Ahmadinijad addresses UN declares he will ignore US

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Aimster

You have reading comprehension problems if you think I ever said any military can stand up to the U.S military.

Then WhyTF are you posting sh1t about S-300's, S-200's, Tor-M1's, etc? It's all a non-factor

Why?

Because they will largely cease to exist if we actually get into a shooting war with Iran. The ones that don't initially will shortly after we are engaged/find out about them.

When that happens, all the F-15, F-16's, P-51's, whatever can fly about man portable SAM range all day long and largely not have to worry.

End of story.

Chuck

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Aimster

You have reading comprehension problems if you think I ever said any military can stand up to the U.S military.

Then WhyTF are you posting sh1t about S-300's, S-200's, Tor-M1's, etc? It's all a non-factor

Why?

Because they will largely cease to exist if we actually get into a shooting war with Iran. The ones that don't initially will shortly after we are engaged/find out about them.

When that happens, all the F-15, F-16's, P-51's, whatever can fly about man portable SAM range all day long and largely not have to worry.

End of story.

Chuck

Hey genius who doesn't know how to read.

The entire discussion is about sending in F-15s to take out Iranian air defense systems. Not using any F-22s at all because the F-15 can do it all without being shot down.

Which is STUPID.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Aimster
As for all the other stuff you said:

Let me put it to you in a simple sentence.

If Iran was scared of the U.S and the U.S could do everything so easily as you said, then Iran and the U.S would not be going at it with each other for the last 28 years.

Iran doesn't listen to the U.S. Usually when a nation ignores the U.S they get bombed. Iran has not been bombed. Look at newspapers dating back a decade. Headlines will read "U.S ready to attack Iran". "War with Iran?"

The fact that we don't do everything as "easily" as I just said is because we don't want to go to war against Iran. Period. Not because we couldn't destroy them militarily, but because the religious nutjobs over there for some reason have a brainwashing switch in the minds of the people there. Which, not to derail this thread (but haven't we already done that?), is the single largest benefit for us going into Iraq, Afghanistan, and if necessary Pakistan so as to overthrow these F'ing corrupt regimes that allow their masses to be brainwashed into hating the Western world so much. Unfortunately the killing of religions wackos isn't permitted, else I'd say lets covertly take out the extreme imam's and mullah's that are the major causes of oppression in these countries.

Chuck

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: chucky2

Originally posted by: Aimster
As for all the other stuff you said:

Let me put it to you in a simple sentence.

If Iran was scared of the U.S and the U.S could do everything so easily as you said, then Iran and the U.S would not be going at it with each other for the last 28 years.

Iran doesn't listen to the U.S. Usually when a nation ignores the U.S they get bombed. Iran has not been bombed. Look at newspapers dating back a decade. Headlines will read "U.S ready to attack Iran". "War with Iran?"

The fact that we don't do everything as "easily" as I just said is because we don't want to go to war against Iran. Period. Not because we couldn't destroy them militarily, but because the religious nutjobs over there for some reason have a brainwashing switch in the minds of the people there. Which, not to derail this threat (but haven't we already done that?), is the single largest benefit for us going into Iraq, Afghanistan, and if necessary Pakistan so as to overthrow these F'ing corrupt regimes that allow their masses to be brainwashed into hating the Western world so much. Unfortunately the killing of religions wackos isn't permitted, else I'd say lets covertly take out the extreme imam's and mullah's that are the major causes of oppression in these countries.

Chuck

war? who said we have to go to war?

U.S can just bomb Iran and take out their entire military and not go to war. Iran can't hit us.

You say the U.S can take out all of Iran's military capabilities. Did you not? What is Iran going to fight us with?

According to you the U.S is capable of the impossible.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Hey genius who doesn't know how to read.

The entire discussion is about sending in F-15s to take out Iranian air defense systems. Not using any F-22s at all because the F-15 can do it all without being shot down.

Which is STUPID.

OK Aimster, let me tell how this thread has gone:

First Lemon Law asserts that Iran has learned past lessons and that anyone attacking them in the future will have something to contend with...since we're about the only people right now that could realistically do that, he's meaning us.

Then maluckey explains how the 20 million ground troops would need to make it to where our assets are first, which would presumably be difficult without any aircover to speak of, because we are flat out going to rule the skies. Yes, with F-15's, which he in fact is the first to bring up. Remember this for later.

The Green Bean actually makes a good point, which Tango expounds upon...

...and then you come back into the thread saying something that we wouldn't use F-15's (Yes, you are right there), but then you start your journey back into tinfoil land with the "guaranteed at least one F-15 will be lost" comment.

JoS makes his priorities post...

...and then you come back with how F-15's aren't stealth, how they're going to light up on Iranian radar screens. Remember this for later.

Maluckey responds to you...

...and you start bringing up air defense systems.

You and I trade posts.

We have now basically arrived at your quote above.

Since it is so late, and I'm obviously such a complete moron, can you explain to me - short of a man portable SAM - how we are going to be losing F-15's?

Because after the SF's, stealth, standoff precision systems, and wild weasel types get done with Iranian air defense, I am failing to see how that is going to be happening.

Thanks.

Chuck

 

[Aimster]

Calm down I don't care what everyone is saying in this thread.

The fact is clear.
Nobody is attacking Iran because they control the Strait of Hormuz. It is impossible for the U.S Navy to control it. It is never going to happen.

U.S could have 500,000 troops. They would never make it to Tehran. Invasion has never been on the table. Attacking Iran has always been on the table, but nobody can figure out how to control the Strait of Hormuz without an invasion. The entire coastline would have to be invaded.

If Iran and Iraq were switched Iran, Iran would have been bombed long long ago. Not invaded, but bombed.

Iran has a handful of long-range ground-air missiles capable of taking out an F-15 (much more than Iraq ever had). It also has aircraft capable of taking out an F-15. It is not about dogfighting. It is about whose radar picks up who first. If Iran is capable of flying one of their F-14s, the F-14 would pick up the F-15 before the F-15 knew what the hell happened to it. Iranian F-14s have been fitted with Russian equipment (missiles equal to Phoenix) and their Mig-29s have been upgraded with the Tor-M1 deal.

Iran's military might be old, but it is old equipment updated with modern Russian technology.
If I were the pilot of an F-15 going into Iran I would be nervous.

However, that makes no difference. The first reason I stated is the sole reason why we are not going to war with Iran. OIL control.

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Aimster

war? who said we have to go to war?

Did you or I post this: ""Headlines will read "U.S ready to attack Iran". "War with Iran?""

U.S can just bomb Iran and take out their entire military and not go to war. Iran can't hit us.

You say the U.S can take out all of Iran's military capabilities. Did you not? What is Iran going to fight us with?

According to you the U.S is capable of the impossible.

The US is capable of rapidly achieving complete air and naval control, period. That's the easy part.

As already noted, Iran has a large infantry. Their civilian population would easily be wound up past anything the US could have hoped for even post 9/11, so in effect, when they have large amounts of infantry coming towards US forces, what then?

Do we start annahilating large contigents of their troops? How far are we prepared to go with losses on their side, as it'd likely be one sided as long as we stayed on the Iraq border (the likely point of conflict) and just watched them coming towards us? What happens when their sleeper cells in the US start hitting our civilian centers, how do we respond in kind after the game so to speak has started? If we've already reduced their air and naval forces to nothing, does that mean we hit troop centers that are not causing us direct threat?

Those are just some of the harder questions, and no one wants to get the opportunity to answer them.

Unfortunately the Iranian leadership, and the real power behind it, having nuclear technology is something the world really doesn't want to see happen for obivious reasons.

If it was just normal Iranians making up the total government of Iran, no one would have problems with them having nuke tech, as normal Iranians aren't wacko like their Leadership and fanatical religious leaders.

Unfortunately that's not the case...

Chuck

 

[Aimster]

Read the above.

U.S cannot control the Strait of Hormuz.

Oil prices would skyrocket and stay at that level for months.

 

[maluckey]

Aimster,

You really should do your homework before posting about what you don't know about military hardware and tactics. Tor is a short to medium range system and not much use against stealth at all, given that the cross section is too small to track. Syria has recently recieved SA-22. It is superior to Tor (an SA-15 derivative) in defending versus U.S. aircraft in every way. It is still unable to track current stealth. Also the U.S. does not send in aircraft without support. The United States EW capability is years ahead of even the European countries. As far as needing to even send in aircraft? Why? Cruise missles can hit any target in Iran from the gulf, or from Iraq, and B2 can hit ANY target. Once that's done, I could fly over in a Piper Cub and throw rocks

 

[chucky2]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Calm down I don't care what everyone is saying in this thread.

I am calm, and I also know how to read.

The fact is clear.
Nobody is attacking Iran because they control the Strait of Hormuz. It is impossible for the U.S Navy to control it. It is never going to happen.

U.S could have 500,000 troops. They would never make it to Tehran. Invasion has never been on the table. Attacking Iran has always been on the table, but nobody can figure out how to control the Strait of Hormuz without an invasion. The entire coastline would have to be invaded.

We could control the SoH...however I agree, it'd would not a light undertaking, and holding it wouldn't be fun. Denying the SoH though cuts both ways. If Iran went that route, their gas imports just went bye bye. With no money from their oil exports, life would start getting very difficult inside Iran.

As for making it to Tehran, why would be ever want to do that?

If Iran and Iraq were switched Iran, Iran would have been bombed long long ago. Not invaded, but bombed.

I'm not really sure why we'd have done that?

Iran has a handful of long-range ground-air missiles capable of taking out an F-15 (much more than Iraq ever had). It also has aircraft capable of taking out an F-15. It is not about dogfighting. It is about whose radar picks up who first. If Iran is capable of flying one of their F-14s, the F-14 would pick up the F-15 before the F-15 knew what the hell happened to it. Iranian F-14s have been fitted with Russian equipment (missiles equal to Phoenix) and their Mig-29s have been upgraded with the Tor-M1 deal.

Iran's military might be old, but it is old equipment updated with modern Russian technology.
If I were the pilot of an F-15 going into Iran I would be nervous.

However, that makes no difference. The first reason I stated is the sole reason why we are not going to war with Iran. OIL control.

It makes no difference Aimster because none of those systems - F-14, Mig-29's, whatever - are going to make it off the ground. Why? Because they need airfields to take off. Why couldn't they take off from them? Because there'd be big holes in them. Those long-range ground to air missles, how do those work? You just fire them off without any contact and they magically know where to go find the plane to crash into? They need guidance? How will those missles be guided when the system that guides them is a flaming piece of wreckage from SF, stealth, precision guided standoff sytems, etc?

If I were an F-15 pilot for the first few days of a shooting conflict, Yes, I'd be a little nervous as the unknown is just that, unknown. After about 2 weeks, I'd be much less nervous. After a month, I'd not be that nervous at all.

Chuck

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

I approve of this thread.

 

[Aimster]

U.S F-15s cannot just enter Iran and take out their air defense and Iranian airfields without Iran retaliating against the F-15s. They would see them coming from a mile away. By the time the F-15s were half-way in the country, Iran would have launched all their aircraft in the air and fired their long-range surface-air missiles.

My whole debate is that the U.S cannot simply use F-15s.
I mean it could, but it would lose a handful of them in the process. Sure F-15s alone could win the air campaign. Could we pull it off without losing aircraft? I highly doubt it.

In order for the operation to be successful in a strategic matter you need to send in stealth first. You don't send in F-15s into a nation that is heavily defended with ground-air defense systems. You send the F-15s in after the stealth bombers and aircraft have taken out the threats. Before you would send in stealth with fighters. Now that we have the F-22 you send the bombers with the fighters and both of them are stealth. Zero aircraft lost.

--

How are you going to control the SoH? It is a shallow body of water in a tight space. Iran can get a man holding a RPG from the shore and fire at an oil tanker.
If Iran was not in the location it is today, the U.S would never put up with their B.S. Neither would Israel. They would have bombed the living crap out of them before.

The fact that Iran has a massive missile inventory and small arms and has a massive amount of land-sea missile installations, makes the task almost impossible to do.
One oil tanker hit means the entire place is shutdown for clean-up.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Aimster
U.S F-15s cannot just enter Iran and take out their air defense and Iranian airfields without Iran retaliating against the F-15s. They would see them coming from a mile away. By the time the F-15s were half-way in the country, Iran would have launched all their aircraft in the air and fired their long-range surface-air missiles.

My whole debate is that the U.S cannot simply use F-15s.
I mean it could, but it would lose a handful of them in the process. Sure F-15s alone could win the air campaign. Could we pull it off without losing aircraft? I highly doubt it.

In order for the operation to be successful in a strategic matter you need to send in stealth first. You don't send in F-15s into a nation that is heavily defended with ground-air defense systems. You send the F-15s in after the stealth bombers and aircraft have taken out the threats. Before you would send in stealth with fighters. Now that we have the F-22 you send the bombers with the fighters and both of them are stealth. Zero aircraft lost.

--

How are you going to control the SoH? It is a shallow body of water in a tight space. Iran can get a man holding a RPG from the shore and fire at an oil tanker.
If Iran was not in the location it is today, the U.S would never put up with their B.S. Neither would Israel. They would have bombed the living crap out of them before.

The fact that Iran has a massive missile inventory and small arms and has a massive amount of land-sea missile installations, makes the task almost impossible to do.
One oil tanker hit means the entire place is shutdown for clean-up.

The US could fart in Irans general direction and the leadership would crumble underground faster than a scared rat, they are chickenshit little pricks who don't even dare to walk the streets as free men.

Fuck Iran, the world has better things to concentrate on right now.

 

[maluckey]

In order for the operation to be successful in a strategic matter you need to send in stealth first. You don't send in F-15s into a nation that is heavily defended with ground-air defense systems. You send the F-15s in after the stealth bombers and aircraft have taken out the threats. Before you would send in stealth with fighters. Now that we have the F-22 you send the bombers with the fighters and both of them are stealth. Zero aircraft lost.

WOW!!

You disregard what everyone is telling you about how war ACTUALLY works and go off on some fairy tale planning disaster. Cruise missles, EW cover and AGM88 series launched by Wild Weasels will negate air defense. Pray and spray is the only other option. Read up on on wars are fought. The scenario would be similar, just more updated as far as weapons systems, and likely without the F-117 in any large role as it is obsolete for it's purpose.
The U.S. would shut down the antiquated crap that Iran uses, then have it's way with Iran like a pit bull mounting a toy poodle:evil:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: maluckey

In order for the operation to be successful in a strategic matter you need to send in stealth first. You don't send in F-15s into a nation that is heavily defended with ground-air defense systems. You send the F-15s in after the stealth bombers and aircraft have taken out the threats. Before you would send in stealth with fighters. Now that we have the F-22 you send the bombers with the fighters and both of them are stealth. Zero aircraft lost.

WOW!!

You disregard what everyone is telling you about how war ACTUALLY works and go off on some fairy tale planning disaster. Cruise missles, EW cover and AGM88 series launched by Wild Weasels will negate air defense. Pray and spray is the only other option. Read up on on wars are fought. The scenario would be similar, just more updated as far as weapons systems, and likely without the F-117 in any large role as it is obsolete for it's purpose.
The U.S. would shut down the antiquated crap that Iran uses, then have it's way with Iran like a pit bull mounting a toy poodle:evil:

I still think a fart in their general direction will be enough.

But yeah, basically that is how it works, considering Irans placement i'd say that the Navy would have a pretty big role in the initial combat.

Iran or Assfuckistan, take your pick, if this shit is going to continue we'll never get to go home.

 

[Lemon law]

So the arm chair generals have finally figured out the obvious. The USA has the air capacity to severely wound Iran but Iran would still shut down the Persian Gulf. In terms of a final ground invasion, Iraq and Afghanistan make that impossible. Meanwhile you talk aggression
and call the leaders of a nation that has not started a war against their neighbors for like 3000 years nutty.

Maybe its time to talk diplomatic options.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
So the arm chair generals have finally figured out the obvious. The USA has the air capacity to severely wound Iran but Iran would still shut down the Persian Gulf. In terms of a final ground invasion, Iraq and Afghanistan make that impossible. Meanwhile you talk aggression
and call the leaders of a nation that has not started a war against their neighbors for like 3000 years nutty.

Maybe its time to talk diplomatic options.

You're a moron, the US with allies can get a ground invasion within 4 hours from the first strike.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Read the above.

U.S cannot control the Strait of Hormuz.

Oil prices would skyrocket and stay at that level for months.

Actually it would skyrocket even if the US controlled Hormuz. Uncertainty is a bitch.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're a moron, the US with allies can get a ground invasion within 4 hours from the first strike.

What Allies are you talking about, Lone Ranger? Poland? Fiji? El Salvador?

Wake up and smell the bullsh!t, cowboy- it's starting to ooze over the top of your boots.

Iran is a huge country, with ~70M inhabitants, not crippled by 12 years of brutal sanctions, not sufferng under a completely unpopular despotic regime, not having a military sold out in advance... They're not fractured and partially occupied before the first shot...

Your assertions are absurd on so many levels as to be laughable, except that they're basically the position of Lord Vader, the vice president who's not a member of the executive branch... the guy with such a bad case of tunnel vision that he shot one of his pals in the face while after a quail...

The notion that any invasion of Iran could possibly succeed with anything less than ~1M troops and an annual expense of ~$400B is dangerously delusional. Learn anything from Iraq? Or just that you need to put the blinders on a little tighter?

 

[maluckey]

So the arm chair generals have finally figured out the obvious. The USA has the air capacity to severely wound Iran but Iran would still shut down the Persian Gulf. In terms of a final ground invasion, Iraq and Afghanistan make that impossible. Meanwhile you talk aggression

Diplomacy is the act of negotiation to a mutally agreed on circumstance, from a position of strength...otherwise it is called Capitulation. U.S. forces could defeat Iran as easily as Iraq and Afghanistan. Holding it is another matter as we've seen.

As far as Iran shutting down the Persian Gulf? I guess that they could sink their ships at strategic locations and pack them with RC detonators. DO YOUR RESEARCH. Read up on Sea Wolf Class Subs, as well as Navy detection and SSM's.

The Iranian navy would sink faster that a paper boat in a washing machine.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: maluckey
PC surgeon,

The following attacks are the works of Hezbolla (funded, supported and trained by Iran). All are attacks DIRECTLY against the U.S.

-April 1983 suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy, Beirut

-October 1983 suicide bombings of U.S. Marine and French Army barracks, Beirut.

-September 1984 suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex, East Beirut.

-Khobar Tower Bombing in 1996

There are more...............

Lemon Law....Quds force are still operating in Northern Iraq, and my guess is they aren't selling AMWAY.

Here's just one of many

Mohsen Chizari, the third highest ranking Quds force was arrested, despite possessing a Diplomatic Passport for weapons trafficking. Inventories and delivery documents for weapons were found in his quarters in the SCIRI compound where he was staying.

Of course the Quds DON'T answer directly to Ahmadiniwhatever.

You seem to be making the same mistake that Bush did with his Axis drivel which is the direct cause of todays problems with Iran and that is failing to understand the power structure there.

The Iranians were far more West leaning than generally given credit and that included their government as a whole. Note the student demonstrations in SUPPORT of the US after 9/11. What the government did NOT have was complete control over factions that were causing troubles during the 80's and 90's.

The Iranians (who are highly nationalistic with a long history they are proud of) would probably be working with us right now to stabilize the ME if not for the blunder which called the Iranians evil (and that's exactly what the entirely foreseeable effect was) and gave the opportunity for those we now have and didn't want to come to power.

As a result, the religious and secular moderates who had quietly been making overtures to the west and the US in particular were replaced virtually overnight and Ahmadiniwhatever and his own changed election rules in an attempt to keep anyone they don't approve out of national office.

If you want to deal with Iran as it is, fine. Don't compound GWB's error by lumping every action by some Iranians as "Iran" at work.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: maluckey
PC surgeon,

The following attacks are the works of Hezbolla (funded, supported and trained by Iran). All are attacks DIRECTLY against the U.S.

-April 1983 suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy, Beirut

-October 1983 suicide bombings of U.S. Marine and French Army barracks, Beirut.

-September 1984 suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy annex, East Beirut.

-Khobar Tower Bombing in 1996

There are more...............

Lemon Law....Quds force are still operating in Northern Iraq, and my guess is they aren't selling AMWAY.

Here's just one of many

Mohsen Chizari, the third highest ranking Quds force was arrested, despite possessing a Diplomatic Passport for weapons trafficking. Inventories and delivery documents for weapons were found in his quarters in the SCIRI compound where he was staying.

Of course the Quds DON'T answer directly to Ahmadiniwhatever.

You seem to be making the same mistake that Bush did with his Axis drivel which is the direct cause of todays problems with Iran and that is failing to understand the power structure there.

The Iranians were far more West leaning than generally given credit and that included their government as a whole. Note the student demonstrations in SUPPORT of the US after 9/11. What the government did NOT have was complete control over factions that were causing troubles during the 80's and 90's.

The Iranians (who are highly nationalistic with a long history they are proud of) would probably be working with us right now to stabilize the ME if not for the blunder which called the Iranians evil (and that's exactly what the entirely foreseeable effect was) and gave the opportunity for those we now have and didn't want to come to power.

As a result, the religious and secular moderates who had quietly been making overtures to the west and the US in particular were replaced virtually overnight and Ahmadiniwhatever and his own changed election rules in an attempt to keep anyone they don't approve out of national office.

If you want to deal with Iran as it is, fine. Don't compound GWB's error by lumping every action by some Iranians as "Iran" at work.

Haya, maluckey is a good guy, a tad overloaded like most of us in the field.

I agree with what you are saying regarding the Iran-US relations though, they were on the US side until GW declared them enemies, they even offered their help without being asked.

GW did everything he possibly could to piss off the entire world, he MUST have aimed for just that, he MUST have, it took a lot of skill but even the UK population dislikes the US now.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He's OK. I understand some things. It's good to understand the dynamics of a situation though.

Bush is remarkably gifted. If he had 10 paths laid before him and only 1 was wrong, he'd naturally pick it. I don't think it's intentional. BTW, I think Malucky is OK too.


I was in Nova Scotia in August. They have always liked Americans (and still do) but some things have changed. They still often fly two flags, one Canadian and one US, but the US one is upside down, which as I'm sure you know is a distress signal. Most there seem to hope the US will come back to rationality. They miss their neighbor.

Speaking of you neck of the woods, I have friends who live in both the US and Nova Scotia and who are US citizens. They flew to Scotland (where his family is from) to visit, and they were wearing little maple leafs. Upon seeing this, a few people remarked that "well at least you aren't from the US" That pretty much says it all regarding how

 

[maluckey]

Hayabusa Rider,

I hear ya!

War is the Ultimate form of Diplomacy. It's also the least desirable. It is also not always avoidable, despite us wanting it to be. Once the effects of war are seen first-hand, they're not easily forgotten. Unfortunately, the majority of people feel that war can ALWAYS be avoided...this is simply not true. Most of the time it can be sidestepped, but as long as humans have needs and wants, someone will ALWAYS need something that you don't want to give at any price. In these moments, war is unavoidable.

Also ......The conflict between the West "in general" goes waaaaaaaayyyyyyy farther back than then 20th Century. The main issue is Islamic and Christian intolerance of each other. Even Bush couldn't screw it up worse than it already was. Terror attacks against the West began as soon as the ME rose from desert wanderers to oil-fed city dwellers.

Here in the ME, posturing is still a part of the intricate dance of Politics and Diplomacy. If you can show your opponent to be weak, or immoral, then you are in the superior position regardless of reality or the final outcome. It has little to do with what the West sees as Diplomacy. It used to frustrate the hell out of me and my team that we had to sit and drink several cups of Chai...Blech isgust; and talk about families for hours. On new engagements it was often three or four visits before we talked ANY business. I hate Chai and pastries in-general so it's double torture. Perhaps I'm Easternized to the extent that I need to Posture....perhaps Moonie knows why:laugh: But what I see is that Iran is not willing to play by the dominant team's rules. Good idea if you can support yourself, and a good thing overall. It is not "Best Practice to rattle your sabre unless you intend to draw it and win decisively. You get nothing from it. History is littered with former leaders and nations that challenged without teeth. It has never been useful.

Aquanaveljihad spouts off about extermination of Zionists and how there are no Gays in his country because he NEEDS to say such things for the support of the Islamist factions in his government as well as for common masses in his country that buy into his projected perceptions and they all ride the wave of Nationalistic pride. The same for the United States. The only difference is that the Americans have EVERYTHING, so when they brag or show pride, it's labeled as arrogance for being immodest. Different standards? You betcha. Equality is only equal when YOU call the shots.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: maluckey

As far as Iran shutting down the Persian Gulf? I guess that they could sink their ships at strategic locations and pack them with RC detonators. DO YOUR RESEARCH. Read up on Sea Wolf Class Subs, as well as Navy detection and SSM's.

The Iranian navy would sink faster that a paper boat in a washing machine.

I'm genuinely curious about something now: Are possible hit-and-run tactics by Iran's missile patrol boats a non-factor in controlling the waters?

I'm far from professionally schooled in the area, but I would imagine that importing guerilla-like tactics from the land war to the waters would be Iran's best bet - try to needle the U.S. to death. If enough little strikes get lucky, the PR at home in the U.S. could turn negative enough that the politicians order the Navy to back off to minimize losses/damage.