Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The US could easily win a war in Iran. I would imagine the strategy would be to bomb the Revo Guard into the stone age along with the Nuclear sites.

    One of two things will happen,

    1) some form of uprising or at the least political instability in Iran that the US could take advantage of, or let countrys with a vested interest in Iran (China and Russian) to push it towards a democracy.

    2) The government stays intact, but we would more than likely have a better time in Iraq due to the Revo Guard having to pull back within its boarders to maintain control or Iran.

    Thats the way I see it anyway. Iran is a funny country. Most of the people there are not even that devout Muslims, I think the chances of them throwing a major hissy fit is unlikely, if done in the right way, many may even support a change in government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    The US could easily win a war in Iran. I would imagine the strategy would be to bomb the Revo Guard into the stone age along with the Nuclear sites.

    One of two things will happen,

    1) some form of uprising or at the least political instability in Iran that the US could take advantage of, or let countrys with a vested interest in Iran (China and Russian) to push it towards a democracy.

    2) The government stays intact, but we would more than likely have a better time in Iraq due to the Revo Guard having to pull back within its boarders to maintain control or Iran.

    Thats the way I see it anyway. Iran is a funny country. Most of the people there are not even that devout Muslims, I think the chances of them throwing a major hissy fit is unlikely, if done in the right way, many may even support a change in government.
    Thats the most stupidest set of statements I've read in this entire thread. Have you even bothered to read some of the other posts in this thread which prove that a majority of things you have just said cannot be achieved successfully, even if what you just said is tried by the USA or whoever, it would be met with massive force - which would ruin USA interests all over the world.

    What is so important about bombing the revolutionary guard? When Iran has an airforce, army and navy. Even so, the IRGC is a secondary army.
    Why is it important to attack nuclear sites? They do not even produce anything capable of making nuclear weopens, they are not even fully constructed, they do not even contribute to the countrys energy supply. All this has been proven and reported by the IAEA.

    You are severely mis-informed about entity's that control and govern Iran, you are also mis-informed about the state of the Iranian people. They would give their lives to fight for Iran and its borders from any foreign aggressors which was proved in the 1980-1988 war. Especially if these aggressors are from the USA.

    America has too many wars on its hands, in Afghanistan and Iraq where they do not even control one single street, where the supposedly 'Green Zone' is under attack, where even its military bases are regularly under attack. Untrained men with AK-47's, RPG's and IED's and the most simplest of weopens are beating back the worlds biggest and best army.

    You expect the USA to successfully invade and take over Iran which has a 70 million population? Which 12 million of them are in the 'basij' corps, which another 8 million are part of its armies. If USA cant control a few insurgent groups in Iraq, how do you expect it to handle Iran once it has invaded and illegally occupied it?
    75% of Irans population is under 30, do the maths and see how many people the USA is up against. Also whilst your looking that up, see how impossible a 'coup' is, also looking how politically and economically and even militarily sound Iran is.

    My freind, before you try to make more statements, please make sure you can back them up with hard evidence, not something from wikipedia or any zionist newspaper.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)

    1) some form of uprising or at the least political instability in Iran that the US could take advantage of, or let countrys with a vested interest in Iran (China and Russian) to push it towards a democracy.

    Why would China want Iran to be a democracy, when they're not exactly democratic themselves.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gurk)
    Fighting on home soil means that you rely upon your existing infrastructure, though. American air superiority is undeniable, and will eliminate that very quickly. The Americans on the other hand, operate on a more mobile system - no air bases to be bombed, no leadership to protect, no ammunition dumps to be destroyed, etc etc. The Iranians will start off on the back foot, fighting a defensive war. All speculation, really. I know very little about it, but enjoy theorising! =)
    Fighting on home soil also means your army is already in place, ready to defend. It also means you have more information on its climate and so forth. Which is a massive advantage. American air superiority is not undeniable, one year ago it was using 1970's era air forces - apart from its F-22 and F-35 which it has limited aircraft. You are forgetting one thing, Iran also has an air force and Iran also has air defenses that protect every millimeter of Iranian territory.
    From your second statement, it shows you are either a hypocrite or a lier, because the USA has air bases in UAE, Qatar and a majority of the middle east. Even Iraq. How the hell is the USA successfully going to bomb Iran if it has no air bases nearby? Secondly, it has Iraq to protect, attacking Iran will mean Iran invades Iraq to 'take out' USA bases because that is where they will operate from. Even so, no nearby country will allow any attack on Iran from its own country's.

    Also, this link is a loss of American and NATO losses in Serbia. Now Serbia militarily is a weaker country than Iran. Iran has many more powerful weopens and a much more modern and larger army.
    This is also NATO with the help of USA in 1999. Just read it, its hard proof.
    http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=1403
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dcarsten)
    It also doesn't help that the American military is pretty rundown from repeated troop deployments in Iraq. I was lucky...I only went to Iraq ONCE in the Marine Corps in 2003 and managed to get out when my contract was up. I know people that are over there for their 5th deployment with only a few months stateside between each one.

    Needless to say this also isn't doing wonders for American military recruitment. Most American young people reaching military age would rather eat broken glass than join the military...for good reason....you're pretty much guaranteed to be deployed to Iraq immediately. And god forbid you get hurt the government does a crappy job of taking care of you in the long term...plus you get paid almost nothing in the military. It might be different if a majority of military age Americans believed in the war...or more correctly, believed in it enough to put their own life on the line, but that just isn't the case.

    Anyone who thinks the US is going to get away with bombing sites in Iran and calling it a day is crazy. Those Persians won't tolerate that kind of nonsense...they'll go all Darius the Great as soon as the first US warplane drops a bomb. Look around on the internet and see how many people they have in their military...they have somewhere around 350,000 people in their army, not counting the 150,000 in the Revolutionary Guard. (Note that this is ONLY THE ARMY) This is far more than the US military has in the region currently...and many of the American troops in the region are occupied in other duties and could not be instantly dispatched to the Iranian border without leaving other areas of Iraq totally unguarded. And even in a dire emergency its questionable how many additional forces the US military could bring to the region.

    It would be foolhardy at best to attack Iran with the current situation in Iraq....however the Bush administration has a long track record of writing checks their asses can't cash. So who knows. Its so hard to predict what they'll do at this point.

    At least I'm not involved anymore.

    yup, that's basically what I've been saying, but people on these forums just don't get it. They still don't understand the middle east even after the debacle of the last 4 years.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    One of two things will happen,

    1) some form of uprising or at the least political instability in Iran that the US could take advantage of
    Bay of Pigs.

    if done in the right way, many may even support a change in government.
    What's that you say, they'll welcome us with open arms as liberators? :hmmm:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, you really don't have a clue, do you?

    Comparing Hizbollah and the Iranian Army makes no sense - they are two completely different forces. One is a large, lumbering conventional army, and the other is an indistinct guerilla (terrorist, whatever) organisation, which blends into the population.
    I'm the one that has no clue ? You think I'm comparing Hezbollah and the Iranian army. I was stating how they got their asses kicked by a weak 1,000 man force, imagine what would happen against a proper army.
    Here is a picture of a Hezbollah fighter, explain how he blends into the population and seems indistinct.




    Fighting one is completely different from fighting the other. A conventional army is vunerable - it has infrastructure, it is distinct and visible - The opponent knows what to hit, and where to find it.
    With a guerilla force, it is part of the civilian population, emerging only in the form of separated groups of men, with RPG's and assault rifles. Instead of killing 100 men in an action, the conventional army only kills 3 or 4, while these groups are able to wear down the conventional army, due to the weaknesses listed above.
    It is not different, since Iran has two separate armies. One that fights symmetrically and the other that fights asymmetrically. Please go read up on the 'basij corps'
    I know what a guerrilla force is, and who are you to assume there will not be any guerrilla factions in Iran when USA attacks? You might be able to wear down the conventional army, but not the unconventional one.
    You make no sense.
    According to you, Hezbollah is armed and trained by Iran, so explain to me what the difference is? If so, they will have twice the problems they had in Lebanon.
    "Iran would go about things is self explanatory" - You make no sense! Iran is not a group like hizbollah - it is a formal army, unable to appear and disappear in a second, which made Israel's war so difficult when fighting, as civilians were indistinguishable from foes. And how, may I ask you, my esteemed friend, do you plan on moving a few hundred thousand troops from Iran, to Israel, with either Turkey or Iraq in the way? Minor hiccup, no?
    I do make sense, but you cannot see it. You forgot to read the rest of the sentence it was included in. Iran is no group, you are right in saying it in an army. How do you know Hezbollah kept dissapearing and appearing and hiding with civilians? When Lebanese people evacuated the villagers from where the Isreali people were attacking. Israel destroyed the infrastructure, so my esteemed friend, how did Hezbollah get from civilian places to the battlefield?
    How is Hezbollah able to dissapear and appear in seconds, one moment be in the north, whilst the next fighting Merkava tanks in the south.
    You are wrong, they were opposing the oncoming slaughter by constantly fighting the Israeli's. You are missing some simple things here.

    Well, if William O. Beeman from the University of Minnesota says it won't work, then what the hell does a REAL newspaper know, such as, say, The Economist? I can't link you to it, as I doubt you subscribe. That man is basing views of today's Iran on actions experienced by a completely different Iran - the events 19th Century are not applicable to post-revolution Iran! The country is oil dependant, with a president that is running the economy into the ground. Sanctions that could cut off either fuel exports, or FDI into Iran will cripple the country. Ahmadinejad will not last long, then.
    I used this Zionist newspaper to prove even the Zionists don't think it will work, and why are you changing the subject. You are still meant to provide me a link to China and Russia putting economic sanctions on Iran. Where is it?
    Link me to it, fortunately for you I subscribe. #
    You are deluded. How would sanctions prove effective against a country where it already has permanent fuel exports, where if these contracts are stopped it can find another buyer in seconds. Secondly, the country can provide everything for itself, which non oil trade rising yearly.

    But please, for the sake of your intellectual integrity, which is rapidly eroding, find a back copy of the... July 21st Economist, and read the report on Iran before posting something so outrageously stupid again.

    ps. Just because it's posted on a website, it's not a veritable font of all truth and wisdom.
    Its September. Why would I try to find a copy of something for the sake of this crap argument in which you are being a hypocrite and think you are some sort of military expert.
    I think you get off on arguing or debating on things you know nothing about, you assume I don't subscribe and then you expect me to find a 2 month+ newspaper.
    I did get round to reading it, and it didn't back up anything of what you just said.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6974903.stm

    Nearly there?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fire Star)
    Thats the most stupidest set of statements I've read in this entire thread. Have you even bothered to read some of the other posts in this thread which prove that a majority of things you have just said cannot be achieved successfully, even if what you just said is tried by the USA or whoever, it would be met with massive force - which would ruin USA interests all over the world.

    What is so important about bombing the revolutionary guard? When Iran has an airforce, army and navy. Even so, the IRGC is a secondary army.
    Why is it important to attack nuclear sites? They do not even produce anything capable of making nuclear weopens, they are not even fully constructed, they do not even contribute to the countrys energy supply. All this has been proven and reported by the IAEA.

    You are severely mis-informed about entity's that control and govern Iran, you are also mis-informed about the state of the Iranian people. They would give their lives to fight for Iran and its borders from any foreign aggressors which was proved in the 1980-1988 war. Especially if these aggressors are from the USA.

    America has too many wars on its hands, in Afghanistan and Iraq where they do not even control one single street, where the supposedly 'Green Zone' is under attack, where even its military bases are regularly under attack. Untrained men with AK-47's, RPG's and IED's and the most simplest of weopens are beating back the worlds biggest and best army.

    You expect the USA to successfully invade and take over Iran which has a 70 million population? Which 12 million of them are in the 'basij' corps, which another 8 million are part of its armies. If USA cant control a few insurgent groups in Iraq, how do you expect it to handle Iran once it has invaded and illegally occupied it?
    75% of Irans population is under 30, do the maths and see how many people the USA is up against. Also whilst your looking that up, see how impossible a 'coup' is, also looking how politically and economically and even militarily sound Iran is.

    My freind, before you try to make more statements, please make sure you can back them up with hard evidence, not something from wikipedia or any zionist newspaper.
    Actually my points never said anything about an invasion. That would be a bad move.

    My point was if you take out the Revo Guard, who do have alot of control in Iran, and whos job it is to keep it a Islamic Republic, you will ahve one of two effects.

    I dont see it as a stretch to say that the Revo Guard would have to stop or at least cut back its operations in Iraq in favour of securing Iran. And who is it a stretch to say there would be political unrest? There are strong Democratic movements in Iran, the Revo Guard simply keeps them suppressed.

    You point about Iran's Army Navy and airforce is a mute one. Their airforce is flying terrible aircraft and has very little flying time. Their Navy is a joke, and wilst they have a large army, it is poorly equiped. Also no army can win a war when the enemy has air superiority, and given the US will not invade what role would Irans army play?

    Sod all thats what.

    Whats all this crap about the yanks getting 'beaten back'? You are the one who needs to provide evidence, as my statments are a theory and a practical one at that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    To put recent developments into perspective.

    a) Iran claims to have 3000 gas-centrifuges in operation

    b)The ONLY use of such a large quantity of centrifuges is to make nuclear weapons. Power plants don't need that level of enrichment and the heavy water reactors Iran is building don't need enrichment at all.

    c)If operated continuously such a quantity of centrifuges can produce enough enriched U-235 for a bomb within a year.

    d)Once Iran has enough enriched U-235 you CANT stop them making a bomb. The critical mass of Uranium formed into a sphere is about 53 kg, which would occupy less than 3 litres of space. They could hide it virtually anywhere until they had a design ready.

    e)While making a bomb from plutonium is rather tricky, it is remarkably simple using U-235. A gun-triggered design would basically consist of two pieces of uranium in opposing ends of a tube, with an explosive charge shooting one piece into the other. See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-typ..._and_terrorism


    So essentially. Either some country ( most likely the US or Israel ) will bomb Iran's nuclear sites within a few years, or Iran will build nuclear weapons. Sanctions can't stop them now as they have all material they need. They certainly are trying to make them ( such a large quantity of centrifuges simply doesn't have a justifiable civilian use ).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2369001.ece

    ^ Latest developments, as per predicted. I think we could be looking at something within a few weeks. Total insanity, but since when did that stop Bush?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    To put recent developments into perspective.

    a) Iran claims to have 3000 gas-centrifuges in operation

    b)The ONLY use of such a large quantity of centrifuges is to make nuclear weapons. Power plants don't need that level of enrichment and the heavy water reactors Iran is building don't need enrichment at all.

    c)If operated continuously such a quantity of centrifuges can produce enough enriched U-235 for a bomb within a year.

    d)Once Iran has enough enriched U-235 you CANT stop them making a bomb. The critical mass of Uranium formed into a sphere is about 53 kg, which would occupy less than 3 litres of space. They could hide it virtually anywhere until they had a design ready.

    e)While making a bomb from plutonium is rather tricky, it is remarkably simple using U-235. A gun-triggered design would basically consist of two pieces of uranium in opposing ends of a tube, with an explosive charge shooting one piece into the other. See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-typ..._and_terrorism


    So essentially. Either some country ( most likely the US or Israel ) will bomb Iran's nuclear sites within a few years, or Iran will build nuclear weapons. Sanctions can't stop them now as they have all material they need. They certainly are trying to make them ( such a large quantity of centrifuges simply doesn't have a justifiable civilian use ).
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id...onid=351020104

    Explain to me what centrifuges do, and then relate it to why Iran wants to be self-sufficient.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't this kind of aggression going to increase the number of states that possess nuclear weapons? After all, if these states know they have no chance of defeating the West with their conventional militaries, they know that the only workable deterrent they could have, would be nuclear weapons with a system to deliver them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I dont see it as a stretch to say that the Revo Guard would have to stop or at least cut back its operations in Iraq in favour of securing Iran. And who is it a stretch to say there would be political unrest? There are strong Democratic movements in Iran, the Revo Guard simply keeps them suppressed.
    There are no operations in Iraq by Iran. Please read prevoius posts, there is not one scrap of evidence to prove or even assume Iran is having a proxy war or even providing weopens. That is a stupid argument and one which you are obviously mis-informed about.
    Even so, why would Iran want to stop its so called 'operations' in Iraq - any normal tactician would see better to increase resistance in Iraq, whilst the USA is concentrating on Iran to drive the USA out. Therefore causing more problems and possibly a delay.

    You point about Iran's Army Navy and airforce is a mute one. Their airforce is flying terrible aircraft and has very little flying time. Their Navy is a joke, and wilst they have a large army, it is poorly equiped. Also no army can win a war when the enemy has air superiority, and given the US will not invade what role would Irans army play?
    A mute one? Their air force is flying SU-30 which is currently the F-22's rival. Also, the IRIAF has acquired MIG-31's which is getting 5th gen upgrades very soon according to its manufacturers. Secondly, they fly F-14's, F-5's and F-4's which although are 1970's era weopens have been upgraded to compete in this era with better avionics, weopens and so forth. Many countries in the world including the UK and US still use 1970 era weopens that have been upgraded. Also, how can their air force be mute when they have created their own fighter jets, albeit reverse engineering projects of the F-18 and F5 these jets are on the same level as the AV-8, F15, F16.

    I may agree with you on Iran's Navy as being mute, although not that mute. Especially when they have stealth boats, submarines, mine layers and many other ships capable of asymmetrical warfare. Secondly, they are currently still producing destroyers. Nevertheless, Iran has no need for a big navy, as it is a defensive country and because it uses SUNBURN and Yachont anti-ship missiles.

    Where is evidence its army is poorly equipped?
    Iran:

    USA:

    Maybe a small difference.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fire Star)
    http://www.presstv.ir/Detail.aspx?id...onid=351020104

    Explain to me what centrifuges do, and then relate it to why Iran wants to be self-sufficient.
    Zippe-type gas centrifuges are used to enrich natural Uranium from 0.7% U-235 to higher fractions of U-235 by exposing a thermally driven gas flow to a strong accelerational graident. This is necessary for LIGHT WATER reactors. Iran is building HEAVY WATER reactors, that are perfectly capable of using natural non-enriched uranium ( Canada operates a number of heavy water reactors fueled by natural uranium as an example ).

    Furthermore, thou there are some valid civilian uses for enriching uranium, commercial power reactors only require about 3-5% enrichment, for which you need far fewer centrifuges. Iran is deploying thousands of centrifuges, enough to reach 80%-90% U-235 enrichment within a few years time. If this is a civilian program then Iran is certainly wasting a whole lot of money developing a massive over-capacity in enrichment as such a large quantity of centrifuges simply isn't needed for what they claim they want to use it for.

    Furthermore, because Uranium and Plutonium have such large energy densities, you don't need to rely on a continuous supply. Buying all uranium you'd need for hundreds of years is perfectly possible since a 1000 MW reactor only needs about 1m^3 of uranium per year. Russia even offered to deliver enough mixed oxide fuel for Iran to power its nuclear power programme for hundreds of years. However, Iran declined. As a side not, mixed-oxide fuel contains Pu-240, which makes it unsuitable for weapons production, explaining their decline of what would otherwise have been an extremely favourable offer.

    The UN inspectors also found ( and Iran admitted ) they have been experimenting with producing Po-210. The only use for large quantities of Po-210 is as a source of high-energy alpha particles for use in a berrylium-spallation based neutron trigger in nuclear weapons.

    Furthermore, Iran has admitted to have bought information on how to shape Uranium metal into a finely shaped sphere. Information which is not useful for nuclear power plants, only for bomb-making.

    In short. NO, the amount of centrifuges Iran has deployed, their decline to buy mixed-oxide fuels at prices lower than the cost of making it themselves, the fact that they've been experimenting with Po-210, the fact that the reactor types they are building do not require the enrichment they aim for, and other information they have gathered which has no civilian uses, very strongly suggests that this program has only one intention. To produce highly enriched U-235 for use in a nuclear weapon.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fire Star)
    There are no operations in Iraq by Iran. Please read prevoius posts, there is not one scrap of evidence to prove or even assume Iran is having a proxy war or even providing weopens. That is a stupid argument and one which you are obviously mis-informed about.
    Even so, why would Iran want to stop its so called 'operations' in Iraq - any normal tactician would see better to increase resistance in Iraq, whilst the USA is concentrating on Iran to drive the USA out. Therefore causing more problems and possibly a delay.



    A mute one? Their air force is flying SU-30 which is currently the F-22's rival. Also, the IRIAF has acquired MIG-31's which is getting 5th gen upgrades very soon according to its manufacturers. Secondly, they fly F-14's, F-5's and F-4's which although are 1970's era weopens have been upgraded to compete in this era with better avionics, weopens and so forth. Many countries in the world including the UK and US still use 1970 era weopens that have been upgraded. Also, how can their air force be mute when they have created their own fighter jets, albeit reverse engineering projects of the F-18 and F5 these jets are on the same level as the AV-8, F15, F16.

    I may agree with you on Iran's Navy as being mute, although not that mute. Especially when they have stealth boats, submarines, mine layers and many other ships capable of asymmetrical warfare. Secondly, they are currently still producing destroyers. Nevertheless, Iran has no need for a big navy, as it is a defensive country and because it uses SUNBURN and Yachont anti-ship missiles.

    Where is evidence its army is poorly equipped?
    Iran:

    USA:

    Maybe a small difference.
    Oh please. Stealth boats? Like hell.

    The SU-30 is not oprated by Iran, and anyone who thinks the SU-30 stands up to the F-22 is a crazy man. How can you say an aircraft built in the mid 1990's is as good as the very latest US design?

    Iran operated mainly Mig-19's, F4 phantoms and Mirage jets. None of these can stand up to the sort of aircraft the USA would use to strike Iran in the opening days of an attack.
    Alot of their aircraft are produced within Iran and are of very low quality. They have terrible radar (which is just about the most important part of a plane) and their pilots get far less flying time that the USA or Israel.

    Stop kidding yourself that Iran can put up a fight against the USA.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shujaat)
    Why not?? this is a debate right?
    You can't see a reason why Israel has far more historic, culturally, political and legal claim to that land than anybody else in the entire world, with the exception of the Palestinians (Arguably)?

    What on earth is the basis for Iran having it's own proxy state in Jerusalem?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Varsity)
    Oh please. Stealth boats? Like hell.

    The SU-30 is not oprated by Iran, and anyone who thinks the SU-30 stands up to the F-22 is a crazy man. How can you say an aircraft built in the mid 1990's is as good as the very latest US design?

    Iran operated mainly Mig-19's, F4 phantoms and Mirage jets. None of these can stand up to the sort of aircraft the USA would use to strike Iran in the opening days of an attack.
    Alot of their aircraft are produced within Iran and are of very low quality. They have terrible radar (which is just about the most important part of a plane) and their pilots get far less flying time that the USA or Israel.

    Stop kidding yourself that Iran can put up a fight against the USA.
    Stealth boats:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_14_class_missile_boat

    Fighter Jets
    Iran does not operate MiG-19s.
    Iran does not operate Mirage Jets.
    Iran operates a healthy amount of F14, SU-30, MIG-29, MIG-31 AND MIG-35.
    Along with its own 4th Gen fighters it has created.

    The USA has been developing the F-35 and F-22 since the 1980's - this plane is derived from a prototype the YF-22. There are two different design aspects for the F-22 and SU-30. The SU-30 was built for maneuverability whilst the F-22 was built for stealth. Each of the aspects are thought to increase fighter kill ratio. Also, its not about the plane, its also about its pilots and tactics in which the SU-30 has been deployed for longer, and in many countrys in the world whilst the F-22 is only recent and is not even going to be sold.
    No F-22 can move as quickly, as agile and as quick as the SU-30
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TknmnAzGDl8

    Anyhows, the air force does not have to worry, as Iran has obtained 'Kolchuga' which can seek out stealthy aircraft like the F-22 and deploy air defence missiles against it.

    Could you show me proof/links that Iran gets less flying time - especially with all the war time practices they've been having and all their schemes. Also, why do they have terrible radar when they have obtained the best technology in the world.

    From now on after you make a statement present the evidence - I will do the same.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    You can't see a reason why Israel has far more historic, culturally, political and legal claim to that land than anybody else in the entire world, with the exception of the Palestinians (Arguably)?

    What on earth is the basis for Iran having it's own proxy state in Jerusalem?
    Everything you just said is falsehood and stupid. Remove yourself from this thread at once and go watch some documentarys, news reports and history on how Israel came to be and then show me some evidence that backs up your claims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ForeverIsMyName)
    You can't see a reason why Israel has far more historic, culturally, political and legal claim to that land than anybody else in the entire world, with the exception of the Palestinians (Arguably)?

    What on earth is the basis for Iran having it's own proxy state in Jerusalem?
    Historic connection…ok…so what!! What does that prove?
    Political and legal!! ? how?

    Like many, my ancestors came from Saudi Arabia to India centuries ago and then from India to Pakistan decades ago…does that mean we can go back and claim some state of our own?? How about Red Indians claiming one in US?

    You said “with the exception of the Palestinians (Arguably)?”
    Why arguably?
    Just because Iran support the rights of Palestinians doesn’t mean they are a satellite state of Iran. When you support or are supported by someone…it becomes your ‘ally’…and others are termed as ‘proxy states’
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.