Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Biscuits_Brown, May 12, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Not quite the same Biscuits. The Iranians are bragging about WMD, not denying them. Will make the invasion so much simpler...
Not having any WMD didn't help Saddam....does that mean that having some may be a deterrent?!? It works for North Korea, Pakistan, China, the US...
Iran haven't got them yet though.
Did a bit of training the Iraqi border guards on telic 5 . Well if we have to go into Iran from Iraq you can get lost . Iran has all the high ground , and they could fire mission to there hearts content . Sod that for a game of soldiers . There is only so much air power can do .
The Iranians have eyes on all along the border from the Shatt al arab all the way north to the mountains , they have yank kit and seem well drilled . No doubt uk/us would prevail but there would be a sh"it load of body bags at Brize .
Air power alone could make a hell of mess of the nuclear program.
Of course what happens at said border afterwards is anyone's guess.
Yes the US air force and navy could play havok with Irans infrastructure.
Would Iran invade ? US airpowe would once again be on its home playground, enemy troops out in the open. I know some armies have fought without air support but I doubt if the Iranian army has the knowledge to do so.
Sadly air power and all its wonderous bangs and whizzes is not always the answer, especially in this era of 24hr media coverage (remember the airstrike on the bunker in GW1 and all those dead women and kids! I would say that the iranians would not be shy of placing human shields around some of the complexes). Whilst an airstrike may take out / damage some or all of iran's sites, you can bet your bank balance that they will have secondary / tertiary locations and infrastructure set up for just such an outcome.
also i wouldn't be too hasty about writing of the iranian armed forces - they do seem to be quite capable and certainly appear to be better led and motivated than the iraqis were in the last 2 outings.
One thing is certain - if the security council do go down the road of an armed response, there will be a requirement for more boots on the ground in Iraq, not less.
which is going to be a major problem, considering the numbers we have.
US a bigger country is also having manning problems.
somewhere along the line elastics will be going "Twang" , if Bliar and Bush want to go down that road, recruitment will have to start NOW to train the troops in time for the next stage, i m not holding my breath on that one.
Just a thought, but invading Iraq was easy - as the soldiers were defending a regime that they were not content with, therefore it was in their best interest to run away.
Iran - you are invading someone's country that they are proud of, and they would defend it with every drop of their blood, and preferably, lots more of yours! It would not be a walk in the park.
T Bliars arrogance, now he has a third term, knows no boundaries. He will follow GB anywhere. This time I reckon, if he does follow, will be his downfall. He has only 67 MPs more than the other parties......and there are a lot of pisshed off back bench labour MPs
On the tactical side , where would we go into Iran from ? A tough one . Iraq would be a nightmare , all those pro Iranian Shia's in the south , and the ground would make it very hard work .
I remeber hearing a "Joke" that makes a good point about this.
Two Russian Battalion comanders meet in paris after WWIII. One ask's the other:
"So, remind me again, who won the air war?"
Not only do the Iranians have a large number of soldiers, some of them (the Republican Guard) fanatical about the country and their religion, and some good kit, including F14s, Migs and Sukhois, ex-RN corvettes and 3 ex-Russian "Kilo" subs, they have also got a good supply of mines and anti-ship missiles in a series of mobile and hardened launch sites all along their Gulf coast.
Although the US and UK could do a very good job of obliterating them, there is a very serious risk that Tehran, if they were attacked or felt threatened, could sink a couple of major tankers in the Straits of Hormuz (something that they have threatened to do in the past). With the Straits being only a couple of miles wide, this would virtually halt the maritime shipping of oil and gas down the Persian Gulf.
Question:- Does this possibility enhance Iranian security against physical attack, given that GWB can't guarantee that they destroy every anti-ship capability at once, or does it scare the US so much that they will take the risk?
I'm with Recce-Cpl and CarpeDiem on this one........we spent most of telic 2 and 3 watching a very large group of iranians just itching to get into the iraqi marsh lands.....and they weren't ****ing about in a couple of Morris Minors either
Its no mistake that 90% of the T55 and T72 hulks in Basra faced 'east' and not west !
(I'll get out before I go to Iran...but if i'm going to go, I want Uncle Tony to be walking infront of me)
Separate names with a comma.