idiots

miseeire

Once again we hear of Iran cocking its nose at the rest of the world and I think of the American idiots who decided it was more important to get rid of Saddam rather than use him as a counter threat to Iran.I always felt Iran was more of a threat than Iraq ever would be but I suppose Iraq was regarded as a softer target.America has done many good things in this crazy world of ours but toppling Saddam must go down as even a worse decision than Vietnam.

jank

Ah don't worry tanks will be rolling into Tehran in about 2011.

dlofnep

How has Iran cocked it's nose at the rest of the world?

norbert64

dlofnep wrote: »

How has Iran cocked it's nose at the rest of the world?

I guess with the NUKE site 2.0?

Although from the news that's been trickling out, it looks more like TPTB knew about it all along, and just waited until the UN thing now, to show up/snitch on Iran, thus putting Ahmadinejad on the backfoot.

mind you, I think the idiots the op is talking about would have probably deposed Saddam........... and blown Iran to kingdom come too if they were allowed, lol.

dlofnep

norbert64 wrote: »

I guess with the NUKE site 2.0?

There's nothing wrong with their nuclear site. They only have to declare it 180 days prior to any operations with nuclear material. It has been declared well before this time-frame, and Iran has already stated that they will welcome inspectors in.

Iran hasn't done anything wrong, but they are well within their rights to keep it undisclosed up to a certain point, to keep their nuclear energy protected from an attack from Israel.

I don't see what all the hyperbole is all about. Israel has 150 undisclosed nuclear missiles and has been hiding it's nuclear intentions to the world for decades. Why is the US not calling on sanctions for Israel?

This is typical American propaganda.

Overheal

Look at the geography for a minute.

Iraq's central position makes it a wonderful staging ground in the Middle East - as for rolling tanks into Tehran, that would make that somewhat easier. For the same Reason Saddam was too big a threat. In the 90s he jointly attacked just about all of his neighbors with missile strikes. What if he had managed to develop Bio Weapons? How long would it have been, if the US hadn't gone in, before that happened? Either way, I am so not here for another We Shouldnt Have Gone Into Iraq thread. We are. Get the **** over it. Moving on.

The other thing is relations - Iraq never had them. Iran shares ties with the whole UN, beside Israel. But look, we now have a altogether large strategic presence right between Iran and Israel. Do you really think the US Mil is incapable of intercepting anything that the Iranians would dare to launch West? PATRIOT missiles being what they are - but we've also been in development of these belle's for quite some time now:



Zap Zap Pow pwew pwew fhwoosh whoosh imurfathernooo

Anyway Im sure theres several other reasons that the OP's ranting and raving is horribly flawed. good day.

major bill

miseeire wrote: »

America has done many good things in this crazy world of ours.

more bad than good if you ask me.

jank

Either way, I am so not here for another We Shouldnt Have Gone Into Iraq thread. We are. Get the **** over it. Moving on.

I agree with this in a way but the issues about this though is American foreign policy is all about the now, who gives a **** what happens in the future and how cares what happened in the past. Feed me now baby!!

This can make for very nervous head of states with itchy trigger fingers who rightly want to keep playing the game of chess.

Anyway this is all about power plays. If Iran get a nuke then they will then have to be treated on their own terms by the US and Israel. They dont want to give up their status que but I cant see any other solution tbh. All this talk is softening up the world for Isreali strikes on their sites.

Maybe Manic can answer this one but what type of weapons do Iran have?
I think they are better equipped than Iraq was and also what kind of retaliation would you expect if/when Israel bomb their nuke sites? A few dozen missiles into Israeli lands would be expected Id say. This could really kick it off!

Manic Moran

Maybe Manic can answer this one but what type of weapons do Iran have?
I think they are better equipped than Iraq was

It's a relative term, given the level of technological overmatch involved. Take two countries, one which uses the WWII era T-34 as their tank, and one which uses the 1960s era T-62 as their tank. The latter is far better equipped than the former. Neither country's tank would stand much of a chance against a 2000 era M1 Abrams.

Iran's weapons are still predominantly offshoots from the Shah's military with supplements from the Iraqi military and new purchase from Russia. They've done very well indeed to keep a lot of it in service by way of reverse-engineering and building their own parts: For example, the F-14s which initially numbered 80 were down to about 20 at one stage, but they've managed to start repairing them to get at least 40 up and flying again. In an example of Iranian creativity, they armed the Tomcats with modified versions of the HAWK surface-to-air missile, itself a Shah-era purchase. They're still old, though, almost nothing in the Iranian inventory is still flying in any form in the US, for example.

Current Iranian production hardware is similarly based off the old-era stuff. The Zulqifar tank is a bizarre combo of Russian the 40-year-old T-72 design and and 45-year-old American M-60. The new fighter, the Sa'eqh is very obviously a derivative of the 50-year-old F-5. Details on the internal enhancements are sketchy, and the Iranians aren't saying.

The Iranians are currently shopping for some more capable equipment, and have reached deals with the Russians. There have been few deliveries to date, however..

NTM

jank

How about anti aircraft and missle technology. What could Israel expect to be thrown at it as a counter strike? I remember the gulf war and the scud missiles that were used by the Iraqis to questionable effects. Do they have something better?

Good read this by the way
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6850030.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6850890.ece

Manic Moran

How about anti aircraft and missle technology.

Moderately effective, but old. A modern, well-equipped air force should be able to knock back or suppress the air defences. They will improve somewhat when the new gear arrives, but the overall effectiveness of ground-based systems is still somewhat up in the air. No pun intended. Systems like the soon-to-be-delivered S-300 aren't as 'scary' as they were when first introduced twenty plus years ago, as their mechanisms are becoming better known with exports. They must be respected and make life more difficult, but they're nowhere near as good as an effective air force with proper air-based radars and modern aircraft with modern missiles.

What could Israel expect to be thrown at it as a counter strike? I remember the gulf war and the scud missiles that were used by the Iraqis to questionable effects. Do they have something better?

In terms of range, absolutely. In terms of accuracy, I honestly don't know. In terms of payload, I doubt it. However, in 1991 the Israelis were basically reduced to simply using PAC-1 Patriots, which were more of a psychological thing than an effective anti-missile system. Israel currently has the best anti-missile coverage in the world, with PAC-3 and Arrow ABMs and the anti-missile laser system which should be coming online in a few months. (As opposed to the current couple of test units). You then have the issue of numbers and target: Will the Iranians have enough missiles to make a difference, and what would they shoot at?

NTM

jank

Manic Moran wrote: »

Moderately effective, but old. A modern, well-equipped air force should be able to knock back or suppress the air defences. They will improve somewhat when the new gear arrives, but the overall effectiveness of ground-based systems is still somewhat up in the air. No pun intended. Systems like the soon-to-be-delivered S-300 aren't as 'scary' as they were when first introduced twenty plus years ago, as their mechanisms are becoming better known with exports. They must be respected and make life more difficult, but they're nowhere near as good as an effective air force with proper air-based radars and modern aircraft with modern missiles.

Interesting stuff. Looking at this it looks like the S-300 is nothing to be sneezed at. Would the Israeli air force be a match for this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)


Clearly Iran are making great efforts in protecting itself against air attack.

Manic Moran wrote: »

In terms of range, absolutely. In terms of accuracy, I honestly don't know. In terms of payload, I doubt it. However, in 1991 the Israelis were basically reduced to simply using PAC-1 Patriots, which were more of a psychological thing than an effective anti-missile system. Israel currently has the best anti-missile coverage in the world, with PAC-3 and Arrow ABMs and the anti-missile laser system which should be coming online in a few months. (As opposed to the current couple of test units). You then have the issue of numbers and target: Will the Iranians have enough missiles to make a difference, and what would they shoot at?

NTM

Not looking for faults here but if Israel have the best missile defense in the world how can some home made rockets still be fired against them and more sophisticated rockets from Hezbollah be used as well. Because these things are such short range they cant be defended against? I am no expert just asking.

Manic Moran

Because these things are such short range they cant be defended against? I am no expert just asking.

That's about the size of it.

With their short range and low flight path, you get very little time to react if you even have line-of-sight between the target and launch system. Anything you're going to shoot at it needs to be fairly close, so you need a lot of the systems to do so. For example, the active protection system based off the Phalanx has a range to defend an area of about a mile from the gun. You need a battery of them to defend a single base. Try defending a border with them.

On the other hand, you can intercept a ballistic missile at altitude, and you can have a few, more capable systems scattered around the country which have time to fly to an intercept point.

NTM

BlueLepreachaun

The idea that Iran could be a threat to the United States is preposterous, even if they had a full nuclear arsnel, which they are nowhere near, so what? They cant use it, they wouldn't use it, but it would, from their perspective, deter any future invasion, which is probably the exact reason they want it, espechally seeing what the US and UK did to Iraq.

Overheal

I see this being the new Missile Crisis.

http://www.cfciowa.org/K017/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=255:russia-china-warn-us-that-israeli-attack-on-iran-means-world-war&catid=4:national-news&Itemid=7

I really, really doubt the US will do anything to allow Israel to do such a thing though. We need to get all sides talking, not issue one sided reports condemning any one over any other.

BlueLepreachaun

Overheal wrote: »

I see this being the new Missile Crisis.

http://www.cfciowa.org/K017/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=255:russia-china-warn-us-that-israeli-attack-on-iran-means-world-war&catid=4:national-news&Itemid=7

I really, really doubt the US will do anything to allow Israel to do such a thing though. We need to get all sides talking, not issue one sided reports condemning any one over any other.

Make no mistake, the US is Isreals puppet not the other way around, they will do whatever they want.

The likleyhood of Isreal using nuclear weapons to destroy such a facility is pretty slim IMO, there are plenty of conventional weapons that would do the job.
In Isreals nucelar doctrine, the so called "samson option" would only be used in a few specific and dire circumstances:

1. A successful Arab military penetration into populated areas within Israel's post 1949 pre 67 borders
2. The destruction of the Isreali Air Force
3. The exposure of Israeli cities to massive and devastating air attacks or to possible chemical or biological attacks.
4. The use of nuclear weapons against Israeli territory.

Denerick

Make no mistake, the US is Isreals puppet not the other way around, they will do whatever they want.

Yes I know, the joos are controlling the western media, government and economic institutions. But when will the joos let loose the Doomsday bomb???

BlueLepreachaun

Its nothing to do with their ethnicity or religion, the US Congress is nothing more than a large collection of whores, whoever stuffs the most money into their mouths gets what they want*, they are controlled by a small series of powerful lobbys, the Isreal lobby is at least in the top 2-3 of the most powerful, not just because of money but because of power, they can destroy an entire poitical career with little effort, and have done so to people who oppose them in the past.
It's almost unheard of for a US president to go against Isreali policy, weither right or wrong, when Obama asked their current PM to stop building illegal settlements he totally ignored him. The notion of the US ever threatening to say cut off millitary aid money to Isreal if they dont play ball is not even contemplated.

*as seen with the bailouts and current healthcare bill.

major bill

doesnt china not fund america? afaik american owe china trillions of dollers that they can/wnt be able to pay back and top government/army advisors know they can never win a war against china.

doubt they will go to war been honest unless its all one big deal to depopulate the planet just a ct suggestion!!!!

ps- post on link just incase you think im going off topic