Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
313awaited

Iran Vs Usa

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

As you said the U.S. will downfall .

 

I wonder that is there any body who thinks that U.S. can handle the war with such a strong country, after the unsuccessful war in Iraq and Afghanistan, while U.S. is corrupted financially ?

 

?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran can't go to war with USA. They're not capable of doing anything to the US. Most shias think Iran has become some superpower that challenges America, but in reality they can not affect them in any way. Salam. 

lol ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran can't go to war with USA. They're not capable of doing anything to the US. Most shias think Iran has become some superpower that challenges America, but in reality they can not affect them in any way. Salam. 

 

Depends what you mean by "doing anything to the US"?

 

Attacking US soil is impossible for Iran, true. But that isn't something Iran would do anyways, not unless it got attacked first. 

 

Military forces, however, is another issue. US has A LOT of its military force in the middle east, with all of their bases and ships within missile range. 

World's oil supply also is a very easy target. And since US runs the show, Iran hitting the world supplies in self defence will get fingers pointed directly at US. 

 

Us doing the math is futile, but US strategists and business men have already done the calculation and the losses are more than what the US can afford. 

Hence US hasn't attacked Iran militarily, because it just can't. 

 

If it could, it would have. You gotta see the whole picture, economy, social issues, internal politics, long term damage etc. Not just military force, we don't live in 1400th anymore. 

Edited by repenter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States could mop the floor with Iran, no offense. The problem is that doing so would cost us too much money and create a greater resentment in the US population towards the federal government.

Edited by Saintly_Jinn23

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States could mop the floor with Iran, no offense. The problem is that doing so would cost us too much money and create a greater resentment in the US population towards the federal government.

 

The U.S could mop the floor with Russia or China as well, there's no offense to any of that. Neither can the U.S or Israel attack Iran, because Iran sees them as equals. If either one attacks Iran, their random military bases/naval fleets in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Afghanistan, UAE, etc. will get bombarded. Iran sees it as, if any one of them attacks Iran, we'll take down a bunch of your bases and allies that'll set you back a millennium.

 

That's why the only option the U.S and Israel have is for an internal coup to happen in Iran, and the first step is complete isolation. The only way they can get rid of a government like Iran's that doesn't obey is via internal conflicts. This is why sanctions will never, absolutely never, get completely lifted off IRI. This is just another test the Shi'a of Iran have to bear with while the government has to find loopholes to get by them. 

 

If Syria is out of the picture, and Iran does get attacked by their enemies (Saudia will definitely be one of the trio), Hezb is vital for Iran to stomp on Israel on its backdoor.

 

After seeing all of this, Iran's victory is simply put that their enemies are incapable of attacking them. Therefore, Iran is stronger in the sense that their enemies can't bear the burden of attacking them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were sitting in the company of Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) that Sura al-Jumu’a was revealed to him and when he recited (these words):” Others from amongst them who have not yet joined them,” Then a person amongst them (those who were sitting there) said: Allah’s Messenger...! But Allah’s Apostle (may peace be upon him) made no reply, until he questioned him once, twice or thrice. There was amongst us Salman al Farisi (The Persian).

The Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) placed his hand on Salman and then said: Even if faith were near the Pleiades (The furthest Planet), a man from amongst these (Persians) would surely find it. (Book 031, Number 6178)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

A couple of years ago I read in a defense publication that if the US started anything with Iran, within a short period of time the US will have no choice but to "go in there"; and the cost of the landing alone will be $1+ TTTrillion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United States could mop the floor with Iran, no offense. The problem is that doing so would cost us too much money and create a greater resentment in the US population towards the federal government.

That's my point. The US can destroy Iran in 60 minutes, but it would be too costly, and there's no real point in doing it either. 

Depends what you mean by "doing anything to the US"?

 

Attacking US soil is impossible for Iran, true. But that isn't something Iran would do anyways, not unless it got attacked first. 

 

Military forces, however, is another issue. US has A LOT of its military force in the middle east, with all of their bases and ships within missile range. 

World's oil supply also is a very easy target. And since US runs the show, Iran hitting the world supplies in self defence will get fingers pointed directly at US. 

 

Us doing the math is futile, but US strategists and business men have already done the calculation and the losses are more than what the US can afford. 

Hence US hasn't attacked Iran militarily, because it just can't. 

 

If it could, it would have. You gotta see the whole picture, economy, social issues, internal politics, long term damage etc. Not just military force, we don't live in 1400th anymore. 

Yes you're right. That's the reason the US won't go to war with Iran. It's costly and pointless, but militarily Iran can not challenge the US. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of useless points being raised here.

Anyone saying anything along the lines of "Iran would be desyroyed in two seconds under the power of the mighty US empire," is an idiot.

It means nothing - absolutely nothing - that the US is logistically capable of destroying Iran's military forces. Nor does it somehow imply Iran's weakness. Because guess what? The US could conquer Moscow or Beijing in a nuclear war. Meaning, the logistics of it are not all that hard. Ever since WWII, overwhelming firepower has been the chief characteristic of the US military. Not even the USSR at its peak could match the firepower of the US.

That doesnt mean that in "reality," it would be prudent or wise to make use of that firepower. Thus, in REALITY, the US' superior firepower means nothing with respect to Iran. There are too many variables in Iran's favor to make a US invasion of Iran a strategic blunder. Anyone who says otherwise is a tool. These are the same types who bring up the irrelevant "fact" that the US military never lost a single battle in the Vietnam war. (File that under "information that means nothing")

There is a reason why there are no portraits of Synghman Rhee in Pyongyang. There is a reason the flag of Vietnam is red. And there is a reason there has been no major overt US military operations against Iran. And it's not because the US is just too cool to be bothered with these petty countries (a country that invades Grenada doesn't consider any war to be too petty). It's because there is a strategic disadvantage which impedes them.

So the captain obviouses and the semantic wizards in here should learn to think a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nuke option with Iran is definitely out, because the US would get the bio. No doubt about it.

 

At the same time, the military opinion about war on Iran is the same as with North Korea: "Oh, we'd 'win'...but it's not worth it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the same time, the military opinion about war on Iran is the same as with North Korea: "Oh, we'd 'win'...but it's not worth it."

 

Except for the part that the US wouldn't win.

 

In any realistic scenario, the US would not win.

 

The Pentagon has supercomputers. Any time the talks of war become serious, they run simulations on these supercomputers. In the mid-1990s when tensions with North Korea became high, they ran such simulations. The US general staff got goosebumps as the simulations showed South Korean and American defences withering away.

 

I vaguely remember reading similar stories re: Iran in the early 2000s.

 

If the Pentagon's own simulations say they would lose a war, I think it's fair to assume they would lose that war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

 

 

 

The US general staff got goosebumps as the simulations showed South Korean and American defences withering away.

 

 

 

Wow!  You must have a REALLY high security clearance.  You have access to skin conditions of US Generals as they learn about "Top Secret" computer simulations?  Cool!

 

Shia Chat is so lucky to have you as a member Brother Jackson.  

 

 

Anyone saying anything along the lines of "Iran would be desyroyed in two seconds under the power of the mighty US empire," is an idiot.

So the captain obviouses and the semantic wizards in here should learn to think a little.

 

Not only do you share "Top Secret" information with us, you point out to us simpletons who the bozos are.  You are an invaluable intelligence asset to Shia Chat Brother Jackson!  Keep up the good work.

 

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US is already fighting Iran in the shape of the wahabi Al-CIA-duh militants who are surrounding and infiltrating through its borders, attacking its security forces and trying to establish.. tumors or cells inside of it to intensify their operations. But it has not been able to intensify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of useless points being raised here.

Anyone saying anything along the lines of "Iran would be desyroyed in two seconds under the power of the mighty US empire," is an idiot.

It means nothing - absolutely nothing - that the US is logistically capable of destroying Iran's military forces. Nor does it somehow imply Iran's weakness. Because guess what? The US could conquer Moscow or Beijing in a nuclear war. Meaning, the logistics of it are not all that hard. Ever since WWII, overwhelming firepower has been the chief characteristic of the US military. Not even the USSR at its peak could match the firepower of the US.

That doesnt mean that in "reality," it would be prudent or wise to make use of that firepower. Thus, in REALITY, the US' superior firepower means nothing with respect to Iran. There are too many variables in Iran's favor to make a US invasion of Iran a strategic blunder. Anyone who says otherwise is a tool. These are the same types who bring up the irrelevant "fact" that the US military never lost a single battle in the Vietnam war. (File that under "information that means nothing")

There is a reason why there are no portraits of Synghman Rhee in Pyongyang. There is a reason the flag of Vietnam is red. And there is a reason there has been no major overt US military operations against Iran. And it's not because the US is just too cool to be bothered with these petty countries (a country that invades Grenada doesn't consider any war to be too petty). It's because there is a strategic disadvantage which impedes them.

So the captain obviouses and the semantic wizards in here should learn to think a little.

One word: oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

 

 

Wow!  You must have a REALLY high security clearance.  You have access to skin conditions of US Generals as they learn about "Top Secret" computer simulations?  Cool!

 

Shia Chat is so lucky to have you as a member Brother Jackson.  

 

 

 

Not only do you share "Top Secret" information with us, you point out to us simpletons who the bozos are.  You are an invaluable intelligence asset to Shia Chat Brother Jackson!  Keep up the good work.

 

All the Best,

David

 

Yes, I have top secret information.

 

Do you know what is the source of my top secret information?

 

Newsweek magazine.

 

The US periodically holds war games (Team Spirit exercises) in the Korean peninsula, and simulations are not that rare of an occurence. But on one occasion, some of these results were leaked to Newsweek. One official said: "Pentagon simulations... showed the South's defences collapsing so fast the hair stood up on the back of our necks."

 

Here is the source if you want to look it up: "Public Enemy Number One," Newsweek (29 November, 1993).

 

 

Now that that's settled, let's address a philosophical question: does David666 ever get tired of being wrong? Discuss...

On a sidenote: isn't everyone happy that the Pentagon -- with all the wars they've started and blood they've spilt, is seemingly led by individuals a million times more sensible and rational than internet fascists? I sure am!

 

With all the "Nuke North Korea!" "Nuke Iran!" "Invade Syria!" cretins on the interwebs, it's nice to see that the US general staff at least operates on some semblance of restraint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, 

 

Your source is Newsweek?   :donno:   Okay man, I am quite disappointed. I thought surely you had contacts within the inner most rings of the Pentagon.  Here is a tidbit for you.  Computer simulations and military exercises are designed to identify weaknesses. Otherwise, they are nearly useless.

 

But, back to the OP's topic,

 

 

 

So what would happend if the u.s Goes to war with iran??

 

Let me preface by saying the following is my opinion.

 

First, the US, and the West for the most part, is already at war with Iran's ruling theocratic government.  The ubiquitous "death to America" and "death to Israel" chants are not just slogans.  Iran will act on this whether through proxies (Hezboallah), covert activities (remember the Iranians blowing up their safe house in Thailand in 2012?) or direct action.  The West realizes this.  Therefore, the US and Iran are already at war.

 

As you said the U.S. will downfall .

 

 

 

No.

 

 

If it could, it would have. 

No.

 

 

 

You gotta see the whole picture, economy, social issues, internal politics, long term damage etc. Not just military force, we don't live in 1400th anymore. 

Yes.

 

The US has no desire to invade Iran.  The US would like to reduce the threat to itself and it's allies.   And, the US would like to see the Persian Gulf / Strait of Hormuz region a bit more stable.

 

Based on the above, the following scenarios are most likely in my opinion.

 

1.  Should Iran try to restrict or close the shipping lanes in the Strait a small scale attack will be launched.  If this does not achieve desired results, a larger attack will follow.  The West has the means and the will to keep the Strait open.  Iran knows this.  I think Iran's threats to do so are just that, threats.

 

2.  Should an opportunity arise at any time to destroy, delay or severely damage Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, military action will be taken in the form of surgical strikes.  Please, I do not want to hear "Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons."  No one in the intel community believes such.  

 

3.  And last, the West will continue to push for a policy change in Iran.  There are many Iranians, inside and outside of Iran, that would like to see this also.

 

There is no reason why the West and the Iranian people have to be adversaries.  There are many commonalities. I think this realization by both sides will grow moving forward.

 

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ No, smart guy. The source isn't Newsweek. The source is a Pentagon source who spoke to Newsweek.

 

You act like I posted the opinion of some columnist. That's the words of a Pentagon official. That's a Pentagon official whose neck hairs stood up. That's straight from the horse's mouth.

 

Nice job whitesplaining yourself out of it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

2.  Should an opportunity arise at any time to destroy, delay or severely damage Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, military action will be taken in the form of surgical strikes.  Please, I do not want to hear "Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons."  No one in the intel community believes such.  

 

Actually everyone in the intel community believes such, where have you been? Their statements are out there for all to read.

 

Iran should definitely pursue a weapon though, and bomb the hell out of the usual suspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

Actually everyone in the intel community believes such, where have you been? Their statements are out there for all to read.

 

 

 

Don't believe all you read my friend.   :shifty:

 

All the Best, 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not as black and white as some posters have suggested.

The Millennium Challenge in 2002 was a $250 million dollar war game experiment by the US military between the United States ( Blue) and Iran ( Red)

"In that war game, the Blue Team navy, representing the United States, lost 16 major warships — an aircraft carrier, cruisers and amphibious vessels — when they were sunk to the bottom of the Persian Gulf in an attack that included swarming tactics by enemy speedboats"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/12/washington/12navy.html?_r=0

"The sheer numbers involved overloaded their ability, both mentally and electronically, to handle the attack,” said Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper, a retired Marine Corps officer who served in the war game as commander of a Red Team force representing an unnamed Persian Gulf military. “The whole thing was over in 5, maybe 10 minutes.”

“It’s clear, strategically, where the Iranian military has gone,” Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters"

When the Red Team sank much of the Blue navy despite the Blue navy’s firing of guns and missiles, it illustrated a cheap way to beat a very expensive fleet.

This was in 2002. According to multiple reports, the Iranian military has significantly enhanced it's capabilities since than in various fields of drones, fighter jets, ballistic missiles, submarines, warships and destroyers.

The United States in the past decades has attacked countries it knew it could attack and inflict serious damage on without warning. That doesn't seem to be the case here as it has come to the negotiating table and accepted Iran's right to enrichment.

It seems as if the US government knows something that some of the posters on here do not know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)  Atomic Silver:

 

This is similar to where my post #9 comes from. There was a similar war game for the Mediterranean Sea with a Marine General playing the part of a "terrorist group commander". So, in this USNavy designed game --catch that?, the Navy designed it-- the USMC general launched his simulated terrorist attack and the Navy lost in 15-20 minutes for a 3-planned-days exercise.

 

The Navy's response? "Fowl" they cried...and cried...and cried...and :cry:

 

The Marines went out for a beer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ Hello,

 

This is not an uncommon occurrence.  Military strategist become attached to the current doctrine and tactics of the day and sometimes become blind to innovation.

 

When US General Billy Mitchell demonstrated aircraft could destroy ships in 1921, the Navy cried foul.  They said he is using bombs that are too big.  Luckily, based on this "war game."  The US began, somewhat slowly, to transition away from the "battleship" navy and toward the "aircraft carrier" navy.  The attack on Pearl Harbor 20 years later gave this transition and good kick in the pants. 

 

Today, war games, military exercises and simulations serve the same purpose.  They simulate how new technology and tactics effect the battlefield.  If you ignore these lessons, you will pay a price should conflict arise.

 

All the Best, 

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am part of the FBI and I am here to inform that everyone who has taken part in this post will be under arrest for conspiring against the American Government.

:cry: You have the right to remain silence. :P

Edited by myouvial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, 

 

Your source is Newsweek?   :donno:   Okay man, I am quite disappointed. I thought surely you had contacts within the inner most rings of the Pentagon.  Here is a tidbit for you.  Computer simulations and military exercises are designed to identify weaknesses. Otherwise, they are nearly useless.

 

But, back to the OP's topic,

 

 

Let me preface by saying the following is my opinion.

 

First, the US, and the West for the most part, is already at war with Iran's ruling theocratic government.  The ubiquitous "death to America" and "death to Israel" chants are not just slogans.  Iran will act on this whether through proxies (Hezboallah), covert activities (remember the Iranians blowing up their safe house in Thailand in 2012?) or direct action.  The West realizes this.  Therefore, the US and Iran are already at war.

 

No.

 

No.

 

 

Yes.

 

The US has no desire to invade Iran.  The US would like to reduce the threat to itself and it's allies.   And, the US would like to see the Persian Gulf / Strait of Hormuz region a bit more stable.

 

Based on the above, the following scenarios are most likely in my opinion.

 

1.  Should Iran try to restrict or close the shipping lanes in the Strait a small scale attack will be launched.  If this does not achieve desired results, a larger attack will follow.  The West has the means and the will to keep the Strait open.  Iran knows this.  I think Iran's threats to do so are just that, threats.

 

2.  Should an opportunity arise at any time to destroy, delay or severely damage Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon, military action will be taken in the form of surgical strikes.  Please, I do not want to hear "Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons."  No one in the intel community believes such.  

 

3.  And last, the West will continue to push for a policy change in Iran.  There are many Iranians, inside and outside of Iran, that would like to see this also.

 

There is no reason why the West and the Iranian people have to be adversaries.  There are many commonalities. I think this realization by both sides will grow moving forward.

 

All the Best,

David

 

 

"No", is not a statement worth answering.

 

As for the rest of your post, it's useless. We don't know what the US is capable of because we haven't seen it anywhere. When is the last time US invaded or attacked anyone that can actually defend itself?

 

Your points are all backwards. 

 

1. Iran didn't threat to close the strait out of nowhere. Iran threats to close the Threat if attacked, and it is capable and it will. US knows this, hence resolved to proxy wars and supporting terrorist groups within Iran killing scientists and innocent people in mosques. 

 

2. Rational people stopped believing what the "intel" community believes long time a go. These so called "intel" communities have been caught in so many lies the past 50 years, it's getting old.

 

3. The west, meaning US, UK , Israel and France (everyone else are stooges and slaves whether you like it or not) can push all it wants. Every time someone disagrees to be their slave they start their rambling and ranting of war. Let's see how bold they are with countries that can push back. They tried flexing their muscles against Iran for 30 years, and it's all flexing. Now they are flexing their muscles against Russia, and again it's just flexing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Repenter,

 

Thank you for taking the time to share your views and opinions with us.  Even though there may be differences, I think everybody wins when views and opinions are shared in a respectful manner.  

 

All the Best,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...