Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Gameplay
      3. Missions
      4. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
      4. Frontier Pursuits
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. DLC
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
      7. The Diamond Casino Heist
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA 6

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA IV Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA SA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA VC Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA III Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Wheelman

Iran

Recommended Posts

Wheelman

It appears the stakes with Iran are escalating.

 

For many months and years now, Iran has been pursuing nuclear technology - they say with the intent to acquire civil nuclear power. Of course, this is questioned by the Western powers. A UN resolution passed in December 2006 gave them 60 days to halt all research and enrichment projects, a deadline which has now passed. The UN has therefore passed another resolution authorising more severe sanctions. Iran's president appears to be getting more and more determined each time.

 

Then there's the Iraq connection. The US & UK claim that Iran is behind much of the equipment and funding that is being used to attack US & UK troops. Iran has captured 15 Royal Navy men, claiming them to be illegally in Iranian waters.

 

I can't help but feel that we've been in a similar situation before.

 

Of course, the difference in the confrontations with Iraq and Iran is that anybody with half a brain could read between the lines and realise that Iraq posed no threat. There was no evidence of Saddam Hussein pursuing or hoarding WMD. There were a few scuffles and disagreements, but largely the IAEA said as much, only Bush & Blair said differently and claimed that Iraq was some monstrous huge threat.

 

This time, the IAEA says that Iran may be 5-10 years from developing their own nuclear bomb. Iran's attitude is defensive and combative, which has been matched by the US - but Iran is being equally combative with the far less hostile EU and UN. The White House claims it has no intention of attacking Iran, but at the same time recently dispatched the battle group of the USS Stennis to the Persian Gulf.

 

Is it just me, or does the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran pose such a threat to the stability of the developed world and it's energy sources, that it can't possibly be allowed to develop it's own nuclear capability? Are we starting out towards Gulf War III?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

I personally not as a "Gulf War 3" (might even be 4 if you count the Iran-Iraq War) but I view it as the potential next battleground for The Long War.

 

In a perfect world, nuclear power would be limited to an organization of the UN. They would physically control each and every one of the world's nuclear power plants. Meaning no material would be sold, given away, etc.

 

But the world isn't perfect.

 

Iraq did once have the ambition of nuclear power, and even used chemical stockpiles against its own people. But Iran poses a threat (via organizations such as Hezbollah) to unleash these forces on the western world.

 

It is most likely that we will once again end up in a war against a middle eastern nation. But hopefully execute the attack against only the necessary targets and have the assistance of inside elements and world support.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G MONEY $$$

I don't know what is going to happen with Iran. All I know is that if the US decides to go into Iran the world is going to have a big problem for a long time. Things are already bad as they are, I hope they don't go into Iran. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bigs

Yeah, I cannot see this Iran situation resolving peacefully to be honest.

 

I don't think they pose nearly as large of a threat to the US and Europe as they do to Israel, however. I believe Iran's president said he wanted to 'wipe them off the map.'

 

At this time, I don't believe the threat is severe enough for the US or anyone else to use military force on Iran. Although that's never stopped the US before. But if in 5-10 years Iran has the bomb and are threatening like they are now, the situation might unfortunately call for military action. But I do not believe it would be a disaster like the Iraq situation. In a situation like that, I think most nations would agree they were a threat unlike Iraq so it would be a united effort against them instead of the US and UK going it alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
In a perfect world, nuclear power would be limited to an organization of the UN. They would physically control each and every one of the world's nuclear power plants. Meaning no material would be sold, given away, etc.

In ideal world nuclear power would not be controlled at all. Even now, control of nuclear power is overstretched. I can understand monitoring worlds nuclear arsenals to make sure that the weapons of mass destruction does not fall in the hands of terrorists, but no state should be prevented from developing nuclear arsenal. You either acknowledge a state as sovereign, having full right to develop whatever military force that it believes to be necessary, or you do not acknowledge it to be a state, in which case, you must invade and annex that territory. Attacking to disarm a state, and then leaving it to fend for itself is at the very least barbaric. It's either your territory, or none of your business.

 

Nuclear arsenal should either be a right of every state, or no state at all. Personally, I prefer the former. We have seen what happens without the nuclear weapons on our stage of civilization. We had WWI and WWII. Without any doubt, development of nuclear arsenal and trans-continental ballistic delivery methods by United States and Soviet Union are the only things that have prevented WWIII from being started by these two superpowers.

 

That is not the only example of nuclear weapons ending or preventing wars. War with Japan at the end of WWII was cut short by the only military use of nuclear weapons in history. Japan has surrendered, making it unnecessary for US to invade. The loss of human life predicted as a result of US invading Japan was estimated to be several times greater than lives taken by nuclear blasts and fallout.

 

Since then, nuclear arsenals have only been used as political weapons. No full-out war has ever started between two states with nuclear weapons. One of the more recent examples is the situation between Pakistan and India. There are still many conflicts between these two states, at least on battlefields, after these two states have performed nuclear tests.

 

It is for all these reasons that I believe that if Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons, they should be allowed to. They should be required to allow inspections from other nuclear power states to ensure that the nuclear weapons are safely stored, and that if the Iran develops long-range delivery systems, they be inspected for safety against accidental launches. Similarly, Iran should be allowed to send their own teams to inspect the nuclear arsenals of other nuclear powers. In the long run, such arrangement can only stabilize the situation, requiring both sides to use political and economical leverages rather than military ones. A state capable of developing nuclear weapons cannot be ran by a bunch of lunatics. They will not use nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon, because they know that other nuclear powers will reply in kind, and have full potential to incinerate every inch of their country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

Iran will become a problem. The temptation to have Nuclear Weapons would be too big. NATO should not attack Iran. Iran has a large military, and unlike the former Iraqi one, it has high moral among its troops, they are well equipped, and they have the technology. They will be an enemy more than worthy of fighting.

 

However, Iran will not win so easily, but no one will win easily. In fact, the entire concept of "winning" seems rather vague these days. A NATO vs. Iran war could, as one earlier mentioned, become the Long War.

 

But NATO probably won't join. NATO is way too divided as it is. The EU is also divided. It is likely it is going to be a US lead war. And this time the UK won't be so willing to join.

 

The most worrying part about this war though, is that this time there is actually reason to go to war. And reason can persuade some people, and politicians. Of course, there are many reasons for and against why the US should go to war with Iran: (hopefully more against than for)

 

  • The US is already in a "war". The US also have large military presence in Afghanistan.
  • Iran will be capable of producing Nuclear Weapons in 5 to 10 years.
  • Iran will under pressure be capable of developing small Nuclear Weapons in less than a year (remember, war speeds up technology).
  • The causes of Iran having Nuclear Weapons will mean that it will become a much larger threat than it is today, so stopping it from getting there would be a wise choice.
  • Again if we force them into hurrying their production, the lost in man numbers will be too big.

It will either be a suicide mission, or a war that gets stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
illspirit

 

There was no evidence of Saddam Hussein pursuing or hoarding WMD.

Sure there was. We still had the invoices from when we sold him the things in the '80s. wink.gif

 

It's just that nobody thought he'd have used them all already. Oops. blush.gif

 

 

But, yea, I don't think the US will attack Iran. Chances are, Congress and Dubya will never agree on a budget, and we'll have a Federal .gov shutdown a la '95. Hell, with Pelosi and the other moonbats in charge of Congress, Iran could probably nuke one or two major American cities before Congress even contemplated arguing about a non-binding resolution saying Iran has been really, really naughty.

 

Meanwhile, back in Tehran, they'll probably want to hold those Royal Marines as long as possible; alternating between threatening trial and execution one day, to theatrical negotiations for a release the next. This will serve to A: try to rattle the nerves and resolve of the UK (and the west in general), and B: stall for more time. If they can stall for long enough (either via hostages or otherwise), Hillary! or Obama will probably be the next POTUS after '08, and Tehran will be able to relax and work on their weapons without fear of US intervention.

 

Then, by 2010 or 2011, they'll be ready to turn Israel and London into glass parking lots without warning.

 

And at that, after a decade of socialist nannying from Labour, I don't think the general UK public would have the stomach for a unilateral attack to get the 15 Marines back or anything else. Considering how the public has been whipped into a frenzy of fear over guns/knives/pointy sticks, methinks the casualties in the first few days in a real war with Iran's very real army would just be too much to fathom. Especially with 24 hour live news coverage.

 

And, yes, I realize the sheeple in the US aren't much better. tounge.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mark

Something's going to happen. Just a matter of now or in a few years. Tbh, Iran aren't being a threat, they're just being cocky. If someone was like that on here, they'd be banned by now. But this is real life and that banning option would cost money and lives.

 

When I read in the news about the fact they'd captured British Troops and they could face the death penalty, I was furious...but really, how dumb do Iran wanna be? They won't kill them. If they do, that's an act of agression against a NATO member country, so I'm sure the UK could rally member nations on going crusadal on their ass.

 

I still don't see them as much of a threat as of yet, though they are pushing it. One day they'll go too far, though that's just not in their interest to do so.

 

I say another 5 or so years and things will get messy. As the nuclear situation has almost run it's course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

Well the U.S. is now conducting military war games off the coast of Iran. 15 ships. 100 warplanes.

 

It's intended to be a show of force and they say it has no direct relation to the hostage taking.

 

Tony Blair also says that if the hostages aren't returned soon the UK will start to ratchet up the pressure.

 

I still think that no nation has the right to a means to erradicate the entireity of the human race... but even if they do, the current Iranian regime doesn't really strike me as the trustworthy type.

 

They are ruled by an ideology all too similar to the one that says you will go to heaven by taking your own life and the lives of others simultaneously. So the equal annihilation aspect that held off the USSR doesn't feel quite as strong here.

 

I don't have a problem with the idea of a country having nuclear power... it's people that worry me, and the people currenty running Iran worry me.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just another thug

With the Iraq taking British hostages it seems that war is imminent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

If a nuclear conflict does start in the near future, I wouldn't be surprised if its Israel that starts it. Ahmadinejad has already talked about wiping Israel off the map, so I doubt the Israelis would take too kindly to Iran's nuclear power. And since Israel itself currently has about 400 nuclear weapons, it is certainly capable of launching a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. I don't think the Israelis are going to wait for Iran to fire first, especially since one nuclear bomb could probably take out half of Israel.

 

Ideally, I don't think any country should be able to have nuclear weapons, because a vast majority of casualties in any use of nuclear weapons would be civilians. Also, I don't see anyone as being trustworthy enough to possess weapons that could potentially extinguish the human race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
I don't think the Israelis are going to wait for Iran to fire first, especially since one nuclear bomb could probably take out half of Israel.

Not even close. Keep in mind that there is a big difference between scalable power of H-bombs that can go into multi-Megaton ranges, and a typical atomic fission bomb. The later have a nearly fixed power of about 20 kilotons. It took both the Soviet Union and the United States nearly a decade to develop H-bombs after first atomic bombs, and that was during the high point of nuclear physics and with great resources thrown at it by the super powers. Today, there is a handful of nuclear physicists who can design such weapons, and the resources of most of todays nuclear powers aren't nearly as great.

 

The kind of weapons that Iran can build in the next few years may lay ruin to a radius of a couple of kilometers, with some damage as far as 5km away from the center. Initial radiation damage would also be limited to a few kilometers. This is still catastrophic if it occurs in a center of the large city, but there is a matter of delivery.

 

Ideally, I don't think any country should be able to have nuclear weapons, because a vast majority of casualties in any use of nuclear weapons would be civilians. Also, I don't see anyone as being trustworthy enough to possess weapons that could potentially extinguish the human race.

Lives taken by nuclear weapons to date: ~300,000

Lives spared because of diplomatic use of nuclear arsenal: Many millions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

The only reason why the MAD doctrine worked, was because both sides knew that they were going to lose. If the US gets through with its missile defence shield, they will automatically have an advantage and thus the MAD doctrine does not work any longer.

 

If one nation has an advantage, they can fire their weapons, and are likely not to get assured destruction. If anyone who has nothing to lose, have nuclear weapons, then he may be willing to launch them off for the sake of just doing it, cause again, the MAD doctrine won't work here either.

 

However, I assume the US (and NATO for that matter) won't just fire their nukes for any reason, in fact, even if Iran would fire nukes into Europe (I am not sure how far Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles can travel) and the missile shield protects the Europeans, then the NATO forces should prevail with nuclear weapons, but instead military forces.

 

In any case, Iran knows what's coming for them if they fire their weapons, they most likely only use them for diplomatic reasons (and perhaps some blackmailing).

 

As for Israel, no, I don't think they will fire either. Cause what you are forgetting is that when you fire a nuclear weapon, tonnes of security/nuclear experts stand in your way, to avoid anyone firing the weapons without considering the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cypress Hill

 

I don't think the Israelis are going to wait for Iran to fire first, especially since one nuclear bomb could probably take out half of Israel.

 

Not even close. Keep in mind that there is a big difference between scalable power of H-bombs that can go into multi-Megaton ranges, and a typical atomic fission bomb. The later have a nearly fixed power of about 20 kilotons. It took both the Soviet Union and the United States nearly a decade to develop H-bombs after first atomic bombs, and that was during the high point of nuclear physics and with great resources thrown at it by the super powers. Today, there is a handful of nuclear physicists who can design such weapons, and the resources of most of todays nuclear powers aren't nearly as great.

Even so, Israel once started an armed conflict with Palestine when Israeli soldiers opened fire on several Muslims started throwing rocks at a temple. if that's what they're willing to do when people start throwing rocks at them, imagine what they would do if a state that vehemently hates Israel develops weapons that could, at the very least, kill thousands of their people.

 

 

 

Ideally, I don't think any country should be able to have nuclear weapons, because a vast majority of casualties in any use of nuclear weapons would be civilians. Also, I don't see anyone as being trustworthy enough to possess weapons that could potentially extinguish the human race.

Lives taken by nuclear weapons to date: ~300,000

Lives spared because of diplomatic use of nuclear arsenal: Many millions.

And how will the existence of such destructive weapons end? When we finally achieve world peace and harmony, will every country simultaneously disarm their bombs and enter a state of everlasting tranquility? I doubt it. Over the course of the following centuries, I think someone will inevitably start a nuclear conflict (or will use more advanced weapons) for whatever reason and the casualties will dwarf those of any previous war. While non-nuclear wars often kill millions of people, Nuclear wars, even if they are extremely unlikely in the near future, could potentially drive humans to extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
K^2
Even so, Israel once started an armed conflict with Palestine when Israeli soldiers opened fire on several Muslims started throwing rocks at a temple. if that's what they're willing to do when people start throwing rocks at them, imagine what they would do if a state that vehemently hates Israel develops weapons that could, at the very least, kill thousands of their people.

Common people throw rocks, not politicians. A state capable of developing nuclear arsenal is not going to have peasants running it. You really don't have to worry about states that have developed nuclear weapons. You should be much more concerned with ex-powers that are now on the decline. In Russia, a small revolt could easily result in nuclear weapons in hands of the kind of people who throw rocks at tanks.

 

If one nation has an advantage, they can fire their weapons, and are likely not to get assured destruction. If anyone who has nothing to lose, have nuclear weapons, then he may be willing to launch them off for the sake of just doing it, cause again, the MAD doctrine won't work here either.

Exactly. The nuclear weapons only work as diplomatic ones as long as no one side has advantage. This requires a large number of countries with the weapons to make sure that fluctuations of various unions and treaties does not destroy the balance. Right now, it's pretty much just the China that is working to counterbalance the nuclear arsenals of United States and EU members. That's not the best situation. If Iran was to have nuclear weapons, it would greatly stabilize the situation in Middle East.

 

And no leader of the country will try to use nukes as the last resort. These people always hope for a comeback. They will run and hide. Launching nukes makes it impossible, because a country the size of Iran can be turned into a solid plane of glass with US nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated

I bet you $50.00 USD that the war will either start during the Bush administration, or the war WON'T START at all. Its that simple. Everyone rules out the possibility of a diplomatic solution! The Bush Admin don't want a peaceful end. They want to dehumanize the Iranians as much as possible before they attack. I am telling you, if the war doesn't start in the bush admin, the next pres of the US will definitely (for the love of God, I hope so) go to extreme measures to ensure a diplomatic solution. Its THAT SIMPLE.

 

You CANNOT get away with attacking a country like Iran. The echoes will be felt for a VERY long time.

 

Just my $0.02 (sorry for the caps but I really feel some people don't get the MAIN points of my sentences lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Breaking Bohan

Now that US has totally pissed Russia off, I doubt Russia will vote along w/ US in the UN Security Counsel --- therefore, US would have to "go alone" if they decided to bomb Iran.

 

While I think Iran w/ nuclear weapons would not be good - I think bombing Iran would make the middle east an even bigger mess than it currently is b/c it would re-ignate all conflicts w/ Hamas and Hezbollah - not to mention that Iran can turn Iraq into a shatty mess again if they decided to do so.

 

I say let Israel bomb Iran if they have to - but leave us alone damnit!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hart
Now that US has totally pissed Russia off, I doubt Russia will vote along w/ US in the UN Security Counsel --- therefore, US would have to "go alone" if they decided to bomb Iran.

 

While I think Iran w/ nuclear weapons would not be good - I think bombing Iran would make the middle east an even bigger mess than it currently is b/c it would re-ignate all conflicts w/ Hamas and Hezbollah - not to mention that Iran can turn Iraq into a shatty mess again if they decided to do so.

 

I say let Israel bomb Iran if they have to - but leave us alone damnit!

You really have started posting in D&D a lot havent you? 1 year bump, c'mon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lioshenka
Now that US has totally pissed Russia off, I doubt Russia will vote along w/ US in the UN Security Counsel --- therefore, US would have to "go alone" if they decided to bomb Iran.

 

While I think Iran w/ nuclear weapons would not be good - I think bombing Iran would make the middle east an even bigger mess than it currently is b/c it would re-ignate all conflicts w/ Hamas and Hezbollah - not to mention that Iran can turn Iraq into a shatty mess again if they decided to do so.

 

I say let Israel bomb Iran if they have to - but leave us alone damnit!

You really have started posting in D&D a lot havent you? 1 year bump, c'mon

Oh, he should have started a new thread, yes? confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPMovies

Well since its bumped already I might as well join in.

 

I think that by the end of September Israel will attack Iran and America will join in, and Britain. Then Russia attacks and NATO joins in and we have a much bigger war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Reincarnated

If Iran gets the bomb, they won't attack anybody. They need it for political purposes and leverage. Iran is a country of 80 million people. Oh what's that? They said they will attack? Yeah, about that, they're lying. If anything, some other country will launch a "pre-emptive strike." You know with the thing with nukes is the first time you get one, you're going to need a delivery system. ICBMs aren't exactly easy to make. The US started research in 1946 and finished in 1957! So that means good ol' bomber. Good luck getting past Israel's approx. 1000 aircraft and then getting ready to be mutually destroyed by retaliatory strikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rown

I'm pretty sure they already have missiles with a good shot into central Europe. At the very least they can hit Israel. Hell Saddam could hit Israel and that was almost 20 years ago. I'm sure Iran wouldn't have let him get to far ahead.

 

Besides with Russia in their current mood they might drift a longer range missile through the Caspian Sea and Iran suddenly gets interoceanic range... the west's attention is drawn off of them and they get some of their satellite states back in the confusion.

 

But I do believe that at the moment it's more likely that Israel would strike first... which sucks because that means there'd be a greater chance of Muslim involvement outside of Iran. Where as if Iran did something first... we'd only probably have to be worried about Hezbollah and Syria.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice
I'm pretty sure they already have missiles with a good shot into central Europe. At the very least they can hit Israel. Hell Saddam could hit Israel and that was almost 20 years ago. I'm sure Iran wouldn't have let him get to far ahead.

 

Besides with Russia in their current mood they might drift a longer range missile through the Caspian Sea and Iran suddenly gets interoceanic range... the west's attention is drawn off of them and they get some of their satellite states back in the confusion.

 

But I do believe that at the moment it's more likely that Israel would strike first... which sucks because that means there'd be a greater chance of Muslim involvement outside of Iran. Where as if Iran did something first... we'd only probably have to be worried about Hezbollah and Syria.

 

Rown rampage_ani.gif

Iran is a rogue state - with just relatively child's toys in terms of military hardware - assault rifles and mortars - they have unleashed hell in Iraq. Just imagine what they are prepared to do with long-range missiles with chemical, biological or nuclear capabilities. Unfortunately, I doubt their government would be too hesitant at all, especially since the people stand virtually no chance of getting the government to answer for their actions.

 

I think there is a very easy way the West can weaken/beat Iran without too much trouble from muslims around the world. Most Arab countries - especially those in the gulf region, are pretty wired about Iran's trouble-making in Iraq. They are also useful pro-west allies, so if the US/EU/NATO ever wants to get Iran, I'd imagine they'd get them to take proxy-military action against them. I've even heard (though I'm not too sure about reliability of sources), that these states and Saudi are arming up pretty quickly too, after their recent diplomatic fall-out with Iran concerning it's supported political groups and their militias' forcing of votes to make those parties more influencial.

 

Dispite all my hate to Iran and those scumbag puppets of theirs because of my experiences in Iraq, I'd have to still say military action might be a bad idea - especially now our retards in government broken the little links we had with Russia, and drove them away rather than towards our cause. Getting Iran might be impossible without Russian support, and might start a new Cold War/Proxy-War season, where everyone loses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Breaking Bohan

I don't think it would do much good to attack their nuclear plants ... from what news I've seen they had quite a few locations that were heavily fortified ... plus, the war in Iraq would go straight to hell if Iran wanted to make it rough.

Then what would happen?

 

One possible option:

Surge II! The war would never end! We'd probably have to liberate Iran - it seems like some twisted joke and it's getting a bit nuts. confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TFatseas

Well, on Middle East politics.

 

 

WASHINGTON - Iraq's government wants to buy 36 advanced F-16 fighters from the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reported Sept. 5, citing U.S. military officials.

 

Such a purchase would help reduce Baghdad's reliance on U.S. air power and possibly clear the way for the withdrawal of more U.S. troops, the paper said.

 

U.S. officials have previously maintained that the U.S. would have to keep fighter aircraft and helicopters in Iraq even after American combat troops leave.

 

But even if the deal was approved, countries in the region would likely be concerned with Baghdad's fledgling government having control of such sophisticated arms, the paper added.

 

Iraq has said it plans to buy about $10 billion of U.S. military hardware, including tanks and armored vehicles and transport aircraft.

 

The report of more possible arms deals come as Iraqi and U.S. officials negotiate a sensitive security agreement governing the long-term withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country.

 

 

This is most likely a jab at Iran.

 

Some here are giving them too much credit. Let's look at their military.

 

Their HK G3's and MP5's are license-made, but as one US soldier in Iraq put it when inspecting captured ones: "Are pure cobbled dogsh*t." There are pictures out there of them.

 

Their "new" Khaybar assault rifles are very, very badly made, (terrible ergonomics, poor construction) bullpup clones of the ChiCom clone of the obsolete M-16A1.

 

Their new fighter, which they claim is superior to the F-18 (I don't believe its been absolutely proven to even have left the ground.) is an F-5 with two tail fins instead of one. Its not even in the same league, not even close. It can't even fire guided missiles, just dumb-fire rockets.

 

The F-14's? There are jerry rigged to fly using Russian parts, by cannibalizing other aircraft. They cannot use the original US weapons, and anyways, it doesn't take much to realize putting parts in a plane that wasn't designed for it doesn't do well for mantinance and effectiveness.

 

A true nuclear delivery system (which they don't have, but are trying) is designed even worse than what North Korea has. And that REALLY says something.

 

Anything they make themselves is a total joke. The only equipment they use that is in any way reliable or effective is left over from the Shah's time(not much) or its Russian and even those are chopped-down, less equipped, less effective export "Monkey Models" of true Russian weapons systems.

 

Their soldiers are trained to be fanatical, but not much else.

 

It would not take long for the US to take total air superiority over Iran, and after that it would possibly(most likely) play out similar to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Barring unfortunate circumstances, of course, but there is none of which I can think of.

 

I'm not saying it would be bloodless, but I haven't seen much to suggest a prolonged war.

Edited by TFatseas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Breaking Bohan
Well, on Middle East politics.

 

 

WASHINGTON - Iraq's government wants to buy 36 advanced F-16 fighters from the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reported Sept. 5, citing U.S. military officials.

 

Such a purchase would help reduce Baghdad's reliance on U.S. air power and possibly clear the way for the withdrawal of more U.S. troops, the paper said.

 

U.S. officials have previously maintained that the U.S. would have to keep fighter aircraft and helicopters in Iraq even after American combat troops leave.

 

But even if the deal was approved, countries in the region would likely be concerned with Baghdad's fledgling government having control of such sophisticated arms, the paper added.

 

Iraq has said it plans to buy about $10 billion of U.S. military hardware, including tanks and armored vehicles and transport aircraft.

 

The report of more possible arms deals come as Iraqi and U.S. officials negotiate a sensitive security agreement governing the long-term withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country.

 

 

This is most likely a jab at Iran.

 

Some here are giving them too much credit. Let's look at their military.

 

Their HK G3's and MP5's are license-made, but as one US soldier in Iraq put it when inspecting captured ones: "Are pure cobbled dogsh*t." There are pictures out there of them.

 

Their "new" Khaybar assault rifles are very, very badly made, (terrible ergonomics, poor construction) bullpup clones of the ChiCom clone of the obsolete M-16A1.

 

Their new fighter, which they claim is superior to the F-18 (I don't believe its been absolutely proven to even have left the ground.) is an F-5 with two tail fins instead of one. Its not even in the same league, not even close. It can't even fire guided missiles, just dumb-fire rockets.

 

The F-14's? There are jerry rigged to fly using Russian parts, by cannibalizing other aircraft. They cannot use the original US weapons, and anyways, it doesn't take much to realize putting parts in a plane that wasn't designed for it doesn't do well for mantinance and effectiveness.

 

A true nuclear delivery system (which they don't have, but are trying) is designed even worse than what North Korea has. And that REALLY says something.

 

Anything they make themselves is a total joke. The only equipment they use that is in any way reliable or effective is left over from the Shah's time(not much) or its Russian and even those are chopped-down, less equipped, less effective export "Monkey Models" of true Russian weapons systems.

 

Their soldiers are trained to be fanatical, but not much else.

 

It would not take long for the US to take total air superiority over Iran, and after that it would possibly(most likely) play out similar to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Barring unfortunate circumstances, of course, but there is none of which I can think of.

 

I'm not saying it would be bloodless, but I haven't seen much to suggest a prolonged war.

Selling them our best planes does seem rather foolish ... I mean they don't even have the power running half the time - how the hell are they going to fly those jets?

While I don't doubt we have better hardware, as you stated, what would be the point of attempting to take action against them ---- taking that action will destabalize the entire area.

 

If we did not take such action what's the likely outcome?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
D- Ice

 

Well, on Middle East politics.

 

 

WASHINGTON - Iraq's government wants to buy 36 advanced F-16 fighters from the U.S., the Wall Street Journal reported Sept. 5, citing U.S. military officials.

 

Such a purchase would help reduce Baghdad's reliance on U.S. air power and possibly clear the way for the withdrawal of more U.S. troops, the paper said.

 

U.S. officials have previously maintained that the U.S. would have to keep fighter aircraft and helicopters in Iraq even after American combat troops leave.

 

But even if the deal was approved, countries in the region would likely be concerned with Baghdad's fledgling government having control of such sophisticated arms, the paper added.

 

Iraq has said it plans to buy about $10 billion of U.S. military hardware, including tanks and armored vehicles and transport aircraft.

 

The report of more possible arms deals come as Iraqi and U.S. officials negotiate a sensitive security agreement governing the long-term withdrawal of U.S. forces from the country.

 

 

This is most likely a jab at Iran.

 

Some here are giving them too much credit. Let's look at their military.

 

Their HK G3's and MP5's are license-made, but as one US soldier in Iraq put it when inspecting captured ones: "Are pure cobbled dogsh*t." There are pictures out there of them.

 

Their "new" Khaybar assault rifles are very, very badly made, (terrible ergonomics, poor construction) bullpup clones of the ChiCom clone of the obsolete M-16A1.

 

Their new fighter, which they claim is superior to the F-18 (I don't believe its been absolutely proven to even have left the ground.) is an F-5 with two tail fins instead of one. Its not even in the same league, not even close. It can't even fire guided missiles, just dumb-fire rockets.

 

The F-14's? There are jerry rigged to fly using Russian parts, by cannibalizing other aircraft. They cannot use the original US weapons, and anyways, it doesn't take much to realize putting parts in a plane that wasn't designed for it doesn't do well for mantinance and effectiveness.

 

A true nuclear delivery system (which they don't have, but are trying) is designed even worse than what North Korea has. And that REALLY says something.

 

Anything they make themselves is a total joke. The only equipment they use that is in any way reliable or effective is left over from the Shah's time(not much) or its Russian and even those are chopped-down, less equipped, less effective export "Monkey Models" of true Russian weapons systems.

 

Their soldiers are trained to be fanatical, but not much else.

 

It would not take long for the US to take total air superiority over Iran, and after that it would possibly(most likely) play out similar to Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Barring unfortunate circumstances, of course, but there is none of which I can think of.

 

I'm not saying it would be bloodless, but I haven't seen much to suggest a prolonged war.

Selling them our best planes does seem rather foolish ... I mean they don't even have the power running half the time - how the hell are they going to fly those jets?

While I don't doubt we have better hardware, as you stated, what would be the point of attempting to take action against them ---- taking that action will destabalize the entire area.

 

If we did not take such action what's the likely outcome?

The likely outcome is absolutely nothing. Maliki and his traitorous fags are living on borrowed air from Ayatollah farts.

 

What they are trying to do is try getting everything necessary to render continued US presence in Iraq obscelete, in a hope to have no US soldiers in Iraq, so their true masters walk right in - feeding of the US failure and how sh*t democy is, and how the most powerfull army in the world legged it from there big black turbans.

 

However, the US will, very rightly IMO, not leave until Iraq is in relative stability, and even then they'll keep some soldiers to 'look after' the region, as they do in virtually half the countries in the world. The Iraqi government's fierce opposition to this can only be taken as suspicious IMO - and besides which, we always had this or that army present in Iraq for influence for the past 5,000 years at least. Anyone even believe this fag who can't even shave properly gives a sh*t about soveriegnty?

 

Anyway, relative stability wont ever come to Iraq - simply because despite what everyone wants, it's not the government's intentions. That's because:

  • While there is unstability, there will be continued sectarian hatred, guaranteeing the Majority Shia will vote a hard-line government like his into power.
  • Maliki's government can continue it's theft and embessilment of billions of national reconstruction and aid funds into their own private accounts. No one would be the wiser while 50 are killed by terrorism a day.
  • Violence also shields Police Commandoes being used as death-squads and unofficial militia curfews prevent opposition from voting.
  • Continued Sunni terrorism means Maliki will always have an excuse to continue to take civil liberties of the Sunnis and not the much more dangerous militia (AKA armed factions of his Sadrist government).
  • Iranian influence such as Qods Black Ops etc... will continue to have alarmingly bigger influences on the nation, and government. They are also stealing oil after unmarked ship after another leave Iraq full. Maliki is also planning a Basra-Tehran pipeline despite there being sh*t loads of refineries in Iraq.
The current Iraq government is basically pushing to get the US out before peace in Iraq, so Iran can come right in, with "American peeg failure" and "Zionist Jew hypocrisy" and further cement it's grip on the region. Trying to buy those jets works two-fold. The US might feel more confident leaving, now we can look after ourselves. Also, their Iranian friends get a few new jets as presents for their "Rightous, honourable Islamic Revolution" in Iraq.

 

As an Iraqi, I say starve that government of sh*t - untill they fix corruption, and get security not short of miserably laughable. And US presence is to stay indefinately in Iraq, with soldiers accountable under Iraq/International law. Just look were that got Germany, Jordan and the UAE - at least US influence is official then. I mean look what going from one "Soveriegnty" obsessed psycho bigot to another got us. They're a thousand times the foriegn bitches the Jordanian or Emiratee guys are, but it's secret and got us f*ck all in return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.