Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Israel Bombs Iranian Missile base in Sudan - Iran mobilizes Navy


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#31 ARSEN

ARSEN

    Banned

  • ALL-PRO
  • 12,347 posts

Posted 30 October 2012 - 10:49 PM

Not good, not good at all... This will cause an all out conflict in middle east... oil prices will be insane so US will have to step in, it's a given... Either you like it or not... Israel attacks, US will follow suit. I expect Israel to fug with Iran just enough for Iran to fire first rocket into Israel, then Israel will blame Iran for attacking first and will ask everyone for help in defeating the perpetrator. I can also see sabotage on Israeli plans, where they attack their own people and then blame it on Iran. Israeli goal is to make Iran look like a bad guy, otherwise it can be devastating if Israel attacks first without a good reason. Israel knows it very well, otherwise they would attack Iran years ago before Iran spent hundreds billions of dollars on new defense system and new weapons technology.

#32 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,712 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 30 October 2012 - 10:52 PM

There isn't going to be a regular war between Israel and Iran. Some of you really need to look at a friggin map. The Israeli army isn't going to go marching across Jordan and Iraq to get there, and neither is the Iranian army. Any conflicts between the two will be low key, naval and spec ops with maybe some air combat on occassion. Iran and Israel going to war would be like North Carolina and Oregon going to war.

And btw, when has the US ever had to send troops into combat to back up the Israelis? And no silly conspiracy theory crap please.


Meh, borders schmorders. Countries in the way doesn't really mean a whole lot in my opinion. Alliances and military build up in that area can be a tricky business.

Lets use World War One as an example. So prior to this war there was already potential war rumblings between Britain and Germany based on the German threat to British hegemony of the European continent.

So then some shady Serbian nationalist group assassinates the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand or Austria....turns out this nationlist group was supported by some higher ups in the Serbian government.....whoopsy!!

So Austro-Hungarian Empire makes some entirely ridiculous demands to Serbia, known as the Habsburg ultimatum, which, among other things, demands that the Empire be allowed to be part of the judicial process surrounding the assassins, thereby voiding Serbian sovereignty.

So of course Serbia says, "fug off Austria!!" and subsequently Russia notices that with the Austro-Hungarian empire invading Serbia they would have a political rival controlling their only access to the Black Sea, which served as their main trade route. Well they couldn't have that!!

So the Russians built up the military on the border to stop the Austrians....well the goddamn Germans were threatened by a Russian military, of a reported 6 million standing, building up on their borders and they decided that they couldn't be having none of that either! The Germans had this deal called the Schleiffen plan. You see, the Russians and the French were allies, and Germany realized that they couldn't fight the Russian buildup to their east without the French retaliating from the west. So the Schleiffen Plan called for a quick invasion and conquering of France and a subsequent turn back east to defend against Russia. They believed, you see, that the Russian military would take a long time to mobilize. Well the Russians had taken the prior decade improving their rail infrastructure.

Well prior to this, you see, the Germans attempted to request the French to stay Neutral, so that they could just focus on the Russians, and nullify the Schlieffen plan. The French naturally said "fug off" being French pricks that they were.

So here's Britain, who's claiming they want to stay neutral but there's this pesky Belgian country in the way between Germany and France. Once France told Germany to fug off, Britain said "Hey Germany you better not go through Belgium to get to France!! We demand that you only invade their sovereignty a tiny bit and invade through the southern tip of Belgium"

Well Germany said "fug the world" and decided the best course of action was to just go headlong through Belgium into France because that southern tip that the English were willing to concede was the most fortified part of the border. So naturally England had to declare war to stop the dastardly Germans!

And thus, from nothing starts a global conflict. Of course the US would join a few years later after some ship bombings by the Germans, who were, by the way, being starved and blockaded by a superior British navy. But whatever.....

Point being, borders don't really mean poo.

#33 Ivan The Awesome

Ivan The Awesome

    That wasn't a Penalty.

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,878 posts
  • LocationNC

Posted 30 October 2012 - 10:55 PM

Yup, the world is going to come to and end all because of some idiots in the middle east. Woot.

#34 NanuqoftheNorth

NanuqoftheNorth

    Frosty Alaskan Amber

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,638 posts
  • LocationAlaska

Posted 30 October 2012 - 11:06 PM

The only people less popular in the region than the Iranians are the Israelis.

I suspect the rest of the Middle East would be happy to watch these two groups beat the hell out of one another.

I wouldn't blame them for feeling that way either.

#35 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,324 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 05:31 AM

Meh, borders schmorders. Countries in the way doesn't really mean a whole lot in my opinion. Alliances and military build up in that area can be a tricky business.

Lets use World War One as an example. So prior to this war there was already potential war rumblings between Britain and Germany based on the German threat to British hegemony of the European continent.

So then some shady Serbian nationalist group assassinates the Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand or Austria....turns out this nationlist group was supported by some higher ups in the Serbian government.....whoopsy!!

So Austro-Hungarian Empire makes some entirely ridiculous demands to Serbia, known as the Habsburg ultimatum, which, among other things, demands that the Empire be allowed to be part of the judicial process surrounding the assassins, thereby voiding Serbian sovereignty.

So of course Serbia says, "fug off Austria!!" and subsequently Russia notices that with the Austro-Hungarian empire invading Serbia they would have a political rival controlling their only access to the Black Sea, which served as their main trade route. Well they couldn't have that!!

So the Russians built up the military on the border to stop the Austrians....well the goddamn Germans were threatened by a Russian military, of a reported 6 million standing, building up on their borders and they decided that they couldn't be having none of that either! The Germans had this deal called the Schleiffen plan. You see, the Russians and the French were allies, and Germany realized that they couldn't fight the Russian buildup to their east without the French retaliating from the west. So the Schleiffen Plan called for a quick invasion and conquering of France and a subsequent turn back east to defend against Russia. They believed, you see, that the Russian military would take a long time to mobilize. Well the Russians had taken the prior decade improving their rail infrastructure.

Well prior to this, you see, the Germans attempted to request the French to stay Neutral, so that they could just focus on the Russians, and nullify the Schlieffen plan. The French naturally said "fug off" being French pricks that they were.

So here's Britain, who's claiming they want to stay neutral but there's this pesky Belgian country in the way between Germany and France. Once France told Germany to fug off, Britain said "Hey Germany you better not go through Belgium to get to France!! We demand that you only invade their sovereignty a tiny bit and invade through the southern tip of Belgium"

Well Germany said "fug the world" and decided the best course of action was to just go headlong through Belgium into France because that southern tip that the English were willing to concede was the most fortified part of the border. So naturally England had to declare war to stop the dastardly Germans!

And thus, from nothing starts a global conflict. Of course the US would join a few years later after some ship bombings by the Germans, who were, by the way, being starved and blockaded by a superior British navy. But whatever.....

Point being, borders don't really mean poo.


Those situations you described aren't remotely similar to Israel and Iran. There isn't some balance of evenly matched allies lining up to support one or the other. There isn't going to be a world war because of Israel and Iran. There isn't going to be much of a war period because neither side has the capability to sustain a large scale conflict. And yes, in this case borders do mean a lot.

#36 Guest_Super_Freak_*

Guest_Super_Freak_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:11 AM

Posted Image

#37 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,712 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:31 AM

Those situations you described aren't remotely similar to Israel and Iran. There isn't some balance of evenly matched allies lining up to support one or the other. There isn't going to be a world war because of Israel and Iran. There isn't going to be much of a war period because neither side has the capability to sustain a large scale conflict. And yes, in this case borders do mean a lot.


Neither did Serbia or the severely deteriorated Austro-Hungarian empire. But once the ball was rolling, poo went downhill really quickly, pulling in the powerful nations of the time. That was my point, hyperbolic or not. Even if Israel and Iran do not have a real ground war, even a missile offensive and proxy war has the potential to draw in powers that aren't part of the initial pissing match. With traditional western powers backing Israel and Russia and an emergent China backing Iran, not to mention all the minor surrounding arab nations throwing their own little hissy fits.....This is an area with tremendous natural resources value and just like the Black Sea in world war one, it's strategic value will be defended.

#38 Guest_Super_Freak_*

Guest_Super_Freak_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:43 AM

I don't see a land war happening. Iran would need to cross over Iraq and or Syria/Jordan. Iran isn't going to invade these counties just to get to Israel nor are they going to get permission just to crossover. Iranian troops would be sitting ducks to Israeli air power and shot to pieces before they even reached Israeli soil. The use of Iraq is out. There is no love lost between the two and Iraq is sick of war. A SLIM possibility is if somehow Iran and Syria work out a deal where Iranian airborne troops could use Syria as a base. But Iran couldn't mass enough troops to make a dent. Again, Isreali air would shoot them out of the skies. It would be a limited war of missiles and Isreali air power kicking ass. Of course Iran would get in their shots as well. The war would come to a close and both sides will declare victory and have parades. A i don't think the Iranian subs will have much effect other than sinking Isreali merchandise shipping. I guess they COULD sail up the Red sea undetected (fat chance of that) and get a lucky shot off the Isreali port of Eilat.

#39 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,712 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 31 October 2012 - 07:49 AM

I don't see a land war happening. Iran would need to cross over Iraq and or Syria/Jordan. Iran isn't going to invade these counties just to get to Israel nor are they going to get permission just to crossover. Iranian troops would be sitting ducks to Israeli air power and shot to pieces before they even reached Israeli soil. The use of Iraq is out. There is no love lost between the two and Iraq is sick of war. A SLIM possibility is if somehow Iran and Syria work out a deal where Iranian airborne troops could use Syria as a base. But Iran couldn't mass enough troops to make a dent. Again, Isreali air would shoot them out of the skies. It would be a limited war of missiles and Isreali air power kicking ass. Of course Iran would get in their shots as well. The war would come to a close and both sides will declare victory and have parades. A i don't think the Iranian subs will have much effect other than sinking Isreali merchandise shipping. I guess they COULD sail up the Red sea undetected (fat chance of that) and get a lucky shot off the Isreali port of Eilat.


In the unlikely event of an initial ground war. Israel would be the likely invader, not the other way around. It is infinitely more likely that Israel obtains permission Iraq and other us Ally nations to cross their borders with troops than for Iran to do so. But even so, most nations are leery of letting any other country bring troops across their border, no matter their intentions, because of the perceived threat to sovereignty.

#40 Guest_Super_Freak_*

Guest_Super_Freak_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 October 2012 - 08:47 AM

Israel doesn't have the man power for a full scale invasion. They have a small well trained military keyed for home defense. An invasion of Iran would be astronomical for them. I do see the Israelis knocking off as much Iranian infrastructure as possible therefore pissing off the Russians. That being said i don't see Russia getting involved other than increased money and equipment.

#41 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,712 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:01 AM

Israel doesn't have the man power for a full scale invasion. They have a small well trained military keyed for home defense. An invasion of Iran would be astronomical for them. I do see the Israelis knocking off as much Iranian infrastructure as possible therefore pissing off the Russians. That being said i don't see Russia getting involved other than increased money and equipment.


Israel has almost 800,000 military personnel including reserves. That's more than enough to invade Iran, should they deem it necessary. A real Israeli invasion would almost certainly come with allied air and logistic support. Hence the almost guaranteed escalation potential.

Iran, on the other hand, has about 3.8million military personnel (almost one million more than the US total), including reserve and paramilitary, but by all accounts the Israel military is vastly superior in training.

#42 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,950 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:09 AM

Neither did Serbia or the severely deteriorated Austro-Hungarian empire. But once the ball was rolling, poo went downhill really quickly, pulling in the powerful nations of the time. That was my point, hyperbolic or not. Even if Israel and Iran do not have a real ground war, even a missile offensive and proxy war has the potential to draw in powers that aren't part of the initial pissing match. With traditional western powers backing Israel and Russia and an emergent China backing Iran, not to mention all the minor surrounding arab nations throwing their own little hissy fits.....This is an area with tremendous natural resources value and just like the Black Sea in world war one, it's strategic value will be defended.


I guess there is a remote chance Russia and China are interested enough to get involved, but I just dont see Iran holding enough strategic value to either one. Russia has oil, china has coal, and they both have nukes- I dont see what Iran offers them that would be worth direct military intervention against the America's biggest ally.

Russia and China know that if they attack Israel, they might as well be attacking the US- this is the same sort of deterrent that kept the numerous skirmishes during the Cold War from erupting into outright world war

#43 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,324 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:35 AM

Neither did Serbia or the severely deteriorated Austro-Hungarian empire. But once the ball was rolling, poo went downhill really quickly, pulling in the powerful nations of the time. That was my point, hyperbolic or not. Even if Israel and Iran do not have a real ground war, even a missile offensive and proxy war has the potential to draw in powers that aren't part of the initial pissing match. With traditional western powers backing Israel and Russia and an emergent China backing Iran, not to mention all the minor surrounding arab nations throwing their own little hissy fits.....This is an area with tremendous natural resources value and just like the Black Sea in world war one, it's strategic value will be defended.


Actually, yes they did.

Austria Hungary was part of the Triple Alliance which included Germany and Italy (although Italy had signed a secret treaty with France nullifying their membership in the triple alliance. Serbia was allied with Russia, and Russia was part of the Triple Entente, which included France and the Brits. Austria mobilizes for war which guarantees Russia mobilizes for war, which means Germany mobilizes for war which means France and eventually the Brits mobilize for war. The two groups were roughly even in terms of power.

By comparison, Israel has only one major Allie which just happens to be the world's only super power, (but the US has never had to go to war to assist Israel, and will not have to this time). Iran has no allies that would actually be willing to back it in a war, especially if it involves a potential conflict with the world's only super power. They have a couple of countries they buy weapons from, but they are mostly a pariah among nations. If the Warsaw Pact still existed, their might be some validity to this theory, and even then the warsaw pact would be unlikely to go to war to support Iran. But since it doesn't exist, there is no chance whatsoever of this developing into a major world war.

There are some more likely scenarios that could lead to a world war centered around the middle east down the road, but it ain't happening over this largely irrelevant little dustup.

#44 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,712 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:54 AM

Actually, yes they did.

Austria Hungary was part of the Triple Alliance which included Germany and Italy (although Italy had signed a secret treaty with France nullifying their membership in the triple alliance. Serbia was allied with Russia, and Russia was part of the Triple Entente, which included France and the Brits. Austria mobilizes for war which guarantees Russia mobilizes for war, which means Germany mobilizes for war which means France and eventually the Brits mobilize for war. The two groups were roughly even in terms of power.



Well sorta. Russia wasn't allied with Serbia, they just had trade agreements and allowed Russian passage to the black sea. Threat of Austrian (a Russian rival) control of this important trade route, was what ultimately caused Russia to mobilize.

The German Kaiser, Wilhelm, was actually opposed to the Austrian ultimatum to Serbia and had openly discussed not going to war with Russia at all should France promise neutrality so that they could defend their eastern border from a Russian buildup. When France refused, Germany invoked their Schlieffen plan and invaded France. Unfortunately, Russia was able to mobilize their First and Second armies quicker than Germany had hoped so Germany ended up fighting a two front war anyhow, something that they were trying to avoid. Dumbshit Rumania decided to declare war in year three and Germany subsequently wiped the floor with them, which underminded the Russian line.......but I digress.

None of that really matters.....I just have a history degree so I can't help but go on a ramble sometimes.

#45 Tarheel31

Tarheel31

    cynical pessimist

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 645 posts

Posted 31 October 2012 - 09:59 AM

would be like North Carolina and Oregon going to war.


Yeah! Or the U.S. Going to war in Iraq! or Viet Nam!

wait....


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com