Breaking- Trump to Iran, 52 strikes for 52 hostage in 1979

Trump is a big government coastal liberal. His supporters are not conservatives.

 

Iraq was supported in this war by the US and they stood of the Iraqi.
A lesson well learned, since than they have invested heavily into their own military industry, don't underestimate what they have.
This is not the Desert Storm, were the US and its Allies were able to use SA as a staging ground.
There is no staging ground for the US and the US will not have the support of the world.
The US does something stupid again, the Strait of Hurmuz will be closed and probably the Canal, too.

 

I don't see occupation in Trump's lexicon or anyone's other than Dem fear merchants.

Going on four years now.

 

So tell me what you see ?

 

Eh, that was very funny. Do you also think starting a war with Iran is funny?

“These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner,” Trump tweeted Sunday afternoon. “Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless!”

I suppose this is just fear mongering by the Democrats.

 

They were eating grass and surrendering to drones.

Surrendering. To drones.

 

Iran was unable to defeat the Iraqi "pushover" military even after 8 years of fighting. And Iran's civilian population will welcome us as fervently as the Iraqi civilian population has. They like us so much that in order to make someone fight us they have to import terrorists from Iran.

 

Yet another difference between Democrats and Conservatives, Democrats seem to be hung up on identity politics and labels, whereas me and my kind are far more concerned with policy and results.

There will be no understanding between us. Ever.

 

Education is key.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/13/sarin-gas-gulf-war-veterans/1766835/

Just admit that you didn't know.

 

Start? They can't project power beyond the region and that's limited. They have neither air supremacy or superiority. I'm not seeing how Iran can defend itself from anything but a protracted ground offensive.

Iran's current leadership cannot defend against or counter its beheading.

 

While Iran is a slightly different animal, the US would have the same air superiority and the subsequent ability to fly over and bomb with near impunity. You are dreaming if you honestly believe that the US armaments would not make mincemeat of the Iranian "Navy" within days or weeks. Their "Navy" is only powerful when we do not have our sights set on sinking their out manned, out gunned, out technologied conventional assets. It would not be a fair fight. The only area where Iran could legitimately compete would be with assymetrical warfare, but that wouldnt have any impact on the actual removal of their government. Their government would be gone long before the assymetric casualties had an opportunity to amass. Assymetrics are a problem for the long term, and have no bearing on the short term effort to remove the Mullahs.

Any attempts at nation building however, would be an absolute nightmare, and that is where the assymetrics would come into play.

 

They were literally fighting against a US-backed Iraq a year into the new regime and fought to a stalemate after 8 years of fighting. Not exactly the pushovers you portray.

And LMAO, the Iraqi civilians didn't welcome us, what rose-colored lens are you looking at history through?

 

Are you aware that they were a brand new regime, had just purged their military leadership, and that Iraq was backed by the United States and they still ground down the greatest power in the region at the time to a stalemate?

 

>but that wouldnt have any impact on the actual removal of their government.

Sure, indiscriminate air assaults will totally somehow remove the government. You Internet generals predicting a breeze victory are hilarious.

 

Aren't you the same guy that said there was no surrender? Then I showed you pictures of the Iraqi's surrendering. Not tired of being wrong yet?

They loved being able to vote. Loved. It.



ETA: It wasn't you.

 

WOW, A PICTURE OF FOUR WOMEN DEFINITELY TELLS THE ENTIRE STORY! LOL. ****ing incredible how dense some people in this country are. And I have no idea what you're referring to dealing with their surrender, maybe you're imagining fake Internet victories in your mind, though, which is really just awesome and not at all a sign of loserish qualities.

 

So it is your contention that air superiority and the literal ability to control the skies and bomb at will would not have an impact on the actual removal of their government?

Hmmm....I disagree, and there is absolutely NOTHING indiscriminate in PRECISION bombing that can put a 2000 lb bomb down a smokestack, or a 30,000 lb bunker buster bomb that can penetrate 200 feet of solid concrete prior to primary explosion and delivered within a margin of a few feet. The Iranian government would be removed within a few weeks, and they know it, which is precisely why you will not see a response substantive enough to draw a full scale military response. It simply is NOT going to happen. Truth be known, the Trump administration would probably love to have an excuse to bomb their nuclear facilities into oblivion, and I am sure that is part of Iran's calculation while formulating their response.


PS...You can rest assured that Iran's little glorified PT boats would be wholly irrelevant and ineffective in a true conflict.

 

Why would it? Name one war where regime change was accomplished successfully by only air assaults.

"Precision" bombing, wow, that must mean NO civilians are hit because its called PRECISION bombing! What are you, five years old?

 

- There has only been one regime change conflict since the advent of modern air superiority. That conflict was the Iraq, and while it did include a ground invasion, it was over long before that invasion began. I do think it is cute how you try to pretend like there is a vast history on such a thing to draw upon. You may need some boots on the ground to find them hiding in a spider hole, but in terms of command and control from that government, they would lose that in a very short amount of time. They know this full well, and their only option would be to go into hiding. They will do nothing to spur on such a conflict.

-Who in this conversation said that precision bombing would not kill civilians?.....Nobody (except you). You are arguing against a point that was never raised, and that is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Strawmen arguments are not typically the tactic of a person with a winning position in a debate.

 

Define "modern air superiority", because there have been likely at least several dozen regime change conflicts within the last 3-4 decades. We didn't kill Mullah Mansour until ****ing 13 years after we first invaded Afghanistan, but sure the leadership will certainly just immediately be killed. Go play some Age of Empires.

 

Several dozen regime change conflicts? Not involving the United States where their aim was to remove that regime. Such a claim is entirely bogus if I am understanding your assertion correctly. Perhaps it took 13 years before Mansour was killed, but the Taliban was out of power in a few days, which is actually the topic of this discussion. I dont care how long it took to find Saddam or Mansour, and I am not even sure Mansour was that highly sought after of a target. They were out of power almost immediately, and so would the Iranian Mullahs whom already are in a tenuous position with their own populace.That is what is relevant. If the Iranian people wanted to execute the Mullahs like the Iraqi's wanted to execute Saddam, that would be their business. The United States couldn't really care less.

 

The Taliban weren't ever "out of power" except for the areas where we specifically were occupying and controlling with ground forces. And Saddam was out of power because we had an accompanying ground invasion, genius. So, you're not really proving your point here.

 

To whatever extent that the Taliban was ever "in power" from a government standpoint, they were out of power almost immediately. If you want to look at them as an assymetrical fighting force, then yes, they remained. In reality, Afghanistan is such a different animal it really has no comparison to an actual country with a functioning government. If your argument is that Iran would retain an assymetrical fighting force, then I would agree with that notion, because undoubtedly remnants would remain. If your argument is that they would retain power as a government, I would say that you are positively delusional.

Under no circumstances am I suggesting that the United States try to occupy Iran. That would be foolish. Hell for that matter I am not advocating removing the Mullahs. All I am doing is tamping down the chicken little notion that this is going to escalate into that. The power structure in play dictates that the Mullahs would be wise to not provoke an all out conflict, and if they did, all is not lost....except for the Mullahs.

 

You would actually have to kill the leadership to take them out of power, and you seem to think that somehow because we've added the word "precision" in front of bombing we could do that. I say you have no ****ing idea what you're talking about. Pointing to two wars where we INVADED WITH GROUND FORCES and saying "well we took out their governments" isn't evidence that we could take out a government by not invading. The logic isn't even close to being there.