sycasey said:brobear said:
for a time yes until we entirely botched it. i don't expect Trump to make the same mistakes
If Donald Trump has a well thought-out plan for this it will be the first time.
bearister said:
When do they rename it the Strait of Trump?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:
It looked so easy to Hegseth from behind the desk at Fox News.
DiabloWags said:
I've read that only a small inner circle were aware of this attack, so as to prevent "leaks". Only a handful of people knew.
For example, Embassy officials were left in the dark and found out about the attack via the media.
Hence, no evacuation plans for Americans.
I feel a "clarification" coming on.Eastern Oregon Bear said:DiabloWags said:
I've read that only a small inner circle were aware of this attack, so as to prevent "leaks". Only a handful of people knew.
For example, Embassy officials were left in the dark and found out about the attack via the media.
Hence, no evacuation plans for Americans.
And in another thread, BarelySane was asking me how Americans were less safe due to war in Iran.
Muckieeye said:
Censorship is thriving at BI. This post will be deleted soon. Why? Couldn't possibly be biased moderation?
Trump is threatening NATO with consequences if they don’t join a war that none of them had a say in and that Trump now can’t figure out how to get out of.
— Angry Staffer (@Angry_Staffer) March 15, 2026
Dumbest possible timeline. https://t.co/2mVhwWmWRx
Eastern Oregon Bear said:DiabloWags said:
I've read that only a small inner circle were aware of this attack, so as to prevent "leaks". Only a handful of people knew.
For example, Embassy officials were left in the dark and found out about the attack via the media.
Hence, no evacuation plans for Americans.
And in another thread, BarelySane was asking me how Americans were less safe due to the war in Iran.
cal83dls79 said:I feel a "clarification" coming on.Eastern Oregon Bear said:DiabloWags said:
I've read that only a small inner circle were aware of this attack, so as to prevent "leaks". Only a handful of people knew.
For example, Embassy officials were left in the dark and found out about the attack via the media.
Hence, no evacuation plans for Americans.
And in another thread, BarelySane was asking me how Americans were less safe due to war in Iran.
cal83dls79 said:I feel a "clarification" coming on.Eastern Oregon Bear said:DiabloWags said:
I've read that only a small inner circle were aware of this attack, so as to prevent "leaks". Only a handful of people knew.
For example, Embassy officials were left in the dark and found out about the attack via the media.
Hence, no evacuation plans for Americans.
And in another thread, BarelySane was asking me how Americans were less safe due to war in Iran.
yup, just saw the clarification. So darned predictable that one.DiabloWags said:cal83dls79 said:I feel a "clarification" coming on.Eastern Oregon Bear said:DiabloWags said:
I've read that only a small inner circle were aware of this attack, so as to prevent "leaks". Only a handful of people knew.
For example, Embassy officials were left in the dark and found out about the attack via the media.
Hence, no evacuation plans for Americans.
And in another thread, BarelySane was asking me how Americans were less safe due to war in Iran.
100%
cal83dls79 said:yup, just saw the clarification. So darned predictable that one.DiabloWags said:cal83dls79 said:I feel a "clarification" coming on.Eastern Oregon Bear said:DiabloWags said:
I've read that only a small inner circle were aware of this attack, so as to prevent "leaks". Only a handful of people knew.
For example, Embassy officials were left in the dark and found out about the attack via the media.
Hence, no evacuation plans for Americans.
And in another thread, BarelySane was asking me how Americans were less safe due to war in Iran.
100%
Iran's capabilities to attack are nearly eliminated. The number of drone and missile attacks are shrinking fast.
— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) March 15, 2026
Either they are running out or their crews are being eliminated. pic.twitter.com/1KmLNfqMoz
Muckieeye said:
Nothing better than a sad sock puppet who continues to insult and attack and pretends he's above it all. And continues to post under a username and profile picture that parody another now deleted account.
Yogi has had numerous sock puppets deleted, but this one is permitted?
Cal88 said:Muckieeye said:
Nothing better than a sad sock puppet who continues to insult and attack and pretends he's above it all. And continues to post under a username and profile picture that parody another now deleted account.
Yogi has had numerous sock puppets deleted, but this one is permitted?
Do you have anything to say about the war in Iran, or are you here just to pick inane fights with people?
At least Yogi posts on topic most of the time, get the difference?
bearister said:
Some chatter today about Kurds willing to put boots on ground with U.S. air support. I am not well read on this subject so I AI'd it and it looks ballpark accurate based on the little I know. What say you?
"Current military assessments and reports from March 2026 indicate that Kurdish fighters alone do not have enough personnel or heavy weaponry to successfully win a land invasion of Iran, even with U.S. air support.
Chatham House
While a coalition of Iranian Kurdish opposition groups (CPFIK) has formed, experts highlight significant disparities between their capabilities and the requirements of a full-scale invasion.
Al Jazeera
Kurdish Force Strength vs. Requirements
Current Numbers: Estimates for the coalition's ready force range from 15,000 to 20,000 fighters. While the total number of Peshmerga across various political groups may reach 150,000, it is unclear how many are active or dedicated to an Iranian front.
Weaponry Deficit: These forces primarily possess small arms provided by the CIA; they lack the tanks, heavy artillery, and armored vehicles necessary to topple the Iranian government.
Invasion Scale: Military analysts suggest a successful invasion and pacification of Iran would require between 600,000 and 1.6 million troops due to the country's vast mountainous terrain and population size.
The Role of U.S. Air Support
Air Dominance: As of March 13, 2026, the U.S. has achieved "total air dominance" over Iran, with fighters like the F-35C and F-22 Raptor operating largely uncontested.
Strategic Limitation: Despite sustained airstrikes, experts argue that air power alone cannot resolve the war or force a regime collapse without a massive, coordinated ground force to hold territory.
Proxy Strategy: The U.S. administration has considered using Kurdish groups as a proxy ground force to spark internal uprisings rather than as a primary invasion force.
Al Jazeera
Operational Challenges
Terrain: Iran's geography consists of hundreds of kilometers of rugged mountains and deserts, which favor defensive asymmetric warfare over light infantry incursions.
Iranian Resistance: Despite being weakened by strikes, Iranian security forces maintain a significant capacity for violence and have already launched retaliatory drone and missile strikes against Kurdish bases in Iraq.
Regional Resistance: Neighboring countries like Turkey are unlikely to support the arming of Kurdish groups due to their own internal security concerns regarding Kurdish separatism.
Restated, while Kurdish fighters are prepared to act as a "front" to stretch Iranian defenses, they are viewed as insufficient for a decisive military victory without a massive infusion of conventional U.S. ground troops."
Cato Institute
McLaughlin Poll: "The United States military actions against Iran and the leadership of the Iranian regime were necessary and warranted to protect American lives today and in the future."
— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) March 15, 2026
A clear majority — 57% of likely voters — agreed, while only 33% disagreed.
Support was… https://t.co/DS2ypg8JpW
BearlySane88 said:McLaughlin Poll: "The United States military actions against Iran and the leadership of the Iranian regime were necessary and warranted to protect American lives today and in the future."
— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) March 15, 2026
A clear majority — 57% of likely voters — agreed, while only 33% disagreed.
Support was… https://t.co/DS2ypg8JpW
bearister said:
Iran is a bad actor. If this works out it would be great for the world. With that said. One question:
What are the foundational facts that support the argument that this is the Administration that has the wherewithal to solve the Rubik's Cube that is the Iran problem?
Cal88 said:BearlySane88 said:McLaughlin Poll: "The United States military actions against Iran and the leadership of the Iranian regime were necessary and warranted to protect American lives today and in the future."
— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) March 15, 2026
A clear majority — 57% of likely voters — agreed, while only 33% disagreed.
Support was… https://t.co/DS2ypg8JpW
The general public, most of which cannot even place Iran on a world map, is easily manipulated. Run stories about Iran wanting to bomb California, sleeper cells, fear porn about Muslims and so forth and you manufacture consent for the next chapter of Forever War.
People start changing their minds when these wars turn into costly quagmires.
Fact is, Iran was not a threat to the US, it was largely contained through the JCPOA, and Obama deserves credit for that. Iran is a threat to Bibi's Israel and the Greater Israel project, and this is why we just had to go to war against Iran.
BearlySane88 said:bearister said:
Iran is a bad actor. If this works out it would be great for the world. With that said. One question:
What are the foundational facts that support the argument that this is the Administration that has the wherewithal to solve the Rubik's Cube that is the Iran problem?
Iran is weaker than in recent past, Trump's admin is willing to use diplomacy and military force, strong intelligence and coordination with allies (largely Israel but also other ME countries) and the understanding that previous approaches have failed.
bearister said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:
Iran is a bad actor. If this works out it would be great for the world. With that said. One question:
What are the foundational facts that support the argument that this is the Administration that has the wherewithal to solve the Rubik's Cube that is the Iran problem?
Iran is weaker than in recent past, Trump's admin is willing to use diplomacy and military force, strong intelligence and coordination with allies (largely Israel but also other ME countries) and the understanding that previous approaches have failed.
What will have to be accomplished for the war to be considered a "win" for the United States?
bearister said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:
Iran is a bad actor. If this works out it would be great for the world. With that said. One question:
What are the foundational facts that support the argument that this is the Administration that has the wherewithal to solve the Rubik's Cube that is the Iran problem?
Iran is weaker than in recent past, Trump's admin is willing to use diplomacy and military force, strong intelligence and coordination with allies (largely Israel but also other ME countries) and the understanding that previous approaches have failed.
What will have to be accomplished for the war to be considered a "win" for the United States?
BearlySane88 said:bearister said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:
Iran is a bad actor. If this works out it would be great for the world. With that said. One question:
What are the foundational facts that support the argument that this is the Administration that has the wherewithal to solve the Rubik's Cube that is the Iran problem?
Iran is weaker than in recent past, Trump's admin is willing to use diplomacy and military force, strong intelligence and coordination with allies (largely Israel but also other ME countries) and the understanding that previous approaches have failed.
What will have to be accomplished for the war to be considered a "win" for the United States?
Generally speaking the destruction or severe degradation of uranium enrichment facilities (Natanz, Fordow, etc.) including the elimination of weaponization infrastructure and long-term inability to quickly rebuild the program.
DiabloWags said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:
Iran is a bad actor. If this works out it would be great for the world. With that said. One question:
What are the foundational facts that support the argument that this is the Administration that has the wherewithal to solve the Rubik's Cube that is the Iran problem?
Iran is weaker than in recent past, Trump's admin is willing to use diplomacy and military force, strong intelligence and coordination with allies (largely Israel but also other ME countries) and the understanding that previous approaches have failed.
What will have to be accomplished for the war to be considered a "win" for the United States?
Generally speaking the destruction or severe degradation of uranium enrichment facilities (Natanz, Fordow, etc.) including the elimination of weaponization infrastructure and long-term inability to quickly rebuild the program.
Donald Trump said we OBLITERATED all of that last June.
BearlySane88 said:DiabloWags said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:
Iran is a bad actor. If this works out it would be great for the world. With that said. One question:
What are the foundational facts that support the argument that this is the Administration that has the wherewithal to solve the Rubik's Cube that is the Iran problem?
Iran is weaker than in recent past, Trump's admin is willing to use diplomacy and military force, strong intelligence and coordination with allies (largely Israel but also other ME countries) and the understanding that previous approaches have failed.
What will have to be accomplished for the war to be considered a "win" for the United States?
Generally speaking the destruction or severe degradation of uranium enrichment facilities (Natanz, Fordow, etc.) including the elimination of weaponization infrastructure and long-term inability to quickly rebuild the program.
Donald Trump said we OBLITERATED all of that last June.
Yeah sorry I'm trying to have an actual conversation with Bearister. Let me know when you've can prove the 90% comment with your master math skills
DiabloWags said:BearlySane88 said:DiabloWags said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:BearlySane88 said:bearister said:
Iran is a bad actor. If this works out it would be great for the world. With that said. One question:
What are the foundational facts that support the argument that this is the Administration that has the wherewithal to solve the Rubik's Cube that is the Iran problem?
Iran is weaker than in recent past, Trump's admin is willing to use diplomacy and military force, strong intelligence and coordination with allies (largely Israel but also other ME countries) and the understanding that previous approaches have failed.
What will have to be accomplished for the war to be considered a "win" for the United States?
Generally speaking the destruction or severe degradation of uranium enrichment facilities (Natanz, Fordow, etc.) including the elimination of weaponization infrastructure and long-term inability to quickly rebuild the program.
Donald Trump said we OBLITERATED all of that last June.
Yeah sorry I'm trying to have an actual conversation with Bearister. Let me know when you've can prove the 90% comment with your master math skills
You sound terribly confused.
I made the offer. Its up to you to prove me wrong.
And my offer of $5,000 expires tomorrow at 9:30 am EST.
Enjoy your night
BearlySane88 said:Eastern Oregon Bear said:DiabloWags said:
I've read that only a small inner circle were aware of this attack, so as to prevent "leaks". Only a handful of people knew.
For example, Embassy officials were left in the dark and found out about the attack via the media.
Hence, no evacuation plans for Americans.
And in another thread, BarelySane was asking me how Americans were less safe due to the war in Iran.
Not once did I say that but thanks for proving you're not arguing in good faith but just to try and get one over on me. I said America, not Americans abroad. Two very different things.
Quote:
I love how you guys spell my name wrong intentionally, a personal attack, thinking it bothers me. The fact that you post about me proves that I'm in your heads and you can't combat what I say with facts so you resort to personal attacks.
