War in 4 days?

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Deleted

[/ QUOTE ]
Mod Wars?

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
Any attack would HAVE to be preceded with a massive air strike to eliminate these coastal defence positions/air units otherwise the results would include CNN/BBC pix of a sinking aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranians do not have the military capability of sinking one of our modern aircraft carriers.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any attack would HAVE to be preceded with a massive air strike to eliminate these coastal defence positions/air units otherwise the results would include CNN/BBC pix of a sinking aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranians do not have the military capability of sinking one of our modern aircraft carriers.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did get 12 cruise missles from Russia a couple of years ago. Don't know if they're operational or not, but if they are they could do the job.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any attack would HAVE to be preceded with a massive air strike to eliminate these coastal defence positions/air units otherwise the results would include CNN/BBC pix of a sinking aircraft carrier in the Gulf.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Iranians do not have the military capability of sinking one of our modern aircraft carriers.

[/ QUOTE ]

They did get 12 cruise missles from Russia a couple of years ago. Don't know if they're operational or not, but if they are they could do the job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Older cruise missiles (particular older Russian cruise missiles) would not be able to overcome the scrambling, decoy, and anti-missile technology onboard a modern American aircraft carrier. (Most of which is classified anyway so a meaningful discussion of this hypothetical can't really be had).

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Israel would never start a war without an authorization from US today. it's not 1967 anymore when USS Liberty tragedy happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize Israel has US authorization for their recent invasion of Lebanon.

[theweatherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense. Israel would never start a war without an authorization from US today. it's not 1967 anymore when USS Liberty tragedy happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize Israel has US authorization for their recent invasion of Lebanon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lebanon is different from Iran

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
the real question is: is a war with Iran worth it or would we better served allowing them to acquire nuclear weapons?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that is the question. Regardless of what the rest of the world thinks, Iran seems committed to the path and I think you have to run through the option of "allowing" them to acquire nuclear weapons. Although a country like Israel might have a problem with their offensive capabilities if they had nukes, personally, I feel the real strength is more defensive. No matter how advanced the technology of war becomes, it's ultimately a question of shields and swords, and like all military assets, nuclear weapons are just an extension, albeit a significant one, over those basic tools of war.

From a conventional standpoint I'd put Iran's military might on par with Canada's or Mexico's, but I think there's more to the picture. We can't ignore the non-symmetrical, non-conventional, and guerilla warfare tactics that would come into play. So while we could handle a country like Mexico from a military perspective, think about what damage Mexican nationals could do to us with guerilla or terrorist tactics.

You can't really match up military might against military might, because they don't have to defeat our military to defeat us. In the West, our Achilles Heel is our infrastructure, and to defeat us, you don't have to literally destroy our infrastructure, just disrupt it. Case in point is Iraq right now. Our Forces aren't losing any battle they are confronted with, but the insurgent forces can create enough disruption to make civilized society nearly impossible. So in our fictional war with Mexico: suppose a dozen suicide bombers show up at high school pep rallies; a dozen die-hards show up in shopping malls with AK's and few thousand rounds; a diesel tanker at a college football game or Nascar race; etc… What does that do to our way of life?

So to answer your question of whether or not it's worth it, I think a more fundamental question needs to be addressed: will allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons prevent the jihad?

__________________________________________________ _______

I really don't see the invasion of Iran as even a remote possibility, with the only exception being in support of a civil uprising. Their strength is in their mechanized, heavy armor divisions and infantry - we can't and won't walk into that.
We could however draw them into a fight. There's a big difference between an invasion and a strike. With the former, you're taking a position and holding it, but with the latter, you're inflicting damage and then retreating to a stronghold.

With the above-mentioned scenario, it's not right to put the qualifier of price on the situation. It comes down to winning at all costs, and there are a few more factors that come into play. The major factor is the Persian Gulf, and the minor factors are the advancement of Iran's heavy armor divisions along with the maintenance of their supply lines. The bottom line is - we can lose the Persian Gulf - Iran can't. And we own the sky - so we can stop the advancement of their tanks, and destroy their supply lines. So if the situation plays out in this way, the current Iranian regime wouldn't last two years.

It really doesn’t matter if your talking about a fistfight or global warfare, it all comes back to one thing - resolve. Who will fight to exhaustion? The United States exhausted Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. - yeah, we paid the price, and we might have to ante up again. But we believe in what we are doing here, and no matter how it plays out - we'll ultimately prevail.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall, I really felt we we're through with this crap - with the exception of a few little clean-ups. And despite what a lot of people feel, the wrong we're doing exercising our will throughout the world, I've never felt our world more threatened than what was going on in the Balkans, but we got through all that okay. The intensity of that conflict was at an infinity higher degree than this stuff in the ME.

But like I said, we got through all that, and more to the immediate point, Russia's backed off from there support of Iran. That U.N. Resolution was huge.

Honestly, my opinion's not worth a whole lot. The big picture scenario I've been privy to hasn't extended beyond the Company level, so take it with a grain of salt. But to the poster's who have suggested that different elements of the military are "ithching for a fight," (F!U!) You're clueless. I'm itching for peace.


My ultimate conclusion is that we're going to be faced with defeating the jihad. Whether it's the major one or the minor one is the only question. My gut tells me that with the current mindset, we're going to confront the major version.

[Dane S]

I'm not saying Iran isn't trying to develop nukes. It seems at least somewhat logical that they would try to for strategic defensive purposes. But why has the idea that they truly are just pursuing a nuclear power program, and that they won't cooperate with UN teams because it results in the leaking of sensitive information been taken completely off the table of debate? Everyone assumes that Iran is rushing headlong towards nukes despite the very possibly extremely dire consequences of this course of action, and I see no evidence at all in the news or anywhere, just speculation and assumption. Perhaps the issue is really with security of information gathered by UN inspectors? After Iraq, I can't believe people aren't demanding more conscientious scrutiny and skepticism towards the Bush administration's and the media's claims.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying Iran isn't trying to develop nukes. It seems at least somewhat logical that they would try to for strategic defensive purposes. But why has the idea that they truly are just pursuing a nuclear power program, and that they won't cooperate with UN teams because it results in the leaking of sensitive information been taken completely off the table of debate? Everyone assumes that Iran is rushing headlong towards nukes despite the very possibly extremely dire consequences of this course of action, and I see no evidence at all in the news or anywhere, just speculation and assumption. Perhaps the issue is really with security of information gathered by UN inspectors? After Iraq, I can't believe people aren't demanding more conscientious scrutiny and skepticism towards the Bush administration's and the media's claims.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess the rallies with tens of thousands of brainwashed muslim extremists screaming death to America should make us feel good about that country gaining a nuclear arsenal for "protection".

Do you really trust what acmadeenaJIHAD says more than US sources? The guy is a lunatic. He is rattling his pocket knife at our sword, because he knows that we are not likely to nuke anyone. We have had nukes for decades and only used them 60+ years ago. Do you think Iran would have that control? He wants to eliminate Isreal and America. The end goal of Jihad is to convert or exterminate all infidels. With goals like this commonplace in the religious and political leadership of some of these countries I find it hard to beleive that their intentions are pure.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
But why has the idea that they truly are just pursuing a nuclear power program, and that they won't cooperate with UN teams because it results in the leaking of sensitive information been taken completely off the table of debate?

[/ QUOTE ]


Russia took it off the table. They basically said, they aren't confident that Iran is pursuing a non-military application route. I guess you can interpret this any way you want, but Russia did offer to build nuclear power plants for Iran, and open the process up to the IAEA - Iran declined.