White House 'officially putting Iran on notice' after missile launch

a reply to: TinfoilTP

You can't compare something to 2500 years ago.

There's no ground game in Iran without actually air lifting troops and tanks etc in.

Iran would be shooting fish from a barrel with their anti air capabilities. I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm saying you're not going to see the 'Shock and Awe' of Iraq if they decide to invade Iran.

It's a logistical nightmare and any military commander will tell you that.

The United States armed forces are vastly superior to Iran's, more than twice as large and far better equipped. Iran's air and naval forces don't even compare with the enormous firepower of America's. This is because Iran's military forces are not designed for conquest. No government of Iran, or Persia, has launched an offensive war since the Middle Ages. Their forces are designed for defense, and for that reason, Iran would be extremely difficult to defeat and occupy.

Iran is about the size of Alaska, with a land area of 636,000 square miles, which is about one-fifth the land area of the continental United States and more than twice the size of Texas, which has a land area of 268.000 square miles. Unlike Iraq, which is primarily desert and river watersheds, Iran is mostly high plateau and mountains. That terrain always has presented enormous difficulties to invaders.

If an all-out war breaks out that requires an invasion of Iran, consider the difficulty, the expense, and the forces required for occupation. It is four times the size of Iraq. About 200,000 soldiers were needed in Iraq and they were not nearly enough. How many more hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be needed to pacify and occupy Iran? Probably more than the U.S. has today. Without the support of many allies - and that support does not exist today - the Draft would have to be used in the U.S.

www.dailykos.com...

And sure, they may up-play a little bit of that information, but regardless, no cake walk Sir. To compare it to Alexander the Great's conquest is hubris.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DBCowboy

Iranians only use bullets of peace, missiles of understanding and funds terrorism of happiness.

Those in glass houses should't throw stones , our bullets of peace and missiles of understanding have caused more problems in the Middle East than anything Iran has done.

The US has been fighting the Middle East ever since we had just 13 silly little colonies.

Waving the white flag is the only other option available.

What kind of history revisionism is this? No, we haven't been fighting wars in the ME since the 1770's.

Actually we were, "The shores of Tripoli" refers to the era in the famous song. The President sent forces to battle Muslim pirates attacking the shipping lanes of trade.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: BlueAjah

The $400 million cash-for-hostages that President Obama sent to IRAN in August 2016 might be used against us militarily, unless we show steadfast resolve.

$400 million doesn't get you much military hardware nowadays. But a handful of missiles could still do some damage, I'll grant you that.

Trump already said it was the Saudis behind 9/11, why protect them? The Petrodollar is the sole reason imo. He has to stand shoulder to shoulder with a country that harbours many a terrorist, because the U.S has a much invested interest in keeping the Petrodollar.

Most of the wars waged in the M.E has been all about preserving the Petrodollar.

a reply to: nemonimity

Right? Iran is a "country", while Saudi Arabia is a "fiefdom".

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: carewemust
The Trump Administration is not kidding. There will be no "lines in the sand" that keep shifting. This is a line etched in stone, with skull/cross-bone signs stuck in the ground.

Yeah, it'll mean more American troops going to fight Saudi battles. Since part of this was aimed at the Houthis, does this mean Trump's team will send in even more Americans to bail out the Saudis from their clusterfk in Yemen?

I get the impression that President Trump is not a "send in the troops" guy. At least not ground troops. A strong message can be delivered in many other ways.

O_O
Did you already forget the mission from just a few days ago? There are even ATS threads about it, like (this). That was also in Yemen.

That is what traditionally happens regardless of any administration. The rise of social media brings more spot lights to areas we otherwise had very little information on. As a result, "New" information isn't really new at all. In other words, that mission was just another one all otherwise pre-planned and ready for sign off.
Seriously, just because a new administration walks in suddenly things are all his fault. It isn't really hard to comprehend.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: TinfoilTP

You can't compare something to 2500 years ago.

There's no ground game in Iran without actually air lifting troops and tanks etc in.

Iran would be shooting fish from a barrel with their anti air capabilities. I'm not saying they can't do it, I'm saying you're not going to see the 'Shock and Awe' of Iraq if they decide to invade Iran.

It's a logistical nightmare and any military commander will tell you that.

The United States armed forces are vastly superior to Iran's, more than twice as large and far better equipped. Iran's air and naval forces don't even compare with the enormous firepower of America's. This is because Iran's military forces are not designed for conquest. No government of Iran, or Persia, has launched an offensive war since the Middle Ages. Their forces are designed for defense, and for that reason, Iran would be extremely difficult to defeat and occupy.

Iran is about the size of Alaska, with a land area of 636,000 square miles, which is about one-fifth the land area of the continental United States and more than twice the size of Texas, which has a land area of 268.000 square miles. Unlike Iraq, which is primarily desert and river watersheds, Iran is mostly high plateau and mountains. That terrain always has presented enormous difficulties to invaders.

If an all-out war breaks out that requires an invasion of Iran, consider the difficulty, the expense, and the forces required for occupation. It is four times the size of Iraq. About 200,000 soldiers were needed in Iraq and they were not nearly enough. How many more hundreds of thousands of soldiers would be needed to pacify and occupy Iran? Probably more than the U.S. has today. Without the support of many allies - and that support does not exist today - the Draft would have to be used in the U.S.

www.dailykos.com...

And sure, they may up-play a little bit of that information, but regardless, no cake walk Sir. To compare it to Alexander the Great's conquest is hubris.

~Tenth

All their defenses would be annihilated before the ground invasion. Without radar, command structure and communication it would be a cake walk just like Iraq. They have systems that would only be good the first moments of the first hour of the first day. Then they would have no ability to renew them.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How many times must it be pointed out to you guys that that was Iran's money to begin with?

If you want to get down to it the money was not for the current Iranian regime. When you take over a country you kind of lose the benefit of deals the last gov't made. But that would not fit the narrative you want would it?

a reply to: hangedman13


Didn't bother to mention the hostages either

a reply to: TinfoilTP

All their defenses would be annihilated before the ground invasion. Without radar, command structure and communication it would be a cake walk just like Iraq.

No it doesn't work that way. The USA is not the end all be all of military forces and planning, if that was the case then Iraq would have been a cake walk, and it wasn't. ISIS would be a cake walk and it isn't.

It was a failed war that costs BILLIONS of dollars, even your own Donald J Trump will admit to that. Hell he campaigned on it.

Why do people assume that war is something easily done and that countries in the middle east are easily conquered?

They are anything but those things. You put far too much faith in your military capabilities.

Besides, the US population will not entertain another war in the ME for a very long time. Even the mention of boots on the ground is political suicide at this point.

~Tenth

a reply to: Arnie123

What does that have to do with my posts? Also, are you implying that Trump will continue to do Obama's work in Yemen? I was under the impression that he & the Repubs controlled the entire federal govt now. But it's still Obama's fault even though Trump signed off on that raid and Trump's official is putting Iran "on notice"?

a reply to: neo96

It seems to me like you are doing a better job of convincing me that Saudi Arabia should be put on notice and not Iran.

originally posted by: hangedman13
a reply to: Krazysh0t

How many times must it be pointed out to you guys that that was Iran's money to begin with?

If you want to get down to it the money was not for the current Iranian regime. When you take over a country you kind of lose the benefit of deals the last gov't made. But that would not fit the narrative you want would it?

So it's ok to steal another country's money because its government changed? Good to know that we are now thinking up excuses to wave away something even the Bible says is wrong.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: DBCowboy

Iranians only use bullets of peace, missiles of understanding and funds terrorism of happiness.

Those in glass houses should't throw stones , our bullets of peace and missiles of understanding have caused more problems in the Middle East than anything Iran has done.

The US has been fighting the Middle East ever since we had just 13 silly little colonies.

Waving the white flag is the only other option available.

What kind of history revisionism is this? No, we haven't been fighting wars in the ME since the 1770's.

Actually we were, "The shores of Tripoli" refers to the era in the famous song. The President sent forces to battle Muslim pirates attacking the shipping lanes of trade.

You may want to go restudy up on geography. Libya isn't in the Middle East. It's in North Africa.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Gee I don't know why shouldn't we ?

Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2015, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various groups in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. In 2015, Iran increased its assistance to Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah (KH), which is a U.S. designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, as part of an effort to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Iraq and bolster the Asad regime in Syria. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to implement foreign policy goals, provide cover for intelligence operations, and create instability in the Middle East. The IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad.

ran views the Asad regime in Syria as a crucial ally, a pillar in its “resistance” front together with sub-national groups aligned with Iran, and a key link to Hizballah, Iran’s primary beneficiary and terrorist partner. In addition to its ongoing support for Hizballah in Syria, Iran continued to provide arms, financing, training, and the facilitation of primarily Iraqi, Afghan, and Pakistani Shia fighters to support the Asad regime’s brutal crackdown that has resulted in the deaths of more than 250,000 people in Syria. Iran more openly acknowledged the deaths of Iranian personnel in Syria in 2015, including several senior commanders, and increased Iranian troop levels, while continuing to claim publicly that Iranian forces had only deployed in an advisory role.

In Iraq, Iranian combat forces employed rockets, artillery, and drones against ISIL. Iran also increased its arming and funding of Iraqi Shia terrorist groups in an effort to reverse ISIL gains in Iraq. Many of these groups, such as KH, have exacerbated sectarian tensions in Iraq and have committed serious human rights abuses against primarily Sunni civilians. The IRGC-QF, in concert with Hizballah, provided training outside of Iraq, as well as advisors inside Iraq for Shia militants in the construction and use of advanced weaponry. Similar to Hizballah fighters, many of these trained Shia militants have used these skills to fight for the Asad regime in Syria or against ISIL in Iraq.

Iran has also provided weapons, funding, and training to Shia militants in Bahrain. In 2015, the Government of Bahrain raided, interdicted, and rounded up numerous Iran-sponsored weapons caches, arms transfers, and militants. This includes the Bahraini government’s discovery of a bomb-making facility with 1.5 tons of high-grade explosives in September.

Iran has historically provided weapons, training, and funding to Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command. These Palestinian terrorist groups have been behind a number of deaths from attacks originating in Gaza and the West Bank. Although Hamas’s ties to Tehran have been strained due to the Syrian civil war, both sides took steps in 2015 to repair relations. Iran continued to declare its vocal support for Palestinian terrorist groups and its hostility to Israel in 2015. Supreme National Security Council Secretary Admiral Ali Shamkhani sought to frame a series of individual Palestinian attacks on Israeli security forces in the West Bank as a new “Intifada” in a speech on November 25.

www.state.gov...

Checkout the date. 2015

a reply to: gortex

If I am not mistaken the attack on the Saudi vessel was intended for a US vessel.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

To be fair, it's not like we're a Christian nation so...


But in all seriousness, at least people can see why Saudi Arabia and the other GCC nations were left off of his travel ban. Repubs and Dems have been in cahoots with them since at least back in WW2, and apparently that won't change no matter what any politician says.

a reply to: neo96

Well at least you are posting sources that have to deal with Iran now... So besides the obvious fearmongering you are trying to employ to scare me about Iran, why do YOU think we should invade and destabilize the country? Personally, I think what we've been doing so far is a-ok. Keep them from getting nukes and sanction them for their terrorist activities. It's been working pretty well. Care to explain why that isn't enough?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t

To be fair, it's not like we're a Christian nation so...

But in all seriousness, at least people can see why Saudi Arabia and the other GCC nations were left off of his travel ban. Repubs and Dems have been in cahoots with them since at least back in WW2, and apparently that won't change no matter what any politician says.

I like how Trump has come out and says that countries like SA are being considered like saying that suddenly excuses him for no putting the country on the list. Until it actually makes his list, he is going to continue to look like a hypocrite regardless of whatever he is saying he is considering.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: TinfoilTP

All their defenses would be annihilated before the ground invasion. Without radar, command structure and communication it would be a cake walk just like Iraq.

No it doesn't work that way. The USA is not the end all be all of military forces and planning, if that was the case then Iraq would have been a cake walk, and it wasn't. ISIS would be a cake walk and it isn't.

It was a failed war that costs BILLIONS of dollars, even your own Donald J Trump will admit to that. Hell he campaigned on it.

Why do people assume that war is something easily done and that countries in the middle east are easily conquered?

They are anything but those things. You put far too much faith in your military capabilities.

Besides, the US population will not entertain another war in the ME for a very long time. Even the mention of boots on the ground is political suicide at this point.

~Tenth

You are still living under the pretense of an Obama's America, and Iraq was a cakewalk compared to the invasions of WWII.

Imagine a US Russian alliance vs Islamic nasty boys. The art of the deal vs Obama's apology tour is a no contest at showing how to win again. Trump loves to show losers how to win again, so sit back in a false liberal induced trigger mode and watch how the big boys play, JV league time is over.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have been.

ISIS is only there because of IRAN.

IRAN is only there because of ISIS.

Sunni terrorists groups are the BLACKWATERS of the SAUDIS.

Shia terrorists groups are the BLACKWATERS of the Supreme Leader.