Israel no match for Iran military might

page: 19
22
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:47 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by IsraeliGuy
 





Do I need to remind you what happened the last time an Islamic army depended on Soviet weaponry? *ehm ehm*.






www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by mwood
Yeah, I think I read before Isreal has something like 300 nuclear weapons.

I am sure when the time comes they will NOT allow themselves to be wiped off the face of the earth by Iran.
It will probably start a whole chain reaction of bad things for the world once somebody releases the hounds.

I am sure as far as man power they couldn't repel an attack so they most likely would have to use the nuclear option to protect themselves. They won't need America's help if it goes that way.


It is very interesting how they are afraid of Iran which has not much guns and money

What is it they are afraid of ?

US can flatten the planet with it's bombs , but still they just are afraid of 2000 members of Quds force.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   
 




 



 




 
edit on 7/2/12 by hmdphantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by IsraeliGuy
 





There is absolutely no advantage to more soldiers available when you got drastically less aircrafts and tanks to fit them in. Ground troops are not even going to be used as these countries do not even share a border, are miles across, and a ground invasion is not even sarcastically being considered.


No advantage to more soldiers? Tell that to Russia in WW2. Eventually people are going to have to hit the ground if they want to invade Iran. Saying ground troops are not going to be used because these countries don't share a border is hilarious. USA and Afghanistan didn't share a border...or did they?





I find it funny that you use the term "Israel wins" or "Iran wins" Pretty childish.. Anyway, lets see your list: Tanks - not going to be used. SPG's - not going to be used Mortars - LOL! Even if there will be a ground invasion, which will not be, do you seriously consider mortars to be effective? This must be a joke.


Saying "they win" was just in terms of who has the most, I figured I had to make it simplistic for you.

Why wouldn't tanks be used!? Just because they have more? So you automatically count them out!? SPG's will be used as well. Mortars. LOL? Don't they kill people too? How is this a joke? This was taken from the website you provided...unless you are the joke?





AA weapons - true, Iran has them, but were they even battle tested ONCE? Are they good enough to clear any airborne threat? Do I need to remind you what happened the last time an Islamic army depended on Soviet weaponry? *ehm ehm*.


Check it out for youself.
Plus, with that many it's sure to make a dent in the Israelis aircraft.




There is also no point in comparing who has more AA weapons, as Israel will not even need them considering there is virtually no threat from enemy aircrafts, specially Iranian ones.

That is true that Israel won't need them, but, you asked for points arguing for Iran. I gave them to you.




Israel will not use it's nuclear power unless it is on the verge of being completely destroyed. When that happens, you better run for the hills. But that is irrelevant.

No. Not irrelevant. It's scary that one guy is saying that. Now imagine if there was someone as insane as you in charge?




All in all, this war is going to be based on air power, submarines (for heavy bombardments), and long range ballistic missiles. Get it through your heads - there will not be a ground invasion of Iran as it is not needed!.


Air power Israel has, naval battle Iran has and both sides have missiles. It would be close no matter what. I guess I don't really agree with the OP's statement either, a better title would have been, " Iran will put up a great fight against Israel". And yes, there will be boots on the ground eventually. Maybe look up what ground invasion could encompass.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   
So everyone still thinks that after thousands of years of bloodshed in the middle east that somehow it's all going to be fixed by another war? Get real people, these people have a long line of families killing each other and there is not one way to resolve thousands of years of this conflict.

Instead of everyone saying let's fight with one another, someone with half a brain needs to come up with how do we all get along with each other. The whole reason countries want nuclear technology to begin with is America, China, Russia and North Korea hold that over their heads. So they naturally want their own protection and a hammer to drop if necessary. We all create these problems and they aren't going away as long as the bully countries of this world keep trying to dictate to everyone how it should be.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TWISTEDWORDS
So everyone still thinks that after thousands of years of bloodshed in the middle east that somehow it's all going to be fixed by another war? Get real people, these people have a long line of families killing each other and there is not one way to resolve thousands of years of this conflict.

Instead of everyone saying let's fight with one another, someone with half a brain needs to come up with how do we all get along with each other. The whole reason countries want nuclear technology to begin with is America, China, Russia and North Korea hold that over their heads. So they naturally want their own protection and a hammer to drop if necessary. We all create these problems and they aren't going away as long as the bully countries of this world keep trying to dictate to everyone how it should be.


Of course another war fill fix the problem, temporarily. The cycle starts again once the puppet regimes are overthrown. Or once the influence of the US is weakened and another power starts installing its own puppet regimes. Gotta love humanity.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Of course they know that
Iran know that
Israel know that
USA know that
the world know that

thats why they have the USA to back them up
and the USA have France Britain in their back just in case

and Iran have Russia and China backing them
perfect scenario for a WW3

and it will be all the fault of Israel
but we all know what Israel wants .. WW3 to fullfill a stupid prophecy
because of the 144 000 rich jews that will be saved
the real choosen people of God would not start a WW3 on everybody just to save their own @$$

and have the world for themself

only the devil choosen people would do exactly that
how come we have let them go so far .. disgusting
edit on 2/7/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 


if nuclear weapons are used , nobody will win , the fall out will effect many surrounding countries .
just look at chernoble , the land and people are still suffering and that was just one incident , now just imagine several of these incidents .
the usa wants their resources but these resources will be contaminated , so nobody wins .
THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD .



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Ben81
 


Dem Jews - they be AMAZING. The stuff attributed to them ... I don't think I'd want to go against those who can make every nation do everything they ever wanted.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10

www.youtube.com...

Yup, second Lebanon war. You better cherish those moments when Israel had a corrupted Prime Minister (Olmert) who made a mess out of the Knesset, putting a person who was not even a warrior in the army as a Minister of Defense and an Airforce commander as a General of the army in a war that was mostly land based.

All of those combined, and yet, which city looked like a piece of debris afterwards? Was it Beirut or Haifa? Yeah.
Objectives weren't completed at that war because the objectives were made by an idiot and were unrealistic. He might have said the objective is to take over the moon and it would make the same amount of sense. Olmert made bombastic objectives only to be re-elected, which eventually blew in his face along with lots of tanks that were destroyed only because the army was not ready enough for such a conflict.

Still not a bad work seeing as 1.Hizbollah fired pretty much everything they had and Israeli business days went on as usual, unlike Lebanon that was at a complete standstill by all means, with it's capital looking like The Hulk just went on a rampage over there 2. Kill ratio was sort of 3:1 (IDF casualties vs Hizbollah casualties, non civilian) in favor of the IDF even though Hizbollah men were counted as civilians only because they had no uniform and their weapons were taken from their bodies before they were counted.

So yeah, do cherish that moment as it is not going to happen again soon.
edit on 8-2-2012 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
No advantage to more soldiers? Tell that to Russia in WW2.

Yeah, WW2. Need I remind you what year are we at, and what technology has brought to the military?
Human wave tactics were considered barbaric even then. Nowdays it's just nonsense considering a single guided bomb can wreck more havoc than a whole battalion of troopers.


Eventually people are going to have to hit the ground if they want to invade Iran.

Get it through your thick skull - they/we/whatever do not want to invade Iran.


Saying ground troops are not going to be used because these countries don't share a border is hilarious. USA and Afghanistan didn't share a border...or did they?

Afghanistan and Iraq were meant to be invaded, Iran isn't. Is that really so hard to understand or are you enjoying yourself using circular logic?


Why wouldn't tanks be used!? Just because they have more? So you automatically count them out!?

Err.. actually, we have more. Having a hard time following your own stated numbers I see.
Yeah, they are not going to be used.


SPG's will be used as well.

No, they will not be.


Mortars. LOL? Don't they kill people too? How is this a joke?

Using mortars against what exactly? Knives kill people too, am I supposed to be scared of Iran if they hold knives aswell? Lmfao.


This was taken from the website you provided...unless you are the joke?

Yeah, the website that lists all of the weapons a country has, as crappy as they are. I can't see why this is so hard to get.
If their main weapon was a cow, it was still listed in that website. Does it mean I am a joke? No. Does it mean the site is a joke? No. Does it mean Iran are the joke for using a cow as a tank? Yes. Apply this logic to Mortars and you get the desires result. I know it can be difficult for people with sparse intellectual such as you but do try.



Check it out for youself.

Sure, let's do that.
ZU-23-1,2 23mm AAA - Anti air GUN, and if that's not enough, it's from the 60's. You expect to shoot down a 4th/5th generation aircraft with an Anti Aircraft GUN?
Samavat 35mm AAA - Gun. Same point applies, add to the fact it's swiss made to make the humor factor grow.
Sa'ir 100mm AAA - Gun. Now this one is a real joke. Quote: "a well trained crew could fire 15 rounds maximum per minute". Wow! A whopping 15 RPM! I can feel pilots around the world shaking as I type this!
Mesbah 1 - Gun, used to take out cruise missiles.
Sayyad 1,2 - Anti Aircraft Missile, at last! Too bad it was made in the 50's by the Soviets and is as relevant to modern AA weaponry as a banana launcher.
Shahab Thagheb - Chinese missile from the 70's. Nevertheless, it sounds decent enough for me not to mock it, other than the fact it's a short range missile and cannot be used against any modern aircraft in the Israeli air force.
Mersad - So far the only missile to have a range that allows it to attempt shooting down a fighter jet.
Misagh-1,2 - This is a man held rocket launcher. It's crappy, it's old, it's slow and it's range is too short to hit anything.


Plus, with that many it's sure to make a dent in the Israelis aircraft.

They have to have the ability to reach the aircrafts first, which as seems, very few stuff from their arsenal can reach that far.



No. Not irrelevant. It's scary that one guy is saying that. Now imagine if there was someone as insane as you in charge?

Israel will only use this option if it were at the brink of destruction. It will only reach the brink of destruction if all of it's neighbors decide to jump in on an all out war against it, and have a lucky day at that. What's insane is to believe Israel will go down without a fight and allow a Muslim caliphate against it to take place without everyone turning to a human microwaved food afterwards.

...Post too long
edit on 8-2-2012 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)
edit on 8-2-2012 by IsraeliGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
...Post continued.


Originally posted by superman2012
Air power Israel has, naval battle Iran has and both sides have missiles.

Israeli naval strength is non existent because warplanes are acting as attack ships and doing a better job at that. The only thing each navy needs in the upcoming wars is subs, and granted, Iran has more - although I can't tell how old they are.


It would be close no matter what. I guess I don't really agree with the OP's statement either, a better title would have been, " Iran will put up a great fight against Israel". And yes, there will be boots on the ground eventually. Maybe look up what ground invasion could encompass.

I don't think that they will even put up a great fight, rather launch every ballistic missile they have and that's it. But whatever.

Boots will not be on the ground, at least not until 95% of the Iranian army is decimated, which will not happen. Remember the goal for this war? At least the official one? Making sure that loony theocracy does not get a hold of nuclear weapons - destroying their nuclear facilities. NOT invading, NOT hunting down Ahmedinejad.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by IsraeliGuy
 





Making sure that loony theocracy does not get a hold of nuclear weapons


Because one is enough right?


I know I won't convince you. Look at your name for God's sake! But accusing me of circular logic and not understanding does not help your argument. Both sides will suffer losses that don't need to happen. Like you said, it's bad enough Israel has nukes, Iran doesn't need them either.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsraeliGuy
Boots will not be on the ground, at least not until 95% of the Iranian army is decimated, which will not happen. Remember the goal for this war? At least the official one? Making sure that loony theocracy does not get a hold of nuclear weapons - destroying their nuclear facilities. NOT invading, NOT hunting down Ahmedinejad.


Yeah just like in Libya, NO BOOTS ON THE GROUND. You know they lied more than once and they will do it again. I wish all those Zionist supporters would pack their bags and actually fight a war, instead of just talking.

Are you aware that we stand in front of a nuclear war, a possible WW III scenario? Thats how this will end!

How DUMB does someone have to be to actually risk that, because of a few idiot Zionists and their Goyim friends all over the world?

And those "Penis" comparisons regarding who got the bigger military is pathetic.
edit on 9-2-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
An Israel/Iran war will be an air war first and foremost. After the Iranian air force is butchered, Iran will strike back with missiles and using Hezbollah, which will bring about another Israeli assault on Lebanon. The irony is that Hezbollah has a better chance of inflicting serious damage.

The best-case scenario is a quick Israeli victory, followed by a (mostly) bloodless coup in Tehran. The realistic worst-case scenario is a massive Middle Eastern war resulting in the use of WMDs (Iranian and Syrian chemical vs. Israeli nuclear).

The absolute worse-case scenario is the world turning against Israel, and (at least in Israel's eyes) essentially allowing the Iranians and Arabs to wipe Israel out. After the nuclear destruction of Tel-Aviv and Haifa, Israel unleashes its entire nuclear arsenal, striking not only Iranian and Arab cities, but also the capitals of Europe - Rome, Paris, Berlin, Moscow.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Meshakhad
 



The absolute worse-case scenario is the world turning against Israel, and (at least in Israel's eyes) essentially allowing the Iranians and Arabs to wipe Israel out. After the nuclear destruction of Tel-Aviv and Haifa, Israel unleashes its entire nuclear arsenal, striking not only Iranian and Arab cities, but also the capitals of Europe - Rome, Paris, Berlin, Moscow.


That is the real and genuine threat !!!

They have been known to over-react and then apologize for being wrong.

Nervous Psychopaths sometimes get sweaty palms and itchy fingers.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   
oh...this is too funny!

PressTV trying to come off as an objective western like news resource......

Did you hear the Ayatollah? Iran doesn't interfere in Bahrains politics, because if they did, they would admit to it, just like they do Israel.. AWWW...How cute... How easy and simply an explanation. That will satisfy the masses/morons who understand nothing about human nature...who couldn't figure out that it's ok (and even politically expedient) to admit to something which has popular support - i.e. opposition against Israel, whereas admitting to interference in Bahrainian affairs would be counterproductive to Iran's image in both Iran and the Muslim world.

What a simpleton explanation, and how hilarious it is that so many people would be convinced by such niceties....

On another note, with regard to calling Israel an "apartheid' state. That is so erroneous, and worse, offensive to blacks in Africa, WHO ACTUALLY lived under a racist government that took more than political rights from them, but basic human rights.

Arabs in Israel and the territories have COMPLETE civil rights; in Israel, Arabic is even made a co-official language. Did that happen in south africa? No. Blacks were shot down and refused entry by whites who had NO BUSINESS and NO JUSTIFIABLE claim to being in South Africa, PERIOD!

What a disparate and delusional comparison it is to call Israel an apartheid state. Any moral person can see how that is. But of course, the idiots who believe such propaganda lack the intellectual prowess to challenge that notion or the rectitude to care.
edit on 9-2-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


Agreed, they are not an apartheid nation. Israel just has some aspects of resemblance to the South African apartheid regime. You can understand why people misunderstand...not excuse them, just understand the mistake.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 





Israel just has some aspects of resemblance to the South African apartheid regime.


Very superficial, and unimportant "aspects of resemblance" I'll concede to, but nothing that would justify branding Israel as an 'apartheid state".

And by superficial I mean: There are two peoples living in one land. This is no way says anything about the nature of that situation, it only points out a similarity of circumstances.

The Blacks in South Africa had NO rights, while Arabs in Israel have full rights; both personal (human) rights, and almost full political rights.(I say almost because Israel does, out of basic self interest, set limits on how far Arabs can go to changing the basic political structure of the state of Israel). And in the west bank and Gaza, they have their own government. Israel merely occupies the region in order to prevent what would logically occur if Israel were to withdraw.

What this lying Iranian joke of a professor shill says about Jews thinking they are a "chosen race", has absolutely NO VALIDITY to the modern Israeli - Sabra. It is inane that such ancient nonsense is being used as justification for Iran's admitted meddling in Israeli's affairs. Anyone who has been to Israel knows most Israelis are not religious; many in fact do not even subscribe to the religious connotation of Jewishness, and thus the "chosen" appellation means diddly squat to them.

So, again, there is no sense of 'superiority' in the modern Israeli psyche relative to the Arab, or non-Jews in general. So what is he left with? Keep in mind, were talking about a THEOCRATIC nation, leveling accusations of 'religious/ethnic' supremacy, at a Democratic Jewish state. The former denies basic human rights to women, gays, etc, while the latter gives full rights to all. He claims that Israel has put Arabs in concentration camps? If you go back to the beginnings of how that situation came about, more blame should logically be placed on the shoulder of the Arabs, than the Israelis. THEY attacked in 1948, unprovoked. THEY attacked (or provided the cassus belli for an Israel pre-emptive strike) Israel in 1967. Everything that has happened is their own fault, and a consequence of their own arrogance.





 
22
<< 16  17  18    20 >>

log in

join