Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

A look at a war in Iran and what would likely happen

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


That's lovely, but it is not sophisticated like the US. The US destroyed entire tank battalions in a week. Literally entire armor columns.

What exactly does Iran have, now 7 years later. We had incomplete technological superiority. Now we have complete technological superiority.

Even an f14 is outdated. Replaced by the hornet ans other aircraft. It's simply outdated. The very notion OF tanks is outdated. Tanks are not an asset in war anymore. They are just for shock and awe and close range artillery support. Replaced with Strykers, m113s and Bradleys. The A3 Abrams is basically for heavy armored artillery and such. Not for fighting other tanks.

reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


China has a massive debt on us. They would never do anything. They have over a few trillion waiting for us to repay. And until we pay, we're worth more at peace and alive than at war.

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 6-7-2010 by Gorman91]




posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


I am not saying America would not win I am saying that a 3 week estimate is ridiculous. Even with Iraq after the “mission accomplished” speech people realise it was only “mission accomplished” in bush’s head. There is a very real possibility that Iran may use a tactical nuclear weapon, and the F-14 may be obsolete but its still going to cause problems. A higher technical proficiency does not ensure success. Look at the number of troops being killed in Afghanistan by a bunch of low tech guys living in caves.

And this remember is only one point i made among many as to why your scenario is a misguided one.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


That's because there never will be peace in Afghanistan with the US there until there's no one left. For every American killed, there are many more terrorists killed. And indeed, it is going to stay like that until the populations is dead. It is sad, and it is unfortunate. That is why I don't really care for this war. This is just an analysis. And the US would destroy the Iranian army in 3 or less weeks.

And the reason planes are outdated is because they do not compete well with newer planes. Yea there planes would be a problem, but more of a slow down then a wall

And if you want to move onto another point, go on.


[edit on 6-7-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


And what about Iraq, i would say it was not until 2007/8 before anyone could say the coalition was “winning” there. And you are also oversimplifying the problem in Afghanistan.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


That is occupation, not frontal war. We are talking about Iran's army, not occupation.

This is also why I used the first gulf war as an example, seeing as half fool knows Iran is a cultural center and if occupied brings decades of war and problems.

If I wanted to talk about occupation I would use the 2003 occupation as an example. But I don't think we will Occupy.

There is no reason for occupation nor regime change. Iran is fine and dandy with the current regime, and did well under previous presidents. Mind you it is a fake democracy, but it is an idea of a republic. I am happy they love their republic and their nation. It will be good in 20 years when most of the people support getting rid of the theocracy.

And hey, if they keep it and get moderate religious Imams, all the more better. It means westernization and Islam are compatible.

But a war with Iran's army would last 3 or less weeks and be over fast.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


But you have based you assumption of 3 weeks or less on Iraq nothing more. The truth is neither of us will be proved right unless there is a war with iran.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


too true. But one thing remains constant in war. And that is that war times get less and less as you get more advanced. This is true for every conflict int he last half century.

Now a days wars cannot be said to have a beginning nor an end. It is a return to the Roman "everlasting war" that will never end until we leave the planet or destroy ourselves again.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
IRAN is a harbor to terrorists groups. We do not want a nuclear threat in the hands of terrorists. WE WILL BOMB IRAN, IT IS A MATTER OF TIME AND THAT IS A FACT. I have no doubt that we will engage in a war with iran in the next 3 months or less. Come on, you just don't park 3 subs ,3 aircraft carriers and a whole bunch of other ships off the coast of iran unless you mean to get into war with iran. COME ON HERE PEOPLE. Iran has been harboring and teaching terrorist groups. We have been slowly putting our chess peices into place, closer and closer, to WHAT COUNTRY is surrounded? IRAN is. If you think that this will not happen after seeing IRAQ, saddam go down, we are in afghansitan now and we are dropping off troops and weapons you must be completely ignorant of the fact. CHINA, will not get involved. RUSSIA will not get involved. Maybe, just MAYBE some other small country will come to the aid of IRAN.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
I don't agree with this analysis on pretty much every point, but I don't have time to get into it. I'll just say that Iran certainly does matter. It must. The U.S. and Israel have been after it since the 1950s and have not given up to this day. It matters to the Middle East as well. It's not small or militarily ill-equipped, and its location is key and pivotal for the pipelines to Asia. The Non-Aligned Nations and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization certainly have not been silent on the matter either.

The U.S. barely negotiated out a sanction vote on the UN Security Council, and now even some of the nations voting for the sanctions are speaking up. The coalition nations who got into it with the U.S. in Iraq will not go there again. Which way China and India go depends on just how disrupted their supplies are, and that includes supplies from not only Iran but through all the chokepoints that Iran geographically stands in the way of.

Only a few things, but pretty key ones. The last thing is that if the U.S. goes into yet a third nation in the Middle East/Central Asia, the rest are going to start getting mighty nervous as well. The U.S. has apparently lost its bases in the baby-stans, is having all sorts of trouble with a nuclearly armed Pakistan, and well we all know how Afghanistan and Iraq are going. One false move against Iran and all hell's going to break loose in those two nations as well.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 


Well considering this is a P5+1 issue, the rest of the world can say whatever they want, but pretty much only Iran and P5+1 are involved. And indeed all should speak for peace rather than war. That is the point of sanctions. To avoid war.

Israel does not matter in this too. I've said this too many times. Israel is an autonomous US colony and nothing more. It can have all the people it wants in congress. people still have a choice to listen or not, and because Israel is under US control, it is better to keep it that way.

Now the US HAS been after Iran since the 50s. But that's just business. You lose something, you're going to want it back. Luckily the reasons for this have changed. The US now wants Iran just to stop any funny business.

It's a three-war colonization. The facts are simple. China wants oil, the US does not want China invading for oil. So they cut a deal. The US controls the region militarily, and China gets most of the oil.

And as to other Muslim nations, there are none but Syria. Turkey would never go to war over the matter because they are not fully affected. Iran stands alone. that is WHY it is so aggressive. It is alone.

Do you recall how some of the strongest fighting of WW2 occurred in Germany itself? Same rule applies. Germany was surrounded. No allies left, all alone. It did some of the west war crimes and assaults at that time.

However this is not Germany. In WW2, Germany was 2 generations of technology ahead of the US. Today, Iran is 2 generations behind the US.

That's the main point. Same situation, different technology level.

Thus Iran is not a very important war, if it were to occur. It would end in 3 weeks.

Occupation would not be wise, as I've said. And considering there is no need for regime change, occupation serves no purpose.

If the US really cared,and really wanted Iran, it would have invaded in the 80s with the kidnapping issues as a reason why. They didn't Because not even fools invade and occupy cultural centers.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Occupation has always been the plan. Just look at a map of the pipelines. The path is clear. Oh, and if Russia had taken Afghanistan Iran would have been their next target too. It didn't happen to work out that way. Just business? Yes. This business that's still continuing.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by Gorman91
 


And what about Iraq, i would say it was not until 2007/8 before anyone could say the coalition was “winning” there. And you are also oversimplifying the problem in Afghanistan.



The problem there was that "Iran" was supplying & training the insurgents. Which needlessly extended the war in Iraq a full two years or more until 07/08. They had their no touch/no fly zone where the US couldn't and wouldn't touch them across the border. In a full scale war there wouldn't be any no go/no fly zones.

There would be no Safe Haven

[edit on 6-7-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Why does everyone think the Iranian army would be smashed in a matter of days ala Iraq.

First of all, Iran is not Iraq. It's Iran. It's got an "N" at the end, instead of a "Q". It's boundaries lie in a different geological location. The terrain is different. The people are different, both soldiers and citizens.

Like everyone else here, they are fully aware that the Iraqi army was shredded in short order. They're fully aware that the tactics employed by the Iraqis were obviously not the right ones.

However, they are also aware of how utterly ineffective the US military has been against its current, unconventional enemy. Sure, we devastated their "Army". But once that Army became "guys running in and out of caves with mortars and AKs", our conventional tactics became the ones that were ill-employed.

Iran has had 10 years of in-house training on US weapons and tactics, and how to defeat them. Not to mention, Iran's leadership has more than a few points on the Iraqis in the IQ department.

Nukes a thing of the past?


Why's everyone holding on to them then? Do you really think Israel would hesitate to launch their nukes at Tehran? Were a low yield device, say a suitcase bomb, detonated in Tel Aviv, Tehran would be a radio active parking lot within minutes.

Iran is not Iraq, and how well did Iraq actually go for us anyway. Sure, we wiped out their military in days. 7 years later, and Americans are still dieing in Iraq. It seems that destroying the military, only empowered the enemy.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Yes that is true for some militants but not all Iran only would have helped the Shia groups further to this they would not have been able to train all of them. That on its own did not increase the longevity of the “war” it was a contributing factor but not the only one. For example Iran did not train Al’qa’ida in Iraq or any of the other sunni groups.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Occupation has always been the plan. Just look at a map of the pipelines. The path is clear. Oh, and if Russia had taken Afghanistan Iran would have been their next target too. It didn't happen to work out that way. Just business? Yes. This business that's still continuing.



No, we had Iran back in the 70s. The Soviets tried to take Afghanistan to counter potential US involvement in the 80s fearing another attempt by the US to regain a foothold in the Gulf. The US were not sure of Soviet intentions so we supplied the Mujaheddin and supported Saddam. The rest as they say is history.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
I have but one question. Why do we and some others have off the coast of IRAN 3 subs, 3 aircraft carriers, ships and troops on the ground?



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Gotcha. Thanks. I sort of missed the 70s/80s. Don't ask.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by kevinunknown
 


Oh... The Iranians were more involved than people realized. They played their games and we played ours. Insurgents? We had Blackwater. Neither side played nice. Mahdi Army


Who do you think they were targeting in this video?
Listen closely. 4:00


[edit on 6-7-2010 by SLAYER69]



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nite owl
 


The same reason Britian recently doubled the number of troops training in Kenya, and started training in the desserts of Jordan, all the while the Royal Marines and USMC are training in Virginia, as Royal Navy carrier and amphi groups (along with other muti national forces) are training with the US Navy and USMC Amphib groups in the North Atlantic.

*puts finger in the air to work out which way the brown stuff is gonna come from* before I say "it's all precautionary" This is my hope, I try to feel hopeful, even if I lie to myself.



posted on Jul, 6 2010 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Oh yeah for sure they helped the mahdi army, what I am saying however is that they were not the only cause. There was allot more to it there were other players involved. As for you video i don’t really like waching people killing others, no matter who they are killing. I know about blackwater, i read the book and read the papers.






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join