Yet another war, this time with Iran

[Derec]

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?

That sample size is very small. What is naive is thinking that you can draw any conclusions from it.
Especially since both Hillary and Kamala were very flawed candidates in their own right. And since the 2020 election was very unusual given the COVID Pandemic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you seriously suggesting that by taking Kharg this will defeat the IRGC?

Taking or disabling Kharg would definitely remove a major funding source for the Regime IRGC protects. Soldiers tend to get restless if they don't get paid.

Marines will die holding onto Kharg.

It will not be enough, of course, and it will not end in a fortnight, but removing a source of income for the regime will be a major step forward.
It certainly is a better strategy than what you suggested, to capitulate to the Regime and pay them reparations.

No, it isn't better than recognizing we've done what we can without substantial loss to life for US soldiers.

I disagree that a full occupation will be necessary, but we shall see.

Who is going to overthrow the theocratic leadership if it isn't boots on the ground? You think US marines, in tiny numbers can defend Kharg without notable losses long enough to cause the civilians in Iran to overthrow the people with the guns? All the while the Strait of Hormuz closure brings us closer to an oil shortage.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I’m sure that Derec would refer to any male candidate who slept his way to the top with the moniker “heels up”, don’t you think?

Yes, such behavior would be relevant for any white male candidate.

Since men and women are not only different but society has also set standards for treating them differently, men generally speaking are not in positions to sleep their way to the top as much as a woman could, if she chose to. So you have to find a different kind of analogy that statistically fits how straight men are in positions of power more often, such as for example, bribes, corruption, and nepotism. While these kinds of things surround the Trump Crime Family, they do not even have to be defined as illegal for them to be such a way to influence others for positions.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

That sample size is very small. What is naive is thinking that you can draw any conclusions from it.

Doesn’t seem to bother you. And I find it hard to believe that even you don’t think that sexism and racism didn’t play a role at all.

Especially since both Hillary and Kamala were very flawed candidates in their own right. And since the 2020 election was very unusual given the COVID Pandemic.

And why were they “very flawed” candidates and Trump not?

 

[Derec]

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

Thanks.

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

I cannot think of a single female candidate I have maligned for reasons related to their sex or color. Care to name some examples?

In this thread I have focused on Kamala's policies, especially her 2019 pledge to ban all fracking and offshore drilling, since it's at least tangentially relevant to the topic of this thread.

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?

In 2016 the election was very close and Hillary could have won it easily with a better strategy. Trump was also much less known and was perceived as a neutral change candidate by many.
2024 was different. In addition to Kamala's flaws and Biden dropping out too late, the Democratic brand was very damaged by that point. Quite beside the economy and inflation, the years leading up to 2024 were Peak Woke that turned many moderates away from Democrats who did not want to alienate the activist class on issues such as race and trans no matter how extreme. Then you also had the Gaza War and too many voting for Jill Stein.

But in your usual manner, you ignore all that and pretend it's all just because Kamala is a blackish female.

It cannot be that people actually believed the man who gave the world COVID was the better candidate.

He gave the world COVID? I think such hyperbole surrounding him helped him more than hurt him. People hear outlandish things like that, and start believing that even true things are likewise made up. In the same way, the misguided hush money prosecution helped him far more than it hurt him.

It has been a very rare occurrence that I have been able to vote for a candidate about whom I had no or few reservations. People need to grow the fuck up and realize that it is far better to vote for the better candidate than to say fuck it—the party isn’t nominating a perfect human being so I’m gonna just vote for a toxic waste dump instead. Btw, voting third party is a vote for the worst candidate 100% of the time. Written by someone who has voted 3rd party more than once—and who regrets it.

And as I said, that played a big role. Demands for ideological purity are strong among movement leftists, and those calls have been especially loud during the 2024 campaign.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In 2016 the election was very close and Hillary could have won it easily with a better strategy.

If Team Hillary had a different strategy, then Team Trump would have a different strategy.

 

[Derec]

Doesn’t seem to bother you. And I find it hard to believe that even you don’t think that sexism and racism didn’t play a role at all.

Of course it bothers me, which is why I mentioned it.
I do not think there is much evidence that sexism and racism played a significant role. And neither you nor Toni have provided any such evidence.

And why were they “very flawed” candidates and Trump not?

Says who? He was a very flawed candidate too. But so were his opponents, and in 2016 and 2024 there were factors (such as two term fatigue and Biden's long farewell, respectively) that additionally hampered the Dem candidate and helped tip the scales.

 

[laughing dog]

Doesn’t seem to bother you. And I find it hard to believe that even you don’t think that sexism and racism didn’t play a role at all.

Of course it bothers me, which is why I mentioned it.

You missed the point. Small sample don't hamper your conclusions.

I do not think there is much evidence that sexism and racism played a significant role. And neither you nor Toni have provided any such evidence.

Yes, it is just a coincidence that racist and sexist twats are becoming more visible in the GOP.

And why were they “very flawed” candidates and Trump not?

Says who? He was a very flawed candidate too. But so were his opponents, and in 2016 and 2024 there were factors (such as two term fatigue and Biden's long farewell, respectively) that additionally hampered the Dem candidate and helped tip the scales.

So they all were very flawed candidates. So clearly "very flawed" cannot be a reason for their loss, since each one lost to a "very flawed candidate".

 

[pood]

The U.S. could never have defeated Germany without the Soviets.

They are also the ones who worked with the Nazis at first. Remember Molotov-Ribbentrop?

Which, of course, is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. First, the pact was not an alliance, it was a non-aggression pact that Hitler violated. The issue at hand is that the U.S. had more than a million casualties in World War II but the Soviets had much more. How do you propose that the U.S. defeat Iran absent a full-scale invasion (without allies!) that could last for years and still fail? Who will support this idiocy and how will it be financed?

The U.S. entered World War II because it was attacked. And even then it only declared war on the attacker, Japan, and not on Germany until Hitler, the Trump of his time, went off his rocker and declared war on the U.S. Which, I might add, he was not obligated to do under his alliance with Japan. He did it because he was nuts, like Trump.

 

[pood]

We spent some 20 years in Afghanistan, a much weaker country than Iran, to defeat the Taliban. Guess who in charge of Afghanistan now?

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that by taking Kharg this will defeat the IRGC?

Without a full occupation of Iran. They won’t be defeated. And we’re not going to even take Kharg with a simple Marine Battalion that is being sent there.

Not that Trump is smart enough to know that it’s not enough. He’s such a moron, I wouldn’t put it past him to invade with too few troops.

And what the fuck would be the point of taking it? It’s not going to give him control over the oil. The infrastructure will be destroyed. We would just take over a hulk of a city.

Kharg Island is how Iran makes payroll. We don't have to seize it. For these purposes, we just have to destroy it.

Do you know why Iran uses Kharg as their main oil export hub? It seems strategically stupid. Iraq wrecked it during the Iran Iraq war.

They have to have a good reason to keep putting their balls on an anvil

It's a deep water port and deep water is probably an issue along their coast.

Are you seriously suggesting that by taking Kharg this will defeat the IRGC?

Taking or disabling Kharg would definitely remove a major funding source for the Regime IRGC protects. Soldiers tend to get restless if they don't get paid.
It will not be enough, of course, and it will not end in a fortnight, but removing a source of income for the regime will be a major step forward.
It certainly is a better strategy than what you suggested, to capitulate to the Regime and pay them reparations.

I disagree that a full occupation will be necessary, but we shall see.

From what I've read, it is thee major funding source and what is keeping the pay coming to the guys with the guns.

 

[ZiprHead]

https://wapo.st/4m1Ocft

There is more in the "gifted" article but I have no idea if WaPo will ask for your email to let your read the rest. Wasn't there a member here who voted for Trump and implied I was nuts for thinking his toadies wanted to move us toward a theocracy? Well, it sure looks like the drunken, incompetent guy in charge of the military is trying to force evangelical Christianity on the troops.

The defense secretary is upending decades-old norms, current and former leaders say, with some cautioning that his proselytizing violates the Constitution and undermines troop cohesion.

U.S. military leaders have long understood the power and perils of invoking faith — especially in wartime.


Facing the Germans in World War II, Gen. George Patton ordered a chaplain to write an interfaith prayer for troops to say on the battlefield.

It took just a week in September 2001 for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to change the name of the campaign against terrorism from Operation Infinite Justice to Operation Enduring Freedom — a switch meant to clarify that the U.S. was not in a religious war.


And as chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the late 2000s, with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, Navy Admiral Mike Mullen kept Mass off his public schedule, aiming to keep the particulars of his Catholic faith private.


But those longtime norms are being upended by the proselytizing Christian campaign of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, say multiple former high-ranking military officials and experts on religion and law. Rather than boosting cohesion through a more universal spiritual uplift, they say, the new approach violates the Constitution and undermines the bonds of mutual respect between troops that are essential, especially in wartime.

Every month at the Pentagon, Hegseth hosts evangelical worship services that legal experts say are unprecedented. His social media profile and public comments routinely espouse his understanding of Christianity, which is one that would dominate American life and cast those who disagree with him as God’s enemies. He has brought clergy from his small Christian denomination to preach at the Pentagon, including a prominent pastor who says women shouldn’t have the right to vote.

And in recent weeks, the war with Muslim-majority Iran has only made Hegseth’s approach more stark.
On Wednesday at the Pentagon, Hegseth prayed for U.S. troops to inflict “overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy … We ask these things with bold confidence in the mighty and powerful name of Jesus Christ.” Later that day, his department announcedmilitary chaplains would no longer wear their rank on their uniform and instead would wear religious insignia.

It is quite something that Hegseth is emoting Exodus era Yahweh... but invoking hippy beatnik Jesus Christ. Things get real ugly quickly when these religious psychopaths believe they have a religious based mandate.

God didn't protect the soldiers in the war against the Nazis. Won't do so in this conflict either. I'm starting to think Hegseth and the other idiots the GOP allowed to be put in the Cabinet believe otherwise.

We're fighting Islamists who want to get us to the Islamic Armageddon using people who are hoping to bring upon us the Christian Armageddon.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I believe ISIS were the Islamic Armageddon folks, not the people running Iran.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Note that you had to cherry pick a single comment from several years ago among many others that are about Kamala's policies to try to make Toni's point. And even that was not about her sex/race, but about her behavior. Swing and a miss.

Yes. None of us here appreciate cherry picking on tangential points.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Especially since both Hillary and Kamala were very flawed candidates in their own right. And since the 2020 election was very unusual given the COVID Pandemic.

And why were they “very flawed” candidates and Trump not?

Because democratic voters have higher standards than Republican ones, apparently.

 

[barbos]

I believe ISIS were the Islamic Armageddon folks, not the people running Iran.

Yeah, the fact that revolution was "islamic" was coincidental. It was the result of Shah regime corruption and tyranny, it's just happened that opposition organized around Islam. In the end, one form of tyranny was replaced with different type of tyranny.
GB assholes should have let Iranian people own their oil from the start.

In Syria you replaced a pretty secular government with former ISIS leader, why? because organizing CIA contolled rebels around religion was convenient for you. Same story with Afganistan, you thought that soviets were greater evil than islamists ...... then 9-11.

 

[barbos]

Marines will die holding onto Kharg.

That's fine, as long as it allows Trump to keep the appearance of winning.

 

[laughing dog]

Marines will die holding onto Kharg.

That's fine, as long as it allows Trump to keep the appearance of winning.

How’s that strategy working for Putin?

 

[barbos]

So Iranian drones did destroy $700mil AWACS plane, apparently with the assistance of Russian space intelligence.
Little payback for US assisting in attacks on russian planes.

Not to mention $1bil ground radar.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So Iranian drones did destroy $700mil AWACS plane, apparently with the assistance of Russian space intelligence.

It didn't destroy it entirely, just blew the plane in half.

I can't say for certain whether that was said in a internal meeting in the Pentagon, but I'm 50/50 that it was.

Little payback for US assisting in attacks on russian planes.

Oh that's right, Putin's military has lost ships to nation with no navy, planes to a nation with virtually no air force. Man that looks weak!

Not to mention $1bil ground radar.

AWACS means a ton more than anything on the ground. Don't worry though, Trump is still Russia's buddy. All that money to save his ass is finally paying off.