How can you demand an unconditional surrender from a country that you claim you’re not at war with?

Retired United States Army Colonel and former chief of staff to Colin Powell, Lawrence Wilkerson: “They (Israel) are getting absolutely pummeled.” “It’s relentless.” “It’s all being lied about, of course".

Anonymous wrote:Trump has just promised to rebuild Iran with American assets once he personally installs someone to rule the country. Where's the money coming from.

From the dum dum voters that wanted this and apparently wanted to spend their money on this. Or their kids money I suppose, who will be stuck with the bill for this war and the last couple of wars before it as well.

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t this make this the World War III Trump was telling us Harris was going to get us into?

No. Not even close.

Doesn’t this make this the World War III Trump was telling us Harris was going to get us into?

Trump has just promised to rebuild Iran with American assets once he personally installs someone to rule the country. Where's the money coming from.

Meanwhile, back at home...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why put boots on the ground when planes and drones can do far more damage?

Trump doesn’t want to be as unpopular as Bush 2 was (in large part to the unnecessary war that killed so many service members).

He will likely rely on planes and drones and simply continue to pummel Iran.

The regime is very unlikely to fall based on air power alone. Trump will either need to give up on regime change or figure out how to have ground forces there.

You are likely correct that Trump realizes US troops there will be very unpopular. That’s why it looks like he’s turning to the Kurds.

Boots on the ground in effective numbers are essentially an impossibility (financially, logistically, politically).

I have family members in the military. They and/or their colleagues have been quietly deployed to bases in the middle east over the past few months. I'm not claiming to know what this means, but.....

I hope that has more to do with protecting assets in the region and supporting air strikes rather than a boots on the ground invasion.

A ground invasion is impractical. Iran is huge - three times bigger than Iraq. And it has a mountainous terrain that very much favors defenders. Iran's military is about 1.1 million strong and the vast majority can be expected to fight against an American invasion. Then there's the problem of where to stage an invading force. The US will have to bring hundreds of thousands of soldiers and weapons to neighboring countries. And I don't see Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, or Armenia agreeing to host a massive invading force of American soldiers. Even if they did, it would took months and months to bring heavy armor and everything else to the region. Plus, not that Republicans care, but American losses would be staggering if the US launched a ground invasion.

And then there's the fact that war has changed in recent years. Look at the astounding losses Russia has taken after invading Ukraine - more than 1.2 million Russian military casualties and counting. That was supposed to be a three day special military operation. That war has now lasted longer than WWII. And Iran is a much, much more difficult terrain to fight on than flat and open Ukraine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why put boots on the ground when planes and drones can do far more damage?

Trump doesn’t want to be as unpopular as Bush 2 was (in large part to the unnecessary war that killed so many service members).

He will likely rely on planes and drones and simply continue to pummel Iran.

The regime is very unlikely to fall based on air power alone. Trump will either need to give up on regime change or figure out how to have ground forces there.

You are likely correct that Trump realizes US troops there will be very unpopular. That’s why it looks like he’s turning to the Kurds.

Right.

They’re already using the Kurds.

There’s no need to put our military on the ground in Iran. Plus, it’s not possible at the moment.

And I’ll just say it: Israel bombed the hell out of Gaza…and it worked. Apparently that’s what it took to really deal with the problem. Surely Bibi knows what it will take to deal with the threat Iran presents to Israel, and he’s clearly not afraid to go big.

Gaza is an open air prison with a few million people controlled by Israel.

Iran is a country with a functioning military and 90+ million people.

Seems like two wildly different scenarios.

And let’s not forget that despite Gaza being a far easier problem, and the fact that Israel did put limited ground troops there, Hamas is still there!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If gulf states start pulling the investments from U.A then the stock market is going to respond badly. Goodness, is there even a day with no bad news. These MAGA idiots are going to ruin us all.

UAE is not pulling their money from the USA, but the UAE is freezing all of Iran's assets. Iran used the UAE as a conduit for Iran to bypass the sanctions the west put on them.

Where are you getting this information?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why put boots on the ground when planes and drones can do far more damage?

Trump doesn’t want to be as unpopular as Bush 2 was (in large part to the unnecessary war that killed so many service members).

He will likely rely on planes and drones and simply continue to pummel Iran.

The regime is very unlikely to fall based on air power alone. Trump will either need to give up on regime change or figure out how to have ground forces there.

You are likely correct that Trump realizes US troops there will be very unpopular. That’s why it looks like he’s turning to the Kurds.

Right.

They’re already using the Kurds.

There’s no need to put our military on the ground in Iran. Plus, it’s not possible at the moment.

And I’ll just say it: Israel bombed the hell out of Gaza…and it worked. Apparently that’s what it took to really deal with the problem. Surely Bibi knows what it will take to deal with the threat Iran presents to Israel, and he’s clearly not afraid to go big.

Gaza is an open air prison with a few million people controlled by Israel.

Iran is a country with a functioning military and 90+ million people.

Seems like two wildly different scenarios.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why put boots on the ground when planes and drones can do far more damage?

Trump doesn’t want to be as unpopular as Bush 2 was (in large part to the unnecessary war that killed so many service members).

He will likely rely on planes and drones and simply continue to pummel Iran.

The regime is very unlikely to fall based on air power alone. Trump will either need to give up on regime change or figure out how to have ground forces there.

You are likely correct that Trump realizes US troops there will be very unpopular. That’s why it looks like he’s turning to the Kurds.

Boots on the ground in effective numbers are essentially an impossibility (financially, logistically, politically).

I have family members in the military. They and/or their colleagues have been quietly deployed to bases in the middle east over the past few months. I'm not claiming to know what this means, but.....

Lots of troops involved in air and naval operations are there. Infantry, artillery and armor are not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why put boots on the ground when planes and drones can do far more damage?

Trump doesn’t want to be as unpopular as Bush 2 was (in large part to the unnecessary war that killed so many service members).

He will likely rely on planes and drones and simply continue to pummel Iran.

The regime is very unlikely to fall based on air power alone. Trump will either need to give up on regime change or figure out how to have ground forces there.

You are likely correct that Trump realizes US troops there will be very unpopular. That’s why it looks like he’s turning to the Kurds.

Boots on the ground in effective numbers are essentially an impossibility (financially, logistically, politically).

I have family members in the military. They and/or their colleagues have been quietly deployed to bases in the middle east over the past few months. I'm not claiming to know what this means, but.....

I hope that has more to do with protecting assets in the region and supporting air strikes rather than a boots on the ground invasion.

Man I'd be so pissed if I were Iran. I'd face losing this "war" and immediately plan of every other possible scenario ti hurt my enemy aside from this campaign. I'm pretty sure that terrorism will once again rear its ugliness if not in the summer or fall, sooner than later. I mean destroying a people because the govt is at fault or a bad actor is not exactly principled. Not sure any people look upon that kindly. Citizens of that country didn't have a choice to live there as Ukrainians or Palestinians in Gaza. It really is a reckoning that's gonna happen, somehow, someway. So sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why put boots on the ground when planes and drones can do far more damage?

Trump doesn’t want to be as unpopular as Bush 2 was (in large part to the unnecessary war that killed so many service members).

He will likely rely on planes and drones and simply continue to pummel Iran.

The regime is very unlikely to fall based on air power alone. Trump will either need to give up on regime change or figure out how to have ground forces there.

You are likely correct that Trump realizes US troops there will be very unpopular. That’s why it looks like he’s turning to the Kurds.

This is what Hegseth (pro ground troops) and Rubio (anti ground troops) are arguing about.