[putz]

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do? ... ID=1858962

Just thought that I might share that with those of you whom seem to think that IF the US invaded Iran they would just be able to walk all over them.... Just something to chew on.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Hmm, I remember talking with you about this. I don't think Iran is weak, just that they are weaker than the US as far as military strength and technology. While Iran has developed a weapon capable of piercing armoured vehicles, the US already uses uranium tipped weapons which are capable of piercing such weapons. If you want to know how "great" Irans military is, why don't you go and look up the Iran/Iraq war, and then compare how the US did with Iraq. One of the US's biggest strengths is the command structure. While Iran can have some good weapons under it's belts, one of those, judging from the past, is not a good command structure. I mean, where's Irans stealth bombers, or even advanced fighters for that matter. You can't tell me that their tanks are as good as the Abrahms. No battle is probably easy, but come on man, you have this thing with Iran being so powerful and you ignore the power of the United States. I remember talking with you before and you are stuck on this Iran almighty, and the United States not that good. To me, Iran is trying to get a nuke because they know the US would destroy them if the US attacked. It's hard to use your armour piercing weapons when smart bombs are falling all over your city and taking out your communications, not to mention the fact that the US has an easier time picking out targets(or messing up and hitting civilian targets).

[Rosco]

Iran went life and death for 8 years with a much smaller nation that's known for military mediocrity {Iraq} that the U.S. rolled over with ease despite a poorly implemented military campaign and working under lots of self imposed limitations. Iran is just lucky that the U.S. doesn't have a lot of ga$$$ left in the tank for another major action right now but even just an air campaign would break the Iranian forces down considerably.

[Rev_Blair]

Did it ever occur to you guys that the Iraqi army was weakened by the war with Iran and that made them very easy to defeat in the Gulf War?

Iran has also come a long way since those days.

While the US would win a war with them, at least in the short term, it would be a tough fight the whole way. After the war was over, the US would be facing the same kind of thing they are facing in Iraq right now.

[Erinites]

These folks have been at war for eons...
To them it has become a way of life...
It is their area of expertise and they are quite adept at it.
I pity ye who chooses to fight them on their own grounds.
Ammo I ammo.....
(sorry the Spanish escapes me)

[Rev_Blair]

That's okay erinites...the Spanish will come later. There's a whole lot of pissed off people in South America right now.

[fred22]

Hi Guys,
Even George Bush is not dumb enough to invade Iran i think. The most interesting thing about that cracker lying bag of shit is his foriegn policy actually creates more WMD and terrorists then existed before. Iraq is now a rallying cry for every muslim extremist in the world with tens of thousands of Americans to kill right there in the middle east. By invading nonnuclear Iraq and pussyfooting around with nuclear armed North korea he sends the message build a nuke if you are a dictator or be saddammed. of ciurse you could always follow another route and like Musharraf and brutalise your own population at their behest and thus keep your power as well.
Cheers
fred

[Lawndart]

I can't believe you guys are actually discussing this. Does anybody out there actually think a third world nation like Iran could give the US a run for their money on the battlefield?

The US military is the most advanced, one of the best trained, best led and best equipped military force the world has ever seen.

More importantly however, at least as far as this thread goes, the US is a western nation. And western civilization always kicks ass on the barbarians.

Think Greeks vs Persians, Romans vs Gauls, European powers vs colonials, Germans vs Slavs, and today, America vs radical Islam.

Even when western soldiers have been defeated by barbarians, the forces of civilization always punch way above their weight, killing at ratios of 10-1 or more. It's not just technology that allows us to do it either. It's our ethos. Our training, our leadership, our warrior code. These are the ideals that make us such a force to be reckoned with.

The occasional time westerners have been defeated by barbarians were when the odds were stacked way against them.

The Crusaders for instance, who had to travel thousands of miles across inhospitable terrain to fight the marauding, expansionist Jihadis who were trying to take over the world even then. They lost but only because they were fighting a war at the end of a long, arduous supply line against superior numbers of Muslims. They put up a good fight though, and gave the Jihadi's a hell of a scare!

The Germans lost to the Russians, but only because they tried to take on the whole world at the same time.

The Americans lost to the Viet Cong, but not militarily. They lost because the civilian public turned against the war. The Americans never lost a battle in Viet Nam, and killed at a ratio approaching 15-1.

So let's have no more of this nonsense about the great and powerful Iran/Iraq etc. They can't field an army capable of defeating any major western force anymore than they can create a society that values democracy/freedom and rejects anti-semitism. At least not without us to do it for them.

[fred22]

The issue is not whether the Iranian armed forces could defeat the Americans on the battlefield but whether it makes sence to do it in the first place. The US military is indeed a very capable well led force but they are still chasing their own tails trying to quell a popluar uprising in a place they should not be.
"The US military is the most advanced, one of the best trained, best led and best equipped military force the world has ever seen. "
Thats why it is such a crying shame to see them being wasted in Iraq. They are not equipped by vitue of numbers equipment or training for the CI war they atre encounterring.
"More importantly however, at least as far as this thread goes, the US is a western nation. And western civilization always kicks ass on the barbarians."
Barbarian or barbarii is a term the Roams coined to descrbe their enemies. The city of Rome was first sacked by the Goths who were described as barbarians. The Roamsn admitted them into their borders promisng them safe haven from the mongols. They failled to give them food or support but were willing to buy their children from them for slaves in return for small quantities of dog meat. the Goths eventually got tired of this and kicked their ass. Are you sure you wish to make this point?
"Think Greeks vs Persians, Romans vs Gauls, European powers vs colonials, Germans vs Slavs, and today, America vs radical Islam. "
The Greeks arguably had a legitamate disagreemnet with the persians but the rest is silly. The Romans attacked and ensklaved the Gauls not a good thing and eventually the Gauls gave it back to them. The European powers enslaved countless nations and were in turn run the hell out. America versus radical islam is sort of silly too given georgie own radical fundamentalism. It's like atching twins call each other ugly.
"The occasional time westerners have been defeated by barbarians were when the odds were stacked way against them."
Westerners have been defeated in pitched battles as the Romans were trounced by similar sized barbarian forces. Come to think of it a goodly proportion of the Roman soldiers in the latter stages of the Roman empire were mercenairies fighting for pay as the romans seemed to have lost the abilty to defend themselves. same idea as using iraqi National Gurd as sandbags against suicide bombers.

"The Crusaders for instance, who had to travel thousands of miles across inhospitable terrain to fight the marauding, expansionist Jihadis who were trying to take over the world even then. They lost but only because they were fighting a war at the end of a long, arduous supply line against superior numbers of Muslims. They put up a good fight though, and gave the Jihadi's a hell of a scare!"
The crusades were ostenibly fought to liberate the Holy land from the muslims but seemed more about murderring arabs and stealing their shit as time went on. A gentlemen named Saladin outfought and defeated them. Look him up.
"The Germans lost to the Russians, but only because they tried to take on the whole world at the same time. "
That was part of it but in all fairness divering lots of their rolling stock to murderring people not to mention killing millions of skilled workers because they happenned to be jewish did not help either. Staring a two front war was typical nazi stupidity and only the skill of thier soldiers allowe the tragdy to on as long as it did.
"The Americans lost to the Viet Cong, but not militarily. They lost because the civilian public turned against the war. The Americans never lost a battle in Viet Nam, and killed at a ratio approaching 15-1. "
this is IMO a popular misconception similar to the german general staff blaming the Weimar republic for thier defeat with the stab in the back lie. The Americans lost in Vietnam because they backed a series of brutal dictatorshps using tactics that alienated the locals and their own population. Bill westemoreland was an idiot who was the tip of the iceberg. The individual American sioldier or unit may have been skilled and brave but at the end of the day they were in the wrong place fighting for the wrong people.
"So let's have no more of this nonsense about the great and powerful Iran/Iraq etc. They can't field an army capable of defeating any major western force anymore than they can create a society that values democracy/freedom and rejects anti-semitism. At least not without us to do it for them"
One cannot impose democracy anymore then one can defeat the local boys on their own turf when the population feels the cause is just.
Cheers
fred

[Rev_Blair]

$1:

Does anybody out there actually think a third world nation like Iran could give the US a run for their money on the battlefield?

If you'd actually taken the time to read the posts, you would find that nobosy here has said that Iran would win or even be competitive, just that they would put up more of a fight than the Iraqi army did.

$1:

The US military is the most advanced, one of the best trained, best led and best equipped military force the world has ever seen.

And they seem to like murdering journalists.

$1:

More importantly however, at least as far as this thread goes, the US is a western nation. And western civilization always kicks ass on the barbarians.

The jingoistic bigotry inherent in that statement makes me want to puke.

$1:

Even when western soldiers have been defeated by barbarians, the forces of civilization always punch way above their weight, killing at ratios of 10-1 or more. It's not just technology that allows us to do it either. It's our ethos. Our training, our leadership, our warrior code. These are the ideals that make us such a force to be reckoned with.

You've been imbibing in that Afghani opium, haven't you? It is exactly just technology. People with few resources and relatively primitive weapons have you in virtual panic in Iraq right now.

$1:

The occasional time westerners have been defeated by barbarians were when the odds were stacked way against them.

Again, an ill-informed and bigoted statement.

You're a freak, Lawndart. A racist, bigoted loser engaged in some sort of Christian Jihad. You are no better than Saddam or the Ayotollah...same shit, different pile.

[RoyalHighlander]

Remember Viet Nam?? where the great US was defeated by folks that shot at helicopters with bows abd arrows, and shot down planes using a first world war style rifle... Look at Isreal.. Surrounded by millions of Arabs but they are still there... Today you must be carfull you dont pick on some one with a lot of resolve... The Iraqis had none, thats why they lost so quickly,, they gave up by the thousands... hey had no will to fight and/or die for thier country...

[AmericanCentury2]

Well lets see the great canadian military beat............Iran or Iraq!!!!!

lol

[AmericanCentury2]

Well lets look at two examples!


1)The First Persian Gulf War---When the Iraqi Military was the fourth largest in the world-----Huge Defeat!


2)The Soviets in Afghanistan they were defeated..........The US ran them over basically!


This is another Anti-American argument you are basically now saying the American military is not that strong? Not smart comments!

[Ripcat]

The US would have the same problems in Iran as it does in Iraq, only difference is, it will be on a much larger scale.

It would take them a little longer to get the Iranian army to surrender, but after that they would be fighting an insurgency on a much larger scale. Iran has 3 times the population and 4 times the land area as Iraq so the US would need at least 3 times the troops and a much longer campaign against insurgents. The US could afford a war against the Iranian army but they could not afford the occupation costs until Iran was stable again.

The Americans and the Europeans need to guarantee Iran's security if they wish the Iranians to stop building their military might and secure promises that the Iranians will not build nuclear weapons.

[Rev_Blair]

$1:

1)The First Persian Gulf War---When the Iraqi Military was the fourth largest in the world-----Huge Defeat!

The Iraqi military didn't want to fight that war, they had no resolve.

$1:

2)The Soviets in Afghanistan they were defeated..........The US ran them over basically!

The Soviets in Afghanistan were defeated by people who were willing to fight. The US may have given a few rocket lauchers and a bit of training, but it sure as hell wasn't the US military in their running over the Russians.

$1:

This is another Anti-American argument you are basically now saying the American military is not that strong? Not smart comments!

Again, nobody here has said that. Read the posts.