- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Erickson gives a reality check on Iran War
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:24 am to Jack Ruby
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:24 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
So now we're pro ground invasion?
No it’s the reason I was anti Iran attack from the jump.
I viewed air and missile attacks as unlikely to unseat the government of a nation with 1M men under arms that’s 70-90% Shia with anything positive toward America and if it did the most plausible outcome in that scenario to be a massive civil war which like Syria would end up getting all our supporters there along with most of the millions of Christians there killed without a likelihood of them winning.
And what I’m 100% opposed to is an American ground invasion of a middle eastern nation that costs hundreds or thousands of lives like what my generation lived through without any legitimate defensive justification whatsoever while we wrack up debt that could legitimately destabilize our own nation for no tangible benefits for Americans whatsoever.
Even Israeli press is saying the US is unlikely to benefit from anything but a total surrender while every missile we pay for that hits Iran benefits them:
quote:
Israel’s calculus is almost the mirror image of Washington’s. Iran has long been Israel’s principal adversary, architect of Hezbollah, patron of Hamas, the state that has pledged Israel’s destruction in speeches and funded it in practice. With American firepower engaged and Iran’s military architecture under sustained assault, Israel is watching its primary threat degrade in real time, at someone else’s expense. It has no Taiwan to worry about, no NATO burden-sharing debates to manage. The regional chessboard is the only board it plays on, and right now it is winning. Israeli casualties have been limited; the primary targets of Iranian retaliation have been American bases and Gulf infrastructure.
Times of Israel: Why the strongest nation doesn’t stand to benefit
This post was edited on 3/14/26 at 10:26 am
0
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:25 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
So now we're pro ground invasion?
I’m pro winning wars.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:28 am to BOHICAMAN
quote:
I’m pro winning wars.
I thought we had already won?
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:29 am to Jack Ruby
quote:
I thought we had already won?
I’ve never said that.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:29 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
Do go on, please.
Both involved infantry invading the other country. Tanks, artillery etc. That is the comparison I am making.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:31 am to omegaman66
quote:
Both involved infantry invading the other country. Tanks, artillery etc. That is the comparison I am making.
Russia wishes their war in Ukraine looked like our war in Iraq.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:34 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
the worst American blunder since WWII
Wow!
Vietnam and Korea would like a word.
Hyperbole, an ignorance of history, and bad takes are prerequisites for posting on this forum.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:34 am to omegaman66
quote:Good point. In that sense we did fight in Iraq the same way as Russia is in Ukraine and every other invading force has in the past 100 years.
Both involved infantry invading the other country. Tanks, artillery etc. That is the comparison I am making.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:38 am to northshorebamaman
So you agree.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:42 am to omegaman66
Yes. Invading forces typically use infantry, armor, and artillery. Looking forward to more thoughtful analysis. 
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:44 am to omegaman66
quote:
The Iranian people are not our enemy for the most part. They are on our side.
It’s 70% or more Shia depending on what source you read.
They might not like current conditions but that doesn’t mean anything close to a majority want a pro-US government.
And on top of that what the people want or don’t want is a distant second to what the IRGC wants which we have yet to defeat or make a deal with.
The IRGC isn’t some powderpuff group. It requires a massive combined arms attack across the border in Iraq to defeat a similar force, why do we believe we can knock them out now when all they have to do to stay in power is what they’re currently doing: lay low until the US loses its resolve and has to decide as we are now whether to send in ground troops.
Keeping the shah in power required massive help from the west and a brutal totalitarian government which liquidated opposition en masse.
Listen to Mike Benz, we are currently exactly where he predicted we would be with this engagement when we kicked it off and it’s why he also warned against it.
If you disagree I hope you’re right and I’m wrong, but I’d be interested to hear your scenarios in which we plausibly defeat the IRGC and replace the current government of a massive Shia nation without ground troops while achieving a pro-western government?
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:46 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
Yes. Invading forces typically use infantry, armor, and artillery. Looking forward to more thoughtful analysis.
Since you seem to have missed the point of my OP here it is again. The US military will not be invading Iran using infantry and armor like we did in Iraq. Fighting on the ground will be done by Iranians.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:48 am to omegaman66
quote:You could have stopped this sentence after 'invading' because you can't do it without those things.
The US military will not be invading Iran using infantry and armor like we did in Iraq.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 10:53 am to tide06
quote:
but I’d be interested to hear your scenarios in which we plausibly defeat the IRGC and replace the current government of a massive Shia nation without ground troops while achieving a pro-western government?
The Iranian people do not want their current gov't. The majority are pro USA and pro Israel.
The Shia figures are greatly exaggerated by the gov't putting a gun to the head of the people asked.
The people are rejoicing ever time a bomb blows up any part of the Iranian military. Member of the IRGC fear for their lives in a post Islamic state country.
That fear is of retaliation for the brutal rules they have enforced (via imprisonment and executions) That fear is fear of citizen!
They fear retaliation for citizens because they know they do not and have not ever had the support of the population.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:01 am to omegaman66
quote:
The Iranian people do not want their current gov't. The majority are pro USA and pro Israel.
Well this explains our difference of opinion, I don’t agree that’s the case.
I agree the Shia numbers are overestimated due to retaliation which is why I didn’t use the 90% number that is officially quoted as Shia and was saying 70%.
I also agree that as the water supply issues have become acute in Tehran that there is a very active anti-government minority.
Where my focus is how does that group, whether it’s 20% or 50% defeat the IRGC without ground support?
That’s a 1M man army with the support of China and Russia.
Are you thinking we arm the opposition and they win?
I was hoping for a deal with a general of the IRGC, but every day that goes by without that happening makes it less likely.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:07 am to omegaman66
quote:
The Shia figures are greatly exaggerated
Can we stop spreading this stupid talking point?
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:11 am to Flats
quote:
I don't know either but it's a non-trivial complication to your claim
True. But will Iran have a fully functioning army? Definitely not a navy.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:11 am to northshorebamaman
If you can’t recognize the difference in military technology advances that have been demonstrated both in Argentina and now in Iran, I don’t think I can change you mind. You want to ignore these advantages and somehow plug in previous conflicts as your proof.
I shared the overwhelming advantages that Genghis Kahn had to create an empire. Simplistic, but valid, that if you have that type of advantage, many will lay down their arms before you. Those that did, lived. Those that didn’t found out.
I shared the overwhelming advantages that Genghis Kahn had to create an empire. Simplistic, but valid, that if you have that type of advantage, many will lay down their arms before you. Those that did, lived. Those that didn’t found out.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:14 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
And I'll save you the effort of looking it up. The strongest example of airpower alone 'winning' a war was the Bosnian conflict. And even then we only forced a withdrawal, not capitulation.
Yeah but technology is changing the calculus. Past conflicts led WW2 planners to undervalue air power in naval battles. It turns out that the battleships, that studying past conflicts elevated to the most important ships, were almost useless.
Posted on 3/14/26 at 11:16 am to tide06
quote:
Are you thinking we arm the opposition and they win?
Yes we arm the opposition, we provide air support.
===================
I acknowledge that if half the population hates the USA and embraces Islamic rule that my belief is founded on BS and will not stand.
Currently I think the majority of the people are not on the side of Islamic rule.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News