Yet another war, this time with Iran

[TV and credit cards]

Obama won twice (both landslides), despite being black. Hillary won the popular vote, and probably would have won the EC if she had played her cards right. It's a little weak to be continuing to trot out the racism and sexism card.

Why? Your man Trump played it twice and won both times. And the one time he couldn’t, he lost.

Are you that naive to think it didn’t play a role?

Trump and Obama both reached the American electorate by being charismatic. One had a message of hope and change, the other commands attention and demands loyalty. Neither Clinton nor Harris had an ounce of charisma.

 

[TV and credit cards]

"We've had regime change," he told reporters aboard Air Force One. "We're dealing with different people than anybody's dealt with before. It's a whole different group of people. So I would consider that regime change."

Yes, a much more affable bunch.
Mission accomplished.

 

[laughing dog]

Obama won twice (both landslides), despite being black. Hillary won the popular vote, and probably would have won the EC if she had played her cards right. It's a little weak to be continuing to trot out the racism and sexism card.

Why? Your man Trump played it twice and won both times. And the one time he couldn’t, he lost.

Are you that naive to think it didn’t play a role?

Trump and Obama both reached the American electorate by being charismatic. One had a message of hope and change, the other commands attention and demands loyalty. Neither Clinton nor Harris had an ounce of charisma.

And for many, what do you think what is part of Trump’s “charisma”? I ask, because for many of the Trump supporters I personally know, his racism and misogyny played a big part of hus attraction. And no one ever accused Biden of charisma.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump at the moment is talking about the oil in Iran and Kharg. Is this person dumb enough to telegraph the US military's plan or is he doing a little misdirection? The GOP sounds like they are fine with special forces on the ground. Of course, special forces on the ground are always great when they all come back and the mission was a success. President Obama wasn't tweeting about how the US was looking in Pakistan to find bin Laden prior to that capture operation. The GOP are out of their minds.

Obama won twice (both landslides), despite being black. Hillary won the popular vote, and probably would have won the EC if she had played her cards right. It's a little weak to be continuing to trot out the racism and sexism card.

Why? Your man Trump played it twice and won both times. And the one time he couldn’t, he lost.

Are you that naive to think it didn’t play a role?

Trump and Obama both reached the American electorate by being charismatic. One had a message of hope and change, the other commands attention and demands loyalty. Neither Clinton nor Harris had an ounce of charisma.

The Biden Admin had two main issues.

1) In office in the post-Covid economy
2) Didn't market a damn thing that they did!!!
3) Americans were convinced the economy was awful.

I think 1 is going to be very hard, but had the Biden Admin actually marketed what they did and accomplished, it could have been closer. But with 3, Biden turn Harris couldn't sell things are better than they were. 35% of the nation was certain things were worse in 2024 than 2020, which it most certainly wasn't.

The interesting thing about Harris's loss, is how it pares to Clinton's. Clinton lost the Blue Wall, and the theory was had she fortified the wall and gave a pass on Georgia and Arizona, she would have won. But Harris didn't ignore the wall, and lost in much the same fashion as Clinton did, with two million no shows for Harris in California compared to Biden.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

View attachment 53927
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Indeed. What racism!? The left-wing is obsessed with racism. Meanwhile Trump is laying out the racist dog whistles in a US Presidential debate.

 

[pood]

Obama won twice (both landslides), despite being black. Hillary won the popular vote, and probably would have won the EC if she had played her cards right. It's a little weak to be continuing to trot out the racism and sexism card.

The left today has become reduced to only caring about race and gender. As if that's the only thing that matters.

Huh. OK.

I'm on the left and I find it frustrating.

So you just contradicted yourself. Nice self own.

I think the lefts obsession with race and gender is costing it elections. The funny thing is that the left keeps accusing the right of being obsessed by race and gender. I don't see it. Not anymore. I think the world of western racist and misogynistic men is gone.

WOW! Ya think?? Neo-Nazi influencers are increasingly become part of the GOP mainstream, yet according to you, “the world of western racist and misogynistic men is gone.”

Sure, Jan.

Conservatives care about money. There's no money in racism and misogyny anymore. There used to me. There's not now

RICH conservatives care about money.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We don't have a ground force large enough to deploy in the first place.

Full occupation of Iran is unrealistic. More limited use of ground forces (for example on Kharg) is not.

Trump has been blabbing about this for a while now and the risk of inserting assets on Kharg is extremely high. People are getting a tad bit unrealistic about how special forces actually operate, and what they can actually manage. This isn't like bin Laden where a plan was put forth in secrecy and enacted seemingly out of the blue. We are actively engaging in Iran, who'll be on the lookout (and have a buddy in Russia for military intelligence). There are also the issues of what can a small op accomplish in a short period of time?

Only way to "finish this" is a deal with IRGC for a secular government.

The raison d'être for IRGC is to guard the "Islamic Revolution". They won't allow a secular government, which means they need to be defeated.

It is called a Hobson's Choice. You need to accept reality here. There is no way to strip the IRGC from the equation. It is much like Egypt and their military. The IRGC is the only entity in Iran that has the capacity to ensure rule of the nation and their presence in the nation is too distributed to remove in any sort of fashion.

It is IRGC with theocracy or IRGC without theocracy.

 

[pood]

We have an evil idiot as president.

Could the U.S. defeat Iran in an (unconstitutional) war? Sure! Keep in mind that Iran has 92 million people and is more than twice the size of Texas. But whatever, right?

How did we defeat (with allies, mind) Nazi Germany and Japan?

More than 16 million Americans served in uniform. More than 400,000 died. More than 600,000 were wounded. This does not even account for those missing. And it took nearly four years to do the job (with allies!).

So what is this evil idiot going to do in Iran?

Let people like Derec work it out in their own minds.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We don't have a ground force large enough to deploy in the first place.

Full occupation of Iran is unrealistic. More limited use of ground forces (for example on Kharg) is not.

If you think that a war strategy is simply an occupation of Kharg, then you are missing the point of occupying Kharg. The occupation of Kharg would happen in concert, assuming it happens, with the occupation of other areas to either act as a springboard to the mainland or to control the whole strait. So one cannot compare a "[f]ull occupation of Iran" as unrealistic against merely Kharg occupation but rather the full strategy, such as occupation of Kharg, other islands, and some coastline--whatever the plan is. Since we do not know a full map of the plan of occupation, we cannot really speak to how realistic that plan is. It is logically possible for both a full occupation and a controlling strait of Hormuz occupation to be unrealistic.

Only way to "finish this" is a deal with IRGC for a secular government.

The raison d'être for IRGC is to guard the "Islamic Revolution". They won't allow a secular government, which means they need to be defeated.

I realize you are responding in context to Jimmy, but to be clear, Trump's war isn't about secularism. It's about making Iran subservient.

 

[pood]

Further keep in mind that in World War II, the U.S. ally Soviet Union lost some 20 million people. The U.S. could never have defeated Germany without the Soviets.

So how are we going to defeat Iran (without allies, mind)? By occupying a tiny little island??

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We don't have a ground force large enough to deploy in the first place.

Full occupation of Iran is unrealistic. More limited use of ground forces (for example on Kharg) is not.

If you think that a war strategy is simply an occupation of Kharg, then you are missing the point of occupying Kharg. The occupation of Kharg would happen in concert, assuming it happens, with the occupation of other areas to either act as a springboard to the mainland or to control the whole strait. So one cannot compare a "[f]ull occupation of Iran" as unrealistic against merely Kharg occupation but rather the full strategy, such as occupation of Kharg, other islands, and some coastline--whatever the plan is. Since we do not know a full map of the plan of occupation, we cannot really speak to how realistic that plan is. It is logically possible for both a full occupation and a controlling strait of Hormuz occupation to be unrealistic.

Occupation of Kharg would be to control Iran's oil/gas. But our sanctions already do that in part. If we were fighting a real war, Kharg would be a critical target that would require a massive force to take and defend. Trying to take it on the cheap would be extremely dangerous to those soldiers.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We don't have a ground force large enough to deploy in the first place.

Full occupation of Iran is unrealistic. More limited use of ground forces (for example on Kharg) is not.

If you think that a war strategy is simply an occupation of Kharg, then you are missing the point of occupying Kharg. The occupation of Kharg would happen in concert, assuming it happens, with the occupation of other areas to either act as a springboard to the mainland or to control the whole strait. So one cannot compare a "[f]ull occupation of Iran" as unrealistic against merely Kharg occupation but rather the full strategy, such as occupation of Kharg, other islands, and some coastline--whatever the plan is. Since we do not know a full map of the plan of occupation, we cannot really speak to how realistic that plan is. It is logically possible for both a full occupation and a controlling strait of Hormuz occupation to be unrealistic.

Occupation of Kharg would be to control Iran's oil/gas. But our sanctions already do that in part. If we were fighting a real war, Kharg would be a critical target that would require a massive force to take and defend. Trying to take it on the cheap would be extremely dangerous to those soldiers.

Taking Kharg cannot happen in isolation. Kharg cannot be taken or held in isolation. The mainland can attack Kharg with artillery. The waters around Kharg would not be safe either. Moreover, waters throughout the strait would still not be safe for oil tankers. Occupation of Kharg has to be part of a much bigger, broader strategy. My point is that we cannot merely say "Kharg" for comparison since we do not have the whole plan to compare.

 

[barbos]

But can US generals be that stupid? I mean they have to understand all of that and somehow take all that into account, or simply refuse orders and tell Vance to 25th.
I have a suspicion they have a plan they think could work.

 

[Toni]

Gaslight? I’m not sure that means what you think it does.

He is referring to your attempts to reduce Kamala's (and Hillary's) failure to their sex and skin color (for Kamala).

I was dismayed when Biden dropped out, especially so late.

I was dismayed that it was necessary. By that first debate, it was clear that Biden was not capable of campaigning for president, much less being president for the next four years. But his inner circle should have been aware of his decline well before then, and he should have dropped out long before. That would have allowed for a primary season and a much better chance of winning in 2024.

He beat Trump before and I still feel sure he. Like have beat him again.

Not in his state. I still think it was a big mistake that Biden did not run in 2016. Apparently, Obama encouraged him to sit that one out in favor of Hillary, because it was "her turn". Biden was a much better politician than Hillary, and in 2016 he was much closer to his prime. I am convinced that if he was on top of that ticket, we would have been spared the phrase "President Trump" entirely.

Sexism was enough to lose Hillary the race and Harris had to contend with her skin color as well.

Again, you are making it too simplistic. Were some voters turned off by Hillary being a woman? Surely. But others were excited to vote for a woman. In the end, she was an unpopular candidate. Her campaign made strategic blunders. And after 8 years of Obama, it was an uphill battle to have a third term from the same party. And despite all that, it was a close election.
Compare with Gore. He was also not very popular. He was running after two Clinton terms. And he still made it very close, but lost.
Note that he was on receiving end of "not a dime's worth of difference" campaigning by Nader and was also unlucky that a number of Broward County Dems could not figure out the butterfly ballot.
So I see no reason to blame Hillary's loss on sexism. And same goes for Kamala. She had a number of disadvantages going in. She was not very popular, and without the George Floyd riots, I doubt she would have been Veep. Biden dropped out very late, leaving her with only 108 days to campaign. And she did not run a very good campaign. She was also unlucky that Gaza attacked Israel which led to a "Genocide Joe" campaign by the far-left and Muslims. None of this has anything to do with her sex or skin color.

Please do not bore me with your complaints re: Harris or Clinton. They certainly were neither perfect nor my first choice. So what? It all boiled down to not wanting to vote for a woman who was imperfect so let’s just vote for the biggest most crass disgusting morally corrupt incompetent sleazebag around. We survived COVID the first time, right?

Again, you are making it too simplistic by reducing it to race and sex.

Folks younger than me have never had to deal with very significant inflation before 2021-3. There was a perfect storm of events that lead to it, quite predictably. Covid created a lot of pent up demand and stimulus added cash to the economy. I do get the pain: I’m retired and I won’t have what I thought I would going forward. Poor me. I’m certain that Trump’s economic collapse andworldwide famine, multiple pandemics and climate disaster will be so much better for those that survive his nuclear war.

Nuclear war? Worldwide famine? Quite a grim prognosis.

You make some good points re: Harris and Clinton, even if I do not fully agree. It is always difficult for someone of the same party as a two time POTUS of the same party to win . People want a change

I cannot think of a single female candidate that you have not maligned for reasons related to her sex or color.

I’d be much more inclined to to agree with you about their campaigns—neither Harris nor Clinton were my favorite candidates—but in a race that included someone who us as a complete incompetent as Donald Trump? Whose entire campaign was one huge racist misogynist xenophobic set of lies? It cannot be that people actually believed the man who gave the world COVID was the better candidate.

I did not realise that Trump gave the world COVID. Got a link?

Trump’s campaign of disinformation certainly helped spread COVID world wide.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But can US generals be that stupid?

We've already done this. The Generals that say *this* is a very bad idea get removed and then they cycle Generals until they find a guy that says "Yeah... we can do that. Occupy Iraq? 150k troops tops, back by Xmas!"

I mean they have to understand all of that and somehow take all that into account, or simply refuse orders and tell Vance to 25th.

Vance isn't the solution. He seems to be possibly insane.

I have a suspicion they have a plan they think could work.

There is no plan that would work. It is simple. Being a sitting duck is being a sitting duck. There is no "plan" that turns a sitting duck into a fortified duck. We don't have the naval forces in place, we don't have the armaments in place. The best we can do is blow up Kharg, which isn't a great idea either. The US has gone the written script for aerials bombardments, but we are getting to the point where those things aren't very useful now.

But it gets worse. If you look at it, while portions of the assault seem planned, the fact that the US is just now mobilizing marines (in very small quantity) is a sign they thought this was supposed to be over already. That worries me the most. They are reacting poorly to the consequences of a poorly thought out plan. The US generally owns the airspace in Iran... but that isn't warrantied. Especially if they have a heads up on an incursion of Marines.

 

[SLD]

An interesting article about China and the Iran war:

What the Iran War Means for China

Beijing fears American volatility more than American power.

www.foreignaffairs.com

(It’s a paywall, but you should get a few articles free)

“Since U.S. President Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, Washington has grown less confident in its global purpose, less committed to the rules-based order it once upheld, and more willing to wield power in ways that unsettle markets, institutions, and allies. Washington’s global authority and credibility are wearing away.”

We are playing right into China’s and Russia’s hands. We cannot handle these nations alone. We need allies that we can rely on and we have alienated them.

Furthermore the real problem is that if we lose international credibility, the dollar will be affected and could lose its status as a reserve currency. The economic impact would be horrific.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Obama won twice (both landslides), despite being black. Hillary won the popular vote, and probably would have won the EC if she had played her cards right. It's a little weak to be continuing to trot out the racism and sexism card.

Why? Your man Trump played it twice and won both times. And the one time he couldn’t, he lost.

Are you that naive to think it didn’t play a role?

Trump and Obama both reached the American electorate by being charismatic. One had a message of hope and change, the other commands attention and demands loyalty. Neither Clinton nor Harris had an ounce of charisma.

And for many, what do you think what is part of Trump’s “charisma”? I ask, because for many of the Trump supporters I personally know, his racism and misogyny played a big part of hus attraction. And no one ever accused Biden of charisma.

It is in the "eye of the beholder". It's in what a person wants, what a person is looking for in a leader. Tell me Trump doesn't command attention. He even commands attention among those who do not support him. Beyond that, many people want a strong leader, want to be lead. From what I've noticed personally, those who want to be lead are those with aggressive personalities who come across as bullies themselves. You might think the opposite be true but I've witnessed this myself. They are bullies who will respect only a bully. And this is why I think it is so hard for Trump to lose that 36% base. They love him for the forceful person he is and are willing to look past all his other shortcomings and remain loyal.
What Trump has lost recently are those who put their finances first.

 

[pood]

The funny thing is that the left keeps accusing the right of being obsessed by race and gender. I don't see it. Not anymore. I think the world of western racist and misogynistic men is gone.

Yeah, right.

 

[barbos]

But can US generals be that stupid?

We've already done this. The Generals that say *this* is a very bad idea get removed and then they cycle Generals until they find a guy that says "Yeah... we can do that. Occupy Iraq? 150k troops tops, back by Xmas!"

I mean they have to understand all of that and somehow take all that into account, or simply refuse orders and tell Vance to 25th.

Vance isn't the solution. He seems to be possibly insane.

I have a suspicion they have a plan they think could work.

There is no plan that would work. It is simple. Being a sitting duck is being a sitting duck. There is no "plan" that turns a sitting duck into a fortified duck. We don't have the naval forces in place, we don't have the armaments in place. The best we can do is blow up Kharg, which isn't a great idea either. The US has gone the written script for aerials bombardments, but we are getting to the point where those things aren't very useful now.

But it gets worse. If you look at it, while portions of the assault seem planned, the fact that the US is just now mobilizing marines (in very small quantity) is a sign they thought this was supposed to be over already. That worries me the most. They are reacting poorly to the consequences of a poorly thought out plan. The US generally owns the airspace in Iran... but that isn't warrantied. Especially if they have a heads up on an incursion of Marines.

Plan A was "Tehran in 3 days via mossad "protesters" taking over after assassination of the top officials"
But I wonder what was their plan B, considering that they must have known that plan A was plausible at best.
The reason why I suspect that they have some kind of plan B is because I don't think generals are collectively stupid.

I mean they are stupid, cause they had no preparation for drone war, even after 4 years of war in Ukraine.
But I don't think they are that stupid to send people on suicide mission.