Isreal and American forces ready to attack Iran within days

alastair

meglome wrote: »

Wasn't it the US that invaded Canada and burned their capital? Other than that there was some Irish guys that 'invaded' the US from Canada. Don't recall the details very well though.

The Canadians invaded the US and occupied Detroit during the 1812 war - admittedly there was a lot of invading going on from both sides. Canada hadn't got a capital at the time, but the US did burn York (Toronto today) and in return the British burned down the whitehouse and Capital building.

uprising2

Israel 'too weak face up to Iran'
Ahmadinejad dismisses US as "unable to beat a small army in Iraq."
http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=185631

He's really rubbing their nose in it now, haha, stupid zionist pig's are left looking more pityful by the day, although I still wouldn't put it past them to attack Iran with nuke's, it's their one and only hope, even then Usrael is Fukked, I think they may be coming to terms with the fact Iran is much stronger than they ever will be.

EDIT:
Iranian president offers friendship to the US
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5goykFnHZsAqRUFl1bXBuWbVNcpkgD9HONR7O0

Yitzhak Rabin

uprising2 wrote: »

I think they may be coming to terms with the fact Iran is much stronger than they ever will be.

:rolleyes:

Iran is far from "stronger" than the US. On almost every count, militarily, economically and politically, the US dwarfs Iran.

There are many reasons why they probably won't attack. But being militarily weaker than Iran is not one of them.

Even the fact that they could attack proves that. Iran could never attack either the US or Israel, because they would have their asses handed to them.

uprising2

yekahs wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Iran is far from "stronger" than the US. On almost every count, militarily, economically and politically, the US dwarfs Iran.

There are many reasons why they probably won't attack. But being militarily weaker than Iran is not one of them.

Even the fact that they could attack proves that. Iran could never attack either the US or Israel, because they would have their asses handed to them.

Actually I was referring to Israel when I said that but called them Usrael.
What you say may be true, but so is the fact that British military is much stronger than the IRA could ever be, and who's in power up north now?.

Sometime's pure determination win's, actually I'd say a lot of the time it does, the US have slaughterd an uncalculated number of people in both Afghanistan and Iraq with it's military might, yet it can never win either conflict and they have realised that I think.

I won't argue with you on this shakey as I think your ok (for a skeppie), but really all Israel have over Iran is nuke's and a possibility of actually unleashing them.

Usrael in the mean time has come out of it's corner fighting with a strong message.
Strong message to Iran
(Iran must be shaking in their boot's at that BIG FONT.)


Op-ed: Appointment of offensive-minded Galant as army chief sends clear Israeli message

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3941846,00.html

EDIT:
Ahmadinajad even named a missile after me, I told him not to, but he insisted;)

On Friday, the Qiam 1 (Uprising) missile was successfully launched and hit the mock target.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=225311

EDITEDIT:
Kuwait monitors pro-Iran terror cells
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/kuwait-monitors-proiran-terror-cells-20100822-13aq9.html

Jeboa Safari

uprising2 wrote: »

Actually I was referring to Israel when I said that but called them Usrael.
What you say may be true, but so is the fact that British military is much stronger than the IRA could ever be, and who's in power up north now?.

Sometime's pure determination win's, actually I'd say a lot of the time it does, the US have slaughterd an uncalculated number of people in both Afghanistan and Iraq with it's military might, yet it can never win either conflict and they have realised that I think.

I won't argue with you on this shakey as I think your ok (for a skeppie), but really all Israel have over Iran is nuke's and a possibility of actually unleashing them.

Usrael in the mean time has come out of it's corner fighting with a strong message.
Strong message to Iran
(Iran must be shaking in their boot's at that BIG FONT.)


Op-ed: Appointment of offensive-minded Galant as army chief sends clear Israeli message

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3941846,00.html

EDIT:
Ahmadinajad even named a missile after me, I told him not to, but he insisted;)

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=225311

Iran couldn't attack Israel either, in a one on one war it would probably end up fairly even, even if you take out the Israeli nukes. Certainly wouldn't call the Israeli army weak anyway, its one of the strongest in the world

And what do you mean whos in power up north now, the last time I checked the north was still part of the UK, and answerable to London.

And the US destroyed the Iraqi regular army in combat, they are having trouble with suicide bombers alright, a situation that most armies (I assume) couldn't win in in the long term

meglome

alastair wrote: »

The Canadians invaded the US and occupied Detroit during the 1812 war - admittedly there was a lot of invading going on from both sides. Canada hadn't got a capital at the time, but the US did burn York (Toronto today) and in return the British burned down the whitehouse and Capital building.

Sorry to be clear the US invaded Canada first and the British retaliated with the Canadians. While I know the point you're making isn't really that Canada will actually invade the US I still don't want any more country's to have nuclear weapons. So as I've said I don't know what's Iran's aims really are but if I had to guess I'd say it involves making nuclear weapons. I hope I'm wrong though.

Jeboa Safari

meglome wrote: »

Sorry to be clear the US invaded Canada first and the British retaliated with the Canadians. While I know the point you're making isn't really that Canada will actually invade the US I still don't want any more country's to have nuclear weapons. So as I've said I don't know what's Iran's aims really are but if I had to guess I'd say it involves making nuclear weapons. I hope I'm wrong though.

If they do get nuclear weapons I doubt they'd ever use them. My only real problem with nuclear weapons is if they went of accidentaly, or if some rogue or lunatic general/terrorist got hold of them. Other than that I think they've prevented world war 3 happening, and more or less make sure the major powers won't go to war with each other

uprising2

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

Iran couldn't attack Israel either, in a one on one war it would probably end up fairly even, even if you take out the Israeli nukes. Certainly wouldn't call the Israeli army weak anyway, its one of the strongest in the world

And what do you mean whos in power up north now, the last time I checked the north was still part of the UK, and answerable to London.

And the US destroyed the Iraqi regular army in combat, they are having trouble with suicide bombers alright, a situation that most armies (I assume) couldn't win in in the long term

The Iraqi regular army were being destroyed since 1991 and not a day has passed since 1991 up until the invasion in 2003 that the US didn't attack or bomb Iraq, slowly the US strangled Iraq, this is not the case with Iran.
Iran has gone from strenght to strenght on a daily basis almost, and has laughed in the face of both the US and Israel, and at the moment seem to have the upper hand.

Jeboa Safari

uprising2 wrote: »

The Iraqi regular army were being destroyed since 1991 and not a day has passed since 1991 up until the invasion in 2003 that the US didn't attack or bomb Iraq, slowly the US strangled Iraq, this is not the case with Iran.
Iran has gone from strenght to strenght on a daily basis almost, and has laughed in the face of both the US and Israel, and at the moment seem to have the upper hand.

I don't think they'd be able to defend from an American invasion if the US committed itself to war.

uprising2

Jeboa Safari wrote: »

I don't think they'd be able to defend from an American invasion if the US committed itself to war.

Everybody's allowed an opinion I suppose.

From wiki:

The Islamic Republic of Iran has two types of armed forces: the regular forces Islamic Republic of Iran Army, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force, Islamic Republic of Iran Navy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), totaling about 545,000 active troops. Iran also has around 350,000 Reserve Force totaling around 900,000 trained troops.[144] Iran has a paramilitary, volunteer militia force within the IRGC, called the Basij, which includes about 90,000 full-time, active-duty uniformed members. Up to 11 million men and women are members of the Basij who could potentially be called up for service; GlobalSecurity.org estimates Iran could mobilize "up to one million men". This would be among the largest troop mobilizations in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Foreign_relations_and_military

I think they'd well be able to defend their own turf, then give some.

They rekon they can export arm's to 50 states also, whether that is true or not I don't know, but I'd say they would defend like a cornered pitbull on all fronts.
'Iran can supply arms to 50 states'
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/139575.html

Jeboa Safari

I've no doubt they'd put up a good fight, but a determined effort by the strongest military power in the world would eventually beat them.

Russia or China would probably defeat them too.

Mahatma coat

its a pretty straightforward principle as demonstrated by history

no Invading Army can Defeat a people defending their Homeland

amacachi

So when's this happening?

Jeboa Safari

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its a pretty straightforward principle as demonstrated by history

no Invading Army can Defeat a people defending their Homeland

What about the Americas? Or Roman conquest of Carthage. Theres been plenty of cases throughout history where invading armies have defeated people defending there homelands

alastair

Mahatma coat wrote: »

its a pretty straightforward principle as demonstrated by history

no Invading Army can Defeat a people defending their Homeland

Iraq?
(and a list as long as your arm suggesting otherwise)

It's also worth pointing out that Iran never defeated the Iraqi military during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, and yet a US-led campaign managed to defeat the same Iraqi military in short order twice. That doesn't suggest the Iranian military is well placed to win any US-Iranian conflict.

But there won't be any US invasion of Iran, so the point is moot.

Mahatma coat

OK I could have phrased that point a lot better, Armies of occupation Fail, its just a matter of Time, may be longer than our Lifetime but ultimatley unless you Kill EVERYONE who oposes you they are eventually gonna Get their Land back.

Andypando

This I thought interesting as it "could" involve the world.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/

Andypando

Another view as to previous one.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29073753/The-Samson-Option-by-Seymour-Hersh

Duiske

alastair wrote: »

It's also worth pointing out that Iran never defeated the Iraqi military during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, and yet a US-led campaign managed to defeat the same Iraqi military in short order twice. That doesn't suggest the Iranian military is well placed to win any US-Iranian conflict.

You do know who was Iraq's main weapons supplier during that 8 yr war, right ? Good 'ol Uncle Sam.

It was Iraq who initiated that war by invading south western Iran, with tacit US backing. Both assumed that the Iranian forces had been weakend due to the Islamic Revolution in Iran. They were wrong.
Iraq even tried to bribe Iran to the tune of $70 billion to end the war.
If it had not been for US, british and french weapons, Saddam would have been swinging from Iranian gallows by 1984.

Then the mighty yanks, seeing a way to curry favour with Iran, PLUS at the same time channel cash to rebels in latin America, started selling arms to Iran. They were supplying arms to both sides of the same war !!! The Iran contra affair (wiki)

The US stopped selling arms to Iraq just before the end of the war, leaving them severely weakend. That was 19.98,

What happened next is (skeppie) history,

Duiske

alastair wrote: »

It's also worth pointing out that Iran never defeated the Iraqi military during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, and yet a US-led campaign managed to defeat the same Iraqi military in short order twice. That doesn't suggest the Iranian military is well placed to win any US-Iranian conflict.

You do know who was Iraq's main weapons supplier during that 8 yr war, right ? Good 'ol Uncle Sam.

It was Iraq who initiated that war by invading south western Iran, with tacit US backing. Both assumed that the Iranian forces had been weakend due to the Islamic Revolution in Iran. They were wrong.
Iraq even tried to bribe Iran to the tune of $70 billion to end the war.
If it had not been for US, british and french weapons, Saddam would have been swinging from Iranian gallows by 1984.

Then the mighty yanks, seeing a way to curry favour with Iran, PLUS at the same time channel cash to rebels in latin America, started selling arms to Iran. They were supplying arms to both sides of the same war !!! The Iran contra affair (wiki)

The US stopped selling arms to Iraq just before the end of the war, leaving them severely weakend. That was 1988.

What happened next is (skeppie) history,

alastair

Duiske wrote: »

You do know who was Iraq's main weapons supplier during that 8 yr war, right ? Good 'ol Uncle Sam.

Fraid not. The Iraqis got most of their weapons from the Soviet Union (MiG-23s, MiG21s, Tu-16, Tu-22 and Il-28 bombers, Mi-24 helicopter gunships, SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 anti-aircraft missiles, T-55 and T-62 tanks, BM-21 Stalin Organ rocket launchers), and France (Mirage F-1, Super Etendard, Exocet, AS30, Euromissile HOT, Armat, Crotale missiles, Alouette, Gazelle, Puma, and Super Frelon helicopters), with British gear (some tank spares and lots of landrovers) coming up behind, and odds and sods from various other countries including US based dealers. The amount of military kit that the US clandestinely supplied to the Iraqis was limited, and most likely matched by the kit they supplied clandestinely to the Iranians.

Overall the Iraqis fought with Russian and French gear, and the Iranians fought with British, US, and Korean sourced Chinese gear.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

The amount of military kit that the US clandestinely supplied to the Iraqis was limited, and most likely matched by the kit they supplied clandestinely to the Iranians.

Limited, right. Limited by what they could get away with!

What part of supplying arms to both sides of the same war, don't you understand?

Iran–Contra affair

According to The New York Times, the United States supplied the following arms to Iran:[27]

• August 20, 1985. 96 TOW anti-tank missiles
• September 14, 1985. 408 more TOWs
• November 24, 1985. 18 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles
• February 17, 1986. 500 TOWs
• February 27, 1986. 500 TOWs
• May 24, 1986. 508 TOWs, 240 Hawk spare parts
• August 4, 1986. More Hawk spares
• October 28, 1986. 500 TOWs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair


United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq war

This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war


What part of supplying arms to both sides of the same war, don't you understand?

Di0genes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Limited, right. Limited by what they could get away with!

What part of supplying arms to both sides of the same war, don't you understand?

Iran–Contra affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

And what part of the investigation trial and sentencing of the people who arranged the weapons to Iran haven't you grasped?

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

What part of supplying arms to both sides of the same war, don't you understand?

What part of 'The amount of military kit that the US clandestinely supplied to the Iraqis was limited, and most likely matched by the kit they supplied clandestinely to the Iranians.' do you not understand? But thanks for re-iterating an undisputed point already made twice. :rolleyes:

Come to that what part of this patently incorrect claim do you not get?

You do know who was Iraq's main weapons supplier during that 8 yr war, right ? Good 'ol Uncle Sam.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

What part of 'The amount of military kit that the US clandestinely supplied to the Iraqis was limited, and most likely matched by the kit they supplied clandestinely to the Iranians.' do you not understand? But thanks for re-iterating an undisputed point already made twice. :rolleyes:

Come to that what part of this patently incorrect claim do you not get?

I do understand you are upset over Duiske's use of the words, 'main supplier', but I don't understand how you fail to see the implications of the US - the main supplier of weapons worldwide - supporting both sides of the same war. Can't you see what this means in relation to the op? In who's interest it lies, who will ultimately profit?

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I do understand you are upset over Duiske's use of the words, 'main supplier', but I don't understand how you fail to see the implications of the US - the main supplier of weapons worldwide - supporting both sides of the same war. Can't you see what this means in relation to the op? In who's interest it lies, who will ultimately profit?

Not the 'main supplier' to Iraq, not even a major supplier. If you want to tot up those countries that supplied weapons to both sides, you'd have to add in Russia, the UK, and Italy. No surprises as to who profits - whoever's selling at the time.

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

Not the 'main supplier' to Iraq, not even a major supplier. If you want to tot up those countries that supplied weapons to both sides, you'd have to add in Russia, the UK, and Italy. No surprises as to who profits - whoever's selling at the time.

This support included several billion dollars worth of economic aid, the sale of dual-use technology, non-U.S. origin weaponry, military intelligence, Special Operations training, and direct involvement in warfare against Iran.[3][4]

Support from the U.S. for Iraq was not a secret and was frequently discussed in open session of the Senate and House of Representatives, although the public and news media paid little attention. On June 9, 1992, Ted Koppel reported on ABC's Nightline, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush, operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into" the power it became",[5] and "Reagan/Bush administrations permitted—and frequently encouraged—the flow of money, agricultural credits, dual-use technology, chemicals, and weapons to Iraq."[6]

If the US was not the main supplier, please then, tell us which nation was.

You might be right, but I honestly can't find any other nation which gave greater support.

Edit: ah, forgive me, the Russians you say - where did you come across that?

alastair

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

If the US was not the main supplier, please then, tell us which nation was.

You might be right, but I honestly can't find any other nation which gave greater support.

The Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

IrelandSpirit

alastair wrote: »

The Soviet Union.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

Yes, and yet also according to wiki sources, the full extent is not known.

[T]he United States actively supported the Iraqi war effort by supplying the Iraqis with billions of dollars of credits, by providing U.S. military intelligence and advice to the Iraqis, and by closely monitoring third country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required. The United States also provided strategic operational advice to the Iraqis to better use their assets in combat... The CIA, including both CIA Director Casey and Deputy Director Gates, knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, ammunition and vehicles to Iraq. My notes, memoranda and other documents in my NSC files show or tend to show that the CIA knew of, approved of, and assisted in the sale of non-U.S. origin military weapons, munitions and vehicles to Iraq.[17]

Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddām on 19 December – 20 December 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984, the day the UN reported that Iraq had used mustard gas and tabun nerve agent against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."[14]


The full extent of these covert transfers is not yet known. Teicher's files on the subject are held securely at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and many other Reagan Era documents that could help shine new light on the subject remain classified. Teicher declined to discuss details of the affidavit with the Washington Post shortly before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[18]

And yet Russia only accounts for 17% of the global arms trade, whereas the US tops a whopping 41%.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/74/the-arms-trade-is-big-business

IrelandSpirit

Forgive if last post a bit of rushed post, i'm actually supposedly at work here - what I'm submitting is that going on the ratio (officially) of the US global arms trade 41% to the Russian 17%, it seems far more likely that the US offered the main support. This is a CT thread after all!