[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;23961556]Middle East Wars 2 : The Empire strikes back.
[editline]02:21PM[/editline]
That was in 1980 Right after the revolution. 1980 and 2010 have a ton of differences. The Americans will have there asses kicked.[/QUOTE]
Nope.
What are these difference?
[QUOTE=abcpea;23960082]i dont understand what invading iran would achieve[/QUOTE]
It would make Israel happy, and it seems that's what American foreign policy is centered around these days.
"Hey America, get me sum beer would ya? Oh and invade Iran on the way" - Israel.
[QUOTE=Melnek;23961653]The US military is only adapted to a full scale war with different tactics which is commonly used against an actual military.
When the enemy uses Guerrilla tactics like they're doing now good fucking luck 'tearing them like tissue paper'. You would most likely win but the casualties would be huge on both sides.
Plus, even if the US will invade the enemy will have the landscape and weather advantage. It's just like invading Russia only it's hot as fuck instead of freezing cold.[/QUOTE]
This is my point.
In a standard ground war the US would win.
But then the Iranians would pull out al queda and vietcong tactics and shred the US armour apart.
[QUOTE=bravehat;23961792]This is my point.
In a standard ground war the US would win.
But then the Iranians would pull out al queda and vietcong tactics and shred the US armour apart.[/QUOTE]
They don't have the Jungle terrain the Vietcong did, the mountains aren't as extreme as in Afghanistan and they don't really have a lawless border to jump over like the other two. The best they could muster would be something similar to Iraqi Insurgents who are all but wiped out now.
[QUOTE=Devodiere;23961887]They don't have the Jungle terrain the Vietcong did, the mountains aren't as extreme as in Afghanistan and they don't really have a lawless border to jump over like the other two. The best they could muster would be something similar to Iraqi Insurgents who are all but wiped out now.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter what terrain you are in, as long as it's rural you can apply Vietcong tactics and the likes to it.
[QUOTE=bravehat;23961034]HAHAAH
AHAHA
[B]AHAHA!!![/B]
You actually think a war with Iran would be easy?
It would be a massive war of attrition, then when you started winning they'd go to ground.
Just like the Vietcong, just like the Taliban and Al Queda.
You would lose again in the long run.[/QUOTE]
Except Iran is weird. Iranians like the US. It sorta makes a degree of sense given that they were really pretty cool as a country until the revolution made them a theocracy in the 70's. But it's still surprising that the mentality has survived this long in spite of their government's attempts to bring it to a halt.
Because they like us, there is little chance we would invade. There is a pretty good possibility that they may one day have a sane government and will be a fantastic ally.
[QUOTE=GunFox;23961983]Except Iran is weird. Iranians like the US. It sorta makes a degree of sense given that they were really pretty cool as a country until the revolution made them a theocracy in the 70's. But it's still surprising that the mentality has survived this long in spite of their government's attempts to bring it to a halt.
Because they like us, there is little chance we would invade. There is a pretty good possibility that they may one day have a sane government and will be a fantastic ally.[/QUOTE]
How are you so informed about the Iranian public opinion on the US? The country is flooded with propaganda, Mawut Al America and whatnot. Can't see how the Iranian public is possibly sympathetic to the US.
[QUOTE=ohadje;23962023]How are you so informed about the Iranian public opinion on the US? The country is flooded with propaganda, Mawut Al America and whatnot. Can't see how the Iranian public is possibly sympathetic to the US.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to assume that most of them still hold an image of America from the 50's-60's back when it was the center of attention and was pretty much the 'best place on earth' to some people who are living in poor countries/conditions.
[editline]02:49PM[/editline]
Sort of relevant, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream[/url]
[QUOTE=Devodiere;23961887]They don't have the Jungle terrain the Vietcong did, the mountains aren't as extreme as in Afghanistan and they don't really have a lawless border to jump over like the other two. The best they could muster would be something similar to Iraqi Insurgents who are all but wiped out now.[/QUOTE]
Or you know they could pass themselves off as civilians in a warzone...
And then bury IED's and do what they are doing in afghanistan right now which is taking apart the war effort bit by bit.
Killing the giant with bug bites.
[QUOTE=Melnek;23962072]I'm going to assume that most of them still hold an image of America from the 50's-60's back when it was the center of attention and was pretty much the 'best place on earth' to some people who are living in poor countries/conditions.
[editline]02:49PM[/editline]
Sort of relevant, [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Dream[/url][/QUOTE]
Don't forget the 1979 was a people's revolution. It didn't come out of no where. The Shah was hated and considered corrupted - and since he was the ally of the US (and Israel), it all ads up to that the US is bad.
The US will lose a lot of troops. No shit that they'll win, they're a superpower, but Iran will tear them apart man-power wise.
Searchen for dem Dubya Em Dees.
[img]http://www.damonchernavsky.com/Pictures/Pictures_Of_US_Presidents/George-W-Bush.jpg[/img]
On a serious note. It's a scare tactic used to lower the moral of troops.
Also; attacking Iran isn't a good course of action. No one knows wether or not they've created nukes in their backyard. And their president is crazy enough to use them.
Just make a huge grave that says Smith.
[editline]05:12PM[/editline]
[sp]And Ramirez[/sp]
US won't go to war. Obama recently said he fears Netanyahu will go 'rouge' and attack Iran.
[editline]06:46PM[/editline]
WebBot's prediction is quite scary, considering it never got a prediction wrong and even predicted 9/11.
[editline]06:50PM[/editline]
[release]- When Israel bombs Iran (also around end Oct early Nov), they will use a nuclear-tipped bunker buster that will hit something unforeseen underground. As a result, a radioactive cloud will form that will pollute and sicken Southeast Asia. This will cause much of the world to turn against Israel.
The time monks are always fascinating to listen to. This interview is extremely dire in its predictions. The world will go to the brink of World War 3 when Israel bombs Iran. China and Russia will confront America and warn America not to interfere with their retaliation against Israel. America backs down: World War 3 is likely averted.
*
The radioactive cloud released after the nuclear bombing of Iran will circulate the earth 9 times and cause untold number of deaths including many in America.
*
[/release]
[editline]06:51PM[/editline]
And Israel DID say they will Nuke Iran first, back in 2007.
[url]http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1290331.ece[/url]
[quote]WebBots[/quote]
:frog:
This referred to 2009... but who am I to say that the webbot isn't reliable :v:
Also, Israel didn't say it will use nukes, the Times claim it plans to. Probably bollocks.
edit: Here's a prediction it got wrong:
"- A big crisis is kicked off on October 25, 2009. It could be that Israel bombs Iran, or that Swine Flu goes into a level of extreme lethality. 10 days later, in relation to this crisis, the Obama administration will be thrown into chaos."
[url]http://socioecohistory.wordpress.com/2009/07/23/webbot-project-predictions-for-2009-and-2010-iran-war-depopulation-flu-pandemic-famine-and-dollar-collapse/[/url]
[quote=cheeseman;23959591]i saw "iran digging graves for us troops" and i thought "aww, how sweet, they're helping the families of american soldiers who died in the middle east"
[u]then i clicked on the thread.[/u][/quote]
aahahhaaahhahaha.
[QUOTE=abcpea;23960082]i dont understand what invading iran would achieve[/QUOTE]
Nothing at the moment, unless diplomacy completely broke down and they declared an all-out war.
I once read an interesting article on an American attack on Iran by the same guy who helped General Al Gray write the US Marine Warfighting manual back in the 1980s, but I don't know if Iraqi Shiites would heed to Iranian calls to take up arms.
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind137.html[/url]
[quote]Here's roughly how it might play out. In response to American air and missile strikes on military targets inside Iran, Iran moves to cut the supply lines coming up from the south through the Persian Gulf (can anyone in the Pentagon guess why it's called that?) and Kuwait on which most U.S. Army units in Iraq depend (the Marines get most of their stuff through Jordan). It does so by hitting shipping in the Gulf, mining key choke points, and destroying the port facilities we depend on, mostly through sabotage. It also hits oil production and export facilities in the Gulf region, as a decoy: we focus most of our response on protecting the oil, not guarding our army’s supply lines.
Simultaneously, Iran activates the Shiite militias to cut the roads that lead from Kuwait to Baghdad. Both the Mahdi Army and the Badr Brigades – the latter now supposedly our allies – enter the war against us with their full strength. Ayatollah Sistani, an Iranian, calls on all Iraqi Shiites to fight the Americans wherever they find them. Instead of fighting the 20% of Iraq's population that is Sunni, we find ourselves battling the 60% that is Shiite. Worse, the Shiites logistics lie directly across those logistics lines coming up from Kuwait.
U.S. Army forces in Iraq begin to run out of supplies, especially POL, of which they consume a vast amount. Once they are largely immobilized by lack of fuel, and the region gets some bad weather that keeps our aircraft grounded or at least blind, Iran sends two to four regular army armor and mech divisions across the border. Their objective is to pocket American forces in and around Baghdad.
The U.S. military in Iraq is all spread out in penny packets fighting insurgents. We have no field army there anymore. We cannot reconcentrate because we're out of gas and Shiite guerrillas control the roads. What units don't get overrun by Iranian armor or Shiite militia end up in the Baghdad Kessel. General Petraeus calls President Bush and repeals the famous words of General Ducrot at Sedan: "Nous sommes dans un pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés." Bush thinks he's overheard Petraeus ordering dinner – as, for Bush, he has.
It is imperative that we have an up-to-date plan for dealing with this contingency. That plan must not depend on air power to rescue our army. Air power always promises more than it can deliver.
Even if the probability of the above scenario is low, we still need to take it with the utmost seriousness because the consequences would be so vast. If the United States lost the army it has in Iraq, we would never recover from the defeat. It would be another Adrianople, another Manzikert, another Rocroi. Given the many other ways we now resemble Imperial Spain, the last analogy may be the most telling.[/quote]
Are you sure Iran? You may just be digging up latrines for our troops.
[QUOTE=GunFox;23960493]Well I didn't want to invade Iran before.
Now I kinda do, just to bury their own soldiers in the graves.
Perhaps that is taking it a bit too far for a good ironic end to this though. :P[/QUOTE]
Jesus Christ, that is the sickest thing I've ever heard.
[QUOTE=bravehat;23961034]HAHAAH
AHAHA
[B]AHAHA!!![/B]
You actually think a war with Iran would be easy?
It would be a massive war of attrition, then when you started winning they'd go to ground.
Just like the Vietcong, just like the Taliban and Al Queda.
You would lose again in the long run.[/QUOTE]
Why are you making it sound like they could find us conventionally for a respectable period of time. Because they couldn't. A respectable time being larger then you probably assumed I meant considering even the Iraqi Military fought us with semi-motorised formations for a few weeks.
To my understanding Iran is also a lot less geographically pre-disposed to Guerillas then say Afghanistan.
Until the army steamrolls them.
[QUOTE=Superwafflez;23960110]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Offensive racist word" - verynicelady))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
Did anyone here actually get the least bit offended? :raise:
[QUOTE=Mudbone;23967923]Until the army steamrolls them.[/QUOTE]
Which it won't.
[QUOTE=Mudbone;23967923]Until the army steamrolls them.[/QUOTE]
It won't, nobody wants to feed this troll.
[QUOTE=Theo213;23967875]Why are you making it sound like they could find us conventionally for a respectable period of time. Because they couldn't. A respectable time being larger then you probably assumed I meant considering even the Iraqi Military fought us with semi-motorised formations for a few weeks.
To my understanding Iran is also a lot less geographically pre-disposed to Guerillas then say Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Except Iran is not Iraq. Even in 2003 Iraq basically had a 1970s military that had did not plan for engaging a US-style force, not to mention the personnel were no better 12 years ago. The Iranian military may look pathetic on the offense, but we reasonably presume that the military leaders are component men then Iran can very well use an asymmetrical doctrine and its geographic advantage to blunt US ground offenses. If Iran prevents US access of the Gulf and therefore killing its logistics lines then they'll be screwed.
Look at Iran's geography. Like Afghanistan, mountains are everywhere with the exception of the interior plateaus and deserts.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/99/Iran_topo_en.jpg/650px-Iran_topo_en.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;23961586]But a judge ruled the "n" word as not offensive![/QUOTE]
this...
and america would easily kick irans ass
this is going to end like the first gulf war
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.