US planning Iran Stikes: Report

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

They said the same thing about the scary republican Guard. There is no military in the world that has a chance against the US.

Good lord. Do you actually believe it's that simple? Do you own an atlas?

[Fireball]

Originally Posted by SoulOfTheFlame

Hmm... why haven't they finished the Iraq war yet then?

Also... In terms of skill alone... The Canadian armed forces always beat the US in anual war games.

It's true. Canada > CANAM Games. Canadian Basic Infantry are trained to have the same skill set that US Army Rangers have.

--
The US is tough and well-armed.

I wouldn't say that they're unbeatable, though. Iran was test firing torpedoes last week that can reach speeds of 225 MPH. They super heat the water infront of them, essentially turning it into vapour, so that they can travel through a next-to-nothing environment with very little friction. Combined with North Korea's super advanced Submarines, they could really play havoc on the US's Naval fleet which plays a big part in the US's ability to mobilize. Let's not rule out that China has something like one billion troops if they call in a conscription. They'd outnumber American forces 4:1 alone.

Also, Iran has already threatened to nuke Israel if they're to be attacked...which would be bad. Imagine that religious outcry? Abomination of Desolation, anybody?

Tread lightly, Dubya.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

An interesting speech given by Jim Huhtala, candidate in Sherburne County, Minnesota. Says a lot of what people are feeling at the mid-terms.

He definitely sounds very patriotic and idealistic. His message also resonates a lot with what I believe is wrong with the U.S. and what is starting to happen in Canada. Take his "Now more than ever it’s time we rid this nation of elected officials whose only goal seem to be their own re-election and whose strategy seems to be not to rock the boat." statement and tell me that isn't what the Martin Liberals were doing before the last election.

I'd like to hear more about his principles and how he plans on it happening. Although I don't agree with some of his hidden leanings (bigger gov't, government should look after the people), I do think it's time for a shift towards that in the U.S. just to balance out the current trends.

Interesting for sure though.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SoulOfTheFlame

Hmm... why haven't they finished the Iraq war yet then?

Also... In terms of skill alone... The Canadian armed forces always beat the US in anual war games.

Fighting a war against pockets of insurgents is hugely different then fighting a normal battle of army against army, Navy against Navy and Airforce against Airforce. What Iran has in the field might be a large army with fairly advanced weapons, but the U.S. Military almost has to be considered next generation compared to what any country in the world can field. Iran would be very similar to Iraq. The U.S. Military and airpower would obliterate anything that the Iran puts into the field before it can get into the field, where the American's would run into problems would be dealing with insurgents who don't fight using common military practices. Going beyond that, its doubtful that the yanks would even want to deploy thier army in the field, until the airforce knocked down the Iranian missile, artillary and armor, and the Navy used missile attacks to take about thier logistics and basing capabilities, important roads and bridges would be taken down to prevent resupply and re-enforcement, and special forces would be used to take about any stockpile of ammunition, fuel and food. Then the Marines and Army would go in to pocket and clean up any further Iranian Military resistance.

On the second part, when you face the U.S. Military in wargames, for the first part they handicap themselves, (ie noise augmentors with the Navy) ridiculous rules of engagements for the airforce and removal of technological advantages in the army. They do this for three reasons, one to put thier troops into the worst possible nightmare scenarios, give themselves a disadvantage which forces thier military to work harder in international wargames, and three so that thier opponents in these games never ever know what the U.S. Militarys true capabilities are. So should we be proud when we beat them, absolutely, but we are beating an enemy in a training excercise who literally tied an arm behind thier back.

The U.S. military capabilities and equipment are where everyone wants to be in the next 10 years. The Amis are already there.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by calculoso

With this constant trickle of one or two bodies coming back that we see now, I agree that the resolve of the US is weakening. That said, if a carrier or battleship was blown up, I think a strong revenge feeling would be generated. Just look at 9/11 (although on a much larger scale).

To summarize, it seems to be a:

If "our children" are slowly killed due to "us" being there, it is our fault and let's get out of there so it won't happen.

If "our children" are massively killed at one shot, screw you! You die!

Good comments calc. I think the scenario I present about body bags would only work if the US launched another pre-emptive strike, and this was Iran's rebuttal. If the US strikes Iran, and Iran in turn sinks an aircraft carrier (the Iranians have a fleet of subs, so this isn't out of the question) and they send home thousands of dead Americans you can bet that the nation will demand an immediate withdrawl, no matter what is at stake. There are a lot of people in this country sick of the imperialism that the neo-cons are promoting, and paying for out of tax payer's pockets, and would love to see America and her troubles become the focus of the government, rather than another foreign nation.

I think that if Iran strikes first that the US responds with a nuke. The neo-cons are itching ti use one of their toys. These guys love playing war and spilling other people's blood, and seeing the big mushroom cloud is high on their agenda, I'm sure. I've never seen the term so loosely used in the last 30 years. Something it going to happen that will give them the excuse. That, or they'll just manufacture an excuse. I seriously see a nuclear exchange in the not to distant future if the Bush Administration has their way. These guys are out of control. No one talks that much about it without the desire to do it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Fireball

It's true. Canada > CANAM Games. Canadian Basic Infantry are trained to have the same skill set that US Army Rangers have.

--
The US is tough and well-armed.

I wouldn't say that they're unbeatable, though. Iran was test firing torpedoes last week that can reach speeds of 225 MPH. They super heat the water infront of them, essentially turning it into vapour, so that they can travel through a next-to-nothing environment with very little friction. Combined with North Korea's super advanced Submarines, they could really play havoc on the US's Naval fleet which plays a big part in the US's ability to mobilize. Let's not rule out that China has something like one billion troops if they call in a conscription. They'd outnumber American forces 4:1 alone.

Also, Iran has already threatened to nuke Israel if they're to be attacked...which would be bad. Imagine that religious outcry? Abomination of Desolation, anybody?

Tread lightly, Dubya.

Info on the fraud about the Iranian torpedo tests

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20060404.aspx

From what I understand and I could be wrong the NK super advanced submarines are designed around shore infilitration to insert special forces and not to go head to head with U.S. carrier groups.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

There are a lot of people in this country sick of the imperialism that the neo-cons are promoting, and paying for out of tax payer's pockets, and would love to see America and her troubles become the focus of the government, rather than another foreign nation.

And I would agree with this. The amount of money and focus going outwards is way too much. Some of this would money and focus would happen regardless, perhaps in different locations (aid to Africa, for example) but not near to the current extent.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

I seriously see a nuclear exchange in the not to distant future if the Bush Administration has their way. These guys are out of control. No one talks that much about it without the desire to do it.

It is a possibility, although one I hope is absolutely last resort.

Another possibility is that they learned from Saddam and all his WMD blustering over the years. They could just be using the same tactics that Iran/North Korea are using (we are going to get nukes and you can't stop us) and hoping Iran/NK blink first....

Either way, it's not a good situation that the world is going into. Bush is partly to blame... but not entirely. As the saying goes, it takes two to tango....

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Fighting a war against pockets of insurgents is hugely different then fighting a normal battle of army against army, Navy against Navy and Airforce against Airforce. What Iran has in the field might be a large army with fairly advanced weapons, but the U.S. Military almost has to be considered next generation compared to what any country in the world can field. Iran would be very similar to Iraq. The U.S. Military and airpower would obliterate anything that the Iran puts into the field before it can get into the field, where the American's would run into problems would be dealing with insurgents who don't fight using common military practices. Going beyond that, its doubtful that the yanks would even want to deploy thier army in the field, until the airforce knocked down the Iranian missile, artillary and armor, and the Navy used missile attacks to take about thier logistics and basing capabilities, important roads and bridges would be taken down to prevent resupply and re-enforcement, and special forces would be used to take about any stockpile of ammunition, fuel and food. Then the Marines and Army would go in to pocket and clean up any further Iranian Military resistance.

On the second part, when you face the U.S. Military in wargames, for the first part they handicap themselves, (ie noise augmentors with the Navy) ridiculous rules of engagements for the airforce and removal of technological advantages in the army. They do this for three reasons, one to put thier troops into the worst possible nightmare scenarios, give themselves a disadvantage which forces thier military to work harder in international wargames, and three so that thier opponents in these games never ever know what the U.S. Militarys true capabilities are. So should we be proud when we beat them, absolutely, but we are beating an enemy in a training excercise who literally tied an arm behind thier back.

The U.S. military capabilities and equipment are where everyone wants to be in the next 10 years. The Amis are already there.

Depends on the type of warfare utilized. If I were the Iranians I'd force the Americans into small unit engagements. I'd use the homefield to my advantage and draw the Americans into a war of attrition, which the Americans will lose in short order. The American military is stretched so thin and is so short or armaments right now that if you divide and conquor you could beat the big bad Americans. As long as you keep the airforce involvment to a minimum (minimizing targets, lots of mobile SAMs, etc.) the American advantage is removed. As well, if you can eliminate the carriers (sub attacks and mines) and their refueling wings, you can limit the effectiveness of the air power. This was a huge weakness for Iraq in 1991. They had no navy to counteract the Americans and the US got to sit off the coast and fire tomahawks all day. Keep the birds out of the air, and you could do very well against the Americans. Air power and sea power gives the Americans an advantage no one can compete with. Get the grunts on the ground and its a different story.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Info on the fraud about the Iranian torpedo tests

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20060404.aspx

From what I understand and I could be wrong the NK super advanced submarines are designed around shore infilitration to insert special forces and not to go head to head with U.S. carrier groups.

Nice link Captain, but it sort of doesn't come off as a scientific approach to anything. This line made me laugh.

"Another reason to worry is Russia's apparent intent to continue close economic ties with Iran and the resulting transfer of its technology to this Islamic state run by fanatics and others who are apparently just plain nuts."

Color me crazy, but WTF is the difference netween an Islamist theocracy run by a fanatic and a Christian theicracy run by a fanatic? Ahmadinejad hasn't come out and said that God told him to wipe the Israelis off the globe, he said that out of his own hubris. That makes him arrogant and dangerous. Bush said that God told him to invade Iraq. He not only displays a huge amount of hubris, but also admits to hearing voices. That makes him fanatical AND displaying psychosis. Which state is run by a fanatic and which one is apparently just plain nuts?

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by White Doors

They said the same thing about the scary republican Guard. There is no military in the world that has a chance against the US.

Iraq's military was less than half the size of the Iranians and was decimated in the first Gulf War, making it a pretty easy target the second time around especially since they couldn't use their oil wealth to fortify the troops. Iran has had no such issues. The have had the chance to stockpiled and modernize. No one really knows what arsenal they have managed to aquire. The Americans would likely win a war, but at what cost? Would it be acceptable to invade, occupy and control Iran (an their oil) if the cost is a dirty nuke dropped in Tel Aviv?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by SoulOfTheFlame

Hmm... why haven't they finished the Iraq war yet then?

Also... In terms of skill alone... The Canadian armed forces always beat the US in anual war games.

One of the reasons that they are havign such a hard time now is because so many of Iraq's army deserted.

I;'m stating in a military conflict, there is no military that can square off with the US in traditional combat. None.

What we are seeing in Iraq right now is an insurgency of sorts, not a classic military engagement.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Good lord. Do you actually believe it's that simple? Do you own an atlas?

What are you referring to? Can you provide a military in the world that can stand up to the US in a traditional military confrontation?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yes, don't let facts come into play there, pal. You were in another thread yapping on and on about geo-politics (and you were outted which is why you ran away) and now you come into this thread, where geo-politics is the answer to your poorly thoughtout post, and now you try to dismiss the concept. You do not have to strike the heartland of America to make Americans feel pain. That's what you neo-cons fail to acknowledge.

America's addictions can be so easily used against her. The most painful thing the Iranians could do is to destroy the Iraqi oilfields, blockade the Straight of Hormuz (mine the hell out of it or sink a couple big ships in there), and then watch America shrivel on the vine as their oil dependency kills them. Do you have any idea what a $120 barrel of oil does to the American economy? Immediate depression. Iran could cripple America without landing a single shell on North America.

CAN YOU READ?

"I thought that I might escape seeing war in this part of the world in my lifetime. If the US does bomb Iran I would think we will see attacks on North American soil.
__________________



Faith, n. "Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel."
(Ambrose Gwinett Bierce)


CheeseView Public ProfileSend a private message to CheeseSend email to CheeseVisit Cheese's homepage!Find More Posts by CheeseAdd Cheese to Your Buddy List

04-10-2006, 01:38 PM #6 White Doors vbmenu_register("postmenu_415271", true);
Farm Team Player


Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 79



Other than terrorist strikes, there is no way Iran can strike the USA now

Now can you stop your trolling?
I was referring to USA in the geographic sense. Got it? I do not disagree with ways that Iran can hurt the USA with what you pointed out, I mean it's painfully obvious and common sense.

But thanks for coming out.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Can you provide a military in the world that can stand up to the US in a traditional military confrontation?

China and North Korea

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

Iraq's military was less than half the size of the Iranians and was decimated in the first Gulf War, making it a pretty easy target the second time around especially since they couldn't use their oil wealth to fortify the troops. Iran has had no such issues. The have had the chance to stockpiled and modernize. No one really knows what arsenal they have managed to aquire. The Americans would likely win a war, but at what cost? Would it be acceptable to invade, occupy and control Iran (an their oil) if the cost is a dirty nuke dropped in Tel Aviv?

Iran is years away from a true nuclear weapon, a dirty bomb? Ok sure, but the very first thing that the USA woudl do is take that capability out. Also, The USA does not have enough ground troops to take over Iran like it did Iraq, not even close - so if there is an engagement it will be heavy airstrikes to set back their nuclear capability by about 20 years. That's it.

Anyways, they are only planning for it - this does not make it inevitable and frankly, they would be silly not to plan for it.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

China and North Korea

Not even close - both of their Navies can be defeated by the US' pacific fleet alone and their airforce is years behing technologically not to mention tactically. No competition. Speaking in conventional war terms only, the USA would only have to deal with China's larger army, but even that is way behind technologically and with complete naval and Air superiority assured, they would have no chance. Of course, China has more than a few nukes, so it will never happen.

[Canada 02]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Iran is years away from a true nuclear weapon, a dirty bomb? Ok sure, but the very first thing that the USA woudl do is take that capability out.

You make it sound so easy. They have occupied Iraq for years and have been unable to find any WMD. What makes you think they could find and destroy the Iranians WMD if they exist?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Canada 02

You make it sound so easy. They have occupied Iraq for years and have been unable to find any WMD. What makes you think they could find and destroy the Iranians WMD if they exist?

They would only have to destroy the delivery method.
I'm not saying it would be easy and I hope it doesn't come to that. I think the 'leak' of this plan is to try and get the Iranians to come back to the bargaining table to get a resoultion.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Can you provide a military in the world that can stand up to the US in a traditional military confrontation?

What you seem to be missing here is that it's a rather complicated set of circumstances. Sure the Americans can "beat" anyone in a nice fight held in a vacuum. So what? This isn't a vacuum.

We won't be seeing Iranian fighter jets crossing the Pacific anytime soon, but that doesn't mean they can't do serious damage to, umm, everyone, even if the Marines are marching on Tehran.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by itcrossedtheline

It would be hard for the UN to step in and do anything since they are mostly funded by the United States.

Why bite the hand that feeds them?

The UN is a puppet oraganization that has no real pull.

Yes, the UN is a puppet of the United States, hence their approval of the use of force in Iraq.