Israel vs. Iran - an insane proposition for Iran

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I believe I have this post in the correct forum, but please Mr. moderator, if not move it. Thank you...

Preface: the following statement of history and my question following it are not a challenge to anyone for debate. I ask only a serious question requesting serious answers regarding the likelihood of an intervention on the part of seeming bystanders into the Israel vs. Iran conflict, i.e. ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ I have no interest in attempts to debunk or argue, cool your jets, and if you wish to argue, go to some other post as I will ignore you.

With the advent of the sophisticated multiple capability munitions, ground wars were affectively eliminated as an effective tool of war.

Example: Iraq fought WW 2 ½ against the NATO alliance who were employing technology from WW 5.

Buzzer sounding in background… game over, Iraq’s only chance was nuclear, to which it apparently had none. All systems employed by Iraq were completely proven to be ineffective in an archaic war plan by an arrogant and stupid dictator.

Now… my question is, “if Iran is crazy enough to attack Israel, in which specific areas of Iran will be turned into all night parking lots by the glow created by the NATO weapons, which other country is insane enough to participate in this losing proposition?




posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
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.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


Can you explain why you are losing sleep over this question since there is no likliehood of Iran attacking Israel ?

2nd line



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


Hi ... lol... no, I'm not losing sleep...
But my question is legit and based on history. I believe without question, Iran is an religious overzealous loose cannon in the region. Again, based on history.
Add the fact of the extreme nature of their religious beliefs, compounded by the people fearing their religion and following their leaders blindly, a term "sheeple" I believe I read here on ATS seems to apply. And although I can't imagine how, I think the Iranians actually believe they could militarily defeat or defend themselves against others (although they couldn't with Iraq) so why would they even imagine any abilities against a super power.
I suppose coming into play at this point would be the fact many Iranians believe that dying for their religion will automatically give them a ticket to their heaven.
Then to fan the flames of Iranian hatred of others, particulary Israel, (and the fact that of many other countries in the region express open hatred towards Israel and has in fact attacked them in the past it is then easy enough to see Iran being the fuse which causes a big explosion in the middle east. Whew... what a run on sentence... lol ... so be it...
Also, IF their previous missle tests were not a lie, then Iran has the ability to reach Israel with a missle, certainly the catalyst for Israel to respond in kind.
So, to my question, what other countries might side with Iran.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon

But my question is legit and based on history. I believe without question, Iran is an religious overzealous loose cannon in the region. Again, based on history.

Lets go slow here.
"Iran is a loose cannon, based on history", you said.

Lets start there. What history?



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

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 other threads...

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 nuclear conflict.

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...



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon

But my question is legit and based on history. I believe without question, Iran is an religious overzealous loose cannon in the region. Again, based on history.

Lets go slow here.
"Iran is a loose cannon, based on history", you said.

Lets start there. What history?


Hi Twosides...

In all of written history, there is written over and again about the conflicts in the region and the participants... i.e. the Israelis', the Egyptians, Sumarians, the Babyloanians, the Muslims, The Ottoman Turks, the Crusaders but to mention a few, all fighting in a never ending religious conflict for control in the region.

FTR.. I minored in world history in college although I did much of my work with chiseal on stone...lol .. much is written about the peoples of this region and their incessant religious wars.

Current history, not so much thankfully, but I base my opine on religious and cultural history and the religious differences and hatred of Israel by most of all peoples in the region.

BTW... as writing this way is impossible to show positive emotion, so let me point out that I relish your questions and comments. Truly I do... please continue...

edit on 8-2-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Edit stupid errors... lol



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 

Kool , How many wars has Iran started in the last 150 years.

How many wars has Israel, since inception, modern Israel.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 

Kool , How many wars has Iran started in the last 150 years.

How many wars has Israel, since inception, modern Israel.



A moments worth of research Twosides reveals it is impossible to determine an answer to your first question, as the Iranians have clearly financially supported and backed Hezbollah (and possibly other terrorist organizations) for years, so the question now becomes, how many wars, conflicts or terrorist operations did the Hezbollah start?

The answer to your second question: according to wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org...
"Israel has been involved in a number of wars and large-scale military operations"


And a cursory inspection of ancient history shows Persia was an eager agressor and fought wars with so many peoples as to lose count.
edit on 8-2-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Edit and add



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 





Now… my question is, “if Iran is crazy enough to attack Israel, in which specific areas of Iran will be turned into all night parking lots by the glow created by the NATO weapons, which other country is insane enough to participate in this losing proposition?


None. Neither have the scrotum to attack the other without their allies backing them. Cut ties with both and leave neither with allies and neither can do a blooming thing but stand there and bark like a teacup chiuaua pissing itself in its excitement.

The use of nuclear weapons is out of the question, unless youre up to making all humanity extinct. Not very many people can handle the responsibility of destroying their entire race.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 





Now… my question is, “if Iran is crazy enough to attack Israel, in which specific areas of Iran will be turned into all night parking lots by the glow created by the NATO weapons, which other country is insane enough to participate in this losing proposition?


None. Neither have the scrotum to attack the other without their allies backing them. Cut ties with both and leave neither with allies and neither can do a blooming thing but stand there and bark like a teacup chiuaua pissing itself in its excitement.

The use of nuclear weapons is out of the question, unless youre up to making all humanity extinct. Not very many people can handle the responsibility of destroying their entire race.


Thank you Lone Wolf and you really left me chuckling with your "teacup chiuaua pissing itself in its excitement." That is effin hilarious and likely true too...

I agree with your comment on Nukes... I firmly don't believe that Russia the country of, the US or Britian as the big 3 super powers will ever use full scale nukes... what worries me are some of the others, Pakistan, India, Iran,etc. Iraq would have used nukes I feel confident on Iran during their conflict, but fortunately for the world the nerve gases worked so well... and beyond that and even more scary are small tactical nukes which I have always read about and confirmed with a couple of close friends who are ex in the business as several are unaccounted from various countries, not just the Soviet Union, after the end of the cold war... and these, if recovered by any terrorist group can and will be used at some point I fear...

I do not mean to stir up controversy with the following statement, and it is just my personal opinon for many years now.... what really scares me are the countries and or peoples who purport to fight in the name of religion or their god.... and especially those who believe it is a guaranteed ticket to heaven to die in a religious battle...

So... three cheers to you and I enjoy your comments and input... please feel free to add to this post and keep your comments coming...

Now, if I can figure out how to give you a star, I will...



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 

Dear OldCurmudgeon,

I think you've hit on the point that comes before the question of the war and it's execution:

I do not mean to stir up controversy with the following statement, and it is just my personal opinon for many years now.... what really scares me are the countries and or peoples who purport to fight in the name of religion or their god.... and especially those who believe it is a guaranteed ticket to heaven to die in a religious battle...
Planning, in both military and diplomatic spheres, proceeds on the assumption that the other party is rational. When, as you say, a government is willing to say "We are ready to sacrifice all our people, and our nation for the chance to fight against our religious enemies. We know we will lose, we embrace our deaths, all for the chance at some eternal reward," planning stands open-mouthed and useless. Even North Korea makes some sense compared to this.

There doesn't seem to much that can be done, but I'm open to suggestions. You can reduce their capability to attack, through sanctions, assasinations, sabotage, and the like, or you can just say "Nuts to it, let's get this over with." I would like to hear other options. I'm unsure of the effectiveness of our "control them" plans. But I'd hate to be pushed into a corner where the red button is the only option left.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 


Just left click on an empty star, its the same for flagging a thread. I have a bit of redneck in me because i'm an arkansan so i can usually throw some redneck humor in occasionally.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
I

With the advent of the sophisticated multiple capability munitions, ground wars were affectively eliminated as an effective tool of war.




Non sense; technological weapons and airpower have not helped stop the Taliban in Afghanistan. They didn't allow us to win the war in Vietnam. Sophisticated weaponry may allow a military force to overcome the weaponry of a competing military force, but it can not stop the resentment of the people living in a country.

Make no mistake about it; Gorilla warfare will ALWAYS be, short of mass extermination using nuclear weapons, one of the most effective ways a nation of people united against an aggressor can overcome that aggressor.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drew99GT

Originally posted by OldCurmudgeon
I

With the advent of the sophisticated multiple capability munitions, ground wars were affectively eliminated as an effective tool of war.




Non sense; technological weapons and airpower have not helped stop the Taliban in Afghanistan. They didn't allow us to win the war in Vietnam. Sophisticated weaponry may allow a military force to overcome the weaponry of a competing military force, but it can not stop the resentment of the people living in a country.

Make no mistake about it; Gorilla warfare will ALWAYS be, short of mass extermination using nuclear weapons, one of the most effective ways a nation of people united against an aggressor can overcome that aggressor.



And you are correct in your statement Drew.. techology doesn't win the day against small units, terrorist, guerilla fighters, etc. The American Indians taught the whites a lesson there..

And good points on Viet Nam and Afghanistan... another contributing factor to the success of small unit action history shows and is repeated in Afghanistan is it is almost impossible to fight a small group, and especially when many soliders go home at night... and as in Nam... you can't tell the bad guys from the locals...

But technolgy does prevail when napoleonic tactics, e.g. look at the civil war, are employed... a point, had either side alone have gotten mass numbers of repeating rifles the conflict would have likely come to the peace table much sooner...

History records what the spencer and other repeaters alone did to the south. I believe the confederates called the gun that damn yankee gun you can load on Sunday and shoot all week... it alone turned the tide in many battles where smaller units met far superior numbers of enemy forces and prevailed...

So the day of the Chinese throwing a hundred thousand troops at a front should be over as multi munitions alone would kill more than half before they reached their destination.

Keep your ideas coming... I'm getting some great input here...



The only method to defeat one of those enemies is to destroy the manufacturing areas of supplies and the supply lines themselves... which could have been performed better in VN had it not been for the non military telling the military what to do...

edit on 9-2-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Can't type... lol
edit on 9-2-2012 by OldCurmudgeon because: Can't spell or type apparently



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


Thanks for the info Lone Wolf... hey, we all got a little midwest in us huh? lol



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by OldCurmudgeon
 

Dear OldCurmudgeon,

I think you've hit on the point that comes before the question of the war and it's execution:

I do not mean to stir up controversy with the following statement, and it is just my personal opinon for many years now.... what really scares me are the countries and or peoples who purport to fight in the name of religion or their god.... and especially those who believe it is a guaranteed ticket to heaven to die in a religious battle...
Planning, in both military and diplomatic spheres, proceeds on the assumption that the other party is rational. When, as you say, a government is willing to say "We are ready to sacrifice all our people, and our nation for the chance to fight against our religious enemies. We know we will lose, we embrace our deaths, all for the chance at some eternal reward," planning stands open-mouthed and useless. Even North Korea makes some sense compared to this.

There doesn't seem to much that can be done, but I'm open to suggestions. You can reduce their capability to attack, through sanctions, assasinations, sabotage, and the like, or you can just say "Nuts to it, let's get this over with." I would like to hear other options. I'm unsure of the effectiveness of our "control them" plans. But I'd hate to be pushed into a corner where the red button is the only option left.

With respect,
Charles1952


Very well said Charles...
Your first paragraph is spot on... and your second, well I fear no one has the answer... the black world of delay tactics is far superior in my opinion than being forced to perform major strikes. Regardless of the weapons used, other than boots on the ground dark warriors, collateral damage cannot be controled.
I fear nukes as I lived thru duck and run, drop and roll, under your desk and cover your head, seek shelter immediately, strip off and shower immediately, rotate your supplies, and all the other fun suggestons of the cold war... and I can say, the killings of innocents and the use of of WMDs by any nation is fruitless, unless one's back is against the wall to survive, or one is insane and wishes to destroy mankind before the next asteriod impacts...
Great reply and I'm thinking... keep me posted with any comments or ideas..
Doc





new topics
top topics
 
2

log in

join