Iran locked and loaded

bk

InFront wrote:

Just in regards to the energy cynicism, yeh Iran is rich in oil and gas, but these fuels are finite and, given the pace of Iran's economic development, they will be depleted within two to five decades. Iran just does not want to get nuclear power - it needs it if it is to make an economic success of itself. Of course, making an economic success of itself is itself a threat to some, they don't like the idea of a strong Iran.

While I certainly don't want to see a war between the US and Iran, I'm also not going to be naive, the only reason why Iran is going Nuclear is to build nuclear weapons. Your sticking your head in the sand if you think otherwise.

InFront

Yeah, I'm sure Ahmadinejad wouldn't say no to nuclear weapons. If you were in his position, next door to Iraq and with Nuclear Israel salivating in your particular direction, you probably wouldn't say no either.

But let me ask you this; if you were the President of the Iranian economy, and knew that there was a way to produce mass energy on a tremendously cheaper scale, in a safe, less wasteful way, a clean way, and most importantly of all a way that would maximise your fossil fuel sustainability which is the backbone of your economy - would you go for it?

Or would you keep on carelessly pumping thousands and thousands of barrells of oil into Iranian villages every year on a downward spiral of inflation, unemployment and wasting natural resources - your biggest income? Oil can't be eaten, but it can put food on the table. So why not use the cheap uranium for electricity and sell the oil and gas?
You can't deny that this is actually a genuine reason why Iran ought to have nuclear energy. It does, and will, need it.

We in Europe should be encouraging nuclear energy for Iran. A rich country with a successful economy would want to be our colleague. A bankrupt state with its fuel reserves in the red too, and depending on our foreign aid in 30 years time is not going to want to be our colleague at all.

KerranJast

InFront wrote:

Yeah, I'm sure Ahmadinejad wouldn't say no to nuclear weapons. If you were in his position, next door to Iraq and with Nuclear Israel salivating in your particular direction, you probably wouldn't say no either.

But let me ask you this; if you were the President of the Iranian economy, and knew that there was a way to produce mass energy on a tremendously cheaper scale, in a safe, less wasteful way, a clean way, and most importantly of all a way that would maximise your fossil fuel sustainability which is the backbone of your economy - would you go for it?

Or would you keep on carelessly pumping thousands and thousands of barrells of oil into Iranian villages every year on a downward spiral of inflation, unemployment and wasting natural resources - your biggest income? Oil can't be eaten, but it can put food on the table. So why not use the cheap uranium for electricity and sell the oil and gas?
You can't deny that this is actually a genuine reason why Iran ought to have nuclear energy. It does, and will, need it.

We in Europe should be encouraging nuclear energy for Iran. A rich country with a successful economy would want to be our colleague. A bankrupt state with its fuel reserves in the red too, and depending on our foreign aid in 30 years time is not going to want to be our colleague at all.

I could be wrong, but didn't both the French and the Russians offer to help Iran build Nuclear Reactors last year provided they were allowed ensure the technology was not twisted to make nukes? I think the Russians offered to enrich uranium for them thereby allowing Iran to quickly build reactors without having to worry about enriching fuel. The Iranians told them to shove it AFAIR, as Ahmadinejad has done again this week this time to the UNSC.

bk

InFront wrote:

We in Europe should be encouraging nuclear energy for Iran. A rich country with a successful economy would want to be our colleague. A bankrupt state with its fuel reserves in the red too, and depending on our foreign aid in 30 years time is not going to want to be our colleague at all.

I'd have no problem with Iran having Nuclear Power if:

1) Iran wasn't run put Islamic religious fundamentalists.
2) Didn't recently say that they wanted to destroy Israel.
3) Built reactors which are hard to enrich Uranium from.
4) Allowed constant monitoring of the plants and all waste by the IAEA.
5) Didn't support Hezbollah in Lebanon.
6) Started to improve it's civil rights record.
7) Started to open up it's country and start normalising relationships with it's neighbours and the West.

Akrasia

bk wrote:

I'd have no problem with Iran having Nuclear Power if:

1) Iran wasn't run put Islamic religious fundamentalists.
2) Didn't recently say that they wanted to destroy Israel.
3) Built reactors which are hard to enrich Uranium from.
4) Allowed constant monitoring of the plants and all waste by the IAEA.
5) Didn't support Hezbollah in Lebanon.
6) Started to improve it's civil rights record.
7) Started to open up it's country and start normalising relationships with it's neighbours and the West.

but you have no problem with America having Nuclear power and the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal, powerful enough to destroy the whole world 10 times over, even though america is

1) Run by Christian Zionist Fundamentalists who are actively seeking armageddon (the rapture)
2) Recently and consistently declares wars on everything from chemicals (drugs) to religions (Islam) and Nouns (terror)
3) Is dismantling the NPT which it no longer abides by. Has pulled out of the test ban treaty and is currently developing 'tactical nukes' which it actually plans to use in a first strike.
4) does not allow any international monitoring of it's nuclear arsenal or any other strategic military apparatus.
5) Supported Israel's recent war crimes in Lebanon through arms sales and by blocking U.N. resolutions calling for peace by and preventing international efforts to achieve a ceasefire at the earliest opportunity
6) Is running an illegal prison complex at Guantanamo bay where 'suspected terrorists' are held indefinitely and subject to torture. Has been been subverting European laws by kidnapping people from around the world and transporting them to secret prisons to be tortured. Has tens of thousands of 'illegal immigrants' in indefinite detention at facilities all around the U.S, Is imprisoning journalists for years without trial when they refuse to turn states evidence... I could go on and on

You are comfortable with this kind of regime possessing global military superiority and you think it is right for this country to attack Iran based on hysterical accusations and fabricated evidence?

Judt

This whole "Ohh, America USED their nukes, and besides, it's NOT FAIR that Iran can't have any" is a stupid argument. Real Politik, ladies and gentlemen, the politics of reality, not fantasy - The US is a democracy. Iran is a theocracy. The US is the worlds most powerful nation, yet for some reason countries like Iran and North Korea, its enemies, still exist on a map. Better than the old colonial days, eh? Iran on the other hand has the stated aim of wiping another country off the face of the earth.

Should I go on? Boo hoo, it's not fair that the US has nukes and poor old Iran doesn't. But hey, the US has been good with its nukes for the past 67 years. That's gotta count for something, right? Iran in the meantime has made a habit of supporting terrorists and taking hostages left and right.

Akrasia

Judt wrote:

This whole "Ohh, America USED their nukes, and besides, it's NOT FAIR that Iran can't have any" is a stupid argument. Real Politik, ladies and gentlemen, the politics of reality, not fantasy - The US is a democracy. Iran is a theocracy. The US is the worlds most powerful nation, yet for some reason countries like Iran and North Korea, its enemies, still exist on a map. Better than the old colonial days, eh? Iran on the other hand has the stated aim of wiping another country off the face of the earth.

Should I go on? Boo hoo, it's not fair that the US has nukes and poor old Iran doesn't. But hey, the US has been good with its nukes for the past 67 years. That's gotta count for something, right? Iran in the meantime has made a habit of supporting terrorists and taking hostages left and right.

I love the way right wingers like you think you have a monopoly on reality and us 'libruls' are all stuck in fantasy land, meanwhile you're supporting the idea that America can bomb Iran into being a democracy and Bomb the world into rejecting 'terrorism'

America has supported more terrorism than any other country in the world America has proliferated more weapons, including nukes, than any other 'rogue state'

Iran has not called for Israel to be wiped off them map. the president called for the Zionist regime to be eradicated. All this talk of 'wiping countries off the map makes me wonder if you understand that the world isn't a blackboard, you can't just erase countries even if you are 'the worlds most powerful nation'

America however is very good at meddling with the internal affairs of some of the smallest and poorest countries in the world and their interests are rarely if ever to improve the lives of the local people.

oh, and your faux concern for the alleged victims of Iranian hostage taking. (it was 28 years ago, get over it) doesn't seem to extend to U.S. kidnapping and later torturing of innocent people.
Unless you want to take this opportunity to condemn the 'extraordinary rendition' programs?
(holds breath)

Judt

Iran has not called for Israel to be wiped off them map. the president called for the Zionist regime to be eradicated

Ohh, I understand. They'll leave the buildings standing, but the people all have to go have a shower? Now there's semantics for you.

Unless you want to take this opportunity to condemn the 'extraordinary rendition' programs?

Maybe you're not reading the threads on that, but I do. I don't say that a country has to be right 100% of the time to be right on anything at all.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

I love the way right wingers like you think you have a monopoly on reality and us 'libruls' are all stuck in fantasy land
(holds breath)

Uhm
Have you heard of the concept of attack the post and not the poster?
No more warnings.
1 week ban.
pm me or one of the other mods when the time is up.

Akrasia

Judt wrote:

Ohh, I understand. They'll leave the buildings standing, but the people all have to go have a shower? Now there's semantics for you.

The phrase "Israel must be wiped off the map" as attributed to the Iranian president is a blatant misquote.

This is what he said
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
In context, the point he was making was that he wanted Zionism to go the same way as the Soviet Union. The soviet union collapsed without anyone being 'wiped out'.

This is the truth. The claims that the Iranians are trying to destroy israel are lies of propaganda and exist only to manipulate people into supporting another devastating war in the Middle East

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527

Judt

Akrasia wrote:

The phrase "Israel must be wiped off the map" as attributed to the Iranian president is a blatant misquote.

This is what he said
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
In context, the point he was making was that he wanted Zionism to go the same way as the Soviet Union. The soviet union collapsed without anyone being 'wiped out'.

This is the truth. The claims that the Iranians are trying to destroy israel are lies of propaganda and exist only to manipulate people into supporting another devastating war in the Middle East

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527

You're taking what he said and then supposing... to me that reads "Israel has to go", and given how the Islamic world feels about Israel I wouldn't, if I were living in Tel Aviv, really take that to mean they expect a simple end of the nation. What more other than the destruction of the people living in Israel could that possibly mean???

marco murphy

Akrasia wrote:

The phrase "Israel must be wiped off the map" as attributed to the Iranian president is a blatant misquote.

This is what he said
"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
In context, the point he was making was that he wanted Zionism to go the same way as the Soviet Union. The soviet union collapsed without anyone being 'wiped out'.

This is the truth. The claims that the Iranians are trying to destroy israel are lies of propaganda and exist only to manipulate people into supporting another devastating war in the Middle East

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NOR20070120&articleId=4527

100% correct. His comments were taken completely out of context by the media.

bk

Akrasia wrote:

You are comfortable with this kind of regime possessing global military superiority and you think it is right for this country to attack Iran based on hysterical accusations and fabricated evidence?

Yes, I'm comfortable with the US having nukes and no I'm not comfortable with them attacking Iran.

The reality is that as a western nation, we benefit greatly by the US having nukes and Iran not having nukes.

It is easy to say now that you are happy for Iran to have nukes. But the reality is if they got them tomorrow and invaded neighbouring countries and the price of oil went up to $200 a barrel and the resultant economic crises you and many here would be shouting for the US to invade.

The reality is we can all here in Ireland sit back in our smug neutrality, only because we are a western nation who benefits from the overwhelming US military forces who keep lunatics from threatening the precious resources we require.

Having said that, I don't want to see a war between the US and Iran and I don't want Iran any other country develop nuclear weapons. What I would like to see is the reduction of tensions between Iran and the US, the opening up of fair trade between Iran and the rest of the world and opening up of normalised relationships between Iran and the US.

I'd like to see Iran develop the sort of friendly relationship with the US that the US has with Saudi Arabia and Egypt and to engage in profitable international trade.

This would benefit both the US and Iran.

bk

BTW The greatest fear I have with Iran getting nukes is that it will start a nuclear arms race in the middle east.

If Iran gets nukes, then it wouldn't be long before Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, etc. all want to get their own nukes.

Remember Iran has historically been the enemies of these countries, what with Iran being both Shia and Persian, while the rest are typically Sunni and Arabic.

If Iran gets nukes, the rest will want them also to defend against Iran.

We could end up with a situation with them all pointing nukes at one another, while sitting on most of the worlds oil stocks. If something goes wrong and someone pulls the trigger, it would be devastating for the world economy and could actually devastate civilisation as we know it.

So yes, I'd rather non of them had nukes, including Israel. I'm glad that the US keeps a close eye on the region and ensures the free flow of oil from their into all our cars *.

* It is funny I should say that, being an environmentalist who doesn't own a car, but I'm also a realist and I realise the devastating consequences to our economy if the flow of oil was cut off.

KerranJast

Akrasia wrote:

but you have no problem with America having Nuclear power and the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal, powerful enough to destroy the whole world 10 times over, even though america is

1) Run by Christian Zionist Fundamentalists who are actively seeking armageddon (the rapture)

The "Christian Zionist Fundamentalists", by which I presume you mean policitians with an evangelical leaning, are a small section of the Republican party, a party which got a kicking in the recent Midterm elections over there.

Akrasia wrote:

2) Recently and consistently declares wars on everything from chemicals (drugs) to religions (Islam) and Nouns (terror)

I don't remember anyone in Bush's administration declaring war on Islam. Fundementalists who are twisting the holy book yes but not the entire religion.

Akrasia wrote:

3) Is dismantling the NPT which it no longer abides by. Has pulled out of the test ban treaty and is currently developing 'tactical nukes' which it actually plans to use in a first strike.

The US could not use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario. Congress would never allow it unless the country was under direct threat. That's the good thing about the world's superpower being a democracy. Checks and balances, unlike Iran or NK where a cabal or individual can decide at a whim to launch a nuke.

Akrasia wrote:

You are comfortable with this kind of regime possessing global military superiority and you think it is right for this country to attack Iran based on hysterical accusations and fabricated evidence?

Would you rather the Soviets have become the dominant superpower? Or the Chinese? IMO the US has been a greater force for good than ill since it entered WW2, and it's not going to attack Iran any time soon. There's no public backing for it at home and amoung it's allies. What could happen is that Iran could continue to disregard UN resolutions eventually pissing the Russians and Chinese off resulting in a vote by the UNSC to take action. If that happens the US would be right to deal with Iran's nuclear sites.

Victor

During the Gulf war the Iraqi's were equipped with Mig29's which many argue in one on one engagements, a Mig29 is superior to a US F14 and F15. Yet during the Gulf war 5 Mig29's were shot down with no US loses.

Ahem, http://webcom.com/~amraam/aaloss.html You claim to be somewhat authorative, but don't know basic fact. I contend that you are uninformed, bluffing or lying (as in you know its probably not true, but you are saying it anyway to win the argument).

Tristrame wrote:

Clearly it's their concern for Co2 emmissions and global warming that has them wanting nuclear power. They are going to plug all those oil wells.

They realise the oil is running out. Or they say they do.

bk wrote:

BTW The greatest fear I have with Iran getting nukes is that it will start a nuclear arms race in the middle east. If Iran gets nukes, then it wouldn't be long before Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Oman, etc. all want to get their own nukes. Remember Iran has historically been the enemies of these countries, what with Iran being both Shia and Persian, while the rest are typically Sunni and Arabic. If Iran gets nukes, the rest will want them also to defend against Iran.

That race started at least as far back as the 1970s when Saudi Arabia co-financed the Iraqi nuclear programme. In reality, most of the Arab states are under an American nuclear umbrella.

KerranJast wrote:

The US could not use nuclear weapons in a first strike scenario. Congress would never allow it unless the country was under direct threat.

I'm sorry, there is only one* button and George holds it.

* Yes there are other buttons, but you know what I mean

Padraig Mor

I'd have no problem with Iran having Nuclear Power if:

1) Iran wasn't run put Islamic religious fundamentalists. So because they're Islamic they can't be trusted? They're not stupid. They know that if they attacked the US/Israel they would be 'wiped off the map'
2) Didn't recently say that they wanted to destroy Israel. They didn't
3) Built reactors which are hard to enrich Uranium from. First time I've heard of this. Source?
4) Allowed constant monitoring of the plants and all waste by the IAEA. They do, to the best of my knowledge
5) Didn't support Hezbollah in Lebanon. What's that got to do with it?
6) Started to improve it's civil rights record. To the level of - say - China?
7) Started to open up it's country and start normalising relationships with it's neighbours and the West. TBH they seem to be quite open to normalised relations. It seems that the West just doesn't want to hear it

KerranJast

Victor wrote:

I'm sorry, there is only one* button and George holds it.

* Yes there are other buttons, but you know what I mean

I know the POTUS has sole control over the authorisation for nuclear weapons, but no President would realistically authorise a nuclear first strike without a valid reason that the Congress could accept. Hypothetically he could order a launch but if the reason for the launch was not a direct imminent threat to the US or one of it's allies, the Congress would be likely to take serious action against the President for making such a unilateral, unnecessary decision. Impeachment would probably follow, unless of course a global nuclear war wasn't started.

bk

Victor wrote:

Ahem, http://webcom.com/~amraam/aaloss.html You claim to be somewhat authorative, but don't know basic fact. I contend that you are uninformed, bluffing or lying (as in you know its probably not true, but you are saying it anyway to win the argument).

Hey, remember attack the post, not the poster.

I should have clarified that I meant that the US didn't lose any aircraft in air to air combat. However looking at the link, it seems to say that one F18C was shot down by a Mig25, I've never heard that before and would be very surprised if true, so I'll do a bit of research into it and may very well stand corrected.

But there really isn't any need to call me a liar, that is uncalled for and a very low form of debate.

bk

bk wrote:

Hey, remember attack the post, not the poster.

I should have clarified that I meant that the US didn't lose any aircraft in air to air combat. However looking at the link, it seems to say that one F18C was shot down by a Mig25, I've never heard that before and would be very surprised if true, so I'll do a bit of research into it and may very well stand corrected.

But there really isn't any need to call me a liar, that is uncalled for and a very low form of debate.

Yes, I stand corrected, it seems a US Navy F18C was shot down by a Mig25.

This is actually a very interesting example of even when you have the best tech and training, that lack of resolve and bad communication can still get you killed:

Not all Hornet missions were “hitchless” and not every flight came home. In at least one
case (discussed below), the inability to positively and quickly identify enemy BVR targets
had fatal consequences. Under the established rules of engagement (RoE) in the Gulf, F-14,
F/A-18 and F-16 pilots often found their hands tied. Only the Air Force F-15 had the RoE-
required capabilities to employ BVR AAMs.

Sadly, for instance, on the first night of the war, LCDR Michael “Spike” Speicher, also of
VFA-81 (in F/A-18C BuNo 163484/AA-403), was shot down 29 nm southeast of Baghdad.
Although some initial sources attributed his loss to ground fire (specifically a Soviet-made
self-propelled SA-6 SAM), the most credible accounts attribute the downing to an Iraqi MiG-
25PD Foxbat interceptor (perhaps even by a collision with the MiG) that was in the area.
Ironically, Spike had originally been scheduled only as an alternate, or backup, pilot. He
was later added to the roster by special request because he wanted to fly on the first strike
mission.

Pieced together from several reports, it appears that Spike was part of a SAM suppression
mission ahead of a group of bombers. Spike and some other Hornets—piloted by CMDR
Mike “Spock” Anderson and LCDR Tony Albano—were tasked with firing HARMs against
specific targets, such as the Al Taqaddum airfield near the Euphrates River. Not long after 4
a.m. still some 50 miles from Baghdad, they came across an Iraqi Foxbat-A which had
managed to take off. To CMDR Anderson, through IFF and other cues, this was obviously
an enemy aircraft. It was climbing quickly with afterburner at Mach 1.4, spouting its tell-
tale fingers of yellow flame. They Hornets dispersed at about this time and headed out
toward their individual targets, spread out over some 50 to 60 miles.

Meanwhile, Anderson continued to tangle with the Foxbat, which responded to his radar lock
by turning. The two of them circled each other several times, just outside range of the
Hornet's weapons envelope. Meanwhile, Anderson requested firing authorization from the
nearest E-3 AWACS controller. Although several Coalition jets had also achieved radar lock
at this time, Anderson's controller could not see the aircraft on its instruments and thus
could not allow him to fire under the established RoE. Incidentally, Anderson later would
learn that other AWACS in the area had identified the MiG, but were operating on a
different frequency. This would cost the life of one 33-year-old naval aviator.

Attempts at visual tracking failed when the Iraqi switched off his afterburners and was lost
in the dark. While Anderson's E-3 above attempted to identify the fast-closing bogey, it
continued to deny permission to fire. In the resulting confusion, the MiG got a missile off
(presumably a AA-6 Acrid, one of the largest AAMs in the world). This Soviet-made missile
hit Speicher's Hornet and probably killing him instantly.
Spike's absence only became apparent during the in-flight roll call, as the others regrouped
and exited the area. Later, many reported a flash and a definite aircraft explosion over Spike's target area.

http://www.sinimuna.com/docs/bz10a.pdf

But there was still no need to call me a liar, I was simply misinformed.

oscarBravo

bk wrote:

But there really isn't any need to call me a liar, that is uncalled for and a very low form of debate.

It's already being dealt with - please just report the post in future, ta.

AbusesToilets

Just a quick note on that pilot,it's been researched in a book recently that up until at least 2003 i think that he was believed to possibly still be alive
Link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Speicher

nacho libre

Manic Moran wrote:

After the Kosovo campaign was over, the Serbians took home pretty much all the ground forces they put into the country. Infrastructure took a serious hammering, bridges and whatnot, but in terms of things that could hide, or have fake decoys made, NATO Air was pretty pathetic.



Picky mode: No other Air Force in the world ever used them in the first place.



You will note that during the Kosovo operation, NATO never claimed air superiority at levels below 10,000 feet. It was just too dangerous to fly. Part of the reason why the Serbian ground forces had such a great survival rate. To that end, Serbian air defense actually worked.

I'm not saying that Iran would win a protracted conflict, just that the end result wouldn't be as cut and dried, mainly because I don't think it would be confined to the air war, regardless of US intent.

NTM

That is a key point. Iraq was "do-able" in the words of Cheney.
Iran would actually be capable of inflicting significant military losses on the U.S. Army in a war. Also, inflict economic hardship.
America would of course eventually win a war against Iran, but could they, in the process of doing so, sustain the cost from a military and political perspective?

If the answer is no, then i think this will eventually end up being similar to what happened with North Korea.

Judt

nacho libre wrote:

That is a key point. Iraq was "do-able" in the words of Cheney.
Iran would actually be capable of inflicting significant military losses on the U.S. Army in a war. Also, inflict economic hardship.
America would of course eventually win a war against Iran, but could they, in the process of doing so, sustain the cost from a military and political perspective?

If the answer is no, then i think this will eventually end up being similar to what happened with North Korea.

That's talking crap. The US military could roll over Iran for one simple reason: Air Superiority. He who owns the skies owns the battlefield. If you have air superiority then any bagger who lights up a cigarette, let alone tries to move anywhere, day or night, in good weather or bad, is a deadman, because there's aircraft beaming their radar down to paint them for any patrolling airmen.

The Iranian airforce couldn't hold out more than a week against the US Air Force, operating from land or sea. Britain used to operate its navy on the two power principal: That it should be able to take on the two next largest nations in the world at once. The US Navy and Air Force operate on more like a 10 power principal.

I think that when people here imagine war they imagine tanks and troops duking it out. The fact is that when two large armies square off against one another, it's the one with air superiority that wins. Just ask the Iraqi Army, who've played that game twice; once when they were one of the largest armies in the world. Five weeks of bombing took care of that.

RedPlanet

Judt you certainly like reaping praise on the USA.
Despite the fact that they cannot win in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2 most poor and weakly defended countries in the world.
For their part, the US won pretty much every battle in Vietnam.
But they completely lost the war.

They can win battles against Iran, but they'll never win a war there.

InFront

Judt wrote:

That's talking crap. The US military could roll over Iran for one simple reason: Air Superiority. He who owns the skies owns the battlefield.

Who rules the Iraqi sky? Who has lost the war against Iraqis?

Judt

RedPlanet wrote:

Judt you certainly like reaping praise on the USA.
Despite the fact that they cannot win in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2 most poor and weakly defended countries in the world.
For their part, the US won pretty much every battle in Vietnam.
But they completely lost the war.

They can win battles against Iran, but they'll never win a war there.

There is a difference between the war and the peace. If the US wanted to stop Iran from pissing into its pot ever again, it could certainly do so; or if Iran decided to have a go themselves. Occupying the country is another matter; I doubt the US would even bother. They won the war in Iraq, they've lost the peace. They won every battle in Vietnam, but lost the peace. Yep, so they're crap peacekeepers. But they sure as hell can ruin your average tinpot's day.

nacho libre

Judt wrote:

That's talking crap. The US military could roll over Iran for one simple reason: Air Superiority. He who owns the skies owns the battlefield. If you have air superiority then any bagger who lights up a cigarette, let alone tries to move anywhere, day or night, in good weather or bad, is a deadman, because there's aircraft beaming their radar down to paint them for any patrolling airmen.

The Iranian airforce couldn't hold out more than a week against the US Air Force, operating from land or sea. Britain used to operate its navy on the two power principal: That it should be able to take on the two next largest nations in the world at once. The US Navy and Air Force operate on more like a 10 power principal.

I think that when people here imagine war they imagine tanks and troops duking it out. The fact is that when two large armies square off against one another, it's the one with air superiority that wins. Just ask the Iraqi Army, who've played that game twice; once when they were one of the largest armies in the world. Five weeks of bombing took care of that.

You are comparing two vastly inferior armies when you compare Iraq and Iran.
What level of air-defense had Iraq in 2003? Why was America so against Russia's recent sale of air defense equipment to Iran?
America can't rely on airpower alone to win. I agree with you America will win as they have the better weaponry all-round but it won't be nearly as easy as you suggest.

Judt

nacho libre wrote:

You are comparing two vastly inferior armies when you compare Iraq and Iran.
What level of air-defense had Iraq in 2003? Why was America so against Russia's recent sale of air defense equipment to Iran?
America can't rely on airpower alone to win. I agree with you America will win as they have the better weaponry all-round but it won't be nearly as easy as you suggest.

You must remember about Iraq in 2003 that it was basically the military left over from 1991, when the US and coalition allies smashed air defence. The US is against any arms sales to Iran, but once more, the US Air Force can and has smashed entire countries without putting a boot on the ground. I think it's anti-American fantasy to dream of US soldiers dying in their thousands fighting off the mighty Iranian military. In every war the US and its allies have gone into in the past two decades the media and others have been having these wet dreams. In the end it's the tin-pots who usually wind up dead on the road.

InFront

Judt wrote:

They won the war in Iraq, they've lost the peace

Peace was arguably a goal of the war. National security for Iraqis who suffered under the Baathists and security for Americans most certainly was. That's failed, the American war is lost, even though they 'owned the sky'.