I believe you were responding to my post not joho and I agree with you. If you read my other posts that is the message I was trying to convey. We can't win a conflict the way we currently fight.
I believe you were responding to my post not joho and I agree with you. If you read my other posts that is the message I was trying to convey. We can't win a conflict the way we currently fight.
I think the problem here is that people are comparing Counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan with a conventional naval war. They're a completely different ballgame. When it comes to pure conventional warfare there isn't a navy in the world that can take on the US although China would sure keep us busy for a while. The posts about how our methods of warfare are too 'restricted' kind of miss the point. If a US carrier strike group detects an Iranian vessel and we are engaged in some form of conflict with them, we'll either send over some F/A-18's or some could fire a few harpoon missiles at them. It's that simple. I'm not sure what restrictions the White House would be placing on conventional naval warfare, it's pretty straightforward. You see the enemy, you kill the enemy. No significant collateral damage to worry about. Furthermore, as has been stated, unrestricted counterinsurgency warfare is NOT effective unless you have the brutality of the Nazis, and even then it's not completely effective. Look at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan for example. I suggest you read "Counterinsurgency in Modern Warfare," it gives a very good analysis of some well known counterinsurgency operations of the 20th century.
Sink a few medium sized ships, and block the Hormuz straights for about 6 months and harass shipping for up to a year.
Iranian navy and airforce would get completely annihilated.
Its not worth it, the price of oil would go to 150-200 a barrel. The economic hill is too high to climb.
Shipping insurance would skyrocket, oil terminals would get damaged. The price of Oil would never come back down. Plus a friendly Iranian regime will only be exporting 1 million barrels a day.
We stand to gain very little from this.
Not likely atall. Iran is a proxy of China and Russia. Carter and Reagan could not attack Iran because of threats from Beijing and Moscow. A U.S. attack on Iran automatically means Washington D.C. and New York City could be destroyed by Russian submarines stationed in the Western Atlantic or by Chinese ICBMs. Obama's planned U.S. oil embargo will be meaningless since Pakistan, Russia, India, and China would buy up the oil.
Iran is a nation of 75 million people. Iran created modern mathematics. Iran created the Aryan aka Caucasoid race (now extinct, blended by Asian invaders). Iran was the first world empire. The entire white race in Eastern and Western Europe, Americas, etc. originate from the Aryans. The word "Iran" translates to 'Islamic Republic of the Aryans'.
Iran has thousands of redundant nuclear facilities, plants, universities, and laboratories. Many are miles underground. Many may not be in Iran proper. Iran has 10,000 R&D projects in-country, farmed out to Russian and Chinese laboratories, and covertly to labs in Japan, U.S., U.K., France, Brazil, and Germany. In the end Iran no matter what the U.S. does will have a tactical or missile nuclear warhead.
In 2006 W. Bush had to concede to the Iraqi Caucasians (Islamic Shiias) because of Iranian Quds Force assistance. As a result Obama's fascist Nazi puppet dictatorship in Bagdhad is headed by a Caucasian Shiia. There's no way Obama can attack Iran without Iraqi Caucasians erupting into civil war and fighting for their blood brothers in Iran. Plus that Russia and China have stated they would send ships and 1,000,000's of troops to defend iran.
Your right and the dialogue did get side tracked. The initial question about a naval battle was easy to answer. Right this moment we are tracking each of the Iranian submarines with ours. If the green light were given the Iranian navy would lose within minutes. Their subs would be neutralized and a massive harpoon-non nuclear cruise missile launch would eliminate surface ships. Our fighter planes would clean up from miles beyond Iranian response.
My point was that our military has this capability at all branch levels.
We weren't trying to brutally take over Iraq or Afghanistan. That's why we restricted our military. An interesting note is that at it's height it's estimated that the Soviets only had 115,000 troops on the ground. They did not launch a full scale invasion with all of their military force either. The US had 113,000 and both were not able to complete their goal.
Russia and China won't do jack for Iran. Russia and China are part of the global economic system and are not going to sacrifice that for ayatollahs living in a religous fantasy world who are hostile to the Russian and Chinese way of life. If the ayatollahs threaten the global economic system, Russia and China will be happy to look the other way while they get swatted out of the way. Ayatollahs = oil and a counterweight to US influence for Russia and China. But if they start f@#$ing with the global oil supply, they will get swatted.
Mess with Iran and it's certain nuclear war with China/Russia. We won't be around to talk about it. Only the roaches and amoebas will survive.
Russia and China don't give a f*@# about Iran.
Not Simple wrote:
A U.S. attack on Iran automatically means Washington D.C. and New York City could be destroyed by Russian submarines stationed in the Western Atlantic or by Chinese ICBMs.
While a U.S. strike on Iran is quite unlikely, a Russian or Chinese retaliation on the U.S. for such a strike has a probability of exactly 0%. That's not an opinion. Stop being a dramatic fool.
Mess with Iran and it's certain nuclear war with China/Russia. We won't be around to talk about it. Only the roaches and amoebas will survive.
Russia is building several Iranian nuclear reactors and is working on joint projects with the Revoultionary Guard. China is deep into Iran's R&D infrastructure. No president since the Shah was kicked out of power has been able to touch Iran and none will ever be able to without hostilities from Beijing and Moscow.
China/Russia are exactly why didn't Bush and Obama haven't punished Iran for sending Quds Force freedom fighters to Shiia Warlords in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine/Israel, Mossad in Israel, Fatah in Palestine/Israel, GOC in Israel, Islamic Brotherhood in Eqypt/Libya/Tunisia/Yemen, LANL/CIA/Pentagon/LBL/LLNL in USA, Dimona in Israel, etc. ?
Nope, it's not Russia and China. They would be happy to have the ayatollah crazies out of the way so that Iran could be prosperous and welcoming to their businessmen. We are just too strapped financially and militarily to take on another war. But if they get too crazy, it can be done.
The solution is to end the U.S. Occupation of Palestine and allow the refugees who have been imprisoned since 1947 to return to their homes and farms in U.S. Occupied Palestine.
A better solution would be secular governments in Middle Eastern countries who want peace and prosperity with their neighbors, who don't seek to impose Islam, and who are not offended if their neighbor has a different religion or no religion at all.
Fat Joe wrote:
A better solution would be secular governments in Middle Eastern countries who want peace and prosperity with their neighbors, who don't seek to impose Islam, and who are not offended if their neighbor has a different religion or no religion at all.
The only imposing on neighbors going on in the Middle East is being done by the Zi*nists.
Edit wrote:
I believe you were responding to my post not joho and I agree with you. If you read my other posts that is the message I was trying to convey. We can't win a conflict the way we currently fight.
The U.S. is not trying to win any wars.
The plan is simply to be in a war all the time.
They think it is easier to control the people this way.
The Soviet Union withdrew from Berlin and Eastern Europe.
The British withdrew from Hong Kong.
The United States must withdrawal from Palestine.
The Human Genome Project has mapped the ancestry of European Jewish occupiers in Palestine and found that they are genetically more distant from the Ancient Hebrews and Ancient Israelis than native Palestinians.
Thus Polacks like Benjamin Netanyahu (real name is Benjamin Mileikowsky) are phony Israelis.
I'm no more an apologist for Israel than I am for Iran, but your claim on its face is aburd. You honestly believe you are free to practice a non-Islamic religion without persecution in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., etc.? Al-Queda is out in the open with its desire for Islam to rule the world. I have the impression I could practice whatever religion I want in Jerusalem. Could not in Tehran or Riyadh. Maybe the Jews do impose Judaism in tiny Israel, but it doesn't approach the scale of what happens in its much larger neighbors. And if they do, it only reinforces my point. Secular governments who don't give a shite about all this speculative religion crap and who enforce freedom to believe whatever you want is what is needed.
The occupiers are genetic European people and not local Middle Easterners. The occupiers have no standing, no rights, and no say in the Middle East. The occupiers must leave Palestine.