Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
My Idea for Iran
Comments
-
@dhdawg is telling us that Iran already dismantled their nuclear program.HardlyClothed said:
Yes the guy who said that “end of a nuclear state Iran” in the OP should be taken seriously on this. Iran’s facilities are deep underground and well guarded. You would have to occupy the country to fully dismantle them. The IDF couldn’t occupy Southern Lebanon but Iran is somehow easier? Ok.Swaye said:I like being lectured about relative military strengths by people who know very little about the military. I like that.
-
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound. -
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake.
-
The Iranian militia is a nuisance once the entire Iranian air force is gone in 1 or 2 days...HardlyClothed said:
How the fuck do you think the Iranian militias have been preparing to fight Israel?PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians. -
If Iran attacked Israel, agreed. Multiple attempts by others have failed, and typically ended with Israel counter-attacking and having more territory by the end. Israel excels at defending the red zone.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake.
But we’re talking about invading Iran. It’s not a question of if we can win. Or if Israel alone (pipe dream that won’t happen) could win. That’s a given. But at what cost? More of ours would die than in Iraq, and certainly the country would be obliterated. That’s a lot of civilians dying. And a lot of Americans dying.
That’s a certainty. Iran having nukes is not. You really ok with WMD 2.0? -
Who is talking about invading Iran?ThomasFremont said:
If Iran attacked Israel, agreed. Multiple attempts by others have failed, and typically ended with Israel counter-attacking and having more territory by the end. Israel excels at defending the red zone.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake.
But we’re talking about invading Iran. It’s not a question of if we can win. Or if Israel alone (pipe dream that won’t happen) could win. That’s a given. But at what cost? More of ours would die than in Iraq, and certainly the country would be obliterated. That’s a lot of civilians dying. And a lot of Americans dying.
That’s a certainty. Iran having nukes is not. You really ok with WMD 2.0?
-
-
-
You. Are. So. Weak.HardlyClothed said:
Yes the guy who said that “end of a nuclear state Iran” in the OP should be taken seriously on this. Iran’s facilities are deep underground and well guarded. You would have to occupy the country to fully dismantle them. The IDF couldn’t occupy Southern Lebanon but Iran is somehow easier? Ok.Swaye said:I like being lectured about relative military strengths by people who know very little about the military. I like that.
It's embarrassing. -
If he was around in 1990, he was saying "But Iraq has the 3rd largest, most battle-tested army in the world." Like CNN said repeatedly. And which surrendered outright in less than a day.Swaye said:
Nothing could help this retard. He probably read some Wikipedia on Iran earlier today and is now an expert.RaceBannon said:
You might want to lurk a little bit and get a feel for the placeHardlyClothed said:
Congrats on supporting the George W. Bush agenda in 2020.RaceBannon said:Nothing gets @hardlyclothed1 more excited than death threats from Iran
Like clockwork -
On a sidenote, during the war we had many SOG missions and raids into North Vietnam and Laos.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake. -
Not to mention multiple bombing campaigns.DerekJohnson said:
On a sidenote, during the war we had many SOG missions and raids into North Vietnam and Laos.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake. -
We ended the war by bombing the north. Up until then it was off limits for a very long time. That's what happens when politicians pick targets.ThomasFremont said:
Not to mention multiple bombing campaigns.DerekJohnson said:
On a sidenote, during the war we had many SOG missions and raids into North Vietnam and Laos.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake. -
Yeah that’s not how or why Vietnam ended.Sledog said:
We ended the war by bombing the north. Up until then it was off limits for a very long time. That's what happens when politicians pick targets.ThomasFremont said:
Not to mention multiple bombing campaigns.DerekJohnson said:
On a sidenote, during the war we had many SOG missions and raids into North Vietnam and Laos.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake. -
Yeah that's how they got them back to the negotiating table. Evidently your degree excluded modern history. Look up operation Linebacker II.ThomasFremont said:
Yeah that’s not how or why Vietnam ended.Sledog said:
We ended the war by bombing the north. Up until then it was off limits for a very long time. That's what happens when politicians pick targets.ThomasFremont said:
Not to mention multiple bombing campaigns.DerekJohnson said:
On a sidenote, during the war we had many SOG missions and raids into North Vietnam and Laos.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake. -
Linebacker II ended Vietnam. Brilliant.Sledog said:
Yeah that's how they got them back to the negotiating table. Evidently your degree excluded modern history. Look up operation Linebacker II.ThomasFremont said:
Yeah that’s not how or why Vietnam ended.Sledog said:
We ended the war by bombing the north. Up until then it was off limits for a very long time. That's what happens when politicians pick targets.ThomasFremont said:
Not to mention multiple bombing campaigns.DerekJohnson said:
On a sidenote, during the war we had many SOG missions and raids into North Vietnam and Laos.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
Our policy was not to invade North Vietnam. Vietnam was an absolute clusterfuck and totally different than an Isreal vs Iran total war scenario we are discussing.ThomasFremont said:
Scoreboard, baby. Not excuses.PostGameOrangeSlices said:
I like to claim guerilla fighters hiding amongst civilian soft targets to be a "stalemate"ThomasFremont said:
Stalemate. Against Lebanon...HardlyClothed said:How did it go for Israel the last time they fought an Iran backed militia in Lebanon in 2006?
If Isreal didnt give a fuck about minimizing civilian casualties, Lebanon would capitulate in about a day.
There is a difference between destroying the Iraqi army in a few days, versus getting shot at by guerillas hiding amongst civilians.
You sound like some Vietnam War Boomer revisionist crying about how we? REALLY actually won the war if it wasn’t for all of these excuses.
You think Iran is gonna fight “fair”??? Does Israel suddenly get to stop caring about civilian casualties?
It’s almost like it’s not as easy as the chicken hawks always wanna make it sound.
South Korea was actually a competent ally, which is why it still exists. South Vietnam, not so much
Say what you want about Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. The US takes great care to only take out military targets. Yes platoons and individual soldiers go rogue. In a total war scenario, Iran is getting beat rather easily, say 17-34 days? By Isreal alone...
Occupying a country full of Viet Cong or Taliban doesnt really work. You cant defeat that ideology by force.
In the context of not accomplishing objectives, Nam was a disaster. We did what we wanted to with Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem was staying
In an all out war Isreal is not going to be that concerned with collateral. Their existence is at stake.
Evidently your brain excluded basic facts. -
I’m 100% behind the Swaye Doctrine.Swaye said:Trump should just call up Israel and tell them we will look the other way for a few months. "Have fun storming the castle." Israel has wanted to stomp a mudhole in Iran's ass for years and we have prevented it. Just cut them loose. The Jews would fuck them up quick fast and in a hurry. Arab Spring flourishes and @PurpleBaze can take the place over giving the people the leader they want and need. Plus then Uber is available in Tehran. Maybe even import some of those hot ass Persian babes for the next HH get together.
No American lives lost. Israel gets vengeance for all the rocket attacks that were financed and coordinated by Iran. Hezbollah looses much of their backing and fades in power and ambition. Iran can go back to a being a country that works for the people instead of Allah. End of a nuclear state Iran. And we don't even have to send them billions of dollars to do it. In fact, we probably make some money selling weapons back to the Jews. Win win win.
I'm a problem solver.
And the Iranian soccer team...
