If the US decided to fight a war on terror, would the terrorists military have a chance?
is an oxymoron.AussieReaper wrote:
war on terror
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
You didn't like my real world facts then?Shahter wrote:
oh, c'mon, man. drones and cruise missiles destroy all iranian aa capabilities and then the "war" becomes slaughter, like in iraq and other places. nobody can stand against usa in conventional war atm.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends on what kind of war it would beFEOS wrote:
In answer to the question posed in the thread title:
<ere been some stuff>
As soon as it becomes an unconventional war the US loses - as usual.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
is ceases to be a war and becomes something else. what was the word feos used - "counterinsurgency"?Dilbert_X wrote:
You didn't like my real world facts then?Shahter wrote:
oh, c'mon, man. drones and cruise missiles destroy all iranian aa capabilities and then the "war" becomes slaughter, like in iraq and other places. nobody can stand against usa in conventional war atm.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends on what kind of war it would be
<ere been some stuff>
As soon as it becomes <...> unconventional
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Its a neat way of avoiding having to admit you haven't won.Shahter wrote:
is ceases to be a war and becomes something else. what was the word feos used - "counterinsurgency"?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
that's mostly right, though whether one won or not depends on what did he go to war for in the first place. destabilizing nations, instigating civil wars, overthrowing governments, changing regimes - those are as good tasks as any other.Dilbert_X wrote:
Its a neat way of avoiding having to admit you haven't won.Shahter wrote:
is ceases to be a war and becomes something else. what was the word feos used - "counterinsurgency"?
anyway the thread was about iranian military vs us military. when it is put that way, the answer is pretty obvious, don't you think so?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
As soon as the Iranian military take off their uniforms it gets interesting.
(and put on other clothes, jesus christ...)
(and put on other clothes, jesus christ...)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
They will be out of work, out of money, there will be family and friends they know of who were killed, and they will have access to weapons caches.Dilbert_X wrote:
As soon as the Iranian military take off their uniforms it gets interesting.
(and put on other clothes, jesus christ...)
Just like what happened in Iraq.
Yeah but we won in Iraq.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
And they wouldn't be Iran's military any longer, nor would they be protected by the Geneva Conventions any longer...so the OP question is moot.Dilbert_X wrote:
As soon as the Iranian military take off their uniforms it gets interesting.
(and put on other clothes, jesus christ...)
And admit it: you're dying to see a bunch of army guys running around naked.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Right they'd be irregulars, just like the French Resistance, the Mujahedeen America funded, the Northern Alliance likewise and so on, plus your precious backwoodsmen.FEOS wrote:
And they wouldn't be Iran's military any longer, nor would they be protected by the Geneva Conventions any longer...so the OP question is moot.
They'd be the exact same people fighting the exact same fight.
Not me no, seems your military guys are into naked men doing weird stuff though.And admit it: you're dying to see a bunch of army guys running around naked.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-17 04:19:03)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Thank you for reinforcing my point.Dilbert_X wrote:
Right they'd be irregulars, just like the French Resistance, the Mujahedeen America funded, the Northern Alliance likewise and so on, plus your precious backwoodsmen.FEOS wrote:
And they wouldn't be Iran's military any longer, nor would they be protected by the Geneva Conventions any longer...so the OP question is moot.
They'd be the exact same people fighting the exact same fight.
So you're saying you'd like to be prosecuted?Not me no, seems your military guys are into naked men doing weird stuff though.And admit it: you're dying to see a bunch of army guys running around naked.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No I'm saying men in the military seem to have a thing for naked men.
Not that many people in Abu Ghraib were ever prosecuted - just tortured and killed.
Not sure how you could say you'd 'won' if the fight was continuing against the same people when the only difference is they've changed into fresh clothes.
Not that many people in Abu Ghraib were ever prosecuted - just tortured and killed.
Not sure how you could say you'd 'won' if the fight was continuing against the same people when the only difference is they've changed into fresh clothes.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-17 04:31:51)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Typical Dilbert tactic: changing the burden of the argument. Go back. Read the question in the thread title. Read my answer. Profit.Dilbert_X wrote:
No I'm saying men in the military seem to have a thing for naked men.
Not that many people in Abu Ghraib were ever prosecuted - just tortured and killed.
Not sure how you could say you'd 'won' if the fight was continuing against the same people when the only difference is they've changed into fresh clothes.
Save your nonsense for one of your troll threads.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Why don't you go back and read my post?
I guess you were distracted by the naked men tangent.Dilbert_X wrote:
Ground war - In Iraq the US military was able to win the conventional fight up to the cities, then declared victory by declaring the Iraqi army no longer existed. They never really 'won' against the parts of the Iraqi military which continued to fight unconventionally - and the Iranians are a good deal better prepared and much more motivated.
Abrams tanks are 'pretty awsm' but not much use in city fighting apparently, or against man-portable anti-tank missiles.
A ground war in Iran would not be hilarious.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2012-01-17 04:37:34)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I did read it. Your revisionist history fascinates me. Please continue.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
what's funny is that some people continue to insist that the US would not be able to attain air superiority on other forums...
citing bullshit like that video of the 100mm flak gun and usage of the Basij in ground war.
citing bullshit like that video of the 100mm flak gun and usage of the Basij in ground war.
Considering that Iran has a conventional military like Iraq, the US would annihilate them in a matter of days. It's the unconventional wars such as Vietnam and Afghanistan that give conventional US military forces problems. When the US has clear targets we usually soften them up from the air then send in our Armor and Mechanized Infantry. Iraq could not defend against the shear size and power of the US military.
Probably not, but they wouldnt go down as easy as Iraq did.would Iran's military have a chance?
noice 
To answer the OP, probably not.
To follow through to aftermath of the current state of the US economy, it would fare very poorly.
To follow through to aftermath of the current state of the US economy, it would fare very poorly.
QFEcdailey2142 wrote:
Considering that Iran has a conventional military like Iraq, the US would annihilate them in a matter of days. It's the unconventional wars such as Vietnam and Afghanistan that give conventional US military forces problems. When the US has clear targets we usually soften them up from the air then send in our Armor and Mechanized Infantry. Iraq could not defend against the shear size and power of the US military.
If the mission were "Destroy the Iranian military as an effective force", the US military could do that in a few short weeks.
If the mission creeps into
"Hang around attempting to effect concrete results from nebulous dithering proclamations passed down from a disinterested Congress.
Oh.. win their hearts and minds too!
Oh.. and make the area safe for Western business interests too!
Oh.. rebuild all the stuff you blew up.. and all the stuff Saddam never got around to properly building too!
Oh.. and, gosh darn it, make it so they like us! They really really like us!"
-yeah, that's going to work about as well as the last few times we've tried it.
We helped Germany and Japan rebuild after WW-II.
It's not going to happen that way in Iraq or Afghanistan.
One, those were Germans and Japanese - two peoples with a (historically well earned) stereotypical reputation for industriousness and determination.
Two, they wanted to rebuild. All we had to do, really, was give them the time, space, security, and opportunity to do so.
The rest, essentially, was all them.
/threadrdx-fx wrote:
If the mission were "Destroy the Iranian military as an effective force", the US military could do that in a few short weeks.
If the mission creeps into
"Hang around attempting to effect concrete results from nebulous dithering proclamations passed down from a disinterested Congress.
Oh.. win their hearts and minds too!
Oh.. and make the area safe for Western business interests too!
Oh.. rebuild all the stuff you blew up.. and all the stuff Saddam never got around to properly building too!
Oh.. and, gosh darn it, make it so they like us! They really really like us!"
-yeah, that's going to work about as well as the last few times we've tried it.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
thread: 10/10 would read again
inane little opines
Well, seems like a bad idea to go to war just to end the government.Trotskygrad wrote:
like I said, the objective would be to topple the government, and make the "official" army surrender. We're not talking about nation building here.Pug wrote:
Depends on your definition of winning.
Charlie Sheen would say yes
If that was the REAL goal - to chop off the head and not worry about rebuilding - then assassination would be the prudent course of action, not invasion.
Well, that kind of goes back to what I was saying with the Geneva Conventions in general.Dilbert_X wrote:
Right they'd be irregulars, just like the French Resistance, the Mujahedeen America funded, the Northern Alliance likewise and so on, plus your precious backwoodsmen.FEOS wrote:
And they wouldn't be Iran's military any longer, nor would they be protected by the Geneva Conventions any longer...so the OP question is moot.
They'd be the exact same people fighting the exact same fight.
The rules were written at a time when conventional war was more common, and asymmetrical war wasn't.
We need to either add a lot more rules to asymmetrical war or just face the fact that rules during war are kind of silly to begin with.
We don't just kill anyone for any reason, contrary to what some believe.
We can't even shoot people that loot the bodies of insurgents. I've spoken with some soldiers who have been in firefights in Afghanistan and Iraq, and when an insurgent goes down, sometimes, you have someone else run up and grab a weapon off of him.
The fact that we seem to have very little weapons control in Iraq or Afghanistan is probably a problem unto itself.
Last edited by Turquoise (2012-01-17 11:25:25)