Pentagon says Iran attacked two Iraqi bases housing US forces

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: burdman30ott6

No, I don't think anything of the sort.

Its a complete # show and completely #ed up beyond redemption.

I don't profess to have the answers.....but I do know bombing Iran back to the stone age is NOT the answer.

Soleimani was obviously an odious piece of crap and probably deserved all he got.
And no, its not ok for US service people to continue getting killed in Iraq.

But its pretty bloody clear that his death has achieved absolutely nothing except escalate things and probably put far more Americans at risk.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I'm capable of being leader of anything let alone a country but if a relative simpleton like myself could see what was going to happen as a result of the assassination then surely the 'Leader of the Free World' with all his resources etc could have foreseen it as well.

And the hunger for war and death shown by many here on ATS is truly disturbing.

You still don't get it, do you? This is a terrorist that killed several hundred and maimed many more American soldiers, not fighting Iran's army, with his enhanced IEDs. Iran knows we could pound them into the ground and they would lose almost all of their military if we wanted. But you still don't get the fact that we honestly do not want a war. And we don't have to go that far because we have weapons that would prevent ever having to set foot in Iran. If they escalate it and kill more Americans, expect to see their military and/or nuclear sites hit.

a reply to: Gothmog

Well if you have them, and we have them, that's what called hypocrisy.

Time for the world to grow up me thinks including your own baby nation.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Irishhaf

I would never suggest you fight for the banker's pal knee problems or otherwise.

I won't be a cakewalk just down to terrain and the tactics employed against any invading army.

Never take down that regime without boots on the ground and even then, and even then all you would serve to do is be hated for doing so by the rest of the Muslim world.

As to there air defense network, one of the best in the world and not exactly obsolete, there will be losses and not just on the ground.

Yeah , they said all this about Iraq as well..
Oh , this is going to be bad for the US
Iraq has the 4th largest army in the world.
Where did that go ?
The Iraqi military was surrendering to unarmed news reporters on the 1st day.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Do you imagine Trump saw the whole picture?

Let's just say I believe the leader of the free world, whoever may be in that position at any given time, sees a great deal more of the picture than a cluster of European forum members on an internet chatter board. That goes for Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George Bush(es) etc. Whatever your opinion of the individual leader is, they do not reside in an echo chamber of their own minds as so many online do (myself included). They have the world's best and brightest economic, military, and policy minds bending their ears every waking minute of the day. You may disagree with their final judgements, but America's president is easily among the most well informed handful of people on the planet.

a reply to: Gothmog

I hope you are correct.

But somehow i imagine it won't go down in the same manner as its not like they don't know what to expect.

And what happens when you win, you get to go home 50 years or so from now?

Probably best not to fight really imho.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: rickymouse

Well, that would be the third time your nation used nuclear weapons in anger.

Coz that's about the only way you would ever destroy Tehran without losing 1000s of troops in a sustained ground battle.

And all you would serve to achieve is to make them stronger and reinforce their primitive ideologies.

You do realize the nukes dropped on Japan ended that war, don't you? They had a very strong military and that would have gone on for a long time had we not done that. But "in anger"? Really? Dude...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

You would think that was the case but then...he'd have advisors telling him things and he wouldn't do dumb # all the time.

I mean, he unilaterally backed out of the Iran Nuclear Agreement and here we are. The man doesn't take advice from anyone and, as such, I believe he's incapable of even hearing reasonable advisement.

a reply to: HalWesten

Nope, Japan was ready to surrender before Russia kick their arse from a new direction.

What i do realize is that it was a display of force to the Soviets.

So in anger as well as fear.

But that's what conflict and war is all about.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

So if they were to say assassinate Trump then that would be fair play?

Somehow i imagine Iran would be glowing in the dark for the next few thousand years if that happened.

I expect you're right about that. It would get very messy if that happened.

a reply to: links234

Case in point... www.abovetopsecret.com...

The worst thing Iran can do is launch their full arsenal of missiles. That’s it.

Their Army will not leave their borders.
Their Navy will not leave the Gulf.
Their Air Force will not leave Iran airspace.

They simply cannot project their military capabilities.

While the US would blanket their airfields, ports, refineries, nuke facilities, and govt buildings.

No losses to US personnel. The Iranian military strikes would reduce in capability with each passing hour.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Gothmog

Well if you have them, and we have them, that's what called hypocrisy.

Time for the world to grow up me thinks including your own baby nation.

The US nuclear program is not illegal , as it was signed off on at the UN.

Denying ignorance
Why ?
Sometimes it is an absolute necessity

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Gothmog

I hope you are correct.

But somehow i imagine it won't go down in the same manner as its not like they don't know what to expect.

And what happens when you win, you get to go home 50 years or so from now?

Probably best not to fight really imho.

And what happens when you win, you get to go home 50 years or so from now?

I am not winning anything .
50 years ?
Wait , what ?

Denying ignorance
Why ?
2nd time in just minutes ?(don't go for a 3rd)

a reply to: Gothmog

I would agree that its at least immoral but apparently its still a MAD world.

Nukes are senseless overkill that leave little to no spoils of war to be had.

You don't win even if you do survive in any kind of full-on exchange.

Hence we should not play that game.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: HalWesten

Nope, Japan was ready to surrender before Russia kick their arse from a new direction.

What i do realize is that it was a display of force to the Soviets.

So in anger as well as fear.

But that's what conflict and war is all about.

Right. So it seems there are two schools of thought on this. Since it doesn't do us any good to debate those to death too, I'll bow out on this one.

a reply to: Gothmog

Pretty ignorant to have to occupy and subdue a population for the better part of a century which is what any invasion of Iran would amount to.

Or have you learned nothing in the past 19 years in the Middle East?

a reply to: HalWesten

Six and half a dozen i suppose.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: PilSungMtnMan

So if they were to say assassinate Trump then that would be fair play?

Somehow i imagine Iran would be glowing in the dark for the next few thousand years if that happened.

Is a general the same as a president in the UK? Asking because I see far too many folks who seem to think so. This wasn't a world leader, it was a military general. The US Army has 231 of them and the Pentagon can authorize over 300 more for joint field assignments. One was killed in Afghanistan please show me any news article that discusses his death as an assassination of a world leader or any UN or NATO condemnations of it as such... I'll wait. The general was shot in the head by an Afghan soldier... yet, again, casualty of war same as the Suleimani death would be treated if not for the political motivations of the malcontents to perpetually elevate anything they can grasp to use against this president.

a reply to: ridgerunner

Same way drugs get here,shipping containers

The overwhelming majority of narcotics walk over the Mexican border. We have NBC detectors in our ports.

a sub-which they have

They have a bunch of mini-subs with a range of about 15 feet and three old ass kilo subs that don’t have the range to get anywhere close enough to the US to launch anything unless they run on the surface, making themselves absurdly easy to kill.

ballistic missiles if given time to develop the tech.

If.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Gothmog

I would agree that its at least immoral but apparently its still a MAD world.

Nukes are senseless overkill that leave little to no spoils of war to be had.

You don't win even if you do survive in any kind of full-on exchange.

Hence we should not play that game.

You do know that the US can only use it's nukes in a retaliatory , like for like , strike , yes ?
Dang , I hope so.
No one is "playing a game"
What makes you think that ?
It's not "a game"
I will not consider this a 3rd denial (although I think it applies)