• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Hillary Touts Sanctions

Obviously they couldn't since most of them were unarmed. That is part of the point I am making.

Civil unrest is what has taken over in most of the Islamic countries and has done pretty well at overturning regimes. Some with little blood shed, others, like Syria, with a heck of a lot of blood shed. Iran's Green Movement had a lot of blood shed, most of it on their side. We did nothing. Nothing. Even when they asked for it.

Let's examine the issues.

The governments that fell without bloodshed did so largely out of pressure by their allies. AKA, The West. The countries that engaged in civil wars are those who we do not have considerable pressure over. Iran would fall into the later section. Considering the strength of their military, we would have to do much of the fighting ourselves. Small arms will not take down the Iranian regime. And there is no way we are going to ship them TOW missiles, Stingers and other weapons. And let's remember that the Iranian military is largely loyal, there are no sects to divided like in Syria and the Elite Groups have no qualms with killing their own people.

I'm not up for another Middle East invasion and occupation. Are you?

Seems you and Apdst do not remember what Iraq was. Or what Afghanistan is.

Iran will make both of those a walk in the park.
 
Obama helped the Libyans despite the fact that Libya posed no threat to the US. He ignored the US Congress and used the US military to wage an illegal war in support of the UN. When a situation arose in Iran to weaken and destroy a government hostile to the US and responsible for killing US forces in Iraq he did nothing.

You mean he didn't invade Iran? You are confused by Bush, America does not invade soverign nations. We are not the 3rd Reich
 
What makes you think Iran will give organizations it has little real control over the pinnacle of Iranian weapons? The most advanced weapons Iran ships are cheaply made rockets and shaped charges. Which have been around since WWII.
Furthermore, the list of potential sources of such a weapon is real narrow. Iran will be found out extremely quickly.

There's no evidence that they won't. Not only that, it sure as hell isn't worth the risk to assume they won't.



So you're saying that we should have essentially started a civil war? The Iranian regime is, next to Saudi Arabia, the most well armed military in the region. We would have to do the fighting. Are you willing to go invade Iran?

The Iranian army couldn't even beat the Iraqi army, so I don't think it would take much to do them in. It's called a book. Try picking one up sometime.
 
You mean he didn't invade Iran? You are confused by Bush, America does not invade soverign nations. We are not the 3rd Reich

We invaded the 3rd Reich...a sovereign nation.
 
Let's examine the issues.

The governments that fell without bloodshed did so largely out of pressure by their allies. AKA, The West. The countries that engaged in civil wars are those who we do not have considerable pressure over. Iran would fall into the later section. Considering the strength of their military, we would have to do much of the fighting ourselves. Small arms will not take down the Iranian regime. And there is no way we are going to ship them TOW missiles, Stingers and other weapons. And let's remember that the Iranian military is largely loyal, there are no sects to divided like in Syria and the Elite Groups have no qualms with killing their own people.

I'm not up for another Middle East invasion and occupation. Are you?

Seems you and Apdst do not remember what Iraq was. Or what Afghanistan is.

Iran will make both of those a walk in the park.

I hate war. I hate all that it entails. I've had too many guys die in my arms. I've had to return fire and take the lives of too many as well.

A-stan and Iraq are not comparable to Iran in regards to reason to take action.

I was in both. I have been in too many places like them.

What I don't want to see, is a nuclear weapon set off inside the US. And it can happen, if Iran gets a weapon.

Again, I hate war. So no, I don't want us to get involved, but I don't want us to do nothing when there is no other alternative either.

Sanctions are not, and will not, work. Not with China and Russia supporting Iran.

Israel is going to strike. They are. We have to be involved if we want to have a chance of making it work.

Its a crappy position to be in, but there it is, in its most basic form.
 
Last edited:
There's no evidence that they won't. Not only that, it sure as hell isn't worth the risk to assume they won't.

So you think, that for some reason they'll suddenly given them the best weapon they have despite a decade of refusing to give those groups weapons more advanced them those used in WWII?

It's like the US giving a group of fighters only M16s for twenty years and then suddenly handing them a rail gun.

Does that make ANY sense? Why would Iran give them the pinnacle of Iranian Weaponry after refusing to give them other advanced weapons for years?

Your argument is based on what could happen under the most insane conditions. Not what is likely, possible and what history shows us how the Iranian government operates with its proxies. Effectively you are saying that Iran will completely change its operation relationship when it gets a nuke and hand over its best weapon when it has repetitively refused to do so with other less advanced weapons. That is lunacy.

The Iranian army couldn't even beat the Iraqi army, so I don't think it would take much to do them in. It's called a book. Try picking one up sometime.

The Iranian army in the 80s no. The Iranian military now is very different. It's called a book. Try picking one up sometimes and educating yourself as to what exists now. Not assuming what they had in the past is what they have now. By your argument, the US is still a terrible military because it took 4 years to end the civil war.

And, you're basing that opinion on what, exactly?

Terrain, population, points of entry and military defenses. Do you even know where Iran is?
 
Let's examine the issues.

The governments that fell without bloodshed did so largely out of pressure by their allies. AKA, The West. The countries that engaged in civil wars are those who we do not have considerable pressure over. Iran would fall into the later section. Considering the strength of their military, we would have to do much of the fighting ourselves. Small arms will not take down the Iranian regime. And there is no way we are going to ship them TOW missiles, Stingers and other weapons. And let's remember that the Iranian military is largely loyal, there are no sects to divided like in Syria and the Elite Groups have no qualms with killing their own people.

I'm not up for another Middle East invasion and occupation. Are you?

Seems you and Apdst do not remember what Iraq was. Or what Afghanistan is.

Iran will make both of those a walk in the park.

So what unit are you in? Oh...wait...
 
I hate war. I hate all that it entails. I've had too many guys die in my arms. I've had to return fire and take the lives of too many as well.

A-stan and Iraq are not comparable to Iran in regards to reason to take action.

I was in both. I have been in too many places like them.

Why are they not comparable? Iran will be far, far, far worse. It will be like Afghanistan on crack. The mountainous terrain, the large population, actual military defenses. We'll be wishing this was Iraq.

What I don't want to see, is a nuclear weapon set off inside the US. And it can happen, if Iran gets a weapon.

I'll ask you this: When has Iran's leaders ever risked their own necks? Using a nuke ends their regime.

Again, I hate war. So no, I don't want us to get involved, but I don't want us to do nothing when there is no other alternative either.

Sanctions are not, and will not, work. Not with China and Russia supporting Iran.

That depends. Iran's economy is already crumbling. Inflation is through the roof. Staples are hard to come by. The sanctions are squeezing the economy to death. Without selling oil at market prices, Iran cannot last much longer. They're having to sell at cut rate prices because buyers have power over them. They sell little and low prices. If we did this to Iraq, we probably wouldn't have had to invade.

Israel is going to strike. They are. We have to be involved if we want to have a chance of making it work.

Its a crappy position to be in, but there it is, in its most basic form.

Israel needs a nuke to get through. Even we probably need one as well. Honestly, the red line to stop Iran has passed.
 
So you think, that for some reason they'll suddenly given them the best weapon they have despite a decade of refusing to give those groups weapons more advanced them those used in WWII?

Which weapons are you speaking of? Last I checked, Hamas and Hezbollah are much better armed than the average WW2 soldier, from any army.

It's like the US giving a group of fighters only M16s for twenty years and then suddenly handing them a rail gun.

Do you comprehend the difference between artillery and infantry rifles? That doesn't even make sense. Do I smell another KC-135 comparison coming on??

Does that make ANY sense? Why would Iran give them the pinnacle of Iranian Weaponry after refusing to give them other advanced weapons for years?

Since you asked the same question twice, for some damn reason, what weapons are you talking about?

Your argument is based on what could happen under the most insane conditions. Not what is likely, possible and what history shows us how the Iranian government operates with its proxies. Effectively you are saying that Iran will completely change its operation relationship when it gets a nuke and hand over its best weapon when it has repetitively refused to do so with other less advanced weapons. That is lunacy.


Well, out here in the real world, you always prepare for the worst possible scenario.



The Iranian army in the 80s no. The Iranian military now is very different. It's called a book. Try picking one up sometimes and educating yourself as to what exists now.

I have a better idea. You share your expertise on the Iraqi army. Can't wait!

Not assuming what they had in the past is what they have now. By your argument, the US is still a terrible military because it took 4 years to end the civil war.

Well, that's a bad comparison, since it took the Iranians and the Iraqis 8 years just to fight each other to a standstill. There was no victor.



Terrain, population, points of entry and military defenses. Do you even know where Iran is?[/QUOTE]
 
So what unit are you in? Oh...wait...

Oh Look. When faced with a post he can't deal with, Adpst pulls his regular ****.

Deal with the points, Man up. For once in your life here.

You seem to think that Iran will be easy. Reminds of the Neocons who got 5,000 Americans killed in a needless occupation.
 
Which weapons are you speaking of? Last I checked, Hamas and Hezbollah are much better armed than the average WW2 soldier, from any army.

Advanced Anti-tank and Anti-Air missiles. Nope. Don't have those. Does Iran hand over planes and water craft? Nope. Hamas and Hezbollah rely on mostly primitive weapons. That said, they do work well.

Do you comprehend the difference between artillery and infantry rifles? That doesn't even make sense. Do I smell another KC-135 comparison coming on??

Do you understand the point being made here? Furthermore, you lying does not equate to a good argument. You know full well I agreed that as an actual tactic, using a KC-135 as an incendiary bomber was stupid. Possible? Yes. Idiotic. Absolutely. Trying again to lie that I said it was viable will get you a world of ****. That is your only warning.

You have this insane notion that Iran will give its proxies its best weapons when it has refused to do so for years.

Well, out here in the real world, you always prepare for the worst possible scenario.

No you don't. You prepare for the likely with some planning for what could be the worse. Sure you think about what might happen, but actual resource allocation and planning is spent far more on likely rather than merely possible. You are operating on the absolute worst relying upon conditions that have never existed in the past and represent massive operational relationship changes. And spending nothing on likely.

I have a better idea. You share your expertise on the Iraqi army. Can't wait!

The 80s? Sure that was joke. Armor battles with minor air support. Lots of dumb weapons. Significant use of infantry first. Obsolete at the time artillery. Iran's army was largely in the same position but after the Iranian Revolution purge of leaders it was left with idiots and inexperienced leaders in charge.

Well, that's a bad comparison, since it took the Iranians and the Iraqis 8 years just to fight each other to a standstill. There was no victor.

No it's not. Your argument is because at some point a nation sucked, it always sucks. And for years the war was a standstill in America.

Only a fool thinks Iran will be easy.
 
Why are they not comparable? Iran will be far, far, far worse. It will be like Afghanistan on crack. The mountainous terrain, the large population, actual military defenses. We'll be wishing this was Iraq.

I would love to see a link, or links proving your claims of the military prowes of the Iranian army.

This reminds me of the smack I heard in '90 about how we were going to get our asses handed to us by the Iraqis; it would take everything we had just to fight our way back out, I heard some folks say. The school of thought was that we were going up against battle hardened veterans that made up the 4th largest army in the world. Look how that turned out.

In a Iran vs. The United States scenario, we have an Iranian army that has zero combat experience and a United States Army and Marine Corps that has been fighting not only a conventional war, but an non-conventional war for 10 years. Our experience, alone, puts us head and shoulders above the Iranian army. And, that's not counting the high experience and highly trained Air Force and Navy aviators that we have. through that factor into the equation and the Iranians are purdy much ****ed like chuck.
 
Advanced Anti-tank and Anti-Air missiles. Nope. Don't have those. Does Iran hand over planes and water craft? Nope. Hamas and Hezbollah rely on mostly primitive weapons. That said, they do work well.

Um, well, that makes sense, because Hamas and Hezbollah do not encounter tanks and combat aircraft.



Do you understand the point being made here? Furthermore, you lying does not equate to a good argument. You know full well I agreed that as an actual tactic, using a KC-135 as an incendiary bomber was stupid. Possible? Yes. Idiotic. Absolutely. Trying again to lie that I said it was viable will get you a world of ****. That is your only warning.

The point you made, was that an air tanker could take the place of a ground support aircraft. This isn't your last embarressment, to be sure.

You have this insane notion that Iran will give its proxies its best weapons when it has refused to do so for years.

Iran gives it's proxies the weapons that it can employ.



No you don't. You prepare for the likely with some planning for what could be the worse. Sure you think about what might happen, but actual resource allocation and planning is spent far more on likely rather than merely possible. You are operating on the absolute worst relying upon conditions that have never existed in the past and represent massive operational relationship changes. And spending nothing on likely.

Just plain wrong on that one.


The 80s? Sure that was joke. Armor battles with minor air support. Lots of dumb weapons. Significant use of infantry first. Obsolete at the time artillery. Iran's army was largely in the same position but after the Iranian Revolution purge of leaders it was left with idiots and inexperienced leaders in charge.

Here in the 21st Century, they have the same dumb weapons, with a few minor upgrades and the same, even more inexperienced combat leaders.





Only a fool thinks Iran will be easy.

Easy? Not at all; but not impossible, as you try to make out.
 
I would love to see a link, or links proving your claims of the military prowes of the Iranian army.

This reminds me of the smack I heard in '90 about how we were going to get our asses handed to us by the Iraqis; it would take everything we had just to fight our way back out, I heard some folks say. The school of thought was that we were going up against battle hardened veterans that made up the 4th largest army in the world. Look how that turned out.

In a Iran vs. The United States scenario, we have an Iranian army that has zero combat experience and a United States Army and Marine Corps that has been fighting not only a conventional war, but an non-conventional war for 10 years. Our experience, alone, puts us head and shoulders above the Iranian army. And, that's not counting the high experience and highly trained Air Force and Navy aviators that we have. through that factor into the equation and the Iranians are purdy much ****ed like chuck.

Desert Storm was the first real combat since Vietnam of the US military on a large scale. And that's back when people thought numbers of soldiers mattered. As the past decade shows, that ain't true.

Furthermore, your boasting s what they said about Iraq. Notice how combat there did not match what they claimed. Iran is not the open deserts of Iraq. But you clearly do not know that. And there are far more larger Iranian cities then Iraqi cities. Iran's population is significantly larger then Iraq's. Pacifying cities is going to cost us thousands of lives. Even after 9 years in Iraq, we still aren't that good in pacifying cities. We had to essentially destroy Fallusia. And Iran has far more experience then you think it does. Iran has taken time to study our weakness. They will first do serious damage with relatively advanced Russian air defenses and 4th Gen planes. They, unlike Iraq, have thousands of relatively advanced anti-ship missiles. Not Granits, but sunburns and more recent weapons. We're going to take significent losses. Furthermore, occupation is going to require likely calling up 500,000 soldiers. We made a huge mistake by ignoring Ric's statement on Iraq and Iran is far larger and more populated. Expect an occupation force of at least half a million. Good luck paying for that.

Your arrogance will get a lot of people killed.
 
Desert Storm was the first real combat since Vietnam of the US military on a large scale. And that's back when people thought numbers of soldiers mattered. As the past decade shows, that ain't true.

Furthermore, your boasting s what they said about Iraq. Notice how combat there did not match what they claimed. Iran is not the open deserts of Iraq. But you clearly do not know that. And there are far more larger Iranian cities then Iraqi cities. Iran's population is significantly larger then Iraq's. Pacifying cities is going to cost us thousands of lives. Even after 9 years in Iraq, we still aren't that good in pacifying cities. We had to essentially destroy Fallusia. And Iran has far more experience then you think it does. Iran has taken time to study our weakness. They will first do serious damage with relatively advanced Russian air defenses and 4th Gen planes. They, unlike Iraq, have thousands of relatively advanced anti-ship missiles. Not Granits, but sunburns and more recent weapons. We're going to take significent losses. Furthermore, occupation is going to require likely calling up 500,000 soldiers. We made a huge mistake by ignoring Ric's statement on Iraq and Iran is far larger and more populated. Expect an occupation force of at least half a million. Good luck paying for that.

Your arrogance will get a lot of people killed.

And...still not a single link to prove what you're suggesting. No surprise there, sport.
 
Um, well, that makes sense, because Hamas and Hezbollah do not encounter tanks and combat aircraft.

Did you pay no attention at all to the recent Israel war? Israel used Apaches, Jets and tanks against them. Seriously, you never bother ever to educate yourself on anything. Furthermore, the damage the Israeli suffered to their Merkavas is a serious cause for redesign. They lost far more then expected. And that's with relatively simple weapons.

The point you made, was that an air tanker could take the place of a ground support aircraft. This isn't your last embarressment, to be sure

What is amusing is you are actually trying to use that here. I never said it was a good idea. You keep lying about that. Because you have no actual skill. Rather than actually address what I actually wrote, you simply lie. It's dishonest, but frankly, no one here considers anything you say honest these days. And if you really want to start on embarrassing statements, there are plenty of yours. You have to lie about what I said. I can bring up a list of idiotic comments you've made.

Iran gives it's proxies the weapons that it can employ.

Except that they can use anti-tank and anti-air weapons. They could have used them in the last war with Israel.

Just plain wrong on that one.

The sad thing is, that's the best argument you've ever made here.

Look, NO, YOU'RE WRONG. Convinced?

Here in the 21st Century, they have the same dumb weapons, with a few minor upgrades and the same, even more inexperienced combat leaders.

Then you are entirely unaware of Iranian weapon purchases. Not surprisingly consider your hatred for actually learning anything.

Easy? Not at all; but not impossible, as you try to make out.

ARE YOU CAPABLE OF POSTING ONCE WITHOUT LYING?

I never said it was impossible. I said it will be extremely hard, costly and bloody. And that it will make us long for Iraq.
 
And...still not a single link to prove what you're suggesting. No surprise there, sport.

Why should I? You never read links anyways (EVEN YOUR OWN). You don't even research your own positions. You just argued that Iran has the same military it had in the 80s.

Jesus. Your ignorance is beyond measure.
 
Last edited:
Why are they not comparable? Iran will be far, far, far worse. It will be like Afghanistan on crack. The mountainous terrain, the large population, actual military defenses. We'll be wishing this was Iraq.

I said in regards to the REASON to take action. Of course it would be bad. No war is good, and some are worse than others. But in this case, the alternative is unthinkable, and unacceptable.

I'll ask you this: When has Iran's leaders ever risked their own necks? Using a nuke ends their regime.

The Iranian Army was in Iraq when I was there. I have a uniform shirt form one of them in my closet. No, I didn't take it, he gave it to me in trade. And they are there now.

The Iranian government would never (I don't think) use a nuke their selves. But there are many, many nutblades in Hezbollah or Hamas or lots of other groups that would pee their pants to get their hands on one and would love to use it. The ultimate suicide bomber.

That depends. Iran's economy is already crumbling. Inflation is through the roof. Staples are hard to come by. The sanctions are squeezing the economy to death. Without selling oil at market prices, Iran cannot last much longer. They're having to sell at cut rate prices because buyers have power over them. They sell little and low prices. If we did this to Iraq, we probably wouldn't have had to invade.

They are selling every barrel they can produce to the Russians, and now China is wanting to get some as well, which will drive the price back up. But it isn;t as cheap as you may think. The Persian oil is cleaner than Siberian oil and costs less to process. Russia is paying good money for it.

The impact on the average Iranian is not that bad either, unless you count i-pads, and the Chinese can give them those sense that's where they're made. Food is still plentiful and pricing has not increased that much. Their financial markets are hurting, but again, that doesn't effect the average guy that much. The Russians, Chinese and a few others are keeping the supply lines open in both directions. And as long as that continues, there are no sanctions that can have a meaningful impact.

Israel needs a nuke to get through. Even we probably need one as well. Honestly, the red line to stop Iran has passed.

To get through what? The bunkers? Not really.

There are other ways to get to the systems and facilities other than nukes, or even bunker busters.
 
I said in regards to the REASON to take action. Of course it would be bad. No war is good, and some are worse than others. But in this case, the alternative is unthinkable, and unacceptable.

The Iranian Army was in Iraq when I was there. I have a uniform shirt form one of them in my closet. No, I didn't take it, he gave it to me in trade. And they are there now.

The Iranian government would never (I don't think) use a nuke their selves. But there are many, many nutblades in Hezbollah or Hamas or lots of other groups that would pee their pants to get their hands on one and would love to use it. The ultimate suicide bomber.

But why would Iran give them such a weapon? Apdst's running around in fantasy land pretending that Iran will give its proxies the most advanced weapon its ever created when it outright refuses to ship them advanced anti-tank and anti-air not to mention anti-ship missiles. It's going from shaped charges to nukes. And nothing in between. Furthermore, no state in history has ever given its proxies chemical or biological weapons before much less nukes. And nothing Iran's leadership has done suggests they are actually insane. Notice now Adpst pretended my question showing how they are in fact crazy doesn't exist. People rant and rave about how they are fundamentalist and insane and out to kill everyone, but history does not support that. They didn't use chemical weapons that would have wiped out Israel in the past. Nothing they ever do risks their own power. Iran is predictable. And they are rational. Not one person here has EVER been able to point to a SINGLE instance where the Mullahs risked their own lives and their own power. Everyone who has been asked that has run and I've been asking that for years.

They are selling every barrel they can produce to the Russians, and now China is wanting to get some as well, which will drive the price back up. But it isn;t as cheap as you may think. The Persian oil is cleaner than Siberian oil and costs less to process. Russia is paying good money for it.

Come again? Where did you hear Russia is buying Iranian oil? They aren't even in the top 5 buyers.

What sanctions? Top five countries buying oil from Iran. - South Korea - CSMonitor.com

Generally Middle East oil is sweeter than elsewhere, but it doesn't really make sense for Russia to buy it. And China is squeezing the crap out of Iran. It's quite ridiculous how the Chinese are pulling a power play on the Iranians who are their alleged allies.

The impact on the average Iranian is not that bad either, unless you count i-pads, and the Chinese can give them those sense that's where they're made. Food is still plentiful and pricing has not increased that much. Their financial markets are hurting, but again, that doesn't effect the average guy that much. The Russians, Chinese and a few others are keeping the supply lines open in both directions. And as long as that continues, there are no sanctions that can have a meaningful impact.

Where did you hear this? From what I read, inflation is through the roof and getting regular staples is becoming difficult.

To get through what? The bunkers? Not really.

There are other ways to get to the systems and facilities other than nukes, or even bunker busters.

No, the facilities located deep underground. And let's not forget that the specialized concrete that can sustain ridiculous amounts of damage is made in Iran. UHPC is going to cause us headaches.
 
But why would Iran give them such a weapon? Apdst's running around in fantasy land pretending that Iran will give its proxies the most advanced weapon its ever created when it outright refuses to ship them advanced anti-tank and anti-air not to mention anti-ship missiles. It's going from shaped charges to nukes. And nothing in between. Furthermore, no state in history has ever given its proxies chemical or biological weapons before much less nukes. And nothing Iran's leadership has done suggests they are actually insane. Notice now Adpst pretended my question showing how they are in fact crazy doesn't exist. People rant and rave about how they are fundamentalist and insane and out to kill everyone, but history does not support that. They didn't use chemical weapons that would have wiped out Israel in the past. Nothing they ever do risks their own power. Iran is predictable. And they are rational. Not one person here has EVER been able to point to a SINGLE instance where the Mullahs risked their own lives and their own power. Everyone who has been asked that has run and I've been asking that for years.



Come again? Where did you hear Russia is buying Iranian oil? They aren't even in the top 5 buyers.

What sanctions? Top five countries buying oil from Iran. - South Korea - CSMonitor.com

Generally Middle East oil is sweeter than elsewhere, but it doesn't really make sense for Russia to buy it. And China is squeezing the crap out of Iran. It's quite ridiculous how the Chinese are pulling a power play on the Iranians who are their alleged allies.



Where did you hear this? From what I read, inflation is through the roof and getting regular staples is becoming difficult.



No, the facilities located deep underground. And let's not forget that the specialized concrete that can sustain ridiculous amounts of damage is made in Iran. UHPC is going to cause us headaches.

I'm not going to get into talking about other members with you or anyone else.

You make a lot of good points. I agree with some and disagree with others.

I am too friggin' tired tonight to get into the details, but will be happy to do so tomorrow.

Suffice to say, that there is a huge difference between deploying an anti-tank missile, or anti-ship missile battery than deploying a suitcase bomb. And as long as the IAEA is kept out of the facilities there is no way to match the bomb to the Iranians. And I wouldn't give them chemical or biological weapons either, Those weapons are too unpredictable in delivery. Nukes are not. Plus, if they get enough enriched material, it would be simple to make a suitcase bomb and still have enough left over for the regime to use in missiles or artillery.

Can you imagine what would happen in the world if a nuke went off in Israel? Or NYC? Or London?
 
Why should I? You never read links anyways (EVEN YOUR OWN). You don't even research your own positions. You just argued that Iran has the same military it had in the 80s.

Jesus. Your ignorance is beyond measure.

Iran has a total of 815,000 effectives, including reserve units.

Their amored forces consist of American made M-60's 47's and 48's; designs that are 30 years old. British Chieftain mk3's and mk5's; more 30 year old designs.

Soviet T-55's, T-54's and Chinese Type 59's; 40 year old designs.

None of the above have stabilized turrets, which means they have to actually stop to fire, because firing on the move is a total waste of ammo. American M-1's can fired on the move at speeds of 40 mph, plus the M-1 outrages all of the above listed MBT's by 1,000 meters.

The most advanced main battle tanks the Iranians have are the Soviet T-72 and the Zulfiqar. The T-72 has a large bore gun, with formidable effective range and a stabilized turret, but it's still an old design, which we made into swiss cheese during Desert Storm. The Zulfiqar is a boxy confured unit that doesn't have sloping amor, which means that it has the potential to become swiss cheese.

The mainstay of their infantry fighting vehicle compliment is the Soviet BTR-50, which we also made into swiss cheese during Desert Storm. No point in getting into their IFV's, because it's purdy much a joke.

Their most numerous helicopter gunship is the American AH-1J Sea Cobra.

They have a few pieces of equipment to brag about, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's operated by 100% inexperienced personel. A disadvantage that the United States doesn't suffer from.

For your reference:

Equipment of the Iranian Army - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Even the far left Obama worshipping NY Times acknowledged that Obama violated the law. However not being a republican all was forgiven.

First of all, the argument was that Obama violated the War Powers Resolution (1973), not the War Powers Act (1941), which is an entirely worthless and unconstitutional law that every President has ignored since it was passed and vetoed by Richard Nixon. Second, there was no concurrent resolution requiring the cessation of hostilities which is the only mechanism in the Resolution for Congress to exercise its pretended authority to end them. The lawsuit was dismissed. End of story.

Once again US troops were never needed. The same US aid that helped topple the regimes in Libya and Egypt was denied to the Iranians.

And, once again, the Iranians didn't start a revolution. The United States merely aided a revolutionary army in Libya that was already fighting the regime. No such occurrence took place in Iran.
 
In a Iran vs. The United States scenario, we have an Iranian army that has zero combat experience and a United States Army and Marine Corps that has been fighting not only a conventional war, but an non-conventional war for 10 years. Our experience, alone, puts us head and shoulders above the Iranian army. And, that's not counting the high experience and highly trained Air Force and Navy aviators that we have. through that factor into the equation and the Iranians are purdy much ****ed like chuck.


Exactly. We have "Regime Change" experience and we should use it in Iran.
 
Back
Top Bottom