War with Iran an increasing possibility

Users who are viewing this thread

maw said:
As a side note - slapping Jhess around by demeaning her, or anyone else, isn't fairplay.
Nice sentiment. I'll try to echo it in my future interactions with you, maw, as much as I want to disagree with you on everything.

rejenorst said:
As for Jess, I like Jhessail. She's got balls. And I like her balls.

bro_sis_fist_by_cokeand_asmile-d4a8rnu.png


***********************************
kenski1 said:
Jhessail said:
kenski1 said:
It's not as if they could do anything to us or our allies. =/
The worst they could do would be to send troops into Afghanistan or Iraq.
Very true but although I'm certain that if they did make such a foolish mistake as to declare a state of war against us we would most defiantly win the war. They could cause many problems, right now we do not have the means to force an effective amphibious landing which would be the main way into Iran although we could do it it would cost us many life's, without the harrier force and with no carriers, but I very much doubt there will be anykind of war.
What the **** are you talking about? Played too much Modern Warfare? Why the **** would you want to force an amphibious landing on Iran? When the ****ing country has 60% of it's borders vulnerable to Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place? And if you add Uzbekistan and Turkey, you got ALL her land borders in the mix.

1. I don't even have modern warfare.
You could have fooled me.

kenski1 said:
2. Maybe before making claims such as that you should look at those countries you mentioned Iran's strongest  border is her western border after the iraq-iran war to her east the border is not as well fortified or defended but it is a mostly open desert with no real strategic importance and the Iranians would be able to pull their line of defence further back to their more populated and industrial region near the west, also there is only one narrow front along the Afghanistan border with only one good road for logistics, Pakistan would never assist in an invasion and Turkmenistan would never assist  either, the desert to the east is also a logistic hell the lack of roads that could be we defended by Iranian forces and mined and lack of infrastructure makes an invasion from the east near impossible I only said an amphibious landing is the best method but very hard as i mentioned earlier. Turkeys eastern border is the worst postion to invade from due to the terrorist forces in the area its would cause logistics hell for any invasion, and Uzbekistan learn some geography how the hell could Uzbekistan be used.
First, learn to use punctuation. Especially since you seem to be writing in your native language. Makes a much better impression. But since the content of your post was such a mindless gibberish, I'm afraid that not even perfect grammar and spelling would help you.

My whole point was that your idea of an amphibious invasion of Iran is completely ludicrous when US has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkey - all countries surrounding Iran from every direction. Because we also know that deserts are nothing to the might of the US Logistics Corps - after Desert Storm 1 and 2 - why do you think Pentagon generals would risk committing into the single most complicated and challenging operation known to military when they can launch a four-pronged conventional land invasion, augmented by air-mobile operations if necessary? No sane reason, of course. Hence my argument that your peanut-sized brain is overloaded with Modern Warfare or Saving Private Ryan or other similar bull****.
 
Dat necro. But I'd have to agree, launching an assault from the Strait is completely retarded. We're lookin' at underwater mine fields and torpedo submarines.
 
Jhessail said:
My whole point was that your idea of an amphibious invasion of Iran is completely ludicrous when US has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkey - all countries surrounding Iran from every direction. Because we also know that deserts are nothing to the might of the US Logistics Corps - after Desert Storm 1 and 2 - why do you think Pentagon generals would risk committing into the single most complicated and challenging operation known to military when they can launch a four-pronged conventional land invasion, augmented by air-mobile operations if necessary? No sane reason, of course. Hence my argument that your peanut-sized brain is overloaded with Modern Warfare or Saving Private Ryan or other similar bull****.

Umm... no...?

Iran, having a relatively modern military, would require relatively conventional force-on-force, mandating heavy weapons - the bigger armor, artillery, and logistics that cannot be delivered and supported by air.

Facts - Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkeydo not have the US Forces to prosecute any kind of conflict beyond operations other than war/low intensity conflict. Meaning: the force available would contribute little beyond the staging of un-conventional (SOF or irregular) forces against Iran.

Politically, in any case, none of those nations would allow themselves to be publically complicit in beating up on Iran (maybeeeeeeee.... Uzbekistan, if we pay them enough... but being landlocked themselves, probably couldn't forward stage a lot of those things we need, same as Afghanistan). They are neighbors, have no grievance against Iran, and would have to live with Iran long after the US leaves. There would most probably be a cobbling of another unwilling coalition, which would be extremely unpopular in Europe due to economic/financial woes. And the US most probably would not commit to another land conflict due to its own woes, and being an election year.

The conflict would be: Air strikes and SOF crippling the infrastructure, nuclear development sites, and C3 nodes. Asymmetric political and economic actions. All geared to provoke the local yokels to get tired of the hassle and toss off the Iranian government, a la Serbia. Failing that, there would be a continuous no-fly zone and the bi-daily incremental slamming of military technical sites (leadership, air/missile radars, C3, heavy bridges, airfields and aircraft). There would be no land war. Not at least for the next year, which would keep it as a 'conflict' rather than a 'war'.

The deterrent of this path would be Iran's choices of retalitory action: terrorist attacks against US targets by already-in-place sleepers on US and Eurpoean soil, and the hell that would be unloosed on Isreal. Those are almost great enough to be an absolute no to any mix up with Iran - unless the perception of a Nuclear Iran is a greater boogey man.


It took 6+ months to build up to a land invasion against Iraq, with use of critical kinda friendly Saudi ports, and the US still had a naval assault against a heavy armor/heavy arty component. Afghanistan was very different in that the Talib forces were primarily light infantry/light armor, landlocked, and we used a proxy local military force to clean up after B52 strikes. To this day there are logistical issues in the 'stan - since most of the supply rolls through an unfriendly Pakistan.

Kenski's logic seems solid right now, which would be an amphib landing the US doesn't have the ability to consider now, and in any case is unneccessary. And will continue to be true until we see a forward stationing of heavies. Until then, regardless of the size of his brain, games he plays, or movies he prefers he's probably more accurate.

To sum up - unless there are incredibly unlikely changes in Europe's economy, the state of US finances, and the complete flip of Turkey or Iraq, you won't see a four pronged military anything; and the purpose would be to eliminate the nuclear weapons capability and to promote a locally originated change of government, which wouldn't require it.

And no, I'm not back. Just floating by. maw
- edited
 
Jhessail said:
My whole point was that your idea of an amphibious invasion of Iran is completely ludicrous when US has bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkey - all countries surrounding Iran from every direction. Because we also know that deserts are nothing to the might of the US Logistics Corps - after Desert Storm 1 and 2 - why do you think Pentagon generals would risk committing into the single most complicated and challenging operation known to military when they can launch a four-pronged conventional land invasion, augmented by air-mobile operations if necessary? No sane reason, of course. Hence my argument that your peanut-sized brain is overloaded with Modern Warfare or Saving Private Ryan or other similar bull****.


But Iran has Syria, Russia, China and the rest of the kinda-Communist countries supporting it, including Cuba and Venezuela, who are dangerously close to the US, and we know what happened in the early 60'ies :razz:
 
None of those countries would not risk a war with the U.S. For one thing, there's not a military or alliance in the world that would risk an open conventional war with America and NATO. In terms of training and technology, the U.S. and NATO as a whole are unmatched. Second and most importantly, the U.S. is extremely important to the economies of the countries that actually have a fairly strong and capable military, such as the PRC and Russia. Hostility with the U.S. hurts them doubly because of that. The smaller countries that you mentioned, like Cuba and Venezuela, stand no chance of a successful invasion of U.S. soil. Their militaries are too small, lack truly modern technology, and are too poorly trained in comparison to U.S. forces. You should see what an M1A1 or an AH-64 does to a T-72. Or how effective F-16s are against MiGs. Or how effective A-10s and B-1s are against anything on the ground.

If the U.S. were to invade Iran, probably not a country in the world would openly defend them with military force. They'd do it diplomatically, and even then, not very vigorously.
 
Never check Taleworlds when you're changing clothes from BBQ to clubbing, you get embroiled in a ****ing stupid argument

Agovic said:
But Iran has Syria, Russia, China and the rest of the kinda-Communist countries supporting it, including Cuba and Venezuela, who are dangerously close to the US, and we know what happened in the early 60'ies :razz:
You are a completely clueless idiot and I sincerely hope that your post was made in jest. If not, and you were actually serious, I pity your teachers and hope that you're 12-year old.

As to Maw, no, you're wrong. I'll write the full ****ing essay detailing just WHY you are wrong when I'm sober.
 
Jhess; just stick to the "Agovic being a completely clueless idiot". It works perfectly. He's a montenegrin nationalist for crying out loud.
 
AWdeV said:
Jhess; just stick to the "Agovic being a completely clueless idiot". It works perfectly. He's a montenegrin nationalist for crying out loud.

Huh. And all this time, I'd thought Montenegro was just a wine. :lol:

@maw: Were you enlisted military too? Because she was an officer. :razz:
 
Back
Top Bottom