Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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 1
  • 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
21 minutes ago, Gravy Train said:

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

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.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
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 1
  • Haha 3
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
Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

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

Pretty sure that's off the table.  The head of the most powerful country in the world just told you we're already in the fight, and he demanded your "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER."  There is no middle path available.  And shit, even if there was, Bibi is all-in all on his own.

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:

Pretty sure that's off the table.  The head of the most powerful country in the world just told you we're already in the fight, and he demanded your "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER."  There is no middle path available.  And shit, even if there was, Bibi is all-in all on his own.

Yes but he says a lot of stupid shit that he doesn't necessarily follow through on. While I have no respect for anyone in his inner circle or in his cabinet, not all of them are war hawks and I think they're working overtime to convince him not to drag the Americans into another forever war.

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Yes but he says a lot of stupid shit that he doesn't necessarily follow through on. While I have no respect for anyone in his inner circle or in his cabinet, not all of them are war hawks and I think they're working overtime to convince him not to drag the Americans into another forever war.

How do you know so much?  God, you are impressive. 

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

It's laughable, at this point, that anyone thinks negotiations are even a remote possibility.

I suspect big action is over by Friday, maybe before.

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
33 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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?

I am missing the theory of victory here, either from Israel or us.  Wreck shit, mullahs run away, ???, profit? 
 

I don’t mind seeing enrichment plants and ballistic missiles get vaporized at all but beyond that it’s hard to see the goal here and so I question any U.S. involvement. Letting Israel bomb till they agreed to talk de-nuclearization is at least something. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
8 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

There isn’t a theory of victory. Bibi started this to distract from bad domestic news and he just hoped we’d join in once it started so he could keep it going indefinitely. Neither Bibi nor Trump are capable of considering tomorrow.

Your position is illogical.  Bibi clearly thinks about tomorrow if this is his plotting.  It can't be both.

Posted
1 hour 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.

Israeli expectations were 800-4000 dead Israelis.  They are very pleased to have been wrong...so far.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
59 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

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.

 

59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

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?

 

Most people fear their own death, the death of their loved ones, and/or the death of their people. A dirty bomb ensures that their life is forfeited and the lives of their loved ones and their country may end as well.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
6 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yes and no. It is where Saudi's have had some big issues, and why they hate Iran even more. I don't see them rising up for their Shia brothers and risk getting carpet stomped, which the Saudi's would do. 

Also there was a little dust up in Mecca in 1979 that gets overlooked by the West. (Shitty video, not any good ones out there I have found, but you get the point.) 

 

Thanks for the YouTube link. I was only 8 when that happened and had forgotten all about it, but it brought back some really vague memories, as my dad religiously watched the news at dinnertime. What I had no idea about was how it altered Saudi domestic affairs and empowered the Wahabbi clerics, which in turn, no doubt, radicalized a bunch of Muslims and possibly contributed to a lot of shit the world has been experiencing since then.

It’s remarkable how a single incident like that could have the power to alter the course of world events in unforeseeable ways.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, caliHORNia said:

Your position is illogical.  Bibi clearly thinks about tomorrow if this is his plotting.  It can't be both.

Bibi’s shit got hacked and was about to become a big story so he pushed the bomb Iran button they’ve always got nearby. That’s not “plotting.”

Posted
21 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

China must be licking their chops and probably kicking themselves for not getting their invasion preparations completed quicker.  

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

There isn’t a theory of victory. Bibi started this to distract from bad domestic news and he just hoped we’d join in once it started so he could keep it going indestarted so he could keep it going indefinitely. Neither Bibi nor Trump are capable of considering tomorrow.

I won't speak to your other points as there is certainly potential validity.

I am purely addressing the underlined, specifically the bold.

Forgoing the why, Bibi's plan relative to Iran has been clearly short term from the start. 2 weeks. 

Bibi is well aware that the war with Iran is destabilizing for the region and in particular the OG markets. While the rest of the OG and ME are willing to step back, it won't be for long and Bibi knows it. 

Strike while the iron is hot. There is clear reasoning why, from onset, Bibi has set the time line for this event. He knows OG money isn't letting this go on long.

Whatever happens will happen quickly. Primarily because of OG money/influence but also because the US leadership isn't known to be long term planners either. On top of of all that, the longer the play the more likely dirty nukes, outside extremist and broadly speaking threats to western countries increase. 

You said it in your last sentence, neither are capable of thinking about tomorrow. OG is... they want it done quick, Bibi has said 2 weeks, Trump will, like he does everything, move quickly because he has the attention span of gnat, and we are having a different discussion next week. 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
33 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

I just don't think ground troops are going in, but again that might just be me wish casting. 

I'm damn near certain bombers and long range missiles will be in play.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

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

You’d learn a valuable lesson from the latter, not so much from the former. 

Posted
44 minutes ago, Wally Fairway said:

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

 

 Indulging your thought  process, China would be starting WWIII. 

 

And if Russia decided to use the cover of us preventing Iran from getting nuclear fissile material to nuke Ukraine, Russia would be starting WWIII. 
 

 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Bevo said:

 

 Indulging your thought  process, China would be starting WWIII. 

 

And if Russia decided to use the cover of us preventing Iran from getting nuclear fissile material to nuke Ukraine, Russia would be starting WWIII. 
 

 

confused jim carey GIF

  • Haha 1
Posted

Thought experiment:
Let's game this out from the perspective of the ayatolla and the mullahs, assuming they want to A) continue living and B) stay in power. What should they do?

I mean, they don't have a lot of friends that could do shit to help at the moment (SYRIA - gone as an ally; HEZBOLLAH - neutered; HAMAS/RUSSIA - kinda tied up for the moment; HOUTHIS - no real "reach") and even fewer military options (fight to the last man or last ballistic, I guessin the hope of drawing Israel/the US into costly on-the-ground fighting but this would inevitably lead to losing power, which kinda goes against assumption B from above).

Almost every imaginable outcome from continuing to fight is terrible for them.

If I were them, I think I'd go ahead and renounce any domestic uranium enrichment program tout de suite as a first gambit in hopes of immediately stopping the bombs and eliminating the initial justification for the war and, therefore, increasing international pressure on the Netanyahu and Trump regimes to announce a ceasefire.

Would that be enough?

I guess it might be enough to get Trump to simmer down for a short bit and give isolationist Republicans and Democratic doves enough time to pass a resolution requiring congressional approval for US strikes with WMDs off the table. It's a long shot for a couple of CR reasons, but at this point, I can't think of any other "play" for them that meets the two requirements: staying alive and in power.

NOTE: I'm not addressing the long-term implications of this, only the short-term avoidance of more bombs and regime change, which I assume is what a smart, rational actor would want (Yeah, yeah, I know, "But Bolverk, they're not rational!" Come on, man, it's just a thought experiment that might help the Surly hivemind think shit through without us all hating each other more than we already do).

Anyone else got other takes on what they might do or flaws in the above?

 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Pretty sure that's off the table.  The head of the most powerful country in the world just told you we're already in the fight, and he demanded your "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER."  There is no middle path available.  And shit, even if there was, Bibi is all-in all on his own.

Well they all know by now that dotard is worthless and that nothing he says has any real meaning so I don’t think that part really matters. What Iran should be doing is kissing the rest of the G7’s asses right now to get a reasonable deal in place regardless of if the US agrees, most of them have been more willing to at least criticize Israel’s actions anyway. Trump will rage tweet, call it a horrible deal, demand that we withdraw from nato, blah blah blah same ol shit. Then we’ll get distracted by more ICE raids, protests, and fascist actions at home.  The mid east tiff will be off the front page. Oh and did you see that a trans girl won another swimming medal, omg!!!

Edited by 'stache
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

@bolverk

Trump isn't going to give it that much time by design, and frankly the blow back from Iran, down the road, isn't something Israel will risk either. I don't think Bibi can nor does he want to, and I know Trump would proceed out of spite of anything the G7 produced if it did happen in time, which it won't, imo. 

 

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
1 minute ago, BurntEyes said:

@bolverk

Trump isn't going to give it that much time by design, and frankly the blow back from Iran, down the road, isn't something Israel will risk either. I don't think Bibi can, and I know Trump would proceed out of spite of anything the G7 produced if it did happen in time, which it won't, imo. 

 

That all may well be true, but I'm trying to figure out or predict something unexpected that Iran might do next. If they're content to just draw it out, and lose, then that's a separate discussion, involving lots and lots of death and destruction. I just felt like there'd been enough talk about Bibi and DonDon for the moment, but I'm not going to force the topic if no one wants to try to envision other possible scenarios.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Thanks for the YouTube link. I was only 8 when that happened and had forgotten all about it, but it brought back some really vague memories, as my dad religiously watched the news at dinnertime. What I had no idea about was how it altered Saudi domestic affairs and empowered the Wahabbi clerics, which in turn, no doubt, radicalized a bunch of Muslims and possibly contributed to a lot of shit the world has been experiencing since then.

It’s remarkable how a single incident like that could have the power to alter the course of world events in unforeseeable ways.

Some other things happened in 1979. 

Posted
1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

Some other things happened in 1979. 

Well, yeah, I'm definitely old enough to remember that. It was the Sunni radicalization or conservative crackdown in Saudi part that I didn't have context for. I didn't realize that Saudi Arabia had ever been anything other than how we've known it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, bolverk said:

That all may well be true, but I'm trying to figure out or predict something unexpected that Iran might do next. If they're content to just draw it out, and lose, then that's a separate discussion, involving lots and lots of death and destruction. I just felt like there'd been enough talk about Bibi and DonDon for the moment, but I'm not going to force the topic if no one wants to try to envision other possible scenarios.

I think the current Iranian regime was already on a bit shaky ground prior to Israeli attacks. With who has been killed in thr regime and their general inability to respond it makes them look even weaker. It's not just Israel that wants them out. Given all that, absolute surrender of their big stick would further that perception by everyone, including internal Iranian interests. That's all to say, I dont think Iranian leadership CAN offer up something that will appease US leadership to any degree. Maybe something for the rest of G7.. but.. Further, I don't think they would even if things weren't so bleak. There also isnt enough time even of they could. Finally, I don't think it would stop US leadership if they could and did. 

As far as hating one another here, I try my very best to keep it to discussion without diving into the typical rhetoric of US political bullshit. I don't engage in shit talking. It's not productive and diminishes the quality of this thread. 

I think there is some really good conversation going on, and I'm mostly ignoring the rest. 

I also admit outside the news I post, my takes are guesses and opinions and back my reasoning. However, and importantly, I also own my reasoning might be incorrect and my knowledge isn't complete. Finally, that I'm always open to discussion, with logic and data, not political shit flinging, about why my takes might be or are incorrect.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I think the current Iranian regime was already on a bit shaky ground prior to Israeli attacks. With who has been killed in thr regime and their general inability to respond it makes them look even weaker. It's not just Israel that wants them out. Given all that absolute surrender of their big stick furthers that perspective by everyone. That's all to say, I dont think Iranian leadership CAN offer up something that will appease US leadership to any degree. Maybe the rest of G7.. but.. Further, I don't think they would even if things weren't so bleak. There also isnt enough time even of they could. Finally, I don't think it would stop US leadership if they could and did. 

As far as hating one another here, I try my very best to keep it to discussion without diving into the typical rhetoric of US political bullshit. I don't engage in shit talking. It's not productive and diminishes the quality of this thread. 

I think there is some really good conversation going on, and I'm mostly ignoring the rest. 

I also admit outside the news I post, my takes are guesses and opinions and back my reasoning. However, and importantly, I also own my reasoning might be incorrect and my knowledge isn't complete. Finally, that I'm always open to discussion, with logic and data, not political shit flinging, about why my takes might be or are incorrect.

I pretty much agree with all that -- it's likely too late for any other scenario other than the course we're currently on unless, for whatever reason, Trump surprises us all and decides to not go through with it.

If that's indeed the case, then we can just start discussing the duration of the war and degree of suffering this will cause over the short- and long-term, including the severity of blowback and bloody consequences.

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 1

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...