Yet another war, this time with Iran

[Derec]

Needs to see it through!? ROFLMFAO!!!

Him with what mobilized army?

 

[Derec]

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.

 

[KCFlyer]

At least with Saddam gone is hope for positive change.

don't look now, but Saddam's been gone for over 20 years. Still hoping for that positive change. Here's to another 20 for Iran.

 

[Toni]

WTF does "see it through" look like?

What is the victory condition?

At this point, it will have to lead to the fall of the Regime. Anything less will just embolden them, which would be bad for everyone.

How can that be achieved, and how long will it take?

I think US needs to be more aggressive in the Strait of Hormuz and also re Kargh Island. That would cut off revenue from the Regime.
We need to degrade IRGC capabilities, esp. missiles and drones.

Then assess and see how best to proceed from there.

You are delusional re: this stance.

 

[Toni]

At least with Saddam gone is hope for positive change.

don't look now, but Saddam's been gone for over 20 years. Still hoping for that positive change. Here's to another 20 for Iran.

Amazing how removing the leader of another country does not result in the changes those who removed the leader had hoped for.

Never has.

 

[ZiprHead]

No, now that he started the war, he needs to see it through.

WTF does "see it through" look like?

Let a future Democratic administration leave because it wasn't a good idea so that he can make fun of them.

It's not as if Biden Administraion were not thinking about regime changing Iran.

Russia participated in a regime change in the US.

We did not, should have, though.

 

[Toni]

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.

But it is the Iranian people who must defeat it. Not us, and certainly not led by Donnie Diaper.

 

[bilby]

I honestly don't think Trump can get out of this. Why should the Iranian regime deal with Trump?

It's worse than that. Why should anyone deal with Trump? Any agreement anyone makes with him lasts until his next tantrum. Deals with Trump make mayflies look long-lived and enduring.

The only way out of this is regime change. In Washington DC.

 

[bilby]

WTF does "see it through" look like?

What is the victory condition?

At this point, it will have to lead to the fall of the Regime.

"Lead to" is not a victory condition. "The fall of the regime" might be, but it's half-baked.

A victory condition can be expressed in a sentence starting with "We will know we have won when..."

Are you saying that we will know we have won when the Islamic Theocracy in Iran has been supplanted by another regime? If so, what are the necessary characteristics of a new regime, such that its being in power in Iran will constitute victory?

I presume that the IRGC simply changing their hats and calling themselves the Fluffy Bunny Party, while continuing to be an Islamic Theocracy bent on the destruction of Israel and the USA would not suffice.

And if this is your victory condition, what is the parh that plausibly gets us from here to there?

Anything less will just embolden them, which would be bad for everyone.

Indeed, this has already occurred.

How can that be achieved, and how long will it take?

I think US needs to be more aggressive in the Strait of Hormuz and also re Kargh Island. That would cut off revenue from the Regime.

OK. What exactly does "more aggressive" look like? How many dead American soldiers are you prepared to accept as the price of this aggression? Does it entail 'boots on the ground' on Kargh, and/or on the islands in the Strait? If so, are these boots meant to just tolerate being under artillery fire from the mountains on the mainland, or are you planning boots on the mainland, too? How far inland need they go to achieve a defensible position? Tehran?

We need to degrade IRGC capabilities, esp. missiles and drones.

How? Apart from what has already been done, what more needs to happen to achieve that?

Then assess and see how best to proceed from there.

So, in fact, your "plan" is "lets do some stuff, then see what happens"?

That's not a plan. It's muddling through.

Which seems to be the current, failed, strategy.

You seem to have missed the crucial difference between "We must see it through" and "We will see what happens when it happens".

"More Dakka!" is not a strategy, nor is it a war plan.

 

[pood]

I think US needs to be more aggressive in the Strait of Hormuz and also re Kargh Island.

Why don’t you volunteer to fight in the Strait of Hormuz and on Kargh Island?

Bone spurs?

 

[pood]

Correct me if I am wrong (and I might well be), but I think that Derec was one of a couple of people here who advocated for Trump as president because … he would keep us out of war.

 

[Toni]

Correct me if I am wrong (and I might well be), but I think that Derec was one of a couple of people here who advocated for Trump as president because … he would keep us out of war.

Derec has not actually supported Trump as POTUS.

 

[barbos]

It's worse than that. Why should anyone deal with Trump?

way worse than that. Why should anyone deal with any US government?

 

[ZiprHead]

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

Kharg would be a killing field from the mountains 5000 ft above and twenty miles to the east. Iran's drones could be there in seconds.

 

[barbos]

I think the plan is to show some success and then quickly wrap this war up. Hopefully only few bastards die to save Trump from humiliation.
Iranians should allow americans to occupy whatever they plan to occupy, and then........

 

[aupmanyav]

Inflation lost the election.

And I suppose, it got you more inflation.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Men certainly seem to have a problem with women.

Typical Toni. I mention two politicians, a man and a woman, and you turn it into a "man have a problem with women".

If they speak out strongly, they are strident or schoolmatmish or ball busters.

Well, Warren certainly comes across as schoolmarmish. It is common to talk about politicians' personalities, even or especially in unflattering ways. Why is it ok to describe, for example, Al Gore as wooden, but not Elizabeth Warren as schoolmarmish?

If they speak in more modulated tones, they are wish washy, weak, just fluff.

No, that has nothing to do with "modulated tones". I think Kamala's 2024 campaign was "just fluff" because she eschewed talking about policy until late in the already foreshortened campaign, preferring instead to rely on vibes and memes.
Can Harris win on good vibes alone?: From the Politics Desk
That is a fair criticism, and should not be dismissed just because she happens to be female.

Heaven forbid they be too old or too fat or too thin or too sexy or too maternal or too butch or bitchy or ( insert insult here), while men have zero problem voting for fat, ignorant, privileged blowhards.

No, Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee's weight was never commented on negatively.
Physical, sartorial and personality characteristics, as well as background are always talked about for male politicians. You are living in a phantasy if you believe that only women face such scrutiny. Really, do you have some kind of selective perception?

If you disagree with a position, then you should be able to state where you think the position is incorrect or misguided. I know you never voted for Trump but you have managed to consolidate in a few words exactly what women are up against.

Most relevant to this thread (and we are on very thin ice) would be the opposition of politicians such as AOC, Bernie, Warren, Markey and Kamala to domestic oil and gas production as well as to oil and gas pipelines.
Bernie, Warren and Kamala called for banning fracking when they all ran for president in 2020.

Because I’m sure you never watched the movie, I will simply leave this speech from
The movie Barbie ( which I did not intend to see myself except a dear friend was visiting and wanted to see it plus I liked many of the names attached to the film):

I have not seen the movie, but my understanding is that "Barbieland" is some kind of matriarchy where men like Ken are 2nd class citizens.
And even then, judging from your quote, female characters are complaining about having it harder than men.

Don’t worry, Derec, I can hear your eyes rolling right now as you skip over to the part where you tell me how wrong I am.

Trust me, I am doing all I can to keep my eyeballs from rolling right out of their orbits!

The left has increasingly been reduced to nothing but virtue signalling. I suspect that

At least with Saddam gone is hope for positive change.

don't look now, but Saddam's been gone for over 20 years. Still hoping for that positive change. Here's to another 20 for Iran.

Iraq is doing fine now. ISIS rampaging through their lands is hardly anything anyone could have predicted. The Islamist trend was in hindsight predictable. But not at the time.

Iraq is where central Europe was in 1920. Or UK, France or USA was in the 19th century. Fragile and flawed democracies, slowly developing stronger institutions. Corruption is rampant.

We have a recipe to follow. So far so good. As long as a strongman doesn't take over it might work out great.

Iraq's biggest problem after Saddam (or ISIS) was Iran fueling sectarian divides. If Iran goes then better hope for Iraq

 

[Patooka]

Iraq is doing fine now. ISIS rampaging through their lands is hardly anything anyone could have predicted.

Both George Bush Snr and Dick Cheney used exactly that reason as to why they didn't topple Saddam during the Gulf War. It was pretty fucking obvious a power vacuum would form went Saddam was topple and it was equally fucking obvious Islamic extremism would fill that void given the region's history.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well, will Trump find reason to back away or do diabolical heads buried deep in the bowels of the US government have a secret mission for US forces in Iran? Surely the Trump brain trust isn't going to up the ante in the same obvious manner they been doing so thus far, scenarios Iran has been planning for for decades.

What secret mission, you ask?
Stay tuned to Surreal TV for all the answers.

 

[aupmanyav]

Trump is preparing for a land war, could start anytime soon, probably with the end of his ultimatum. Iran is not likely to bend down.