War with Iran.

[Big Mac 19]

Once again ignorance leads the way right in front of rhetoric. The Taliban have Stingers, at least to begin with, because we Americans supported the Afghans during the time they were invaded by the then Soviet Union. Proxy war, maintaining the status quo, fighting for freedom.. Many reasons that ring at least partially true. Same for Osama Bin Laden. Trained by our CIA against a greater threat than we were. Now the Soviet threat is gone, and We take our turn as Bin Ladens' #1.

Big Mac, you have less than no right to tell someone else to stand down and shut-up, and also hold no monopoly on your so called 'progressive intelligence' - You don't even know your own country's history and are calling someone else 'Anti-American'? Clueless hypocrite much?

I never said that we didn't give the afghans Stingers, but I highly doubt that Taliban have any because they're using RPGs on our choppers when they could be using Stingers. Make sense? Of course it does.

To your allegations that we trained bin Laden do your research before you spout off at the mouth and make yourself look stupid http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/15/bergen.answers/index.html

When somebody is making baseless accusations and using stereotypes in regards to Americans I have every right to tell them to sit down and shut up.

As for me not knowing my history, I know it very well and that's why I've just proven you wrong on two points.

[cri74 10]

Anyone wants to put up multiple servers for this game ??? please have a look in my signature. >It only neeeds one dedicated contributer to manage it all.... WAHT WE GIVE IN RETURN IS FREE SERVERES AND A DEDICATED GROUP TO HELP YOU SET UP THE SERVERS !! PLEASE HAVE A LOOK, AND SEE IF THIS IS SOMETHIN YOU'D LIKE TO GIVE TO THE COMMUNITY !!

Instead of beeing whiners and be amonst ppl complaining... be part of the solution.

Edited June 27, 2010 by cri74

[echo1 0]

I never said that we didn't give the afghans Stingers, but I highly doubt that Taliban have any because they're using RPGs on our choppers when they could be using Stingers. Make sense? Of course it does.

I think that's because the Stingers were useless by the time the Americans came along (these things don't last forever, they have shelf lives). There sure were a lot of them that weren't accounted for after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan.

[Big Mac 19]

I think that's because the Stingers were useless by the time the Americans came along (these things don't last forever, they have shelf lives). There sure were a lot of them that weren't accounted for after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan.

Now that's a statement I can agree with.

[Baff1 0]

Well considering that we haven't seen a drop of oil and our gas prices have soared says a lot about your creditability. Almost everyone here including myself have proven you wrong in one respect or another. Go take your anti-american, all americans are rednecks, etc. rant some place else please.

Iraq oil production has eclipsed it's pre-war elevels.

It exports to America.

Even countries that do not directly trade oil with the U.S., such as Iran, serve to affect the price for everybody as it is a global market.

Supply and demand.

As expensive as you feel your currently oil is, it would be more expensive still, if Iraq was not producing.

Oil prices are set to rise and keep rising becuase of the sudden growth in demand from emerging countries like China and India. In the last ten years for example China has added 600 million middle class people to it's economy. Which is something equivalent to the combined populations of U.S.A. and the EU.

That's almost doubled world demand right there.

Edited June 29, 2010 by Baff1

[sprayer_faust 0]

About the stingers:

[walker 0]

Hi all

Getting back to the actual subject of the thread.

Looks like the author reads this thread :D

Jul 1, 2010

The anatomy of an attack on Iran

By David Moon

In mid-June, Hugh Tomlinson in the Times of London wrote that the government of Saudi Arabia conferred on Israel the "green light" for use of its airspace for an attack on Iran. This revelation was said to be conventional wisdom inside the Saudi military. Tomlinson also quoted an unnamed United States military source stating to the effect that the US Department of State and the Defense Department had both said "grace" over this arrangement.

The Saudis and Israelis immediately denied the report, while US officials made no specific comments on the subject. The silence and denials nixed further media speculation.

First reported in the Times of London in July 2009 and referred to again in Tomlinson's recent article is word of a supposed meeting between Israel's Mossad chief Meir Dagan and unnamed Saudi intelligence leaders to discuss such an arrangement that both governments denied then and now...

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LG01Ak01.html

As Always follow the link to see the original text and full story

The article agrees with much of the analysis in the start of this thread.

The fleet should be arriving in theatre soon.

Iran is already on War alert.

Kind Regards walker

[Sgt.Spoetnik 10]

Yeah,its not the question anymore "will they attack" but more "when will they attack", the stuff ive have seen tells that Israelis have used a saudi airbase to drop supplies for attack on Iran and they will use this base as FOB for attacks inside Iran,Also reports suggest that Israelis and US special forces are in Azerbyjan preparing to go in to Iran and search for any inrichment facility or storage for any nuclear device/supply.

We cant say wat is good info and what is bad info cause the rumor mill is spinning like crazy, but my money is on a attack in this summer or just after it.

[spooky lynx 73]

All I can say in this case is to wish "Good luck" to iranians.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Things seem to be heating up!

[Transcript] Mosaic News - 6/29/10: World News From The Middle East

Turkey shuts its airspace to Israeli military flights

BBC- Arabic

Presenter, Female #1

Ankara decided to close its airspace to Israeli military planes, and said that requests for Israeli flights to enter Turkey will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed on the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Toronto, Canada, that Turkey has imposed a ban on Israeli military aircrafts from using Turkish airspace.

Reporter, Male #1

The Turkish-Israeli military relations had proceeded for decades without any tension between the two countries. But it appears that the Israeli attack on the aid flotilla headed to the Gaza Strip last month, during which 9 Turks were killed, has somewhat affected this military cooperation. The Turkish leaders revealed that Israeli military planes now have to get a permit every time they want to use the Turkish airspace, and that each case will be dealt with separately. This comes after media reports said that Turkey prevented an Israeli military plane en route to Poland from passing through its airspace.

Guest, Male #1 (Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan)

I don’t know about the media reports, but yes, we do have a ban pertaining to Israeli military airplanes passing through Turkish airspace. This ban was issued after the recent incidents and it was announced indeed...

http://www.linktv.org/scripts/episode_transcript.php?episode=mosaic20100629

As Always follow the link to see the original text and full story.

I have also heard a report relayed on the BBC from Iran about a group of people attempting to enter an Iranian facility (nuclear?) who were captured (after a gun battle?)

If any one can shed some light on this last I would appreciate it.

Kind Regards walker

Edited June 30, 2010 by walker

[Big Mac 19]

All I can say in this case is to wish "Good luck" to iranians.

I don't wish either of them luck. Both Israel and Iran are two nations that need their asses kicked, better to let them kick each others asses.

[froggyluv 2136]

I don't wish either of them luck. Both Israel and Iran are two nations that need their asses kicked, better to let them kick each others asses.

Sadly I agree with this. As long as the US stays completely out of it. These two are like schoolyard kids that have been itching to go at, only 1 has a badass older brother (US) that they use as leverage. To blindly support this small jewish state in a sea of arabs (Persians) will only feed the islamic fanatics worldwide for as long as it continues.

Let nature take it's course (hopefully WW3 will not be the end result).

Also, if Iran faces invasion due to "unlawful" pursuit of nuclear weaponry, why is Israel not held to the same standard? I'd be pissed at this lopsided enforcement as well...

[niall0 10]

Hi all

Things seem to be heating up!

http://www.linktv.org/scripts/episode_transcript.php?episode=mosaic20100629

As Always follow the link to see the original text and full story.

I have also heard a report relayed on the BBC from Iran about a group of people attempting to enter an Iranian facility (nuclear?) who were captured (after a gun battle?)

If any one can shed some light on this last I would appreciate it.

Kind Regards walker

Yet, if you really looked on BBC, Turkey and Isreal have held 'secret' talks. Although what on is not confirmed, plus Turkey saying no conclusions have been bought to, but a goal of the relations being rebuild is put forth.

As always, follow the link to see the original text and full story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10471551.stm

[walker 0]

Hi all

There is an interesting article here discussing how close Iran is to having a viable Nuclear weapons progam.

How Iran Can Build a Bomb

It's harder -- and more time-consuming -- than you'd think.

BY JOSEPH CIRINCIONE, ELISE CONNOR | JULY 1, 2010

Today, U.S. President Barack Obama signs into law the next round of unilateral sanctions taking aim at Iran's energy sector. With this bill, Washington is seeking to stem what many view as Tehran's imminent nuclear future. But how imminent is that future, exactly?

Some would say it is very imminent. On June 27, CIA Director Leon Panetta estimated that it would take Iran approximately two years to build a nuclear bomb if it made the decision to do so. The Wall Street Journal seized on his statement, warning hysterically on June 29 that "Iran stands barely two years from an atomic bomb that could target Israel, Europe and beyond."

Pundits, too, have consistently claimed that Iran is just around the corner from acquiring nukes. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, for example, urgently warned in July 2004, "Iran will go nuclear during the next presidential term." In January 2006, he claimed, "Iran is probably just months away." A few months later, in September, when no bomb appeared, he wrote, "The decision is no more than a year away." William Kristol, Niall Ferguson, and John Bolton, among others, have made similar claims -- and been similarly proved wrong by the passage of time.

In fact, it is much harder to build a deliverable weapon than most pundits assume. Panetta's estimate leans toward the worst-case scenario, in which the weapons-building process proceeds perfectly smoothly. But the best expert assessments indicate that it would actually take Iran about three to five years to develop a nuclear bomb. Here's how that process would probably unfold -- and the reasons why it's not likely to happen in the timeline the doomsayers would have you believe...

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/01/how_iran_can_build_a_bomb?page=0,0

As always, and especialy in this case as most of the article is an in depth analysis, follow the link to see the original text and full story.

The gist of the article is that Iran is at least 5 to 10 years from the capability to deploy a serious threat but read it to inform your own opinion.

Israeli fears

Israel fears that Iran has transfered early warning radar defense sytems to Syria thus preventing entirely or reducing the chance of success of a Northern route into Iran or pushing it into the narrow Armenian corridor, with a stopover and refuel in Armenia.

MAP OF THE DAY: Here's The Israeli Attack Route Iran Just Cut Off

Gregory White | Jul. 1, 2010, 9:51 AM | 6,137

War worries in the Middle East continue to grow, as it has been revealed that Iran has supplied Syria with radar capable of detecting Israeli planes flying at high altitudes...

http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-syria-iran-radar-2010-7

As Always, and in this case to see the map, follow the link to see the original text and full story.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 2, 2010 by walker

[Txheat 10]

Iran hasn't been in the best spot with the U.S. for the most part since the Shahs where taken out of power and the present form of goverment.

However in its my thought that Iran will never declare war on the U.S. or really anyone. I will try to back this up with some reason.

1. They would be fighting a nation that is already got thousands of troops in the area. U.S. Has by far the most powerful military in the area it would be sucide. As long as they are not able to launch nukes into major U.S. cities or are able to hit Europe and use them as hostage to demand various things they will not declare war.

2. If we declare war it will not be anywhere as easy as Iraq. Iran is a nation with dedicated people, they will not surrender in groves no quite the opposite will happen. It will be describe as tense pitch battles in the hills and in major cities. They will not put up a formal army instead hide all heavy weapon systems and wait for an advance into their country. then launch attacks on supply lines, The U.S. has a bad supply system. (See Iraq war) The U.S. would be dealing also with a better equiped nation with many modern weapon systems. Just look at the land features in Iran it would be painful to carry a war in that nation even against someone like the taliban. Much less a nation like Iran. the U.S. will not lose by military power. They will lose when 100, 200, 500, dead start happening a day. When Iran can pull off days like that atleast twice a month U.S. support at home will fall. U.S. can't be beaten in a fist fight but with proper measures which i think the Iran leadership knows of they can win.

3. Nukes, two nations with Nukes have never gone to war. This will be a first, and it won't be fun by a long shot.

(EDIT- scratch three! I forgot India and pakistan(Yes i am wrong on the internet!)

Well thats my two cents!

Edited July 3, 2010 by Txheat

[echo1 0]

1. They would be fighting a nation that is already got thousands of troops in the area. U.S. Has by far the most powerful military in the area it would be sucide.

Another way of looking at it is that the US forces are stretched thin engaging an insurgency in two different countries. Are they really prepared to have the Iranians galloping in on top of them? Not so sure.

2. If we declare war it will not be anywhere as easy as Iraq. Iran is a nation with dedicated people, they will not surrender in groves no quite the opposite will happen. It will be describe as tense pitch battles in the hills and in major cities. They will not put up a formal army instead hide all heavy weapon systems and wait for an advance into their country. then launch attacks on supply lines, The U.S. has a bad supply system. (See Iraq war) The U.S. would be dealing also with a better equiped nation with many modern weapon systems. Just look at the land features in Iran it would be painful to carry a war in that nation even against someone like the taliban. Much less a nation like Iran. the U.S. will not lose by military power. They will lose when 100, 200, 500, dead start happening a day. When Iran can pull off days like that atleast twice a month U.S. support at home will fall. U.S. can't be beaten in a fist fight but with proper measures which i think the Iran leadership knows of they can win.

It works both ways. There seems to be quite a sizable chunk of Iran's population that don't like their government and what it stands for...

3. Nukes, two nations with Nukes have never gone to war.

Hasn't stopped the party for India and Pakistan yet.

[Big Mac 19]

3. Nukes, two nations with Nukes have never gone to war. This will be a first, and it won't be fun by a long shot.

India and Pakistan....

[Txheat 10]

Another way of looking at it is that the US forces are stretched thin engaging an insurgency in two different countries. Are they really prepared to have the Iranians galloping in on top of them? Not so sure.

It works both ways. There seems to be quite a sizable chunk of Iran's population that don't like their government and what it stands for...

Hasn't stopped the party for India and Pakistan yet.

Ok, i will try to explain sorry.

Saying that we are spread thin is a hard way to put it considering that we still have a large troop amounts in Iraq, and Iraq for the most part is not a counterinsurgancy. The U.S. has done their best to make Iraq able to handle themselfs and for the most part they can. Also the land is nice and flat between Iraq and Iran at points which does not fare well for Iran. Flat equals toe-toe fighting.

IMO i think that that U.S. can drop what ever they are doing against the taliban and face Iran.

As much as they might dislike their own goverment because of the current goverment. They will still fight us. It didn't really matter that much in Iraq! They hated their goverment and still fought us afterwords because of differances that simply can't be overcame. They hate us, the sanctions aren't helping any better also our history of backing their enemeys didn't help. (Iraq-Iran war)

Woops!!! I forgot about three! Though i do not remeber them breaking out into full scale war after nukes where tested. Or did they i do not remeber have to give you that!

Once again my two cents, though now that i think about it maybe three cents. I should stop putting effort in internet posts it will inflate the vaule of my thoughts.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

We are spread thin at this point man. Especially when you take Obama, and his plan to pull everybody out by July 2011. Iran could seriously fuck us up, for a few months atleast, until we got our feet back on the ground.

[Big Mac 19]

As much as they might dislike their own goverment because of the current goverment. They will still fight us. It didn't really matter that much in Iraq!

They fought us in Iraq for different reasons. One of the main ones being they went from seeing us as saviors to being an occupying army, which we were. I do however agree with your assessment.

[Tonci87 163]

So0 its been a few weeks since this Thread started, now where is my war?:p

[HotShot 0]

Not for a little while yet, they're still building their army of robots. Terminator eat your heart out, coming from the future is old, coming from the past is the new fad, like Soorena-2, an ancient Persian Warrior.

[HyperU2 11]

I thought Jihadists were robots.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Acccording to reports; the US has Increased the amount of ammunition stored in Israel by 50% as well as giving Israel a large number of the latest advance JDAMs with the 60 mile standoff capability and the Blu-117 bunker busters, and stationing additional resources in and around the Persian Gulf.

Transfer of ammunitions to Israel for a possible attack against Iran

by Manlio Dinucci

The White House hasn’t stopped heaping pressure on Iran to force it to cooperate in Afghanistan and in Iraq. While the State Department has triggered the start of an anti-Iranian blockade by way of resolution 1929, the Pentagon has been sending ammunitions to Israel and opening air corridors to provide to Tsahal the opportunity to strike the Iranian economy. Will Iran succumb to the threat? ...

http://www.voltairenet.org/article166175.html

As Always follow the link to see the original text and full story

Mean while Israel is trying to prevent the upgrade and increase in numbers of F15's the the US is selling to Saudi Arabia (SA)that was part of the air corridor deal Israel had through SA to attack Iran.

'Israel trying to block U.S.-Saudi Arabia defense contract'

Defense source says deal includes purchase of scores of new F-15 fighter jets and the upgrading of the 150 F-15s already in the Saudi air force.

By Barak Ravid

Israel is trying to prevent a big defense contract between the United States and Saudi Arabia from going through, a senior defense source told Haaretz. The deal includes the purchase of scores of new F-15 fighter jets and the upgrading of the 150 F-15s already in the Saudi air force.

The source said Israel expressed a number of reservations to the Americans over the past month, and the issue is expected to come up in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meetings in Washington on Tuesday...

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/israel-trying-to-block-u-s-saudi-arabia-defense-contract-1.299848

As Always follow the link to see the original text and full story

This may be the reason Saudi Arabia is about to/has scotch(ed) the air corridor deal. A further complication is that the Russians may feel they now have to support Iran and send it the Anti Aircraft Missiles and Radar in order to not loose economic and political influence in the area. Thus altering the regional balance on Russia's southern border and its access to to oil and gas in the Caspian and Caucasus Region.

Kind Regards walker

Edited July 5, 2010 by walker

[Big Mac 19]

I thought Jihadists were robots.

No more so than the radical Christians that infest the southeast and midwest US. Or the weak minded fools who think blasting Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" makes you a patriot...