching air strieks on Iran tomorrow, they could very well have enough missles to cripple the petro-distribution infrastructure on the other side of the gulf from them.

That sudden loss in the largest exporting region on Earth will severely weaken EVERYONE, but the US the most. Again, noone is going to be lending America oil to continue that war since they too now have to fill in the gap from the largest oil producers on the Earth as a result of such a war.

If Iran launched 15,000 missles at a target only a few minutes away, there is just not any kind of way in heck that we are going to stop the incoming onslaught.

All the miltiary might we have in the world would dissapear overnight. Not much to fuel them with. Yes we have alternative suppliers of petro, but they will not only be supplying less to us in order to supply their neighbors, we will be required to use what little we get to simply run the mainland.

In any case, I do not believe Iran could have a viable missle shield up and runnign within the decade as stated earlier, even with Chinese and Russian assistance. The primary purpose of the missle shield is to stop ICBM's laden with nuke warheads. They are large, and probably not more than a handful would be launched at a time.

If 6000 conventional scud and cruise missles were launched at europe, at least a good 20% are getting through.

PEOPLE, THE POINT IS IRAN IS NOT PLANNING TO LAUNCH ANY MISSLES AT EUROPE, SAUDI ARABIA OR AMERICA

The nation of Iran, as a sovereign state, is doign very well economically and probably as far as standard of living goes. It is an industrious nation, and has alot of successful mutual trade going on with India, Central Asia, Asia Pacific, and African nations. Contrary to what many people unfortunately believe, their standard of living is on par with our own. Granted they probably do not have as many Hummers, 50"+ plasma TV's, and yachts per capita as America, but they have alot.

they got their mp3 players, they got their tv, they got cinemas, they got alot of cars and transportation, they have plenty of food, they have decent healthcare. Not only is there not really a need for a coup, but they are not really interested in starting a war, which they have not done in the last century or in the present. They have spoken quite defensively over the past five years or so because the two biggest border nations with them have been blasted and occupied by the very enemy who is now talking about "third time's the charm".

I understand their angst, but it will soon be over. Once the administration with a bit of manners takes over next year, we can actually sit down and talk to people without demanding something as a pre-condition. Strangely enough, they will be found to be quite more cooperative this way.

PS, Americas military is uber powerful, but not without fuel. A powerful empire does not make a smart empire. an empire that feels it is unchallengable by force can find itself making an empire ending decision.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
reply to post by MikeboydUS

 

Well if we're not overextended, why all the hesistancy to send in more troops? We can't even control a basically disarmed Iraq, how in the World would we take on Iran who has a real army, a real air force, and real soldiers?That's assuming Russsia or China doesn't intercede on their behalf.

Maybe that's what Russia and China actually want us to do. Overextend ourself like Hitler did, then stomp us into the sand.


[edit on 4/7/08 by LLoyd45]

That has more to do with financial and political reasons here back at home. Adding a million troops to the mix wont make a difference. The issue here lies in strategy.

Lets not forget we went into this war practically un-prepared. Up until a year or two ago, many troops didnt even have the body armor necessary. Despite what people believe crime has also dropped.

If we were overextended it would be very easy to join the military, and believe me ive recently been through that patch of woods and can say its not easy to join ANY BRANCH.

While thats not whats being debated, not only do we have a surplus here in the homeland, but plenty in other countries that are not currently engaged.

[edit on 4/9/2008 by AndrewTB]

Hey Andrew, do I know you? Are you the one that was gonna hook me up with a fade after we met in the recruiters office? I am just saying your in Tampa, Fl and it sounds like you either enlisted, or tried.

I have been rejected due to my past criminal record.


(my apologies for going off topic)

Originally posted by DYepes
Come on now lloyd you are negatively exagerrating alot of things about America.

Which part of my post do you consider to be a negative exageration Dyepes?

I believe if the world launched an attack on the American mainland tomorrow, we would be able to hold off the entire thing. Anything that lands would not make it more than a few miles inland. The oceans would become the watery graves of millions.

Now this is an exageration.. Do you honestly believe the United States could withstand an attack on it by all the World's armies? This is arrogance at it's best!

We are definetly at minimum a super power. I just do not believe we are invulnerable from strategic miscalculations. for instance, if we began launching air strieks on Iran tomorrow, they could very well have enough missles to cripple the petro-distribution infrastructure on the other side of the gulf from them.

A super power in name only. All our ships, planes, tanks etc. are all cancelled out by one fanatic with a nuclear warhead who is willing to use it. Have you ever wondered why we haven't tried to invade North Korea? they're a small, insignificant country like Iran, but we prefer to pursue diplomatic channels with them rather than an actual attack.

PS, Americas military is uber powerful, but not without fuel. A powerful empire does not make a smart empire. an empire that feels it is unchallengable by force can find itself making an empire ending decision.

I agree with you on this point. Without oil the war machine would come to a grinding halt.

Originally posted by LLoyd45
Now this is an exageration.. Do you honestly believe the United States could withstand an attack on it by all the World's armies? This is arrogance at it's best!

Yeah, we could do just as well as the insurgents are doing in Iraq. If those armies came here with the aim of occupying and not just destroying us, we'd do pretty well.

A super power in name only. All our ships, planes, tanks etc. are all cancelled out by one fanatic with a nuclear warhead who is willing to use it. Have you ever wondered why we haven't tried to invade North Korea? they're a small, insignificant country like Iran, but we prefer to pursue diplomatic channels with them rather than an actual attack.

It must suck to be so ashamed of your own country, that you feel compelled to talk it down at any cost, and throw all logic out the window. One fanatic with a nuclear warhead would NOT cancel out our military, we could flatten NK before they knew what hit them. NK is not a threat to any resources our country currently needs, therefore there is no reason to attack.

I agree with you on this point. Without oil the war machine would come to a grinding halt.

Funny. The only thing you agree on is something you can use to try and talk the miltary down again. In YOUR mind, all you say must be true. Fine, but in the real world, you'll be quite disappointed when you realize our military power is still second to none, and the ONLY counry that even remotely balances ours, is Russia, and only due to their nuclear arsenal, which we have as well. MAD is still a factor when you start spouting off about Russia or China (which doesn't have anywhere near the numbers of nukes Russia or the US has) standing up to the US.

Originally posted by 27jd
Yeah, we could do just as well as the insurgents are doing in Iraq. If those armies came here with the aim of occupying and not just destroying us, we'd do pretty well.

You're obviously delusional if you truly believe we could fight off the entire World all at the same time. Please, if you want to be taken seriously, think about what you're saying before you post it.

It must suck to be so ashamed of your own country, that you feel compelled to talk it down at any cost, and throw all logic out the window. One fanatic with a nuclear warhead would NOT cancel out our military, we could flatten NK before they knew what hit them. NK is not a threat to any resources our country currently needs, therefore there is no reason to attack.

I'm not ashamed of my country, and your Bush-like rhetoric is rather boring. We haven't attacked North Korea simply because they're now nuclear and able to retaliate in a most horrific way. Nobody wants a nuclear war because we all lose then.

Funny. The only thing you agree on is something you can use to try and talk the miltary down again.]/quote]I agree with this part of his post because it's factual, it's as simple as that.

In YOUR mind, all you say must be true. Fine, but in the real world, you'll be quite disappointed when you realize our military power is still second to none, and the ONLY counry that even remotely balances ours, is Russia, and only due to their nuclear arsenal, which we have as well. MAD is still a factor when you start spouting off about Russia or China (which doesn't have anywhere near the numbers of nukes Russia or the US has) standing up to the US.

You're point is? MAD is such a great strategy! I lose, so I'll take everyone else with me.

reply to post by LLoyd45


Bush-like rhetoric?

Yeah, that tells me exactly what kind of person you are. Jump to all kinds of conclusions and throw a little hissy fit when people don't agree with you. I detest this administration, but since I disagree with your LAUGHABLE assessment of our military capabilities, I am on his side. I'm either with you, or against you, huh? I've heard that somewhere...

Anyway, I couldn't care less how wrong you are. Carry on.

These replies are pretty funny! Yes the united states spends more annually on defense then all the world combined, and we are currently BORROWING all that money and more from ....WHO? oh yeah! our good friends china and the wahabi's!!! GREAT idea there.
As to us "surviving" an attack by the rest of the world, or indeed "surviving" an attack upon iran....well i guess that depends what you mean by surviving. I think that even without either of those two things we are facing "great" depression status again through the next decade, and yes, while it is indeed "surviving" as per many people will live....well, i also predict many will not. Im thinking massive food shortages, crime and rioting, crackdowns on civil rights, use of martial law....true, it can be termed survival, but then there are people still "surviving" in palestine, somalia, rawanda, etc.
Ah, and then theres the traditional "if you dont like it you can leave" person chiming in with their "must be sad to hate your country so much".... God love em. I guess it is sad....only if you consider your "government" to be your country, rather than the grasping greedy corporate minded sellouts we have in power. In a TRUE representative type government which some OTHER countries actually have, there are two things you will notice.
1) people actually KNOW what public opinion is, because it is polled and published, and
2) government policy is closely aligned with public opinion.

Neither is the case here in our great "democratic" establishment. There are very few public opinion monitors such as the pipa report and perhaps the zogby poll, and cursory perusal of either shows you that 1) the public is generally in support of the exact opposite of what our government actually does, and is usually in opposition to opinions stated as fact in the news, and 2) many of our publics beliefs are MASSIVELY skewed by media disinformation. It was appalling last year how many people believed 1) the world trade center was bombed 2) iraq was responsible, 3)that each vote of theirs is a direct vote for their candidate, etc.
One of the surest signs of fascism is that such terms as "Anti-american" or "anti-soviet" even exist, for the demonstrate an obvious attempt to censure ideas as "against the common good" and also attempt to limit our freedom of speech. $.02

misstype above...i meant only if you consider your "government", that grasping greedy group that panders to the corporate will and the almighty dollar throwing the common interest by the wayside in closed door congressional sessions and massive kickback schemes to be our country, rather than Us, the civilians that get shafted with each new bit of legislation that comes through. ie, the medicare expansion of 03, the funding of the war which most americans oppose, the soon to be passed codex alimentarius commisson, mandatory childhood psyche screening, vaccine protocols, and all the massive subsidies to bail out big bankers filing bankruptcy who are in no risk of losing their homes while no money at all is given to bail out the people actually losing their homes. Oh, and all the katrina money that went to the reconstruction....the wasted and unnacounted billions given haliburton....it goes on.