Argus Posted March 30, 2007 Report Posted March 30, 2007 They should feel lucky I am not in change of the British government because I would have considered this abduction in Iraqi waters, as an act of war and launched a full-out military assault on Iran. If the people of Iran are stupid enough to swallow the crap their religious leaders are filling them with, they deserve whatever they get. The British should feel lucky too. As a middle power, Britain doesn't have the forces available to take on Iran by themselves, given that everything Britain has has to be shipped to the battle and everything Iran has is right there. While action against Iran might be one sided in the favour of the UK, it would neither be powerful enough to be decisive or to get their people back. On the contrary. The Brits have sufficient forces at hand. All they need to do is sink anything that tries to leave or enter Iran's ports. That, I would think, would get the Iranians attention fairly quickly. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jdobbin Posted March 30, 2007 Report Posted March 30, 2007 On the contrary. The Brits have sufficient forces at hand. All they need to do is sink anything that tries to leave or enter Iran's ports. That, I would think, would get the Iranians attention fairly quickly. And allow the Iranians the excuse to send a thousands of troops to take Basra. Quote
ScottSA Posted March 30, 2007 Report Posted March 30, 2007 On the contrary. The Brits have sufficient forces at hand. All they need to do is sink anything that tries to leave or enter Iran's ports. That, I would think, would get the Iranians attention fairly quickly. And allow the Iranians the excuse to send a thousands of troops to take Basra. There is zero chance of that happening. The US would like nothing more than to utilize their standoff capabilities and the Iranians would be insane to initiate a ground war. Quote
jdobbin Posted March 30, 2007 Report Posted March 30, 2007 There is zero chance of that happening. The US would like nothing more than to utilize their standoff capabilities and the Iranians would be insane to initiate a ground war. So you think there is zero chance of the British attacking either? Because if one is possible so is the other. Quote
guyser Posted March 30, 2007 Report Posted March 30, 2007 Those who would say that need to go and live there for a little while - then they might change their thoughts on this.Life in the middle east is not sacrosanct and it is not valued as in western society - this one simple value will be used against us many times. Borg How long did you live there ? Quote
ScottSA Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 There is zero chance of that happening. The US would like nothing more than to utilize their standoff capabilities and the Iranians would be insane to initiate a ground war. So you think there is zero chance of the British attacking either? Because if one is possible so is the other. I really don't think the Brits are going to escalate the situation unless something happens to the sailors. But if they did initiate a limited blockade, the Iranians really couldn't do much about it, short of killing the sailors. They certainly wouldn't mount a ground invasion against a country occupied by the US. Not unless they're convinced the 12th Imam is curbing at the bit and rarin' to go. It's quite a mismatch between the 70s hardware Iran has and the 21st century stuff the US has. Quote
Borg Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Those who would say that need to go and live there for a little while - then they might change their thoughts on this. Life in the middle east is not sacrosanct and it is not valued as in western society - this one simple value will be used against us many times. Borg How long did you live there ? Two tours of duty Happy now? Borg Quote
ScottSA Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 It seems most of the folks who have actually been to either war or the third world or both are on the alleged "hawk" side. I wonder why that is? Maybe a dose of reality is helpful in clarifying what needs to be done? Maybe some experience with the stark realities of life close to the bone? Maybe the knowledge of the immediacy of life when someone is actively trying to take yours? Maybe because knowing how 9/10s of the world lives over there makes one appreciate what we have here? Quote
Borg Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 It seems most of the folks who have actually been to either war or the third world or both are on the alleged "hawk" side. I wonder why that is? Maybe a dose of reality is helpful in clarifying what needs to be done? Maybe some experience with the stark realities of life close to the bone? Maybe the knowledge of the immediacy of life when someone is actively trying to take yours? Maybe because knowing how 9/10s of the world lives over there makes one appreciate what we have here? How dare you hit the nail on the head! Borg Quote
DogOnPorch Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I really don't think the Brits are going to escalate the situation unless something happens to the sailors. But if they did initiate a limited blockade, the Iranians really couldn't do much about it, short of killing the sailors. They certainly wouldn't mount a ground invasion against a country occupied by the US. Not unless they're convinced the 12th Imam is curbing at the bit and rarin' to go. It's quite a mismatch between the 70s hardware Iran has and the 21st century stuff the US has. Heh...T-62s do look cool though. Trouble is, after action...the turret is upside down in one spot and the rest of the tank burning over yonder. Iran has such a hodge-podge of various equipment dating back to the 1950s in some cases (T-55s...Chieftains). The aircraft are equally mixed with a few older F-15s being the only real threat. They probably even still have some F-4 Phantoms kicking around. Iranian piloting skills are fair...better than most in the Middle-East due to some experience during the Iran-Iraq war. But nowhere near the skill of American/British pilots. Iran seems to be suffering from parade-ground sickness. That is...you look powerful with all your troops lined up chanting "Death to America" and doing Nazi salutes of all things, but the reality is that infantry is no longer queen of the battlefield. It's the cruise missile. If Iran figures this out, that leaves fighting wars in the cities where they can use civilians as shields...the West's one big weakness. A war with Iran to simply gain air superiority and then bomb the crap out of anything with military value would take under 30 days in my opinion. Civilian casualties...low. Military casualties...extreme. If a ground war breaks out...a campaign much like the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would also take a limited amount of time...but we'd best forget any occupation this time around as that's where the trouble starts. Partisan-type wars are very hard to fight...as the Germans found out in occupied Russia...and the Americans found out twice now...Viet-nam and the current affair. Britiain of course has endless experience fighting small scale wars but faces the same problems as the Americans when it comes to patroling the aftermath. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions. ---Field Marshal Erwin Rommel Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
moderateamericain Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I really don't think the Brits are going to escalate the situation unless something happens to the sailors. But if they did initiate a limited blockade, the Iranians really couldn't do much about it, short of killing the sailors. They certainly wouldn't mount a ground invasion against a country occupied by the US. Not unless they're convinced the 12th Imam is curbing at the bit and rarin' to go. It's quite a mismatch between the 70s hardware Iran has and the 21st century stuff the US has.Heh...T-62s do look cool though. Trouble is, after action...the turret is upside down in one spot and the rest of the tank burning over yonder. Iran has such a hodge-podge of various equipment dating back to the 1950s in some cases (T-55s...Chieftains). The aircraft are equally mixed with a few older F-15s being the only real threat. They probably even still have some F-4 Phantoms kicking around. Iranian piloting skills are fair...better than most in the Middle-East due to some experience during the Iran-Iraq war. But nowhere near the skill of American/British pilots. Iran seems to be suffering from parade-ground sickness. That is...you look powerful with all your troops lined up chanting "Death to America" and doing Nazi salutes of all things, but the reality is that infantry is no longer queen of the battlefield. It's the cruise missile. If Iran figures this out, that leaves fighting wars in the cities where they can use civilians as shields...the West's one big weakness. A war with Iran to simply gain air superiority and then bomb the crap out of anything with military value would take under 30 days in my opinion. Civilian casualties...low. Military casualties...extreme. If a ground war breaks out...a campaign much like the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan would also take a limited amount of time...but we'd best forget any occupation this time around as that's where the trouble starts. Partisan-type wars are very hard to fight...as the Germans found out in occupied Russia...and the Americans found out twice now...Viet-nam and the current affair. Britiain of course has endless experience fighting small scale wars but faces the same problems as the Americans when it comes to patroling the aftermath. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions. ---Field Marshal Erwin Rommel Iran would have absolutely no chance in hell in a conventional shooting war. The US Army is designed for a highly mobile conventional war. It would be like stacking Rocky Balboa against a grammar schooler. Quote
Remiel Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 The military won't confine itself to military targets in the event of a bombing campaign. They go after everything, roads, infrastructure, power stations, water plants. Direct civilian deaths would likely be moderate, deaths resulting from loss of infrastructure would likely be very high. Military deaths would likely be high as well, unless Iran does the smart thing and abandons its heavy equipment in favour of coverting everyone to infantry. Quote
Jerry Galinda Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 but after conventional war - probably partisan-type of war will be cuased that it will be the next - "never ending story" Quote
Jerry Galinda Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Conventional war with Iran – from the military point of view - isn’t a problem. But after that - it will create political problems – internal and external and of course – will cause the “next” war - partisan type of war. Quote
Remiel Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 I don't know so much about that... The problem with Iraq is that it has Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurds. Iran just has Shi'ite, or at least they are the vast majority, if I recall correctly. That does mean that Iran anti-occupation could potentially be more dangerous because it more cohesive across the whole country. Quote
Argus Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 There is zero chance of that happening. The US would like nothing more than to utilize their standoff capabilities and the Iranians would be insane to initiate a ground war. So you think there is zero chance of the British attacking either? Because if one is possible so is the other. The difference is the Brits could attack and win. The Iranians would be torn apart if they attacked. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Jerry Galinda Posted March 31, 2007 Report Posted March 31, 2007 Probably - you are right - it's more cohesive society.That's why - war is more risky. Quote
ScottSA Posted April 1, 2007 Report Posted April 1, 2007 The military won't confine itself to military targets in the event of a bombing campaign. They go after everything, roads, infrastructure, power stations, water plants. Direct civilian deaths would likely be moderate, deaths resulting from loss of infrastructure would likely be very high. Military deaths would likely be high as well, unless Iran does the smart thing and abandons its heavy equipment in favour of coverting everyone to infantry. Iran can do the dance of the seven veils for all it matters on the battlefield. The war it fought with Iraq was more or less a rematch of WW I using Persians and Arabs in place of Germans and French. It was more or less trench warfare. The US and Brits have standoff...they simply sit back and destroy the enemy from outside the enemy's range, with everything from air attack to missile attack to armored...the enemy is mismatched in everything and has no countermeasures for anything. If Iran decided to turn it into an infantry war, the allies would just use flechettes and napalm instead of anti-armor. Infantry won't make any difference. The reason the infrastructure is destroyed is to foul up transport to the front of everything from soldiers to bullets. Direct civilian deaths will be minimal, as usual, because the US has made the choice to spend a million dollars on a smart bomb instead of a thousand dollars on a dumb bomb that will do the same damage but might miss and hit civilians. Probably a mistake, but that's the US for ya. Quote
mcqueen625 Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 So much for the UN and it's silly sanctions for Iran defying the intrnational community with regards to their nuclear ambitions. Certain people were not supposed to be able to travel, and UN Members were not supposed to encourage travel by anyone connected to Iran's nuclear capabilities. Since sanctions don't work against Iran, maybe it is time to impose them against UN Members who help rogue states skirt sanctions, of which Russia is the latest sponsor of this action. Obviously Russia because they are receiving large amount of oil from Iran they see nothing wrong in helping out Iran even though it violates sanctions which they themselves helped to draft andand water down as well as voted to put in place. Now because it does not suit their agenda, Russia sees nothing wrong with ignoring these very sanctions themselves. Maybe the UN should instead imposed sanctions against Russia, France and any other country that continues to do business with Iran, until Iran falls in line. Quote
Figleaf Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 Or the rapture, for that matter.Oh get serious...most folks in the secular/agnostic West could give a fiddler's f**k about the stupid Christian rapture. In fact, the only time I hear about it on a regular basis is at forums like these. Surely you are not trying to pretend that fundamentalist Christians are a figment of the collective imagination!?!! Quote
ScottSA Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 Or the rapture, for that matter. Oh get serious...most folks in the secular/agnostic West could give a fiddler's f**k about the stupid Christian rapture. In fact, the only time I hear about it on a regular basis is at forums like these. Surely you are not trying to pretend that fundamentalist Christians are a figment of the collective imagination!?!! It takes a truly weak intellect to hinge an argument on using the absolute fringe of a position to represent the mainstream of the position. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted April 10, 2007 Report Posted April 10, 2007 Surely you are not trying to pretend that fundamentalist Christians are a figment of the collective imagination!?!! No...what I said is what I mean. But thanks for tryin'... ------------------------------------------------------- Society exists only as a mental concept; in the real world there are only individuals. ---Oscar Wilde Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
gc1765 Posted April 11, 2007 Report Posted April 11, 2007 It takes a truly weak intellect to hinge an argument on using the absolute fringe of a position to represent the mainstream of the position. My sentiments exactly...just like those right-wingers who think that Muslims should be judged by the action of a few extremists... Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
DogOnPorch Posted April 11, 2007 Report Posted April 11, 2007 My sentiments exactly...just like those right-wingers who think that Muslims should be judged by the action of a few extremists... During the recent 'Sailor Crisis', an estimated 60,000 football fans in a Tehran stadium chanted "Death To America...Death to England". They were probably 99.999% Muslim. Are they moderates or extremists? If they're all extremists...then there's a lot of them judging by the sample group. If they're moderates...then I'd hate to see an extremist. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Every time I reform in one direction I go overboard in another. ---Mark Twain Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
gc1765 Posted April 11, 2007 Report Posted April 11, 2007 During the recent 'Sailor Crisis', an estimated 60,000 football fans in a Tehran stadium chanted "Death To America...Death to England". They were probably 99.999% Muslim. Are they moderates or extremists? If they're all extremists...then there's a lot of them judging by the sample group. If they're moderates...then I'd hate to see an extremist. How many Americans support the war in Iraq? How many would support war with Iran? Also, do you have a link/reference for this story about the 60,000 football fans? Quote Almost three thousand people died needlessly and tragically at the World Trade Center on September 11; ten thousand Africans die needlessly and tragically every single day-and have died every single day since September 11-of AIDS, TB, and malaria. We need to keep September 11 in perspective, especially because the ten thousand daily deaths are preventable. - Jeffrey Sachs (from his book "The End of Poverty")
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.