Commander: IRGC Will Destroy 35 US Bases in Region if Attacked

[Juice]

Of course, the US will run in little circles while Iran rains death on them. Probably our lack of any experience in war or our inferior equipment. Oh, and Iran is exactly like Iraq...they fought for 8 years and both acheived roughly equal results. And Iraq was far stronger at they end than at the beggining

 

[Abii]

Of course, the US will run in little circles while Iran rains death on them. Probably our lack of any experience in war or our inferior equipment. Oh, and Iran is exactly like Iraq...they fought for 8 years and both acheived roughly equal results. And Iraq was far stronger at they end than at the beggining

I laugh at morons who use the IR-IQ war as an example.

Iran under the shah was a US puppet with 0 industry. Only after the revolution we started producing weapons. During the IR-IQ war, which we fought against the total forces of 54 Western and Arabic nations, we couldn't even produce a fuel pump. There are famous pics of our soldiers in the front lines fueling things with funnels and ****. We could barey produce a bullet. On top of all that we had come out of a revolution. Our army, airforce and navy had disbanded after the rev. We were in total disarray and so was the country itself. Oil was being trade at around 15 dollars a barrel. People couldn't even find milk in the stores. Total chaos and misery.

On the other hand you had IRaq which was being supported by two super powers and every single arab nation. European countries provided every weapon Iraq wanted and countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait took care of the bill. Other arab nations even sent soldiers. We're talking hundreds of billions in assistance. In Iran's case there was the Iran-contra affair which was a puny deal worth only a tiny fraction, practically nothing, of Iraq's monthly procurement from foreign nations.

Today we're sending sats into space and back then we couldn't even produce a fuel pump while the country was at a state of total mayhem and this guy is using that as an example, what an imbecile.

 

[Juice]

I laugh at morons who use the IR-IQ war as an example.

Iran under the shah was a US puppet with 0 industry. Only after the revolution we started producing weapons. During the IR-IQ war, which we fought against the total forces of 54 Western and Arabic nations, we couldn't even produce a fuel pump. There are famous pics of our soldiers in the front lines fueling things with funnels and ****. We could barey produce a bullet. On top of all that we had come out of a revolution. Our army, airforce and navy had disbanded after the rev. We were in total disarray and so was the country itself. Oil was being trade at around 15 dollars a barrel. People couldn't even find milk in the stores. Total chaos and misery.

On the other hand you had IRaq which was being supported by two super powers and every single arab nation. European countries provided every weapon Iraq wanted and countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait took care of the bill. Other arab nations even sent soldiers. We're talking hundreds of billions in assistance. In Iran's case there was the Iran-contra affair which was a puny deal worth only a tiny fraction, practically nothing, of Iraq's monthly procurement from foreign nations.

Today we're sending sats into space and back then we couldn't even produce a fuel pump while the country was at a state of total mayhem and this guy is using that as an example, what an imbecile.

Lol, yeah...I'm an imbecile! Hell, Iran can make fuel pumps! What the heck was I smoking.

 

[gambit]

I laugh at morons who use the IR-IQ war as an example.

Iran under the shah was a US puppet with 0 industry. Only after the revolution we started producing weapons. During the IR-IQ war, which we fought against the total forces of 54 Western and Arabic nations, we couldn't even produce a fuel pump. There are famous pics of our soldiers in the front lines fueling things with funnels and ****. We could barey produce a bullet. On top of all that we had come out of a revolution. Our army, airforce and navy had disbanded after the rev. We were in total disarray and so was the country itself. Oil was being trade at around 15 dollars a barrel. People couldn't even find milk in the stores. Total chaos and misery.

On the other hand you had IRaq which was being supported by two super powers and every single arab nation. European countries provided every weapon Iraq wanted and countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait took care of the bill. Other arab nations even sent soldiers. We're talking hundreds of billions in assistance. In Iran's case there was the Iran-contra affair which was a puny deal worth only a tiny fraction, practically nothing, of Iraq's monthly procurement from foreign nations.

Today we're sending sats into space and back then we couldn't even produce a fuel pump while the country was at a state of total mayhem and this guy is using that as an example, what an imbecile.

The majority of Iraq's military was Soviet equipped.

 

[Arian]

Of course, the US will run in little circles while Iran rains death on them. Probably our lack of any experience in war or our inferior equipment. Oh, and Iran is exactly like Iraq...they fought for 8 years and both acheived roughly equal results. And Iraq was far stronger at they end than at the beggining

Your Iran Iraq comparison is wrong Juice. Iraq had the support of the Arab league (excluding Syria and Libya, and sometimes Algeria and Lebanon), that would alone mean more than 45 countries. It also had the support of the Soviet Union and the USA, in fact he had the support of both blocs of power at that time while Iran had none. Iran had been left alone and both the Soviet Union and the western bloc had turned against us. We captured Arabs from over 20 nationalities during the Iraq-Iran war who had been sent to Iraq to help them fight Iran.
Moreover, after the Nozheh coup, the newly-established regime of Iran started 'cleaning' all pro-Shah elements in the Army. Many of our generals had been executed or had been jailed or had escaped the country. Our air force officers were in jail. The Iranian army had been dismantled and suppressed because the new regime didn't trust it and thought they would coordinate a coup.
But that's not all the story. Our air force started to get crippled as the American and European expats and counselors had left Iran. We couldn't receive pieces for our air force, navy or ground forces. But even with that situation, we fought for 8 years.
Add this thing to the list as well: After the revolution, the Soviet Union and the western bloc started to instigate separatism in Iran to weaken the newly-established regime. So not only we were fighting with Iraq, but also we had been forced to fight separatist in border areas who had revolted against the country.

The Iraq-Iran war is unique of its kind for many reasons. And also the traces of the western and eastern support for Iraq is very clear. Did you know that France rented Mirage fighters to Iraq? Do you remember of any similar case before that a country rents its fighters to another country? We attacked the Osirak reactor and it sustained damage, the French promised to rebuild it quickly with the Saudi money. Did you know that the amount of chemical weapons used by Iraq against Iran in the war could only be compared with World War I? Did you know that after Nagasaki and Hiroshima, Sardasht is the third victim of the WMD's in the world?

If it weren't for the international support for Iraq, even the dismantled Iranian army could outclass Iraq in 3 years. In fact the question should be asked in the opposite way. With all the international support, and with the agreement between the USA and SU against Iran, over 70 countries of the world, including world super powers and oil rich Arabs, couldn't do a jack to Iran all together. The USA itself directly declared war on Iran during the tanker wars by attacking Iranian oil rigs and Iranian navy while we were fighting Iraq. So the question must be asked this way: The USA and Europe and the soviet union, all together, fighting Iran through the proxy Iraq, failed to defeat Iran. Now they want to go into war with Iran directly when there's no Saddam any more and Russia and China are in Iran's side? LOL.

The majority of Iraq's military was Soviet equipped.

Oh yea, unless you consider Mirage F1, exocet, HOT antitank missiles, AS30, super falcon and others as soviet equipments.

 

[Harry_Thomason]

In fact the question should be asked in the opposite way. With all the international support, and with the agreement between the USA and SU against Iran, over 70 countries of the world, including world super powers and oil rich Arabs, couldn't do a jack to Iran all together. The USA itself directly declared war on Iran during the tanker wars by attacking Iranian oil rigs and Iranian navy while we were fighting Iraq. So the question must be asked this way: The USA and Europe and the soviet union, all together, fighting Iran through the proxy Iraq, failed to defeat Iran. Now they want to go into war with Iran directly when there's no Saddam any more and Russia and China are in Iran's side? LOL.

Exactly, Americans and their supporters can think only in "direct battle" terms where US would beat Iran, they cannot even comprehend there are also asymmetric and guerrilla warfare, despite of many examples from the history.

One of the best and most advanced militaries in the World from Israel couldnt beat a couple thousand of Iran trained and armed fighters. US is maybe 10x stronger than Israel, but Iran is thousands of times stronger than Hezbollah, and yet US fanboys thinks Iran wont be much of a struggle, even though whole NATO couldnt beat caveman's in Afghanistan, yet they think Iran will be easy?

 

[Arian]

Exactly, Americans and their supporters can think only in "direct battle" terms where US would beat Iran, they cannot even comprehend there are also asymmetric and guerrilla warfare, despite of many examples from the history.

One of the best and most advanced militaries in the World from Israel couldnt beat a couple thousand of Iran trained and armed fighters. US is maybe 10x stronger than Israel, but Iran is thousands of times stronger than Hezbollah, and yet US fanboys thinks Iran wont be much of a struggle, even though whole NATO couldnt beat caveman's in Afghanistan, yet they think Iran will be easy?

Let's not talk about Afghanistan Harry. Taliban barely had any jet fighters, they had only 5 mig-21's if I'm not mistaken , but didn't have any pilots to operate them.
About Iraq, none of the Iraqi military personnel had the willingness to fight for Saddam. Saddam was a monster, he killed his own people, he gassed his own people and he killed his own officers and generals when they miserably failed in a mission against Iran. Many Iraqi generals and military personnel didn't have the will to fight against the Americans because if they fought, they would've lost and if they hadn't, Saddam would've punished them in the worst cruel way possible.

Iran is a totally different case. Iranian generals and military men have faith in the country, and they feel pretty much patriotic about their resistance against the west. Moreover, they know that if they die, they'll be seen as heroes and martyrs by the people and the leadership, unlike Saddam who tortured them or threatened their families, etc.

Americans know that Iran is a very different case. Especially today, after 3 decades of no ties with them, Iran looks mysterious more than ever.

 

[bouncing betty]

Exactly, Americans and their supporters can think only in "direct battle" terms where US would beat Iran, they cannot even comprehend there are also asymmetric and guerrilla warfare, despite of many examples from the history.

You mean terrorism, right ? The U.S. wouldn't be setting foot on Iran soil. They'd just punish them with airpower and missiles so unless those guerrillas can fly....

One of the best and most advanced militaries in the World from Israel couldnt beat a couple thousand of Iran trained and armed fighters. US is maybe 10x stronger than Israel, but Iran is thousands of times stronger than Hezbollah, and yet US fanboys thinks Iran wont be much of a struggle, even though whole NATO couldnt beat caveman's in Afghanistan, yet they think Iran will be easy?

Hezbollah got their @sses handed to them, but you're right. The U.S. would face CERTAIN DEFEAT against Iran.

 

[Arian]

Hezbollah got their @sses handed to them, but you're right. The U.S. would face CERTAIN DEFEAT against Iran.

handed to whom? when? where? In which universe? Do you even know what Hizbullah is? No cheat please, no googling or checking wikipedia. Tell me everything you know about Hizbullah in a paragraph. No cheating please! LOL

 

[bouncing betty]

What ground did Hezbollah take and hold ? None. How many died ? Lots. If they didn't fire from civilian areas they wouldn't have been able to fire at all.

 

[Arian]

What ground did Hezbollah take and hold ? None. How many died ? Lots. If they didn't fire from civilian areas they wouldn't have been able to fire at all.

Do you like dark green so much? Nice taste anyway.

The Israelis withdrew from South Lebanon in The South Lebanon conflict, mainly because of Hizbullah, and in 2006, Israel achieved none of its strategic goals in the war. It was a strategic failure and also a tactical failure taking into consideration the amount of resources and military technology available to Israel in comparison to a little militia group called Hizbullah.

 

[bouncing betty]

Hezbollah captured not one inch of territory. Israel conducted operations inside Lebanon. Hezbollah fired thousands of missiles from civilian areas at Israel killing almost no one. Hezbollah could only watch as Israel punished them and Lebanon by destroying massive amounts on infrastructure.Hezbollah barely set foot on Israeli soil. Israel lost less than 200 people, Hezbollah lost almost 2000. Just the 'color du jur.' I do 'blue' sometimes, too.

 

[Abii]

What ground did Hezbollah take and hold ? None. How many died ? Lots. If they didn't fire from civilian areas they wouldn't have been able to fire at all.

By your moronic logic, the Americans lost their wars against the Brits because you didn't really take any land from the Brits. Hezbollah is fighting for the independence of Lebanon. They have managed to kick out the zionists twice by my count and that's considered victory.

There should be quota on how many moronic things you say in one day. You must be a republican.

 

[Arian]

Hezbollah captured not one inch of territory. Israel conducted operations inside Lebanon. Hezbollah fired thousands of missiles from civilian areas at Israel killing almost no one. Hezbollah could only watch as Israel punished them and Lebanon by destroying massive amounts on infrastructure.Hezbollah barely set foot on Israeli soil. Israel lost less than 200 people, Hezbollah lost almost 2000. Just the 'color du jur.' I do 'blue' sometimes, too.

Hmm, so if you withdraw from a land which you occupied that wouldn't mean loss of ground?
Also, is it considered a victory for you if you resort to bombing civilian areas and the infrastructure to punish the ordinary citizens? Isn't that an act of state terrorism to resort to means that create fear for political gains? I never knew.
You probably expected Hizbullah, a militia from a country which is less than 11,000 kms square all together, to defeat Israel, with one of the most modern armies in the world? Really?
The Hizbullah soldiers made Israelis rethink about Merkava IV's performance. A tank that Israelis claimed to be the best and safest in the world. Isn't that enough for a bunch of Lebanese youths with almost no professional training?
(Sources: BBC NEWS | Middle East | Tough lessons for Israeli armour - Defense Update - Assessing the performance of Merkava Tanks in the Lebanon War 2006 - by David Eshel)

Israel had gone crazy during the war, they were just burning their dollars by dropping bombs on the civilian infrastructure. That is of no military strategic importance because it is only a loss of money. (Of course Israel wouldn't care because the money it has comes as aid from the US or as taxes from Germany and many other sources that they don't care about). They just tried to win the psychological warfare so the Lebanese would never support Hizbullah for another confrontation with Israel. That's all. They didn't take back South Lebanon either.

(What's so bad about black? It works fine for me)

 

[regular]

We will target any country that attacks us directly, or is involved in supporting the attacking country against our nation. Neutral and friendly countries will be not harmed

Yse! absolutely !!!! As U sow, so shall U reap.Keep up guyz never turn back from ure willz.......