Upvote

You wouldn't have fought anyway, You're the average keyboard warrior pretending to be tough and intelligent, Everyone knows you're pretending.

There are some serious dipshits showing up in these rooms lately.

I'm curious, since you're using "you wouldn't have fought" as an insult - let's say Iran bombs an embassy or something, and the US finds itself at war tomorrow. What would you do? How would you contribute, specifically?

I already served for 18 years 11 as a SFOD-D operator. My military service is up.
I can train others to take my place.

Thank you for your service. Truly.

I didn't ask if you would enlist. I asked how you would contribute. If the Army needs trainers, that's an excellent answer and I sincerely hope you do that - you'd be saving countless lives. If the Army doesn't need trainers, how would you contribute?

That's inspired!

Awesome! 😎👍

Fairly certain Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Ted Cruz won't be playing much of a part in a war with Iran. She's a Fox News contributor, and he's a mid-level Senator with very little power of his own.

Toss Pompeo in for Cruz, and Mark Esper in for Huckabee, and it'll make more sense. Then throw in a tagline for the tour, something like, "Decades more of US military casualties in the Middle East, guaranteed!"

Seriously, didn't everyone vote for Trump because he was DIFFERENT from previous presidents? And wasn't a part of his platform about ending our wasteful military entanglements, specifically in the Middle East? So far the only thing different I see is that his actions are bigger, louder, and more expensive (in more than one way), but in the same direction.

Trump has had plenty of WW3 scenarios present themselves according to the media,...and you all freakout over the media every time. We aren't at war despite all the bloviating from the left. Hell, y'all call him a coward if he shows restraint and a war monger if he responds to a threat. Make up your f**king minds. We just handed Iran a huge blow and the best they could do was blow up some sand after giving us notice to evacuate. Sounds like peace through strength is working.

I genuinely hope you're right, that Iran backs off out of fear, and we avoid a war. We'll see.

Still, this action adds fuel to the fire of terrorist sentiment and support, which makes pulling soldiers out of the Middle East more dangerous than it had been before. It's a bigger, brasher, and costlier more-of-the-same from the executive branch. I dunno about you, but I know that's not what my Republican friends and family were looking for when they voted for him. It's certainly not the outcome he touted on the campaign trail.

Trump's been against these wars on and off the campaign trail. That doesn't mean lying down when provoked. If the current popularity of his recent "Persian" tweet and the protests in the streets of Iran are any measure, his Reaganesque methodology of brinkmanship is paying off. I'm not saying it isn't unnerving, but it's time people start looking at results instead of allowing his media and political foes write the narrative.

If it leads to fewer troops in the Middle East without a loss of global influence, that's a win. We'll see how it plays out. I'm skeptical, and not without good cause.

I no longer pay attention to any of his tweets; if nothing else, they're blatant evidence that Americans as a group have a rapidly shrinking vocabulary, and I don't need a reminder of that. It's important to note that the protests in Iran are not pro-US, they're anti-the Iranian government killing its own civilians. Their understandable outrage doesn't indicate anything about public sentiment for or against the US, just that Iran shouldn't be shooting down planes filled with Iranians.

People keep expressing fear of war with Iran. What a ridiculous fear! Iran fighting with us is like your three-year old son threatening to fight the heavyweight boxing champion of the world. We can render Iran destitute and with almost no casualties and little cost in, what? A week? Two weeks?
.
We can probably sink their entire navy in a week. Ditto their entire air force. Remember when we attacked Iraq, their air force fled to Iran to hide. We should have destroyed those aircraft on the ground in Iran. We could cut all Iran’s oil and gas pipelines with thermite charges, I suspect in a week or two. We can destroy all eight of their refineries in an hour or two.
.
No boots on the ground. No US KIA. Drones and missiles. Few enemy KIA because they would park their navy and air force and run away from the ports and airports. No Iranian is going to climb into a ship or war plane and charge at the US troops. And he would be killed if he did. Near the end of WW II in the Pacific, Japanese DID climb into planes and ships including the battleship Yamato, the world’s largest, and kamikaze planes. We mowed them down. The Yamato was going full speed to the battle of Okinawa and was sunk 200 miles from that island, far short of the range of its huge guns.
.
The fact that Dems are afraid of such a puny, glass-house military as Iran’s is a stark proof of how ridiculous the American anti-war movement has become. Iran’s power comes from one source: oil. Their oil comes from wells under the Persian Gulf or near it and travels through above ground pipes to out-in-the-open refineries. Seriously?

Trump should have the drone pilots in Nevada (or wherever) in rotating shifts 24/7 sitting at their computer terminals, taking out Iran's oil production and transmission infrastructure with package-delivery drones dropping thermite charges. Then he should invite Iran's citizens to join the 21st century by taking back control of their country from the terror-mongers.

If they can do that, great. If not, that's not our problem.

I remember how well "shock and awe" went.

No one is afraid of a conventional war with Iran. However, there is almost no chance that a war with Iran will be conventional. The weapons they possess that are the most formidable are of the cyber variety. Sure, we can bomb the hell out of them, but all of that is superficial damage. On the other hand, they've been working for over a decade to infiltrate US cyber networks. It's possible they've been completely unsuccessful and we have nothing to worry about. It's also possible they can shut down our power grid, banking systems, and/or wireless communications networks at a moment's notice, causing chaos for US civilians and military alike. And in an America in chaos, it would be very easy for Iran to deploy another weapon they have plenty of experience wielding - terrorism.

That, of course, is assuming that a war with Iran will be with Iran alone. Russia has issued statements condemning the killing of Soleimani as a criminal act, and is an ally of Iran. Remember how the Assad regime was toppled in Syria? Of course you don't, because it didn't happen; Russia intervened and made victory in Syria for the US-led coalition an endeavor that was not worth the cost. I have no doubt that they would do this again in Iran, and the US has no allies in this fight.

Then there is the question of what happens after a US victory. Does the US stay and work to stabilize the nation, at the cost of thousands of US military lives and trillions of US tax dollars? Or do we burn the place down and walk away from the wreckage, leaving the place a hotbed for terrorist activity and a constant reminder that furthers anti-American sentiment in the region, and requiring countless covert missions to stem the tide of terrorism? Both of these options commits the US to continued military activity in Iran for years (the former in a similar way to our presence in Iraq but on a much larger scale and with no help from other nations, the latter similar to Afghanistan but without a government in place to cooperate with), in addition to continued involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

War is not even remotely as simple as what you describe. It never has been, and is increasingly less so.