Iran next?

We... the Americans. It wasn't technically wrong, since who used that word is a registred American. If I had said we it would have meant Italy since he did, it means the US.
 
Oh, we are already frightened enough, corrocota. You should be 2, Iran will have ICBMs that can reach spain in a few years...
 
SHERMAN said:
Oh, we are already frightened enough, corrocota. You should be 2, Iran will have ICBMs that can reach spain in a few years...
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand why, wouldn´t enjoy to have a theocracy next door loaded with nukes. However Iran and Israel are bitter enemies, I see no reasons why Iran should attack Spain...I cannot imagine that scenario.
 
This whole damn thingy will end up with an Team America scenario but instead of any fags or a super team saving the world, there will be bom and another bom. Take the movie Team America minus Kim Jong Il and put the Shah's system + theocracy system + a Nuke and you got 4th of july in a lunch box. I have an answer on that what we earn for going in? How about Israel left on the map as a sovereign state in the middle east? :lol:

up-team_america.jpg



Doc.S
:viking:
 
The point is that if Iran usese its nukes on Israel I predict that most of the Israeli, Irani, and possibly Syrian population will be either dead, wounded or homeless.
 
SHERMAN said:
The point is that if Iran usese its nukes on Israel I predict that most of the Israeli, Irani, and possibly Syrian population will be either dead, wounded or homeless.
Click to expand...

thats is for sure.
 
Ok I've read this thread and didn't really want to make a comment, but I have a comment about Iran, If "we ( the United States) were to invade Iran I think we would have the same problem we have now, Yes we would steam roller over their military, and over throw their governmane in about a month, but then there would be the insurgent problem that we have now.
 
wolfen said:
Ok I've read this thread and didn't really want to make a comment, but I have a comment about Iran, If "we ( the United States) were to invade Iran I think we would have the same problem we have now, Yes we would steam roller over their military, and over throw their governmane in about a month, but then there would be the insurgent problem that we have now.
Click to expand...

Mmmh not sure. Seems that the type of support that the regime enjoys from the population is higher and more widespread than it was the case with Saddam.
Plus, you cant really divide and rule there, they dont have significant ethnic or religious minorities to rely upon.
Last, they are 60 mill compared to 25 in a country that is way larger than Iraq.
 
ghost457 said:
did i miss something? who are Saddam's mujahudeen? last i knew the mujahudeen was the group that kicked the soviets out of afghanistan and thats where a lot of Taliban fighters came from. are you referring to the insurgents iin Iraq? i dont think they are mujahudeen bacuase i thought that they were a specific group in afghanistan, but i may be wrong, so could you please clarify this?
Click to expand...

Saddam was the leader of the Baathist Party. All are either secular or Sunni Muslims. Saddam was not very religious from what I understand.
 
this whole thread is just jumping to conclusions we aren't psychics and we can't predict the future, no need for the speculations
 
Starker said:
this whole thread is just jumping to conclusions we aren't psychics and we can't predict the future, no need for the speculations
Click to expand...

Actually that is the point of this thread; to make predictions and to explain why you believe it will or will not turn out a certain way.

Please leave the moderation of this forum to the forum staff, thank you (use the report post function if you have a problem with something).
 
Saddam was very non-religious but he was a crafty bastard in that he did recognise the effect the islamic beliefs could have on soldiers in combat and saw fit to exploit that by forming this group of mujahideen to fight the Iranians. Terrorists are more committed to a cause when it is wrapped in religion rather than logical thought. Through the ages more blood has been spilled in the name of religion than for any other reason. Even if you yourself do not believe it doesnt preclude you as a leader from using this tool to motivate men to go above and beyond what a thinking rational combatant will risk to attain their goals.
 
First of all I would like to point out that IRAN has remained un-touched by any military power since 1989. Iraq on the other hand went through following!

- Devastating GULF WAR (39 nations vs 1)
- 12 years of extreme sanctions (Broke the back of Iraqi Economy)
- Another War which soon turned out to be serious challenge rather then a walk in the park.

Now we have to think that this nation is ethnically divided with rivalries and that is not true in case of IRAN. Also, IRAN has improved its military capabilities through aid of Russians, Pakistan and China. Also to add some experience and lessons they have got from IRAQ through all these years. Not to forget that IRAN is now a formidable Missile power as well.

Now the position of USA is not good enough to start another war and especially with a nation which is very big and internally strong. This war will be entirely un-popular as European Allies have already stated that they won't partiscipate (including Britain).

US has the military power to defeat Iranian military but they can't win that war if they occupy that nation. The resistance would be too great and even Pakistanis say that they won't support US move there and call it a major strategic blunder.

This war will also alienate the 1.5 billion people and "War on Terror" will recieve a serious blow.

I don't think that this war is advisable. Get over it!
 
If U.S really wants to wipe out Iran, americans must clean up Iraq first to pull out enough troops and create a stable front base for the military action in Iran.

Otherwise, amercians will face 2 times of today's troubles once they enter Iran without stablizing Iraq first
 
cokeisthebest said:
If U.S really wants to wipe out Iran, americans must clean up Iraq first to pull out enough troops and create a stable front base for the military action in Iran.

Otherwise, amercians will face 2 times of today's troubles once they enter Iran without stablizing Iraq first
Click to expand...

1) The US doesn't need to attack Iran. The Nations within striking distance of Iran need to sweat them.

2) You are right about Iraq. Their forces are not able to defend their country and have never been. They must change their approach to real warfare, it is killing and breaking, not rhetoric and threats.
 
BennettNC_156 said:
How long till we go to war in Iran? I speculate it will be within the next two years, and it also depends on the N.Korean problem. Anyone else got any ideas on the topic. Also can we defeat Iran quickly and soundly?
Click to expand...

Good Grief! Don't we have enough problems with Iraq? Bennet, war is not a video game or film where the good guys always win. The one's that I have beeen involved with were sometimes unecessary, frightening, dirty, exhausting and not a bloody nice place to be at all. Ultimately war is the last resort not the first.
 
We cannot attack Iran, I mean not that we shouldn't (not sure) but we are not able to. The only coutry that can do something is Israel, like aimed bombings and stuff, but wouldnt be "a walk in the park" either. Once they have the nukes, military interbention is to be ruled out.
 
how about this

just like what Isreal did to Iraq, we just get a couple B-2s and bomb the crap out of Iran's nuclear facilities.

and we dont' even have to go into there, but i am worried what will happen after that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top