BF2S Forums OFFICIAL: Iran Is The Most Powerful Military Nation In The World..

My buddy Mahmoud is kinda like a five year old...

GorillaTicTacs wrote:

beerface702 wrote:

"Iran was the most powerful nation in the world"-mahmoud adka2adkakd

there army isnt complete rubbish, but stand no chance against say russia or US, china. They do however have terrorist who will stop at nothing, and we have seen how they fight already.

I'm still trying to find the terrorist link "smoking gun".  Even Chomsky, who is very forthcoming about these things, hasn't mentioned the Iranian links to terrorism.  Sure they make big shows out of a lot of things, sure they're protecting their borders, and I'll even buy that they have fun thumbing their noses at the West by harboring a few ex-terrorists.  The only modern links I've been able to see were sourced straight from the same right-wing sources that brought you the cooked Iraq intel...nothing credible.

"We found the serial numbers on the IED's that we could trace to Iran." - Bullshit.

I like how you choose to only believe the conspiracy theories that you want to believe.

"Iraq was for oil" - auto believe (not that its not true)

"Iran is funding terrorism in Iraq" - bullshit

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

"Iran is funding terrorism in Iraq" - bullshit

You may not believe it, but that does not make it less true.  I do know that back in 2003, there was an Iranian 4-prong attack on Iraq.  Militarally with the BADR Corps, a group of Shia Muslims equipt and trained by Iranians.  They were.... disarmed in May 2003 by the 4ID.  The second prong were a group of politcal leaders trying to found a religious state that would naturally ally with Iran.  The 3rd prong was religious;  There was a sudden rush of very young Imams.  All of them new, all of them preaching hate and violence. (It was suspected, but never proven, that they were Iranian agents.)  The 4th prong was the 'insurgence.'  To keep the populace in a state of disorder, to do everything they could to disrupt goverment services and oil production.  This was to show that the Iraqi goverment and the Americans could not keep services in place, trying to swing public opinion away from them.  We captured several 'insugents' with Iranian money and passports.

I will say that Iran has a vested intrest in the outcome in Iran.  I have no doubt that Iran is funnelling funds, equipment, and training to the insurgents in Iraq.  Is the insurgency funded SOLEY by Iran? I doubt it; but ther are involved; of that I have no doubt.

FEOS wrote:

I think he was pointing out the hypocrisy in many of the forum members to only believe what fits their preconceived notions.

So you're (and I) in agreement with him, I think.

Oh, well, then that's twice.  I need to get my sarcasm meter replaced.  Sorry if I misuderstood!

imortal wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I think he was pointing out the hypocrisy in many of the forum members to only believe what fits their preconceived notions.

So you're (and I) in agreement with him, I think.

Oh, well, then that's twice.  I need to get my sarcasm meter replaced.  Sorry if I misuderstood!

I used quotes to show that it was his opinion and not my own.

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

apparently, with Iran, taking control isn't an option. It's about annihilation. Bomb them until their economy breaks down, and leave them near-dead. Shouldn't take that long, and whoever builds laser-guided bombs for the US military will make a good buck from it, too.

As long as the installations where nuclear material is processed are destroyed, I am pretty sure the current administration doesn't really care about "taking control" of Iran. That way, at least the american tax payer won't have to pay for rebuilding....

You've contradicted yourself here Schuss.

Your second point obviates the argument in your first (and is far more accurate). If only the nuclear installations are taken out, then Iran isn't annihilated, their economy is intact, and the country isn't anywhere near "near dead".

I would agree, but I am afraid the US would show little restraint and would try to teach Iran a "lesson". I don't think they would leave it at destroying the nuclear facilities.
Also, from a tactical point of view, an US airstrike / spec ops operation against selected targets in Iran would probably provoke a retaliatory attack by Iranian forces on US forces in Iraq. To avoid/hinder that, the US will almost have to destroy key elements in the Iranian military and civilian infrastructure ( you now, power stations, roads, train stations, etc ).

I mean, considering an unprovoked attack on Iran will be an act of war, what do you think Iran's reaction will be ?

I'm sure it could be easily justified.

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

apparently, with Iran, taking control isn't an option. It's about annihilation. Bomb them until their economy breaks down, and leave them near-dead. Shouldn't take that long, and whoever builds laser-guided bombs for the US military will make a good buck from it, too.

As long as the installations where nuclear material is processed are destroyed, I am pretty sure the current administration doesn't really care about "taking control" of Iran. That way, at least the american tax payer won't have to pay for rebuilding....

You've contradicted yourself here Schuss.

Your second point obviates the argument in your first (and is far more accurate). If only the nuclear installations are taken out, then Iran isn't annihilated, their economy is intact, and the country isn't anywhere near "near dead".

I would agree, but I am afraid the US would show little restraint and would try to teach Iran a "lesson". I don't think they would leave it at destroying the nuclear facilities.
Also, from a tactical point of view, an US airstrike / spec ops operation against selected targets in Iran would probably provoke a retaliatory attack by Iranian forces on US forces in Iraq. To avoid/hinder that, the US will almost have to destroy key elements in the Iranian military and civilian infrastructure ( you now, power stations, roads, train stations, etc ).

I mean, considering an unprovoked attack on Iran will be an act of war, what do you think Iran's reaction will be ?

The only civilian infrastructure that would likely be hit would be those also providing power/rail services to the targets being hit or reaction forces. Even then, those are fairly isolated with little to no civilian population/infrastructure.

There wouldn't be any "lesson showing", except possibly the level of destruction of the targets themselves (which, again, are pretty isolated). And I can't imagine a strike wouldn't include the garrisons for the QF and others that might be mobilized to go fuck with Iraq. But an Iranian response against Iraq (as opposed to the US) is clearly the most likely (and possibly most dangerous) Iranian course of action. As such, it (and Iranian attacks against Israel) would be planned for.

S.Lythberg wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Who cares who has more planes or the best topgun pilots?  SAMs are what matters.  If they shoot down a plane, we adapt and get more careful, if they shoot down 10 planes, we restrict flights over more dangerous air space, they shoot down 20 planes...we stop flying and resume missile flights.  They never have to fly a plane.  I don't predict we'd take control of their airspace because we'd NEVER knock out their AA network.  No UAVs, no bombers, no fighters, no recon would last very long.

We'd just be chucking missiles from their borders..they'd nuke our carrier fleets...

Ok, I'm being a little too optimistic for them and I realize it.  I guess I'm just doing it because most people foolishly think they're some ragtag group of stone throwers with no organization to carry out realistic warfare.  They're most definitely not, despite the clown-like/monkey-like appearance of their leader and his psychotic speeches.

lol SAM's...

those things are mediocre at best, especially 70's era soviet leftovers.

thousands of SAM's were fired during the Korean and Vietnam wars, and accounted for only a handfull of lost aircraft.

that, and our heavy bombers fly higher than the maximum altitude for SAM missiles and fighter patrols.

In the event of a war, Iran will get dominated in the skies.

Um, I don't know where you get your info, but the S-200 can reach up to anywhere between 66,000 feet and 125,000 feet, and the highest flying bomber the U.S. have is the B1B at 60,000 ft.

Kmarion wrote:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”~Hillary Clinton

Holy hell, she actually said that? I think I may start preferring her over Obama now. She's showing some balls.

B.Schuss wrote:

exactly. And that's what worries me. If it were only about the nuclear facilities, I wouldn't waste thought about it, but the fact of the matter is, the US seems to be willing to violate international law, and risk sending the whole middle east into war because of this.
The result will be huge loss of life ( military and civilian ) a country in ruins ( Iran ) , and a country in larger debt than before (the US ).

Let alone the consequences for the overall security situation in the middle east, and the ramnifications for europe.

I do hope though, that Congress would oppose military action against Iran. Why ? Because Iraq has proven that economic sanctions and UN weapon inspections can work. North Korea has proven that, too, btw.
I guess what I am saying is that there is simply no need to go to war over this.

So how would limited air strikes against military targets result in the entire country being "in ruins"?

While I agree sanctions should be given a chance to work there...your prediction for the outcome of strikes against specific, non-civilian, sites seems a bit on the hyperbolic side.

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

exactly. And that's what worries me. If it were only about the nuclear facilities, I wouldn't waste thought about it, but the fact of the matter is, the US seems to be willing to violate international law, and risk sending the whole middle east into war because of this.
The result will be huge loss of life ( military and civilian ) a country in ruins ( Iran ) , and a country in larger debt than before (the US ).

Let alone the consequences for the overall security situation in the middle east, and the ramnifications for europe.

I do hope though, that Congress would oppose military action against Iran. Why ? Because Iraq has proven that economic sanctions and UN weapon inspections can work. North Korea has proven that, too, btw.
I guess what I am saying is that there is simply no need to go to war over this.

So how would limited air strikes against military targets result in the entire country being "in ruins"?

While I agree sanctions should be given a chance to work there...your prediction for the outcome of strikes against specific, non-civilian, sites seems a bit on the hyperbolic side.

so you don't think there would be some military reaction by Iran against US forces in iraq, which could then result in a larger conflict, possibly leading to a major ground war on iranian soil ?

I am not saying it will happen under any circumstances, but let's imagine for a second selected facilities the US were to be bombed by foreign air forces, to unilaterally push through the interests of that nation against those of the US. Don't you think the US would respond to that militarily ?