Note the part where he said an invasion. Next time please read the post more closely. And to answer your question, yes it would turn into guerilla warfare eventually.Bertster7 wrote:
You think any sort of war on Iran would not result in a guerilla warfare scenario? If not you're sadly misguided.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
How is it like the assault on Lebanon? Israel was not fighting a standing army such Iran's. The other ongoing wars in the Middle East are occupations, not conventional warfare. Do you think before you post....ever?Bertster7 wrote:
I'm sure it would work brilliantly. Just like the assault on Lebanon and all the other ongoing wars in the middle east.
Once again, you have occupation confused with conventional warfare. The goal here would be destroying the Iranian military, not occupying the country for a regime change.Bertster7 wrote:
You think any sort of war on Iran would not result in a guerilla warfare scenario? If not you're sadly misguided.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
How is it like the assault on Lebanon? Israel was not fighting a standing army such Iran's. The other ongoing wars in the Middle East are occupations, not conventional warfare. Do you think before you post....ever?Bertster7 wrote:
I'm sure it would work brilliantly. Just like the assault on Lebanon and all the other ongoing wars in the middle east.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 15:35:05)
Which would achieve?Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Once again, you have occupation confused with conventional warfare. The goal here would be destroying the Iranian military, not occupying the country for a regime change.Bertster7 wrote:
You think any sort of war on Iran would not result in a guerilla warfare scenario? If not you're sadly misguided.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
How is it like the assault on Lebanon? Israel was not fighting a standing army such Iran's. The other ongoing wars in the Middle East are occupations, not conventional warfare. Do you think before you post....ever?
Yeah i agree with that.IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I think you have invasion confused with occupation. Occupations, as shown through history, usually fail. We defeated Iraq's military with ease in both wars. The occupation is where we are losing. An invasion is a totally different scenario.IRONCHEF wrote:
I believe Iran would hand us our asses if we invaded. Period. It would make Iraq's warfare look like a G-rated video game. If we nuke..then we lost..and we'd be destroying a hell of a lot more than Iranians and others down the jet stream from the fallout.
In '91, we staged half a million + troops in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait to run out a starving army who surrendered easily. Most of which were forced to fight, some (rep. guard and probably some regular army) simply obeyed their orders, and possibly some were there for a cause. With Iran, they are so fervent, so dedicated, and so full of "good cause" that it will not only give our invading force a run for it's money..i think we'd be repelled.
We would end up bombing like mad, maybe losing a few birds here and there..and we'd be twice as paranoid invading iran as we were liberating kuwait so we'd be trying to mass at least 800,000 troops somewhere (saudi is too far, Iraq and afghanistan are no option..so that leaves the water for the staging.
I have a friend who's dad was a colonel in the Shah's army until the revolution in '79. I've heard stories of the mindset and training they have and it's something you'd never imagine. Watching Ted Koppel last night when he aired his visit to Iran, they showed a little of what the Iranians would dish out and make no mistake, this is no ragtag army or defenseless people.
I side with the majority of newspeople, politicians, and pundits in saying there is NO good military strategy we could employ in Iran. And man to man, I bet they'd win...but that's just me believing "the cause" is what makes you win or lose.
I think the only thing the USA would have to its advantage in any sort of invasion would be its awesome air power. I dont think the Iranians can match that in the air. But i think any sort of GROUND invasion will cop a beating.
For the USA to have any chance at victory, its air power will have to do the hard work.
During the first Guld War Iraq had the fourth largest army on earth, along with one of the largest armored divisions and air force.IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.
Yep, seeing the size of the area where we bombed during the Kosovo war, and the pre-bombing of Iraq before the "shock and awe" shit combined wouldn't even touch the amount of bombing we'd have to do in iran. Frankly, we'd probably run out of bombs...and the ones we'd waste, we'd never know if we even hit good targets because our intelligence sucks! lol
I disagree about the ground invasion. Like I said before, before our ground forces moved into Iran the majority of Irans ground forces would be leveled by criuse missles, long range arty and lets not forget the Air Force. I agree that Irans Air Force is no match for the US at all. In my opinion this war would be harder than in Iraq but I have no worries about Iran inflicting any major casualties upon any US invasion force.Iron_Sentinel wrote:
Yeah i agree with that.IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
I think you have invasion confused with occupation. Occupations, as shown through history, usually fail. We defeated Iraq's military with ease in both wars. The occupation is where we are losing. An invasion is a totally different scenario.
In '91, we staged half a million + troops in Saudi Arabia and in Kuwait to run out a starving army who surrendered easily. Most of which were forced to fight, some (rep. guard and probably some regular army) simply obeyed their orders, and possibly some were there for a cause. With Iran, they are so fervent, so dedicated, and so full of "good cause" that it will not only give our invading force a run for it's money..i think we'd be repelled.
We would end up bombing like mad, maybe losing a few birds here and there..and we'd be twice as paranoid invading iran as we were liberating kuwait so we'd be trying to mass at least 800,000 troops somewhere (saudi is too far, Iraq and afghanistan are no option..so that leaves the water for the staging.
I have a friend who's dad was a colonel in the Shah's army until the revolution in '79. I've heard stories of the mindset and training they have and it's something you'd never imagine. Watching Ted Koppel last night when he aired his visit to Iran, they showed a little of what the Iranians would dish out and make no mistake, this is no ragtag army or defenseless people.
I side with the majority of newspeople, politicians, and pundits in saying there is NO good military strategy we could employ in Iran. And man to man, I bet they'd win...but that's just me believing "the cause" is what makes you win or lose.
I think the only thing the USA would have to its advantage in any sort of invasion would be its awesome air power. I dont think the Iranians can match that in the air. But i think any sort of GROUND invasion will cop a beating.
For the USA to have any chance at victory, its air power will have to do the hard work.
Care to cite that claim? Also, was the fear our soldiers had that they'd be beating us conventionally or with chemicals? Because all they had to show for might was the gassing of their people up north, and their war with Iran..which let us know perfectly what kind of might they had.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
During the first Guld War Iraq had the fourth largest army on earth, along with one of the largest armored divisions and air force.IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.
Wow! Ok, before I proceed do you have any basic knowledge of military strategy and know of the US Air Forces capabilities?IRONCHEF wrote:
Yep, seeing the size of the area where we bombed during the Kosovo war, and the pre-bombing of Iraq before the "shock and awe" shit combined wouldn't even touch the amount of bombing we'd have to do in iran. Frankly, we'd probably run out of bombs...and the ones we'd waste, we'd never know if we even hit good targets because our intelligence sucks! lol
What do you mean? It's the whole point of this thread. Iran threatens "crushing" military action if their nuclear facilities are attacked. Bertster7, you have yet to contribute anything to this thread. You are so bitter it is amazing. You've gone beyond rational though and you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.Bertster7 wrote:
Which would achieve?Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Once again, you have occupation confused with conventional warfare. The goal here would be destroying the Iranian military, not occupying the country for a regime change.
Please do some research. A poorly trained Soviet era military has no chance against Israel, much less the US.Iron_Sentinel wrote:
I think the only thing the USA would have to its advantage in any sort of invasion would be its awesome air power. I dont think the Iranians can match that in the air. But i think any sort of GROUND invasion will cop a beating.
For the USA to have any chance at victory, its air power will have to do the hard work.
At least we know who we have to thank for inventing the bomb in the first place...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … q/army.htmIRONCHEF wrote:
Care to cite that claim? Also, was the fear our soldiers had that they'd be beating us conventionally or with chemicals? Because all they had to show for might was the gassing of their people up north, and their war with Iran..which let us know perfectly what kind of might they had.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
During the first Guld War Iraq had the fourth largest army on earth, along with one of the largest armored divisions and air force.IRONCHEF wrote:
True, but then we haven't seen our military invade something as powerful as Iran.
Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world. With mobilization, Iraq could have raised this to 2 million men under arms--fully 75% of all Iraqi men between ages 18 and 34. The number of tanks in the Iraqi military rose from 2,700 to 5,700 and artillery pieces went from 2,300 to 3,700.
hahah run out of bombs....thats freaking good god almighty funny. I should karma you for that statement alone.IRONCHEF wrote:
Yep, seeing the size of the area where we bombed during the Kosovo war, and the pre-bombing of Iraq before the "shock and awe" shit combined wouldn't even touch the amount of bombing we'd have to do in iran. Frankly, we'd probably run out of bombs...and the ones we'd waste, we'd never know if we even hit good targets because our intelligence sucks! lol
YOu think our bombing campaigns will actually kill members of their military? You don't think they know exactly what we'll be wasting ordnance on? You don't think they have protection? Bunkers, Anti-Air, redundant radar? All things learned from watching us for years? These are smart people. I don't get why everyone thinks Iranians are some dumb, foolish, or ragtag people living in mud huts. Iran is completely different than the Arab and Asian nations around it.arabeater wrote:
I disagree about the ground invasion. Like I said before, before our ground forces moved into Iran the majority of Irans ground forces would be leveled by criuse missles, long range arty and lets not forget the Air Force. I agree that Irans Air Force is no match for the US at all. In my opinion this war would be harder than in Iraq but I have no worries about Iran inflicting any major casualties upon any US invasion force.
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from? take a look at a map and tell me how we would conduct an invasion. Then tell me what country would be dumb enough to accompany us in said invasion. And where would we get the military build up of weapons and soldiers for such a campaign.
It amazes me how someone with such little knowledge of conventional warfare can argue over it so much. You are suggesting that we would have no idea what we are bombing...why? Do I actually need to find you information regarding every piece of US military equipment and the logistics of modern conventional warfare that I can find? It seems to me that you are basing your entire argument off 1 or 2 instances of poor intelligence or weapons failure where a civilian structure was destroyed.IRONCHEF wrote:
YOu think our bombing campaigns will actually kill members of their military? You don't think they know exactly what we'll be wasting ordnance on? You don't think they have protection? Bunkers, Anti-Air, redundant radar? All things learned from watching us for years? These are smart people. I don't get why everyone thinks Iranians are some dumb, foolish, or ragtag people living in mud huts. Iran is completely different than the Arab and Asian nations around it.
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from? take a look at a map and tell me how we would conduct an invasion. Then tell me what country would be dumb enough to accompany us in said invasion. And where would we get the military build up of weapons and soldiers for such a campaign.
Last edited by Fancy_Pollux (2006-11-20 15:57:41)
Just as I suspected. You dont know shit about the US's military strategy and capabilities. Ummm...let me think cruise missles can fly for thousands of miles after being launched from submarines, cruisers, battleships and some carriers as well. Artillery is a fancy word for the Battleship deck guns which the US used in the invasion of Iraq. And for where the question where would we lauch the invasion from, I duuno if you've noticed what country lies just west of Iran. I'll give you a hint, the US is currently there. The troops and equipment question is an easy one, do you know how many motor pools of M1A1 tanks, armored vehicles and Artillery pieces I saw the last time I was in Kirkuk and Ali Air Base. Lets just say its enough. The troops would probably be the difficult part.IRONCHEF wrote:
YOu think our bombing campaigns will actually kill members of their military? You don't think they know exactly what we'll be wasting ordnance on? You don't think they have protection? Bunkers, Anti-Air, redundant radar? All things learned from watching us for years? These are smart people. I don't get why everyone thinks Iranians are some dumb, foolish, or ragtag people living in mud huts. Iran is completely different than the Arab and Asian nations around it.arabeater wrote:
I disagree about the ground invasion. Like I said before, before our ground forces moved into Iran the majority of Irans ground forces would be leveled by criuse missles, long range arty and lets not forget the Air Force. I agree that Irans Air Force is no match for the US at all. In my opinion this war would be harder than in Iraq but I have no worries about Iran inflicting any major casualties upon any US invasion force.
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from? take a look at a map and tell me how we would conduct an invasion. Then tell me what country would be dumb enough to accompany us in said invasion. And where would we get the military build up of weapons and soldiers for such a campaign.
Hey fancy, just ignore him. He saw a show on the cub scouts last week and unfortunately got them confused with our military. For him, simple mistake but the rest of us know better. Just realize that yet another bash the U.S. post will soon be over, despite the fact this thread was about how impotent the rest of the world is at stopping another threat to security.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
It amazes me how someone with such little knowledge of conventional warfare can argue over it so much. You are suggesting that we would have no idea what we are bombing...why? Do I actually need to find you information regarding every piece of US military equipment and the logistics of modern conventional warfare that I can find? It seems to me that you are basing your entire argument off 1 or 2 instances of poor intelligence or weapons failure where a civilian structure was destroyed.IRONCHEF wrote:
YOu think our bombing campaigns will actually kill members of their military? You don't think they know exactly what we'll be wasting ordnance on? You don't think they have protection? Bunkers, Anti-Air, redundant radar? All things learned from watching us for years? These are smart people. I don't get why everyone thinks Iranians are some dumb, foolish, or ragtag people living in mud huts. Iran is completely different than the Arab and Asian nations around it.
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from? take a look at a map and tell me how we would conduct an invasion. Then tell me what country would be dumb enough to accompany us in said invasion. And where would we get the military build up of weapons and soldiers for such a campaign.
Last edited by smtt686 (2006-11-20 16:04:25)
Uh oh looks like we just put him in his place Fancy. I love it when I see people argue about miltary strategy and capabilities and they absolutely no idea wtf they're talking about.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
It amazes me how someone with such little knowledge of conventional warfare can argue over it so much. You are suggesting that we would have no idea what we are bombing...why? Do I actually need to find you information regarding every piece of US military equipment and the logistics of modern conventional warfare that I can find? It seems to me that you are basing your entire argument off 1 or 2 instances of poor intelligence or weapons failure where a civilian structure was destroyed.IRONCHEF wrote:
YOu think our bombing campaigns will actually kill members of their military? You don't think they know exactly what we'll be wasting ordnance on? You don't think they have protection? Bunkers, Anti-Air, redundant radar? All things learned from watching us for years? These are smart people. I don't get why everyone thinks Iranians are some dumb, foolish, or ragtag people living in mud huts. Iran is completely different than the Arab and Asian nations around it.
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from? take a look at a map and tell me how we would conduct an invasion. Then tell me what country would be dumb enough to accompany us in said invasion. And where would we get the military build up of weapons and soldiers for such a campaign.
Thanks for the citation, and you're right. So now lets look at the results of that army and it's defense in '91. Schwarzkopf and 600,000 invaders repelled them from Kuwait with an unmatched assault. Granted it wasn't an actual invasion of Iraq (I believe secretary cheney said it would be impossible) but a repelling of Iraq from Kuwait. Their military might turned out to be a joke. and from '91 to '03, we did occasional bombings of infrastructure and learned where their AA batteries were and had that advantage prior to our nearly eventless invasion of Iraq during Shock and Awe.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ … q/army.htmIRONCHEF wrote:
Care to cite that claim? Also, was the fear our soldiers had that they'd be beating us conventionally or with chemicals? Because all they had to show for might was the gassing of their people up north, and their war with Iran..which let us know perfectly what kind of might they had.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
During the first Guld War Iraq had the fourth largest army on earth, along with one of the largest armored divisions and air force.
Between 1980 and the summer of 1990 Saddam boosted the number of troops in the Iraqi military from 180,000 to 900,000, creating the fourth-largest army in the world. With mobilization, Iraq could have raised this to 2 million men under arms--fully 75% of all Iraqi men between ages 18 and 34. The number of tanks in the Iraqi military rose from 2,700 to 5,700 and artillery pieces went from 2,300 to 3,700.
Now back to Iran. Considerably larger, virtually unknown terrain,military might, and capabilities, and they have plenty of preparation..and we lack the logistic ability to stage.
Putting aside the majority belief that ground invasion would fail, how do you think we'd succeed at an invasion of Iran? Start with the Air since we have to control that before putting troops on the ground.
It seems like America has got enough already with Iraq and Afghanistan, plus with the political changes happening in the USA, in my opinion, I doubt military action is a viable option at the moment. That, however, is just my opinion. I know nothing at all about US strategy and I dont pretend to either.
Just an opinion, no flaming please.
Just an opinion, no flaming please.
Now see thats a good and constructive post. I agree completely with you.adam1503 wrote:
It seems like America has got enough already with Iraq and Afghanistan, plus with the political changes happening in the USA, in my opinion, I doubt military action is a viable option at the moment. That, however, is just my opinion. I know nothing at all about US strategy and I dont pretend to either.
Just an opinion, no flaming please.
And my questions go unanswered and now I'm ignorant.
Nevermind the fact the leadership of this country has ALREADY said a ground invasion would fail..i'm just ignorant.
The thread is yours.
Nevermind the fact the leadership of this country has ALREADY said a ground invasion would fail..i'm just ignorant.
The thread is yours.
Do you have access to a map...look at where Iran is. Then you will see we can attack anytime anyway we want to.IRONCHEF wrote:
Our Air Force...will waste billions in bombs and have little to show. Cruise missiles? Arty? hehe. From WHERE exactly will we be shooting that from? take a look at a map and tell me how we would conduct an invasion. Then tell me what country would be dumb enough to accompany us in said invasion. And where would we get the military build up of weapons and soldiers for such a campaign.
You should have learned this in 5th grade. I for one am ashamed for you!
I dont believe that Iran's forces are poorly trained. Their training may not be as great as the almighty american military, but i believe they can still pack a punch.Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Please do some research. A poorly trained Soviet era military has no chance against Israel, much less the US.
When you say soviet era, what do you mean exactly? Hardware? Cause if thats what you mean, i agree that some aspects of Iran's military is based on, or still incorporates Soviet technology, but other than that, i generally believe Iran has moved beyond a soviet era military.
Ok dude I will tell you one thing and just this one thing. Do you actually believe that the government is going to tell you "a civilian" the truth? Lets just say that in my office we have photos of Iran that you cant get on Google maps. Mmmk...IRONCHEF wrote:
And my questions go unanswered and now I'm ignorant.
Nevermind the fact the leadership of this country has ALREADY said a ground invasion would fail..i'm just ignorant.
The thread is yours.