Which brings me on to my next correction, so what if Iran uses diplomatic measures against the U.S. It is a diplomatic minnow. An economic minnow too. I wanted Josher and tylerthedrui to make that point. But you'll do just fine too. If Iran is as irrelevant as you claim it to be... Then why attack/invade it?
Apart from the country holding 10% of the world's oil reserves, and being the world's 4th oil produces (which isn't that minnow when you think about it). This one is easy to answer. We would attack Iran to deter them from launching an attack on us, and to send a message to potential attackers. Certainly, it would not benefit the USA as a whole, but we are not a totalitarian regime (as you seem to think we are) and our goal is to prevent the loss of any american life. Just because they can't kill very many Americans doesn't mean that we shouldn't spend time trying to stop them. If you'd attack Iran they'd have a reason and a justification (and millions of people supporting them in their future ventures) to attack the US. Currently this is not the case. If you truly want to prevent loss of American life then you shouldn't attack Iran, or any other country except when there is no other option. It's like shouting "You're gonna attack me!" to someone on the street and then attacking that person. Afterwards he might fight back and you're all "See? I told you he was going to attack me!". Very weird (lack of) logic. Feel free to look up oil information on http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/info_glance/petroleum.html
Also research the difference between 'reserve' and 'deposit'. Iran has about 1% of the world's oil RESERVES and they are beginning to dry up. However, Iran does have some oil, I won't dispute that. Iraq has even less oil than Iran. Why are we not invading Saudi Arabia 'for oil'? Wow. That's a very interesting source you gave me there. Thanks a lot. It clearly says that Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves. Just as I said: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/pdf.pdf The Iranian airforce and air defences are utterly outclassed. True. But everyone makes a lucky shot sometimes. And I wonder how the US will be able to bring sufficient fighters and bombers to the scene. The US has sufficient fighters and bombers. Let's not forget what I mentioned about Iran's geographic location. Let's consider that Iraq and Afghanistan both border Iran. Maybe after 8 posts you will finally comprehend what I was saying about Iran's geographic location. However, since you do not know the layout of the middle east, you might still be in the dark. The US has more than enough planes and bombers. However getting sufficient amounts in the region will be a logistical challenge. Remember that this would be the first time that the US would have to face any kind of air force since World War 2. After that I can't remember a single occasion where it didn't have immediate air superiority. Having complete mastery of the skies would be impossible against Iran. They've been focussing on the development and production of homegrown medium range artillery missiles. Most of them have a range up to 1000 km. The amounts Iran have are rumored to be enough to level US bases in Iran and Afghanistan. And most importantly: The Lebanon war of 2006 has taught us that even a country with a top-notch and well-trained military like Israel can't stop missiles from being launched. Even when launched from a neighboring country. They also have an unknown amount of SAM missiles. When fired is sufficient quantities (a theory supported by the Millennium Challenge wargame of 2002) they'll be able to overwhelm US air defenses. Going into Iran with a ground force would be... Not healthy to say the least. Contrary to Iraq's army in 2003 Iran does have a well-trained and well-equipped military. And the numbers. Oh, the numbers.
Even with total air supremacy the US would have to commit immense numbers in any ground invasion. Hell, they'd probably be fighting a defensive war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So in conclusion I'd say the US would win any kind of conflict against Iran. But the costs would be many times greater than anything Iran could ever do to the US. Ever. If Iran was located at the southern tip of Africa, it would be even easier to attack. Tell that to my buddy tylerthedrui. I knew that, but hey, I'm too nice for this world. Certainly. It might be much easier to attack. However, considering that Iran is located next to the largest buildup of American fighting forces on the planet, it might be easier (at the moment) to attack Iran. Maybe? Perhaps? I don't know the logistics behind supplying a military force, but it makes sense to me that Iran is closer to Iraq and afghanistan than it is to the southern tip of africa. If it is easier to send another carrier to the southern tip of Africa, then I am completely mistaken. It's a point I never should have made, because I really don't care whether or not it's easier to attack Iran because we are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Good lord. I think you've been playing too many bad wargames or something. Civ 4? It's not because the US has troops in Iraq or Afghanistan that they would be anywhere NEAR mounting an invasion. I'd even say that the unstable situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are a dream to bring the fighting to the US side. The US force in Iraq wold collapse in no time as hundreds (thousands?) of artillery missiles rain down on US bases. Combine this with a fully supported (well there would be no reason for Iran to hold back and not give those insurgents some fine guns)and possibly even a ground assault and you've got Iraq out of the picture. Tho I'd imagine that Iran wouldn't even want to hold Iraq (just do damage there so the US would waste money and resources and have its supply lines for any kind of invasion completely busted. Iran wouldn't want to upset Israel and Turkey by holding on to Iraq. It doesn't have to. Go in and scorch the earth. Get out. Afghanistan is slightly different because it has a NATO and not a coalition force. But I'd imagine NATO would never want to have part in an attack against Iran. So they'd get out of Afghanistan and leave the whole Taliban ridden country to the US. That's a slightly more realistic assessment of the value of Iraq and Afghanistan in an Iranian war.
And in any case the US supply lines would be easily many times longer than the Iranian supply lines. Remember that the Iranians are fighting a home match.
Originally posted by tylerthedrui
@MadAce There is nothing wrong with protesting. However, blocking the entrance to the IRS office, setting cars on fire, etc ; not a good way to protest. But since you hold anarchy so highly, I suppose you condone that sort of thing.
I know that's not the way to protest. It's not very constructive. But you were questioning their right of exercising their for free speech. If it were up to you they wouldn't have it anymore. I bet you made Osama Bin Laden smile.
There is not going to be any invasion of Iran. Arguing about it is pointless.
The Army is not going to mount any "surprise" invasion. The logistics involved would be massive. In todays day and age it would be impossible to hide a build up.
The American people, regardless of popular uninformed opinion here, have no interest in getting involved in another war. Put whatever poll you want, polls can say anything. The American people are much more interested in getting out of the current wars (plural) we are already in. We will see how much in the coming election. I don't think the US is all that keen on abandoning Iraq as we feel running out on them would be a disaster and could make things worse. The military isn't prepared or capable right now, of opening up a third front. The idea is the fantasy of armchair amature generals who have no clue what they are talking about.
Relations have not gotten to the point that anyone is going to drop anything on anyone, in fact, lately Iran and the US has toned down. They have an idiot for a leader as we do. The Iranian people are not clamoring for war with anyone.
madace, yes a war with Iran would be bad I would not argue that but the Iranian military is not as well equipped as the US and majority of its troops are local militias ( a frightening number at that). They would not be capable for putting anyone on the defense unless they invaded. Hence the reason no one will invade Iran. It would be incredibly bloody and incredibly pointless, what would we do if we won, occupy them too? The other side is, what would it mean if we lost? The damage both in men and material in addition to politically would be a disaster. It would be 1000% pure insanity.
Talk about a country with no gun control laws...we should pit them against our Rednecks. If we air dropped a bunch of beer and hookers in Iran, then released our rednecks and told them to go fetch, it would be an interesting battle of "values" to say the least. I have faith in our rednecks, victory would be ours.
If you'd attack Iran they'd have a reason and a justification (and millions of people supporting them in their future ventures) to attack the US. Currently this is not the case. If you truly want to prevent loss of American life then you shouldn't attack Iran, or any other country except when there is no other option.
It's like shouting "You're gonna attack me!" to someone on the street and then attacking that person. Afterwards he might fight back and you're all "See? I told you he was going to attack me!".
Very weird (lack of) logic.
Are you saying that Iran is not interested in attacking us at the moment? It's impossible to argue with you on this because you are absolutely convinced that Iran already has justification to attack us; and will only continue to find ways to support the Iranian cause.
Wow. That's a very interesting source you gave me there. Thanks a lot.
It clearly says that Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves. Just as I said:
Does it clearly say that? Do you mind telling me what the difference between what you are saying, and what that chart says is? It was a mistake linking that site to you because you do not know what the charts actually mean. This is especially true considering that you think you understand everything, and are incapable of ceding even an unimportant point to the opposition - even when you know you are wrong. Here I was expecting you not to even use that website, because 'the government owns it'.
Listen up MadAce, and this goes for your little conspiracy theorist supporters, too. You cannot simply go out on the internet, google something, and pull off whatever you deem to be supportive of your argument. You must understand the context of information.
There is a vast, vast, difference between PROVEN OIL RESERVES, and OIL RESERVES. The difference is very important, because confusing the nomenclature places very different values on the reserves in question. There are some important details that I'm not familiar with, but the spirit of this language is something like this.
DEPOSIT - A deposit of material, such as oil. Iran does not nearly have as many deposits as venezuela, or Saudi Arabia (or the US, for that matter)
RESERVE - Minerals (oil, etc) that can be mined and refined for a profit, given the current market and production capability.
PROVEN RESERVES -Minerals that are clearly profitable and are usually being actively produced.
Iran has 10% of the worlds PROVEN RESERVES. You cannot walk around saying that Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves, because it simply does not. Making that claim is outright stupid. Then again, you don't seem to have more than a passing interest in cutting and pasting information from various sources, and taking it out of your own context.
I wouldn't be more surprised if you mistook Iran's oil production for oil reserves.
The US has more than enough planes and bombers. However getting sufficient amounts in the region will be a logistical challenge. Remember that this would be the first time that the US would have to face any kind of air force since World War 2. After that I can't remember a single occasion where it didn't have immediate air superiority.
Having complete mastery of the skies would be impossible against Iran. They've been focussing on the development and production of homegrown medium range artillery missiles. Most of them have a range up to 1000 km. The amounts Iran have are rumored to be enough to level US bases in Iran and Afghanistan.
And most importantly: The Lebanon war of 2006 has taught us that even a country with a top-notch and well-trained military like Israel can't stop missiles from being launched. Even when launched from a neighboring country.
They also have an unknown amount of SAM missiles. When fired is sufficient quantities (a theory supported by the Millennium Challenge wargame of 2002) they'll be able to overwhelm US air defenses.
Going into Iran with a ground force would be... Not healthy to say the least. Contrary to Iraq's army in 2003 Iran does have a well-trained and well-equipped military. And the numbers. Oh, the numbers.
We had absolutely no problem invading Iraq. They were supposed to be one of the strongest countries in the middle east. Since you are a five-star general, you seem to already understand the logistics behind attacking Iran.
The rest of us will have to rely on empirical data, such as the outcome of the war with Iraq.
So here is how it is. You are a military general and understand everything about Iran's capabilities, with your vast experience conducting military operations. You can go to a website, get information on the number of defenses in Iran, and give us a very accurate idea of what attacking Iran will be like. Have you considered consulting for the US government?
One day you will learn that in the real world you simply cannot take information out of context, and act like you understand it's implications, without any experience dealing with the information in a real world setting.
We defeated Iraq without a problem, and our military is the strongest in the world. That is all I can go off of - because I have never been in the military. Feel free to continue copy/pasting troop numbers from a website. In world war II, Russia had far more troops than Germany or the US, but the Germans were able to give them a run for their money.
Good lord. I think you've been playing too many bad wargames or something. Civ 4?
I don't play wargames. Nor am I a five-star general.
The US force in Iraq wold collapse in no time as hundreds (thousands?) of artillery missiles rain down on US bases. Combine this with a fully supported (well there would be no reason for Iran to hold back and not give those insurgents some fine guns)and possibly even a ground assault and you've got Iraq out of the picture. Tho I'd imagine that Iran wouldn't even want to hold Iraq (just do damage there so the US would waste money and resources and have its supply lines for any kind of invasion completely busted. Iran wouldn't want to upset Israel and Turkey by holding on to Iraq. It doesn't have to. Go in and scorch the earth. Get out.
I'm going to hold on to these snippets from this paragraph you wrote. Here you go again, writing about the defenses in Iran. If Iran is so completely able, why have they not acted on their desire to attack us yet?
Again, you should consult Washington on this matter. Print out your little chart from the internet, and let them know that Iran could make the US force in Iraq 'collapse'. Tell them about your economic knowledge and how much damage Iran could do to Iraq. After all, MadAce always checks 'da facts' - according to his fan. He can look at any information and discover why it signals the coming of the new world order.
Everyting you say is part of your own fantasy reality where you have the world figured out. Rather than relying on empirical information, and general common sense, like the rest of us, you go above and beyond your station as a plumber/electrician/store clerk and are now able to determine the exact outcome of wars, elections, and the economy. You know everything, from every field and industry. The world truly is your oyster MadAce. Perhaps since you are so endeared to the Iranians, you should go to Iran and help them lift their 10% of the world's reserves. You'd make a fortune. Then you could destroy the USA, sleep with Osama Bin Laden, and make Ron Paul your closest advisor.
That's a slightly more realistic assessment of the value of Iraq and Afghanistan in an Iranian war.
And in any case the US supply lines would be easily many times longer than the Iranian supply lines. Remember that the Iranians are fighting a home match.
1. If the US attacks Iran, the Iranians will defeat the US in Iraq. Iran will be capable of conquering Iraq.
2. The US could not gain reasonable air superiority over Iran.
3. Iran has 10% of the world's oil RESERVES
4. The US could not handle the logistics of supplying troops in Iran
5. The US could not bring planes into Iran without a 'logistical challenge'
I just don't understand the logistical challenge. Explain to me why supplying Iran will be any harder than supplying Iraq or Afghanistan, given that we already hold both countries, as well as the Persian gulf. We already have the ability to supply ~3/4 of Iran's borders. What would make it hard to supply a force in Iran. (NOTE: I am speaking about supplying Iran after the invasion)
“Iran has got to be very high on that list,” said a senior aide ahead of the talks US Vice President Dick Cheney will hold during his 10-day tour of the Middle East and Turkey, which began Monday, March 17 in Iraq.
Singling out Oman, the aide noted that the US and Oman are co-guardians of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. “The Omanis, like a lot of other people,” he said “are concerned by the escalating tensions between the rest of the world community and Iran and by some of Iran’s activities, particularly in the nuclear field, but outside its borders as well.”
According to, the official was referring to Tehran’s meddling in Iraq, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
Our military, Washington and Gulf sources report that US Vice President Dick Cheney is again talking about possible US military action to shut down Iran’s covert nuclear program.
Cheney stopped over in Oman Wednesday, Wed. March 19, after two days in Iraq. He will travel next to Saudi Arabia, is due in Jerusalem next Saturday and will also visit Ramallah and Turkey.
Our sources report exclusively that his talks are focusing on two aspects of the Iranian nuclear threat:
1. The Bush administration’s decision to distance itself from the National Intelligence Estimate released last December. Its conclusion that Iran’s nuclear arms program was shelved in 2003, which rendered America’s military option superfluous, is now deemed a mistake.
2. The administration now buys British, German, French and Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran is indeed pressing forward with programs for building nuclear weapons, warheads and ballistic missiles for their delivery.
The vice president will listen closely to his hosts’ ideas about joint efforts for containing Iran’s aggressive expansionist thrusts across the Persian Gulf and Middle East and halting its progress towards nuclear armaments.
The vice president’s choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again. American will need the cooperation of all four - Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey - to mount a military attack on Iran.
Oman hosts the big American air bases which are the core of the defense shield for the Strait of Hormuz and for the US Navy, Marine and Air Force units deployed in the Persian Gulf.
Saudi Arabia is the senior Gulf and Arabian trendsetter and the key to pan-Arab endorsement for a US offensive against Tehran. Riyadh has opposed military action until now.
Israelis the only regional nation willing to actively participate in an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites; its military has been putting together plans for going it alone.
Last week, our sources report, Jerusalem was notified by the White House that the Iranian issue had been added to Cheney’s regional agenda at the last minute; his hosts were requested to prepare themselves for exhaustive and lengthy discussions on Iran with the vice president and his aides.
Israel’s defense cabinet was accordingly convened last Wednesday – officially to scrutinize the armed forces’ forward planning and applications of the Lebanon war inquiry panel’s recommendations. But, our military sources report, the ministers were convened to decide which of Israel’s military plans of action were to be presented to Cheney.
Turkey is a pivotal element in any war plan because American warplanes and missiles heading for Iran will have to transit its airspace and take off from air bases on its soil. The US and Turkey have improved their military relations since they worked together against PKK havens in northern Iraq last February.
The vice president’s Iraq visit marked the fifth anniversary of the US invasion.
While there, he made it clear that the US was in no hurry to pull out of the country before its mission was completed and would not allow the country to become a staging ground for terrorist attacks on Americans.
In his talks with Iraq leaders, he hammered out military and political plans to bridge the 10 months remaining until a new president takes office in Washington. After talking to prime minister Nouri al Maliki, the US leader flew north to meet with Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani in the Kurdish capital of Irbil.
In particular, he sought progress on Iraq’s oil law which is held up by disagreements between Kurds and Arab Sunni leaders
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
having cheney and bush with no re-election campaign in sight makes me feel safe.
War with Iran is nothing compaired to war on DNC Convention floor when Clinton and Obama supporters freakin riot against each other.God I love Amercia.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
If you'd attack Iran they'd have a reason and a justification (and millions of people supporting them in their future ventures) to attack the US. Currently this is not the case. If you truly want to prevent loss of American life then you shouldn't attack Iran, or any other country except when there is no other option. It's like shouting "You're gonna attack me!" to someone on the street and then attacking that person. Afterwards he might fight back and you're all "See? I told you he was going to attack me!". Very weird (lack of) logic. Are you saying that Iran is not interested in attacking us at the moment? It's impossible to argue with you on this because you are absolutely convinced that Iran already has justification to attack us; and will only continue to find ways to support the Iranian cause. I'm saying exactly that Iran is not interested in attacking the US. Yes, they make a lot of noise. Not as much noise as anchoring a carrier group off the US coast, but they at least shout slogans which should count for something. You see, the only reason why Iran needs the US is not to be an enemy, but to appear an enemy. That way Iran can get all the support it needs from its people with little or no question. Of course the US is more than happy to oblige, for it needs Iran for the same reason Iran needs the US. This has been a constant dynamic of US politics for over 50 years now and it's not about to change. If you want the people to rally behind you then you need an enemy. But now I'm telling you something that's common knowledge. And don't pretend that you understand my point. My two points are as follows:
Iran shouldn't be attacked.
Attacking Iran will cost a lot more than it could ever prevent.
Wow. That's a very interesting source you gave me there. Thanks a lot. It clearly says that Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves. Just as I said: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/pdf.pdf Does it clearly say that? Do you mind telling me what the difference between what you are saying, and what that chart says is? It was a mistake linking that site to you because you do not know what the charts actually mean. This is especially true considering that you think you understand everything, and are incapable of ceding even an unimportant point to the opposition - even when you know you are wrong. Here I was expecting you not to even use that website, because 'the government owns it'. Please understand this: I don't fit in any of your two ("good" and "evil") stereotypes which you use to judge 6.6 billions people. Which you just admitted because apparently you didn't expect me to accept the source. Come on! If you can't expect what I am going to say... Then what CAN you expect or deduce about anything? I'm not very smart. Truly. I'm self-educated. And yet you're completely incapable of understanding anything about me or my ideas. What does this tell you about yourself? Man, this is sad. No, maybe not. I don't know what this is. I'm just baffled. That's what I am. Where were we? I was distracted by your obvious attempt at making this personal. (good job on that, see I'm not very smart?) Ah, here we were:
Listen up MadAce, and this goes for your little conspiracy theorist supporters, too. You cannot simply go out on the internet, google something, and pull off whatever you deem to be supportive of your argument. You must understand the context of information. Okay. Again a sign that you're not very good at... Certain things that separate homo sapiens from many other animals. I'm not a conspiracy theorist. Completely not. I'm a very sober European (in so far that Europeans are homogenous). I don't do conspiracies. If you had read some of my posts on conspiracies then you'd understand that. And I don't work like you said. Here's how I work: I read something, then read more about it. Then read different sources about it (ranging from CIA World Factbook over Reuters and BBC archives up to Conservapedia and often I consult paper books (yea, the ones that don't need electricity )). After that I start to form an opinion about it. I then read up on discussions on the various online forums I frequent to get a very thorough grasp of every possible viewpoint on the subject. Trough all of these stages I talk to a great deal of people RL, although I don't rely on their opinion. Then, when I'm sure I have funded an opinion which is as researched as any university paper (or at least, that's what I like to think)... I voice my opinion. Does this mean I'm always correct? No. I often admit I was mistaken and change my opinion. Many years ago I was infamous at school because I was a near invincible debater. With one minor problem. When I noticed the other side was right, I said I was wrong and switched sides. I don't care about "winning" an argument. I care about getting as close to the objective truth as possible.
Oh, and you might be wondering why I'm suddenly so very open about me, myself and I (contrary to my preferences)? It's because you're obviously getting a bit upset about me. YOU'RE SO UPSET ABOUT ME THAT IN YOUR PREVIOUS POST...
A TOTAL OF 60.6% OF ALL THE WORDS YOU USED WERE ABOUT ME, AND NOT ABOUT THE SUBJECT AT HAND. That's 501 words out of the 826. And that's not counting your little addendum where you painstakingly attempted to list my claims. So I proimse I'll try to return the favor (tho you're not really that interesting...). Not that I in any way care about your opinion of me. I'm just worried you might be getting to caught up in this. Feel free to call it quits any time you want. Hug someone nearby. Take a cold shower. Watch some TV and relax. Hey, I'm the caring kind of guy. There is a vast, vast, difference between PROVEN OIL RESERVES, and OIL RESERVES. The difference is very important, because confusing the nomenclature places very different values on the reserves in question. There are some important details that I'm not familiar with, but the spirit of this language is something like this. DEPOSIT - A deposit of material, such as oil. Iran does not nearly have as many deposits as venezuela, or Saudi Arabia (or the US, for that matter)
RESERVE - Minerals (oil, etc) that can be mined and refined for a profit, given the current market and production capability.
PROVEN RESERVES -Minerals that are clearly profitable and are usually being actively produced. Iran has 10% of the worlds PROVEN RESERVES. You cannot walk around saying that Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves, because it simply does not. Making that claim is outright stupid. Then again, you don't seem to have more than a passing interest in cutting and pasting information from various sources, and taking it out of your own context. I wouldn't be more surprised if you mistook Iran's oil production for oil reserves.
You're right. There IS a difference between oil reserves and proven oil reserves. However there is no fixed definition of the differences. I was meaning to day that Iran has 10% of the world's proven oil reserves. I was also under the impression that there was no point to speaking about (what I now know to be called exactly) possible and probable oil reserves as no one hardly ever mentions those. Speculating about things that aren't certain while you could be speculating with factors that ARE a lot more certain is rather daft, don't you think? Apparently you somehow found it useful to make this distinction while it doesn't help your point one bit (on the contrary) and just makes things more complicated.
In any case, the information supports my point. Iran isn't as economically minnow as you presented it. For it has 10% of the world's PROVEN oil reserves (according to your source). Here are the categories (according to this) "Reserves are categorised as being proven, probable or possible. There are, unfortunately, no standard definitions for these terms which can vary between companies and countries. The definitions are generally broadly similar." Please link me to any source saying Iran has only 1% of the world's possible/probable oil reserves. For Iran to have only 1% of the world's possible/probable oil reserves the rest of the world would need to have AT LEAST 116,250,000,000,000 (that's 116 and a quarter TRILLION) barrels of possible/probable oil reserves. That's a lot. Especially when you consider that the maximum amount of barrels of oil left in the world (including oil sand) is estimated to be 3.74 trillions barrels (by this source). So excuse me when I think you made that 1% figure up. If you're so comfortable with just making up figures... How many other things have you simply... Invented?
The US has more than enough planes and bombers. However getting sufficient amounts in the region will be a logistical challenge. Remember that this would be the first time that the US would have to face any kind of air force since World War 2. After that I can't remember a single occasion where it didn't have immediate air superiority. Having complete mastery of the skies would be impossible against Iran. They've been focussing on the development and production of homegrown medium range artillery missiles. Most of them have a range up to 1000 km. The amounts Iran have are rumored to be enough to level US bases in Iran and Afghanistan. And most importantly: The Lebanon war of 2006 has taught us that even a country with a top-notch and well-trained military like Israel can't stop missiles from being launched. Even when launched from a neighboring country. They also have an unknown amount of SAM missiles. When fired is sufficient quantities (a theory supported by the Millennium Challenge wargame of 2002) they'll be able to overwhelm US air defenses. Going into Iran with a ground force would be... Not healthy to say the least. Contrary to Iraq's army in 2003 Iran does have a well-trained and well-equipped military. And the numbers. Oh, the numbers. We had absolutely no problem invading Iraq. They were supposed to be one of the strongest countries in the middle east. Since you are a five-star general, you seem to already understand the logistics behind attacking Iran. I concur that invading Iraq under Saddam wasn't all that hard (tell that to the little over 100 US soldiers that had to die during the invasion...). BUT. What makes you think it was one of the "strongest" countries in the middle east? That's just a very, very strange thing to say. For one, the Iraqi Air force was virtually non-existent. Truly. There was almost NO air force during the 2003 invasion. One Tu-22 and a few squadrons of Mig-25's. And these were very poorly maintained due to heavy restrictions on spare parts. Apparently none of these were used during the 2003 invasion.
Then over to the ground forces. Iraq was known to have a very poor army after the 1991 invasion. Thanks to sanctions it was severely under equipped. A January 2003 report for Congress calls the Iraqi army "significantly degraded from their condition during the Persian Gulf War in 1991." Other notable conclusions of the report (note that this was the opinion of the US military at the time): "A decade of arms embargo has resulted in much
equipment now being obsolete or inoperable." "Many of Iraq’s regular army divisions
are undermanned and all comprise mostly conscripts." "Large unit and combined arms
training is lacking, and combat experienced non-commissioned officers and
commanders are relatively few." "Logistical support is not robust, and is vulnerable
to air interdiction."
You are completely free to dispute this report with credible sources of your own.
So in conclusion: The Iraqi army was NOT believed to be the strongest of the region. Again you have presented false information as truth.
The rest of us will have to rely on empirical data, such as the outcome of the war with Iraq. So here is how it is. You are a military general and understand everything about Iran's capabilities, with your vast experience conducting military operations. You can go to a website, get information on the number of defenses in Iran, and give us a very accurate idea of what attacking Iran will be like. Have you considered consulting for the US government? One day you will learn that in the real world you simply cannot take information out of context, and act like you understand it's implications, without any experience dealing with the information in a real world setting. I'm not going to dignify those comments with a proper response. Not because I can't, but because I don't have to. We defeated Iraq without a problem, and our military is the strongest in the world. That is all I can go off of - because I have never been in the military. Feel free to continue copy/pasting troop numbers from a website. In world war II, Russia had far more troops than Germany or the US, but the Germans were able to give them a run for their money. If you have never been in the military (which is in no way a guarantee that you would have a correct overview of military capabilities of various countries) then on what do you base your assumptions?
Stereotypes? Reports from the US government? What then? I'm curious.
And in case you didn't know... Comparing the East Front during World War Two with a hypothetical US invasion of Iran is insulting the East Front. Also, the Soviets kicked the Nazi asses back all the way to Berlin and beyond.
Good lord. I think you've been playing too many bad wargames or something. Civ 4? I don't play wargames. Nor am I a five-star general. You could've fooled me about those war games... The US force in Iraq wold collapse in no time as hundreds (thousands?) of artillery missiles rain down on US bases. Combine this with a fully supported (well there would be no reason for Iran to hold back and not give those insurgents some fine guns)and possibly even a ground assault and you've got Iraq out of the picture. Tho I'd imagine that Iran wouldn't even want to hold Iraq (just do damage there so the US would waste money and resources and have its supply lines for any kind of invasion completely busted. Iran wouldn't want to upset Israel and Turkey by holding on to Iraq. It doesn't have to. Go in and scorch the earth. Get out. I'm going to hold on to these snippets from this paragraph you wrote. Here you go again, writing about the defenses in Iran. If Iran is so completely able, why have they not acted on their desire to attack us yet? Because they: 1: Don't have a reason to. 2: Don't want to. 3: Can't. They're defensively oriented, although I personally believe they're not completely inept at any offensive action. Again, you should consult Washington on this matter. Print out your little chart from the internet, and let them know that Iran could make the US force in Iraq 'collapse'. Tell them about your economic knowledge and how much damage Iran could do to Iraq. After all, MadAce always checks 'da facts' - according to his fan. He can look at any information and discover why it signals the coming of the new world order. The US has more than enough capable commanders (that's perhaps one of the reasons why Iran hasn't been invaded yet...). I don't want to consult them. I want to consult YOU.
You need it a whole lot more than Washington does. Everyting you say is part of your own fantasy reality where you have the world figured out. Rather than relying on empirical information, and general common sense, like the rest of us, you go above and beyond your station as a plumber/electrician/store clerk and are now able to determine the exact outcome of wars, elections, and the economy. You know everything, from every field and industry. The world truly is your oyster MadAce. Perhaps since you are so endeared to the Iranians, you should go to Iran and help them lift their 10% of the world's reserves. You'd make a fortune. Then you could destroy the USA, sleep with Osama Bin Laden, and make Ron Paul your closest advisor. I'm not going to dignify those comments with a proper response. Not because I can't, but because I don't have to.
Originally posted by tylerthedrui
MadAce's Claims: 1. If the US attacks Iran, the Iranians will defeat the US in Iraq. Iran will be capable of conquering Iraq. Again you use those videogame words. "conquering"? Conquest: "the process and result of a takeover-usually by force-of a large territory or country, and its inhabitants, by a powerful foreign people or army, leading to the establishment of a new government and/or society in the area" I specifically said that Iran wouldn't want to hold Iraq. "Tho I'd imagine that Iran wouldn't even want to hold Iraq (just do damage there so the US would waste money and resources and have its supply lines for any kind of invasion completely busted. Iran wouldn't want to upset Israel and Turkey by holding on to Iraq. It doesn't have to."
This isn't Risk where countries do land-grabbing, you know.
2. The US could not gain reasonable air superiority over Iran. 5. The US could not bring planes into Iran without a 'logistical challenge' I said it is very probable that an attack on Iran could be the first time in almost 50 years that the US would have to face any air force of any reasonable size. This would make that any attempt at air superiority, although ultimately succesful, would be either costly in terms of committed forces or costly in terms of humans lives. Perhaps even both.
I said that the 2002 Millennium Challenge Wargame indicated that establishing a complete defensive perimeter would be nearly impossible, no matter how primitive (well, within a certain degree of course) the enemy and no matter how advanced the US forces. I also said that the 2006 Lebanon war proved to the world that even an efficient, modern force like the IDF couldn't stop Hezbollah from firing missiles into Israel. And the IDF was fighting inside a neighboring country. Note that Hezbollah succeeded in firing 3,699 rockets into Israel throughout the entire 2006 war. And that's just a relatively poorly equipped guerilla force... So reaching the goal of TOTAL air superiority (without losing too many lives in the process) would require a very large air force. And then add the planes used to support the ground war... This would be a very, very large air force when come to think of it. Note that I'm thinking in terms of costs and benefits here. Would the costs of such a massive invasion and attack be worth it? Would all those lives be worth it?
3. Iran has 10% of the world's oil RESERVES Semantics. You said that Iran had 1% of the world's oil reserves, which is completely ABSURD. I was right about my claim that Iran has sizable percentage proven oil reserves (10% of the world's total) and thus isn't as economically insignificant as you painted and wished it to be.
4. The US could not handle the logistics of supplying troops in Iran.
I just don't understand the logistical challenge. Explain to me why supplying Iran will be any harder than supplying Iraq or Afghanistan, given that we already hold both countries, as well as the Persian gulf. We already have the ability to supply ~3/4 of Iran's borders. What would make it hard to supply a force in Iran. (NOTE: I am speaking about supplying Iran after the invasion)
You're acting as if the invasion would be nothing. Remember that a top US commander once said that Iran has the most powerful military of the middle-east. Therefore the preparations to conduct a relatively safe invasion would put a substantial (but of course not unsurmountable) strain on the US in terms of money and resources. It would be a logistical challenge (and thus not impossible) getting an invasion force ready, simply because of the large amounts involved both in terms of planes, ships, men and material. Remember that the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are needed there. They can't be used to engage in fighting in Iran. And I wouldn't be surprised that every militia and insurgent would use the opportunity of the invasion in Iran to make it the US troops as hard as possible inside Iraq. I take it the Taliban would come to the same conclusion in Afghanistan. Also note that (unless very weird things happen) NATO support is completely out of the question. So that means that a large part of the NATO troops in Afghanistan would leave. In fact, the majority. The US has 15,000 personnel in Afghanistan. That leaves 28,250 to be refilled in case NATO forces leave. Not to mention reinforcements would have to be deployed as Taliban activity would increase. So we've already got 43,000 people the US has to deploy in Afghanistan. Not to mention reinforcements and (a part of) the invasion force. Then you've got the forces in Iraq too... And the invasion force starting from there. And considering that any ground based offensive would be under heavy attack (both from forces in the country from which they would be mounting the invasion and from the Iranians) it would seem prudent for the US to launch an amphibious attack too. Might seem redundant... But redundancy saves lives. All in all a very large percentage of the (according to some already overstretched) US army would have to be deployed for the invasion and the occupation.
Then there's the matter of international support... That's a very complex matter, which I'm still analyzing. But look at it this way. Iran has missiles that can hit Oman (hosts important US bases), Kuwait (has US 2 bases if I'm not mistaken), Saudi-Arabia (pretty important regional player and you don't want to upset them) and Turkey (should speak for itself). I see neither of them being very happy about a US invasion. It might affect oil prices (correction: it will) and they're not going to support a US invasion if it means getting hurt in the process. Which will happen. Except in the case of Turkey perhaps, because no one really wants to annoy the Turks. Trust me on that. Combine all of these elements and the need to do as little damage as possible and to endure as little damage as possible then I conclude that: 1: A US invasion of Iran seems highly unlikely. 2: A US invasion would be very, very costly in terms of money and material. And costly in terms of human lives.
You double-posting with so much time between posts proves that you want: 1: To keep this topic into the public eye, not realizing that people don't care and aren't going to read walls of text (save the occasional masochist). 2: You really find this important and really care about my opinion. I don't know whether I should be flattered or annoyed. See my advice on chilling and relaxing.
After a very enjoyable 5-hour reading session I'm going to get some shut-eye (6 AM here). Gnight.
no matter how we got to that day. no matter who was ultimately responsible. no se apoye la puerta. as the industrialized world will leave old tech for new tech this century, the old tech will become more available. a controlled world is the only solution at this point. who better at the wheel than the good ole US of A? no one. none. zip. zilch. trust me, if Gore would have won the electorate vote, this world would've been in deeper, more troublesome water. you need control. and bush gave it to you and still to this day, doesnt sway his conviction. that man deserves your humble gratitude for the compelling leadership he has given this world. i know it was fate that had him in office while others plotted 911. and i know that while he 'mortgages your childrens future' economically, he is providing them with the chance to have children of their own. i used to be one of them anti new world order cronie conspiralists, but now with children of my own, its nice to push the world in the direction your country wants to push it in. its time to fight where these democrats fight. dirty and in the streets. we need to beat back these liberal hordes. they bring far too much emotion to common sense and reason. im done with being polite and correct which is subjective anyways.
You show potential. If you can repeat this five times fast we may have a position for you.
Georgie is loyal to the cause. You afford him far too much credit. I offer Dick more latitude.
TORT REFORM: I am in favor of "settlement panels". Easy for the judge to look at a "best practice" settlement per offense. Who needs litigation when we can save time and money by cutting out the middle man through "comparative effectiveness"?
I have no idea who is posting what in that thread above, but the guy in white writing wrote, that Iran would be the first time since WW2 that the U.S. would be fighting an airforce.
This is clearly very far from the truth.
In the Korean war and the Kosovo war the U.S. failed to achive air superiority, let alone air domination.
Both Korea and Yugoslavia had considerable air assets of comparable tech.
Iran on the otherhand hasn't bought any new aircraft since 1979. It has some old Mirages, Phantoms and Tomcats, plus the Iraqi airforce that ran away. Perhaps totaling 50 fighters. It also has the remanents of the Iraqi airforce. Again very old airframes.
1 U.S. carrier is more than enough. The chances of any of them getting off the ground is minimal. The chances of all 50 being serviceable is also minimal since they are mostly of U.S. design and were all sabotaged by their U.S. engineers around the time of embassy siege, and 30 years is a long time to go without spares.
The U.S. on the other hand has two carriers in theatre (with a maximum of 14 possible) so thats 200 odd fighters (with a possible maximum of around two thousand). Bases in Saudi, Oman, Iraq. Afghanistan, Uzebekistan, Doha and Turkey. It has Iran absolutely geographically surrounded by airstrips with the same level of air logistics as was able to be brought to bear on Iraqi forces in 1991.
Total domination.
What Iran does have up it's sleave, is as the same poster mentioned, longe range artillerry rockets. These are not accurate. You could hit an enemy city with one, maybe even an airbase. Where in that city, where on that airbase is anybodies guess.
Iran of course has no satelittes. So knowing which airbase to attack or when one is vulnerable isn't necesseraily possible.
Iran also has a brand new and state of the art SAM defence system. Mobile tanks. They are very dangerous. Their mobile nature makes them difficult to target for a first strike. A long way short of impossible of course, but challenging.
Essentially this is no greater challenge than Iraq has been aerially. The U.S. has a veritable Armada at it's disposal. Overwhelming force.
This is the kind of fighting America does best. They are more likely to shoot their own planes down than they are to lose any to Iranian fire.
The other strategic assets that Iran has of consequence is silkworm missiles and anti shipping mines. With a range of 90 miles and already narrow shipping lanes, Iran has the capability to deny shiping access to the gulf for a limited period of time. (It also has submarines, but the Gulf is very shallow).
With regards to the localised international support of places such as Oman and Saudi, who exactly did you think had most to fear from Iranian nuclear weapons?
The reason Iran must be prevented from going nuclear is so that it lacks the capability to annex countries like this. If Saddam had had nukes, he would not only still be in Kuwait. He would be in Saudi.
I have no idea who is posting what in that thread above, but the guy in white writing wrote, that Iran would be the first time since WW2 that the U.S. would be fighting an airforce. This is clearly very far from the truth. In the Korean war and the Kosovo war the U.S. failed to achive air superiority, let alone air domination.
Both Korea and Yugoslavia had considerable air assets of comparable tech.
Thank you for that interesting and valuable information.
You're right about the lack of proper air superiority of UN forces in the early days of the Korean war. This was mainly because of the excellent MiG-15, not rarely piloted by skilled and experienced Soviet pilots. But eventually a large numerical advantage was achieved by UN forces.
But if you say that the combined might of the UN (with over 340 confirmed kills) wasn't able to achieve air superiority then I'll believe you. Luckily for the US they've upgraded their planes since then. So I won't hold it against them. No one should.
I'm surprised NATO didn't manage to achieve total air domination in the 1999 war. Especially since the only planes to face NATO were 14 MiG-29s and two MiG-29UBs from the USSR. And about 45 J22's which saw only 20 combat missions in the 1999 war (and did not engage the NATO force save for an alleged Tomahawk kill). The conditions of the planes was poor and the pilots weren't very well trained.
To illustrate the J22 service in the 1999 war: "March 25, 1999: A J-22 Orao piloted by Lt. Colonel Zivota Ðuri? took off from Ladjevci. It hit a hill in Kosovo."
But if you tell me that the combined might of NATO wasn't able to achieve air superiority over this abysmal force then I'll believe you. This does not bode well for a conflict with the Iranian air force.
Iran on the otherhand hasn't bought any new aircraft since 1979. It has some old Mirages, Phantoms and Tomcats, plus the Iraqi airforce that ran away. Perhaps totaling 50 fighters. It also has the remanents of the Iraqi airforce. Again very old airframes.
It is untrue that Iran hasn't purchased any new aircraft since 1979. It has purchased Beriev A-50's which only entered service in 1984. Not that this is a craft capable of fighting, but just to illustrate your error.
It has also developed and manufactured 28 Azarakhsh's which only entered service in 1997.
Iran also has 55 MiG-29's which only entered service in 1984. MiG-29's are very capable craft comparable to the F/A-18 and the Mirage 2000.
Possibly Iran is also purchasing 250 SU-30s from Russia. But both countries are denying this. To me personally 250 SU-30's seems overkill.
Somewhat more accurate reports suggest the purchase of J-10s from China.
Besides, the age of planes is of no overwhelming importance. Many Western countries (among which the US) still use the F-16 which seems to be 30 years old but is still acceptable when sufficiently upgraded and flown by able pilots.
Also, the US used Hornets in the 2003 Iraq war and those planes are 25 years old.
1 U.S. carrier is more than enough. The chances of any of them getting off the ground is minimal. The chances of all 50 being serviceable is also minimal since they are mostly of U.S. design and were all sabotaged by their U.S. engineers around the time of embassy siege, and 30 years is a long time to go without spares.
The U.S. on the other hand has two carriers in theatre (with a maximum of 14 possible) so thats 200 odd fighters (with a possible maximum of around two thousand). Bases in Saudi, Oman, Iraq. Afghanistan, Uzebekistan, Doha and Turkey. It has Iran absolutely geographically surrounded by airstrips with the same level of air logistics as was able to be brought to bear on Iraqi forces in 1991. Total domination.
I did a very rough count and Iran has at least 130 aircraft. And these are spread over various air fields probably capable of launching relatively quickly compared to the US fighters which can only scramble on a carrier (in case only one carrier is used, which would of course not be the case). I doubt a single carrier would do like you say. Then count the craft used to support ground forces and protect Iraq and Afghanistan and you have a very large force. I'd say fielding that force will be quite expensive in every way. But of course not impossible.
What Iran does have up it's sleave, is as the same poster mentioned, longe range artillerry rockets. These are not accurate. You could hit an enemy city with one, maybe even an airbase. Where in that city, where on that airbase is anybodies guess. They also have medium range missiles. Accuracy can vary between types. Iran of course has no satelittes. So knowing which airbase to attack or when one is vulnerable isn't necesseraily possible. "Of course"? Why is it so seemingly obvious Iran has not satellites? They launched a satellite in 2005. Well, they produced it anyway. It is used to take pictures of Iran.
Essentially this is no greater challenge than Iraq has been aerially. The U.S. has a veritable Armada at it's disposal. Overwhelming force. If NATO was unable to achieve air superiority in the 1999 war then it would seem doubtful that the US would be able to achieve air superiority over Iran... BTW, Iraq didn't use planes in the 2003 war.
With regards to the localised international support of places such as Oman and Saudi, who exactly did you think had most to fear from Iranian nuclear weapons? Iran. The reason Iran must be prevented from going nuclear is so that it lacks the capability to annex countries like this. If Saddam had had nukes, he would not only still be in Kuwait. He would be in Saudi. Who annexes countries these days? I suggest you play some Hearts Of Iron 2. I hear it's very enjoyable and allows you to annex countries. BTW, if Saddam had nukes then Iraq would be a glass crater.
Madace, you arguments are well reasoned and backed by facts and statistics. The problem is you are arguing with someone who prefers to gloss over facts and simply make statements that are poorly reasoned. At one point I thought it was worthwhile to try and enlighten people with facts but then I realized that not everyone is interested in reason or facts in a discussion and will close their minds off to them. It simply isn't worth the effort with such people and they are not worth continued responses.
QFE !
I too used to debate with people on this forum until I discovered they conveniently overlooked my presented facts in the form of statistics, quotations, GNP etc. etc. Now I just ignore them, although they still irritate me because they have the right to vote, thus representing a political influence, haha!
PS: I'm still amazed at the stupidity of some people, though. I mean, superior firepower wins the day??? Lol, the last time this was true was probably during the Normandy invasion- pre-atomic age. If you obliterate a poor region/country for political/military purposes, they don't amass a conventional army for you to easily destroy - they send 4- 5 sleeper cells with dirty bombs to your capitol. On a bigger scale, if you put pressure on another major power(China strangely enough comes to mind), it's not a matter of winning - it's a matter of having 20 minutes to say to your wife/husband/mom/dad/children you love them before those "made in China" nukes hit(if you're even told they're on the way) - get real and stop living in a dream - NOBODY wins in a major conflict.
I apologize for thinking that you did not know the meaning of 'reserve'. At first, I believed you were one of the folks that says Iran has 1/3 of the world's oil (I assume they refer to 'deposits'). I have dealt alot with those folks in the past and assumed you were one of them. Sorry.
I read the '10%' part from the EIA, before you responded to me post. If you are saying that Iran has 10% of the world's proven oil reserves, you are correct. However, they are still an economic minnow, and could scarcely afford a fully-backed UN embargo. 10% of the world's reserves doesn't mean as much as you think. Their economy still sucks in every other sector. They are a strong country as far as the middle east goes (along with Saudi Arabia) but are nothing compared to the G8 nations.
I'm not going to continue arguing this because it has turned into a bit of a flame war, and we are arguing over minutia. I will not apologize for my flames, because it was your own words that turned this argument into what it has become. I do, however, feel bad for not taking the time to offer a decent counterpost.
Your sources - Yes the CIA world factbook is a great source, along with the EIA.
Also, I'm afraid that no ammount of arguing will convince me that Iran could kick the US out of Iraq. Maybe someone more open-minded will pick up where I left off.
bullshit, he did what was neccessary. america will survive. we have elections. calm down. this is neccessary, life feeds on life, feeds on life.... lol
Disgustipated reference? Nice
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Well guys...Unconformed made a very sneaky Tool reference in his post, he therefore wins this debate by default...next time try harder and perhaps you can win the next one, or at least tie by doing the same.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
I know that's not the way to protest. It's not very constructive. But you were questioning their right of exercising their for free speech. If it were up to you they wouldn't have it anymore. I bet you made Osama Bin Laden smile.
There is not going to be any invasion of Iran. Arguing about it is pointless.The Army is not going to mount any "surprise" invasion. The logistics involved would be massive. In todays day and age it would be impossible to hide a build up.
The American people, regardless of popular uninformed opinion here, have no interest in getting involved in another war. Put whatever poll you want, polls can say anything. The American people are much more interested in getting out of the current wars (plural) we are already in. We will see how much in the coming election. I don't think the US is all that keen on abandoning Iraq as we feel running out on them would be a disaster and could make things worse. The military isn't prepared or capable right now, of opening up a third front. The idea is the fantasy of armchair amature generals who have no clue what they are talking about.
Relations have not gotten to the point that anyone is going to drop anything on anyone, in fact, lately Iran and the US has toned down. They have an idiot for a leader as we do. The Iranian people are not clamoring for war with anyone.
madace, yes a war with Iran would be bad I would not argue that but the Iranian military is not as well equipped as the US and majority of its troops are local militias ( a frightening number at that). They would not be capable for putting anyone on the defense unless they invaded. Hence the reason no one will invade Iran. It would be incredibly bloody and incredibly pointless, what would we do if we won, occupy them too? The other side is, what would it mean if we lost? The damage both in men and material in addition to politically would be a disaster. It would be 1000% pure insanity.
Talk about a country with no gun control laws...we should pit them against our Rednecks. If we air dropped a bunch of beer and hookers in Iran, then released our rednecks and told them to go fetch, it would be an interesting battle of "values" to say the least. I have faith in our rednecks, victory would be ours.
If you'd attack Iran they'd have a reason and a justification (and millions of people supporting them in their future ventures) to attack the US. Currently this is not the case. If you truly want to prevent loss of American life then you shouldn't attack Iran, or any other country except when there is no other option.
It's like shouting "You're gonna attack me!" to someone on the street and then attacking that person. Afterwards he might fight back and you're all "See? I told you he was going to attack me!".
Very weird (lack of) logic.
Are you saying that Iran is not interested in attacking us at the moment? It's impossible to argue with you on this because you are absolutely convinced that Iran already has justification to attack us; and will only continue to find ways to support the Iranian cause.
Wow. That's a very interesting source you gave me there. Thanks a lot.
It clearly says that Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves. Just as I said:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Iran/pdf.pdf
Does it clearly say that? Do you mind telling me what the difference between what you are saying, and what that chart says is? It was a mistake linking that site to you because you do not know what the charts actually mean. This is especially true considering that you think you understand everything, and are incapable of ceding even an unimportant point to the opposition - even when you know you are wrong. Here I was expecting you not to even use that website, because 'the government owns it'.
Listen up MadAce, and this goes for your little conspiracy theorist supporters, too. You cannot simply go out on the internet, google something, and pull off whatever you deem to be supportive of your argument. You must understand the context of information.
There is a vast, vast, difference between PROVEN OIL RESERVES, and OIL RESERVES. The difference is very important, because confusing the nomenclature places very different values on the reserves in question. There are some important details that I'm not familiar with, but the spirit of this language is something like this.
DEPOSIT - A deposit of material, such as oil. Iran does not nearly have as many deposits as venezuela, or Saudi Arabia (or the US, for that matter)
RESERVE - Minerals (oil, etc) that can be mined and refined for a profit, given the current market and production capability.
PROVEN RESERVES -Minerals that are clearly profitable and are usually being actively produced.
Iran has 10% of the worlds PROVEN RESERVES. You cannot walk around saying that Iran has 10% of the world's oil reserves, because it simply does not. Making that claim is outright stupid. Then again, you don't seem to have more than a passing interest in cutting and pasting information from various sources, and taking it out of your own context.
I wouldn't be more surprised if you mistook Iran's oil production for oil reserves.
The US has more than enough planes and bombers. However getting sufficient amounts in the region will be a logistical challenge. Remember that this would be the first time that the US would have to face any kind of air force since World War 2. After that I can't remember a single occasion where it didn't have immediate air superiority.
Having complete mastery of the skies would be impossible against Iran. They've been focussing on the development and production of homegrown medium range artillery missiles. Most of them have a range up to 1000 km. The amounts Iran have are rumored to be enough to level US bases in Iran and Afghanistan.
And most importantly: The Lebanon war of 2006 has taught us that even a country with a top-notch and well-trained military like Israel can't stop missiles from being launched. Even when launched from a neighboring country.
They also have an unknown amount of SAM missiles. When fired is sufficient quantities (a theory supported by the Millennium Challenge wargame of 2002) they'll be able to overwhelm US air defenses.
Going into Iran with a ground force would be... Not healthy to say the least. Contrary to Iraq's army in 2003 Iran does have a well-trained and well-equipped military. And the numbers. Oh, the numbers.
We had absolutely no problem invading Iraq. They were supposed to be one of the strongest countries in the middle east. Since you are a five-star general, you seem to already understand the logistics behind attacking Iran.
The rest of us will have to rely on empirical data, such as the outcome of the war with Iraq.
So here is how it is. You are a military general and understand everything about Iran's capabilities, with your vast experience conducting military operations. You can go to a website, get information on the number of defenses in Iran, and give us a very accurate idea of what attacking Iran will be like. Have you considered consulting for the US government?
One day you will learn that in the real world you simply cannot take information out of context, and act like you understand it's implications, without any experience dealing with the information in a real world setting.
We defeated Iraq without a problem, and our military is the strongest in the world. That is all I can go off of - because I have never been in the military. Feel free to continue copy/pasting troop numbers from a website. In world war II, Russia had far more troops than Germany or the US, but the Germans were able to give them a run for their money.
Good lord. I think you've been playing too many bad wargames or something. Civ 4?
I don't play wargames. Nor am I a five-star general.
The US force in Iraq wold collapse in no time as hundreds (thousands?) of artillery missiles rain down on US bases. Combine this with a fully supported (well there would be no reason for Iran to hold back and not give those insurgents some fine guns)and possibly even a ground assault and you've got Iraq out of the picture. Tho I'd imagine that Iran wouldn't even want to hold Iraq (just do damage there so the US would waste money and resources and have its supply lines for any kind of invasion completely busted. Iran wouldn't want to upset Israel and Turkey by holding on to Iraq. It doesn't have to. Go in and scorch the earth. Get out.
I'm going to hold on to these snippets from this paragraph you wrote. Here you go again, writing about the defenses in Iran. If Iran is so completely able, why have they not acted on their desire to attack us yet?
Again, you should consult Washington on this matter. Print out your little chart from the internet, and let them know that Iran could make the US force in Iraq 'collapse'. Tell them about your economic knowledge and how much damage Iran could do to Iraq. After all, MadAce always checks 'da facts' - according to his fan. He can look at any information and discover why it signals the coming of the new world order.
Everyting you say is part of your own fantasy reality where you have the world figured out. Rather than relying on empirical information, and general common sense, like the rest of us, you go above and beyond your station as a plumber/electrician/store clerk and are now able to determine the exact outcome of wars, elections, and the economy. You know everything, from every field and industry. The world truly is your oyster MadAce. Perhaps since you are so endeared to the Iranians, you should go to Iran and help them lift their 10% of the world's reserves. You'd make a fortune. Then you could destroy the USA, sleep with Osama Bin Laden, and make Ron Paul your closest advisor.
That's a slightly more realistic assessment of the value of Iraq and Afghanistan in an Iranian war.
And in any case the US supply lines would be easily many times longer than the Iranian supply lines. Remember that the Iranians are fighting a home match.
MadAce's Claims:
1. If the US attacks Iran, the Iranians will defeat the US in Iraq. Iran will be capable of conquering Iraq.
2. The US could not gain reasonable air superiority over Iran.
3. Iran has 10% of the world's oil RESERVES
4. The US could not handle the logistics of supplying troops in Iran
5. The US could not bring planes into Iran without a 'logistical challenge'
I just don't understand the logistical challenge. Explain to me why supplying Iran will be any harder than supplying Iraq or Afghanistan, given that we already hold both countries, as well as the Persian gulf. We already have the ability to supply ~3/4 of Iran's borders. What would make it hard to supply a force in Iran. (NOTE: I am speaking about supplying Iran after the invasion)
March 19, 2008, 2:23 PM (GMT+02:00)
“Iran has got to be very high on that list,” said a senior aide ahead of the talks US Vice President Dick Cheney will hold during his 10-day tour of the Middle East and Turkey, which began Monday, March 17 in Iraq.
Singling out Oman, the aide noted that the US and Oman are co-guardians of the strategic Strait of Hormuz. “The Omanis, like a lot of other people,” he said “are concerned by the escalating tensions between the rest of the world community and Iran and by some of Iran’s activities, particularly in the nuclear field, but outside its borders as well.”
According to , the official was referring to Tehran’s meddling in Iraq, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip.
Our military, Washington and Gulf sources report that US Vice President Dick Cheney is again talking about possible US military action to shut down Iran’s covert nuclear program.
Cheney stopped over in Oman Wednesday, Wed. March 19, after two days in Iraq. He will travel next to Saudi Arabia, is due in Jerusalem next Saturday and will also visit Ramallah and Turkey.
Our sources report exclusively that his talks are focusing on two aspects of the Iranian nuclear threat:
1. The Bush administration’s decision to distance itself from the National Intelligence Estimate released last December. Its conclusion that Iran’s nuclear arms program was shelved in 2003, which rendered America’s military option superfluous, is now deemed a mistake.
2. The administration now buys British, German, French and Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran is indeed pressing forward with programs for building nuclear weapons, warheads and ballistic missiles for their delivery.
The vice president will listen closely to his hosts’ ideas about joint efforts for containing Iran’s aggressive expansionist thrusts across the Persian Gulf and Middle East and halting its progress towards nuclear armaments.
The vice president’s choice of capitals for his tour is a pointer to the fact that the military option, off since December, may be on again. American will need the cooperation of all four - Oman, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey - to mount a military attack on Iran.
Oman hosts the big American air bases which are the core of the defense shield for the Strait of Hormuz and for the US Navy, Marine and Air Force units deployed in the Persian Gulf.
Saudi Arabia is the senior Gulf and Arabian trendsetter and the key to pan-Arab endorsement for a US offensive against Tehran. Riyadh has opposed military action until now.
Israel is the only regional nation willing to actively participate in an attack on Iran’s nuclear sites; its military has been putting together plans for going it alone.
Last week, our sources report, Jerusalem was notified by the White House that the Iranian issue had been added to Cheney’s regional agenda at the last minute; his hosts were requested to prepare themselves for exhaustive and lengthy discussions on Iran with the vice president and his aides.
Israel’s defense cabinet was accordingly convened last Wednesday – officially to scrutinize the armed forces’ forward planning and applications of the Lebanon war inquiry panel’s recommendations. But, our military sources report, the ministers were convened to decide which of Israel’s military plans of action were to be presented to Cheney.
Turkey is a pivotal element in any war plan because American warplanes and missiles heading for Iran will have to transit its airspace and take off from air bases on its soil. The US and Turkey have improved their military relations since they worked together against PKK havens in northern Iraq last February.
The vice president’s Iraq visit marked the fifth anniversary of the US invasion.
While there, he made it clear that the US was in no hurry to pull out of the country before its mission was completed and would not allow the country to become a staging ground for terrorist attacks on Americans.
In his talks with Iraq leaders, he hammered out military and political plans to bridge the 10 months remaining until a new president takes office in Washington. After talking to prime minister Nouri al Maliki, the US leader flew north to meet with Kurdish leader Masoud Barzani in the Kurdish capital of Irbil.
In particular, he sought progress on Iraq’s oil law which is held up by disagreements between Kurds and Arab Sunni leaders
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
having cheney and bush with no re-election campaign in sight makes me feel safe.
chips, dips chains & whips.
War with Iran is nothing compaired to war on DNC Convention floor when Clinton and Obama supporters freakin riot against each other.God I love Amercia.
Trade in material assumptions for spiritual facts and make permanent progress.
the convention is in august it looks like. this is nuts. there really is civil unrest regarding the 2 candidates.
I know frodus and I are having a blast :4}
chips, dips chains & whips.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
Georgie is loyal to the cause. You afford him far too much credit. I offer Dick more latitude.
TORT REFORM: I am in favor of "settlement panels". Easy for the judge to look at a "best practice" settlement per offense. Who needs litigation when we can save time and money by cutting out the middle man through "comparative effectiveness"?
I have no idea who is posting what in that thread above, but the guy in white writing wrote, that Iran would be the first time since WW2 that the U.S. would be fighting an airforce.
This is clearly very far from the truth.
In the Korean war and the Kosovo war the U.S. failed to achive air superiority, let alone air domination.
Both Korea and Yugoslavia had considerable air assets of comparable tech.
Iran on the otherhand hasn't bought any new aircraft since 1979. It has some old Mirages, Phantoms and Tomcats, plus the Iraqi airforce that ran away. Perhaps totaling 50 fighters. It also has the remanents of the Iraqi airforce. Again very old airframes.
1 U.S. carrier is more than enough. The chances of any of them getting off the ground is minimal. The chances of all 50 being serviceable is also minimal since they are mostly of U.S. design and were all sabotaged by their U.S. engineers around the time of embassy siege, and 30 years is a long time to go without spares.
The U.S. on the other hand has two carriers in theatre (with a maximum of 14 possible) so thats 200 odd fighters (with a possible maximum of around two thousand). Bases in Saudi, Oman, Iraq. Afghanistan, Uzebekistan, Doha and Turkey. It has Iran absolutely geographically surrounded by airstrips with the same level of air logistics as was able to be brought to bear on Iraqi forces in 1991.
Total domination.
What Iran does have up it's sleave, is as the same poster mentioned, longe range artillerry rockets. These are not accurate. You could hit an enemy city with one, maybe even an airbase. Where in that city, where on that airbase is anybodies guess.
Iran of course has no satelittes. So knowing which airbase to attack or when one is vulnerable isn't necesseraily possible.
Iran also has a brand new and state of the art SAM defence system. Mobile tanks. They are very dangerous. Their mobile nature makes them difficult to target for a first strike. A long way short of impossible of course, but challenging.
Essentially this is no greater challenge than Iraq has been aerially. The U.S. has a veritable Armada at it's disposal. Overwhelming force.
This is the kind of fighting America does best. They are more likely to shoot their own planes down than they are to lose any to Iranian fire.
The other strategic assets that Iran has of consequence is silkworm missiles and anti shipping mines. With a range of 90 miles and already narrow shipping lanes, Iran has the capability to deny shiping access to the gulf for a limited period of time. (It also has submarines, but the Gulf is very shallow).
With regards to the localised international support of places such as Oman and Saudi, who exactly did you think had most to fear from Iranian nuclear weapons?
The reason Iran must be prevented from going nuclear is so that it lacks the capability to annex countries like this. If Saddam had had nukes, he would not only still be in Kuwait. He would be in Saudi.
P.S. an increase in oil prices benefits oil producing countries. It is China and the West who would suffer from this, not Saudi and Kuwait.
CLICK HERE TO GET A LIST OF FREE MMO LISTS!!!
QFE !
I too used to debate with people on this forum until I discovered they conveniently overlooked my presented facts in the form of statistics, quotations, GNP etc. etc. Now I just ignore them, although they still irritate me because they have the right to vote, thus representing a political influence, haha!
PS: I'm still amazed at the stupidity of some people, though. I mean, superior firepower wins the day??? Lol, the last time this was true was probably during the Normandy invasion- pre-atomic age. If you obliterate a poor region/country for political/military purposes, they don't amass a conventional army for you to easily destroy - they send 4- 5 sleeper cells with dirty bombs to your capitol. On a bigger scale, if you put pressure on another major power(China strangely enough comes to mind), it's not a matter of winning - it's a matter of having 20 minutes to say to your wife/husband/mom/dad/children you love them before those "made in China" nukes hit(if you're even told they're on the way) - get real and stop living in a dream - NOBODY wins in a major conflict.
MadAce:
I apologize for thinking that you did not know the meaning of 'reserve'. At first, I believed you were one of the folks that says Iran has 1/3 of the world's oil (I assume they refer to 'deposits'). I have dealt alot with those folks in the past and assumed you were one of them. Sorry.
I read the '10%' part from the EIA, before you responded to me post. If you are saying that Iran has 10% of the world's proven oil reserves, you are correct. However, they are still an economic minnow, and could scarcely afford a fully-backed UN embargo. 10% of the world's reserves doesn't mean as much as you think. Their economy still sucks in every other sector. They are a strong country as far as the middle east goes (along with Saudi Arabia) but are nothing compared to the G8 nations.
I'm not going to continue arguing this because it has turned into a bit of a flame war, and we are arguing over minutia. I will not apologize for my flames, because it was your own words that turned this argument into what it has become. I do, however, feel bad for not taking the time to offer a decent counterpost.
Your sources - Yes the CIA world factbook is a great source, along with the EIA.
Also, I'm afraid that no ammount of arguing will convince me that Iran could kick the US out of Iraq. Maybe someone more open-minded will pick up where I left off.
Disgustipated reference? Nice
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Indeed!
and it does...
chips, dips chains & whips.
Well guys...Unconformed made a very sneaky Tool reference in his post, he therefore wins this debate by default...next time try harder and perhaps you can win the next one, or at least tie by doing the same.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.