Mujahid Memon
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2012
- Messages
- 2,820
- Reaction score
- -4
- Country
- Location
Ok. Go ahead so we can add some 3-4 provinces in our country. Our blooming population will get some breathing space.
2nd U.S. carrier strike group steaming towards Persian Gulf
- Thread starter Kastor
- Start date
925boy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2016
- Messages
- 6,010
- Reaction score
- -31
- Country
- Location
Iran hasnt dug any grave for itself. If there's one thing Iran is good at, its surviving. US cant win a war against IRan, and Iran doesnt want to get destroyed just to prove US cant win the war. Iranians have cunning strategy so i think they'll switch up on US strategy wise..
Supplying weapons =/= sign of an alliance.China was Iraq's weapons supplier. Standing by Saddam Hussein at his time of need would have made a statement around the world -- that China is a reliable ally. But who are you trying to fool here? You 'love' Persia?
China was prolly selling weapons to Iraq for cash profit only.
ur just seeing things here through your apocalytic lens. You're making several assumptions that would work out how we think they will. THis world has changed. Former oppressors are mostly saber rattlers now .IDF couldnt even quench Gaza people until at least 500 rockets were shot into Israel. game has changed.
one thing that i feel veery confident about- Iran will focus on killing US soldiers. Not destroying bases(except relevant air bases for eg). dead soldiers is the biggest effect and deterrent for Israel and US. EVen Bin Landen knew it.
Disclaimer- i dont support killing of US troops. I am just stating my ideas.
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
Persian Empire used to be very powerful and was subjecting European kingdoms to invasions and such. One day a guy named Alexander the Great decided to take his chances with the Persian Empire by invading it instead...
Let me tell you something - US is not Iraq, and Iran stand to lose much in this war, if it materialize.
Last edited:
mike2000 is back
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 8,513
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
I think everybody agrees that the US will not invade Iran by land. The US public is tired of such engagements in the Middle East(after the Afghanistan and Iraq debacle ), reason the US didn’t even send troops to invade Syria during the Syrian civil war (even though they had a more compelling case to do so back then ). So in case there will be a conflict between both sides I believe it will mostly be limited to an air and naval conflict. I think the U .S will mainly use a strategy to strangle Iran and cut it off from the world(note that Iran is already surrounded by US military bases ) , so a hot war will only strangle, isolate Iran and crippled the country’s already troubled economy. The US won’t be in agirent to launch a ground assault . This might lead to internal conflict or civil unrest in Iran etc.
As of today I don’t think any country can take on the US in any naval or air conflict and win. Not even China and Russia, much less Iran.
However all this is just a hypothetical scenario, since I believe there will be no war between the US and Iran. Just a few posturing and grandstanding here and there , this has been going on for over a decade and it will keep on being that way. The US will just keep pressuring Iran and I trying to isolate the country even more while Iran will keep countering with usual grandstanding and verbal retaliation etc.
LeGenD
MODERATOR
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 15,813
- Reaction score
- 162
- Country
- Location
US doesn't need a massive army to destroy a country in a war - special forces and marines will deliver from the ground under the cover of USAF and USN. And keep in mind that there are always elements in any country which are willing to appease a foreign entity for political gains.
In case of Iran, Israel and GCC would not mind lending a helping hand on top.
Calling American expedition and accomplishments in Iraq a debacle, is plain stupid.
mike2000 is back
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 8,513
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Yes I never said otherwise. Reason I did it will be a limited conflict, not a full scaled invasion like the one in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally. I agree that there are always entities in a country who want to gain power by any means necessary, even the mullahs themselves took power after a popular revolt by young Iranians back then (I’m sure they wouldn’t have imagined the mullahs will impose strict Islamic rules and laws that will change the country’s social fabric completely from what it used to be).
So I agree with those points, reason I said a total blockade, isolation and strangulation of the country’s infrastructure/economy and military might cause internal strife and civil unrest.
Mithridates
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,897
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
my cute idiot friend, you didn't get what i said did you??
mike2000 is back
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 8,513
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Lol Seems you are the type to think you know it all ? Calling someone’s point of view stupid isn’t really what you should be doing. Moreover you misunderstood what I even meant by that . By debacle I didn’t mean it was a military failure (since I know it wasn’t ) since I know the US basically crushed the Iraqi army . Same with the ragtag afghan taliban.
What I meant by debacle is the aftermath of the defeat, especially in regards to Iraq, many mistakes were made (disbanding the Iraqi army for example ) which led to unrest, sectarian conflict and militant/Terror groups emerged plunging the country into chaos . So it wasn’t a military issue but a political and managerial issue.
925boy
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2016
- Messages
- 6,010
- Reaction score
- -31
- Country
- Location
US accomplishments in Iraq? hmm...if that isnt delusional i dunno what is. US govt and politicians dont even reference the Iraq war with pride so i dunno what planet you think the US "accomplished" much in Iraq in.
raptor22
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2011
- Messages
- 7,064
- Reaction score
- 9
- Country
- Location
You can not abdicate responsibility of your country's actions and polices by simply making such a statement and whitewash your role whilst still the region and its people are suffering from its results and seemingly are gonna suffer more ... also you can not exclude all other players in the region whom are responsible for most of mayhem,war and conflicts ... from supporting saddam,taliban and alnusra to AQ and other extremists...
You say you fought against AQ ... that's good news ...and I hope and wish for a day which not only Pakistan will be TERRORISM-FREE one day but all the region, we have fought against isis, aq, taliban, saddam and all forms of terrorism across the region products of american regional allies and our people have been martyred:
Zarif: “We are at the forefront of fighting terrorism. We have fought Daesh. Yesterday, the government of Iraq invited 300 Iranian families who have lost their loved ones fighting Daesh in Iraq. Has the United States received an invitation for a single family? Or your allies in the region: Israel, Saudi Arabia, the UAE?”
If it wasn't Iran's effort to fight extremists in the region we'd have witnessed Iraq and Syria in the hands of the US allies terrorists:On Oct. 2, 2014, Biden told an audience at Harvard’s Kennedy School: “our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria … the Saudis, the emirates, etc., what were they doing? They were so determined to take down Assad and essentially have a proxy Sunni-Shia war, what did they do? They poured hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of military weapons into anyone who would fight against Assad, except the people who were being supplied were Al Nusra and Al Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.”
They are many other reports and confesses such as the us DOD report back in 2012, Qatari Fm , Saudis accusing Qatar ....
In March 2011 Stevens became the official U.S. liaison to the al-Qaeda-linked Libyan opposition, working directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group — a group that has now disbanded, with some fighters reportedly participating in the attack that took Stevens' life.In November 2011 The Telegraph reported that Belhadj, acting as head of the Tripoli Military Council, "met with Free Syrian Army [FSA] leaders in Istanbul and on the border with Turkey" in an effort by the new Libyan government to provide money and weapons to the growing insurgency in Syria.Last month The Times of London reported that a Libyan ship "carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria … has docked in Turkey." The shipment reportedly weighed 400 tons and included SA-7 surface-to-air anti-craft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades.Those heavy weapons are most likely from Muammar Gaddafi's stock of about 20,000 portable heat-seeking missiles—the bulk of them SA-7s—that the Libyan leader obtained from the former Eastern bloc. Reuters reports that Syrian rebels have been using those heavy weapons to shoot down Syrian helicopters and fighter jets.
Iran has never supported a murderer in Syria .. we supported Syria against foreign intervention .. Assad is bad? ok let people decide .. who the hell you are to make decision on behalf of Syrian people????
"The plan envisaged a ceasefire followed by a national unity government and constitutional reform aimed at constraining presidential powers. Most importantly, there would then be presidential and legislative elections under UN supervision. The plan was the subject of several months of shuttle diplomacy between the Iranian foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and his Turkish counterpart, Ahmet Davutoğlu, but it eventually collapsed over the future role of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
“We agreed on every detail, except a clause in the final phase of the plan which called for UN-monitored elections. Turkish leaders wanted Assad barred,” Zarif is quoted as saying in the report. “I noted that this should not be a concern in an internationally monitored election, particularly if, as Turkey holds, Assad has a dreadful record and a minority constituency. But Davutoğlu refused... and our efforts came to naught.”
The Turkish president at the time, Abdullah Gül, told the ICG “our government did not pursue an agreement with Iran because it thought Assad would be toppled in a few months”.
We supported an approach which in Assad could have been out seated/not but through democratic approach and election and most importantly by direct Syrian votes ... the other side wanted to impose its will on Syrian people on any cost and to do so they poured billions dollars and made Syria heaven of terrorists ... like what they did in Libya and doing now .. just think Iran steps for democracy in Syria were appreciated ..“We agreed on every detail, except a clause in the final phase of the plan which called for UN-monitored elections. Turkish leaders wanted Assad barred,” Zarif is quoted as saying in the report. “I noted that this should not be a concern in an internationally monitored election, particularly if, as Turkey holds, Assad has a dreadful record and a minority constituency. But Davutoğlu refused... and our efforts came to naught.”
The Turkish president at the time, Abdullah Gül, told the ICG “our government did not pursue an agreement with Iran because it thought Assad would be toppled in a few months”.
On Yemen:
First:
Iranian representatives discouraged Houthi rebels from taking the Yemeni capital of Sanaa last year, according to American officials familiar with intelligence around the insurgent takeover.The seizure of the capital in September came as a surprise to the international community, as Houthi rebels demonstrating outside Sanaa realized the city was abandoned and effectively unguarded. Despite Iran’s advice, the Houthis walked into the city and claimed it.The newly disclosed information casts further doubt on claims that the rebels are a proxy group fighting on behalf of Iran, suggesting that the link between Iran and the Yemeni Shiite group may not be as strong as congressional hawks and foreign powers urging U.S. intervention in Yemen have asserted.“It remains our assessment that Iran does not exert command and control over the Houthis in Yemen,” Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, told The Huffington Post.
Iran is after peace in the region and has tried to achieve it but the other side with the supports of the american has continued to make more mess in the region .. war in Yemen could be ended today if Yemen would be given a chance of talk ..but invader wanna reimposed its control over the country which was lost in 2011 not in 2015.
Iran doesn't have militia-raising practices in the region ... we just help people against aggressor ... for example in Iraq the militia are Iraqis whom fought for Iraq against enemies of Iraq to take back Iraqi lands and liberate them the militia that is now a part of Iraqi arm forces: Iran is after peace in the region and has tried to achieve it but the other side with the supports of the american has continued to make more mess in the region .. war in Yemen could be ended today if Yemen would be given a chance of talk ..but invader wanna reimposed its control over the country which was lost in 2011 not in 2015.
We didn't create/raise Houthis in Yemen .. they've been there before ..once were KSA allies ...
In Palestine .. helping and fighting israel had been started long before IR revolution in 1979 and we just do support cause of Palestine ... don't you????
In Lebanon again invasion of a Muslim country by israel next to bad condition of Shia people in southern part of the Lebanon were the reasons ...
I think the best examples of militia-raising practices in the history is cooperation btw Saudis, american and Pakistan in Afghanistan back in 80s, or in Syria in 2011 by the same gang (except you) that truly have effected not only the region but the entire world for decades ..while whomever Iran supports are fighting for the interests of their own people in their own countries .. the point isn't why Iran support them the point is why others don't do that.
P.S: I would not continue this discussion due to being on-topic ...
Kastor
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 905
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Their accomplishment to date is approx 600,000 civilians dead, 2 million homeless or refugees, 2.5 trillion Dollars up in smoke and they gave rise to ISIS that killed at least another 100 thousands and 2 million more refugees. Now that's one heck of an accomplishment Brownie!
Excellent retort sir, you should be the one at the UN talking on our behalf....Our diplomats including my esteemed countryman Mr. Zarif seems lethargic and worn out nowadays, we need some energetic folks doing our bidding on the international stage.
fitpOsitive
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- May 27, 2015
- Messages
- 12,933
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
I have a gut feeling that this attack is directed or intended on Pakistan's nuclear assets. They will pose as if Iran is the target, but in last moments everything will be directed to Pakistan.
@Irfan Baloch @Maarkhoor @HAIDER
@Irfan Baloch @Maarkhoor @HAIDER
Kastor
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2017
- Messages
- 905
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Mithridates
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2019
- Messages
- 2,897
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
batmannow
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 18,830
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
Sure I gss, everyone in the region is looking it as close game, but pakistan isn't the threat which Israel or its allies USA r facing, it's IRAN which isn't bowing down to the fake preasure created by cowboys, I hve gut feeling with China and Russia emerging fast as alternative it may begain the frist nail in a dying super powers cofin, sure US can hve a limited war on IRAN bt will it lead towards whole capture of Iranian lands whos bck is tuck with AFGHANISTAN , then again Russian zone starts May pakistan Jst get the heat if it's asked again to help US in its limited war bt I don't think tht Pakistan will be thinking it as an option at any level, so it all ill be tiny nations like Singapore, Thailand, or or AUSTRALIA to join in or bieng bullied over
Similar threads
- Locked
