War with Iran?

[Dill]

(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

I didn't change your assertion. I was not disputing that Iraq had the 4th largest army (though I don't know for sure it was--after the US, India, North Korea, China, and Russia, somehow?)  I was making the point that the Iraqi army was NOT the 4th BEST, even if it were (doubtfully) the 4th largest. Virtually every European army would have been better, not to mention Turkey, China and Israel. Iraq is a DEVELOPING country. A 3rd world country was facing of against a coalition of 28 countries, including the best military in the world, and the British.  The second time around, the Iraqi army was even smaller, more poorly armed, and less motivated.

I too remember "publicity" about the Republican Guard, much of it from the US military.  No one disputes they were better than the Iraqi regular army.  No one implied they would be a match for the US.

You are "baffled" that people think the Iranian military could pose a threat. You'd get more traction here if, instead of equating a smaller poorly equipped and unmotivated force fighting in open desert to a much larger and motivated force fighting in a much larger and mountainous area with thousands of guided missiles, including cruise missiles, you explained how those missiles would be neutralized. Why could they not take out at least SOME US ships? How many planes might be lost trying to take out embedded missile sites?

When asked about this difference in size, morale terrain and capability, you keep repeating that "4th-largest" Iraq wasn't much and we must have "evolved"--as if evolution didn't entail taking into account the aforementioned differences in size, morale, terrain and capability, not to mention a history of quagmires, every one of which began with the assessment "Our Army is way better than theirs!"

If the US has evolved, then the question is not whether Iran has evolved more quickly. And it is not whether the fight would be a "toss up." It is whether-evolved or not--they could make the price of invasion too high, fighting with their backs against the wall. But you aren't worried because the US has more tanks and aircraft carriers?

And I repeat, the US would not be fighting with its back to the wall. It would be yet another unnecessary war with opposition at home and abroad. Suppose we have "evolved" to the point we can defeat a phalanx or Iranian missiles and take out their military in a week.  There is then the question of how many US soldiers would continue to die in an insurgency and a costly occupation. Does "evolution" take this into account?

Finally, you are ready to go war if some tankers are mysteriously torched in the Strait of Hormuz. After Trump trashed the Iran deal, worked to reinstall sanctions, and filled the Persian Gulf with US ships, planes and drones. Suddenly Iran is behaving badly (maybe) and a threat to the US. Or to our now expansively defined interest.

Does military "evolution" proceed separately from, culture, history and politics? No need to take that into account.  Our Army is better than theirs?