Iran the most powerful (nation) , says Ahmadinejad

"You know I can go on with this. I guess the reason why a war hasn't been fought yet is because the great leaders of both the US and Iran are willing to discuss their common ground, working through diplomatic channels towards the ultimate goal of a peaceful existence that will ensure the prosperity of both sides."

Diplomatic channels? Pfft .. that never works with Extremists and Communists. They only use you and stab you in the back later. Can you say Obama? Same difference.

reply to post by biggie smalls
Ok I'm gonna start off by saying I'm a former marine I was a corporal in gulf co 2/25 a reserve unit in nj . I did 3 tours 1 in afgan and 2 in iraq . Our military forces are more than capeable of taking out irans . We took out iraqs military capabilities a long time ago the only reason we're still fighting is because our enemy has no face , it could be the kid your givin food to or the grandma in the rockin chair that pulls out an ak47 or runs up to your vehicle and sets of an IED . If the U.S. Was to move on iran they would put up a fight but in the short term would lose . If you look up ur history we took out iraq in desert storm in 72 hours . So it would only be a matter of time before iran threw white flags up . Those are my 2 cents

reply to post by Rapacity


This thread has become a joke, and place for the uninformed to spout off unsubstantiated biases.

How does this statement apply here? Well, an F-22 is only as good as its pilot, if the pilot is crap the F-22 is useless. Need I talk about "friendly fire" from USAF???

I assure you the USAF is a seasoned veteran when it comes to actual combat experience, the USAF is only one of many examples that could be listed out of the US armed forces in those same regards.

Additionally, the USAF boasts the most flight hours out of any air force on the planet, so, in this sense, the one with the most training more often then not will probably be more than adequate to take on a air force with lesser capabilities, with less training.

Superior weapons systems, along with combat experience mixed with a life time of training trumps all.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by West Coast]

Here's the deal with Iran. Ok, the official story is to PREVENT Iran from producing Nuclear weapons. A BIG BIG BIG difference from what we are doing in Iraq. In Iraq, our purpose was to overthrow Sadaam. We went into Iraq to overthrow the dictatorship of Sadaam. So we are there now holding it down and securing it's resources. For whatever purpose, that can be debated in other thread.

Now, Iran, we do not want to overthrow it. We want to simply take out it's military, defenses, and any chance of them from ever becoming nuclear capable. I mean, seriously ,who's to say they won't ever try to come into Iraq and take control of it once we pull out?

We are not going to go into Iran like we are in Iraq. This is going to be an airstrike campaign with some Cruise missiles launched in for good measure and possibly a nuke or two. I seriously doubt troops will ever even hit the ground in Iran. This is what a lot of folks are not understanding. Iraq and afghanistan are two totaly different campaigns than what we have planned for Iran. We'll just simply destroy their military and defenses. The control of the country will more than likely be left to the ones in charge now.

If we hit Iran, it would be over with in a week. Iran doesn't stand a chance. I promise you, this is nothing at all similiar to Iraq. They simply won't be invaded like Iraq, therefore, the American casualities will be very very minimal if any at all. Iranian causalities, now that is a different story.

War with Iran is not an Invasion based campaign. It's a Smart Bomb, Precision Guided Ordant's, Splash-and-Dash-Super Air Campaign.

Click here for more information.

Think about guys, 5 B-2 Bombers could take out Iran. I'm sure China's been helping them with their air defense system, but Iraq's got crippled with hours. It was China who installed and re-built Iraq's air defense network called 'Tiger Song'. It sang alright, a little too quickly as it was over and the Fat lady sung.

China has since learned and pursued information warfare tactics within the last 6 years. The Tiger Song air defense network was rendered useless with a Virus before the first bombing runs started.

Once you hit all the choke points with air precision strikes, the military is blind. I'm sure China would give Iran real-time feed back in terms of troop and ship placements (Thanks Bill Clinton for giving China their military satellite through the Laural Hughs Space Corp. out of NYC).

Still though, the US packs way too much of a punch for Iran. It would take less than a few weeks at the most.

The real challange will be against China over Taiwan.

United States of America

Iran

Flag

134,813,023
Available Military Manpower
35,860,582
109,305,756
Available Personnel Fit for Military Service
30,671,322
4,180,074
Average Yearly Available Military Manpower
1,670,100
18,169
Aircraft
954
29,920
Armored Vehicles
2,380
5,178
Artillery
4,594
35,324
Missile Defense Weapons
1,760
2,441
Infantry Support Weapons
12,500
1,866
Navy Ships
65
446
Merchant Marine Strength
131
10
Ports
3
8,322,000 bbl/day
Oil Production
4,150,000 bbl/day
20,800,000 bbl/day
Oil Consumption
1,630,000 bbl/day
21,760,000 bbl
Proven Oil Reserves
132,500,000 bbl
6,430,366 Km
Roadway Coverage
179,388 Km
226,612 Km
Railway Coverage
8,367 Km
41,009 Km
Waterway Coverage
850 Km
9,631,418 Sq Km
Total Land Area
1,648,000 Sq Km
14,947
Airports
331
153,100,000
Labor Force
28,700,000
$13,860,000,000,000
Purchasing Power
$852,600,000,000
$65,890,000,000
Gold Reserves
$69,200,000,000


My source: www.globalfirepower.com

I don't think the U.S. would have a hard time with Iran.

Originally posted by jkrog08
Fourth...........(Back to "neformore") Um..WHY DONT YOU DO SOME RESEARCH?????????????????????????

I'm going to be blunt with you now, I've forgotten more about WW2 History than you know. I don't need to do the research, because I've been doing it for the past 25 years.

Yes the British did bombings.............NOT TO THE EXTENT OF THE US...........AND WHEN THEY DID HIT R AND D FACILITIES IT WAS DUE TO U.S. INTELLIGENCE.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about here. The Poles and then the British cracked the german coding. Because of that breaking of codes the allies had a huge advantage over the Germans. The codes were cracked and information disseminated outwards from Bletchley Park

Strategic Bombing During World War 2

The Raf Dropped a total of 964,644 tons of bombs on Germany in WW2. The US figure was 623,418 tons.

Correct,Germany did INITALLY not want to invade Britain,they thought they would join them.........After it was apparent they would not Hitler ordered Britain to be invaded.How much longer do you think Britain would have lasted w/o U.S. interfearence?It wouldnt mater about Britains "Great" Navy

How many times do I have to type this before you actually understand it?
Operation Sealion - the invasion of Britain - was called off BEFORE the United States entered into the war in Europe. It was called off because the Luftwaffe could not provide decent air cover for the invasion, and any invasion fleet would have been destroyed by the Royal Navy without proper air cover. The Germans never drew up another plan to invade Britain.

v-1's and v-2's were destroying Britain,let alone the fact that a couple months more of bombings Britain would have to have surrendered.Lets also keep in mind that the US also was doing a "lend-lease" with Britain,thus enabling them to fight on against the NAZI's.

The V-1 Flying Bomb
was first deployed operationally on the 12th June 1944

The V2 Rocket become operational in September 1944

Neither of them were an issue in 1940.

The Battle of Britain took place between the Summer and Autumn of 1940

Pearl Harbour was attacked on the 7th December 1941, which - and do check the dates was over a year AFTER the Battle of Britain, and it was Pearl Harbour that brought the US into WW2.

Now, you can continue to display your ignorance on this subject if you want, but accepted historical record proves you wrong.

Like I have said previously, DENY IGNORANCE and go and learn some proper history.

Originally posted by West Coast
reply to post by Rapacity

 

I assure you the USAF is a seasoned veteran when it comes to actual combat experience, the USAF is only one of many examples that could be listed out of the US armed forces in those same regards.

Additionally, the USAF boasts the most flight hours out of any air force on the planet, so, in this sense, the one with the most training more often then not will probably be more than adequate to take on a air force with lesser capabilities, with less training.

Superior weapons systems, along with combat experience mixed with a life time of training trumps all.

[edit on 18-4-2008 by West Coast]

I cannot deny what you have written and the point you have made is the same as mine: the tool is only as good as its user; and experience begets knowledge and skill. So I agree with you point.

I do have a question though, the experience and practice you mentioned and compared to other nations, were they based on total man-hours or were they per capita? The greater the number of personnel, the greater the total number of man hours hence which obviously could mislead interpretation thus I would feel more comfortable conceding your point re experience and practice were I to know the comparisons were fare (i.e per capita or equated to an equivalent statistical base).

Edit: I'd like it to be known I mean no offense to the U.S military (or any other for that matter). The point I made was a little bit deeper than to simply say the "My Dad's bigger than your Dad." type argument; my point was in the implied principle.

[edit on 19/4/08 by Rapacity]

[edit on 19/4/08 by Rapacity]

reply to post by ufoorbhunter


Don't make me laugh, the only thing the US military is designed to do, is waste taxpayers' money.

Or to be more technical, put it in the pockets of military contractors' executes and congressmen.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by Manincloak]

Tough talk from weasels in America like Bush & Cons backed up with Nukes but no possibility of ground action. Take a look at the map... and as for the sea, it's completely dominated by Iranian heavily entrenched coastal defenses of silk worms with extended Russian upgrades. Any attacker by water would quickly be history, including the US Navy.

Actually, when was the last time America won a war? Or fought a war against a decent army, anywhere? Anybody that thinks we're winning in Iraq needs their head examined (or some experience being on the business end of an AK-47.

And exactly "why" would we want to attack Iran anyway?? What have they done to us, and, what threat are they to the US??? Seems like the only possible reason would be to feed our military/industrial alligators with our sons and daughters.

As for Israel, they can defend themselves without the help of US puppets, except for their fear of taking their lumps for it. Or any other of theirmany atrocities Already immensely unpopular everywhere except in the US where the press and government are controlled or strongly influenced by them; many countries in the world expect (and perhaps hope) that one day Israel will be a glassed over parking lot.

More of his delusions of adequacy.

Yeah, sure they are most powerful.

Hey adim-a-jihad: put down the crack pipe and step away from it, seriously.@@:

Originally posted by swami don
Tough talk from weasels in America like Bush & Cons backed up with Nukes but no possibility of ground action. Take a look at the map... and as for the sea, it's completely dominated by Iranian heavily entrenched coastal defenses of silk worms with extended Russian upgrades. Any attacker by water would quickly be history, including the US Navy.

Would that be the the same extended capability that Syria purchased from Russia.

You know, the one Israel defeated to make their bombing run on the Syria/N Korean reactor being built?

It is known that the US capabilities are better than Israel's, so what does that say???

i dont agree that iran is the worlds greatist, however i do think in time they could become some what very powerful, they develop all there own weapons etc and have developed some advance weapons for there time.
yet i still think there may be a up coming war with iran by us/israeli forces which i think will be total dissaster for the us led coalition iran aint a push over!

Originally posted by mrmonsoon

Originally posted by swami don
Tough talk from weasels in America like Bush & Cons backed up with Nukes but no possibility of ground action. Take a look at the map... and as for the sea, it's completely dominated by Iranian heavily entrenched coastal defenses of silk worms with extended Russian upgrades. Any attacker by water would quickly be history, including the US Navy.

Would that be the the same extended capability that Syria purchased from Russia.

You know, the one Israel defeated to make their bombing run on the Syria/N Korean reactor being built?

It is known that the US capabilities are better than Israel's, so what does that say???

You know, the one Israel defeated to make their bombing run on the Syria/N Korean reactor being built?

really, but there is no proof of it except western propaganda bs like WMd lies ,iraq

check my post here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

there was no proper airdefence coverage of the so-called reactor okay,if a leader were constructing a reactor ,it would be under proper defence coverage

[edit on 19-4-2008 by manson_322]

reply to post by mrmonsoon


No, actually those would be the entrenched coastal defenses of Iran, not Syria, as there is considerable difference between the two.

If you think digging them out will be easy then perhaps you'd like to go in on the first wave, or the second, or the third (if there is one by that time, which I doubt for the reasons expressed.

One Sac, you need to work on developing a full sac especially if you think the world wants to breathe nuke waste for years even if the joy of watching the US break themselves completely beating against another rock appeals to many.

A simple question here ...
who has been more guilty of egregious B.S. in the last few years?
Bush? ... or Ahmadinejad?

Does it really matter?!

We all know one is as bad as the other! Why do we need to argue at all about what either one of them say?

We waste too much time in criticizing/defending outrageous nonsense being spouted by so-called leaders and not enough time figuring out how to prevent the next nut case from getting into power.

Anyone who says we'd be defeated in an Iranian invasion has 0 military experience. There is a huge different between destroying a military and occupying a country (which is what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan) the mere fact that Iran is more established would make occupying much easier. If we had simply attacked Iraq and then pulled out immediately, it would have been viewed as a crushing defeat...do you remember how fast we got to Baghdad with brute force? We weren't even utilizing all of our forces either...to say Iran would beat us is completely laughable. We have not pulled off the gloves in Iraq, if we had we would have no regard for civilian causalities. Just because there are some reports of abuse by soldiers doesn't mean that all soldiers are doing inhumane things to non-enemy forces.

[edit on 19-4-2008 by yellowcard]

reply to post by alphabetaone


Because to be the most powerful nation you have to defeat the most powerful nation. Pretty simple, really

Originally posted by xxpigxx
Pretty simple, really

Not unlike many of the 'patriotic' posters in this thread. It's almost like watching US history unfold...starts off pretty good, a lot of thought went into the foundation and things are clearly explained. From there it deteriorates at an alarming rate with input by people who clearly have little or no understanding of the concept proposed in the beginning.

Has anyone noticed that not one single poster outside the US even remotely agrees with the views of the more rabid US posters here. Not friend nor foe, not ally nor enemy....why do you suppose that is?