1.)What do you think our(U.S.) chances are of defeating Iran?
2.)Do you think U.K. will help us out?
3.)How good of a fight do you think Iran might put up?
Last edited by blademaster (2007-04-08 10:23:08)
1.)What do you think our(U.S.) chances are of defeating Iran?
2.)Do you think U.K. will help us out?
3.)How good of a fight do you think Iran might put up?
1. Good
2. Wouldn't surprise me
3. Pretty good
2. Wouldn't surprise me
3. Pretty good
1.Very good if we are serious about it & don't pussy foot around. I doubt we will have the same support as Afghanistan & Iraq though making things a little to tough swallow another war which would just be an expansion on Iraq. Not to mention the loud crys that would come from russia & china. I would be curious to see if the number of terrorist attacks drop on Iraq if we were at war with Iran & where the attacks would come from then.
2.I think the U.K. will help because they realize what is at stake & because of what is going on in their own country right now.
3.Slim to none, they would instead cry to the world for mercy while no doubtedly suicide bombing targets of opportunity.
I repeat, islamic totalitarianism must be destroyed in my opinion because it is not compatible with the free world.
2.I think the U.K. will help because they realize what is at stake & because of what is going on in their own country right now.
3.Slim to none, they would instead cry to the world for mercy while no doubtedly suicide bombing targets of opportunity.
I repeat, islamic totalitarianism must be destroyed in my opinion because it is not compatible with the free world.
So the plans are basically to be well defended and to fight back if America starts shit? Simple answer for that one then...
1. Judging from the oh, so successful ventures in Afghanistan and Iraq I'd say nil. Especially with the US still mired in surrounding countries.
2. UK will stay out. Especially if military action against Iran (in current circumstances) is as unpopular as military action against Iraq was and remains.
3. Very good. They have a real army with relatively new equipment and while I believe the US would likely win any direct confrontation between the two sides the occupation would be a nightmare for various reasons. Iran has more population than Iraq and has totally different geographical features. Mountainous terrain like that which exists in Iran is very conducive to resistance and tends to swallow whole armies as it requires far more troops to be effective than open terrain. Look at the recent resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's from a country with an extremely weak civil society after 20+ years of continual civil conflict. Iran, with a far more cohesive society and with more resources to muster presents a formidable challenge for any invading/occupying hostile force. I wouldn't see any reason for optimism in the event of a military conflict between the US and Iran.
2. UK will stay out. Especially if military action against Iran (in current circumstances) is as unpopular as military action against Iraq was and remains.
3. Very good. They have a real army with relatively new equipment and while I believe the US would likely win any direct confrontation between the two sides the occupation would be a nightmare for various reasons. Iran has more population than Iraq and has totally different geographical features. Mountainous terrain like that which exists in Iran is very conducive to resistance and tends to swallow whole armies as it requires far more troops to be effective than open terrain. Look at the recent resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. That's from a country with an extremely weak civil society after 20+ years of continual civil conflict. Iran, with a far more cohesive society and with more resources to muster presents a formidable challenge for any invading/occupying hostile force. I wouldn't see any reason for optimism in the event of a military conflict between the US and Iran.
Nice Freudian slip " our nuclear weapons, I mean power plants " roflmao
I didn't think we had battleships any more, they were decommissioned after the USSR died (don't tell bubalo )
So I guess their spy seagull with a camcorder duct taped to it flew over a Museum.
They know where our airbases are, they forked over $1.50 for a map at a Texaco Station ?
1.)What do you think our(U.S.) chances are of defeating Iran?
The bigger the war the better we fight it. We are trying to qwell terrorist in Iraq, the war ended when their army caved and leadership fled
2.)Do you think U.K. will help us out?
Tested by the Iranians and found wanting. Most people believe Great Briton lost its National viscera at the Somme anyway.
3.)How good of a fight do you think Iran might put up?
Depends on how merciful we want to be. It could look like Berlin when we were done with it or we could try and uplift the people like we are doing in Iraq.
No matter what they say, each one speaks with the knowledge that the last strutting dictator went from gold guilded palaces to munching Milkyway bar at the bottom of a deep hole stinking of his own feces.
Last edited by blademaster (Today 10:23:08)
I didn't think we had battleships any more, they were decommissioned after the USSR died (don't tell bubalo )
So I guess their spy seagull with a camcorder duct taped to it flew over a Museum.
They know where our airbases are, they forked over $1.50 for a map at a Texaco Station ?
1.)What do you think our(U.S.) chances are of defeating Iran?
The bigger the war the better we fight it. We are trying to qwell terrorist in Iraq, the war ended when their army caved and leadership fled
2.)Do you think U.K. will help us out?
Tested by the Iranians and found wanting. Most people believe Great Briton lost its National viscera at the Somme anyway.
3.)How good of a fight do you think Iran might put up?
Depends on how merciful we want to be. It could look like Berlin when we were done with it or we could try and uplift the people like we are doing in Iraq.
No matter what they say, each one speaks with the knowledge that the last strutting dictator went from gold guilded palaces to munching Milkyway bar at the bottom of a deep hole stinking of his own feces.
Last edited by blademaster (Today 10:23:08)
The easiest way to defeat Iran without even fighting them militarily would be to sanction the hell out of them. If Europe, Canada, and America all stood united against Iran by refusing to trade with them, then Iran would suffer horribly.
The problem with this approach is that Russia, India, and China would still probably trade with them. Still, our lack of trade with them would definitely hurt them.
When it comes to military action short of using nukes, the easiest way to defeat Iran would be to use Iraq as a springboard to invade them from while attacking them with air strikes and naval forces as well. We already have so many forces in the region that, if we felt like abandoning our efforts in Iraq, we could crush Iran. We'd probably have to abandon our missions in Afghanistan as well though....
The problem with this approach is that Russia, India, and China would still probably trade with them. Still, our lack of trade with them would definitely hurt them.
When it comes to military action short of using nukes, the easiest way to defeat Iran would be to use Iraq as a springboard to invade them from while attacking them with air strikes and naval forces as well. We already have so many forces in the region that, if we felt like abandoning our efforts in Iraq, we could crush Iran. We'd probably have to abandon our missions in Afghanistan as well though....
1.So long as we do not completely remove all governmental structure and do not attempt an occupation I'd say we certainly have the hardware for it.
2.Of course.
3.Remember Baghdad Bob?
I must say I think an all out military campaign is unlikely though.
2.Of course.
3.Remember Baghdad Bob?
I must say I think an all out military campaign is unlikely though.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Hunter,
At the Somme? are you crazy?
1. iran as a State with decent public backing back home? = very good , as a people with religious backing fighting a unconventional war, much much harder
2.Yes if the UK was to go on a war footing economically it could be possible. this would mean increases in Afghanistan and iraq as well.
3.pretty decent in the traditional term's. they are well supplied have the money, control 25% of the worlds oil through the straits. and well supported back home. although the army is nothing big, the paramilitary conscripts number 11million.
i think a lot can be put on whether the society in the west could handle a reduction in economic benefits and luxuries when faced with a war economy.
At the Somme? are you crazy?
1. iran as a State with decent public backing back home? = very good , as a people with religious backing fighting a unconventional war, much much harder
2.Yes if the UK was to go on a war footing economically it could be possible. this would mean increases in Afghanistan and iraq as well.
3.pretty decent in the traditional term's. they are well supplied have the money, control 25% of the worlds oil through the straits. and well supported back home. although the army is nothing big, the paramilitary conscripts number 11million.
i think a lot can be put on whether the society in the west could handle a reduction in economic benefits and luxuries when faced with a war economy.
I say the U.S. stay outta this one. Just send me in and i'll take em all out quick and easy.
Ok Chuck norris.David.Podedworny wrote:
I say the U.S. stay outta this one. Just send me in and i'll take em all out quick and easy.
1. Iran's regular army would be defeated. . . no question. However, insurgents/terrorists would run rampant(as we have seen in Iraq).
2. Of course the Brits would help us out, Iran has already conducted an act of war on Britain (hostage taking/Killing troops in Basra).
3. Iran wants everyone to think they are tougher than they really are! They're military is similar to Iraq's before the 91' invasion. They have a few more modern anti air capabilities, but overall, they are no where near the quality or lethality of the American forces. They would be defeated in weeks, not months! They're recent military exercises were laughed at in military analyst's circles around the globe, and their "so called" Shahab 3 missle was actually a knock off of one of their other missles (that isnt that great), because its not ready yet (even though they lied to the international community saying it was ready).
Iran is a terrorist/criminal state, with a few modern toys, if a larger power like the USA wanted to fuck them up, they could! I would like to see them (coalition forces) drop a little "Happy Easter" bomb on them right now!!! As a "gift" for "President" Ahmadinejad!!!
2. Of course the Brits would help us out, Iran has already conducted an act of war on Britain (hostage taking/Killing troops in Basra).
3. Iran wants everyone to think they are tougher than they really are! They're military is similar to Iraq's before the 91' invasion. They have a few more modern anti air capabilities, but overall, they are no where near the quality or lethality of the American forces. They would be defeated in weeks, not months! They're recent military exercises were laughed at in military analyst's circles around the globe, and their "so called" Shahab 3 missle was actually a knock off of one of their other missles (that isnt that great), because its not ready yet (even though they lied to the international community saying it was ready).
Iran is a terrorist/criminal state, with a few modern toys, if a larger power like the USA wanted to fuck them up, they could! I would like to see them (coalition forces) drop a little "Happy Easter" bomb on them right now!!! As a "gift" for "President" Ahmadinejad!!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-04-08 12:02:06)
Chuck Norris? If he wanted Iran dead it would've been dead! Do you think he need's guns to take down an entire army? Hell no! Chuck would massacre them all in a week with just his bare hands and roundhouse kicks. I'm talking about a force of 8 men sneaking into the capitol killing all the fuckers that need to die sneaking out and leaving no clues other then "Fuck You!"kripp wrote:
Ok Chuck norris.David.Podedworny wrote:
I say the U.S. stay outta this one. Just send me in and i'll take em all out quick and easy.
From my understanding, Iran provides 1/4 of the worlds oil so you are right, somebody will still trade with them regardless of who imposes sanctions. It is going to be interesting (in a bad way) to see what happens in the next 10 years. I have little hope for humanity right now, it is one fiasco after another.Turquoise wrote:
The easiest way to defeat Iran without even fighting them militarily would be to sanction the hell out of them. If Europe, Canada, and America all stood united against Iran by refusing to trade with them, then Iran would suffer horribly.
The problem with this approach is that Russia, India, and China would still probably trade with them. Still, our lack of trade with them would definitely hurt them.
When it comes to military action short of using nukes, the easiest way to defeat Iran would be to use Iraq as a springboard to invade them from while attacking them with air strikes and naval forces as well. We already have so many forces in the region that, if we felt like abandoning our efforts in Iraq, we could crush Iran. We'd probably have to abandon our missions in Afghanistan as well though....
I hear ya. By the way, I've started reading some Chomsky stuff. He's got some interesting ideas. I agree with him only about half of the time, but he makes some good points about the nature of international trade and foreign policy. (I brought it up since you've posted some of his stuff.)[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
From my understanding, Iran provides 1/4 of the worlds oil so you are right, somebody will still trade with them regardless of who imposes sanctions. It is going to be interesting (in a bad way) to see what happens in the next 10 years. I have little hope for humanity right now, it is one fiasco after another.Turquoise wrote:
The easiest way to defeat Iran without even fighting them militarily would be to sanction the hell out of them. If Europe, Canada, and America all stood united against Iran by refusing to trade with them, then Iran would suffer horribly.
The problem with this approach is that Russia, India, and China would still probably trade with them. Still, our lack of trade with them would definitely hurt them.
When it comes to military action short of using nukes, the easiest way to defeat Iran would be to use Iraq as a springboard to invade them from while attacking them with air strikes and naval forces as well. We already have so many forces in the region that, if we felt like abandoning our efforts in Iraq, we could crush Iran. We'd probably have to abandon our missions in Afghanistan as well though....
I hope we don't have to fight Iran, but by now, I'm really getting sick of their government. It's like they're asking for invasion now....
Just have our "allies" the Saudi's turn up oil production, that will send the into an even greater economic crisis quickly. It cost them nine times as much to pull it out of the ground. Also, the parts they need for production comes from three countries Canada, USA, and Japan.Turquoise wrote:
I hear ya. By the way, I've started reading some Chomsky stuff. He's got some interesting ideas. I agree with him only about half of the time, but he makes some good points about the nature of international trade and foreign policy. (I brought it up since you've posted some of his stuff.)[CANADA]_Zenmaster wrote:
From my understanding, Iran provides 1/4 of the worlds oil so you are right, somebody will still trade with them regardless of who imposes sanctions. It is going to be interesting (in a bad way) to see what happens in the next 10 years. I have little hope for humanity right now, it is one fiasco after another.Turquoise wrote:
The easiest way to defeat Iran without even fighting them militarily would be to sanction the hell out of them. If Europe, Canada, and America all stood united against Iran by refusing to trade with them, then Iran would suffer horribly.
The problem with this approach is that Russia, India, and China would still probably trade with them. Still, our lack of trade with them would definitely hurt them.
When it comes to military action short of using nukes, the easiest way to defeat Iran would be to use Iraq as a springboard to invade them from while attacking them with air strikes and naval forces as well. We already have so many forces in the region that, if we felt like abandoning our efforts in Iraq, we could crush Iran. We'd probably have to abandon our missions in Afghanistan as well though....
I hope we don't have to fight Iran, but by now, I'm really getting sick of their government. It's like they're asking for invasion now....
Xbone Stormsurgezz
People... We should have neutralized Iran long ago... It's only coming back to haunt us with the idiots we had in office...
It wouldn't be as much of a problem now if we hadn't gotten involved in the Iran-Iraq War. That was a quick way to empower a dictator and make a powerful enemy at the same time.Miller wrote:
People... We should have neutralized Iran long ago... It's only coming back to haunt us with the idiots we had in office...
1.)Not good.
2.)We wouldn't be that stupid to follow you in another fuck up.
3.)Id imagine quite a good one.
2.)We wouldn't be that stupid to follow you in another fuck up.
3.)Id imagine quite a good one.
But most the people on here who live in U.S. think that you will follow us no matter where we go , and help us out.-=]DeatH1337[=- wrote:
1.)Not good.
2.)We wouldn't be that stupid to follow you in another fuck up.
3.)Id imagine quite a good one.
blademaster wrote:
wonder how other Muslim nations would react to us attacking Iran?
Last edited by blademaster (2007-04-08 12:34:04)
Roll back 50 years or so actually...to around 1953. This is what is known in the intel world as "blowback". They would most likely still be a liberal democracy today (with socialist leanings, but we talk to France don't we?) if it weren't for a bit of meddling...Turquoise wrote:
It wouldn't be as much of a problem now if we hadn't gotten involved in the Iran-Iraq War. That was a quick way to empower a dictator and make a powerful enemy at the same time.Miller wrote:
People... We should have neutralized Iran long ago... It's only coming back to haunt us with the idiots we had in office...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax
1 - Right now? Zero, you are already trying to sort things out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither have been won yet and there is doubt that they will prevail in the short to medium term, perhaps even long term. The Middle Eastern countries have a different philosophy and trying to impose Western values may prove to be impossible.blademaster wrote:
1.)What do you think our(U.S.) chances are of defeating Iran?
2.)Do you think U.K. will help us out?
3.)How good of a fight do you think Iran might put up?
2 - Yes, yes they will.
3 - One heck of a fight and once the military has been knocked down, the civilian population will make life extremely difficult for any occupying force.
I don't wish to appear anti-American, I just don't think they should be looking at Iran until Iraq and Afghanistan are totally finished, and that may yet take quite some time.
Furthermore, the insurgency would not be as profound as it is in Iraq. Persians are much more western than we think. I could actually see the masses welcome a regime change.fadedsteve wrote:
1. Iran's regular army would be defeated. . . no question. However, insurgents/terrorists would run rampant(as we have seen in Iraq).
2. Of course the Brits would help us out, Iran has already conducted an act of war on Britain (hostage taking/Killing troops in Basra).
3. Iran wants everyone to think they are tougher than they really are! They're military is similar to Iraq's before the 91' invasion. They have a few more modern anti air capabilities, but overall, they are no where near the quality or lethality of the American forces. They would be defeated in weeks, not months! They're recent military exercises were laughed at in military analyst's circles around the globe, and their "so called" Shahab 3 missle was actually a knock off of one of their other missles (that isnt that great), because its not ready yet (even though they lied to the international community saying it was ready).
Iran is a terrorist/criminal state, with a few modern toys, if a larger power like the USA wanted to fuck them up, they could! I would like to see them (coalition forces) drop a little "Happy Easter" bomb on them right now!!! As a "gift" for "President" Ahmadinejad!!!
Agreed entirely. We should not fuck with Iran until we finish with Afghanistan and Iraq, and have strong public backing.TuataraDude wrote:
I don't wish to appear anti-American, I just don't think they should be looking at Iran until Iraq and Afghanistan are totally finished, and that may yet take quite some time.
I laughed my fucking arse off, when he said 'the peaceful nature of our nuclear weapons'
1. Would depend on how you define, defeating iran, militarily, the US would wipe the floor with um, but as iraq proves thats not the full story.
2.Hmmm, well speaking as an American/Brit I would HOPE we will, but as Tony Blair is apparantly due out in the coming months (probably following labours defeat in the scotish elections in may, I presume) and what Gordon Brown thinks. That said though, the Brits dont have the massive resources the Americans have, we are far to stretched as it is.
3.They will almost certainly nuke someone, and there, is the problem, what do we do if we turn our televisions on one morning to hear new york/london or any other major city has been wiped out?
On that last point, is why we should exhaust all other possible means before having to take such a plunge.
Martyn
1. Would depend on how you define, defeating iran, militarily, the US would wipe the floor with um, but as iraq proves thats not the full story.
2.Hmmm, well speaking as an American/Brit I would HOPE we will, but as Tony Blair is apparantly due out in the coming months (probably following labours defeat in the scotish elections in may, I presume) and what Gordon Brown thinks. That said though, the Brits dont have the massive resources the Americans have, we are far to stretched as it is.
3.They will almost certainly nuke someone, and there, is the problem, what do we do if we turn our televisions on one morning to hear new york/london or any other major city has been wiped out?
On that last point, is why we should exhaust all other possible means before having to take such a plunge.
Martyn