Iran vs the US Thread

[Vassenor]

Well we were under Carter who was weak and pathetic. If Trump had any balls we would be bombing Tehran into a pile of fucking rubble, the fact that they support other far left dictatorships is a good enough reason alone.

…Wars are rarely won by bombing campaigns.

But they're good for making the nationalists feel all gooey inside.

[Kowani]

…Wars are rarely won by bombing campaigns.

But they're good for making the nationalists feel all gooey inside.

There’s a surprise.

[North German Realm]

Well we were under Carter who was weak and pathetic. If Trump had any balls we would be bombing Tehran into a pile of fucking rubble, the fact that they support other far left dictatorships is a good enough reason alone.

…Wars are rarely won by bombing campaigns.

And "there gommies" is seldom a valid casus belli, even for the US of A.

[Kowani]

…Wars are rarely won by bombing campaigns.

And "there gommies" is seldom a valid casus belli, even for the US of A.

Well. It is, but never the public one.

[Phoenicaea]

^ when i read american history, i notice this. that in common fictious sense, Carter and Reagan should have been said as good, while, if anything, Kennedy and Nixon as modest.

i can t say why instead, historical common fictious sense has to traffic, say, Carter for Kennedy. also i m not american nor living there, so i may missunderstand actual, crude real.

i not saying precisely the judment about the iran crisis, for Carter. so tell me, who and why has suggested before, beneath surface, which president is either modest or good.

it is peaceful these sort of things (crisis, raids), things that don t count, are used to symbolise a judment either of appoval or disproval, which has been done for other reasons.

[Kowani]

^ when i read american history, i see as common fictious sense Carter and Reagan should have been said as good, while, if anything, Kennedy and Nixon as modest.

i can t say why instead, historical common fictious sense has to traffic, say, Carter for Kennedy. also i m not american nor living there, so i may missunderstand actual, crude real.

i not saying precisely the judment about the iran crisis, for Carter. so tell me, who and why has suggested before, beneath surface, which president is either modest or good.

it is peaceful these sort of things (crisis, raids), things that don t count, are used to symbolise a judment either of appoval or disproval, which has been done for other reasons.

From what I can understand, you either approve of Carter and Reagan, or you think that American society does. Am I correct?

[Phoenicaea]

^ when i read american history, i see as, for common fictious sense, Carter and Reagan should have been said as good, while, if anything, Kennedy and Nixon as modest.

i can t say why instead, historical common fictious sense has to traffic Carter for Kennedy. also i m not american nor living there, so i may missunderstand crude real.

i not saying precisely the judment about the iran crisis, for Carter. so tell me, who and why has suggested before, beneath surface, which president is either modest or good.

it is peaceful these sort of things (raids), things that don t count, are used to symbolise a judment either of appoval or disproval, which has been done for other reasons.

From what I can understand, you either approve of Carter and Reagan, or you think that American society does. Am I correct?

quite. pardon, perhaps my words are dusty. i say: i would approve Carter and Reagan, while i would quite disapprove Kennedy and Nixon. based on reading your history.

it seems to me American public approve Kennedy and Reagan, while they disapprove Carter and Nixon instead. so, why this mismatch?

[Novus America]

But they should not be cutting jobs throughout. Only the Army should see large active force reductions, the RAF and RN should be greatly strengthened.

The British Army is the smallest it's been in more than a century. How much smaller do you want it?

The entire size of the UK Armed Forces is about 150k. This would be an equal distribution.
Currently the Army gets the most men, despite being the least immediately important.
Unless you want to drastically increase the defense budget, increasing the RN means cutting something else.

The US for example uses an approximately 4 to 5 active Navy to Army ratio. Yours is 3 to 8.
And remember yours includes marines in your navy. Including the Marines the US Department of the Navy actually has more active military personnel than the Department if the Army.

Including Marines we have an approximately 6 to 5 Navy to Army ratio.

The UK is much better suited to be a air and sea power than a land power as well.
So a 1 to 1 ratio makes more sense than 3 to 8.

But I would also make up for this by rebuilding the TA on a model like the US National Guard in the 50s to early 60s.
That is it would be much larger than the active Army. Thus giving you a significant Army without having to pay it full time, and spending the money saved on the Air Force and Navy instead.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Iranian Revolutionary Guard are saying they have seized another tanker.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49225916

[North German Realm]

Iranian Revolutionary Guard are saying they have seized another tanker.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-49225916

Iirc, BBC claimed that Iran claims it was from Iraq, but Iraq denied this, any more news?

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Gibraltar have released the Iranian tanker, with assurance from Iran that its cargo will not be going to Syria. The US tried to intervene at the last moment to stop it being released by the UK/Gibraltar. I suspect we will see reciprocity from Iran soon.

[Bear Stearns]

Lowkey I support secretly giving Iran nukes. They're the only country who'd have the balls to use them on Saudi Arabia.

[North German Realm]

Gibraltar have released the Iranian tanker, with assurance from Iran that its cargo will not be going to Syria. The US tried to intervene at the last moment to stop it being released by the UK/Gibraltar. I suspect we will see reciprocity from Iran soon.

Given the assurance de facto necessitates that Iran legitimize (and adhere) to the embargo on Assad, I doubt it.

[Kubra]

Lowkey I support secretly giving Iran nukes. They're the only country who'd have the balls to use them on Saudi Arabia.

no one is going to use nukes in their own region. Ain't nobody but dogs shit in their own backyard.

[North German Realm]

Bahrain joins US-led Maritime Coalition, first Gulf state to do so.

Gotta admit, expected UAE to be the first.

[South Americanastan]

/blatant gravedig

[Neutraligon]

/blatant gravedig

*** Which nets you warning rather than a loom. ***