Fortress Iran is Virtually Impregnable to a Successful Invasion

Double Post

[edit on 29/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

reply to post by dooper

Opps! Think we got a Muslim. And one that speaks some English, but doesn't read it very well.

What little credibility you had you just lost I'm afraid.

So because someone dares to attack your ignorant, retrograde, xenophobic views they must be a Muslim?

The same way if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck right? Not a goose or a coot....

Sheesh, what a lose case. Look at Attari's avatar smart one, what's it say next to location? He ain't Muslim.

Where do you nutjobs crawl out from?
Next time stay there...

[edit on 29/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Mop, it must be most upsetting for you when people agree with me. And yet again all the name calling and insults will get you nowhere, you see my brain is switched on and I cannot comment on the state of yours. From your own words you are nothing better than a Nazi who would kill his own for personal gratifcation.

You must expend alot of energy with all that hate you have in you for your fellow man. And if there any traitors here on this board it is people such as you because you are a traitor to your own people and if you want to dellude yourself about what you can do to Iran then fine. When you get your asses wupped I wonder what you will say then and who will you blame.

There are millions of your fellow country men stating the same thing I suppose in your book they are all traitors as well are they. To me they are the real patriots who want there country back and are not some inward looking war mongering person who thinks being great is to kill as many people as you can. I rather think you are very young or very old either way you have alot to learn or have learnt nothing about the World, its people, history or anything else.

But if you try hard you might just make the leap from a knuckle dragging neaderthal to a modern intelligent human, best of luck to you, if you need any assistance I will be more than happy to help educate you.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


I don't think a recruiter will do me much good. I've already met my enemies in combat, face to face. And they ain't here. I am. Want to guess how that happened?? Ever had a fanatical enemy jump you, and after a few busy moments, then heard his last gurgles, see the sparkle leave his eyes as he exhaled his last breath, while still quivering in the end of your blade, face to face? My graveyards are on record. How about yours?

Ever been the keynote speaker at Special Operations functions? Ever wonder how you get invited to speak to these men among men to start with? From your arrogant tone, I would say you've never been involved in war in any manner. And volunteering to give enema's to wounded soldiers too injured to move doesn't count.

Your grasp of history is exceeded only by your ability to read English, and then mistakenly jump to an erroneous point. The Romans and the Persians?

My apologies. That's right, you won't get into the other parts of history until the fifth grade. Try to turn back a few centuries, and again - if you really had nearly as much desire to learn as you do to run your mouth - you'd go back to somewhere around page 4 or 5 of this post.

The actual origin of the holy wars in the context I was writing about was when the Arab cavalry burst forth out of Arabia and gave all the little villages a choice: convert or die. Of course it raged on and on starting in AD632 and stopping in 782. This was the first holy war, the forcible spread of Islam. There were some Crusades much later that were initiated by corrupt papal devils, and I guess that's what you had in mind. If you ever get another thought - you may want to just hold it.

I met your kind of arrogant foolishness in the Universities, and the capacity for intelligence, combined with a black hole of wisdom astounded me. Practicalities and realities never enter the equation. Experience, credibility, and track record mean nothing. But I do note that all through history, the intelligentsia, even the pseudo-intelligentsia, in a state of anarchy or survival, stripped of their artificial barriers and institutions, drop faster than bird # in a downdraft.

War. It does have its benefits. It's cleansing. But due to your inability to intuit exactly what I mean since you have no real first-hand experience, will think that I'm speaking of something unholy. That I don't care about people and suffering. And that's why you are wrong and still you.

You make a man weary.

reply to post by dooper

I don't think a recruiter will do me much good. I've already met my enemies in combat, face to face. And they ain't here. I am. Want to guess how that happened?? Ever had a fanatical enemy jump you, and after a few busy moments, then heard his last gurgles, see the sparkle leave his eyes as he exhaled his last breath, while still quivering in the end of your blade,

I don't think the recruiter would help either.

I'm thinking more of a specialised psychologist who's area of expertise is schizophrenic, xenophobic maniacs.

Better yet save yourself the $120 an hour, cut out the middle man and check into a Mental asylum.

You can scream: "The Muslims are out to get me!" all day long to your hearts content.

Ever been the keynote speaker at Special Operations functions? Ever wonder how you get invited to speak to these men among men to start with?

Pleeeaaase huh?

There's at least 10 crackpots like you on these forums everyday...

"I worked at Area 51 and saw Aliens, I'm hear to share my story"

"My dad works for the CIA, here's what he told me..."

"I used to have a Top Secret security clearance..."

I've heard it all before, just don't embarrass yourself further okay.

The actual origin of the holy wars in the context I was writing about was when the Arab cavalry burst forth out of Arabia and gave all the little villages a choice: convert or die.

Right and the Jews and Christians never took a penny off the sidewalk.

The Conquest of Canaan, War with the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc...

I guess that's all irrelevant?

Your incredibly deluded, your ignorance is surpassed only by your ability to correlate things that have no relevance or connection to each other whatsoever.

War. It does have its benefits. It's cleansing. But due to your inability to intuit exactly what I mean since you have no real first-hand experience,

Oops, I forgot I'm speaking to retired, CIA Case Officer and Special Forces Sergeant "Dooper" here...

With all do respect sir, I think your "tour of duty" has outlasted it's usefulness.

Now, shut off FOX news, put down the computer games and get some rest.

You make a man weary.

You make Bush look sane.

[edit on 29/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

See? There it is. Because I did my duty as a soldier, I am what? Crazy? I was attacked at night, while in a dead sleep, with a knife, grabbed my knife in my boot, and defended myself, and I should somehow feel ashamed? And all this time, under the circumstances, I thought I did pretty good! Crazy? Not by a damned sight. And certainly not shamed by the likes of you. You pansy.

I never claimed any special CIA crap, or anything else. I can tell you frequently get a good rooting, with the simple ease you pull things out of your ass.

What is this FOX news crap? What does FOX news have to do with your ability to read, and your apparent research material limited to fifth-grade texts? Hey, don't feel bad. You just aren't as smart as you think you are, and I'm sure we could put our IQ's up against each other and you'd be embarrassed once again. But, you sir, are a waste of my time. And good air.

maybe iran has geographic advantages- but those mountains that iran claims is protecting them from a full scale invasion will be nothing but ash when a nuke is dropped on the country and everything is destroyed or a full scale missile attack is initiated- America's troops are all in Iraq and Afghanistan (Most right now), they wouldn't send in ground troops, they'd send in the air force...It makes no difference- Iran still stands no chance

but luckily- things are cooling down and it seems as if there will be no Iran war like everyone anticipated.

You are correct that the mountains of Iran in the event of war will mean little. Mountains, Oceans, Deserts, and Rivers can be overcome. The problem we've had with the insurgency in Iraq is the foolish rules of engagement.

The day the gloves come off will be an entirely different action. You begin to enter a city and you get fired upon, you level it and move on to the next one. After a few of these levelings, you notice that you don't receive anymore fire.

If you have enemies in these towns, they don't let you know it. It's a simple cost/benefit application.

We in the United States haven't won a single war since the creation of the Joint Chiefs which were formed in I believe, 1947. Our generals are politicians, not warriors. They don't know the basics of warfare, and how to win smart. And its been our soldiers who have had to overcome absolutely foolish approaches and tactical nightmares.

One of the most blistering, informing, and easily understood books ever written on warfare is the Edicts of Ares (Thirteen Absolute Rules of Warfare) written by Michael Riggs. I think you can order it online. Once you read that, then the past 4,500 years, and especially the past forty years really come together. To follow these thirteen rules of warfare, not a single battle, campaign, or war has been lost. Hannibal, Napolean, and Lee lost the moment they abandoned those thirteen rules they previously followed. So, according to the author, even the greatest general will lose when he abandons these rules.

The cover is rather neat too. Look it up.

And I want to apologize for some of the phraseology previously. I prefer not to offend folks and love a hearty discussion. Arbitrary dismissal, misunderstandings, misapplications, and mean-spirited attacks that are directed all the time by some folks - well, it is uncalled for. And as I discovered years ago, whatever is thrown my way, I can throw it right back.

Again, sorry.

reply to post by dooper

The day the gloves come off will be an entirely different action. You begin to enter a city and you get fired upon, you level it and move on to the next one

then the world will fight you - when it sees the systematic extermination of everyone that stands in the way - thats`ll be 1 trillion against the USA.

what you advocate are crimes against humanity - and oh look , fullajah 2004 , the USA is following your example , and everyday more US personal are dieing as a result of teh continued guerilla warfare

crawl back into the hole you came from and please expire. your filthy kind are not wanted on this or anyonre else planet.

[edit on 30/7/08 by Harlequin]

I should have been more specific, and that was my fault. I actually didn't mean to level the entire city, but that when approaching, or patrolling a city and you are fired upon, you back off and very quickly level that one square kilometer. Not just flattened, but undone in such a manner that no structural element or edifice can be identified.

After a few square kilometers become part of the world weather system, you'll be amazed at how quickly word gets around. Civilians know when strangers and insurgents are in their neighborhood. In a manner, either intentionally or unintentionally, they enable these attacks. You start taking out entire grids, and after a while they absolutely will not allow these clowns to continue to initiate these attacks from their neighborhoods, knowing what will happen. No one can fear two sides equally, and I know which side I want them to fear most. In such a manner, these insurgents will become very unpopular.

We've seen a similar transition in Iraq. Too many deaths caused by these clowns over the past years, and now many civilians and village leaders are cooperating to kick them out, as too many civilians over the past years have been killed as a direct result of these insurgents actions.

The grid vaporization approach is just an accelerated approach to convincing civilians of the preference that these attacks don't occur in their neighborhoods, villiages and cities, and with either approach, you eventually end up at the same place. But you save lives on both sides when you take the quicker, more ruthless approach up front.

Take the Second World War. Had Europe stood up to Hitler early, there may have been a half-million deaths. But by stringing out the struggle, fifty-two million people died, most of them civilians. Is five-hundred thousand deaths good? Of course not! But which is preferable? Five-hundred thousand deaths today, or fifty-two million spread over five years??

One may say that this would cause many civilian deaths unnecessarily. I have some bad news. Civilian deaths are the cost of doing business. War business. Unintentional deaths in war are a part of war. Some would go so far as to call civilians enemy enablers. I guarantee you that at some point in the past, when both sides were limited to throwing rocks, one person got unintentionally beaned in the back of his head by a "friend" who lost control of his pitch.

When someone speaks of attacking, even nuking selected targets of the Islamic government of Iran who is openly seeking nuclear material, you have to ask the question. Hit hard up front with less total deaths, or later with multiples more deaths. We can go higher, faster, deeper, longer, but we can never go back. And by September of 1945, you can believe that the entire world wished for a single do-over?

That's what I don't understand about some folks. Their ignorance and lack of really thinking something through. This very logic has resulted in tens of millions of unnecessary deaths, and yet they suppose even in their own minds that they are somehow more moral or their rationale is more humane? Good for you. Your logic will eventually result in millions of unnecessary deaths. That's what I call humane. My God.

Your reply then got personal, and I assume for my mistake in differentiating between one-kilometer grids and cities. I'll take that. My mistake.

reply to post by SystemiK


PLAIN FACTS ABOUT IRAN’S MILITARY

The intensifying saber rattling and war of words between the US and Israel, on one hand, and Iran have generated a great deal of hysteria, war fever and confusion.

Senior Israeli cabinet members have threatened nuclear war against Iran. The western media has given the erroneous impression that Iran is poised to wipe Israel off the map. Some understanding of the military issues involved is badly needed.

First, missiles. Iran announced its Shahab-III missile is ready to retaliate against any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities. This missile is not long-ranged, as media wrongly claims, but a medium-ranged. Iran says it can deliver a two ton warhead over 2,000 km. But Israeli and US sources say Shahab’s maximum range is around 1,200 km, which puts much of Israel out of its range.

This obsolescent missile is highly inaccurate, particularly at maximum range. It is liquid fueled, meaning it is very vulnerable to air and missile strikes while being prepared to fire. Israel has developed tactics using aircraft, missiles and drones to attack enemy missiles in pre-launch phase. Iran has an estimated 24 Shabab-III’s.

The other missiles Iran fired this week were short ranged models of no strategic value. Tehran was even caught doctoring the pictures it issued of the multiple missile launch to cover up the failure of one of the missiles to fly. This embarrassment reinforced the view that Tehran is trying to hide its military weakness behind a lot of chest-pounding and missile theatrics.

Israel, by contrast, has around 50 Jericho-II nuclear-armed missiles with a range from 900-2,700 miles, putting every Mideast capital and parts of Russia, Pakistan, and Europe within range. Each Jericho-II carries a warhead that can destroy a major city.

Medium-ranged missiles are almost useless without nuclear warheads. Iran has no nuclear weapons, and even if it did manage to develop them, it would be many years before a compact warhead could be developed that could be carried atop a missiles and withstand heavy G-forces. Until Iran has nuclear warheads, Iran’s Shabab’s will be more for show than military utility.

*Other systems - Israel has an indestructible nuclear triad. In addition to the Jerichos, which are housed in caves and mobile, Israel has one of the world’s top air forces with long-ranged US-supplied F-15I’s and F-16’s that can deliver nuclear weapons to Iran. Germany provided Israel with three Dolphin-class subs that are said to be armed with nuclear cruise missiles. At least one sub is always on station off Iran’s coast. In addition, Israel new Ofek-3 military satellite provides full coverage of Iran and surrounding region. Israel also shares US satellite and other sensor data in real time.

Israel has probably the world’s second or third most potent air force, with around 400 state of the art, US-supplied combat aircraft and among the world’s most skilled pilots. The IAF is supported by a galaxy of electronic warfare systems, drones, and long-range recon. Israel’s Arrow is the world’s most advanced operational anti-ballistic missiles system and is expected to down over 85% of any incoming missiles.

Iran’s Air Force has only about 165 airworthy combat aircraft, mostly of 1960’s and 70’s vintage. The only aircraft it has that can reach Israel are 18-20 Soviet-era SU-24’s, and a handful of decrepit 40-year old, US-supplied F-4 Phantoms and F-14’s dating from the Shah’s day.

Thanks to unlimited US support, Israel is two full military generations ahead of its enemies, and even further advanced in electronic warfare and command and control.

A single nuclear weapon would destroy Israel, as its partisans warn. But this is also true of Egypt, where a single nuke on the Aswan Dam would inundate the nation and kill millions. It also applies to the Syria, Lebanon, the Gulf Emirates, Jordan, and Iraq. Only Saudi Arabia and Iran have strategic space. Even so, one nuclear strike on Tehran would cripple Iran for years.

Thanks to its strategic triad, Israel’s nuclear forces are indestructible, hence capable of devastating retaliation against any enemy nuclear strike. The Bush administration has vowed nuclear retaliation against any nation that attacks Israel with nuclear weapons.

Given these facts, we can see how false are claims trumpeted by the west that Iran is a dangerous military power that is about to eradicate Israel. The facts are quite the reverse.

ANON, just one question what happens if the Russia, China and others say that if you attack Iran with nukes we will nuke you. Because once you go down that road there is no turning back. Nuking Iran will confirm what people really think about America and its Global ambitions and therefore will take steps not to be the next country on the list.

I think any talk of using nukes is pure suicide and they should not be used against any country especially one that has done nothing but dare defy the mighty US.

reply to post by solo1


The message from Solo 1 is really something. Thanks to the traditional brutal, misguided, unnecessary attacks of American forces - France, Germany, Norway, Finland, Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Algeria, Morocco, Romania, Kosovo, Panama, Serbia, Croatia, Netherlands, Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Denmark, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Montenegro, New Guinea, Indonesia, Thailand, Greece, Tunisia, Albania, Hungary, Belgium, Austria, Libya, Korea, Japan, Italy, the Phillipines, and arguably Britain, Australia and Russia have their freedom, courtesy of the United States of America.

Not bad for folks who can't win wars. Not bad for a country that resorts to brute force to meet brute force. Maybe we should sit out the next few and see what happens to everyone else, and cover our ears to their pleas and cries.

Oh, and you're welcome.

Some people should stop day dreaming and stick to historical facts. World War 2 was a team effort and every allied country and their soldiers that took part were responsible for the outcome, not just America.

reply to post by kindred


but didn`t WW2 start in december 1941? and didn`t the UK break ENIGMA (with polish help) before the US entered the war anyway.... and lets not forget the biggest german loss of life - the march on moscow (via kiev and leningrad) was also before december 7th 1941 thus constituing the bulk of the professional german army


but hey , i digress

Iran is easily blown to bits, we all know that.There is really no logical argument in it.But the question is why would anyone want to do that.Just blow the nuke stuff like Israel did in Syria and go home.Save money.We don't need more wars.Just take out the nukes so everyone shuts the f$%# up about it.

reply to post by Interestinggg


thats funny because the UN inspectors have found NO PROOF AT ALL that the site israel attacked was anything at all. nothing.nada.not a sausage.

so just israel playing `im an asshat` again and being the ME`s biggest terrorist state.