Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
I will be careful in my attempts to not argue with you. I'm not sure what you mean by "ground wars," but if you're thinking about armor or
infantry, I think we have learned that in certain circumstances they are the best tool to use.
Parking lots from NATO weapons? I don't think NATO would be able to get it's act together in time if it was a nuclear war. Who would fight on
Israel's side? Maybe the US, depending on whether the elections had been held or not. Maybe some countries in Europe, but there would be a strong
incentive to follow the Ron Paul approach of let the two of them fight it out. I'm not even sure the other Arab states would support Iran massively,
They're a little uncomfortable with Iran too.
The answer to the main part of your question can only be guessed at. What specific areas in Iran have been targeted? That's pretty highly
classified. But It's safe to say that anything related to government operations would go, you know, the standard targets.
Sorry if I argued, but I just couldn't help myself.
No Charles52... I compliment you on you're very adult and intelligent comments.
So I would tell you not take offense, as you are obviously not one of those here on ATS that seem to thrive on attack and controversy rather than
discuss issues intelligently and with the intent of coming to logical conclusions.
In the short period of time I have been on ATS I have heard many refer to cranks, trolls and others #*(^%_$ names... lol.. often telling them to go to
Moving right along, my ground war comment was simple; Iran was less than equal and less than successful in their recent conflict with Iraq in which
they attempted to employ basically a WW twoish type of ground war. The only exception in that conflcit was Iraq employing nerve agents against Iran,
which was circa first world war.
History has shown us that NATO means expend the resources of the US, Great Britian and a few others, which of course means both super powers have
weapons which as you put it would target the government and military infrastructure, what little Iran has and destroy it completely. The burning fires
in Iraq lit up the sky for miles around.
And then when Iran throws thousands of people in archaic frontal attacks, ala Napoleon or Korea, the weapons employed by super powers would rain down
on these poor slobs and devestate the majority of those involved in a hail of lead.
I do however hope you are correct in that the other Arab states would not support Iran and this is exactly the input I sought. The honest opinion of
others who having listened, read, and observedand historical and current patterns and interactions in the middle east.
I feel that the US and Great Britian learned much from this last debacle in Iraq and now both, and whatever other countries troops which will come to
the aid of Israel will employ small unit tactics with air support against specific hold out targets and the Iranians will lose.
Again, unless intel is incorrect and the Iranians have a nuclear arsenal, they are still fighting world war 2 or 3 when the technology and might of
the US and Britian will destroy Irans ability to wage war, or even protect themselves.l
You noticed I haven't even mentioned those wild eyed, do or die Israeli's, who I would rather not even be involved as I personally believe Israel
would play the 'nuclear card' long before any of the super powers.
In conjunction with the control the US and Britian exercise, the lack of an overzealous religious nature of both Israel and Iran protect against
As for classified information, you are correct, but it is fairly easy I would believe to identify the military and or appropriate infrastructure
targets, i.e. power plants, etc. amongst a country built mostly of mud brick and slump block buildings.
Yes, a guess it is, but an educated guess given history.
I again compliment you on your reply and certainly look forward to more discussion with you on other threads.
Bravo... well done...