War with Iran

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
26,869
4,754
113
Was it like this?
Nobody really knows right now.

Iran is depleting air defenses with its drones. They only carry a 50-100kg warhead but the US and allies have no choice but to shoot them down as a 100 kg warhead can still fuck you up. destroy a jet fighter or patriot launcher. So you have them spending millions to shoot down a 20K drone. Once the are out of SAMS the drones will be able to inflict massive damage. In the meantime the ballistic missiles are there to take out high value targets and they have a good track record of bypassing Israeli defenses.
 

kherg007

Well-known member
May 3, 2014
10,596
10,358
113
Time to take the car keys away from grandpa.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frankfooter

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
10,259
11,334
113
I think US Sec State Rubio for all intents and purposes admitted yesterday that Israel pushed Trump into doing this.
I think it is both that Israel pushed Trump into doing this and Trump let himself be played by Netanyahu.
He accumulated all those forces at Iran's borders, so to just pull back would have looked weak.
Netanyahu wants regime change. So he put the poison pill in, adding in the ballistic missile clause.
If Iran is to give up its missiles they'd be a sitting duck for Israel any time they want to hit them, so naturally they refused.
And since the talks didn't work out, any Israeli military action was inevitably going to draw the US into war, as Iran would retaliate on the US too.
So the US had no choice as they were backed into a corner by Netanyahu.
The administrations position right from the get go should have been diplomacy and firm refusal to participate in any military action but we all know Trump and his drunk secretary of war, love to play the tough guys.
 

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
10,259
11,334
113
Iran is depleting air defenses with its drones. They only carry a 50-100kg warhead but the US and allies have no choice but to shoot them down as a 100 kg warhead can still fuck you up. destroy a jet fighter or patriot launcher. So you have them spending millions to shoot down a 20K drone. Once the are out of SAMS the drones will be able to inflict massive damage. In the meantime the ballistic missiles are there to take out high value targets and they have a good track record of bypassing Israeli defenses.
They can just buy more.
The US and Israel combined, have way more arms and ammunition than Iran does.
 
  • Love
Reactions: richaceg

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
20,609
11,333
113
I think it is both that Israel pushed Trump into doing this and Trump let himself be played by Netanyahu.
He accumulated all those forces at Iran's borders, so to just pull back would have looked weak.
Netanyahu wants regime change. So he put the poison pill in, adding in the ballistic missile clause.
If Iran is to give up its missiles they'd be a sitting duck for Israel any time they want to hit them, so naturally they refused.
And since the talks didn't work out, any Israeli military action was inevitably going to draw the US into war, as Iran would retaliate on the US too.
So the US had no choice as they were backed into a corner by Netanyahu.
The administrations position right from the get go should have been diplomacy and firm refusal to participate in any military action but we all know Trump and his drunk secretary of war, love to play the tough guys.
Both wrong...Trump during the 80s already spoke about the regime....didn't TACO.
 

squeezer

Well-known member
Jan 8, 2010
26,984
22,661
113
Both wrong...Trump during the 80s already spoke about the regime....didn't TACO.

Are you willing to acknowledge that this move has potentially put the midterms and even 2028 on a knife-edge?

The political consequences are going to hinge almost entirely on what happens next. If this turns into a quick, decisive outcome where Iran is effectively neutralized as a threat and there’s minimal blowback, no prolonged conflict, very little American casualties, no major spike in gas prices, then Republicans will almost certainly campaign on strength and decisive leadership. In that scenario, the midterms likely tilt in their favor, and the 2028 nominee would inherit that advantage.

But if this drags into a prolonged conflict, rising fuel prices, economic strain, U.S. casualties, and instability in the region, then the political fallout could be severe. Voters historically punish the party in power for drawn-out conflicts and economic pain. That could flip the midterms decisively and set the stage for a Democratic victory in 2028, whether that’s someone like Gavin Newsom or another nominee. Do you agree, Ritchie??
 

kherg007

Well-known member
May 3, 2014
10,596
10,358
113
I think it is both that Israel pushed Trump into doing this and Trump let himself be played by Netanyahu.
He accumulated all those forces at Iran's borders, so to just pull back would have looked weak.
Netanyahu wants regime change. So he put the poison pill in, adding in the ballistic missile clause.
If Iran is to give up its missiles they'd be a sitting duck for Israel any time they want to hit them, so naturally they refused.
And since the talks didn't work out, any Israeli military action was inevitably going to draw the US into war, as Iran would retaliate on the US too.
So the US had no choice as they were backed into a corner by Netanyahu.
The administrations position right from the get go should have been diplomacy and firm refusal to participate in any military action but we all know Trump and his drunk secretary of war, love to play the tough guys.
Trump is one of the easiest people in the world to manipulate.
Hrs bribeable, blackmailable, ego chuffing-able, etc.
And, he surrounds himself with yes men and makes them compete for his attention so no guardrails.

This doesn't mean I support the Iranian regime. They are evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaquille Oatmeal

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
31,426
8,878
113
Its probably a good day to own an electric car
 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
20,609
11,333
113
Are you willing to acknowledge that this move has potentially put the midterms and even 2028 on a knife-edge?

The political consequences are going to hinge almost entirely on what happens next. If this turns into a quick, decisive outcome where Iran is effectively neutralized as a threat and there’s minimal blowback, no prolonged conflict, very little American casualties, no major spike in gas prices, then Republicans will almost certainly campaign on strength and decisive leadership. In that scenario, the midterms likely tilt in their favor, and the 2028 nominee would inherit that advantage.

But if this drags into a prolonged conflict, rising fuel prices, economic strain, U.S. casualties, and instability in the region, then the political fallout could be severe. Voters historically punish the party in power for drawn-out conflicts and economic pain. That could flip the midterms decisively and set the stage for a Democratic victory in 2028, whether that’s someone like Gavin Newsom or another nominee. Do you agree, Ritchie??
Have you been watching the news lately? Marco already reiterated this is not a "quick decisive operation" they expect this to be weeks or months.
 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
20,609
11,333
113
Yes, we know he has always been a dumbass.
And yes, he already TACO'd. He is now saying its not about regime change but about degrading Iran's military.
Um...that's exactly what a regime change is...remove the supreme leader. weaken IRGC and usher in a new government.
 

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
20,609
11,333
113
Because its not a matter of national security.
Iran is not a factor in the ordinary American's life.
When the Regime time and again states that their goal is destruction of the west...that's a matter of national security.
Oh and btw... illegal immigration is a factor in the ordinary American life, but that's ok?
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts