Either Trump is the biggest retard on the earth, he is a boomer after all, or he knows that these wars are for ■■■■ and Israel and he has proven to care more about Israel and ■■■■ than America.
6 Likes
Trump probably thinks being in a war will guarantee his re-election. Historically it has, and he’s completely unaware of how vastly different the world is compared to 2004.
2 Likes
No, that would be you
Zeig Heil Mrs. Hitler
1 Like
Proof please. Allegations with no proof make you a Liberal Democrat. Thats their MO
They want world war 3 so badly…
There’s also a big difference between Iran and the other little ME countries the US has been at war with the last three decades.
Besides the growing economic footprints and presence of Russia and China in Iran, giving them interests that could be threatened by any US war there…
What a steaming pile.
Trump has not suggested putting a single boot on the ground in Iran.
Mines and torpedoes can both strike above the waterline simply due to wave actions or the natural roll and pitching of a ship.
A tanker that has been hit is also going to lose a significant portion of it’s cargo from the section where it was hit which will naturally cause the ship to rise in the water as well. It’s a simply matter of buoyancy. More weight, rides lower in the water, less weight rides higher in the water.
Simple Jr high physics.
The boat removing the unexploded mine was quite obviously marked as Iranian and crewed by Iranian sailors.
Sometimes it’s really smart to just accept the facts for what they are and that the most plausible explanation doesn’t come with a ridiculous conspiracy theory.
This would be one of those times.
1 Like
The Iranians and other radical Islamists certainly do, it is their pathway to paradise.
1 Like
More lies from our resident Liar in Chief.
Before the first Gulf War with the First Bush, we heard the same apocalyptic warnings of doom. Saddam had the fourth largest standing army in the world (he did). We heard tales of total destruction, WW3, millions of Americans in body bags. It would be absolutely horrible if we fought Iraq.
What actually happened: The ground war lasted 100 hours and we sliced through them like butter.
It would be no different with these ragheads in Iran. They can’t fight for crap.
In fact, Iran is where we should have gone in the firstplace. We have just been nibbling around the edges. Iran is the main sponsor of terrorism in the world. George W should have went right in and then the world would have been a much better place.
I actually think that was his long term plan: Take Iraq on the Left, Afghanistan on the Right, then smash Iran in between. Great plan, but he got jammed up with politics.
Another completely baseless fabrication with utterly no evidence to support it.
We are a war weary nation so no matter how justified a new war might be it’s definitely going to make his reelection less, not more likely.
The fundies on the right in America and fundy Muslims certainly do. Moderates again are caught between the radicals…
The only “fundies” are in Iran you half-wit
This is where China and Russia play a role…
1 Like
Yeah they know our economy is about to shit bricks and dropping interest rates to zero won’t do shit. They’ll hyperinflate the dollar if they want to print their way out of this. Not looking good. Just look at our treasury auctions, US domestic investors are the only ones buying, no foreign demand. We’re gonna have to foot the entire bill of our debt now, trillion dollars a year in interest goy. No way we’ll be able to manage it, the ■■■■ are gonna get desperate and pull a bunch of tricks to start WW3. It’s hilarious and quite scary at the same time. Never forget about the Samson Option.
1 Like
Well, it would take a much more extensive air campaign but the end result would be the same.
We can take out all of their offensive capabilities without ever putting a single boot on the ground.
We can seal their massive bunkers with bunker busters for longer than they would have to dig their way in or out.
We can destroy their entire command and control system from the air.
We can destroy their major bases, armored, and infantry formations from the air without ever putting a single boot on the ground.
We can destroy their roads, bridges, railways, airports all from the air strangling their ability to move troops, supplies, reinforcements etc.
We could do all of that and drop the needed weapons, ordnance and ammo in to those who have been fighting for their freedom for decades, along with SF advisers and let them earn it for themselves.
A ground invasion would be totally unnecessary.
Iran’s biggest threat to the US/Coalition allies would be their anti ship capabilities and all of those can be destroyed with air and missile strikes or through surface actions.
We’d definitely pay a cost in lost/damaged ships, planes and lives but the mission can certainly be accomplished without a ground invasion if we commit to doing what it takes to utterly destroy their military capability and leadership.
No more halfassing and trying to fight a wary that pacifies the squeamish and particularly the Europeans.
Kinder, gentler, less violent wars simply ensure that the wars go on for generations with massive destruction and casualties far above what fighting a committed war from the start would cause.
The reason the so called Palestinians are still at war with Israel is because the UN has stopped Israel every time they came close to solving the problem.
We still have peace keepers in the Balkans for the same reason.
Had we not only destroyed Saddam’s military capability in Gulf War I but killed him and his boys, there would have never been a need to go back.
Had we not pulled out of Iraq during the Obama Years, ISIS would never have existed.
Had the Bush Administration committed to sealing the border and crushing all of the insurgents to dust, the war would have been over in one, maybe two years, and the people who were so elated to see us coming to the rescue and removing Saddam would not have eventually turned against us when the conflict dragged on endlessly.
Had we not pulled out, Iran would not now be in control of Iraq, and Assad would have been friendless since the Russians would not have been willing to risk an open conflict in Syria with a battle hardened US military ready to respond with overwhelming violence and force immediately as soon as they started rolling troops in.
We lose modern wars because we are too timid to commit to the total destruction of the enemy’s ability and and desire to fight on.
You can’t crush an idea or an ideology but you can crush the believers and grind them into dust if you are willing to commit to actually winning instead of playing for a draw.
Wars should be abhorrently violent, brutally short, leave the enemy crushed not only to pacify them but to send a message to anyone else that would threaten us. That is the only way to truly win and the best way to avoid having to fight another enemy much less the one you let up to catch their breath when you had them down and ready to concede complete defeat.
1 Like
Wew…these shills pile on fast!
Either or both would collapse overnight economically if they got into a shooting war with the US.
They may bluster and rattle sabers but neither can afford a war with the US.
Russia lacks the ability to sustain a fight with any major power for more than a few weeks, and China’s long term goal is economic domination of the world. If they US the US market for their goods and more importantly for their food and raw materials their economy collapses in an avalanche.
You people don’t know the first thing about geopolitics, economics, or making war and you make it painfully obvious with every post.
Beck is not the best reference when it comes to Geo Politics, or Iran. I used to enjoy him but at some point he went a little nuts.