Iran threatens Gulf blitz if US hits nuclear plants

Originally posted by bodrul
dont see why people here deem it inexpetible for countries to defend them selves from attack from enemey forces.

like its only expectible if you are one country to defend your self but must expect and allow attacks if your another taking it without saying anything.

Because the certain countries like to fight 3rd world power's who don't fight back....

God forbid they should encounter a foe who dares to shoot down their planes. That's outrageous! There should be a law against defending your country from bombardment....

Honestly.....

Originally posted by bodrul
hopefully Iran will use all the weapons it has to cause as much casulties to anyone that attacks it, and not go down like its arab neigbours

As sickening as that sounds and as much as I do not want the poor saps on the front line to come to any harm, it may actually make certain countries realise that they can't solve all the worlds problems by bombing them and maybe, just maybe, it might tone down certain countries incessant Patriotic drivel and arrogance.

Heck, no one even asked certain countries to solve the "problem" in the first place....

Originally posted by stumason

Because the certain countries like to fight 3rd world power's who don't fight back....

God forbid they should encounter a foe who dares to shoot down their planes. That's outrageous! There should be a law against defending your country from bombardment....

Honestly.....

You mean third world nations packing a punch? Those 3rd world nations may be poor in terms of economy, but in military they have the firepower to invade other nations, like for example Iraq invading Kuwait, or North Vietnam invading South Vietnam, or North Korea invading South Korea. Those 3rd world nations were equipped with a large military force to give many nations a pause to intervene.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by deltaboy]

Gulf war 2
Iraq was no threat its military was in shambles
its air force that rubbish they buried their planes
their tanks old russian rusted out metal coffins

and as you said even a 3rd world country can have a formidible force
and even a country less deveoploved then Iraq could have wiped the floor with them (apart from ocupation of course)

Iraq was no threat and their was no reason to attack them

Yes, yes... indeedy.... hmmm....

Iraq had no capacity to invade anyone. 1991 and the subsequent sanctions knocked the wind out their sails for life. They had a hard enough time suppressing internal dissent....

Vietnam, well, the South who you supported was almost as brutal as the North you fought. The tactics employed by both sides were shocking and in the end, after nearly 20 years and countless lives, you lost.

And this was against a primarily infantry/geurilla force. Not much of a "punch" there....

North Korea... In the 50's all they had was human waves. Up until China intervened with their upgraded Human Wave 2.0, you/we were kicking arse. Now, they might be able to barrage Seoul back to the stone age inside of 15 minutes, but they lack zero capacity to punch through the DMZ. Almost all of their forces are geared towards fighting a defensive war in the Mountainous north. They have adapted all their armour, mech and artillery forces for this very role.

Anyhoo, don't want to get into a discussion about past military "adventures", just illustrating a point that the much vaunted "Western Powers" are always up for a war when faced with Natives armed with sharpened mangoes, but cry foul when those fruit-wielding enemies suddenly have the capacity to fight back.

All I am saying is, and this is to the War Hawks of this forum and anywhere else, is that if you want War with Iran, stop bitching when they say they will strike back. YOU would do the exact same in that position.

YOU want the war, so deal with it.

This is what happens in War. Otherwise it's just a training exercise with live weaponry over foreign soil. Or is that what you like, killing people when they don't fight back?

[edit on 13/6/07 by stumason]

Originally posted by stumason

Iraq had no capacity to invade anyone. 1991 and the subsequent sanctions knocked the wind out their sails for life. They had a hard enough time suppressing internal dissent....

Yeah they have nothing left because of what we did back in 1991. It was called a war.

Vietnam, well, the South who you supported was almost as brutal as the North you fought. The tactics employed by both sides were shocking and in the end, after nearly 20 years and countless lives, you lost.

And this was against a primarily infantry/geurilla force. Not much of a "punch" there....

It was both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Ever heard of the North Vietnamese Army? It wasn't just against the Vietcong. In fact North Vietnam failed to succeed taking over South Vietnam until the U.S. forces left. North Vietnam had a lot of "punch." Trust me I know.

North Korea... In the 50's all they had was human waves. Up until China intervened with their upgraded Human Wave 2.0, you/we were kicking arse. Now, they might be able to barrage Seoul back to the stone age inside of 15 minutes, but they lack zero capacity to punch through the DMZ. Almost all of their forces are geared towards fighting a defensive war in the Mountainous north. They have adapted all their armour, mech and artillery forces for this very role.

Yet again we seem or you seem to be underestimating North Korea's military, just as we seem to be underestimating terrorists' capacity to inflict heavy damage or casualties. A million man army of a 3rd world nation compare to our twenty something thousand troops. Not exactly the kind of numbers I am not very comfortable with in terms of manpower.

Anyhoo, don't want to get into a discussion about past military "adventures", just illustrating a point that the much vaunted "Western Powers" are always up for a war when faced with Natives armed with sharpened mangoes, but cry foul when those fruit-wielding enemies suddenly have the capacity to fight back.

Whos complaining about so called natives armed with weapons? And you are complaining about western nations invading supposedly unarmed 3rd world nations?

All I am saying is, and this is to the War Hawks of this forum and anywhere else, is that if you want War with Iran, stop bitching when they say they will strike back. YOU would do the exact same in that position.

YOU want the war, so deal with it.

This is what happens in War. Otherwise it's just a training exercise with live weaponry over foreign soil. Or is that what you like, killing people when they don't fight back?

I ain't bitching anything, you talk about poor 3rd world nations in comparison to superpower, when you do some research, their military is far ahead then what you expected. And what is this about training exercise with live weaponry over foreign soil? You think we do this just to test new weapons in your view? We kill people that kills us like in any war. But then I can easily point out insurgents in Iraq that kills innocent civilians that are unarmed in comparison to soldiers that don't go around acting like death squads. Who is killing people when they don't fight back eh?

Ok, Deltaboy, if you insist I shall play along, but your missing the point and escalating a very minor point I was trying to raise, namely that why is it ok for US to threaten them, but all of a sudden it's a crime against all things decent when they turn around and do the same against us?

Originally posted by deltaboy
Yeah they have nothing left because of what we did back in 1991. It was called a war.

They were hardly the fearsome fighting force in 1991 either. How long was the ground war? 73 hours or something? I've stayed awake longer.... Granted, it was after several weeks of aerial bombardment, but that kind of proves they were a joke. They had almost zero effective AA cover, except against the low flying Tornado's which were brought down by AAA rather than a SAM.

Originally posted by deltaboy
It was both conventional and guerrilla warfare. Ever heard of the North Vietnamese Army? It wasn't just against the Vietcong. In fact North Vietnam failed to succeed taking over South Vietnam until the U.S. forces left. North Vietnam had a lot of "punch." Trust me I know.

Ok, fair enough. I have read extensively on the Vietnam War and granted, it wasn't entirely a guerrilla war. I'll give you that one. Still, after almost 20 years, you did lose against a technically inferior force.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Yet again we seem or you seem to be underestimating North Korea's military, just as we seem to be underestimating terrorists' capacity to inflict heavy damage or casualties. A million man army of a 3rd world nation compare to our twenty something thousand troops. Not exactly the kind of numbers I am not very comfortable with in terms of manpower.

In previous post's about North Korea I have agreed with that assessment, on the proviso it was US invading THEM.

But your point was they have a capacity to invade SK. I do not believe they do. Once out of the safety of their fortifications in the North, their armour and mech forces will be subject to a sustained aerial campaign which would make the Road to Basra look like a car accident.. Whilst on the ground their numerical superiority would overwhelm even the best army, once you factor in the Air power of the US and SK, it would get very messy for them.

Originally posted by deltaboy
Whos complaining about so called natives armed with weapons? And you are complaining about western nations invading supposedly unarmed 3rd world nations?

Several posters in this thread have voiced opinions that very clearly seem to advocate an unprovoked attack on Iran, but in the same breath denounce Iranian claims they will strike back. Didn't say YOU did personally.

Neither was I complaining. The fruit comment was from Blackadder Goes Forth. Good show, highly recommend it! It was a tongue in cheek remark made about British colonial exploits against "fearsome" natives armed with sharpened mangoes.

Sorry, i should have known you probably have not seen the show.

All I was doing was trying to inject some balance. You cannot advocate war against a much weaker nation and then bitch when that nation comes out and publicly states they will strike back. You can't have it both ways, ie; be belligerent in your foreign policy, but act all surprised and innocent when the people your rattling sabers at turn round and rattle theirs back.

The West have done similar things in the past, but seem to get away with it on here because it's "our side". I'm sure the Iranians are having the exact same discussion now, but reversed roles.

Not being able to see this from both sides of the argument is probably what has caused all the grief. I try to see everyone's point of view myself, not necessarily agree with it, but acknowledging it none the less.

Originally posted by deltaboy
I ain't bitching anything, you talk about poor 3rd world nations in comparison to superpower, when you do some research, their military is far ahead then what you expected.

Deltaboy, firstly it was a "royal you", not "you" specifically.

Also, I'm sure you have seen my comments about Iran and NK around here and on the above point I totally agree with you.

Paperplane's famous google analysis of Iranian forces spring to mind. I am personally convinced that they have much better AA cover than we (the public that is) and their anti-ship systems will pose a serious threat.

Some here advocate that we would "win" inside of 45 minutes against Iran with nothing more than scratched paintwork on an F-15. This I do not believe, but rather, we would "win" but with a bloody nose and maybe a broken wrist....

Originally posted by deltaboy
And what is this about training exercise with live weaponry over foreign soil? You think we do this just to test new weapons in your view?

No. You missed the point. Sarcasm is hard to convey via text, so I apolgise for attempting it. I know you Americans are not so good with sarcasm at the best of times

Originally posted by deltaboy
We kill people that kills us like in any war. But then I can easily point out insurgents in Iraq that kills innocent civilians that are unarmed in comparison to soldiers that don't go around acting like death squads. Who is killing people when they don't fight back eh?

Totally agree. I'm not some "Muslim apologist" as some may try to paint me as, but rather I'm not a Westerner who blindly believes everything we are told or dreams at night about getting "close" to Dick Cheney ....

Like I said, I examine both sides of the fence before forming an opinion.. Something that some people here seem utterly incapable of doing.

Originally posted by sy.gunson
You might get hysterical rushes of blood to the head, but not me.

Laughing in hysteria from your drivel perhaps

Ignoranceisntbliss you are a little trickster scurrying around trying to start bushfires like a childish vandal to divert the argument from it's OP.

When all else fails ad hominem. The OP is Iran warning what they'll do if attacked / provoked. People said: 'ya bomb em, lets send the troops to war, lets go to WW3 (as long as I dont get drafted)'. Now the issue is aout who is the provateur and is Iran justified in their words. What discussion are you in...

So if India and Pakistan are not at each other's throats and haven't been for some years now then why raise it as a point.

The point is oiless Palistan is a radical Islamic state, and developed nuclear weapons in violation of non-proliferation treaties. We have no problem with that. Oilrich Iran? NO WAY! Israel? Sure go for it, treaties don't matter.

It's all about hypocrisy, double standards and imperial domination of resource rich nations / regions.

This is your typical BS. When you can't argue the point change it to another point on a different topic.

You're the one who keeps bringing it back up. I've expanded my arguments greatly, so what do you do...

You challenged me to prove that Iran had been offered reactors which did not require highly enriched uranium. I gave you the answer.

...bring up the very first thing we got into. As long as you answered that, everything else I could say is trumped.

You had no knowledge of it prior to my telling you and as soon as I told you you dismissed it as propaganda. That is serious psychosis.

I dimissed the significance of modern moves of defiance because of the nature of US dominating them and their region for basically the entire life of every living Iranian today. That Hostage Crisis you cited... the Revolution that it was a part of is like their "4th of July". To ignore that and just cite them as some sort of insane terrorists is psychopathy.

Originally you argued that Iran did not want uranium enrichment for nuclear power. Then after blowing all sorts of off topic smokescreens about US Imperialism you swiftly changed stance from denying that Iran wanted nuclear weapons to trying to justify why they should have them.

Go read my original arguments, and good luck pulling the imaginary quotes that you're referring to.

You had no grasp of the facts when you waded into this debate. You made all sorts of wild BS claims which crumbled as soon as you challenged me to provide proof.

Um, I talked about provacations, and who's justified in defending themselves. Finally I asked you for the link to the one little issue. What claims are you talking about? What have you debuked here? I hope it isn't the list I'm currently responding to in this very post.

I've provided you with some daunting facts during all of this, and asked you several key questions. It's fun watching you do backflips thru hoops trying to avoid those questions.
First up: what would you do / say or expect your leaders to do /say if you were in the Iranians shoes? Psychopaths and sociopaths are the ones unable to put themselves into others shoes to reach an understanding. Answer the question or you'll prove that you fall somewhere in between psychopath/sociopath.


Keep resorting to ad hominem attacks and deflecting the bigger picture and it will remain obvious who's insane here.

Great questions raised IgnoranceIsntBlisss. Some people might actually start to "think" after your post(s).