« First « Previous Comments 29 - 68 of 68 Search these comments
The first thing that would happen is the Straights of Hormuz would be closed and 28% of the worlds oil supply would disappear leaving the US 9.5 million barrels a day short. Sure that would really be awesome.
bob2356 saysThe first thing that would happen is the Straights of Hormuz would be closed and 28% of the worlds oil supply would disappear leaving the US 9.5 million barrels a day short. Sure that would really be awesome.
If the Iranians closed the straits of Hormuz, that would be the end of the Iranian Navy and Air Force, at a minimum.
bob2356 saysThe first thing that would happen is the Straights of Hormuz would be closed and 28% of the worlds oil supply would disappear leaving the US 9.5 million barrels a day short. Sure that would really be awesome.
Yeah sure. We heard the same BS when Saddam Hussein was about to get attacked. Super tankers could just anchor for a few days until the war is over.
bob2356 says
Why don't you provide the source of your information that the Saudi AF is head and shoulders above? You made the statement, back it up.
If the USA is supporting the Saudis, obviously they will have the air force WE deem they should have. The $350 billion in weapons we are selling to the Saudis are not WW2 planes.
The team we support will win the war.
And the end of their life blood oil revenues. We have alternative sources of energy, but they have no alternative sources of income. We have them by the balls. :)
" there by a long shot. We are there for nefarious reasons that have little to do with freedom and democracy but we don't have the guts to get out since that would mean admitting we can't like without their oil.
We aren’t there to “win” anything. Just to spend money and create demand for weapons.
Yeah sure. We heard the same BS when Saddam Hussein was about to get attacked. Super tankers could just anchor for a few days until the war is over.
Iraq doesn't control the Straights of Hormuz. Iraq is at the end of the Persian Gulf. Check a map. That would be the few days like the Iraq/Iran war. Those few days?
The mig 29's the russians are selling Iran aren't WWII vintage either. They are capable of taking on an F 15. Pilot skill would be the deciding factor. The F5 is very capable also. They were used as aggressors for many years by the US Navy/Air Force and could regularly beat an F15 with the right pilot. You might want to read this. https://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1128/p01s04-wosc.html
Tactics and training win air wars not hardware. That's been proven time and time again.
American weapons are far more superior to any communist crap
Strategist saysAmerican weapons are far more superior to any communist crap
Is that why we couldn’t win in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, or Syria? Or could it be that we never actually wanted to win. We just wanted to spend a fuckton of money blowing shit up to make our military industrial complex overlords richer.
KimJongUn saysanonymous says"Saudi AF is head and shoulders above Persian rag-tag collection of obsolete hardware and out-of-practice pilots"
Browsing around last evening I could not find anything to support that statement.
Really? You browsed the whole interwebs day and night and couldn't find the list of hardware on both sides? I find it hard to believe.
Why don't you provide the source of your information that the Saudi AF is head and shoulders above? You made the statement, back it up.
bob2356 saysKimJongUn saysanonymous says"Saudi AF is head and shoulders above Persian rag-tag collection of obsolete hardware and out-of-practice pilots"
Browsing around last evening I could not find anything to support that statement.
Really? You browsed the whole interwebs day and night and couldn't find the list of hardware on both sides? I find it hard to believe.
Why don't you provide the source of your information that the Saudi AF is head and shoulders above? You made the statement, back it up.
Really? You really-really need links to wikipedia pages listing HW Saudi and Persian air forces have? Can't you find them yourself? Or is it you don't understand what these pl...
We chose not to use the weapons that could have given us easy victories.
The way it works in adult conversations is if you say something is true you are expected to provide some type of basis for the assertion.
Better technology wins the wars.
Iran has neither tactics or better hardware.
Strategist says
Better technology wins the wars.
I'm sure the nazi's are glad to know this after being crushed by the very low tech Russians.
Your study of Iran vs Saudi Arabia tactics and hardware is missing. Did you forget to post the link? Oh, right. It's true because I say it's true. How could I forget? So why is ti the Saudi's are having so much trouble in Yemen. You forgot to talk about that also.
Strategist says
We chose not to use the weapons that could have given us easy victories.
Which weapon was it that would have provided an easy victory in the air war over Vietnam or a ground victory in Iraq or Afghanistan. Remember that this is an adult conversation and it's true because I say it's true isn't good enough..
Ground troops are necessary to “win” any war, as the war zone must be cleared of combatants and secured against resurgence. Air strikes are showy ways of wasting money which can’t win the war on their own.
Therefore: if we aren’t committing a lot of ground troops, we aren’t serious about winning and we will accomplish nothing.
Saudis ‘would let Israeli jets use their air space to attack Iran’
Saudi Arabia is prepared to let Israeli fighter jets use its airspace if it proves necessary to attack Iran’s nuclear program, an Israeli TV station reported Tuesday, highlighting growing ties in the shadow of Tehran’s nuclear drive.
I don't know. It's not their brains that made them famous. I see you chickened out by not addressing the 1967 Israeli victories against all odds. Spectacular, wasn't it?
bob2356 saysStrategist says
We chose not to use the weapons that could have given us easy victories.
Which weapon was it that would have provided an easy victory in the air war over Vietnam or a ground victory in Iraq or Afghanistan. Remember that this is an adult conversation and it's true because I say it's true isn't good enough..
Have you seen that old bumper sticker......"One nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day"
We chose not to ruin their day. :)
Strategist says
I don't know. It's not their brains that made them famous. I see you chickened out by not addressing the 1967 Israeli victories against all odds. Spectacular, wasn't it?
I did address the 1967 war. It falls under the category of superior tactics. A massive preemptive strike and using misdirection ala Ardenne forest requires no superior weaponry at all. It requires careful planning, top notch tactics, and great execution. You do know that the Egyptians had soviet weapons but Jordan had western weapons don't you? Jordan actually had somewhat newer and better weapons in some area's. Want to explain why Israel wiped out Jordan just as easily as Egypt if superior weaponry is the key?
Now do you care to address why the Saudi's superior weapons aren't doing shit in Yemen?
Even more curious, how would punching giant nuclear bomb size holes in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan have provided easy victory? The war against the Taliban was over an 800 mile long front that was mostly sparsely populated.
The war against the Taliban was over an 800 mile long front that was mostly sparsely populated.
bob2356 saysThe war against the Taliban was over an 800 mile long front that was mostly sparsely populated.
You don't use nuclear weapons against rag tag flea ridden freaks. It's like using a sledgehammer to kill a fly in a glass house. You use drones to kill terrorists.
I know you don't believe your own arguments. The most sophisticated weapons only go to Israel.
bob2356 saysEven more curious, how would punching giant nuclear bomb size holes in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan have provided easy victory? The war against the Taliban was over an 800 mile long front that was mostly sparsely populated.
Ha ha ha.We won't be punching giant nuclear holes in the desert. It's a war, not a New Year fireworks display. The nuclear bombs would be used if necessary to blow up their nukes. There are tactical battlefield nukes too, which are used to blow up small targets like bridges.
Like I said before, those who stone women to death cannot be treated with nuclear weapons. The two must and will be separated.
bob2356 saysThe war against the Taliban was over an 800 mile long front that was mostly sparsely populated.
You don't use nuclear weapons again...
bob2356 saysNow do you care to address why the Saudi's superior weapons aren't doing shit in Yemen?
Obama restricted their use when too many innocent people started getting killed. Now with Trump, things may have quietly changed.
. So what happened to one nuclear bomb will ruin your whole day? I'm confused about what we held back so we could keep fighting in the ME for 16 years. What is the hold back de jour now?
bob2356 saysThe way it works in adult conversations is if you say something is true you are expected to provide some type of basis for the assertion.
The way it works in adult conversations is if you say something is FALSE you are expected to provide some type of basis for the assertion.
If the USA is supporting the Saudis, obviously they will have the air force WE deem they should have. The $350 billion in weapons we are selling to the Saudis are not WW2 planes.
The team we support will win the war.
We must start intense training now for our young men to fight and give their lives to spread freedom and democracy through the middle east and save our homeland from terrorism. I learned that from the TV.
Saudi Arabia has some of the greatest military equipment money can buy, but its military is still not seen as a threat to its longtime rival Iran.
• Saudi Arabia's military has not proved capable of effectively fighting back Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.
• Its arsenal is designed for a large conventional war — not proxy fighting.
Saudi Arabia's ambitions are limited by its military, which is considered an ineffective force even though the kingdom is one of the world's largest spenders on defense.
"The fact is, Iran is better at doing this stuff," said Michael Knights, a Lafer fellow at The Washington Institute who specializes in the military and security affairs of Iraq, Iran, and the Persian Gulf.
"There's nobody in the Iranian General Staff that's afraid of Saudi Arabia on the ground," Knights said.
Saudi Arabia's struggles in Yemen — where its years-long conflict with the Houthi rebels has no end in sight — reveals its shortcomin...
McGee will come in soon and accuse me of being anti semi without facing the facts.
« First « Previous Comments 29 - 68 of 68 Search these comments
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-42008809
How come Saudi Arabia and Iran don't get along?
Saudi Arabia and Iran - two powerful neighbours - are locked in a fierce struggle for regional dominance.
The decades-old feud between them is exacerbated by religious differences. They each follow one of the two main sects in Islam - Iran is largely Shia Muslim, while Saudi Arabia sees itself as the leading Sunni Muslim power.