If you thought Iraq was a "cakewalk", try attacking Iran

[jdobbin]

I am actually not proposing a strike on Iran, I simply said the US has the power to do it if they wished.

I believe the youth of Iran will bring down this gov't long before any shooting starts.....

Senators in the U.S. said they don't have the resources to invade Iran. You say they do?

And many experts say that Iranians will fight against any outside influence to take down their government or country.

[Guthrie]

Yes,

Well the left is exceptionally good at telling people "you have nothing to fear, trust us". Of couse they are nowhere to be found when it all comes crashing down. Hitler was someone we could do business with, PEACE IN OUR TIME. Whatever!!!

You right, we live in a peaceful world where everybody has our best interests at heart. Only the Americans have bad intentions, everybody else is a victim. The left will save us, by doing nothing and telling us it will all be OK....

except it was Prescott Bush doing business with Hitler and seeking to make America his ally

and, of course, Neville Chamberlain was another upper crust Conservative, not a leftist

so, all in all, you are wrong all the way around -- and BTW, just FYI the real quote was, 'Peace for our time' - and as stupid conservative suck up effort as the world will ever remember

[weaponeer]

Invasion, no, the word I used was strike, big difference. The US does have trhe power to launch a very desructive airstike on the Iranian nulcear program.

Of course Iran would fight back, never thought for a minute they would not. No doubt to me they'd loose. People are seeing what's going on in Iraq and think the US is weak, agreed they are rather tired up with their "ground" forces, but I do not really think that people understand or comprehend the power of the US military.

They have hundreds of cruise missle armed warships, hundreds, subs, destroyers, crusiers etc.. Not to mention their Airforce, which is not that heavily commited right now. The USAF has stealt bombers & strike planes, F22 stealth fighters, you CANNOT see these planes on radar, you cannot defend against them. They have B1 & B52 bombers with hundreds more ruise missile, not to mention hundred of ICBM's in the Montana & North Dakota prairies that can now be armed with CONVENTIONAL warheads. Believe me they have power, thet can do it.

[Guthrie]

Invasion, no, the word I used was strike, big difference. The US does have trhe power to launch a very desructive airstike on the Iranian nulcear program.

Of course Iran would fight back, never thought for a minute they would not. No doubt to me they'd loose. People are seeing what's going on in Iraq and think the US is weak, agreed they are rather tired up with their "ground" forces, but I do not really think that people understand or comprehend the power of the US military.

They have hundreds of cruise missle armed warships, hundreds, subs, destroyers, crusiers etc.. Not to mention their Airforce, which is not that heavily commited right now. The USAF has stealt bombers & strike planes, F22 stealth fighters, you CANNOT see these planes on radar, you cannot defend against them. They have B1 & B52 bombers with hundreds more ruise missile, not to mention hundred of ICBM's in the Montana & North Dakota prairies that can now be armed with CONVENTIONAL warheads. Believe me they have power, thet can do it.

since the Iranians have been taught to spread their nuclear efforts out among multiple sites, it is generally agreed that an air strike would not significantly damage it

[Catchme]

I am actually not proposing a strike on Iran, I simply said the US has the power to do it if they wished.

I believe the youth of Iran will bring down this gov't long before any shooting starts.....

Well, they are speaking towards it most certainly, but it isn't going to do them a much good by the looks of things.

With 3 Carrier Strike Groups on their way to the Persian Gulf now, instead of just 2, things aren't looking to good on the Iran front.

[sharkman]

Invasion, no, the word I used was strike, big difference. The US does have trhe power to launch a very desructive airstike on the Iranian nulcear program.

Of course Iran would fight back, never thought for a minute they would not. No doubt to me they'd loose. People are seeing what's going on in Iraq and think the US is weak, agreed they are rather tired up with their "ground" forces, but I do not really think that people understand or comprehend the power of the US military.

They have hundreds of cruise missle armed warships, hundreds, subs, destroyers, crusiers etc.. Not to mention their Airforce, which is not that heavily commited right now. The USAF has stealt bombers & strike planes, F22 stealth fighters, you CANNOT see these planes on radar, you cannot defend against them. They have B1 & B52 bombers with hundreds more ruise missile, not to mention hundred of ICBM's in the Montana & North Dakota prairies that can now be armed with CONVENTIONAL warheads. Believe me they have power, thet can do it.

The U.S. could literally bomb them back into the stone age in 2 weeks. Oh wait, they're already IN the stone age.

[Catchme]

Yes,Well the left is exceptionally good at telling people "you have nothing to fear, trust us". Of couse they are nowhere to be found when it all comes crashing down. Hitler was someone we could do business with, PEACE IN OUR TIME. Whatever!!!

except it was Prescott Bush doing business with Hitler and seeking to make America his ally

Oh yes, the left never did a thing about Hitler, after it was George Bush's granddad who finaced Hitler. I noticed he skipped right of this truth, that pointed out the erroneous nature of such a comment.

Like there are no people on the left in the military either! Talk about brain washing.

Offensive military action against Iran would be illegal under the United Nations Charter, which requires that members settle international disputes by peaceful means. The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and thus part of American law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Under the Charter, a country can attack another only in self-defense or with the blessing of the Security Council. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons would violate our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Congress should immediately pass a binding resolution reaffirming the United States' legal obligations and informing the Bush administration that it will not concur in any invasion or military action against Iran, would refuse to approve any funding for it, and would consider actions taken in contravention of the resolution as impeachable offenses.

http://www.counterpunch.org/cohn02012007.html

[jdobbin]

Invasion, no, the word I used was strike, big difference. The US does have trhe power to launch a very desructive airstike on the Iranian nulcear program.

Of course Iran would fight back, never thought for a minute they would not. No doubt to me they'd loose. People are seeing what's going on in Iraq and think the US is weak, agreed they are rather tired up with their "ground" forces, but I do not really think that people understand or comprehend the power of the US military.

They have hundreds of cruise missle armed warships, hundreds, subs, destroyers, crusiers etc.. Not to mention their Airforce, which is not that heavily commited right now. The USAF has stealt bombers & strike planes, F22 stealth fighters, you CANNOT see these planes on radar, you cannot defend against them. They have B1 & B52 bombers with hundreds more ruise missile, not to mention hundred of ICBM's in the Montana & North Dakota prairies that can now be armed with CONVENTIONAL warheads. Believe me they have power, thet can do it.

I don't think they have the ground forces to manage it at the moment. I think they could pound them from the air but to what purpose, I don't know. The Iranians could take the battle into Iraq if there is any air attack.

I don't see how the U.S. could fight back without a draft and a million or more troops to do the job.

[Guthrie]

Invasion, no, the word I used was strike, big difference. The US does have trhe power to launch a very desructive airstike on the Iranian nulcear program.

Of course Iran would fight back, never thought for a minute they would not. No doubt to me they'd loose. People are seeing what's going on in Iraq and think the US is weak, agreed they are rather tired up with their "ground" forces, but I do not really think that people understand or comprehend the power of the US military.

They have hundreds of cruise missle armed warships, hundreds, subs, destroyers, crusiers etc.. Not to mention their Airforce, which is not that heavily commited right now. The USAF has stealt bombers & strike planes, F22 stealth fighters, you CANNOT see these planes on radar, you cannot defend against them. They have B1 & B52 bombers with hundreds more ruise missile, not to mention hundred of ICBM's in the Montana & North Dakota prairies that can now be armed with CONVENTIONAL warheads. Believe me they have power, thet can do it.

The U.S. could literally bomb them back into the stone age in 2 weeks. Oh wait, they're already IN the stone age.

That is the kind of flippant bigotry I don't care for.

[blackascoal]

Weaponeer,

They have hundreds of cruise missle armed warships, hundreds, subs, destroyers, crusiers etc.. Not to mention their Airforce, which is not that heavily commited right now. The USAF has stealt bombers & strike planes, F22 stealth fighters, you CANNOT see these planes on radar, you cannot defend against them. They have B1 & B52 bombers with hundreds more ruise missile, not to mention hundred of ICBM's in the Montana & North Dakota prairies that can now be armed with CONVENTIONAL warheads. Believe me they have power, thet can do it.

Obviously, you don't understand the limits of military power.

With all the weapons that you so love, the US has never defeated any nation the size of Ohio by itself. We do better with much smaller counties about the size of Vermont, like Panama and Grenada. The US had overwhelming military power in Vietnam .. and still lost the war. Iraq is a nation that had been uneder sanctions for 12 years and had a depleted military, but we have still lost the war. Afghanistan really is a stone-age country that fought back with rifles and pistols and they are not only beating back the US, but NATO as well.

The Russians have delivered new missiles to Iran capable of bringing down US warplanes at great distances and the Chinese, like the Russians, have a vested interest in Iran. The only ally the US could count on is Israel, which can't be counted on. the Iranians would get weapons and funding from around the world and any attack on them would not stop at the US just tossing some bombs at selected sites, which would not neccesarily be successful by themselves. The limited war (cakewalk) that you propose will not happen and the US will be drawn into a much wider conflict that we cannot win.

Additionally, where is the funding for strikes on Iran to come from?

Where is the manpower to come from?

The US Treasury and military is stretched to the limit and the American people are fed up with gung-ho armchair warriors who've watched too many war movies and are not themselves in the line of fire.

Iran doesn't have to bring down US warplanes to strike at the US, the cost of oil alone would devastate the US economy. An attack on Iran would put the hard-liners there in full control and have the exact opposite effect of what's desired.

AND .. it would put the brave US men and women in uniform .. who are not sitting on their asses away from combat .. in even more danger than they are already in. I assume that you are not posting from Iraq.

Again, the American people are a lot smarter than the arm-chair "warriors" and right-wing knucklehead thought than to believe that we'd have ANY chance of success in attacking Iran, thanks to right-wing idiocy and arm-chair warriors who championed the disaster in Iraq.

Dealing with Iran is too hard, someone might get hurt.

Attacking Iran has nothing to do with being too hard and everything to do with it being just too stupid.

[blackascoal]

Invasion, no, the word I used was strike, big difference. The US does have trhe power to launch a very desructive airstike on the Iranian nulcear program.

Of course Iran would fight back, never thought for a minute they would not. No doubt to me they'd loose. People are seeing what's going on in Iraq and think the US is weak, agreed they are rather tired up with their "ground" forces, but I do not really think that people understand or comprehend the power of the US military.

They have hundreds of cruise missle armed warships, hundreds, subs, destroyers, crusiers etc.. Not to mention their Airforce, which is not that heavily commited right now. The USAF has stealt bombers & strike planes, F22 stealth fighters, you CANNOT see these planes on radar, you cannot defend against them. They have B1 & B52 bombers with hundreds more ruise missile, not to mention hundred of ICBM's in the Montana & North Dakota prairies that can now be armed with CONVENTIONAL warheads. Believe me they have power, thet can do it.

The U.S. could literally bomb them back into the stone age in 2 weeks. Oh wait, they're already IN the stone age.

The exact same bullshit said about an attack on Iraq, yet our Saigon moment will happen anyday now.

[Black Dog]

I am actually not proposing a strike on Iran, I simply said the US has the power to do it if they wished.

Well, duh. Their capability has never been the issue.

I believe the youth of Iran will bring down this gov't long before any shooting starts.....

Which won't happen if the U.S. or Israel starts bombing.

Invasion, no, the word I used was strike, big difference. The US does have trhe power to launch a very desructive airstike on the Iranian nulcear program.

Again: the question isn't whether they can, but whether they should. There are some major risks.

[M.Dancer]

The Iranian military is a non starter. Even with the Russian additions which haven't scored a hit on a US plane in decades despite countless sorties by American, NATO and Israeli flyers.

But more importantly than the lack of modern equipment is the lack of modern leadership. During the Iran Iraq war and despite being armed at the time with modern armour and aircraft (which have since rusted) they couldn't think strategically or tactically past First World War trench warfare. But as Alaric said to the Romans who bragged on their elaborate defenses, "The thicker the hay, the easier the mow"

The biggest threat that Iran has to offer is to the safe navigation of the straits of Hormuz by civilian craft and by terrorist rerisals on saft targets like daycares, bakeries and falafal stands.

During the Iran and Iraq war, a phase of the war known as the TAnker war saw Iranian revolutionary Guard mining the straits and attacking neutral shipping. Their prefered tactic was to set upon a tanker witha few fast swedish jet boats and fire RPGs at the super tankers and leave before an escort could arrive.

And as well Iran has shown no hesitation to sponsor and fund terrorists to attack civilan targets.

All in all eliminating the Iranian leadership would improve the world by a fair degree.

[blackascoal]

The Iranian military is a non starter. Even with the Russian additions which haven't scored a hit on a US plane in decades despite countless sorties by American, NATO and Israeli flyers.

But more importantly than the lack of modern equipment is the lack of modern leadership. During the Iran Iraq war and despite being armed at the time with modern armour and aircraft (which have since rusted) they couldn't think strategically or tactically past First World War trench warfare. But as Alaric said to the Romans who bragged on their elaborate defenses, "The thicker the hay, the easier the mow"

The biggest threat that Iran has to offer is to the safe navigation of the straits of Hormuz by civilian craft and by terrorist rerisals on saft targets like daycares, bakeries and falafal stands.

During the Iran and Iraq war, a phase of the war known as the TAnker war saw Iranian revolutionary Guard mining the straits and attacking neutral shipping. Their prefered tactic was to set upon a tanker witha few fast swedish jet boats and fire RPGs at the super tankers and leave before an escort could arrive.

And as well Iran has shown no hesitation to sponsor and fund terrorists to attack civilan targets.

All in all eliminating the Iranian leadership would improve the world by a fair degree.

First, the US has no ability to "eliminate the Iranian leadership" PERIOD, especially from the air. Any attack would only solidify the current leadership. Most of the world, including the American people, believe that getting rid of the current AMERICAN leadership would make the world safer.

Secondly, the Iranian military is far superior today than it was during the Iraq/Iran conflict .. and it has far more allies. In fact, they would have more allies than the US would or does. Even moderate Arab states don't want Iran attacked.

Additionally, the US has troops stationed in Iraq and throughout the region who would immediately be facing a far worse challenge than what they face today in an already lost cause .. AND the US economy would suffer tremendously with such an attack.

The US could not meet all the challenges it would face without a military draft and there is no question whatsoever that the American people aren't going to buy into such a mindless course.

Finally, what would be the point of attacking Iran? ..

The US cannot eliminate the Iranian leadership by such an attack and we cannot ensure that any hardened nuclear facility would be destroyed.

Iran, at some point, will acquire nuclear weapons and there is nothing the US can do to prevent that.

[Black Dog]

The Iranian military is a non starter. Even with the Russian additions which haven't scored a hit on a US plane in decades despite countless sorties by American, NATO and Israeli flyers.

Again: duh. Iran's military expenditures as percentage of GDP put in the same class as Belgium, though, as you point out, they lack much in the way of modern equipment. Which is why it's kinda ridiculous to piant Iran as a big threat, much as it was ridiculous to paint Saddam's flip-flop clad military as a threat back in 2003.

BUT...here's the question: you acknowledge that Iranian retaliation to a strike would take an asymetrical form (ie. sponsored terrorist attacks against soft targets). So why would we want to pursue a policy that would result in that kind of retaliation?

All in all eliminating the Iranian leadership would improve the world by a fair degree.

Just like eliminating Sadddam was supposed to improve the world and Iraq, right? Standing on it's own, this is an empty statement: what's to say the alternative would be better? Also: how do you propose to do that?

[M.Dancer]

Secondly, the Iranian military is far superior today than it was during the Iraq/Iran conflict .. .

Sure it is.....do you have a reputable source for that airclaim?

[blackascoal]

Secondly, the Iranian military is far superior today than it was during the Iraq/Iran conflict .. .

Sure it is.....do you have a reputabel source for that airclaim?

I have plenty and so does anyone who knows how to get them .. which does not matter to you so I won't burden you with it. You made the claim that the Iranian military isn't any better than it was in the 80's .. so how about you backing that up.

[M.Dancer]

Secondly, the Iranian military is far superior today than it was during the Iraq/Iran conflict .. .

Sure it is.....do you have a reputabel source for that airclaim?

I have plenty and so does anyone who knows how to get them .. which does not matter to you so I won't burden you with it. You made the claim that the Iranian military isn't any better than it was in the 80's .. so how about you backing that up.

You're such a bullshitting chickenshit

[M.Dancer]

You made the claim that the Iranian military isn't any better than it was in the 80's .. so

Bet you can't back that up either.....

[blackascoal]

You made the claim that the Iranian military isn't any better than it was in the 80's .. so

Bet you can't back that up either.....

Not going to play this silly game with you.

You're such a bullshitting chickenshit

Clear signal that I've won this argument.

[Black Dog]

Most stuff I've found confrims Iran's military to be something of a joke. For example, they only have enough armour for one to three divisions and most of that equipment is old and crumbling. The airforce is puny with a mere handful of modern attack/fighter aircraft and no airborne comand and control capability. What they have going for them is a large population base, which is what enabled them to beat back the materially superior Iraqis in the '80s. But the lack of any decent material, air or armour means they are not much of an offensive threat. AGain: the real danger lies in their ability to mount asymetrical operations and god knows there's plenty of targets for that sort of thing.

[jdobbin]

Iranian military capability is been the subject of a lot of debate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/index.html

In some respects such as air power they are weaker but their army is better organized than it once was. Their navy looks to be the same. But in truth...no one really knows.

[M.Dancer]

Since BACX refuse to back up his ridiculous cliams (and how could he?) I will bury them

Iranian Airforce

Newest Fighter

pre 1979

Parts and upgrades since then

ZERO

There is a large gap, however, between the self-image and the aspirations of the regime, and the reality of Iran's military weakness. Tehran's efforts to expand and modernize its armed forces and enhance its military capabilities are intended to bridge this gap. Iran's financial problems, however, have prevented it from achieving its goal of building a large, capable military. Consequently, it has devoted much of its available resources to missiles and non-conventional weapons, which potentially provide the biggest "bang" for Iran's limited defense "bucks." And given its financial problems, nuclear weapons may be the only way for Iran to become a military power without destroying its economy. While a nuclear weapons' program could cost billions of dollars, rebuilding its conventional military would cost tens of billions of dollars.(7)

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2001/issue1/jv5n1a2.html

[M.Dancer]

The dichotomy between the regular military and IRGC initially reflected divergent approaches to modern warfare. The regular military embraced a traditional approach to war, with a balanced emphasis on hardware, technology, and the human element. Its force structure--which resembled those of most Western armies--reflected this fact. By contrast, the IRGC elevated the human factor above all others in the belief that faith, ideological commitment, and morale would be sufficient to bring victory.(15) Accordingly, the IRGC originally consisted of poorly trained, irregular mass infantry forces that specialized in human wave attacks. The IRGC's approach came to dominate Iranian thinking during the Iran-Iraq War, even though the IRGC eventually established quasi-conventional infantry, armor, and artillery formations, as well as naval and air arms during the war.(16) The IRGC was also put in charge of Iran's missile forces and non-conventional weapons programs (which it still controls today

ibid

[blackascoal]

Most stuff I've found confrims Iran's military to be something of a joke. For example, they only have enough armour for one to three divisions and most of that equipment is old and crumbling. The airforce is puny with a mere handful of modern attack/fighter aircraft and no airborne comand and control capability. What they have going for them is a large population base, which is what enabled them to beat back the materially superior Iraqis in the '80s. But the lack of any decent material, air or armour means they are not much of an offensive threat. AGain: the real danger lies in their ability to mount asymetrical operations and god knows there's plenty of targets for that sort of thing.

Iran's Point Defense Upgraded

Wednesday, 10 May 2006

http://www.iranmilitaryforum.com/index.php...id=58&Itemid=54

excerpt ...

Russia has signed a deal with Iran to sell 29 of its TOR M-1 Anti-Aircraft/Anti-Missile systems, (already delivered) a development that will complicate any planned pre-emptive attack on the rogue nation's nuclear facilities. Russian officials claim the Tor system is "a weapon of defense" and does not represent a danger to the U.S. as long as Washington does not attack Iran. The 9K331 Tor [sA-15 GAUNTLET land-based, SA-N-9 naval version] low-to-medium altitude SAM system is capable of engaging not only aircraft and helicopters but also RPVs, precision-guided weapons and low flying cruise missiles. The sophisticated Tor system could ensure reliable protection for government, industrial and military sites.

When deployed in an integrated network, an array of S-300 and TOR-M1 systems could pose a highly potent defensive network against any aggressor, with the long range S-300 neutralizing aggressors and support planes at the high altitude, long range domain while the TORs engaging UAVs, precision guided weapons, cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles, launched at the the SAMs, radars and protected sites.

Not suggesting that Iran is the most formidable military power, only that it is better than during the Iraq/Iran conflict and attacking Iran would not be the cakewalk sugested by others.

There is no military solution for Iran that will not hurt US interests as much or even more. Diplomacy is the only option that makes any sense.