Iran

batchaps4me said:
There is a huge difference between being defeated militarily and surrendering. This is really simple and has a few recent examples like Iraq and Afghanistan. The odd thing is that the ones bitching about military inactivity are in fact pushing for another Gulf War 2 style invasion and occupation. IF you are that bored, put out a plan that will solve this immediately or pick up a rifle and stand a fucking watch.
Click to expand...

You are reading me wrong.

I am not bitching about military inactivity, I am bitching about Trump constantly saying the Islamic Republic is defeated when they are clearly still fighting.

I have the same issue with him saying the regime has changed while the IRGC is still in power or their Navy is at the bottom of the ocean while their attack boats are still floating.
 
Deathroll said:
Sure I remember it. The military was not in good shape under Jimmy Crater. Pretty much everybody has a lot of cheap drones now.
Click to expand...
The way I hear it, Carter would never have the balls to give the green light to an op like that.

And with those cheap drones, home team always has the advantage. Especially with the terrain Iran has. If we put 800,000 in there we could win, but at a very heavy price.
 
pooods said:
You are reading me wrong.

I am not bitching about military inactivity, I am bitching about Trump constantly saying the Islamic Republic is defeated when they are clearly still fighting.

I have the same issue with him saying the regime has changed while the IRGC is still in power or their Navy is at the bottom of the ocean while their attack boats are still floating.
Click to expand...
And I am pointing out why you were wrong. Their military is defeated and utterly decimated. I don't know how to tell you that the IRGC is not the Iranian military. They are a parallel force with dual roles, primarily used to protect the government from and suppress the Iranian people but are equipped for limited offensive actions. Notice a lack of coordinated strike ability or any strategic action taken by the IRGC; it's because they are not the military. I'm sorry poods but to be blunt this line of criticism you use comes from ignorance of how Iran's government is structured. If you don't know the difference between boats and ships, navy and coastal vessels, IRGC and military/mullahs, then I don't know where to start with that.
 
Toadman005 said:
Nuke 'em.

Lets nuke the bastards.
Click to expand...
I can say this: I have stood watch for a no shit battle stations missile for three continuous days before (we were a JIC the Russians didn't like us invading Panama) and if the order is given, birds will fly. I'm not sure if it was for my betterment or detriment, but I saw the targets and know for a fact that we would have taken out 20-30 million people destroying some vital ports and rail hubs. I had a boomer t-shirt at the time with a submarine with and a mushroom cloud in the background saying "16 Empty Missile Tubes and a Mushroom Cloud, It's Miller Time!" that I never wore after that.
 
batchaps4me said:
And I am pointing out why you were wrong. Their military is defeated and utterly decimated. I don't know how to tell you that the IRGC is not the Iranian military. They are a parallel force with dual roles, primarily used to protect the government from and suppress the Iranian people but are equipped for limited offensive actions. Notice a lack of coordinated strike ability or any strategic action taken by the IRGC; it's because they are not the military. I'm sorry poods but to be blunt this line of criticism you use comes from ignorance of how Iran's government is structured. If you don't know the difference between boats and ships, navy and coastal vessels, IRGC and military/mullahs, then I don't know where to start with that.
Click to expand...

I do know the difference. I don't care if it is the Islamic Republic's Military, the IRGC, or the Basij, they are all agents of the current government. If you think the other two entities don't answer to the IRCG, you are mistaken.

It is also easier to type IRGC than the rest of that crap.

It doesn't to me if it is from Islamic Republic Navy or the IRGCN, the IRGC ultimately control the ship/boat.

As long as anyone of the 3 are shooting at us, they are not defeated. Trump is full of shit along these lines.
 
pooods said:
I do know the difference. I don't care if it is the Islamic Republic's Military, the IRGC, or the Basij, they are all agents of the current government. If you think the other two entities don't answer to the IRCG, you are mistaken.

It is also easier to type IRGC than the rest of that crap.

It doesn't to me if it is from Islamic Republic Navy or the IRGCN, the IRGC ultimately control the ship/boat.

As long as anyone of the 3 are shooting at us, they are not defeated. Trump is full of shit along these lines.
Click to expand...
If that's your definition of defeated, then the South didn't get defeated at Appomattox, Germany really didn't surrender in defeat on May 7, 1945, and Iraq and Afghanistan have never surrendered either. All were soundly defeated militarily with rogue elements carrying on the fight for months, if not years. If conflating terms makes you happy so you can have a political bitch, you do you. Iran's military is defeated and decimated. Their navy is destroyed. Their ability to operate Hamas and Hezbollah is nil. The former ayatollah and top two levels of clerical administrators are dead. But we didn't get all of their speed boats and they have what amounts to a national guard, so it's all a failure ... what's your plan to get rid of the IRGC?
 
@poods just to be clear, IMHO we agree that the IRGC is the holdup and that is to nobody's surprise. To my understanding, we have two general approaches to end it:
1. Invade and take care of the IRGC directly and occupy Iran for decades.
2. Use all available pressure to get the people and mullahs to do the job themselves.

If there are other approaches, I am all ears. If not, pick one and defend the approach. BTW, choosing #2 doesn't mean #1 won't be necessary in the long run but we haven't even gotten to that bridge yet.
 
batchaps4me said:
@poods just to be clear, IMHO we agree that the IRGC is the holdup and that is to nobody's surprise. To my understanding, we have two general approaches to end it:
1. Invade and take care of the IRGC directly and occupy Iran for decades.
2. Use all available pressure to get the people and mullahs to do the job themselves.

If there are other approaches, I am all ears. If not, pick one and defend the approach. BTW, choosing #2 doesn't mean #1 won't be necessary in the long run but we haven't even gotten to that bridge yet.
Click to expand...
#2. I agree with all of this.

I don't agree with the ceasefire. We don't necessarily need to be actively attacking but we shouldn't limit ourselves. If a missile battery lights up, we should blow it off the face of the Earth.

Again, I simply want our Commander-in-Chief to STFU. His bullshit rhetoric is making him look like a clown.
 
batchaps4me said:
If that's your definition of defeated, then the South didn't get defeated at Appomattox, Germany really didn't surrender in defeat on May 7, 1945, and Iraq and Afghanistan have never surrendered either. All were soundly defeated militarily with rogue elements carrying on the fight for months, if not years. If conflating terms makes you happy so you can have a political bitch, you do you. Iran's military is defeated and decimated. Their navy is destroyed. Their ability to operate Hamas and Hezbollah is nil. The former ayatollah and top two levels of clerical administrators are dead. But we didn't get all of their speed boats and they have what amounts to a national guard, so it's all a failure ... what's your plan to get rid of the IRGC?
Click to expand...

When they stop fighting, they are defeated.

The Iranian people need to destroy the IRGC. Unfortunately, the Iranian people are not armed. I am not sure how we get arms to the right people. The Basij makes this more difficult. I can't think of a better example of why citizens should not relinquish their weapons.
 
HuskerBrick said:
The way I hear it, Carter would never have the balls to give the green light to an op like that.
Click to expand...
He gave the green light but like everything else with Jimmy Crater, it was a royal fuck up. Of course, the fact that the military had been underfunded for years probably had something to do with it.
HuskerBrick said:
And with those cheap drones, home team always has the advantage. Especially with the terrain Iran has. If we put 800,000 in there we could win, but at a very heavy price.
Click to expand...
No need to put a single boot on the ground. Just maintain the naval blockade.
 
pooods said:
When they stop fighting, they are defeated.

The Iranian people need to destroy the IRGC. Unfortunately, the Iranian people are not armed. I am not sure how we get arms to the right people. The Basij makes this more difficult. I can't think of a better example of why citizens should not relinquish their weapons.
Click to expand...
I would caution that the last time we armed a bunch of Islamic freedom fighters, we had some consequences so be careful in what you wish. It may be better, much better, to collapse their economy, and hope the IRGC is smothered from within. That is the way for lasting change and peace instead of the faux Americana we keep trying to impose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top