Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Do you hold the same position for the Ukraine? Are you unable to see how this helps the Ukraine? Do you hold the same position on the leadership of Russia as Iran? Do you object to US involvement in Ukraine? Do you also think Israeli leadership should remain status quo? 

We have not sent our own troops to Ukraine, but they were invaded so it's not the same thing. Biden's team viewed the Ukraine war as a low cost way to field-test some US weapons, and a way to weaken Russia.

I don't know enough about Russia to say if someone better is ready to step up in Putin's place, but I don't think direct American intervention should be the way to accomplish that.

I personally do not object to the support we're providing to Ukraine.

I don't believe Israel's leadership is good, but that doesn't mean the US should attack Israel.

Posted
1 hour ago, Dahobbs said:

Getting the fuck out of dodge or preparing to do something? I'm assuming the former since I can't imagine an LCS doing anything particularly useful in an actual warzone. 

It depends if that one has the Naval Strike Missile on it or not.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

We have not sent our own troops to Ukraine, but they were invaded so it's not the same thing. Biden's team viewed the Ukraine war as a low cost way to field-test some US weapons, and a way to weaken Russia.

I don't know enough about Russia to say if someone better is ready to step up in Putin's place, but I don't think direct American intervention should be the way to accomplish that.

I personally do not object to the support we're providing to Ukraine.

I don't believe Israel's leadership is good, but that doesn't mean the US should attack Israel.

We haven't sent any troops to Iran. But I fucking love how earlier you said "What do you know that our presidents don't" when referring to a potential bullpen of leadership in other countries, but here you flat out state definitively what Biden's intentions and strategy were in regards to Ukraine. Are you omniscient now? Fucking LOL. 

"Field Test Some Weapons in Ukraine" yeah, that's a fair take of the situation, it was a knock down drag out fight for literally with years with our congress to send them 40 year old weapons...to "field test." "Listen guys, Joey Two Scoops saw this as a great opportunity for us to finally field test some mortars...and some HIMARS" might be one of the most laughably insincere lies I've seen regarding Ukraine, and I've had to read posts from GRU Horn. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is a pudding brain take on Ukraine and what happened and you should sit some of these convos out. 

He doesn't know how. His entire worldview is "what's bad for Israel is all that matters." Maybe mix in a dash of "What's bad for palestine is fine as long as it's also bad for Democrats."

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Seen lots of data points like this on the abstract question of Iran getting nukes:

So the “why should we care if Iran gets a bomb” crowd may have a large online voice but are definitely in the minority.
 

Question then becomes how far we should go to produce that outcome. I’m personally very comfortable with a B-2 dropping a MOAB or two on Fordow to seal the deal, especially now that the air defenses are gone, and Iran’s proxies have been largely defanged. Pretty sure that’s going to be a politically popular position with the average American as well.  We don’t like Forever Wars but we don’t mind the isolated air strike with maximum value (see, e.g., Soleimani, Qasem, Zawahiri, Ayman-al, etc.).

I’m much more agnostic on regime change, as much as the mullahs would deserve it karmically for what they’ve done to that country. I tend to think that what comes after would be better than the status quo, but that’s at best a 60/40 proposition.  We shouldn’t be involved either way. The value of preventing them from going nuclear means we don’t have to pay attention to them any longer and can focus limited military assets in the Indo-Pacific countering China. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Quote

U.S. intelligence shows that Iran has been preparing for possible strikes on U.S. bases, officials say.

The U.S.S. Carl Vinson aircraft carrier in 2024. The carrier is currently steaming in the Arabian Sea. Iranian allies or proxies are expected to resume attacks on U.S. ships in the region if the United States joins Israel’s campaign.Credit...Richard A. Brooks/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Iran has prepared missiles and other military equipment for strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East should the United States join Israel’s war against the country, according to American officials who have reviewed intelligence reports.

The United States has sent about three dozen refueling aircraft to Europe that could be used to assist fighter jets protecting American bases or that would be used to extend the range of bombers involved in any possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Fears of a wider war are growing among American officials as Israel presses the White House to intervene in its conflict with Iran. If the United States joins the Israeli campaign and strikes Fordo, a key Iranian nuclear facility, the Iranian-backed Houthi militia will almost certainly resume striking ships in the Red Sea, the officials said. They added that pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria would probably try to attack U.S. bases there.

Other officials said that in the event of an attack, Iran could begin to mine the Strait of Hormuz, a tactic meant to pin American warships in the Persian Gulf.

Commanders put American troops on high alert at military bases throughout the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The United States has more than 40,000 troops deployed in the Middle East.

Two Iranian officials have acknowledged that the country would attack U.S. bases in the Middle East, starting with those in Iraq, if the United States joined Israel’s war.

Iran would also target any American bases that are in Arab countries and take part in an attack, the two officials said.

“Our enemies should know that they cannot reach a solution with military attacks on us and will not be able to force their will on the Iranian people,” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said in a statement on Monday. Mr. Araghchi told his European counterparts in phone conversations that if the war spread, the blame would be on Israel and its main supporters, according to a summary of the calls provided by Iran’s foreign ministry.

U.S. officials said Iran would not need much preparation to attack American bases in the region. The Iranian military has missile bases within easy striking range of Bahrain, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

The prospect of U.S. forces joining the war has increased in recent days as Israel has continued its campaign, and Iran has launched waves of missiles at Israel in response.

It is not clear how much damage a strike on Fordo would do to Iran’s nuclear capabilities or how long it would delay the development of a weapon. Iran’s current stockpile of enriched uranium is also hidden in tunnels at different locations in the country.

Several American officials said that Israel would need U.S. help to more significantly damage Iran’s nuclear program.

American assistance could include providing air cover for Israeli commandoes who go into Iran on the ground. But, officials said, the more probable outcome is a strike by U.S. B-2 stealth bombers armed with the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a weapon that theoretically has the ability to bore into the mountain that shelters the underground Fordo facility.

Any strike on Fordo by the United States or with U.S. assistance would prompt Iran and its allies to retaliate.

Iran and its allies have been able to harm Americans in the past. The Houthis curbed their attacks after the Trump administration stepped up strikes on them. But in recent years they have repeatedly tried to strike American warships and have hit commercial shipping. In January 2024, an Iranian-backed militia carried out a drone attack on a U.S. base in Jordan near the Syrian border that killed three American soldiers.

American intelligence agencies have long concluded that Iran was close to being able to make a nuclear weapon but had not decided whether to do so. If Iran decided to make a weapon, it would be less than a year away from being able to field one. A crude, more basic nuclear bomb could possibly be constructed more quickly.

President Trump has repeatedly said he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. On Tuesday, he called for Iran’s unconditional surrender.

But the Israeli attacks may have changed Iran’s calculus. U.S. officials skeptical of Israel’s campaign said on Tuesday that it has probably convinced Tehran that the only way to prevent future attacks would be to develop a full nuclear deterrent.

Some of those officials said that if Iran is likely to pursue a nuclear weapon no matter what, pressure could increase on the Trump administration to strike.

But critics of aggressive, militaristic foreign policy said it was not too late for the United States to turn back.

“It is never too late to start a war,” said Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, a think tank that advocates a restrained foreign policy.

Ms. Kelanic acknowledged that Israel’s strike had given Iran an incentive to potentially develop a nuclear weapon. But she added that the incentive would “multiply dramatically if the United States joins the war.”

“Once you get involved, man, its really hard to step back,” she said. “You are just going to go all in.”

Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is a pudding brain take on Ukraine and what happened and you should sit some of these convos out. 

Let's hear your galaxy brain take.

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

He doesn't know how. His entire worldview is "what's bad for Israel is all that matters." Maybe mix in a dash of "What's bad for palestine is fine as long as it's also bad for Democrats."

The Obama deal was bad for Israel?

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

I’m much more agnostic on regime change, as much as the mullahs would deserve it karmically for what they’ve done to that country. I tend to think that what comes after would be better than the status quo, but that’s at best a 60/40 proposition.  We shouldn’t be involved either way.

This is the kind of take, devoid of any and all historical context or understanding, that makes me chuckle to myself and wonder how we are going to move forward as a species. We're literally where we are right now because of our destabilizing actions towards Iran going back to the 1950s. Yeah, the mullahs fucking suck and they deserve to be launched into the sun, but it's very unlikely they would be in power today, while we're now on the verge of another war that will cost us trillions, were it not for the disastrous results of our past actions.

Shrugging that responsibility off as if it's nothing seems extremely irresponsible to me.

e: grammar am hard

Edited by Brian Fantana
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Let's hear your galaxy brain take.

The Obama deal was bad for Israel?

I don't know. You'd have to dig up all of your posts from 2008-2106 praising the nuclear deal for Iran. I'm only familiar with Chainsaw The Poster from about 2022 onward, where your opinions are certain topics are pretty transparent, at least the posts you make that stand out to me. But I do know it's pretty easy to point to something in retrospect and scream "HEY I LIKED THAT ONE THING AT THE TIME THAT WENT AWAY!" Just like it's pretty easy for me to look back at all the pussy I turned down in my 20's because it wasn't quite hot enough for my dumb fucking standards at the time. 45 year old me, it turns out, thinks most of those girls were plenty fucking attractive. 

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

This is the kind of take, devoid of any and all historical context or understanding, that makes me chuckle to myself and wonder how we are going to move forward as a species. We're literally where we are right now because of our destabilizing actions towards Iran going back to the 1950s. Yeah, the mullahs fucking suck and they deserve to be launched into the sun, but it's very unlikely they would be in power today, while we're now on the verge of another war that will cost us trillions, were it not for the disastrous results of our past actions.

Shrugging that responsibility off as if it's nothing seems extremely irresponsible to me.

e: grammar am hard

Don't worry. We're not. And if we do it will be so many generations after we're fucking dust it won't matter. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Just like it's pretty easy for me to look back at all the pussy I turned down in my 20's because it wasn't quite hot enough for my dumb fucking standards at the time. 45 year old me, it turns out, thinks most of those girls were plenty fucking attractive. 

Man, my record on this board is pretty clear as to owning the stupidity of some things I did/believed in the past (e.g., I thought "trickle down" economics made some sense, etc.).

But I think my lucky stars that the quoted was NOT one of my youthful mistakes.  I appreciated pretty much ALL of it....can only think of a couple of hard rejects....goddammit, now that I think about it, I regret the hell out of both of those hard rejections.  Idiot.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

Seen lots of data points like this on the abstract question of Iran getting nukes:

So the “why should we care if Iran gets a bomb” crowd may have a large online voice but are definitely in the minority.
 

Question then becomes how far we should go to produce that outcome. I’m personally very comfortable with a B-2 dropping a MOAB or two on Fordow to seal the deal, especially now that the air defenses are gone, and Iran’s proxies have been largely defanged. Pretty sure that’s going to be a politically popular position with the average American as well.  We don’t like Forever Wars but we don’t mind the isolated air strike with maximum value (see, e.g., Soleimani, Qasem, Zawahiri, Ayman-al, etc.).

I’m much more agnostic on regime change, as much as the mullahs would deserve it karmically for what they’ve done to that country. I tend to think that what comes after would be better than the status quo, but that’s at best a 60/40 proposition.  We shouldn’t be involved either way. The value of preventing them from going nuclear means we don’t have to pay attention to them any longer and can focus limited military assets in the Indo-Pacific countering China. 

This is pretty close to my take, but I lean a lot more pro-regime change. I do fully support air attacks directly and sea support indirectly. I strenously object to US ground forces in Iran. I'd also much prefer the use non-vested non-US leaning intermediary assistance in the rebuilding. Particularly as it relates to cultural aspects. I also openly acknowledge all my wants and preferences may be wishing in one hand. Those positions form from what I admit is a weird quasi-isolationist world view. Help a man learn to fish, but don't tell him how to tie flies or what sort of fishing rig to use, if you like analogies.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

You'd have to dig up all of your posts from 2008-2106 praising the nuclear deal for Iran

To be fair, you only have to go back to 2015 and 2106 is a ways off yet.

  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

We're literally where we are right now because of our destabilizing actions towards Iran going back to the 1950s.

We got 26 years of stability from Iran with the Shah. In foreign policy, that’s about as good a result as you can hope for.  No action we take in another country is going to produce a permanent set of conditions favorable to our interests. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, my record on this board is pretty clear as to owning the stupidity of some things I did/believed in the past (e.g., I thought "trickle down" economics made some sense, etc.).

But I think my lucky stars that the quoted was NOT one of my youthful mistakes.  I appreciated pretty much ALL of it....can only think of a couple of hard rejects....goddammit, now that I think about it, I regret the hell out of both of those hard rejections.  Idiot.

I celebrate my entire catalog. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Just like it's pretty easy for me to look back at all the pussy I turned down in my 20's because it wasn't quite hot enough for my dumb fucking standards at the time. 45 year old me, it turns out, thinks most of those girls were plenty fucking attractive. 

Don't worry. We're not. And if we do it will be so many generations after we're fucking dust it won't matter. 

It has paid long term dividends to be "open minded" regarding my sexual partner preference throughout my "career"

I for one support our new cockroach overlords! Viva la Blattodea!

Posted

The chickens always come home to roost. Our intervention in Central America from pre-2000 is still the driving force behind one of the top domestic issues of the 2020s.

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This is pretty close to my take, but I lean a lot more pro-regime change. I do fully support air attacks directly and sea support indirectly. I strenously object to US ground forces in Iran. I'd also much prefer the use non-vested non-US leaning intermediary assistance in the rebuilding. Particularly as it relates to cultural aspects. I also openly acknowledge all my wants and preferences may be wishing in one hand. Those positions form from what I admit is a weird quasi-isolationist world view. Help a man learn to fish, but don't tell him how to tie flies or what sort of fishing rig to use, if you like analogies.

If the current regime in Iran collapses, the one thing I can guarantee is that our current Regime and those connected to it will be single-minded in their attempted profiteering, angling for power/control/wealth extraction, etc.

In short, if you think it was bad when we had NATIONAL interests in getting our grubby paws on a country's riches, wait till you see completely amoral and criminal oligarchs with full control of our military, laws, power, and diplomacy doing the same.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 3
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If the current regime in Iran collapses, the one thing I can guarantee is that our current Regime and those connected to it will be single-minded in their attempted profiteering, angling for power/control/wealth extraction, etc.

In short, if you think it was bad when we had NATIONAL interests in getting our grubby paws on a country's riches, wait till you see completely amoral and criminal oligarchs doing the same.

No one will claim you're inconsistent on your takes and concerns about the current US administration.

Edited by BurntEyes
Accuracy
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean.....you've seen the candidate lined up to replace Ken Paxton at AG, right?

In this timeline, a default conclusion of "it only gets worse" is not irrational at all.

I Guess If You Say So GIF

Posted
10 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

We got 26 years of stability from Iran with the Shah. In foreign policy, that’s about as good a result as you can hope for.  No action we take in another country is going to produce a permanent set of conditions favorable to our interests. 

The shah's reign was many things but stable is certainly not one of them.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, my record on this board is pretty clear as to owning the stupidity of some things I did/believed in the past (e.g., I thought eating that Allsup's burrito was a good idea).

 

FIFY

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I was right then, I'm right now.

Allsups-Burrito.jpg

25c8d1e3387b340491abfc15493301cb

Right stupid.

 

ETA But I'll agree that looks mighty tasty.

Edited by DDD Dad
Posted
4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I know this hilarious reaction gif was directed at me.  I don’t understand your notion that October 7th doesn’t play a role in Israel’s post 10/7 actions. As if everything happens in a vacuum. You cannot make your statement make sense. 

The fuck you got against Taco Villa?

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Let's hear your galaxy brain take.

The Obama deal was bad for Israel?

I don’t feel like recreating my corpus on the Ukraine thread going back years for someone thick enough to post this shit in 2025. All over this board there are actual experts on some things if you care to pause and read carefully.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t feel like recreating my corpus on the Ukraine thread going back years for someone thick enough to post this shit in 2025. All over this board there are actual experts on some things if you care to pause and read carefully.

Mhm. You can't even give a TLDR?

I recall many posters in that thread citing Peter Zeihan with approval.

Do you consider him also to be a puddle brain?

Posted
59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I was right then, I'm right now.

Allsups-Burrito.jpg

 

Oh fuck that.  I've not had the best experiences there, and this gal I was banging on the side, maybe 20-25 years ago, she got the worst diarrhea ever in her life from an Allsups burrito (she ate 2 or 3 burritos, and I think some potatoes, but it sounded like all it took was one burrito). Just seeing that photo you posted makes me cringe.  Think it was the Stratford Allups, but tried to block out the story, so thanks for reminding me.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

Man.  I'm so glad we elected the "no more wars" president.  Who has, in the past day or so.....

- told a country to evacuate its capital city

- openly said that he's refraining from killing its head of state....for now

- demanded an entire nation's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"....and

- admitted that the United States is already engaged in combat operations against that state.

 

Man, that's DEFINITELY how you do "no more wars."  Bravo.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
Just now, Wally Fairway said:

Looks like the US isn't the country with a Huff & Puff leader; as I am very skeptical of pre announced  shock and awe 

Well, in fairness, I actually suspect he may be spot on, just not in the way he thinks/hopes.

If the correct pieces are in place and they ALL appear to be moving in that direction, a very quick end to escalating tensions may be the best tactical move. At least, that's what my under informed mind believes.

Happy to learn why longer term engagement is a better option if I'm off in my assumptions.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
32 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man.  I'm so glad we elected the "no more wars" president.  Who has, in the past day or so.....

- told a country to evacuate its capital city

- openly said that he's refraining from killing its head of state....for now

- demanded an entire nation's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!"....and

- admitted that the United States is already engaged in combat operations against that state.

 

Man, that's DEFINITELY how you do "no more wars."  Bravo.

Was that wrong?  Should he not have done that?

Posted
6 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Well, in fairness, I actually suspect he may be spot on, just not in the way he thinks/hopes.

If the correct pieces are in place and they ALL appear to be moving in that direction, a very quick end to escalating tensions may be the best tactical move. At least, that's what my under informed mind believes.

Happy to learn why longer term engagement is a better option if I'm off in my assumptions.

The only thing off is anyone who thinks the US has any input into the asskicking that Bibi is dishing  out, though I suspect he under estimated the retaliation impact on Israel.

Posted (edited)
Quote

- President Trump's National Security Council meeting concerning Iran has officially concluded.

- U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that Iran is actively preparing missile systems and repositioning military assets in anticipation of possible U.S. offensive operations. Potential Iranian responses include mining the Strait of Hormuz, employing proxy forces to target U.S. personnel in Iraq, and launching missile strikes against U.S. military installations throughout the region.

- Virtually all naval vessels have departed Salman Port in Bahrain, a key multinational maritime base. Departing units included a U.S. Navy Littoral Combat Ship, multiple minesweepers, and other coalition warships.

- Aerial refueling tankers previously repositioned to Europe have facilitated the forward deployment of USAF F-35s, F-16s, and F-22s into the CENTCOM area of responsibility.

- President Trump has issued a formal call for the unconditional surrender of the Iranian regime. Further developments are expected and will be closely monitored.

 

Edited by Gravy Train
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

The only thing off is anyone who thinks the US has any input into the asskicking that Bibi is dishing  out, though I suspect he under estimated the retaliation impact on Israel.

Agreed other than the widely reported and confirmed managerial check box call Bibi made prior to launching the attacks this has been all Israel's plan from the get go.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

That, in particular, is really stupid.

You almost always need to leave your opponent a way out.  "Unconditional surrender" is an outcome on the table in something like a total, declared war.  Demanding it of a regime that still has some fighting capability?  So, let's see.....I'm current Iranian leadership.  My choices are 1) "unconditional surrender," after which I will be fucking executed, or 2) unleash as much hell as possible, hoping to be thorny and costly enough to force some negotiated peace that allows me to survive and maybe even stay in power.  The odds aren't great for #2....but it still beats the FUCK outta option #1.

A demand of complete and total cessation of all nuclear development and activities, including destruction of all facilities and a handover of all enriched uranium to a third party?  Extreme, but a viable path.  But that's not what we get.  Because none of what is being demanded is actually strategic.  Every bit of it is utterly impulsive, and loaded with words he thinks sound powerful and cool.

It's as if you never read The Art of the Deal

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Posted
3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

It's as if you never read The Art of the Deal

I've also never shoved a glass rod into my own penis and then shattered it; I presume the experiences are similar.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 2
  • Drool 1
Posted (edited)

How hard would it be for a regime element to strap some of that low grade nuclear fuel to one of their existing missile systems for a little dirty warhead attack. Shot that shit at Israel and let the iron dome do the dispersing. Or just take a slam dunk shot at contaminating the Strait of Hormuz?

Edited by Anastasis
Posted
1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

How hard would it be for a regime element to strap some of that low grade nuclear fuel to one of their existing missile systems for a little dirty warhead attack. Shot that shit at Israel and let the iron dome do the dispersing. Or go full apocalyptic and just take a slam dunk shot at contaminating the Strait of Hormuz?

I think they still are waiting to see whether saner heads will prevail, so I don't think they want to do anything that drastic yet.

They should be focused on defense, without escalation, and take the next chance to resume the peace talks that Bibi's illegal attack derailed.

Posted

I suspect that it wouldn't be difficult at all.  And when you back someone into a corner with no escape, you push them hard towards taking an action just like that.

It's just shit strategy, but why would we expect anything else here?

  • Hook 'Em 4

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...