+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 425
  1. #61
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    62,816
    BG Level
    10
    FFXIV Character
    Six Souls
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Quetzalcoatl
    WoW Realm
    Malorne
    Blog Entries
    9

    President Trump ordered military strike on Iran, but reversed at last second: Sources
    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/president-...033400920.html

  2. #62
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Many of Iran's people (and, more importantly, leadership) don't like the US.

    Some of their leaders are rational actors, but it costs them dearly (politically) to cooperate with us or concede anything without getting something substantial in return.

    The most surprising thing about their recent rowdiness after we removed all pro-global incentives is that it took them so long to crop up. I would have expected the conservative factions to instigate something almost immediately to increase their political salience. Unfortunately, it probably means that what Trump gave up was even more of a loss than it initially appeared because the open-to-the-US faction was a lot stronger than anyone expected.

  3. #63
    Duplicitous Jew with Political Aspirations
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    16,312
    BG Level
    9

    Trump reportedly called off the attack after being told casualties could be as high as 150 and if true hey, props to him.

    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

  4. #64
    Ridill
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    12,451
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Satori Komeiji
    FFXIV Server
    Sargatanas
    FFXI Server
    Asura

    It also helped that Tucker Carlson has been privately advising Trump not to go to war. Tucker rightfully knows that his populism shtick won't work if the administration charges full steam ahead into war with Iran.

  5. #65
    Banned.

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,876
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Shiva
    WoW Realm
    Kil'jaeden

    League of legends is now banned in Iran. That was the final straw, I expect all out conflict tomorrow.


  6. #66
    Banned.

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,876
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Shiva
    WoW Realm
    Kil'jaeden

    https://www.reddit.com/r/leagueofleg...in_iran_today/

    Reddit related topic. Guessing it's most US register IPs, still lulzy when it effects games though

  7. #67

    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    4,077
    BG Level
    7

    We might have called off the dogs at the last second, but apparently we cyber-nuked their ADA:

    https://www.engadget.com/2019/06/22/...control-syste/

    Also rumored to have dropped malware into Russia's power grid, tit for tat and all.

  8. #68

    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    3,447
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Unicorn

    Well that's just stupid. You save that for when you will roll in with airstrikes, not just to go 'Hah! We did that!'

  9. #69
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    62,816
    BG Level
    10
    FFXIV Character
    Six Souls
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Quetzalcoatl
    WoW Realm
    Malorne
    Blog Entries
    9

    POLITICO: Trump warns Iran of ’obliteration like you’ve never seen before’.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ursuit-1376744

    Trump wants to do a North Korea-like summit with Iran and negotiate over their use of nuclear enrichment.

  10. #70
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Jeeze, think he will end up signing some kind of nuclear treaty with them that slows their nuclear capability development?

  11. #71

    My vote is on him being a chicken shit, coming out of the meeting saying it went great, then for Iran to basically do the opposite of all Trump says they will.

    So NK 2.0, really.

  12. #72
    Caesar Salad
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    28,300
    BG Level
    10

    Quote Originally Posted by Byrthnoth View Post
    Jeeze, think he will end up signing some kind of nuclear treaty with them that slows their nuclear capability development?
    Fucking eye rolling soooooo hard right now

    Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

  13. #73
    Fuck It, I'm Goin Deep Fan Club President
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    54,891
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Ifrit

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...94d_story.html

    The Trump administration targeted Iran’s supreme leader with new sanctions on Monday, using one of the few tools available to punish Iran for downing a U.S. drone after President Trump took military strikes off the table last week.


    Trump warned that his “restraint” might not last, but he appeared to muddy his own tough message with a vague threat to end U.S. protection for international shipping in the vital Strait of Hormuz, off Iran.

  14. #74
    Fuck It, I'm Goin Deep Fan Club President
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    54,891
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Ifrit

    Quote Originally Posted by Cail View Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...94d_story.html

    The Trump administration targeted Iran’s supreme leader with new sanctions on Monday, using one of the few tools available to punish Iran for downing a U.S. drone after President Trump took military strikes off the table last week.


    Trump warned that his “restraint” might not last, but he appeared to muddy his own tough message with a vague threat to end U.S. protection for international shipping in the vital Strait of Hormuz, off Iran.
    Which of course, led to this

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...43b_story.html

    Iranian officials slammed the Trump administration Tuesday for new sanctions targeting the country’s leadership, saying the measures permanently closed the path to diplomacy and that the White House had “become mentally crippled” under the current president. 


    Speaking in a televised address, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the restrictions targeting the supreme leader “outrageous and idiotic” and said they showed “certain failure” on the part of the Trump administration to isolate Iran. 

  15. #75
    Ridill
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    18,451
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Sath Fenrir
    FFXIV Server
    Cactuar
    FFXI Server
    Fenrir

    Saw this on reddit and one of the few long posts I've read. Wanted AG's input on this

    Spoiler: show

    i posted this a few days ago. So here we are.
    edited it for reasons: Point 2 and 3 is about the invasion corridor
    An aerial war would be a completely different number from the Iraq invasion of 2003. An aerial war would certainly not bring the desired "regime change". We know very well since the Second World War that strategic aerial warfare can put pressure on a regime by destroying infrastructure and disrupting or stopping military operations, but aerial warfare strengthens a regime politically. This is sometimes forgotten again, but rather in political discourse. Militaries have this lesson pretty much on screen.
    The situation with Iran today is not comparable to Iraq 15 years ago for a variety of other reasons.
    Military and foreign policy differencesThe army is in a strategically different situation: reforms and repositioning make a major operation difficult, after 18 years of "War on Terror" the troops are exhausted, understaffed and often not trained for Combined Arms.
    there is no invasion corridor: Iraq and Afghanistan are not participating. Iraq and Iran are often closely linked. Not to lead the Iraqi government so closely from the USA that an attack could be launched effortlessly from there. Afghanistan's infrastructure is too isolated for a deployment. Turkey does not want war with Iran and has only a very narrow border, measured by the size of Iran; the same applies to Pakistan. With just three highways in very rugged terrain, the invasion corridor through Northern Iran is very unfavourable. For obvious reasons, Russia is not a deployment area, as are the states of the South Caucasus and Turkmenistan. An amphibious invasion over the Persian Gulf would remain. Probably politically the most feasible variant, but militarily the stupidest. One heads directly towards the province of Bushehr, which not only has a strong fleet presence, but is also well equipped militarily. The terrain is initially good tank terrain - desert - but after a narrow strip changes into rugged low mountain range. Further east, near the Emirates and the Omani exclave, one would approach the Hormozgan province. There the flat coastal strip is even narrower.
    Iran is basically a bad country for invaders. The state is twice as populated as Iraq and four times as big. In addition, the country consists mainly of highlands and mountains, along with deserts. The infrastructure is solid, but natural waterways that simplify logistics and advances are rare. The coasts of the Gulf offer no gateway into the interior, the country is neither easy to cross from east to west, nor from north to south. Decades of isolation and previous isolation from major trade routes and networks have left Iran poorly connected with its neighbours. Neighbours, however, had little to offer the country: The country is therefore largely networked for its own needs.
    In military terms, Iran is not only a regional power, but probably the strongest power in the Middle East. The reasons are the 35 years of embargoes and the long Iran-Iraq war. During this time, the country had to defend itself against an enemy that was supplied militarily from all sides - East as well as West - while itself was cut off from supplies for mostly Western weapon systems. Not that Iran's weapons are all state-of-the-art, but Iran is largely self-sufficient. Otherwise, there are good connections to North Korean weapon forges that can supply their own products and copies of Chinese (and Soviet, or Russian) systems. A total of 500,000 soldiers are at the country's disposal, which would have to amount to an invasion force of not less than two million if one wanted to win a land war. For a subsequent occupation phase, one would probably have to reckon with quantities similar to those in Germany after the Second World War. Who should do that?
    This brings us to the crucial point: there are almost no willing allies. The states of the region do not want war with Iran. None. Saudi Arabia maybe but not in the first line. Because no state could defeat, occupy and pacify Iran. And every form of invasion would cause an immense resistance movement by the indoctrination (and history) of the Iranian population. All potential allies of an invasion are either former colonial powers (Russia, UK, France and especially Turkey), Jews, Sunnis or the USA itself. No one can credibly claim a morally superior position there - as in Germany after the Second World War or in the last war in Iraq.
    Not only are there almost no allies, there are also plenty of strategic opponents: Russia and China would rightly scourge the attack and they would probably support Iran at least covertly. Russia has logistically very broad possibilities to supply Iran. On the one hand indirectly through allied states on Iran's northern border (Caucasus and Turkmenistan) and on the other hand directly via the Caspian Sea. All this would be a) presumably on the margins of allied means to stop air strikes and b) an attack with Russian victims would be an escalation that Russia itself would be welcome to escalate. It would be quite enough if Russia moved a few SAM batteries near the border and actively lit and fired at allied aircraft. This could even be exploited twice and "as a sign of good will" associations could be withdrawn from Europe. This would further soften the narrative of the aggressor Russia, remove Europe from the USA and drive it away to Russia and directly endanger NATO. China could, however, not only supply endless material via Russia, but also offer its reconnaissance capacities. A little economic pressure - more subsidies for coal, steel, aluminium, export duties on electronic goods - and the US economy is going to the toilet.The peace dividend has been used up, the "Coalition of the Willing" has disappeared, Russia is once again a serious strategic opponent, China is clearly more present internationally and the USA has long ceased to be the undisputed and self-confident "leader of the free world".
    Domestic political differences:
    1.Trump is not George Walker Bush and the USA today are not the USA of 2001.
    2.Trump differs from GWB in measure. Bush had good reasons to listen to his advisors and quite a few saw in the politics of Cheney and Bush junior a continuation of the politics of Bush senior and Cheney ten years earlier. Trump has nothing to tie in with. What he wants above all is positive feedback from as many sides as possible. A war of invasion would be highly unpopular in the USA simply because it would bring tens of thousands of coffins with it. Not to mention the costs and the foreign policy fallout. Even those guys in T_Donald are against a war.
    2.After 9/11, many in the USA liked to believe that the dictator, who had been compared to Hitler in the media ten years before, could also have something to do with 9/11 or wanted evil for the USA. After all, Iraq was bombed the whole time, so the idea was not completely absurd. That made a mood for the invasion possible. The Iraq war was in the media above all a war against Saddam and for more democracy in the MENA region. A war in Iran could stand for more democracy and against Islamist terror, yes, but after the disaster in Iraq the democratization of other countries is simply no longer so popular in the USA. On the contrary: Trump was chosen for his isolationist tones and he is probably convinced of them himself. He likes to make the Fat Maxe, but he doesn't like to commit himself. And it is also clear to him that an invasion with practically all active associations - as if that were ever possible logistically - cannot be reversed as easily as a piece of paper cancels a treaty.
    In the end, there is no way for any form of ally, as conceivable or imaginable, to bring an invasion of Iran to a victorious conclusion. We don't even have to talk about the occupation period afterwards. That has already failed in the two neighbouring countries Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse still, an invasion would be foreign policy suicide for the USA. It would certainly harm NATO in Europe and help Russia only at every turn. And in domestic politics an invasion requires so much "commitment" that it's out of the question. I don't even discuss the domestic consequences because I don't think there would be a majority in either chamber.
    A pure air campaign, however, will not bring a solution in the form of a regime change. At best, this could eliminate strategic objectives by destroying research facilities, factories and command centres. However, this will also be a problem under international law, for as long as Iran receives confirmation from Europe, Russia and China that the conditions are being met, there will be no international consensus on punitive action. But this is precisely what makes the difference between "operations" in Kosovo or Iraq and "wars of aggression" against Ukraine and Georgia. In short: A unilateral attack on Iran would be the loss of American claims to enforce an international peace order corresponding to an international consensus.
    My analysis is that one cannot achieve a regime change by a conventional war with subsequent occupation (the lack of troops and allies as well as the danger of intervention of strategic opponents) or limited air strikes. Military options to force the current government to change course do exist, although these military options should only be part of a larger sheet of power projections.
    An Iranian-American conflict, however, is only superficial in the sense of Russia. The game would be easy for the USA to see through and would also be flagellated by American allies. The conflict would be extended and the world economy burdened.

  16. #76

    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,316
    BG Level
    9

    it's gay, much like you (ay gottem)

  17. #77
    Ridill
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    18,451
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Sath Fenrir
    FFXIV Server
    Cactuar
    FFXI Server
    Fenrir

    tru

  18. #78

    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,316
    BG Level
    9

    but no, it's a decent right-up, better on the geopolitical front than the military side. the author is correct in noting (indeed seems to be overselling the case by even considering it a serious possibility) that a massed ground invasion would be met with international condemnation, nearly universal domestic opposition, and some form of strategic intervention by both Iran's proxies (Houthi, Hamas, Hezbollah) and our great power rivals in Russia and China. also mostly accurate that air campaigns alone usually don't lead to regime change, but amusingly mentions Kosovo which is one of the incidents where it did lead to regime change and the fall of Milosevich's Greater Serbian nightmare.

    he's rather wrong in overselling how difficult the conventional war would be. Iran spends 20 billion a year on its military, we spend 600 billion. Iran engaged in a life-and-death struggle with Iraq over the course of 8 years that resulted in millions of casualties and a stalemate, we took them out twice with fewer than 1,000 KIA. the Iranian military as a whole possesses 600 aircraft and helicopters, every single one of our branches possess thousands. their main battle tank is still the decrepit Soviet-era T-72 which we destroyed by the thousands in Iraq and which has never knocked out an M1 Abrams in combat. the overwhelming nature of the qualitative gap is difficult to state, and while there be nations that could trouble the United States in a conventional war an isolated Shia theocracy with a GDP less than our defense budget is not one of them. he also almost comically overstates the limits of possible invasion corridors when one look at a map shows Iran surrounded by (with the exception of Iraq) American-aligned Sunni countries that hate them. the occupation, of course, another story. we are now looking at 0-2 against rice farmers with guns and opium farmers with guns and i dunno what the Iranians farm but it's prolly guns.

    the theoretical wargaming seems a leetle beet silly tho there is not nearly enough support in country for a large-scale war with Iran. Trump would face impeachment if he tried it.

  19. #79
    I'll change yer fuckin rate you derivative piece of shit
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    55,019
    BG Level
    10

    Don't forget the Millennium Challenge, where US forces war-gamed an Iranian invasion scenario and the commander of the Iranian forces fucked up the US badly.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

    Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.

    Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.

  20. #80

    Sweaty Dick Punching Enthusiast

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,316
    BG Level
    9

    there's a lot wrong with what you just said but instead i'll just call you a stupid piece of shit and say i've started to hate you

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • Decrease Size
    Increase Size
  • Remove Text Formatting
  • Insert Link Insert Image Insert Video
  • Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
  • Insert NSFW Tag
  • Insert Spoiler Tag

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2138
    Last Post: 2024-01-05, 12:30