What's new

The US military assesses it could cripple the Iranian Navy in minutes and destroy it in 2 days

Well your gov is the real roots behind our region's problems, instead of replying to my Q you opted the strategy to go for such a bogus claim ... you guys conjecture that if X is true then you have right to do Y but sorry it doesn't work in that way ... You have no right to take such measure under international law while undermining Iraqi sovereignty and attack other countries' officials .. these type of actions just indicate who is the real vilen over here and which side is seeking state terrorism ... the clowns in your government didn't stop their lies even aftermath of the heinous terror but finally admited there was no imminent threat whatsoever and decision had been already made for months ... to add how your government is #1 violator of the international norm/law POTUS started threatening Iran ,in case of any retaliation, by targeting 52 cultural sites and disproportion attacks which both are clearly considered as war crimes under int law, however he didn't have the courage to bring his empty words into action.
The funnier part is next to american and isreal it was isis that released statement and welcomed such a terrorist attack as an act of “divine intervention". Furthermore recent Iraqi investigations also indicates the one that attacked your base was in fact isis no Iraqis ...

Was U.S. Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran?

The rockets were launched from a Sunni Muslim part of Kirkuk Province notorious for attacks by the Islamic State, a Sunni terrorist group, which would have made the area hostile territory for a Shiite militia like Khataib Hezbollah.”

Khataib Hezbollah has not had a presence in Kirkuk Province since 2014. The Islamic State, however, had carried out three attacks relatively close to the base in the 10 days before the attack on K-1.”
In a nutshell:
1. isis attacked k1.
2. You attacked Iraqis and killed 24 and injured 50.
3. Iraqis got angry and stormed your embassy.
4. You assassinated Sardar Sulimani whom was on a political mission on an official invitation by Iraqi PM.
5. isis saw taking out the most fierce commander in fight against it as a great opening & welcomed it.
6. Iraqi parliament passed a law asking all american troops to get out.
7. Iraqi people gathered in streets condemn the attack and demanded you getting out.
8. Iran attacked your bases in Iraq, destroyed the base that attack was control from there and took control of your drones.
9. POTUS didn't do anything while he threatened to do so.

What do you call al these???

Now let's back to the real sponsor of terrorism:

But the the real sponsor of terrorism is the one whom supported fanatic extremist in Afghanistan back in 80s:

View attachment 605944
But again she lied:
View attachment 605946
While your were busy in Afghanistan you didn't miss the chance to support Iraqi dictator on western part of Iran ....
At last the Mujaheni and commanders of Iraqis Baath army met each other in Iraq and fell in love when you invaded this country under lies and against the UNSCR ...

Let history judge whom is real sponsor of terrorism.
You realize that you didn't really contradict his point, right? All you did was ignore it.
 
What the hell is wrong with you Gambit, no seriously...What in the unholy **** is wrong with you? You enjoy bothering people don't you? This is some sick afternoon hobby you've picked up after your stint in the U.S. air-force. Now I've become another willing victim of your 'unmatched military intellect'. What an absolute joke this forum is, I swear......

I LITERALLY JUST NAMED OFF A LITANY OF THINGS THAT MAKES IRAN DIFFERENT FROM IRAQ. There is a very clear cut and easy-to-see delineation between Iran of today and SADDAM'S IRAQ OF 91'. WHY IS THIS SOOO HARD FOR YOU AND LEGEND TO UNDERSTAND?!?!!

PLEASE HELP ME ASCERTAIN AS TO THE REASON WHY YOU ARE SO REMISS IN ACCEPTING THIS BASIC REALITY. MAYBE I'M MISSING SOMETHING YOU KNOW
(sarcasm, btw).

I'm debating entering this conversation, or not. I mostly agree with Gambit's conclusion, but not the arguments he's making to reach that conclusion. While I also agree with a few of the points you've made, but not the conclusion you've come to.

This angry comment of yours really is making me think twice.

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.

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.
 
I'm debating entering this conversation, or not. I mostly agree with Gambit's conclusion, but not the arguments he's making to reach that conclusion. While I also agree with a few of the points you've made, but not the conclusion you've come to.

This angry comment of yours really is making me think twice.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"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...

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
Because they know better -- keep their mouths shut lest they embarrass themselves like the last time.

To 'debunk' an argument requires some measures of evidence and you have provided none. Saying that 'Iran is not Iraq' provides no evidence. That is plain rhetoric, nothing more.


Basically, Iran adopted Mao's concept of "The People's War", which is primarily defensive and reactive in nature, and said concept have been abandoned by China.

The US will not invade Iran. All the US will do is render the Iranian military technically incapable of mounting effective responses.

The U.S. is already too much of a (Starts with a P ends with a Y) to confront Iran! Why do you think you designated the irgc a terrorist organization? It's not like they are some flagless entity(And if you don't get the difference than your as retarded as your president!) LOL! Your just too much of a P....Y for a full on confrontation and that's why you tried to make 1st the IRGC Quds force then the IRGC as something other!
If your diaper wearing military had the stones for it they would have responded to the 1st barrage of missiles hell if not the 1st at least the 2nd barrage not 3 barrages hours apart!!!!

By the way if you had access to any real intel you'd know your guys were hiding in bunkers for 3 day's straight! LOL! No wonder they need diapers!

As for Iran being the greatest state sponsor of Terro in the world, you poor saps had to designate The IRGC Hezbullah (Basically majority of southern Lebanon) & a branch of Iraq's military to make that retarded comment stick!!! Pathetic!
 
Last edited:
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
 
Criticizing Iran and its policies is not racist. Indian members do that all the time to Pakistan, we don't ban them for it.


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.



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.



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.


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.


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
Yes I really really did :) ... 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.
 
Criticizing Iran and its policies is not racist. Indian members do that all the time to Pakistan, we don't ban them for it.


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.



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.



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.


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.


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

Okay :tup:.
 
Yes I really really did :) ... 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.
So, Iran does NOT sponsor Hezbullah, Sipah e Muhammad-Pakistan, Liwa Zainebiyoun?
Iran doesn't support the Houthis in Yemen? These are just to name a few, all of whom Iran fully admits to backing.

I repeat, you simply diverted the blame on to the US, you did NOT refute his claims.

My opinion is pointless, if you and I cannot even agree to the basic ground facts to have a discussion.
 
So, Iran does NOT sponsor Hezbullah, Sipah e Muhammad-Pakistan, Liwa Zainebiyoun?
Iran doesn't support the Houthis in Yemen? These are just to name a few, all of whom Iran fully admits to backing.

I repeat, you simply diverted the blame on to the US, you did NOT refute his claims.

My opinion is pointless, if you and I cannot even agree to the basic ground facts to have a discussion.
IRI's policy is declaring sponsorship of resistance group....in other word if we support a resistance group wi will tell is as we have done so far.....
 
So, Iran does NOT sponsor Hezbullah, Sipah e Muhammad-Pakistan, Liwa Zainebiyoun?
Iran doesn't support the Houthis in Yemen? These are just to name a few, all of whom Iran fully admits to backing.

I repeat, you simply diverted the blame on to the US, you did NOT refute his claims.

My opinion is pointless, if you and I cannot even agree to the basic ground facts to have a discussion.
Groups we support like Hamas, Hezbolallah or Houthis are not terrorists .. western would label anyone opposing them as terrorist for example Nelson Mandela was on american terrorist watch lists till 2008 and meanwhile american were working with MKE a terrorists group responsible of killing 17k Iranians. I don't care whom they consider as terrorists as far as it is mostly base on their interests ...
Many groups such as Hezbullah have been formed as natural response of nations to occupation of their lands by american and their allies in the region... they attack, oppress and invade and once nations react call them terrorist .. like Saudis that have invaded and attack Yemen.
I blamed american 'cause I don't believe Iran is what he said as simple as it .. as I said I rejected his claim, like a person in flat Earth society thinking Earth is flat should I start to discuss with him when his claims is false? whilst I engaged in such a discussion refuted his claim and brought up counter points ...
If you have no opinion please don't waste time of me and yourself and don't quote me it's the third or forth time you are discussing with me over my discussion with another person not about the topic .. do we discuss about posts per se or their content? ... thanks in advance ..
 
Groups we support like Hamas, Hezbolallah or Houthis are not terrorists .. western would label anyone opposing them as terrorist for example Nelson Mandela was on american terrorist watch lists till 2008 and meanwhile american were working with MKE a terrorists group responsible of killing 17k Iranians. I don't care whom they consider as terrorists as far as it is mostly base on their interests ...
Many groups such as Hezbullah have been formed as natural response of nations to occupation of their lands by american and their allies in the region... they attack, oppress and invade and once nations react call them terrorist .. like Saudis that have invaded and attack Yemen.
I blamed american 'cause I don't believe Iran is what he said as simple as it .. as I said I rejected his claim, like a person in flat Earth society thinking Earth is flat should I start to discuss with him when his claims is false? whilst I engaged in such a discussion refuted his claim and brought up counter points ...
If you have no opinion please don't waste time of me and yourself and don't quote me it's the third or forth time you are discussing with me over my discussion with another person not about the topic .. do we discuss about posts per se or their content? ... thanks in advance ..
Liwa Zainebiyoun and SMP are designated terrorists by PAKISTAN, not just "the west", because they target PAKISTAN.

That logic is terrible. By YOUR logic, the west isn't supporting terrorists either, because they don't consider the groups they support as terrorists. See how illogical that sounds?

You can't have it one way, but deny them the same right, because it doesn't suit your narrative.

IRI's policy is declaring sponsorship of resistance group....in other word if we support a resistance group wi will tell is as we have done so far.....
For the longest time, Iran denied supporting these groups, and it's only recently they acknowledged it. In particular, the Houthis.
 
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.
For five yrs I spent getting in and out of the F-111's cockpit. Then for another five yrs I spent getting in and out of the F-16's cockpit. Mr. BlueInGreen2 most 'military' activities are participating in an anonymous Internet forum. Let the silent readers out there decides who is more believable.
 
For five yrs I spent getting in and out of the F-111's cockpit. Then for another five yrs I spent getting in and out of the F-16's cockpit. Mr. BlueInGreen2 most 'military' activities are participating in an anonymous Internet forum. Let the silent readers out there decides who is more believable.

Fair enough Gambit, fair enough....

I think the real final deciding factor would be to see the two nations duke it out (but you already know that so I won't repeat myself with any details), then we'll see whose arguments held the most weight. Until then I (and many others) hold your position to be disingenuous, dubious and fanatically devoid of reality barring the technical aspects you've elaborated on over the years (welcomed and fully appreciated FYI), heavily swayed by your U.S. Air Force experience which is a welcome thing that I respect btw (I know you don't care at all for what I have to say but that much is true from where I stand).

But alas it must be said, the honorable, venerable and most accomplished United States armed forces can take on the entire world and win, I won't ever forget it and neither should anyone in this forum, after-all you're the one who has seen the great magical U.S. military machine hard at work. Certainly Iran is just another spoke on the wheel of American military conquests, the fate that had befallen Saddam's Iraq circa 91' will be Iran's fate as well, no doubt about it....;)

In all seriousness though, I'm done arguing about this but my morbid boredom tends to get the better of me so I might have another couple rounds of back-and-forth if I feel like it. In the end old-timer, say what you want, Iran still isn't Saddam's Iraq of 91'.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom