SEN. TOM COTTON: war with Iran would be just ‘two strikes’

Bolton has never been a good thing for the US

 

All that air supremacy didn't do a damn thing in VietNam.

 

Bolton is a moronic warmongering idiot. He wants war with Iran? We'll oblige him by giving him a rifle and sending right to the front to lead the charge. We will send the rest of the warmongering fools with him.

 

Dollar reserve status. Oil sold in dollars
It has nothing to do with Trump.
He's just the banker puppet and chief for the moment

 

That air supremacy held the NVA off for two decades, and forced the NV to the treaty table several times.

 

Why would we "shut the hell up" when it's our family that are dying due to these needless stupid wars because the dumb @$$ politicians can't keep their ego in check?

 

Yes, well, I'm looking at the end result. The death of those soldiers in the end didn't really accomplished anything.

 

We should tell the king to take the prince to the front line along with him and start a "surgical strike." We are not his b**ch!

 

Air supremacy held off the inevitable for twenty years.

Such is CommandControlCommunication3 today is that Iran will not least a week. The problem with that for America is the next day we begin losing the peace.

 

How many hours do you think it will take Iran to flatten Jerusalem, Haifa and Tel Aviv? Those are the only cities Israel got with more than 250K people. Everything else are just a bunch of towns. And we all know they got that "iron dome"... we also all know that it doesnt stop all the rockets of Hamas. I think Iran has "a bit" bigger, better equipement than Hamas that makes that iron dome a joke.

 

What is this nonsense. That is what they said about Iraq and we were there for a whole lot longer than 100 hours and wasted trillions of dollars.

Were not in Iraq for year after year "rebuilding". We were there fighting.

Second. Neither you nor I have any clue how we will fare against Iran. Comparing Iran to Iraq is like comparing France to the Congo. Sure we will win, obviously but at what cost. Israel will suffer, of that we can be sure.

All of Iraq's stuff had been destroyed a decade earlier and they had been under an arms embargo ever since. Saddam was fighting back with dilapidated 1960's equipment and with an army that did not want to fight "republican guard". Our soldiers walked through the streets of Baghdad without even being shot at.

In the late 90's two of our stealth bombers were hit by the Serbs - using 1970's Russian SAMs - and we also lost an F-16. Iran has stuff that is way better than this and they have a whole lot more of it.

In the meantime - our F-35's are grounded and most of our air force is still comprised of F-16 era planes.

There is also the problem of Saudi Arabia which could be targeted. Iran has a whole lot of ballistic missiles. Our bases the ME will be targeted.

So suppose we do a strike ... what then. What does this accomplish ? It reminds me of song lyrics "whats the point of robbery when nothing is worth taking" ?

At the end of the day - Russia may not allow us to attack Iran.

 

What is more troubling is that you have been lied to over and over and over ... yet you still believe the latest crop of lies coming out of the State Propaganda machine.

 

This is a good point. The rockets being fired by Hamas are home made .. very slow and follow a strait trajectory - essentially akin to large fireworks that detonate on the ground rather than in the air. You could not create an easier target.

Israeli ballistic and cruise missiles are many orders of magnitude different.

 

You mean... Iranian ballistic and cruise missiles are many orders of magnitude different. Because they are. If one of them missiles his a bomb shelter in Israel,... I'm not going to say it's even a safe bet those people survive.

They got missiles going 14 times the speed of sound, with a warhead of the size of a car, with anti missile defense technology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sejjil

 

Because we walked away.

 

The joke is thinking that Iran can attack Israel with both Israel and the US all over Iran.

Iran will lose such a war almost immediately, without damaging Israel at all.

 

Attacking Iran will be the same as was attacking Iraq: a zero sum action that will not bring final victory.

I wrote sixteen years ago on other boards that an attack on Iraq would only end up with Iraq allied to Iran.

Both countries will then finance for-real terrorism against America and Americans if the US attacks Iran. The US will win the conventional war then proceed to lose the aftermath.

 

Do you have a problem with ego? I am answering statements.

 

Well Vietnam had nothing to do with any American politician's ego.

The second gulf war may have.

The Vietnam war was to keep Russia and communist China from increasing there sphere of influence and because communist regimes have murder in their souls it was a noble objective.
Yes defeating communism is a noble undertaking!
The only thing ignoble about the war in Vietnam how US politicians tied the hands of our fighters and secondly just walking away.
Walking away from South Vietnam killed millions of people.

 

Why?

 

Why did we walk away?

We walked away because there weren't enough poor kids to draft and the rich college kids didn't want to fight so they started rioting and got a few congressmen on their side. Who took away Nixon's money to defeat the communists.

That's the very simplistic answer.

 

The point is that it's their country, and what they do in it is none of our concern? If you had some Iranian talking head always on your national radio telling you how you should run your country, you'd probably take strong exception to it, and rightly so. From what little I know of Iran, which is only what I've gleaned from BBC travelogues and political progs, the Iranian people seem to be perfectly happy the way things are, and I happen to believe the west is arrogant beyond belief to lecture them on what they should or shouldn't do. I actually get the impression that Iran is more stable, peaceable, highly educated, and family-oriented than either the US or the UK. I mean WTF - haven't we caused enough effing trouble in the region because we think we know what's best for them? Well we obviously don't, otherwise our societies would be as stable as theirs?

 

What is noble about defeating communism; communism and democracy have equal culpability on mass deaths. At least Russia and China stayed local unlike the US who interfere with countries 12000 miles away. Then you say that your fighters hands were tied! Your soldiers destroyed many villages after raping and killing many of the villagers

 

Russia and China stayed local? Yeah after their conquered all of Easter Europe !

How about Cuba?? How about nuclesr submarines all around the world?? How about their attempts to tuen south and central America communist.

Feel free to turn history around any way you like but it just makes you wrong.

Americans had a couple of atrocities in Vietnam yes but for the Viet Cong it was their standard procedure. They were a terrorist organization.
And the North Vietnamese? Yeah they were saints. Funny you totally ignore US AID working tirelessly for the people of South Vietnam. And forget about the people of Hue. And the mass assassination of 3000 people there by the communists..

Not to mention the comminist take over of Cambodia. What 3 million murdered there? By who? The communists. Had America still been in South Vietnam that would never have taken place. Had we never been there at all the communists would have taken Thailand too.
You don't have to like it but the USSR and China were seeking to essentially take over the world.
Communism is evil to the core and stopping it is a good thing.

 

How do you know they are lies?