Yep. We elected Trump who was the guy who said he would keep us out of wars. We are a war weary country.[/QUOTE]

I didn't and I am not weary either. Letting Iran sponsor terror for 47 years and getting closer to to being able to destroy or severely impact Israel and other allies in the region and killing Americans. He is not going to placate or give them the means to do that like all leaders before him. Good!

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
We need to finish this. WW2 tactics are a good model.

And that model didn't succeed by dropping bombs even though a lot more were dropped by a lot more bombers for a lot longer time.
What is it we want?

Unfortunately, what we really want is regime change.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
We need to finish this. WW2 tactics are a good model.

And that model didn't succeed by dropping bombs even though a lot more were dropped by a lot more bombers for a lot longer time.
What is it we want?

Precision guided munitions is not dropping bombs. Not even close.

Well, that didn’t take long.

Precision munitions do exactly the same thing as did the dumb bombs dropped by inaccurate bombardiers in WWII—no more. They fall on desired targets, explode, and cause damage.

All that the more precise weaponry of today can do differently is to reduce the number of bombs necessary for the desired effects. During this conflict how many times have 1000+ bombers been deployed in one mission against a single area target?

As I have asked before, what major conflict in history has been decided entirely by air power? I certainly hope this will be the first, but I am not betting the rent that it will be.
I would, however, bet a whole handful of nickels that no one of significance anticipated that the Iranians would be able to fight back as effectively as they have. Did anyone here?

Fight back effectively, you are not serious.
Munitions can currently be delivered and whole variety of ways today that were never dreamed of just a few years ago. Comparing what is going on today to dropping bombs in WWII is just plain dumb. Oh, I forgot you are the expert of war and peace and battlefield tactics and a weapons expert. Excuse me.

quote:

Originally posted by 4MUL8R:
We need to finish this. WW2 tactics are a good model. Destroying everything is the only way.

I propose we use WW2 tactics on every Iranian island in the Strait of Hormuz and every mainland port. MOABs, carpet bomb with B52s, etc. Total shock and awe to eliminate their bases for their swarm boats and where most of their drones are launched from.

I also think we need to use guided missile strikes to specifically target the law enforcement and paramilitary forces they use to control their population. It's time to change the playing field so the Iranian people can overthrow this regime.

Taking out their drone/swarm launch points and stacking the deck in favor of citizens would put Trump in a good position to end this in VDH's timeline.

Can't carpet bomb. They still have surface to air missles. MOABs likely a war crime

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
Can't carpet bomb. They still have surface to air missles.

You can if you do it right. For instance, at the onset of this war we simultaneously jammed and conducted cyber warefare THEN we launched 200 jets to overwhelm and target their air defense system. You could carpet bomb in conjuction with a strike like that.

quote:

Originally posted by oldbill123:
MOABs likely a war crime

Wasn't a war crime in A-stan and zero bans on MOABs exist.

It's the target that determines the war crime. Dual use ports (i.e. both civilian and military) are legitimate targets. Additionally, the IRGC owns and operates Iran's major dual-use ports through a vast network of front companies, shell corporations, and military conglomerates.

IRGC's finanacial engine for funding it's assymetric war fare (e.g Hezbollah, Houthis, Hamas, etc.) is their ownership of oil & gas export facilities AND dual-use civilian/military ports.

I was a medic, not infantry or scout or armor, so forgive me a bit...and correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's what worked in WWII. Armor and infantry. Marching through the country and taking everything in the way. IMO, that's what we need to do in Iran. Yes, it is going to cost lives, but this is a war that has been brewing for nearly fifty years and it is time to end it. Insert them through the Bandar Abbas (or further south) area and head north killing everything in sight. Take this country with no prisoners.

That is where we have failed in the past conflicts. We inserted teams and played whack-a mole (God I had that term), and failed to gain any ground.

Roll them MFers. Armor and infantry and be done with it once and for all.

^ Problem with that plan is the islamist fanatics will extract an enormous price in dead American. Remember in the Iraq - Iran war Iran marched children through the minefields to clear them for the infantry. It's modern warfare today use intelligence from our friend Israel and target their oil export infrastructure and financial operations in addition to any remaining military targets left. Break Iran financially would be a good start. The silly MOU took US for a ride. Doesn't cover the real issues with Iran who has been murdering Americans for half a century. US needs to wake up and start being smart in dealing with the relidgious dictarorship.

I still don't think this MOU is a good agreement. Maybe you guys can further tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe toss an insult or two for good measure.

quote:

Originally posted by Skins2881:
I still don't think this MOU is a good agreement. Maybe you guys can further tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe toss an insult or two for good measure.

Didn’t the Iranians say yesterday that they’re done with the MOU and they won’t be doing any more talking with the US - no way, no how, never again? (No insults, BTW).

The Iranians are obfuscating everything. We don't even know if the people we are negotiating with actually control anything. They are masters at buying time and that's all the MOU did. And you can end this by an air war only. You just need to drop the right kind of bombs.

The MOU was only an agreement to talk in the future if certain conditions were met.

It wasn’t the document to end the war.

And the IRGC was already violating those conditions before the ink was dry.

I see it as the U.S. giving them the opportunity to show the world who they really were.

Yes it gave them a bit of time to resupply butbitvgavevus that opportunity as well.

We need to kill their leadership. All of it. Civilian, military, secret police. Go deep enough that those remaining lose interest in stepping into leadership positions.

Breaking infrastructure brings hardship to the populace but it doesn't change the beliefs of the leaders. These are religious zealots who won't be swayed by having to get future votes or who logically conclude that their victory is not possible. They believe eventual Islamic domination is promised by their deity.

Getting the citizens to rise up might be a positive side effect of breaking infrastructure, but I have doubts about what portion of the population would be genuinely supportive of a free western style society. The best we can hope for is that the general population loses all will to have an Islamist government, and then over time the future generations learn to embrace a western society.

As a counterargument, philosophically when in history (admittedly a short one) has an air campaign exclusively gained or kept ground permanently, destroyed an enemy completely, or resulted in victory with aims achieved for any countries at war. Again admittedly a short history (beginning in the early 19th century), so there's always the chance it might work. But it appears not to be now. And as observed, the alternatives are not good, so here we are.

Doc H., sigfreund asks the same question, on the previous page:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
As I have asked before, what major conflict in history has been decided entirely by air power? I certainly hope this will be the first, but I am not betting the rent that it will be.
I would, however, bet a whole handful of nickels that no one of significance anticipated that the Iranians would be able to fight back as effectively as they have. Did anyone here?

quote:

Also, it should have been positioned as “We are giving Iran the rope to save them, or they can choose to hang themselves - their call”

It didn't 'need' to be positioned that way...It should've been assumed/understood by EVERYONE once the details were finalized and officially announced for all the world to see. It is mind-boggling how people don't understand this. Iran has a VERY Well known history, and Donald Trump is NOT at all naive on this subject!

This is becoming somewhat disastrous, but we still have a little time. Hopefully, we aren't still perceived to be playing footsie with the Iranians this fall. We should probably declare the Iranian nuclear facilities sufficiently degraded and the mission complete. We can always hit them again next year or every six months forever until they learn. This timeline isn't going to work for us. At this rate, we are going to blow the midterms. Our focus should probably be on replacing the straight as a conduit for energy. No point in a deal with these people who can't really control their various factions.