Make war , not love

[Ninurta]

From what I am hearing from veterans on independent podcasts is what they are all saying is that no war can or has ever been won strictly from bombing strikes but that boots on the ground are needed.

Generally speaking, that is kinda sorta true, but a flat statement of such is not nuanced enough. It really depends on what the objective is, what a "win" looks like. If the objective is to seize and hold ground,then yes, "boots on the ground" are necessary. You can deny ground to the enemy from the air alone, but in order to seize or hold that ground for yourself, you need people there to do it.

So, the flaw in that statement as a flat statement is the unspoken assumption that the US wants to annex Iran as if it were the 51st state. It assumes that the US wants to hold the ground for the US. It does not account for the notion that perhaps the US only wants to disrupt the command structure so that Iranians can retake and hold their own ground.

When viewed that way, the question of "boots on the ground" becomes "whose boots?" From what I've seen, there probably ARE "western boots on the ground" already, in a very limited way - probably Mossad, CIA "Special Activities Directorate", and some Special Operations troops from western nations, likely primarily the US. Not enough to actually hold any ground, but perhaps enough to assist the Iranians in holding their own ground.

Otherwise, it looks like the "boots on the ground" in Iran consist of Iranians (primarily MEK at this stage) and I hear in the wind that Iraqi Kurds from Iraqi Kurdistan have also gone into Iran, likely with US supplied weapons and "advisors". That opens a whole 'nuther can of worms. Kurds are an ethnic subgroup that have been fighting across the middle east for a really long time, in Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. They've wanted their own "homeland", their own Kurdish nation, for a long time now... so what is going to be their ask for assisting in Iran? MEK is a Socialist organization, probably not ideal to hand the entire country of Iran over to them.

Personally, I think a better solution would be to employ Iranians as the "boots on the ground", and let them fight for their own country. Just give them the weapons and maybe some advisors to train them, and turn them loose to retake their own country. They've already demonstrated a willingness, by fighting the Clerics even when they have no weapons to fight with other than sheer determination. Probably between 30,000 and 40,000 of them have died over the last month or two at the hands of the IRGC, and they died fighting without weapons. Give them weapons so they have a fighting chance, and let them go to work retaking their own country.

That's all the "boots on the ground" this war really needs.

With Iran having prepared for such a war as this over the last 20 years, how can anyone think that a ground assault will succeed?

That is a non-sequitur. it "doesn't follow". Every nation is "prepared for war" - they all have troops and weapons and such... but the fact is, in every single war ever fought, one side has "won" and one has "lost", despite the preparations of the losing side. Simply being prepared is not enough, and what one is prepared FOR also has a large bearing on the outcome. Iran has been preparing for a Reagan era conflict, 40 years of military advancements too late. They prepared for one sort of conflict, but were given another sort altogether. That adds up to unprepared rather than prepared. How do you fight US "boots on the ground" who never come?

Others are asking whether or not Israel will nuke Iran to level the land so as to be able to take all the oil and minerals. (Venezuela's are not enough it would seem.)

Indeed, others ARE asking that question. They ask it in every single conflict of the 21st century. Always that same question of resource extraction, and it never really happens. Iraq still has her oil... the same oil those folks insisted the US was there to "seize". Afghanistan still has all of her mineral wealth... the same minerals those others insisted we were there to seize. "Others" always ask that same question, but it rarely ever pans out as the right question to be asking. From that, I have to conclude that they are either just not asking the right questions, or else are deliberately trying to distract folks from the real questions... or more specifically, the real answers to the question "why are we there?"

.

[quintessentone]

@ Ninurta, quoted:

"or more specifically, the real answers to the question "why are we there?""

To benefit from the spoils of war and/or colonization. USA dollar has and continues to slip. Trump's tariffs are a total failure. Money needs to come from somewhere.

[YesItsMe]

@ Ninurta, quoted:

"or more specifically, the real answers to the question "why are we there?""

To benefit from the spoils of war and/or colonization. USA dollar has and continues to slip. Trump's tariffs are a total failure. Money needs to come from somewhere.

OR we are there because Iran has continually threatened to destroy us for 50 years and since they are getting close to a nuclear weapon, it was time to finally stop them from being successful in what they have promised to do.

[Ninurta]

@ Ninurta, quoted:

"or more specifically, the real answers to the question "why are we there?""

To benefit from the spoils of war and/or colonization. USA dollar has and continues to slip. Trump's tariffs are a total failure. Money needs to come from somewhere.

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. I don't think it's the correct answer, mostly because I cannot fathom how that would work - spend billions to thump a country, but then how would we possibly even be able to recoup those losses, much less turn a profit on the venture?

We'd have to annex the country to incorporate it into the US GDP and support the charges of "colonization", and then we'd have to go to the expense of rebuilding infrastructure, restructuring it in some cases to counteract the dismal decisions of the Clerics, and then, after all the expense of the war, rebuilding, and "colonization", it would be years and years before we could ever recoup those losses in order to turn a profit.

I just can't see how that would work in the real world,instead of on paper.

But yes, that scenario would most definitely require American "boots on the ground", and lots of them. That in turn would inevitably lead to the "failure" scenario as the Iranians would eventually get tired of being second-class ciizens in their own country, and would then rebel, repeating the war cycle all over again.

There's just no profit in that.

.

[quintessentone]

@ Ninurta, quoted:

"or more specifically, the real answers to the question "why are we there?""

To benefit from the spoils of war and/or colonization. USA dollar has and continues to slip. Trump's tariffs are a total failure. Money needs to come from somewhere.

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. I don't think it's the correct answer, mostly because I cannot fathom how that would work - spend billions to thump a country, but then how would we possibly even be able to recoup those losses, much less turn a profit on the venture?

We'd have to annex the country to incorporate it into the US GDP and support the charges of "colonization", and then we'd have to go to the expense of rebuilding infrastructure, restructuring it in some cases to counteract the dismal decisions of the Clerics, and then, after all the expense of the war, rebuilding, and "colonization", it would be years and years before we could ever recoup those losses in order to turn a profit.

I just can't see how that would work in the real world,instead of on paper.

But yes, that scenario would most definitely require American "boots on the ground", and lots of them. That in turn would inevitably lead to the "failure" scenario as the Iranians would eventually get tired of being second-class ciizens in their own country, and would then rebel, repeating the war cycle all over again.

There's just no profit in that.

.

Seizing the spoils of war and/or colonization and/or coercion. Venezuela oil so far has $2 Billion in USA's coffers to benefit the people of Venezuela and the U.S.A. (We will see about any of that money benefiting any people)

"The United States is leveraging Venezuela’s oil resources to generate financial benefits through controlled sales and revenue management. Following the U.S. capture of President Nicolás Maduro in January 2026, the Trump administration initiated a plan to sell Venezuelan oil, with the first tranche of 50 million barrels sold at market price.  Proceeds from these sales are held in U.S.-controlled accounts, primarily in Qatar, to prevent creditors from seizing funds due to Venezuela’s estimated $170 billion in external debt."

I rather think Trump thought or hoped that he could use the same tactics in Iran as he used in Venezuela through intimidation and coercion. It didn't work with Iran. And we are touching upon the why the USA is there, I say, again, that their original reason IMO was thinking they could eliminate their supreme leader then the people would take over and comply with the West and all the US-dollar oil would be flowing in unprecedented levels to enrich the USA. The delusion is now over and reality has set in.

[quintessentone]

@ Ninurta, quoted:

"or more specifically, the real answers to the question "why are we there?""

To benefit from the spoils of war and/or colonization. USA dollar has and continues to slip. Trump's tariffs are a total failure. Money needs to come from somewhere.

OR we are there because Iran has continually threatened to destroy us for 50 years and since they are getting close to a nuclear weapon, it was time to finally stop them from being successful in what they have promised to do.

How long has North Korea and Russia been threatening the USA as well with nukes?

Yet they get a free pass even though they actually have the nukes to threaten others with.

[putnam6]

@ Ninurta, quoted:

"or more specifically, the real answers to the question "why are we there?""

To benefit from the spoils of war and/or colonization. USA dollar has and continues to slip. Trump's tariffs are a total failure. Money needs to come from somewhere.

Yes, that's one way of looking at it. I don't think it's the correct answer, mostly because I cannot fathom how that would work - spend billions to thump a country, but then how would we possibly even be able to recoup those losses, much less turn a profit on the venture?

We'd have to annex the country to incorporate it into the US GDP and support the charges of "colonization", and then we'd have to go to the expense of rebuilding infrastructure, restructuring it in some cases to counteract the dismal decisions of the Clerics, and then, after all the expense of the war, rebuilding, and "colonization", it would be years and years before we could ever recoup those losses in order to turn a profit.

I just can't see how that would work in the real world,instead of on paper.

But yes, that scenario would most definitely require American "boots on the ground", and lots of them. That in turn would inevitably lead to the "failure" scenario as the Iranians would eventually get tired of being second-class ciizens in their own country, and would then rebel, repeating the war cycle all over again.

There's just no profit in that.

.

Uncle Sam isn't going to have to put boots on the ground; other countries will, and we will cover them in the air. 

Rumors the IRG is in shambles, and it is leaderless in many areas.

[The Crying Bunny]

We're finishing a war that had started 47 years ago.

It's time to stop "taking it on the chin" and let this nutjob ideology terrorize most of the globe.

It's been 5 days and people are making small wee in their panties.

Let's give it a week or two before we start rending shirts and tearing out our hair plugs.

[SomeJackleg]

Uncle Sam isn't going to have to put boots on the ground; other countries will, and we will cover them in the air. 

Rumors the IRG is in shambles, and it is leaderless in many areas.

i've also read that the kurds want to get a few good licks in.

from today,

President Trump said Thursday that he would back the Kurds if they launched an offensive inside Iran, as the militias have reportedly been in touch with the administration over a potential incursion into western Iran. 

“I think it’s wonderful that they want to do that, I’d be all for it,” the president said during an interview with Reuters. 

Trump backs Kurdish offensive in Iran: ‘I’d be all for it’

[quintessentone]

Iran has dealt with Kurdish insurgencies for decades, they know how to suppress them and have special elitist counter insurgency forces in mountainous terrain.

All of this will trigger Persian nationalist sentiment.

[putnam6]

Uncle Sam isn't going to have to put boots on the ground; other countries will, and we will cover them in the air. 

Rumors the IRG is in shambles, and it is leaderless in many areas.

i've also read that the kurds want to get a few good licks in.

from today,

President Trump said Thursday that he would back the Kurds if they launched an offensive inside Iran, as the militias have reportedly been in touch with the administration over a potential incursion into western Iran. 

“I think it’s wonderful that they want to do that, I’d be all for it,” the president said during an interview with Reuters. 

Trump backs Kurdish offensive in Iran: ‘I’d be all for it’

The Kurds have been valuable allies to the American GI in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a perfect world, they could carve out thier own nation state.

[Kenzo1]

We're finishing a war that had started 47 years ago.

It's time to stop "taking it on the chin" and let this nutjob ideology terrorize most of the globe.

It's been 5 days and people are making small wee in their panties.

Let's give it a week or two before we start rending shirts and tearing out our hair plugs.

Donald Rumsfeld on the Iraq War (Feb 7, 2003)

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told the American people it was absurd, as some were claiming, that the conflict would degenerate into a long, drawn-out quagmire. “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,” he insisted. “It won’t be a World War III.” And, just days before the start of combat operations in 2003, Vice President Cheney announced that U.S. forces would likely “be greeted as liberators,” and the war would be over in “weeks rather than months.”

The War on Terror

Iraq War
20 March 2003 – 18 December 2011 (8 years, 8 months and 28 days)

[The Crying Bunny]

We're finishing a war that had started 47 years ago.

It's time to stop "taking it on the chin" and let this nutjob ideology terrorize most of the globe.

It's been 5 days and people are making small wee in their panties.

Let's give it a week or two before we start rending shirts and tearing out our hair plugs.

Donald Rumsfeld on the Iraq War (Feb 7, 2003)

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told the American people it was absurd, as some were claiming, that the conflict would degenerate into a long, drawn-out quagmire. “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,” he insisted. “It won’t be a World War III.” And, just days before the start of combat operations in 2003, Vice President Cheney announced that U.S. forces would likely “be greeted as liberators,” and the war would be over in “weeks rather than months.”

The War on Terror

Iraq War
20 March 2003 – 18 December 2011 (8 years, 8 months and 28 days)

Jesus!

Can we give it a week before declaring a forever war???

[Kenzo1]

We're finishing a war that had started 47 years ago.

It's time to stop "taking it on the chin" and let this nutjob ideology terrorize most of the globe.

It's been 5 days and people are making small wee in their panties.

Let's give it a week or two before we start rending shirts and tearing out our hair plugs.

Donald Rumsfeld on the Iraq War (Feb 7, 2003)

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld told the American people it was absurd, as some were claiming, that the conflict would degenerate into a long, drawn-out quagmire. “Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that,” he insisted. “It won’t be a World War III.” And, just days before the start of combat operations in 2003, Vice President Cheney announced that U.S. forces would likely “be greeted as liberators,” and the war would be over in “weeks rather than months.”

The War on Terror

Iraq War
20 March 2003 – 18 December 2011 (8 years, 8 months and 28 days)

Jesus!

Can we give it a week before declaring a forever war???

Ok, as a matter of fact , i will give 4 weeks until.....because i am such an generous chap .

[quintessentone]

Take this as you find it.

[Ninurta]

Take this as you find it.

Yes, I "took it as I found it". I found it to be about 6 months old, so probably not applicable to the current conflict It probably wasn't very accurate even for the previous conflict it was attempting to address - if what the guy said was true just 8 months ago, there would be no Tel Aviv left now for Iran to send missiles into in the current conflict.

I was a little puzzled as to why he was so vehemently propagandistic against Israel, but all was revealed at the very end of the video. He apparently runs some sort of organization to uncover "injustices" against Arabs. That pretty much explained everything to me. He's not really your average "disinterested observer", he's got skin in the game.

The video you posted before this one... I tried to watch it. I really did. I couldn't get more than about 2 minutes into it, though. That "game theory" propagandist guy really sets my spidey senses to tingling. I can't watch very much of him any more, because he clogs up my BS detector. If he ever said anything at all that could be independently verified, it would possibly be a different matter, but there is only so much talking out of one's posterior that I can take... so I only got a couple minutes into that video, and have no idea what else he might have been trying to say. He is not worthy of my attention.

.===================================================

My Dear Old Dad used to tell me "believe nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see with your own eyes". Right now, the propaganda is flying fast and thick from both sides of the conflict. Iranian propagnda is usually easier to spot, since they tend to inflate numbers beyond carrying capacity. Propaganda from the US/Israeli side is harder to detect, but it's still there. They tend to keep their numbers more reasonable, but use phraseology calculated to pull at heart strings when they are propagandizing.

For example, if you hear an Israeli source mention "the terroristic Iranian regime", you can be pretty sure that what follows is going to be propaganda. There is no reason to specify "terroristic" other than as an appeal to emotion - everyone hates terrorists, right? The fact is the Clerics have kept their hands pretty clean. They employ and support terrorists, but are not, generally speaking, terrorists themselves. They have neither the testicular fortitude nor the willpower to carry out any terrorism themselves. They employ underlings for those baser activities.

Likewise, if a person can find nothing good to say concerning their opponent, nothing at all, they are probably spewing propaganda. They can't afford to say anything good, because they are balls-to-the-wall trying to demonize them. The fact of that matter is that if one cannot find any respect for their opponent at all, then they are punching way below their weight. They are, effectively, beating up relative children.

One has to have some degree of respect for their opponent in order for that opponent to even be worthy of their attention. If not, then they are dragging themselves down to the same level as that unworthy opponent, making unworthy opponents of themselves.

.

[YesItsMe]

How long has North Korea and Russia been threatening the USA as well with nukes?

Yet they get a free pass even though they actually have the nukes to threaten others with.

They can be mostly controlled through other measures.   Iran can not be.  
You are comparing apples to oranges.

[quintessentone]

How long has North Korea and Russia been threatening the USA as well with nukes?

Yet they get a free pass even though they actually have the nukes to threaten others with.

They can be mostly controlled through other measures.   Iran can not be.  
You are comparing apples to oranges.

Iran has not attacked Israel until a few days ago and only because they were attacked first. Past attacks by Iran were for retaliation because of Israeli attacks.

The Israel government are the ones that can not be controlled and the USA has made a big blunder here.

The double standards imposed on Iran are unreasonable IMO. No world nation will give up the only means they have to protect themselves and by having specific weapons forces other nations to actually negotiate instead of attacking. 

Iran does not have nukes, but they claim they have the right to the enrichment of uranium for other purposes.

North Korea has nukes and has threatened other world nations.

Russia continually threatens to use their nukes.

It is obvious to Iran now that having nukes seems to be the only way to force other aggressive nations to negotiate rather than attack, as evidenced with North Korea and Russia.

[YesItsMe]

Iran has not attacked Israel.

They promise that they will and that they will 'wipe Israel off the map'.
Why don't you take them at their word?
Why do you want to wait until they do what they promised instead of allowing for self protection before the disaster?

---

Iran does not have nukes, but they claim they have the right to the enrichment of uranium for other purposes.

And you buy that?   They aren't enriching for 'other purposes'.  They have deep underground bunkers that they are using for enrichment.  You don't do that for 'other purposes'.   And they refuse inspections.  You don't do that for 'other purposes'.

---

It is obvious to Iran now that having nukes seems to be the only way to force other aggressive nations to negotiate rather than attack

No one wants to attack Iran.   Iran forced themselves to be attacked via their massive terrorist activities and rhetoric of promising to attack others.   And they don't want to honestly negotiate.  They just lie and get caught in lies and broken agreements.

[quintessentone]

Iran has not attacked Israel.

They promise that they will and that they will 'wipe Israel off the map'.
Why don't you take them at their word?
Why do you want to wait until they do what they promised instead of allowing for self protection before the disaster?

---

Iran does not have nukes, but they claim they have the right to the enrichment of uranium for other purposes.

And you buy that?   They aren't enriching for 'other purposes'.  They have deep underground bunkers that they are using for enrichment.  You don't do that for 'other purposes'.   And they refuse inspections.  You don't do that for 'other purposes'.

It's not about the nukes, it's about Israel's aggressive military expansion in the region, with the USA being promised the spoils of war. It's disgusting.

It's only normal for other countries to take up arms to protect themselves.

Double standards.

"Israel's stated military and political actions—particularly in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and parts of Syria and Lebanon—have fueled widespread international concern about long-term territorial ambitions.  The concept of "Greater Israel", rooted in historical Zionist ideology and expanded by figures like Theodor Herzl and later plans such as Oded Yinon’s 1982 strategy, envisions a Jewish state stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates, including territories in Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq"

https://mepei.com/greater-israel-an-ongo...th-africa/

This seems more achievable now with the USA stepping in to do the heavy lifting.

---

Take this as you find it.

Yes, I "took it as I found it". I found it to be about 6 months old, so probably not applicable to the current conflict It probably wasn't very accurate even for the previous conflict it was attempting to address - if what the guy said was true just 8 months ago, there would be no Tel Aviv left now for Iran to send missiles into in the current conflict.

I was a little puzzled as to why he was so vehemently propagandistic against Israel, but all was revealed at the very end of the video. He apparently runs some sort of organization to uncover "injustices" against Arabs. That pretty much explained everything to me. He's not really your average "disinterested observer", he's got skin in the game.

The video you posted before this one... I tried to watch it. I really did. I couldn't get more than about 2 minutes into it, though. That "game theory" propagandist guy really sets my spidey senses to tingling. I can't watch very much of him any more, because he clogs up my BS detector. If he ever said anything at all that could be independently verified, it would possibly be a different matter, but there is only so much talking out of one's posterior that I can take... so I only got a couple minutes into that video, and have no idea what else he might have been trying to say. He is not worthy of my attention.

.===================================================

My Dear Old Dad used to tell me "believe nothing that you hear, and only half of what you see with your own eyes". Right now, the propaganda is flying fast and thick from both sides of the conflict. Iranian propagnda is usually easier to spot, since they tend to inflate numbers beyond carrying capacity. Propaganda from the US/Israeli side is harder to detect, but it's still there. They tend to keep their numbers more reasonable, but use phraseology calculated to pull at heart strings when they are propagandizing.

For example, if you hear an Israeli source mention "the terroristic Iranian regime", you can be pretty sure that what follows is going to be propaganda. There is no reason to specify "terroristic" other than as an appeal to emotion - everyone hates terrorists, right? The fact is the Clerics have kept their hands pretty clean. They employ and support terrorists, but are not, generally speaking, terrorists themselves. They have neither the testicular fortitude nor the willpower to carry out any terrorism themselves. They employ underlings for those baser activities.

Likewise, if a person can find nothing good to say concerning their opponent, nothing at all, they are probably spewing propaganda. They can't afford to say anything good, because they are balls-to-the-wall trying to demonize them. The fact of that matter is that if one cannot find any respect for their opponent at all, then they are punching way below their weight. They are, effectively, beating up relative children.

One has to have some degree of respect for their opponent in order for that opponent to even be worthy of their attention. If not, then they are dragging themselves down to the same level as that unworthy opponent, making unworthy opponents of themselves.

.

What was worthy of my attention is he was reiterating what others have reiterated about Israel during the Gaza genocidal bombings, that Israel hides the truth from their people. This I believe to be fact.

I also thank you for your advice in keeping an eye out for all parties' propaganda, which I try to do, but within these types of forums, Israel's Zionist government always seems to get a pass.

An interesting discussion on accepting independent or alternate news reports or refusing to accept it. It may be that some people who can't accept the other side of the reality can be accused of supporting Imperialism or are authoritarian apologists. One thing for sure, is no military faction will tell the truth as to the level of devastation that was inflicted on them by their enemy.