Exactly. Also since the higher up officials are denying it, I'd say it's more likely that there is no/isn't enough proof that the Iranians are behind it.Fen321 wrote:
well well ...
I think this response on the page hit it on the head:sigh:Tom wrote:
The way this story is written, it gives absolute authority to the analysis of one senior coalition official. (unnamed!)
His analysis may be dead on, but to present one unknown official's opinion as absolute truth without providing the evidence behind his analysis is deceptive reporting.
I find it perfectly plausible that the Iranian government may be behind these shipments, (it also could be someone at a lower level or smugglers,) but to write this story in the somewhat sensationalist way you did offers alot more weight (without evidence) than this report should receive.
If the report has evidence that the Iranian government is behind it, then, sure, make that headline, but hiding behind "Report says" and analysis of unnamed official without evidence should no longer be acceptable reporting in this country.
Not after similar reporting contributed to the war in Iraq.
You can start a campfire with it, just don't stamp on it to put it out. *BOOM!*S.Lythberg wrote:
that C4 is obviously for generaotrs, what else could you possibly use it for?usmarine2005 wrote:
They use it for peaceful energy.
I was waiting for the point where they actually got found out, now time to sit back and watch the results.
Didn't the GPS prove they were Iraqi territorial waters, which was confirmed by an Indian merchant vessel.CameronPoe wrote:
[capturing and releasing British sailors that wandered into Iranian territorial waters.
Last edited by M.O.A.B (2007-06-07 05:45:21)
*Cough* WMD's *Cough* - Oh wait - they didnt exist did they?
Seriously tho what does Iran have that america is after this time? ..... Oil again?
Ahh well it's gotta be true cos a western media company said so.
Seriously tho what does Iran have that america is after this time? ..... Oil again?
Ahh well it's gotta be true cos a western media company said so.
*sigh*
Thanks for editing it.التعريفات wrote:
Iran = Middle East military power (ie. not like weak little Iraq)nukchebi0 wrote:
OMG LET THE BOMBS FLY.
Seriously, I think the U.S. should justify bombing them with this. They have essentially been asking to piss the U.S. off and start a war. I think that they should give them what they want. Nothing like getting bombed with planes you can't see to straighten a nation up.
Also, they do have a military, but so did Iraq in 1991, which was just as strong and numerous as Iran's is now. What happened to this army? It got annihilated with a KDR of 1:1000 in favor of the U.S. (100 U.S. losses to 100000 Iraqi.) Considering Iran's consists of the same quality Soviet weapons, why would anything go differently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Iran
And don't forget the AA.
Now, for the discussion...
Iran has a large military. However, it isn't any bigger or more advanced relative to the U.S. Army than was Iraq in 1991. So, the U.S. would have the same advantage we enjoyed in 1991, and would win. Of course, I am not saying the U.S. should invade and occupy, only sortie to cause some damage and warn them.
We control the air, and would never lose this, because our fighters and bombers are stealthed. They would be able to destroy both the IIAF and AA site on the ground. Air power is the key to winning a conventional war, so if Iran wanted to use their large army, then it would get bombed to dust like Iraq's before Desert Storm.
(This is hypothetical, since I am not really sure, on second thought, that a good connection can be made.)
That news report doesn't go into very specific detail as to how they know it was from Iran but having said that I wouldn't put my neck on the line to defend Iran, they're no angels.
On the issue of a war, the US would win easily provided it didn't attempt any kind of ground offensive.
On the issue of a war, the US would win easily provided it didn't attempt any kind of ground offensive.
Dunno like, Iran may have a better ground army than Iraq, but an Abrams battalion will still chew through them pretty quick, especially that they have even better equipment than they had in Desert Storm strapped to them.Braddock wrote:
That news report doesn't go into very specific detail as to how they know it was from Iran but having said that I wouldn't put my neck on the line to defend Iran, they're no angels.
On the issue of a war, the US would win easily provided it didn't attempt any kind of ground offensive.
Indeed. Remember, the failure in Iraq is the occupation and nation building. The Iraqi military was defeated in record time.M.O.A.B wrote:
Dunno like, Iran may have a better ground army than Iraq, but an Abrams battalion will still chew through them pretty quick, especially that they have even better equipment than they had in Desert Storm strapped to them.Braddock wrote:
That news report doesn't go into very specific detail as to how they know it was from Iran but having said that I wouldn't put my neck on the line to defend Iran, they're no angels.
On the issue of a war, the US would win easily provided it didn't attempt any kind of ground offensive.
I still think they'd win ...it just wouldn't be a cake-walk like an air offensive would be.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Indeed. Remember, the failure in Iraq is the occupation and nation building. The Iraqi military was defeated in record time.M.O.A.B wrote:
Dunno like, Iran may have a better ground army than Iraq, but an Abrams battalion will still chew through them pretty quick, especially that they have even better equipment than they had in Desert Storm strapped to them.Braddock wrote:
That news report doesn't go into very specific detail as to how they know it was from Iran but having said that I wouldn't put my neck on the line to defend Iran, they're no angels.
On the issue of a war, the US would win easily provided it didn't attempt any kind of ground offensive.
Of course an air offensive would be easier, the same would be applicable to a war with any nation. And, an air offensive is all that is needed to get the job done in Iran.Braddock wrote:
I still think they'd win ...it just wouldn't be a cake-walk like an air offensive would be.Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Indeed. Remember, the failure in Iraq is the occupation and nation building. The Iraqi military was defeated in record time.M.O.A.B wrote:
Dunno like, Iran may have a better ground army than Iraq, but an Abrams battalion will still chew through them pretty quick, especially that they have even better equipment than they had in Desert Storm strapped to them.
Iran has very, very different terrain to Iraq. Look into it. It's not just that Iran has better armed forces than Iraq.M.O.A.B wrote:
Dunno like, Iran may have a better ground army than Iraq, but an Abrams battalion will still chew through them pretty quick, especially that they have even better equipment than they had in Desert Storm strapped to them.Braddock wrote:
That news report doesn't go into very specific detail as to how they know it was from Iran but having said that I wouldn't put my neck on the line to defend Iran, they're no angels.
On the issue of a war, the US would win easily provided it didn't attempt any kind of ground offensive.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
Oh I know Iran has more mountainous terrain than Iraq and this would definately complicate things, but wherever their tanks or ground units could go, so could US forces. But as Taxt said, all we need to do is completely annhilate their ground forces or at least soften them with heavy bombing and air strikes, ground troops and vehicles could move in to clean up what the planes missed.Flecco wrote:
Iran has very, very different terrain to Iraq. Look into it. It's not just that Iran has better armed forces than Iraq.M.O.A.B wrote:
Dunno like, Iran may have a better ground army than Iraq, but an Abrams battalion will still chew through them pretty quick, especially that they have even better equipment than they had in Desert Storm strapped to them.Braddock wrote:
That news report doesn't go into very specific detail as to how they know it was from Iran but having said that I wouldn't put my neck on the line to defend Iran, they're no angels.
On the issue of a war, the US would win easily provided it didn't attempt any kind of ground offensive.
Silent? Nope, can't hear any silence over the flamewar. Only a matter of time until the UN erupts into one, too.ATG wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.htmlAnd the world sits silent.NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.
You're not supposed to hear silence. What with it being silent and all.Skorpy-chan wrote:
Silent? Nope, can't hear any silence over the flamewar. Only a matter of time until the UN erupts into one, too.ATG wrote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/06/document_iran_c.htmlAnd the world sits silent.NATO officials say they have caught Iran red-handed, shipping heavy arms, C4 explosives and advanced roadside bombs to the Taliban for use against NATO forces, in what the officials say is a dramatic escalation of Iran's proxy war against the United States and Great Britain.
Fancy Pollux said that once. Exact words. Oh wait....Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
Indeed. Remember, the failure in Iraq is the occupation and nation building. The Iraqi military was defeated in record time.M.O.A.B wrote:
Dunno like, Iran may have a better ground army than Iraq, but an Abrams battalion will still chew through them pretty quick, especially that they have even better equipment than they had in Desert Storm strapped to them.Braddock wrote:
That news report doesn't go into very specific detail as to how they know it was from Iran but having said that I wouldn't put my neck on the line to defend Iran, they're no angels.
On the issue of a war, the US would win easily provided it didn't attempt any kind of ground offensive.
I remember thinking hmmmm....smarmy git.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
You seem to be forgeting that unlike Iraq, Iran have an airforce. I know it probably wouldn't last long, but it's there nevertheless and would slow things down a bit at the very least. They also have quite sophisticated anti-air weaponry. Bombing their airforce on the ground is not an option either, since they store their fighters in huge concrete bunkers.M.O.A.B wrote:
Oh I know Iran has more mountainous terrain than Iraq and this would definately complicate things, but wherever their tanks or ground units could go, so could US forces. But as Taxt said, all we need to do is completely annhilate their ground forces or at least soften them with heavy bombing and air strikes, ground troops and vehicles could move in to clean up what the planes missed.Flecco wrote:
Iran has very, very different terrain to Iraq. Look into it. It's not just that Iran has better armed forces than Iraq.M.O.A.B wrote:
Dunno like, Iran may have a better ground army than Iraq, but an Abrams battalion will still chew through them pretty quick, especially that they have even better equipment than they had in Desert Storm strapped to them.
I think invading Iran would be a lot more difficult than many people on here make out. It could be done, but it would be costly, which is something the US cannot afford at the moment.
Iraq HAD an airforce. it HAD sophisticated AA weaponry. what it didn't have was a snowballs chance in hell of slowing down the US.
So sophisticated Israel managed to fly in unchallenged and blow up a nuclear power station...Vernedead wrote:
Iraq HAD an airforce. it HAD sophisticated AA weaponry. what it didn't have was a snowballs chance in hell of slowing down the US.
It wouldn't be a challenge. Conventional war-wise it would be a massacre.
The first hint should be that Iran and Iraq fought to a stalemate during the iran-iraq war.
The first stage would consist of cruise missles and air strikes which would cripple that communications infrastructure, radar systems and airforce. remember that even if they keep their jets in bunker they can't hide the airfields.
I visited Belgrade (Serbia) and saw the buildings targeted by Americans in the city. Its incredible when you see how they were not only able to hit specific buildings in a crowded metropolitan city but they were able to target specific floors in those buildings. The US has the entire country of Iran mapped out from satellite imagery and knows exactly where to strike to cripple essential infrastructure.
The conventional war would not be the problem. The problem would be what would happen next and what would be the consequences.
The first hint should be that Iran and Iraq fought to a stalemate during the iran-iraq war.
The first stage would consist of cruise missles and air strikes which would cripple that communications infrastructure, radar systems and airforce. remember that even if they keep their jets in bunker they can't hide the airfields.
I visited Belgrade (Serbia) and saw the buildings targeted by Americans in the city. Its incredible when you see how they were not only able to hit specific buildings in a crowded metropolitan city but they were able to target specific floors in those buildings. The US has the entire country of Iran mapped out from satellite imagery and knows exactly where to strike to cripple essential infrastructure.
The conventional war would not be the problem. The problem would be what would happen next and what would be the consequences.
uhh you guys stop debating about the war and realize that you have no grounds for it...mmkay.
@Moab
About the territorial waters bit. It was in a disputed area (Shat al-Arab ) where the incident took place. So any attempts by a foreign government to state that they have GPS data delineating an territorial boundary that is ONLY settled bilaterally is plane old wrong. Sorry that's how the west decided to play the game might as well not start changing the rules to once convenience on these types of issues.
@Moab
About the territorial waters bit. It was in a disputed area (Shat al-Arab ) where the incident took place. So any attempts by a foreign government to state that they have GPS data delineating an territorial boundary that is ONLY settled bilaterally is plane old wrong. Sorry that's how the west decided to play the game might as well not start changing the rules to once convenience on these types of issues.
sophisticated is not the same as competent.CameronPoe wrote:
So sophisticated Israel managed to fly in unchallenged and blow up a nuclear power station...Vernedead wrote:
Iraq HAD an airforce. it HAD sophisticated AA weaponry. what it didn't have was a snowballs chance in hell of slowing down the US.
Better technology and more troops wont win in the end - USA far outclassed Iraq in the last war and here's the real killer - USA has not yet won the Iraq war! It has simply escallated to guerilla/terrorist warfare and in that situation 20 dead insurgents = martyrs whereas 1 dead western solder = tradegy. Western forces are now loosing more men per month than at the start of the war - and once western ppl realise the effect an occupation of a country causes on its people and the potential loss of life concequences it has, THEN and only then will the driving forces behind a war invasion/occupation exersise restraint in sending brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers etc... away to die in foregin lands.
History can be our greatest teacher - learn from our mistakes - the tactics employed in Iraq at the moment are akin to WWI "Hell lets just overpower them with brute force - to hell with the loss of life"
140 odd US killed in 1 month, c'mon how high is the price to pay for questionable goals.
FYI me = western
History can be our greatest teacher - learn from our mistakes - the tactics employed in Iraq at the moment are akin to WWI "Hell lets just overpower them with brute force - to hell with the loss of life"
140 odd US killed in 1 month, c'mon how high is the price to pay for questionable goals.
FYI me = western
I'm very surprised there isn't more outcry about this. I mean if this ISN'T enough proof for all the DOVES out there, I don't know what Iran would have to do?
usmarine2005 wrote:
It produces a very small carbon footprint.S.Lythberg wrote:
that C4 is obviously for generators, what else could you possibly use it for?
I had a theory that if we actually pulled out of Iraq like the Democrats wanted us to do, it may actually have accelerated our attack of Iran.mtb0minime wrote:
Well I was expecting the US to go into Iran after we finish up in Iraq anyway, but I was hoping against it and I was hoping that we'd finally pull out of the Middle East. But now looks like we're gonna move to Iran very soon. I'd rather have it where we pull our troops out and then nuke the desert wasteland to smithereens and make it a bigger wasteland.
Follow me on this, if we move out, then Iran will move into Iraq. Then many of the Doves in the war will get mad and actually support an attack on Iran. See I believe that Iran wants to annex 1/3 of Iraq. If they did that I think many Doves, not all of course, would be in favor to attack Iran similar to how Iraq attacked Kuwait in 1991.
Last edited by Harmor (2007-06-10 01:15:29)