America's inevitable war with Iran

[SugarDaddy1]

Revolutionary Guards commander vows to 'destroy' any American warships that threaten Iran

 

[dp4shelly]

Little yappy dogs that bite car tires

I have always wondered why little yappy dogs bite at car tires. Somehow I don't think they can imagine being run over. With Trump driving I think they are going to regret their yapping.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I have always wondered why little yappy dogs bite at car tires. Somehow I don't think they can imagine being run over. With Trump driving I think they are going to regret their yapping.

Probably only slightly more so than we will with morons that think this is a good idea.

 

[Adre]

Expect Trump to distract us with a handy little war.

Also...expect him to lose even bigger in November if he pulls that shit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

One can hope, if he does start a ware I think we should just buckle up for the inevitable Pence presidency.

 

[bellisarius]

Expect Trump to distract us with a handy little war.

Also...expect him to lose even bigger in November if he pulls that shit.

Geo-politics continue with or without the Wuhan Flu Sparky.

 

[hogjack]

Not going to happen unless Xi Joe Biden gets a shot.

President Obama was at war for all eight years and all that did was make him go bald, kill a few thousand kids, and (intentionally) flood the world with refugees.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Trump has been picking a fight with Iran since the day he took office.

That is not a description of "inevitability" that is the description of a president that is a war monger.

 

[hogjack]

Trump has been picking a fight with Iran since the day he took office.

That is not a description of "inevitability" that is the description of a president that is a war monger.

Actually, the "war" footprint has decreased significantly under President Trump.

Bloviation yes. Actual action, no.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Actually, the "war" footprint has decreased significantly under President Trump.

Bloviation yes. Actual action, no.

I presume you are getting this information from Trump's twitter account?

 

[hogjack]

I presume you are getting this information from Trump's twitter account?

There are about 50 twitter accounts that deserve STFU status.

That Trump account is on the list.

Other STFU candidates include Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham, Michael Moore, and strokebaster11in.

 

[LLCox]

It can only be a war if Iran got help from russia or china... or the US invades.

 

[hogjack]

It can only be a war if Iran got help from russia or china... or the US invades.

Yes. A "Proxie War". Those are common. Ask citizens of Syria, Korea, Yemen...

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Thanks for the twitter review. In other news:


Trump Didn’t Shrink U.S. Military Commitments Abroad—He Expanded Them
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/arti...-military-commitments-abroad-he-expanded-them



Trump says he's bringing US troops home from 'endless wars,' but he's actually building up forces in the Middle East
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...wars-increasing-us-forces-middle-east-2019-10

Reducing troop in one place by 7,000 and increasing by 14,000 in another is not a reduced footprint.

If we were, why did military spending increase every year and get a huge boost?

U.S. military spending set to increase for fifth consecutive year, nearing levels during height of Iraq war
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...e-year-nearing-levels-during-height-iraq-war/

2017 $818.9
2018 $890.8
2019 $904.3
2020 $935.8


So I for one do not believe that the facts support your assertion that "Actually, the "war" footprint has decreased significantly under President Trump."

New in 2020: Army combat casualties trend upwards into 2020
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...my-combat-casualties-trend-upwards-into-2020/

 

[HisArpy]

Thanks for the twitter review. In other news:


Trump Didn’t Shrink U.S. Military Commitments Abroad—He Expanded Them
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/arti...-military-commitments-abroad-he-expanded-them



Trump says he's bringing US troops home from 'endless wars,' but he's actually building up forces in the Middle East
https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...wars-increasing-us-forces-middle-east-2019-10

Reducing troop in one place by 7,000 and increasing by 14,000 in another is not a reduced footprint.

If we were, why did military spending increase every year and get a huge boost?

U.S. military spending set to increase for fifth consecutive year, nearing levels during height of Iraq war
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-p...e-year-nearing-levels-during-height-iraq-war/

2017 $818.9
2018 $890.8
2019 $904.3
2020 $935.8


So I for one do not believe that the facts support your assertion that "Actually, the "war" footprint has decreased significantly under President Trump."

New in 2020: Army combat casualties trend upwards into 2020
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your...my-combat-casualties-trend-upwards-into-2020/

All of those headlines are disingenuous.

• Moving men and equipment to a ready position in case of conflict isn't "expanding". It's reallocating resources.
• "Building up forces" is ensuring a quick response to a conflict rather than being engaged in one.
• "Spending increases" are to rebuild the arsenal that Obama reduced during his administration.

I haven't heard about "higher combat casualties" so can't comment on that single point. However, if this headline is the same overhyped sensationalism like the others, it's fake news just like they are.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Reallocating and ADDING forces is an increased footprint.
Building up forces is inviting a conflict.

 

[Rightguide]

Reallocating and ADDING forces is an increased footprint.
Building up forces is inviting a conflict.

So your position is to haul ass if a new security threat emerges? Preparing for and consolidating forces already deployed to defend against acts of aggression isn't "inviting" a conflict. It may very well be the measure that prevents a conflict, or decides the issue in our favor. Which is the job of the CinC.

 

[HisArpy]

Reallocating and ADDING forces is an increased footprint.
Building up forces is inviting a conflict.

Is it?

With what adversary? Specifically.

Does this "theory" also apply to other nations, or only the US?

 

[icanhelp1]

Is it?

With what adversary? Specifically.

Does this "theory" also apply to other nations, or only the US?

Yah!! Peace through capitulation, that's the ticket!

 

[HisArpy]

Yah!! Peace through capitulation, that's the ticket!

Some people are happy with their enslavement and being property.

Then there are those of us who are the owners.

 

[icanhelp1]

Some people are happy with their enslavement and being property.

Then there are those of us who are the owners.

Some lit posters don't seem to understand that forward deployed troops are a more cost effective solution especially if the host countries pick up the tab and soldiers are more involved with training and not combat ops. Forward deployed troops keeps the peace ( deterrence ) and I know you know that, others don't.

 

[Lancecastor19]

After 41 Years of threatening to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran", I don't think anyone takes the USA seriously.

 

[icanhelp1]

After 41 Years of threatening to "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran", I don't think anyone takes the USA seriously.

Well punk! do ya feel lucky?

 

[Conager]

There are about 50 twitter accounts that deserve STFU status.

That Trump account is on the list.

Other STFU candidates include Hillary Clinton, Lindsay Graham, Michael Moore, and strokebaster11in.

You shouldn't be giving out BoreNextDoor's personal twitter account.

 

[Sean Renaud]

So your position is to haul ass if a new security threat emerges? Preparing for and consolidating forces already deployed to defend against acts of aggression isn't "inviting" a conflict. It may very well be the measure that prevents a conflict, or decides the issue in our favor. Which is the job of the CinC.

There hasn't been a true security threat in decades. The USSR fell a while back. Yes preparing and cosolidating forces already deployed is inviting a conflict. You could of course pull the troops back and start decreasing said presence.

Is it?

With what adversary? Specifically.

Does this "theory" also apply to other nations, or only the US?

Whatever adversary is closest geographically though in the case of proxy wars with whomever you're making a show of force to.

It applies to all nations but I only reside in one.