War with Iran?

[JakeStarkey]

Hmmm, considering Navy1960 and GoneBezerk as the beau ideal for military information and nuance?

Navy1960 for sure, with GB sent back to zero week of BCT for a new training, such he has wasted all of it and his career since he went through it.

 

[U2Edge]

Since the Iran-Iraq War and China’s modern economic resurgence, the PRC has deepened its relations with Iran—through continued arms sales and diplomatic engagement—and expanded its presence in the Middle East at large. In 1998, China‘s trade with the Middle East was valued at $7.4 billion; by 2007, it had increased more than twelvefold to $93.7 billion.15 Much of the increase has been driven by China‘s ever-growing hunger for oil imports. As of 2009, China imported more than 50 percent of the oil it consumes.16 China‘s greater need for resources and desire for unhindered growth have solidified its presence in the Middle East and complicated US attempts to break its ties to Iran.


So far, however, statements from Russian government and industry communicate a message of business as usual, including the reaffirmation of the most controversial of the weapons deals to date: a sale, agreed upon in late 2005, of Tor-1 short-range air defense systems to Iran. One industry representative stressed: “We send our systems to Iran with a totally clear conscience, because they are exclusively defensive weapons.” A similar line is invariably offered by the spokespeople of Rosoboronexport, who insist that it operates exclusively within the framework of international law. Fully aware of the international concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program, as well as the U.S. position on military cooperation with Iran, Russia endorses preserving contacts in this sensitive sphere even though it faces unfavorable consequences for doing so. What factors lie behind this preference?



The IRI purchased $400 million worth of weapons from the PRC between 1993 and 1996, and $600 million during the 1997-2000 period.42 In addition to small arms, Beijing supplied Tehran with artillery pieces, anti-ship cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and fast-attack patrol vessels. Contemporary Chinese supplies to Iran have included: large-caliber sniper rifles, armor-piercing rounds, C-802 ―Silkworm‖ anti-ship cruise missiles, shoulder-fired HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles, 107mm rockets, 60mm and 82mm mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-aircraft guns, landmines, and components for roadside bombs....


WASHINGTON (AP) — Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.


I think that about covers it for those who are more interested in spouting off without thinking rather than considering the facts involved.

Its true that the United States Army (active) and Marine Corp (active) have been put under enormous strain the past 11 years given their combined size. A mistake in the restructuring that occured after the Cold War was the heavy reduction in combat units in both the Army active and Army National Guard. While the reduced force was capable of handling standard conventional actions and wars, it had serious vulnerability when carrying out open ended occupation, nation building and counter insurgency duties for years on end. Had the reductions not taken place and the active army had remained at about 60 combat brigades and the US Army National Guard at nearly 60 combat brigades, none of the standard combat brigades would of had to deploy more than once over the past 8 years.

So I strongly believe that the United States Army and United State Army National Guard need to be expanded back to the old levels from the 1980s. While this is more than necessary to combat normal conventional foes, it provides that extra reserve that would be needed to relieve the pressure in an open ended occupation.

Currently, the active army is at 45 combat brigades, up from the 33 combat brigades it was at in 2003. But Obama's new defense plan cuts the number of active army combat brigades from 45 to 32. The National Guard is at 34 combat brigades. Obviously a smaller force like this presents problems if one is contemplating an invasion and occupation of Iran. But right now over 99% of the discussion is about air-strikes. Virtually no one is talking about a ground war which is where these problems would become issues. But then again if one is contemplating the use of military force to deal with Iran, Air-Strikes may only delay the day Iran gets the nuclear weapon, while a ground war attempting regime change would be the only way to insure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. So it is an important discussion to be having, especially since regardless of what course of action one picks, one does not want to have a reduced set of options to pick from.

No doubt if the United States went to war with China over Tawain, or Russia over an attempt to retake the Baltic States, it would be a very different war from the ones the United States has fought in southwest asia over the past 25 years. The United States would be facing better weapons, tactics and troops than it has face in the recent past. This would likely mean higher casualties and more difficulties, but is certainly not a reason for the United States not to respond to protect its vital national interest.

Iran has received many new weapon systems over the past 20 years. Despite that its inventory of major weapon systems even today is rather small compared to Saddam's pre-1991 Gulf War and post-1991 Gulf War. Its also relatively small compared to Syria. In addition, much of the major weapon systems, for instance half of their tanks and half of their combat aircraft are 1950s/1960s/1970s weapon systems. Iran has put a lot of their budget into nuclear development and ballistic missiles, but their standard conventional weapons like tanks, artillery, helicopters, and combat aircraft has lagged behind.

I'd say Iran's biggest deterent to a foreign invasion is not its military or any new weapons that it has purchased but the size of the country itself. Its over 3 times the size of Iraq and has a population of 80 million which is nearly 3 times that of Iraq. Large areas of the country are very mountainous. This is probably why I've yet to see anyone seriously contemplate an invasion of the country as a means to removing the nuclear threat.

The good news for the US military at the moment is that troop levels in Afghanistan will soon be down to about 65,000, which should represent the lowest number of US troops deployed in combat zones since 2002. But Obama's cut backs to the Army going from 45 combat brigades to just 32 is obviously going to increase the burden on a smaller number of people if the United States enters a new war requiring their deployment. While Obama claims he is leaving no options off the table when dealing with Iranian nuclear power, it appears he is definitely leaving a ground invasion off the table given the huge cut he is making to US ground combat brigades. In that case, if the United States does enter into hostilities with Iran in the next few years, it would likely be something involving airstrikes and not a ground war. The strain to the US military in terms of deployment in that type of a conflict (air war) would be much less.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Ahhh, I thought I heard patriotic music in the background reading your bullshit.

I know you're not a hero, you don't even know the difference between the US and UK militaries. You still haven't explained your House of Commons report article being somehow tied to the US military's weakness to take on Iran....because you can't, you are an idiot that just threw out a link for space filler.

You're not educating here with your dumbass posts. Now you're going on about Defense Readiness Reporting as if I never heard of it. Uh, the SECDEF read my comments from USCENTCOM during our annual report to him and the CJCS, dumbfuck.

Oh, I spent 25 months away from my family on 4 different OEF deployments while you sat on your ass back here, so shut the fuck up about what you think I haven't done for this country.

Now, get back to explaining how the US can't carry the mission of stopping Iran getting nukes and how you "know" China and Russia will stop us. Go read some more British websites to come up with your tin foil hat theory.

I've not had this good a laugh in years, first, I talk very little of my background on here in the Navy as it doesn't need to be spoken of on here to those who have little understanding of it to begin with. As for being a hero, I will tell you something of hero's, a hero is someone who puts themselves in harms way for their friends and for their nation and often times do not come home and a hero is those families who every single day make the sacrifice of having to watch a loved one deploy and do not complain and yet miss them dearly, and worry for their safety with each passing moment. A hero is a person in lays in a field or under the ocean with no name who fought for this nation and did so not wanting any recognition for it. I have NOT nor will I EVER compare myself to these hero's and to imply otherwise continues to show a childlike ignorance in an Adult world. Perhaps the best thing for you to do, is rather than come to these Boards like this, is read a book, learn some history, and then gain some manners, and maybe put on the uniform of your country and defend it rather than advocating others do it for you, and you having to make NO sacrifice while they do. Having said all this, your obviously not capable of even understanding what it means to deploy over and over again till your operational readiness is so poor that your unable to perform future missions in the manner you should. I would suggest you look up something as I am a bit tired of educating you, ...

10 USC § 117
(a) Required Readiness Reporting System.— The Secretary of Defense shall establish a comprehensive readiness reporting system for the Department of Defense. The readiness reporting system shall measure in an objective, accurate, and timely manner the capability of the armed forces to carry out

The SecDef and JCS Chair each submit reports to Congress on Force Readiness and they are and have been consistant with the article cited in "DEFENCETALK" .

 

[GoneBezerk]

Dumbass....my moniker is sarcastic, but you're too stupid to understand just like you're stupid enough to tout Navy1960's UK military article as proof the "US military" can't take on Iran.

Don't worry Navy1960....liberals defend your fake claims to being a military hero, they even made it legal.

CaliforniaGirl will be there defending you until the end.

I defend him because I'm privileged to know him... he has never claimed to be a 'hero', just that he is military. Of that, I know he is telling the truth. Which seems more than you are capable of doing.

On the bright side, your username suits you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

GoneBezerk is a fake "senior officer". He made E7 or E8 in staff.

Pay no attention: he is the fake Oz, the man behind the curtain.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Jake the Fake now a stalker.

Oh, enlisted personnel don't write the annual assessment of the TCP.

GoneBezerk is a fake "senior officer". He made E7 or E8 in staff.

Pay no attention: he is the fake Oz, the man behind the curtain.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You typed the assessment for your superiors, specialist bezerk.

 

[Navy1960]

Frankly, I find it a bit surprising that someone who claims to have been on 4 dfifferent OEF deployments does not have a little bit of reading comprehension when it comes to Defense issues.

DefenceTalk.com is your complete resource for International Defence, military and strategic news and information. DefenceTalk was launched in March, 2003 and has been growing into a mature and professional online Defence community. We strive to attract Defence Professionals, Military personnel, industry specialists as well as everyday military and Defence enthusiasts. Instead of being “just another board or Defence forum,” we’ve introduced and implemented strict rules and regulations to be one of the top leading Defence website portals on the internet. Due to DefenceTalk’s professionalism and serious strategic Defence/Military Focus, we’ve developed a huge user base (over 35,000+ global members and adding new users daily in our network of websites!) in three short years online that some other sites strive to achieve in twice that time. We continue to set new standards that other websites are forced to copy… DefenceTalk is where professionals and generals come to talk! DefenceTalk is not associated or affiliated with DoD or MoD or any defense/aerospace firm/company.


Read more: About us | DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

You do know what DOD and MOD is hopefully for someone who claims to have such an extensive record such as yourself. So rather than trying to continue to make yourself look bad on here I would suggest you drop your claims on this site, because when you continue to do so, it just makes you more and more suspect.

As to your claims on Russia and China, if you cannot read past a posting on USMB, then I will try and sum it up for you in more simple terms that maybe you can understand and then you can pass it on to the SECDEF in your annual report and perhaps the JCS will take up your suggestions. Russia and China both are both large Arms suppliers to Iran as well as some of Iran's largest customers for domestic oil exports. Russia, is a large supplier to Iran for its domestic nuclear program as well as it's domestic air defense network. or were you not available when they were giving this briefing at DOD or CENTCOM for that matter, perhaps you want to send a memo to Gen Mattis and let the Gen. know you were not there when they were discussing relationships these nations have with Iran. Given these factors and Operational Readiness as well as current deployments of US Military assests, any engagement in Iran would have to have as I said in my original post the participation of the American people ( i.e. willingness to pay for it as well as draft) as well as Industry to support it, and Military readiness to sustain it. Given the fact that both Russia and China have a vested interest in defending the assests they already have in place in Iran , an airstike may not result in the desired result you wish and will be met with a larger defense than intended. Or does, someone with your extensive experience , and number of deployments fail to notice while you were on these OEF deployments where a large number of these weapons that were used against US Forces were coming from? Or were you absent that day too ?

I find it very interesting that your so sensitive on the subject and willing to spout off your credentials so quickly , and to be quite honest, if you are what you say you are, let me give you some advice, boasting to others about what you supposedly did or didn't do while in Military doesn't do much to bring honor to those men and women you served with.

 

[Navy1960]

Since the Iran-Iraq War and China’s modern economic resurgence, the PRC has deepened its relations with Iran—through continued arms sales and diplomatic engagement—and expanded its presence in the Middle East at large. In 1998, China‘s trade with the Middle East was valued at $7.4 billion; by 2007, it had increased more than twelvefold to $93.7 billion.15 Much of the increase has been driven by China‘s ever-growing hunger for oil imports. As of 2009, China imported more than 50 percent of the oil it consumes.16 China‘s greater need for resources and desire for unhindered growth have solidified its presence in the Middle East and complicated US attempts to break its ties to Iran.


So far, however, statements from Russian government and industry communicate a message of business as usual, including the reaffirmation of the most controversial of the weapons deals to date: a sale, agreed upon in late 2005, of Tor-1 short-range air defense systems to Iran. One industry representative stressed: “We send our systems to Iran with a totally clear conscience, because they are exclusively defensive weapons.” A similar line is invariably offered by the spokespeople of Rosoboronexport, who insist that it operates exclusively within the framework of international law. Fully aware of the international concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program, as well as the U.S. position on military cooperation with Iran, Russia endorses preserving contacts in this sensitive sphere even though it faces unfavorable consequences for doing so. What factors lie behind this preference?



The IRI purchased $400 million worth of weapons from the PRC between 1993 and 1996, and $600 million during the 1997-2000 period.42 In addition to small arms, Beijing supplied Tehran with artillery pieces, anti-ship cruise missiles, surface-to-air missiles, fighter jets, tanks, armored personnel carriers, and fast-attack patrol vessels. Contemporary Chinese supplies to Iran have included: large-caliber sniper rifles, armor-piercing rounds, C-802 ―Silkworm‖ anti-ship cruise missiles, shoulder-fired HN-5 anti-aircraft missiles, 107mm rockets, 60mm and 82mm mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, anti-aircraft guns, landmines, and components for roadside bombs....


WASHINGTON (AP) — Strained by the demands of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a significant risk that the U.S. military won't be able to quickly and fully respond to yet another crisis, according to a new report to Congress.

The assessment, done by the nation's top military officer, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, represents a worsening from a year ago, when that risk was rated as moderate.


I think that about covers it for those who are more interested in spouting off without thinking rather than considering the facts involved.

Its true that the United States Army (active) and Marine Corp (active) have been put under enormous strain the past 11 years given their combined size. A mistake in the restructuring that occured after the Cold War was the heavy reduction in combat units in both the Army active and Army National Guard. While the reduced force was capable of handling standard conventional actions and wars, it had serious vulnerability when carrying out open ended occupation, nation building and counter insurgency duties for years on end. Had the reductions not taken place and the active army had remained at about 60 combat brigades and the US Army National Guard at nearly 60 combat brigades, none of the standard combat brigades would of had to deploy more than once over the past 8 years.

So I strongly believe that the United States Army and United State Army National Guard need to be expanded back to the old levels from the 1980s. While this is more than necessary to combat normal conventional foes, it provides that extra reserve that would be needed to relieve the pressure in an open ended occupation.

Currently, the active army is at 45 combat brigades, up from the 33 combat brigades it was at in 2003. But Obama's new defense plan cuts the number of active army combat brigades from 45 to 32. The National Guard is at 34 combat brigades. Obviously a smaller force like this presents problems if one is contemplating an invasion and occupation of Iran. But right now over 99% of the discussion is about air-strikes. Virtually no one is talking about a ground war which is where these problems would become issues. But then again if one is contemplating the use of military force to deal with Iran, Air-Strikes may only delay the day Iran gets the nuclear weapon, while a ground war attempting regime change would be the only way to insure Iran does not get a nuclear weapon. So it is an important discussion to be having, especially since regardless of what course of action one picks, one does not want to have a reduced set of options to pick from.

No doubt if the United States went to war with China over Tawain, or Russia over an attempt to retake the Baltic States, it would be a very different war from the ones the United States has fought in southwest asia over the past 25 years. The United States would be facing better weapons, tactics and troops than it has face in the recent past. This would likely mean higher casualties and more difficulties, but is certainly not a reason for the United States not to respond to protect its vital national interest.

Iran has received many new weapon systems over the past 20 years. Despite that its inventory of major weapon systems even today is rather small compared to Saddam's pre-1991 Gulf War and post-1991 Gulf War. Its also relatively small compared to Syria. In addition, much of the major weapon systems, for instance half of their tanks and half of their combat aircraft are 1950s/1960s/1970s weapon systems. Iran has put a lot of their budget into nuclear development and ballistic missiles, but their standard conventional weapons like tanks, artillery, helicopters, and combat aircraft has lagged behind.

I'd say Iran's biggest deterent to a foreign invasion is not its military or any new weapons that it has purchased but the size of the country itself. Its over 3 times the size of Iraq and has a population of 80 million which is nearly 3 times that of Iraq. Large areas of the country are very mountainous. This is probably why I've yet to see anyone seriously contemplate an invasion of the country as a means to removing the nuclear threat.

The good news for the US military at the moment is that troop levels in Afghanistan will soon be down to about 65,000, which should represent the lowest number of US troops deployed in combat zones since 2002. But Obama's cut backs to the Army going from 45 combat brigades to just 32 is obviously going to increase the burden on a smaller number of people if the United States enters a new war requiring their deployment. While Obama claims he is leaving no options off the table when dealing with Iranian nuclear power, it appears he is definitely leaving a ground invasion off the table given the huge cut he is making to US ground combat brigades. In that case, if the United States does enter into hostilities with Iran in the next few years, it would likely be something involving airstrikes and not a ground war. The strain to the US military in terms of deployment in that type of a conflict (air war) would be much less.

Very good posting, my only observation here would be is rather than returning to force levels of the 1980's, technology allows for force projection where levels do not have to be in terms of numbers where they were in the 1980's in my humble opinion. I tend to be one of those folks that leans more to the "leaner and meaner" side of the street. As for a ground invasion in Iran , first, I do not see support here at home for something along those lines, so your conclusion when it comes to an Airstrike seems to be right. The the question becomes are these Airstrikes going to accomplish anything other than to delay Iran's ambitions and does Russia and China who have a large vested interest in Iran respond , leading to a larger conflict our nation is not ready for. My feelings are with Iran you have a population that is for the most part more friendly to the US than many others and any Airstrike would take that option off the table in terms of trying to work within the population to try and effect and change in Govt. This is just a humble opinion that is where the Obama Administration failed. in that they should have supported the uprising in Iran fully and kept on supporting it in everyway possible. In the end however once we have fully left Afghanistan , then the situation turns a little more in our favor in terms of having to support any conflict should it lead in that direction, and let's hope it doesn't.

 

[GoneBezerk]

You're just a fucking idiot blowhard that types for about an hour, to try to fool people here with a long-winded diatribes.

You put up a link about the UK's military readiness that was 2 years old, then tried to play it off as the US military's readiness....because you can't read and don't know what you are doing. The House of Commons report should have clued you in, but you're just an idiot.

As for "Defencetalk," being such a great asset of information from the British perspective....who gives a shit. You grabbed one of their articles and ran with it without reading it or you are really just that dumb confusing the US and UK.

Speaking of General Mattis, he would laugh at your bullshit about Russia and China rushing to save Iran. He is a nice guy from when I was in his office doing a project for him, but he would tell you to shut the fuck up with your constant bullshit here and giving us incorrect information.

You see boy, when you show off a link that is supposed to be about the US military readiness and it is really the UK military readiness, we kick you out of our office on your ass. Learn the difference between Defense and Defence before coming around us with your bullshit.

Frankly, I find it a bit surprising that someone who claims to have been on 4 dfifferent OEF deployments does not have a little bit of reading comprehension when it comes to Defense issues.

DefenceTalk.com is your complete resource for International Defence, military and strategic news and information. DefenceTalk was launched in March, 2003 and has been growing into a mature and professional online Defence community. We strive to attract Defence Professionals, Military personnel, industry specialists as well as everyday military and Defence enthusiasts. Instead of being “just another board or Defence forum,” we’ve introduced and implemented strict rules and regulations to be one of the top leading Defence website portals on the internet. Due to DefenceTalk’s professionalism and serious strategic Defence/Military Focus, we’ve developed a huge user base (over 35,000+ global members and adding new users daily in our network of websites!) in three short years online that some other sites strive to achieve in twice that time. We continue to set new standards that other websites are forced to copy… DefenceTalk is where professionals and generals come to talk! DefenceTalk is not associated or affiliated with DoD or MoD or any defense/aerospace firm/company.


Read more: About us | DefenceTalk | Defense & Military News - Forums - Pictures - Weapons

You do know what DOD and MOD is hopefully for someone who claims to have such an extensive record such as yourself. So rather than trying to continue to make yourself look bad on here I would suggest you drop your claims on this site, because when you continue to do so, it just makes you more and more suspect.

As to your claims on Russia and China, if you cannot read past a posting on USMB, then I will try and sum it up for you in more simple terms that maybe you can understand and then you can pass it on to the SECDEF in your annual report and perhaps the JCS will take up your suggestions. Russia and China both are both large Arms suppliers to Iran as well as some of Iran's largest customers for domestic oil exports. Russia, is a large supplier to Iran for its domestic nuclear program as well as it's domestic air defense network. or were you not available when they were giving this briefing at DOD or CENTCOM for that matter, perhaps you want to send a memo to Gen Mattis and let the Gen. know you were not there when they were discussing relationships these nations have with Iran. Given these factors and Operational Readiness as well as current deployments of US Military assests, any engagement in Iran would have to have as I said in my original post the participation of the American people ( i.e. willingness to pay for it as well as draft) as well as Industry to support it, and Military readiness to sustain it. Given the fact that both Russia and China have a vested interest in defending the assests they already have in place in Iran , an airstike may not result in the desired result you wish and will be met with a larger defense than intended. Or does, someone with your extensive experience , and number of deployments fail to notice while you were on these OEF deployments where a large number of these weapons that were used against US Forces were coming from? Or were you absent that day too ?

I find it very interesting that your so sensitive on the subject and willing to spout off your credentials so quickly , and to be quite honest, if you are what you say you are, let me give you some advice, boasting to others about what you supposedly did or didn't do while in Military doesn't do much to bring honor to those men and women you served with.

 

[JWBooth]

I'm seeing Netanyahu whining about Iran having nukes in 6-months?! Then the chikin-hawks threatening war with Iran?! Then the crazy SNs are killing US soldiers and citizens, and these are our "friends" to whom we give lots of foreign aid.

Lets take a poll on which plan of action we support towards Iran and their newbie H-bomb.

Bibi was making the same predictions in the early '90s, Iran and nukes in 6 months.
No more US military involvement in that part of the world.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yeah, the pictures of Iranian facilities must be a Hollywood production funded by the Jews, eh.

Did they pay off the IAEA?

I'm seeing Netanyahu whining about Iran having nukes in 6-months?! Then the chikin-hawks threatening war with Iran?! Then the crazy SNs are killing US soldiers and citizens, and these are our "friends" to whom we give lots of foreign aid.

Lets take a poll on which plan of action we support towards Iran and their newbie H-bomb.

Bibi was making the same predictions in the early '90s, Iran and nukes in 6 months.
No more US military involvement in that part of the world.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Russia and China supported Saddam.....your fairy tale of them rushing to save him didn't happen in Iraq...and that was a full scale invasion. If you think the Iran operation is the same as the Iraq operation, then your Navy experience is really just operating remote control toy boats in some local duck pond.

China is too busy battling Japan and other neighbors over fishing areas, oil areas and tiny islands. Also, starting WW3 when they haven't built up their military to project power beyond their shoreline isn't in their best interest especially when it would collapse their economy.

Russia likes to fly under the radar by giving evil people weapons and information (see Iran, Syria, Saddam), but they aren't going to send their troops to Iran to defend one of worst dictatorships on the planet in the eyes of the world community. Russia likes to be the bad guy, but in the shadows.....they send their SAMs to Iran, but not their MIGs flown by their pilots.

You can babble on and on, but any lack of action by the US under the current Admin isn't because they fear Russia and China, when it is really because they just fear any conflict...period. Iran has a good arsenal of missiles to launch at Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc and they have their state controlled terrorist force all over this planet in sleeper cells, nevermind LH in Lebanon will attack Israel and western targets once given their Iranian orders.

Attacking Iran will either create chaos in the middle east for about 1-2 weeks until our air power kicks their ass, but that is better than facing a nuclear Iran where they dictate the terms and can start any war in the region without good options for the US. It's kinda hard to fight someone when they can nuke Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, etc.

Let's just say your strategy of sitting on your ass and doing nothing until they use their nukes or blackmail the world with their nukes is a dumbass strategy given less pain will happen right now compared to a year or two down the road.

Very good posting, my only observation here would be is rather than returning to force levels of the 1980's, technology allows for force projection where levels do not have to be in terms of numbers where they were in the 1980's in my humble opinion. I tend to be one of those folks that leans more to the "leaner and meaner" side of the street. As for a ground invasion in Iran , first, I do not see support here at home for something along those lines, so your conclusion when it comes to an Airstrike seems to be right. The the question becomes are these Airstrikes going to accomplish anything other than to delay Iran's ambitions and does Russia and China who have a large vested interest in Iran respond , leading to a larger conflict our nation is not ready for. My feelings are with Iran you have a population that is for the most part more friendly to the US than many others and any Airstrike would take that option off the table in terms of trying to work within the population to try and effect and change in Govt. This is just a humble opinion that is where the Obama Administration failed. in that they should have supported the uprising in Iran fully and kept on supporting it in everyway possible. In the end however once we have fully left Afghanistan , then the situation turns a little more in our favor in terms of having to support any conflict should it lead in that direction, and let's hope it doesn't.

 

[Navy1960]

Two day's in a row now I've had the best laugh in years on here I've had watching this child pitch a fit on here because he is unable to refute any facts I've posted. So let me see if I can sum this up, first, it was the site he had a problem with, so when it was pointed out to him the site is Intertnational one that contains issues that not only speak on UK as well as US Military but worldwide Military issues, he then had an issue with the date. Then back to the the fact it was based in the UK, but, sadly again he failed to read that the site itself is based in the US. You son have made me laugh, your extensive experience has done nothing on here but show your ass. Whats next? your going to claim the Medal of Honor? and how often you and the JCS Chair play golf on the weekends ? Spare me, again when your ready to debate an issue like a man, and an adult rather than a child, come see me. Perhaps the reason why my long responses bother you so much is because your unable to comprehend them beyond a few sentences and it just shows you have not taken the time to read them. Again, do us all a favor and stop boasting about your background son, your bringing dishonor on yourself and those you served with if you ever served it all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Americans supported Saddam for a while to balance the power of the Iranians.

We need no more neo-com anti-American imperialistic adventures in the Middle East.

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Jake unfortunately they are gonna keep happening

 

[GoneBezerk]

When did you serve in the Navy? Get out in 1960, start in 1960, born in 1960? You don't have a clue about the current US military so you rely on websites, the news, etc to act like you know what is going on "right now."

You throw around some British article based on the House of Commons report 2 years old about the UK military as proof the US military can't fight Iran today....I'd call that insane or stupid.

You need to show this board where your article talks to the military readiness of the US military, since it's not there. You must have a problem understanding UK vs US.

You still didn't explain your China and Russia tin foil hat theory, dumbfuck. So go find some article about India's military to show Russia and China are going to stop us in Iran.

Two day's in a row now I've had the best laugh in years on here I've had watching this child pitch a fit on here because he is unable to refute any facts I've posted. So let me see if I can sum this up, first, it was the site he had a problem with, so when it was pointed out to him the site is Intertnational one that contains issues that not only speak on UK as well as US Military but worldwide Military issues, he then had an issue with the date. Then back to the the fact it was based in the UK, but, sadly again he failed to read that the site itself is based in the US. You son have made me laugh, your extensive experience has done nothing on here but show your ass. Whats next? your going to claim the Medal of Honor? and how often you and the JCS Chair play golf on the weekends ? Spare me, again when your ready to debate an issue like a man, and an adult rather than a child, come see me. Perhaps the reason why my long responses bother you so much is because your unable to comprehend them beyond a few sentences and it just shows you have not taken the time to read them. Again, do us all a favor and stop boasting about your background son, your bringing dishonor on yourself and those you served with if you ever served it all.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Yeah, dumbfuck....it isn't in our national interests to ensure Iran doesn't stop the flow of oil and/or doesn't nuke Israel or our Arab allies.

We should just ignore it all and wait for the fallout in oil prices and deaths of millions "over there" in your demented mind.

Now, you can respond with your typical "you are just a former enlisted peon" like you send in PMs and posts here. Strange....I was only an E-3 when I was a cadet, but you think you are insulting me for those cadet years.

The Americans supported Saddam for a while to balance the power of the Iranians.

We need no more neo-com anti-American imperialistic adventures in the Middle East.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Oh look, a muslim terrorist supports Jake the Fake's strategy of leaving the middle east to the wacko muslims.

Jake unfortunately they are gonna keep happening

 

[BecauseIKnow]

Oh look, a muslim terrorist supports Jake the Fake's strategy of leaving the middle east to the wacko muslims.

Jake unfortunately they are gonna keep happening

Terrorist? Lol an I'm Muslim batman bro