|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On January 04 2020 01:25 Velr wrote:
His supporters would immediatly cheer for going to war again. Wtf are you smoking, just one more picture of a dead us military contractor blamed on Iran and they go into Berserk mode.
We are talking about people that openly celebrate the killing of supposed enemies like some primitive tribe.
Trump supporters welcomed his decision to pull out troops from Syria and supported Trump ordered missile strikes on the country in 2017.
|
United States43619 Posts
On January 03 2020 15:30 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 15:27 ShambhalaWar wrote:On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" That's usually what trump voters fall back on. I didn't vote for Trump, thanks. No, while everyone here is advancing their latest Trump conspiracy theory, I decided to chime in with some support, as I have made similarly brief comments criticizing Trump's lack of action. I'm not sure any conservative would have a hard time explaining why they think killing high-ranking terrorists is good. Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 15:23 Mohdoo wrote:On January 03 2020 14:04 Introvert wrote:
Good on Trump, tha US has been taking to hits for some time now but thankfully even with Trump it cant last forever. And of course we have the usual lefty reaction, which at this point is so reliable it just makes me laugh more than anything. I feel like you didn't actually try to say anything in this post other than "I laugh at how liberals are responding to this" There were two comments, but admittedly no argument. Maybe instead of re-running the "big bad Republican" greatest hits, someone could advance a more plausible theory.
It’s pretty Orwellian that an actively serving general in a recognized sovereign state, albeit a geopolitical rival, is now a “terrorist”. If they started killing our “terrorists” would we be so understanding?
|
United States43619 Posts
On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go.
They did some war games for US vs Iran a while back and Iran won.
|
United States43619 Posts
On January 03 2020 23:18 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2020 23:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Ever heard of social liberalism? Liberalism is a broad church. Stop taking such narrow viewpoint of liberalism. Was the NHS created by social liberals or was it created by socialists? There are answers to these questions, it's not dependant on viewpoints.
Self identifying socialists from a party that publicly described itself as a socialist party committed to implementing socialism.
|
On January 04 2020 01:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. They did some war games for US vs Iran a while back and Iran won.
oh back in 2002? what were the victory conditions?
|
On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go.
Iran is not some third world country that we will decimate in a military conflict.
|
United States43619 Posts
On January 04 2020 01:51 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 01:49 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. They did some war games for US vs Iran a while back and Iran won. oh back in 2002? what were the victory conditions?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002
The United States invasion fleet was functionally defeated by a first strike from Iran, ending the war game on day 2 of the exercise. They reset the game and changed the rules to stop the “Iran” team from winning and so the “Iranian” general quit the games in protest.
|
United States43619 Posts
On January 04 2020 01:59 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. Iran is not some third world country that we will decimate in a military conflict.
They’d have a nuke by now if it weren’t for Obama and Kerry. They’ll have one by this time next year.
|
On January 04 2020 02:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 01:59 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. Iran is not some third world country that we will decimate in a military conflict. They’d have a nuke by now if it weren’t for Obama and Kerry. They’ll have one by this time next year.
Rightfully so after negotiating a multi-lateral treaty the US abandoned without cause and proceeded to assassinate a top general that was aiding them in the fight against ISIS.
It's a matter of self-preservation and sovereignty at this point.
|
On January 04 2020 02:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 01:51 IgnE wrote:On January 04 2020 01:49 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. They did some war games for US vs Iran a while back and Iran won. oh back in 2002? what were the victory conditions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002The United States invasion fleet was functionally defeated by a first strike from Iran, ending the war game on day 2 of the exercise. They reset the game and changed the rules to stop the “Iran” team from winning and so the “Iranian” general quit the games in protest.
So do you think this 2002 war game is relevant to 2020 predictions?
|
Northern Ireland26298 Posts
On January 04 2020 01:37 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 01:25 Velr wrote:
His supporters would immediatly cheer for going to war again. Wtf are you smoking, just one more picture of a dead us military contractor blamed on Iran and they go into Berserk mode.
We are talking about people that openly celebrate the killing of supposed enemies like some primitive tribe. Trump supporters welcomed his decision to pull out troops from Syria and supported Trump ordered missile strikes on the country in 2017.
Well yeah they want to blow up bad guys in foreign lands but not lose US troops to do so
|
On January 04 2020 02:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 02:00 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2020 01:51 IgnE wrote:On January 04 2020 01:49 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. They did some war games for US vs Iran a while back and Iran won. oh back in 2002? what were the victory conditions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002The United States invasion fleet was functionally defeated by a first strike from Iran, ending the war game on day 2 of the exercise. They reset the game and changed the rules to stop the “Iran” team from winning and so the “Iranian” general quit the games in protest. So do you think this 2002 war game is relevant to 2020 predictions?
The big difference is that we have potential land access through Iraq but I think the point being it would result in massive losses on the US side is applicable. I don't think it serves as definitive proof Iran would win day 1 or anything like that though.
As an aside, anyone know what happens if a nuclear powered carrier is sunk?
|
United States43619 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:06 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 02:00 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2020 01:51 IgnE wrote:On January 04 2020 01:49 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. They did some war games for US vs Iran a while back and Iran won. oh back in 2002? what were the victory conditions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002The United States invasion fleet was functionally defeated by a first strike from Iran, ending the war game on day 2 of the exercise. They reset the game and changed the rules to stop the “Iran” team from winning and so the “Iranian” general quit the games in protest. So do you think this 2002 war game is relevant to 2020 predictions?
I don’t think it’s an absolute guarantee, it’s simply that the last war game (to my knowledge) they tried ended in a resounding Iranian victory. It’s absolutely relevant, just as any other historical data is relevant to predictions.
Additionally the criticisms leveled at the US military as a result of the games were that they were institutionally incapable of considering the risk of US defeat as a result of asymmetrical warfare. That doesn’t create much assurance that the weaknesses revealed will be addressed, and nor does the ongoing failure to achieve any kind of victory in the other Middle Eastern theatres.
|
United States43619 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2020 02:06 IgnE wrote:On January 04 2020 02:00 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2020 01:51 IgnE wrote:On January 04 2020 01:49 KwarK wrote:On January 04 2020 01:24 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm pleasantly surprised no Iran response yet. It's a weird situation because if Iran strikes back, they will likely lose their military. We are bad at taking over a country completely, but the US military would have an easy time erasing Iran's military and basically causing the whole thing to collapse unless they were defended.
My question is, why in the world was this guy there? What an awful idea. Almost makes this feel like he martyred himself.
What are Iran's real options here? Nothing goes well for them. I really think their best option is to let this go. They did some war games for US vs Iran a while back and Iran won. oh back in 2002? what were the victory conditions? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002The United States invasion fleet was functionally defeated by a first strike from Iran, ending the war game on day 2 of the exercise. They reset the game and changed the rules to stop the “Iran” team from winning and so the “Iranian” general quit the games in protest. So do you think this 2002 war game is relevant to 2020 predictions? The big difference is that we have potential land access through Iraq but I think the point being it would result in massive losses on the US side is applicable. I don't think it serves as definitive proof Iran would win day 1 or anything like that though. As an aside, anyone know what happens if a nuclear powered carrier is sunk?
Water is a very good insulator for radiation and dilution in the amount of water in the oceans is basically the best way of dealing with radiation. So it’s probably fine, but when Micronesia posts correcting me I will defer to his professional expertise.
|
What happens?
I mean it’s not just land access. From the wiki it sounds like Iran won by “going dark.” We also have nearly two decades of improved surveillance technology and we are twenty years further removed from the WW2 low-tech methods used in the simulation. I don’t think the US has learned nothing about fighting low tech armies in the Middle East since 2002.
|
On January 04 2020 02:16 IgnE wrote:
What happens?
I mean it’s not just land access. From the wiki it sounds like Iran won by “going dark.” We also have nearly two decades of improved surveillance technology and we are twenty years further removed from the WW2 low-tech methods used in the simulation. I don’t think the US has learned nothing about fighting low tech armies in the Middle East since 2002.
The military has been focused on being a reactionary force dependent on overwhelming force. Our adaptation to asymmetric warfare and blended populations was "kill em all"
The thing they learned was classify anyone that looks over 16 an enemy combatant and then Trump just said fuck it "take out their families"
|
Isn't it important to define victory first? What is it, destroy a military that will hide in the mountains until you run out of bombs? Getting rid of the regime is most likely. How do you do it?
|
I think that that discussion is pretty pointless.
Even if the US were to completely decimate the Iranian military on day 1, does anyone see a better result than Iraq here? And did you really pull out of Iraq so you could do the same thing a country over?
If your best-case scenario is hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, a pointless guerilla war producing casualties over a decade, further destabilisation of a region which you already did your best to destabilize leading to more problems for everyone, and basically 0 positives, is it really important how well the war at the start of all this goes?
|
United States43619 Posts
On January 04 2020 02:16 IgnE wrote:
What happens?
I mean it’s not just land access. From the wiki it sounds like Iran won by “going dark.” We also have nearly two decades of improved surveillance technology and we are twenty years further removed from the WW2 low-tech methods used in the simulation. I don’t think the US has learned nothing about fighting low tech armies in the Middle East since 2002.
Which is probably what they were saying in 2002 before the games. After all they’d learned a lot about fighting low tech armies since Vietnam.
The weakness illustrated by the games wasn’t an inability to cope with a specific tactic, it was an institutional failure to acknowledge the potential for defeat.
|
On January 04 2020 02:25 Simberto wrote:
I think that that discussion is pretty pointless.
Even if the US were to completely decimate the Iranian military on day 1, does anyone see a better result than Iraq here? And did you really pull out of Iraq so you could do the same thing a country over?
If your best-case scenario is hundreds of thousands of civilians dead, a pointless guerilla war producing casualties over a decade, further destabilisation of a region which you already did your best to destabilize leading to more problems for everyone, and basically 0 positives, is it really important how well the war at the start of all this goes?
You missed the part about delivering them into democracy and all its prosperity. South America, the Middle East, Africa, it's what we do. /s*
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
