What's new

Iran to destroy US military bases within minutes after an attack

.
It is easy to make assumptions but the wise realise that until something comes to pass, one's assumptions are but follies. Superfluous and garrulous Americans do not take into account the bravery of the Iranians nor the cowardice of their own superficial soldiers
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.
 
.
Best defense is a good offense. Hindsight analysis agreed that Iraq should have struck the alliance during its buildup.

No country would dare taking the first shot against NATO regardless of what they think in hindsight. However once under attack they should fight back as much as possible unlike Iraq who only used 15% of their military strength.

My interactions with them in real life.

Most would mean more than half of the total amount of Iranians unless you have interacted with 40 million Iranians you shouldn't be making statements like that.

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.

Don't mind him he was letting his emotions cloud his thinking when he made that comment. Everyone knows that the US military is second to none and are far from cowards.
 
.
No country would dare taking the first shot against NATO regardless of what they think in hindsight. However once under attack they should fight back as much as possible unlike Iraq who only used 15% of their military strength.
Interesting figure. I would like to see a credible source/argument for that.
 
.
Where did the other 85% hide? Where are they now?
 
.
Why should they, when they are royally screwing Iran by other means? Not all wars are fought with guns, but the chest thumpers don't realize that.

If US wars aim to plunge the people of the attacked nation into poverty -- then yes, they're doing a terrific job, the Americans. But if what they want to is to hurt the Iranian regime and make it cease enrichment, then they are not. None of America's sanctions -- against Cuba, Iraq or North Korea -- have worked to achieve their stated goals. Why would things be different with Iran -- if anything, a more powerful country than the ones the US has targeted before with its cowardly economic, people-starving wars.
 
.
Where did the other 85% hide? Where are they now?

They disbanded let me try and find the source it was an article by a leader of the Iraqi revolutionary guard. They wanted to negotiate with NATO forces but then a NATO official declared all Iraqi armed forces to be disbanded.
 
.
An Iranian Spring did happen, it was the Green movement in 2009.

But there is a major difference between the Military and Religious dictatorships.

Military often do give up power but Religious dictatorships have never done so.

Nonsense. In Argentina the military junta went much further in suppressing opposition than the Iranian regime has had to so far. The Syria rebels themselves have put on much more of a fight than the Green Movement. Yet Assad, a secular dictator, has yet to give up on power -- he has employed much more force to quell the uprising than the Iranian regime bothered to in order to suppress the Green Movement. All regimes, whether religious, or military, or civilian secular, invest on their own survival -- this is an expression of mankind's attachment to power; no one likes to lose power, whether religious or not.
 
.
lol no country on Earth can destroy any other countries bases within minute, good for comedy central this is, Iran just continues to make fools of themselves.
 
. .
.
Biggest comedian in ASIA is IRAN :D
After India Of course.

why not iran sends an official invitation for war rather than this usual bs.
Do they need invitation to come? Had we invited them during the World War II when the Soviets and the Brits raided Iran against previous agreements that we had made with them and the USA just sat and watched it? And when Iran asked the US help Roosevelt politely responded that during tough times some sacrifices need to be made? Had we invited them that they butted in the Iraq-Iran to directly attack Iranian oil rigs and navy to keep the oil flow of Iraq from being chocked by Iran?

Strange isn't it? The Americans could have done that over thirty years ago, but didn't.

And let me assure you, they'll never attack Iran.
They hoped Saddam would have their dirty job done thirty years ago, they failed.

To all who say Iran only talks,you are not blind,so read the thread title.Iran has said it will do this After U.S attacks Iran.So instead of barking nonsense about Iran,wait and see what Iran will do after U.S attacks it.The level of ignorance of some people is unbelievable.
Exactly. Just wait and see what happens when Iran and the USA start the game.

So just do it OK. Dont make a new threat each week.
Don't say 'all options are on the table' each week.

Dont crap on every week about how Iran will destroy Israel the US Europe and the Middle east.
I wonder where New Zealand is located in. Last time I checked it was in Oceania, so how North America, Europe and the Middle East should bother you is beyond me.

Bring it on fuckers
Instead of waiting to get laid by the IRGC for the reason which is outta your business, go find a dildo or something and have it done practically. That would be better.

we all learn early at school that the wind bag bullies continually making threats are really cowards.

Is that what they teach you early at school in New Zealand? Care to elaborate on it please. I remember once you said New Zealand had no interests in Iran related issues except that it sells sheeps to us. What has made that changed?
 
.
The first time Stealth was actually used was in the gulf war. The Nighthawks were employed to destroy Baghdad's sophisticated Soviet air defence systems. The command and control centres were also obliterated. Thus appearing as they did not put up resistance.
Also take into account the Jamming capabilities of the USAF. And organized resistance stood little chance.
 
.
Interesting figure. I would like to see a credible source/argument for that.

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.

One, from military strategic point of view, dividing the country into four separate commands -- although there are supporters to this idea -- was a strategic mistake.

Two, each level of command was planning for itself. There was no harmony, only artificial coordination; but in fact there were no joint battles. Each level was fighting with his own plans, in a separate way, but within the general view of the command. The regular army, Republican Guard, Quds army, and Ba'ath Party militias were all fighting in a separate pattern, as if there are no unified armed forces.

Three, there were mistakes due to Iraqi commanders' lack of strategic vision. Our commanders are patriotic officers, brave, and have wide military experience on all levels of command. But unfortunately, they used it in a limited way, so it didn't give the expected results.

Four, another side was psychological. The exaggeration in military discipline deprived the officers from ability to discuss. There was no decision making process, but only carrying out orders, even for high levels. High-ranking officers didn't have enough authority. The political situation of Iraq, regionally and internationally, made security establishment in full control. Actually there were dangers that gave the political leadership the right to do so, but not to the extent that we reached.

The control of security establishment, and depriving all levels of commanding officers from freedom to move, disabled them from working as expected in crucial moments. Everybody was just waiting for orders. This was a weak point since the 1948 war, when we were called a "no orders" army. I have addressed this issue in many seminars and researches, stating that we have a true problem in Iraqi command.

Five, we had unfortunately a low level of fighting and military spirit. Also commitment to Iraqi military honor was weakened, due to economic sanctions. Administrative corruption was widely spread. One day the supervisor asked me about the behavior of our armed forces. I replied that there was high level of bureaucracy; it was like a tumor. …

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

Where did the other 85% hide? Where are they now?

Found it posted above. :D
 
.
Where did the other 85% hide? Where are they now?

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.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom