15 Brits to be freed as "Gift" shortly.

[Lartnev]

Originally Posted by Giovanni

But right now the U.S is not peacekeeping and the war is far from over there. In Afghanistan it's over... Canada is peacekeeping for the U.S... there is no aggressive push on cities, mainly patrols and small firefights.

Yes, it is peacekeeping because the majority of insurgent related deaths in Iraq are deliberately against other Iraqis, not coalition forces.

[Giovanni]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

Al Qaeda ISNT the world terroist convention like everyone seems think. There are hundreds of other groups. Not all terrorists follow them. Just because they arnt linked to Al Qaeda does not mean they didnt support terrorism.

Absence of evidence is not proof of innocence.

So... everybody is guilty until proven innocent?

Also only a small part of Iraq is currently controlled. Leave the green zone and you'll be raped faster then a drunk Angelina Jolie at a frat house. Hell you'd probably get killed faster then Carrot Top would if he made public appearances.

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

Absence of evidence is not proof of innocence.

In our country it is, why should we hold others to standards different than ours?

[Peacemaker]

You really think thats true? Ill contest it isnt.

And no, your idea that only a small area of Iraq is under control is correct, but thats where the insurgents are. Non Green zones are usually safer than the green. Like I said, Ive talked to my friend in great detail about it. The scene the media paints is misleading.

[Baneblade]

Absence of evidence only results in a not guilty verdict...not an innocent verdict. There is a difference.

[ShotUdead]

Blair knew that Iran would release them, whether they were in Iranian waters or not. Iran would not stand a chance against the US in a symmetrical war, none-the-less the entire cluster of radical islamists in the entire middle east combined.

Still, Iran is a cyst on the "free-worlds" side and needs to be removed. As long as the current regime is in charge of Iran, war is the direction we move everyday.

[Giovanni]

Originally Posted by ShotUdead

Blair knew that Iran would release them, whether they were in Iranian waters or not. Iran would not stand a chance against the US in a symmetrical war, none-the-less the entire cluster of radical islamists in the entire middle east combined.

Still, Iran is a cyst on the "free-worlds" side and needs to be removed. As long as the current regime is in charge of Iran, war is the direction we move everyday.

What a dolt.

The US has problems handling Iraq. Wich was disorganized. The US will suffer heavy casualties if they ever go to Iran, an organized military.

[GeneralRazor]

I think the keyword there was symmetrical. And I won't get into name calling as you did, as much as I would like to.

[Giovanni]

Unless the plan is to bomb the hell out of Iran (wich won't happen, too many civilians can be injured. The bombing of military targets is acceptable.) the casualties will still be heavy. Yes the Iraq war was asymmetrical, I give you that. There was no rules, anything goes.

Think about it. Tanks and trained soldiers vs. suicidal bombers and poorly armed insurgents.

The insurgents did cause problems due to their unconventional tactics but they should have never caused as many casualties. They did. I don't care how big the US military is, it cannot go out in a full out war with any country right now. Too many fronts and on top of that they'll be fighting tanks, trained soldiers and an airforce, most of wich Iraq did not have.

Unconventional tactics could also be used. Hiding yourself in a building isn't that hard to do... ambushes as well. The only thing lacking would be suicide bombers who most of the time caused little casualties. So who cares?

In short. I don't care how freaking patriotic you are but Iran is not about to be attacked and if they do get attacked well I'm sorry but the American government is more stupid then what I thought. Prepare for a draft if it happens because there's gonna be way too many fronts.

[Rbstr]

Gio:
Just like in Gulf 1 Iraq(who did have major military power) crumpled, so would Iran.

They don't have the capability to fight us in a conventional war, our tanks can kill thiers before our are even able to be seen. We have night vision we have all kinds of anti-tank missiles, helicopters, bombers. Most of our military equipment was designed for a war with a state entity. They could really only sit and watch as all number of things exploded around them.

Do we have to manpower to acctualy invade? No, you could argue that(but you don't, in favor of a much less sound argument). Iran however could be completly militarily crippled in a quite short amount of time.

Plus Iran is a target that would create a coalition, assuming they provoked the attack.

In short: I don't care how much of an armchair military expert you are, but if Iran were to provoke an attack they couldn't have done anything more stupid. Prepare for it not to happen, however, barring major provocation. Even bushy isn't that dumb.

[ShotUdead]

Originally Posted by Giovanni

What a dolt.

The US has problems handling Iraq. Wich was disorganized. The US will suffer heavy casualties if they ever go to Iran, an organized military.

Iran will be organized for less than a day if they went to war with the US. Maybe before the Iran/Iraq war, and arguably before the Gulf war, they were a formiddable opponent against IRAQ. Right now they can barely get a handful of f-14's off the ground at the same time. 75% of their airforce consists of broken f-5s while the other 25% are survived by salvaging parts from their own active inventory. They have no air to air missiles, and their surface to surface missile silos are probably under a satellite microscope as we speak.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Iran's contribution to the problem we have now in Iraq is significant enough that if we were to go to war with Iran, the "a-symmetrical" war going on in Iraq would actually dilute and a more solid vision of who we're fighting would present itself.

[Peacemaker]

ShotUDead, you obviously have 0 knowledge of the true abilities of the Iran state to conduct war, and what the US would be in a stand up fight to it. Rob is 100% correct though. If I remember right Iraq had the 5th largest army on earth back in 1990. A year later it was a burning hulk of its former glory.

Iran has a well developed airforce consiting of alot of Russian aircraft and a handfull of US aircraft that have their advanced avionics removed (F16 / F14). This however doesnt mean they arnt capable of posing threat. They most DEFINATLY have Air to Air Missles, lots of them. They most definatly can put ALOT of interceptors, bombers, and fighters into the air.

They have a well devolped ground force that is heavy on foot soldiers. Tanks are mostly T-72s and T-80s old russian work horses. I wouldnt be suprised if they have a few T-90s too. Lots of BMP/2s.

Their AA network is from what Ive read in Janes Defence heavy on a network of Radar and Infared missles making them a major problem for our Stealth aircraft which radiate heat and are vulnerable to Infared Guided missles. Though its hard for them to get a lock in the first place. Shilka ZSU-23 self propelled AA guns are everywhere.

Basicly, the perfect target for a full scale face off with the United States, They wouldnt last long, but we wouldnt beable to take over the country, or keep terrorists from attacking us. I dont think it would be much of a ground war, just a bombing party.

[Giovanni]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

I dont think it would be much of a ground war, just a bombing party.

There ya go. Thing is, the said bombing party wouldn't look good to the rest of the world wether Iran deserves it or not. Civilian casualties are never truly liked by the international scene.

I did hear it could boost the coffin and embalming industry thought!

[Rbstr]

Your grasping at straws now.

You know bombing of that nature is not going to result in any kind of significant civilian casualties. Radar instalations, missile sites, military bases and all of the targets bar nuclear facilities don't have civilians all about.

Especialy considering that we hit individual buildings and vehicles with precision weapons. This is not WW2, nobody is getting carpet bombed(well except runways, generaly empty streches of tarmac...).

[Giovanni]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

Your grasping at straws now.

You know bombing of that nature is not going to result in any kind of significant civilian casualties. Radar instalations, missile sites, military bases and all of the targets bar nuclear facilities don't have civilians all about.

Especialy considering that we hit individual buildings and vehicles with precision weapons. This is not WW2, nobody is getting carpet bombed(well except runways, generaly empty streches of tarmac...).

And once the said installations are bombed and the remnants of the "military" are now taking cover in cities full of the said civilians? It would just be a fiasco, let's leave it at that.