Aramco facilities on fire in Saudi Arabia

[Only_]

5 hours ago, and then said:

Any death is one too many but I disagree on our capability to "win".  It just depends on how you frame your goals.  No need whatever for divisions of troops in that morasse.  They can be set back many years by the precision application of LOTS of high explosives.  Victory would be the destruction of their nuclear infrastructure and the crippling of their IRGC command and control nodes and the absolute deracination of as many of the guardsmen as possible.  Further, it's my opinion that sometimes fighting is required regardless of the ability to have a clear-cut victory.  Iran has the fuel and the know how to assemble a nuke now and interrupting that ability, even if only for a few years gives more time for other methods to be brought to bear.  IMO, those leaders are true fanatics.  They do not work from a goal set that other nations prioritize.  They want power and domination in that region but it isn't for wealth or simply to subjugate others.  They have a Revolution to spread.  That has been their prime motivator since old creepin Judas took over in 1978.

In the hypothetical scenario where the U.S. would ''win'' an all-out war with Iran, you still need to rebuild the country for decades to come. That's also very costly. You just can't pack up your things and leave as soon as Tehran has fallen. Or you'd a create a terrible mess of epic proportion. Not just in Iran but also Iraq, Syria ect. For whatever issues you have with the Iranian regime, they are very useful strategically. Since the IRGC, Hezbollah and Shia millitias serve as an awesome force in the Middle-East to counter Wahabbist groups, the most threatening version of Islamism. The ideology behind Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram ect. Whose teachings and ideology comes directly from doctrines preached and funded in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. I don't think you fully grasp the consequences of invading Iran!

Edited September 21, 2019 by crookedspiral

[DarkHunter]

6 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

In the hypothetical scenario where the U.S. would ''win'' an all-out war with Iran, you still need to rebuild the country for decades to come. That's also very costly. You just can't pack up your things and leave as soon as the Iranian regime has fallen. Or you'd a create a terrible mess of epic proportion. For whatever issues you have with Tehran, they are very useful strategically. Since the IRGC, Hezbollah, Shia millitias ect. serve as an awesome force in the Middle-East to counter Wahabbist groups, the most threatening version of Islamism. The ideology behind anti-Western terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram ect. Whose teachings and ideology comes directly from doctrines preached and funded in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. Think thrice of the consequences of invading Iran!

But a good bit of those wahabbist groups receive funding by the gulf states to act as a buffer against an expansionist Iran.  Without Iran trying to dominate the region most if not all of the militant Sunnis factions would see their funding and support cut off completely.  The militant sunni ideologies did not spring up in a vacuum but largely originated as a response to Iran trying to dominate the region, just like how ISIS didnt form till after al-Maliki purged all sunnis from the military leadership and civilian government.

There would not really be a need to rebuild Iran depending on how any military action would be handled.  There is no reason to completely destroy Irans infrastructure or completely overthrow their government.  All that would really need to be done is have the IRGC weakened enough military for them to be unable to suppress the population and as for the clerics largely running Iran only the very top would need to be taken out, after Khamenei dies there is no clear person to take his place that has enough backing and power to keep everything going smoothly.

With the civilian and regular Iranian military largely intact there would not really be any widespread chaos and any significant infrastructure damage could be repaired quickly.  

[Only_]

21 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

But a good bit of those wahabbist groups receive funding by the gulf states to act as a buffer against an expansionist Iran.  Without Iran trying to dominate the region most if not all of the militant Sunnis factions would see their funding and support cut off completely.  The militant sunni ideologies did not spring up in a vacuum but largely originated as a response to Iran trying to dominate the region, just like how ISIS didnt form till after al-Maliki purged all sunnis from the military leadership and civilian government.

 

What Iranian expanisionism are you talking about? The al-Assad family has ruled Syria since Hafez al-Assad became President of Syria in 1971. As soon as protests broke out against the Syrian government; Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States started pooring money into al-qaeda mercenaries sharing their ideology. They acted as the destabilizing force. Iran is countering those Wahabbist groups, who are only waiting to fill the power vacuum and lunch more terrorist attacks on Western soil.

Quote

With the civilian and regular Iranian military largely intact there would not really be any widespread chaos and any significant infrastructure damage could be repaired quickly.  

That's wishful thinking.

[LINK] The Hidden Sources of Iranian Strenght

Edited September 21, 2019 by crookedspiral

[DarkHunter]

37 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

What Iranian expanisionism are you talking about? The al-Assad family has ruled Syria since Hafez al-Assad became President of Syria in 1971. As soon as protests broke out against the Syrian government; Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States started pooring money into al-qaeda mercenaries sharing their ideology. They acted as the destabilizing force. Iran is countering those Wahabbist groups, who are only waiting to fill the power vacuum and lunch more terrorist attacks on Western soil.

That's wishful thinking.

[LINK] The Hidden Sources of Iranian Strenght

The Iranian expansionism with them trying to create the Shia crescent from the Persian gulf to the Mediterranean.  The expansionism that has Iran often funding various terror and separatist groups to undermine the local regional powers.  While the various gulf states did fund just about anyone fighting against Assad that was largely to try to limit Iran's influence in the region and remove the only true ally Iran has in the area.  What's going on in the middle east is a low intensity war between Sunni and Shia factions and it is Iran that started it after the revolution.

As for the link that is behind a pay wall so a bit hard to argue against.

[+and-then]

4 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

If the world is worried about oil supply, taking out more refineries seems counterproductive.

Iran isn't selling any these days    I heard the phrase "proportionate" as in tit for tat.  I think if Trump hits them at all, in any way, they are going to go full Mahdi on us.

[Only_]

1 hour ago, DarkHunter said:

The Iranian expansionism with them trying to create the Shia crescent from the Persian gulf to the Mediterranean.

Seems like we have helped them quite a bit by taking out Saddam Hussein and basically handed over Iraq to a Shia-dominated government. Besides, the Assad regime was not heavily dependent on Tehran and Moscow before al quaeda rebels/ ISIS seized large parts of the country. Now Iran-backed millitias prop up the depleted Syrian army. Pretty much every sane person will agree that Assad isn't so bad after all compared to the foreign-backed terrorists. Invading Iran would be yet another terrible mess with a sh*tload of consequences.

Edited September 21, 2019 by crookedspiral

[+and-then]

On 9/19/2019 at 2:02 AM, RoofGardener said:

I don't believe that the Iranians have a cruise missile that can travel several hundreds of miles, and hit the LPG tanks with the precision that those photographs imply. 

Something is really.. odd.. about this whole thing. 

I don't know...GPS is a wonderful thing  

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

I don't think you fully grasp the consequences of invading Iran!

If you go back and read what I said you will see that I specifically stated that we had no need to invade.  In fact, it would be monumentally foolish to do so.  Most of the youth there desire western culture and an end to the zealotry of the old men.  Iran is no serious threat to the U.S. unless they develop nukes.  Between the carrier group, submarines and land based bombers, Tehran will have a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day...  If they have no intention of changing course on acquiring nukes then whatever it takes to shut them down is justified, IMO.  I have no brief for either flavor of that religion but the doctrines that the leaders of Iran follow is no better than the Wahhabis.  In fact, the Twelvers in Iran hold to the idea that their "messiah" figure - Al Mahdi - will not come to usher in... yada yada yada... until the world is totally covered in chaos.  Nukes in the hands of people who think that way would be a really bad move.  

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

What Iranian expanisionism are you talking about?

  Uh... Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Gaza...  I guess it all depends on how you define "expansionism"  When you hear the phrase - world's largest exporter of terror - you can believe it.

[Only_]

22 minutes ago, and then said:

If you go back and read what I said you will see that I specifically stated that we had no need to invade.  In fact, it would be monumentally foolish to do so.  Most of the youth there desire western culture and an end to the zealotry of the old men.

The naïve assumption of interventionists that U.S.-orchestrated forcible regime change would usher in new, democratic political systems was evident in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Cheerleaders for Washington’s regime change crusades stubbornly resist acknowledging how badly their cherished policy has flopped. In all three cases, though, it is clear that U.S. policy made already bad situations much worse. The same will be the case for a war with Iran. A terrible mess.

Edited September 21, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Space Commander Travis]

Saudi Arabia speeds up its executions with 134 people put to death already this year - some crucified or beheaded - including six who were children when they were arrested

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7468349/Saudi-Arabia-executes-134-people-year-including-six-children-arrested.html

You're really clamouring to go to war on behalf of these people? Because their opponents (Iran) are a barbaric theocracy? You don't consider that this position might be at all morally shaky? 

I've tried to find a source that would be acceptable to those on the Right. The daily Mail, while a tabloid, is impeccably right-wing, and is hardly a friend of lefty pacifists. 

[Space Commander Travis]

18 minutes ago, and then said:

Between the carrier group, submarines and land based bombers, Tehran will have a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day... 

talking of morally shaky, you know the gloating in that sentence alone creates a palpable sense of evil that you can feel through the screen. 

[Space Commander Travis]

18 minutes ago, and then said:

  Uh... Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Gaza...  I guess it all depends on how you define "expansionism"  When you hear the phrase - world's largest exporter of terror - you can believe it.

Uh ... just since 2000 alone, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria* ... its incessant support for Israel ... When you hear the phrase - world's largest exporter of terror - you can't help wondering which nation it refers to.  

* attempted

[Only_]

 

44 minutes ago, and then said:

  Uh... Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Gaza...  I guess it all depends on how you define "expansionism"  When you hear the phrase - world's largest exporter of terror - you can believe it.

But you don't say anything about Saudi Arabia spending billions promoting it's extreme version of Islam? They are exporting radical Islamism and funding groups like al qaeda and ISIS, who in turn launch terrorist attacks on western soil. Dude, in what world are you living?

Edited September 21, 2019 by crookedspiral

[Space Commander Travis]

And how is Syria proof of Iran's evil? How was that exporting terrorism? They were allies of the government of that country that many and varied terrorist groups, mostly supported by the US and its allies and friends , had been doing their utmost to overthrow for well over five years now. Surely if anyone was the exporter of terrorism there it was the countries (now which were they again ... ) that were supporting the terrorists, sorry, "Rebels" that the Iranians, among others, were fighting. 

[Space Commander Travis]

3 hours ago, DarkHunter said:

There is no reason to completely destroy Irans infrastructure or completely overthrow their government.  All that would really need to be done is have the IRGC weakened enough military for them to be unable to suppress the population and as for the clerics largely running Iran only the very top would need to be taken out, after Khamenei dies there is no clear person to take his place that has enough backing and power to keep everything going smoothly.

With the civilian and regular Iranian military largely intact there would not really be any widespread chaos and any significant infrastructure damage could be repaired quickly.  

right, and the general population, and the military other than the Revolutionary Guards, would collaborate with the power that sought to overthrow their leadership? Like happened in Iraq, you mean?* Having seen their country attacked by a brutally aggressive expansionist foreign power, they'd happily collaborate with the attackers, despite the military, presumably, since they do in all countries, having pledged to defend their country against foreign aggression?

 * irony 

[RoofGardener]

11 hours ago, Setton said:

Israel. Read the news. 

I have read the news quite carefully. I even read the sports news, just in case. 

I see no stories about Israel attacking Iran. Although I DID note that their football club got HAMMERED by Poland. 

I mean, attacks on Iranian troops and missile technicians in Iraq, yes. Ditto troops etc in Syria. But no attacks against Iran itself. 

So take that back !  

Edited September 21, 2019 by RoofGardener

[DarkHunter]

23 minutes ago, Dumbledore the Awesome said:

right, and the general population, and the military other than the Revolutionary Guards, would collaborate with the power that sought to overthrow their leadership? Like happened in Iraq, you mean?* Having seen their country attacked by a brutally aggressive expansionist foreign power, they'd happily collaborate with the attackers, despite the military, presumably, since they do in all countries, having pledged to defend their country against foreign aggression?

 * irony 

There is no collaboration and I never mentioned collaboration once but I suppose it makes an effective strawman to attack.

Let's say America does bomb Iran and severely cripples the IRGC and eliminates the top leadership of the clerics.  The civil government is still intact, the military chain of command is still intact with the majority of the military and their equipment minus potentially some anti air and missile sites still intact, and most of the infrastructure has not been damaged.  Do you think the population of Iran is going to do, install a second largely unpopular theocratic government, let the IRGC take over, continue trying to fight a war they are hopelessly out matched in as long as we dont land troops while their pension system collapses entirely and they lose what little hard cash they have left to keep their country running or does the Iran focus on saving their country from an economic death spiral and accept any further conflict will just be in vain and cause more destruction to their own country.

[Black Red Devil]

42 minutes ago, crookedspiral said:

 

But you don't say anything about Saudi Arabia spending billions promoting it's extreme version of Islam? They are exporting radical Islamism and funding groups like al qaeda and ISIS, who in turn launch terrorist attacks on western soil. Dude, in what world are you living?

Geez, do I have to teach everyone everything.  Buddy, you're not using the correct technique when rationalising these facts.  This is how it works, google a picture of Netanyahu and Trump separately only showing their faces.  Print them, preferably in color and landscape.  Puncture two holes, one on each side vertically on Netanyahu's picture and repeat the same for Trump.  No, no don't put holes in Trump's face!!  Just puncture on the sides.  Now tie an elastic band on the back of their pictures and alternatively strap one of them around your head with the picture facing the front.   

Now who are the evil terrorists?  Yep, Hezzies, Hammies, Syrries, Irannies.  Who are the goodies?  Yep, the Saudis.  Who aren't a concern anymore?  Well naturally ISIS, Al Queda, Al Nusra.   And finally, who are the victims?  The Israelis!! 

[DarkHunter]

1 hour ago, crookedspiral said:

Seems like we have helped them quite a bit by taking out Saddam Hussein and basically handed over Iraq to a Shia-dominated government. Besides, the Assad regime was not heavily dependent on Tehran and Moscow before al quaeda rebels/ ISIS seized large parts of the country. Now Iran-backed millitias prop up the depleted Syrian army. Pretty much every sane person will agree that Assad isn't so bad after all compared to the foreign-backed terrorists. Invading Iran would be yet another terrible mess with a sh*tload of consequences.

Any type of democratic government in Iraq was always going to be Shia dominant as they make up such a massive percentage of the population, the problem largely came with Obama wanting to leave Iraq at any cost but that starts getting into other topics entirely.  

Assad is at about the same level as the groups he fight, using chemical weapons, purposefully targeting hospitals, indiscriminate bombings of population centers.  Assad really isnt that much different then the groups he is fighting.

There is no need to invade Iran, striking the IRGC and targeting the clerics is not the same as invading.  While taking any action will result in consequences so will doing nothing and letting the current regime continue.  At this point there are no good options, now it's just what is less of a threat to America and its interests.

[Space Commander Travis]

Someone who speaks a great deal of sense;

"My fellow service members and I are not your prost*tutes." 

[Space Commander Travis]

58 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Assad is at about the same level as the groups he fight, using chemical weapons, purposefully targeting hospitals, indiscriminate bombings of population centers.  Assad really isnt that much different then the groups he is fighting.

So if even you grudgingly admit that, even if all the claims that are said about Syria's Leader Assad are true, the terrorists who the West has been supporting are hardly democracy-loving freedom fighters, why are you so eagerly anxious to see him overthrown and these terrorists win? Syria is no conceivable threat to Israel, and Iran only got involved in the Syrian conflict after it had begun. So whoever (  ) instigated the fight for freedom in Syria is the ones responsible for Iran expanding its influence (and for provoking Assad to crack down on the "freedom fighting rebels") 

Edited September 21, 2019 by Dumbledore the Awesome

[Space Commander Travis]

Just like how Iran is now an ally of Iraq; whoever managed to organise that is the greatest foreign policy genius the U.S. has ever produced!  

[+and-then]

5 hours ago, crookedspiral said:

The naïve assumption of interventionists that U.S.-orchestrated forcible regime change would usher in new, democratic political systems was evident in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Cheerleaders for Washington’s regime change crusades stubbornly resist acknowledging how badly their cherished policy has flopped. In all three cases, though, it is clear that U.S. policy made already bad situations much worse. The same will be the case for a war with Iran. A terrible mess.

Man, you're like a dog on a bone.  How many times do I have to say NO INVASION?  Yes, it will be a terrible mess.  War tends to be like that.  What part of crazy ass religious zealots with NUKES do you not understand?

[Farmer77]

Apparently we got our marching orders Trump said we were waiting on

U.S. to deploy military forces to Saudi Arabia, UAE after drone attacks on oil sites

Quote

"The president has approved the deployment of U.S. forces which will be defensive in nature and primarily focused on air and missile defense," U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said at a news conference Friday.