[QUOTE=Regulas021;21442677]What? SAM sites in the 1st gulf war weren't in place?[/QUOTE]
Outdated equipment doesn't really count as serious, don't you think?
[QUOTE=Tac Error;21442687]Outdated equipment doesn't really count as serious, don't you think?[/QUOTE]
It wasn't outdated at the time. Or at least, it was the same equipment that those aircraft were designed to face (Cold War era Soviet technology from 1950-1980).
Regardless, I'm not being cocky about it. I just don't see a tactical or strategic way in which Iran could stand a chance against the modern day sophistications of an advanced fighting force.
A war against the EU would be a much more evenly matched fight and there's no way to accurately predict a winner or a loser. Against the Iranians, however, I don't see any way in which they could challenge the Americans. They don't have a thousandth the funding, technology, training or materials, not to mention a thin list of allies that could not act openly.
[QUOTE=Regulas021;21442814]I just don't see a tactical or strategic way in which Iran could stand a chance against the modern day sophistications of an advanced fighting force.[/QUOTE]
True if we're talking about the end results. But if the Iranian military is damn serious about facing the US then they will go prepared to give the Americans a hard time in case of war and attempt to capitalize on the weaknesses of the current US military, unlike Saddam.
Also, I remember people back in 2006 saying that Hezbollah could never stand a chance against the modern day sophistications of the IDF. Like, the Israelis would just steamroll them over with their Merkavas and advanced weaponry.
Just more dick waving and trolling.
Iran is not worth the dirt its built on.
I would like to see then recover from an attack similar to what the UK had from Germany in WWII
You guys are forgetting that Iran is the military power in the entire region... (except Israel).
They have a large, well trained and well equipped army. Sure we can beat them, but they're right in saying they're 'too mighty' to be attacked.
America has not got the guts to engage them.
[img]http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/_/images10/iran/soldiers_march_tehran.jpe[/img]
[img]http://tietokannat.mil.fi/kalustoesittely/media/1112074324_Taistelijanvaat_2PIENI.JPG[/img]
^ much cooler than an american soldier
[QUOTE=NoDachi;21443781][img_thumb]http://tietokannat.mil.fi/kalustoesittely/media/1112074324_Taistelijanvaat_2PIENI.JPG[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
I wonder why did you just link a photo of a finnish soldier, from [url=http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/index.dsp?level=66&equipment=62]this page[/url] on the official Finnish Defence Forces site, in which the the equipment of the average finnish foot soldier is described.
Somehow this makes me doubt the authenticity of the other picture as well.
The pretext to disarm Iran is because they threatened to destroy Israel, and that they could possibly use Nukes.
Israel, just yesterday threatened to send Syria back to the stone age. ([URL]http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/92B9B6C45D7D704BC225770900339770?OpenDocument[/URL])
I think only one weapon can send a nation back to the stone age.
[QUOTE=starpluck;21448188]The pretext to disarm Iran is because they threatened to destroy Israel, and that they could possibly use Nukes.
Israel, just yesterday threatened to send Syria back to the stone age. ([URL]http://www.naharnet.com/domino/tn/NewsDesk.nsf/0/92B9B6C45D7D704BC225770900339770?OpenDocument[/URL])
I think only one weapon can send a nation back to the stone age.[/QUOTE]
There's not a chance in hell they'll use nukes.
There's a difference between threatening to use them and actually being prepared to use them.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21448260]There's not a chance in hell they'll use nukes.
There's a difference between threatening to use them and actually being prepared to use them.[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying, if they are going to use threats as a pretext then what about Israel.
So then why disarm Iran?
I posted this in another thread
[release]
1. Last Spring, [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/israel-us-nuclear-non-proliferation"]Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[/URL] Israel refused.
2. [URL="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115650.html"]The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. [/URL] Israel refused.
3. [URL="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3778884,00.html"]The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections.[/URL] Israel refused.
4. [URL="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/25/as-required-iran-informs-iaea-about-new-enrichment-site/"]Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty[/URL] which Iran has signed.
5. [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090926/wl_afp/irannuclearpolitics"]Iran allows IAEA inspections [/URL]of all its facilities.
7. The [URL="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/02/22/iaea-iran-not-capable-of-making-nuclear-weapons/"]IAEA[/URL] and [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529"]all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies [/URL]are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and [URL="http://www.vanunu.com/uscampaign/photos.html"]provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.vanunu.com/uscampaign/photos.html"]
[/URL]
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, [URL="http://www.antiwar.com/wanniski/?articleid=2721"]international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.[/URL]
10. Israel has yet again [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8610595.stm"] [U]skipped nuclear talks,[/U][/URL][/release]
[QUOTE=starpluck;21448365]I'm just saying, if they are going to use threats as a pretext then what about Israel.
So then why disarm Iran?
I posted this in another thread
[release]
1. Last Spring, [URL="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/israel-us-nuclear-non-proliferation"]Rose Gottemoeller, an assistant secretary of state and Washington's chief nuclear arms negotiator, asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[/URL] Israel refused.
2. [URL="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1115650.html"]The United Nations passed a resolution calling on Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections. [/URL] Israel refused.
3. [URL="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3778884,00.html"]The IAEA asked Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and to submit to inspections.[/URL] Israel refused.
4. [URL="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/25/as-required-iran-informs-iaea-about-new-enrichment-site/"]Iran's formal notification to the IAEA of the planned construction of the backup fuel-rod facility underscores that Iran is playing by the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty[/URL] which Iran has signed.
5. [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090926/wl_afp/irannuclearpolitics"]Iran allows IAEA inspections [/URL]of all its facilities.
7. The [URL="http://news.antiwar.com/2009/02/22/iaea-iran-not-capable-of-making-nuclear-weapons/"]IAEA[/URL] and [URL="http://www.newsweek.com/id/215529"]all 16 United States Intelligence Agencies [/URL]are unanimous in agreement that Iran is not building and does not possess nuclear weapons.
8. In 1986, Mordachai Vanunu blew the whistle and [URL="http://www.vanunu.com/uscampaign/photos.html"]provided photographs showing Israel's clandestine nuclear weapons factory underneath the reactor at Dimona.[/URL]
[URL="http://www.vanunu.com/uscampaign/photos.html"]
[/URL]
9. Israel made the same accusations against Iraq that it is making against Iran, leading up to Israel's bombing of the power station at Osirik. Following the invasion of 2003, [URL="http://www.antiwar.com/wanniski/?articleid=2721"]international experts examined the ruins of the power station at Osirik and found no evidence of a clandestine weapons factory in the rubble.[/URL]
10. Israel has yet again [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8610595.stm"] [U]skipped nuclear talks,[/U][/URL][/release][/QUOTE]
but it's ok since israel isn't evil moozlims like iran
I can't wait to see China stick their huge money-filled cock all over them.
There's no such thing as an "outdated weapon". Even a sword today can still kill a man. Yes, sure, there are weapons to combat them, but it makes them no less deadly. Now take the example of the sword and apply it to 1950's technology. It would still sting us up.
Hell, look at the M16 rifle America uses. It's been in service since the 60's, and you all think that 50's technology can't combat it?
If US prepared an attack they could have their nuklear weapons out in 3 minutes
[QUOTE=ejonkou;21454634]If US prepared an attack they could have their nuklear weapons out in 3 minutes[/QUOTE]
And the fallout will go all over Pakistan, India and China. Not going to happen.
[QUOTE=acds;21442195]Oh yeah, that would be a great victory. For Iran.
If the US drops a nuke on Iran, they can pretty much say goodbye to good relations with the EU, completely degrade the relations with the rest of the world to a point near hostility. Not to mention that the government's support would drop like a lead balloon and the markets would have a huge negative reaction.
If you want to see the US' power falling really fast, dropping a nuke is the way.[/QUOTE]
I think saying it would be a victory for Iran is by far wrong. If a nuclear weapon was dropped on the right place it would leave the government leaderless and would cripple if not destroy the economy among a slew of other things. I think going nuclear would be a horrific Idea but no doubt would lead to the destruction of Iran.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;21454475]There's no such thing as an "outdated weapon". Even a sword today can still kill a man. Yes, sure, there are weapons to combat them, but it makes them no less deadly. Now take the example of the sword and apply it to 1950's technology. It would still sting us up.
Hell, look at the M16 rifle America uses. It's been in service since the 60's, and you all think that 50's technology can't combat it?[/QUOTE]
except they use m4s which are being phased out anyway
Everyone keeps under estimating Iran. If the USA Gets in a war the loses would be huge. Along side the professional army there is suicide battalions that all together number 12 Million. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq was a disorganized country teetering on anarchy , Iran is a powerful professional power in the region.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;21430036]Source: [URL]http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/04/18/iran.ahmadinejad.speech/index.html?hpt=T2[/URL]
Iran is really :smug:[/QUOTE]
Iran has an inflated opinion of itself. Almost as inflated as the leader's gut.
[QUOTE=abcpea;21455784]except they use m4s which are being phased out anyway[/QUOTE]
They use both.
why would we attack iran they're taking in refugees from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
Kim Jong Il's gonna' be pissed that Ahmadinejad is encroaching on his territory.
[IMG]http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images/kim-jong-il-smiling.jpg[/IMG]
There can be only one! :black101:
[QUOTE=PEn1s lol;21455835]Everyone keeps under estimating Iran. If the USA Gets in a war the loses would be huge. Along side the professional army there is suicide battalions that all together number 12 Million. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq was a disorganized country teetering on anarchy , Iran is a powerful professional power in the region.[/QUOTE]
Pulling numbers out of our arses are we?
How bout we just move our troops out and bomb em before they have a chance to call us pussies.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;21437333]If you try to save the country it would take years, if you run in there with machine guns and kill absolutely everyone it wouldn't take that long at all.
Not saying that people would do that, but the USA could easily decimate any countries population in a matter of weeks.[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily any country. There are plenty of major world powers that could defeat the US or at least inflict serious damage on them in a war.
Why would you even think of touching Iran?
[QUOTE=Predat0r;21457149]How bout we just move our troops out and bomb em before they have a chance to call us pussies.[/QUOTE]
Or bomb our troops along with them, they're pretty much expendable assets at this point.
Or were you told in grade school that they were heroes and you should always support them?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
