Argus Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 Of course I'd pick US over Iran I'm not crazy Oh, thanks for that. I think some of us were beginning to wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted October 15, 2011 Report Share Posted October 15, 2011 No, Iran being a super power = bad, US being a super power = not as bad but still bad whos done more good? The U.S but that doesn't make up for all of the bad that was done The US foreign policy has been no different than anyone else over the decades and centuries. That is, it's aimed at doing what is best for America. And what is best for America and American business. The only reason you notice them more is because they're so bloody big, and their industry and corporate base has interests all over the world which the US seeks to protect from hostile or unfair (or sometimes fair) actions by other governments. It also spent half a century in active political competition with the Communists, and now has a security interest in stomping on Islamists wherever they crawl out of their caves. Other nations over the years have been equally, or more ruthless than the Americans in prosecuting their best interests. They just don't tend to get the press the Americans do. China's active foreign policy, for example, has no room in it whatsoever for care or interest in environmental or human rights concerns, or in the well-being of the citizens of the country where it's government owned corporations operate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Derek, you posed questions with specifics and got general and rather emotional answers. If that brother in law is real, it's obvious you better not hold your breath for an answer with any depth to it at all. Exactly, I suppose nearly seventeen years of combined service/employment in the (now) RCAF, Bell Textron and Boeing Integrated Defence (Now Boeing Defence, Space & Security) doesn’t count for much these days…….At least my dog likes me I’ll pose this question though: Let’s suppose the Iranians do have lightning in a bottle, and have the inherit ability to wipe out the USN in the Persian Gulf, a feat that without nuclear weapons the Soviets in their prime would have been hard pressed to accomplish, wouldn’t it stand to reason that a few pointy-heads in the USN would know this? I mean Wyly and his brother in law know this…..Wouldn’t it stand to reason a handful of decision makers would also be aware……there’s what…..300k+ active duty personal in the USN……….And why on earth would the USN’s 5th fleet still be based only a short flight away from Iran? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 ....And why on earth would the USN’s 5th fleet still be based only a short flight away from Iran? Shhhhhh...that's just a decoy for the heavy bombers parked at Diego Garcia. Nothing says "how do you do" better than grandpa's B-1's and B-52's! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 That is laughably silly, you know. Iran has a third world navy and air force, and either the US or Israel could crush them in a day. Or, Saudi Arabia, for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 like my bro-in-law the naval expert said, derek doesn't have a clue... clearing the area gives away their location...you think iranians don't have radios as well? submarines and aircraft shoot down surface skimming missiles at mach 2-3 do they? eww I want to see the link to that technology ... personnel numbers are meaningless...apparently you were the only to believe they were impregnable a few? it's already been determined china has sold them at least 200 you're really naive, the usa wants nothing to do with a war vs iran, will it win? absolutely but at what cost...the us has no clue as how effective the iranian air defense is or how capable it's offensive missiles are...the economics of fighting a war with iran may have far greater consequences than iraq... i'll go with our naval experts here, bc2004 and derek. You do know that the USA could clear the sky above the persian gulf rather quickly in a wartime situation making detection rather difficult - refer to the flashlight in the stadium analogy. The submarines and other cruise missiles/stealth aircraft are for attacking radar. Hard to guide a missile with no radar and the US fleet with theirs switched off. THe iraq personel numbers and capabilities were to compare and contrast a potential situation with Iran. Given the USA's track record of not only success, but obscene smashing success against soviet/chinese style military capabilities, I think we can go with the USA completely smashing Iran. Only 200? Hell the US goes through that in less than a month when doing operations and has plenty more cruise missiles to spare. The US doesn't want to start attacking Iran because that may start WW3. Iraq had no allies and the USA already had them weakened. However, to rip apart Iran as meticulously as the USA likes to operate needs lots of money, which the USA doesn't have. Iran is where Iraq was in 1990, a large well, equipped army full of itself and we all know the end of the story of that one. The USA was projected to have 20% plus casualties and lose planes, shipping, tanks, etc. What happened, Iraq got smashed and hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Shhhhhh...that's just a decoy for the heavy bombers parked at Diego Garcia. Nothing says "how do you do" better than grandpa's B-1's and B-52's! *straps on tin foil hat*…………..You mean like a Pearl Harbour 2.0? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 *straps on tin foil hat*…………..You mean like a Pearl Harbour 2.0? Ummmm...yea...like Japan, Iran would learn that American air power comes in many different flavors...often from far, far away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 i'll go with our naval experts here, bc2004 and derek. You do know that the USA could clear the sky above the persian gulf rather quickly in a wartime situation making detection rather difficult - refer to the flashlight in the stadium analogy. The submarines and other cruise missiles/stealth aircraft are for attacking radar. Hard to guide a missile with no radar and the US fleet with theirs switched off. THe iraq personel numbers and capabilities were to compare and contrast a potential situation with Iran. Given the USA's track record of not only success, but obscene smashing success against soviet/chinese style military capabilities, I think we can go with the USA completely smashing Iran. Only 200? Hell the US goes through that in less than a month when doing operations and has plenty more cruise missiles to spare. The US doesn't want to start attacking Iran because that may start WW3. Iraq had no allies and the USA already had them weakened. However, to rip apart Iran as meticulously as the USA likes to operate needs lots of money, which the USA doesn't have. Iran is where Iraq was in 1990, a large well, equipped army full of itself and we all know the end of the story of that one. The USA was projected to have 20% plus casualties and lose planes, shipping, tanks, etc. What happened, Iraq got smashed and hard. Though I don’t think Iran poses a serious threat to a larger, modern Navy, I will say this…….With all their various classes of cruise missiles, their handful of Kilo diesel subs, numerous types of naval mines and hundreds of speed boats that could be loaded with explosives, they sure could put a dent in the tanker traffic in the gulf……..If they could stop or even slow the flow of oil for a week or two, that in of itself would have a greater affect than the loss of a CVBG on western economies……….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) Ummmm...yea...like Japan, Iran would learn that American air power comes in many different flavors...often from far, far away. I meant nothing by it……..just wanted to beat any “truthers” to the punch…….you know Pearl Harbour, 9/11 was just a ploy to rally the American people to war etc Edited October 16, 2011 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 ...If they could stop or even slow the flow of oil for a week or two, that in of itself would have a greater affect than the loss of a CVBG on western economies……….. The only problem with that strategy is that Iran can least afford any loss of oil production revenue. Also, Iran and Saudi Arabia struggle to produce or import enough finished product for their own populations. Iran struggles to produce oil at more than 60% of pre-1979 levels of about 6.5 million bpd, even with Chinese help. Iran has already produced about 75% of proven reserves, so it's getting harder to keep production up without western technology and investment (sanctions). There will be no "war" with Iran, just the usual drama internally and externally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 The only problem with that strategy is that Iran can least afford any loss of oil production revenue. Also, Iran and Saudi Arabia struggle to produce or import enough finished product for their own populations. Iran struggles to produce oil at more than 60% of pre-1979 levels of about 6.5 million bpd, even with Chinese help. Iran has already produced about 75% of proven reserves, so it's getting harder to keep production up without western technology and investment (sanctions). There will be no "war" with Iran, just the usual drama internally and externally. Oh I agree, I’m sure Iran will eventually collapse from the inside out……..maybe with a little help from the Mossad…….. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Oh I agree, I’m sure Iran will eventually collapse from the inside out……..maybe with a little help from the Mossad…….. If it weren't for Mossad we'd all have been fried by Iraq. Remember the reactor Israel destroyed during 1981? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 If it weren't for Mossad we'd all have been fried by Iraq. Remember the reactor Israel destroyed during 1981? For sure, and I don’t blame any Israeli involvement in Iran…………If anything, I feel the Israelis have been showing an amazing amount of restraint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 For the record, Iran was first to attack Osirak, but they screwed it up. Israel didn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 The only threat Iran is is to its own people Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 The only threat Iran is is to its own people And it’s neighbours, Israelis, Lebanese and foreign ambassadors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 And it’s neighbours, Israelis, Lebanese and foreign ambassadors. Oh, and Canadian journalists...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 (edited) For the record, Iran was first to attack Osirak, but they screwed it up. Israel didn't. Old F-4 Phantoms and Tu-16 Badgers if I recall correctly. (Edit...not Tu-16s...Iraq had those for bombing Tehran.) Edited October 16, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Oh, and Canadian journalists...... Gotta say...I prefered the old Iran. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Old F-4 Phantoms and Tu-16 Badgers if I recall correctly. (Edit...not Tu-16s...Iraq had those for bombing Tehran.) They never had Badgers (Iraq did), the Iraqis received many Soviet platforms well the Iranians prior to the revolution received much of their equipment from the Americans, but those Phantoms are still a staple of their air force……and 30 years older. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Gotta say...I prefered the old Iran. The Shah was no peach, but at least somewhat secular Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 The Shah was no peach, but at least somewhat secular Meh...he was busy torturing the morons in power now. But, he was a gift from the UK and USSR to rid themselves of his Nazi daddy. Not our fault...lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 They never had Badgers (Iraq did), the Iraqis received many Soviet platforms well the Iranians prior to the revolution received much of their equipment from the Americans, but those Phantoms are still a staple of their air force……and 30 years older. Yes...I had my phases of the war crossed. Sunday... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted October 16, 2011 Report Share Posted October 16, 2011 Yes...I had my phases of the war crossed. Sunday... Fair enough……for what it’s worth, most of the war resembled the Western Front after both sides militaries started running out of spares and equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.