General News Thread

[Salisbury Fox]

40 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Attacking energy plants and desalination would be a war crime, would it not?

 

Stick him in a cell with his mate Vlad.

Desalination plants most certainly, energy infrastructure like those at Kharg island ‘could’ be considered a military objective if it effectively support Iran’s war effort. It will depend on intent, targeting and civilian impact. 

[MPH]

50 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Kharg island seems a bit of an unnecessary risk to me given that firstly an approach will be expected and secondly they will be a clear static target. If they want to control the oil, a safer option would surely be to blockade Iranian tankers. 
 

I agree that they would make short work of opposition, but I don’t think they have enough troops in the region for this to be a serious consideration as I would expect some high casualties. He is also struggling to find an off ramp now, this would be even harder with boots on the ground. Who knows with Trump though.

 They have pretty much wiped out all navy targets in the area. They have also destroyed every military target on kharg i island already. It’s a few miles from the mainland.. other than thousands of Iranian soldiers traveling a few miles by sea ( which would be certain death) to ‘retake’, then it’s an easy target. It has no defenses. 

[Salisbury Fox]

19 minutes ago, MPH said:

 They have pretty much wiped out all navy targets in the area. They have also destroyed every military target on kharg i island already. It’s a few miles from the mainland.. other than thousands of Iranian soldiers traveling a few miles by sea ( which would be certain death) to ‘retake’, then it’s an easy target. It has no defenses. 

I’m not suggesting they couldn’t do it, rather I don’t see why it’s necessary. They would become a static and very visible target for a lot of incoming missiles with a very short notice warning given the short distance as you indicate. They could achieve the same results of denying Iran of the income by stopping all their tankers

[MPH]

23 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I’m not suggesting they couldn’t do it, rather I don’t see why it’s necessary. They would become a static and very visible target for a lot of incoming missiles with a very short notice warning given the short distance as you indicate. They could achieve the same results of denying Iran of the income by stopping all their tankers

 

well, in my opinion, this is where we should see how valuable the CIA has been. What have they been doing to overthrow Iran from the inside. With all that’s been going on, they must have. Been sneaking weapon in to some rebels . I know the Kurds have been very well armed and equipped, but what about Central and Southern Iran?  I see no benefit of a ground invasion unless it’s to save face because it’s not going to plan, but either way a ground invasion would need to be co-ordinated with the Kurds.  If some of the stories are to be believed, the Iranian army is more splintered than the Iranians believe..  I just think it’s more in the Israeli interest to have a ground invasion than the Americans but it’s really only the Americans that could pull it off..

Edited 30 March by MPH

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 minute ago, MPH said:

 

well, in my opinion, this is where we should see how valuable the CIA has been. What have they been doing to overthrow Iran from the inside. With all that’s been going on, they must have. Been sneaking weapon in to some rebels . I know the Kirss have been very well armed and equipped, but what about Central and Southern Iran?  I see no benefit of a ground invasion unless it’s to save face because it’s not going to plan, but either way a ground invasion would need to be co-ordinated with the Kurds.  If some of the stories are to be believed, the Iranian army is more splintered than the Iranians believe..  I just think it’s more in the Israeli interest to have a ground invasion than the Americans but it’s really only the Americans that could pull it off..

Where would you launch a ground invasion from? No love lost between Iraq and Iran, but I doubt they'd want US troops on their soil and it's mountains all the way to Tehran. Similar problem with Afghanistan. Pakistan, too far from Tehran and they've got their own problems.

 

That just leaves former USSR states or Türkiye. Azerbaijan would be the easiest geographically, along the coast, but I'm not sure comrade Vlad would be too happy.

 

Türkiye it is then...

 

Can't see why that will be a problem, despot to despot 

[worthosoriginals]

1 hour ago, MPH said:

 They have pretty much wiped out all navy targets in the area. They have also destroyed every military target on kharg i island already. It’s a few miles from the mainland.. other than thousands of Iranian soldiers traveling a few miles by sea ( which would be certain death) to ‘retake’, then it’s an easy target. It has no defenses. 

You forgot to type in at the end,

....thank you for your attention to this matter.

[leicsmac]

36 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I’m not suggesting they couldn’t do it, rather I don’t see why it’s necessary. They would become a static and very visible target for a lot of incoming missiles with a very short notice warning given the short distance as you indicate. They could achieve the same results of denying Iran of the income by stopping all their tankers

 

13 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

well, in my opinion, this is where we should see how valuable the CIA has been. What have they been doing to overthrow Iran from the inside. With all that’s been going on, they must have. Been sneaking weapon in to some rebels . I know the Kurds have been very well armed and equipped, but what about Central and Southern Iran?  I see no benefit of a ground invasion unless it’s to save face because it’s not going to plan, but either way a ground invasion would need to be co-ordinated with the Kurds.  If some of the stories are to be believed, the Iranian army is more splintered than the Iranians believe..  I just think it’s more in the Israeli interest to have a ground invasion than the Americans but it’s really only the Americans that could pull it off..

To add to this, it appears to have been a gross miscalculation from Trump and his lackeys on how stable the Iranian regime is. Even a ground invasion doesn't in any way guarantee what they have talked about viz. regime change to a puppet one they control, oh, sorry,  "liberating the Iranian people".

 

So either they were clueless at the start, or knew it wouldn't happen at the start and went for it anyway to satisfy their own base purposes. Either way, this was never about "liberation".

[Salisbury Fox]

8 minutes ago, MPH said:

 

well, in my opinion, this is where we should see how valuable the CIA has been. What have they been doing to overthrow Iran from the inside. With all that’s been going on, they must have. Been sneaking weapon in to some rebels . I know the Kurds have been very well armed and equipped, but what about Central and Southern Iran?  I see no benefit of a ground invasion unless it’s to save face because it’s not going to plan, but either way a ground invasion would need to be co-ordinated with the Kurds.  If some of the stories are to be believed, the Iranian army is more splintered than the Iranians believe..  I just think it’s more in the Israeli interest to have a ground invasion than the Americans but it’s really only the Americans that could pull it off..

I do hope that whatever regime is in place when this is over is less inclined to be a supporter of terror groups around the region otherwise I don’t see the point of starting this in the first place. I don’t doubt that the CIA has operatives in country but I am far less optimistic than you based upon the mixed messaging and lack of a coherent plan so far. I also don’t believe that the US has much time left to get this finished as there is going to be a world of economic pain coming which is likely to be felt much more in 6-12 months.

[CornwallFox]

After years of happily allowing right wing politicians to spout off about how the issues of the 1970s were supposedly caused by unions and labour, an article finally mentioning the oil price shocks that caused global issues, but still without a modicum of a nod towards these being the true issues in the 1970s, which the right weaponised to blame unions and kill union power. It's amazing how we keep going around the same cycles yet somehow this narrative has stuck. 

 

BBC News - What was the 1970s oil crisis, and are we heading for something worse? - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78lj4976lvo

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I do hope that whatever regime is in place when this is over is less inclined to be a supporter of terror groups around the region otherwise I don’t see the point of starting this in the first place. I don’t doubt that the CIA has operatives in country but I am far less optimistic than you based upon the mixed messaging and lack of a coherent plan so far. I also don’t believe that the US has much time left to get this finished as there is going to be a world of economic pain coming which is likely to be felt much more in 6-12 months.

Perhaps that's because, with respect, you're coming from a position of thinking the US action in this case will invariably be altruistic and positive in terms of intent when neither of things are even likely, let alone guaranteed.

[Guesty]

I'll be surprised if they do put troops on the ground. The US couldn't even defend their own bases or Thaad missile defence systems when they launched a surprise attack. Those guys would be sitting ducks. Even if they could get them there without being shot down or sunk - how do you keep them there and resupply them. All nearby bases destroyed/abandoned - and their aircraft carriers had to leave the combat zone almost as soon as they entered it. The world's largest carrier: the USS Gerald Ford is now out of action for over a year - due to a 'laundry fire'.

 

It's probably just a big bluff, but it's clear Iran have been preparing for this for 40 years and his bluffs aren't working. The American public are not ready to see the expression on their soldier's faces moments before death as a cheap drone flys into them. Drone's are modern IEDs that fly with cameras now. 

Trump and his yes men have boxed themselves in. The most powerful side doesn't decide when a war ends, it's how long the weakest side can resist. You can't kick a hornet's nest, then just demand all the hornets go back into the hive when it doesn't go to plan.

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

To add to this, it appears to have been a gross miscalculation from Trump and his lackeys on how stable the Iranian regime is. Even a ground invasion doesn't in any way guarantee what they have talked about viz. regime change to a puppet one they control, oh, sorry,  "liberating the Iranian people".

 

So either they were clueless at the start, or knew it wouldn't happen at the start and went for it anyway to satisfy their own base purposes. Either way, this was never about "liberation".

"Climate change isn't real and besides, there's plenty of oil."

 

"Guys, we need loads of oil."

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Guesty said:

The world's largest carrier: the USS Gerald Ford is now out of action for over a year - due to a 'laundry fire'.

Ours are rubbish btw.

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

"Climate change isn't real and besides, there's plenty of oil."

 

"Guys, we need loads of oil."

That and control of a key strategic area through which that oil and lots of other things travel were and are likely key considerations, yes. 

 

But it's becoming increasingly apparent that they are getting neither of those either. 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

After years of happily allowing right wing politicians to spout off about how the issues of the 1970s were supposedly caused by unions and labour, an article finally mentioning the oil price shocks that caused global issues, but still without a modicum of a nod towards these being the true issues in the 1970s, which the right weaponised to blame unions and kill union power. It's amazing how we keep going around the same cycles yet somehow this narrative has stuck. 

 

BBC News - What was the 1970s oil crisis, and are we heading for something worse? - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78lj4976lvo

Aye it was a bad time I had a mortgage and  3 kiddies under the age of 10 in 1979 when inflation hit 17% under Thatcher.

[Guesty]

14 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Ours are rubbish btw.

I mean, they're not really, they just have weaknesses like all aircraft carriers. The fact that the US had to move it's carriers away from a conflict with Iran sort of shows why they're becoming less important. They're very vulnerable (especially as missile technology advances), they have lots of maintenance issues which are expensive to maintain, they need a lot of people to run, and they need to be surrounded by a fleet of other ships to protect them.

 

It's also why if a country starts a war, it's a good idea to warn it's allies so they can prepare. You can't just send aircraft carriers out at the click of a finger.

 

The USS Gerald Ford cost $13 billion dollars and a laundry fire caused so much damage and took over 30 hours to put out. They were already spending $4 million dollars and $400,00 dollars a day on trying to fix toilets that don't flush properly.

 

[worthosoriginals]

8 minutes ago, Guesty said:

I mean, they're not really, they just have weaknesses like all aircraft carriers. The fact that the US had to move it's carriers away from a conflict with Iran sort of shows why they're becoming less important. They're very vulnerable (especially as missile technology advances), they have lots of maintenance issues which are expensive to maintain, they need a lot of people to run, and they need to be surrounded by a fleet of other ships to protect them.

 

It's also why if a country starts a war, it's a good idea to warn it's allies so they can prepare. You can't just send aircraft carriers out at the click of a finger.

 

The USS Gerald Ford cost $13 billion dollars and a laundry fire caused so much damage and took over 30 hours to put out. They were already spending $4 million dollars and $400,00 dollars a day on trying to fix toilets that don't flush properly.

 

If a tumble drier can put an aircraft carrier out of action. Imagine the devastation a few drones could do, or a dishwasher.

[Trav Le Bleu]

29 minutes ago, Guesty said:

I mean, they're not really, they just have weaknesses like all aircraft carriers. The fact that the US had to move it's carriers away from a conflict with Iran sort of shows why they're becoming less important. They're very vulnerable (especially as missile technology advances), they have lots of maintenance issues which are expensive to maintain, they need a lot of people to run, and they need to be surrounded by a fleet of other ships to protect them.

 

It's also why if a country starts a war, it's a good idea to warn it's allies so they can prepare. You can't just send aircraft carriers out at the click of a finger.

 

The USS Gerald Ford cost $13 billion dollars and a laundry fire caused so much damage and took over 30 hours to put out. They were already spending $4 million dollars and $400,00 dollars a day on trying to fix toilets that don't flush properly.

 

No, I said it ironically cos Trump said they didn't need our aircraft carriers because, and I quote, "they're rubbish."

 

Though he probably said it as, "there rubbish."

[Trav Le Bleu]

21 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

If a tumble drier can put an aircraft carrier out of action. Imagine the devastation a few drones could do, or a dishwasher.

Was it a laundry fire though? Soon after it happened the Iranians claimed to have hit the Gerald Ford and then the laundry story came out

[worthosoriginals]

1 minute ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Was it a laundry fire though? Soon after it happened the Iranians claimed to have hit the Gerald Ford and then the laundry story came out

Interesting, hadn't heard that, if trump said it was a laundry fire, surely that's the truth

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Was it a laundry fire though? Soon after it happened the Iranians claimed to have hit the Gerald Ford and then the laundry story came out

 

3 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

Interesting, hadn't heard that, if trump said it was a laundry fire, surely that's the truth

It's pretty equally humiliating either way. 

 

Either it's vulnerable enough that an Iranian strike can put it out of action for this length of time, or crewed and equipped by those either so unprepared, incompetent or mutinous that a laundry fire would do the same. 

[worthosoriginals]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

It's pretty equally humiliating either way. 

 

Either it's vulnerable enough that an Iranian strike can put it out of action for this length of time, or crewed and equipped by those either so unprepared, incompetent or mutinous that a laundry fire would do the same. 

Trump speaking to the media....is that a British phrase? Brewery and pissup?

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, worthosoriginals said:

Trump speaking to the media....is that a British phrase? Brewery and pissup?

Saw him going on about his White House vanity project earlier.

 

He demeans the office he holds and the standing of his nation around the world with every passing day he stays in office. 

[Md9]

Maybe we can just give him a toy Nobel peace prize and he will f*** off and die quietly with his life complete 

[worthosoriginals]

9 minutes ago, Md9 said:

Maybe we can just give him a toy Nobel peace prize and he will f*** off and die quietly with his life complete 

A better gift for him and  the world would be a snipers red dot on his temple