Please don't think I'm doing this just be an prick or start something, I've been here long enough and dealt with all the anti-Iranian bigoted/racist trolls. You either develop a tough-skin, leave, or fight vitriol with vitriol. Gambit isn't a bad person, neither is LeGenD but this forum has admittedly made me considerably less cordial overtime. I did have civil discourse with Gambit in the past.
Criticizing Iran and its policies is not racist. Indian members do that all the time to Pakistan, we don't ban them for it.
"Speaking which, can you calm down? Gambit is a professional, and he's remained firm but calm this entire conversation. There is no need for you to go at his like that, its uncalled for. This is an open forum, as such he has within his right to respond to a comment he disagrees with, so long as he (and you) aren't breaking forum rules. You are free to ignore his disagreement. If his comments bother you so much, ignore them."
-- Yeah, I don't really care for what you have to say here. I will express myself in whatever way I feel. This isn't Gambit's first foray into the Iranian section where he comes in acting as if he has all the answers and knows the Iranian military like the back of his hand. If you were here for years (Iranian section) then you'd act differently (or not I don't care really). Nothing personal towards you mind you, I'm sick and tired of hearing this old toad spouting this 'Iraq=Iran' and expecting everyone to just gobble it up. Professional background or not, the war-field has changed, sun rises, sky is blue, water is wet and Iran doesn't equal Iraq.
So it wasn't a request, you ARE breaking forum rules by targeting a title holder with such vitriol, especially one that holds a lot of respect.
I don't think he's actually said anywhere that Iraq and Iran are equal. Rather, he's said that he believes Iran will meet the same fate as Iraq, if they go to war with the US, which I believe to be a correct assessment.
The US would have to pour 3 to 5 times as many resources as Iraq, but the end result would be similar.
"On a final note, I find a lot of people who argue against gambit don't really prove him wrong. They usually target his american heritage (or use vague anti-american talking points, and historical events stripped of context), and hope to win sympathy points, rather than win the argument. I've very rarely seen him actually lose an argument, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that he's consistently being 'debunked' for years on this forum, when that rarely actually happens."
-- What's there to prove him wrong on when his base argument is not rooted in any accepted reality other than the one he peddles due to his experience during Desert Storm? Now that I think about it, citing one's own experience in a one-off war from the early 90's is somewhat troubling don't you think? Not every future war is going to look like Desert Storm, that just sounds off, like really off. Anyways, He is trying to convince everyone that somehow, someway Iran and Iraq are the same (admittedly there is overlap and reasonable correlations) and if America and Iran get into a conflict it will play out the same (I didn't know Saddam had a massive stockpile of stand-off munitions....I won't list the reasons now too many). I've named off a entire list of factual realities that make Saddam's 91' Iraq damn near holistically different from present day Iran of 2020. He can tell this forum until he croaks how 'strong' America is but that doesn't change the fact that Iran and Iraq are not the same, at least not to the severe degree he argues them to be. Which is my primary reason for being so aggressive towards him. It's disingenuous to say the least...
Normally, I dismiss anecdotal evidence, but not when it comes from a professional source. You don't go to a shop keeper, and expect him to perform surgery, but you do if you go to a surgeon.
Yes, future war scenarios will not look like desert storm, however, the Iraq invasion was similar to the first gulf war, but with lessons learned.
Just like that, the US would take lessons it has learned in previous wars, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and adjust its plans to Iran, if a war were to occur between the two. This is an obvious thing, and doesn't need to be said.
We need to make some things crystal clear here, I'm not just a vapid Iranian fanboy (on a technical note, I'm American as any other American but my parents are Iranian, born in the states myself). Me and many others who have a firm grasp on reality have accepted any conflict between America and Iran will result in huge losses on the Iranian-side which is fair enough. But to sit there and act all arrogant and snarky whilst trying to convince Iranians (and non-Iranians) that you and your nation will fair no better than Saddam's Iraq of 91' did just because he happened to be in Desert Storm first hand doesn't hold much weight especially with all the recent advancements Iran has made in domestic arms production that have translated directly into battle-field ready fighting capabilities that Saddam did not have whatsoever. A point that Gambit is absolutely correct on (amongst many he is very informative and insightful in, I mean this sincerely) is that the U.S. military has learned and evolved from 91', but why can't that same thing be said about Iran? A person actually thinking that Iran will be some walk in the park or easy mark but not even acknowledging the reality in where Iran has been formulating defense plans for well over 30 years is just troubling (there is certain level of delusion needed in order to think this way). Even then Gambit dismisses it as if it was just some fart in the wind. Again, one can easily see how you can get mad at what he says.
Its said that no plan survives contact with the enemy. That's true for the US, as proven by both Iraq and Afghanistan, and it's true for Iran.
You acknowledge that Iran has capabilities that Iraq didn't have, but what makes you think those capabilities will actually prove to be as effective as you claim? You don't know, and I don't know. Gambit probably has some idea, as he's combat proven, and follows military affairs far more closely than myself or you.
Iran can have all the plans and capabilities it wants, but don't think for a second that the US won't have a contingency plan, just in case. It's the same thing, the other way around, with Iran having back up plans as well. In this case, the US would fair better, simply due to superior logistics and technology.
Let's put it this way, Pakistan is arguably better off against the US than Iran is, especially with its tactical nukes, and its massive arsenal of anti-ship (anti-carrier) missiles; Pakistan would still lose, badly.
To cut things short, this sort of talk doesn't hold much weight until we actually see both belligerents shoot at one another and use all their capabilities.
True.
But we're on a military forum. Half the fun here is talking about such scenarios of what may or may not happe during an actual war, which I don't think will actually ever occur.
I completely explained the roots of terrorism in our region & the world which contradicts his point.
No, you really didn't. You did not address his claim that Iran supports terrorism, you merely changed the topic to talk about what you say is US sponsored terrorism
... What language do you speak? I stated what he said is indeed a bogus claim and further explained base on facts its americans whom are real sponsor of terrorism .... x is false and y is true and that means I refuted his baseless claim even I provided him with evidence ... end of story ... instead of judging posts over here please tell your opinion on the issue.
.
