Quoted: By all means enlighten me if you mean the 2 f-14s that were engaged and scored 2 or 3 kills, that was Libya.

I was right then....

encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Operation%20Praying%20Mantis

You have to have a navy and/or a air force to pose a credable threat, and Iran does not really have either, they possess a collection of aircraft in various states of repair, and a number of boats.

As well as Bushir I would expect them to take out the Weapons Plant at Parchin, south east of Tehran…

www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/parchin-2.htm




Andy

I was born in 1980 and I am not aware of any Iranian MILITARY ACTION against are Navy.  Maybe uoy mean some Iranian terrorist who was strafed and machine gunned in the water Israeli Style.  Again by all means Enlighten Me now you have me interested!

If the Iranians have a nuclear capability and Israel is positive about it, they really have no option but to hit the Iranians ability to launch the missles, or its production facility.  The Iranians know this and are waiting for it to happen.
They will call for a holy war against the Izzy's and the US.

This one is a no-win.

Quoted: If the Iranians have a nuclear capability and Israel is positive about it, they really have no option but to hit the Iranians ability to launch the missles, or its production facility.  The Iranians know this and are waiting for it to happen. They will call for a holy war against the Izzy's and the US. This one is a no-win.

I have to agree, will be a long time before we see who the "winner" is. Damn rop.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: agreed.  One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around. and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks. I guess maybe some of you dont really understand what nuclear war means. The first country to launch a nuclear strike in this day and age will set off a chain reaction that will make your head spin.  The last thing we need is for ANYONE to go the nuke route. Not necessarily so, mrphelps. Nukes, from tactical sized to the extra-large size, have been part and parcel of our defense system for decades now. Most of the countries who actually do have them don't have enough to begin to contemplate wiping us out and are far more likely to be cowering in their holes praying that we will forget all about them should we decide to unleash a few. Nations without the discipline to NOT use them for just any old dispute are the real danger...North Korea, Iran and...should they have a disasterous change in outlook...Pakistan and maybe India as well. I have no doubt that should Iran under the mullahs get nukes, they will make one or more available to terrorists for use against "The Great Satan" as well as for their "holy war" against the Jews. I am pretty sure that I am not the only one around who believes this. A nation that will happily send to almost  certain death a million of its poorly trained and equipped troops cannot be considered logical, and Iran has already done that. It is no coincidence that the President named both North Korea and Iran in the Axis of Evil, and I am pretty sure he is getting ready to do something about it other than just talk...or beg those fucktards at the UN for another worthless resolution. Al Capone is credited with saying that "In my neighborhood, you could get a lot farther with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word." The Iranians are now trying to muscle in on the Nuclear Neighborhood. Can you imagine them with nukes and harsh thoughts and words for both Israel and the west? It simply cannot be allowed to happen...and despite what some seem to think, my belief is that it won't happen...most likely due to a little intervention in their nuke programs...reactors DO blow up from time to time... as well as maybe, just maybe, an example of why its not nice to piss off Uncle Sam and the Israelis. And at age 22, I doubt that you understand nearly as well as many others here what nuclear war would really mean.

Yes, Im sure that so many other people older than me have an extensive background on nuclear war....

Anyway, the reason I made that statment is a simple one.  Lets take the following scenario for instance:

Iran --> Israel
Iran --> US/Coalition Forces in the Middle East
Israel --> Iran

Now we have a vast majority of the Middle East toasted.  Hypothetically during the middle of all this India and Packistan fall apart in panic.

India --> Packistan
Packistan --> India

Now.. this is very close to both China and North Korea and surely Japan will be on the edeg of their seats.  We all know how stupid North Korea is.

North Korea --> ??not real sure who they would go after first.. but for kicks lets say Japan.
Japan --> North Korea

.. and beacause India and Packistan and North Korea are lobbing nukes over China

China --> North Korea

So now the only people not involved are the US, Russia, and Australia.

Yeah, I know.  This is all hypothetical and what not but it gives you a bit of an idea as to the whole "Chain Reaction" thing I was mentioning.

Quoted: I was born in 1980 and I am not aware of any Iranian MILITARY ACTION against are Navy.  Maybe uoy mean some Iranian terrorist who was strafed and machine gunned in the water Israeli Style.  Again by all means Enlighten Me now you have me interested!

A rundown of Iran's Navy……

www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/navy.htm

Who in your opinion will answer the call, by that I mean military support.  Conventionally speaking opposing a U.S. and Israeli force is tanamount to suicide, that is why in the mind of most they use terrorist and guerilla tactics.

Appreciate the info but I still don't know of the incident he was mentioning earler.  Any facts or info there?

To be honest I never was for the invasion of Iraq. NEVER! Too many other countries were higher up on my hit list first! Saudi arabia, Iran, Finishing off afghanistan, Syria etc etc. And now it seems we'll be spread too thin attack both Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan. Plus heres somethings you should know about Iran........ #1 United people , No sunni, Shia, Kurd crap, They are one culture. #2 very high population compared to Iraq or Afghanistan, Much tougher to deal with. #3 Almost all of Iran is rugged mountain except for lowlands near persian gulf. We'll have to slug our way through rough mountains, tanks will be marginalized.  But all is not bad!! Heres one thing we got going for us. Being the 'oldest' fundamentalist regime ,since '79, a lot of the people are sick of the Mullahs (islamic preists) and their bad regime. There were a few protests in 2002 until they were crushed. So prehaps we could get them to overthrow the Gov't with our help. The only problem is we must leave before they see us as occupiers. What's the worst that could happen ?? In the ensuing chaos a fundamentalist regime takes over??? Been there done that.

Quoted: Appreciate the info but I still don't know of the incident he was mentioning earler.  Any facts or info there?

Here ya go… Operation Praying Mantis

"Operation Praying Mantis Blows a Hole in Iranian Navy


By DAVID F. WINKLER


During the Spring of 1988, the U.S. Navy was engaged in Operation Earnest Will, which had as an objective to maintain freedom of navigation in the Persian Gulf as Iraq and Iran continued to fight a seemingly endless war. On 14 April 1988, lookouts on the Perry-class frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts spotted three mines ahead in waters northeast of Qatar. Immediately the frigate's skipper, Cdr. Paul Rinn, sent the crew to General Quarters. Unfortunately, in backing down the frigate hit a fourth mine, which blew a 21-foot hole in the port side, cracking the hull, and injuring ten Sailors. The damage control efforts of the crew have become legendary as they welded cable to the hull to keep the ship from breaking in half. Within a few days, allied minesweepers combed the area and found more freshly laid mines. Judging from the markings, Iran was the clear culprit.


In Washington, President Ronald Reagan met with his national security team. Adm. William J. Crowe, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wanted to go after Iranian warships. Reagan instead favored the less militarily confrontational approach of going after Iranian oil platforms that had been used for command and control purposes. However, Crowe did convince the president to allow for "a very good set of rules of engagement" that would permit the Middle East Force commander to engage Iranian warships should they challenge the American operation. Crowe hoped that the notorious Iranian patrol frigate Sabalan, a warship that had mercilessly attacked many merchant ships and massacred numerous unarmed sailors, would be drawn into the fray. The action was code-named Operation Praying Mantis.


Under the command of Rear Adm. Anthony A. Less, three surface action groups of three ships each went into battle on 18 April, with two going after the oil platforms and a third seeking out the Sabalan. Overhead, aircraft from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise provided cover. Iranians stationed on both platforms resisted, but were overpowered by naval and helicopter gunfire. Marines and SEALs captured the two rigs, set demolition charges, and departed unscathed.


Meanwhile the third surface action group operating off Bandar Abbas failed to flush out the Sabalan. Instead the Iranian missile boat Joshan came out to challenge the U.S. ships and fired a Harpoon missile at the cruiser USS Wainwright. The cruiser maneuvered to limit its profile against the cruise missile and fired chaff. The tactic worked as the missile locked onto the foil cloud 100 feet off the starboard beam. The Wainwright immediately fired six Standard missiles at the Joshan followed by a Harpoon. By the time the Harpoon arrived at its intended target, there was nothing left to hit.


The Wainwright's surface warriors had no time to celebrate. With an Iranian F-4 fighter quickly closing, the Wainwright's skipper ordered Standard missiles to the rail and away. Two birds streaked towards the jet, apparently causing damage as the plane rapidly fell before returning to Bandar Abbas.


To avenge the morning actions against their two oil platforms, the Iranians sent the Sahand, sister ship of the Sabalan, across the Gulf to attack oil platforms of the United Arab Emirates. An A-6E Intruder aircraft from the Enterprise responded to surface-to-air missile launches from the Sahand by firing two Harpoons and four laser-guided bombs. The guided-missile destroyer USS Joseph Strauss fired another Harpoon into what became a burning hulk.


Finally at 1700, the scorned Sabalan cleared Bandar Abbas harbor and fired three missiles at a passing A-6E aircraft. Avoiding the missiles, one of the American planes turned and dropped a single 500-pound laser-guided bomb down the Sabalan's stack, ripping apart the engineering spaces. Less requested permission to finish off the ship. However, in Washington, Crowe turned to Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci and said, "We've shed enough blood today," and called off any further action.


For Iran, 18 April was a disastrous day. Besides losing a large portion of its navy, the Iranians suffered setbacks on land as an Iraqi assault reclaimed the Al Faw peninsula. For Iran, the situation only worsened over the next few months. Eight years and hundreds of thousands of war dead drained the revolutionary zeal of the Iranian people. Calls to raise a 100,000-man "Mohammed Corps" went unheeded. Iranian leaders began to consider the reality of ending the war with a non-military solution. "

www.navyleague.org/sea_power/sep_03_45.php

ANdy

I see the globalsecurity website has a lot of info about the militaries in other countries.. how about our military.  Where can I find some good info on the size and what not of our military?

Quoted: As well as Bushir I would expect them to take out the Weapons Plant at Parchin, south east of Tehran… img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/dgparchin3aug040002.jpg Andy

Quoted: I see the globalsecurity website has a lot of info about the militaries in other countries.. how about our military.  Where can I find some good info on the size and what not of our military?

www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/index.html

Andy

Quoted: Quoted: As well as Bushir I would expect them to take out the Weapons Plant at Parchin, south east of Tehran… img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/dgparchin3aug040002.jpg Andy upload.sh0t.com/stuff/badlink.gif

Not broken…

Quoted: Andy, guys, is it just me or does www.globalsecurtiy.org and www.fas.org seem to be pretty much run by the same guys?

Good question, different addresses, … but they seem to be very clued up at what's what in the world…

Andy

Quoted: Iran is an oddity for the US in the Middle East.  The government hates us but many of the people really like the US.  With Iran, we have the best chance of a friendly government via the internal revolt route. 5sub

True the population of Iran generally has a favorable view of the US, at least the US people.  They hate US support of Israel as much as any Arab state though.  Also, the hardliners have strengthened their control at the expense of the moderates over the past few years.  Internal revolt is nowhere near as likely as it was in 200-2001.

We had a lot of advantages in Iraq that we wouldn't have in Iran.  Iran is larger, more mountainous, and we haven't been operating overhead since 1991.  Iran is also has a larger population and while the country is by no means wealthy, it hasn't been strangled by 12 years of economic sanctions.  

Trying to in Iran what we did in Iraq would require far more boots on the ground than we could place there without giving up just about every other commitment we have.  The recent sale of precision weapons to Israel was a direct message to the mullahs that we won't try the same thing.  

I don't think that we are going to take direct convention action against Iran.  Strikes against nuclear sites and possibly leadership figures are a possibility though, either by us of the Israelis.

Edited to add:  If you are interested in what's going on in Iran, Michael Ledeen writes quite a bit about that country in National Review - available online and linked from Drudge .

Quoted: If you notice, some of the articles are pretty much word-for-word similar... just wondering.

Yes, but they are usually quotes from authortitive magazines like 'Janes' and the like.

ANdy

Quoted: To be honest I never was for the invasion of Iraq. NEVER! Too many other countries were higher up on my hit list first! Saudi arabia, Iran, Finishing off afghanistan, Syria etc etc. And now it seems we'll be spread too thin attack both Iran, Iraq & Afghanistan. Plus heres somethings you should know about Iran........ #1 United people , No sunni, Shia, Kurd crap, They are one culture. #2 very high population compared to Iraq or Afghanistan, Much tougher to deal with. #3 Almost all of Iran is rugged mountain except for lowlands near persian gulf. We'll have to slug our way through rough mountains, tanks will be marginalized.  But all is not bad!! Heres one thing we got going for us. Being the 'oldest' fundamentalist regime ,since '79, a lot of the people are sick of the Mullahs (islamic preists) and their bad regime. There were a few protests in 2002 until they were crushed. So prehaps we could get them to overthrow the Gov't with our help. The only problem is we must leave before they see us as occupiers. What's the worst that could happen ?? In the ensuing chaos a fundamentalist regime takes over??? Been there done that.

Iraq was done because it was DOABLE!

Quoted: And take a look around the world. Only about 3 nations even seem to care about this issue. If the UN was worth a cunt full of cow slobber, it would already have an army massed on the Iranian border ready to invade and take care of this situation. But of course, we all know they are far too bigger wusses to attempt anything meaningful. If the US, Britain and Israel don't have the forces to deal with this, then deal with it by way of some tactical nukes. Use some of the freaking weapons we have developed. That might teach these asshats to stop fucking with us if they see we are willing to use these weapons we've been developing for years. As DK_Professor says, "what good are they to us if we never use them".

I absofuckinlutly agree with your post in its entirety, I would like to add that as far as I'm concerned the UN is devoid of any credibility in terms of being a world power, and are nothing more than a bad joke that no one in the world takes seriously.

Nothing would please me more than if the U.S. would pull out of the UN completely and use the vast resources devoted to it to real homeland defence, and yes pre-emptive strikes would be on the agenda as far as that goes...

Given the nature of the situation in Iran (the 'hardliner gains' are a result of the Iranian Supreme Court *banning* most of the reform candidates from running for election (Think 'US Supreme Court bans Republican Party' -> that would be the equivalent)), it might be preferrable if a less overt form of action were taken, btw...

Maybe a 'tragic' accident at the reactor complex might remind the Iranian population that oil is a much safer 'energy source'...

And didn't North Korea have a little problem with 'spontainious combustion' of a trainload of military equipment? That shore-side weapons plant would probably have plenty of stuff that just *might* explode if 'handled' properly...

Then, all you need is a good cover story or frame-job...

mrphelps;

India and Pakistan are a no-go so long a Mushareef is in charge. Should either even so much as start warming up missles I am pretty sure they would never clear the silos.

Iran does not...yet...as far as any of us peons know...have nukes...they will not be allowed to aquire them openly and flaunt them...on that you can make book!

Northn Korea may, but most probably will not, try and launch...ditto for the missles never clearing the silos. We have a direct line to the Chinese...besides they will just sit back and laugh at all this shit...not to mention the fact that except for their vast numbers of ground troops they have very little relative capacity to project force at any distance, including nuclear force...ditto the missles never clearing the silos as well in any case...and the Chinese, unlike most of the other players, know it.

You forget the French...they have nukes, as well...what say you to them? Or maybe the South Africans...who SAY that they got rid of all their nukes?..surrrrre they did! (Check is in mail!)

I am not flaming you because you are young. I was once 22 myself. Think for yourself...there are men on this forum alone who know...I mean KNOW...more that any 10 college professors you can name about real world situations and how real people react. My father went to Hiroshima with the Strategic Bombing Survey Group after they dropped the bombs on Japan. I have seen his photos...uncensored...and heard him tell me in his own words of the situation there back then. No one in his right mind actually wants nuclear war, but there is a vast difference between that and the use of a few tactical nukes on a battlefield!

Quoted: agreed.  One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around. and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks.

This is true, besides the OIL is underground and would be unaffected. (did I just say that out loud?)

Didn't we already fund both sides of that, and fail?

Chris

Quoted: here is a idea, get the Iraqi army to invade Iran

If nukes were used in the Middle East it would not be the first time they were used!

Didn't God rain 'Fire and Brimstone' on Sodom and Gommorrah… the decription of that Strike in the Bible sounds very similar to a nuclear attack.  So there you have it, God did it first, so it's OK to use them as well.



God lays down Nuclear attack on the botty bandits of Sodom and Gommorrah


Andy

Those ragheads better watch out. The Isralies will not put up with any crap from a raghead!

OOps

Quoted: Quoted: agreed.  One or two highly efficient nukes is not going to spread all that much radiation around. and even if it did, who CARES?! its IRAN. Not exactly the garden of eden folks. I guess maybe some of you dont really understand what nuclear war means. The first country to launch a nuclear strike in this day and age will set off a chain reaction that will make your head spin.  The last thing we need is for ANYONE to go the nuke route.

i've heard this argument before and I just don't buy it. China, DPRK, India, Pakistan, Russia aren't going to risk MAD just b/c the Israelis and Iranians go nucular.

Quoted: Quoted: Russia is not going to take a Muslum Nuclear threat that close to them too lightly. Russia is giving them the bomb on a silver platter... Remember: Outside of 'Planet ARFCOM', it's 'Terrorists vs', not 'Muslims vs'...

agreed. i believe the russians would sell nukes to the chechens if they paid the right price.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: i say there is either an Israeli or American attack on Iran w/i the next 6 months. Sooner, much sooner. I doubt much sooner than January, late January at that. Centcom is already leaking about a large series of offensives against both Anbar provence  and Najaf to destroy or drive out of the country both Zarqawi and Al Sadr before the Iraqi elections.

agreed. the earliest i've heard that it is thought the iranians could have their first nuke is around March or April.  Even the Israelis will wait a little while b/c of the risk of international outrage and condemnation.  

Quoted: Despite my support for the war in Iraq, I am still pissed that we didn't go for Iran first To me, they were definitely the bigger threat.   A fundemantalist Islamic state, known to sponsor a variety of terrorist groups, with a nuclear program, and who regards the U.S. as "the Great Satan" What's the freakin' holdup???  Why do we have all those nuclear ICBMs if we're never going to use them?

Not to pounce on you specifically DK but I keep hearing that we should have gone to Iran first. All the military input I have heard said that it was not practical to go in without a second prong in addition to Afghanistan.

How would we have carried out such an invasion when the same people arguing for a Iran first strategy say that Iran is a harder nut to crack? I just see the current plan as the best when viewed from two years ago. Yes the insurgency is greater than expected but we went there to attack them on their soil in the first place. Who cares if it is in Iran, Iraq or Syria? Planerench over.