Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,655 times
Reputation: 1721
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
You really don't get it. The fundamentalist in Iran while being the minority, are in charge. They are also irrational, suicidal, morons who would not object to sacrificing themselves and the majority of the people living in Iran if they thought they could launch a nuclear attack on Israel or the U.S. This is not about how much a war would cost, or if the undereducated dill weeds here in America support another war, it is about preventing the inevitable nuclear holocaust that would happen if Iran were allowed to have the ability to make nuclear weapons.
Yeah. And back in the day the Russians were the the devil incarnate planning killing us all. We were all going to die in a nuclear fire. Of course they had nuclear weapons and could actually destroy the whole world unlike Iran. Think that whole Mutually assured Destruction thing kind of keep thing in check.
Look Iran probably is going to try to get nukes. But will they use them? Well, you would have to do more study on Ali Khamenei the real leader of Iran to see what in his head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
But overall something tell me even if they did get nukes, they are not crazy enough to test the MAD doctrine.
Yeah. And back in the day the Russians were the the devil incarnate planning killing us all. We were all going to die in a nuclear fire. Of course they had nuclear weapons and could actually destroy the whole world unlike Iran. Think that whole Mutually assured Destruction thing kind of keep thing in check.
Look Iran probably is going to try to get nukes. But will they use them? Well, you would have to do more study on Ali Khamenei the real leader of Iran to see what in his head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
But overall something tell me even if they did get nukes, they are not crazy enough to test the MAD doctrine.
The Soviet Union was not ruled by a bunch of radical religious zealots that believed in a final war, where they win, and they are rewarded with eternal paradise. Wise up, no one thought Hitler was crazy enough to do what he did, no one thought Japan was crazy enough to do what they did. Ideology is the underlying motivation in people’s actions.
When you have an Ideology hell bent on hate, killing, and destruction, guess what you get.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,655 times
Reputation: 1721
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom
The Soviet Union was not ruled by a bunch of radical religious zealots that believed in a final war, where they win, and they are rewarded with eternal paradise.
While not a religious Zealot. Joseph Stalin probably would have throwndown nuclear style if the conditions were right.
Also I'd like to draw a comparison to Ahmadinejad and Khrushchev. Do you not remember the we will bury you speech in the U.N. back in the day. It's no different than retard Ahmadinejad speeches about how they are going to wipe Israel off the map and Blah, Blah. Same old story, different face.
Quote:
Wise up,
No you guys need to stop wasting my time and more importantly MY TAX DOLLARS on blowing up counties and trying to occupy them. You guys had your shot in Iraq and you blew it. Big time.
Quote:
no one thought Hitler was crazy enough to do what he did, no one thought Japan was crazy enough to do what they did. Ideology is the underlying motivation in people’s actions.
When you have an Ideology hell bent on hate, killing, and destruction, guess what you get.
Look back then the goal was to conquerer and force your lifestyle upon the rest of the world (slavery). The concept of possibly wiping most of the human race was not a though back then. If we had the same weapon back then as we do now, open conflict on that level probably would not have happened. Because everybody would have died. Including Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, and Hirohito. Actually notice we haven't had anything like that since the A-bomb.
If you were involved in the planning then you'd know the US originally tasked 6 divisions, 3 separate combat brigades, an aviation brigade and an A-10 squadron.
You'd also know that later in 1983, the mission was cut to 14 combat brigades.
The necessity for 14 combat brigades was based on the fact that the US did not control Kuwait or Iraq. Now that the US does, the mission could be pared down to 8-10 combat brigades and still be successful.
As if you didn't know, 8 combat brigades are sitting in the Persian Gulf, and have been training in Kuwait annually for the last 5 years, and 3 additional combat brigades are sitting in Kuwait.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
The U.S. infantry is already stretched thin enough as it is and anyone who has been in the military would know that it takes time to train and mobilize troops.
Um, no kidding. I was training to invade Iran probably before you born. My unit's mission was one of the bridges over the River Karun in Kuzehstan Province.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
By the time enough ground forces were trained and ready to go (even troops in Iraq would have to be trained and mobilized for the new missions; objectives), Bush would be out of office.
No, as I just explained, training has been on-going for decades. Iran is key for the US to have control of Central Asia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
Another thing; do you really think that it would be a smart move to commit the combat weary soldiers who are (were) in Iraq or Afghanistan? They are basically fighting a guerilla war right now; against an enemy that is basically fighting with automatic rifles and improvised explosives. How do you think these soldiers would feel when they are told that they are now going to be fighting against a fully functioning military complete with an air force, tanks, artillery, cruise missiles, everything.
I'd say there were losers if they can't hack it.
You also might want to study doctrine and strategy a little closer. Once the F-16s blow the bridges in the Zagros Mountains, the only way into Kuzeshtan Province is through a choke point.
The film "300" is a classic example of how a small force can defend a choke point.
Also, Iran's "cruise missiles" are anti-ship missiles. There only called "cruise missiles" because they are non-ballistic missiles and because the US media is ignorant and likes to hype things for advertising dollars. All US ships are capable of tracking and destroying them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
The President has the power to commit forces where ever he sees fit without a declaration of war. Remember Vietnam? The first Gulf War? Grenada? Panama? Somalia? Just to name a few.
You might want to read the War Powers Act, and the associated case law by the US Supreme Court which has interpreted the Act to bring you up to speed.
A president can commit troops for up to about 72 days without a declaration of war.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,761,129 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02
Say Bush launches an attack on Iran tomorrow and oil rises to $300/bbl immediately. What will be the short and mid-term economic effects of this? Its starting to look more and more likely each day.
I don't think it would go that high but it would not be pretty either.
Maybe I watched too many cartoons growing up.....but can you just imagine the crowds gathering around wondering why Allah is dropping llamas from the sky?
So from 2003 to when this article was written (2006) we have only discover 500 antiquated munitions. Noticed they used the word "degraded" in other word they were old weapons from the Iran and Iraq war that didn't get used.
Not exactly. Certain chemical weapons, as well as biological stocks, degrade over time. Poor storage and handling procedures can accelerate the degradation, which is a break-down of the chemicals into constituent chemical compounds that are often harmless, or in the case of biological stocks, the death of the organisms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbaarr
I guessing that while the stuff is still dangerous when used with in close quarters. It wasn't going to be a threat to the U.S. and time soon. These finds are only slightly better than grasping at straws.
Consider that about 5 pounds of Anthrax is needed for a chance to infect a mere 10 people. To have a chance to infect all 8 Million people of New York City, you'd need 1,600,000 pounds of Anthrax.
I suppose in retrospect, Saddam could have built a fleet of 80 "Goodyear Blimps" and loaded the Anthrax on them and had them set sail to NYC and dump the stuff once they got there.
His other option would have been to buy 20 long range bombers and 4 tankers to refuel them in flight.
It appears penetrating the US air defense network wouldn't have been a problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
