6 ms·

Things are about to get real. If launched from Iranian territory there is a pretty clear case for the US to go to war. I know the “WW3” meme is popular right

Things are about to get real. If launched from Iranian territory there is a pretty clear case for the US to go to war. I know the “WW3” meme is popular right now but Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks).

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
If the article is correct, they were not only launched from Iran, but Iran admits it. This is going to get very interesting in terms of internal US politics. The Democrats don't trust Trump, including in terms of his motives and judgment in dealing with Iran. They also, in general, oppose war. They're trying to use the War Powers Act to reign him in. But if they do so, and prevent a response to this latest attack, that could cost a number of them dearly in the next election - especially since Iran is not likely to stop at firing a few missiles at two US bases.
- mc32 7y ago
  Neocons are in both parties and have influenced both Bush and Obama to “architect” the ME. These are globalists who want to accelerate their global political vision ("democratize" everyone and we’ll all get along). [so they can make their money]
  - jrs235 7y ago
    I was under the impression that the globalist vision wasn't about democracy, even though that's the[ir] claim, and that it's really about controlling money and oil.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- burfog 7y ago
  Democrat voters may oppose war, but the same can not be said for democrat politicians.
lurker2823 7y ago
Maybe US should just leave the region where it isn't welcome. Also, if this were to turn into a conventional war, I predict the US would suffer massive losses, unless they resort to using tactical nukes. The US hasn't been on the winning side of a war since WW2.
- burfog 7y ago
  The US has won every war as much as was desired, and it will continue to do so. Every supposed "loss" occurs in DC politics, not as a result of inability on the battlefield.
  - lurker2823 7y ago
    sure, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea (not to mention the countless 'anti-terrorism' strikes throughout Africa), all shining examples of 'winning'. Much like Charlie Sheen..... I feel sorry for the poor fools who blindly follow the drumbeat of war and think they are doing a patriotic duty to their nation / meat grinder, which chews them up and spits them out once they are done with them. But hey, Raytheon stocks are up!
    - burfog 7y ago
      "as much as was desired" We decided how much winning we wanted, and we did it. Unfortunately for the soldiers and the taxpayers, the politicians have a limited appetite for winning. Vietnam is a fine example. We limited the amount of ammo! We didn't mine the harbor until very late in the war. The politicians ran the war as they desired, winning as much as they wanted to win. In all those wars, the USA very obviously had the option for a quick and complete victory. It just wasn't done. Thank politics.
insanez 7y ago
You are insane - Afghanistan is going on 19? years now and Iraq is no better. If there were any american casualties this is going to get really bad really fast. Idk about WW3 but this is going to make Iraq/Afghanistan look like tea time at the park.
coolanymous 7y ago
Are you serious right now? Iraq war started in 2003 and hasn't ended. What makes you think matter of days or weeks or the timeline?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
hanniabu 7y ago
For it to be WW3 Iran would need to get absolutely destroyed to where China would then come in to defend them, and then US allies would also need to get involved and so on. I'm no expert at foreign affairs, but I just don't see that happening.
elihu 7y ago
> Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks). Iran would lose control of their airspace pretty quickly and we'd be able to drop bombs on whoever we want, but there's no quick way the United States could occupy and control the country in that time (at least, not without resorting to weapons and tactics that would cause massive loss of civilian life, and which most soldiers would I hope refuse to carry out). Some of the logistical issues are explained here: https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Jan06.html https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Jan06.html
- fnord77 7y ago
  there's no way at all we (the US) could win a boots-on-the-ground war with Iran.
  - SaxonRobber 7y ago
    Winning is bad for business anyway.
- dforrestwilson 7y ago
  Correct. Conventional War =/= Guerrilla War Guerrilla Wars can go on for decades even with lots of boots on the ground.
lazyasciiart 7y ago
When one country's government openly assassinates a senior member of another country's government, the second country might reasonably feel that war had already begun.
- SaxonRobber 7y ago
  Republican bobble heads gave up reason, along with morality and honesty, a long long time ago.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

If the article is correct, they were not only launched from Iran, but Iran admits it. This is going to get very interesting in terms of internal US politics. The Democrats don't trust Trump, including in terms of his motives and judgment in dealing with Iran. They also, in general, oppose war. They're trying to use the War Powers Act to reign him in. But if they do so, and prevent a response to this latest attack, that could cost a number of them dearly in the next election - especially since Iran is not likely to stop at firing a few missiles at two US bases.

mc32 7y ago
Neocons are in both parties and have influenced both Bush and Obama to “architect” the ME. These are globalists who want to accelerate their global political vision ("democratize" everyone and we’ll all get along). [so they can make their money]
- jrs235 7y ago
  I was under the impression that the globalist vision wasn't about democracy, even though that's the[ir] claim, and that it's really about controlling money and oil.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
burfog 7y ago
Democrat voters may oppose war, but the same can not be said for democrat politicians.

lurker2823 7y ago

Maybe US should just leave the region where it isn't welcome. Also, if this were to turn into a conventional war, I predict the US would suffer massive losses, unless they resort to using tactical nukes. The US hasn't been on the winning side of a war since WW2.

burfog 7y ago
The US has won every war as much as was desired, and it will continue to do so. Every supposed "loss" occurs in DC politics, not as a result of inability on the battlefield.
- lurker2823 7y ago
  sure, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea (not to mention the countless 'anti-terrorism' strikes throughout Africa), all shining examples of 'winning'. Much like Charlie Sheen..... I feel sorry for the poor fools who blindly follow the drumbeat of war and think they are doing a patriotic duty to their nation / meat grinder, which chews them up and spits them out once they are done with them. But hey, Raytheon stocks are up!
  - burfog 7y ago
    "as much as was desired" We decided how much winning we wanted, and we did it. Unfortunately for the soldiers and the taxpayers, the politicians have a limited appetite for winning. Vietnam is a fine example. We limited the amount of ammo! We didn't mine the harbor until very late in the war. The politicians ran the war as they desired, winning as much as they wanted to win. In all those wars, the USA very obviously had the option for a quick and complete victory. It just wasn't done. Thank politics.

insanez 7y ago

You are insane - Afghanistan is going on 19? years now and Iraq is no better. If there were any american casualties this is going to get really bad really fast. Idk about WW3 but this is going to make Iraq/Afghanistan look like tea time at the park.

coolanymous 7y ago

Are you serious right now? Iraq war started in 2003 and hasn't ended. What makes you think matter of days or weeks or the timeline?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

hanniabu 7y ago

For it to be WW3 Iran would need to get absolutely destroyed to where China would then come in to defend them, and then US allies would also need to get involved and so on. I'm no expert at foreign affairs, but I just don't see that happening.

elihu 7y ago

> Iran is only a regional power and would likely lose a conventional war quickly against the US (matter of days or weeks). Iran would lose control of their airspace pretty quickly and we'd be able to drop bombs on whoever we want, but there's no quick way the United States could occupy and control the country in that time (at least, not without resorting to weapons and tactics that would cause massive loss of civilian life, and which most soldiers would I hope refuse to carry out). Some of the logistical issues are explained here: https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Jan06.html https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2020/Pres/Maps/Jan06.html

fnord77 7y ago
there's no way at all we (the US) could win a boots-on-the-ground war with Iran.
- SaxonRobber 7y ago
  Winning is bad for business anyway.
dforrestwilson 7y ago
Correct. Conventional War =/= Guerrilla War Guerrilla Wars can go on for decades even with lots of boots on the ground.

lazyasciiart 7y ago

When one country's government openly assassinates a senior member of another country's government, the second country might reasonably feel that war had already begun.

SaxonRobber 7y ago
Republican bobble heads gave up reason, along with morality and honesty, a long long time ago.