Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Report: Iran Begins War Game With Warning to U.S., Israel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
    Lets see off the top of my head.....

    Sinking a Capital ship without declaration of war would most certainly call for a Nuke to be dropped however doubtfull.
    What if the US attacks first? Plus I doubt sinking a carrier would invite a nuclear response. Iran does not meet the critiera for a nuclear strike. But gpoing back to a declaration of war, the US has fought several wars since WW2 when we passed our last declaration of war.


    But the U.S. would ignorantly and methodically take Iran apart piece by nuclear piece and think nothing of it in the following hours/days and further doubtful they would buy into anybody sueing for peace processes and the government forced out. They would bomb Tehran/Iran day and night until their reveard profit comes make no mistake.
    If the US and Iran go to war the US is going to do that anyway. So again, if war comes why should Iran hold back short of using a WMD? Their restraint will not help them one bit because the US will show no restraint regardless of what Iran does.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      What if the US attacks first? Plus I doubt sinking a carrier would invite a nuclear response. Iran does not meet the critiera for a nuclear strike. But gpoing back to a declaration of war, the US has fought several wars since WW2 when we passed our last declaration of war.




      If the US and Iran go to war the US is going to do that anyway. So again, if war comes why should Iran hold back short of using a WMD? Their restraint will not help them one bit because the US will show no restraint regardless of what Iran does.
      This is not to state that a nuclear response would be iminent. However, If history is the judge, The last country that sunk a CV (actually more then one and more then one countries) was hit by two atomic bombs by the time it was over and literally arrived in the stone age. The U.S. would certainly make Iran wish they thought again and it would certainly (as mentioned above) invite a very strong U.S. presence while the ship/equiptment were recovered which by your own admission Iran doesnt want.

      Keep one thing in mind, that CV is carrying on average 5000-5700 sailors aboard. Less then this number killed started the War on Terror on 9/11. What do you think will happen with even 4,000 lost. IMO Iran would get pulverized into dust before all is said and done.
      Last edited by Dreadnought; 21 Aug 08,, 22:33.
      Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
        *How long of a war if those supplies suddenly disappeared and judging by some of the news coming from Iran their gas dispensing even to their own public has fallen severly behind. They need the Straights as much as anybody where as we can draw fuel from many locations logistically speaking including Iraq if need be. Dont think they wont aid the country/countries that helped them and erased their debts as well.
        I'd like to make a minor point relating to the bolded part:

        Drawing fuel from Iraq, in the event of a conflict with Iran, could be difficult. If a conflict with Iran were to turn into a shooting war, Iran would do its very best to hurt the US in any way it could. This means inside Iraq. They would use whatever assets they have inside Iraq, both their own agents or groups that are friendly to them. They would surely stoke as much violence against the US as possible, making Iraq a rather more difficult place for the US once the war got started. Plus the Iraqi government itself is fairly friendly with Iran, and Malaki has stated he doesn't want Iraq to be used as a "staging ground" against Iran. I don't think Iraq could be reliably depended on to supply other US forces with fuel or materiel if such a war were to occur.
        Smells like napalm, tastes like chicken!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
          This is not to state that a nuclear response would be iminent. However, If history is the judge, The last country that sunk a CV (actually more then one and more then one countries) was hit by two atomic bombs by the time it was over and literally arrived in the stone age. The U.S. would certainly make Iran wish they thought again and it would certainly (as mentioned above) invite a very strong U.S. presence while the ship/equiptment were recovered which by your own admission Iran doesnt want.

          Keep one thing in mind, that CV is carrying on average 5000-5700 sailors aboard. Less then this number killed started the War on Terror on 9/11. What do you think will happen with even 4,000 lost. IMO Iran would get pulverized into dust before all is said and done.
          Again Dreadnought, if war comes Iran is already going to be pulverized and cut off for years. The US has the biggest navy and a P5 veto making the UN powerless to stop us. So even after the shooting stops Iran will rot for a decade or two. So how exactly will the US punish Iran one bit harder than it would if the US lost nothing but the bombs we freely gave them business end first?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by zraver View Post
            Again Dreadnought, if war comes Iran is already going to be pulverized and cut off for years. The US has the biggest navy and a P5 veto making the UN powerless to stop us. So even after the shooting stops Iran will rot for a decade or two. So how exactly will the US punish Iran one bit harder than it would if the US lost nothing but the bombs we freely gave them business end first?
            Just guessing here but IMO destroy their oil pumping facilities, wells,rigs, platforms,strategic reserve and deny them the very thing they are trying to grasp. The Straights themselves and blockade all others attempting to deliver new crude. If we were to do that then they will be out of fuel pretty quickly perhaps 2-6 months months. IMO It will put people into the streets with no gas for their cars, no fuel oil for their homes, transportation and like. I think it would catch the leaders ears pretty quickly and perhaps our sabre rattling friend removed even quicker. Iran is a rich nation wether the people know it or not but they are spending alot with Russian armament and the nuclear facilities but at the same time they are risking alot with their nuclear program smoke and mirrors.
            Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Traxus View Post
              I'd like to make a minor point relating to the bolded part:

              Drawing fuel from Iraq, in the event of a conflict with Iran, could be difficult. If a conflict with Iran were to turn into a shooting war, Iran would do its very best to hurt the US in any way it could. This means inside Iraq. They would use whatever assets they have inside Iraq, both their own agents or groups that are friendly to them. They would surely stoke as much violence against the US as possible, making Iraq a rather more difficult place for the US once the war got started. Plus the Iraqi government itself is fairly friendly with Iran, and Malaki has stated he doesn't want Iraq to be used as a "staging ground" against Iran. I don't think Iraq could be reliably depended on to supply other US forces with fuel or materiel if such a war were to occur.
              IMO I dont think that fuel would be the issue but I do agree with the statement about Malaki and Iraq as a platform but we still do have other options. Iran does have groups in Iraq we know this and have for quite some time but again for what we know the US may have groups in Iran as well. Not that they would mirror what Irans terror groups do but i'm pretty sure they could stir trouble as well for the Iranians.

              One problem for Malaki though, If a shooting war begins then its a given they will attempt to attack the troops in Iraq. So wether Malaki wants Iraq in the middle or not they are still going to target the troops there and most certainly those US troops will return fire.
              Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

              Comment


              • #67
                Everyone realizes that the rhetoric on this from both sides is just bullsh*t, right? No one is attacking anyone.

                If the U.S. was going to invade Iran, we would've done it by now. Bush/Cheney are leaving office in four months.

                If Iran was going to attack the U.S., it would've done it by now. We're right across the border after all.

                Iran used Chalabi to help bring the U.S. in to depose their one enemy Saddam Hussein. U.S. does the job and Iran is rewarded handsomely by getting their enemy Iraq destroyed without losing a single soldier in the process. U.S. is kept in a long occupation that uses up our manpower and our equipment. Our commitment to "Iraqi democracy" leads to the numerically superior Shiites, who were traditionally pro-Iran, take power from the pro-Saddam, anti-Shiite, and numerically inferior Sunnis. Not too smart (although our government also had the bright idea of installing Hamas into power into Gaza, so in comparison doing Iran geopolitical favors looks like rocket science).

                This naturally leads to Iran having some indirect influence in Iraq after the power vaccum that got created post-invasion. Iran is doing nothing but waiting for us to leave, as are the Kurds, Sunnis, Sadrists, and Maliki/Badr Brigades. They know we're short for this world because Americans, regardless of if they are left or right, have zero patience and want solutions now instead of solutions that take 10-20 years.

                Ooh, and Chalabi helps out the Iranians by telling them the Americans cracked the Iranian intelligence code also. That money we invested in him was sure worth it.

                Dear God people, it's damn simple logic. Is there no one in this country that is capable of long-term strategic thinking? Every single liberal and conservative commenter I listen to or read are f*cking idiots. That or they are just too scared to be blunt and tell Americans the truth.
                Last edited by rj1; 26 Aug 08,, 05:43.

                Comment


                • #68
                  all the 'attacking' rumors stem from the iranian nuclear programme and their extent of development...there was a CIa report a few months back that Iran had stopped its weapons programme in 2002-04...and then contradicting IAEA reports..So only the inner circle knows if Iran is really pushing forward with the nuke weapon prog..if it is..then in all likelihood there will be an attack by Israel with US firmly behind..the only question is WHEN

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    As soon as the US frees its hand a little from its current priorities, with the condition, that the government in office is convinced by the CIA/Pentagon that weaponisation of the Iranian nuclear program is obligatory from Iran's pov.
                    sigpicAnd on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X