The Coming War with Iran

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Goni said:
911 said:
Goni said:
911 said:
The Soviets would have collapsed well before 1991 without the financial support from the West, which also handed to them half of Europe on a platter after WW2, at a time when Patton, who didn't like that, could have easily taken back all of Eastern Europe without much opposition. Instead Patton was killed.

The current ayatollah regime was also propped up by the deep state in 1979, but since the 00s it's been on the regime change list.
It would be impossible for Patton to take over Eastern Europe.

Soviet Army was too strong , too numerous and heavily armed.

The men were also used much more to war than the Americans who used the massive industrial production to defeat the enemy , unlike the Soviets ( or unlike the Germans who used tactics, technology in small numbers im terms of production and bravery).

Patton was killed because he understood that the 3rd Reich was not the monster he was made the believe.

He understood the Jews were his masters and he was killed for that.

Pretty much like Kennedy.

Stalin was not under jewish control btw, or at least not entirely under their control.

He was an outcast.

His takeover òf power was not predicted. Trotsky was the one to become the Soviet leader.
Allied forces had 3,000 strategic bombers, complete air superiority, and nukes. As well the Soviets depended on Allied supplies on funds, weapons food products and key strategic items.

The Soviets were thousands of kms away from home and the US could have quickly taken out Soviet supply lines in a couple of weeks, grounding their armored brigades and air force. The Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians would have cooperated, and the Soviet troops themselves had no animus towards Americans the same way they did towards the Germans.

Even without nukes, it would have been a mismatch, so much so that Stalin could have been forced to retreat to his 1945 USSR borders with just a bit of arm twisting. That was Patton's take as well:

Several months before the end of the war, General Patton had recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders which he had been given to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian, and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.

On May 7, 1945, just before the German capitulation, Patton had a conference in Austria with U.S. Secretary of War Robert Patterson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and American occupation zones. He was also alarmed by plans in Washington for the immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army.

Patton said to Patterson: "Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect."

Patterson replied, "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture."

Patton rejoined: "I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"

...On May 18 he noted in his diary: "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better."

Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger."
On Patton's assassination, which was done by Soviet agents with the tacit knowledge of Allied commanders:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...sm-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html
Patton was a good general and a great man, but it does not mean he was right about the military strength of the Red Army.

Saying that allies were superior in terms of air force and artillery and that soviet supplies were chicken meat and cats is ridiculous.

Red Army had more than 17,000 armoured vehicles in 1945 of which more than 10,000 were tanks.

It had almost half of that number in terms of aircrafts. Does not matter how many bombers allies had, because everything was produced by the USA, industrial production of Britian was very small in comparison.

It had more than 8 million soldiers in the front, double size of the army of western powers in Europe.

Stalin had another 20 million russian slaves to be used as cattle every time. Why do you think so many Russians were killed in warfare against Germans? Besides german precission and skills, another reason was that Soviet leadership had no empathy for the loss of human life.

And artillery??

Thousands of pieces and technology of Katyushas was better than the western one.

No one was ready for a 3rd World War, people were devastated.

Btw, since this is a topic about Iran...

You said deep state wants Iran to be a backward country?

Since Iran is being valued in this thread for being a conservative country and holding against globalism, at the same time it is being called backward?

Also, how much sense does it make for the deep state to overthrow the Shah they put in power and place a regime hostile to the Deep State?

Or are you saying that the Deep State did not predict that?

Similair to Hitler who was initially financed by western industries but later on he turned to be a huge danger to them by the successful system he created and the war he was conducting against ((them))?

Btw Shah was a piece of shit. The deep state would not place on the top a descent man.

The Shah sold all the natural sources of Iran to the Deep State , he killed and imprisioned many people and during his time society got worse in terms of degeneration.

That is why this regime came in power in the first place

The Shah had his flaws, like Saddam, both were highly compliant men that were placed at the top of their countries by the CIA but gradually morphed into nationalist leaders. Once Saddam got his billions, his dozen palaces, the next thing for him was to climb up Mazlow's pyramid and seek the approval of his people. The same for the Shah, Iran was starting to become a prosperous regional power in the 1970s, with oil prices spiking, as was Iraq. Both of these countries have a very rich cultural heritage with glorified past rulers, to which their modern rulers will aspire.

As to the Soviet army in Europe, manpower alone doesn't matter as much in modern warfare, that's how Germany blietzkrieged and overrun all of Europe, or how Israel overwhelmed Arab forces. The Soviets were overstretched, thousands of kms from their bases and supply sources. The Allies could have bombed their refineries, railroads, bridges, tankers and quickly crippled their supply lines, which would have left their armored vehicles useless. Box formations of thousands of B-29s, which were nearly as fast as Soviet fighter planes like the P-39 Aircobra, escorted with thousands of P-51s, the best propeller fighter of WW2, were practically invulnerable, and could have burned any industrial region or large city to the ground in 48 hours, without using nukes.

Starving soldiers 3,000kms from home aren't going to die for Stalin. They would have sacrificed themselves for Stalingrad and Moscow in a heartbeat, but not to take Berlin and Prague away from the Allies.

One way to think about this is to look at Napoleon's Russian campaign. He was practically invincible at home or close enough to it, but he overreached and marched well ahead of his supply lines, leaving France with nearly half a million troops and returning with 10,000, which was a turning point for that Empire:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Minard.png
 

Dr. Howard

Peacock
Gold Member
Yatagan said:
Patton is an overhyped crank that lost several hundred men and 57 vehicles over some pea brained scheme to rescue his son-in-law that failed spectacularly. I'd take any assessment of his regarding the Soviets with a dump truck's worth of salt.

Patton is Definitely reincarnated in Trump or a time traveller etc.

Doesn't that sound like something that Trump would do? Throw in a huge hail mary manpower and vehicle effort in an effort to rescue Jared Kushner who broke his high heel and twisted his ankle behind enemy lines while negotiating some kind of coup?
 

Blaster

Ostrich
Gold Member
It_is_my_time said:
Blaster said:
Incidentally, I am asking pointed questions about assassination because you are speaking in generalities. The term War Crimes is a loaded term that includes mass murder of civilian non-combatants and other extreme atrocities. Assassinating a high-ranking general is a very different category of crime than say, killing almost everyone in a village and raping anyone left alive. It should be discussed in its own context, not a vague appeal to legality-is-morality.
I'm not using the term in a general context. I am using it in a specific context. That context is that it is against the Geneva Convention to assassinate a foreign dignitary who is no threat to you. This General was invited by the Iraqi govt. to discuss peace talks. To assassinate him under these conditions and admit he is no threat is a war crime and very ugly precedent to set.

It doesn't even matter if Iran tries to do anything after this. They might or they might not. The precedent is set. The USA is now known to commit war crimes and even boast about it. Trump and his family have top notch security and will be safe. The rest of us don't and for our brave men deployed overseas it paints a bigger target on them. It was beyond a boneheaded move. But I guess we can see this whole thing is starting to crumble, so it was a boneheaded move when it was already too late anyway, and maybe it really will not matter.
Semantic quibbling. You are arguing that because the US is "known to commit war crimes" that it will just go ahead and commit any war crime it feels like whenever it wants. You are trying to equate mass genocide with a single, high-profile borderline assassination.

The legalistic quibbling goes further as to whether Soleimani "presented an immediate threat," as if the only difference between a peacetime assassination of a political leader and a military combatant presenting an immediate threat are the only possible distinctions to make.

Disregarding a moment the (very real) possibility of faulty intelligence, assume that Soleimani was in Iraq under the pretense of peaceful negotations with the Iraqis but had in fact planned and was planning and coordinating more attacks on US forces in the region. He is a high level military general, this is very plausible. The fact that he might not have presented an "immediate threat" in the words Trump does not automatically mean he was not a valid military target.

The rest of us don't and for our brave men deployed overseas it paints a bigger target on them.
Does it? That is not clear to me. Iran has made specific rhetoric directing their hostility toward Trump personally and not the American people. How many people in the world are really deeply affected by Soleimani's death? How many people who weren't already hostile to the United States, become so due to the death of one elite asshole?

Meanwhile, how many leaders might be more cautious about funding and coordinating covert asymmetric warfare against Americans, when they know that there's a non-zero chance that crazy Trump might just fucking drone your highest general in retaliation? How many would be emboldened to attack more if the US just sat and did nothing?

I'm not saying we should just throw out the Geneva convention or the US executive order against political assassination. But fixating on one public comment and crying foul over this is not a good idea.
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
Blaster said:
It_is_my_time said:
Blaster said:
Incidentally, I am asking pointed questions about assassination because you are speaking in generalities. The term War Crimes is a loaded term that includes mass murder of civilian non-combatants and other extreme atrocities. Assassinating a high-ranking general is a very different category of crime than say, killing almost everyone in a village and raping anyone left alive. It should be discussed in its own context, not a vague appeal to legality-is-morality.
I'm not using the term in a general context. I am using it in a specific context. That context is that it is against the Geneva Convention to assassinate a foreign dignitary who is no threat to you. This General was invited by the Iraqi govt. to discuss peace talks. To assassinate him under these conditions and admit he is no threat is a war crime and very ugly precedent to set.

It doesn't even matter if Iran tries to do anything after this. They might or they might not. The precedent is set. The USA is now known to commit war crimes and even boast about it. Trump and his family have top notch security and will be safe. The rest of us don't and for our brave men deployed overseas it paints a bigger target on them. It was beyond a boneheaded move. But I guess we can see this whole thing is starting to crumble, so it was a boneheaded move when it was already too late anyway, and maybe it really will not matter.
Semantic quibbling. You are arguing that because the US is "known to commit war crimes" that it will just go ahead and commit any war crime it feels like whenever it wants. You are trying to equate mass genocide with a single, high-profile borderline assassination.

The legalistic quibbling goes further as to whether Soleimani "presented an immediate threat," as if the only difference between a peacetime assassination of a political leader and a military combatant presenting an immediate threat are the only possible distinctions to make.

Disregarding a moment the (very real) possibility of faulty intelligence, assume that Soleimani was in Iraq under the pretense of peaceful negotations with the Iraqis but had in fact planned and was planning and coordinating more attacks on US forces in the region. He is a high level military general, this is very plausible. The fact that he might not have presented an "immediate threat" in the words Trump does not automatically mean he was not a valid military target.

The rest of us don't and for our brave men deployed overseas it paints a bigger target on them.
Does it? That is not clear to me. Iran has made specific rhetoric directing their hostility toward Trump personally and not the American people. How many people in the world are really deeply affected by Soleimani's death? How many people who weren't already hostile to the United States, become so due to the death of one elite asshole?

Meanwhile, how many leaders might be more cautious about funding and coordinating covert asymmetric warfare against Americans, when they know that there's a non-zero chance that crazy Trump might just fucking drone your highest general in retaliation? How many would be emboldened to attack more if the US just sat and did nothing?

I'm not saying we should just throw out the Geneva convention or the US executive order against political assassination. But fixating on one public comment and crying foul over this is not a good idea.
I appreciate your well thought out comments.

My point is...

#1) It was already a boneheaded decision. The man was fighting ISIS, but of course as we now know Sunni terrorism is our own guys and the Shiites fighting against it is our enemies. Despite the fact the USA is collapsing and we don't have the resources to throw into this silly conflict halfway around the world.

#2) It was a boneheaded statement, but it is almost to be expect by now.

#3) I heard a great point. We put all this time and resources into taking this guy out. How about some of that be directed at the drug traffic coming across our border and committing a true genocide of the American people by the means of chemical warfare (deadly drugs). Nah, we can't do that, because some silly excuse or another.

All in all, it is just another American last move for the American people and a win for the Globalists elites. It doesn't make any of us safer in the least and it just puts another stain on the American empire.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
It_is_my_time said:
...
#1) It was already a boneheaded decision. The man was fighting ISIS, but of course as we now know Sunni terrorism is our own guys and the Shiites fighting against it is our enemies. Despite the fact the USA is collapsing and we don't have the resources to throw into this silly conflict halfway around the world.

...


#3) I heard a great point. We put all this time and resources into taking this guy out. How about some of that be directed at the drug traffic coming across our border and committing a true genocide of the American people by the means of chemical warfare (deadly drugs). Nah, we can't do that, because some silly excuse or another.
...
In reply to 1), the US Government is spending money to make money in the sense that it's an international debt cartel that relies on being the undisputed world superpower to enforce its systems of wealth transfer. This strategy seems doomed in the long term but from the perspective of the elites the current meddling is a small price to pay to keep the ball rolling for now, especially because they're not the ones paying it.

In reply to 2), you have to see the "war on drugs" as a war to maintain deep state control of that revenue source for their off-book slush funds for regime change and bribery to maintain that empire status. For the elites the drug epidemic is simply another unique form of taxation and if you see it as such you'll realise that, as per 1), ending that source of revenue would ironically drive the US closer to collapse.

Personally I think collapse is inevitable so the sooner the better (before you're functionally Mexico+cold weather).

Obviously the elites would rather the collapse comes later because they're still making out like bandits and can afford to live luxuriously elsewhere when things get ugly. But make no mistake about what you're asking for when you ask for an end to foreign meddling and the drug epidemic. You are asking for an (early) collapse of the US federal empire.
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
Leonard D Neubache said:
It_is_my_time said:
...
#1) It was already a boneheaded decision. The man was fighting ISIS, but of course as we now know Sunni terrorism is our own guys and the Shiites fighting against it is our enemies. Despite the fact the USA is collapsing and we don't have the resources to throw into this silly conflict halfway around the world.

...


#3) I heard a great point. We put all this time and resources into taking this guy out. How about some of that be directed at the drug traffic coming across our border and committing a true genocide of the American people by the means of chemical warfare (deadly drugs). Nah, we can't do that, because some silly excuse or another.
...
In reply to 1), the US Government is spending money to make money in the sense that it's an international debt cartel that relies on being the undisputed world superpower to enforce its systems of wealth transfer. This strategy seems doomed in the long term but from the perspective of the elites the current meddling is a small price to pay to keep the ball rolling for now, especially because they're not the ones paying it.

In reply to 2), you have to see the "war on drugs" as a war to maintain deep state control of that revenue source for their off-book slush funds for regime change and bribery to maintain that empire status. For the elites the drug epidemic is simply another unique form of taxation and if you see it as such you'll realise that, as per 1), ending that source of revenue would ironically drive the US closer to collapse.

Personally I think collapse is inevitable so the sooner the better (before you're functionally Mexico+cold weather).

Obviously the elites would rather the collapse comes later because they're still making out like bandits and can afford to live luxuriously elsewhere when things get ugly. But make no mistake about what you're asking for when you ask for an end to foreign meddling and the drug epidemic. You are asking for an (early) collapse of the US federal empire.
You are 100% correct. I just want more people aware of how we are not winning anything and to take measures to prepare for the worst here at home. I really cannot believe things have gotten this bad over the last 10 years.
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
I almost wonder if not only was this attack kind of allowed, but it was also a show to the US intelligence what exactly Iran has and it might be impressive enough that it alone prevented any more stupid actions for the time being.

If their missiles are that accurate, it would make a war with Iran way too bloody for the Americans to accept. I still remember early in the Iraq war of 2003 some how a few Iraqi's got a Scud missile set up with some type of Russian radar jamming system and they were able to get the Scud missile through all our defense systems and it luckily hit nothing. It scared the hell out of the media and the people in the USA for a day or two until they realized this was a one off attempt they couldn't pull off again. If Iran has technology this accurate they could kill hundreds/thousands of our soldiers from a distance before we ever step foot on their soil. Americans would never accept this as war weary as we are.
 

Sosa

Woodpecker
Sosa said:
This hurts. I just found out one of the girls who passed on the plane that was shot down was a friend of mine for 4 years while I was still studying at a Ukrainian University. God rest her soul. :s

My fiance and I are crowdfunding to help support the memorial service and her family.

My friend Maria was a 24 year old flight attendant who was killed when her plane was shot down shortly after takeoff from Iran on January 8, 2020.

She was a very bright, beautiful, cheerful and soulful girl.

Learn more & support her here ----->

https://www.gofundme.com/f/acacm-memorial-service-for-maria-mykytiuk

 

dicknixon72

Kingfisher
It_is_my_time said:
I need to post this here too. I didn't think it would be confirmed. So it appears Iran has more fire power than we were aware of and we are backing down. Hope we don't get stupid and try to test them again. 11 good men maybe had their lives ruined.

I'm not trying to be rude, but what is with this weird fetishization of the idea of Iran having superior armaments?
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
dicknixon72 said:
It_is_my_time said:
I need to post this here too. I didn't think it would be confirmed. So it appears Iran has more fire power than we were aware of and we are backing down. Hope we don't get stupid and try to test them again. 11 good men maybe had their lives ruined.

I'm not trying to be rude, but what is with this weird fetishization of the idea of Iran having superior armaments?
Superior armaments? I don't think anyone here has said Iran has superior armaments v. the USA. As far as we know they don't even have a nuclear weapon.

I am guessing you would rather ask "what is the fetishization of Iran having better weapons that we guessed?"

Well, my hope is the dummies in DC underestimated Iran's ability and realized that they would be a serious threat if we were dumb enough to start a war with them, so they decided to back down.

I have no idea if this is true or not. It appears they injured 11 of our soldiers in these attacks and we didn't respond. So something is going on behind the scenes.
 

doc holliday

Pelican
Gold Member
dicknixon72 said:
It_is_my_time said:
I need to post this here too. I didn't think it would be confirmed. So it appears Iran has more fire power than we were aware of and we are backing down. Hope we don't get stupid and try to test them again. 11 good men maybe had their lives ruined.

I'm not trying to be rude, but what is with this weird fetishization of Iran?
This edited version of your post is basically the theme of this thread dicknixon72.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
It_is_my_time said:
dicknixon72 said:
It_is_my_time said:
I need to post this here too. I didn't think it would be confirmed. So it appears Iran has more fire power than we were aware of and we are backing down. Hope we don't get stupid and try to test them again. 11 good men maybe had their lives ruined.

I'm not trying to be rude, but what is with this weird fetishization of the idea of Iran having superior armaments?
Superior armaments? I don't think anyone here has said Iran has superior armaments v. the USA. As far as we know they don't even have a nuclear weapon.

I am guessing you would rather ask "what is the fetishization of Iran having better weapons that we guessed?"

Well, my hope is the dummies in DC underestimated Iran's ability and realized that they would be a serious threat if we were dumb enough to start a war with them, so they decided to back down.

I have no idea if this is true or not. It appears they injured 11 of our soldiers in these attacks and we didn't respond. So something is going on behind the scenes.
A couple of notes:

-Notice that the news outlet breaking this story is Israeli, the story had died out before with no declared casualties. It's as if they want to prod the US into a military escalation...

-Supposedly the soldiers injured had severe concussions, as opposed to being hit directly or getting shrapneled. My guess is that they had advance warning and might have been in shelters, and still got injured as those shelters weren't safe enough against missiles with 1-ton plus payloads delivered with pinpoint accuracy.

Apparently Iran has literally thousands of those missiles, which means it's a total game changer, as in an all-out conflict they will have hundreds of soft targets and they could easily inflict 1,000-5,000 US casualties. You'd have to go back to WW2 or maybe Korea for an opponent with that kind of capability, all the previous wars fought since (Vietnam, Iraq 1 and 2) were basically asymetric guerilla wars against third world enemies that couldn't strike back with that kind of accuracy and firepower.
 
Top