Iran digging 320,000 graves for invaders

[proud2BlibKansan]

Military official: Iran digging 320,000 graves for invaders


TEHRAN, June 29 (Xinhua) -- A senior Iranian military official said on Sunday the Islamic republic is digging some 320,000 graves in its border provinces for future slain invaders, Iran's English-language satellite channel Press TV reported.

Iran's Armed Forces headquarters has approved the plan to dig graves for enemy forces in case of any attack on its territory, said Brigadier General Mir-Faisal Baqerzadeh, head of the Foundation for the Remembrance of the Holy Defense.

"We do not wish the families of enemy soldiers to experience what Americans had to go through in the aftermath of the Vietnam War," said Baqerzadeh, who is also head of Iran's search committee for missing soldiers.

The preemptive measures would decrease the time during which slain soldiers would be buried, the Iranian military official said, adding "the burial of slain soldiers will be carried out decently and in little time."

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/30/content_8459225.htm

[angrycarpenter]

1. They think that high casualties will stop Bush

boy are they stupid.

[LakeSamish706]

2. What I want to know is, are they capable of defending themselves to that...

degree? Is this just bullshit on there part or what?

[bbinacan]

10. It's just bullshit. n/t

[sam sarrha]

13. they have a 1,000,000 man standing army, Mach3 super sonic anti-ship missiles for which we have NO

DEFENSE AGAINST, 10 TO 20 SECOND WARNING BEFORE IT HITS, IF THEY ARE LUCKY.

This is the NeoCons Pearl Harbor they've been dreaming about so they can put a total Milton Friedman Shock Doctrine on us and enslave us...

[Pavulon]

15. So did Iraq in GW1 , we killed hundreds of thousands

in that war. The ordinance you speak of is 10 year old and based on technology that at one was being used for a US drone. We worked with a russian firm to develop the system, as a DRONE.

Hopefully, for their sake, Iran will not involve the us.

[LakeSamish706]

16. The big question is what has Russia supplied Iran in the last several years?

For all anyone knows, Russia may have provided Nukes to Iran for just an event as this!

[Pavulon]

17. That would be bad for Russia

as the use of that device would result in the destruction of Iran, Russia, and probably us.

Why would russia give nuclear weapons to a 3rd world nation? Just to see it pop in chechnia?

[LakeSamish706]

19. They might think that it is a first line of defense against a nut case Bush and Cheney! n/t

[Pavulon]

21. Or justification for a total launch when their weapon shows

up where it is not supposed to be.

[sam sarrha]

29. can you blame them.. with a nut case psychopath wet brain alcololic like W threatenng them

[Occam Bandage]

34. Then Russia is going to have to explain why a nuclear weapon with a radioactive signature

exposing it as a Russian warhead just detonated in America.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occam Bandage]

31. Er, we do have one very powerful defense against the Sunburn. It's called,

"don't park the carriers within 100 miles of the shore."

[wildbilln864]

87. 911 was their Pearl Harbor that they dreamed about...

and got us where we are today.

[New Dawn]

18. Iran has perfect conditions for a guerrilla war

* mountainous terrain (unlike Iraq)
* a large territory (much larger than Iraq)
* the majority of the population is patriotic and cohesive (unlike Iraq)
* a large military equipped with modern weaponry and much larger reserves (unlike Iraq)
* an economy and military that was not weakened by over a decade of sanctions (unlike Iraq)
* a history that involves resistance to the US (i.e. the 1979 revolution as a result of the 1953 CIA coup against their elected government)

Basically, anyone claiming that the US could "easily defeat Iran" is either a Neocon or someone who knows nothing about the country.

[LakeSamish706]

20. Thats good information, and with there 70 million people this makes them...

a very serious force.

[Pavulon]

22. Consider how we would be involved.

only in the event that Iran decides to attack us in response to Israel's actions.

This would start an open war. The kind where every thing that dams water can be destroyed at the same second. There are many ways to destroy a country that has no air defense. People who have no power, water, or food, do not live long. It gets cold in Iran.

In the event that we are involved there would not be a hearts and minds action taking place. Just a gw1 type war.

Which Iran can not win.

[New Dawn]

24. Iran would never attack the US first

In addition, the US would not allow its satellite, Israel, to attack Iran, unless the US also wanted to attack Iran as well. If the US would decide to attack Iran, Iran would use its deadly, Russian-made anti-ship missiles against the US fleet in the gulf. Iranian religious leaders would call for Shiite resistance in Iraq, causing even the pro-Maliki militias to start attacking US troops and convoys in Iraq. This would vastly increase the cost of the Iraq War as well. And any sort of ground war in Iran would meet disaster, for the reasons I listed in my first post.

In fact, most (sane) US military leaders know that this would happen and (like North Korea), realize that the costs would be far to high, even compared to Iraq. This is why any kind of attack on Iran is very unlikely to happen. In fact, I suspect that "the rumors of war" are much more of a scare tactic that the US is trying to use (which is not even working, either) against Iran.

[Occam Bandage]

36. "Iran would use its deadly, Russian-made anti-ship missiles"

Unless we were more than a hundred miles from shore. Which, y'know, we are.

I'm against war with Iran, because I think it would destabilize Iraq completely. But let's be realistic about it. The air war would go very well. The ground war in Iraq would get much worse.

[New Dawn]

38. I wouldn't count on that, because...

The Yakhont can be launched from an airplane, ship or submarine.

[Occam Bandage]

40. And the odds of any of Iran's pre-'70s relics making it within 100 miles of an aircraft carrier are?

I'd guess somewhere between "no" and "fucking way."

[New Dawn]

41. I'm not sure if you're referring to their navy or their air force

However, I have read that many of the planes in their air-force are a bit more modern than "pre-'70s relics".

[Occam Bandage]

43. Either and both. Their best native fighters are upgraded F-5Es, with some F-14 tech.

Their best native attack aircraft is an upgraded Russian Yak-130 two-seat trainer. Both are unproven, neither are in full production--and the "attack aircraft" is still only a prototype. Moreover, even if both work perfectly, neither would stand a realistic chance. They're sticking minor upgrades on aircraft we sold them in the '60s and early '70s (and which were kinda mediocre even back then), and strapping bombs onto planes that the Russians didn't ever intend to send into combat. It's the type of air force that would be great in another Iran-Iraq war, but which would be little more than a brief distraction in a US-Iran war.

They have a handful of MiG-29s, too, but only a handful (that is to say, four or fewer). Perhaps useful to intercept an American sortie, but not exactly useful for achieving air superiority over a carrier battle group. There are occasional reports of newer aircraft, or of Iranian aircraft purchases, but those are always completely unconfirmed and generally denied by the alleged purchasers and sellers.

[New Dawn]

53. My data says they have more than four MiG 29s

But I do not think we can find any official data that says the exact number of planes.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070219113849/www.worldairforces.com/Countries/iran/irn.html

There are at least three shown in this video though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oakmYb9svn0

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. THey have bought and deployed Mig 29s and we

sold them (illegally mind you) the gear they needed to refit their F-14s... which have better vertical acceleration than the F-18 by the way

They also have a slightly better maneuver ratio... now they'd have zero chance with a flight of F-22, but against late gen 5 Jets, they do and have, depending on the flight crews

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. You have no clue

their subs can get into the gulf easily, which is extremely noisy already

Drinking the kool aide?

By the way I remember telling people the Iraqi plan is to pull back, fade and wait...

No, they will fight us

What did they do?

Oh yes, they pulled back, faded and waited for conditions to go guerilla

Oh and Tariq Assizz even gave this away on CBC...

Oh never mind, the US can never evah face real resistance...

:sarcasm:

ANd I will have to ask this... when are you joining?

[Occam Bandage]

52. Yeah, we've heard this story before. They have super secret tricks up their sleeve.

They'll pull something out of their hat and win. We had this before Iraq. We had claims of another Stalingrad in Baghdad. It was bullshit then, and it's bullshit now. The Iraqis couldn't fight a conventional war against us, and neither can the Iranians. It is not going to be contested. There will be no carriers destroyed by Sunburn missiles. There will be no meaningful Iranian air resistance past the first day of conflict. And then, a month or so later, there will be hell to pay in Iraq.

I'm not joining, because I don't support the venture. I don't approve of starting a widened guerilla war for no benefit.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. Some points

They DO HAVE subs that can and have left their pens

The GULF is extremely NOISY, which makes finding them next to impossible and it is extremely shallow

And they DO HAVE THOSE MISSILES... we know where many of their sites are, and you can count on those being taken out, but we don't know where ALL sites are. Alas it is the ones we don't have that will pose a problem

and WE PART ASSETS inside the Gull... speak to ANY Sailor... thing everybody hates is going through the straits

This is not mythology created by the BUSHIES, where you heard the Stalingrad from

But ANALYSTS who have a fucking clue... like oh JANES, or even Strattford

And RETIRED officers

Not to mention SAILORS

And I would not count on what you are selling because that is the line from OUR DOD, the PUBLIC view

Try to look for the leaks... which don't agree with any of this that you are peddling

And yes the SUNBURST is a real threat.

I know the AF is going to win the war and nobody else will have to even get wet. This myth started in the fifties with Curtis Lemay. and has not stopped.

As a NAVY wife, thankfully now not sending somebody to this hell, I take exception to people swallowing the Kool Aid and you are... and pushing this view of how the Battleplan will go peachy keen, just like we expect it

First thing you learn is that they NEVER go according to plan the moment contact is made... perhaps reading Clausewitz might be a good idea? So would be assuming the worst, standard military doctrine like oh anywhere I know off, and hoping for the best

The worst at this point is loosing three out of five carriers, see sunburst...

That is not me, but the leaks that have occurred, with less frequency than before the Iraq war... but that is the worst case if nobody else gets to play. If Russia and or China get involved, and there are many reasons why they would consider it strategically, then worst case scenario enters the realm of MAD.

I recommend you start finding these leaks and readying people who have a clue instead of repeating the myth from major US papers who are pushign for war once again

And for the record, if we do go to war, I hope your ass finds itself somewhere close to the front lines... mid range bad case scenarios do include a nice draft.

[Occam Bandage]

66. Psst...the NATO reporting name of the P-270 is "Sunburn," not "Sunburst."

If you're going to repeatedly refer to a missile--and if you're going to stick it in caps--try to get it right.

Secondly, I've read On War, as have most people.

Thirdly, what the hell do you mean by "their missile sites?" The Sunburn is truck-, sub-, and Su-33- mounted. No need for a 'missile site.' But disregarding that, it has an operational range of 120km. Unless you think that we're going to be maintaining interdiction patrols in the Strait of Hormuz--and interdicting ships with Nimitz-class aircraft carriers--I'm not really seeing where the Sunburn comes into play. In order to hit a carrier, you need to get within 75 miles of a carrier. I have no idea who told you that CVs hang out on the beach, but they're wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. ok what part of we have some (as in many) of our assets in the gulf

are you missing?

And I will give you two free clues

While you read about war, been there, done that (Another army, another war, same shit, different day). and so has my husband, retired USN Sub Service.

And yes, THEY ARE TRUCK ABLE but some are at FIXED SITES...

Now enjoy readying about war... and who told me that they HANG INSIDE THE GULF? PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN TO THE GULF

Are you that unable to read? You know like I don';t know US Navy Sailors.... Yep I guess they imagined those deployments.

Look... you got it wrong. If you think that the Iranians will be oh so nice to just go.. ok you bombed us... nice... why fight back?

There are many reasons why they are not going to do that...

And the dictum applies, all plans go to hell when first contact is made.

By the way, you do belong in Curtis Lemay;s Staff... he'd be happy with you...

[Occam Bandage]

77. Yeah. The gulf is a very big place. Lots of it isn't 120km from shore.

I know plenty of sailors. I'm related to two. One is a captain on the USS Carl Vinson. :shrug:

[nadinbrzezinski]

82. Hold it, first we didn't now we do

and one of your relatives is the THE Captain of the Vinson?

Good, perhaps you should have a talk

Not that he will answer many of your questions, need to know basis and all that.

[Occam Bandage]

84. ..."the captain?" No. He is a captain. Captain is a rank.

Currently he is a reservist attached to the ship's reserve unit. When he was active, I think the highest rank he got was CDR. Maybe LCDR, I dunno.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Ah he was the OIC...

And I know WHAT CAPTAIN is

And he was given a reserve promotion from O-5 (Commander, Major in the Army. Marine Corp and AF) To O-6, That is a full bird, In other services Colonel

Do you want me to to go trough the rank structure too?

Jeesus,, he is also NOT the ship's captain, since there is ONLY one captain... in command of the ship

And if he should be deployed NOT as the captain, he wlll be called commodore, and lord help him if he annoys the the actual captain.

Navy tradition you know

Which gets funny with O-3, aka GROUND FORCES Captains... who are usually called Majors while on board, see about only ONE captain

As him, he might enlighten you about this.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. And you are telling me this with exactly what precise knowledge?

Fleet assets ARE INSIDE THE THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ at all times... so are Coasties, not that you'd know this

Look at a map

[Occam Bandage]

54. Er, yeah. We have some patrol craft in the Strait of Hormuz. We don't park carriers there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. From SAILORS who were CARRIER SAILORS

yes, yes we do.

We also park cruisers, frigates and even subs inside the straits...

[Occam Bandage]

67. ...

:crazy:

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Roll eyes at that?

Classic

[Occam Bandage]

78. Yes. Because it's dumb. You're saying that, during a war, we would put our aircraft carriers

not in their protective battle-group bubble far from shore, but rather we would stick them all in the motherfucking Strait of Hormuz.

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Because we have...

that is why.

Got it now

Not me saying it, the USN has done this... and there is no evidence to tell us that they will not do this AGAIN

OR again, do you need me to draw pictures?

And you said first that we didn't put them in there... I gave you facts. WE DO REGULARLY.

Them are the facts

[Occam Bandage]

81. ...yes. We have put many elements of strike groups on escort missions in the Strait of Hormuz.

That is not the same as voluntarily and without any goddamn reason putting an aircraft carrier within cruise missile range of shore during an open war against an enemy with anti-ship cruise missiles. You're suggesting that every single member of the Navy is even stupider than you are.

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. What part of WE HAVE are you purposely missing?

We did it in the eighties. and that was a very much so undeclared war, or have you forgotten all those reflagged oil tankers? And we did it at the opening shots of GW 2... did I mention GW 1?

Yes the NAVY has done that in the past.

[Occam Bandage]

85. The part that explains why

what we did in the early '80s (when my dad flew escort missions off the Enterprise in the Gulf) has any bearing on what we would do in a shooting war in 2008.

[nadinbrzezinski]

88. Look at a map and how crowded things are

and that battleplans don't change that much

By the way... the gulf is 30-35 miles wide at the widest

Try converting to metric

1.2 miles per 1000 meters

Oh and we had the BIG MO parked off Iraq in 1991...

[A HERETIC I AM]

94. "The Gulf is 30-35 miles wide at the widest"

Do you mean the Persian Gulf? Or did you mean the Straits of Hormuz?

The Persian Gulf averages about 130 miles across.

The Strait of Hormuz is about 30 miles across at its narrowest.

One other thing.... A Kilometer (1000 Meters) is .61 of a mile, NOT 1.2 miles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. From Wikipedia

Location Southwest Asia
Ocean type Gulf
Primary sources Sea of Oman
Basin countries Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman (exclave of Musandam)
Max length 989 km
Max width 56 km (min)
Surface area 251,000km2
Average depth 50 m
Max depth 90 m

[A HERETIC I AM]

103. Well, unfortunately the Wikipedia entry is wrong, or the scale of every available map is wrong.

Go to www.wikimapia.com , locate the Persian Gulf, zoom in so that you can see the entire gulf, click on "Wikimapia" at the upper left, click "GeoTools". When the sidebar opens, click "Measure distance or route". Place your cursor on any spot on either shore, click and then drag the line to the opposite shore, the shortest distance away. Do this several times up and down the gulf to give yourself an idea of the average.

You will find it is substantially more than 56 Kilometers. It is, as I said, closer to 125 miles across, average and the distance across the widest spot is closer to 190 miles. So the Wikipedia entry for the Persian Gulf that says "Max Width 56 Km (min)" is misleading and poorly worded. The "(min)" after the 56 Km is referenced in the text as being "the shortest divide of about 56 kilometres in the Strait of Hormuz."

The Strait of Hormuz might average 56 KM, but not the entire gulf.

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. So is my husband then, who used to navigate those waters

And so are the charts issued to the USN Navy

It is a NARROW body of water, PERIOD, as well as a very shallow body of water

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. Oh and one last thing... what you are looking at there is a MERCATOR

Projection.

This kind of projection leads to distortions in maps

Look it up

[A HERETIC I AM]

109. Oh for crying out fucking loud. Fine. In your house 130 miles is 56 kilometers.

I get it.

Mercator projection my puffy pink ass.

If the maximum width of the ENTIRE Persian Gulf is, AS YOU CLAIM, only 30 - 35 miles, then everything I have ever learned about how to read a scale on a map has been in vain.

You just won't admit you are wrong on this one, will you?


Like I said, fine. In your corner of the world, 130 miles equals 56 kilometers and because your husband was on a ship there once, mathematics and satellite imagery be damned.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. As I said, I will take the word of somebody who NAVIGATED in those

waters regularly and SAW the ACTUAL CHARTS over you taking this from a Mercator Projection WORLD MAP

Or once again, you are telling me that the United States Navy issues the WRONG charts to its Nuclear Navy?

And Wikipedia's numbers ARE accurate

And it wasn't once either.

[A HERETIC I AM]

111. Please ask your husband to look at this map. (sorry about the large size)

and ask him if the distance from Bushehr to Ra's al Khafji is closer to 35 miles or 120 or from Al Jubayl straight across to the nearest point on the opposite shore is closer to 110 miles or 35.

Go ahead. Ask him. If he agrees with you, then I would suggest he sue the Navy Navigational school for gross incompetence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. What part of CHARTS used for ACTUAL NAVIGATION are you missing?

I am done with you.

It is talking to a wall, you are right.

[A HERETIC I AM]

121. LOL...amazing.

So I take it you didn't ask your husband to look at the map.

If you actually think the distance scale on a navigational chart differ from a surface map by a factor of 4, then you're welcome to it.


Atta girl. Stick to your guns.
:banghead: :spray:

[nadinbrzezinski]

122. You are right

:banghead:

He does not need to look at that map since he CHARTED the course of USN ships REGULARLY in that WATER

:banghead:

Try that sometime!

[anigbrowl]

113. After your suggestion that 1km = 1.2 miles

I suggest that your interpretation of the data might be flawed.

[anigbrowl]

112. You need to read more carefully before you post

"Max width 56 km (min)" is a typo. If you look in the text, you'll see that's actually the minimum width, not the maximum:

"This inland sea of some 251,000 km² is connected to the Gulf of Oman in the east by the Strait of Hormuz; and its western end is marked by the major river delta of the Shatt al-Arab, which carries the waters of the Euphrates and the Tigris. Its length is 989 kilometres, separating mainly Iran from Saudi Arabia with the shortest divide of about 56 kilometres in the Strait of Hormuz. The waters are overall very shallow and have a maximum depth of 90 metres and an average depth of 50 metres."

A quick glance at the satellite photo would have made the error obvious.

[A HERETIC I AM]

114. THANK YOU!

Sheesh...it's like talking to a wall.

[LakeSamish706]

25. Except for one minor problem.... We have no idea what countries would be...

drawn into such an attack... If both Russia and China enter the war in defense of Iran, we are looking at probable total devastation in all likely hood.

[Occam Bandage]

33. Which is similar to saying,

"But we haven't considered all the ramifications of going to the grocery store. What if Russia and China decide to bomb our apartment in retaliation?"

It's not exactly likely.

[AdHocSolver]

55. Unfortunately, Big Oil only needs to shut down Iran's oil production to drive the price & profits up

Taking over Iraq's oil production is merely frosting on the cake. Reducing Iraqi oil output has already allowed OPEC to boost oil prices. The instability in the region due to the war further fuels price speculation driving up prices even more.

Big Oil only has to start a war in Iran to achieve their goals. They do NOT have to win the war to increase their profits.

How many people die for their (Big Oil's) cause is irrelevant to the process.

How many people die is not even a part of the equation.

P.S.

Let's not leave OPEC, especially Saudi Arabia, Dubai, and the other Middle East oil Sheikdoms out of this scheme. They are making huge profits out of these wars.

[Spouting Horn]

98. I don't think the religious fervor

of the Iranian people matches that of their wacko leadership.

That being said, they would defend themselves if they had to.

[Dan]

28. Iran doesn't have to defent itself...

They have a treaty with China.

China owns us.

[Occam Bandage]

35. The flipside of that is that we own China, too.

As they say: when you owe the bank a hundred dollars, that's your problem. When you owe the bank a hundred million dollars, that's the bank's problem.

[AdHocSolver]

48. So, you want to see who would fair better, China or U.S., in a world-wide economic collapse?

China is better prepared to survive a collapsed economy than the U.S. You sound like George W's "bring it on!"

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. What do you expect, he is a member of the Imperial Party

the DLC is their branch in the Democratic Party.

The difference between them and the Neocons is little, if at all

[Occam Bandage]

59. Yeah, great, except I'm not DLC. You can oppose something while being realistic about why it's

a bad idea.

"An air war with Iran would be a bad idea because it would destabilize Iraq and lead to unnecessary casualties in Iran" is a valid statement.

"An air war with Iran would be a bad idea because the Iranians would achieve air superiority" is not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Believing that it would stay at the realm of an AIR WAR is where

you are making your mistake

[Occam Bandage]

68. I don't. That's why I don't support an air war against Iran.

[nadinbrzezinski]

74. Good, at least we agree on that

Now open your eyes... it will be far worst than the DOD is telling you

[Occam Bandage]

57. Nope. Neither party has an interest in seeing that collapse occur.

[dysfunctional press]

51. chinawould find new markets in europe, russia, south america, africa, asia...

china has endured social poverty deeper, longer, and more recently than we have as a nation.

the rest of the world might actually stand a chance, peak oil and global climate change-wise if we were out of the picture. god help us when they figure that out.

and if they ousted isreal as well, they'd finally solve a big part of the mideast peace problem- until it escalated again as a sunni/shia conflict instead.

[Occam Bandage]

58. You don't shoot your best customer, thinking maybe you can sell to someone else. You certainly

don't shoot him, if his investment funding is fueling your economic expansion. You would have to be insane to shoot him if he owes you billions of dollars that you will not ever see if he dies. You would have to be an absolute goddamn moron to shoot him if he has a military alliance with the rest of your good customers.

[dysfunctional press]

61. even if the continued existence of that customer puts your entire planet in peril?

including you?

china's seen hard times before- most of it's people are still living them. they'd weather the storm.

and who's to say that they wouldn't already have new customers lined up?

btw- if your customer owes you billions of dollars and dollars become worthless- how much does he owe you...?

[Occam Bandage]

69. The Chinese are not especially concerned about "the entire planet being at peril."

If you're referring to pollution, well, lol.
If you're referring to global peace, well, the way to deal with a destabilizing influence in the mideast is not to start World War III.

[dysfunctional press]

71. they wouldn't be starting it.

nt

[Occam Bandage]

76. Er...yeah, yeah they would. Look, picture the following:

AIDE: Sir, the Americans have launched an air war against Iran.
HU: That's awful. Energy prices are going to skyrocket again.
AIDE: Yes. The effects of this will likely last through 2010.
HU: Indeed. We must react.
AIDE: Indeed. Should we prepare a statement to the UN?
HU: Nah. Let's go to war.
AIDE: ...what?
HU: You heard me. Let's go to war.
AIDE: How?
HU: I dunno. Drop some bombs or something.
AIDE: We don't have air superiority against America.
HU: Okay, so invade.
AIDE: ...invade America? We don't have a functional navy.
HU: I meant Iran. Invade Iran. Or Iraq. Look, I want to see people shoot people.
AIDE: That would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and likely lead to tens of thousands of protests, some violent.
HU: Okay.
AIDE: There would probably be military retaliation. Unless you want this to go nuclear, we'll have to accept missile strikes.
HU: Okay.
AIDE: That would also mean American sanctions, as well as British, as well as French, as well as Turkish, as well as Canadian, as well as Japanese, as...
HU: Whatever. They'll hurt too.
AIDE: In addition to destroying our entire export economy, that would also mean a loss of foreign investments. Shanghai would grind to a halt. We'd be launched into the worst meltdown since the '50s.
HU: We've been poor before.
AIDE: There would be rioting in the streets of every city. You'd start a war with America, destroy the world economy, plunge China into a new dark age, and risk both mass rebellion and nuclear destruction?
HU: Well, yeah. The Americans made gas prices spike.

[dysfunctional press]

97. read your own first sentence- it tells who started it.

nt

[Pavulon]

107. They have a treaty with China

that binds china to mutual defense up to and including nuclear war? Nope.

They have nothing like that in place.

[Crabby Appleton]

100. Just bullshit - They're not going to have a ground "invasion"

but rather an air and missile bombardment

[JeffR]

3. Very thoughtful

I guess.

[Thothmes]

4. From a Military Standpoint,

would they be better served if they had their troops spend their time digging fortifications. JMO

[Deja Q]

7. From their standpoint, they'd be better doing fornications.

They'll need lots of numbers; screw the fortifications.

[LeftyMom]

9. Not really, the point is domestic propaganda. And keeping young men busy.

:shrug:

[Arctic Dave]

12. That is most likely what they are doing.

"we're not digging fortifications, we are digging graves"

[NCDem60]

5. Mainly propaganda but

not a bad decision if they truly expect major combat.

Graves don't discriminate.

[panader0]

6. Why that number?

What's up with that?

[loveable liberal]

8. where are we going to get 320,000 troops?

Thats just crazy. George would probably attack with 2,000. Pretty much all George has is to sit off a coast and lob rockets into Iran. There will be no ground force.

What is he going to pull troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan to invade Iran? Ha...thats a good one.

George Bush is a drunken, coked up idiot.

[Pavulon]

14. The highway of death in GW1

is an interesting point. The remnants of that are usually left for birds and other animals. Airpower is the uncontested method of killing large numbers of people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. And strategically it is still highly inefficient. as in it has never worked

as advertised

The AF has pushed this for EVAH... or at least since the birth of the AF... but you still need that 18 year old to hold terrain

They know it, and any RATIONAL CHief of Staff knows that too...

So chances are that air war will become something else extremely fast

As I said bellow Curtis LeMay used to push this for EVAH when he reached the stratosphere of the service as the AF chief of Staff... and he used to be reminded that it took 18 year olds with M1-Garand to actually do the job

Of course we are talking of the current leadership, both military and civilian, who seemed to have wargamed this without taking into account the actual conditions on the ground, or how much plans go to hell as soon as you make contact with the enemy... ah that famous dictum

War plans that you wargame only work the way you plan as long as all the players follow the assumptions. They tend to go to hell in a handbasket the moment anybody breaks the assumptions... or in real life refuses to do what you expect them to do... damn pesky enemy... they rarely behave as you expect them

And the Iranians have a few anti-ship missiles that could make a mess of the US Fleet, for example

[Pavulon]

106. We never put feet on the ground in Tokyo.

do you think that technology has improved since we leveled it from the air?

Jane's is an accepted source for Naval capacity, not Rense.

However this is hopefully a pile of bullshit.

[seriousstan]

11. Maybe Imadamndumbshit will find his 12th Imam in one of the holes.

[bamacrat]

23. We'll prolly just bomb the hell out of them.

Never set foot in there throw everything at them but nukes, make them use nukes, we counter by making Iran no more. Scary shit, but.....

[Occam Bandage]

32. Pretty much. Any 'war' would be a purely aerial affair, coupled with a CIA-incited

political uprising (most likely non-violent) aimed at preventing Iran from harnessing the political will necessary to launch a large-scale guerrilla/terrorist "invasion" of Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. what nukes, the ones they don't have?

by the way, they can do quite a bit of damage to the fleet

Oh never mind

This aerial warfare is king shit goes all the way back to Curtis Lemay (and the 8th Air Force)... and it has YET to prove itself to be real

[Occam Bandage]

44. "and it has YET to prove itself to be real."

[nadinbrzezinski]

45. You could have a picture of Berlin, C 1945 for all I care

you still need BOOTS ON THE GROUND

Unless I missed it... fighters don't PHYSICALLY control ground.. for the record neither does a tank (A lesson the Ruskies learned in Afghanistan)

And after that road of hell, you still needed that eighteen year old with an M-16 PHYSICALLY taking over the real estate

Yep, Curtis Lemay used to love to show photos of German Cities during Staff Meetings trying to get the latest and greatest toys for the folks at SAC... he pulled the same trick you did

Fortunately Army officers, some of them who also served with him but ON THE GROUND... reminded him about those 18 year olds taking over the real estate, in their case with M1-Garands.

[Occam Bandage]

56. Hint: Nobody is suggesting we try to invade and control Iran.

The proposed 'war' would be closer to 1991 than to 2003.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. HINT, 1991 involved a heavy use of COMBINED ARMS

and TROOPS... aka GROUND TROOPS

[Occam Bandage]

70. "closer to" does not mean "identical to." In 1991, we had to eject an occupying army.

In 2008, there would not be any such mission. If the Iranians were to attempt to bring a conventional army into Iraq, it would be the highway of death all over again.

There would likely be an enormous guerilla uprising in Iraq. The CIA is attempting to counter that by creating one in Iran. I don't think it'll be successful. That's why I don't support this theoretical war.

[nadinbrzezinski]

75. You are buying whatever they are selling

that is all I can tell you

Somehow, and for many reasons, I don't think the Iranians will be fighting the last war (that is the Iran-Iraq war for them)

But if you believe they will... well, then you will still need the combined arms and the 18 year olds... the AF will not win it for you

Got it now?

Or do I need to draw pictures?

[Occam Bandage]

80. Except for this war, sure. I'm against it because I don't like what will happen in Iraq. I don't

think I need to make up fantasies of Sunburns crashing into carriers (that we've decided to practically run aground for no goddamn reason) in order to justify that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. Those fantasies are serious threats to gulf sailors

[SOS]

117. The Iranian defense minister in Al-Hayat

said they would simply fire a barrage of missiles at Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia.
They consider Saudi Arabia a US puppet.
Ras Tanura is the world's biggest export facility with 33 million barrels in stock along with huge amounts of LPG.
The processing complex at Abqaiq would also be targeted.
That's why President Cheney sent the Patriot defense system to the Gulf.

If even a few missiles hit their mark, it would be one hell of an explosion.

Iran can't win a war with the US.
But they most certainly can drive oil to $300+ a barrel.
They need not win a conventional war to wreck our economy.

A simple embargo in 1973 roiled the US economy. Imagine direct hits on Ras Tanura and Abqaiq.

[originalpckelly]

26. Now that's some damn good propaganda. We're digging you're graves and it hasn't even started.

Although, I do suspect that there would be casualties on both sides, I would suggest those graves would be filled by Iranians.

[Occam Bandage]

30. More empty saber-rattling. n/t

[Rex]

39. They actually think hundreds of thousands of troops are going to attack?

From where? China?

[Zhade]

42. Can any honest person blame them?

Note the key word: invaders.

We'd do the same, if our citizens were threatened daily.

[jimmyflint]

90. So they are digging holes in the sand

Next thing you know they will be yelling la la la la la la la and shooting guns in the air.

[readmoreoften]

92. You're confusing Iran with another country.

Iran is mostly mountains.

[1]

91. sure they are...

that's what i would be doing in their place...


"We do not wish the families of enemy soldiers to experience what Americans had to go through in the aftermath of the Vietnam War,"


right...

[treestar]

93. This is a waste of their own time

As to scaring the U.S. off, it's ridiculous. Reminds me of the Iraqi Information Minister.

[readmoreoften]

95. Why they don't have to dig graves for us in Iraq because we're digging our own?

Tehran
- Urban 7,705,036
- Metro Pop 13,413,348

[treestar]

96. Photos of Tehran always show how beautiful it is

Someone on DU posted a set that included children crossing streets, etc. The M$M will of course avoid these like the plague, since they'd rather conjure up a verbal image that is very different.

[leftchick]

99. here is a realistic scenario if the US starts this insanity....

I actually think the US base in Qatar would be an initial target as well...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9437


<snip>


If the United States attacks Iran either this summer or this fall, the American people had better be prepared for a shock that may perhaps be even greater to the national psyche (and economy) than 9/11. First of all, there will be significant U.S. casualties in the initial invasion. American jets will be shot down and the American pilots who are not killed will be taken prisoner - including female pilots. Iranian Yakhonts 26, Sunburn 22 and Exocet missiles will seek out and strike U.S. naval battle groups bottled up in the narrow waters of the Persian Gulf with very deadly results. American sailors will be killed and U.S. ships will be badly damaged and perhaps sunk. We may even witness the first attack on an American Aircraft carrier since World War II.

That’s just the opening act.

Israel (who had thus far stayed out of the fray by letting the U.S. military do the heavy lifting) is attacked by Hezbollah in a coordinated and large scale effort. Widespread and grisly casualties effectively paralyze the nation, a notion once thought impossible. Iran’s newest ally in the region, Syria, then unleashes a barrage of over 200 Scud B, C and D missiles at Israel, each armed with VX gas. Since all of Israel is within range of these Russian built weapons, Haifa, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and virtually all major civilian centers and several military bases are struck, often with a result of massive casualties.

The Israeli Air Force orders all three squadrons of their F-16I Sufa fighter/bombers into the air with orders to bomb Tehran and as many military and nuclear bases as they can before they are either shot down or run out of fuel. It is a one way trip for some of these pilots. Their ancient homeland lies in ruins. Many have family that is already dead or dying. They do not wait for permission from Washington, DC or U.S. regional military commanders. The Israeli aircraft are carrying the majority of their country’s nuclear arsenal under their wings.

Just after the first waves of U.S. bombers cross into Iranian airspace, the Iranian Navy, using shore based missiles and small, fast attack craft sinks several oil tankers in the Straits of Hormuz, sealing off the Persian Gulf and all its oil from the rest of the world. They then mine the area, making it difficult and even deadly for American minesweepers to clear the straits. Whatever is left of the Iranian Navy and Air Force harasses our Navy as it attempts minesweeping operations. More U.S casualties.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. That one falls into the worst case scenarios

though Strattford mentioned three carriers lost, not one

FORTUNATELY... not that people usually realize this... worst cases don't usually happen.

And there is still a WORT case than this one

The US attacks using first strike nuclear capability and we enter the realm of Mutually Assured Destruction

[Pavulon]

105. Complete bullshit..Your crap mentions VX

that initiates the death of everything inside Iran. Point fucking plank. This is a binary response by the us.

We would launch trident and mx missiles and dump thousands of megatons into that country for using nerve gas, in any type on strike.

In a conventional war, that is assumed to be a response to Israeli strikes, we consider that an open act of war on the us.

If we are attacked I truly feel sorry for the people who happen to live there. The level of conventional destruction that would be poured on after their SHITTY soviet and russian technology is peeled away by stealth jets and cruise missiles would be terrible.

We spend trillions on technology to kill nations, not build schools and sell democracy. Any attack or war with the US would be monumentally stupid.

Strategic attacks limited to non civilian targets would kill several hundred thousand.

A quick read of janes topics on Iran, siop, and US air force and naval aviation backs this up.

Pray this is all bullshit designed to jack up oil prices.

[leftchick]

115. "my crap'? Try the author's experince in intelligence in the article

as opposed to your bizarre crap....


Dave DeBatto BIO

David DeBatto is a retired U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent, veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom, author and news analyst. He is co-author of the four-part “CI” series published by Warner Books, author of the upcoming non-fiction, “Counter to Intelligence” from Praeger Security International, as well as several magazine articles in such publications as: Vanity Fair, Salon and the American Prospect. He has appeared on all the major TV cable news and radio networks as a guest analyst and expert discussing the War on Terror, Iraq, the U.S. Military and Intelligence agencies. David was formerly co-host of the nationally syndicated radio talk show “AMERICA AT NIGHT.” Along with publishing a weekly blog on www.davedebatto.com, he is currently working on a memoir of his tour in Iraq: “Massachusetts to Mesopotamia.”

[Pavulon]

116. What I do not DIRECTLY source to Janes or FAS

Proceedings (etc) is derived from common sense combination of public information and policy. Vanity Fair is not quite the same.

Like the long standing principle that any use of chem bio will trigger a nuclear response. PERIOD. They would be showered with warheads from SLBM and ICBMs assuming that was the fastest method to respond to a chem bio attack. Syria and Iran would be destroyed in that event listed in your post.

If we were going to attack Iran they would not see it coming and the SHIT soviet era equipment Israel just flew by in syria to blow up a nuclear reactor would be unable to stop systems they can not SEE. You thing we sell the IAF our top end airframes or avionics?

Again the content is bullshit. The plan to fuck over Iran from conventional to a plan to kill everyone has been kept up to date for decades.

Hopefully this does not involve the US, for the sake of the people who live in Iran.

He should read more and write less, IAF F-15's would be used.

(edit: clarity and content)

[anigbrowl]

118. That's great, but the second part of his scenario is bogus

He asserts if oil went to $200+ per gallon (a possibility) that the US would collapse into being a third world country. This is nonsense. Myself, I think he just got tired of writing the article and wanted to wrap it up quickly. His main flaw is in assuming the economy would fall apart rather than rationing and price controls being reintroduced as a temporary stabilizing measure, as well the national petroleum reserve being used to provide a buffer during such a switchover.

Additionally, he assumes the coordinated launch of VX-armed missiles against Israel, disregarding the fact that such action would result in a nuclear response against Syria parallel or even prior to any attack on Iran. So that part of the scenario depends on the Syrian government being suicidal. I don't think so. The only source I know for the idea that Syria has a bunch of missiles ready to go with nerve gas warheads is the Israeli Department of Defense. Maybe it's true, but I still don't think they're suicidal.

[DireStrike]

119. LOL

That's hilarious. Bravo. Clap clap.