Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis

Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/index.php)
-   Political Palace (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain' (http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1312)

Robo Jesus Mar 8, 2006 01:09 PM

Iran Threatens U.S. With 'Harm and Pain'
 
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/nuclear_a...kxBHNlYwN0bQ--

Expect a lot political bullshit that will end in embargos and threats of war for the next month or so.

Lord Styphon Mar 8, 2006 01:20 PM

Moved to Political Palace for being Political Palace material.

Wesker Mar 8, 2006 07:25 PM

Iran reminds me of a WWF promo.."We're gonna kill ya..." blah blah blah..unfortunatley, its becoming obvious that they're going to have to be dealt with sooner or later. They have missles that can hit most parts of Europe, and even with conventional warheads this can wreak havoc. Their Su-24 Fencer bombers are very effective low level attack jets that can esily hit Israel and beyond, not to mention U.S. carrier groups. They on't be the pushover that Iraq was.

Sanny Mar 9, 2006 12:51 AM

*sigh* Sounds like another day at the office for this big old world of ours. It is obvious that Iran is intending to make nukes. I just hope the UN can do the right thing and slap a rock soild, non-compromising embargo on Iran before it is too late.

Cal Mar 9, 2006 07:36 AM

Of course the UN will do it right. America wants something done.

Rock Mar 9, 2006 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wesker
They on't be the pushover that Iraq was.

Three years of war, occupation and civil war with no prospect of peace.

Coalition Casualties: 2,511 (2,302 US)
Coalition Wounded: 16,653

What a pushover. Better luck with Iran.

Figures from DoD.

Bradylama Mar 9, 2006 08:28 AM

As if we could occupy Iran. Wesker was speaking militarily, that Iranian armed forces wouldn't be as easy to defeat as the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard.

Ridan Krad Mar 9, 2006 08:34 AM

Quote:

Three years of war, occupation and civil war with no prospect of peace.

Coalition Casualties: 2,511 (2,302 US)
Coalition Wounded: 16,653

What a pushover. Better luck with Iran.
19,000 in total casualties after 3 years of war is rather generous, compared to what past wars have wrought.

Rock Mar 9, 2006 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bradylama
As if we could occupy Iran. Wesker was speaking militarily, that Iranian armed forces wouldn't be as easy to defeat as the Iraqi Army and Republican Guard.

Where's the point? Defeating the Iranian army gets whatever job done?

loyalist Mar 9, 2006 11:29 AM

Quote:

Their Su-24 Fencer bombers are very effective low level attack jets that can esily hit Israel and beyond, not to mention U.S. carrier groups. They on't be the pushover that Iraq was.
The US also has laods of weaponry specifically designed for conventional warfare, especially agianst Svoiety equipment. A B-2 can take off in the US, bomb multiple targets and land without ever stopping for refuelling. As for B-52's, with proper escorts...well, you thought Dresden was bad...

That fact of the matter is, even if Iran had nukes, the US has several thousand warhaeds and ICBMs. Good luck to Iran.

Night Phoenix Mar 9, 2006 11:55 AM

When it comes to fighting conventional warfare (read: army vs. army, navy vs. navy, air force vs. air force), America reigns supreme.

The fundamental difference between Iran and Iraq is that the threat from Iran is explicit and almost everyone is united against them. So if Iran tries some shit, it won't be just America dropping bows so to speak.

Rock Mar 9, 2006 12:36 PM

When it comes to bragging about military power, America reigns supreme.

I wouldn't bet on the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force to be superior to, say, what China will be capable of soon. Their "defense" budget is already suspected to be thrice as high as the U.S.'

Plus, they don't engage in pointless wars or costly occupation of and presence in foreign countries nor do they have a Democracy to get in their way.

Atomic Duck Mar 9, 2006 12:57 PM

There will probably be a war against Iran within the year. As Bush has shown us, dipshit leaders do whatever the hell stupid stuff they want without any regards to logic.

Elcee Mar 9, 2006 01:00 PM

Amen to that, Rock. Except for one thing. The U.S. is a corporately sponsored Dictatorship with Democratic tendencies employed to project the image of representation. Either way. We're all going to die.

loyalist Mar 9, 2006 01:34 PM

Quote:

I wouldn't bet on the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force to be superior to, say, what China will be capable of soon. Their "defense" budget is already suspected to be thrice as high as the U.S.'

Plus, they don't engage in pointless wars or costly occupation of and presence in foreign countries nor do they have a Democracy to get in their way.
Irrelevent. Whejn it comes to training and technology, US forces are far superior to those of China. The US also has what is known as power projection - the US can move lots of trips very far distances in a short amount of time, and they're only going to get better at it. The US Navy is capable of sinking the Chinese navy, the USAF is the largest air force in the world, with more training and FAR better equipment than the Chinese. Without air or sea power, I'd like to see how China does against stelath bombers, attack helicopters and huge logisitical problems.

After all of that, they'd have to face not just US forces, but porbably all of those velonging to NATO as well. All of this without their economy being help up by a massive trade defecit and unfair marketing practices.

Watts Mar 9, 2006 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elcee
The U.S. is a corporately sponsored Dictatorship with Democratic tendencies employed to project the image of representation. Either way. We're all going to die.

And I thought I was cynical.

Elcee Mar 9, 2006 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loyalist
I'd like to see how China does against stelath bombers, attack helicopters and huge logisitical problems.

After all of that, they'd have to face not just US forces, but porbably all of those velonging to NATO as well. All of this without their economy being help up by a massive trade defecit and unfair marketing practices.

And I'd like to see how the U.S. does without the powerhouse manufacturing cache that is China.

Sanny Mar 9, 2006 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix
When it comes to fighting conventional warfare (read: army vs. army, navy vs. navy, air force vs. air force), America reigns supreme.

You are right that America has much more capability to fight a war then Iran, but in the end, does that make much of a difference? In Vietnam, America had superior air, sea, and army power and they still lost terribly. I think that having a modernized army definitely gives America an advantage, but in the end it all comes down to who you are dealing with.

Wesker Mar 9, 2006 04:33 PM

The goal here isn't occupying Iran, the goal would be to remove the nuclear threat, however, I doubt Iran would sit idly by and allow its facilities to be destroyed without a response. They could esily launch missiles at Israel and Europe or attack US forces in Iraq or hit Saudi oil areas. The size of Iran would make it difficult to take out all of their airbases and missile sites, but any attack on their nuclear facilities would have to include any known missile sites and airbases or their promise of "harm and pain" could be true for some.

Mr. Danielsard Mar 9, 2006 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elcee
The U.S. is a corporately sponsored Dictatorship with Democratic tendencies employed to project the image of representation.

Thats exactly why the US would be looking forward to invade Iran eventually... that place as the whole region is an oil field

Bradylama Mar 9, 2006 07:30 PM

Even assuming that China has a defense budget three times as big as that of the United States, is that Per Capita? Would China be reducing the size of its Armed Forces to meet Americans on limited fronts? China, in case you haven't noticed, is pretty fucking big. The focus of the People's Army is to defend said big fucking country, not to become a projecting force. If anything, a modern Chinese Army would be one designed to protect itself from Western aggression, and their interests in South Asia. (particularly concerning India)

That said, an Amero-Chinese war would hurt both sides economically, but where America has a huge domestic market, China doesn't. Without anybody to buy the stuff that they make, the Chinese economy would tank. America, on the other hand, would still be in relatively good shape assuming the Chinese didn't invade Vietnam and Taiwan.

The problem concerning Iran, as Wesker pointed out, is ending their nuclear capability, and since the Iranians aren't nearly as close to getting the bomb as people think they are, it's simply a matter of locating all of their nuclear facilities, and taking them out from the air. Not the easiest of tasks, but it's not as if we wouldn't have enough time.

Wesker voiced concern that the Iranian Air Force would be capable of resisting the USAF somewhat, as well as being capable of delivering some nuclear weapon to Israel or Europe. Israel is all that counts, though, since they've got warheads pointed at everybody.

That said, I really doubt that the Iranians would ever be able to acquire the money, planes, or training to ever go toe to toe with the USAF, or even the Russians.

xen0phobia Mar 9, 2006 07:31 PM

Quote:

Thats exactly why the US would be looking forward to invade Iran eventually... that place as the whole region is an oil field
yeah because attacking iran would make oil prices go down... wait no. Similary, anyone who says we went into iraq for oil is first, a complete idiot, and second obviously never takin an economics class. But, thats beside the point.

Whats up with all the talk about the US. Doesn't Europe care at all what iran is doing? They try to act like that do but it seems they never have any threats to back it up. They're at more risk anyways. I really hope we don't attack Iran unless Europe agrees to help out. Not send 50 troops and call it quits but really help.

Bradylama Mar 9, 2006 07:42 PM

Invading Iraq for Oil is as the (American) Civil War was fought over slavery. No matter what incentives, causes, or objectives anybody has doesn't change the overriding circumstance, that we wouldn't have invaded Iraq if it wasn't for oil.

Kalekkan Mar 9, 2006 08:39 PM

It'll be interesting to see if China and Russia go along with sanctions against Iran or veto. They are both political and economic allies however it's believed that in the long-term Russia would lose benefits from not going along with the sanction and most don't seem to think that China would stand up alone for Iran.

One thing I've read that really bugs me too is that Iran feels that it is part of the NPT, but didn't a revolution happen after the treaty? Wouldn't it technically be a different nation?

Why Am I Allowed to Have Gray Paint Mar 9, 2006 09:02 PM

I read somewhere that Russia would use its power of veto to protect Iran, which makes sense because Russia has significant interests in that country.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:13 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.