Iran to destroy US military bases within minutes after an attack

[KingMamba]

It was a lose-lose situation for them. If they fought, the Americans would defeat them, if they didn't, Saddam would torture them, threaten their families, execute them, etc.. Therefore many of the Iraqi military personnel didn't have the will to fight and preferred to hide out until the dust settles.

Interviews - Lt. Gen. Raad Al-Hamdani | The Invasion Of Iraq | FRONTLINE | PBS

Arian you should read this article as well it really told about the situation, also the Iraqi army wanted to help better the country and were willing to sacrifice Saddam so they wanted to negotiate but when they were disbanded by US officials then they were more inclined to become violent.

You put 300,000 men who want to help you out of a job and they will be mad.

 

[Meengla]

pak is smart enough to know that it cannot confront the US. Iran is not so smart, I guess.

In Bharat-Rakshak, they describe Pakistan as 'GUBO', an acronym for 'Grease Up and Bend Over'. I guess they are describing the 'smart enough'.

 

[Arian]

@Kingmamba93:

Arian you should read this article as well it really told about the situation, also the Iraqi army wanted to help better the country and were willing to sacrifice Saddam so they wanted to negotiate but when they were disbanded by US officials then they were more inclined to become violent.

You put 300,000 men who want to help you out of a job and they will be mad.

Surely I will. Thanks for the article.
It seems that when I try to load the 6th page it reloads the 5th page again. The same trouble on PDF again. So I need to wait until it automatically get solved later to continue the discussion in this page. :-(

 

[KingMamba]

@Kingmamba93:



Surely I will. Thanks for the article.
It seems that when I try to load the 6th page it reloads the 5th page again. The same trouble on PDF again. So I need to wait until it automatically get solved later to continue the discussion in this page. :-(

No problem mate, looking forward to discussing this further tomorrow.

 

[gambit]

Here you go man

Could you give me an idea about the strategic mistakes made throughout the war?

I can summarize Iraqi strategic mistakes on specific points.

<snipped>

The percentage of forces that really fought was simple. I don't have exact numbers, but I can say almost 15 percent. In spite of that, it kept on fighting for three weeks -- so what if everybody was fighting? We might have fought for longer time, and we could have delayed the enemy and forced him to pay heavy price, so as to have justice for the Iraqi people and armed forces from historic point of view.

Interviews - Lt. Gen. Raad Al-Hamdani | The Invasion Of Iraq | FRONTLINE | PBS

What you said has more to do with incompetence than it is about the nebulous 'military strength', which you failed to define as composed of what in the first place. What is 'military strength'? Is it total hardware? Is it total manpower? Is it both? If 'military strength' is defined as the ability to wield one's forces effectively beside manpower and hardware, then would a 100% efficient army wielding swords and spears prevail over a 75% efficient army wielding machine guns? Probably not.

No military ever attack with 100% of its resources in both manpower and hardware. Sorry, but I do not take seriously the general's assessment of that 15% figure. Or rather, YOUR interpretation of what he really meant...

The percentage of forces that really fought was simple. I don't have exact numbers, but I can say almost 15 percent.

In any military, which am certain you never served to know any better, that although the motivation to fight is independent of the hardware available, said motivation is always influenced by said hardware, meaning if all you have is swords and spears while you know your enemy is fielding machine guns, your morale will plummet and what always will remain are the fanatical few who will fight regardless of what hardware or even leadership they may have.

So it is ridiculous to try to excuse the alliance's victory over the Iraqi military by saying -- without qualifications -- that the Iraqi military fought at only 15% capacity. Does that mean the Iraqi military stationed only 15% of its troops? Only 15% of its artillery were stocked with shells? Each aircraft had only 15% fuel load? What...???

Now...If you argue that because of the American's quick decapitation strike that enable the Iraqi military leadership to exercise EFFECTIVE command and control of only 15% of its forces, then you may have a reasonable excuse and diminished American victory. But only a flimsy one because one of the more desirable goal in war is to sever the head from the spine, leaving the body leaderless and flopping helplessly. That is exactly what we did and we did it spectacularly. NO ONE else could have done it as good, assuming they could have done it at all.

Try again...

 

[Killuminati]

Why Iran did focus more on balistic missiles instead of developing new defence systems to protect their NPP's from an possible attack?

These balistic missiles are useless and will taken out in the air.

 

[KRAIT]

Why Iran did focus more on balistic missiles instead of developing new defence systems to protect their NPP's from an possible attack?

These balistic missiles are useless and will taken out in the air.

All BMD system are not 100% efficient and this program will atleast keep Israel on back-foot if there is a need, even on peace time.

 

[KingMamba]

What you said has more to do with incompetence than it is about the nebulous 'military strength', which you failed to define as composed of what in the first place. What is 'military strength'? Is it total hardware? Is it total manpower? Is it both? If 'military strength' is defined as the ability to wield one's forces effectively beside manpower and hardware, then would a 100% efficient army wielding swords and spears prevail over a 75% efficient army wielding machine guns? Probably not.

No military ever attack with 100% of its resources in both manpower and hardware. Sorry, but I do not take seriously the general's assessment of that 15% figure. Or rather, YOUR interpretation of what he really meant...


In any military, which am certain you never served to know any better, that although the motivation to fight is independent of the hardware available, said motivation is always influenced by said hardware, meaning if all you have is swords and spears while you know your enemy is fielding machine guns, your morale will plummet and what always will remain are the fanatical few who will fight regardless of what hardware or even leadership they may have.

So it is ridiculous to try to excuse the alliance's victory over the Iraqi military by saying -- without qualifications -- that the Iraqi military fought at only 15% capacity. Does that mean the Iraqi military stationed only 15% of its troops? Only 15% of its artillery were stocked with shells? Each aircraft had only 15% fuel load? What...???

Now...If you argue that because of the American's quick decapitation strike that enable the Iraqi military leadership to exercise EFFECTIVE command and control of only 15% of its forces, then you may have a reasonable excuse and diminished American victory. But only a flimsy one because one of the more desirable goal in war is to sever the head from the spine, leaving the body leaderless and flopping helplessly. That is exactly what we did and we did it spectacularly. NO ONE else could have done it as good, assuming they could have done it at all.

Try again...

I never said the Iraqis had any chancing of winning even if they put out a 100% effort, what I said was that when you are attacked than you should use 100% of your military abilities to defend your country which they didn't even in the part I highlighted at the end it states that although the Iraqis wouldn't have won they could have put up a much more honorable fight. Also this is just my source if you search online there are other sources that say the same exact thing that the army did not fight because they wanted to help Iraq and they saw the American attack as taking down the regime not the country. It was only when they were disbanded AFTER the invasion was complete that they became disenfranchised.

Reread my post 63 with an unbiased mind I never said they could have won. Most people would take the assessment of people who were on the ground there, regardless of what you may want to believe the Iraqi army only used 15% of their true military strength and the point I was trying to make when bringing this up is that Iran will use all that they have to dish out so I will not be as easy as people think.

As for my assessment of military strength it is based on numerous things as detailed in the following link. These are more recent.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/

PS- Yeah you are right I have never served however I have family who did. My cousin was a veteran in both Iraq and Afghanistan and he himself told me that fighting was not as bad in Iraq as it was in Afghanistan (he recently decided not to re-enlist he was an E-5 sergeant) and I have another cousin currently stationed in a New Jersey base alternating between that and a Virginia Base who is the Rank of Captain who also fought in Iraq. Not to mention I have 3 personal friends who are veterans from the marine, and two from the navy respectively. Also my uncle is an engineer with the US army and he helps design and build fighter jets like the F16 and F22 who also lives in Jersey. He is quite proud of his work and the work of his colleagues, he said how the Iraqi airforce didn't even want to take to the skies because they knew they would just get knocked right down. Along with that my little brother is enlisting next year after he graduates from high school.

In conclusion I was not trying to take anything away from the US military I was just commenting on what took place in that war and if you are gonna let you personal biases get in the way of discussing said wars just because in your opinion it may discredit our country then maybe you should not be on a defense forum. Over and out

 

[truthseer]

Cowardice? You have no idea what American teens are like. We don't have to train them to not be cowards...but instead to calm them into not going totaly beserk.

American teens do not equal American soldiers. The same who have the highest suicide rate among all armies, the height of cowardice

 

[Amolthebest]

Though I respect Iran I think Iran has become China of middle east. Only big talks no action.

 

[KingMamba]

American teens do not equal American soldiers. The same who have the highest suicide rate among all armies, the height of cowardice

You need to get over yourself there is not an army in the world that can match the US army so if in your opinion they are cowards what does that make the rest of the world?

 

[truthseer]

You need to get over yourself there is not an army in the world that can match the US army so if in your opinion they are cowards what does that make the rest of the world?

1/0 does not exist. Envisaging your situation however, that would mean the rest of the world must have vanished