US special forces 'inside Iran'

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by GePap
Some pics of basic Iranian Military hardware:

http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_249.shtml

Looks like big fat targets for the airforce. If they are not as clever as the Serbs and use plywood dummies to fool the smart bombs.

But I agree that they would be a harder nut to crack than Iraq. I just thought the idea of a culture obsessed with marturedom spending money on body armour sounded a bit off.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, GePap, even if it is not treason, it must be serious criminal violation of law. If Graner of Abu Grahib gets 10 years for abusing enemy prisoners, the people who did this should get at least 20 years. If any US soldier is captured or killed because of this leak, I would raise the penalty to death.

As to Hersh, he should be lynched.

But the President sending our troops into a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war is just fine and dandy. 'cause, like, they're the ENEMY, and stuff, or something.

The President can lie and/or spin his way into an unnecessary war that costs the lives of thousands of our troops (not to mention the civvies), but he doesn't get the death penalty. No, he is an American Hero (tm)! Get your GWB Combat Flight Suit Action Figure today!

Yet this reporter should be strung up!

The Nedaverse, baby, yeah!

-Arrian

[Alex]

Originally posted by Ned


The lack of public outrage may be linked to an effort to minimize the damage an admission my cause.

It's not an effort to minimize damage, Ned. This kind of intel op just doesn't exist, officially speaking.

[Ned]

Arrian, your mindset would kill America. We need intelligence on what our enemies are doing. What do you think the whole flap about the lack of intelligence before 9/11 and before the invasion of Iraq was all about. There seems to be a broad consensus in this country, regardless of party, that we need eyes and ears on the ground to actually see what is going on regarding WMDs and terrorism.

Now I find it interesting that the most vocal critics of the lack of intelligence are now calling what we are doing in Iran contrary to law and American interests.

I say you guys are hypocrites.

[Drake Tungsten]

But the President sending our troops into a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war is just fine and dandy. 'cause, like, they're the ENEMY, and stuff, or something.

Isn't this a major component of what Special Forces are supposed to do?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


You don't know what you're talking about. While Iran would present a much larger problem than Iraq as far as an insurgency, its military stands as little chance against the U.S. military than Sadam's did.

Yeah right. Who are we going to invade them with? The boy scouts?



We have no guys left. You can't just bomb them either, you actually have to put guys on the ground, and especially in Iran which can summon a huge number of fanatical fighters.

They would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

But the President sending our troops into a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war is just fine and dandy. 'cause, like, they're the ENEMY, and stuff, or something.

Isn't this a major component of what Special Forces are supposed to do?

It was what U2s were supposed to do too, until an unfortunate incident.

Don't you see a problem with sending troops into a neutral country? What's that thing called again? Sovereignty?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Ned


Ted, My Lai and Abu Gharib were both about criminal activity by individuals in violation of US Gov't policy. THIS is about treason. The people who leaked Top Secret information compromised an ongoing military operation, jeopardized the lives of our soldiers and undermined US security. I have no freakin' idea why Bush has not called out the FBI on this.

Ned made a funny.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


Well, not really, as the insurgency shows.

Which I specifically discounted in the post you quoted.

Originally posted by GePap
Saddams army fell so easily not only because of the wide technological disparity, but because the army melted away. The significant casualties suffered by the military against a small force poorly equipped show that troops with high morale, even when badly equiped, can make for a tought fight. Of course, there is also the issue of Iran's terrain, which is not nice and flat like Iraq's, but mountanous.

They were going to melt away under bombs if they didn't do so voluntarily. They went down to an understrength U.S. attack which was planned very quickly and reorganized ad hoc after one entire invasion axis and a large proportion of the invasion force were scrubbed due to the dithering of the Turks.

The casualties we suffered were not significant, and a large percentage of them were caused not by the Iraqi army but by the fedayeen Sadam. The Iraqi army was not a small force, nor was it poorly equipped by world standards. But it was heavily outmatched by its opponents in technology and quality and did not have the initiative.

Originally posted by GePap

So, IF the Iranian army stood to fight to the death the war would be a LOT harder and more vicious, specially if the US had to take a large urban area from a trully determined enemy made up of regular forces equipped as regular forces (better body armor, better and heavier weapons, better C&C). Baghdad is a city of 5 million. Tehran is a city of 14 million.

They can't defend their skies from American air power, nor can they export their oil or import ammunition, spares, food etc. We hold all the strategic weaponry cards even if they have a nuclear weapon or two. So they are going to lose the war even if not one American soldier sets foot on Iran.

But if we did choose to invade they would still be in desperate trouble. For starters we can invade from Iraq, Afghanistan and / or the Persian gulf. They can't effectively move their forces at will about their own country on a strategic scale because of U.S. interdiction. Which means that we'll be able to strike where we please and defeat the forces on any particular front in detail.

Tactically I don't see how they would fare that much better than the Iraqis. Their numeric advantage will be difficult to press due to their inability to challenge the airspace over the battlefield. Though their C3I may be better than that of the Iraqis, it won't be enough to turn the tide as so many other crucial factors are in America's favor. The numerical advantage will tell in the wear and tear on U.S. equipment, ammunition supplies and troops though. This will not be nearly as quick a thing as the blitz across Iraq.

If it is a fierce battle with every Iranian fighting to the death then the U.S. will simply hit them where they aint and strangle the economy. Tehran's population will become a liability as it is cut off from its hinterland while being unable to strike effective blows against the nimble American forces with their massive firepower.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Arrian




But the President sending our troops into a sovereign nation with whom we are not at war is just fine and dandy. 'cause, like, they're the ENEMY, and stuff, or something.

The President can lie and/or spin his way into an unnecessary war that costs the lives of thousands of our troops (not to mention the civvies), but he doesn't get the death penalty. No, he is an American Hero (tm)! Get your GWB Combat Flight Suit Action Figure today!

Yet this reporter should be strung up!

The Nedaverse, baby, yeah!

-Arrian

word

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Sikander


Which I specifically discounted in the post you quoted.



They were going to melt away under bombs if they didn't do so voluntarily. They went down to an understrength U.S. attack which was planned very quickly and reorganized ad hoc after one entire invasion axis and a large proportion of the invasion force were scrubbed due to the dithering of the Turks.

The casualties we suffered were not significant, and a large percentage of them were caused not by the Iraqi army but by the fedayeen Sadam. The Iraqi army was not a small force, nor was it poorly equipped by world standards. But it was heavily outmatched by its opponents in technology and quality and did not have the initiative.



They can't defend their skies from American air power, nor can they export their oil or import ammunition, spares, food etc. We hold all the strategic weaponry cards even if they have a nuclear weapon or two. So they are going to lose the war even if not one American soldier sets foot on Iran.

But if we did choose to invade they would still be in desperate trouble. For starters we can invade from Iraq, Afghanistan and / or the Persian gulf. They can't effectively move their forces at will about their own country on a strategic scale because of U.S. interdiction. Which means that we'll be able to strike where we please and defeat the forces on any particular front in detail.

Tactically I don't see how they would fare that much better than the Iraqis. Their numeric advantage will be difficult to press due to their inability to challenge the airspace over the battlefield. Though their C3I may be better than that of the Iraqis, it won't be enough to turn the tide as so many other crucial factors are in America's favor. The numerical advantage will tell in the wear and tear on U.S. equipment, ammunition supplies and troops though. This will not be nearly as quick a thing as the blitz across Iraq.

If it is a fierce battle with every Iranian fighting to the death then the U.S. will simply hit them where they aint and strangle the economy. Tehran's population will become a liability as it is cut off from its hinterland while being unable to strike effective blows against the nimble American forces with their massive firepower.

Now tell me how we're going to occupy the place and how many troops are you going to send to do the job.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Now tell me how we're going to occupy the place and how many troops are you going to send to do the job.

We aren't going to hold anything. We'll let the Hun do that.

[Ted Striker]

I would say in that case prepare for a 9/11 x 50.

[Sikander]

We aren't going to hold anything. We'll let the Hun do that.

(edit) Oh, and we'll send everything we have except for about 20% of the total held as a reserve. Of course I'd simply beat the crap out of them with strategic attacks and let them whither on the vine. I simply put forward the invasion scenario to more directly address Gepap's scenario.

[Ted Striker]

Oh sorry thought you were talking about something else.