Oh, I didn't. Bolton's another fantastically stupid person in terms of planning and temperament.
My question, however, is how they're planning on the manpower needed to invade/occupy a country like Iran in the first place. We certainly couldn't rely on any ally to jump in on such a matter, simply decapitating the regime would turn into a massive mess, and last I heard we were absurdly overextended to begin with.
At best, of course, Iran will continue to honor their agreement with the other signing countries, and the US will be increasingly isolated.
Why does this even need to be explained? Because the left has a soft spot for regimes like Iran, NK, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and a few others.
"Regimes like..." I honestly don't see a single common denominator between the governments of the countries you listed, except for the fact that none of them is a functioning democracy.
The family of one of the just-released prisoners of North Korea just stated
That's got to piss off The PDJT to no end. Hehe.
No, you don't understand. It doesn't piss him off. His next tweet will be to praise them for thanking Him.
(they did say, "Thank God" right?)
I am not a Trump apologist but they did thank the President and God
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I am not a Trump apologist but they did thank the President and God
Strategically, while Iran is huge, some 30-40% of its population are concentrated in a handful of urban centers, with 15-20% in Greater Teheran alone. However, its terrain makes for a logistical nightmare and makes insurgency and guerilla warfare relatively easy. It would be insane to start a war there.
Strategically, while Iran is huge, some 30-40% of its population are concentrated in a handful of urban centers, with 15-20% in Greater Teheran alone. However, its terrain makes for a logistical nightmare and makes insurgency and guerilla warfare relatively easy. It would be insane to start a war there.
Ah, but shooting wars are just like trade wars - easy to win![]()
Trumpists online are already saying 'mercs'. Specifically, Arab hired mercs.
Because giving locals extensive training and armament when you've been killing them has never backfired.
How about fighting a proxy war to kill Israelis? How about being the largest sponsor of terror around the world? How about subjugating women and children with their backward oppressive religion? How about hanging people publicly from cranes?
Why does this even need to be explained? Because the left has a soft spot for regimes like Iran, NK, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia and a few others.
So on this basis Saudi is an enemy of America?
No Iranians were involved in 9/11. Iran opposes ISIS. Iran struggles to stabilise the middle east; it supports the regimes in Iraq and Syria against Saudi funded terrorists. Israel, a proxy for the US, has carried out many terrorist attacks in Iran. I think you will find Israel has attacked and killed more Iranians than vice versa. You will find Israel started killings Iranians before Iran was funding Hezbollah. US interference in Iran pre-dates the current Iranian regime.
It is sometimes helpful to put yourself in your enemies place. Try to think as your enemy would think. Make the arguments your enemy would. If the US wants to improve relations with Iran (and vice versa) it needs to halt the proxy low level war against Iran waged by Israel a US proxy. Whilst there are frequent military strikes explicitly against Iran by Israel how can there be peaceful relations?
Exactly.
Ah, but shooting wars are just like trade wars - easy to win![]()
Do those morons have any idea how much it would cost to train and equip an army of Mercs to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran?
Or that there is no way you could keep it secret?
Trumpists are morons. Only explanation for this kind of stupidity.
Do those morons have any idea how much it would cost to train and equip an army of Mercs to invade and occupy a country the size of Iran?
Or that there is no way you could keep it secret?
Trumpists are morons. Only explanation for this kind of stupidity.