The Trump Presidency 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Who are you actually talking to? Are you seeking approval from Stacko? Indulging in cathartic expression? Signaling in-group membership? What?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ, dude; you don't have to whine every time someone attacks your heroes.
 
theprestige said:
Who are you actually talking to? Are you seeking approval from Stacko? Indulging in cathartic expression? Signaling in-group membership? What?
Click to expand...

Oh for heavens sake prestige wake the **** up!!

Bolton is a war monger - he has been trying to get the US into a war with Iraq for decades. He was part of the Big WMD Lie that got your country involved in an ill-advised shooting war in 2003. 4½ thousand dead soldiers, almost 32,000 wounded soldiers and fifteen years later, he's trying to get you involved in another one, only this time, it won't be the cakewalk that Iraq was.

Iraq is about the size and population of California, and it had 50,000 well equipped professional soldiers, the rest were poorly equipped, poorly trained and unmotivated soldiers. Iran is a way different prospect. More than twice the population of Iraq, more than four times the area, and most important of all, it has a fully trained, very well equipped army of over a million soldiers, and can put another two million on the ground on short notice. They also have a Air Force that is well quipped (Mig 29, Su 30s). In Iraq, the USA had total air superiority... you will not have that in Iran)

If Bolton manages to get you into a shooting war with Iran, it is highly likely you will get an arse whooping; your body-bag manufacturers will be working over time to make enough of them to bring your dead sons and daughters back home - expect casualties in the order of many tens of thousands. It would be this generation's "Vietnam"!

ETA: In Iraq, you also had the "Coalition of the Willing", the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland provided troops, and another 37 countries provided support for military operations after the invasion was complete. In Iran, you WILL be on your own.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

Looks like Bernie Sanders is history. Sleepy Joe Biden is pulling ahead and think about it, I’m only here because of Sleepy Joe and the man who took him off the 1% trash heap, President O! China wants Sleepy Joe BADLY!

On this Cuban Independence Day, we stand by the people of Cuba in their quest for freedom, democracy and prosperity. The Cuban regime must end its repression of Cubans & Venezuelans. The United States will not stand idly by as Cuba continues to subvert democracy in the Americas!
Click to expand...

It seems like just last week (oh, wait... it was) that Donnie Johnny got taken out behind the woodshed by Vlad the Impugner and told to keep his tiny hands off of Venezuela and send the War Dogs off to the ME. Does Donnie not get it that Lord Vladamort is not going to be cool with him dissing Cuba, either? I think the translator didn't get the full message... "Look, dumbass! You can wave flags to the Cuban-American reactionaries in Florida but don't make any statements about Cuba, itself."
 
smartcooky said:
Oh for heavens sake prestige wake the **** up!!

Bolton is a war monger - he has been trying to get the US into a war with Iraq for decades. He was part of the Big WMD Lie that got your country involved in an ill-advised shooting war in 2003. 4½ thousand dead soldiers, almost 32,000 wounded soldiers and fifteen years later, he's trying to get you involved in another one, only this time, it won't be the cakewalk that Iraq was.

Iraq is about the size and population of California, and it had 50,000 well equipped professional soldiers, the rest were poorly equipped, poorly trained and unmotivated soldiers. Iran is a way different prospect. More than twice the population of Iraq, more than four times the area, and most important of all, it has a fully trained, very well equipped army of over a million soldiers, and can put another two million on the ground on short notice. They also have a Air Force that is well quipped (Mig 29, Su 30s). In Iraq, the USA had total air superiority... you will not have that in Iran)

If Bolton manages to get you into a shooting war with Iran, it is highly likely you will get an arse whooping; your body-bag manufacturers will be working over time to make enough of them to bring your dead sons and daughters back home - expect casualties in the order of many tens of thousands. It would be this generation's "Vietnam"!

ETA: In Iraq, you also had the "Coalition of the Willing", the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland provided troops, and another 37 countries provided support for military operations after the invasion was complete. In Iran, you WILL be on your own.
Click to expand...

Bah, no way is Vlad OK with US troops in Iran... thank FSM.
 
lobosrul5 said:
Bah, no way is Vlad OK with US troops in Iran... thank FSM.
Click to expand...

I don't think that President Trump would like a boots on the ground war with Iran in any case. Much better to fight at a distance with all the technology that the US can muster, imperil as few US lives as possible and avoid the risk of too many body bags coming back.

It'll be also a lot easier to disengage at a time of the US' choosing, claiming that the mission's objectives have been met. Once boots are on the ground then you're in it for the long term and have been given the massive headache of filling whatever power vacuum is left behind once the current Iranian regime is toppled.

In any case, a short and successful war will play best prior to the 2020 elections.
 
The Don said:
I don't think that President Trump would like a boots on the ground war with Iran in any case. Much better to fight at a distance with all the technology that the US can muster, imperil as few US lives as possible and avoid the risk of too many body bags coming back.

It'll be also a lot easier to disengage at a time of the US' choosing, claiming that the mission's objectives have been met. Once boots are on the ground then you're in it for the long term and have been given the massive headache of filling whatever power vacuum is left behind once the current Iranian regime is toppled.

In any case, a short and successful war will play best prior to the 2020 elections.
Click to expand...

The Iranian Navy has Russian made Kilo-class submarines equipped with Kalibr-PL anti-ship, anti-submarine and land attack missiles. They have Bayandor-class corvettes equipped with Noor anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedo launchers. They also have an arsenal of land based, long range anti-ship missiles with which to attack US assets in the gulf.

In addition to all that, Iran has revealed just this year, that they have a number of domestically manufactured submarines capable of firing cruise missiles.

It would be a very big mistake to underestimate the Iranians, and believe that the US could do what it did in Iraq; "stand-off" and batter Iran into submission with cruise missiles from US Navy ships in the gulf. The US Navy will lose ships and a lot of US sailors will die they try that.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
The Iranian Navy has Russian made Kilo-class submarines equipped with Kalibr-PL anti-ship, anti-submarine and land attack missiles. They have Bayandor-class corvettes equipped with Noor anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedo launchers. They also have an arsenal of land based, long range anti-ship missiles with which to attack US assets in the gulf.

In addition to all that, Iran has revealed just this year, that they have a number of domestically manufactured submarines capable of firing cruise missiles.

It would be a very big mistake to underestimate the Iranians, and believe that the US could do what it did in Iraq; "stand-off" and batter Iran into submission with cruise missiles from US Navy ships in the gulf. The US Navy will lose ships and a lot of US sailors will die they try that.
Click to expand...

I hope we never find out how capable the Iranian Navy is at attacking (or defending itself against, depending on your point of view) a US carrier group. Even if the attack is in response to preemptive US strikes against Iran, the US will view this as Iranian aggression and IMO will escalate to the use of ballistic missiles.

So far Donald Trump has restricted himself to sabre-rattling followed by immediate climb-down and claims of victory for his strong-man foreign policy. I hope that this is another example of this tactic in action.
 
smartcooky said:
Oh for heavens sake prestige wake the **** up!!

Bolton is a war monger - he has been trying to get the US into a war with Iraq for decades. He was part of the Big WMD Lie that got your country involved in an ill-advised shooting war in 2003. 4½ thousand dead soldiers, almost 32,000 wounded soldiers and fifteen years later, he's trying to get you involved in another one, only this time, it won't be the cakewalk that Iraq was.

Iraq is about the size and population of California, and it had 50,000 well equipped professional soldiers, the rest were poorly equipped, poorly trained and unmotivated soldiers. Iran is a way different prospect. More than twice the population of Iraq, more than four times the area, and most important of all, it has a fully trained, very well equipped army of over a million soldiers, and can put another two million on the ground on short notice. They also have a Air Force that is well quipped (Mig 29, Su 30s). In Iraq, the USA had total air superiority... you will not have that in Iran)

If Bolton manages to get you into a shooting war with Iran, it is highly likely you will get an arse whooping; your body-bag manufacturers will be working over time to make enough of them to bring your dead sons and daughters back home - expect casualties in the order of many tens of thousands. It would be this generation's "Vietnam"!

ETA: In Iraq, you also had the "Coalition of the Willing", the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland provided troops, and another 37 countries provided support for military operations after the invasion was complete. In Iran, you WILL be on your own.
Click to expand...


If the US start shooting at Iraq I predict many burning oil tankers and the gulf closed to shipping for years.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If the US start shooting at Iraq I predict many burning oil tankers and the gulf closed to shipping for years.
Click to expand...

Will that mean a lot of happy US oil executives ?

Will this mean a surge in US oil industry employment as a spike in oil prices encourages production from previously financially marginal wells ?

Does this mean a rise in oil prices which benefits key US allies in the Middle East (and an improvement in the financial situation for Russia) ?

This could represent a desirable outcome for many people who support President Trump ?
 
smartcooky said:
The Iranian Navy has Russian made Kilo-class submarines equipped with Kalibr-PL anti-ship, anti-submarine and land attack missiles. They have Bayandor-class corvettes equipped with Noor anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedo launchers. They also have an arsenal of land based, long range anti-ship missiles with which to attack US assets in the gulf.

In addition to all that, Iran has revealed just this year, that they have a number of domestically manufactured submarines capable of firing cruise missiles.

It would be a very big mistake to underestimate the Iranians, and believe that the US could do what it did in Iraq; "stand-off" and batter Iran into submission with cruise missiles from US Navy ships in the gulf. The US Navy will lose ships and a lot of US sailors will die they try that.
Click to expand...

The Iranian Navy would be sunk within days of anything starting.
How long do you think those subs will last ?

You overestimate the capability of the Iranian navy and vaqstly underestimate the US.

It's the tankers that will be at risk, first priority will be to blockade the straights and sink any tankers.
As soon as any shooting looks likely the oil flow will stop as the shipping lines pull their ships out.
 
lomiller said:
Republicans have spent decades creating a political environment where the negative impacts of their policies simply don't matter. It may have started with the best of intentions, to find a way to promote unpopular policies that better educated people knew were good ideas, but once in place they have been turned to increasingly terrible policies.
Click to expand...

Any evidence to support this may?

dudalb said:
So now the President openly proclaims he is above the law.
Am increasingly concerned this is not going to end peacefully.
Click to expand...

We're only a couple small steps away from the "American Experiment" ending. We're not there yet, of course, but very serious damage has been done... and fixing it is not likely to be easy or quick, if we even get the chance.

The Don said:
I hope we never find out how capable the Iranian Navy is at attacking (or defending itself against, depending on your point of view) a US carrier group. Even if the attack is in response to preemptive US strikes against Iran, the US will view this as Iranian aggression and IMO will escalate to the use of ballistic missiles.
Click to expand...

Indeed, may we never be put in a position to find out. The US is extremely capable, but our forces are scattered over many, many places. Iran is really not a nut that's worth trying to crack militarily, especially when unpopular leaders of the US are clearly trying to instigate a fight for no good reason.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The Iranian Navy would be sunk within days of anything starting.
How long do you think those subs will last ?
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced the air force will last all that long either.
How mobile are their planes? In terms of basing that is.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
The Iranian Navy would be sunk within days of anything starting.
How long do you think those subs will last ?

You overestimate the capability of the Iranian navy and vaqstly underestimate the US.

It's the tankers that will be at risk, first priority will be to blockade the straights and sink any tankers.
As soon as any shooting looks likely the oil flow will stop as the shipping lines pull their ships out.
Click to expand...

I'm more inclined to believe someone like Malcolm Nance on this; a 20 year veteran of the military; someone who has been in combat in the Middle East on numerous occasions and who understands naval combat and asymmetric warfare tactics.

Nance thinks that Iran will turn the Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAE and Qatari oilfields into flaming toast at the first sign of trouble. The US may win in the end, but it will not be easy, and it will come at a tremendously high cost in American lives.

Have a listen to him speaking here from about 8:30 and again from about 12:40 in the video.

https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/is-u-s-heading-for-a-confrontation-with-iran-59942469927

If you think that the US Navy will be able to strike the Iranian navy with impunity, you have forgotten what two guys on a Zodiac and some explosives did to the USS Cole. Its now thought that Iran may have taken "Q-Ships" to a new level; that they have what appear to be ordinary fishing dhows capable of launching ship to ship missiles. If this is true, you can multiply the potential threats such as what happened to the USS Cole by a few thousand times.
 
Yeah that only works if you get to "Iran makes a move" and then just... stop the narrative there and act like America would then just not retaliate.

On April 14, 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war a United States Oliver Perry Hazard Class Frigate hit an old, surplus Soviet M-08 Naval Mine (or Iranian knockoff version of same, reports differ) laid by Iran in violation of international law and was severely damaged.

4 and a half days later the Iranian Navy had pretty much ceased to exist.

A lot of countries; both big and small, keep having this idea over and over that if they just "hit America really hard in the beginning" we'll just give up and accept the loss. It was Japan's entire strategy in the Pacific Theater in WWII, China's made references to the same in regards to the South China Sea, and here we have it with Iran.

Have these countries never meet America?

People love the underdog "Oh you have the advantage in technology and manpower but we're scrappy rebels who will fight dirty" narrative but they forget in real life and not the movies the person with the technological and manpower advantage A) doesn't have to fight "dirty" to win and B) can fight dirty and still have the same technological and manpower advantage.

I've spend years on the water in the Middle East. The Iranian Navy ships are barely afloat. Hell we could almost win a war with them just by forcing them to stay out to sea so much they break down.
 
smartcooky said:
I'm more inclined to believe someone like Malcolm Nance on this; a 20 year veteran of the military; someone who has been in combat in the Middle East on numerous occasions and who understands naval combat and asymmetric warfare tactics.

Nance thinks that Iran will turn the Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAE and Qatari oilfields into flaming toast at the first sign of trouble. The US may win in the end, but it will not be easy, and it will come at a tremendously high cost in American lives.

Have a listen to him speaking here from about 8:30 and again from about 12:40 in the video.

https://www.msnbc.com/am-joy/watch/is-u-s-heading-for-a-confrontation-with-iran-59942469927

If you think that the US Navy will be able to strike the Iranian navy with impunity, you have forgotten what two guys on a Zodiac and some explosives did to the USS Cole. Its now thought that Iran may have taken "Q-Ships" to a new level; that they have what appear to be ordinary fishing dhows capable of launching ship to ship missiles. If this is true, you can multiply the potential threats such as what happened to the USS Cole by a few thousand times.
Click to expand...

Was Cole in a combat zone and at alert?
I think he's talking bollocks to be honest and I am a veteran of an actual naval war.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah that only works if you get to "Iran makes a move" and then just... stop the narrative there and act like America would then just not retaliate.

On April 14, 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war a United States Oliver Perry Hazard Class Frigate hit an old, surplus Soviet M-08 Naval Mine (or Iranian knockoff version of same, reports differ) laid by Iran in violation of international law and was severely damaged.

4 and a half days later the Iranian Navy had pretty much ceased to exist.

A lot of countries; both big and small, keep having this idea over and over that if they just "hit America really hard in the beginning" we'll just give up and accept the loss. It was Japan's entire strategy in the Pacific Theater in WWII, China's made references to the same in regards to the South China Sea, and here we have it with Iran.

Have these countries never meet America?

People love the underdog "Oh you have the advantage in technology and manpower but we're scrappy rebels who will fight dirty" narrative but they forget in real life and not the movies the person with the technological and manpower advantage A) doesn't have to fight "dirty" to win and B) can fight dirty and still have the same technological and manpower advantage.

I've spend years on the water in the Middle East. The Iranian Navy ships are barely afloat. Hell we could almost win a war with them just by forcing them to stay out to sea so much they break down.
Click to expand...

Winning the war isn't the issue. Making sure there's a functioning country in the aftermath is the problem. Otherwise all that America will accomplish again is destabilizing another country and creating more terrorists with the added bonus of Iran's nuclear material enrichment program material going missing in the process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom