There Isn't Going To Be A War With Iran -- Relax & Calm Down

[sparky]

Neither

As I have said before, it is time for armature hour to be over.

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Neither was the North Vietnamese.[/QUOTE]

beats anything else i've read Vandal

i guess we'll get to question the logistics of it all as time goes on

but, w/our regime change what is ultimately solved?

~S~

 

[sparky]

yes it is......plan please!


war."

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Just remember, you said it yourself, "it's been a money maker and a life taker." Not one troop is worth that. And the troops deserve to know who and what they are dying for. And it sure as hell aint our freedom. It never was.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, Trump has announce 3,500 troops moving to the Middle East. More soft targets and larger conflagration of troops. Maybe Trump does want start an old fashioned, "Take that hill, boys" kind of war. Hard to say. I rarely believe what he says because a large part of what he says are lies. I do believe he wants to be re-elected and think him capable of starting a "wag-The-Dog" war to make it happen. Like I said, I favor air power, tit-for-tat from a distance and above. We don't need an additional 3,500 troops for that.

can you say rolling thunder 6?
~S~

Hope not.[/QUOTE]


McNamara & Westmoreland thought a 6 week campaign would do the trick , 3-4 yrs later they found out better....~S~

 

[Yarddog]

and give Trump credit

maybe when we read Trump's strategy....~S~

Maybe you forgot that just two days earlier they attacked the U.S. embassy, and prior to that there was some assault on a US military base, and Iran was not going to stop there....... so, you can threaten to draw lines in the sand and ask them nicely to stop, but if you dont do anything to let them know there is a consequence, youll be drawing a line in the sand when your standing knee deep in the surf.

Making a decisive move right after they attacked a U.S. embassy was a right move and something Iranian Mullahs understand, forget about all the rhetoric they will spew, thats all necessary for them but they got the message.
Most likely they figured Trump was weakened do to domestic problems with the likes of Pelosi and Schiff, they probably figured they could get away with pushing things. NO need to be afraid of what they might do in retaliation because they were planing on doing it anyway at some point.

 

[rightwinger]

It is Trump who has started a tit for tat relationship

When he trashed the Iran Nuclear Deal, he said he would negotiate a better deal

War is a better deal?

This event was provoked by the Iranian Mullahs, not America.

BTW, Obama's so-called "deal" failed to end Terror at all. It was a complete abomination.

We had a stable relationship with Iran before Trump became President
Trump kicked the Hornets Nest

One could also say we had a stable relationship with Syria and Libya before Obama became president.

While I wonder how long we will accept the across the board lies, I also wonder when we will quit accepting from some what we would not from others?

Wasn’t just us...it was the rest of the western world

Iran had moved to the center and destroyed its nuclear program

Donny Dealmaker said he could get us a better deal
Provoking war is a better deal?

Iran never destroyed its nuclear program, it merely halted some parts of it the term of the agreement, after which it was left free by Obama's agreement to produce as many nuclear weapons as it wanted to. In the process of giving Iran this gift, Obama scuttled the non proliferation protocols that had been in effect since the 1950's by allowing Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel.

Wrong
They destroyed the centrifuges used to enrich uranium and its stockpiles of enriched uranium.
That was their nuclear program

Trump has allowed them to not only restart their program but has given them an incentive to accelerate it

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

This event was provoked by the Iranian Mullahs, not America.

BTW, Obama's so-called "deal" failed to end Terror at all. It was a complete abomination.

We had a stable relationship with Iran before Trump became President
Trump kicked the Hornets Nest

One could also say we had a stable relationship with Syria and Libya before Obama became president.

While I wonder how long we will accept the across the board lies, I also wonder when we will quit accepting from some what we would not from others?

Wasn’t just us...it was the rest of the western world

Iran had moved to the center and destroyed its nuclear program

Donny Dealmaker said he could get us a better deal
Provoking war is a better deal?

Iran never destroyed its nuclear program, it merely halted some parts of it the term of the agreement, after which it was left free by Obama's agreement to produce as many nuclear weapons as it wanted to. In the process of giving Iran this gift, Obama scuttled the non proliferation protocols that had been in effect since the 1950's by allowing Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel.

Wrong
They destroyed the centrifuges used to enrich uranium and its stockpiles of enriched uranium.
That was their nuclear program

Trump has allowed them to not only restart their program but has given them an incentive to accelerate it

 

[rightwinger]

and give Trump credit

maybe when we read Trump's strategy....~S~

Maybe you forgot that just two days earlier they attacked the U.S. embassy, and prior to that there was some assault on a US military base, and Iran was not going to stop there....... so, you can threaten to draw lines in the sand and ask them nicely to stop, but if you dont do anything to let them know there is a consequence, youll be drawing a line in the sand when your standing knee deep in the surf.

Making a decisive move right after they attacked a U.S. embassy was a right move and something Iranian Mullahs understand, forget about all the rhetoric they will spew, thats all necessary for them but they got the message.
Most likely they figured Trump was weakened do to domestic problems with the likes of Pelosi and Schiff, they probably figured they could get away with pushing things. NO need to be afraid of what they might do in retaliation because they were planing on doing it anyway at some point.

We had a stable relationship with Iran until Trump stirred up the Hornets Nest

 

[georgephillip]

Still doesn't cause me to lose an ounce of sleep or shed a single tear because Qassem is dead....only thing that his death affects in my life is oil prices going up

What effect will this assassination have on Trump's reelection prospects?

Trump risks a major war in an election year– why? – Mondoweiss

"The central political question about the assassination is, Why would a president who calls himself antiwar take such a huge risk in an election year?"

A distraction against the slam dunk impeachment evidence,and Trump wants the oil out of Iraq so he can blame Iran for our theft. That's the plan. Trump has been impeached anyway, so if he gets his small cowardly hands on one of the biggest oil reserves in the world by stealing it, he already said he didn't care. For someone to second guess Trumps motives after hearing the proposed crime, coming out of his own mouth, is retarded.

A distraction against the slam dunk impeachment evidence,and Trump wants the oil out of Iraq so he can blame Iran for our theft. That's the plan

Trump is defective at his core.

US-Iran tensions: Timeline of events leading to Soleimani killing

"2018
campaign promise, announcing on May 8 that the US was withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action (JCPOA).

"'I made clear that if the deal could not be fixed, the United States would no longer be a party to the agreement,' Trump said at the time. 'The Iran deal is defective at its core.'

"READ MORE
[paste:font size="3"]Understanding the Iran deal: What, why and the next steps

"The JCPOA had tightly restricted Iran's nuclear programme in return for ending sanctions that had severely damaged its economy."

 

[White 6]

Sparky, this is all I got. Been out a long time, but still have my opinions.

The Iranian military machine is not up to toe to toe combat with the number one super power on the planet. They will (according Command and General Staff School, the last i completed) continue to effectively use asymmetric warfare (non-linear, shoot and scoot, hit and run, hard to pin down) tactics to support their strategy. I see no signs we have had a strategy in the middle east at any time since 9/11. It's been a money maker and a life taker ever since some idiot sold "Regime Change" to Jr., but never with a strategy for successful outcome in the region. I personally think the regime change thing precluded it. We absolutely suck and nation building. It don't go back together as easily as it was taken apart. There ain't a "How To" book and there are too many moving parts, stake holder, friendly and enemy player, etc.
That being the case, putting a lot of troops in the field, they way we deploy offers more targets than rapid response capability or ground holding ability, due to the methods of the enemy tactics. I favor tit for tat pounding of short and long term strategic targets, using drones, manned air, missles, and other fast strike capability without presenting a much of a front, conflagration of troops, equipment and hard targets of our own within easy reach of the enemy. Naturally there would need to be lots of small unit work on the ground for intel and designation of targets. the Special Forces, special team guys, mostly, small team/small footprint. They will not try to take and hold terrain and we should not either. Obviously there is a lot more to it than that, but you get the gist. No large footprint, no committing to take and hold towns, no winning the hearts and minds and most of all NO REGIME CHANGE. But, hey. I am just an old schooled, armature now.

Just remember, you said it yourself, "it's been a money maker and a life taker." Not one troop is worth that. And the troops deserve to know who and what they are dying for. And it sure as hell aint our freedom. It never was.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, Trump has announce 3,500 troops moving to the Middle East. More soft targets and larger conflagration of troops. Maybe Trump does want start an old fashioned, "Take that hill, boys" kind of war. Hard to say. I rarely believe what he says because a large part of what he says are lies. I do believe he wants to be re-elected and think him capable of starting a "wag-The-Dog" war to make it happen. Like I said, I favor air power, tit-for-tat from a distance and above. We don't need an additional 3,500 troops for that.

can you say rolling thunder 6?
~S~

Hope not.

McNamara & Westmoreland thought a 6 week campaign would do the trick , 3-4 yrs later they found out better....~S~[/QUOTE]
Right. I like my model better. No quietly moving in more and more troops til they are laying all over the ground.

 

[Vandalshandle]

and give Trump credit

maybe when we read Trump's strategy....~S~

Maybe you forgot that just two days earlier they attacked the U.S. embassy, and prior to that there was some assault on a US military base, and Iran was not going to stop there....... so, you can threaten to draw lines in the sand and ask them nicely to stop, but if you dont do anything to let them know there is a consequence, youll be drawing a line in the sand when your standing knee deep in the surf.

Making a decisive move right after they attacked a U.S. embassy was a right move and something Iranian Mullahs understand, forget about all the rhetoric they will spew, thats all necessary for them but they got the message.
Most likely they figured Trump was weakened do to domestic problems with the likes of Pelosi and Schiff, they probably figured they could get away with pushing things. NO need to be afraid of what they might do in retaliation because they were planing on doing it anyway at some point.

Maybe instead of asking them to stop killing Americans in their country, we should leave their country.

 

[toomuchtime_]

This event was provoked by the Iranian Mullahs, not America.

BTW, Obama's so-called "deal" failed to end Terror at all. It was a complete abomination.

We had a stable relationship with Iran before Trump became President
Trump kicked the Hornets Nest

One could also say we had a stable relationship with Syria and Libya before Obama became president.

While I wonder how long we will accept the across the board lies, I also wonder when we will quit accepting from some what we would not from others?

Wasn’t just us...it was the rest of the western world

Iran had moved to the center and destroyed its nuclear program

Donny Dealmaker said he could get us a better deal
Provoking war is a better deal?

Iran never destroyed its nuclear program, it merely halted some parts of it the term of the agreement, after which it was left free by Obama's agreement to produce as many nuclear weapons as it wanted to. In the process of giving Iran this gift, Obama scuttled the non proliferation protocols that had been in effect since the 1950's by allowing Iran to produce its own nuclear fuel.

Wrong
They destroyed the centrifuges used to enrich uranium and its stockpiles of enriched uranium.
That was their nuclear program

Trump has allowed them to not only restart their program but has given them an incentive to accelerate it

They refused to destroy the centrifuges so Obama said, ok, whatever you say, and the shipped some of the uranium to Russia, but the key point they won from Obama was the ability to enrich their own fuel which had been denied to all countries since the 1950's. Their nuclear program consisted of not only enrichment but also of how to make a nuclear weapon that could be delivered on a missile. Since Obama's agreement only allowed inspections on sites Iran had designated nuclear sites, there was no way of knowing far Iran had gotten researching how to make a deliverable nuclear weapon.

 

[georgephillip]

The bottom line is there are no circumstances under which Iran can be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and long range missile with which to target us, and start a nuclear arms race in the ME.

Iran is alone in calling for a nuclear free Middle East.
Who could object to that?

 

[Yarddog]

and give Trump credit

maybe when we read Trump's strategy....~S~

Maybe you forgot that just two days earlier they attacked the U.S. embassy, and prior to that there was some assault on a US military base, and Iran was not going to stop there....... so, you can threaten to draw lines in the sand and ask them nicely to stop, but if you dont do anything to let them know there is a consequence, youll be drawing a line in the sand when your standing knee deep in the surf.

Making a decisive move right after they attacked a U.S. embassy was a right move and something Iranian Mullahs understand, forget about all the rhetoric they will spew, thats all necessary for them but they got the message.
Most likely they figured Trump was weakened do to domestic problems with the likes of Pelosi and Schiff, they probably figured they could get away with pushing things. NO need to be afraid of what they might do in retaliation because they were planing on doing it anyway at some point.

Maybe instead of asking them to stop killing Americans in their country, we should leave their country.

Iraq is Iran's country? our embassy was in Iraq. Seems our issue is with the Iraqi government if they want us out, not Iran. So you guys are taking the side of Iran now? ok

 

[sparky]

So you guys are taking the side of Iran now? ok

~S~

 

[toomuchtime_]

The bottom line is there are no circumstances under which Iran can be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons and long range missile with which to target us, and start a nuclear arms race in the ME.

Iran is alone in calling for a nuclear free Middle East.
Who could object to that?

Of course. Israel never threatened Iran except for the Iranian threat to acquire nukes. If Iran would give up its ambition to destroy Israel, Iran would have nothing to fear from Israel.

 

[Vandalshandle]

and give Trump credit

maybe when we read Trump's strategy....~S~

Maybe you forgot that just two days earlier they attacked the U.S. embassy, and prior to that there was some assault on a US military base, and Iran was not going to stop there....... so, you can threaten to draw lines in the sand and ask them nicely to stop, but if you dont do anything to let them know there is a consequence, youll be drawing a line in the sand when your standing knee deep in the surf.

Making a decisive move right after they attacked a U.S. embassy was a right move and something Iranian Mullahs understand, forget about all the rhetoric they will spew, thats all necessary for them but they got the message.
Most likely they figured Trump was weakened do to domestic problems with the likes of Pelosi and Schiff, they probably figured they could get away with pushing things. NO need to be afraid of what they might do in retaliation because they were planing on doing it anyway at some point.

Maybe instead of asking them to stop killing Americans in their country, we should leave their country.

Iraq is Iran's country? our embassy was in Iraq. Seems our issue is with the Iraqi government if they want us out, not Iran. So you guys are taking the side of Iran now? ok

Beats hell of me why we are in either one, as well as Afghanistan. .

 

[georgephillip]

Not just Iran, but all nations around the globe are becoming equipt to defend themselves via Nuclear arms.

Iran now has escalated tensions with the US
More incentive to build a nuclear deterrent

Are you suggesting nuking Iran?

You must be the forums biggest CUCK.

I am saying that with a belligerent US they have an incentive to accelerate their nuclear program

THE WORST THING IRAN CAN DO TO PERMANENTLY DESTROY THE US.....IS HELP GET TRUMP ELECTED IN 2020....FOLKS, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!

LOL

Why is that?

Why is that?

Another Silly Question

Netanyahu’s ‘Iran Lied’ Presentation Shows Why Trump Should Keep the Nuke Deal

 

[toomuchtime_]

and give Trump credit

maybe when we read Trump's strategy....~S~

Maybe you forgot that just two days earlier they attacked the U.S. embassy, and prior to that there was some assault on a US military base, and Iran was not going to stop there....... so, you can threaten to draw lines in the sand and ask them nicely to stop, but if you dont do anything to let them know there is a consequence, youll be drawing a line in the sand when your standing knee deep in the surf.

Making a decisive move right after they attacked a U.S. embassy was a right move and something Iranian Mullahs understand, forget about all the rhetoric they will spew, thats all necessary for them but they got the message.
Most likely they figured Trump was weakened do to domestic problems with the likes of Pelosi and Schiff, they probably figured they could get away with pushing things. NO need to be afraid of what they might do in retaliation because they were planing on doing it anyway at some point.

Maybe instead of asking them to stop killing Americans in their country, we should leave their country.

Iraq is Iran's country? our embassy was in Iraq. Seems our issue is with the Iraqi government if they want us out, not Iran. So you guys are taking the side of Iran now? ok

Beats hell of me why we are in either one, as well as Afghanistan. .

How sad.

 

[georgephillip]

In an election year I doubt if many in Congress will support war

Perhaps depending on how proportional Iran's reaction to the recent assassination is? I think I just heard a member of the US Senate say Soleimani's killing is equivalent to Iranians murdering the US Secretary of Defense?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

All have a snapping point. Iran has likely reached theirs. It wont be a "war" war.
Much like the US's many many "wars" it'll be Iranian/Islime-ick terrorist actions( think CIA hits).
It's what they do best.
I expect a few US higher ups get dropped in "retaliation". 2020 . Shit show extraordinaire.

No US higher ups will get dropped......the 19 year war will just continue until it becomes a 25 year war, and so on and so on.....


All because of one idiot's decision to invade Iraq...…..

The reason Iran has such a strong proxy presence in Iraq is because WE DESTABLIZED IRAQ...….

Egypt
Lybia
Syria
etc.

 

[toomuchtime_]

In an election year I doubt if many in Congress will support war

Perhaps depending on how proportional Iran's reaction to the recent assassination is? I think I just heard a member of the US Senate say Soleimani's killing is equivalent to Iranians murdering the US Secretary of Defense?

I think it's clear now that no retaliation from Iran will be tolerated. An iranian backed militia attacked an Iraqi military base on which some Americans were working, killing one American and would four others. The US response was not proportional; we attacked three of the militia's bases killing 25 of their people and wounding a great many more. In retaliation, the Militia attacked the US embassy causing minor damage and in response we killed the second most important man in Iran, clearly not a proportional response. There is no Iranian response that will end this cycle; Iran will either have to accept the humiliation and stand down or face increasingly terrible responses from the US.