• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

Discussions --Lead Up to Talks & US Military Intervention Against Iran Nuclear Facilities Threatened When Talks Fail

Status
Not open for further replies.

Is The U.S. About To Go To War With Iran?​

The U.S. is pouring military assets into the Middle East as Trump's deadline for Iran to come to the negotiating table fast approaches.

www.twz.com

Is The U.S. About To Go To War With Iran?

The U.S. is pouring military assets into the Middle East as Trump's deadline for Iran to come to the negotiating table fast approaches.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 

Romans 12:19​

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
 
Loadstain said:

Is The U.S. About To Go To War With Iran?​

The U.S. is pouring military assets into the Middle East as Trump's deadline for Iran to come to the negotiating table fast approaches.

www.twz.com

Is The U.S. About To Go To War With Iran?

The U.S. is pouring military assets into the Middle East as Trump's deadline for Iran to come to the negotiating table fast approaches.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
Click to expand...
Their assessment that the decision to build up and attack Iran is out of the blue.
While it might seem out of the blue. I disagree with them regarding the strategic importance of it. Give Irans historic support of proxy terrorist and rouge governments. Coupled with Irans persistent pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Is not a surprise. It might be a surprise based upon previous governments dealings with Iran.
But as a matter risk and necessity to confront Iran before they develop a deliverable nuclear weapon it’s not a surprise

To anyone paying attention it’s not a surprise.
 
Yingyang said:
So when is all this talk of America attacking Iran going to happen?
Click to expand...
And if they do strike you will be here to ridicule the strikes I’m sure.
It’s nice to know there is consistency to be found d in the universe.
 
OReid said:
And if they do strike you will be here to ridicule the strikes I’m sure.
It’s nice to know there is consistency to be found d in the universe.
Click to expand...
Actually I have ridiculed the west already as they have achieved nothing in the middle east hardly as history shows. I simply asked the question believing there was a date set as a deadline for negotiations. I didn't know what that date was.
 
Socom7 said:
You just provided a simple list of US airbases around the world without addressing any of the other points I made. That's not a sound argument.

In reality, the places you mentioned are not convenient as a launching platform for airstrikes against Iran - for the following reasons:
  1. Guam, Hawaii, Okinawa: requires a long and circuitous route - unless you believe Russia and/or China will grant the US overflight rights for bombing runs against Iran (which is a ludicrous assertion to make),
  2. Great Britain: that's even worse (see above)
  3. Canal Zone: you mean Panama Canal? The US doesn't even have any airbases there, and also, see item #4. If you meant Suez Canal (i.e. US airbases in places like Qatar, Bahrain and KSA) - those governments will not allow strikes to be launched from their territory; they have publicly declared so.
  4. CONUS: that's very far away, and also see item #1.
Thus, Diego Garcia (which you seem to refer to as "Indian Ocean") remains the only viable option, QED.
Click to expand...
1) No they are not. You are think like a terrestrial being. Up and over. Turkey is our frienemie. 5 minutes after passsge (who am I kidding: 5 minutes before passage) they will call Russia who will, of course, tell Iran, who can do nothing to stop us. Only random chance (and it will happen) will result it ac hits

2) No it’s not. Look at a map. But why would we bother? One word, sounds like Poland.
It’s a permissive environment. PS it sounds like Poland….

4) You are kidding right? Plan A has at least half of the strikes launched from two bases in the middle of the USA.

5) We love DIego because there is no one else there. Makes security simpler. Fuel is cheap. But on your side of the argument is there have been some mishaps and loses that far out that had crew fatigue as contributing factors.
 
Torch said:
1) No they are not. You are think like a terrestrial being. Up and over. Turkey is our frienemie.
Click to expand...
This statement is garbled to the point of being incomprehensible. I apologize; perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker of English (or perhaps because "I are think like a terrestrial being"), but my reaction to the above is "WTF? 🤨"
Torch said:
2) No it’s not. Look at a map. But why would we bother? One word, sounds like Poland. It’s a permissive environment. PS it sounds like Poland….
Click to expand...
See above. I honestly have no idea what you mean.
 
Socom7 said:
This statement is garbled to the point of being incomprehensible. I apologize; perhaps it's because I'm not a native speaker of English (or perhaps because "I are think like a terrestrial being"), but my reaction to the above is "WTF? 🤨"

See above. I honestly have no idea what you mean.
Click to expand...
From the middle of North America the fastest way to Europe is over the poles/Greenland.
 
Socom7 said:
Preeeetty sure it's not. :rolleyes:
View attachment 7051
Also, the topic of the disussion is "convenient airbases from which to launch airstrikes against Iran", not "how to get from America to Europe".
Click to expand...
Socom7 said:
Preeeetty sure it's not. :rolleyes:
View attachment 7051
Also, the topic of the disussion is "convenient airbases from which to launch airstrikes against Iran", not "how to get from America to Europe".
Click to expand...
Drawn the line to the Turkish Iranian border also add the jet stream +350 is no joke. Also the earth is turning away from you and it is not a sphere, its is an ellipsiliod (hey 14 miles here, 400 mile there and the next thing you know is that instead of descending on fumes trying to maintain the attitude the provides the most fuel to your boost pumps, you are already on the ground and getting out of you salt stain and stiffened one piece heat retaining pickle suit, for a fresh one and after debrief (brutal honesty all around, all sides) a trip to the club or 19th hole.
 
Yingyang said:
Actually I have ridiculed the west already as they have achieved nothing in the middle east hardly as history shows. I simply asked the question believing there was a date set as a deadline for negotiations. I didn't know what that date was.
Click to expand...
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of U.S. goals in the Middle East though. The United States doesn’t achieve a lot because fundamentally it chooses to not do so. The U.S. focuses on avoiding civilian casualties and not taking many casualties as a result we fight with hands tied behind our backs. When we take the gloves off you get desert storm. As for Afghanistan which everyone loves to point to the whole goal of being there was to help train the Afghans to be able to control their own country the problem is when push came to shove they didn’t want to fight. Thats why the U.S. left because there was no point in us being there indefinitely when their own people weren’t willing to fight. If you give the United States military a defined objective with the resources at their disposal they will achieve it. If you say go here and stabilize the region but you can’t bomb a large portion of targets, we’ll tell you when we think you’ve acheived the objective, and you’ll be here until then with no set deadline then no military on the planet will satisfy public opinion and they will eventually get burnt out. If the United States has a set goal that they will destroy the Iranian nuclear weapons program and the government takes the gloves off and lets them do whatever it takes they will do it, especially with someone like Trump in office who I can guarantee will not care if it gives the US a bad name when there are civilian casualties.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom