2 hours ago, davb said:

Yes. Let's just get it over with. Iran regularly kills people, and even tried to kill President Trump. They make the world worse. Time to go.

Ok you first old man cheering on young men to their deaths and mangled bodies. Onwards and upwards USA USA.

2 hours ago, KhunLA said:

No, that would be silly waste of resources, as any ground fight wouldn't accomplish anything. Better to carpet bomb the whole country if wanting to make a real change

OK, just take out Khang Island will be enough. No oil exports, no govt funding, no paid military ... revolution time

Then maybe the world will wake up, and stop depending on oil 🙄

The world will still be dependent on oil for another 150 years if buffoons like Putin and Trump keep playing their games. Even without them, we would likely remain dependent on oil for at least another 70 to 100 years.

It takes a hell of a lot of oil, energy, and resources to build the systems needed for real independence.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Really, that's what you get from my post. Jesting about whole country, obviously, maybe not to some. Just take the oil pier, and they'll have their own revolution.

missed the ROFL guy

Slaughter as jest, LA? Pitiful...

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Wouldn't take much to simply take out the oil pier. Only bargaining chip to force Iran to let ships pass. Tik tok, that's decision is going to be made real quick.

Iran need to let all tankers, ships pass, or they won't have any passing themselves. Game over for them, USA has plenty of oil.

Er- 50% of US oil comes from Canada.

3 hours ago, connda said:

Do You Support Sending US Ground Troops To Invade Iran?

Yes, lambs to the slaughter.

22 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Yes, lambs to the slaughter.

They have not got the bottle to go up against the Iranians on there home soil.

28 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Er- 50% of US oil comes from Canada.

and ... Only because it's cheap & convenient.

Reality is, USA really doesn't need to import oil. If no import available, just minor adjustment, and the USA would be fine. From Google AI ...

Along with plenty of reserves & rights to, they haven't even tapped yet. USA is one of the few countries, that could energize & feed itself, if sh!t ever hit the fan. After a minor adjustment period.

USA wastes so much of both, that conserving, not wasting as they do now, and all would be fine.

1 hour ago, connda said:

Although some of these pro-war members fathers may have been in WWII, I'd bet that the vast majority of them never served in the military themselves, nor are any of their own children serving in the military now, or will be in harm's way when the situation explodes into a world war. Yet they'll be the first to call for things like "Carpet Bombing" Iran or even dropping nukes on them. Hypocrites one and all.

I think the most people who are calling for carpet bombing just don't get, is that you're talking about hundreds of thousands of women and children losing their lives, so it's actually a call for genocide, which is truly pathological in nature.

It's a very nasty and likely racist thing to say, and it's putting Persians in the same category as insects or vermin, and though I may apply that to their government I certainly don't apply that to the civilian population. Taking the lives of innocents when it can be avoided, is pure evil.

Not enough options. A large scale invasion, without planning for occupation, would need 800,000 men. If occupation is required, add another half million on top of that, so 1.3 million men needed.

The US has 1.3 million contractors and 700,000 National Guard/former contractors to call upon. The US government says it does not personally need the Straits of Hormuz to be reopened. I cannot fathom a scenario where the US homeland is entirely denuded of defence to effect regime change in Iran.

The contribution from Gulf States will be negligable.

While there are at least 150,000 Iranians living in Israel of fighting age, I doubt any of them will show up. To date, the IDF have not provided a single foot soldier to support the US, instead preferring to use the cover of US air cover to expend the munitions that the US taxpayer pays for, at minimal risk to itself.

Europe is pre-occupied with Russia, plus America warns us that China wants to invade Greenland any day now.

A build up of forces will take at least 6 months, and will likely need to be based in Saudi Arabia.

Option 1 is entirely unrealistic because there are no stated aims. And so I cannot vote for that.

Option 2 is dishonest; it creates an artificial schism in the readership. Perhaps that is the intent; to create argument and discord. There could be lots of diametrically opposite reasons not to support a full scale invasion. Cannot vote for that.

Option 3 is laughable. The USMC are not "special forces". The other mythical special forces; how can anyone vote on that without knowing the objective. Again, cannot vote for that.

If the US is supplying info to the uk on Missile or drone facilities in Iran, it should be passed onto military chiefs in the UK. Israel has informed European city's Iranian missiles can target Europe. Its a fair Bet the SAS will be on stand to be sent to destroy them if there given the info. The missiles that were fired ar Diego Garcia will be identified from there launch sites.

4 hours ago, Bannoi said:

If Trump is thinking of sending troops to secure the strait in order to allow the tankers to start moving he's deluding himself.

Apart from the US troops that will end up in bodybags it won't work even if they somehow managed to stop all attacks on the ships.

At the moment the only ships moving through the strait are the ones the Iranians are allowing they are in control.

If that proves to be increasingly difficult for them they would simply target and destroy all the oil and gas infrastructure so there wouldn't be any oil for the tankers anyway so whether the strait was open or closed would be immaterial.

If that happens it could take years before oil started flowing at the same rate it was before Trump started all this if at all.

Agree with the premis. But I don't think Iran has the ability to take out all the oil distribution and storage tanks in all the countries there. It gets a lucky hit every once in a while - but to take out all of the region's storage and distribution facilities (Saudi, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, etc.) would take a long time and a lot of lucky hits. In any case, Iran might have trumped Trump's threat to destroy all Iranian power infrastructure if it doesn't comply within 48 hours. The counter threat by Iran to destroy the desalination operations in the Gulf countries is a much more serious threat - and something that Iran can possibly do. This war is escalating. That's clear.

35 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

A large scale invasion, without planning for occupation, would need 800,000 men. If occupation is required, add another half million on top of that, so 1.3 million men needed.

It looks like they are planning to take over Kharg Island. Small enough to do, but talk about walking into the line of fire once they are insitu..

39 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Not enough options. A large scale invasion, without planning for occupation, would need 800,000 men. If occupation is required, add another half million on top of that, so 1.3 million men needed.

The US has 1.3 million contractors and 700,000 National Guard/former contractors to call upon. The US government says it does not personally need the Straits of Hormuz to be reopened. I cannot fathom a scenario where the US homeland is entirely denuded of defence to effect regime change in Iran.

The contribution from Gulf States will be negligable.

While there are at least 150,000 Iranians living in Israel of fighting age, I doubt any of them will show up. To date, the IDF have not provided a single foot soldier to support the US, instead preferring to use the cover of US air cover to expend the munitions that the US taxpayer pays for, at minimal risk to itself.

Europe is pre-occupied with Russia, plus America warns us that China wants to invade Greenland any day now.

A build up of forces will take at least 6 months, and will likely need to be based in Saudi Arabia.

Option 1 is entirely unrealistic because there are no stated aims. And so I cannot vote for that.

Option 2 is dishonest; it creates an artificial schism in the readership. Perhaps that is the intent; to create argument and discord. There could be lots of diametrically opposite reasons not to support a full scale invasion. Cannot vote for that.

Option 3 is laughable. The USMC are not "special forces". The other mythical special forces; how can anyone vote on that without knowing the objective. Again, cannot vote for that.

It's a shame that me and Roadsternut have fallen out as he writes very intelligent and intellectually persuasive posts which I do enjoy.

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Because they have no skin in the game the average forum member who is supporting a ground invasion would need to be supplied with hundreds of diapers, if they were to participate themselves. Trump and his ridiculous cabinet of clowns are included in that assessment.

Better yet why doesn't Trump show us how committed he is and send his four kids to fight on the ground? That would be a bit of a demonstration of how serious he is. That would be real skin in the game, wouldn't it?

Don't tell me...one is too tall to serve and the other too short......so unlucky.

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

It takes a hell of a lot of oil, energy, and resources to build the systems needed for real independence.

Yes. Most people don't get that. Should we accelerate toward renewables? Of course. But it will take a few generations to replace oil and gas. Most don't understand how much everything that makes the world work revolves around petrochemicals. Look at anything around you - and it starts to sink in. But most still think it's about replacing the type of energy needed for driving a car.

50 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

Not enough options. A large scale invasion, without planning for occupation, would need 800,000 men. If occupation is required, add another half million on top of that, so 1.3 million men needed.

The US has 1.3 million contractors and 700,000 National Guard/former contractors to call upon. The US government says it does not personally need the Straits of Hormuz to be reopened. I cannot fathom a scenario where the US homeland is entirely denuded of defence to effect regime change in Iran.

The contribution from Gulf States will be negligable.

While there are at least 150,000 Iranians living in Israel of fighting age, I doubt any of them will show up. To date, the IDF have not provided a single foot soldier to support the US, instead preferring to use the cover of US air cover to expend the munitions that the US taxpayer pays for, at minimal risk to itself.

Europe is pre-occupied with Russia, plus America warns us that China wants to invade Greenland any day now.

A build up of forces will take at least 6 months, and will likely need to be based in Saudi Arabia.

Option 1 is entirely unrealistic because there are no stated aims. And so I cannot vote for that.

Option 2 is dishonest; it creates an artificial schism in the readership. Perhaps that is the intent; to create argument and discord. There could be lots of diametrically opposite reasons not to support a full scale invasion. Cannot vote for that.

Option 3 is laughable. The USMC are not "special forces". The other mythical special forces; how can anyone vote on that without knowing the objective. Again, cannot vote for that.

Make your own poll Einstein.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

and ... Only because it's cheap & convenient.

Reality is, USA really doesn't need to import oil. If no import available, just minor adjustment, and the USA would be fine. From Google AI ...

Along with plenty of reserves & rights to, they haven't even tapped yet. USA is one of the few countries, that could energize & feed itself, if sh!t ever hit the fan. After a minor adjustment period.

USA wastes so much of both, that conserving, not wasting as they do now, and all would be fine.

Good luck with that, Trump probably can't even spell the word conservationist.

I don't disagree America can feed and power itself. Whether it will ever get decent infrastructure, and restore its manufacturing base, is a different kettle of fish.

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Er- 50% of US oil comes from Canada.

Usa is net exporter, who import from mainly Canada and Mexico. Usa is not much depended on oil from Saudi anymore.

4 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Usa is net exporter, who import from mainly Canada and Mexico. Usa is not much depended on oil from Saudi anymore.

The Shale Revolution and horizontal fracking helped the US achieve energy independence.

9 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

It looks like they are planning to take over Kharg Island. Small enough to do, but talk about walking into the line of fire once they are insitu..

Its an island covered in complex industrial pipework, likely booby trapped, a large plantation providing cover, and a substantive town with 10,000 civilians. The island is also covered in caves, manmade and natural, and over the last 45 years a substantial tunnel network interconnecting bunkers has been constructed. Not that dissimilar to the Azovstal Iron and Steel Work in Mariual, well a well motivated defence held a superior Russian force at bay for months, eventually falling but not before really destruction of the plant.

How many IRGC do you suppose there are on Kharg? Given the Americans announced weeks ago when the Marines would arrive, how quickly could the island be reinforced from the mainland?

Coincidently the invasion of Grenada was called Operation Urgent Fury. For that invasion, the US faced about 700 Cuba paramilitaries, and about 2 old armoured cars. The invasion force put together was about 7000-8000 Marines. So a 10-1 advantage, and the Cubans weren't suicidal.

Taking Kharg Island is complete fantasy. The Ospreys don't have the range to fly from the Gulf of Oman. The Tripoli will need to get closer, and run the Gauntlet of the Straits. Or the Ospreys will have to decamp to an onshore rally locaton, completely losing suprise, which is the whole <deleted> point of the Ospreys.

Taking the island is not like invading Iraq. There is no advantage through manoeuvre warfare. There is only one beach where the Landing craft can put ashore. The Iranians know that, because they have very similar equipment in this regard as the Marines. There is only one spot for the Ospreys to put down, and that's the airport, with its now heavily cratered runway. So besides the actual 2000 fighting marines you have, you also need the SeeBees in working double time to get that airport fixed, to reinforce the Marines who by now are discovering every corner, every pipe valve, is an IED hellhole.

And this will be a case, perhaps the first, of an island being invaded with zero naval support, because the Americans don't have any meaningful navy in the Gulf. 2 of the LCSs have <deleted> off to Singapore, the remaining two are supposed to be out hunting mines. These LCSs have air defence and a singke 57mm cannon, along with some 50 cals. Temu Operation Overlord.

There is no extraction plan for the Marines, there is no reinforcement; the marines going in have zero reserve, The reserve is over in the States. If they are stuck on the beaches, help ain't coming. There is a high chance it will fail. This will be occupying the Brass's thinking. This was never planned for.

Some realism

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/kharg-island-iran/

Let’s say U.S. troops clear the island and seize the oil facilities. Mission accomplished, right? Except that now, they would be trapped in a five-mile kill zone where evacuation would look like the worst scenes of "Black Hawk Down" or "Dunkirk."

Iran’s leaders are fighting for the survival of the Islamic Republic, not to protect oil infrastructure. The opportunity to inflict a mass casualty event that could sap limited U.S. public support for the war, or to hold entire battalions as de facto hostages, may well appear more valuable to Tehran than oil revenue.

24 minutes ago, connda said:

Make your own poll Einstein.

Have no inclination, Bozo. Have freedom of expression to state I think your poll is <deleted>e and needs adjustment. If you can't take mild criticism, that's not my problem.

13 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The Shale Revolution and horizontal fracking helped the US achieve energy independence.

Horrible methods, but thats what they needed obviously

9 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

There is no extraction plan for the Marines, there is no reinforcement; the marines going in have zero reserve, The reserve is over in the States. If they are stuck on the beaches, help ain't coming. There is a high chance it will fail. This will be occupying the Brass's thinking. This was never planned for.

Ok interesting analysis of Kharg. But do you think Kharg is indeed the plan for invasion or is there a different plan for those Marines?

They are only 3 weeks into the campaign and there are hundreds of targets to neutralize pending. There is no need for a large number of ground troops at this time, nor is it recommended as long as there are large number of shiite IRGC zealots in circulation.

To date, targets have been restricted to military and military industrial. A bit of infrastructure destruction to drive home the point that conflict can be inconvenient is next. A few days of bunker busting munitions will take care of the underground bases and send a message to the martyrs in waiting that their wish can be granted much sooner than they wanted.

People have unrealistic expectations.Iran is a fortified military state that was preparing for war over the past 40 years. It will take time to fully neutralize people who welcome death.

2 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

People have unrealistic expectations.Iran is a fortified military state that was preparing for war over the past 40 years.

That's the only sentence in your post I agree with. An air campaign will not destroy this regime - bunker busters or no bunker busters. This was a stupid idea to attack Iran, and done - as always - to fight Israel's threats, not America's.

5 hours ago, Bannoi said:

If Trump is thinking of sending troops to secure the strait in order to allow the tankers to start moving he's deluding himself.

Apart from the US troops that will end up in bodybags it won't work even if they somehow managed to stop all attacks on the ships.

At the moment the only ships moving through the strait are the ones the Iranians are allowing they are in control.

If that proves to be increasingly difficult for them they would simply target and destroy all the oil and gas infrastructure so there wouldn't be any oil for the tankers anyway so whether the strait was open or closed would be immaterial.

If that happens it could take years before oil started flowing at the same rate it was before Trump started all this if at all.

It would be a lot easier for them to simply sink enough tankers and large vessels in the Strait to clog it up for years.

3 minutes ago, ronnie50 said:

That's the only sentence in your post I agree with. An air campaign will not destroy this regime - bunker busters or no bunker busters. This was a stupid idea to attack Iran, and done - as always - to fight Israel's threats, not America's.

So the many attacks on the USA, the attempts to overthrow the strategic Gulf state governments, the support and financing of international terrorism, should all be ignored because it isn't Iran's fault?

Iran helped create millions of refugees who poured into the west. It was Iran the kept Assad's regime in place, that won't let Iraq heal, that keeps the Yemen civil war going and that won't let the Lebanese get rid of Hezbollah.

I confidently express that I represent the voice of all liberals: we stand united with Iran.

1 minute ago, Patong2021 said:

So the many attacks on the USA, the attempts to overthrow the strategic Gulf state governments, the support and financing of international terrorism, should all be ignored because it isn't Iran's fault?

Iran helped create millions of refugees who poured into the west. It was Iran the kept Assad's regime in place, that won't let Iraq heal, that keeps the Yemen civil war going and that won't let the Lebanese get rid of Hezbollah.

No. All of this happened because America and the UK overthrew the progressive democratic Iranian presidency and government of Mossadegh in 1953. It was as liberal as the West at that time. They ousted him simply because he wanted to nationalize 40% of the country's oil while continuing to sell the rest on the open market with BP (or whomever). Then the coupsters (USA) installed the evil Shah. Learn your history.

I propose everyone tells Trump he's won, he's the greatest wartime president the world has ever seen we've even minted a never seen before extra large gold medal just for him and from now on Iran will forever be called Trumpland because the whole world is so grateful to him.

And could he please call the carriers back to the US because all the crews want to honour him with a big parade and be there to see when he is presented with his big beautiful exploding gold medal.

That's all folks job done wars finished easy peasy.