Iran is indeed not Iraq - And arrogance has always led to the fall of the greatest empires...

Paragraphs man! Paragraphs! lol

Originally posted by Siroos
Well, who exactly are we talking about here? Iran? Iran has not engaged in any beheadings.

?
Talking in General. You said the US should pay for it's crimes, but you mentioned nothing of the terrorists paying for theirs.

...Iran has not engaged in any beheadings just as the US has not engaged in any invasions of Iran...

Iraq? Those who have engaged in beheadings in Iraq are sunni followers of Saddam Hussein. What they have done cannot be condoned, but on the other hand can invasions be condoned?

Well, we invaded France and Europe during WW2 so.....

And what means of resistance can the defenseless people of such an invaded and occupied country resort to?

We're still in Germany and Japan, yet you don't see Germans or the Japanese blowing up everything because we're there. Why should Iraqis do the same?

Are you so sure that certain American elements within your society would not behead people to resist an invasion of their country?

Every country has it's nuts. Especially in a country this size. The ones doing this in Iraq however aren't resisting an invasion. The invasion was over almost 3 years ago. They are doing this to cause chaos and/or whatever else their selfish reasons are.

Even if the people who are beheaded are innocent? Weren't innocent Muslims killed and/or harassed after 9/11 in the U.S.?

So two wrongs make a right?



The number one reason why the US would attack Iran would be to prevent it from creating or trying to create nuclear weapons btw, not necessarily because they support terrorism.

Originally posted by nathraq
This thread is about if the U.S. will defeat Iran in the unlikely event of an invasion.

The answer is simply, yes.

Iran may have 800,000 troops, but they will be fighting against better equipped, better trained, and highly motivated U.S. soldiers. The Iranians would have the advantage of terrain. If we are talking about storming into Iran, and making it into Tehran, then pulling out again, then the U.S. could do this hands down.

During the Iraq-Iran war, Iranian tanks were used as stationary artillery units, instead of what tanks are designed for: swift forward advancement, clearing the way for infantry troops. I would hope that they have learned their lesson.

U.S. soldiers would be more motivated than their Iranian counter parts? What logic in the world has caused you to believe such a thing? Why would American soldiers be motivated to attack a country which has not committed any act which would justify a U.S. attack against it? Ofcourse Iranian soldiers would have much, much more motivation to fight a country which unprovokedly has attacked their country! There is absolutely no doubt about that. On the contrary, American soldiers will not only lack motivation, but they will be demoralized sooner than you'd know, just like U.S. troops in Iraq are becoming increasingly more demoralized for every day. Although I bet you know nothing about that if you reside in the U.S. since your country's media suffers from major censorship constrains.

Iran's military of 800,000 and 7 million strong Basiij forces should not be taken lightly. Iran manufactures its own high-tech weaponry. Iran has human resources who are extremely technologically savvy contrary to what you have been made to believe through your lying media. Iran manufactures its own tanks, fighter jets, missiles and other weaponry. As a matter of fact Iran has reached near self-sufficient status when it comes to military hardware.

Furhtermore, I doubt that China and Russia will stand idle in face of a U.S./Israel agression against Iran. Both have much at stake in Iran. Russia has numerous experts on the nuclear sites in Iran. Both China and Russia are extremely uneasey about the recent U.S. transgressions in the world and cannot afford to allow the U.S. to attack such an important neighbour and ally like Iran. The real reason China has decided to invest heavily in its military is not at all Taiwan, but rather the U.S. and its imperialist policies and actions. The U.S. is busy in Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of these two countries will stabilize. On the contrary, because of U.S. presence there, both countries will become increasingly unstable. The U.S. will never be able to fight a war on three fronts. Not only because the U.S. military is strained, but because the cost of the wars could very soon lead to a major economic recession which in turn could lead to a collapse of the already very unhealthy U.S. economy. One thing one should not forget is that Iran has long arms of influence in every direction of the region and beyond, and Tehran will make sure to make all use of it. Tehran has the capability to create hell for U.S. interests in many countries near and far.

Originally posted by xmotex
Extremely unlikely, since we don't have the troops available to do the job. I know it's an article of faith among some here that five Delta guys with garrottes could take over the whole country, but the simple truth is, without a draft, the US does not have the forces available to launch an invasion of Iran.

Quantity does not equal quality, hence the use of combat training.

Using precision airstrikes and naval bombardment eliminates the use half of the ground artillery batteries that would be needed. Just like in Viet Nam, for every U.S. soldier killed, there were 5 dead Vietnamese.

Better equipment, higher technology, and superb training, in addition to high morale, win wars. Not the quantity of troops available.

The U.S. would take however long necessary to destroy Iranian air power, and establish air supremacy, this feat would take from 2 weeks to possibly as long as a few months.

After air supremacy were achieved, the U.S. would go about the business of destruction of Iranian infrastructure, which might last another few months, if necessary.

All the while, the U.S. would be in the process of destroying the Iranian military/industrial complex, to include planning and control centers, ammuniton warehousing, manufacturing and production facilities, and military hardware stockpiles.

Concurrent with this approach, the U.S. would be actively engaged in the annhilation of Iranian infantry units.

All this could easily occur, without one pair of U.S. boots placed on Iranian soil.

Not to mention what assistance, should the scenario play out, the U.S. would receive from her gallant allies, a list of which I will not take the time to produce.

You figure it out, dude.

Your post is delusional at best, I suggest psychiatric help a.s.a.p.

All the soldiers in world wont help Iran if its soldiers are trying to fight against JDAM's and Tomahawk Cruise missiles Iran's soldiers and its military capabilities would be destroyed without any U.S. soldiers on the ground, its as simple as than.

Iran is not Iraq because the war would be handled much differently. The defenses and military resources would be bombed so heavily, there'd be nothing left. We'd never even have to have a ground war, just keep bombing them until they're back to the stone age.

Quantity does not equal quality, hence the use of combat training.

No amount of combat training or air superiority will substitute effectively for the number of "boots on the ground" necessary to occupy and hold Iranian territory. And we simply don't have the boots available. Plus, if you think the insurgency in Iraq is fun and exciting, just wait till you see what occupying Iran is going to be like.

Like it or not there are limits to US military power.
We have amazing technology and an extremely competent soldiery, just not enough of them to do this particular job.
We could certainly destroy Iran's major forces from the air, but it's absurd hubris to think we could invade it. As for our allies coming to our rescue, well nation by nation they're pulling out of Iraq now, what makes you think they're going to be eager to go to Iran?

I was referring to 'walking over Iran', not going in and trying to hold territory.

There is no need to invade Iran, the U.S. could invade it but its unlikely. The U.S. would mot likely just attack Iran via Air Strike, to destroy its Nuclear sites/Nuclear Facilities and possibly its missile sties to minimize any retaliatory response. This would not require any troops on the ground.

But If you want to talk about an Invasion the U.S. would invade Iran form the West and East, via Afghanistan and Iraq, I ran cannot fight a two pronged attack/invasion. Plus In Iraq we have a problem because Insurgents are coming in through its borders with Syria and Iran. If we Occupied Iran its borders through Afghanistan and Iraq would be shut down since we basically control both countries. And some of Iran's population is pro American.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by WestPoint23]

And some of Iran's population is pro American.

Those who are probably won't be anymore after we commence "bombing them back to the stone age."

Stop it! You can't use it as an example of our WARFARE strength!

The engagement in IRAQ is NOT, yes I said it, NOT A WAR.

I'll say it nice and slow for you: It is a Take-And-Hold Op. NOT A WAR.

The OVERWHELMING amount of casualties in Iraq is from POST-WAR Engagements.

Yes - Post-War. How long did it take for the U.S. to obliterate the ACTUAL IRAQI MILITARY? About a week.

Now then, with that in mind, if the U.S. wanted to FIGHT A WAR AGAINST IRAN, with the SIMPLE INTENT of DECIMATING the enemy, how long do you think Iran would last?

The U.S. has superior technology and superior training. If we wanted to we could bomb the place to the ground before just waltzing in. Why? Because civilian casualties would not be an issue.

Got it? The reason that Iraq isn't totally safe is because PART OF THE OBJECTIVE IS TO SAVE LIVES.

If we wanted to obliterate Iran, we would. Do not let the Iranian propaganda minister tell you otherwise. I'm sorry, my friend - The U.S. would obliterate Iran if the U.S. simply wanted to do that - obliterate the country - not save civilian lives and civilian buildings.

-wD

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Iran would lose if it was ...even challenged to a game of chess by the U.S.

i beg to differ, Iran has some world class chess players, everyone plays chess it is their national game. The game was invented around there.

Well good it might keep their morale up knowing that they can beat the U.S. at chess

Well you are sorta right. Iran is a different country than Iraq. I think the US will handle Iran VERY differently. The majority of Iranians remember a time when they were allies of the US and remember then fondly. Iran unlike Iraq is more or less republic. I see the US only attacking whole sale as a last resort and the selective clandestine removal of a few extreme Mullahs will give just the nudge needed to move Iran into a position both the US and the average Amir the Iranian (as a posed to Joe American) can live with. Once the hardliners are removed diplomacy can do the rest.

However should that fail and war come it will be Iraq II, a rapid defeat of Iranian conventional forces followed by a protracted guerilla insurgency with horrific casualties to the civil population caused by the insurgents.

Sure, maybe if we allow them to play us at chess we would lose..

Oh man, that would be the day...

I'm pretty sure though that the U.S. won't use her knights, pawns, kings, and queens to defeat Iran - well, at least not use them in an ACTUAL game of chess....



-wD

Good post Siroos!

It’s nice to see you put effort into your post, unlike many of the replies that you’ve been given. I agree with your notion that Iran have a good chance of beating the US when it comes to war. I don’t want to give a definite opinion on who I think would win, because I really don’t know. Any no-one does at all until it actually happens. Either way, there will be HUGE bloodshed on both parts, naturally the Iranians will loose more people than the American’s, but I feel that American public support will waver for the war, when they realise how many troops they have lost, and hopefully the American people will wake up and call for a their sons, daughters, fathers and mothers to be pulled out of the war before they too are killed, war is hell.

I don’t see America being a world player for too much longer though, 20 years, tops. There average American is undereducated, misinformed, suffering for a variety of illnesses (being pumped full of prescription drugs as a result), poor, and eats badly (getting fatter every day). A platoon of obese Americans in live combat, hah! I dread to think what the American children of today will be like when their ready to sign on and be all they can be. You can’t possibly run a country for too long with a population where your average citizen is all of the above. America is also a very materialistic society; many Americans have little-no faith, which in a war situation is a bad thing if you ask me. They go about their days working their jobs to get their next pay check, which doesn’t even get them any luxuries these days. I feel sorry for you.

When the Iran-America conflict does take place, I don’t see much international support for it. The only countries that may support the attack are UK and Australia. Being British myself, I can tell you that our country would NOT support this invasion, the only reason we went to war with Iraq is because Tony Blair is Bush’s little finger puppet. The Labour party has done many good things for our country, but it would be a hell of a lot better off with Gordon Brown at the horns. When the conflict happens, I am wishing that the international community sanctions America, a taste of their own medicine would have a good thing if you ask me.

Now onto a few other matters:

Originally posted by Yorga
Sorry for being so childess but you see I didn't read past the word arrogant in his title. The fact that ATS will allow crap like this to be posted just amazes me. The fact that people read this crap is even more amazing.
If that makes me childess then thank you, I will wear my new title with honor.

The fact that ATS allows people to post crap like that amazes me even more!

Originally posted by Yorga
Yep, got me there ole buddy. I voted for BUSH not once but twice and I would vote for him a third time if he could run. But since I live in a free society then sadly I must say that we will be forced to elected another
zionist/evangelic alliance criminal.

You think you live in a free society? Maaannnnnnnn, you have a lot to learn. I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee (Don’t drink it though, its bad for you!). America is far from free, you just haven’t realised it yet. Your elections are rigged, your country is run by corporations and your brainwashed every day. Do some research my friend, then come back and say again that you live in a free country, I dare you.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Iran would lose if it was attacked/invaded or even challenged to a game of chess by the U.S.

Our Navy is superior to theirs, our Air Force is superior to theirs, our Army is superior to theirs, did I miss anything? Oh yeah... our soldiers are better trained and equipped then theirs, and I'm proud to say they are happy gunho Americans, so unless you want to meet your Allah don't get n their way. And the U.S. wouldn't even have to do that much in a war with Iran, the terrorists in Iran would be overthrown by their own people, because most of them are pro American.

You sound like a Nazi in World War 2 being spoon fed Hitler’s Crap. ‘Germany will not loose, we have the greatest army etc’. The German people were convinced, in fact there was no way, in their eyes, they could loose the war. What happened? Well unless your really THAT badly educated, let me enlighten you. They lost. Don’t give me any crap of ‘the American’s won WW2’, that’s besides the point. Germany had a very good arms, air force and navy, but they still lost!

Unfortunately I know what’s going to happen in the future, call me a psychic if you want. The American empire (call it what you like) will fall, but the f**kers are going to take as many people as they can with them. Sorry to spoil your ‘field trip’ my yank friends!

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Paragraphs man! Paragraphs! lol

Originally posted by Siroos
Well, who exactly are we talking about here? Iran? Iran has not engaged in any beheadings.

?

Talking in General. You said the US should pay for it's crimes, but you mentioned nothing of the terrorists paying for theirs.

I said that I believe in Karma, and that what goes around comes around - I didn't say that Karma only works for Americans.... However, I reject this naive notion that this is about the "good" "democracy" delivering Americans vs the evil, barabarian Muslim savages such as the American media wants you to believe. No, this is about the U.S. on a crusade to:

1) Eliminate the obstacles to its quest for world dominance - This includes subduing, passifying or destroying emerging economical and industrial powers such as China and Iran and to make sure that such nations will not ever become a competitive threat to the U.S.

2) Gain control over the vastest energy sources in the world so that it can assure certain elements in U.S. can satisfy its immense greedy appetite for more wealth.

3) Create huge markets for itself by first bombarding and destroying the infrastructures of the countries attacked, then forcing them to sign lucrative (for the U.S.) contracts for building up that which they destroyed.

4) Creating puppet regimes in the invaded countries which will provide the U.S. the ability and opportunities to culturally Americanize the populations and thus create huge shopping malls out of their countries where U.S. firms can sell everything and anything between nike sneakers to God knows what.

5) Send armies of evangelic missionaries whose aim will be to spread misinformation about Islam (As they are currently very busy doing on the internet and in Satellite TV programs) and to convert Muslims to their Christian fundamentalist beliefs. This way they hope to get rid of the most powerful challenge to American hegemony in the Islamic world.

...Iran has not engaged in any beheadings just as the US has not engaged in any invasions of Iran...

? I don't follow your reasoning here.... The U.S. and Israel has threatened to attack Iran..... Iran has not beheaded or threatened to behead anyone....

Iraq? Those who have engaged in beheadings in Iraq are sunni followers of Saddam Hussein. What they have done cannot be condoned, but on the other hand can invasions be condoned?

Well, we invaded France and Europe during WW2 so.....

Yes, you got involved in the WW2 because you had to for your own best. Had you not headed for Europe, then the Germans, Italians and Japanese would have targeted you next. It was for your own best. But the U.S. has bombarded at least 24 other countries after 1945 - 24 other countries!! Who is the agressor here? You can't go on bombing country after country because you do not agree with the kind of political system they have. Plenty of countries around the world do not agree with your political system, but does that give them the right to bomb you? Plenty of countries around the world opposed your apartheid system of segregation but that should not be a good reason enough to launch a military attack on another country.

Americans keep asking why people around the world hates the U.S. , well I have news for them - People do not generally like to be bombarded! Or bullied! or invaded! or to have the CIA decide who should and shouldn't rule their respective countries!

And what means of resistance can the defenseless people of such an invaded and occupied country resort to?

We're still in Germany and Japan, yet you don't see Germans or the Japanese blowing up everything because we're there. Why should Iraqis do the same?

Oh come on! I don't think that most Germans or japanese regard American troops there as invadors or occupiers. You just have military bases there. And while most Germans and Japanese probably are not at all happy about your presence there, they do not regard it as an occupation. It's quite different in Iraq. You are an occupying force who invaded their country unlawfully, killed more than 120,000 innocent civilian Iraqis in the process, and caused their museums to be looted within 1/2 hour while just standing and just witnessing thousands of years of heritage disappearing. The second world war was started by the Germans. The Germans and Japanese were the agressors back then and they had to take the consequences of it. Iraq never agressed against the U.S. and neither has Iran. It's quite a different situation.

Are you so sure that certain American elements within your society would not behead people to resist an invasion of their country?

Every country has it's nuts. Especially in a country this size. The ones doing this in Iraq however aren't resisting an invasion. The invasion was over almost 3 years ago. They are doing this to cause chaos and/or whatever else their selfish reasons are.

How do you get that the invasion was over 3 years ago? Iraq was invaded only 2 years ago. And to this day there are still American and British troops in Iraq - so it's still occupied. Certainly the insurgents who are not at all friendly towards the U.S. view the presence of American troops who invaded Iraq and killed more than 100,000 Iraqis as occupiers. Remember that they are not exposed to the lying propaganda TV which you see in the U.S. - They see the realities of the crimes of the U.S. in real time. Selfish reasons? What could be more selfish than to attack other countries, killing their people devastating their lands, and all for the sake of power and money? That's the mother of all selfishness!

Even if the people who are beheaded are innocent? Weren't innocent Muslims killed and/or harassed after 9/11 in the U.S.?

So two wrongs make a right? The number one reason why the US would attack Iran would be to prevent it from creating or trying to create nuclear weapons btw, not necessarily because they support terrorism.

That's none of the business of the U.S.! God did not appoint the U.S. to be the police of the world. The U.S. has violated the international protocol on nuclear containment. According to this protocol countries such as the U.S. must work towards dismantling their own nuclear weapons, but not only does the U.S. who is a signatory of the protocol refuse to dismantle its nuclear arsenal, but it also is in the process of developing and expanding it. There is no evidence on the other hand that Iran has violated any international protocols. Iran has according to this very same protocol which it also is a signatory of, every right to pursue nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, which it claims it does.

The U.S. has not only violated the international protocol for nuclear conainment, but it has also set a very bad example by several times vetoing the UN's insistence to investigate suspiciuous nuclear sites in Israel and it has also refused the U.N. any such investigations of nuclear developments in the U.S. So it's clear that the U.S. is the one who has violated international agreements here. It's absolutely absurd that some countries seem to believe that they reserve the right to have weapons that are capable of massive mass destruction while other countries should not have the same right! If the U.S. can have nuclear weapons, and if the U.S. can break international agreements, then Iran and other countries should also have the right to do the same! Long live a nuclear capable Iran!

Originally posted by Ishes
Good post Siroos!


I don’t see America being a world player for too much longer though, 20 years, tops. There average American is undereducated, misinformed, suffering for a variety of illnesses (being pumped full of prescription drugs as a result), poor, and eats badly (getting fatter every day). A platoon of obese Americans in live combat, hah! I dread to think what the American children of today will be like when their ready to sign on and be all they can be. You can’t possibly run a country for too long with a population where your average citizen is all of the above. America is also a very materialistic society; many Americans have little-no faith, which in a war situation is a bad thing if you ask me. They go about their days working their jobs to get their next pay check, which doesn’t even get them any luxuries these days. I feel sorry for you.

Typical stereotype, until the stuff hits the fan. How many overweight soldiers do you see pushing the frontline?

You sound like a Nazi in World War 2 being spoon fed Hitler’s Crap. ‘Germany will not loose, we have the greatest army etc’. The German people were convinced, in fact there was no way, in their eyes, they could loose the war. What happened? Well unless your really THAT badly educated, let me enlighten you. They lost. Don’t give me any crap of ‘the American’s won WW2’, that’s besides the point. Germany had a very good arms, air force and navy, but they still lost!

America was key in the defeat of Germany, so it is not 'beside the point'. Germany did have the best equipped, most disciplined army of that time. Remember Dunkirk?

Originally posted by WestPoint23
There is no need to invade Iran, the U.S. could invade it but its unlikely. The U.S. would mot likely just attack Iran via Air Strike, to destroy its Nuclear sites/Nuclear Facilities and possibly its missile sties to minimize any retaliatory response. This would not require any troops on the ground.

But If you want to talk about an Invasion the U.S. would invade Iran form the West and East, via Afghanistan and Iraq, I ran cannot fight a two pronged attack/invasion. Plus In Iraq we have a problem because Insurgents are coming in through its borders with Syria and Iran. If we Occupied Iran its borders through Afghanistan and Iraq would be shut down since we basically control both countries. And some of Iran's population is pro American.

[edit on 24-3-2005 by WestPoint23]

WOW! You guys really believe the U.S. is invincible..... You better prepare yourself for some dissapointment! With Georgie the coc aine sniffing evangelist clown in the White House that dissapointment will come sooner than you could ever imagine. The U.S. is a paper tiger, that's why it never attacks anything else than small and weak countries. Your weaponry seems more high-tech than it really is, and your soldiers more efficeint and with a high morale than they really are because of the fact that they have only been tested in wars and attacks against small and weak countries. The moment you attack a country like Iran you will see what I mean!

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Iran is not Iraq because the war would be handled much differently. The defenses and military resources would be bombed so heavily, there'd be nothing left. We'd never even have to have a ground war, just keep bombing them until they're back to the stone age.

Oh, here we go with the good old American stone age crap. Your mentality belongs to the stone age dude! What gives you the right to think that you can bomb the world back to the stone age? You're no better than Hitler with that kind of mentality. I bet he's also your hero. You bet Iran is not Iraq. No 200 year old junk food eating obese nation will be able to eradicate an 8000 year old sophisticated civilization which has resisted countless of invadors and agressors, no matter how arrogant and ignorant they are, and no matter how evil and selfish they are, and no matter how disillusioned they are about their military "might". Iran will kick the ...... of anyone who even dares touch one inch of its territory. The world must unite against American fascism and imperialism!