War with Iran?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(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?

There were plenty of people stating we would have a tough go of it.  I suppose with the benefit of hindsight you now know they were all completely wrong.

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?

Here's a very simple fact.  if we actually unleashed our military there isn't a single nation on Earth we wouldn't steamroll.  This would take the political will to go completely gloves off, which doesn't seem to exist much anymore, but it is a fact.  I'm talking conventional arms only btw.

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.

Iran has no ability to "stalemate" us.  The same Iraqi army you laughingly disdained above fought them to a standstill for eight years.  Oh wait, they've evolved, but Iraq did not.

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." 

Name a battle of consequence that we lost?  Pro tip, you can't.  The French got raped at Dien Bien Phu, name even a slightly similar US defeat.  We lost Vietnam for the same reason we "stalemated" Korea, we never took the fight to the enemy's territory, either North Vietnam or China respectively.  You can't fight a purely defensive war and hope to prevail.  The fact that we fought China to a standstill on their home turf (or close enough to it not to matter), while doing nothing to actually attack their homeland, is an impressive feat on its own.  Imagine a country fighting the US, but the war was fought entirely in Canada with absolutely no attacks being allowed against US territory.  Recipe for success?

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.

The second Iraq war was a mistake, I've said so since it was proposed.  I don't see how this disproves the fact that US forces are infinitely superior than those arrayed against us.

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."

The joint chiefs don't want another war unless vital US interests are at stake.  It has nothing to do, at all, with any worries about Iranian military ability.

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

Alright then, please explain to the class how the Iranian army has evolved to become a more substantial threat.  Do you actually buy into all those Iranian military photoshops?


In all seriousness, one can not want a war with Iran and still be realistic about the mudhole we would stomp in their ass if it actually ever erupted into armed conflict.