SEN. TOM COTTON: war with Iran would be just ‘two strikes’

Discussion in 'United States' started by Mandelus, May 16, 2019.

  1. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,869
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Source:

    https://thinkprogress.org/tom-cotton-war-with-iran-b4a546589fbc/

    "Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) is confident that the United States would swiftly win a war with Iran, which he says will just be “two strikes, the first strike and the last strike.” That argument — that war would end quickly and decisively in American favor — is eerily similar to claims made by top officials advocating for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. ...."

    It's amazing how many Americans are ignoring the truth and confiremd facts about the 2003 Iraq war and the time until withdrawal ... and stubbornly claiming to have won the war ... but that such morons are also elected US senators, is scary!

    Yes ... Saddam and his army were defeated after a few weeks ... what a miracle and how unexpected ... but after that? That is the point!

    Anyway ... it's amazing how much arrogance and overconfidence is too often used in the US. You'd think some Americans actually believe that the Iranians still have flintlock muskets!
    Of course ... alone in an all around and totally Iran of course has no chance to win! But does the US have a chance to win as they clearly won World War II? No! That being said ... if this actually comes to a war, then that will have incredible consequences not only in the region, but on the ganezn world ... let alone many dead US soldiers, many terrorist attacks worldwide and many dead Iranians.
    But unlike in 2003, the US and Saudi Arabia will have to do it all on their own ... there will not be a coalition of the willing (or rather a coalition of the dupes) this time!
     
  2. Wildjoker5

    Wildjoker5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    13,148
    Likes Received:
    3,893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It would be a very fast war, if America acted like they did in the first Iraq war, done within 100 hours. The problem is that we have become a world were after the victor of the war is done blowing everything up, they stay to rebuild everything.
     
  3. Mandelus

    Mandelus Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2015
    Messages:
    10,869
    Likes Received:
    2,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ou mean 1991 "Desert Storm"?
    First, you have to bring the beginning forward, because he started with the first Air Strike and when was? Right ;-)

    Then this war had only the task of the small Kuwait, whose area is not significantly larger than the area of the US state of Conneticut to free. In 2003, that was a completely different number with all of Iraq in terms of time ... and that also against a force that was just a shadow from 1991 in terms of equipment and troop strength.
    Evil were the so-called "Saddam Fedajin" in 2003 ... and they are just a ridiculous boy scout group compared to the Iranian "Revolutionary Guards" ... which are more akin to the "Republican Guards" of Saddam in 1991, which Equipment and morals are concerned ... and they can also make quite evil guerillia war and partisan combat!

    And if we remember the rather ridiculous Scuds of Saddam in 1991, they were already evil. What Saddam had at that time was compared to the Missile Arsenal of Iran today, just a collection of Chinese fireworks.
    Iran already has masses of Chinese missiles reaching easily anywhere in Israel and everything in Saudi Arabia.
    Already in 1991, the US had a great deal of trouble preventing Israel from responding to the Saddam scuds in order to save the coalition. Why should Iran not do the same ... because if Israel then as a counteraction also bombs the evil Iran, then that will be "very funny" with the US allies in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf States if the actually hated Israelis !
     
    alexa likes this.
  4. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    11,362
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Can we really rely on the younger more secular Iranians to act once the strikes have subsided to snatch back the governance of their country from the cabal of religious crazies who stole if from them in the 70s?
     
  5. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    20,824
    Likes Received:
    7,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tom Cotton's statement is stupid, in that it demonstrates nothing has been learned from 1991, 2001, 2003 and ever since.
     
    rcfoolinca288, alexa, Merwen and 3 others like this.
  6. Robert E Allen

    Robert E Allen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2018
    Messages:
    2,157
    Likes Received:
    568
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    I am not in favor of war with Iran but, since ww2 no war has been won by any country that did not have air supremacy.
    Therr is no chance of Iran maintaining an air force at all let alone aerial supremacy.
    Their airforce would be destroyed mostly on the second day. The first day would be destroying their command and control network and their anti aircraft defences.
    1. Cruise missile and stealth attacks.
    Result commanders cannot communicate with eachother or their subordinates.
    2. Air sweeps that eliminate the Iranian air force, mostly on the ground. Intelligent Iranian fighter pilots will avoid taking to the air. After all the F15 Eagle has never been defeated in aerial combat. Especially from POS fulcrums. They literally have no chance.

    Once all that is accomplished we should simply enforce a no fly zone and drop food and medical supplies to Iranian people so that they know that the American people are not their enemy.
     
  7. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    20,824
    Likes Received:
    7,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US would win a war with Iran within four days, but then we would lose the peace as we did in Iraq.
     
  8. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    19,678
    Likes Received:
    4,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or 1917, or 1941, or 1950, or 1962, etc, etc, etc.
     
    rcfoolinca288 and JakeStarkey like this.
  9. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    6,749
    Likes Received:
    3,215
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If it weren't for the Dirty Donald family getting their financing from the Saudis, we would be treating the psycho butcher MBS like he should be treated, as a despotic lunatic.
     
  10. JessCurious

    JessCurious Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2019
    Messages:
    390
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I believe Iran would be a tough opponent. They have been preparing for war for years and have a large army. Further, they are motivated by religious fanaticism, and would fight with the
    determination of the Japanese in World War II. We are, no doubt, superior to them in technology, but could not deploy enough troops to match them in numbers. We were outnumbered by
    Saddam Hussain's troops in Iraq, but blew them away with superior firepower and technology. Further, Saddam's troops had low morale which I doubt would be true of the Iranians. Either
    way - win, lose or draw - a war with Iran could be costly and prolonged. Further, our army is worn down by years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Iranian government is deceitful and
    evil - but that doesn't mean it is weak.
     
    Thomas Treszow likes this.
  11. FivepointFive

    FivepointFive Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2017
    Messages:
    2,301
    Likes Received:
    488
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    War mongers

    You know the young people in Iran are actually quite reasonable and probably don't like their leadership
     
  12. smallblue

    smallblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    4,106
    Likes Received:
    284
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It's either that or have a far more brutal enemy use the turmoil to take power as is seen over and over and over.
     
    Merwen likes this.
  13. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    20,824
    Likes Received:
    7,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ItyeumP8hVrKPUlOd2CudW9k6g0JHg-o_6VnLSGi8acmo

    [​IMG]

    A British general threw a wrench into the Trump administration's narrative that Iran is plotting attacks on American troops in the Middle East by telling reporters gathered at the Pentagon Tuesday that "there's been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces" in the region.

    "We monitor them along with a whole range of others because that's the environment we're in," said Maj. Gen. Chris Ghika, speaking via video from Baghdad. "If the threat level seems to go up then we'll raise our force protection measures accordingly."

    Apparently eager to squash the general's remarks, the U.S. Central Command issued a statement just hours later disputing Ghika's comments and repeating national security adviser John Bolton's unsubstantiated claim that American intelligence has "identified credible threats" from "Iranian-backed forces" in Iraq and Syria.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
    scarlet witch likes this.
  14. Observing

    Observing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,090
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The US will totally destroy Iran's ability to field and airforce or Navy within the first days. they will then destroy the infrastructure of Iran within a week. I am supporting Tulsi who is a peace candidate, but to even to bring up the premise that the US would need a coalition to put Iran without a possibility to present a military threat is uninformed. Trump thinks that he can negotiate with the next regime more than he can with this one.
     
  15. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In Iran there already is a moderate popular president in place along with a functioning government unlike Iraq.
     
    Grau likes this.
  16. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    20,824
    Likes Received:
    7,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then a war in Iran would radicalize that moderate popular president and the population that agrees with him.
     
    DavidMK, gnoib and Aleksander Ulyanov like this.
  17. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The moderate president of Iran (basically a puppet) is willing to negotiate with the US but the Supreme Leader of Iran won't let him and also refuses to negotiate with the US. I believe most Iranians are getting tired of being controlled by a religious fanatic and want to have a more democratic western style of government.
     
  18. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you have a problem with using the reply button when answering someone's post?
     
  19. Observing

    Observing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,090
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And I do also. But that is a problem for Iran itself to solve.
     
  20. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    20,824
    Likes Received:
    7,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am making a comment of my own, and could care less if you like or not my format.
     
  21. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    20,824
    Likes Received:
    7,561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    American C3 would ensure the fighting was over in a week, and then the very effective insurgency would begin two weeks later.
     
    Mandelus likes this.
  22. Heartburn

    Heartburn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,450
    Likes Received:
    648
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But they are unable to do anything about it. They would be conscripted and sent to war and they'd go.
     
  23. Observing

    Observing Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    2,090
    Likes Received:
    509
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WW2 were legitimate.
     
    jay runner likes this.
  24. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't believe the US is looking to change the regime in Iran. Iran has threatened to once again block the Strait of Hormuz and as being reported are moving missiles onto ships to transport them somewhere. The Supreme Leader has threatened the US military bases in the area and the navy ships that are protecting the Strait for commercial shipping. He even stated one missile could take out the entire US fleet in the area. Is he threatening to attack the US with a nuke?
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2019
  25. flyboy56

    flyboy56 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    5,670
    Likes Received:
    848
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you for the "reply."
     

Share This Page