What will happen

[Velk]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: Meuge
Don't underestimate the Israeli military - the Russian Defense Minister said, after his visit to Israel, that he isn't sure why any of the Arab states threaten Israel, given that in his judgement, the Israeli military could wage a successful conventional war against all of them at once if need be... and win.

Aside from that, Aimster, that's actually a very good analysis.

Ya your absolutley right I agree % 100 , then after all of that is said and done WTF does Israel need 200+ nuclear warheads ??

Because being able to beat the other guy isn't enough. The other guy has to believe that, and further the other guy has to *care* that he is going to lose.

And because even if he does lose, it's certainly not going to be bloodless.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Aimster

The same way North Korea would bomb South Korea in a war. They have enough artillery/missiles to level Seoul. That is why the U.S didn?t invade North Korea.

You do not need tanks/jets to attack U.S forces in the region.

Iran has thousands of missiles capable of hitting Iraq. They demonstrated they are capable of hitting deep inside Iraq a few years ago by launching hundreds of missiles at an MEK base inside Iraq.

Finding out the location of thousands of missiles and thousands if not millions of rounds of artillery is an impossible task.

To give you an idea of how large Iran is:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/iran_area.jpg

N Korea/S Korea is a whole different argument. The US has complete control of the air in the Middle East. Anything even remotely looking like a wepaon will get a missle up its ass before the ground crews can say RUN!
Thats the advantage of having a high tech army. Up to date satellite imagery, round the clock air patrols, high speed mechanized forces....Iran wouldnt satnd a snowballs chance in hell in a war unless they went underground. Look how well Saddams army faired against America, you think Iran go do any better? No. Our troops were "green" when we hit Iraq. If we go to war with Iran, we do it with complete air supremecy, established ground bases and combat hardened troops.

Irans ONLY chance is to go underground, just like Saddam did. At that point we would very well lose the war in the sense of not overthrowing them politically, but we could still move in to established critical oil infrastructure to secure it.

It really just depends why we're going.
Are we simply stopping the nuke projects? Thats a simple in out love.
Are we securing the oil infrastructure? Doable, but logistically much more difficult.
Are we overthrowing the government? Practically impossible.

Iran is not trying to face the U.S air-air or tank-tank. This is why the majority of their spending is directed at homemde weapons such as RPGS, Anti-tank weapons. The weapons they cannot produce but need they purchase such as S-300s, S-400s, etc.

They (psycho President) want to bring the U.S into Iran because they know the 70 million+ population will fight and die for their country. Unlike the Arabs, Iranians are nationalist.

The majority of the fighting is going to be city fighting in populated areas. Iran has already mentioned they will not fight the U.S in the open like Iraq did. They have no chance that way and they already witnessed what happened to Iraq. Iraq had no choice to fight in the desert since they moved all their forces there to begin with. Not all battles with Iraqi forces was from the air. The U.S had plenty of ground-ground attacks on large Iraqi forces (Republician Guards).

Finding missiles/artillery is not an easy task. Even during the Gulf War Saddam was able to launch his Scuds. Even during Operation Freedom he was able to launch whatever missiles he had at U.S forces, but the design of the Iraqi missiles was horrible.

There is just no way to destroy all of Iran's capabilities before they can launch them. We simply do not know where they are or how many of what Iran has.

Remember they aren't sitting out in the middle of the desert for satellites to easily spot. They are probably in warehouses, trucks, etc. Which are probably moved on a daily basis.

If our abilities were that easy, all Israel has to do is bomb Hezbollah positions and destroy all of their rockets/artillery. Hezbollah still has their weapons and missiles.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Aimster

The same way North Korea would bomb South Korea in a war. They have enough artillery/missiles to level Seoul. That is why the U.S didn?t invade North Korea.

You do not need tanks/jets to attack U.S forces in the region.

Iran has thousands of missiles capable of hitting Iraq. They demonstrated they are capable of hitting deep inside Iraq a few years ago by launching hundreds of missiles at an MEK base inside Iraq.

Finding out the location of thousands of missiles and thousands if not millions of rounds of artillery is an impossible task.

To give you an idea of how large Iran is:
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/atlas_middle_east/iran_area.jpg

N Korea/S Korea is a whole different argument. The US has complete control of the air in the Middle East. Anything even remotely looking like a wepaon will get a missle up its ass before the ground crews can say RUN!
Thats the advantage of having a high tech army. Up to date satellite imagery, round the clock air patrols, high speed mechanized forces....Iran wouldnt satnd a snowballs chance in hell in a war unless they went underground. Look how well Saddams army faired against America, you think Iran go do any better? No. Our troops were "green" when we hit Iraq. If we go to war with Iran, we do it with complete air supremecy, established ground bases and combat hardened troops.

Irans ONLY chance is to go underground, just like Saddam did. At that point we would very well lose the war in the sense of not overthrowing them politically, but we could still move in to established critical oil infrastructure to secure it.

It really just depends why we're going.
Are we simply stopping the nuke projects? Thats a simple in out love.
Are we securing the oil infrastructure? Doable, but logistically much more difficult.
Are we overthrowing the government? Practically impossible.

Iran is not trying to face the U.S air-air or tank-tank. This is why the majority of their spending is directed at homemde weapons such as RPGS, Anti-tank weapons. The weapons they cannot produce but need they purchase such as S-300s, S-400s, etc.

They (psycho President) want to bring the U.S into Iran because they know the 70 million+ population will fight and die for their country. Unlike the Arabs, Iranians are nationalist.

The majority of the fighting is going to be city fighting in populated areas. Iran has already mentioned they will not fight the U.S in the open like Iraq did. They have no chance that way and they already witnessed what happened to Iraq. Iraq had no choice to fight in the desert since they moved all their forces there to begin with. Not all battles with Iraqi forces was from the air. The U.S had plenty of ground-ground attacks on large Iraqi forces (Republician Guards).

Finding missiles/artillery is not an easy task. Even during the Gulf War Saddam was able to launch his Scuds. Even during Operation Freedom he was able to launch whatever missiles he had at U.S forces, but the design of the Iraqi missiles was horrible.

There is just no way to destroy all of Iran's capabilities before they can launch them. We simply do not know where they are or how many of what Iran has.

Remember they aren't sitting out in the middle of the desert for satellites to easily spot. They are probably in warehouses, trucks, etc. Which are probably moved on a daily basis.

If our abilities were that easy, all Israel has to do is bomb Hezbollah positions and destroy all of their rockets/artillery. Hezbollah still has their weapons and missiles.

Sadly I have to admit the highlighted statement. But you see the Arabic countries are very diverse with so many different political agendas they just lost each other's respect and unity post the Arab-Israeli war.

Had the Arabs had a unified political agenda they wouldn't had to worry about Israel, but you see the disntegration of Arabic countries was a well thought of plan by countries such as Great Britain and France, they knew what they were doing when they promised the Arabs unity and gave them division, otherwise we would have had something like a federal system of all ME Arabic countries and with such a unity we wouldn't have been weak and had an Israel problem up our arses ATM.
I think it's just that Arabs lost hope post WWII to ever be united and after the establishment of the occupying force (Israel) with all that western interference that happaned back then they knew they don't stand a chance anymore, meanwhile Iran didn't have to worry about all that sht after all they are just Iran the persian country slipping in unoticed

TBH I have a lot of respect for Iran, eventhough I am not Sheite I still respect them for the hardwork they have done over time to improve their country's position on the political map, I wish the best for them really and hope they pull through without having to suffer another bloody war, I would like to see them improve in all aspects of their country in a civilized way.

 

[Aimster]

I wonder what a unified Arabia would look like:

Saudi Arabia: 310.2
Egypt: 316.3
Syria: 60.4
Iraq: 54.4
UAE: 63.6
Algeria: 212.3
Bahrain: 13.0
Comoros: .44
Djibouti: .62
Jordan: 25.5
Kuwait: 48.0
Lebanon: 18.8
Libya: 37.5
Mauritania: 5.5
Morocco: 134.6
Oman: 38.1
Qatar: 19.5
Somalia: 4.6
Sudan: 76.2
Tunisia: 70.8
Yemen: 16.3

Total GDP: 1,456,066,000

About the same as Russia.

 

[The Linuxator]

Originally posted by: Aimster
I wonder what a unified Arabia would look like:

Saudi Arabia: 310.2
Egypt: 316.3
Syria: 60.4
Iraq: 54.4
UAE: 63.6
Algeria: 212.3
Bahrain: 13.0
Comoros: .44
Djibouti: .62
Jordan: 25.5
Kuwait: 48.0
Lebanon: 18.8
Libya: 37.5
Mauritania: 5.5
Morocco: 134.6
Oman: 38.1
Qatar: 19.5
Somalia: 4.6
Sudan: 76.2
Tunisia: 70.8
Yemen: 16.3

Total GDP: 1,456,066,000

About the same as Russia.

Dude a unified Arabia would be an old dream come true, but you wake up for a second and you see that it's impossible , just think about the :

- Relegious diversity
- Political diversity
- Racial diversity
- Size
- Income difference, (I mean you can't really imagine a guy from the UAE with money being flushed down his toilet uniting with a guy that is from Sudan and is busting his arse of for a dollar, it just wouldn't work).

And even if those 5 major factors were out of the way, western countries wouldn't ever want to see that happen, they would try the impossible to break any thing like that apart.

 

[trenchfoot]

And even if those 5 major factors were out of the way, western countries wouldn't ever want to see that happen, they would try the impossible to break any thing like that apart

could it be possible though, that those countries someday might be united under the protective control of the US and its allies as a hedge against china and its expansionist desires?

 

[Aimster]

I know a unified Arabia will never ever happen.

The idea was just interesting to me.

----
Tweaker2, no never. It will never happen.

 

[compuwiz1]

Somehow, I'm feeling like more urgency in this Iran nuke issue is needed. This thing needs to get nipped in the bud yesterday. If talks fail, then what? This is not anything to leave to chance. Israel is Iran's target, and we are not going to let that happen. You can be assured there is going to be military action involving the U.S.

I'm for sanctions, even if the price of oil increases....it's a hell of alot better than going to war, yet again. On that note, however, I think any nation that helps Iran in their quest, should also be heavily sanctioned.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
We can not invade or attack Iran. They have stood by and watched our invasion & occupation of Iraq for the last three years. They have our playbook. Remember the Brady Bunch episode where Jan stole Greg's playbook and gave it to the other school? Same thing. Except this time there is no Sam-the-butcher or Alice-the-maid to break up the fight.

The price of oil would reach $100 a barrel within 72 hrs of any US military action. And the fury with which they would fight would make the current debacle in Iraq look like the fight between Bobby Brady and the kid who teased Cindy Brady because of her speech impediment.

You can give a grade school football team an NFL teams playbook, but if they meet on the field the NFL team will still completely dominate the game.

You guy's are playing with fire... Iraq and Iran are not the same. For one Iran has about 3X the population of Iraq, Bigger army, more amo... Etc...Etc...

Yeah, this is gonna be EASY right? Just like how easy it was in Iraq, remember, we are still in Iraq... I bet bush thought that Iraq was gonna be easy and simple too...

Omm, where are we going to get the money and troops? It's not gonna happen...

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
We can not invade or attack Iran. They have stood by and watched our invasion & occupation of Iraq for the last three years. They have our playbook. Remember the Brady Bunch episode where Jan stole Greg's playbook and gave it to the other school? Same thing. Except this time there is no Sam-the-butcher or Alice-the-maid to break up the fight.

The price of oil would reach $100 a barrel within 72 hrs of any US military action. And the fury with which they would fight would make the current debacle in Iraq look like the fight between Bobby Brady and the kid who teased Cindy Brady because of her speech impediment.

You can give a grade school football team an NFL teams playbook, but if they meet on the field the NFL team will still completely dominate the game.

You guy's are playing with fire... Iraq and Iran are not the same. For one Iran has about 3X the population of Iraq, Bigger army, more amo... Etc...Etc...

Yeah, this is gonna be EASY right? Just like how easy it was in Iraq, remember, we are still in Iraq... I bet bush thought that Iraq was gonna be easy and simple too...

Omm, where are we going to get the money and troops? It's not gonna happen...

And how hasnt Iraq been "easy". I'd say some 2000 odd military casualties in 2 years is representative of "not hard", especially when you compare those losses to the first day of Operation Overlord, or any other major battle.
Theres a huge difference between a military action and a police/peacekeeping action. From a military perspective, Iraq was a relatively easy campaign.

 

[Leper Messiah]

America should seriously call Iran's bluff. Ultimatium. you've got 72 hours to stop this nuclear arms factory you're trying to make, or we pre-emptively crush your ass. It'd probably take a draft to get enough troops, but IMHO its needed to be done.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
We can not invade or attack Iran. They have stood by and watched our invasion & occupation of Iraq for the last three years. They have our playbook. Remember the Brady Bunch episode where Jan stole Greg's playbook and gave it to the other school? Same thing. Except this time there is no Sam-the-butcher or Alice-the-maid to break up the fight.

The price of oil would reach $100 a barrel within 72 hrs of any US military action. And the fury with which they would fight would make the current debacle in Iraq look like the fight between Bobby Brady and the kid who teased Cindy Brady because of her speech impediment.

You can give a grade school football team an NFL teams playbook, but if they meet on the field the NFL team will still completely dominate the game.

You guy's are playing with fire... Iraq and Iran are not the same. For one Iran has about 3X the population of Iraq, Bigger army, more amo... Etc...Etc...

Yeah, this is gonna be EASY right? Just like how easy it was in Iraq, remember, we are still in Iraq... I bet bush thought that Iraq was gonna be easy and simple too...

Omm, where are we going to get the money and troops? It's not gonna happen...

As I said earlier, 2000 deaths is nothing in a military campaign, as you can see from looking at history. The only reason it is being portrayed as so badly is because the American public is having a case of "war remorse" where now they know they should not have been in Iraq. Let Iran lob one missile at a American Military base in Iraq, killing a few hundred or few thousand soldiers, and you will watch the public not care about a few thousand deaths to occupy/attack Iran. When 9/11 happened no one had a valid target, save Afghanistand, and everyone was for invading Afghanistand (the majjority) because it was a valid, defined target that people could look up in an encyclopedia and see. After they realised there is no concrete visual target to direct there anger at, there anger waned, and now you have the result of that. If Iran attacks the US in anyway, Bush and co will have the public support they need to turn the place into glass overnight.

 

[qoou]

I don't trust the things the news reports and the governemnt's intelligence services say.
Just as the press was very pro "attack Iraq" before we did attack them and very " attacking Iraq was a mistake" afterwards right now they are very pro " attack Iran".
They just want to get people excited about a new war so they will keep dialing into the news stations. You can't believe anything you hear on tv news.
So given that what information do we the public have? None. Our intelligence services have shown that they jump to alot of conclusions and are often wrong in those conclusions.
I think we can say for sure that the leader of Iran is a madman, and rather than attack a whole country for his saber rattling we should just assassinate him personally.
Im sure Pat Robertson would agree.

 

[themusgrat]

First of all, how hard is it to hide weapons of mass destruction? We in the US seem to do it well, so there is no saying that there are definitely none in Iraq, though it is becoming doubtful. But Israel has the right to nukes because everyone around them wants to kill them. The Iranian president said, in October, that Israel is a "Disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map," and of course that is why the Iranians can't have the nuke, or get close. The enrichment can be done in Russia, and then there will be no conflict. Then again, extreme radicals don't give up ideas like wiping Israel so easily, so this will be either a long and somewhat peaceful argument, or a short war. I think that the military learned from this horible debacle in Iraq, and will not make the mistake again of thinking we can bomb the crap out of them and send minimal forces in to subdue them.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: themusgrat
First of all, how hard is it to hide weapons of mass destruction? We in the US seem to do it well, so there is no saying that there are definitely none in Iraq, though it is becoming doubtful. But Israel has the right to nukes because everyone around them wants to kill them. The Iranian president said, in October, that Israel is a "Disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map," and of course that is why the Iranians can't have the nuke, or get close. The enrichment can be done in Russia, and then there will be no conflict. Then again, extreme radicals don't give up ideas like wiping Israel so easily, so this will be either a long and somewhat peaceful argument, or a short war. I think that the military learned from this horible debacle in Iraq, and will not make the mistake again of thinking we can bomb the crap out of them and send minimal forces in to subdue them.

there is no proof that the iranians are developing nuclear weapons, although there is the possibility. Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons either. you can't go bomb countries based on a suspicion. Maybe they don't want fuel from Russia. Maybe they don't want to rely on others and want to be self sufficient. Iran has high concentrations of Uranium ore. It's seems logical to me to want to invest in complete nuclear fuel cycle.

Some argue, why do they need to have nuke power when they have so much oil and gas. easy, they, like everyone else in the ME, want to sell their damn oil for the almighty greenback! the less they have to rely on oil themselves the more they can sell. D'OH

 

[PimpJuice]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Iran will bomb U.S bases in Iraq.

U.S will be like omg wtf?

Bush will say Iran had no right to attack U.S forces.. make up some BS.. get the support of the people..
invasion.

Since when has that mattered?

 

[arsbanned]

With what, their aging F-14s? They are no match for the U.S. militarily, even in our weakened state. Oil will go up. There will be shortages. Bush and Cheney will profit further. The ME will be even more de-stabilized. So much for this plan to "create a new ME". The U.S. will continue to bleed off clout and become ever more weakened under the Bush nightmare.
Democracy and Freedom! Yay!

 

[tommywishbone]

"Iran will bomb U.S bases in Iraq."

WTF are there even US Military bases in Iraq? Idiots!

 

[themusgrat]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: themusgrat
First of all, how hard is it to hide weapons of mass destruction? We in the US seem to do it well, so there is no saying that there are definitely none in Iraq, though it is becoming doubtful. But Israel has the right to nukes because everyone around them wants to kill them. The Iranian president said, in October, that Israel is a "Disgraceful blot" that should be "wiped off the map," and of course that is why the Iranians can't have the nuke, or get close. The enrichment can be done in Russia, and then there will be no conflict. Then again, extreme radicals don't give up ideas like wiping Israel so easily, so this will be either a long and somewhat peaceful argument, or a short war. I think that the military learned from this horible debacle in Iraq, and will not make the mistake again of thinking we can bomb the crap out of them and send minimal forces in to subdue them.

there is no proof that the iranians are developing nuclear weapons, although there is the possibility. Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons either. you can't go bomb countries based on a suspicion. Maybe they don't want fuel from Russia. Maybe they don't want to rely on others and want to be self sufficient. Iran has high concentrations of Uranium ore. It's seems logical to me to want to invest in complete nuclear fuel cycle.

Some argue, why do they need to have nuke power when they have so much oil and gas. easy, they, like everyone else in the ME, want to sell their damn oil for the almighty greenback! the less they have to rely on oil themselves the more they can sell. D'OH

Well, I do think that nuclear power is great, and every country should have it. But Iran's president has made it quite hard to trust him, so either they need to give the UN inspectors lots of freedom, or get a new president. No, we should not bomb them, but all our special forces can get the job done. No, there is no proof, but it is a lot like the situation Saddam Hussein. Almost every nation thought he had biological weapons, and there is still that chance. But by his actions, namely killing people, he didn't help that image out at all. So maybe Iran doesn't intend to make the nuke, but they aren't helping themselves out at all. If they don't want to be threatened, then they should provide evidence of that and allow safeguards, which they are not doing.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
"Iran will bomb U.S bases in Iraq."

WTF are there even US Military bases in Iraq? Idiots!

We have 100,000+ troops there.

I would sure hope they have bases established there.

In fact if you look at the numbers.. we have a 100+ operational bases.

 

[tommywishbone]

I know why the bases are there... but it's all a lie. A big murderous thieving lie.

So now we are worried that someone may hurt the people that we have illegally sent to another country to kill those people? That would be like the Germans being outraged that the allies invaded France. I can hear the Germans, " You have no right to attack our soldiers! How dare you! We must now attack and kill you!"

We are the cause of the violence. We are the invaders. We are the criminals. The United States of America is the aggressor.



Edit: I almost forgot, happy Martin Luther King day.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
.

hmm....I won't say anything about your quote I suppose, but they are also building massive basses in Iraq atm..

Massive basses = US military presence for decades to come in the ME right near the oil.

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: RichardE
What will happen is the US bombs Irans nuclear reactor. What will happen if Israel bombs it? I am trying to understand the situation and the reprecusions of it. As far as I can see, If the US bombs, China will retaliate for Iran, and Iran will bomb Iraq. Is Israel does, than Iran and Syria will realiate, but China will stay out of it (as Israel and China share military contracts ect). So from this, it would be better for Bush to push Israel to bomb Iran, to avoid conflict with China.

You're joking right? China will retaliate for Iran? Against who??? US?!?!

 

[DAPUNISHER]

What will happen if Iran is bombed?

Dub will fly in somewhere, stand in front of a banner saying Mission Accomplished! then the fun will really begin!

 

[tommywishbone]

I forgot about that.... Mission Accomplished!! YEEE HAAA!!!