I don't believe war with Iran is comming.  I don't think our leaders and people have the balls for it, but I hope I'm wrong.  I would gladly head over there to fuck those people up.  

Every time I read an Iran story in the headlines with those towelheads spouting threats to American I get righteously pissed off.

I do believe that a day is comming when we have to decide wether to confront the financers of terrorism abroad or at home.  I'm comfortable with either, but would rather it be abroad.  Part of me believes that it would be what liberal American deserves to fight a war here with terrorists- they keep standing in our way as we attempt to protect ourselves and them.  


"What the hell would we do with them? What the hell would we do with all the half trained infantry that dont want to be there?

What would we arm them with?"

One constant variable is that reluctant or not, a human with an ass on the line getting fired at will either:
A (vast majority) return fire or
B (shameful minority) Run away.  

I don't think option B is any safer and I know which side is respected.

Quoted: Iraq was beat down during desert storm. Intelligence estimates felt it would take them 10 years  to recover to where they presented any type of real problem. We attacked them before they had a chance to recover. There will be no such story with Iran, not to mention they have learned how we operate and how to fight us when and if we go to war with them. Iran will be bloody, make no mistake about that. It will be brutal. I suspect the draft will be 18 to 37 year olds this go round.

Are you really this fucking stupid?

What do we need a draft for?!?! The Iran situation isn't going to be some massive invasion where divisions upon divisions of troops move in to seize and hold the place for years. If we take action there, it will be precision strikes primarily using aircraft and naval assets. If ground forces are used, it will be in select roles and they will not be occupying the place.

Get a clue dude. This isn't Iraq all over. The mission is different. It will be handled totally different. We have no desire to occupy Iran. Our only goal there if and when we attack is to destroy their nuclear development facilities and then move on. Nothing more, nothing less.

It will be tough and it will be brutal......to the Iranians who are occupying those sites when we hit them. Otherwise, we'll come out pretty clean. And we won't take heavy or even moderate casualties in doing so. In fact, if and when we strike, the majority of it will be over with in 24 hours or less.

And even if we did invade Iran (which we won't, at least not to occupy), they wouldn't be any tougher than Iraq. Their military is of a similar size and they are using the same piece of shit equipment that we used for target practice when we invaded Iraq. We could easily take Iran if we wanted the place. We don't. We just want to disable their nuke program.

Good lord man. Learn what the hell you are talking about and try to avoid spouting off with such idiotic bullshit as in your previous posts.

Quoted: Quoted: Iraq was beat down during desert storm. Intelligence estimates felt it would take them 10 years  to recover to where they presented any type of real problem. We attacked them before they had a chance to recover. There will be no such story with Iran, not to mention they have learned how we operate and how to fight us when and if we go to war with them. Iran will be bloody, make no mistake about that. It will be brutal. I suspect the draft will be 18 to 37 year olds this go round. Are you really this fucking stupid? What do we need a draft for?!?! The Iran situation isn't going to be some massive invasion where divisions upon divisions of troops move in to seize and hold the place for years. If we take action there, it will be precision strikes primarily using aircraft and naval assets. If ground forces are used, it will be in select roles and they will not be occupying the place. Get a clue dude. This isn't Iraq all over. The mission is different. It will be handled totally different. We have no desire to occupy Iran. Our only goal there if and when we attack is to destroy their nuclear development facilities and then move on. Nothing more, nothing less. It will be tough and it will be brutal......to the Iranians who are occupying those sites when we hit them. Otherwise, we'll come out pretty clean. And we won't take heavy or even moderate casualties in doing so. In fact, if and when we strike, the majority of it will be over with in 24 hours or less. And even if we did invade Iran (which we won't, at least not to occupy), they wouldn't be any tougher than Iraq. Their military is of a similar size and they are using the same piece of shit equipment that we used for target practice when we invaded Iraq. We could easily take Iran if we wanted the place. We don't. We just want to disable their nuke program. Good lord man. Learn what the hell you are talking about and try to avoid spouting off with such idiotic bullshit as in your previous posts.

That is the most likely route.
BTW you people that keep spouting off about us keeping 37,000 troops in Korea....there are 4 COMPANIES of Infantry, 4 COMPANIES of armor and some aviation and about a brigade worth of field artillery...the rest is all support crap, there are maybe 2,000 combat arms "boots on the ground" types that would be of real use in a war...the rest are for sustainment of operations (cooks, etc)...it sure as hell isn't 37,000 total.  There is 1 brigade of 2ID in Korea.  That is all as far as a conventional ground fighting force.  Our Army has what? 50 brigades or so...there is 1 in Korea...whoop di do.

Quoted: Quoted: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Are you currently in the military, or will you be in the military in the next three years?

Good Question

I dont see how this is a good thing

I know Iran has to go, but I would'nt be happy about it.

US Forces Order of Battle, South Korea

The Nixon Doctrine stated that Asian nations should not depend on the US for their security but should strengthen own defense capabilities. After Vietnam, the Nixon Doctrine reflected a desire to reduce American commitments to Asia. Accordingly, some 20,000 US troops of the 7th Division were withdrawn from Korea by March 1971.

President Carter’s agenda was to reduce US troop levels in Korea and press Mr. Park to improve his human-rights practices. One of Carter's campaign pledges was that the American forces in Korea would be completely withdrawn in stages over four to five years. Maj. Gen. John K. Singlaub, then Chief of Staff of the Eighth Army, protested against Carter’s withdrawal plan. The effort was eventually abandoned in 1979 after only 3,600 troops had been withdrawn.

The US Congress adopted the Nunn-Warner Amendment to the 1989 Defense Appropriation Bill, which mandated a reduction in US troop strength in Korea from 43,000 to 36,000 by the end of calendar year 1991. In early 1990 the Bush Administration announced plans to cut 7,000 of the 42,500 US troops in Korea over 2 1/2 years. At that time the US had 11,600 Air Force personnel and 31,600 Army personnel in Korea. ground troops. As a result, the 2nd Infantry Division's 3rd Brigade was withdrawn from Korea in 1992 and deactivated.

The United States announced plans in May 2004 to shift 3,600 troops from South Korea to Iraq, the first time the United States had reduced its armed forces in South Korea since the end of the Cold War. On 07 June 2004 a US delegation, led by Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless, met with South Korean officials and reportedly proposed withdrawing up to one-third of the 37,000 US troops in South Korea. The two-day talks also covered plans to move about 7,000 US troops from their bases near the border with North Korea to a new military camp well south of Seoul.

On 06 October 2004 the Department of Defense announced that after several months of close consultations, the United States and the Republic of Korea had reached final agreement regarding the June 2004 US proposal to redeploy 12,500 US troops from Korea.

The first phase was conducted in 2004 and included the 2nd Brigade Combat Team that was sent to Iraq in August 2004, and associated units. The redeployment in 2004 totaled about 5,000 troops.
During the second phase, 2005-2006, the United States will redeploy a total of 5,000 troops (3,000 in 2005, 2,000 in 2006), comprising combat units, combat support and combat service support units, units associated with mission transfer areas, and other support personnel.
In the third and final phase, 2007-2008, the United States will redeploy 2,500 troops consisting primarily of support units and personnel.
US Forces Korea
This is a "best available" order-of-battle of forces deployed in US Forces Korea area of responsibility. Even prior to September 11, 2001, the amount of publicly available information concerning aircraft types and specific units at particular locations. The presence of significant numbers of civilian contractor personnel and of military families at various facilities in the region further complicates accounting for total personnel numbers.

Prior to 2004 there were normally about 37,500 military personnel stationed in the USFK area of responsibility, including about 225 aircraft of all types. The number of troops deployed in the area does not normally fluctuate. With the 2nd Brigade Combat Team going to Iraq in August 2004, the total number of troops declined by 5,000, to a total of 32,500 military personnel.

Beginning on 21 March 2004 there were an additional 8,500 military personnel in the AOR as part of RSOI/FE 2004. Those personnel departed the region by April 2004.

Ground forces include a variety of units that are normally deployed in the region. Forces in the region include Patriot missile batteries, Apache helicopter squadrons, a mechanized infantry brigade, an air assault brigade, various support, intelligence and other units. Prior to 2004 the total Army presence in the region was nearly 27,500 soldiers, of which 13,753 were assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division. However, it is important to point out that the Department of Defense indicated during a briefing on July 23, 2003 that the United States Army had some 4,000 additional soldiers in South Korea than what had been previously disclosed by the military. It was not clear is this is a mistake or not. If true, this would have brought the total number of soldiers in South Korea to 31,460. In any event, with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team going to Iraq in August 2004, the total number of troops declined by 5,000, to a total of 22,500 Army soldiers.

The Air Force has two wings located in the USFK region with some 8,300 personnel, operating a total of about 100 aircraft of all types.

US Naval Forces, Korea is particularly small, numbering around 293 sailors and 52 marines. CNFK normally has no seagoing forces assigned, though its personnel are assigned to various joint, combined, and Navy billets throughout the ROK peninsula. These personnel are actively engaged in planning and execution of numerous operations and exercises throughout the Korean theater. There is one ship that has been present in the region for over 30 years, that being the USS Pueblo which was captured on 23 January 1968. She is currently located at Pyongyang.

US Non-military individuals in Korea can be divided into two categories, contractors and family members. There are roughly 4,000 contractors and and 11,500 family members in Korea at any given time.

The Korean Augmentation to the United States Army, or KATUSA, program was initiated by GEN Douglas MacArthur in August 1950. Today, KATUSA soldiers are integrated into virtually all Army units in Korea, from squad level up. They live, work and train with their American counterparts. At its peak in 1952, KATUSA strength had reached 27,000. KATUSA strength declined after the 1953 armistice. In July 1971, following the reduction of American troops in Korea, the number of KATUSAs assigned to serve with U.S. Army units stabilized at about 7,000. KATUSAs are usually assigned to a unit for two years -- providing continuity of operations and expertise that might be lost as a result of one-year rotations by US soldiers.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Are you currently in the military, or will you be in the military in the next three years?   Good Question I dont see how this is a good thing I know Iran has to go, but I would'nt be happy about it.

I would be willing to wager that CitySlicker is Jewish.

I'm not saying anything derogatory--just an observation.

Quoted: If we go to war with Iran, the draft will become a reality.

Bullshit.  Iran will fall in under a month even if we are athe only ones fighting.  Count on the British to be there too.  

Why don't you just come out of the closet?  That is an instant DQ for military service.

nuke.

from.

orbit.

It's faster, cleaner, cheaper, and no one has to go oversees for extended deployment.  After the dust settles....guess who grabs the oil?  Russia, China, and the US.  Everyone wins.  No more Islamic regimes to meddle with western ideology.

Let's shelve the Islamic radicalism and get back to some good old fashioned anti-communistic rivalry, the way the good lord intended.

Quoted: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Are you currently in the military, or will you be in the military in the next three years? Good Question I dont see how this is a good thing I know Iran has to go, but I would'nt be happy about it.

Internet commando ?

tag

(In my own way )

Quoted: Quoted: From one of the links: "Military theory and International Law are in agreement on this point: when under threat of immanent attack, it is not only legal, but morally imperative to preempt the enemy. It is of critical importance that Iran is brought to heel for this, not only to avenge the future deaths of our brave troops/ civilians/ oil fields, but more importantly to send a clear message to other rogue nations around the globe." We need to attack Iran to avenge the deaths of our troops that will be killed in battle once we attack Iran? www.windsofchange.net/archives/008315.php Yes.  It is a recursive philosophical equation. To put it in a "Real World Perspective", in a fistfight, the guy who swings and connects first is most often the winner.    If we start 1 punch short, the fight will be longer and more drawn out, with the same result.

+1...but...

what complicates Iran is ....hold on to your hats.... oil.

When your "UN coalition" has economic interest in your enemies welfare, it tends to muddy things up.

Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Are you currently in the military, or will you be in the military in the next three years? Good Question I dont see how this is a good thing I know Iran has to go, but I would'nt be happy about it. Internet commando ?

me?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Are you currently in the military, or will you be in the military in the next three years? Good Question I dont see how this is a good thing I know Iran has to go, but I would'nt be happy about it. Internet commando ? me?

no

BTT

Quoted: Quoted: what complicates Iran is ....hold on to your hats.... oil. When your "UN coalition" has economic interest in your enemies welfare, it tends to muddy things up. I can't wait until we have all of the middle east occupied.  That way any war we start after that, they can't scream "They are only doing it for the oil!"

I agree

Quoted: Quoted: what complicates Iran is ....hold on to your hats.... oil. When your "UN coalition" has economic interest in your enemies welfare, it tends to muddy things up. I can't wait until we have all of the middle east occupied.  That way any war we start after that, they can't scream "They are only doing it for the oil!"

That would only be a good idea if you permanently got rid of the indigenous populations in the occupied territories first.  Anything else would be a colonialism-type failure all around.

If that is what you are advocating, then I am in total agreement.

Tag for later dissemination.

According to Olivier Guitta, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is angry over Qatar's alliance to the US and Israel. In the event of war between the United States and Iran the "Revolutionary guards are threatening to attack Qatari oil and gas facilities by sea and air. They plan to use suicide boats and air missiles."

David R. Francis writes in the Christian Science Monitor that any move by Iran to cut off oil supplies would be economic suicide for a government that receives 90 percent of their revenues from the sale of oil.

www.windsofchange.net/archives/008341.php

Quoted: If we go to war with Iran, the draft will become a reality.

Good God, man!  Let it go.  It is not going to happen, no draft, no matter how much you libtards want it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Are you currently in the military, or will you be in the military in the next three years? Good Question I dont see how this is a good thing I know Iran has to go, but I would'nt be happy about it. Internet commando ? me?

\

Quoted: nuke. from. orbit. It's faster, cleaner, cheaper, and no one has to go oversees for extended deployment.  After the dust settles....guess who grabs the oil?  Russia, China, and the US.  Everyone wins.  No more Islamic regimes to meddle with western ideology. Let's shelve the Islamic radicalism and get back to some good old fashioned anti-communistic rivalry, the way the good lord intended.

This thread has been saved.

Although simplistic and mostly tongue in cheek in presentation, it's the best option.

A Los Angeles Times report on Saturday indicated that Iran could have a nuclear weapon within three years, an estimate previously put forth by former nuclear weapons inspector David Albright. In a speech in southern Iran on Saturday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that the "threats and intimidations by the West against Iran's nuclear programme will not hinder the final victory to be that of the Iranian nation."

Quoted: Quoted: Originally Posted By CitySlicker: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Are you currently in the military, or will you be in the military in the next three years? Good Question I dont see how this is a good thing I know Iran has to go, but I would'nt be happy about it. Internet commando ?

How ironic; this coming from the same coward who repeatedly retorts, "now is not a good time to enlist" whenever the topic of enlistment is brought up.  www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=449489

Apparantly, you derive a twisted pleasure in trying to dissuade others from enlisting.

As for me, I will be enlisting this summer, which I divulged to lokt earlier in private discourse.


Wait; before I forget...

Quoted: If I am going to enlist to fight and maybe die for my country I would have to respect the CIC. I lost all respect for this president a long time ago. If  a different president assumes office and I feel he has this countries best interest at heart I will enlist in the Marines.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=449489

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: YEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! Are you currently in the military, or will you be in the military in the next three years?   Good Question I dont see how this is a good thing I know Iran has to go, but I would'nt be happy about it. I would be willing to wager that CitySlicker is Jewish. I'm not saying anything derogatory--just an observation.

If it was not meant to be derogatory, then what is the purpose of your comment?

For what it's worth, you would wager correctly.  However, whatever the nation of Israel stands to gain for this is of no consequence to me whatsoever; if it were, I would be enlisting in the Israeli Defense Forces instead.  To even imply that I would want our Nation to put itself in harms way in the interest of another is simply insulting and downright despicable.

I think Iran is smart enough to understand that they cannot tango with the US, but they will try and push it as hard as they can while keeping it a UN matter.  

The future of warfare could result in Iraq triggering the unraveling of Iran.

Pakistan : The divergence between the paths of India and Pakistan has been recognized by the US, and Pakistan, with over 50 nuclear warheads, is also where Osama bin Laden and thousands of other terrorists are currently hiding.  Any major terrorist attack will inevitably be traced to individuals operating in Pakistan, which has regressed from democracy to dictatorship, and is teetering on the edge of religious fundamentalism.  The economy is growing quickly, however, and this is the only hope of averting a disaster.  Pessimistic. Iraq : Although Iraq is not a large country, its importance to the world is disproportionately significant.  Bordering so many other non-democratic nations, if Iraq can succeed, the pressure on its neighbors to adapt will be immense.  The destiny of the US is also interwined with Iraq, as the outcome of the current War in Iraq will determine the ability of America to take any other action, against any other nation, in the future.  Cautiously optimistic, but depends on America's resolve. Iran : Many would be surprised to learn that Iran is actually not all that poor, and the Iranian people have enough to lose that they are not keen on a large war against a powerful coalition.  However, the autocratic regime that keeps the Iranian people suppressed has brutally quashed democratic movements.  The secret to turning Iran into a democracy is its neighbor, Iraq.  If Iraq can succeed, the pressure on Iran exerted by Internet access and globalization next door will be immense.  This will continue to nibble at the edges of Iranian society, and the regime will collapse before 2015.  Cautiously optimistic, pending Iraq.   So Iraq really is a keystone state, and the struggle to prevail over the forces that would derail democracy has major repurcussions for many nations.  The US, and the world, cannot afford for Iraq to fail.  If we succeed, the world of 2015 will have stamped out belligerence from yet another formerly notorious region.  At this point, all remaining roads to disastrous tragedy lead to Pakistan. As long as Pervez Musharaff runs Pakistan, he may manage to keep it from flying apart into fanatical fragments.  But the fact that the father of Pakistan's nuclear program was selling nuclear secrets, and that the likes of Osama bin Laden have found sanctuary in Pakistan, makes for a very worrisome combination.  The ultimate 'day of infamy' could be upon us long before Pakistan has any chance of attempting to restore democracy or achieving economic prosperity.

Interesting thought....

Quoted: Disband the UN.  They suck and they HQs is taking up space here in the US.   Max

My favorite choice for eminent domain. Give the land to Trump to develop. Gotta be more tax revenus there for NY. And no more traffic ticket scoflaws.

Quoted: I think Iran is smart enough to understand that they cannot tango with the US, but they will try and push it as hard as they can while keeping it a UN matter.

"Smarts" got nothing to do with it. If they think it is the "will of Allah" to confront "the great satan" then that's what they will do. There  has been no arms embargo for the last ten years like there was in Iraq. They have some of the latest Russian arms and plenty of them. They have the latest and most modern Russian anti-tank missiles and it has been reported that they also the lastest anti-ship missile, the Yakhont. They do have the SS-N-22 Sunburn which is considered "the most lethal anti-ship missile in the world and the No. 1 threat to U.S. Navy aircraft carriers." Top speed is reported to be around Mach 3.


We do know that they have purchased the SA-15 Gauntlet anti-aircraft missle system as well other modern Russian systems. They have the Iskander-E (SS-26) ballistic missle as well as others purchased from Russia, China, and North Korea, and they have enough of them to turn many of Kuwait's and Saudi Arabia's refineries into burning wrecks.

This is a short read but perhaps should give pause to some here.
washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040919-055410-8281r.htm

As I linked to here a few days ago the Pentagon itself acknowleges that Russia gave intel to Iraq right before the war. Is there any reason to think they would not do the same to one of their best weapons clients?

As for me, I will be enlisting this summer, which I divulged to lokt earlier in private discourse.

But you do know it is a bad time to enlist right now right ?


Anyway  good luck, what are you going into the Air Force  , Coast Guard ?