(06-18-2019, 02:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: I was reading a nice, light comedy article on Cracked.com and learned something I wish I didn't know.

https://www.historynet.com/mcnamaras-folly-lowering-standards-fill-ranks.htm

And it made me think about people who think a good old war is good for us even if we have to make up the reasons to garner support.

Like I said earlier in this thread: No one who sends these people to war cares about the people they send to war...or hen/if they come back.  That's the bigger problem.

(06-18-2019, 02:04 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I heard that about you ^

(06-18-2019, 02:04 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: BTW - I heard the "Hollodero" song for the first time the other day. Have you ever been to this place: [/url][url=https://www.messynessychic.com/2012/10/19/visit-the-charming-little-village-of-fcking-in-austria/]https://www.messynessychic.com/2012/10/19/visit-the-charming-little-village-of-fcking-in-austria/

(06-18-2019, 02:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, but I'm the one you called out.

(06-18-2019, 02:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: After i addressed your Op in good faith You need look no further than post #6 followed up by post #9 to see where your thread started trending south. I get your desire to police your thread, I appreciate it, and apologize for my part in any actions that degraded it.

(06-18-2019, 02:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I don't think there will be a war
If there is a war it should be a coalition
The Iranian Army is no more threat to us than the Iraqi Army was when we engaged them.

(06-18-2019, 05:33 PM)hollodero Wrote: You did? So much for keeping that a secret... who told you? Was it Roto?



yeah well, of course pretty much every Austrian is aware of that one. It is in the vicinity I grew up in, but I never was there. Because honestly, why would I go there. It's only embarrrassing with the parents and there's little to see except for the signs that get stolen permanently. Some anecdotes around that place, but the article already lists them, so no need for me to tell them - sadly.

And what "hollodero" song are you referring to? It's usually more of a filler song passage, kind of like yodeling, loosely used in the sense of "yippie-yey-yeah". A bit of a fatalistic one, a phrase describing it would be "Hooray the chamois is loose", but that probably doesn't make much sense in English. My particular name stems from the song "Des Flugzeig brennt, mia stiarzen o, hollodero!!" (This is austrian slang), meaning "The plane's on fire we're going down, yippie-yey-yeah!"

...well that was an exhausting response, wasn't it.

(06-18-2019, 05:50 PM)hollodero Wrote: 1. @topic I respectfully disagree with the third stance (I mean, maybe, but I just see it differently and stated why), and I hope you're right on the first one.

2.I seriously doubt there could be a coalition. The Saudis sure would be game, but good luck trusting these guys or with hoping their increased influence makes things better. Europe would not aid you, maybe not even the Brexiteers. Russia won't, China won't, and I doubt Australia would send anyone. Perhaps 5 guys. I might be wrong. But I think you'd be pretty much alone.

(06-18-2019, 05:56 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I heard the old bar song from the 30's. Something about getting the farmer's daughter pregnant and blaming it on Hollodero. It made me think of you.

(06-18-2019, 05:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 2. Depends on how many more Japanese Tankers get blown up. If attacks continue in the Straight then that's a game changer. 

(06-18-2019, 03:14 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: No one has claimed only the Iranian Army is capable of change, Mr. Intellectual Honesty. The point being some recognize why ground combat lasted 100 hours during Desert Storm and why enemy forces weren't defeated in 8 years during Iraqi Freedom. And some obviously don't.

(06-17-2019, 06:38 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I know plenty parents proud of their kids that died in combat. Matter of fact I'd love for you to tell some what a failure it was. 

(06-18-2019, 07:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Son, we live in a world that has conflicts, and those conflicts have to be fought by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Fred Toast, you Dino? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the calls to action, and you curse the Military. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That these actions, while often tragic, probably saved lives. And the Military's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want Soldiers on that battlefield you need Soldiers on that battlefield. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom those Soldiers provide, and then questions the manner in which they provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think is a failure.

(06-17-2019, 11:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I would use diplomacy and try not to put troops on the ground. Outside of the deserts in the east, the whole country is pock full of natural ambush sites. The American public won't tolerate casualty lists two to three times larger than those from Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

Barring that, I would try to find some other country to persuade to invade them instead of us. This tactic worked really well for us in the Cold War. Unfortunately, we have already invaded two of Iran's seven neighbors.

Turkmenistan is sort of a write off. I wouldn't expect them to have much of a military. Likewise, I don't think the Armenians or Azerbijanis would be much help. What have we ever done for them, eh?

Turkey is like seriously mad at us now. They are like a rebellious child: flaunting Islamism and dating Putin on the side. I wouldn't expect much help from "our allies" at this point. Heck, I doubt if they would allow us to even fly through their airspace to support the mission.

Maybe we could persuade the Pakis to invade (we'd probably have to stop calling them "Pakis" first, though) and pay them with Saudi money. This would quite seriously be my second option. But, the Pakis aren't dumb. So they probably wouldn't do it. Besides, they are too busy worrying about India.

Russia no longer shares a land border, but they are just across the Caspian Sea. Putin wouldn't do it. He has trimmed down the Russian military into primarily a defense force. Besides, he is too busy trying to get us bogged down into it (using my own strategy against me.... that turd!!!).

So, removing the diplomacy option from the table because that's "not something real 'Mericans do anymore" and being unable to persuade the Pakis and Russians to do it for us, I guess we have to look at how it could be done with troops on the ground.

(06-17-2019, 11:40 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I doubt if the Iraqis would be cooperative with our efforts, seeing as such a large number of Shi'ites live there. In fact, they could really cause a great deal of problems if the border turn porous and/or if a nasty civil war breaks out between the Iraqi Sunnis and Shi'ites (which absolutely will happen if we move against Iran). I think you probably would need to jump off from Kuwait (if they would allow) and have Marines and Special Ops land to seize Bandar Mahshhr and Bandar Imam Khomeini so that you have port facilities and airports to support the invasion independently while the Navy blockades the Iranian coast. I think you would then need to drive north to seal off the border with Iraq. Bear in mind, this is mountainous terrain. Outside of the initial landing, tanks won't be a big help. It will be a slow-go. Once the border is secured, you then would need to hook east and move on Tehran. Acheiving that could be a good stopping point, if they were willing to talk and we were willing to listen. Barring that, you maybe start a campaing from Afghanistan (if they are willing) and roll up the open areas on the east side and the northeast. At this point, the country's borders would be secured and what remains of any resistance would be in the mountains. Outside of the fact that it would probably be costing billions of dollars and scores of lives every day, you would not have to move fast to root out the resistance. Just sit and wait them out. It would probably only take a couple of decades.

(06-18-2019, 06:16 PM)hollodero Wrote: That is fair for sure. If this becomes a pattern, they might be inclined to join. I doubt that they would go to war over one damaged tanker though. Right now, I am not so sure about that incident and what to make of it, and if it's really the Iranians being foolish enough to be behind it. I learned my lesson from the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that totally existed, which was totally information that needs to be trusted. I made quite a fool of myself for some weeks back here by believing what was just a scam to create a casus belli - while all the sceptical conspiracy nuts were actually right. I'm not saying that's what's happening here, but I'm saying if I were the Japanese I would, as of now, be cautious.

(06-18-2019, 11:37 PM)Dill Wrote: Confused. Is this irony?

(06-18-2019, 11:04 AM)bfine32 Wrote: We made a concerted commitment to be ingrained in the Community by establishing Military bases and deploying a permanent substantial force instead of dabbling. Like I've constantly said: If it does happen I've hope we learn from previous mistakes and successes. But from the tone of this thread the Iranian Army is the only one capable of evolving.

Bottom line when we fought Iraq they had the 4th largest Army in the world and every Keyboard General stated how the vaulted Republican Guard would be a real challenge; they were not.

(06-18-2019, 11:40 PM)hollodero Wrote: Noo... these weapons totally existed and were totally all over the place. Troops got hurt by tripping over them all the time is what they say.

Nah, my point was I trusted american intelligence once for too long and now I'm extra sceptical.

(06-18-2019, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Wait--you're saying there was no  post-war insurgency in Germany because we "ingrained in the community" and deployed a substantial force? It's as if culture and politics were invisible to you.

Iraq certainly did not have the 4th BEST army in the world either of the times the US fought it, deployed on a flat desertscape with no air cover. Jeezus.  This is like comparing economies solely on the basis of GDP. 

I don't remember "keyboard generals" worrying about the Republican Guard. I was not part of any online forums in 1991. I do remember Bush touting how US Patriot batteries were protecting Israel. Even primitive scuds are hard to neutralize; how will the US do against thousands of state of the art SAMS and anti-ship missiles?


In any case, it is baffling that you speak so much of national militaries "evolving" while imagining a toe-to-toe slug out in which Iran has "no chance" against our big Army and Navy. Once Teheran falls there will be no reason to fight--like the fall of Berlin?

Iran is NOT an existential threat to the US. They know very well all they have to do is stalemate the US and drain lives. I remember when the US committed a Marine Division to Vietnam, and how our bombers would pulverize them. We had evolved far past the French. I still occasionally meet people who affirm "we never lost a battle."  So Iraq was deja vu in 2003. Another cake walk. Two weeks and the weak army with no missiles or effective air defense was beaten.  Three years later, no one cared that our military was so much better than theirs. The problem was the US had just fought an unnecessary war and people were still dying.  Bolton tried, in 2006, to drum up support for a war against Iran next, but neither the public or Congress were interested.

Bolton still wants that war. But I am pretty sure the Joint chiefs and their staff are not thinking "Hey, the Iranians are no tougher than Iraq's Army."

They do "evolve," and that is why they would not agree with your assessment.

(06-18-2019, 11:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Iraq certainly did not have the 4th BEST army in the world either of the times the US fought it, deployed on a flat desertscape with no air cover. Jeezus.  This is like comparing economies solely on the basis of GDP. 

I don't remember "keyboard generals" worrying about the Republican Guard. I was not part of any online forums in 1991. I do remember Bush touting how US Patriot batteries were protecting Israel. Even primitive scuds are hard to neutralize; how will the US do against thousands of state of the art SAMS and anti-ship missiles?

Quote:In any case, it is baffling that you speak so much of national militaries "evolving" while imagining a toe-to-toe slug out in which Iran has "no chance" against our big Army and Navy. Once Teheran falls there will be no reason to fight--like the fall of Berlin?

Quote:Iran is NOT an existential threat to the US. They know very well all they have to do is stalemate the US and drain lives.

Quote:I remember when the US committed a Marine Division to Vietnam, and how our bombers would pulverize them. We had evolved far past the French. I still occasionally meet people who affirm "we never lost a battle." 

Quote:So Iraq was deja vu in 2003. Another cake walk. Two weeks and the weak army with no missiles or effective air defense was beaten.  Three years later, no one cared that our military was so much better than theirs. The problem was the US had just fought an unnecessary war and people were still dying.  Bolton tried, in 2006, to drum up support for a war against Iran next, but neither the public or Congress were interested.

Quote:Bolton still wants that war. But I am pretty sure the Joint chiefs and their staff are not thinking "Hey, the Iranians are no tougher than Iraq's Army."

Quote:They do "evolve," and that is why they would not agree with your assessment.

(06-19-2019, 12:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Why did you change my assertion of 4th largest to 4th BEST? I can only assume because you could not argue the assertion as stated. What's baffling to me is you and others think their Military would pose any threat to us. I get you guys want to ignore the results of Army versus Army and introduce something I've never stated, but see my above summation on your inability to argue the 4th largest Army to explain why you're doing that.

I remember plenty of publicity about the Republican Guard I was there. 

Iran is definite threat to the US  if indeed they are responsible for the recent attacks on ships in the straight. Folks will argue Iran didn't do it, but the damn sure didn't attack themselves. 

We have also evolved since facing Iraq, what makes you think Iran has evolved at a quicker rate than us? 

But you're most likely right. It'd probably be a toss up:

https://armedforces.eu/compare/country_USA_vs_Iran

(06-18-2019, 11:32 PM)Dill Wrote: Diplomacy is different now, post the broken Iran Deal.  Big pay offs would be required for minimal cooperation. The US allies would have to be SA, UAE and Israel--the latter being as much a liability as an asset. Or there would be no allies. Britain would finally draw the line. I think there would be world wide protests greater than before the invasion of Iraq, perhaps a movement to sanction or divest or otherwise discourage US behavior.


My number one concern with the kinetic aspect of an invasion is their rocketry. It's not clear we could gain control of the air. And even if we do, both launch sites and production are under yards of rock. VERY hard to take out.  It is possible that the US would lose major assets like ships. And in a short time. Could a massive airlift get troops over the mountains with minimal loss to take, not just Teheran, but Qom and Isfahan? Seems VERY risky to me.  And then, as you know, the fighting would just continue in the mountains, against a foe better organized and better armed and more numerous than the Taliban.

The Iranians would not have to defeat our military, only stall it and drain blood and treasure.

Also, I would expect problems in Iraq. The government there would perhaps pay lip service to the US, but certainly it would face resistance, perhaps an insurgency that returns the country to chaos.  I really don't see why a war against Iran would only be fought in Iran, given their allies and assets in the region.

Our military would have to know this. And Trump might understand this could stall his great economy.  That is why I think he might reach for crazier options, like tactical nukes. I am pretty sure that would produce an anti-US coalition, including many European countries plus China and Russia. Perhaps many of their clients as well.  Not good.

I guess a final question is what happens AFTER the win?  How many troops would be required to "nation build"?