Israel no match for Iran military might, page 19

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...

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.

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 .

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Israel as Popular as North Korea According to BBC Poll
  Posted 12 days ago with 35 member flags

Settlers filmed shooting at Palestinian protesters‎
  Posted 8 days ago with 32 member flags

Israeli Night of Broken Glass: Africans attacked in Tel Aviv anti-migrant demo
  Posted 6 days ago with 14 member flags

The latest entrant to the space race is... Egypt!19-year-old student invents futuristic \'warp drive
  Posted 5 days ago with 12 member flags

Assad says Syria is fighting foreign mercenaries
  Posted 13 days ago with 9 member flags

Palestinians prepare to lose the solar panels that provide a lifeline
  Posted 3 days ago with 9 member flags

Double standards in Egypt
  Posted 8 days ago with 7 member flags

\'Putin said Israel would take care of Iran\'
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: