War against Iran

[MasterAdnin]

Today on CNN they were discussing the issue of Iran and they were talking about all the usual things and to my suprise the host(forgot his name) said that the U.S. might be willing to go to war.

This thread was created to ask do you think that the U.S. is really willing to go to war? There's a lot to consider.

Iran is not some push over country like Iraq. Hell, Iraq is a very poor country yet they are still fighting. I find it odd that people say that the U.S. steam rolled Iraq, when Iraq is still not finished yet.

Something else to consider, Iran also has nuclear power, which I have no doubt they will use against the U.S. if necessary. This would obviously cause many casualties, along with casualties in the actual fighting in Iran, that is if we attack first. We are also very spread out, so it might be a little tough to co-ordinate an attack on Iran.

Syria, Jorden, and Egypt, have probably not forgotten the war they fought with Israel in the 60's. They will most likely attack Israel, and then the U.S. will have to help, and we will be even more spread out.

The economy is also to be considered. Job's will go down, etc.

The question arises again. Are we really going to attack Iran and start a massive war?

Discuss,
Adnan

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

i very much doubt the US will be willing to go to war with iran before this iraq debacle is finished and they have a stable government. even if they do decide to war against iran, they won't have a country willing to let them invade from. the current iraq govt, unstable as it is, will ask the US to leave rather than let themselves be a base for the invasion of iran. what is likely to happen, is that they'll seek UN and EU support for sanctions based on iran's non-compliance of the NPT, and if there's evidence of warhead development there'll likely be a NATO op, but not UN cause russia and china won't support invading iran

[crazyj]

Today on CNN they were discussing the issue of Iran and they were talking about all the usual things and to my suprise the host(forgot his name) said that the U.S. might be willing to go to war.

This thread was created to ask do you think that the U.S. is really willing to go to war? There's a lot to consider.

Iran is not some push over country like Iraq. Hell, Iraq is a very poor country yet they are still fighting. I find it odd that people say that the U.S. steam rolled Iraq, when Iraq is still not finished yet.

Something else to consider, Iran also has nuclear power, which I have no doubt they will use against the U.S. if necessary. This would obviously cause many casualties, along with casualties in the actual fighting in Iran, that is if we attack first. We are also very spread out, so it might be a little tough to co-ordinate an attack on Iran.

Syria, Jorden, and Egypt, have probably not forgotten the war they fought with Israel in the 60's. They will most likely attack Israel, and then the U.S. will have to help, and we will be even more spread out.

The economy is also to be considered. Job's will go down, etc.

The question arises again. Are we really going to attack Iran and start a massive war?

Discuss,
Adnan

I say by Spring-Fall of 2007 we'll see military action against Iran if they refuse to cooperate with their nukes. I'm not looking forward to it.

Interesting you say Iraq is still fighting back. Do you even consider that much of that "fighting back" is conducted by terrorists sponsored by Syria and Iran? That Iran is behind the majority of the Shiite death squads?

They are already a part of this war. The U.S. is simply going to wait as long as they can, until the nukes are almost ready to go, before launching airstrikes. I don't like the idea of Iran sending 100,000 more guerrilla fighters into Iraq afterwards, as well as conducting terrorist ops worldwide.

In any war, Jordan will be on our side. They're one of our best allies, and we've already uncovered plans (from the past) indicating al-Zarqawi (a Jordanian) tried to kill 200,000 people with chemical weapons. Jordan will be with us because their King has no choice. He won't throw his lot in with Syria, Iran, and Saudi terrorists against us and Israel. He knows an asskicking when he sees one.

Edit: and we did steamroll Iraq. By that, most sane people mean we steamrolled their offical state army. Hard to steamroll bushwackers hiding in cracks who blow up whatever passes in front of their field of vision.

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

Edit: and we did steamroll Iraq. By that, most sane people mean we steamrolled their offical state army. Hard to steamroll bushwackers hiding in cracks who blow up whatever passes in front of their field of vision.

it's not hard to steamroll them if unless you care about massive civillian casualties. unfortunately the US cares about these triffling old ladies and babies in the bomb zone, so they slug on

[MasterAdnin]

Interesting you say Iraq is still fighting back. Do you even consider that much of that "fighting back" is conducted by terrorists sponsored by Syria and Iran? That Iran is behind the majority of the Shiite death squads?

They are still fighting none-the-less, and they are actually putting up a strong fight. We are still trying to contaminate them, but they are doing a good job.

They are already a part of this war. The U.S. is simply going to wait as long as they can, until the nukes are almost ready to go, before launching airstrikes. I don't like the idea of Iran sending 100,000 more guerrilla fighters into Iraq afterwards, as well as conducting terrorist ops worldwide.

I don't think the U.S. is willing to use nukes unless absolutely necessary. They will recieve a lot of bad media attention if they do.

In any war, Jordan will be on our side. They're one of our best allies, and we've already uncovered plans (from the past) indicating al-Zarqawi (a Jordanian) tried to kill 200,000 people with chemical weapons. Jordan will be with us because their King has no choice. He won't throw his lot in with Syria, Iran, and Saudi terrorists against us and Israel. He knows an asskicking when he sees one.

That will not stop them from attacking Israel.

Edit: and we did steamroll Iraq. By that, most sane people mean we steamrolled their offical state army. Hard to steamroll bushwackers hiding in cracks who blow up whatever passes in front of their field of vision.

We did steam roll the official military, but they are now fighting back, and I do not doubt that some former military leaders, maybe not high ranking ones, are behind many of the attacks.

Peace,
ADnan

[crazyj]

They are still fighting none-the-less, and they are actually putting up a strong fight. We are still trying to contaminate them, but they are doing a good job.


I don't think the U.S. is willing to use nukes unless absolutely necessary. They will recieve a lot of bad media attention if they do.


That will not stop them from attacking Israel.


We did steam roll the official military, but they are now fighting back, and I do not doubt that some former military leaders, maybe not high ranking ones, are behind many of the attacks.

Peace,
ADnan

I didn't say we'd use nukes. I meant conventional strikes supported by spec ops aimed at their underground facilities. We'll leave any nuking to Israel.

And you are right, many Saddamists are still fighting back, because their privileges were taken away. Saddam expressly trained 2000 of his best, youngest Lt.'s to lead cells of 4 men each, each independent of each other, to carry on this guerrilla struggle against us and "wait for his return." Once he's swinging by a noose, they'll have no choice but fight to the death or reintegrate, ala Confederates after the Civil War. Also, don't forget his "amnesty" for all criminals, to the tune of over a 100,000 who are contributing greatly to ongoing crime and participate in mercenary attacks-for-pay schemes bankrolled by the Iraqi fortune sequestered in various places.

Funny you say we are trying to "contaminate them." Lincoln was trying to "contaminate" the South by your logic. Seems like you are rooting for these brave freedom fighters huh? Maybe you want Saddam back.

One more thing to consider: military action against Iran would have been basically impossible with Saddam in power behind us. So, make sure you add that to "oil and WMD lies" when you tally up reasons for invasion next time.

[MasterAdnin]

Funny you say we are trying to "contaminate them." Lincoln was trying to "contaminate" the South by your logic. Seems like you are rooting for these brave freedom fighters huh? Maybe you want Saddam back.

Yea, I really want Saddam back. I want him to burn Shia's, the sect of Islam I follow. I want him to burn Muslims in dumpsters and shoot the crap out of civilians. :disgust

Adnan

[Hub'ite]

Nothing BIG will happen with Iran. Soon the US or Israel will launch an airstrike on their nuclear bases. Even if we did have a conventional war with Iran we'll still steamroll them. But if we decide to stay and peacekeep then we'll have problems. We won't have to worry about watching over Israel, they can take care of themselves. We should let Israel deal with the ME. They'll have it all patched up within a year.

[MasterAdnin]

Nothing BIG will happen with Iran. Soon the US or Israel will launch an airstrike on their nuclear bases. Even if we did have a conventional war with Iran we'll still steamroll them. But if we decide to stay and peacekeep then we'll have problems. We won't have to worry about watching over Israel, they can take care of themselves. We should let Israel deal with the ME. They'll have it all patched up within a year.

What makes you think that we'll attack their nuclear sites and they'll just let it happen? They will retalliate and will most likely attack our troops in Iraq with their bombers and we will have a war on our hands. You highly underestimate Iran. :disgust

Adnan

[Hub'ite]

What makes you think that we'll attack their nuclear sites and they'll just let it happen? They will retalliate and will most likely attack our troops in Iraq with their bombers and we will have a war on our hands. You highly underestimate Iran. :disgust

Adnan

Their bombers wouldn't make it to Iraq. With our air superiority we don't have much to worry about. If they did invade Iraq it would be better for us. Draw them out of their country and wipe em out.

Like I said, let Israel deal with it. Their just itching to kick someones ass.

[MasterAdnin]

Their bombers wouldn't make it to Iraq. With our air superiority we don't have much to worry about. Like I said, let Israel deal with it.

Israel would not be able to handle it, let alone reform the entire ME. We will not steam roll Iran either. Iran probably has AA guns as well and will not hesitate to use them. If you haven't noticed, other countries are catching up with us in terms of technology.

Also, Israel is going to have a hard time fighting the terrorists within their own countries before they can even think about invading Iran.


ADnan

[RusskiSoldat]

I doubt we will invade Iran.
Really, really doubt.
But if we will, at least I'll have a job after finishing officers' school rather than being stationed somewhere boring.

[Legiondude]

I doubt we will invade Iran.
Really, really doubt.
But if we will, at least I'll have a job after finishing officers' school rather than being stationed somewhere boring.

we?
I tought you were russian

[David Deas]

Where are we getting that Iran has nuclear weapons? Did I miss that newscast? Was I under a rock?

[Hub'ite]

Where are we getting that Iran has nuclear weapons? Did I miss that newscast?

They will eventually. Time for some more American pre-emptive attacks.

[David Deas]

And they'll have their conventional army wiped out too.

[RusskiSoldat]

I'm guessing Iran can do significant damage if it strikes unexpectedly.
The US army in Iraq is not concentrated, but is dispersed.
Like the Russian saying goes "Один в поле не воин"- a single man in the field is not a warrior.

[David Deas]

Why are people claiming we wouldn't blitz Iran? They aren't a world power. They're 3rd world as heck.

[IamthePope]

Why are people claiming we wouldn't blitz Iran? They aren't a world power. They're 3rd world as heck.

I agree. If the US fought Iran, Iran would last about as long as Iraq considering they were demonstrated to be about on par militarily in the Iran-Iraq war. A hypothetical conflict would last between 5 days and 5 weeks (in my estimation) depending on if the US wanted completely occupy the country or simply bomb the Military and research and development facilities into submission.

People continue to misunderstand the nature of modern warfare in the information age. It is a common misconception to beleive that manpower is a contributing factory in modern warfare. The wars of the Industrial age (WWI and WWII) showed us that firepower is all that matters in industrial warfare. In the Information age, (hypothetically) firepower is less important than information superiority.

The US has information superiority up the wazoo. No nation can match us in that department and that is where our military stregnth lies in. With information superiority, a military can anticipate the enemy movements, react faster, and constantly counter the enemies manuevres to make their attacks and counterattacks essentially worthless.

A fight between Iran and the US would be like a fight between an pre-industrial and a post-industrial nationl. The gap in technology might only be about 10 years, but the gap in technological age would be very sugnificant. This technological gap alone would give the US the overwhelming decisive edge and insure a quick US victory .

[Ahlerich]

I agree. If the US fought Iran, Iran would last about as long as Iraq considering they were demonstrated to be about on par militarily in the Iran-Iraq war. A hypothetical conflict would last between 5 days and 5 weeks (in my estimation) depending on if the US wanted completely occupy the country or simply bomb the Military and research and development facilities into submission.

People continue to misunderstand the nature of modern warfare in the information age. It is a common misconception to beleive that manpower is a contributing factory in modern warfare. The wars of the Industrial age (WWI and WWII) showed us that firepower is all that matters in industrial warfare. In the Information age, (hypothetically) firepower is less important than information superiority.

The US has information superiority up the wazoo. No nation can match us in that department and that is where our military stregnth lies in. With information superiority, a military can anticipate the enemy movements, react faster, and constantly counter the enemies manuevres to make their attacks and counterattacks essentially worthless.

A fight between Iran and the US would be like a fight between an pre-industrial and a post-industrial nationl. The gap in technology might only be about 10 years, but the gap in technological age would be very sugnificant. This technological gap alone would give the US the overwhelming decisive edge and insure a quick US victory .

you have to destroy theire whole military to make sure they dont come over to iraq. of course the usa can destroy irans military..they can destroy france or prolly even russia too. the question is why?