Iran: LET’S DO THIS!

[MILFHUNTER#518]

So we basically did the same job (once deployed).

 

I am just saying i dont know a single guy who is not a pog who is cheering the prospect of WW3 with smiley face emojis. And yes, that is what will happen if we initiate a full scale war and invasion with Iran, anyone with any level of study in military history and current foreign affairs would know that. 

 

Taking your recent proclamations of knowledge/pedigree on military history and actual real world military service at face value, i would think that this whole thread is your attempt at humor.

[Tiberius]

Invading Iran would be an incredible folly. Neo cons wanted that real bad in 2003. 

Edited August 28, 2018 by Tiberius

[3rdnlng]

38 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

Invading Iran is/was on Hillary's and McCain's bucket list. War, what is it good for?

[Tiberius]

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Invading Iran is/was on Hillary's and McCain's bucket list. War, what is it good for?

Is that a total lie? Sounds like it 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Is that a total lie? Sounds like it 

Ah, the lie detector has spoken.

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Ah, the lie detector has spoken.

So you just make things up, totally untruthful. 

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

So you just make things up, totally untruthful. 

How much is the bail, and is the sheep pressing charges?

[Tiberius]

15 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

How much is the bail, and is the sheep pressing charges?

W 

[The_Dude]

1 hour ago, MILFHUNTER#518 said:

So we basically did the same job (once deployed).

 

I am just saying i dont know a single guy who is not a pog who is cheering the prospect of WW3 with smiley face emojis. And yes, that is what will happen if we initiate a full scale war and invasion with Iran, anyone with any level of study in military history and current foreign affairs would know that. 

 

Taking your recent proclamations of knowledge/pedigree on military history and actual real world military service at face value, i would think that this whole thread is your attempt at humor.

 

It's not.

What I believe in is handling the issues now so that our children may have peace. That, and **** Haj. **** Haj always. And no, jacking Iran up will not necessarily lead to WWIII. In fact, I'd suggest that it will prevent it. Further, you wont hear me advocate for an invasion. Destroy their navy, and their air force, bomb the **** out of them, and don't put ground troops in unless we absolutely have to, and if we do, NO NATION BUILDING / PEACE KEEPING CRAP! I'm not advocating for Iraq 2.0. That needs to end. Never again should it happen. 

 

Don't you wanna shoot Haj again? Make Killing Haj Great Again! OIF 1 was the time of my life. After OIF 1 the pogs started ruining everything in their attempt to make Iraq garrison. Evil, spineless, pogs. 

 

Did I lose friends? Yeah. It happens. It's sad. I cried every time a friend didn't answer our 1SG calling his name just before taps and the bang, bang, bang. Nothings worse than crying as a grown man. But you shed your tears and you go back to work. And you kill the crap out of Haj for it. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Invading Iran would be an incredible folly. Neo cons wanted that real bad in 2003. 

 

Yeah. But the thing with war is, ya don't really have to invade. Destroy their navy, and destroy their air force, and level their military targets.

 

Put boots on the ground only if ya have to, and then pull back. America needs to show the world 'we'll burn you to the ground, and we'll leave you with the ashes.' No reason to spend American lives and tax dollars doing a stupid Iraq/Afghanistan style sustained invasion. That is not what I'm advocating for. 

[sherpa]

20 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

Yeah. But the thing with war is, ya don't really have to invade. Destroy their navy, and destroy their air force, and level their military targets.

 

Put boots on the ground only if ya have to, and then pull back. America needs to show the world 'we'll burn you to the ground, and we'll leave you with the ashes.' No reason to spend American lives and tax dollars doing a stupid Iraq/Afghanistan style sustained invasion. That is not what I'm advocating for. 

 

Just an incredibly stupid suggestion, and would never be productive.

You can't solve anything by simply taking out their military. The Persian culture would rally around a regime that it currently doesn't like.

And "the thing with war is" you really do have to invade.

 

The only justifiable reason for significant military operations against Iran would be any closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or any threatened, credible nuclear action against anybody, including Israel.

 

Let the internal trend continue, and don't be foolish to embolden the regime by responding to stupid threats by their holders on.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

War with Iran would only enable the Democrats and their allies in the deep state to derail the LONG needed reform that's coming.

 

No.

 

I refuse.

 

[The_Dude]

21 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Just an incredibly stupid suggestion, and would never be productive.

You can't solve anything by simply taking out their military. The Persian culture would rally around a regime that it currently doesn't like.

And "the thing with war is" you really do have to invade.

 

The only justifiable reason for significant military operations against Iran would be any closure of the Strait of Hormuz, or any threatened, credible nuclear action against anybody, including Israel.

 

Let the internal trend continue, and don't be foolish to embolden the regime by responding to stupid threats by their holders on.

 

Yeah ya can. You don't have to invade to bring a country to their knees. England was almost fought out in WWII without one German soldier stepping foot on the island. It can be done. If the issue is shipping lanes, and you sink their navy, they then cannot contest the shipping lanes. It's really that simple. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

@The_Dude

 

War should be an absolute last resort once all other avenues, save capitulation, have been exhausted.

 

Then, once you go to war, you go to total war.  Boots on the ground, eradication of the people, every man, woman, and child, and you sweep them into the sea leaving no one behind to have future grievances.

 

You do this until they figuratively prostrate themselves on the ground crying mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa; at which point you colonize them, and make them Americans.

 

You make an absolute example of them for other nations as to why you do not, under any circumstances, make war against America.

 

But you do this as an absolute last resort.  Prior to this you give other nations, and other cultures, every opportunity to demonstrate that they can live in the world with you.

 

This is the only set of moral actions which exists.

[sherpa]

9 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Yeah ya can. You don't have to invade to bring a country to their knees. England was almost fought out in WWII without one German soldier stepping foot on the island. It can be done. If the issue is shipping lanes, and you sink their navy, they then cannot contest the shipping lanes. It's really that simple. 

 

Maybe you didn't read what was written.

I said that if they impeded shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, military action would be justified.

By the way, your suggestion that by sinking their Navy they cannot contest shipping through the Strait is just wrong.

Been there, planned that.

[The_Dude]

6 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Maybe you didn't read what was written.

I said that if they impeded shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, military action would be justified.

By the way, your suggestion that by sinking their Navy they cannot contest shipping through the Strait is just wrong.

Been there, planned that.

 

Why? Are there fortifications that can conduct artillary strikes that can also protect the straight? Cause if so, we have an answer for that. 

 

I dont know much about boat-war. If you do and are familiar with the straight explain it to me like you would a child. I understand boat-war is a complex thing, and I’m not joking when I say past the corvus I’m completely uneducated on the subject. 

20 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

@The_Dude

 

War should be an absolute last resort once all other avenues, save capitulation, have been exhausted.

 

Then, once you go to war, you go to total war.  Boots on the ground, eradication of the people, every man, woman, and child, and you sweep them into the sea leaving no one behind to have future grievances.

 

You do this until they figuratively prostrate themselves on the ground crying mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa; at which point you colonize them, and make them Americans.

 

You make an absolute example of them for other nations as to why you do not, under any circumstances, make war against America.

 

But you do this as an absolute last resort.  Prior to this you give other nations, and other cultures, every opportunity to demonstrate that they can live in the world with you.

 

This is the only set of moral actions which exists.

 

Whered ya find that gem? And again, why are you so obsessed with me? 

[sherpa]

14 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Why? Are there fortifications that can conduct artillary strikes that can also protect the straight? Cause if so, we have an answer for that. 

 

I dont know much about boat-war. If you do and are familiar with the straight explain it to me like you would a child. I understand boat-war is a complex thing, and I’m not joking when I say past the corvus I’m completely uneducated on the subject. 

 

First, somebody has to comment on your contention of not owning the land being a successful strategy by using Germany's near defeat of Great Britain in WWII. 

How did that turn out?

The fact that they didn't own the land allowed Allied forces to use it to stage nearly the entire invasion of Europe which ended at Berlin, so it not only failed, it was responsible for their entire destruction.

Might that be a "bad example," or better, using an example as a near success when it was the ultimate failure?

 

Anyway, I get that you are an Army vet, but "artillery strikes" is not germane to this issue.

Iran has significant surface to surface missile capability which has the range to hit defenseless tankers or any other ships in the Strait or parts of the Persian Gulf. That is a very small channel.

This has been played out in the late 80's and resulted in really bad things, and they would probably not have to do this without significant support, at least for a brief time. You can guess the country.

 

The best way to deal with Iran is to let its citizens continue to lose support for their radical Islamic leadership, and the factions of their military that think similarly. If they develop a nuke that threatens Israel, that is an entirely different situation.

[The_Dude]

9 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

First, somebody has to comment on your contention of not owning the land being a successful strategy by using Germany's near defeat of Great Britain in WWII. 

How did that turn out?

The fact that they didn't own the land allowed Allied forces to use it to stage nearly the entire invasion of Europe which ended at Berlin, so it not only failed, it was responsible for their entire destruction.

Might that be a "bad example," or better, using an example as a near success when it was the ultimate failure?

 

Anyway, I get that you are an Army vet, but "artillery strikes" is not germane to this issue.

Iran has significant surface to surface missile capability which has the range to hit defenseless tankers or any other ships in the Strait or parts of the Persian Gulf. That is a very small channel.

This has been played out in the late 80's and resulted in really bad things, and they would probably not have to do this without significant support, at least for a brief time. You can guess the country.

 

The best way to deal with Iran is to let its citizens continue to lose support for their radical Islamic leadership, and the factions of their military that think similarly. If they develop a nuke that threatens Israel, that is an entirely different situation.

 

No, the Battle of Britain was a good example. I know how the story unfolded. But it unfolded that way because the Germans didn’t know how successful their initial strategy was and how close it was to working. I’m viewing it with a lot of hindsight though. I stick by that, England was almost fought out due to their airfields being nearly all destroyed. 

 

But as far as SAMs go, I mean I’m kinda predicting that the Navy would account for that and handle the issue quickly. 

 

Dont give Iran too much credit, they’re a paper tiger. They could not sustain a fight with us and it would take away what shred of legitimacy the current powers that be have. 

 

I respectfully disagree with you on the issue. 

[sherpa]

7 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

But as far as SAMs go, I mean I’m kinda predicting that the Navy would account for that and handle the issue quickly. 

 

Dont give Iran too much credit, they’re a paper tiger. They could not sustain a fight with us and it would take away what shred of legitimacy the current powers that be have. 

 

I respectfully disagree with you on the issue. 

 

No problem with anyone disagreeing,  but I'm not sure you understand the problem.

 

SAM's are not the issue. Those are surface to air defensive weapons.

Surface to surface anti ship missiles are the issue, and they have the range to disrupt the Strait in a major way.

Ships of commerce have to transit an extremely small waterway and that has always been a big problem in that region.

 

I don't give Iran too much credit, but when you have an unfix-able choke point that borders their territory, and does that amount business, you have a major problem.

Best way is to let it work its way out without military action.

[The_Dude]

20 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

No problem with anyone disagreeing,  but I'm not sure you understand the problem.

 

SAM's are not the issue. Those are surface to air defensive weapons.

Surface to surface anti ship missiles are the issue, and they have the range to disrupt the Strait in a major way.

Ships of commerce have to transit an extremely small waterway and that has always been a big problem in that region.

 

I don't give Iran too much credit, but when you have an unfix-able choke point that borders their territory, and does that amount business, you have a major problem.

Best way is to let it work its way out without military action.

 

Hey, like I said, I'm ignorant to boat war, but I have the upmost faith in our Navy....except for parking. They suck at parking. How many boats got into accidents at ports last year? No wonder the world thinks we're awful drivers. 

[DC Tom]

2 hours ago, The_Dude said:

 

No, the Battle of Britain was a good example. I know how the story unfolded. But it unfolded that way because the Germans didn’t know how successful their initial strategy was and how close it was to working. I’m viewing it with a lot of hindsight though. I stick by that, England was almost fought out due to their airfields being nearly all destroyed. 

 

But as far as SAMs go, I mean I’m kinda predicting that the Navy would account for that and handle the issue quickly. 

 

Dont give Iran too much credit, they’re a paper tiger. They could not sustain a fight with us and it would take away what shred of legitimacy the current powers that be have. 

 

I respectfully disagree with you on the issue. 

 

Iran doesn't have to "sustain" a fight.  They only have to increase the risk of transit to close the Straits. 

 

And SAMs aren't magic.  Ever hear of F2T2EA?  Find-Fix-Track-Target-Engage-Analyze.  The basic engagement cycle for any engagement, from bow-and-arrow to nuclear weapons.  The problem in the Gulf and Straits is that the ranges are short enough that it's very easy for the Iranians to either get inside that cycle, or saturate it - i.e. launch close enough that missile flight time is less than the engagement cycle, or launch so many missiles that you overload an aspect of the engagement cycle.  

 

If you study military history, and don't understand that, you stuck at studying military history.  Hell, there's capable computer games (Command & Control, for example) that would let you play this out and, if not give you a completely real-world result, would at least give you an understanding of the variables involved.