SaintLucifer
beer, I want beer
Number_6 said:
Dumb Americans, testing weaponry on their own soil. Even the French are smart enough to do this in the Pacific.
Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'
- Thread starter Tyrant
- Start date
Dumb Americans, testing weaponry on their own soil. Even the French are smart enough to do this in the Pacific.
SaintLucifer
beer, I want beer
TJHairball said:
*ROTFMLAO @ Pakistan and Turkey having 'significant' armies* :laugh:
TJHairball
I love this place
Thank you for giving me an excuse to show off my knowledge of the matter.
I suppose you could consider Turkey's military insignificant seeing as it's only
Iran isn't far off in terms of number of troops it fields... which makes it a devil of a hard target. It appears to have been arming up recently - big surprise, eh? In order to crack Iran, you need every advantage you can get - including hitting it from both sides.
Turkey has a very rich military tradition, and has usually played a prominent role in NATO exercises - and also played a notable role in the recent Iraq war. Remember, this is what was left of the Ottoman Empire. They used to be a lot more prominent, but you still don't want to mess with them. They lost out in WWI to war with Russia, the UK, and the US together, but they've wisely stayed out of major conflicts since... while continually developing their military. This was the greatest military power to avoid participating in WWII.
The Turkish air force operates well over 400 modern fightercraft. Very few countries can compete with this total (Canada, for example, has about 1/4 as air combat craft), and almost none can deploy this quantity in Turkey's region. Although not a global power, they are a very significant regional power.
And Turkey keeps in practice, even if they've been avoiding major conflicts.
Resistance is active, and war is still going on... but the conquest has been made for strategic intents and purposes. The US may freely move through, base forces in, etc etc, Iraq, which is all that is needed to launch the assault on Iran.
I daresay it's a bad idea... but that seems to be the goal set forth by PNAC et al, i.e., the Bush administration.
Last I checked, Turkey had the 7th most ground troops of any country on the face of the Earth (680,000 or so - about 13 times Canada's standing army, for reference). Pakistan comes in close behind, last time I checked (620,000), although I've heard mercenaries described as one of Pakistan's main exports before.SaintLucifer said:
I suppose you could consider Turkey's military insignificant seeing as it's only
Iran isn't far off in terms of number of troops it fields... which makes it a devil of a hard target. It appears to have been arming up recently - big surprise, eh? In order to crack Iran, you need every advantage you can get - including hitting it from both sides.
Turkey has a very rich military tradition, and has usually played a prominent role in NATO exercises - and also played a notable role in the recent Iraq war. Remember, this is what was left of the Ottoman Empire. They used to be a lot more prominent, but you still don't want to mess with them. They lost out in WWI to war with Russia, the UK, and the US together, but they've wisely stayed out of major conflicts since... while continually developing their military. This was the greatest military power to avoid participating in WWII.
The Turkish air force operates well over 400 modern fightercraft. Very few countries can compete with this total (Canada, for example, has about 1/4 as air combat craft), and almost none can deploy this quantity in Turkey's region. Although not a global power, they are a very significant regional power.
And Turkey keeps in practice, even if they've been avoiding major conflicts.
Iraq is unquestionably under US military control.
Resistance is active, and war is still going on... but the conquest has been made for strategic intents and purposes. The US may freely move through, base forces in, etc etc, Iraq, which is all that is needed to launch the assault on Iran.
I daresay it's a bad idea... but that seems to be the goal set forth by PNAC et al, i.e., the Bush administration.
SaintLucifer
beer, I want beer
TJHairball said:
Uh no. The Turks lost to the BRITISH only. Why do you think we owned the entire Mideast?? MORON.
Oooh. Look at Turkey's 'modern' air force:
Turkey has joined the system development and demonstration phase of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, at a cost of $175 million. It will invest another $75 million if the government decides the country will participate in the industrial package of the programme. The Deal which makes Turkey a level 3 partner in the programme was signed on July 11 2002. A requirement exists for 150 F-35s to replace F-4Es and F-16Cs from 2013. Turkey and Israel are building on their military (friendship) co-operation with a number of joint projects like the upgrading of 54 Turkish F-4E Phantoms which will involve a avionics and structural upgrade, the upgraded Phantoms will be known as F-4E 2020 Terminator.
*ROTFLMAO @ the Turks still using the F4E Phantom* Shit. That thing predates Vietnam. Who the fuck uses F-16s? Turkey is too large for those. Canada is in the midst of upgrading our CF-18 Hornet to SuperHornets and we spend a mere FRACTION of what the Turks spend.
TJHairball
I love this place
Try again. This time paying close attention to what actually happened. Britain had lots of help from Russia and France (who, for obvious reasons, didn't get nearly the slice of pie that Britain did - although Kazakhstan is a pretty huge chunk of territory), incited a civil war, and still Turkey had enough fight left in it to refuse the more punitive terms of the Treaty of Sevres and beat the Greeks in the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1921).SaintLucifer said:
The F-16 is closely contemporary with the F-18, and a fairly good fighter while in good hands.The F-4E is not the main part of Turkey's air force.
F-16Ds are every bit as modern fighters as the Hornets Canada has; F-16s are the most widely used American fighter around the planet, as far as I can tell.
F-35s are ... a very modern airframe, shall we say. These reasons (along with, again, the fact that Turkey has been a very solid military ally of the US since NATO's inception) mean we're not going to invade Turkey any time soon.
SaintLucifer
beer, I want beer
TJHairball said:A quick review. In 2001, the US, with international support, invades Afghanistan. Support from Pakistan is critical in this matter, as the map makes clear - US forces came to Afghanistan primarily through Pakistan and Uzbekistan. As Afghanistan was in a state of civil unrest, it was fairly easy for US forces to depose the Taleban.
Use of Pakistani airspace was necessary, but entirely usable. The US installs a permanent military presence in Afghanistan. The new Afghanistani government has no choice but to accept it.
2002: Bush describes "Iraq, Iran, and North Korea" as an "Axis of Evil."
2003: The US invades Iraq, allegedly in order to control . Support from Turkey, whose interest is in there not being a Kurdish state established, is easily obtained and highly useful. The demoralized Iraqi military - whose existence was primarily to fight against Iran - collapses easily.
The new Iraqi government has no choice but to accept an apparently permanent US military presence, although mounting protests suggest that the US will have to start drawing down troop presences.
The US makes noises about Syria having received Iraq's WMD, but this drumbeat is dropped after a while.
Now, North Korea is in no real danger of being invaded - nor, for that matter, are we ready to try and conquer Pakistan or Turkey, although the propaganda machines make it clear we are supposed to be uncomfortable with Pakistan. Both may or may not allow us to use their airspace or station troops through their borders; both have very strong militaries.
However, firm control of Afghanistan and Iraq puts us in a perfect position to invade Iran, with or without help from any of our Islamic allies. Our air bases in Saudi Arabia can be used for airstrikes; such could also be performed from the Indian Ocean. We can engage Iran from both directions.
This seems likely to succeed. The only surprise is that this hasn't started yet. I suspect the administration does not trust success to last against Iran (a far more stubborn and unified opponent than Iraq or Afghanistan), and allowing only the initial phases before the midterm elections will have the population at its best achievable war-fervor.
Conquering Iran also allows installation of military bases there. A US military presence in Iran allows supply of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq that doesn't pass through independent Islamic nations, particularly Pakistan - allowing the administration to harden its stance towards Pakistan, or - should future administrations be even more in favor of war on the entire Islamic world - start in on Syria and Jordan with minimal justification the next time they have a spat with Israel. After all, there would be an occupied US imperial presence right there.
At this point, I doubt that any invasion of Pakistan is planned for the immediat future, due to Pakistan's ability to reach Israel with the nuclear weapons it has stationed on the Iranian border; however, you can bet that the moment Pakistan starts to experience serious political upheaval, US forces will be there to "stabilize" the situation in their favor.
You are but clearly a MORON. The USA never has displayed any intention
of invading Iran nor could they. The USA has none. Why the mention of the USA ever attempting to invade Turkey? They are an ally. You have heard of an vast organisation called NATO yes? Turkey is a signatory nation. For the USA to ever consider invading Turkey this would be comparable to them invading Britain.
As for the US presence in Iraq, the only reason they remain is to fight the insurgents as the USA knows the moment they leave that nation will revert to civil war. The USA does not wish the entire point of its invasion to be rendered moot by leaving and having the insurgents manage to gain control of Iraq. This has no bearing on whether the Iraqis want them there or not. You think the current Iraqi government wants the USA to leave? You can rest assured they do not for those in power would be the first victims of a civil war and the USA knows it.
Since when does the USA have firm control of Iraq? How many Iraqi government officials have been assassinated since their elections? This is not 'control'. This is a country in chaos. How would it be possible to invade Iran from a country in which you have absolutely no control?
The USA managed to gain permission from Turkey during your invasion of Iraq by simply forgiving much of Turkey's monetary debt. Even then, the USA allowed only a minute presence. The USA was allowed no ground forces in Turkey during the invasion. It was Turkey that had hundreds of thousands of troops at their border with Iraq prepared to take on the Kurds if need be. No US ground troops ever touched Turkish soil. Only the Turkish air bases were used to transport specialised troops and for air strikes although not very many of those (by far the majority of air strikes originated from a US carrier task force which had a Canadian destroyer acting as its 'flagship'). The permission to allow use of Turkish bases was not 'easily' obtained. Threats were bandied about by the US government if they refused to comply. The US was forced to 'buy off' the Turks. See: http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/US-blames-Turkey-for-Iraq-chaos/2005/03/21/1111253960989.html
The USA does not have air bases in Saudi Arabia. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/29/sprj.irq.saudi.us/
and
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/new_battlefield/saudiarabia.asp?cp1=1
and
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85446,00.html.
Why do you mention any possible intention of the USA invading Pakistan? This has never been a US concern. The Pakistanis are getting along just fine with the USA thanks to that nation's huge debtload with the USA.
The USA has firm control of Afghanistan? Since when? A recent Afghani was almost executed because he had converted to Christianity. This was barely averted thanks to pressure exerted against Afghanistan not from the USA but Canada. Karzai barely listened to the US protests but he certainly listened to my Canadian government. This is US control??
As for Iran, you had better believe the USA has no intention of invading that nation. You would never succeed and I suspect your own government and military know this.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/21/MNGHUBERIV1.DTL
If Pakistan and Iran become a threat to Israel, believe me when I say they will do something about it. http://www.amconmag.com/2004_09_13/article.htm
TJHairball
I love this place
Wait and see, Lucy. By 2008 at the latest is my unhappy prediction.SaintLucifer said:
To discuss why - in spite of it being an Islamic nation located halfway conveniently - it wouldn't be invaded.
Which the US does not need to do to invade Iran - as I pointed out. Paying Turkey off again is, of course, still an option, albeit an expensive one in terms of political and economic capital.
The USA has military forces stationed in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait. Granted, I missed noting the stand-down of US forces in Saudi Arabia, but they haven't been removed from the region... merely relocated to a better spot.
I can update the map; Qatar is an optimal air base location for launching raids on Iran. Much better than what the US had in Saudi Arabia.
Again, I brought it up to explain why it's very unlikely.
Militarily, since the beginning of 2002. Politically, Karzai is in the US's pocket, and is willing to bend over backward to avoid giving the US offense. The recent case about the Christian convert demonstrated just how much influence the US has over the Afghani government.
Make up your mind... Iran is being clearly depicted as a threat to Israel. Pakistan already has the capability to nuke the stuffing out of Israel, but they don't have the motivation to, and will stay uneasy allies with the US unless Musharraf loses control of things over there. If he does, all bets are off.
SaintLucifer
beer, I want beer
TJHairball said:
The USA would never invade Turkey because it is an ALLY you MORON. NATO? You do know what those four letters stand for yes?? OMMFG? *rubs my temples*. As for Qatar, that was originally a Canadian base. You state the USA would attack from airbases in Saudi Arabia. I told you there were none. Have been none since 2003. Sheeeit. When will you learn to read?? Pakistan? Nuke Israel? Are you fucking stupid?? Pakistan would get their asses kicked if ever they attempted to attack Israel. They are not stupid to attack a nation that has greater nukes. Duh? They are also not stupid enough to attack with a nuclear-armed India waiting in the wings rubbing their hands with anticipation. The moment the nukes fly out of Islamabad, the Indian nukes will be on their way.
The Christian convert incident was thanks to CANADA, not the USA. It was the Canadian government who had him released. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060322.wxafghanchrist22/BNStory/National/
Fuck. Why are Americans so stupid?
TJHairball
I love this place
Read the cards, Lucy. Pakistan's nukes are deployed - by and large - not on the Indian border... but on the Iranian border. They have the range to reach Israel. (Actually, they have bigger - longer range - missiles available than Israel, last I checked, although Israel could easily acquire better ones through the US. Quite possibly more payload reserve, although Israel is playing its cards close to its chest.)SaintLucifer said:
Now, I - and everybody else - know that Pakistan has no immediate intentions of nuking Israel. But the capability brings with it strategic considerations, which the US (and Israel) must weigh carefully before considering, say, direct action against Pakistan. Again, Iran clearly shines as a target by comparison - to such as Bush, it sits there saying "Take me."
The drumbeat clearly shows that all parties involved anticipate military action.
There are two questions only:
How can this be avoided via third parties gumming up the works? (i.e., diplomatic measures, UN resolutions, political protests, etc)
When's the tip-off coming? (Mid-term elections, or presidential elections? Perhaps at a strategically opportune time, or when someone misinterprets a move made by the other side?)
TJHairball
I love this place
So... it just goes to show I'm not a professional military analyst, because while I thought the Caspian Sea a highly unlikely method of attack, apparently the Pentagon's been running sims on it.
The Question
Eternal
TJ -- if you can afford it, get yourself even a Basic subscription to StratFor. www.stratfor.com. It's good education, and a good read, on top of it. 