Gates prepares for a largescale war with Iran

[Lt_Ripley]

bushco would never get the funding nor the approval - pure and simple. thank god.

...WE NEED OIL TO LIVE IN SOCIETY TODAY.

uuuuuummmmmm not really. we could change fuels and fast for our cars , homes ect......... the only ones that don't want to are the oil companies .

we have the resources and the man power to convert energy. rely on mass transit more. new fuels faster. it's a myth to think we can't survive without oil.

oil is finite anyway - the faster we move away from it the happier we will be.

In 2003 the US Senate and House both passed resolutions of support for military action agaisn't Iraq and Afganistan.

yes they did , they voted for military action , not with the information bush had but the information he chose to give them which was based on withholding facts, lies, misinformation. he , they knew there were no nukes but chose to dance around that fact instead saying saddam was rebuilding his when evidence supported the opposite. even rice and powell on video in pre 911 comments about saddam said " he was contained and was not a threat" . they knew but unless they made it seem saddam was ready to blow his cork they never would have gotten appoval.

also it was bush who pulled out the un inspectors before illegally invading - not saddam kicking them out. why? because Blix's pre reports sided that saddam was contained and not a threat so before the final report bush had them pull out by starting the pre emptive strike . Blix and the UN both state the war on Iraq as illegal - and like rummy will be wanted for war crimes.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Lt_Ripley

[Lord Umbarger]

we could change fuels and fast for our cars , homes ect......... the only ones that don't want to are the oil companies .

The most viable alternative fuel is Nuclear Paower. Big Oil might be against it but, it's not the Oil Execs that protest new plants coming on line.

Even including nuke power, there is no single resource that can replace oil. The shear fact that you would have to have hundreds of different power types makes them all too expencive to use.

Let's name a few, shall we?

Hydro-electric: You have to damn up all the rivers in the U.S. and still not have enough to replace coal. Wait, we HAVE damned up nearly all the rivers in the U.S.

Ethynol: Not so good either. You see, if you only use it as an additive your miles per gallon decreaces. To go the same distance, you would hvae to buy more fuel and in effect, cancel out any potential benefits. To switch entirely over to it would require vast tracks of farm land that we will probably be needing for food production in the future.

Solar Power: On the surface this seems good. The cheif problem comes from the facts that they are inefficient and are expensive to make. Also, they still require that you have cheap plastics, which are a result of the Oil industry.

Wind Power: Once again, good on the suface but, the wind is not strong enough every where to make it work.

Geo-Thermal:Cost prohibitive unless you live in a volcanicly active area.

Hydrogen Fuel: They require massive amounts of electricity to make the fuel. Where is THAT electricity going ot come from?

Personally, I'm big on coal and nuclear power. Coal because the U.S. and Canada are the Saudi Arabia of coal. It can be used to make cheap, clean power. Nuclear Power because the wastes could be launched into space towards the sun with a rail gun.

Other uses for Petroleum Products? Your Keyboard, much of your car, asphalt roads and streets, many items in your house, food packaging, furniture, toys, sandwich bags, lunch boxes, medical tools and supplies, aircraft parts, pens, plexiglass, shampoo bottles, plumbing materials, many printer inks, refrigerater parts, joint replacent, fans, chairs, roofing materials like shingles, drink bottles, etc.

And, bare in mind, I'm really only touching on a few of the uses. If it were not for the petroleum industry, we wouldn't have these items. Sure, we would substitute other materials but, just how much more expencive would things like hypodermic needles be? Also, sterilizing them would add tons of toxic chemicals into the water supply every year.

rely on mass transit more

Great for city dwellers but, what about those who live in non-urban areas? Small towns?

yes they did , they voted for military action , not with the information bush had but the information he chose to give them which was based on withholding facts, lies, misinformation. he , they knew there were no nukes...

So Bush knew it but, everyone else didn't? As I remember it, the "false" informatin came from outside the U.S. If it was all a big lie, how come the U.N. voted 17 resolutins against him?

it was bush who pulled out the un inspectors before illegally invading - not saddam kicking them out.

So, which one of the eight times that Saddam kicked them out was Bush reponcible for again? Was it also Bush that I saw on the news standing in front of that factory holding guns on the U.N. Inpectors while trucks of unknown cargo rushed out the back? Bush did that while Clinton was still president in the 1990's?

Not illegal. The war was concluded with a Cease Fire betwen the Coalition and the Iraqi government. Legally, we could have resumed the fight as soon as he refused to allow the first U.N. Inspecter "Unfeddered Access" to anything in the nation. We could have resumed the war the instant that he began acquiring missle locks on our aircraft with surface-to-air missles. I won't go through all the violation of the ceace fire because it goes without saying that there were many and repeated infractions.

Look, if Saddam didn't have them and wasn't working on them, he sure did everything in his power to make the world think that he did. With all the insurgensts flowing in and out across the border who knows what was taken to another country. He had plenty of time to make all the necessary arrangements before we invaded. It wasn't like he didn't know we were coming.

Sorry if I seem to be singling you out for special treatment. I'm not but, you sort of covered all the talking points there that most people sort of tap dance around. Don't take it personal.

Edited March 17, 2007 by Lord Umbarger

[Unlimited]

If gates thinks he's gonna take on the world?....he's probably going to lose........

[thecreeper]

So I was doing some online investagtion and Unless Iran is Hiding some super awesome (not likily considering how much they brag about everything new in there miltary) almost everything in Irans miltary is 70 and 80s era Soviet stuff, or 60s era American, so any war with Iran would about as long as Ground operations During Desert Storm in 1991.

[dantheman2435]

Bye America.

[LittlePinky82]

Yeah but it's perfectly cool for Saudi Arabia and Israel to have nukes right? Heh. Iran has been the neocon target since the beginning. It's in their plans at http://www.newamericancentury.org

[LittlePinky82]

Its the first line of the topic.

And its foolish to think Iran arent military advanced, Iran is most powerful military in M.E. We produce our own rockets, tanks and now even submarines and jets.

You're absolutley right. Iran hasn't had to fight anyone in a while either so they've had time to build up their army with people and weapons. Most of the population in Iran is thirty or under and don't have anything against America so it's mostly the older people who do and remember events better in their history with us.

[LittlePinky82]

Obviously the US is going to smash the living crap out of Iran. But just look at the sheer size of Iran. The US can barely handle Iraq which is the size of Oregon not to mention the fact that the US is spread far, far too thin.

The US simply cannot occupy Iran without fifty years of insurgencies and war.

The US will smash Iran? I don't think that's a bet you would want to take in all honesty. Look at the conditions of our military now. They're begging people to join and now allowing people to join who wouldn't be able to join other wise (well except those darn gays). Over 3,000 of our soldiers have been killed for lies and oil.

[LittlePinky82]

Well I guess that confirms Gates did say it. First off Bush and his buddies have to get all that through Congress. Congress holds the purse strings. No money no war. With a Democrats in control it is not going to happen. Gates and Bush can beat the war drums all they want, but in two years he is out. Hopefully the American people will make a better choice next time.

The American people didn't make a choice with Bush. In 2000 the Supreme Court chose him the winner when the people didn't decide that and in 2004 there was so much electoral fraud (government officials and not the people) we don't know who really won that election. I hope he's out sooner than two years with recent relevations of the Valerie Wilson case since that is committing treason. However the Democrats aren't so powerful in the House like you think. There are "blue dog" democrats out there and those aligned with AIPAC. Recently there was a provison in the latest Iraq bill that said George Bush has to come to Congress before attacking Iran (already in the Constiution by the way) and it was taken out. So I wouldn't count so much on the Democrats. There's only so much power the true antiwar people have and Nancy Pelosi isn't the majority leader anymore but Steny Hoyer is who is a blue dog. I do think he wants to get out of Iraq but in a different way than some other democrats do (that's why I was in favor of having John Murtha as leader).

[LittlePinky82]

Because I am beating you and you can only take on 12 year olds?!?

Ahhh yes a "terrorist war" it is now instead of a "war on terrorism". Yes al-Qaeda started a "terrorist war" against the US, but the US(George Bush) started the "war on terrorism" after 9/11. You asked who "started the war on terrorism", I replied with the correct answer. If you had asked who started a terrorist war on the US, in the first place, I would have said al-Qaeda.

If they weren't "chilling" right now there would be bomb blasts and suicide attacks every day throughout the region. It would be like Iraq but in Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc. As you said the "whole region if already infested with muslim terrorists" but the whole region does not resemble Iraq at this time, so I conclude they are "chilling" as much as religious fanatics can chill lol. Let me put it this way they are sharpening their knives but not beheading anyone at this time, thus "chilling".

This is so much fun arguing semantics with you.

Al-CIAda you mean. I don't believe anything with that group quite honestly. The only people who have told us that BinLadin and AlQida did 9/11 is the Bush government and you can't believe them for anything since they have lied about everything else. The FBI does not charge BinLadin for 9/11 and when they were once asked that said because of lack of proof and they within days started destroying a crime scene before any type of investigation and the 9/11 Commission is a total white wash. So no I don't believe AlQida did any such thing. Do I believe in an AlQida group and that they exist? Sure but I think you have to start researching the group BCCI before you can understand AlQida. That's the starting point in my opinion. And Iraq is only beating up each other. They were never any threat to us. They just want the occupiers out of their country.

[LittlePinky82]

First off let me say that I dislike war. I served in the Army for 8 years and was a part of Desert Shild/Storm. I have been shot at and have shot people. I have been in a situation where I have dealt with dozens and dozens of injured and dying folks at the same time as a medic and I hated every minute of it. I hate seeing people die, military or civilian. I hate war, but it is a necessary evil.

I believe war should be the very last resort and only as a defensive measure and I do not think that we are close to that point in iran.

HOWEVER... we do have the military strength to destroy every bit of military power, government infrastructure and means to retaliate against us and our allies in Europe without setting one foot in the country. We have stockpiles of every type of missile you can imagine and an even larger supply of bombs, both guided and unguided. We have aircraft that can deliver said bombs without being seen or caught by iranian antiaircraft weaponry. We can cause such massive destruction without use of nuclear weapons that the entire country would crumble and we would not have to fire a single shot from a rifle, or risk a death of an infantryman like we are in iraq. What we are doing iraq is a mistake and I don't think we will try to rebuild iran if it comes to that. We could level the country to a point where it is no feasible for it to have a standing military, or weaponry that could be used against us.

Could it become a hotbed of terrorist? I am sure it is an will, but so could ANY country. It only takes a single person with minimal weapons expertise to become a "terrorist" and there is no way to stop that. Any fool can make a bomb in his garage with simple supplies, so there is no way to avoid that unfortunately, the only thing we could do is to make sure that the iranian military never so much has two tanks to rub together so that they cannot be a largescale threat to us or European allies. We can do that if need be.

The single/small terrorist groups are a part of our future until we get smart enough to get out of the region completely and let it blow itself up. There are too many people inside the US that could do a lot of damage, all we can do is mitigate the large scale risks.

Hopefully they are smart and planning to do what the did to iraq in 90-91, only on a larger scale (should the need arise, I hope it doesn't). The goal would not be to make friends with anyone, the goal would be to destroy the country and that is what our military does rather well. Should iran get to the point where they wish to try to use a nuke, or try to use a missile against our mainland the gloves would come off. We tried very hard in 91, and in 2003 to avoid civilian casualties and did a reasonable job considering the fact that we were dealing with un-uniformed people hiding amongst woman and children. if iran tried to attack a civilian population center in the US, the entirety of the US would support a fullscale war and it would not be pretty for iran and I guarantee that the region would not recover to ever be a threat to us again. I don't believe in war, but should it come to that I think defensive actions should be swift and total, not metered like we tried to do in 2003.

War is a necessary evil? How do you figure? All war of any kind does is infuel more hate in people and more people will die for that hate. People need to learn how to talk to each other and find common ground and see where each other is coming from before they go and bomb the hell out of each other. Oh and also not lie about each other either for their own personal gains.

[LittlePinky82]

It sounds as if you are advocating the complete and total destruction of an entire country and its people if we were to be attacked. As, for them never being a threat agian, it wasnt a rouge nuclear program that attacked us on 911, it was just 19 guys with airplane tickets. How much of the planet must we bomb to ensure 19 guys can never get together and attack us in this manor again?

And fourteen of those so-called hijackers came from Saudi Arabia who Bush still holds hands and plays kissy with in the flowers and than there was the country UAE which helped to sponser some of them and sheltered them and Bush wanted them to run our ports and now Cheney's former company Halliburton is moving their headquarters to their country. Yeah this is a total "war on terror." *snickers*

Edited March 18, 2007 by LittlePinky82

[LittlePinky82]

I didn't include Fluffy's comments....because he is right.

OK ...time for high school government 101.....................only congress can declare war genius. In 2003 the US Senate and House both passed resolutions of support for military action agaisn't Iraq and Afganistan. The President of the US does not need congressional approval to send troops abroad...into hostile situations or to ingage an enemy as he see's fit...............he has 90 days according to the war powers act enacted by congress.......learn something here.

Again....read the US Constitution.........only congress can declare war. Probably your feebly mind thinks the "cowboy George Bush" started the war. The US congress authorized the resolutions for the "use of force".

I am truly wasting my time with a self admited 12 year old................keep trying.

No, you drop bombs to win a war. NOT to be friends...........I never said that.... my friend from the UK. How idiotiac to say the US started the war on terrorism. If you persist in this senseless discussion you will not be conversing with me on this topic.

Yes....complete destruction and submission is the goal of a war. Do you disagree?

Actually the provison said that Bush could go in only if he did other requirements first, like went to the UN and got their support which he didn't and so he violated that act right there and didn't keep his promises. So he lied and manipulated yet again. I quite honestly think the ninety day rule is UnConstitutional since he could easily declare war on a country and not need the Congressional approval which the founding fathers obviously thought was important enough for checks and balances. With this law he could go around that and really do horrible things to a country quite easily.

Edited March 18, 2007 by LittlePinky82

[LittlePinky82]

The most viable alternative fuel is Nuclear Paower. Big Oil might be against it but, it's not the Oil Execs that protest new plants coming on line.

Even including nuke power, there is no single resource that can replace oil. The shear fact that you would have to have hundreds of different power types makes them all too expencive to use.

Let's name a few, shall we?

Hydro-electric: You have to damn up all the rivers in the U.S. and still not have enough to replace coal. Wait, we HAVE damned up nearly all the rivers in the U.S.

Ethynol: Not so good either. You see, if you only use it as an additive your miles per gallon decreaces. To go the same distance, you would hvae to buy more fuel and in effect, cancel out any potential benefits. To switch entirely over to it would require vast tracks of farm land that we will probably be needing for food production in the future.

Solar Power: On the surface this seems good. The cheif problem comes from the facts that they are inefficient and are expensive to make. Also, they still require that you have cheap plastics, which are a result of the Oil industry.

Wind Power: Once again, good on the suface but, the wind is not strong enough every where to make it work.

Geo-Thermal:Cost prohibitive unless you live in a volcanicly active area.

Hydrogen Fuel: They require massive amounts of electricity to make the fuel. Where is THAT electricity going ot come from?

Personally, I'm big on coal and nuclear power. Coal because the U.S. and Canada are the Saudi Arabia of coal. It can be used to make cheap, clean power. Nuclear Power because the wastes could be launched into space towards the sun with a rail gun.

Other uses for Petroleum Products? Your Keyboard, much of your car, asphalt roads and streets, many items in your house, food packaging, furniture, toys, sandwich bags, lunch boxes, medical tools and supplies, aircraft parts, pens, plexiglass, shampoo bottles, plumbing materials, many printer inks, refrigerater parts, joint replacent, fans, chairs, roofing materials like shingles, drink bottles, etc.

And, bare in mind, I'm really only touching on a few of the uses. If it were not for the petroleum industry, we wouldn't have these items. Sure, we would substitute other materials but, just how much more expencive would things like hypodermic needles be? Also, sterilizing them would add tons of toxic chemicals into the water supply every year.

Great for city dwellers but, what about those who live in non-urban areas? Small towns?

So Bush knew it but, everyone else didn't? As I remember it, the "false" informatin came from outside the U.S. If it was all a big lie, how come the U.N. voted 17 resolutins against him?

So, which one of the eight times that Saddam kicked them out was Bush reponcible for again? Was it also Bush that I saw on the news standing in front of that factory holding guns on the U.N. Inpectors while trucks of unknown cargo rushed out the back? Bush did that while Clinton was still president in the 1990's?

Not illegal. The war was concluded with a Cease Fire betwen the Coalition and the Iraqi government. Legally, we could have resumed the fight as soon as he refused to allow the first U.N. Inspecter "Unfeddered Access" to anything in the nation. We could have resumed the war the instant that he began acquiring missle locks on our aircraft with surface-to-air missles. I won't go through all the violation of the ceace fire because it goes without saying that there were many and repeated infractions.

Look, if Saddam didn't have them and wasn't working on them, he sure did everything in his power to make the world think that he did. With all the insurgensts flowing in and out across the border who knows what was taken to another country. He had plenty of time to make all the necessary arrangements before we invaded. It wasn't like he didn't know we were coming.

Sorry if I seem to be singling you out for special treatment. I'm not but, you sort of covered all the talking points there that most people sort of tap dance around. Don't take it personal.

So you're saying someone else is doing a talking point and you do one yourself about Saddam. Saddam wasn't making everybody realize that he had nukes because Germany and France and Canada didn't by it for a second. Germany even a good number of times warned the States not to trust the intel they were getting because it was coming from someone unreliable. Don't forget the break in at the Niger official headquarters to steal official letterheads so the neocons could make up a fake report. If Saddam had anything it was from Reagan through Donald Rumsfeld and they were old and useless. We had him very much controlled and this is one reason why Valerie Wilson was outed because of her job at the CIA. Saddam let the inspectors come in and they were even there until December 2004 and than came back and said he didn't have anything. What great timing!

[thecreeper]

Stating 3 types if weapons doesn't count as a valid opinion. Other countries have their own counterparts or versions.

not really, only a few other countries even have carriers, and we (U.S.A) have the biggest Carriers out there, The MOAB is The biggest non nuclear bomb out there, The F-22 Raptor is the most The best Fighter/bomber out there.

And All I was listing those for was to prove how much more powerful and Advanced the United States Armed forces are compared to Irans Armed Forces.

P.S Iran, why are you still using our Patton tanks, there like forty years old?

[Unlimited]

not really, only a few other countries even have carriers, and we (U.S.A) have the biggest Carriers out there, The MOAB is The biggest non nuclear bomb out there, The F-22 Raptor is the most The best Fighter/bomber out there.

And All I was listing those for was to prove how much more powerful and Advanced the United States Armed forces are compared to Irans Armed Forces.

P.S Iran, why are you still using our Patton tanks, there like forty years old?

you really love war and your US fleet that will conquer all.....what ever happened to peace on earth?........

[thecreeper]

you really love war and your US fleet that will conquer all.....what ever happened to peace on earth?........

Peace is just a period between wars

[Unlimited]

Peace is just a period between wars

peace will come once bush goes.....

[el midgetron]

peace will come once bush goes.....

That would be nice but I cant agree. I dont see the problems we are making right now being so easy to fix.

[KingTomis]

Then you are delusional which pretty much every post of yours proves.

I wasn't aware that Bush was responsible for every war in the history of mankind.

This war has been going on long before bush, or even his daddy stepped into office and it will continue for a long time after.

Those who don't think so are typical liberal pansies who think that the world is full of puppy dogs and flower wreaths.

[00000000000000000000000000]

P.S Iran, why are you still using our Patton tanks, there like forty years old?

Although I still harbor no doubt that Iran could be thoroughly toasted by the US, a quick check in Jane's Tank ID guide confirms that Iran has Zulfiqar MBT tanks, entering production in 1999, in addition to various heavily upgraded T-72s and T-54/55s.

Note that the Zulfiqar has a 125 mm gun, compared to the Israeli Merkava's 105 mm and the M1 Abrams and Challenger II's 120 mm. Obviously caliber is far from everything, but the Zulfiqar appears to be a pretty mean machine from what we've seen out West. It is also, it appears, slightly (3 km/h) faster than the Abrams, and has a slightly higher power-to-weight ratio.

Edit: Of course, speed doesn't do you much good if you've got an A-10 on your tail.

Edited March 19, 2007 by angrycrustacean

[Ashigaru]

I heard about the Zulfiqar being tested but I never heard if they actually went into production. How many have they made so far?

Edited March 19, 2007 by Ashigaru

[Lord Umbarger]

You can't compare tank to tank to precdict an outcome of a war. For instance, the Germans had far superior tanks in WWII but, lost to the inferior Sherman tank types.

A more accurate comparison would be their full capacity against our full capacity. We are able to wage the battle on levels that few nations can. Certainly not the Iranians. For instance, a bigger cannon on a tank means nothing if you cannot acquire a lock on your target. We were able to engage the Iraqis "over the horizon" in both of the Gulf Wars. They were also using heavily upgraded T-72's.

Satillites, air-superiority, better, more advanced tanks, carriers, and the all important man with boots. They may well have a lot of heart but, in the end, the U.S. has the better equipment, technology and information gathering capability and that is always the decisive edge.

[00000000000000000000000000]

I heard about the Zulfiqar being tested but I never heard if they actually went into production. How many have they made so far?

To be honest, I'm not sure. According to Jane's they were tested from some point in the early 90s up to 1999 when they (likely) entered production. No production numbers are given, or information on variants. It's all a gray area really, the Iranians have been very secretive about it. It could be vastly overestimated for all we know. Iran tends to exaggerate things, as we all know.

You can't compare tank to tank to precdict an outcome of a war. For instance, the Germans had far superior tanks in WWII but, lost to the inferior Sherman tank types.

Couldn't agree more, but uh... I didn't predict the outcome of a war based on any tank.

A more accurate comparison would be their full capacity against our full capacity. We are able to wage the battle on levels that few nations can. Certainly not the Iranians. For instance, a bigger cannon on a tank means nothing if you cannot acquire a lock on your target. We were able to engage the Iraqis "over the horizon" in both of the Gulf Wars. They were also using heavily upgraded T-72's.

Satillites, air-superiority, better, more advanced tanks, carriers, and the all important man with boots. They may well have a lot of heart but, in the end, the U.S. has the better equipment, technology and information gathering capability and that is always the decisive edge.

Again, I fully agree.

I was really only pointing out to Creeper that they have other, more capable tanks than Pattons; I'm well aware of the technological edge the US has over Iran. In fact, I'd bet money that the M11128 Stryker, let alone an Abrams, would easily handle a Zulfiqar.

Relax, I'm not as stupid as you think I am. Honest.

[Lord Umbarger]

I wasn't really aiming that last post at anyoone in perticular. My post should be viewed as a footnote to yours!

We often see posts from people who are expounding on the merits of some weapons system or another who never seem to put that weapon into the bigger context. Someone once mentioned that the Iranians had a new Russian built super anti-ship missle. What they failed to mention was that it had a range of like 300 km.! Far shorter than the range of the ship launched fighter/bombers that would be attacking Iran.

I just wanted to nip that one in the bud before it became a thread all it's own! I wasn't trying to step on your toes.