War with Iran inevitable: do you support Iran's right to self-defence? - Page 2

Originally Posted by peve

my point:
-war is bad
-but, i don't like the thought of iran having a nuke (and a trigger-happy ahmadinejad at the button)

Originally Posted by sammi jo

Pakistan already has nukes. And they have a unstable dictator at the helm, who ousted a democratically elected government...

Originally Posted by sammi jo

There is not a shred of definite proof that Iran intends that *WEAPONS* to be the end result of their nuclear program.

Originally Posted by sammi jo

The build up to this war will be a parallel that of the Iraq invasion, using another non-existent WMD reasoning. The Pentagon will undoubtedly be a little more careful this time around, before the war starts properly, to pre-lay the rabbit trail a little more effectively than in Iraq... where an attempt to plant chemical weapons after the war started led to a disastrous "friendly" firefight.

Originally Posted by peve

but at least he doesn't brag around how he would wipe a country off of the map (and with that would break all hell loose in the area)

there are people who think different (check abdul qadeer khan)

irak did have wmd's. they used them against iran in the iran-irak war and against the kurds. they killed 1000's of people with sarin.

saddam and his friends had 11 years time to destroy and/or hide that stuff, after golfwar 1.

and if the usa had to fake the hole wmd-story, they would have done a better job.

Originally Posted by peve

irak did have wmd's. they used them against iran in the iran-irak war and against the kurds. they killed 1000's of people with sarin.

saddam and his friends had 11 years time to destroy and/or hide that stuff, after golfwar 1.

and if the usa had to fake the hole wmd-story, they would have done a better job.

Originally Posted by segovius

Am very familiar with the area as it happens. Was thinking of moving back a few years ago but my other half has an aversion to getting killed when the carpet bombing starts.

I would go in a flash but I guess it's no place for a family when it gets Iraqified.

Beautiful place, beautiful people....more friends dead soon though I guess.

Originally Posted by tonton

Iraq had a supersecret weapon called the idiot bomb. It's a bomb that destroys all common sense, knowledge of current affairs facts as opposed to conjecture, as well as spelling and grammatical skills. And they dropped it on you, apparently.

Originally Posted by segovius

Seems strange....you have an insane President who actually has instituted torture and invaded sovereign States on made-up pretexts and who reserves the right to use nukes pre-emptively...

And you have a Ahmedinejad who has no nukes, attacked no-one but is hated by the above mentioned President just like Saddam was...in fact the lies of Bush are your only real reason for you view....

Originally Posted by e1618978

...They are either suicidal, or idiots.

Originally Posted by segovius

Or you are not being told the truth...

Originally Posted by e1618978

Well, they speak English, most of them, so they have the opportunity to get their side of the story out. Instead they do all they can to hide their nuclear progress.

Originally Posted by e1618978

I actually think that they already have a bomb - there is plenty of weapons grade material on the market after the collapse of the soviet union.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Heh, you two make a great couple.

Originally Posted by e1618978

If you had any good arguments, or evidence, then you could sway me.

Originally Posted by segovius

... this is why the Political Right just cannot compete in the intellectual arena

Originally Posted by peve

how mature

um... yeah...

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

When you start posting something besides this and something with content, maybe we'll listen to you.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Haven't done much so far.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Also get a spell-checker

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

and get a clue what the shift key does on your keyboard.

Originally Posted by peve

well, looks like you listend - otherwise you wouldn't have answered.

if you cared to read (before you flame) - you would know different.

you do know, that there are people on this planet, who don't speak english since birth? how's your french for example?

capitalization is overrated

Originally Posted by peve

capitalization is overrated

Originally Posted by franksargent

So basically, the US has the ground forces and land based airfields to allow the Air Force and Army/Marines to go into western Iran, secure the eastern Iraq border, and take out Iranian forces in that region.

Also don't forget the US Navy, expect several of the carrier battle groups to be stationed offshore to launch attacks and secure oil production facilities in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

Also, expect US ground forces to secure the western border of Iraq/Syria.

Out of necessity Turkey, Kuwait, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia will also secure their borders.

Also add Israel to the mix for some additional punch.

Expect massive, and I do mean massive (much bigger than GW's I and II) air strikes from land and sea bases.

Originally Posted by vinea

Except the ground forces are occupied in Iraq doing other stuff. Stuff that will have to be left undone to defend against Iran.



The carriers offers fairly little offensive combat strength in comparison to the land air we could have available given the bases we have in the region. They do make really nice targets until the Silkworm and other sites are taken down. Expect these guys to stay pretty far out in the Arabian Sea if something happens and no where near the Iranian coast.



And if they haven't been able to before what makes you think they can secure them now?



Meh.

I can pretty much guarantee you that Turkey would be at their border because of the Kurds, and that Saudi Arabia would also protect their border



Possibly. They have been aggressive lately but frankly offer little and are better off not instigating something.



Not likely to be that much more massive given we didn't hold much back either time and in GW I we had a few other air forces carrying part of the load.

Vinea

Originally Posted by franksargent

In order of your replies;

It would be a given that the Iraqi's would have to fend for themselves, have their civil war, whatever.

And look at where most of the bases are already located, much closer to the Iranian border than any other border, and the terrain to the Iranian border is relatively flat, not like mountainous Afghanistan at all.

A single aircraft carrier has what, 80-90 aircraft/each, and don't forget the support ships, the destroyers and cruisers. And who said anything about being stationed in the Arabian Sea? Obviously, the air strikes would take out pretty much all of the Iranian offensive air capability, that's a necessary given.

Were talking 2008 technologies versus 2003 or 1991 technologies. Better and more precise delivery systems and munitions.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

Woefully bad. But in more ways than one, this is an English speaking forum. If it was French I wouldn't post here. But you have, as all of us the right to express yourself. Apologies for the oversight on your struggle to grasp English.

Originally Posted by SDW2001

1. I'm very wary of an attack on Iran. They could retaliate with possible sleepers cells in the UK and US. They could launch against Israel.

2. Cutting of oil production would [hurt?] them more than us. Guaranteed. They simply need it more than we do. They're already having major oil revenue problems.

3. F-14's, Russian "Suks" aside...our air power would completely and utterly overwhelm theirs. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding himself. Any attack on Iran would likely involve at least three carrier battle groups with at least 500 aircraft, 750-1000 cruise missiles, B-2 Stealth's, etc. We might lose a few aircraft, but would effectively remove all their military capability in 3 or 4 days. We'd likely soften up their defenses with a massive cruise missile strike on their air bases. We'd launch these from subs and destroyers, of course.

4. I think IF we do attack, we're likely to take out the nuke facilities and military infrastructure to prevent significant retaliation. I think doing less would be risky.

So...we have two issues: Should we attack and what would it look like if we did.

I don't know the answer to the first question. While I've very wary of it, I wonder if there is another way, since President Tom's government is making it a habit of actively giving UN the finger every time it passes a resolution. They are also attacking US forces and killing American soldiers both directly and indirectly. What right do they have to do that?

And really Seg...I'll again ask you to stop the preemptive personal attacks. I've literally heard NO ONE openly advocate an attack on Iran on these boards. Not a one. Secondly, Iran does in fact have an illegal nuclear program...that's confirmed. What's in question is whether or not they are developing nukes. No sane person can say for sure their[sic] not. In fact, no sane person can say it's less likely than it is likely.

Originally Posted by vinea

And we want to do that WHY?



What? The Zagros mountains are flat? Iraq has practically no terrain until you get near the Iranian border and the northeast isn't very suitable terrain for invasion either direction. Not for mechanized forces anyway. There a few reasons Saddam attacked in the south. Marshy but flatter.



A carrier air wing has 75-85 aircraft. 4 squadrons of F18s...about 48 aircraft. Yes, its substantial and was required in OIF for sustained strike but the naval threat was also lower. Yes, cruise missiles is also important on day 0. Neither need to be IN the gulf to do their job.

Parking a carrier battlegroup in the persian gulf when you expect to fight Iran would be risky until you eliminate the silkworm and sunburn sites. Localizing the battlegroup wouldn't be that hard in such a confined space. We have them there now. We might even leave one in there in a war but man, that's not a big piece of water. Typically when we have two we leave one in the Arabian sea and one in the Gulf.

The Iranians are certain to park anti-ship missles on Larak island. Between that and mine deployment by their three kilos the straights should be closable by them for at least a limited period. Giving them a chance at a carrier kill. They could lose their entire Navy and Air Force and come out ahead with one or two lucky hits.

Taking out Iranian offensive air capability is likely but possibly costly. It all depends on how many SA15s and SA 10s they bought off the Russians. While too few the Iranians are rumored to have a few Mig 27s and 31s. How many 29s they have are debatable.

We could likely kill all the aircraft, its the missiles that will be hard to find and eliminate.



No, we're talking about predominantly 1960-1970 technology (F14, F15, F16, A10, B52, B1) and some 1980-1990s technology (F18, B2 and F117) augmented to 2004-2007 levels. There are danged few F22s around.

Not saying that we don't have a technical advantage but the TOR-M1(SA15) S300 (SA10) are reputed to be tough customers. Likewise if they managed to get AA-10 and AA-11 they would have competent Air to Air missiles for the fighters they have.

It all depends on how many and how well integrated these systems are.

All in all, not a certain cake walk. Nor is the outcome worth the price we'd pay. It would be stupid to attack Iran and theres no casus belli to do so anyway. Not that it stopped Bush in 2003 but its still dumb.

Oh, and of course Iran has a right to self defense. All sovereign nations have the right to self defense. So what? The "war with Iran" is not inevitable. Not even Bush is going to start a war with Iran because it would be the political deathknell of the Republican party for the better part of a decade.

V

Originally Posted by SDW2001

II've literally heard NO ONE openly advocate an attack on Iran on these boards. Not a one.

Originally Posted by e1618978

I advocated an attack on Iran just yesterday.

My reasoning is as follows:

- I think that the Iranian leadership seems to not be thinking clearly, there is no way
that a rational leader would deliberately try to piss off the rest of the world, and no
way that a rational leader would actively try to encourage civil war in their neighboring
countires. We need to remove that leadership before they have a nuclear weapon.

- We are already effectively at war with them already, via proxy forces in Iraq, Syria,
and Lebanon.

Now, back in 2003 they were willing to deal and GWB totally screwed things up by ignoring
them - if they were willing to re-iterate that same deal now I think we would take it, but
otherwise bombing them is a good first step.

I also think that we should split up Iraq, take the Kurdish parts of Iran and give them Southern Iraq.
The new Kurdistan we create out of Northern Iraq and Kurdish Iran would be a good ally and a base
for US forces, and Iran would have its hands full bringing order to a place that it helped mess up.
Syria can have central Iraq, with its no oil and tons of problems.

Originally Posted by @_@ Artman

e1618978, do you work for these guys?

Originally Posted by tonton


Terrorists aren't born. They are created.