To Benjamin: Well you appearantly contradicted yourself. In first paragraph you mentioned it would be absolutely insane to perdict the outcome of the war but then in other paragraphs you sort of did in favor of US. If US had any chance of succeding a military campain against Iran, Cheney/Bush and company would've done so by now, however, their advisors must've known something about US capability in Persian Gulf. For one thing it is not 'Arabian penunsular', it is Persian gulf. To explain 'capability' to you, let's say you are a rich man with millions in the bank, but you only have a $1000 cash in your pocket. without access to bank, your buying 'capability' is what you have in your pocket at that time. That is similiar to US military capability in Persian gulf should they be stupid enough to attack Iran. I suggest you to read the post by 'DOESITMATTER', it does make sense. At least, he knows somethink about the other side's capabilites and did not talk out of pure patriatism like most Americans do. whatever you do, do not underestimate the other side, no matter how stronger you are. Remember we have to take assets from US main land to Persian gulf to fight on somebody's elses homeland. and the locals (Persians) are not Arabs or turks or Afganis, They make their own stuff and unlike the others, are willing to fight to the death to protect their home land from invasion. And if you think trains in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad, then you have no idea how much worse the trains in Iran is, even the coasts are mountains and hostile. US is doing the right thing to engage in talks. US will eventually accept nuclear Iran in return it will get some assurance for the reinstatement of petro-dollar (as oppose to Petro-Euro) from Iranian which is what this whole conflict is all about not a 'so called' nuclear Iran threat. with that said, Iran may not be able to defeat US military, it doesn't have to.
Invading Iran is like invading Russia or China ---- a fool's game. What would be the point, exactly? Imagine that the invader succeeds in putting down all resistance. Then what?
As it happens, there are so many alternatives to Iran's energy resources that it is cheaper to "buy" energy than it is to "steal" it. Some day Russians and Iranians and Arabs will understand this.
The Russians will probably acknowledge this, eventually. The Arabs and Iranians probably will not. Their sense of unreality is permanent, like a cancer that cannot be removed.
It is absolutely insane to predict a general land/sea/air war by U.S. forces against Iran. As a person with some knowledge of America's military capacity, I can state that unless Iran were to initiate a military action against U.S. interests, such as an invasion of the Arabian peninsula, or to close the Striates of Hormuz, or a direct assault on Israel, there would be no support for the U.S. to engage in a war with Iran. " Authoritative Izvestia" is stuck in the cold war era, or its minions lack any understanding of the American political or military capacity. They must think we in America are omnipotent, and can engage in unlimited war in many places at once.
We can't and wouldn't even try.
As for needing Georgia, militarily, we wouldn't. The U.S. Navy can put half a dozen aircraft carriers into the area in a couple of months if need be, and have air superiority. We would certainly have naval superiority. As to land armies, the U.S. military has always known that wherever it would fight, it would be outnumbered, and trains accordingly. All our deployable forces have extensive combat experience, which makes them much more effective than unblooded troops. U.S. commanders would have the advantage of knowing how to organize their forces and what they would be able to do when if the fighting started. The average soldier knows that his country has the capacity to support him in the field in ways that opposing forces do not have.
The U.S. also has access to many land bases in the region. It would be easier maybe to have bases in some of the old soviet republics, but it would not be a military necessity. No conventional military force on the planet can stand toe-to-toe with the U.S. and fight a conventional war with us, with the exception of perhaps China. No country on the planet can project power like the U.S.
It isn't a boast, it's a fact.
The old Soviet military wasn't 1/10th as successful in its operations in Afghanistan as the U.S. military / NATO coalition was. There is a functional government being built there and although there is the occasional terrorist incident, things are relatively quiet in a majority of the country. The Taliban is under attack from all quarters and limited in what it can do.
I think the old timers at Izvestsia are angry that the U.S. military was able to go 10,000 miles from home and smash Afghanistan and make it stick, when the Red Army, for all it's vaunted capabilities and geographical advantages wasn't able to work effectively there at all. The U.S. to date has suffered 690 killed, 2777 wounded, in action in Afghanistan. The Red Army lost over 15000 killed and over 53000 wounded. U.S. casualty rates have been decreasing as time passes, while casualty rates increased for the Red Army as the 10 years of Soviet occupation passed. This is no reflection on the quality or the honor of the individual soldiers, but an indictment of the poor choices and bad political and military decisions made by the Soviet leadership at that time.
Russia's actions against Georgia were designed to illicit Russian pride. Militarily, they were unnecessary and just made them look silly and petty. It smacked of "Ethnic Cleansing" that we say in the former Yugoslavia. Maybe it was designed to. Who knows what goes on in the mind of Vladimir Putin....
U.S. attacking Mighty Iran? What a joke!!!-At present they can not even manage their own economy let alone attacking IRAN. also remember IRAN is not Afghanistan or Iraq and the nation is so great and united in any case of foreign hint of attack.
This article is a smokescreen. It is about justifying Russian offensive actions on reassuming parts of their past empire. The US won't invade Iran. Not only would the US government (Bush then, Obama now) not have the desire, the public (conservatives and liberals) wouldn't support it. And it wouldn't serve any purpose to do invade. A strategic bombing and missile attack against specific nuclear program sites would be more likely, but still unpalatable. It would be easier to let Israel do it, and give them overflight approval. Under Obama, that also isn't likely.
We haven't enough troops to pacify Iraq, much less invade Iran, a country of 3 times the population and 3 1/2 times the size of Iraq! We haven't enough air power to not only maintain current missions over Iraq and Afghanistan but also perform "Shock and Awe" (terrorism) in Iran, and AT THE SAME TIME confront the ACTUAL threat, who has all but declared war on us, in North Asia!
Why is all this so hard to militarily admit? How do our generals presume to call themselves professionals? No military except for North Korea's, among all the countries we are either at war in or are threatening, can actually beat a United States force in level combat within its own boundaries, and they can't do it for long. But although we can maintain air superiority in one theatre, we are having trouble doing it in two, and we certainly do not have enough resources to do it in three or FOUR.
I think that a need for the use of Georgian airfields by the US to attack Iran is nonsense. However, some time ago I pointed out that Tbilisi is considerably closer to Tehran than Tel Aviv. Azerbaijan is actually even closer. From these countries Israel would not have to fly over Jordan, Syria, Iraq, or the Arabian Peninsula.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vma06WZKi54&feature=related Please watch Webster Tarpley, author and historian on his analysis of what an attack on Iran would lead to. This man is highly respected in the field of international politics.
After getting off the floor "authoritative Izvetsia", c'mon, I'd as soon rely on the New York Times! Why in the world would the US need Georgia bases to attack Iran when we have a massive presence across a flat, tank appropriate border from Iraq? And indeed airbases in Afganistan, carriers in the Arabian Sea, with B52 bases in Diego Garcia quite within range of Iran. Not to mention our "friends" UAE, Kuwait, Aden, Qattar etc. And of course Israel. Please, spare me the nonsense that Georgia has any role in any attack on Iran! If Putin or his puppet want to make their "glorious" victory over the weak state of Georgia into a bold decisive move to thwart The Old Enemy America, let them play pretend if thats what they need to do.
Iran invokes the number one rule of Islam.....it's ok to lie. The U.S. does not want war with anyone. However, you are an idiot if you think the U.S. is going to allow the number one terrorist supporting country on earth to manufacture a nuclear weapon for one single purpose......to export it for use by it's surrogates, the murderous Hamas or the murderous Hezbollah. Both orgaizations are MURDER, INC. and must me stomped on. Lest we forget, the U.S. has weapons at it's disposal that know one has considered......airosol weapons, theatre battlefield nuclear weapons, stealth weapons and submarine based cruise missiles that can dot the dot on an i from 1,200 miles away. Iran is best served to get rid of it's mullahs and the little Hitler who is full of himself and several pounds of dog sh_t.
Some of you are incredibly foolish in your belief of US vulnerability against Iranian weapons. The only weapon in existence today that can penetrate a Carrier strike group's anti-ship missile and conventional torpedo defense system is a cavitating supersonic torpedoes (which only the US has).
Second, if the U.S. wanted to destroy Iran, ground forces would be irrelevant to the main destructive force. Extensive primary stealth bombings by the U.S. and secondary Israeli strike bombing could level the entire country and its ability to defend itself or fight a war in about 1-2 weeks (just like in Iraq in 1991, and 2003). This would then be followed by the U.S. watching Iran burn and waiting for them to do everything the U.S. asks of them.
The only country on the planet that stands a chance of being able to fight a conventional war against the U.S. is China... and Iran is nowhere near China's level no matter how great these "want to be Persians" think they are. If Iran wants to continue hurting the U.S. the only thing they will be able to do is continue supplying explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) to Shia insurgents in Iraq.
Don't ever forget it.... the U.S. developed the nuke in the 1930s, and used it in 1945, something Iran has yet to do. The U.S. is 50 years ahead of Iran in technology and war fighting ability. No amount of wishful thinking and pride in Iran will change that.
War is a horrible thing, and thank God the U.S. knows it. The only way the U.S. will get into an overt conflict with Iran is if Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, or they attack the U.S. or Israel.
THIS IS BY FAR THE BIGGEST PILE OF BULL-SHIT i HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE! FIRST OF ALL, i AM IN AFGHANISTAN YOU SHIT-FOR-BRAINS, AND i CAN PERSONALLY TELL YOU THERE IS NOT ONE-GOD-DAMNED PLANE THAT HAS LANDED HERE FROM THE UKRAIN, NOR ARE THERE ANY-TANKS PILING UP, OR TROOPS AMASSING FOR AN INVASION OF IRAN. YOU ARE GOING BY WHAT "IZVESTIA" IS SAYING? A RUSSIAN NEW'S PAPER? ARE YOU COMPLETELY-OUT-OF-YOUR-FECKING-MIND? OR JUST A REALLY STUPID SONS-A-BIOTCH? I DONT BELIEVE NOTHING I READ FROM "ANY" DAMN NEW'S PAPER! THEY ARE NOTORIOUSLY FULL-OF-$HIT, JUST LIKE YOU ARE A$$-HOLE! AND AS FOR YOU "MR.-Fred J. Robbins-Ferretti" WHY DONT YOU GO TO AFRIOCA PERSONALLY AND FEED THOSE POOR STARVING BASTSRDS? BETTER-YET, BRING THEM ALL SOME GOD-DAMN-BUS-TICKETS AND TELL THEM TO MOVE TO WHERE THE FECKING-FOOD IS AT!!!!!!!! YOU AND YOUR FECKING YAHWAK, OR FAGWHAY. WHAT-EVER THE HELL THAT PAGAN-GOD YOU PRAY TO IS! AND YOU SAY AMERICANS ARE LUSTFULL? WELL i AM GUILTY THERE PARTNER! I LUST AFTER YOUR WHORE-OF-A-MOTHER-AND-SISTER EVERY-SINGLE-TIME I AM JACKING-OFF YOU FECKING HOMO! FOR ANYONE THINKING WE WOULD USE "GORGIA" OF ALL PLACES AS A FECKING "AIR-BASE", WELL, YOUR AS STUPID AS THE $HIT-BRAIN WHO POSTED THIS GOD-DAMNED PACK OF HORSE-$HIT! GOOD-BY, AND KISS MY AMERICAN-A44 YOU AORRY-SONS-A-BIOTCHES!
I maintain that Iran will always be safe from US attack, so long as there are US carriers in the Persian Gulf. Think about it. A carrier is a multi-billion dollar peice of equipment that holds several thousand sailors, marines, and airmen. Carriers serve as symbols of American power through out the world. As long as these are in easy reach of Iranian anti-ship missiles, the Iranians are safe. But, if the US ever moves its carriers out of the Gulf, Iran better start praying quick. The Marine Corps knows how to handle the revolutionary guard.
Well, it is now 8 months after this article has been written and things must have changed. Who knows if the movement of hardware and troops into Afghanistan has given the Iranians a wake up call. Clealy Obama wants better relations with Iran and he isn't your typical stupid American or European liberal who thinks peace without strength is achievable.
As a conservative American, I want better relations with Iran, "evil" as they may be characterized. The people there are industrious and intelligent and need to be out from under the idiotic rule of the mullahs so their economy and culture can flourish, and they can become a normal member of the community of nations. But this doesn't come without credible threats of military options.
Economically, the war with Iran is too expensive for the US, it will drive us into complete bankruptcy. Logistically and assetwise, Us can only keep less than two hundredd fighters and bomers fulled and amoed at anyone time to attack an area over a 1000,000 square miles. Rather a lunotic attemp, much like Hitler attacking Russia, over extending itself to extinction. Then there is Iranian defense that everyone except the intelligence community seem to undermine. Iran is not Iraq, and Persians are not Arabs. They build their own hardware including tactical fighter jets, long range guiding missles and laser bombs, quiet subs, various ordinates for ground defense and they are very resourcefull at it. Unlike what everone falsely believe our aircraft carriers in shallow waters of Persian gulf are sitting ducks. they would have to retreat to deeper waters in Indian Oceasn to saftely lunch their attacks (WHILE STILL BEEING SAUGHT AFTER BY THE KILOS), requiring refulling a few times in the air including refuling over the Iranian territory which makes both the tankers and fighters volnurable to various sorts of ground and air attackS. Low altittude refulliong, for example, is a good target for iranian made MANPADs. So think before you speak in glory. Be rational not just partiatic and over confident. US and company will face a stiff resistance. If Iraqies and Afghanis resists US an Co. the way they did, could you imagine what Persians would do to allies forces on their own land. If there was any chance of victory Chenny/Bush and Co would've done so a long time ago. It is quite stupid to think that we just go in there and bomb everthing, then open up our chamaign bottles to celeberate victory. It is not going to be a cruise in the park, it'll be a trip to hell with no return.
NONSES in all accounts. 1. the US has all the airfields it needs to destroy Iran and does not need GEORGIA. 2. Obama is interested in talking and not acting militarily. 3. Bush did not want to attack Iran even though Iran has been fighting US in Iraq for years. 3. I feel this is KGB propaganda to get favors from the US haters.
This story is dated 30 May 2009. Obviously RT can look into the future. It was clearly written some months ago and makes no sense unless we know the correct date. Fortunately the moment has passed and as someone points out, Obama is not likely to act in this way unless Iran gets totally out of hand.
June 10, 2009, 04:53
To Benjamin: Well you appearantly contradicted yourself. In first paragraph you mentioned it would be absolutely insane to perdict the outcome of the war but then in other paragraphs you sort of did in favor of US. If US had any chance of succeding a military campain against Iran, Cheney/Bush and company would've done so by now, however, their advisors must've known something about US capability in Persian Gulf. For one thing it is not 'Arabian penunsular', it is Persian gulf. To explain 'capability' to you, let's say you are a rich man with millions in the bank, but you only have a $1000 cash in your pocket. without access to bank, your buying 'capability' is what you have in your pocket at that time. That is similiar to US military capability in Persian gulf should they be stupid enough to attack Iran. I suggest you to read the post by 'DOESITMATTER', it does make sense. At least, he knows somethink about the other side's capabilites and did not talk out of pure patriatism like most Americans do. whatever you do, do not underestimate the other side, no matter how stronger you are. Remember we have to take assets from US main land to Persian gulf to fight on somebody's elses homeland. and the locals (Persians) are not Arabs or turks or Afganis, They make their own stuff and unlike the others, are willing to fight to the death to protect their home land from invasion. And if you think trains in Iraq and Afghanistan is bad, then you have no idea how much worse the trains in Iran is, even the coasts are mountains and hostile. US is doing the right thing to engage in talks. US will eventually accept nuclear Iran in return it will get some assurance for the reinstatement of petro-dollar (as oppose to Petro-Euro) from Iranian which is what this whole conflict is all about not a 'so called' nuclear Iran threat. with that said, Iran may not be able to defeat US military, it doesn't have to.
June 09, 2009, 19:48
Invading Iran is like invading Russia or China ---- a fool's game. What would be the point, exactly? Imagine that the invader succeeds in putting down all resistance. Then what?
As it happens, there are so many alternatives to Iran's energy resources that it is cheaper to "buy" energy than it is to "steal" it. Some day Russians and Iranians and Arabs will understand this.
The Russians will probably acknowledge this, eventually. The Arabs and Iranians probably will not. Their sense of unreality is permanent, like a cancer that cannot be removed.
June 04, 2009, 16:39
It is absolutely insane to predict a general land/sea/air war by U.S. forces against Iran. As a person with some knowledge of America's military capacity, I can state that unless Iran were to initiate a military action against U.S. interests, such as an invasion of the Arabian peninsula, or to close the Striates of Hormuz, or a direct assault on Israel, there would be no support for the U.S. to engage in a war with Iran. " Authoritative Izvestia" is stuck in the cold war era, or its minions lack any understanding of the American political or military capacity. They must think we in America are omnipotent, and can engage in unlimited war in many places at once.
We can't and wouldn't even try.
As for needing Georgia, militarily, we wouldn't. The U.S. Navy can put half a dozen aircraft carriers into the area in a couple of months if need be, and have air superiority. We would certainly have naval superiority. As to land armies, the U.S. military has always known that wherever it would fight, it would be outnumbered, and trains accordingly. All our deployable forces have extensive combat experience, which makes them much more effective than unblooded troops. U.S. commanders would have the advantage of knowing how to organize their forces and what they would be able to do when if the fighting started. The average soldier knows that his country has the capacity to support him in the field in ways that opposing forces do not have.
The U.S. also has access to many land bases in the region. It would be easier maybe to have bases in some of the old soviet republics, but it would not be a military necessity. No conventional military force on the planet can stand toe-to-toe with the U.S. and fight a conventional war with us, with the exception of perhaps China. No country on the planet can project power like the U.S.
It isn't a boast, it's a fact.
The old Soviet military wasn't 1/10th as successful in its operations in Afghanistan as the U.S. military / NATO coalition was. There is a functional government being built there and although there is the occasional terrorist incident, things are relatively quiet in a majority of the country. The Taliban is under attack from all quarters and limited in what it can do.
I think the old timers at Izvestsia are angry that the U.S. military was able to go 10,000 miles from home and smash Afghanistan and make it stick, when the Red Army, for all it's vaunted capabilities and geographical advantages wasn't able to work effectively there at all. The U.S. to date has suffered 690 killed, 2777 wounded, in action in Afghanistan. The Red Army lost over 15000 killed and over 53000 wounded. U.S. casualty rates have been decreasing as time passes, while casualty rates increased for the Red Army as the 10 years of Soviet occupation passed. This is no reflection on the quality or the honor of the individual soldiers, but an indictment of the poor choices and bad political and military decisions made by the Soviet leadership at that time.
Russia's actions against Georgia were designed to illicit Russian pride. Militarily, they were unnecessary and just made them look silly and petty. It smacked of "Ethnic Cleansing" that we say in the former Yugoslavia. Maybe it was designed to. Who knows what goes on in the mind of Vladimir Putin....
June 03, 2009, 22:31
U.S. attacking Mighty Iran? What a joke!!!-At present they can not even manage their own economy let alone attacking IRAN. also remember IRAN is not Afghanistan or Iraq and the nation is so great and united in any case of foreign hint of attack.
June 02, 2009, 17:45
This article is a smokescreen. It is about justifying Russian offensive actions on reassuming parts of their past empire. The US won't invade Iran. Not only would the US government (Bush then, Obama now) not have the desire, the public (conservatives and liberals) wouldn't support it. And it wouldn't serve any purpose to do invade. A strategic bombing and missile attack against specific nuclear program sites would be more likely, but still unpalatable. It would be easier to let Israel do it, and give them overflight approval. Under Obama, that also isn't likely.
May 30, 2009, 21:46
We haven't enough troops to pacify Iraq, much less invade Iran, a country of 3 times the population and 3 1/2 times the size of Iraq! We haven't enough air power to not only maintain current missions over Iraq and Afghanistan but also perform "Shock and Awe" (terrorism) in Iran, and AT THE SAME TIME confront the ACTUAL threat, who has all but declared war on us, in North Asia!
Why is all this so hard to militarily admit? How do our generals presume to call themselves professionals? No military except for North Korea's, among all the countries we are either at war in or are threatening, can actually beat a United States force in level combat within its own boundaries, and they can't do it for long. But although we can maintain air superiority in one theatre, we are having trouble doing it in two, and we certainly do not have enough resources to do it in three or FOUR.
May 28, 2009, 20:54
I think that a need for the use of Georgian airfields by the US to attack Iran is nonsense. However, some time ago I pointed out that Tbilisi is considerably closer to Tehran than Tel Aviv. Azerbaijan is actually even closer. From these countries Israel would not have to fly over Jordan, Syria, Iraq, or the Arabian Peninsula.
May 25, 2009, 21:21
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vma06WZKi54&feature=related Please watch Webster Tarpley, author and historian on his analysis of what an attack on Iran would lead to. This man is highly respected in the field of international politics.
May 25, 2009, 11:38
This was perhaps the most poorly concocted essay I have ever seen written. And time has proven that his closing statement was also incorrect.
May 25, 2009, 01:31
After getting off the floor "authoritative Izvetsia", c'mon, I'd as soon rely on the New York Times! Why in the world would the US need Georgia bases to attack Iran when we have a massive presence across a flat, tank appropriate border from Iraq? And indeed airbases in Afganistan, carriers in the Arabian Sea, with B52 bases in Diego Garcia quite within range of Iran. Not to mention our "friends" UAE, Kuwait, Aden, Qattar etc. And of course Israel. Please, spare me the nonsense that Georgia has any role in any attack on Iran! If Putin or his puppet want to make their "glorious" victory over the weak state of Georgia into a bold decisive move to thwart The Old Enemy America, let them play pretend if thats what they need to do.
May 21, 2009, 21:41
Iran invokes the number one rule of Islam.....it's ok to lie. The U.S. does not want war with anyone. However, you are an idiot if you think the U.S. is going to allow the number one terrorist supporting country on earth to manufacture a nuclear weapon for one single purpose......to export it for use by it's surrogates, the murderous Hamas or the murderous Hezbollah. Both orgaizations are MURDER, INC. and must me stomped on. Lest we forget, the U.S. has weapons at it's disposal that know one has considered......airosol weapons, theatre battlefield nuclear weapons, stealth weapons and submarine based cruise missiles that can dot the dot on an i from 1,200 miles away. Iran is best served to get rid of it's mullahs and the little Hitler who is full of himself and several pounds of dog sh_t.
May 21, 2009, 17:56
Some of you are incredibly foolish in your belief of US vulnerability against Iranian weapons. The only weapon in existence today that can penetrate a Carrier strike group's anti-ship missile and conventional torpedo defense system is a cavitating supersonic torpedoes (which only the US has).
Second, if the U.S. wanted to destroy Iran, ground forces would be irrelevant to the main destructive force. Extensive primary stealth bombings by the U.S. and secondary Israeli strike bombing could level the entire country and its ability to defend itself or fight a war in about 1-2 weeks (just like in Iraq in 1991, and 2003). This would then be followed by the U.S. watching Iran burn and waiting for them to do everything the U.S. asks of them.
The only country on the planet that stands a chance of being able to fight a conventional war against the U.S. is China... and Iran is nowhere near China's level no matter how great these "want to be Persians" think they are. If Iran wants to continue hurting the U.S. the only thing they will be able to do is continue supplying explosively formed projectiles (EFPs) to Shia insurgents in Iraq.
Don't ever forget it.... the U.S. developed the nuke in the 1930s, and used it in 1945, something Iran has yet to do. The U.S. is 50 years ahead of Iran in technology and war fighting ability. No amount of wishful thinking and pride in Iran will change that.
War is a horrible thing, and thank God the U.S. knows it. The only way the U.S. will get into an overt conflict with Iran is if Iran successfully develops a nuclear weapon, or they attack the U.S. or Israel.
May 20, 2009, 20:31
THIS IS BY FAR THE BIGGEST PILE OF BULL-SHIT i HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE! FIRST OF ALL, i AM IN AFGHANISTAN YOU SHIT-FOR-BRAINS, AND i CAN PERSONALLY TELL YOU THERE IS NOT ONE-GOD-DAMNED PLANE THAT HAS LANDED HERE FROM THE UKRAIN, NOR ARE THERE ANY-TANKS PILING UP, OR TROOPS AMASSING FOR AN INVASION OF IRAN. YOU ARE GOING BY WHAT "IZVESTIA" IS SAYING? A RUSSIAN NEW'S PAPER? ARE YOU COMPLETELY-OUT-OF-YOUR-FECKING-MIND? OR JUST A REALLY STUPID SONS-A-BIOTCH? I DONT BELIEVE NOTHING I READ FROM "ANY" DAMN NEW'S PAPER! THEY ARE NOTORIOUSLY FULL-OF-$HIT, JUST LIKE YOU ARE A$$-HOLE! AND AS FOR YOU "MR.-Fred J. Robbins-Ferretti" WHY DONT YOU GO TO AFRIOCA PERSONALLY AND FEED THOSE POOR STARVING BASTSRDS? BETTER-YET, BRING THEM ALL SOME GOD-DAMN-BUS-TICKETS AND TELL THEM TO MOVE TO WHERE THE FECKING-FOOD IS AT!!!!!!!! YOU AND YOUR FECKING YAHWAK, OR FAGWHAY. WHAT-EVER THE HELL THAT PAGAN-GOD YOU PRAY TO IS! AND YOU SAY AMERICANS ARE LUSTFULL? WELL i AM GUILTY THERE PARTNER! I LUST AFTER YOUR WHORE-OF-A-MOTHER-AND-SISTER EVERY-SINGLE-TIME I AM JACKING-OFF YOU FECKING HOMO! FOR ANYONE THINKING WE WOULD USE "GORGIA" OF ALL PLACES AS A FECKING "AIR-BASE", WELL, YOUR AS STUPID AS THE $HIT-BRAIN WHO POSTED THIS GOD-DAMNED PACK OF HORSE-$HIT! GOOD-BY, AND KISS MY AMERICAN-A44 YOU AORRY-SONS-A-BIOTCHES!
May 20, 2009, 18:09
I maintain that Iran will always be safe from US attack, so long as there are US carriers in the Persian Gulf. Think about it. A carrier is a multi-billion dollar peice of equipment that holds several thousand sailors, marines, and airmen. Carriers serve as symbols of American power through out the world. As long as these are in easy reach of Iranian anti-ship missiles, the Iranians are safe. But, if the US ever moves its carriers out of the Gulf, Iran better start praying quick. The Marine Corps knows how to handle the revolutionary guard.
May 15, 2009, 03:03
To Gordon above:
The date will be Oct the 12th of this year.
May 14, 2009, 18:57
Well, it is now 8 months after this article has been written and things must have changed. Who knows if the movement of hardware and troops into Afghanistan has given the Iranians a wake up call. Clealy Obama wants better relations with Iran and he isn't your typical stupid American or European liberal who thinks peace without strength is achievable.
As a conservative American, I want better relations with Iran, "evil" as they may be characterized. The people there are industrious and intelligent and need to be out from under the idiotic rule of the mullahs so their economy and culture can flourish, and they can become a normal member of the community of nations. But this doesn't come without credible threats of military options.
May 09, 2009, 19:24
Economically, the war with Iran is too expensive for the US, it will drive us into complete bankruptcy. Logistically and assetwise, Us can only keep less than two hundredd fighters and bomers fulled and amoed at anyone time to attack an area over a 1000,000 square miles. Rather a lunotic attemp, much like Hitler attacking Russia, over extending itself to extinction. Then there is Iranian defense that everyone except the intelligence community seem to undermine. Iran is not Iraq, and Persians are not Arabs. They build their own hardware including tactical fighter jets, long range guiding missles and laser bombs, quiet subs, various ordinates for ground defense and they are very resourcefull at it. Unlike what everone falsely believe our aircraft carriers in shallow waters of Persian gulf are sitting ducks. they would have to retreat to deeper waters in Indian Oceasn to saftely lunch their attacks (WHILE STILL BEEING SAUGHT AFTER BY THE KILOS), requiring refulling a few times in the air including refuling over the Iranian territory which makes both the tankers and fighters volnurable to various sorts of ground and air attackS. Low altittude refulliong, for example, is a good target for iranian made MANPADs. So think before you speak in glory. Be rational not just partiatic and over confident. US and company will face a stiff resistance. If Iraqies and Afghanis resists US an Co. the way they did, could you imagine what Persians would do to allies forces on their own land. If there was any chance of victory Chenny/Bush and Co would've done so a long time ago. It is quite stupid to think that we just go in there and bomb everthing, then open up our chamaign bottles to celeberate victory. It is not going to be a cruise in the park, it'll be a trip to hell with no return.
May 06, 2009, 15:34
usa should keep out of people bunesss and conduct there own a affairs in there own country not iran and the 2 countrys before it mr bush usa b lucky
May 01, 2009, 03:16
NONSES in all accounts. 1. the US has all the airfields it needs to destroy Iran and does not need GEORGIA. 2. Obama is interested in talking and not acting militarily. 3. Bush did not want to attack Iran even though Iran has been fighting US in Iraq for years. 3. I feel this is KGB propaganda to get favors from the US haters.
April 30, 2009, 20:04
This story is dated 30 May 2009. Obviously RT can look into the future.
It was clearly written some months ago and makes no sense unless we know the correct date.
Fortunately the moment has passed and as someone points out, Obama is not likely to act in this way unless Iran gets totally out of hand.
Post comment