Sign in to follow this  
Spirit

War with Iran?

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, arch stanton said:

My first thoughts on plane crashes are always crew error, be that ground or air crew

like someone taking a dump by the engine exhaust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Iraq was touted as the 4th largest army in the world in 1991. Whereas yes, it had been bloodied in its war with Iran, it was still equipped with mostly the best money could buy at that point from the Soviets and French. And by day 3 they refused to fly anymore. And after a month of not being able to defend its skies, its army folded in about 48 hours. And this was after people had predicted 100s of thousands of casualties for coalition troops.

Iran on the other hand, has an air force and army whos best equipment was sold them, pre sanctions, by us.. So not only is it old, and tech generations past, but because of embargos, it hasnt been upgraded by the actual engineers of the manufacturers. More or less done redneck style to keep it working. Essentially think of a car from the 70s, upgraded with aftermarket parts, some of which youve made in your garage.

Their air force is so outdated compared to modern armies that they not only had to lie about a mockup plane (that experts could tell was fake on the ground, based on its shape and dimensions), but then they got caught with super elementary photoshop skills, trying to pretend it could fly.

Its not that their Army couldnt hurt us, or that they arent capable. Its just that they arent close to being on our level. Again, their army is (thanks to sanctions) stuck in the 70/80s. Their equipment being vintage of what Saddam had in 91. That was completely lopsided, and weve only gone up from there. They havent.

Syria has given them combat experience for sure. But that is basically with the benefit of Assads army (on par with their own) and Russian air power. Without those two factors, and against a modern army vs militia equipped with somewhat modern weapons, meh.... more than likely a whole new learning curve for them.

as jay leno said during the gulf war, "free, one thousand republican guard rifles, only dropped once."

Image result for tony stark built this in a cave quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Few counterpoints.

Iraq was touted as the 4th largest army in the world in 1991. Whereas yes, it had been bloodied in its war with Iran, it was still equipped with mostly the best money could buy at that point from the Soviets and French. And by day 3 they refused to fly anymore. And after a month of not being able to defend its skies, its army folded in about 48 hours. And this was after people had predicted 100s of thousands of casualties for coalition troops.

Iran on the other hand, has an air force and army whos best equipment was sold them, pre sanctions, by us.. So not only is it old, and tech generations past, but because of embargos, it hasnt been upgraded by the actual engineers of the manufacturers. More or less done redneck style to keep it working. Essentially think of a car from the 70s, upgraded with aftermarket parts, some of which youve made in your garage.

Their air force is so outdated compared to modern armies that they not only had to lie about a mockup plane (that experts could tell was fake on the ground, based on its shape and dimensions), but then they got caught with super elementary photoshop skills, trying to pretend it could fly.

Its not that their Army couldnt hurt us, or that they arent capable. Its just that they arent close to being on our level. Again, their army is (thanks to sanctions) stuck in the 70/80s. Their equipment being vintage of what Saddam had in 91. That was completely lopsided, and weve only gone up from there. They havent.

Syria has given them combat experience for sure. But that is basically with the benefit of Assads army (on par with their own) and Russian air power. Without those two factors, and against a modern army vs militia equipped with somewhat modern weapons, meh.... more than likely a whole new learning curve for them

 I just don’t agree with this assessment of it TORS.  Like I said, look to the conflict in Lebanon with Hezbollah.  Obviously they are significantly outgunned in many ways - tho not as severely as you’re describing.  I just don’t think you’re looking at it through the correct prism.  In the event of conflict they won’t fight a pitched battle with us.   They’ll use the missiles and they’ll use the proxies.  To get at them we’d have to invade and that’s where the shit really hits the fan.  It’s just not like ‘91 at all.  Anyway. Hopefully for now we won’t have to find out.  
 

I just wonder what will happen with the nuclear development stuff.  The moderate voices in Iran who pursued the nuclear deal have been dealt a fatal blow by this exchange I fear.  It’s hard to imagine that the regime won’t be full blown committed to getting a nuclear weapon as quickly as possible now .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UndertheHalo said:

 I just don’t agree with this assessment of it TORS.  Like I said, look to the conflict in Lebanon with Hezbollah.  Obviously they are significantly outgunned in many ways - tho not as severely as you’re describing.  I just don’t think you’re looking at it through the correct prism.  In the event of conflict they won’t fight a pitched battle with us.   They’ll use the missiles and they’ll use the proxies.  To get at them we’d have to invade and that’s where the shit really hits the fan.  It’s just not like ‘91 at all.  Anyway. Hopefully for now we won’t have to find out.  

Keep in mind, with regards to Hezbollah, there is a completely different set of rules. Hezbollah is a faction of people in Lebanon... not even necessarily representing Lebanon. So when Israel invaded ,it was more akin to us in Fallujah (04) than invading Iraq proper (or Kuwait). We could have gone in and out of Fallujah without a scratch merely carpet bombing... but you cant do that. Much less Israel in Lebanon, because the arent at war with Lebanon, just certain people in it.

As far as a hypothetical war with us and Iran, yes, it would be bloody. Especially if we invaded. But, their Army couldnt simply ignore us, they woild have to fight. And they would be as outgunned in that as Iraq was in 91. Remember, pre Desert Storm, all anyone talked about were the Scuds. But unguided missiles dont do much good, at all, against mobile targets.

Now lets say instead of an Iraq invasion scenario, we were to conduct a Bosnian strategy. The Serbs were far better equipped than Iran. But they couldnt stop western air power either.

To clarify, in case im sending out the wrong message, Im not in any way suggesting we would have some sort of clean cut victory (much less suggesting we escalate). I completely agree any war with Iran would be another Iraq, years and years of struggling with an occupation, dealing with a new jihad rally call, and people killed and maimed. Absolutely. My take is merely in rating Irans actual uniformed Army. Forget what would come afterwards. I just see the conventional side of it being totally lopsided.

But agree with you, lets cross our fingers we dont find out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, fan_since79 said:

The latest is Iran is refusing to turn over the black boxes to Boeing which is investigating the crash of their airliner.

I wonder why they would do that...

Because the whole thing is a hoax witch hunt perpetuated by the fake news media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

What if the plane accidentally flew in front of one of the missiles they launched?

The plane was shot down at the same time they launched those missiles, so it's most likely the reason. That means Trump decided to kill over 200 people because he got impeached. Unbelievable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

It's not funny. People are dead because of the actions of that toddler in the white house.

You think trump was able to arrange a civilian flight, from Iran to Ukraine, that flew directly over a missile battery, that shoots straight up?

Crazy that hed know when and where the missile would be shot from... and was able to arrange a flight at that exact moment.... where a moving object flying in one direction, was intercepted by another flying in an opposite one.

 

 

 

If hes able to pull of witchcraft like that, hes got my vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

You think trump was able to arrange a civilian flight, from Iran to Ukraine, that flew directly over a missile battery, that shoots straight up?

Crazy that hed know when and where the missile would be shot from... and was able to arrange a flight at that exact moment.... where a moving object flying in one direction, was intercepted by another flying in an opposite one.

If hes able to pull of witchcraft like that, hes got my vote.

I was thinking more like what happened when Russia shot down that plane over Ukraine. I'm guessing Iran mistook the plane for a hostile aircraft or missile and used their air defense against it by mistake. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JarsOfClay said:

I was thinking more like what happened when Russia shot down that plane over Ukraine. I'm guessing Iran mistook the plane for a hostile aircraft or missile and used their air defense against it by mistake. 

Ok, thats a lot more believable. I thought you were honestly considering my dumb magic BB scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, ten ocho recon scout said:

Ok, thats a lot more believable. I thought you were honestly considering my dumb magic BB scenario.

Sadly, I've heard news anchors, and military analysts on all day seemingly seriously considering just that - that the plane was hit by outbound ballistic missiles - for example, the English general that said it was unlikely the plane flew over the ballistic missile launching site at the precise moment they launched, thus knocking it out of the sky.  Therefore, it *must* be mechanical failure.  Uh, *no* that's not the only two choices .... 

Failing entirely to consider the possibility that it was, perhaps, an overreaction by an Iranian SAM operator, who thought the 737 was a cruise missile.   Someone posted a pic of what certainly appeared to be the blown-off seeker of a 9m331 interceptor, claiming it was found near the crash site.  Maybe a hoax, maybe not - I mean, not something you just find in a yard sale.  And it really seems far more likely than a mammoth coincidence of an uncontained engine failure on the very day Iranian air defenses were certainly on high-alert, expecting a counter-punch.  

Sometimes I hear these experts on tv and I just want to punch myself 😐  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JarsOfClay said:

That means Trump decided to kill over 200 people because he got impeached. Unbelievable.

 

This wording is what has people calling you a literal retard.

"Trump decided to kill over 200 people"

"Trump decided"

"decided"

This implies killing these people on the plane was a premeditated and intentional act. 

Jesus..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

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