Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

[Baff1 0]

What a country is buying, is not to be confused with what a country has bought.

America is also buying a whole new generation of fighters too.

But like Iran, they don't actually have them.

Even if it gets them....and the U.S. does not get it's own new fighters, whats to stop the U.S. from destroying them on the runway with cruise missles.

The Iranian airforce won't last longer than an hour. They are too few and too low tech.

I think you have some funny idea's about Iran.

The Persian empire is famed for it's attacks on other countries, They have a military tradition going back for thousands of years.

They have invaded and been invaded, fought and won, fought and lost. Again and again and again all through the history of man.

Iran is currently participating in a number of proxy wars in several foreign countries that are not threatening it's borders and has been directly involved in at least two highly televised border disputes in the past 3 years.

It isn't a pacifist culture.

[Black Sphere 0]

The fact is that Newt Gingrich is right. The truth is so (and even more) banal as he picturing it. The question is only who is prepared and have guts to see/look at it.

I found the part about there being thousands of people who when they wake up are plotting the destruction of the U.S. as quite accurate, but I think he is a little too consumed by hate.

Hate and actions derived from the hate can only produce a 'counter-hate', not a good samaritans. No analogies are needed to back or proove this simple fact, but only a common sense. There's no room nor the time for the 'other cheek'.

Quote[/b] ]An alarmist.

Not much difference between his language and Armhadjinebab. "My grandchildren are in danger..." He's not exactly rational himself.

Saying "My grandchildren are in danger..." is the most rational thing you can say in these times, from many reasons, from a global warming threat and from there upcoming cataclisms, to the berserk islamic jihad against all that is not islamic. And Ahmadinejad is totally irrational person, being sollely a polititian and the president of such irrational state (not country) as Iran is today.

Quote[/b] ]I don't forsee Iran nuking the U.S., or anybody else and he's got that whole "Israel" bee in his bonnet.

Yes, Israel. Do you think there's no real possibility if Iran develops a nuclear weapon that in some (very possible) future they will not nuke Israel? Ahmadinejad meny times stated in his speaches (of hate, not irrationality) that Israel must be wiped from the world maps. How do you think he'll do/achieve this, with a razorblade? Can't you foresee a menacing chain reaction and its consequences after Israel will be 'wiped from the world's maps'?

Quote[/b] ]He is unable to to understand his enemies. He is not able to recognise any rational thought.

What should be a chess game he see's as undirected lunacy.

He understands the enemy perfectly well, moreover, he seems to be perplexed with their, yes, lunacy. And, a rational thougth? Where you see that rational thougth? In enemy's (terrorist) acts? In Ahmadinejad's speaches? Or simply Gingrich is just retarded from the birth. Care to explain?

Quote[/b] ]When he started going on about freedom of speech, I was struck by the impression, that he was a bad advert for it.

And that although he didn't realise it, the terrorists in Britain he said had freedom of speech, don't. And if he was here, neither would he.

Then by all means Great Britain must be regarding the freedom of speech (and the overall freedom? ) worse than US. Good to know ...

And freedom of speach for terrorists? You must be out of your mind. What to tell you, a bedtime stories? And don't go now with equal rights and opportunities and whatever for all (tell this to the victims of the terrorists and to their relatives if you dare), don't pretend to be such a democrat or fighter for the human's freedom rights.

I think you have some funny idea's about Iran.

The Persian empire is famed for it's attacks on other countries, and Iran is currently participating in any number of proxy wars in several foreign countries that are not threatening it's borders.

Agree. They're no better than Americans, Russians, Chinese ... It's a simple struggle for the power and dominance. Except in/with them is also very present that religious note (a holy war).

@Baddo - Good you've put that disclaimer on the bottom.  

I do understand, the medias and its influence ,,, but I hate such generalising you're dong there about the US, and most of things you're so concerned about are their internal, not a global matter, or at least they shouldn't be a global matter. And what about that grey matter between your ears, does it swallows all without any rational selection, is for you for instance a Jerry Springer Show a true face of the United States, or just one of many (distorted) faces? Yes, the medias ...

The word 'terrorism' is being used by the ones in power to make them even more powerful and you even less powerful. Even attempts to improve the fight against natural disasters happening in the U.S.A. are actually turned against the citizens of the U.S.A. by giving even more power to the President and taking it away from others. Ask yourself a question, is that really going to help you if a hurricane comes and wipes your town away? Ask yourself another question, how has the President used the rights that were given to him?

On the other hand, it was any better for the Greeks by all those recent fires they had and almost non existent reaction/help from their government? If the country have a presidental or parliamental system does not deteminates its competence and efficiency, only to whom the power of ruling is given.

[Iron+Cross 0]

well im getting my info from here Iran expert

&

Iran defence forces forums that has alot of iranian Military & airforce Personel on it.

although thats not all the info some is from CIA info & FAS along with a few others.

& i agree with colossus They have there women play flashpoint...    they gonna be hard  to overthrow..  

[Baff1 0]

When Arhmedjinhad (lol sorry I'm never going to learn to spell it) speaks of wiping Isreal from the world map, he is talking about the state of Israel.

He calls for Jerusalem to be returned to the Palestinian rule.

He also says that Iran does not wish to gain nuclear weapons.

So saying he claims to want to nuke Israel would be misinformative.

Nuking Israel results in a nuked Teheran. He doesn't want it.

It's just propaganda.

Demonisation is used to prepare a population for war.

It's part of the "Phoney War".

I think if people don't have the balls to accept with the true reasons for war they shouldn't fight.

Lying to people for the reasons to go to war. Trying to portray your enemy as evil etc etc.

It just breeds weakness. It panders to wet liberals. Justifies their position.

We are the good guys, they are the bad guys we must fight them to save the world, freedom and democracy. We go to war because we are being kind to our enemies.

Bullshit.

We must fight them because they have the oil. That's it.

That's why.

Let no man die for lies about democracy. Let no man die so that one leader may rule him instead of another.

That one god is more holy than another.

The only reason to die is so that ones you love might live better. For money. To provide for your family.

Our homes aren't under threat. Iran isn't going to nuke New York if it gets the bomb anymore than Kim Jong Il was going to. (And notably hasn't).

Khomeni the Iranian head of state also says that an islamic bomb is needed to balance the threat of Isreal's. He has a valid point.

I don't believe in turning the other cheek either, but I never kill out of hate. I never fight out of hate. I don't preach hate.

Gingrich does.

Terrorism is rational. It is the only available political response of a dispossesed minority. You can't outvote a majority. You can't outfight an army in pitched battle.

If you wish to effect change you have only one option.

Terrorism is the military and political counter to overwhelming military force. It is a rational response.

Wars are not fought between two armies, they are fought between two peoples.

Horrific as it may sound to peoples unfamiliar with war, civilians are targets.

9/11 was the first time the U.S. has been in range of enemy weapons for hundreds of years.

But here in Europe, we never had the chance to forget. They know it in Israel too.

It is rational to attack your enemy at their weakest spots. We'd like them all to rush us in our tanks.....but it's just hard to find enemies that dumb. Darwinian evolution I suppose.

Actually no, I can't see any menacing chain reaction after Israel is wiped from the face of the map.

That place gets wiped from the face of the map every 40 or 50 years without fail; going back to the dawn of history, each time without any chain reactions.

Not that it's going to happen. They have the bomb.

It's only Israels neighbours that have anything to fear from being wiped off the map.

It isn't Israel that's so afraid. It's Iran.

It's not just the Iranians who fight a holy war. Our soldiers have god on their side too. We have chaplains in uniform. Our leaders all pray. My head of state is also the head of my church.

All soldiers are holy warriors. All of them. God is a close friend of all those who face death.

[Baff1 0]

i agree with colossus They have there women play flashpoint...    they gonna be hard  to overthrow..  

I don't think anyone has any intention of overthrowing them.

(You have to hope those idiots have learnt at least something from Iraq).

A three day airstrike isn't an invasion and occupation.

All they need to do is neutralise Iran's military advantage over it's neighbours.

Destroy it's nuclear facilities and it's over. Business as usual. Crisis over.

[baddo 0]

@Baddo - Good you've put that disclaimer on the bottom.  

I do understand, the medias and its influence ,,, but I hate such generalising you're dong there about the US, and most of things you're so concerned about are their internal, not a global matter, or at least they shouldn't be a global matter. And what about that grey matter between your ears, does it swallows all without any rational selection, is for you for instance a Jerry Springer Show a true face of the United States, or just one of many (distorted) faces? Yes, the medias ...

The word 'terrorism' is being used by the ones in power to make them even more powerful and you even less powerful. Even attempts to improve the fight against natural disasters happening in the U.S.A. are actually turned against the citizens of the U.S.A. by giving even more power to the President and taking it away from others. Ask yourself a question, is that really going to help you if a hurricane comes and wipes your town away? Ask yourself another question, how has the President used the rights that were given to him?

On the other hand, it was any better for the Greeks by all those recent fires they had and almost non existent reaction/help from their government? If the country have a presidental or parliamental system does not deteminates its competence and efficiency, only to whom the power of ruling is given.

About internal matter or global matter. Unfortunately for the rest of the World, for example who is the President of the U.S. is very important as such a big and powerful country like U.S. can quickly cause a lot of irreversible damage World-wide, as has been proven. I think it is primarily the responsibility of the people of the U.S. to do something about their systems (political, "homeland" security, military for starters), which affect not only them but the rest of the World too! As I said I think most people in the U.S. are not paying attention so it doesn't look good. The political lead seems to be able to do whatever they like, and even does not have to care about U.S. legislation. Giving them more power does not make problems go away.

A quote from a friend fits perfectly here:

Quote[/b] ]The United States of America is the most fascistist country in the World.

It is an exaggeration maybe, but exaggeration is effective to make a point. There is something certainly not right in the U.S. if people start to make these kinds of statements.

Your comment about the grey matter and the TV show Jerry Springer is insulting. I wonder why you have to use that kind of tone in a discussion.

About competence and efficiency regarding natural disasters etc. I do not think it is the President of a country who should have to be counted on in events like natural disasters. I see this similarly in my country. I do not want to end up in a situation where a President is needed to put some speed into rescue work. If a President (or parliament) is needed for that, then the whole system is incompetent and inefficient already and should be re-thought from the scratch.

[sputnik monroe 102]

I'm just hoping for something like Operation Praying Mantis. Simply put we just go in destroy their military and navy and then leave them to wallow and whine about it. Pacification not occupation.

I hope the west has learned never to bother with reconstruction or any kind of rebuilding. It's a waste of time, money and life.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm just hoping for something like Operation Praying Mantis. Simply put we just go in destroy their military and navy and then leave them to wallow and whine about it. Pacification not occupation.

That´s a very complex plan. Not.

You already have one unstable country down there. Do you want to create another one ?

Let me give you a hint:

Disabling Iran´s military will open the doors for terrorists to Iran aswell. Not speaking of interests other countries around could have in Iran´s ressources...

I wonder why a dumbass plan like that even has supporters. You don´t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that one thing leads to another.

We all know how good the US are at making up reasons for anything of their interest and we all know how good they are at planning military strikes and estimating the outcome.

What is this gonna be ? A "victory" for the lame duck ?

Seriously guys, think, then post.

Quote[/b] ]I hope the west has learned never to bother with reconstruction or any kind of rebuilding. It's a waste of time, money and life.

If there´s something YOU should have learned by now it is that nationbuilding is dependant on rebuilding and improving the quality of life for the civillians. Happy civillians don´t blow you up.

The US failed terribly in rebuilding Iraq. They created armageddon-country for the iraqui civillians.

Checking some numbers on the "progress" of rebuilding should give you a clue. I don´t buy the argument that the obstacles are too high to achieve anything. It has been shown numerous times that rebuilding works and that rebuilding a countries infrastructure is VITAL for the acceptance of foreign troops on their soil. Just check Afghanistan.

Every company in the US had it´s share and took the money from the Pentagon money-bowl but none of them delivered what they promised. They all made a big buck, they even used Iraq´s own money to finance the corruption and fill their pockets, but it seems that there was no existant control on the moneyflow and the outcome.

The almighty Pentagon took control of the rebuilding while the UN has decades of experience in this and offered their help, but G.W. decided that the UN are bad and the money is in the right hands with the US...

Go figure.

Mission accomplished.

[Iron+Cross 0]

Notice how we always come back to fundimental points about what's a right argument & interpritation is?

p.s Baff love the use of the swearing i love this forum no word blocks!

Why not just kill Politicians for lying? & stop trying to tell other people how to live there lives.

the way i see it is, say country A has a dictator or bent democracy & the people are suffering for lack of services.

well Let em, stop Aid & stop all weapons sales to government, & let em work it out if they got any balls, so they can be proud of there "Forging in Blood" and all that. But if they build a rocket & a bomb or a big army to attack you, then let em.. Big military = more chance of a split/Civil war or a "PROPER WAR" as the amerikans keep whining for.

im geting pissed of with the amerikans going on about they cant get a proper war any more, or they wont fight us proper and all that, well its like complaining about a half baked Pie, you have to let it cook till brownd then let it cool, b4 you eat it, its like lots of realy oversized kids REALY!

[Black Sphere 0]

Your comment about the grey matter and the TV show Jerry Springer is insulting. I wonder why you have to use that kind of tone in a discussion.

It's not insulting and it's not about the tone at all, I'm just asking you if you do any kind of 'info selection' inside your head or not, or you're consuming all what is out there to draw up your picture of the USA (that would be a mess). Or just a 'facts' like "The United States of America is the most fascistist country in the World".

Quote[/b] ]About competence and efficiency regarding natural disasters etc. I do not think it is the President of a country who should have to be counted on in events like natural disasters. I see this similarly in my country. I do not want to end up in a situation where a President is needed to put some speed into rescue work. If a President (or parliament) is needed for that, then the whole system is incompetent and inefficient already and should be re-thought from the scratch.

Then who for god's sake should be counted on? Every country have his own political system and derived from it his own 'peoples representitive', responsible to run and to care about the country, I thouth all knows that. In USA because of the political system they have that's the President, in your country I'm assuming it's a Prime Minister, and of course their governments, and in catastrophic events they're responsible to start and run the operations on a higher organisation scale, they'll not let this to some local policemen or fireman, at least not in my country. If those leaders and their governments are not competent or they're not up to their tasks is a totally different question.

And about that "internal matter or global matter" ,,, I won't comment it, I'll just say internal matter up or global matter down you don't have the right (you're not an US citizen aren't you, and above all you don't live in the USA) of giving them lessons or to teach them or to write them recipes how the people of the US must (politically) act or behave. Most of you hold to yourself like a great democrats and free mind and loving people, but only until this does not colide with your own points of view or your own (personal) interests. And here you then have a double standards.

Hope you won't find this insulting too.

EDIT: @Baff1 - Just one question; I just can't see how you can wipe out a state of Israel without to wipe out the Israelis? Or we will have the honor to whitness to another Exodus before that 'wiping'? And what kind of rhetoric you're using up there? Do I tell you? A twisted rhetoric (also your opinion and I do respect that) e.g. a propaganda.

[SWAT_BigBear 0]

If the terrorist are having to resort to using their own children for suicidle bombings.......there will be no "next generation" eventually.

Sad, for those children.

[baddo 0]

Dear Black Sphere.

If what I see U.S.A. do internally and globally is wrong in my opinion, I will make a comment about it, as I have done here many times. Please notice that this applies not only to U.S.A. And other people can do the same for me and my country.

Things are so that I can have very little influence regarding what happens in U.S.A. or what U.S.A. does globally. It is the responsibility of the people of the U.S.A. to keep an eye on what their country is doing, both inside and outside their borders. Same applies to Iran of course.

What I can do is to make comments about what is happening in the U.S.A. and what the U.S.A. is doing globally. I feel it is not only a right, but a responsibility too, to comment on things that are wrong in one's opinion. I give that right, and that responsibility, to every other person too, no matter their nationality, race or whatever. Sad will be the day when no one comments. As a student I always wanted others to critisize my work, as I saw great benefits from receiving criticism. Best teamwork happened when people were brave-enough to politely critisize each other's work. It's no different with nations as I see it.

For example, all Iranians are more than welcome to tell their opinions here, as far as I am concerned. As much as are all Americans. To me their personal opinions have as much value as mine. But it must be said, every one of those individuals have responsibilities too, as I do, regarding what happens in their country and what kind of foreign politics their country is doing.

Best Wishes,

Baddo.

[Hoot1988 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm just hoping for something like Operation Praying Mantis. Simply put we just go in destroy their military and navy and then leave them to wallow and whine about it. Pacification not occupation.

I hope the west has learned never to bother with reconstruction or any kind of rebuilding. It's a waste of time, money and life.

that would be the only sound military option but then what? 1million fanatical terrorists pissed that the US bombed their daddys in the army storm over the iraq border...

and going back to north korea, why have they agreed to begin to disarm their nuke production sites, because of diplomacy. they do not have a free reign, if they said they were going to make more and more nukes the US would take action. chances are if Iran get the bomb then it will do the same it will begin diplomatic negotiations and disarm. its the way it works.

[sputnik monroe 102]

What's the other choice? Let them have a nuke?

The conflict is inevitable. I'd rather destroy their army, navy and ability to enrich uranium and then have them blow them selves up amongst us then have them in possesion of a nuke. Besides they are at war with us already.

[~Pantera~ 0]

The Pentagon plans for all types of possible military scenarios no surprise they have one for Iran.

[Baff1 0]

Nation building Vs gunboat diplomacy.

If you intend to occupy then you need to think about nation building.

Nation building, although it sounds nice actually isn't. Successful counter insurgency operations to date, have all involved rounding up large swathes of the civilian population and putting them into concentration camps.

People tend to forget that in the Hearts and Minds campaign in Malaya, it wasn't the being nice to the communists that beat them. It was putting their families into gulags.

This is what nation building actually involves. Not just a load of soldiers giving footballs to children and digging sewers.

And it takes decades.

Of course it isn't always necessary to invade and overthrow.

Gunboat diplomacy is another winning tactic.

In Vietnam the Americans sought to overthrow and occupy.

The Chinese on the otherhand, had a different tactic.

They marched their army in, killed everyone they could find for 6 weeks, and then went home.

Next time the Chinese ambassador asks the vietnamese ambassador to do something, the Vietnamese ambassador does it.

The American one just gets insulted.

It shut Gaddafi up. Ended Libiyan terrorism on the spot. America bombed him and he suddenly realised that they could, and would kill him.

The Libyan sponsored terrorist campaign ended that very day.

Libya hasn't turned into a haven for Al Quaeda, quite the opposite.

Gaddafi is an active ally in the fight against them.

Not every war or military intervention has turned out for the worse. That isn't the lesson history teaches us.

Gun boat diplomacy. All the opposing side has to know is that you can and will make a reprisal attack.

You aren't intrested in ruling or owning or occupying.

Only in punishing.

You set a higher price for his actions than he is willing to pay.

No need to overthrow the government, no need to turn Iran into an anarchy.

No need to risk your troops on the ground or commit your army for 20 years.

Blow up all the reactors, drop a bomb on Arhmenedad's family home.

They can rebuild the reactors if they like, but it's expensive and hard work and if they do,  just bomb them again. Every time they build them, bomb them agian.  

As many times as it takes for them to get bored.

When the Israeli's did it to Saddam, once was all it took.

This is called gunboat diplomacy. From the days when you would just sail a gunboat up the river and shell the uppity tribesmen.

@ hoot.

 I wouldn't get too excited.

North Korea has been repeatedly agreeing to turn off it's uranium enrichment plant for many years now.

Always seems to somehow miss the deadline though.....

Assuming that it actually ever does, it will still have the nuclear weapons it's already made.

Do you honestly believe Iran's intention is to get the bomb only to immediatly disarm.

Do you truly believe that Iran only wants the bomb so that it can open direct diplomatic relations the U.S.?

I don't think you've thought that one through.

How about they just disarm now, save themselves all that money and effort? They could if they wanted to.

The option has been there for many years now.

So why don't they......

They don't just want to negotiate, they want to negotiate from a position of strength.

Do you know of any nuclear armed country that has ever disarmed.

Did Pakistan disarm once India opened diplomatic relations? Did Russia or France or Britain or China?

Sorry, but that isn't the way it works.

It's never worked like that. Not even once.

[echo1 0]

Gun boat diplomacy. All the opposing side has to know is that you can and will make a reprisal attack.

You aren't intrested in ruling or owning or occupying.

Only in punishing.

You set a higher price for his actions than he is willing to pay.

Thats all well and good until someone starts firing back... Look at Gaza and the west bank. Hamas fires a rocket into Israel, Israel bulldozes a village, Hamas blows up an Israeli bus, Israel fires a rocket into a crowded street and so on, so on. It might have worked well for the British in the 19th century when they were trying to placate small colonial interests, but nowadays its much more easier for a weak country to hit the big kid in the playground by, for example, blowing up an Underground train, or crashing a plane into a large building in a main city.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Baff1, I can give you 2 examples that would oppose your theories:

1. Lack of compliance with promises made by the US to Afghanistan, promises of helping to rebuild the country, have resulted in 9/11. The US took the easy way out and lied to the Afghans, pretty much like the brits lied to the Arabs about their independance after they defeated the turks in WWI, with the small difference that the Afghans, through Al-Qaeda, decided to show the world how pissed they were about that.

2. Former US-backed Cuban dictator Batista's gunboat policy ended with him fleeing on the heel of a socialist revolution still in place today, and by the looks of it, today it's Cuba - tomorrow, maybe all of South America, if Hugo Chavez can propagate it...

So as you can see, it's not all black and white when it comes to rebuilding vs gunboat policy. Taking a good look, gunboat policy seems to have worked well in the 20th century, but that's history. Gunboat policy seems to be obsolescent in the 21st century.

[BLSmith2112 0]

Didn't China... just hack into the Pentagon?

Link

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Gunboat policy may be obsolete, but lessons of history remain.  “History repeats itself,†a term that is far too true.  

This is a test of wills.  Each player seems willing to push just a little farther in this game.  History shows that such posturing has the tendency to lead to confrontation.  The war of words and rhetoric has new relevance in the information age.  With religion being used to foster hate, the push over the edge may not even come directly from a nation state.  With each side unwilling to admit faults from the past and present, Gingrich is certainly right about one thing…

…we stand on the edge of a precipice.  

The results may be biblical, or will at least be tragic.  This is nothing new, but the stakes are bigger now that the world seems a bit smaller.

It saddens me to say that I don’t see us averting catastrophe that will leave us shaking our fists at our leaders and asking “are we better off now?â€

Darwin’s theory doesn’t only apply to the critters.

***China, I have no doubt they have plans for a new dynasty.

[Iron+Cross 0]

agree with u brain..

as for

Quote[/b] ]Not every war or military intervention has turned out for the worse. That isn't the lesson history teaches us.

In Every war its the Civilians that take most of the dead because they are defenceless, but after it grudges last for a long time, so you invade my country (not that i care for nationalism) but it if you did & u killed one of my reliey's i'd find a way legaly or iligaly to get back at your people civilian or other wise..

Ok so your nations leader might say ok wars over we won PARTY ON.. well i might not agree with that & statisticly speaking, there would be ALOT of people who have lost family's, & there would be my recruiting ground..

similar to northern Ireland, its the same happend there ok so british retreated to the north, & threatend to basicly ethnic cleanse Irleand, once they regrouped, so the Irish had to settle for Peace, dident mean all the people who lost family to the Convict soldiers were accepting that.

So in the North The british government Supports the Minority who support the government, where as the majority are against, hence the IRAQ situation.

Same is hapening in IRAQ that happend in N.Irleand

The Ocupation forces wont let the majority be represented, because they disagree with the ocupiers, but the ocupiers found colaborators to help them & "belived there view" but they are in the minority so you have Minority rulling the majority...

& well what you gonna do?

& lets face it there was realy No need to invade the middle east based on the reasons we have been publicly given.

& the only ones that would be rational that have not be told to us, for resources or teritory would down right tyranical, Adolf Hitler & the brown shirts used teh exact EXACT same tactics to get enough backing to employ there big plan, it was a realy well though out one to, but the timing was bad..

unfortunatly they seem to be doing with (NATO) in there plan's although so did the Nazi's plans.. Till the Old Bear Got wise.

& you can say what you like about Russian but they have saved our colective arses on more than a few ocasions.

& if you realy want to start on about human crulety, we could talk about the selective breeding programs that went on in the U.S from the early 1900's untill not so long ago... then theres the Indian nation, the Not so Civil war & so on & so forth.

[scary 0]

It's not a blue water navy, those submarines all operate in shallow waters. They can probably been seen from the air.

There aren't very many of them and being diesal they have to surface often. I'd take a reasonable bet that the U.s. navy has the exact location of all of them.

Oddly enough I do know that the IRIN isn't blue water capable. I even know that blue water is nothing to do with depth. I also know that they can't 'probably be seen from the air', what with them operating in a deep water seaway and not a swimming pool.

There are 3 Kilos, in addition to Iran's very new home built vessels. Exactly how many do you think are needed to patrol a narrow strait and the NAG, and how many do you think it needs to attack a capital ship? Kilos are not diesel, they are diesel-electric and can stay submerged for a number of days - more than enough time to approach a fleet, bang off some torpedos and retreat. And you would lose that bet - I hate having to repeat myself but, for clarity, the USN is dire at ASW, they couldn't find a boat in a bathtub, on the surface, with a big neon arrow pointing to it. The Kilos have penetrated the US fleet undetected on a number of occasions.

Quote[/b] ]Also a rocket powered torpedo won't sink an aeroplane.

A torpedo can sink a lot of aeroplanes if it hits an aircraft carrier.

Quote[/b] ]All of Irans surface vessels are 100% vulnerable to airstrike.

The bulk of IRIN's skimmers are fast attack craft which are not '100% vulnerable to air attack'. Hitting a 23m LOA, 4m beam Cat14 with an even smaller Radar signature that is travelling at 50 knots with a fast jet is more than a little difficult. When they swarm attack, you're in trouble.

Quote[/b] ]Silkworm has a range of 90 km, an F 18 Hornet 360 miles.

Carrier beats Silkworm.

Aegis, won't be used. (Not much point since they don't actually work).

Your obsession with Silkworm is a tad annoying, if you're looking for a pat on the back because you can quote figures you have Googled, you're not going to get one. Silkworm is the least effective of Iran's missiles, pretending the others don't exist won't make it true. Iran can launch its missiles from its FACs, boats and a/c, the range of the missiles is irrelevent.

Carrier does not beat Silkworm, and it certainly doesn't beat Sunburn. I suggest you get back to Google and look up Aegis, it is always in use and is an 'it', not a 'they' - if you're going to present yourself as an authority on naval warfare, it helps if you know what you are talking about.

Quote[/b] ]US carriers have a strike range of 360 miles. They won't be entering the gulf until any Silkworm threat and mine threat is cleared. They will be able to operate at the top end of the gulf.

What exactly do you think the USN is going to be clearing mines with? I say again, the USN's MW capability is on a par with its ASW capability, dire. AShMs - not just Silkworm - are not going to be cleared without putting boots on the ground.

Quote[/b] ]But then they don't have to. The U.S. has access to much better static airstrips in all the countries surrounding Iran. Carriers are just a part of the airforces available for deployment.

B52 will be free to operate in Iran the moment it's tiny outdated airforce is destroyed. So realistically speaking, within an hour of the first second of the first strike.

The US has no access to airstrips for use of an attack against Iran without the host country's permission - no country is going to risk Iranian reprisals because the US wants to go on another jolly jape.

Perhaps you should give the Pentagon and MOD the Int you've spent your life collecting regarding the IRIAF, because neither one is under the impression that it is tiny and outdated.

Quote[/b] ]Although they also have stand off capability weapon systems like Tomahawks which can be laucnhed from 600 miles away.

Google again?

Quote[/b] ]I would suggest to you, that since the American's have been practising with war games, that they may not send in their assault ships first come the real thing. In fact they may not send in any assault ships at all for an airstrike. (They can't fly!

As strange as it seems, when the Pentagon were playing those war games, they did actually know what they were doing - the amphibious ships were there as part of a battle group as they would be in real life. The Iranians aren't stupid, they would not just attack random vessels, they would concentrate their attack on the vessels with an offensive role i.e. carriers, cruisers and LPD/LPH rather than than DD/FF.

Quote[/b] ]The Iranians can close the gulf. They have the equipment. What they can't do is keep it closed for long. Sooner or later they will find all the silkworms, sink all the subs and sweep all the mines.

Sooner is my bet.

You haven't got anything left to bet with. Finding all the AShMs would be a long and bloody task - unless the Iranians lob them all at the US fleet in the first few minutes, which is a probability. The US would take an awfully long time to clear mines as they are rubbish at it. And a sub is a sandwich, a submarine is a boat - people that know anything about naval warfare know that.

You haven't been through BRNC, CTCRM or even Cranwell or RMAS. When you have, your assertions will mean more - until then you would be better off accepting that some people know more about these things than you. It takes more than reading moronicly poor studies by SOAS and watching 'Ultimate Weapons' on Channel Five, I'm afraid.

The day I start getting instructed in the finer points of maritime, littoral and amphibious warfare by a civvy armchair Admiral is the day I go for a quiet, lonely walk with the Mess Webley.

Ahmadinejad meny times stated in his speaches (of hate, not irrationality) that Israel must be wiped from the world maps. How do you think he'll do/achieve this, with a razorblade? Can't you foresee a menacing chain reaction and its consequences after Israel will be 'wiped from the world's maps'?

As has been pointed out in this thread and many others - he never said that or anything like it, he was deliberately mis-translated. To paraphrase simply, he said that Israel won't exist one day... because the late Ayatollah Khomeni said so. There was no threat, no mention of maps or of wiping.

I hope the west has learned never to bother with reconstruction or any kind of rebuilding. It's a waste of time, money and life.

It is if you don't plan for it, like Rumsfeld. If you do plan for it, it works quite well, see the numerous Empires through history for examples.

similar to northern Ireland, its the same happend there ok so british retreated to the north, & threatend to basicly ethnic cleanse Irleand, once they regrouped, so the Irish had to settle for Peace, dident mean all the people who lost family to the Convict soldiers were accepting that.

So in the North The british government Supports the Minority who support the government, where as the majority are against, hence the IRAQ situation.

Did that come from Sinn Fein's 'Big Bumper Book of How Evil The British Are And How All Your Problems Are Their Fault' or was it a Hollywood film with the plucky 'Oirish' character bravely standing up to the evil British with financial assistance from a group of understanding and distressed Irish*-Americans. (* Irish in the sense that they once ate a potato)

Because it's bollocks.

[Iron+Cross 0]

Quote[/b] ]Did that come from Sinn Fein's 'Big Bumper Book of How Evil The British Are And How All Your Problems Are Their Fault' or was it a Hollywood film with the plucky 'Oirish' character bravely standing up to the evil British with financial assistance from a group of understanding and distressed Irish*-Americans. (* Irish in the sense that they once ate a potato)

Because it's bollocks.

Aside from the fact its quite obvious you hate every one, or at least thats the way your portraying yourself, your still wrong however i fear you just like being a sensationalist, but alas i will have to correct you.

well 1st of all i lived near Pettigoe on the irish side when i was growing up, so i kind of know a thing or two about the situation there, & as i said im not into nationalism it just props up idiots & gets people killed.

As for that bumper book i dunno never seen that book, last one i read was Sven hassle Blitzfreez verry good little book to.

Now as for a film well i only saw one film about the war, "the wind that shook the Barly" which was a true story,

However the fact is the british government Did threaten to basicly wipe out/ ethnic cleanse Ireland after they were Routed north, which is documented in BBC Archives.. try having a look as its Historical Facts, then again most historical facts are written around a national Bias, althogh Ive rarely seen Governments releaseing fake historical documents that blacken there own name..

And Lastly Nothing is only one persions fault, However only Untill Recently for example have members of the public who were R/C been able to join the Poilce force, or participate in government.. more of that Minority rulling over the majority because it supports the occupier.

oh one last thing i dont realy know much about the U.S military aid that was renderd to the IRA.

But i do know i worked on a paintball site outside of Dublin a couple of years back & there was a "Fairy-fort" on it (which is actuly a mass grave full of people shot by the Brits, & there was another one further along teh road that was filled with 5 brothers who played "the old game" in defiance.  (remember you werent aloud to congrigate or play certain public sports as it was banned, so was most public gatherings)

But i Do agree this guys keeps going on about that missle its getting a little wierd..  

Although Im sure this is starting to get OT, i jsut wanted to mention the similarity's to the whole Irish occupation situation.

p.s im glad you saved the best for last

[martinovic 0]

Interesting tidbit about Iran: There was an army wargame held in the Persian Gulf where the opposing forces commander sunk the entire american fleet with tiny boats that were ordered to randomly move around and then attack all at once when the US command went in.

The army brass brushed it off, "refloated" the fleet and continued with the games as if nothing happened, showcasing somekind of joint whatever doctrine.

The wargame was called Millenium Challenge 02 i think.

Noone really remembers it because of the quick and successful Iraq War (well, now it's just an insurgency, which is a big difference).

[echo1 0]

However the fact is the british government Did threaten to basicly wipe out/ ethnic cleanse Ireland after they were Routed north, which is documented in BBC Archives.. try having a look as its Historical Facts, then again most historical facts are written around a national Bias, althogh Ive rarely seen Governments releaseing fake historical documents that blacken there own name..

Routed north? Ethnic cleansing? Hold on, when did this happen?

Quote[/b] ]Did that come from Sinn Fein's 'Big Bumper Book of How Evil The British Are And How All Your Problems Are Their Fault' or was it a Hollywood film with the plucky 'Oirish' character bravely standing up to the evil British with financial assistance from a group of understanding and distressed Irish*-Americans. (* Irish in the sense that they once ate a potato)

Because it's bollocks.

QFT