9 minutes ago, brabus said:

That’s a hell of a way to put it. Read a book, get in a vault - inform yourself.

Quibbling. We took it from a bad situation to a much worse situation in which our adversary has significantly more geopolitical influence than they did a year ago.

And now they know that we don’t have the capability or intent to do what is necessary to stop them.

Edited yesterday at 04:14 AM1 day by frog

14 hours ago, dream big said:

Words...

We just finally had an administration willing to do something about it. Words...

Thats the key here.. Trump et al just did something, not the full measure. Either they didn't know what that was or didn't have the ability/means and thought they could take short cuts, issue threats, and mean tweet to victory. They ended up making a shit sandwich.

Just in time for you to celebrate our 250th. How's that beer tasting now?

Edited yesterday at 06:46 AM1 day by disgruntledemployee
grammar

22 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

If our president wasn't obsessed with using the stock market as his favorite indicator of his administration's success, we could end the Iranian problem forever. Just a few sorties to Kharg Island and it won't matter anymore.

We keep trying to avoid a global economic catastrophe that is unavoidable, but the longer we push it off, the weaker our allies become through their own suicidal policies.

It’s funny you guys always act like just a little bit more bombing will do the trick without any source to support it whatsoever.. You talk like we tripped 100 yards from the end of a marathon, and we have to just get up and finish the job. Come on guys it’ll be so easy. We’re sooo close. Just finish the job. Cmon bro. Trust me bro.

Except you have no idea how close or far we are from the finish line. I saw zero credible intel at any point that the IRGC was about to collapse or some other moderating force was about to take over. We’re not 100 yards from the finish line.. we’ve run a 5k and we don’t even know how long the race is.

If I had to bet, the admin probably didn’t think we were close to the finish line either. That’s why they took a ceasefire and are now eating Iranian dick on the global stage. Trump already launched the war.. you think if it was as simple as a few more targets and this thing is game over he wouldn’t have done it?

Midnight hammer obliterated them but then we just needed a little more. Then epic fury obliterated them but we just needed a little more. Then the blockade of their blockade was totally gonna bring them down but we just need a little more. And shocker, all of the Israel first neocon war hawks agree! Always just a little bit more

Edited yesterday at 05:38 AM1 day by Pooter

9 hours ago, Pooter said:

It’s funny you guys always act like just a little bit more bombing will do the trick without any source to support it whatsoever.. You talk like we tripped 100 yards from the end of a marathon, and we have to just get up and finish the job. Come on guys it’ll be so easy. We’re sooo close. Just finish the job. Cmon bro. Trust me bro.

Except you have no idea how close or far we are from the finish line. I saw zero credible intel at any point that the IRGC was about to collapse or some other moderating force was about to take over. We’re not 100 yards from the finish line.. we’ve run a 5k and we don’t even know how long the race is.

If I had to bet, the admin probably didn’t think we were close to the finish line either. That’s why they took a ceasefire and are now eating Iranian dick on the global stage. Trump already launched the war.. you think if it was as simple as a few more targets and this thing is game over he wouldn’t have done it?

Midnight hammer obliterated them but then we just needed a little more. Then epic fury obliterated them but we just needed a little more. Then the blockade of their blockade was totally gonna bring them down but we just need a little more. And shocker, all of the Israel first neocon war hawks agree! Always just a little bit more

We're making two different points. I agree with you entirely that focusing only on military targets will not destroy the regime, because the regime is not motivated purely by a capacity of the wage war.

Assuming that we are not going to occupy the country and implement regime change that way, which we aren't, then the only other option is to create the conditions by which the Iranian people overthrow the current leadership. Obviously they hoped that by weakening the irgc militarily and by killing the entire leadership chain, that would give the Iranian people enough motivation to re-attempt a coup. That failed, at least for the time being.

So that leaves the only other means by which the Iranian people can be "motivated." Economic catastrophe.

Bombing Kharg Island effectively ends the economic capacity of Iran. Whether or not the irgc is overthrown at that point is irrelevant. Iran has no way to generate money outside of its production of fossil fuels. No money, no government. It's happened many times in the past and it will happen happen many more times in the future. We could do this by continuing the blockade indefinitely, but that leaves the strategy up to the whims of the politicians. Destroying something that can't be rebuilt for years is rather final.

However doing so would probably result in the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great depression, for Europe and Asia, and probably Africa too. I'm of the mind that this economic event cannot be forestalled indefinitely, but destroying Kharg Island would start it immediately in all likelihood. It would be enough to start a war between the US and China if it wasn't for the fact that China is so reliant on Iranian oil that they wouldn't be able to afford the war until they secured other sources.

Obviously the Trump administration doesn't want this, maybe because of the mid terms, maybe because they have other international ambitions. I don't know and it's possible they don't even know. Trump is mercurial at best .

Edited 21 hours ago21 hr by Lord Ratner

11 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Thats the key here.. Trump et al just did something, not the full measure. Either they didn't know what that was or didn't have the ability/means and thought they could take short cuts, issue threats, and mean tweet to victory. They ended up making a shit sandwich.

Yep, pretty much. The major, unforced error was starting the ceasefire back in April, stupidly thinking diplomacy would “totally work this time” with Iran, then combining that effort with, as you put it: short cuts, threats, mean tweets. Turns out none of those things worked worth a damn with Iran. The momentum was solid, the ass beating was large, and then we just stopped and have subsequently created the proverbial shit sandwich. As someone said earlier, tactical ass whooping without the foresight/capability to see it through to a strategic victory.

Bombing's back on the menu - https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2222408/trump-launches-new-strikes-iran

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Obviously they hoped that by weakening the irgc militarily and by killing the entire leadership chain, that would give the Iranian people enough motivation to re-attempt a coup. That failed, at least for the time being.

Has this ever worked without deep intel assets ready with a replacement, a la our forays into S. America?

10 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

However doing so would probably result in the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great depression, for Europe and Asia, and probably Africa too. I'm of the mind that this economic event cannot be forestalled indefinitely, but destroying Kharg Island would start it immediately in all likelihood. It would be enough to start a war between the US and China if it wasn't for the fact that China is so reliant on Iranian oil that they wouldn't be able to afford the war until they secured other sources.

We just need to burn the rest of the world's economies to the ground and ours will be fine. K.

2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:

Bombing's back on the menu - https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/2222408/trump-launches-new-strikes-iran

Has this ever worked without deep intel assets ready with a replacement, a la our forays into S. America?

We just need to burn the rest of the world's economies to the ground and ours will be fine. K.

Not quite. But yes, ours will be most insulated.

It would be more appropriate to say that the mismanagement of their own economies at the shrine of globalization has put most of these countries in the position that any disruption can be a catastrophe. Because of this, we can't just smash the country that has been a sworn event for decades.

Well, we can, but it'll be ugly.

16 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

We're making two different points. I agree with you entirely that focusing only on military targets will not destroy the regime, because the regime is not motivated purely by a capacity of the wage war.

Assuming that we are not going to occupy the country and implement regime change that way, which we aren't, then the only other option is to create the conditions by which the Iranian people overthrow the current leadership. Obviously they hoped that by weakening the irgc militarily and by killing the entire leadership chain, that would give the Iranian people enough motivation to re-attempt a coup. That failed, at least for the time being.

So that leaves the only other means by which the Iranian people can be "motivated." Economic catastrophe.

Bombing Kharg Island effectively ends the economic capacity of Iran. Whether or not the irgc is overthrown at that point is irrelevant. Iran has no way to generate money outside of its production of fossil fuels. No money, no government. It's happened many times in the past and it will happen happen many more times in the future. We could do this by continuing the blockade indefinitely, but that leaves the strategy up to the whims of the politicians. Destroying something that can't be rebuilt for years is rather final.

However doing so would probably result in the greatest economic catastrophe since the Great depression, for Europe and Asia, and probably Africa too. I'm of the mind that this economic event cannot be forestalled indefinitely, but destroying Kharg Island would start it immediately in all likelihood. It would be enough to start a war between the US and China if it wasn't for the fact that China is so reliant on Iranian oil that they wouldn't be able to afford the war until they secured other sources.

Obviously the Trump administration doesn't want this, maybe because of the mid terms, maybe because they have other international ambitions. I don't know and it's possible they don't even know. Trump is mercurial at best .

So I guess the obvious follow up question here is.. is Iran such an existential threat to the US that we need to bomb Kharg island, setting off a global economic crisis and potential war with China?

You just listed some pretty gnarly side effects of your silver bullet solution to this war so I’m just wondering.. is a world where Kharg island is blown up but now we have a global depression/energy crisis and China wants to go to war with us somehow better?

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

So I guess the obvious follow up question here is.. is Iran such an existential threat to the US that we need to bomb Kharg island, setting off a global economic crisis and potential war with China?

You just listed some pretty gnarly side effects of your silver bullet solution to this war so I’m just wondering.. is a world where Kharg island is blown up but now we have a global depression/energy crisis and China wants to go to war with us somehow better?

If it sets off a war immediately, probably not.

If it doesn't start an immediate war, but forces Europe into regaining control over their energy resources before the inevitable war comes (and it neutralizes the largest destabilizing force in the middle east), then probably so.