Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

Poll

Who to fight with next, after Iraq/Afghanistan?

Pakistan8%8% - 5
Iran38%38% - 23
China13%13% - 8
India0%0% - 0
Turkey0%0% - 0
Russia8%8% - 5
Other30%30% - 18
Total: 59
2008-05-06 05:37:04
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6714|Éire
My vision for the future...

The continued economic downturn results in the right-wing Christian influence in the White House disappearing thanks to all the God-loving, farm boy politicians being ousted in favour of intelligent, economically-educated intellectuals. The US finally realise they get nothing valuable in return for their unconditional support and aid for Israel and realise they can get more strategic benefit (and benefit in terms of resources like oil and gas) by forming an ostensibly strong and meaningful alliance with the Arab states. They play the 'hearts and minds' card in the war on terror by supporting the Palestinian state and shatter their image of being a Zionist, Muslim-hating state among Islamic hard-liners by blasting Israel off the map. The domestic threat previously posed by Islamic terrorism is now replaced by Zionist terrorism and the US Government introduces a new act that requires all Jewish people to be tattooed with a barcode for tracking purposes. Camps similar to the Guantanamo bay facility are set up in remote regions all over the US and all Zionist 'terrorists' are shipped off without due legal process. The US public are not entirely happy about this but most agree that certain measures must be taken to protect against terrorism and that certain infringements on civil liberties are a small price to pay for a safe, terror-free society.

...coming soon to a cinema near you!

Last edited by Braddock (2008-05-06 05:39:07)

2008-05-06 09:29:53
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
Yeah, i didn't even think of Syria or N Korea; who should be on the list before Russia.  But Russia, China, and even India are good candidates for warfare..even though there's nothing to gain from India..India ownership would be as useless as an African nation.

I do think China is the real threat.  They are building their military industrial complex and I wouldn't doubt it'll easily surpass our floundering military industry...even though we spend tons more on ours.  They're smarter than us, they've sat quietly and learned from us, they're bigger than us and frankly, I have no doubt they would have it easier doing a Red Dawn to us than we'd be able to do to them.  And with food shortages probably being a thing of the future...why not!

I doubt highly we'd invade Iran..we'd bomb them, but not invade them.  And if we bombed them, we'd lose a US city for sure some day.  If they nuke Israel, I would guess that they'd have a nuke ready to go here to counter our retaliation for Israel.  it's not like it would be hard to sneak into the country.
2008-05-06 09:31:37
Bradt3hleader
Care [ ] - Don't care [x]
+121|6360
Iran, then China.  Iran would be easy, gota love high altitude bombing those suckers who think that have good AA/ "Trained" military (AKA farmers with AKs).

China however would be a tough nut to crack IMO


EDIT:

Nevermind, both wars would be over within minutes. Infact I think all coutries would immediatly obey the U.S. if Chuck Norris accepted to help.

Last edited by Bradt3hleader (2008-05-06 09:33:17)

2008-05-06 09:45:35
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
lol, i love when people say "Iran would be easy."  Are you talking about invading and occupying and having even minimal control over Iran or it's major cities?   If so, you are seriously fooled.
2008-05-06 10:03:43
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6647|Escea

IRONCHEF wrote:

lol, i love when people say "Iran would be easy."  Are you talking about invading and occupying and having even minimal control over Iran or it's major cities?   If so, you are seriously fooled.
Nope, we're talking about bombing it back to the stone age.
2008-05-06 10:10:20
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California

M.O.A.B wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

lol, i love when people say "Iran would be easy."  Are you talking about invading and occupying and having even minimal control over Iran or it's major cities?   If so, you are seriously fooled.
Nope, we're talking about bombing it back to the stone age.
Hmmm, with lots of MOABs nonetheless? lol

So tell me, how many bombs do you think we have?  And how small do you think Iran is?  And how likely are the Iranian's military to be prepared for our super duper jdams and other penetrating munitions?  And how likely is it their AA networks have redundancies?  And oh yeah, how small do you think Iran is? 

So we drop our 20 MOABs on Tehran...big woop.  Then a thousand tomahawks, a few more thousand jdams into schools and hospitals (we don't exactly use human intel anymore for target confirmations), and a few more tens of thousands of 500lb bombs from stealth aircraft, which for the first time, amazingly start getting shot down as we realize we're not as badass as we think! lol

IRAN = not your average towel heads
2008-05-06 10:21:22
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6647|Escea

IRONCHEF wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

lol, i love when people say "Iran would be easy."  Are you talking about invading and occupying and having even minimal control over Iran or it's major cities?   If so, you are seriously fooled.
Nope, we're talking about bombing it back to the stone age.
Hmmm, with lots of MOABs nonetheless? lol

So tell me, how many bombs do you think we have?  And how small do you think Iran is?  And how likely are the Iranian's military to be prepared for our super duper jdams and other penetrating munitions?  And how likely is it their AA networks have redundancies?  And oh yeah, how small do you think Iran is? 

So we drop our 20 MOABs on Tehran...big woop.  Then a thousand tomahawks, a few more thousand jdams into schools and hospitals (we don't exactly use human intel anymore for target confirmations), and a few more tens of thousands of 500lb bombs from stealth aircraft, which for the first time, amazingly start getting shot down as we realize we're not as badass as we think! lol

IRAN = not your average towel heads
How much of Iran do you think is actually populated? Russia's a big ass place but it isn't carpeted in urban areas is it? Most of it is uninhabitated. 10 MOAB's would do the job, and even though you seem fixeated that the modern US military intentionally targets civilians they would strike military targets only. Gulf War 1 was a prime example of how to cripple Iran's military, Iraq had the 3rd largest tank force on the planet and it was easly decimated. You hit their key targets with LGBs, JDAM's and cruise missiles you'll cripple their military might easily. You seem to be forgetting that military on military there are only a few in the wolrd who can challenge the US head on, and Iran isn't one of them. Oh yeah by the way, an AA network is generally rendered useless against stealth aircraft so, unless Iran has the worlds most sophisticated radar network for tracking aircraft I doubt they'd pose the threat of nailing every single plane which it seems you'd like to see.
2008-05-06 10:37:52
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
Again, you assume Iran is just going to stick to the plan and not "prepare."  They've had us on TV for the last 5years, on both sides, they are aware that we want to attack them, they have the means and tech and probably international support.  10 moabs?  You're seriously high.  That wouldn't do jack to even a medium city of theirs let alone Tehran.  Do you not watch TV and see what Iraq is like?  Yes, we'll kill lots of people.  No, we won't topple anyone.  Not even talking about a ground invasion.

Also, WHO is going to fight the Iranians?  The majority of our forces are probably toast, not to mention a good portion with mental problems, brain injuries, lost limbs, metal imbeded in their bodies.

Harassment by air is about all we can do.  Big woopity doo.  Waste more money to accomplish NOTHING.  If anything, the peaceful iranian people, even the pro-western ones, would easily turn against us and unite with their hardline leaders..then we'd have trouble.  If there was any restraint by Iranians to not proliferate nuke tech or bombs, it would be let go.

There's a reason why the majority of US military commanders do not want war with Iran.  Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol are pretty much the only real war drum beaters and both are pansy ass little children who need to be airdropped into Sadr City or somewhere...Tehran during a stoning of an adulterer.
2008-05-06 10:56:21
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6647|Escea

Yes good to notice that I said 'yes less annhilate their cities' rather than what I actually typed as 'would strike military targets only'. So taking out airbases, ports, ships, ground bases, munitions factories, power and water supplies wouldn't cripple them? Iran is in no way invincible as you seem to see them. If the military did what it does best in Iraq they wouldn't be there at the minute. They would have destroyed the opposition with ease and then left, same would happen with Iran. If you wanted to attack a populated area, a couple of MOABs would be sufficient to screw up a city, besides the intial 12 block blast radius of each bomb they would cut off routes, water, electricity, gas, start fires and cause widespread structural damage to buildings caught in the shockwave outside the intial blast area. The German army of WW2 was far better equipped and trained period wise than the Iranian's are today and they were defeated in convetional military warfare.
2008-05-06 10:57:38
Bradt3hleader
Care [ ] - Don't care [x]
+121|6360

M.O.A.B wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

lol, i love when people say "Iran would be easy."  Are you talking about invading and occupying and having even minimal control over Iran or it's major cities?   If so, you are seriously fooled.
Nope, we're talking about bombing it back to the stone age.
Finally somebody who understand something. We'll bomb it to the stone age then building it back up and have a beautiful 51st state
2008-05-06 11:00:23
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7045|London, England

Bradt3hleader wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

lol, i love when people say "Iran would be easy."  Are you talking about invading and occupying and having even minimal control over Iran or it's major cities?   If so, you are seriously fooled.
Nope, we're talking about bombing it back to the stone age.
Finally somebody who understand something. We'll bomb it to the stone age then building it back up and have a beautiful 51st state
I can't tell if it's sarcasm or not, I don't know. You two are fucking insane.
2008-05-06 11:03:16
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7005|SE London

M.O.A.B wrote:

How much of Iran do you think is actually populated? Russia's a big ass place but it isn't carpeted in urban areas is it? Most of it is uninhabitated. 10 MOAB's would do the job, and even though you seem fixeated that the modern US military intentionally targets civilians they would strike military targets only. Gulf War 1 was a prime example of how to cripple Iran's military, Iraq had the 3rd largest tank force on the planet and it was easly decimated. You hit their key targets with LGBs, JDAM's and cruise missiles you'll cripple their military might easily. You seem to be forgetting that military on military there are only a few in the wolrd who can challenge the US head on, and Iran isn't one of them. Oh yeah by the way, an AA network is generally rendered useless against stealth aircraft so, unless Iran has the worlds most sophisticated radar network for tracking aircraft I doubt they'd pose the threat of nailing every single plane which it seems you'd like to see.


Lots of Iran is populated. By more than 70 million people. 10 MOABs - you're having a laugh.

Also Iran has one of the most sophisticated AA networks on earth and stealth technology is overrated against AA. The Kosovans downed an F-117 with really crappy AA because they were a bit cunning.
2008-05-06 11:10:18
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6647|Escea

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

How much of Iran do you think is actually populated? Russia's a big ass place but it isn't carpeted in urban areas is it? Most of it is uninhabitated. 10 MOAB's would do the job, and even though you seem fixeated that the modern US military intentionally targets civilians they would strike military targets only. Gulf War 1 was a prime example of how to cripple Iran's military, Iraq had the 3rd largest tank force on the planet and it was easly decimated. You hit their key targets with LGBs, JDAM's and cruise missiles you'll cripple their military might easily. You seem to be forgetting that military on military there are only a few in the wolrd who can challenge the US head on, and Iran isn't one of them. Oh yeah by the way, an AA network is generally rendered useless against stealth aircraft so, unless Iran has the worlds most sophisticated radar network for tracking aircraft I doubt they'd pose the threat of nailing every single plane which it seems you'd like to see.


Lots of Iran is populated. By more than 70 million people. 10 MOABs - you're having a laugh.

Also Iran has one of the most sophisticated AA networks on earth and stealth technology is overrated against AA. The Kosovans downed an F-117 with really crappy AA because they were a bit cunning.
Man this MOAB business is really hard to get across to some people. MOABs, in conjuctions with other air dropped weapon systems such as LGB's, JDAM's and cruise missiles can be used on military targets. How many friggin military targets do you think they have that require the use of a MOAB to destroy? Yet again, this seems so difficult for people to read, where did I say about annhilating the entire population? I said military targets. Man there should be a type slow button.
2008-05-06 11:13:21
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7045|London, England
You talked about bombing the country into the stone age

All we need is one bomb on their government building whilst they're all inside

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-05-06 11:14:14)

2008-05-06 11:14:04
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7005|SE London

M.O.A.B wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

How much of Iran do you think is actually populated? Russia's a big ass place but it isn't carpeted in urban areas is it? Most of it is uninhabitated. 10 MOAB's would do the job, and even though you seem fixeated that the modern US military intentionally targets civilians they would strike military targets only. Gulf War 1 was a prime example of how to cripple Iran's military, Iraq had the 3rd largest tank force on the planet and it was easly decimated. You hit their key targets with LGBs, JDAM's and cruise missiles you'll cripple their military might easily. You seem to be forgetting that military on military there are only a few in the wolrd who can challenge the US head on, and Iran isn't one of them. Oh yeah by the way, an AA network is generally rendered useless against stealth aircraft so, unless Iran has the worlds most sophisticated radar network for tracking aircraft I doubt they'd pose the threat of nailing every single plane which it seems you'd like to see.


Lots of Iran is populated. By more than 70 million people. 10 MOABs - you're having a laugh.

Also Iran has one of the most sophisticated AA networks on earth and stealth technology is overrated against AA. The Kosovans downed an F-117 with really crappy AA because they were a bit cunning.
Man this MOAB business is really hard to get across to some people. MOABs, in conjuctions with other air dropped weapon systems such as LGB's, JDAM's and cruise missiles can be used on military targets. How many friggin military targets do you think they have that require the use of a MOAB to destroy? Yet again, this seems so difficult for people to read, where did I say about annhilating the entire population? I said military targets. Man there should be a type slow button.
And how do you reconcile that with your previous statement?

M.O.A.B wrote:

Nope, we're talking about bombing it back to the stone age.
2008-05-06 11:17:29
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6647|Escea

Bertster7 wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:




Lots of Iran is populated. By more than 70 million people. 10 MOABs - you're having a laugh.

Also Iran has one of the most sophisticated AA networks on earth and stealth technology is overrated against AA. The Kosovans downed an F-117 with really crappy AA because they were a bit cunning.
Man this MOAB business is really hard to get across to some people. MOABs, in conjuctions with other air dropped weapon systems such as LGB's, JDAM's and cruise missiles can be used on military targets. How many friggin military targets do you think they have that require the use of a MOAB to destroy? Yet again, this seems so difficult for people to read, where did I say about annhilating the entire population? I said military targets. Man there should be a type slow button.
And how do you reconcile that with your previous statement?

M.O.A.B wrote:

Nope, we're talking about bombing it back to the stone age.
Stone age in terms of its military capability, why the hell would I see any point in intentionally bombing civilians in populated areas? Iran threatens enough with its 'military might', take that back to the stone age and its going to go back into the wardrobe.
2008-05-06 11:21:49
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
And for what it's worth, MOAB, I'm not saying Iran is invincible.  I'm just point out that the US Military is not invincible.  Further, i believe we are considerably overrated...given the $$$ we spend, it's pathetic.  Yes, kill ratios are impressive, and night vision is the bomb...but seriously...the MOAB?  I too watched that military channel episode and I remember it costing waaaay to much to actually use and transportation of it was totally inefficient given the damage a plane full of smaller bombs could do so much more.  The MOAB is an ego-derived bomb that you give too much credit to.  Further, it's not like the Iranians are just going to be standing under it watching it approach on CNN from the carrier it left from!  And you seriously think Iran will perform fair and square conventional warfare?

More and more, ironies and lack of attention to historical details prevail (in general among Americans, not just you MOAB).  More and more I see us being England in all it's arrogance and unjust cause trying to take back the American colony.  We gasp and reel in horror when we see enemies defending their country from our occupation as we call them "terrorists" because they behead and bomb people (aka, the guerrilla attacks we did to the English long ago).  We are expecting them to line up, take aim, and fire into our kevlar and armored positions.  We are pissed because they don't wear uniforms and because they hide among civilian populations..nevermind they actually LIVE among civilian populations.  And WE call THEM cowards!  lol


M.O.A.B wrote:

"..why the hell would I see any point in intentionally bombing civilians in populated areas? ..."
10 moabs should do it.  12 block blast radius?  earlier, you accused me of thinking the US intentionally bombing civilians, and here you are saying this?  I just said we suck at target intel because we have in fact bombed hospitals and schools and other civilian things..because we lack human intel.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-05-06 11:24:30)

2008-05-06 11:27:22
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6647|Escea

IRONCHEF wrote:

And for what it's worth, MOAB, I'm not saying Iran is invincible.  I'm just point out that the US Military is not invincible.  Further, i believe we are considerably overrated...given the $$$ we spend, it's pathetic.  Yes, kill ratios are impressive, and night vision is the bomb...but seriously...the MOAB?  I too watched that military channel episode and I remember it costing waaaay to much to actually use and transportation of it was totally inefficient given the damage a plane full of smaller bombs could do so much more.  The MOAB is an ego-derived bomb that you give too much credit to.  Further, it's not like the Iranians are just going to be standing under it watching it approach on CNN from the carrier it left from!  And you seriously think Iran will perform fair and square conventional warfare?

More and more, ironies and lack of attention to historical details prevail (in general among Americans, not just you MOAB).  More and more I see us being England in all it's arrogance and unjust cause trying to take back the American colony.  We gasp and reel in horror when we see enemies defending their country from our occupation as we call them "terrorists" because they behead and bomb people (aka, the guerrilla attacks we did to the English long ago).  We are expecting them to line up, take aim, and fire into our kevlar and armored positions.  We are pissed because they don't wear uniforms and because they hide among civilian populations..nevermind they actually LIVE among civilian populations.  And WE call THEM cowards!  lol
The difference between the US War of Independence and Iraq, is that the guerrilla tactics used didn't involve using civilians as shields or intentionally attacking civilians as many of the guerrilla fighters in Iraq do. If you want to go really up-key you could ask Russia to lend one of their FOAB's.

For the record as well, I'm English.

IRONCHEF wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

"..why the hell would I see any point in intentionally bombing civilians in populated areas? ..."
10 moabs should do it.  12 block blast radius?  earlier, you accused me of thinking the US intentionally bombing civilians, and here you are saying this?  I just said we suck at target intel because we have in fact bombed hospitals and schools and other civilian things..because we lack human intel.
12 block blast radius was the figure I remember hearing of it, I don't know what that is in meters.
Just because I used '12 block' to determine the blast zone doesn't mean I think they should be used on a civilian area. I was also explaining that with those 10 and if you wanted to you could seriously mess up a city, the effects of the aftermath would cause far more damage.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-05-06 11:30:54)

2008-05-06 11:33:59
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
Yes, I realize the difference in our guerrilla tactics are different than that of those in the Iraq theater.  But age to age, 'civilized warfare' then to now, we were probably just as brutal..sniping their soldiers, bombing carriage supply routes, etc.

And frankly, if China somehow took over and occupied our country Red Dawn style, how desperate would we become defending our homeland?  Would you die for your country to save your family or neighbors?  hell yes you would, as would I.  If that meant making an example of a captured chinaman enemy..i think you get the point.  If you had access to a chinese mess facility as a laborer or something, and you had the ability to load yourself with a bomb to take them out...would you give it up for the red white and blue?  To the iraqi defenders, that's their 72 virgins and a goat.

Just saw that you're Brittish.  Make changes above as necessary...Union Jack instead of the the red white and blue.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2008-05-06 11:35:47)

2008-05-06 11:41:49
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6647|Escea

IRONCHEF wrote:

Yes, I realize the difference in our guerrilla tactics are different than that of those in the Iraq theater.  But age to age, 'civilized warfare' then to now, we were probably just as brutal..sniping their soldiers, bombing carriage supply routes, etc.

And frankly, if China somehow took over and occupied our country Red Dawn style, how desperate would we become defending our homeland?  Would you die for your country to save your family or neighbors?  hell yes you would, as would I.  If that meant making an example of a captured chinaman enemy..i think you get the point.  If you had access to a chinese mess facility as a laborer or something, and you had the ability to load yourself with a bomb to take them out...would you give it up for the red white and blue?  To the iraqi defenders, that's their 72 virgins and a goat.

Just saw that you're Brittish.  Make changes above as necessary...Union Jack instead of the the red white and blue.
I'd fight yes, but I would not use myself as a suicide attack, for one all I'd be doing is hurting my own side because I would be reducing numbers. I certainly wouldn't try to defend my family or neighbours by blowing myself up needlessly where afterwards I would not be able to defend them. I would do more to help people get to safety before fighting.
2008-05-06 12:01:12
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
You wouldn't be blowing yourself up needlessly.  BUt if you had no guns, no other way to inflict casualties on the invaders, you're starving, no electricity, harrassment at every corner...you could blow yourself up and take some of them out I'm sure.  I'm not saying it's a priority assignment..it'd obviously be a desperate last resort as it is for many Iraqi defenders.  If they killed your family, and you had nothing to lose, BOOM!
2008-05-06 12:18:25
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7005|SE London

IRONCHEF wrote:

Just saw that you're Brittish.  Make changes above as necessary...Union Jack instead of the the red white and blue.
The Union flag is red, white and blue.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-05-06 12:19:52)

2008-05-06 12:21:03
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California

Bertster7 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Just saw that you're Brittish.  Make changes above as necessary...Union Jack instead of the the red white and blue.
The Union flag is red, white and blue.
Really?  I totally didn't know that!  lol

Actually, I was referring to the slogan us Americans like to say when referring to our country or our flag as THe Red White and Blue!  Do you Brits refer to yourselves or your flag as THe REd White and Blue?  I hope not, you have much more proud slogans to call yourselves by.
2008-05-06 12:23:39
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|7005|SE London

IRONCHEF wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Just saw that you're Brittish.  Make changes above as necessary...Union Jack instead of the the red white and blue.
The Union flag is red, white and blue.
Really?  I totally didn't know that!  lol

Actually, I was referring to the slogan us Americans like to say when referring to our country or our flag as THe Red White and Blue!  Do you Brits refer to yourselves or your flag as THe REd White and Blue?  I hope not, you have much more proud slogans to call yourselves by.
It's the original, red, white and blue.

Of course we wouldn't refer to it with such a daft ambiguous turn of phrase.
2008-05-06 12:25:46
IRONCHEF
Member
+385|6915|Northern California
yes, but do your people refer to their country or flag as THe Red WHite and Blue.  And no, the #1 USA had the first RWB flag and don't you forgit it!

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard