Iran now on a possible War Alert

[diveplane]

on no not a another war brewing wtf?, what is this planet coming to?.

america is playing a very dangerous card if they get tangled up in this mess, if it goes head to head.

 

http://www.examiner.com/x-16044-Christianity--Politics-Examiner~y2010m6d23-Obama-accepts-McChrystal-resignation-Iran-declares-war-on-northwestern-border-video

[diveplane]

more info here .

 

supply movements coming through the suez canal

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/12-american-warships-including-one-aircraft-carrier-and-one-israeli-corvette-cross-suez-cana#comments

[Prophet4no1]

We really do not need a war with Iran. It can only end very baddly. They only way to win a war in the middle east is to steam roll the entire country and kill almost every one. Then, take over. This "soft war" crap we have been doing has not worked, at all. Just like Nam. Fighting a war like that is not PC any more, so it wont happen. Only thing that will happen is a lot of people will die for no reason at all.

[diveplane]

We really do not need a war with Iran. It can only end very baddly. They only way to win a war in the middle east is to steam roll the entire country and kill almost every one. Then, take over. This "soft war" crap we have been doing has not worked, at all. Just like Nam. Fighting a war like that is not PC any more, so it wont happen. Only thing that will happen is a lot of people will die for no reason at all.

 

steam roll being in your case =drop big bird on it =nuke? again this method would simply be the end of the planets enviroment to sustain us all, also russia china north korea , possibly getting into the big bird tango dance as well.

Edited June 24, 2010 by diveplane

[ShalashakaDS]

Guess thats why he said its unlikely to happen. And what do you mean by "whats this planet coming to?". It has always been like this, only diference is that now we have much better ways of killing each other than at the begining of the century for exemple. About a war with Iran, i agree that it wouldnt be good for anyone, but i think a strike on Irans nuclear plants wouldnt be so unlikely to happen, after all, nobody is buying Iran's history of wanting nuclear energy for pacific means. I sure hope this prove unnecesary, last thing the world need these days is another stupid war.

[Lucas_From_Hell]

You mean something like this?

 

 

Now seriously, well, if they are really serious about this one (and I doubt they are), this could end in very, very big sh**.

 

I can't say they don't have a reason to fear (or to use as a cheap excuse) a possible strike on their nuclear facilities by Israel or the US - they've done it before with Iraq, so it's a somewhat reasonable excuse (although trying to repeat that operation with Iran in known of their ROE and a happy bunch of S-300s guarding the gates fits the definition of suicide.)

 

The difference is that now not many countries are willing to take Iran's bullsh*t anymore. Sure, let's say Iran actually means it and launches an assault in ther West/North-Western borders. They'd already be in trouble with Israel and the US. I'd guess NATO would jump in as well. Also, Azerbaijan would have a good reason to fight, and there's the chance Russia would assist as well (although Azerbaijan left CSTO in the 90's).

 

That, as one can easily guess, wouldn't end very well to Iran...

[RIPTIDE]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iran does not YET have the full S-300 system yet?

[Pilotasso]

No alarmism, please. Even if something is going to happen Im sure it wont be large scale but a surgical strike.

 

Anything Iranians could do in a preempitve strike would be stupid. They dont have 1/10th of what Iraq had back in 1991, and we know how quickly that ended.

Edited June 24, 2010 by Pilotasso

[diveplane]

Guess thats why he said its unlikely to happen. And what do you mean by "whats this planet coming to?". It has always been like this, only diference is that now we have much better ways of killing each other than at the begining of the century for exemple. About a war with Iran, i agree that it wouldnt be good for anyone, but i think a strike on Irans nuclear plants wouldnt be so unlikely to happen, after all, nobody is buying Iran's history of wanting nuclear energy for pacific means. I sure hope this prove unnecesary, last thing the world need these days is another stupid war.

 

iran is not the only country itching to fire on nato and the west.

hopefully it wont come to anything this.

[RIPTIDE]

Anything Iranians could do in a preempitve strike would be stupid. They dont have 1/10th of what Iraq had back in 1991, and we know how quickly that ended.

With respect... Iraq had been severely mauled for the previous 10 years in the Iran-Iraq war. A broken force by 1991. They proved to everyone in that war that they had no clue about combined arms tactics or even how to use their tank sights properly. :D

Edited June 24, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[diveplane]

No alarmism, please. Even if something is going to happen Im sure it wont be large scale but a surgical strike.

 

Anything Iranians could do in a preempitve strike would be stupid. They dont have 1/10th of what Iraq had back in 1991, and we know how quickly that ended.

 

yes i take all the data with salt grains atm., and the internet sources.

 

no alarmism here yet ..GULP lol, but the gulf oil leak is all bells and whistles alarmism on that, but thats another post .

Edited June 24, 2010 by diveplane

[Pilotasso]

With respect... Iraq had been severely mauled for the previous 10 years in the Iran-Iraq war. A broken force by 1991. They proved to everyone in that war that they had no clue about combined arms tactics or even how to use their tank sights properly. :D

 

Mauled? hardely. They were loaded with money, the AF had 800 planes on strength. I was 14 at that time and I remember quite well how the media said the US forces would be be crushed by Iraq'a desert fortifications, 4000 tanks, 1 million men big army and its vaunted Mig-29's, and the scud missiles...

[RIPTIDE]

Mauled? hardely. They were loaded with money, the AF had 800 planes on strength. I was 14 at that time and I remember quite well how the media said the US forces would be be crushed by Iraq'a desert fortifications, 4000 tanks, 1 million men big army and its vaunted Mig-29's, and the scud missiles...

I was similar age. You obviously haven't a clue about what I meant. ;) They had lost several hundred thousand service men in that war. Some of their best at the time. They could not have replaced best officers in 2 years. :lol: I'll say it again for clarity: They had NO CLUE about combined arms warfare. No clue. If they had 4000 F-22's back then it would not have made much difference. They dug in their tanks instead of manoeuvring them in organisation.. etc etc etc.

 

They were not loaded with money... at all. They lost huge economic ability with oil problems in the war, tanker war, oil facilities destroyed. They were bankrupt. <<< The reason they invaded Kuwait was for money ;)

 

Your example is

They dont have 1/10th of what Iraq had back in 1991, and we know how quickly that ended.

but they could not beat Iran, so your logic is flawed.
Edited June 24, 2010 by RIPTIDE

[diveplane]

more source reading here

 

http://www.debka.com/article/8868/

[RIPTIDE]

Just a note on DEBKA... they tend to be a sensationalist bunch.... many of their articles in the past have been hilarious.. Its like a Israeli version of Internet Fox news with x10 factor.

[diveplane]

Just a note on DEBKA... they tend to be a sensationalist bunch.... many of their articles in the past have been hilarious.. Its like a Israeli version of Internet Fox news with x10 factor.

 

take the source reading lightly for now yep.

[Pilotasso]

 

Your example is

 

They dont have 1/10th of what Iraq had back in 1991, and we know how quickly that ended.

 

but they could not beat Iran, so your logic is flawed.

 

Is it? then explain to me how Iran now is in better shape than Iraq then.

 

Me thinks you diverted away from the point. :)

[Mustang]

more source reading here

 

http://www.debka.com/article/8868/

 

DEBKA is a pure BS website, don't believe anything they post.

[diveplane]

DEBKA is a pure BS website, don't believe anything they post.

 

take all media and internet sources with salt grains.

 

once we see the flash from our windows we know its happened lmao.

[diveplane]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Iran does not YET have the full S-300 system yet?

 

looks like there S-200 is good

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyUkOF3h74k&feature=related

[RIPTIDE]

Is it? then explain to me how Iran now is in better shape than Iraq then.

 

Me thinks you diverted away from the point. :)

I never claimed Iran was better than Iraq so why would I?

 

Methinks you were incorrect and your knowledge of the Gulf War is incomplete and in some cases outright wrong.

 

Lets take another look.

 

You said

They were loaded with money

 

We know this to be 100% wrong. They were in huge debt to Kuwait and to Saudi Arabia. They owed Kuwait 65 Billion USD in 1990 money. Furthermore Kuwait's overproduction (kept prices low) cost Iraq more than 10 billion USD (1990 money) a year.

 

Aside from this, we know that Iraq's economy was shattered. This is beyond debate.

 

One thing I have noticed over the years is the tendency for people to really trump up Iraq's ability to add even more 'WOW' to the Gulf War Victory. I don't suffer such Bullsh1t. A rational approach and paying special heed to the analysis of the day and afterwards.

[Pilotasso]

I made a military asset comparison (because that's whats giving everyone the wow factor) and you replied about tactics and economy... in your first post.

 

Well I know they bught 3000+ tanks and 300+ planes since 1988, yet you went after financial debt.

 

Theres the mismatch on your answer right there, although I concede I totally forgot Iraq's debt, my bad.

[RIPTIDE]

I made a military asset comparison (because that's whats giving everyone the wow factor) and you replied about tactics and economy... in your first post.

 

Well I know they bught 3000+ tanks and 300+ planes since 1988, yet you went after financial debt.

 

Theres the mismatch on your answer right there, although I concede I totally forgot Iraq's debt, my bad.

Yes. Lets talk about the tanks. How many were modern? The most advanced tanks they had were Watered down export versions of bog standard basic T-72's and they had them only in the hundreds. And we know from analysts from the previous war with Iran that they A) Did not even have staff to fix minor breakdowns and small technical issues. B) Had no solid docthrine on Combine Arms warfare that they used.

 

The others were cheap chinese and older Soviet designs and were no match to Challengers, and Abrams.

 

Iraq bought weapons to deal with the threat they would have with Iran and to deal with the likes of Kuwait etc. IN terms of Airpower, They never anticipated a Huge, outnumbering, Western and Arab alliance that would dwarf their own numbers AND have the technological edge in almost every piece, upon purchase.

[Pilotasso]

I was comparing Iraq with todays Iran in terms of military response capability, your imagination runs amuck elsewhere. Have it your way then. :)

[Yeniceri]

You guys are forgetting one very important factor!.

Iraq is an arab nation. Iran is Persian. Believe me its a BIG factor.

Wars results depends on people's characters at the end.

No matter how superior weapons the others side have.

History proved that countless times.

I will not go on and say that iran can defeat USA or something.

I am just saying that the war with Iran will not be same as war with Iraq.

At Iraq the army of them almost totally "vanished" at the moment USA tanks started to roll. They even burried their migs and sukhois to the sand.

 

Like i said. The war with Iran would be nothing like the war with Iraq.

 

My 2 cents..