Iran

#21,878
#21,878
DinkinFlicka said:
In terms of casualty ratios, sure. We had air and artillery superiority, better equipment, and those often trumped the VC's geographic/guerilla/raw numbers advantages.

You know how little that means when you strategically lose, though.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, we lost the Vietnam war here within our own borders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, 85SugarVol, rikberry31 and 1 other person
#21,879
#21,879
General Jack said:
You support the president of the United States threatening genocide? Cursing and saying praise Allah on Easter morning?

I don't, and that does in fact cause rage with almost everyone not in the your cult.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read the man's book? Trump will always take the maximalist position to start negotiations. People are shocked and offended and he ends up with more than he would have. He did the same with tariffs, If he wants a 10% tariff on a country he tells them it will be 50% and the get scared and agree to 15% tariff and are overjoyed to pay it. Most of the time when he threatened tariffs he got a deal instead.
If you have ever sold a house you have done the same thing. You want $300,000 so you list it for $350,000 and negotiate down to maybe get $325,000. Not that complicated. Trump takes advantage of knee-jerk outrage and panic and the lefties fall for it everytime. They are Charlie Brown and Trump is Lucy holding the football.
 
#21,880
#21,880
Vol8188 said:
If Europe allows them to charge Europe a toll, that’s on them.

You believe we should police the world’s oceans and seas for the EU?
Click to expand...
I mean if we are starting the war that shuts down the straight we should be the ones to clean it up too.

which is why some of us were against this from the start, and have continued to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, Ttucke11 and NashVol11
#21,881
#21,881
hog88 said:
Not good enough. Civilian and military infrastructure are mostly the same. Both use the same roads, bridges, electrical grid and so on and so on. Hell, in WWII we developed a whole new weapon and technique to take out 1 hydroelectric dam.
Click to expand...

Okay, but the one thing we have going for us is that most Iranians citizens are pro western believe it or not. What’s worse than a crazy regime? A crazy regime with a country that actually shares their sentiment. The actual civilians do not, in large numbers, especially in urban areas. American bombs destroying their lives would eliminate that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USF grad in TN, EasternVol, NashVol11 and 1 other person
#21,885
#21,885
Persian Vol said:
Okay, but the one thing we have going for us is that most Iranians citizens are pro western believe it or not. What’s worse than a crazy regime? A crazy regime with a country that actually shares their sentiment. The actual civilians do not, in large numbers, especially in urban areas. American bombs destroying their lives would eliminate that.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that we should try to limit damage to critical infrastructure and hardship for the civilian population unless we plan on total war. Which is why we should never enter into these types of conflicts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Persian Vol
#21,888
#21,888
LouderVol said:
I mean if we are starting the war that shuts down the straight we should be the ones to clean it up too.

which is why some of us were against this from the start, and have continued to be.
Click to expand...

The standard y’all have been applying has never made sense. If we attack Iran and they then take actions against uninvolved 3rd parties that’s between Iran and those 3rd parties.
 
#21,889
#21,889
Persian Vol said:
Okay, but the one thing we have going for us is that most Iranians citizens are pro western believe it or not. What’s worse than a crazy regime? A crazy regime with a country that actually shares their sentiment. The actual civilians do not, in large numbers, especially in urban areas. American bombs destroying their lives would eliminate that.
Click to expand...
How 'bout if we take over Kharg Island? Seems to me that'd help our power/negotiating position without hurting civilians
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and rekinhavoc
#21,891
#21,891
Orangeslice13 said:
Look at the history of warfare. If you don’t hit infrastructure then the enemy is still operational. Turn the lights out and they can’t oppose. Knock down the bridges and roads and they can’t move around. It sucks for the people there but we’re not trying to win friends and influence people, we’re trying to win a war. We’re not willing to do what it takes so we probably shouldn’t be attacking people.
Click to expand...
yeah that worked so well right next door in Afghanistan...

that MAY work against a first world nation, but even then it takes far more than just turning out the lights. you have to hit ALL of the civilian infrastructure.

we bombed Germany to hades and back, and they didn't surrender fighting on two fronts against the two super powers of the day until they lost Berlin. and that was after literally years of day and night constant bombing. a few precision strikes a day isn't going to cripple Iran to the point of really bringing them to their knees.

Japan surrendered because they had lost most of their navy, and most of their airforce, had lost millions of lives, most of their army was trapped in China, and again we literally had to invent a new form of war (nuclear) to get them to blink.

as awesome as our military is today its no where close to the devastation we unleashed 80 years ago that won us wars. trying to compare the two is like High School football freshman against Veteran NFL players. yeah they are playing the same sport technically, but in all practicality there is nothing similar between the two to draw comparisons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#21,894
#21,894
General Jack said:
Yes, because none of this was necessary and many died for no reason. And all we achieved was the status quo we already had 6 weeks ago.

Not to mention its clear to the world that trump is extremely unstable and standing of the United States is forever stained by the behavior of the orange menace.
Click to expand...
When and how have the most people been killed in the current situation? It was in January, when the regime slaughtered 45,000 of its own unarmed citizens.
 
#21,896
#21,896
LouderVol said:
yeah that worked so well right next door in Afghanistan...

that MAY work against a first world nation, but even then it takes far more than just turning out the lights. you have to hit ALL of the civilian infrastructure.

we bombed Germany to hades and back, and they didn't surrender fighting on two fronts against the two super powers of the day until they lost Berlin. and that was after literally years of day and night constant bombing. a few precision strikes a day isn't going to cripple Iran to the point of really bringing them to their knees.

Japan surrendered because they had lost most of their navy, and most of their airforce, had lost millions of lives, most of their army was trapped in China, and again we literally had to invent a new form of war (nuclear) to get them to blink.

as awesome as our military is today its no where close to the devastation we unleashed 80 years ago that won us wars. trying to compare the two is like High School football freshman against Veteran NFL players. yeah they are playing the same sport technically, but in all practicality there is nothing similar between the two to draw comparisons.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? We didn't hit civilian infrastructure in Afghanistan. Outside of the cities there was little to no infrastructure to hit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman
#21,897
#21,897
hog88 said:
Unless the Iranian people rise up and take control of their country there will be no winners. Except for the mullahs
Click to expand...
If that was going to happen, I think it would have by now. Would not surprise me if Trump usurped the CIA and cut the line in front of them before they could adequately identify and supply the “opposition” inside Iran that was willing to take on that task.
 
#21,898
#21,898
LouderVol said:
yeah that worked so well right next door in Afghanistan...

that MAY work against a first world nation, but even then it takes far more than just turning out the lights. you have to hit ALL of the civilian infrastructure.

we bombed Germany to hades and back, and they didn't surrender fighting on two fronts against the two super powers of the day until they lost Berlin. and that was after literally years of day and night constant bombing. a few precision strikes a day isn't going to cripple Iran to the point of really bringing them to their knees.

Japan surrendered because they had lost most of their navy, and most of their airforce, had lost millions of lives, most of their army was trapped in China, and again we literally had to invent a new form of war (nuclear) to get them to blink.

as awesome as our military is today its no where close to the devastation we unleashed 80 years ago that won us wars. trying to compare the two is like High School football freshman against Veteran NFL players. yeah they are playing the same sport technically, but in all practicality there is nothing similar between the two to draw comparisons.
Click to expand...

Agree, the only way to win these wars correctly is to go in, take over, make them speak our language, worship our religion, and become American. It is how Empires like Rome took over. Another way is to just replace them like USA did with Native Americans. That is the only two ways to truly win (at least without Iranians rising up and deciding to change their society). The USA does not fight wars that way amd humanity hasn't in some time. That is the ancient/medieval style warfare that disregards human rights. The last nations to try this type of warfare were the Axis Powers in WW2.
 
#21,899
#21,899
Vol8188 said:
The standard y’all have been applying has never made sense. If we attack Iran and they then take actions against uninvolved 3rd parties that’s between Iran and those 3rd parties.
Click to expand...
plenty of shipping goes thru that straight that effects the US. I don't know if you have gone by a gas station since this war started, but we aren't isolated from it here at home.

and as was pointed out under Biden, an increase in global fuel costs is going to raise the cost of global goods.

and assuming Trump is at least interested in this joint venture idea, it would specifically be our mess.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#21,900
#21,900
hog88 said:
WTF are you talking about? We didn't hit civilian infrastructure in Afghanistan. Outside of the cities there was little to no infrastructure to hit.
Click to expand...
and somehow they fought a war without that infrastructure...
same opportunity Iran would have after we took theirs out.

you are literally trying to argue that 2000lb JDAMs are the same as nuclear bombs.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top