"Iran has never proven itself in a war. It's military experience is theoretical while Israel's is war tested."
Israel is war tested! Like bombing defenceless trapped civilians in Gaza! LOL
Also it is Israel that takes handouts from the USA.
Posted by: kamran at March 11, 2009 9:55 AM
Reading the above comments by Iranians above made me laugh. It's funny to me that Iranians believe their own propaganda. This will be their down fall. Iran will not be underestimated and Israel alone could destroy their entire air force with in 24 hours most of them before they even take off.
Their air force is outdated. The limited technology they possess would be destroyed by the second day once their air force is dispatched. Israeli pilots would shoot down their planes at will and Israeli missiles are far superior than Iran's more accurate and more powerful.
Iran could not advance more than ten miles into Iraq and Tehran was bombed by Iraq at will. The SAM sites would be knocked out and Iran's oil fields set ablaze within hours. Iran's navy would be scuttled within the first 6 hours. Once the air force is destroyed (in 24 hours) Israel will target Iran's military bases, armor columns and cities. Any attempt by Iran to enter Israel's air space would be met with Air defense system beyond comprehension to them not to mention that one Israeli pilot in a dog fight would shoot down numerous Iranian fighter planes.
Iran has never proven itself in a war. It's military experience is theoretical while Israel's is war tested. Iran has no economy to speak of. It cannot even refine it's own oil. Once Israel sets ablaze Iran's oil fields and renders them permanently useless the Iranian economy (not the world's) will collapse. The world's dependence on oil will be find other sources and the momentary dip in the economy will lead to using other energy sources while Iran has no other income or industry worthwhile to speak of.
If Iran wanted to use non-conventional weapons, Israel has weapons that the US could only dream of. I won't go into details but lets say that some well placed artillery and missile salvos would leave Iran's major cities and military installations in ruins.
Israel's commandos already operate freely in Iran. It is easy to infiltrate Iran. It's borders are porous and undefended. Iran's air defense system boasted above is pure propaganda. They only have effective coverage over the Persian Gulf but the rest of Iran is poorly covered.
The primitive stealth planes Iran possess are picked up on US and Israel detection systems but do you think we allow Iran to know this when it occurs? No of course not but its so obvious.
I have not even went into heavy stuff Israel would hit Iran with for that is classified and I am not speaking of nuclear weapons. If Iran wants to continue as a nation they should change their regime, stop supporting terrorism, cease their nuclear ambitions, and join the free world of nations. Iran's path as a rogue terror state will only bring Iran to it's destruction. Once Iran's oil producing capabilities are destroyed it's strategic value will be non existent, the weapons programs will freeze up, their huge debt will balloon, their currency will be devalued and made even more worthless, no money, no trade, no bridges, no ports, no airports, and all in two weeks. If this was a combined US, NATO Israel strike than 3 days is predicted to nullify Iran's armed forces, infrastructure to a manageable level.
Again, I am not underestimating Iran and I am sure if Iran fought Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia it would win. I am sure Iran will harm Israel with it's missiles before Israel could devastate Iran but once Iran crosses the line it will be so horrendous for Iran I pray to G-d that it won't occur for Iranians sake for I have Iranian friends there. I realize that most Iranians are opposed to their regime and live in fear of it.
This is why I advocate a more limited surprise attack directed at Iran's leaders first which would cause Chaos in a dictatorship like Iran which would degrade their strategic plans for Iran is completely top heavy when it comes to the ability for subordinate officers to operate without command.
The suicide mentality of Iranians won't phase Israelis and it proved useless against Iraq. It is Iran's suicide mentality that is guiding it towards war with Israel and the US. If Iran wants to commit collective suicide that is fine but we will not allow Iran to take us with them. Mark my words whom ever might read this. The propaganda you have your heads filled with are not based on reality. Iran is a paper tiger and has not proved EVER otherwise.
Posted by: Baruch Gold at March 9, 2009 7:00 AM
Reading the above comments by Iranians above made me laugh. It's funny to me that Iranians believe their own propaganda. This will be their down fall. Iran will not be underestimated and Israel alone could destroy their entire air force with in 24 hours most of them before they even take off.
Their air force is outdated. The limited technology they possess would be destroyed by the second day once their air force is dispatched. Israeli pilots would shoot down their planes at will and Israeli missiles are far superior than Iran's more accurate and more powerful.
Iran could not advance more than ten miles into Iraq and Tehran was bombed by Iraq at will. The SAM sites would be knocked out and Iran's oil fields set ablaze within hours. Iran's navy would be scuttled within the first 6 hours. Once the air force is destroyed (in 24 hours) Israel will target Iran's military bases, armor columns and cities. Any attempt by Iran to enter Israel's air space would be met with Air defense system beyond comprehension to them not to mention that one Israeli pilot in a dog fight would shoot down numerous Iranian fighter planes.
Iran has never proven itself in a war. It's military experience is theoretical while Israel's is war tested. Iran has no economy to speak of. It cannot even refine it's own oil. Once Israel sets ablaze Iran's oil fields and renders them permanently useless the Iranian economy (not the world's) will collapse. The world's dependence on oil will be find other sources and the momentary dip in the economy will lead to using other energy sources while Iran has no other income or industry worthwhile to speak of.
If Iran wanted to use non-conventional weapons, Israel has weapons that the US could only dream of. I won't go into details but lets say that some well placed artillery and missile salvos would leave Iran's major cities and military installations in ruins.
Israel's commandos already operate freely in Iran. It is easy to infiltrate Iran. It's borders are porous and undefended. Iran's air defense system boasted above is pure propaganda. They only have effective coverage over the Persian Gulf but the rest of Iran is poorly covered.
The primitive stealth planes Iran possess are picked up on US and Israel detection systems but do you think we allow Iran to know this when it occurs? No of course not but its so obvious.
I have not even went into heavy stuff Israel would hit Iran with for that is classified and I am not speaking of nuclear weapons. If Iran wants to continue as a nation they should change their regime, stop supporting terrorism, cease their nuclear ambitions, and join the free world of nations. Iran's path as a rogue terror state will only bring Iran to it's destruction. Once Iran's oil producing capabilities are destroyed it's strategic value will be non existent, the weapons programs will freeze up, their huge debt will balloon, their currency will be devalued and made even more worthless, no money, no trade, no bridges, no ports, no airports, and all in two weeks. If this was a combined US, NATO Israel strike than 3 days is predicted to nullify Iran's armed forces, infrastructure to a manageable level.
Again, I am not underestimating Iran and I am sure if Iran fought Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia it would win. I am sure Iran will harm Israel with it's missiles before Israel could devastate Iran but once Iran crosses the line it will be so horrendous for Iran I pray to G-d that it won't occur for Iranians sake for I have Iranian friends there. I realize that most Iranians are opposed to their regime and live in fear of it.
This is why I advocate a more limited surprise attack directed at Iran's leaders first which would cause Chaos in a dictatorship like Iran which would degrade their strategic plans for Iran is completely top heavy when it comes to the ability for subordinate officers to operate without command.
The suicide mentality of Iranians won't phase Israelis and it proved useless against Iraq. It is Iran's suicide mentality that is guiding it towards war with Israel and the US. If Iran wants to commit collective suicide that is fine but we will not allow Iran to take us with them. Mark my words whom ever might read this. The propaganda you have your heads filled with are not based on reality. Iran is a paper tiger and has not proved EVER otherwise.
Posted by: Baruch Gold at March 9, 2009 6:59 AM
Hello there
I am a fan of fast planes and while I was surfing and searching for Su 30- Su 47 and ... landed on this site.
Its nice to read peacful messages and I’m happy that not every one of you would like to go to a war just for fun.
I went to school in the US, UK, Germany and Austria I finished Highschool in Iran and then had to go to service for 2 years. I did this in the IRGC’s Research Center as Spokesman and Translator. during this period we were offerd to go to a theological center for Islamic studies studies (mullah School) I and some other friends accepted it just for the reason to spend some time outside- though I have to admit it became very interesting as we had a friendly and passionate teacher so I stood till the end.
It’s very interesting what and how the Mullahs think, what the Quran says and on what basics the Iranian Theocracy is build up. there are somany verses in the Qoran that say “...and those are Men of God thay believe in Christ and the Bibel...and thay belive in Moses and theTorat...” and one specific Verse that says: “...and they will ask you who is a true believer answer to them its any one who believes in God and one of his Books ...and when you speek of Gods grace he has tears in his eyes ...for not only you are Moslems but anyone who believes in God”. In Fact the word “Islam” means Devotnes and “Moslem” Devoted and as believers (in Arabic Momens) are devoted to God thay call themselves Moslems.
As a trusted spokesman (that means I knew how to tell the Truth so that not all Facts would be outed) and translator I had an access to many top informations and found myself often sitting arround a table With Russian or Chinese Generals. My Infos may be Old (98/99) but thay are Facts: we had to translate all the Contracts from the Mother Language into English and then into our own as all the Contract-Signers understood Englisch and no one the Language of the other one. Practically all Contracts were signed as secret that ment: you would keep it secret for a given time (mostly 5 years) and then keep denying it to the Public. I translated some very Interesting Contracts one was the joint production of Anti-Explosion Blankets to be used against a granate or failed Bombs or to cover the tribunes as bulletproov ( have you ever seen the Iranian Leaders at a Tribune there is always some white sheet with slogans on it, these cover that Blanket) one other was building up Sheep Farms to gather with Australia (the IRGC has the bigest Sheep and Goat Farm of the World they earn allot by selling and exporting these) the co-production of missiles with North Korea was another one. One of the most important was buying some 250 Su-30s, 20 IL76s, 50 MiG 29s and Air defense Artilery and misiles and so on to be deliverd by 2007 aproximatly. We had even military contracts with UK, Canada, US, France, Italy and even Israel and New-Zealand they would sell us weaponry that the other Nations wouldnt deliver sell for example New-Zealand sold us some German Armourd Personel Cariers and Israel spare parts for our planes purchased from US.
Once my General called me and sayed there is this guy who wants to buy some chinees Articles, a personal friend of mine, his translator is sick could you take over. I told him that didnt understand any chinese he said you are supposed to speek english. I went to the Chinese Embassy in Theran we sat at the pool in which some beautiful chinise girls were swimming, and I tried to concentrate on what I had to do. I ended up translating and buying Forks and Spoons and Knifes but the intresting thing was we didnt buy them in sets we bought them in Conex’s and not the same number from each for Example we bought 5 conex’s Forks of a designe and then 10 Conex’s Knife of that same designe and 2 conex’s of Spoons with a totaly different designe. The next day I asked my General what those Forks and Knifs were standing for and he sayd without looking at me, that what you imagine.
It was a crazy time. I was crazy and nosey too, I used to open many Top-Secret Mails of my Generals and towards the end of my service I was arrested for that by the Military Intelligence but as I have a well trained Toungue, I could convince them that I’m not dangerous and became a friend of all the Investigators infact I gave one of them advise on how to raise his child they managed to threaten and scare me, and then put me in Info Quarantane for the last two Months.
You know what the Mistake of the most of you guys is? You think materialistic. we have this they have that and...Our F117, their Su 30, and so on. War’s are fought with weapons but not only that, you need some Brain too. The war in Iraq is Brainless in Afghanistan the same.
Look the difference between an American Soldier and an Iranian is that the American has alot of weapons but the Iranians got heart an American Soldier would never jump on a mine and blow himself up in 100 pieces or jump under a tank carrying an explosive Vest blowing himself and the Tank. The Iranian Soldiers Belive in Death and they look ahead to being matyrd.
America may not have too many problems to bomb Iran but its not posible to fight Iran on the Ground. beside that attacking Iran would only line the Iranians up behinde their Government for they are Nationalists. even I would lieve Germany (I teach here at the University as the Assistant of a Professor) and go back to defend my Land.
Look at the Persian Gulf what do you see there what do you think of when you here that name (except of War) I supose Oil. More than 20% of the world Oil comes from that area that means all the Tankers have to pass the Strait of Hormuz the part of this strait that is deep enough for Tankers and Carriers is in the Persian Part of it. What does that say to you? Iran would need to put three Tankers northwards infront ofeach other and blow them up nothing would come and go out of the Gulf. That means No Oil = explosion of Oil prices = Crash of the world market = Crash of the Dollar = Crash of the Euro = Crash of the Stocks = another World depression.
Iran is not only a tough Enemy but it is a good Friend too. You of course remember 9/11 (who could forget it) while in the most Arab states the people went to the streets and celebrated waht had hapened burning the Flag of America, the iranians gatherd in the streets litting candles and went to the Mosque praying for the helpless, even Fox showed that. In 1998 the Taliban enterd iran and Killd a whole Town (Torbat-e Haydarieh) because the People there refused to play the Heroin traders for them upon that Iran Stroke some convoys of the taliban thay in return mrched in to the border Towns. Iran wrote an Official Letter to the UN asking to Warn the Taliban and gain support in case of a war, one Nation put its Veto on it (the USA) upon that the Taliban thought thay’d have support in Invading Iran. in Less then 48 hours Iran had its whole military in the East of the Nation had build up five Military Airports and began air strikes three times a day for three Months testing its new selfmade planes and weapons (The National Security Adviser of Clinton sayed Iran could Invade Afghanistan in less then a Week). in 2001 when America attacked Afghnistan iran cooperated. It not only permited America free passage through Iran (not only in the Air but too on the ground)and gave the USAF all Intel they had on strategic points in afghanistan but supported the US with coordinated Ground and Airstrikes. shortly after that when the Chief Diplomats of those Nations which wehre comited in Afghanistan met in Bon (Germany) and tried convince the different Parties of Afghanistan to unify and set a government with all the tribalchiefs in a position, the Persian Afghans (North and West Afghanistan would not sign the treaty unless “this and that” which in the eyes of the US where imposible. Iran then Managed to convince them to accept what the US wanted. after that meeting the Iranian Forign Minister who was at a UN meeting wrote a Note and Let some one hand it over to Collin Powell which read as much as this: we are willing to have friendly relations. Mr. Powell looked up at Mr. Kharrazi and the later nodded. (You can read all this in the News week of a year ago) Well I dont know what drove Mr. Bush when he a month later put Iran togather with North Korea and Iraq in the Axis of Evil. That blowd every thing and the hard liners in Tehran where convinced of America being their enemy no matter how you come. Ahmadinejad at that Time a Candidate for the Presidency was smart enough to blame America while Rafsanjani the Mullah gave American friendly tones: you see the Result. with Bush and Ahmadinejad its imposible to build up a friendship or at least neutral Positions. Lets hope and pray their Successors will be Better.
And Pleas dont be happy or eager to see a war down there that would mean World War III (the sleepers would all be wakend) and that would be extremly dirty. for all of us.
Pardon my bad English.
Posted by: Lenard at February 1, 2008 1:40 PM
First off Iran has the Kolchuga passive sensor - the Ukrainian Passive Early Warning Radar that detects Stealth fighters like the F-117, B-2 & F-22 without them even knowing hence the word Passive
Secondly some of you are right about the Iranian Air Force it is weak because for the past 30 Years we have been trying to build our own fighters and in 2004 a trainer version of a new Iranian Stealth fighter called Shafaq was built in 2010 the M-ATF will be out and by 2012 will have the F/B-44 & Morghe Ashura and in the next 10 years Iranian Air Force will go to another level
Its funny how you all forget about the Iranian Missile & UAV forces yes your F-22 will takeoff but once they do and we know where they came from they will have no where to land and they will eventually run out of Missiles and Fuel
Iranian Missiles have an Effective Range of 3000Km so there is no way an F-22 can take off 3000Km away and then go in to battle. We will shot down your tankers so that wont be an option
You claim that a U.S. Air Craft Carrier is the most secure Base in the world but Iranian UAV's fly over them and take videos of F-18 taking off and landing without even being detected (You can see the actual Video on YouTube)
note that the same UAV could have been armed with bombs and three Iranian UAV's could completely takeout all the fighters on the deck
Still Your Propaganda machine clams that Iranians will use small speed boats to do suicide attacks on U.S. ships
Please!
so what your saying is its easier for you to take out our Cruse Missiles and UAV's then some boat moving at 50 knots
You do sound as dumb as you look
You have no Idea who your dealing with
why do you think John Abuizaid a U.S General called Iran's Military the Strongest in the Middle East
so just test us
Posted by: S.A.F.M at October 13, 2007 10:50 AM
Im sure that the US can win a war with Iran if the US only has to face Iran alone........there is a very serious chance that Russia(and China)will get involved. Russia man even deploy short-range tactical nuclear weapons against aggressor US forces not to mention Israel. I cant WAIT to see what those Moskit missles end up doing to US Naval forces and Zionist forces!!!! BAHAHAHAHA
For the time being US troops are in deep trouble and I don't see how they will be able to head to another war!
It is interesting to note that some want to "Kick Iranian's ass" while their own "Bottoms" are being kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan. And also, The Persian Gulf can be a boiling area for American-Arab Allies.
Posted by: Lunakhod at January 25, 2007 5:26 PM
Level of your first speech have shown the level
of your mind & culture .
We will see what should be done finally .
Posted by: yashar at January 12, 2007 7:29 AM
Interesting thread. Much useful information. The usual right wing assholes spouting hot air and bile, but that's to be expected.
For the record, it *is* the Persian Gulf, that's the historical name appearing on all maps for the 20th and 19th century.
The Iranian Air force is no match for the sheer numbers and technological superiority of the United States air forces. There's no issue there. The only questions are, will they get in the air at all, and if they do, will they do any damage.
The question as to whether Iran can mount effective missile defenses or missile based ship attacks is an open one and may well be determinative. I've seen very little discussion of this issue.
The United States lacks the ground forces to take Iran on the ground. There is no real support for the notion that a military campaign against Iran could succeed in regime change or destroying a distributed/hardened nuclear program. Aerial campaigns had their best results in the Gulf War and Bosnia and Kosovo. In each case, aerial campaigns were ineffective at regime change, even regimes with much less support than the Iranians possess. In each case, aerial campaigns proved fairly ineffective at destroying military assets when these assets were stationary and shielded. Aerial campaigns proved very effective at forcing military assets into immobility, destroying them when they were moving, and very very effective at destroying civilian infrastructure. We've seen the same pattern occur in the recent Lebanese War. Based on this, I can only conclude that an aerial campaign will kill lots of civilians, destroy lots of infrastructure, but will not affect the fundamentals of the Iranian regime and probably will not significantly affect any hypothetical Iranian nuclear weapons program.
I guess then, the question is for all the rough tough warriors, is how many civilians are we prepared to murder.
And a few loose points...
Depleted Uranium is an extremely dangerous heavy element with extreme toxicological properties. Deployment in weapons on the battlefield causes it to be reduced to a fine aerosol powder, likely to remain in the environment and perfectly poised to enter the human system through respiration or ingestion. Once inside a body, it will become lodged in lungs, liver or kidneys, potentially concentrating in bladder, bones, pancreas, testes and neural system. As I've noted, it is a toxic heavy element, so there is a reasonable expectation that it would have similar toxic properties to substances like lead and mercury, whose toxicity is well documented. The radiation hazard remains controversial, depleted uranium being a low emitter of dangerous beta or gamma rays. On the other hand, it remains an emitter of alpha rays which are normally harmless as they are unable to penetrate the layer of dead skin cells which cover human beings, or penetrate a sheet of paper... on the other hand, these DU particles would be inside the body, discharging alpha rays into vulnerable and sensitive living cellular tissue like lungs or kidneys. Frankly, the matter is controversial, the discussions are theoretical, and I know of no clinical studies of the effects of DU in its aerosolized post-battlefield use form. Nevertheless, there is enough information to suggest that this is nasty stuff. Anyone who claims to be unconcerned is simply a fucking idiot of the highest order.
With respect to Fallujah, it is well documented that combat age males were refused exit from the city and were forced to return to await the imminent attack. It is not clear what the duration of this policy was, but it was clearly in place for a period of time immediately prior to the attack. The rationale was that since we could not distinguish civilians from guerillas in disguise, the only course was to assume all combat age males were potential guerillas. This almost certainly resulted in innocent noncombatants being forced back into the city and innocent people being slaughtered. Somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 people, a majority of them noncombatants, remained in the city at the time of the American attack and suffered high casualties. C'est la Guerre, bad things happen in war.
The destruction of Fallujah was not genocide by any standard. It is acknowledged that the city was depopulated prior to attack, and that this depopulation was humane and undoubtedly reduced casualties. The city was largely destroyed with 3/4 of buildings either destroyed or seriously damaged and most of the infrastructure in ruins. Years later the population of Fallujah is somewhere between half and two thirds of what it was, many former inhabitants are now classified as refugees and still living in tents. Fallujah, post-conquest is run as an Orwellian police state city, with checkpoints, ID badges required, a number of security measures, but insurgent activity has rendered much of the city inhospitable and dangerous.
Was Fallujah genocide? Not by any standard. Were war crimes committed there? Certainly, and these include unlawful killing of noncombatants, forcing noncombatants to return to the battlefield, killing of medical and ambulance personnel, murdering wounded prisoners, and use of white phosphorous. On the other hand, it has to be acknowledged that the United States went to extraordinary lengths to minimize civilian casualties, protect the civilian population, remove that population from the guerillas.
The bottom line on Fallujah is that the United States could not continue to indefinitely tolerate a hostile Islamic Mini State in its midst. The alternatives were to go into Fallujah and root it out, or to go home. There was no middle ground, no basis for negotiation, and arguably no real options. This is war, and war is ugly and brutal.
On the other hand, in the long term, Fallujah must be seen as a defeat. Despite the dispersal of the population and the destruction of much of the city, the United States has been unable to prevent the return of insurgents to the city with the population, nor has it been able to effect any reasonable level of security despite extraordinary measures. The Islamic Mini-State is gone, an unquestionned short term success, but the effort to control the territory has failed as it has failed in most of the cities and towns of Anbar province. Fallujah brings us no closer to finding a solution.
And just for the record, the use of white phosphorous against human targets, rather than for illumination, is prohibited as a chemical weapon. That's just the way it is, I don't make these rules, and frankly they're often arbitrary and irrational. But having said all that, the use of white phosphorous as weapons against human targets in Fallujah was a war crime.
Posted by: Den Valdron at January 6, 2007 11:26 AM
When Iran deploys numberous Russian ultra high-speed Moskit (Sunburn) cruise missiles and sinks most of the US naval fleet in the Indian ocean and in the gulf, including the sinking of American aircraft carriers by these unstoppable missiles. Then let me hear all of your stupid talk.
Posted by: Phil at December 23, 2006 4:27 PM
First off, I don' think that the military would be spending over $361 million for a plane unless it was the most unbeatable platform ever designed. Over the course of about two-three weeks, 20-25 Raptors could virtually wipe every plane off Irans inventory, and yes even the F-14 wouldnt be able to survive....(and I love the F-14 so dont get me wrong, but it does have some shortcomings) One a side note for the F-14's...remember that these are A models and there airframes are around 30+ years old, hence why they are being retired now by the US navy. I read somewhere that Iran could only remanufacture about 60% of the components for their fleet anyway, so maitenance shortfalls will further reduce their fleet effectiveness. The number of aircraft that are actually flyable has always been greatly exaggerated. As for their tanker fleet, those wouldnt last a single day, and would be easy air to air targets for about ANY U.S. aircraft. Although the US would prevail easy in an air war with minimanl losses, the main threat would be from surface to air missles, which will be a tougher defense to beat. Once total air dominance is achieved, then ground targets can be hit at will. Now after all this talk about an air war, the real consequences would come from a much larger terrorist threat throughout the world, especailly the radical muslim world as a reaction to US/NATO/ALLIED military action. The best possible action before any military solution is diplomacy or severe UN sanctions (that would actually work).
Posted by: Beaston at November 29, 2006 5:02 AM
Dear Sirs:
donot forget that there are a lot of differences between Iranians and Arabs.Most of you donot know that Iranians,Persians,will fight with tooth and nails vice versa of Arabs who are very coward and have a lot of fears.IRAF personnels have a lot of spiritual trainining in which they learn to defend of their countries like a sacred thing.
Posted by: Ahmad at November 17, 2006 3:38 AM
hey
I really want to c how us destroy iran military power.that would be amazing.
(from iran)
Posted by: Mehrdad at November 12, 2006 1:51 AM
hello guys. Im an iranian engneer ( in air force) . i want say to you that iran bought several new planes , like MIG-31b ( 30) su-30 mk ( ? ) , su-25( 24) and upgrade his ex-iraqi MIG-23 and MIG-27 ( both : 24) therefor see that increase his air force capability . althought we do reverse engeenering on the " phonix " aam .its righ that we cant do many thing about the usa air force bout in the region only israeil have experiance as well as us . thanks saman. u can sent your idea to this mail: oburi_62@yahoo.com
Posted by: saman at November 8, 2006 12:49 AM
hello guys. Im an iranian engneer ( in air force) . i want say to you that iran bought several new planes , like MIG-31b ( 30) su-30 mk ( ? ) , su-25( 24) and upgrade his ex-iraqi MIG-23 and MIG-27 ( both : 24) therefor see that increase his air force capability . althought we do reverse engeenering on the " phonix " aam .its righ that we cant do many thing about the usa air force bout in the region only israeil have experiance as well as us . thanks saman. u can sent your idea to this mail: oburi_62@yahoo.com
Posted by: saman at November 8, 2006 12:44 AM
I can't wait for Iran's Air Force to be destroyed by the US Air force.
Posted by: Maximilian at September 29, 2006 12:14 AM
Too many people over estimate the numbers of aircraft the IRIAF inventories. Although the number of competant combat aircraft is high, they're mostly of non US origin. Even though the former Bell complex (which I think is at Mehrabad International Airport) is quite capable of producing modern components for F-4s and F-5s, the number of F-14s has been seriously reduced from 79+2 in spares to something like 35-38. There's been talk of Iran producing new build tomcats and phantoms but this is all conjecture and there is nothing to support this theory at all. Also, there has been talk of the IRIAF acquiring advanced Su-30, 35 models but these are only in the tentative stages. It probably won't happen anytime soon as the US is increasingly edgy about countries buying the Su-30 and will put considerable pressure on the Russian defence industry to prevent any sales (look at the US acquisition of moldovan Mig-29s)
Posted by: ContractorHack at September 20, 2006 11:38 PM
I wouldn't say Iran has 300 aircraft. Most probably, they have between 530-570 operational aircraft and around 110-140 aircraft reserved (especially J-7, F-14, F-4E, F-5E, J-6, Mirage F-1).
FYI, Iran has the latest Russian and Chinese SAM systems. All integrated with communications using fibre optics cable as compared to aerial. Iran has also been granted to use Russia's spy satelites as art of their defence treaty with Russian and some CIS nations. PS. I don't think US will attack Iran due to its treaty with Russia in the area of defence protection. (I hope no one missed this out..for all you out there who didn't even know there was a serious defence treaty between Iran, Russia and some CIS states. Check it out on the web. I guess many governments know this including the US but not the people!)
Posted by: Danial at September 3, 2006 10:12 AM
Hello,
The Iranians have upgraded the following aircraft in terms of weapons systems and avionics with the help of Russia and China; MiG-23 (New weapons systems to include AA-12 missiles, smart bombs and effective RWR and flight refuelling. It also has datalink and much improved radar system); MiG-23/27; The Flogger attack version has seen improvements in avionics area and the ability to use smart munitions. Some of the smart munitions was developed in conjunction with Russian weapons manufacturers. They are also equipped with inflight refuelling system. Su-24 Fencer has been improved. F-7 fighters have also had their weapons and avionics improved. Iran is considering buying additional F-7MG aircraft to equip another 3-4 squadrons. Nearly all US jets such as the F-14, F-4 and F-5E aircraft have been mastered in areas of maintenance especially when support in the fabrication of parts comes from China and weapons system fabrication comes with the help of Russia in exchange for inspecting US equippment for research.
Posted by: Danial at September 3, 2006 10:04 AM
Hi there,
With regards to Iranian air power. They have been steadly increasing their capability interms of firepower and quantity of quality military assets. As mentioned earlier, they have receieved Su-30, a very powerful combat aircraft. The Su-30 may be going through the latest version that includes latest state of the art anti ship and submarine weapons and the much improved AA-12 Addar missiles and possibly a new missile as similar to the F-14 Pheonix. What's more they also have the latest weapons that goes with some Russian aircrafts.
Pilot training is very well planned. They have revamp their training programs. Years has been spent on developing an effective top gun training program. I was informed that an Iranian pilot gets 180 hours a year.
On top of this, it is rumoured that China might be supplying around 90 FC-1 combat aircraft and 60 F-10 combat aircraft.
Posted by: Danial at September 3, 2006 9:55 AM
hey hello
iranian air force have mig-23&mig-27&mig-31
and Su-22&24&27&30&25
tu-22-h-6
ok
see you air
Posted by: mehrdad at September 1, 2006 8:07 AM
Correction:
The water way is called: Persian Gulf
It has always been called Persian Gulf
Hostility in the region does not change
Geographical names.
Posted by: F14-Fan at July 30, 2006 10:10 PM
hi friends
iran air force has new apility for engage to all enemy 2 su.30 resive to iran and this is 2 of 24 aircraft
and air defence complited by tour missile
iran very stranger as israel(iran and israel war is very funy)
and usa dident attack to iran because this is the hard target and big enemy
Kevin; Salam, I think the Israelis have gone a bridge too far! Wake up and Look up the USS Liberty and the Sabra Massacre. Brave, strong, tough US and Israeli pilots kill many innocent women and children but when they are shot down they cry and beg like women and children. You can add to the coward list the IDF snipers who also love to kill innocent women and children! As proved by WW2 the Dutch are great warriors because those wooden shoes really hurt when you kick someone with them! Ouch!
Jaye- Shalom?? I am of Dutch heritage but would certainly not be ashamed if I had some Jewish blood in my veins just I as I would not be shamed if I was of Arab, Persian, Buddhist or whatever the hell decsent. Are you mocking the Jews at this very difficult time for them as well as the rest of the world? Even the Arab League is expressing their regret for the unprovoked attacks on the Israelis. Your message seems to invoke many images of the Brown Shirts in 1930's Germany. As well, our fast jet pilots and those of other nations described as wimps? What do you drive to work every morning? Does backing your car out of your driveway even begin to compare to lifting off a runway with a weapon and gas laden high performance fighter mean anything? These pilots are simply doing their jobs as they have been trained and instructed. They are certainly not at peril when compared to WWI fighter pilots... but wimps? Please!! They risk their necks during every flight. As you seem to be an aviation enthusiast, you must know this to be true. When it comes to these noble warriors of all nations, please leave politics and your personal resentments and insecurities out of it.
God bless those of all nations who carry the load politicans heap upon them, Jaye.
Kevin
Posted by: kevin at July 22, 2006 3:05 AM
Kevin; I meant Air to Air like WW1 when pilots were gentlemen not wimps! F as in F4 stands for fighter! But it can also be used for small loads, not large loads of bombs! Israel must first kill all the 25,000 Israelis called Ester's Children that live in Iran so they can't be used as hostages when they and the US attack! They will do it too! War is hell! Also remember Henry Ford was a Nazi too and remember the USS Liberty and the Sabra death camp!
Shalom!
Jaye- the F-4 is a machine that was designed to kill large numbers of people. I am quite confused regarding your true feelings. You abhor the innocent lives being lost in the Middle East, but at the same time seem to be salivating at the thought of seeing the Phantom in action. If it does go into action, many will die. As well, it is not only the Nazis who strived/or strive for extermination of whole peoples. Simply listen to the oft spoken goals of Islamic extremists and even the average Joe. they are easy to source. Their stated goal is to eliminate all Jews. Sound familiar? Not sure who the Nazi is here.
Kevin
Posted by: Kevin at July 19, 2006 1:32 AM
The Nazis exterminated people Joseph, are you a Nazi?
People like Jaye really need to be exterminated themselves... I pray to God that people like him aren't actually in charge in the US military or the world will be in big trouble.
I mean, sure we have the best military, but if we don't use it responsibly, we will regret it in the end. You have to remember that the European Union is economically much more powerful than the United States and if we had an economic collapse, where would our military go?
Posted by: Joe at July 13, 2006 7:35 PM
Does Persia have the deed to the Gulf? Otherwise its just the GULF! Just a quick follow up! We will win, in the air and they will renovate our malls with their backpacks and take out many innocent women and children just like our and the Israeli planes do in Iraq and Palestine! PS I would love to see the F4 Phantom in action no matter where it was! I love that plane!
1. The USAF/USN will beat the Iranian Air Force. No it won't be a cakewalk, but they can put more airframes in the air, with more modern avionics and pilots with more flying hours, more of the time, than the Iranians can. And the losses will be correspondingly lopsided.
AA will be much more of a problem. Undoubtedly the Iranians have liaised with the Serbians.
F14s are an old airframe. I doubt the Iranians have been able to upgrade the EW capability much. They may have been able to buy Russian AAMs.
A more dangerous possibility is that they have modern Israeli stuff (remember Iran Contra?) but relations between the two have cooled a lot over Hizbollah.
2. Iranians will fight to defend their country. This is an Air Force whose pilots were imprisoned for plotting a coup against the government, and petitioned to be let out of prison to go and fight the Iraqis.
They were let out, and many of them died bombing Baghdad.
Arguing that Iranians won't fight is like arguing that Americans who vote Democrat wouldn't fight Iran because they don't like George Bush.
Iran is a nation with a 2600 year history and sense of national identity. This is also a technologically sophisticated society: they have a lot of very well educated people.
The neocon fantasy that 'the people will rise up against the regime' is just that, a neocon fantasy.
Destroying the target sites will be (relatively easy). Verifying destruction of all the key nuclear assets will be (relatively) hard.
What comes *after* that, when the Iranians put infiltrators into Iraq and Afghanistan, and attack US civilian and military installations all over the world, Hizbollah attacks Israel, plus all the other blowback across the moslem world, is another matter entirely. Imagine real attacks by nerve gas armed guerillas against civilian targets in the West.
And consider the impact on the West of $100+/bl oil. Or the destruction of key oil infrastructure in the Gulf by Shi'ite sympathisers.
Like Iraq, starting this war will be easy. Winning round 1 will be painful, but it will happen-- the US is simply the world's most powerful military machine by some margin. After a few thousand sorties, anything which isn't buried deep will be destroyed or shot down.
But, just like Iraq, the aftermath is unforeseeable and could be quite disastrous.
Posted by: Valuethinker at July 12, 2006 6:45 AM
Hello, Thanks for your nice and interesting piece.
Just wanted to let you know that the Gulf you spoke about is called Persian Gulf.
Posted by: Amir at July 12, 2006 1:04 AM
Just a quick follow up! We will win, in the air and they will renovate our malls with their backpacks and take out many innocent women and children just like our and the Israeli planes do in Iraq and Palestine! War is a good and beautiful thing it controls the population, fills hospitals and cemeteries and is good for the economy. like Patton said in the movie "So help me God, I love it, I really do"
Just a follow up to some replies. Iran operates upgraded AIM-54s on its fleet of F-14s contrary to popular belief that all AIM-54 stock piles in Iran were sabotaged. The few that were sabotaged were repaired and returned to service during the Iran-Iraq war.
Also concerning pilot training, Iran received training from the US prior to 1979. This training was then tested in the intense air war with Iraq with success, considering that Iran's air force was put under embargoes with no spares or technical advisors that Iraq enjoyed. The air war produced several aces for Iran, a couple of them on the F-14.
As far as how effective Iran's air force would be depends on how it would be used in an all out war. Yes, it has little chance in air-to-air engagements but there is potential for low flying kamikaze like attacks, especially for the air wing of the IRGC
Posted by: Kashkouli at July 10, 2006 5:16 AM
Persian Warrior and everyone lets all talk together on Abadan.net an Iranian chatroom and lets make this war, the war that did not happen! You have the Mullahs and we have the Neoconvicts but remember nothing lasts forever not the Babylonians, the Romans, the Nazis, the Commies, nothing but God and his children! Peace.
Dear Max,
I compleatly agree with you when you say that we have to find a diplomatic solution to this crisis.
First of all, i would like everyone to know that i am an Iranian Nationalist which may already have been suggested by my screen name, and i hate the government in Iran more than anyone could possibly imagine.
First of all, the only thing Islam has done for our country is to bring it down! Islam has been trying to wipe out our proud Aryan heritage and culture but it has failed and will also fail with this regime. I am currently living in Iran now and when i watch national television it really sickens me! all i see is uneducated idiots who under the Shah's regime were theifs and criminals now controlling us.
Now we are constanly being put down for not being Arab enough by out regime! When i am out with my friends just hanging out, we are always afraid that the Islamic police is gonna take us and we don't know what they will do to us.
All this said, i just wanted people to know that i want to see this regime crash and burn more than anyone over in the US but there are some very critical things that need to be considered.
For example the fact that Iranian people, love the west because they relate to the west. they love their heritage as Aryans but they see what the US and Israel is doing as a threat to the peoples independens and pride. And because the nuclear issue is a National one the Iranian people take great of offence to the Israelis and Americans claims. This current regime is sick, no doubt about it, but there is a fine line between the government and the people of Iran. Instead of the US provoking the Iranian people i think they should let the IR of Iran get a taste of their own medecine. When they accuse the US and Isreal of crimes against Humanity (which in almost all claims are true when it comes the IR of Irans claims about the US and Isreal) the US should say sure oki... lets go to court and see who wins? because i am totaly against what the US and Israel are doing in the middle east but when it comes to getting rid of the IR (the islamic republic) thats the way to do it! not war!
because the Iranian Army is much stronger than you may think, plus we have a country filled with barinwashed young people who are ready to bomb the shit out of american interests in the mid east... its not the matter of if iran can do any actual harm to America... It probably can't but i will assure you that if the US does start a War on Iran, then every US military base in the middle east will be devistated before the islamic republic is gone!
Posted by: PersianWarrior at July 8, 2006 4:27 PM
Duh, our Air Force will win! It's the shopping Mall renovations done by the Iranian cells with backpacks on, that bothers me! So lets all get on board the love train and remember we are all Children of Adam and Noah! Peace!
Max-
It shouldn't be ironic because I would then be repeating the same things Ian has been stating for many posts now. These things are documented and it's all about taking the effort to go there and read.
You seem to be a perfect example of Sheperd's spoonfed sheep idea, listening to whatever the government and restrained mainstream media throws at you without researching independent sources.
Posted by: Joe at July 7, 2006 4:26 PM
Max - I am more than happy debating this with you so please don't 'shut up'.
Please do check up on everything I say, It is all documented public record.
Unfortunatly many people are unaware of history, particularly recent history because while it may be public record, mainstream media somehow just seem to keep on missing it ........
I apologise for the length of this post but you said
'Thanks no, When people are pushing lunacy like "it's genocide against the Iraqi people", I argue, when Saddam becomes a CIA agent-I don't need to go into details, because it's all supposition and completely unsupported.'
If you read my post's re Falluja you will see why the claim of genocide was made, and the following supports my claim re Saddam & the CIA.
I do not post unsupported information.
Another very good example of a CIA-organized regime change was a coup in 1963 that employed political assassination, mass imprisonment, torture and murder. This was the military coup that first brought Saddam Hussein's beloved Ba'ath Party to power in Iraq. At the time, Richard Helms was Director for Plans at the CIA. That is the top CIA position responsible for covert actions, like organizing coups. Helms served in that capacity until 1966, when he was made Director.
In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go!
In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.
Iraq is once again a target of US regime change. Despite that, precious little is being said by the corporate media about how the CIA aided and abetted political assassination, regime change and mass murder, all in the name of putting Saddam's Ba'ath power into power for the first time in Iraq.
One thing is for sure, the US will find it much harder to remove the Ba'ath Party from power in Iraq than they did putting them in power back in 1963. If more people knew about this diabolical history, they just might not be so inclined to trust the US in its current efforts to execute regime change in Iraq.
Here then are some quotations that I've gathered on this fascinating early history of CIA involvement in the vicious history of regime change in Iraq:
In early 1963, Saddam had more important things to worry about than his outstanding bill at the Andiana Cafe. On February 8, a military coup in Baghdad, in which the Baath Party played a leading role, overthrew Qassim. Support for the conspirators was limited. In the first hours of fighting, they had only nine tanks under their control. The Baath Party had just 850 active members. But Qassim ignored warnings about the impending coup. What tipped the balance against him was the involvement of the United States. He had taken Iraq out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact. In 1961, he threatened to occupy Kuwait and nationalized part of the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC), the foreign oil consortium that exploited Iraq's oil. In retrospect, it was the ClAs favorite coup. We really had the ts crossed on what was happening, James Critchfield, then head of the CIA in the Middle East, told us. We regarded it as a great victory. Iraqi participants later confirmed American involvement. We came to power on a CIA train, admitted Ali Saleh Sa'adi, the Baath Party secretary general who was about to institute an unprecedented reign of terror. CIA assistance reportedly included coordination of the coup plotters from the agency's station inside the U.S. embassy in Baghdad as well as a clandestine radio station in Kuwait and solicitation of advice from around the Middle East on who on the left should be eliminated once the coup was successful. To the end, Qassim retained his popularity in the streets of Baghdad. After his execution, his sup- porters refused to believe he was dead until the coup leaders showed pictures of his bullet-riddled body on TV and in the newspapers.
Source: Alfred Mendes,
Excerpt from Blood for Oil, Spectr@zine.
The Ba'athist coup, resulted in the return to Iraq of young fellow-Ba'athist Saddam Hussein, who had fled to Egypt after his earlier abortive attempt to assassinate Qasim. Saddam was immediately assigned to head the Al-Jihaz al-Khas, the clandestine Ba'athist Intelligence organisation. As such, he was soon involved in the killing of some 5,000 communists. Saddam's rise to power had, ironically, begun on the back of a CIA-engineered coup!
Source: From Practical History,
London, May 2000.
1963: Qasim's government is overthrown in a coup bringing the Arab nationalist Ba'ath party to power. They favour the joining together of Iraq, Egypt and Syria in one Arab nation. In the same year, the Ba'ath also come to power in Syria, although the Syrian and Iraqi parties subsequently split.
The Ba'ath strengthen links with the U.S. During the coup, demonstrators are mown down by tanks, initiating a period of ruthless persecution. Up to 10,000 people are imprisoned, many are tortured. The CIA supply intelligence to the Ba'athists on communists and radicals to be rounded up. In addition to the 149 officially executed, about 5,000 are killed in the terror, many buried alive in mass graves. The new government continues the war on the Kurds, bombarding them with tanks, artillery and from the air, and bulldozing villages.
Source: Muslimedia:
August 16-31, 1997
Iraqis have always suspected that the 1963 military coup that set Saddam Husain on the road to absolute power had been masterminded by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). New evidence just published reveals that the agency not only engineered the putsch but also supplied the list of people to be eliminated once power was secured--a monstrous stratagem that led to the decimation of Iraq's professional class.
The overthrow of president Abdul Karim Kassim on February 8, 1963 was not, of course, the first intervention in the region by the agency, but it was the bloodiest--far bloodier than the coup it orchestrated in 1953 to restore the shah of Iran to power. Just how gory, and how deep the CIA's involvement in it, is demonstrated in a new book by Said Aburish, a writer on Arab political affairs.
The book, A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite (1997), sets out the details not only of how the CIA closely controlled the planning stages but also how it played a central role in the subsequent purge of suspected leftists after the coup.
The author reckons that 5,000 were killed, giving the names of 600 of them--including many doctors, lawyers, teachers and professors who formed Iraq's educated elite. The massacre was carried out on the basis of death lists provided by the CIA.
The lists were compiled in CIA stations throughout the Middle East with the assistance of Iraqi exiles like Saddam, who was based in Egypt. An Egyptian intelligence officer, who obtained a good deal of his information from Saddam, helped the Cairo CIA station draw up its list. According to Aburish, however, the American agent who produced the longest list was William McHale, who operated under the cover of a news correspondent for the Beirut bureau of Time magazine.
The butchery began as soon as the lists reached Baghdad. No-one was spared. Even pregnant women and elderly men were killed. Some were tortured in front of their children. According to the author, Saddam who 'had rushed back to Iraq from exile in Cairo to join the victors, was personally involved in the torture of leftists in the separate detention centres for fellaheen [peasants] and the Muthaqafeen or educated classes.'
King Hussain of Jordan, who maintained close links with the CIA, says the death lists were relayed by radio to Baghdad from Kuwait, the foreign base for the Iraqi coup. According to him, a secret radio broadcast was made from Kuwait on the day of the coup, February 8, 'that relayed to those carrying out the coup the names and addresses of communists there, so they could be seized and executed.'
The CIA's royal collaborator also gives an insight into how closely the Ba'athist party and American intelligence operators worked together during the planning stages. 'Many meetings were held between the Ba'ath party and American intelligence--the most critical ones in Kuwait,' he says.
At the time the Ba'ath party was a small nationalist movement with only 850 members. But the CIA decided to use it because of its close relations with the army. One of its members tried to assassinate Kassim as early as 1959. Saddam, then 22, was wounded in the leg, later fleeing the country.
According to Aburish, the Ba'ath party leaders--in return for CIA support--agreed to 'undertake a cleansing programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies.' Hani Fkaiki, a Ba'ath party leader, says that the party's contact man who orchestrated the coup was William Lakeland, the US assistant military attache in Baghdad.
One of the coup leaders, colonel Saleh Mahdi Ammash, former Iraqi assistant military attache in Washington, was in fact arrested for being in touch with Lakeland in Baghdad. His arrest caused the conspirators to move earlier than they had planned.
Aburish's book shows that the Ba'ath leaders did not deny plotting with the CIA ro overthrow Kassim. When Syrian Ba'ath party officials demanded to know why they were in cahoots with the US agency, the Iraqis tried to justify it in terms of ideology comparing their collusion to 'Lenin arriving in a German train to carry out his revolution.' Ali Saleh, the minister of interior of the regime which had replaced Kassim, said: 'We came to power on a CIA train.'
Richard Helms: CIA Assassination, Regime Change, Mass Murder and Saddam
By Richard Sanders, Coordinator, Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade and editor, of COAT's quarterly magazine Press for Conversion!
Posted by: Ian at July 7, 2006 2:38 AM
"Max, your comments are really unneeded, you clearly know nothing about these subjects and just sound ignorant when you denounce them with no substance.
Posted by: Joe at July 6, 2006 02:07 PM"
Thanks no, When people are pushing lunacy like "it's genocide against the Iraqi people", I argue, when Saddam becomes a CIA agent-I don't need to go into details, because it's all supposition and completely unsupported.
I think it's ironic how you insisted that I was wrong and shut up, without proving me wrong. While at the same time chiding me for not supporting statements.
Posted by: Max at July 7, 2006 12:34 AM
Richard O'Donnell, censors should not win. Please repost your comments.
Posted by: Funforall at July 6, 2006 5:40 PM
About the "nicest" thing which can be accurately said about you people, who have CYNICALLY DELETED MY MESSAGE, is that you're at least no worse than the average "Liberally Progressive Humanitarian," when it comes to the HYPOCRITICALLY, INSTINCTIVELY ANTI-AMERICAN INSTINCT--TO CENSOR MATERIAL--ON EVERYONE'S BEHALF--WHENEVER YOU CAN, AND JUST BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE IT; MINUS EVEN THE GUTS TO DO ANYTHING BUT HIDE, EVEN AND ESPECIALLY FROM YOURSELVES, BEHIND SUCH THINGS AS THE "ONLY 'RESPONSIBLE' SPOKESMEN NEED APPLY" RATIONALIZATION!!! Anyone can JUST SAY that about ANYONE or ANYTHING, and it's so much "EASIER" than having to admit, again, even and especially to yourselves, that you're NOTHING BUT CYNICALLY, SELF-INDULGENTLY HYPOCRITICAL BIGOTS!!! If you're so "SURE" the ideas I presented would be so thoroughly ill-received, by all or most of your readers, as to render the total denial to them of even a hearing the most justly expedient decision; I rather consider it incalculably more plausible to "speculate" that, if anything, you're AFRAID of THE VERY OPPOSITE POSSIBILITY!!! You're certainly out to do ME no FAVORS, and would OTHERWISE be TOTALLY DELIGHTED, I have no doubt, to ASSIST me at STICKING MY FOOT IN MY OWN MOUTH--IN THE PRESENCE OF YOUR ENTIRE AUDIENCE!!! Even more SINISTERLY, SHAMEFULLY, OF YOU, I believe you RESENT, not only the possible extent of my persuasiveness per se, but what you really discern to be the ACTUAL TRUTH of what I had to share!!! At least you can GLOAT WITH "SATISFACTION," at the suggestion that, if anything, Bush's most "Liberally, Democratically Progressive" opponents, who INSUFFERABLY WHINE about HIS CENSORSHIP, all DESERVE HIM--AT LEAST AS MUCH AS YOU DO!!!
Posted by: Richard O'Donnell at July 6, 2006 4:44 PM
Its so funny how stupid the comments from the actual soldiers and sailors sound.
You are not fighting for your country, you are fighting for your government. And they don't have your country in mind, only themselves and their personal gain. When the defense budget goes up Cheyney, Rumsfeld, and Bush Sr. (who works for Carlyle Group) gain from it. Cheyney is the biggest traitor of all, he has invested a lot of his money in European currency because he knows the value of the dollar is going to drop (because of the defense spending).
You are all so brain washed by your own government's propaganda and are now drones and sheep who will die making the rich richer.
So I really hope you soldiers can just step on a landmine next time you are massacring your way through Iraq. The more American deaths, the faster public opinion for this war and the administration will fall.
Posted by: Shepard at July 6, 2006 2:44 PM
Max, your comments are really unneeded, you clearly know nothing about these subjects and just sound ignorant when you denounce them with no substance.
Posted by: Joe at July 6, 2006 2:07 PM
Dude, Saddam was not an employee of the CIA. His prosecution is being managed by the Iraqi Government-that's why they prosecute how they do.
Our literature does not define WP as a chemical weapon-you've made an interesting leap though.
Uh, the males were given plenty of time to leave Fallujah before the battle.
DU-still not proven to cause these mystery problems.
Neat however-you seem to go to every lunatic website there is!
Posted by: Max at July 6, 2006 7:44 AM
And the following may be illuminating history....
Saddam and his Ba'ath Party were brought to power by the west. Indeed, the west is deeply complicit in the vast majority of the heinous crimes against humanity he perpetrated during his iron fisted rule. We seem to have forgotten that Saddam himself was hired by the Americans in 1963, as confirmed by former Ba'athist leader Hani Fkaiki, when he helped to compile black-lists of Iraqis to be killed in the pursuit of the Ba'athist rise to power. He was one of many exiles working at CIA stations throughout the Middle East. The ensuing bloodbath, orchestrated by the CIA, resulted in the deaths of 5,000 Iraqis, including doctors, teachers, lawyers and professors. Saddam himself participated in the massacres.
After coming to power, Saddam was considered a great friend of the United States in its strategic vision of Middle East "order." A National Security directive issued by President Bush in October 1989 described Saddam as the "West's policeman in the region." Such statements were backed by consistent and massive financial--and of course military--support to his regime. The problem is that western sponsorship of Saddam meant, inevitably, the sponsorship of his crimes. Take the notorious Anfal campaign in 1988 killing nearly 190,000 Kurds, where Saddam's forces used mustard gas and nerve agents at Halabja. Approximately 5,000 Kurds died due to the chemical attack, and another 12,000 were seriously injured.
After the massacres, despite urgent concerns raised at government level by the Senate, NGOs and other international observers, the US was granting new licenses for dual-use technology exports--materials that could be used to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons - at a rate more than 50 per cent greater than before Saddam's gassing of the Kurds. At around the same time, US Customs Service inspectors had "detected a marked increase in the activity levels of Iraq's procurement networks. These increased levels of activity were particularly noticeable in the areas of missile technology, chemical-biological warfare and fuze technology."
All of this grim history has not been lost on the Americans, who have controlled the trial process from the beginning, and see it as a way of convincing the world of moral and humanitarian principles behind US aims in Iraq. They have ensured that the case against Saddam is limited to his having ordered the killings of approximately 145 people from the Shi'ite town of Dujail in 1982. While certainly a heinious atrocity in itself, it barely scratches the surface of Saddam's massive record of repression, largely achieved with unwavering green lights from the west. These include crushing the 1991 Shi'ite uprising in southern Iraq, the 1990 invasion of Kuwait (remember April Glaspie?), as well as the genocidal Anfal campaign.
Court officials say that the 1982 incident was the easiest and quickest case to put together. Wrong. As Noah Leavitt, a professor of law at Whitman College, observes, the Anfal atrocities are far better known, involving "much larger numbers of victims, more witnesses and more documentation." So why, after two years of waiting around with ample time to construct a powerful case against Saddam for all his crimes, the exclusive focus on one mass killing in 1982?
The answer is simple. It simply would not do for the United States to have the Saddam trial collapse into a gore-filled revelation of precisely how the west connived in Saddam's rise to power, jockeyed to supply him with financial and military assistance, and actively supported him throughout his blood-soaked career.
Such a spectacle would reveal the ironic fiction that unforunately pervades the entire trial proceedings: the fact that Saddam is now being tried in a court made by the very governments most complicit in his crimes.
Posted by: Ian at July 6, 2006 5:19 AM
White phosphorus -
White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm". White phosphorus is fat-soluble and burns spontaneously on contact with the air. According to globalsecurity.org: "The burns usually are multiple, deep, and variable in size. The solid in the eye produces severe injury. The particles continue to burn unless deprived of atmospheric oxygen... If service members are hit by pieces of white phosphorus, it could burn right down to the bone." As it oxidises, it produces smoke composed of phosphorus pentoxide. According to the standard US industrial safety sheet, the smoke "releases heat on contact with moisture and will burn mucous surfaces... Contact... can cause severe eye burns and permanent damage."
The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, you will find the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."
Well, your own literature defines WP as a chemical weapon.
Falluja -
“Our mission in Fallujah was two-part,†said Col. Michael Formica, brigade commander, 2nd BCT, 1st Cavalry Division. “First: Isolate the city, allowing no one out or in so the 1st Marine Division could engage the enemy inside the city; and second, we went into a pursuit to disrupt the enemies (fleeing Fallujah) so they wouldn't get the chance to further endanger the Iraqi elections.â€
Once the Black Jack soldiers established the outer cordon around Fallujah near the beginning of November, nobody except women and children were allowed out of the city and no one at all was allowed in, according to Formica.
Any adult male seeking to leave the city was arbitrarily forced to return. By our own estimates, 30,000 to 50,000 people were in the city when the bombardment began, only 1200 to 3000 of which we believed were insurgents.
To force civilians to return to a combat zone is a violation of the Geneva Conventions. Even if an unarmed male attempting to leave Fallujah were suspected of being an insurgent our military would have been compelled by the Geneva Conventions to detain the suspected insurgent rather than return him to the combat zone.
So how exactly were they to get this US food, water & medical assistance that you claim was availible to them when they left the city that your troops prevented them from leaving ????
By the way, this ( Falluga ) is clearly a War Crime. And as with all war crimes, it won't be the generals in court, it will be some fall guy who was following orders.
DU -
Dr D Rokke, a health physicist who became the Pentagon's most senior DU expert during the first Gulf War, became convinced it had contaminated the battlefield and could be a factor in Gulf War Syndrome, the mysterious mix of illnesses that have afflicted returning soldiers. Rokke acknowledges DU's brilliance as a weapon - because it is an extremely dense metal that sharpens and burns as it hits its target, it is used on the ends of tank shells and missiles to penetrate steel and concrete much more easily than conventional weapons. But he also believes that he and the research team became contaminated. "Everybody is sick," he says. "We've all got rashes, respiratory and kidney problems. It's there; there are no two ways about it."
Dr Doug Rokke is a military veteran. He joined the US Air Force in 1967 and bombed Vietnam targets "before I could shave". Years later, with a master of science and expertise in environmental health, he was ordered to the Gulf to help protect American soldiers if chemical and biological weapons were used and, later, to oversee DU clean-up. He became convinced DU was causing illnesses such as cancer, and that the Pentagon was downplaying its dangers. When he went public with his views, he was sacked.
Depleted uranium is so cheap and effective - 350 tonnes was used in weapons in the first Gulf War and possibly 500 tonnes in this year's Iraq conflict - that Rokke says the US is reluctant to do proper studies of veterans or Iraqi civilians. "It's the arrogance. Once they acknowledge that there are actual health effects of depleted uranium munitions, then they can't use them any more; the house of cards falls apart."
There's a good military responce, shoot the messenger.
After all, it's only the troops on the ground & the Iraqi's who are at risk, the people who tell you it's safe are themselve's safe in the US.
And how long did it take for them to own up over the effects of Agent Orange on the troops on the ground ?
I'm sure that in a few years it will be obvious that breathing in DU is hazardous to your health, hope you don't mind being used for medical experimentation into the radioactive effects of DU on humans.
Your just cheaper than rats.
Posted by: Ian at July 6, 2006 4:41 AM
"Never used chemical weapons?
- The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
Noone but you thinks WP is a chemical weapon-because it isn't. I stole this from wikipedia-
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April of 1997. The Convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare"
WP is not so dependent.
"So by your own admission the US has used chemical weapons."
No-not if you mean WP.
Falluja
"The cities water, sanitation and electricity supplies were severely disrupted as a result of
these military attacks. Health services have been devastated with medical facilities attacked
and targeted. A huge humanitarian crisis emerged as the siege developed military curfews
were imposed on the cities residents. Food and water was denied to civilians- the military
used this as a weapon during the conflict. These military attacks left the city with hundreds
and thousands of people homeless and displaced. The attacks caused thousands of civilian
casualties mainly women and children.
Doctors for Iraq had medical staff working inside the city during the April and November
2004 sieges. Members witnessed serious breaches of the Geneva Convention and human
rights. These breaches have been embedded in our minds and the minds of civilians
brutalised and traumatise by the illegal acts of aggression carried out by US/ Iraqi forces."
Well, as the US banned any Western reporting we must rely on people like the Doctors who were there for information inside Falluga."
I'll just go with the reporting we got from the 3 major networks on this one. I never knew of any ban on reporting-because they reported on the whole action. So was the systematic torture of the residents of Fallujah by the insurgency not enough for you? As for food, water, shelter and medical services-all the residents had to do was head outside the city to a checkpoint-they'd find it there. As for health services, it was available-from the US.
"DU -
"Although many veterans have complained about Gulf War syndrome, the most dramatic claims of DU-related problems come from the area around Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. Iraqi troops came under heavy fire here as they retreated from neighboring Kuwait in 1991.
Women who lived near the battlefields or whose husbands had fought in the Gulf War began having more babies with birth defects, doctors say. Some survived, usually those with cleft palates or missing limbs. Others were stillborn, including some with two heads, a single Cyclopean eye or such terrible malformities they barely appeared human."
and..
"Health effects of DU exposure are typically divided into two broad categories, chemical and radiological. Further delineation is also made between internal and external routes of entry. A number of factors will determine the chemical or radiological affects DU may have, including dose, route and magnitude of exposure, and location of embedded fragments. While the most obvious health risk DU poses is to soldiers in tanks that sustain DU hits, there are others that may be affected as well. Survivors of such hits, soldiers investigating the wreckage, and those responsible for transporting or de-contaminating DU-laden tanks are all at risk to receive potentially harmful exposure to DU. With a half life of 4.5 billion years, DU may also cause harm to surrounding air, water, and soil resources and harm civilians returning to DU contaminated areas.
Of the two potential dangers DU poses, chemical affects are generally considered the most dangerous. Like other heavy metals, such as lead, sufficient DU exposure can be toxic to humans."
Uh-noone has proven that DU is linked to birth defects-there are plenty of reasons a child near Basra would have them. How about the destructive environmental policies of Saddam.
"And finally, may I remind you that Saddam was a US asset for years, the US got him into power, you had no problem providing him with both conventional and chemical weapons and the US activly supported his internal policing.
Bit rich now claiming that you had to 'rescue' the Iraqi people from him....."
The US did tolerate Hussein, but you're lying (again) about the rest. The US had no role in his rise to power, although Jimmy Carter (who seems to love dictators) never spoke out against his coup. Or if he did I can't find it, the US never supported his internal policing or gave him chemical weapons. As for our rescue, well we tolerated him over 20 years ago, now with clarity we see that it was a mistake. That's what Democracy is about.
Posted by: Ian at July 6, 2006 12:12 AM
Posted by: Max at July 6, 2006 3:28 AM
Never used chemical weapons?
- The first account they unearthed in a magazine published by the US army. In the March 2005 edition of Field Artillery, officers from the 2nd Infantry's fire support element boast about their role in the attack on Falluja in November last year: "White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE [high explosive]. We fired 'shake and bake' missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out."
So by your own admission the US has used chemical weapons.
Falluja
"The cities water, sanitation and electricity supplies were severely disrupted as a result of
these military attacks. Health services have been devastated with medical facilities attacked
and targeted. A huge humanitarian crisis emerged as the siege developed military curfews
were imposed on the cities residents. Food and water was denied to civilians- the military
used this as a weapon during the conflict. These military attacks left the city with hundreds
and thousands of people homeless and displaced. The attacks caused thousands of civilian
casualties mainly women and children.
Doctors for Iraq had medical staff working inside the city during the April and November
2004 sieges. Members witnessed serious breaches of the Geneva Convention and human
rights. These breaches have been embedded in our minds and the minds of civilians
brutalised and traumatise by the illegal acts of aggression carried out by US/ Iraqi forces."
Well, as the US banned any Western reporting we must rely on people like the Doctors who were there for information inside Falluga.
DU -
"Although many veterans have complained about Gulf War syndrome, the most dramatic claims of DU-related problems come from the area around Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. Iraqi troops came under heavy fire here as they retreated from neighboring Kuwait in 1991.
Women who lived near the battlefields or whose husbands had fought in the Gulf War began having more babies with birth defects, doctors say. Some survived, usually those with cleft palates or missing limbs. Others were stillborn, including some with two heads, a single Cyclopean eye or such terrible malformities they barely appeared human."
and..
"Health effects of DU exposure are typically divided into two broad categories, chemical and radiological. Further delineation is also made between internal and external routes of entry. A number of factors will determine the chemical or radiological affects DU may have, including dose, route and magnitude of exposure, and location of embedded fragments. While the most obvious health risk DU poses is to soldiers in tanks that sustain DU hits, there are others that may be affected as well. Survivors of such hits, soldiers investigating the wreckage, and those responsible for transporting or de-contaminating DU-laden tanks are all at risk to receive potentially harmful exposure to DU. With a half life of 4.5 billion years, DU may also cause harm to surrounding air, water, and soil resources and harm civilians returning to DU contaminated areas.
Of the two potential dangers DU poses, chemical affects are generally considered the most dangerous. Like other heavy metals, such as lead, sufficient DU exposure can be toxic to humans."
And finally, may I remind you that Saddam was a US asset for years, the US got him into power, you had no problem providing him with both conventional and chemical weapons and the US activly supported his internal policing.
Bit rich now claiming that you had to 'rescue' the Iraqi people from him.....
Posted by: Ian at July 6, 2006 12:12 AM
Gentlemen,
This is certainly a complex matter of which is best left to those who are entrusted with it.
With current state of affairs prudence seems to be in order. But for sake of Gods green earth and the lives of millions on innocents. Lets give diplomacy and Peace a real chance. Bravado and rushing in to do battle with our enemies is a recipe for disaster. We do not have enough boots on the ground middle east for a fullscale war in the persian gulf . Israel is engaged in it own yard and we sure cant transfer troops from the Korean peninsula or Indonesia etc,But we must deal firmly with them and it is only power and strength that our enemies do respect. So if our leaders do decide to use force lets hope that force is sufficent enough to deal a swift, crushing blow towards the threat they have been making to our country and the menace they are to the world . God Bless Our President Bush and all of our Great leaders who are at the control panel.God Bless The U.S.A and all her true friends. God Bless our good soldiers who stand waiting for the orders to preserve our liberty and our security in very troubled world.
Usahomebase
Posted by: Usahomebase at July 5, 2006 10:52 PM
"Just a couple of points - I don't hid behind other names - I'm me !!!
What precisly was Falluja if not genocide ?"
An attempt to close down terrorists-who executing and torturing the populace.
"Shut down the hospitals before moving in to kill everything that was there."
We actually insisted everyone leave Fallujah first and provided medical care for those we came across. Most did leave-after all the city had been seized by thugs.
"Using chemical weapons & huge amounts of depleted uranium to poison the environment for thousands of years.?
Just on the basis of DU the US is responsible for massive global damage."
Yeah-because DU is all thru consumer products too, to be used as counterwieghts and it's never been conclusively related to "poisoning the environment".
As for Chem Weapons?!!? What are you talking about?
"Yeah li
The really sick part is that its your own troops that your killing as well - after all your great country doesn't do head counts of rag heads, if your not am american your not human seems to be your point of view."
Well all those Iraqis we liberated from a dictator who operated rape rooms, gased his own people and tortured his own soccer team-well we count them, because they're on our side!
"What do you think Gulf War syndrome is from the first war, radiation poisoning springs to mind, and already the few troops who have had independant testing are showing very high radiation levels. And it's not just you guys on the ground, wait till you start having children and see the deformaties and illnesses your going to give to them. Just check out the rates for those in the first war."
Well-they have had children.... no deformities....and if there is a Gulf War syndrome caused by one factor-maybe it was the chemical weapons we destroyed, or the anthrax vaccine or the bromide taken to lessen the effects of chem weapons. Maybe it's dozens of factors-after all-noone has conclusively proven that everyone who has it has the same condition.
"So, the deaths of at least 43000 iraqis,(reported, The Lancet reported over 100000 ) the poisoning of the earth for thousands of years ( check the half life of depleted uranium sometime ) and giving every US service person in Iraqi enough radiation poisoning to guarente a leap in cancers is not genocide."
Well, we saved more Iraqis than that-as Saddam was killing thousands a year and noone is reporting cancer yet so... I guess you're wrong.
"Of course not, if it's done by the US or a client that just rates as collaterol damage.........
Posted by: Ian at July 5, 2006 08:43 PM"
You know-you ought to go to Iraq, because the school kids there would probably kick your ass. Or maybe simply outsmart you, because you're dumb.
Posted by: Max at July 5, 2006 9:29 PM
Just a couple of points - I don't hid behind other names - I'm me !!!
What precisly was Falluja if not genocide ?
Shut down the hospitals before moving in to kill everything that was there.
Using chemical weapons & huge amounts of depleted uranium to poison the environment for thousands of years.?
Just on the basis of DU the US is responsible for massive global damage.
The really sick part is that its your own troops that your killing as well - after all your great country doesn't do head counts of rag heads, if your not am american your not human seems to be your point of view.
What do you think Gulf War syndrome is from the first war, radiation poisoning springs to mind, and already the few troops who have had independant testing are showing very high radiation levels. And it's not just you guys on the ground, wait till you start having children and see the deformaties and illnesses your going to give to them. Just check out the rates for those in the first war.
So, the deaths of at least 43000 iraqis,(reported, The Lancet reported over 100000 ) the poisoning of the earth for thousands of years ( check the half life of depleted uranium sometime ) and giving every US service person in Iraqi enough radiation poisoning to guarente a leap in cancers is not genocide.
Of course not, if it's done by the US or a client that just rates as collaterol damage.........
Posted by: Ian at July 5, 2006 8:43 PM
Chris,
You say Turkey is operating air bases in northern Iraq? I've been to Kurdistan twice. And I haven't seen any Turkish bases. Where are they? And where did you get this info from?
Reason I ask is ... Kurds don't like Turks. And an overt Turkish military presence in Iraqi Kurdistan would be a big big deal.
Allthough a problem, the main problem is not the military. The political and ecomincal problems are much much greater.
Russia, China and Turkey are all very important players in this game.
RUSSIA:
Russia do not want even more US influence in the region. Specially not in the area surrounding the oil-rich caspian sea. Russia earns a lot from weapon and technology export in the middle-east, and Iran in particular has placed huge orders for anti-air and anti-ship missiles. Russia is building a nuclear power plant in Iran, and Iran has stated it want to build one plant every year for the next 20 years.
CHINA:
Today, China DEPENDS on a steady flow of Iranian oil. China is the second largest economy after the US, and has also become very important for the US economy (third largest trade partner to the US). Its economy is expected to become the worlds largest within the next 15 years.
TURKEY:
The majority of the people and most of the army are very anti-american. On the other hand, the government is very pro-american (and european). There have been numerous diplomatically concealed hints from military commanders that unless the government act wisely a coup d'etat will happen. (it wouldn't be the first coup). The cyprus-problem and the kurdistan-problem are the main issues here. However, the Turkish military is split in 4 so-called schools, the French (navy), German (submarines), American (air) and Turkish (army), each with different views. There are many speculations of a secret pact between the army and Iran. Also, Turkey is still present and operating in northern Iraq, even with airbases!
IRAN:
The status of the Iranian military is another issue. Iran has bought extremely advanced russian missiles including S-300-PMU-2 air defence and SS-N-22 anti-ship missiles. The NUMBER of missiles and systems in operation remains unknown. Despite this I believe the US would be able to attack Iran but it will come at a cost. One problems is of course that the targets are spread around the country, a country much larger than Iraq.
However, what happends AFTER the attack is another issue. Iran basically controls the shia-population in Iraq (the one that cooperates with Iran) through it's mullahs. They can easily increase the resistance in Iraq, by providing training and weapons to the Iraqi resistance. For instance, by giving away some handheld Igla missiles ("russian stinger") to shoot down coalition choppers.
Add to this the possibility to their control of the Hormuz-strait in the Persian Gulf. Also, Iran might be capable to control the persian gulf from mobile missilesystems for a month or two. Then what will happend to the supplyline to Iraq? And even more important, to the oil exported from Iraq? $130-150 a barrel must be expected. As a comparision the pre-Iraq war price was $20-25 and today it is $65-75.
A NUCLEAR IRAN?
Well. IF Iran, not only choose to develop nuclear power, but also develops a bomb. What threat do they pose and to whom? The only real threat they pose is to the west is immunity against attack. An attack on Israel would be extremely unlikely for two reasons. 1 Iran supports the Paletinians. 2 Iran would be totally destroyed. Another problem is that Iran might give away technology to poorer third-world countries. Considering the amount of time and money required to get nuclear and to build a bomb I'd say its very very unlikely they would give this away to Sudan or any other third-world nation.
*my two cents*
Posted by: Chris at July 5, 2006 5:43 PM
Moose, thanks for a little sanity.
Posted by: Max at July 5, 2006 4:54 PM
So the reason for a diplomatic course is that we're too afriad of the challenge Iran represents? Um, no F-ing way. By that reasoning anybody that we can take with material ease we should, and we jsut don't stand up to the real threats. Horse-droppings.
We take the diplomatic course becuase we're the United States, not the fracking USSR. We have the most powerful military in the history of mankind, enough power to incinerate who nations and declare ourselves overlords of the world. But we negotiate, we make treaties and hold talks, becuase we're not the Great Satan, our force is our protection, our insureance, not our iron fist. We use diplomacy BACKED by the threat (and sometimes use) of force.
Attacking or not attacking Iran should not be weighed on how badly they can hurt us, becuase THAT devalues the troops' lives, and the lives of all involved, to a numbers game. The choice has to be whether its the right thing to do, whether if 20 or 2000 men and woman die its for a honorable and just cause.
Secondly, to anyone who thinks the US policy in Iraq is in any way, shape, or form genocide: kiss my ass. Seriously, pucker up. Yes, too many civilians have died in Iraq, and thats a tragedy. But the troops are the ones keeping that country together for a people more interesting in killing each other over 3000-year-old differences rather than working for the common good.
Posted by: Moose at July 5, 2006 4:10 PM
It's pretty obvious no one read Cooper & Devlin's article before shooting off the testosterone. As a MilAir journalist, Cooper hands down has the best contacts and research on the IRIAF. He could be Intelligence, except with this administration, he's disqualified by actually having it.
Per the article, the IRIAF has no illusions about being able to stop US air power, but they aren't going to roll over like the Iraqis. They aren't running off a USSR-style central command structure. They train and conduct exercises often. While not an example of real-world conditions, COPE India should have driven home the lesson of underestimating a dedicated Air Defence Force.
Their jets are well maintained. There's talk of weapons and avionics upgrades funded by the oil sold at obscene prices (thanks a pantload, Mr. President). Yes, there are working AIM-54s on those Tomcats. US opinions are mixed, but we never fired one in anger; Iran's Cats did. There's a reason Iraqi air steered clear of USN F-14s in 90-91.
Take ASW defences: missiles, suicide speedboats, mines. How're the Aegis and Phalanx systems going to fare against a couple dozen Chinese-built missiles? If the reports on spotty tracking of the NORK launches are an indicator, not well.
Then there's the country itself: much larger than Iraq with much more problematic terrain, not the flat wide-open ground of Iraq. The ordinance that'll have to be expended to guarantee success would be horrendous. And anticipating the typical response, if you think the rest of the world's got a grey opinion of the US now, it'll be a helluva lot worse if we use a nuke.
And none of that even considers what troops left in Iraq would do when the increasingly pro-Iran Shi'ites there decide to join the insurgents in killing Americans, never mind Hezbollah's 'assymetrical' worldwide response.
No, Iran wouldn't have a prayer against US air power, but the cost in money and in US lives would make 3 years in Iraq look like a bad traffic accident.
Posted by: DC in CA at July 5, 2006 1:54 PM
All of you will be surprised in the near future. America is being led to a path of destruction and you are all blind to seeing it. It’s great! Your government is using all of you, end the end you are just a number. The majority will not care if and when you die. Take a look at your country when you return from your tour. You probably won't even have a home to live in, you will probably have limited $$ too and your people will not even respect what you have done for them. You will be an old story. How are you treated after your tour? What happens when you return from a war? You think its all glory? Think about it.
War is great. Let's kill and nuke each other. Mankind’s true nature.
I like the warrior talk I am reading, its refreshing. You guys are so pumped up you would give your life for any cause your country sends your way. Sweet! I never thought human manipulation would get this far.
Is it not great being human. I look forward to the future chaos and destruction. Keep it up!
Mabus
Posted by: mabus at July 5, 2006 1:29 PM
Mr. Keller-you can use your real name! You needn't use "Ian" and "funforall"!
That's Michael Moore in the role of "Rambo" right?!?
Posted by: Max at July 5, 2006 7:00 AM
I say we just invade Iran. Occupy the country, drain the crude oil and natural gas. The GIs can do all they like to the women and gals just like they raped Iraqi girl last month. The UCMJ will always be there to protect us from any international law.
After all, no other nation is a match to the US armed forces. This is why we have the license to do anything we like to the people in the countries we occupy. Semper Fi
Posted by: Rambo at July 5, 2006 6:37 AM
I agree that the US military could destroy Iran with miminal losses but it can not occuppy Iran with out committing genocide by using totally indescrimnate force against the Iranian population or bringing back the draft. If the draft comes and I am forced to choose between killing Iranians and neo-cons (fake Americans) for me it would be an easy choice to kill neo-cons. You neo-cons who call all of us real conservatives and libertarians leftist because we oppose the war in Iraq and the comming war in Iran as unconstitutional and immoral can not get away with calling us leftists forever. Your day will come. All wars are civil wars.
Long live our Republic, death to our empire.
Posted by: Funforall at July 5, 2006 6:01 AM
I love this "world's wealthiest nation" stuff. What the USA has is the world's biggest debt. This debt is continually rolled over by the purchase of US Treasury Bonds by such reliable allies as Russian, China, and India. It's some time since I heard the argument that they won't stop buying these, because they need the USA as an export market. The reason I no longer hear this, is because they are in fact stopping buying them, and investing in almost anything else instead, being quite rationally sick of your bullying ways.
Posted by: Rowan Berkeley at July 4, 2006 11:47 PM
Yeah, if you guys can't win in Afghanistan, can't win in Iraqi why not start another illegal war against another country that has oil.
Operation Iraqi Freedom ( OIL, subtle... ) is an illegal invasion, ocupation and genocide of the Iraqi people.
Under the definition of war crimes by the then head of the US Supreme court at Neuremburg the illegal invasion of another country is the most serious crime of all.
The real hero's are the men and women who refuse to obay an illegal order, after all, Neuremberg again made the point that " I was only following orders " is no defence in a warcrimes trial.
Wake up people - it isn't a video game, these are real people that you are murdering.
Posted by: Ian at July 4, 2006 11:07 PM
To all of the leftists who think that we cannot win a war with Iran (or anyone else for that matter), I say piss off. We are the worlds finest military, not cannon fodder. We command the seas and rule the skies, and dominate the land. No enemy is to be scoffed at, but those of you who think that we will turn tail and run or loose due to our lack of understanding are absolutely wrong. All we need to understand is this...Locate, Engage, Close With, Destroy. It's those people who don't go to war who decry us actually winning one. Let the warriors fight the war, and if you find yourself lacking the courage, convictions, or mindset to join our brotherhood; at least show some respect for those who ensure your right to spew out your mindless, leftist opinions.
Posted by: MileHighSailor at July 4, 2006 10:46 PM
A war with Iran will certainly be a larger task than one against Iraq, but the United States Armed Forces will prevail.
The IRIAF is nothing to scoff at. 300 aircraft are a sizeable force, and their anti-ship missiles and air defense systems are things to be concerned about.
That said, let us all consider several factors in a totally objective view.
The United States Navy, that's Navy, not even the branch of our armed services primarily responsible for air defense, operates 4000 tactical aircraft. Four thousand. Even if we assume that 3/4 of those are noncombat roles, that's still one thousand late-model aircraft, armed with modern avionics and cutting edge weaponry.
Which brings us to our next subject. Weaponry. As has already been discussed, United States aircraft are armed with the very latest in air-to-air weapons (such as the AMRAAM, AIM-9X). This, coupled with a tactical picture of the battlefield, instantly uploadable to all American planes, makes our pilots have supreme Situational Awareness, the most critical aspect of an aerial conflict.
I have no doubt that, should conflict arise, Iran's air force will make the first line of defense stiff and superior. Their technology is good, and their people are decently trained. However, they lack the numbers, training, technology, and ability of the United States Air Force as well as our Carrier Strike Wings. It is our ability, as the wealthiest coumtry on Earth, to back our pilots with support, intelligence, technology, and a well-funded fighting force. While the first wave will be mean, and we may take losses, the superior ability of our forces will sweep across Iran like a storm, and their defenses will crumble. It is a statistical certainty.
That said, avoiding conflict is always desirable. I plead with all politicians - both American and Iranian - to solve this conflict without bloodshed. How many millions of lives must the desert swallow up before we find a better way?
Thanks for reading
-Cameron
-High School Senior
-Future Naval Officer
Posted by: Cameron17 - Future Naval Officer at July 4, 2006 10:30 PM
Sir ,
Please , US has the power to do what ever she wants , bomb us , maim us , blow up the nuclear sites , BUT, Please Don't play with our heritage , there is no " Arabian Gulf " , it is "Persian Gulf":-)
And to the poster that has his hope on Wimpy Son of the late Puppet , Shah , Don’t bet your Grandma’s jewel on him ! He has no support inside Iran , nada , zilch , zero !
Posted by: Iranian Girl at July 4, 2006 7:25 PM
Well,
Noah got a point, they have a decent airforce. But it would have to be in the air to be effective, that's obvious, I'm sure that it will never make it off the ground or see anything comming until its too late.
Really think about it Iran is not going to see "it" comming. "It" being cruise missiles, Stealth bombers, or a combination of both to clear a path for regular aircraft. By then Iran will have lost a good percentage of combat aircraft.
While not an easy task the Air Force knows how to ploe a road to the objective.
Posted by: Punisher1 at July 4, 2006 6:33 PM
The consequences of an attack on Iran will ignite the Middle East
Americans have little idea of the area and its people
The Brits, despite their superior arms had their tail between their legs and so will America should it decide to attack
Playing video games is a long way removed from the reality of war
Look at your inability to cope with insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing about the morale of your cannon fodder
"Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind"
Bill
Posted by: Bill at July 4, 2006 6:26 PM
Come of it guys. The USAF was unable to find or stop four unarmed hijacked passenger jets flown by incompetants on their home turf on 9112001.
What chance will you have against a real airforce.
Think about it.
The US pilots are among the best in the world
but the Commander in Chief is a dangerous treasonous fool and the Pentagon is lead by a donky.
Posted by: Steve Lane at July 4, 2006 5:41 PM
Iran is not much of an aerial threat -- it has trouble keeping planes in the sky nevermind making them battle ready. But hasn't Iran's government intimated an assymetrical response to any aggression over its skies? Iran's most dangerous capabilities are in its conventional surface-to-surface arsenal, its regular army -- its military and political influence in Iraq and its tactical stranglehold on Persian Gulf shipping routes. None of these capabilities appears particularly vulnerable to threats from the air. The danger to the United States isn't underestimation of Iranian air power, but overestimation of the effectiveness and utility of bombers/fighters in solving this quarrel.
Posted by: Eddie the foreign observer at July 4, 2006 5:21 PM
The Iranian Air Force would likely achive little more than the Iraqi one in 1991 - if it fought, it would likely down this or that attacking aircraft in air combat, but not achieve real tactical success.
Most clever would be to deploy this air force on many bases and so spare most of the anti-air capacity too - so that about 40% of the aircraft supported by the U.S. infrastructe (bases, tankers) needs to be focused on MigCAP and SEAD.
Posted by: Sven Ortmann at July 4, 2006 4:56 PM
It should also be noted that Iran has had problems with its commercial and military transport planes crashing due to inability to import parts. So much for that vaunted
reverse engineering.
Posted by: Tim at July 4, 2006 4:35 PM
Good Morning Folks,
On the out come of an Air War with Iran I agree with Andy and John it would be more of a non event then an event.
The many have all these legecy platforms but what are they going to fire at us, 1979 vintage AIM-9's?
As far as the F-22 goes, any war with Iran would be history before they could be deployed. They are way to expensive to risk against a nothing enity like Iran. A few North carolina National Guard pilots should get the job done with their "old" F-16's.
It's time to see Iran, like North Korea for what they are, just Bull Sh**ing third rate countries who like to make some noise to get a little press from time to time.
An invasion of Iran might take a little less longer then Iraq did, we wouldn't have to kiss, out NATO alley Turkey's a** to let our troops pass through, we own Afghanistan. I guess that puts Iran as the filling of an American sandwitch.
As for Korea's threat of a nuclear war. Well the little man is as you real Texans would say, "All Hat".
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
Posted by: Byron Skinner at July 4, 2006 1:08 PM
Sorry, but you grossly overstate the capabilities of the Iranian Air Force. Even without F-22's and Super Hornets, we'd still own them.
A complete tactical picture via AWACS + AMRAAM + Best training in the world > Old Aircraft + only SAH missiles + Bad training + interdicted and incomplete tactical picture.
Iran will be a much easier nut to crack from an Air Superiority standpoint than Iraq in 1991 was. Their Air Defense system isn't as comprehensive or advanced and they have a much larger airspace to defend. The one advantage is that their pilots are somewhat better trained and more able to think for themselves.
The SA-15 is a very capable system, but after the first day of the war, it will pretty much be forced to operated independently. It's a pretty short-range system and we'll have plenty of HARMS to take care of them.
Even so, I seriously doubt we'll attack Iran. There are just too many bad consquences.
Iran has an Air Force, if u call it that. Lets see the USAF has the best Fighter Plane ever built, we have a boat load of F-15s and 16s, not to mention the super hornet. We also have B-2s which are pretty much invisiable to radar, tons of cruise missiles, F-117s which are still pretty good, plus our wild weasal guys, and a ton of other good stuff. The thing is the Iranians prolly dont know how to even spell air force and that marine aviator is right we will kick their ass no matter what they got.
"Iran has never proven itself in a war. It's military experience is theoretical while Israel's is war tested."
Israel is war tested! Like bombing defenceless trapped civilians in Gaza! LOL
Also it is Israel that takes handouts from the USA.
Posted by: kamran at March 11, 2009 9:55 AM