Iran and the Problem of Occupation Warfare

[Peter1469]

Rubin the reporter just got back yesterday from over there. Was aboard a Marine Amphib. Said, we were real close. But now the Iranians have backed down. But it was them that was playing the game of chicken.

I saw that Iran backed down. Of course they would. They know their military would be destroyed easily by the 5th Fleet and other forces in the region.

[donttread]

If we invade Iran the people have two choices. We can rise up and unelect everyone who voted for the war or we can accept a constant state of war and a war economy for the rest of our lives. I realize how much some of our posters relish that but i personally think constant war is a bad idea.

[Peter1469]

If we invade Iran the people have two choices. We can rise up and unelect everyone who voted for the war or we can accept a constant state of war and a war economy for the rest of our lives. I realize how much some of our posters relish that but i personally think constant war is a bad idea.

We are not going to invade Iran. (It would be a colossally stupid idea.)

[MMC]

I saw that Iran backed down. Of course they would. They know their military would be destroyed easily by the 5th Fleet and other forces in the region.

Trump sending the other carrier over there with the Bombers surprised the Iranian cowards. Since the 5th was already there. Several experts and Pols said Iran miscalculated again. Thinking Trump wouldn't open up a can of whoop ass on them. Putin could have told them don't test the Trump card.

Several also stated that the Iranians have been listening to the Democrats and thought they could play on them.


Not only did Feinstein meet with the Iranian Foreign Minster. But someone said her phone had several direct numbers to Iranians. You know.....the Lame Stream won't say who. But at least they mentioned it.


Feinstein should be brought in for interrogation. Real interrogation.

[MMC]

If we invade Iran the people have two choices. We can rise up and unelect everyone who voted for the war or we can accept a constant state of war and a war economy for the rest of our lives. I realize how much some of our posters relish that but i personally think constant war is a bad idea.

First off we wouldn't invade Iran. That is a false misnomer. When Reagan invoked Operation Praying Mantis. We destroyed Irans Navy and a Quarter of their outdated Airforce. Not once putting any boots on the ground.

[Peter1469]

Trump sending the other carrier over there with the Bombers surprised the Iranian cowards. Since the 5th was already there. Several experts and Pols said Iran miscalculated again. Thinking Trump wouldn't open up a can of whoop ass on them. Putin could have told them don't test the Trump card.

Several also stated that the Iranians have been listening to the Democrats and thought they could play on them.


Not only did Feinstein meet with the Iranian Foreign Minster. But someone said her phone had several direct numbers to Iranians. You know.....the Lame Stream won't say who. But at least they mentioned it.


Feinstein should be brought in for interrogation. Real interrogation.

The carrier was moved early, but otherwise was a planned rotation. The only unique aspect was publicizing the move. The bombers were moved outside of any prior planning.

[MMC]

The carrier was moved early, but otherwise was a planned rotation. The only unique aspect was publicizing the move. The bombers were moved outside of any prior planning.

A Planned rotation to the Arabian sea? The Lincoln was in Club Med.


We should have moved a CSG into the Arabian back when the Houthi started their BS in Yemen. Then we could have prevented Iran from sending them all sorts of weapons. Including those drones they attacked the Saud with.

[Ransom]

If we invade Iran the people have two choices. We can rise up and unelect everyone who voted for the war or we can accept a constant state of war and a war economy for the rest of our lives. I realize how much some of our posters relish that but i personally think constant war is a bad idea.

I remember some of our posters relished isolation in the face of national security threats just recently. Actually had a member here not one month prior to the horrific Paris France attack inquiring on what possible threats could the Islamic State really present. Opposing any military involvement against the Islamic State whatsoever. Someone else could handle it. Still unclear today where those Members ended up on the decision scale.

I do remember there not being opposition to the French actually taking action against the Islamic State, that wasn't objected to. The British then realized how blind they'd been, their Parliament.....not exactly your bastion of corporate war mongers...voted for military action. The Obama Administration as well realized the answer to 'what possible threat does the Islamic State present the US', Obama finally unopposed in sending American military into the fray.....what we argued at the time was 'boots on the ground.'

So remember the utterly failed policies of our standard tpf isolationist, their track record abysmal, their knowledge of events abroad limited.....their definition of any threat matrix....telling.

[Ransom]

We are not going to invade Iran. (It would be a colossally stupid idea.)

[Ransom]

It's the evil corporations who want to invade the moon. We are not going to invade the moon. Invading the moon would be colossally stupid.