USA set to invade Iran?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Looger

Maximum effective range250 km

I am not taking anyones sides here as I personally think the debate is useless, why wouldnt they just launch from Iraq?

Anyways, the 120v250 - according to this site:

http://www.wonderland.org.nz/Missile_Index/ssn22.html

It does seem to be 120. I am not saying that todays versions arent - but according to that, its 120.

MYK

[Looger]

well, the range in my opinion isn't even some huge issue.

the missile's only dangerous if you dangle your carriers close to the coast and start something.

and i'll take the word of the federation of american scientists and the link i have that is one of their cited sources.

it all depends on what the goal of those carriers is, if it's to beat iran the united states military machine can definitely put a hurt on iran without huge losses just by virtue of huge simultaneous airstrikes, special forces and wild weasel squadrons and ship-launched cruise missiles going in first and neutering defenses like the s-300 SAM sites etc.

BUT,

if i'm some straussian neo-con madman and i'm trying to escalate the conflict with iran to full-blown nuclear, i'm going to perle harbour some sailors and let some older hardware like the USS enterprise take a big hit from a carrier-killer.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I am not taking anyones sides here as I personally think the debate is useless, why wouldnt they just launch from Iraq?

come on, we're trying to start a war here people!

honestly, the three carriers and one marine carrier are there to support US operations on that small beach of iraqi coastline...

i think it comes down to a safe staging area as well. if you're attacking iran then the shia population of iraq becomes a potential enemy, the saudi-funded sunni deathsquads and the american-trained deathsquads may stop killing civilians for five minutes and al-sadr's shia forces might do something crazy like interdict that 400-mile supply road from kuwait to baghdad in the region previously secured by british forces.

iraq might not be a secure place to launch from, i can't imagine turkey, kuwait, or saudi arabia being a big fan of an american and israeli war against iran - well maybe turkey depending on what can be stirred up beforehand.

because putting carriers right on iran's coast isn't a provocation or anything...

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Looger

well, the range in my opinion isn't even some huge issue.

the missile's only dangerous if you dangle your carriers close to the coast and start something.

and i'll take the word of the federation of american scientists and the link i have that is one of their cited sources.

it all depends on what the goal of those carriers is, if it's to beat iran the united states military machine can definitely put a hurt on iran without huge losses just by virtue of huge simultaneous airstrikes, special forces and wild weasel squadrons and ship-launched cruise missiles going in first and neutering defenses like the s-300 SAM sites etc.

BUT,

if i'm some straussian neo-con madman and i'm trying to escalate the conflict with iran to full-blown nuclear, i'm going to perle harbour some sailors and let some older hardware like the USS enterprise take a big hit from a carrier-killer.

Correct, but is Iran dumb enought to take that bait?

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Looger

come on, we're trying to start a war here people!

honestly, the three carriers and one marine carrier are there to support US operations on that small beach of iraqi coastline...

i think it comes down to a safe staging area as well. if you're attacking iran then the shia population of iraq becomes a potential enemy, the saudi-funded sunni deathsquads and the american-trained deathsquads may stop killing civilians for five minutes and al-sadr's shia forces might do something crazy like interdict that 400-mile supply road from kuwait to baghdad in the region previously secured by british forces.

iraq might not be a secure place to launch from, i can't imagine turkey, kuwait, or saudi arabia being a big fan of an american and israeli war against iran - well maybe turkey depending on what can be stirred up beforehand.

because putting carriers right on iran's coast isn't a provocation or anything...

Correct, but if you attack Iran you make Baghdad into an ultra ultra ultra green zone and forget about the rest of the country for a while to make it safe enough to land your planes there - the good thing about Iraq is that access to fuel wouldnt be a problem.

MYK

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Looger

it's you that keep asking me questions, and i stand by what i posted. the sunburn is unequaled by anything in the west's arsenal, none of our surface-to-surface missiles are anything even close in speed.

Then why, for the 2nd time, have you failed to mention anything about the systems i have posted? Is it because you can't find any bogus information on your conspiracy websites to go with your bogus statements? I've said all along the missile is a threat, but it is far from un-stoppable.

Nevertheless, defense analysts agree that the U.S. is fully a decade behind Russia in high-speed cruise missile designs. Russia currently deploys and exports the supersonic SS-N-22 Moskit cruise missile, NATO codenamed "Sunburn." The SS-N-22 is considered the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world, and flies at over 2.5 times the speed of sound only a few feet from the surface of the water.

Most "lethal". Nowhere in that statement did it say "un-stoppable" as you claim.

I've never stated it's not a dangerous missile, i've simply stated it can be stopped. It has many flaws.

Originally Posted by Looger

Maximum effective range250 km

wait a minute, i thought you said it was 120 km...

you, or the federation of american scientists. hmmm...

This is where this debate gets stupid, seriously.

You know absolutly nothing about missiles, missile systems or anything. I do.

"Maximum effective range" is a very broad statement and depends on the payload of the missile. Since the payload can vary by quite a bit, so to can the range. If you want an adequate payload to inflict some serious damage, your going to need more than a 100kg warhead. Anything in the 300-400 range - which is whats needed to take out modern ships and is what the sunburn can carry, it will go no further than 120km. Firing a missile with a next-to-nothing payload is simply a waste of time and will not inflict the damage needed to be considered a threat. So yes, i'm right, and your not.

Not to mention, the SS-N-22 has never been proved at a range anywhere close to where you claim. So in retrospect, it's just that, a "claim".

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m80.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...skit-specs.htm

I'm sticking with known, fact-based sites that are highly respected around the world. You can post all the 3rd party bias internet sites to try and fit your argument.

As i have pointed out with my background, i've learned this through the military. My brother is also educated when it comes to this subject as he spent many years in school learning about this kind of thing to become a fighter pilot. Your simply going on google to try and out-do me and it's getting quite pathetic really, because you have absolutly no idea what you are talking about - as you have just proved

Originally Posted by Looger

i hope you're right but i think you're wrong.

iran has reverse engineering abilities that the chinese would probably envy, china just overtly buys what they can't develop off of israel or else in publicly scandalous backroom deals with washington politicians and the iranians are pretty much without that kind of support. they are flying F-14s with russian engines in them!

look man, you're just going to have to deal with the fact that i disagree, DEAL.

Iran does not have the means or technological advancements to produce high end lauching systems, they would have to do so thru a purchase from Russia. Russia discloses all of it's sales of arms to states like Iran and no-where has it said anything about selling launching capabilities, just the missile it's self. Russia does not want other states to get their hands on there launching technologies because they are quite advanced and ahead of their time and the American technology in some aspects, by selling them globally it would result in these systems falling into the wrong hands allowing Washington to figure out how they work.

Iran does not have the launching capabilities to execute the results in these tests, and you know it. Hence why you didn't post your little 3rd party links supporting the claims you don't know an ounce about.

Hell, the SS-N-22 is suppose to be a ship launched missile and Iran will be launching it from land. If that dosen't say enough, I don't know what does.

Originally Posted by Looger

i am not so fast to say that iran's radar and electronic capabilities are not up to the task, simple as that.

So i'm to assume your wrong then? If your not going to reply with facts and counter claims, one can hardily believe you based on your ridiculous statements thus far.

A radar is one of the easiest military targets to take out, it is just so vulnerable and visible. Main reason why missiles these days are laser guided, heat-seeking or sattelite guided. The entire Iranian arsenal can be disabled with a few pin pointed attacks on radar facilities. But of cours, why would the US do this, since they want a "mass kill off of sailors to escalate".

Originally Posted by Looger

hey look you're lying!

Ok, but you still said hundreds. They have 16.

So your still wrong.

Originally Posted by Looger

robert steele of open source intelligence fame, one of the top reviewers at amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile...539825-8697649

and:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...ople.cfm?q=105

ROBERT D. STEELE is a retired Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer. He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Mr. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.

http://www.oss.net

in a recent interview he echoed pretty similar misgivings aboot the USN taking it on the chin off the coast of iran in a planned escalation:

http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Tarpley/0701/...t_Tarpley2.mp3

the interview starts late in the first hour but is mostly in this link.

Now your just getting into your ridiculous conspiracy links. Post a few 9/11 ones while your at it.

I have no time for this none sense, your ****ing retarted.

Originally Posted by Looger

if the US was serious aboot taking on iran without these missiles becoming a problem a first step would probably be securing the coast with special forces and MAKING SURE that none of these missiles, or support systems, are anywhere, as far as i understand the only US doctrine to deal with sunburns at all is to not get shot at with them.

they're a very known quantity, i guess it depends on if CENTCOM wants to win or wants to escalate.

LMAO, you really know absolutly nothing about any of this do you. Did you just make that up now?

Special forces aren't needed to take out radar facilities, special forces aren't needed to strike launch sites, special forces aren't needed to stay out of range of these missiles. Finally, special forces aren't needed when the USN has systems at it's disposal to counter these missiles in the first place. The US Military has so many weapons systems at their disposal, special forces will be the last thing they use and i can guarentee that.

I love how you play military strategist when you really have no clue what you are talking about.

Why would the United states do any of what you claim, when nobody has even deemed an attack on Iran is likely, or even iminnent. Seems a bit ridiculous for the US to be conceiving plans such as yours right now, when this whole strike on Iran isn't even on the books.

Originally Posted by Looger

as far as i understand the only US doctrine to deal with sunburns at all is to not get shot at with them.

Seems like a good plan to me. Your whole idea that the US needs to be in range and able to disable these missiles 100% of the time to be deemed to have the upper hand is just ridiculous. Why engage a missile when you don't have to?

Exploit the missiles weakness - range. Sit back and laugh.

To put a carrier battlegroup any where near Irans coastline is just ridiculous, move them back and Iran will be totally helpless. They will have to resort to striking the US in Iraq or Israel it's self because they won't come close to the fleets currently stationed in the gulf.

Like i have said, these SS-N-22s are suppose to be shipborn missiles, Iran dosen't posses the ability to take on the US from the ground, let alone the waters so exploiting the sunburn is a genius plan IMO.

Originally Posted by Looger

ah.

Wow, great answer.

Gotta love it when you've ran out of words to defend yourself.

Originally Posted by Looger

as i've stated, numerous times now, i think that there is a difference between enrichment capabilities and a nuclear weapons program. that's what IAEA inspections are for, and according to the IAEA website in the links posted way up there, iran is compliant with inspections.

the UN is like any organization, the bullies can force the agenda and accuse a weaker party of mealfeasance. brazil is at a pretty similar stage of nuclear enrichment as iran, for example.

i've stated my position on this over, and over, and over, and over.

iran's crazed leadership wants the power to build weapons and i don't trust their intentions, that's what the IAEA is for.

LOL

You have just switched your argument again.

Originally Posted by Looger

but until someone points at a satellite photo and says "nuclear weapons program" then i feel it's best not to turn religious whackjobs on the outs with their people, into cornered supported and scared religious whackjobs.

Last time i checked, it's hard to tell whether your enriching for a bomb or for "nuclear power" from a sattelite photo.

Genius.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Looger

wow, bolded text, swearing, even the mighty eyes-rolling smiley! what's next, are you going to stomp your feet and hold your breath until i bow down and tell you how right you are?

i've stated my points, go yell at the wall.

I wasn't yelling at anyone. CAPITALIZED text usually means yelling. I bolded so you could see, because your still in denial that your stance has not changed as i have claimed. Yet i have quoted every since contradiction and posted it. Your simply ignored - as you have with most my other statements where you either did not have an argument or knew you where wrong.

Originally Posted by Looger

BUT,

if i'm some straussian neo-con madman and i'm trying to escalate the conflict with iran to full-blown nuclear, i'm going to perle harbour some sailors and let some older hardware like the USS enterprise take a big hit from a carrier-killer.

Which is what you believe.

Ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Looger

because putting carriers right on iran's coast isn't a provocation or anything...

They are there to help the Iraqi conflict, not to provoke Iran.

You get more and more ridiculous by the second.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Correct, but is Iran dumb enought to take that bait?

Of course, Iran has such supreme capabilities. Plus the US wants a mass kill off of it's sailors.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

I have no time for this none sense, your ****ing retarted.

that's it, i'm no longer responding to anything you post, you're below the level of basic human courtesy required for civilized discussion.

EDIT: i never anywhere claimed to be an expert on missiles, great, you are and you disagree, congratufackinglations, you just spew insults like a 12 year old and it is so pathetic and so transparent that i cannot believe you're even allowed to post here.

EDIT AGAIN: fas.org is a conspiracy website?

wow.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Looger

that's it, i'm no longer responding to anything you post, you're below the level of basic human courtesy required for civilized discussion.

EDIT: i never anywhere claimed to be an expert on missiles, great, you are and you disagree, congratufackinglations, you just spew insults like a 12 year old and it is so pathetic and so transparent that i cannot believe you're even allowed to post here.

You blew that days ago with your conspiracy stance.

Like i said, you run away from the facts. That was quite the half ass reply, it's probably best you don't try and reply again or you would be refusing to reply to 90% of my statements this time.

Gotta love it when people try to be know it alls in a subject field they know nothing about -- missile systems. I've went to school in this field and worked in this field for 6 years as well as knowing others in this field. What i know comes from more than just google and 3rd party internet sites.

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by Looger

EDIT AGAIN: fas.org is a conspiracy website?

wow

Not that site, the ones you posted reguarding that Dr.whoeverthe****.

That fas.org site lacked true information nor is it as respected globally as globalsecurity.org is. Global security gave you all the facts, payloads etc. The fas site just "claimed" it had that range but had no way of backing it up, as it's never been proven -- even by the russians -- to go that distance.

You see thats the difference between me and you, i support facts, you support claims. I support facts you support conspiracies, i support facts you support mass kill-offs of escalation.

Anyways.

[eazyduzzit]

I feel i need to make my point clear regarding this issue:

Originally Posted by Looger

you just spew insults like a 12 year old and it is so pathetic and so transparent that i cannot believe you're even allowed to post here.

When one says my family members, friends and colleagues (past) are fighting a "corporate war" in Afghanistan full of "conpiracy" just for "oil" i feel this is a direct slap in the face. Saying their efforts are for a lost cause, they are not fighting for peace and not trying to bring the Afghan people the freedom they so deserve and the freedom we take for granted. As well as securing the country from Al Quada fighters so they no longer have the ability to roam around freely is a slap in the face. Soldiers are dieing over there to make this word a better place, to secure Canadas intrests and to help the people who need us most - the Afghan people. To sit here and tell me all of this is bogus while spewing out ridiculous conspiracy statements is whats really insulting.

When one is boasting about idiotic ideas of mass killofs of sailors to further this "conspiracy" agenda, i again feel it's a slap in the face.

and finally;

When one believes in the idea the US Government slaughtered 3,000+ of it's own citizens on 9/11 to further this "agenda" it is again a huge slap in the face.

So IMO, you may not have come out and called me "Retarted" but you have done just as much, if not more, with your ridiculous claims and statements thus far that a good chunk of people, including myself, find very offensive.

I cannot debate on reasonable terms with a person who believes in such ridiculous theories, people who believe in these theories are idiots and thus get the reply they deserve.

I'm all for a civil debate but when the definition includes "mass killofs" and other ridiculous theories, the debate has already passed the civil catagory.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

I feel i need to make my point clear regarding this issue:



When one says my family members, friends and colleagues (past) are fighting a "corporate war" in Afghanistan full of "conpiracy" just for "oil" i feel this is a direct slap in the face. Saying their efforts are for a lost cause, they are not fighting for peace and not trying to bring the Afghan people the freedom they so deserve and the freedom we take for granted. As well as securing the country from Al Quada fighters so they no longer have the ability to roam around freely is a slap in the face. Soldiers are dieing over there to make this word a better place, to secure Canadas intrests and to help the people who need us most - the Afghan people. To sit here and tell me all of this is bogus while spewing out ridiculous conspiracy statements is whats really insulting.

When one is boasting about idiotic ideas of mass killofs of sailors to further this "conspiracy" agenda, i again feel it's a slap in the face.

and finally;

When one believes in the idea the US Government slaughtered 3,000+ of it's own citizens on 9/11 to further this "agenda" it is again a huge slap in the face.

So IMO, you may not have come out and called me "Retarted" but you have done just as much, if not more, with your ridiculous claims and statements thus far that a good chunk of people, including myself, find very offensive.

I cannot debate on reasonable terms with a person who believes in such ridiculous theories, people who believe in these theories are idiots and thus get the reply they deserve.

I'm all for a civil debate but when the definition includes "mass killofs" and other ridiculous theories, the debate has already passed the civil catagory.

Dude, give it up. You are talking to yourself.

[Looger]

any one else feel a warm wind?

[eazyduzzit]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Dude, give it up. You are talking to yourself.

I wouldn't be if a certain someone wasn't schooled in all aspects of his argument.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by eazyduzzit

I wouldn't be if a certain someone wasn't schooled in all aspects of his argument.

Whatever. Let it go.

[Looger]

man, this clown kept trying to browbeat me in private messages.

yeah, i'm no missile expert, and i've heard from questionable sources that iran might have more than 16 of these missiles, and i posted it.

somehow by holding a different opinion i'm threatening his sick little world, his safe and well-accepted views.

it's damned-if-i-do when i think he's wrong on something i'm pi$$ing on his years of expertise (while he craps on them with his childish baloney mixed with what's probably facts), and i'm damned-if-i-don't when i 'ignore' his facts by not responding to what i might actually agree with.

therefore according to this twisted logic, if i post a response that means that i automatically say that everything he posted is a dirty lie when i said no such thing, and actually appreciate a professional opinion when it's not brought along with all this baggage. point of fact i took no issue with his data on all kinds of things, but somehow i have to take a complete stance on everything that may or may not be true by virtue of whether i disagree with one thing or not. very smart.

then our resident brain surgeon posted why he really has a problem with me, that he takes issue with my opinion on some things. i guess i have the wrong one.

but i wonder what will happen when this obsessive #####tard actually clicks my links and realizes that my fear on what might happen with iran and the USN is based on what a member of the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute has mused aboot:

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/

The Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College publishes security and strategic reports and publications which serve to influence policy debate and bridge the gap between Military and Academia. Our products are available at no cost.

yep, conspiracy theorists...

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...ople.cfm?q=105

Robert D. Steele is a guy that personally knows the Google dude (name escapes me) and travels in the high circles of civilian relations with US intelligence operations, he's reviewed like 770 nonfiction books on Amazon, and he's got a thesis website that advocates open and public intelligence gathering.

this guy is the exact opposite of a 'conspiracy theorist', his career and writings are directly intertwined with the highest institutions in the united states, like the CIA where he worked for years and the army war college and probably more that i haven't bothered to check out yet.

Robert D. Steele is the latest in a massive tide of well-heeled individuals becoming public with their views on 9/11 and what may have occurred, what their suspicions are.

Pretty soon guys like:

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts of Reagonomics fame,

Andreas Van Beulow, former Germany technology minister and deputy defence minister,

Ray McGovern, CIA man for 27 years, he did the daily CIA briefing for i think 3 presidents,

Michael Meacher, fired from Blair's cabinet after publicly releasing his famous 'The War on Terror is Bogus' article on the eve of the iraq war,

and many more all the time from all sectors of society are going to be heard, because these guys are not 'conspiracy theorists', they don't hang out in their parents' basements and wear sweatpants and chortle on internet flamewars.

they are high-level whistleblowers, and their numbers are growing.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Whatever. Let it go.

Why don't you tell Looger to let it go?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Looger

yeah, i'm no missile expert, and i've heard from questionable sources that iran might have more than 16 of these missiles, and i posted it.

The same questionable sources that tell you the Iran is trying to build nuclear missiles...but 30 posts later tells you that they're not?

I have no problem with conspiracy theorists....sure I think they're crazy and whatever...but its interesting to read their/your posts.

But if people from outside of the debate step in and tell 'one' person to let it go....it goes to show how biased THEY are(i.e. Rouge) in being equal to both parties.

Good thing Rouge is not a moderator.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by Azure

The same questionable sources that tell you the Iran is trying to build nuclear missiles...but 30 posts later tells you that they're not?

once again the difference between intent and proof.

guess what, when you invade a country's two neighbours they may wish to have the only weapon that might deter you from killing them.

really, i claimed that iran was building nuclear missiles?

Azure, this is a doozey even for you.

pathetic.

Originally Posted by Azure

I have no problem with conspiracy theorists....sure I think they're crazy and whatever...but its interesting to read their/your posts.

well i'm glad you wade in and spew junk posts once in awhile, you know, representing all the clear-thinking people out there - what would they do without you defending freedom and democracy with lies and stupidity?

Originally Posted by Azure

But if people from outside of the debate step in and tell 'one' person to let it go....it goes to show how biased THEY are(i.e. Rouge) in being equal to both parties.

Good thing Rouge is not a moderator.

wow, what a clear and concise argument.

i was going to let it all go but this sad ba$tard kept pestering me in private messages, so i just could not.

i will honour his request for more 9/11 links though, i mean if he really really wants me too.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

The same questionable sources that tell you the Iran is trying to build nuclear missiles...but 30 posts later tells you that they're not?

I have no problem with conspiracy theorists....sure I think they're crazy and whatever...but its interesting to read their/your posts.

But if people from outside of the debate step in and tell 'one' person to let it go....it goes to show how biased THEY are(i.e. Rouge) in being equal to both parties.

Good thing Rouge is not a moderator.

Well I'm glad you dragged this one back up from the basement.

Let it go.