Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards marching with G3s... and crooked barrels!

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's not 'winning' a war, 'Card.

Biker

Biker, in the traditional usage of the word, we won the war with Iraq very early on. What we have been doing since then is an attempt at nation building, and that's where we have suffered losses. Traditionally, a war is where a nation uses its military to destroy another nation's 1) military, 2) government, and 3) infrastructure. Then you go home leaving a smoldering ruin, and leaving them open for their neighbors to swarm in and finish the job, dividing the country into shares for themselves to enslave and profit from after they've paid sufficient tribute to the conqueror for the privilege. We are too goodie two-shoes to do war the old fashioned way, though. We have to fight wars now to "help" the people of the country we defeat, which means we have to stay and dump billions of dollars and thousands of lives into attempting to improve the lives of the people we conquered. That's a load of BS, and is just an excuse to maintain a huge imperial military, drain our treasuries of tax dollars and put us further into debt, while increasing the power of the Federal Government.

 

[tegemu]

In 1978 and 1979, during the Iranian Revolution, I was attached to the Imperial Iranian Army Air Force (The Shah's). It is my experience that they put on a great illusionary show and hold the B.S. Braggadacio Championship. My unit was what was considered a "Crack Outfit," Attack and Assault Helicopters. Looked and sounded great but I and the approx. 50 other Americans attached, who knew the truth, were not too impressed. Except for Gun Missions, all the really difficult missions were flown by Americans. Supposedly we were hired as instructors however, contractually, if their Helicopter's availability went below 50%, we Americans would go "Hands on." The Shah recognized their deficiency. Sounds like thinly veiled mercenaries but the USA had a good "Deniability" technique.

 

[Cosmoline]

I have no doubt our air forces would go through their air forces like a hot knife through butter, but we can't just go in dump bombs and leave. For one thing, our intel on what's happening where is poor. And the bright boys at NSA have screwed up over and over again. They rely too much on technology that can be tricked, and I wouldn't be surprised if Iran really does have a few baby milk factories made to look like nuke sites from orbit. Plus, instead of being half a world away from Iran we have troops RIGHT NEXT to Iran who will be the targets of counterattack. Iran can easily stir up more trouble among the sheits in the south.

 

[Kodiaz]

Okay so we attack Iran

So we do it we attack Iran.

What do they do? This is what I would do.


Take all those sunburn missiles and supposed 200 mph torpedoes. Sink every oil tanker in the persian gulf every one. Where would that put gas here I'd say it would start at 10/gal and go up through the roof. Kiss the economy goodbye. Then figure we've blown Iran's oil supply so China has to get oil from somewhere else, well now Chavez gets to give us the stick and help his Chis-Com buddies all at the same time. Gas hits 20/gal so are you still in a hurry to attack Iran?


Iran is a big can of worms and they give China most of its oil. The Chi-Coms will not let us attack Iraq. All they have to do is dump their dollar holdings. Not that they aren't that far from dumping their dollars anyway.

 

[Ivy Mike]

Keep in mind this is the same army that was unable to defeat saddam.

The Iranians were able to drive the invading Iraqis out of Iran and press the fight all the way into Iraq. The US and some European countries began providing Saddam with some weapons, most notably biological and chemical ones (maybe thats why Dubya was so sure Saddam had WMD's...we still had the receipts) while the majority of traditional arms came from the USSR and Arab allies.

Some argue that the Iraqi retreat was a ploy to get the fighting in Iraq to rally patriotism as well as fight from well established defensive positions. Quite effective against Iranian human wave techniques. The Iranian air force was quite effective against the Iraqis with US built F-14's causing devastating damage at the outset.

Anyway you want to look at it, the Iran-Iraq war was largely a stalemate, but the majority of the fighting took place in Iraq after the Iranians had driven out the invaders.

 

[RevDisk]

While I'm not a big fan of Iran, I don't think an invasion of Iran would be a good idea. We could pull off an invasion. Sure, plenty of 'surgical bombing' and our troops in Tehran within 48 hours. Then nasty reality hits. The Gulf closed to all tankers, a very well armed and trained insurgency, etc etc.

Remember, Iran has a population of nearly 70 million and is slightly larger than Alaska. In comparison, Iraq has a population of roughly 27 million and is a fourth of the size of Iran. Additionally, Iran has the advantage of monitoring the US invasion of Iraq as a learning experience of insurgency. If they haven't made preperations for a possible invasion, they're dumber than a box of rocks.

An invasion of Iran would be many times more difficult than the invasion of Iraq. We have a military more experienced with insurgency, but also a bit worn from occupation. Materialistically speaking, we're already a bit short on critical items. An invasion of Iran would be very, very expensive. Just a wild guess, but I'd say a minimum of five times as expensive as the current Iraqi occupation.

It'd also require most of the deployable soldiers in the entire US Army not currently in Iraq, Afghanistan or South Korea. Maybe nearly all deployable soldiers. We wouldn't be able to field any major units in event of any crisis within the US. Imagine how badly Katrina would have turned out without any US military forces.


Sure, we could invade, declare "victory", say the 'war' is over, etc etc. It's not the invasion that's the problem, it's the occupation. If we institute democracy, the ultraconservatives will be put in power. If we try to install a dictator, within a few years, he'll be kicked out of power. We did it once, with the Shah. The current regime was directly caused by our backing of the Shah, who was not known for being a very nice guy.

Lot of folks seem to think invasion is the sole aspect of war. Sorry folks, but it's only the beginning unless the other side surrenders unconditionally. Unlikely, and probably impossible, when it comes to various countries in the Middle East.


I am curious. Why are so many posters wishing us to go to war to protect Israel? Iran is obviously not a direct threat to the United States. Israel is at best a fair weather friend. They have an unfortunate habit of conducting espionage against the US, and selling our technology to countries like the People's Republic of China.

Plus, they have killed US service personnel in the past, when they napalmed and torpedoed the USS Liberty. We've declared war on countries for doing similiar activities. (USS Maine/Spanish-American War and USS Maddox/Vietnam War)

 

[Biker]

RevDisc...

Your post is on the money, but in particular, your final question is one that deserves an answer from the pro invasion folks.
Biker

 

[offthepaper]

"Their government has true popular support, which Hussein never had."
-----------
Correct a mundo.
They will be dedicated fighters.
-----------
Talev:
"a) the troop fairies
b) millions of them cross the southern border every year practically begging for jobs
c) next door in Iraq
d) isreal
-----------
Isreal will never put boots on the ground in Iran. The collective onslaught of the muslim world would not be worth the risk for them. That's not to say they would'nt be strong contributors in other more discreet actions. But large numbers of combat troops on Iranian soil would just be a magnet for idiots seeking 72 virgins.

 

[offthepaper]

Biker:
Agreed.

 

[DRZinn]

True popular support? Pour one for me, man.

Iran is one of the most pro-American Islamic countries. They hate the mullahs. IIRC, something like 85% of them want the mullahs gone.

OTOH, they are fiercely nationalistic. An invasion would probably cause all that pro-US sentiment to evaporate before we got to Tehran.

 

[the Juggernaut]

Screw Israel, they are no friends of this US Navy Sailor!

Screw them! I could give a crap less if they got wiped off the map or if the Iranians matched Israel for nukes. Israel carried out the deadliest attack against the US Navy since WWII when they attacked the USS Liberty. They attacked the ship for over an hour while the US flag flew till it was so shot up that the living crew raised a new flag to let them know that it was an American ship they were attacking. When our ensign flys from the mast there is no missing it. Israel cares nothing for the US except how much money it can get from us and how many wars we will fight for her. I say let Israel deal with Iran if they are so concerned. I'm sure Hizbollah will fire a few thousand missles they've been stockpiling in southern Lebanon into Northern and central Israel if they do attack. REMEMBER THE USS LIBERTY AND AMERICA FIRST!

On June 8, 1967 while patrolling in international waters2 in the Eastern Mediterranean
Sea, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was savagely attacked without warning or justification
by air and naval forces of the state of Israel.3
Of a crew of 294 officers and men4 (including three civilians)5, the ship suffered
thirty four (34) killed in action and one hundred seventy three (173) wounded in action.6
The ship itself, a Forty Million ($40,000,000) Dollar state of the art signals intelligence (SIGINT) platform, was so badly damaged that it never sailed on an operational mission
again and was sold in 1970 for $101,666.66 as scrap7.
Israel acknowledged the following facts without qualification:
a. USS Liberty was an American ship, hence a neutral vis-à-vis the June
1967 war between Israel and its Arab neighbors.8 b. USS Liberty remained in international waters at all times on June 8, 19679.
c. The attacking Israeli forces never made a positive identification of the nationality of USS Liberty before unleashing deadly force in their attack on
the ship.10 At approximately 0600 hours (all times local) on the morning of June 8, 1967 an Israeli maritime reconnaissance aircraft observer reported seeing “a US Navy cargo type ship,” just outside the coverage of the Israeli coastal radar defense net, bearing the hull
markings “GTR-5”.11 This report, made to Israeli naval HQ, was also forwarded immediately
to the Israeli navy intelligence directorate.12
Throughout the remainder of the day prior to the attack, Israeli reconnaissance aircraft regularly flew out to USS Liberty’s position and orbited the ship before returning to their bases in Israel. A total of no fewer than eight (8) such flights were made.13
At approximately 1050 hours, the naval observer from the early morning reconnaissance flight arrived at Israeli air force HQ and sat down with the air-naval liaison officer there. The two officers consulted Janes’ Fighting Ships and learned that the ship reported earlier in the day was USS Liberty, a United States Navy technical research
ship.14

And the report continues.

 

[real_name]

Juggernaut, I'm guessing you haven't been to Israel and have no Israeli friends. For that I can overlook your ignorance regarding US/Israeli relations.

 

[Biker]

Real Name...
I don't see how personal relationships are relevant to the question.

Biker

 

[the Juggernaut]

My ignorance? What so Israel is allowed to attack the US and kill fellow service men and it's just great?! Nah, I don't think so. Israel is a leech to our nation and only causes us problems.

 

[RevDisk]

Oh, forgot one final tidbit. As far as I'm aware, Iran wants to engage in uranium enrichment. This is legal under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty which Iran signed. Iran is a signatory state of the NPT, and the third pillar of the NPT is something along the lines of "every state the inalienable right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes".

Additionally, we have not attacked nor invaded Pakistan and India. Granted, they did not sign the NPT.

Russia and China have made it fairly clear that they would not be supportive of activities against Iran. It's possible they would veto any UN Security Council resolutions against Iran.


Thus... what would our legal justification be if we decided to strike or invade Iran? I'm sure some excuse would come up, and change every week until people stop asking. But I'm still curious.


Another interesting note is that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the 'Supreme Leader' of Iran, issued a fatwa forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. The Supreme Leader has authority that supercedes the authority of the President of Iran. If the President of Iran wishes to develop nuclear weapons, it is against the religious and legal authority of the Supreme Leader of Iran. (ie, it's illegal under the State's law and also Allah's law/will/whatever)

Funny, but you don't hear that meantioned in the news. Sure, you hear volumes from the news regarding any comments Ahmadinejad makes. Very little is heard about Khamenei, who outranks Ahmadinejad and apparently has forbidden nuclear weapon production.

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=302258

 

[real_name]

Well, I didn't say that Israel should be allowed to 'attack the US'.
Juggernaut did say that he doesn't care if Israelis are wiped out.
If he had Israeli friends he would know that Israelis are not anti-American. Or 'leeches'.

I'm pro-Israel, but then I have lived there.

People shouldn't say things like 'wipe them off the map'. I'm not as bothered as you may think that Juggernaut feels this way, I just wanted to say that if he had friends and/or family there he would be better informed and less reactionary.

We were talking about Iran weren't we?

 

[Ivy Mike]

Juggernaut, can you name any other friendly, non-muslim military powers in the worlds most oil-rich region who provide us with intelligence about the area?

 

[KriegHund]

I wonder how well the G3's function in that sand.

 

[offthepaper]

Clean97GTI:
"Juggernaut, can you name any other friendly, non-muslim military powers in the worlds most oil-rich region who provide us with intelligence about the area?
"-----------------

Clean97GTI, can you name any other friendly, non-muslim military powers in the worlds most oil-rich region who provides China with U.S. intelligence about the area?

 

[buck00]

Juggernaut brings up a downplayed incident from the Six Day War. The Israelis intentionally attacked one of our surveillance ships (USS Liberty) allegedly because we found out they had executed a large group of Egyptian POWs after a battle. They hit the ship with strafing and napalm to disable the communications equipment, then finally backed off. It is absolutely shameful the way LBJ and the Israelis handled the whole incident.

Overall, I would say Israel is a good ally. You would surprised, even if we dumped them and stop supporting them, radical Islam would still find a reason to hate and antagonize us.


Rev Disk has a great point about a possible war with Iran:

It's not the invasion that's the problem, it's the occupation.

Conventionally we could mop the desert with Iran's elite troops, tank units, air force, etc etc. Our military is vastly superior. The Iranians were only able to expel the Iraqis in the early 80s because the Iraqis took millions of dollars worth of equipment and foolishly used World War I style tactics. In some cases they were burying Soviet T-72 tanks up to their turrets as "defense." Maybe they could have learned a few things from 1939 about how to use the mobility of armor. Plus they failed to grasp the concept of logistics and supply. You would be amazed how many militaries look bad ass on paper, then choke during the real thing. Anyone remember how the "great" Red China fared during its "lightning strike panzer invasion" into Vietnam in 1979??

Anyway, getting back to a possible Iranian war. As Rev Disk pointed out, we could kick ass and "win" but once we got into urban combat it would be a mess and we don't have the creditability with our public to occupy another country.


I wonder how well a Kimber holds up in the sand and grit of the desert? Anyone?

 

[sumpnz]

They actually have modern equipment, Tomcat's, Sunburn anti-ship missiles which we cannot defend against (go to fast for Phalanx to take down), good small arms, reasonably good gear.

Uhhh, yeah - riiiight. You do realize that their Tomcats have been cannibalized to the point that they basically have no flying examples left. Even if they could manufacture their own spare parts they long since shot all their Phoenix and other American missiles, and the homegrown and/or Soviet supplied replacements don't work worth crap on the Tomcat. Never mind that the Tomcats they got are long since obsolete (they got the F-14A, our last squadrons that were just retired were the F-14D).

As far as the Sunburn goes, do you really think we don't have a defense for that? Even if they are still too fast for the Phalanx (doubtful, maybe when they first came out but not likely now), that is still a last ditch defense weapon and is only used when the enemy missile has penetrated at least 3 other layers of defense. All of whom were designed to take down fast moving anti-shipping and cruise missiles.

Good small arms, sure. But good small arms don't win wars. Bad ones might loose a war, but even the most rag-tag group of terrorists have AK's which, while maybe not all that accurate, are still certainly good enough to fight with.

Reasonably good gear? Maybe, but define the gear you're talking about.

 

[RevDisk]

People shouldn't say things like 'wipe them off the map'. I'm not as bothered as you may think that Juggernaut feels this way, I just wanted to say that if he had friends and/or family there he would be better informed and less reactionary.

Juggernaut specifically said, "could give a crap less if they got wiped off the map". I might be misreading his statements, but I do not believe he was calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. Just his indifference.

Just so people don't get the wrong impression, I don't support genocide against anyone. I do not wish Israel or any other country to be wiped off the map. Even the People's Republic of New Jersey. Well... usually, anyways. While I support freedom of speech and opinion, I agree with you. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I personally strongly disagree with genocide. Against Israel or Iran, for that matter.

I happen to have a handful of Israeli friends. I do not hate them personally, obviously. My comments are solely directed against the Israeli government, military and various intelligence agencies. I have nothing against the citizens thereof, nor any religions anywhere. Except Scientology.

So, real name, yes, I do know Israelis. And I still have my own opinion. I don't like foreign aide in general, but I strongly dislike giving a foreign country a lot of money and getting slapped in the face for being generous. If you wish me to provide sources for any comments I've made, feel free to PM me.

I wonder how well a Kimber holds up in the sand and grit of the desert? Anyone?

With proper maintaince, Kimber should be fine. Strip it regularly, and a firm application of a toothbrush should remove most particles. Not sure which lube would be best. Heard good things about some graphite based lubes. Buddy emailed me about some new wonder lube he's using in Iraq that he really likes. Probably should dig it up. Personally, I'd prefer an AK...

 

[taliv]

for the record, i am not pro invasion. i was just pointing out that our military can handle the invasion.

i'm for protecting our allies, of which isreal is one, but not until after they are attacked, declare war and start shooting. i.e. i don't support a preemptive attack on isreal's behalf, but if isreal sends tanks and fighters to iran, i'd support supporting them.


rev, i'm not a fan of going to war over any piece of paper. treaties are backed by honor, not guns. so it really doesn't matter to me that pakistan didn't sign the treaty or that iran did.


in any case, i don't trust the media and i don't trust our intelligence and i don't trust bush/condi/rummy. the only thing i'm sure of is that the iranians i know seem like pretty rational ordinary folks and their president sounds like a complete nutjob.

i'm sure there's another country around here that fits that description...

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

I've become much more pro-Israel over the past couple of years. Used to be I bought the media line that Israel wa causing the problems by supressing the Palastinians, but since then I've seen what Palastinians have done with their autonomy. Now I understand why Israel took strong measures when dealing with those people. They were necessary. If anything, Israel used restraint.

 

[ghost squire]

I've become much more pro-Israel over the past couple of years. Used to be I bought the media line that Israel wa causing the problems by supressing the Palastinians, but since then I've seen what Palastinians have done with their autonomy. Now I understand why Israel took strong measures when dealing with those people. They were necessary. If anything, Israel used restraint.

It's the same cycle, over and over again. South Africa, Rhodesia now Zimbabwe, Israel/Palestine etc. Iraq... If the media forces us out of there do they think its going to get better? It didn't in the aforementioned countries above.