Iran says it will destroy any aggressor

[Nyezhov]

8 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

Very entertaining thread.

Keyboard warriors at their finest.

 

Just remember;  it is "E raan"  not "eye Ran".

 

Add according to Thais it is "Pawtaya"  not "Patty-yah"..... 

I prefer Persia, far more appropos in a Historical Context.

 

Hey and thanks for the compliment. There is a lot of study involved, its one of my hobbies. I spend a whole day once learning how to correctly time Ma Duece, and can even lighten the trigger pull on an 1895 Nagant. Ive been to the Custer Battlefield 4x and have fought the Battle of Verdun step by step across the battlefield, except for the Zone Rouge where the French Army wont let you go. Do you know the blast radius for a B52 delivered cruise missle with a conventional warhead? About 380 meteres IIRC. Very cool.

[Nyezhov]

24 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The Trump policy on Iran is a disaster and he has been 'played' by Israel and Netanyhu. The best news for 2020 would be the defeat of Trump and  Netanyhu.

Yeah, its those Israelis again. The fount of all evil manipulating behind the scenes. The Zionist puppetmasters of the decadent, racially impure, ignorant Americans.

 

Thought I heard that in a speech in the 1940s.....

[Morch]

45 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

OK. Here. Listen. Everyone knows that Intel is not impeccable, but when you can tell eye colour from 50 miles up, its pretty good.

 

The Iranians have no way of knowing where US Naval assets are outside the Gulf. They have no way of knowing where the planes are outside the limits of their Air Defense Zones. They dont have the surveillance infrastructure. They have no idea from what direction the attack will come from, nor when it will hit until the explosives go bang. 

 

Duh. Thats why you fire several msssiles at each target. Redundency.

 

Oh Im sure they will target whomever is in the Gulf, but thats not where the attack is going to come from, is it. Im sure they will be so busy diving for cover that their retaliatory efforts will be delayed. In fact, I daresay that the best they can do is use their proxies to attack civilian targets, because thats how they fight. 

 

But like I said, lets just agree to disagree. The Iranians are hffin and puffin and arent going to destroy anyone. They should be thanking their God everyday that they havent woken up to smoking ruins and a <deleted> off populace banging on the gates demanding freedom.

 

 

Telling the eye color from 50 miles up is cool. Guess that feature was off when, for example, that drone killed them Afghani civilians a few days ago. And again, the same intel couldn't save the USA drone from being shot down, the same intel failed to know about the planned attack on SA, and failed to detect them incoming missiles/drones. So far, not even a definitive statement as to who carried it out, from where and using what means. 

 

The Iranians have no way....are you for real? Vessels communicate. Vessels operate radars. And nowadays quite a bit of satellite imagery available even from civilian/commercial sources. They may not know where each and every vessel is, and subs are harder to pin. But generally speaking, it's not all that complicated.

 

Same comments with regard to the bit about "limits of their Air Defense Zones". Normally, intelligence and monitoring coverage exceeds these by quite a bit. As for Iran not having the "surveillance infrastructure" - says who?

 

I would suggest that the people who's job it is in Iran are far more informed about USA capabilities and attack options than yourself. That you assert they know nearly nothing is nonsense. Doesn't mean they can withstand such attacks, but that's not quite the same thing.

 

Redundancy is great. Somehow you seem to assume it doesn't work both ways. No idea why.

 

You have no idea where a USA attack will come from. And if you did, then I'm sure the Iranians know as well.

 

Proxies may certainly be used. And regardless of how you feel about it, it's an issue that will need to be addressed. Numerous military and infrastructure targets right on their door step, as well.

 

The Iranian statement being a hollow one was something I commented on earlier. Your own bluster isn't far behind, though.

[ExpatOilWorker]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What the more bellicose posters here don't seem to realize is how warfare has changed. The common belief I've seen in evidence is that those cruise missiles and drones should have been stopped or at least monitored by various US systems. Has it ever occurred to any of them that maybe these systems and their coverage isn't as good as advertised? That maybe their impression of the overwhelming efficacy of US surveillance systems owes more to the movies than to reality? We are in an age of asymmetric warfare where, thanks to technological advances, very smart weapons can be created for relatively small amounts of cash. And not even the military with the biggest budget by far in the world, may be able to stop them.

I think you are right, radar and satellites aren't as good as Hollywood likes us to believe.

Remember Mathias Rust?

He landed a plan in the Red Square in 1987, during the cold war. Radars are only as good as the operators and I guess the Saudis like to sleep at night after some shisha.

[Morch]

44 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Don't dispute it- however, before this happens Iran will cause death and destruction all over the Middle East andblock the Straits of hormuz  The US will eventually win but at a huge coste to people and affect the  economies of the World.

 

The only answer that makes any sense is not to strike..... Trump made a huge mistake by pulling out of the agreement with Iran . He has no support from the Europeans and his actions have caused the current situation.

 

If there is credible evidence that Iran attacked Saudi Arabia's oil terminals- then the prudent course of action is to go to the United nations and let Saudi Arabia make a formal complaint to the UN Security Council and have a debate by the full council.

 

At the same time - the US and Iran need to talk. even if it is through a third party and get the already prior approved agreement back in force with some subtle improvements so Trump can save what little face he has left.

 

The actual solution will be the removal of Trump by either  Impreachment and conviction of a new Presient by vote.

 

The Trump policy on Iran is a disaster and he has been 'played' by Israel and Netanyhu. The best news for 2020 would be the defeat of Trump and  Netanyhu.

 

Quite interesting that you analysis doesn't see any issues whatsoever with the Iranian leadership's policies and actions. Somehow it's other leaders that need to be disposed of and be held accountable.

 

 

[Skallywag]

Forgot if you can post news show clips.  If it shows up, please watch and listen to Tulsi Gabbard, says to Trump "we are not your prostitutes, you are not our pimp"

 

 

[Nyezhov]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

You have no idea where a USA attack will come from. And if you did, then I'm sure the Iranians know as well.

Oh Im sure they do. Look to the skies. And the balance of your post is so childishly ignorant as to not deserve a response. Im sure there are others that will argue with you for the sake of arguing. Off to dinner!

[Thaidream]

1 minute ago, Nyezhov said:

eah, its those Israelis again. The fount of all evil manipulating behind the scenes. The Zionist puppetmasters of the decadent, racially impure, ignorant Americans.

 

Thought I heard that in a speech in the 1940s.....

Let me be perfectly clear- what you just stated is absolutely ridiculous and don't even think about connecting what I said to your interpretation.   Just because I consider that the current  Israeli PM has 'played' Trump  so he abrogated the Iran agreement does not mean that I have ever considered Israel an enemy . They simply have a lousy leaser as does the USA.

 

In addition, you never heard any speechs from the 40's unless you found them in the library or on the Internet.  You might want to study the rise of the Third Reich and especially the commentary by it's Proganda Minister Josef Geobells- "Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it,” 

 

You're not the only person who studied History and so have I. I also have lived it- with the US Army and working as a civilian on military installations all over the World.  I personally know several 4 star generals and have been invited to the Generals' Mess on several occassions.

 

I know exactly how they think and they have great respect for their enemy and the death and destruction of war.  The US military command  plans for the worst and hopes for the best but in no way dismisses the fact that a cornered enemy will fight to the death .   The time I spent in Iran  before the Iranian Revolution taught me that the people wanted the change; were willing to sacrifice a great deal for i and most likely support the Ayatollas if the US attacked.

 

Your rhetoric makes light of war and the build up and aftermath/ Simply get air superiority; destroy the Command Control and let the good times roll.  We thought that was the case in Vietnam-however- the Vietnamese had a different idea- they would simply carry their equipment on their backs and walk through the jungle to get from Hanoi to Saigon.  I remember a 4 Star US General  muse one day- 'How in the helll could a fourth World country stand up to the power of the American military machine."  I looked at him and smiled but I knew the answer.

 

Go to Washington DC and visit the  Vietnam Memorial with 60,000 names on it or go to Arlington Cemetary and see the rows of graves.  Then talk to me about air superiority; destruct of C and C and what follows/

[observer90210]

In every war, behind the scenes, some interests work hand in hand,  between the belligerents.

 

Big money is the main issue.

 

During many armed conflicts in the past,  intelligence agencies or economical groups were hand in hand with their country's enemy,  with the ultimate goal of generating  $$$$ ! No tactics were spared either with manipulation of public opinion or alliances made behind the enemy lines between the so called "ennemies" in the fields.

 

A big circus run by a bunch of cheats on every side...

[billd766]

10 hours ago, sammieuk1 said:

The time for talking is running out as more of the middle east will become a wasteland with these lunatics running the show???? 

I don't think anyone in the USA knows how to stop Pompeo and Trump.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Oh Im sure they do. Look to the skies. And the balance of your post is so childishly ignorant as to not deserve a response. Im sure there are others that will argue with you for the sake of arguing. Off to dinner!

 

More like you can't back your nonsense with anything of substance, never mind reason. Do  you somehow imagine that Iran doesn't have intel services? No military planners? No tech experts? Yeah, but big talking poster on a Thai expat forum - he's in the know. Sure thing. Enjoy your dinner.

[singking]

What the more bellicose posters here don't seem to realize is how warfare has changed. The common belief I've seen in evidence is that those cruise missiles and drones should have been stopped or at least monitored by various US systems. Has it ever occurred to any of them that maybe these systems and their coverage isn't as good as advertised? That maybe their impression of the overwhelming efficacy of US surveillance systems owes more to the movies than to reality? We are in an age of asymmetric warfare where, thanks to technological advances, very smart weapons can be created for relatively small amounts of cash. And not even the military with the biggest budget by far in the world, may be able to stop them.

You have a valid point. If these weapons did come from Iran then the American Navy that is present in the Strait didn’t even know that these alleged drones and missile s flew across them?


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Thaidream]

21 minutes ago, Morch said:

Quite interesting that you analysis doesn't see any issues whatsoever with the Iranian leadership's policies and actions. Somehow it's other leaders that need to be disposed of and be held accountable.

I see plenty wrong with Iran's olicies and it's  actions throughout the region.  However- the Obama Administration in conjunction with Iran, Europe, Russia and China  agreed to a 10 year  treaty with Iran . It was Donald Trum alone who stated he would not abide by the agreement and re-established sanctions.

 

Undoubtedly- Trump- was urged on by Israel's PM who voiced extreme displeasure with the agreement and was instamental in Trump  abrogating the agreement. No credible leader would do such a thing.  Almost every American official- Secretary of State; Secretary of Defense; US Congress  asked Trump not to do what he did.

 

There are other ways to stymy Iran's policies and support of terrorism that have been well documented and used by every American Administration without doing what Trump is doing.  What credibility does the US have now when a prior US President and other Nations have inked a treaty and then the US withdraws.

 

[singking]

 
Yes. They are also better motivated, and more united compared to Iraq's forces. That said, the statement is still obviously a lame propaganda effort. Not out of line with other gems issued from the very same mouth.

From both sides


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Thaidream said:

I see plenty wrong with Iran's olicies and it's  actions throughout the region.  However- the Obama Administration in conjunction with Iran, Europe, Russia and China  agreed to a 10 year  treaty with Iran . It was Donald Trum alone who stated he would not abide by the agreement and re-established sanctions.

 

Undoubtedly- Trump- was urged on by Israel's PM who voiced extreme displeasure with the agreement and was instamental in Trump  abrogating the agreement. No credible leader would do such a thing.  Almost every American official- Secretary of State; Secretary of Defense; US Congress  asked Trump not to do what he did.

 

There are other ways to stymy Iran's policies and support of terrorism that have been well documented and used by every American Administration without doing what Trump is doing.  What credibility does the US have now when a prior US President and other Nations have inked a treaty and then the US withdraws.

 

 

You may see plenty wrong, but your posts hardly mention them.

 

It's alright to assert that Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA was a mistake (no argument), and fair enough to say Netanyahu played a part  in this (again, no argument, while pointing out Netanyahu himself was acting against advisors views). 

 

Then there's the way Iran's leadership handles this situation. Some would say they have "any right" to do whatever. My point is that their own actions and reactions contribute to the mess, and to the danger of things getting out of hand. Then again, walking the edge of a crisis is pretty much how Iran rolls.

[xylophone]

6 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

In every war, behind the scenes, some interests work hand in hand,  between the belligerents.

 

Big money is the main issue.

 

During many armed conflicts in the past,  intelligence agencies or economical groups were hand in hand with their country's enemy,  with the ultimate goal of generating  $$$$ ! No tactics were spared either with manipulation of public opinion or alliances made behind the enemy lines between the so called "ennemies" in the fields.

 

A big circus run by a bunch of cheats on every side...

Firstly, as for Iran saying it will destroy any aggressor, well even though they may have some weapons of war, they could not live up to their rhetoric. However that does not detract from the fact that they think they can and I was in Libya in 1970 when there was some sort of "fracas/disagreement" with the Americans and even the supposedly educated Libyan engineers I was working with really did believe that the Libyans could attack the USA any time they wanted and win the war – – yes they were that brainwashed and naive.

 

But reading the main points of Observers90210's post reminded me of how things have changed and how "war" these days is not what it is seen to be, and is driven by other interests.........

 

The "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco was purely because the USA wanted to invade and take care of its oil supplies.

 

The Saudis financed/were behind/had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, but the US decided to do nothing about it because of oil, amongst other things.

 

The journalist Kashoggi was murdered by the Saudis, but the US has decided to get alongside of them and helped to bomb targets in the Yemen? It has been said that it wasn't just oil which has kept these parties together, but one of trumps family who has business interests with the Saudis.

 

Vietnam has been mentioned, and what a waste of lives that was (with respect to those who died) and for what?? Stopping the spread of communism was supposedly the main reason, but I wonder what other forces were going on behind the scenes.

 

But the US is not alone out there, because Putin is almost as bad and will support anything which will increase his power in the region and in areas outside of it.

 

As a kid I used to look up to the USA with a sort of hero worship, but as time has gone on and I have gotten older, I realise that they are just as corrupt as anyone else and will blatantly look after their own interests irrespective of the cost in lives.
 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Scot123 said:

I'm sorry but Iran needs to be dealt with. I am sure plans are already done for quick sticks of all key targets which I am sure between Israil and the USA have them all. As for terrorism we'll we already have that and maybe ending both financial and horboring of terrorists by Iran in itself is reason. Iran should have been the target in the first place and not Iraq (a blind man should have seen that). I did not support Iraq 2 but I would 100% support Iran 1. As for the rhetoric.... Lol wasn't Sadam saying the same things even as their main airport was being taken.... Let Israel off the leash and then support her. 

Who says that Iran needs to be dealt with? The USA, Israel and who else?

 

The region will cool down if only the USA would remove its troops, ships and aircraft and put a muzzle on Israel. Stop supplying Saudi Arabia with US weapons and perhaps then they will stop the war in Yemen.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015–present)

 

Concurrently, a coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched military operations by using air strikes to restore the former Yemeni government.[15] The United States provided intelligence and logistical support for the campaign.[12] According to the UN and other sources, from March 2015 to December 2017, between 8,670–13,600 people were killed in Yemen, including more than 5,200 civilians, as well as estimates of more than 50,000 dead as a result of an ongoing famine due to the war.[142][154][155]

The conflict has been widely seen as an extension of the Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and as a means to combat Iranian influence in the region.[156][157] In 2018, the United Nations warned that 13 million Yemeni civilians face starvation in what it says could become "the worst famine in the world in 100 years."

[RideJocky]

Yes, but for the US the world would be living in peaceful harmony.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Morch]

 

@billd766

 

You've neglected to mention some of Iran's neighbors. And, with variations - even the countries who signed up to the JCPOA aren't in favor of all of Iran's regional ambitions and actions.

 

As for your nonsense bit about the region cooling down if only the USA will fully withdraw its troops and "put a muzzle on Israel" - I guess you somehow will make Iran drop its intentions of gaining dominance in the region, by any means possible.  Or that it would somehow spell the end of various other conflicts and issues bringing strife to the region.

[billd766]

40 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Forgot if you can post news show clips.  If it shows up, please watch and listen to Tulsi Gabbard, says to Trump "we are not your prostitutes, you are not our pimp"

 

 

A very interesting video. Thank you for providing the link.

[sunnyboy2018]

8 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

War is a racket. Big money is going to get spent. Tax payers will pay, and a handful will receive. Not to mention the spoils of war. America is still manufacturing consent, but they won't let this one get away.

Israel and Saudi will not be sad to see this kick off either for obvious reasons.

But I expect Iran will not be as easy Iraq. Not that a quick win is even desirable. The American model of war is to establish air superiority and then an extended quagmire. It should be good for 10 years of munition sales.

The purpose is not to conquer the enemy but to give them decades of chaos and despair. The Yanks managed to destabilise South and Central America but its military adventures have been largely unsuccessful. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan. As for Iran: Nuke em till they glow in the dark and their deserts turn to sheet glass.

[bristolboy]

31 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@billd766

 

You've neglected to mention some of Iran's neighbors. And, with variations - even the countries who signed up to the JCPOA aren't in favor of all of Iran's regional ambitions and actions.

 

As for your nonsense bit about the region cooling down if only the USA will fully withdraw its troops and "put a muzzle on Israel" - I guess you somehow will make Iran drop its intentions of gaining dominance in the region, by any means possible.  Or that it would somehow spell the end of various other conflicts and issues bringing strife to the region.

This is a typical "both sides are at fault" argument. The JCPOA signatories may not be in favor of all of Iran's actions, but in case you haven't noticed, none of them have initiated the process by which Iran would be found in violation. You think that might be because they recognize who is actually responsible for the present situation? 

[RideJocky]

Firstly, as for Iran saying it will destroy any aggressor, well even though they may have some weapons of war, they could not live up to their rhetoric. However that does not detract from the fact that they think they can and I was in Libya in 1970 when there was some sort of "fracas/disagreement" with the Americans and even the supposedly educated Libyan engineers I was working with really did believe that the Libyans could attack the USA any time they wanted and win the war – – yes they were that brainwashed and naive.
 
But reading the main points of Observers90210's post reminded me of how things have changed and how "war" these days is not what it is seen to be, and is driven by other interests.........
 
The "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco was purely because the USA wanted to invade and take care of its oil supplies.
 
The Saudis financed/were behind/had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, but the US decided to do nothing about it because of oil, amongst other things.
 
The journalist Kashoggi was murdered by the Saudis, but the US has decided to get alongside of them and helped to bomb targets in the Yemen? It has been said that it wasn't just oil which has kept these parties together, but one of trumps family who has business interests with the Saudis.
 
Vietnam has been mentioned, and what a waste of lives that was (with respect to those who died) and for what?? Stopping the spread of communism was supposedly the main reason, but I wonder what other forces were going on behind the scenes.
 
But the US is not alone out there, because Putin is almost as bad and will support anything which will increase his power in the region and in areas outside of it.
 
As a kid I used to look up to the USA with a sort of hero worship, but as time has gone on and I have gotten older, I realise that they are just as corrupt as anyone else and will blatantly look after their own interests irrespective of the cost in lives.
 

If the United States is only interested in it’s oil supply, why didn’t it just take the Saudi oil back in the ‘30s, why did they build the industry for them?

Why didn’t they take Iraq’s oil?

Why not just take everyone’s oil? Particularly eighty years ago when they were all living in tents and cooking over camel-sh*t fires?

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, Thaidream said:

Go to Washington DC and visit the  Vietnam Memorial with 60,000 names on it or go to Arlington Cemetary and see the rows of graves.  Then talk to me about air superiority;

No then Ill talk to you about a failure of will. But hey, you talk to generals, I only talk to SAS guys in beer bars. ????

[ThePioneer]

7 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Why didn’t they take Iraq’s oil?

You must be joking, right?

 

The real goal - as Greg Muttitt documented in his book Fuel on the Fire citing declassified Foreign Office files from 2003 onwards - was stabilising global energy supplies as a whole by ensuring the free flow of Iraqi oil to world markets - benefits to US and UK companies constituted an important but secondary goal:

"The most important strategic interest lay in expanding global energy supplies, through foreign investment, in some of the world's largest oil reserves – in particular Iraq. This meshed neatly with the secondary aim of securing contracts for their companies. Note that the strategy documents released here tend to refer to 'British and global energy supplies.' British energy security is to be obtained by there being ample global supplies – it is not about the specific flow."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/mar/20/iraq-war-oil-resources-energy-peak-scarcity-economy

 

The top five source countries of U.S. petroleum imports in 2017 were Canada (40%), Saudi Arabia (9%), Mexico (7%), Venezuela (7%), and Iraq (6%).

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/oil-drive-us-invasion-of-iraq-3968261

[brucec64]

Quite admire the rhetoric though, can you imagine the UK prime minister threatening to destroy aggressors? Would be highly amusing.

When your head of state is called "supreme leader", what other kind of rhetoric could you possibly have?

Sent from my SM-N950F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[canuckamuck]

What is needed here is a line in the sand. Where's Obama at?

[bristolboy]

20 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

What is needed here is a line in the sand. Where's Obama at?

I can still remember when he thanked the Iranians for shooting down a drone. Oh wait...that was Trump.

[Morch]

 

@ThePioneer

 

That's not quite the same as "taking the oil". Countries having interests is how things are and will always be. It's not necessarily always a bad thing.

[Kinnock]

11 hours ago, Tug said:

Personally I ask mysielf why are we in this position who is directly responsible for this mess?we all know the answere to that one

Saudi Arabia