Day One - The War with Iran
- Thread starter FreeAsia2000
- Start date
maddogy4645
New Member
So what? the United States bypassed the security council altogether when it invaded Iraq. If US place sanctions on China ... bye bye GM!
Clearly, Iran is confident that the bill will be vetoed, that's why it's not afraid of resuming its nuclear program. Iran is not stupid enough to make the same mistake that Iraq made: get yourself isolated and sanctioned, then after 10 years your weapons are so outdated that strapping bombs on yourselves has became the standard doctrine for the army!
Clearly, Iran is confident that the bill will be vetoed, that's why it's not afraid of resuming its nuclear program. Iran is not stupid enough to make the same mistake that Iraq made: get yourself isolated and sanctioned, then after 10 years your weapons are so outdated that strapping bombs on yourselves has became the standard doctrine for the army!
Last edited:
maddogy4645 said:Ever since they got that Iraqi police force setup, US has been using them as human shields(do we have an "evil smile" emocon?)
What sort of inane and hateful statement is that? Do you really believe that the US would use Iraqi policemen as human sheilds? If you are going to post such nonsense you need to back it up with proof of what you post.
It is irresponsible of you to post such a comment.
Baibar of Jalat
Junior Member
:nana: :nana:
I read a few news articles on how ineffective us bunker buster bombs in destroying Saddam's well publicised bunker in Baghdad. this article is not a scientific report but highlights us failures. the bunker was made by a west german company, (but in this article says serbian company?) in the 1970s was able to withstand modern bunker busters.
My question is can the US airstrikes effectively destroy deepened bunkers like the ones in Iran or elsewhere?:china:
personally my opinions on the effectivness on conventional bunkers busters has changed, not just by these articles but also watching a documentary on tv on the construction of the the malaysian twin towers (Petronas) these buildings do not use traditional steel construction but uses reinforced concrete or a new type of concrete that includes traditional ingrients but also silicon liquid similiar to used by computer industry. This new ingrient more then doubles the strength of conventional concrete
some basic info on tower make up
- 4k
Saddams palace link
Inside £50m nuclear bunker that couldn't save Saddam
By Oliver Poole
(Filed: 12/01/2006)
It was meant to be the £50 million bunker from which Saddam Hussein could continue his reign of terror even after a nuclear strike on Baghdad.
Now the labyrinth beneath one of his ornate palaces, the final command centre for him and his closest acolytes, has been reduced to a looted, partly flooded home to desperate squatters.
Nearly three years after his regime was overthrown and as the former despot stands trial for crimes against his people, The Daily Telegraph yesterday was allowed into one of his most secret lairs.
Taking eight years to complete and built by Yugoslavian military constructors, it was finished in 1983 and provided sleeping quarters and a tactical control centre in the event of a nuclear or chemical attack.
The palace above did not survive the air strikes of April 2003. Its chandeliers lie smashed amidst the twisted masonry. Its dome is still pierced by two holes where the bunker-busting missiles powered through.
But the bunker itself did the job for which it was designed. The best weapons US military scientists have devised failed to pierce its 60ft concrete roof.
When US Rangers burst in as Baghdad fell there were still sheets on Saddam's bed and the maps lay in the command centre.
Saddam had already fled. He had not slept there but used it merely to meet his generals as the US troops advanced from Kuwait.
US troops had cut a jagged hole in the six-inch thick steel door to gain entry, but the bunker's final destruction was at the hands not of the Americans but his own people.
In the next few months looters stripped almost everything from its rooms. Taps were taken from Saddam's bathroom along with the motors from the air filtration system, which was intended to keep him alive as his subjects outside died from radiation poisoning.
Walking through the maze of corridors was like entering a post-apocalyptic film. Some of the fluorescent lights were still blinking, water from smashed pipes oozed over the carpet and wires hung from the ceiling. Torches picked out abandoned and torn chemical weapon protection suits amid the debris littering the corridors.
But visitors are not alone. Ignored by the US as another of Baghdad's ruins, the building intended for Saddam's last stand has in the end provided shelter to the capital's poorest.
Half a dozen squatters moved in - at least one is known still to be there.
I read a few news articles on how ineffective us bunker buster bombs in destroying Saddam's well publicised bunker in Baghdad. this article is not a scientific report but highlights us failures. the bunker was made by a west german company, (but in this article says serbian company?) in the 1970s was able to withstand modern bunker busters.
My question is can the US airstrikes effectively destroy deepened bunkers like the ones in Iran or elsewhere?:china:
personally my opinions on the effectivness on conventional bunkers busters has changed, not just by these articles but also watching a documentary on tv on the construction of the the malaysian twin towers (Petronas) these buildings do not use traditional steel construction but uses reinforced concrete or a new type of concrete that includes traditional ingrients but also silicon liquid similiar to used by computer industry. This new ingrient more then doubles the strength of conventional concrete
some basic info on tower make up
- 4k
Saddams palace link
Inside £50m nuclear bunker that couldn't save Saddam
By Oliver Poole
(Filed: 12/01/2006)
It was meant to be the £50 million bunker from which Saddam Hussein could continue his reign of terror even after a nuclear strike on Baghdad.
Now the labyrinth beneath one of his ornate palaces, the final command centre for him and his closest acolytes, has been reduced to a looted, partly flooded home to desperate squatters.
Nearly three years after his regime was overthrown and as the former despot stands trial for crimes against his people, The Daily Telegraph yesterday was allowed into one of his most secret lairs.
Taking eight years to complete and built by Yugoslavian military constructors, it was finished in 1983 and provided sleeping quarters and a tactical control centre in the event of a nuclear or chemical attack.
The palace above did not survive the air strikes of April 2003. Its chandeliers lie smashed amidst the twisted masonry. Its dome is still pierced by two holes where the bunker-busting missiles powered through.
But the bunker itself did the job for which it was designed. The best weapons US military scientists have devised failed to pierce its 60ft concrete roof.
When US Rangers burst in as Baghdad fell there were still sheets on Saddam's bed and the maps lay in the command centre.
Saddam had already fled. He had not slept there but used it merely to meet his generals as the US troops advanced from Kuwait.
US troops had cut a jagged hole in the six-inch thick steel door to gain entry, but the bunker's final destruction was at the hands not of the Americans but his own people.
In the next few months looters stripped almost everything from its rooms. Taps were taken from Saddam's bathroom along with the motors from the air filtration system, which was intended to keep him alive as his subjects outside died from radiation poisoning.
Walking through the maze of corridors was like entering a post-apocalyptic film. Some of the fluorescent lights were still blinking, water from smashed pipes oozed over the carpet and wires hung from the ceiling. Torches picked out abandoned and torn chemical weapon protection suits amid the debris littering the corridors.
But visitors are not alone. Ignored by the US as another of Baghdad's ruins, the building intended for Saddam's last stand has in the end provided shelter to the capital's poorest.
Half a dozen squatters moved in - at least one is known still to be there.
Last edited:
MIGleader
Banned Idiot
i really dont think anyone is going to sanction iran. its gas is too important. india and china would never cancel their gas deals. think of how much it would rise in the u.s...100$ a gallon? 200$ a gallon? even if iran were sanctioned, it would simply increse output to china and india, where the marlet is abundant. the u.s would be pissed cause china would get cheap gas as a result of the embargo.
maddogy4645
New Member
bd popeye said:
I'm sorry that you were offended.
It was meant to be sarcastic not hateful. Everything has a agreeable and disagreeable side, I just took an extreme view to illustrate the fact that more Iraqis both civilian and noncivilian have been killed than Americans, including those who have died on 9/11. I was gonna make it clear that this comment was not to be taken seriously by adding an "evil smile" emocon, however, no one answered my previous question" do we have an "evil smile" emocon?"
To be quite frank with you, the US already has sanctioned Iran. No Iranian products, including oil, are allowed to come into the US. That is why the US is so eager for a regime change in Iran: changing the current regime to a more friendly one would help the US control the largest natural gas supply in the world along with a huge amount of oil. Big problem is that even though the Iranians don't like their current government, they don't hate it. Hell, they were the ones who elected the current Iranian president and they mostly agree with his comments about Israel. ALL Iranians agree that they want Iran to be a nuclear power. And sanctioning Iran would simply hurt the US and the world economy even more.
FreeAsia2000
Junior Member
IDonT said:
IDont your're making the SAME error that Americans have made in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq
Simply you have NO exit strategy. Your assessment is that American wants to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and Iran wants to protect them. END OF GAME. Life is not a chess game.
What happens AFTER america has blown up most of Iran's nuclear facilities ?
Fairthought
Junior Member
After having read the article that started this thread, I have to say the author was engaging in a little embellishment with regards to the consequences. He seems to favor the worst case scenario.
He also forgets the preliminary maneuvers the US will take prior to the attack:
1. The US will siphon and store enormous petrol reserves in Iraq to keep US troops there well supplied with fuel in preparation for a major and prolonged oil shortage. Certainly, it is understood that Iran's retaliation will be focussed on American oil supplies in the middle east.
2. The US will once again seek and be denied UN support and the US will once again make the UN irrelevant by creating a coalition of the willing (Israel, UK, and australia plus whatever eastern European countries they can bribe). The president will announce this coalition to the public just as the air strikes commence (evening, american time) so americans will be given plenty of time to react before monday morning rush hour. Panic at the pumps will be minimized.
3. Iran will unleash a wave of attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as these troops are well positioned to strike Iran, they are also well positioned to be struck by Iran. Iranian agents already move freely in Baghdad and Kabul, both places were formerly off limits to them under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. They already have numerous strikes planned out on well spotted targets. They simply await the order.
4. Scuds are very effective in knocking out oil refineries. Oil laden supertankers in the persian gulf are also easy targets by a variety of means. The US navy will have their fleet working hard maintaining protective umbrellas for the thousands of tankers snaking past Iran's coast. This will be a permanent job, Something the US taxpayer will burden alone.
5. Any international outcry will be muted. Protestors can cry foul around the world, but it will not lead to any oil embargo against the US. Hugo Chavez is all bark no bite.
6. Bunkerbuster bombs are easily foiled with some inventive bunker designs. Since the bunkerbusters used on Iraq were basically HEAT rounds built on a Giant scale, the solution is obvious. The only question is will the US use the new nuclear bunkerbusters?
In the end, the US will congratulate itself for saving the world from a nuclear Iran. The US will also shoulder itself with still more ongoing military missions to pay for and still higher oil prices. Suffering a few thousand dead American soldiers will be accepted as part of the necessity of defending liberty.
He also forgets the preliminary maneuvers the US will take prior to the attack:
1. The US will siphon and store enormous petrol reserves in Iraq to keep US troops there well supplied with fuel in preparation for a major and prolonged oil shortage. Certainly, it is understood that Iran's retaliation will be focussed on American oil supplies in the middle east.
2. The US will once again seek and be denied UN support and the US will once again make the UN irrelevant by creating a coalition of the willing (Israel, UK, and australia plus whatever eastern European countries they can bribe). The president will announce this coalition to the public just as the air strikes commence (evening, american time) so americans will be given plenty of time to react before monday morning rush hour. Panic at the pumps will be minimized.
3. Iran will unleash a wave of attacks on US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as these troops are well positioned to strike Iran, they are also well positioned to be struck by Iran. Iranian agents already move freely in Baghdad and Kabul, both places were formerly off limits to them under Saddam Hussein and the Taliban. They already have numerous strikes planned out on well spotted targets. They simply await the order.
4. Scuds are very effective in knocking out oil refineries. Oil laden supertankers in the persian gulf are also easy targets by a variety of means. The US navy will have their fleet working hard maintaining protective umbrellas for the thousands of tankers snaking past Iran's coast. This will be a permanent job, Something the US taxpayer will burden alone.
5. Any international outcry will be muted. Protestors can cry foul around the world, but it will not lead to any oil embargo against the US. Hugo Chavez is all bark no bite.
6. Bunkerbuster bombs are easily foiled with some inventive bunker designs. Since the bunkerbusters used on Iraq were basically HEAT rounds built on a Giant scale, the solution is obvious. The only question is will the US use the new nuclear bunkerbusters?
In the end, the US will congratulate itself for saving the world from a nuclear Iran. The US will also shoulder itself with still more ongoing military missions to pay for and still higher oil prices. Suffering a few thousand dead American soldiers will be accepted as part of the necessity of defending liberty.