there is an issue a hobby fisherman mentioned to me about somewhere he used to go fishing that had a huge introduced fish problem. The introduced fish were outcompeting the native fish which was causing a decline in the native fish population. The greens solution to this was to ban fishing in that area -_-

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/07/iran-retaliation-iraq-base-095869

It has began.

Let now see would there be an all out war?

What do you think?

Latest updates says no casualties

So would Trump retaliate with a full fledged airstrike or would he order the troops to just keep their heads down?

who knows? too early to tell

Maybe another Gulf War?

https://twitter.com/SnekTheRedSun/status/1214873001461780481

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/633967804483371009/664640658312658983/jhf.mp4

@Thomas the Sowell Train [USA] Damn, that's some autism

love people from the country, no filter...all truth

Maybe he can't afford filters after this

Invasion of Iran: Expensive. Way more than Iraq. Iran's strategy: Welcome guys, enjoy Vietnam/Afghanistan-style guerrilla war when you run out of gas, only facing better weapons and training. Solution: Siege Iran's ports and trade routes instead. Destroy strategic facilities through air superiority, such as factories and bunkers. Cheap in comparison, and very expensive for Iran.

@Deleted User <:thunk:462282216467333140>

+

@kebman more or less my argument. The people aren't interested in an occupation, and the current political promises don't allow for it without consequences.

Destroying their air defense systems, aircraft, select refineries, and their ports? Much more effective in terms of gross economic costs.

why are people still comparing Iran to Vietnam, nothing alike, no one is gonna occcupy Iran

not to mention even if we did we have tech that would have made Vietnam much less messy AND Iran doesn't have the same type of terain to hide in.

just keep bombing single leaders until the new guy would rather keep his head down, that's all we need to do in the area.

and take out any longer range stuff like rockets and such, but again, can be done form the air.

^this

kill every leader that doesn't play nice.

keep killing till they learn

might take a while

I mean, you can even just drop dummy missles on his door step the first time :)

written in something they can understand "next one is live, have a nice day!"

well if i remember correctly, the strategy of proportional increase of force was what led to Vietnam's disaster

but we couldn't next day air warheads to anyone in that country at any time, so it's not gonna be Vietnam in any way.

I've always thought that decisive force is imperative in ending conflicts swiftly... a lesson not learned even as it was what ended WW2

well, reacting with 1 dead leader for every attack would be decisive I think.

yes

I said before I was in awe at the surgical precision of the strike....

the US , has never been good at doing that

Vietnam wasn't lost on a battlefield, it was lost in the universities. And no one intelligent is listening to those anymore

Not for political discourse at least

that is one of the other things i had heard about Vietnam, the leaders didn't have the drive to Win that war proper.
but I havn't done any real digging into it.

It came down to all the hippies telling people that we were bullying Vietnam. Ignoring the existence of the Vietcong and the fact that they were killing allot more Vietnamese than we were

so, nothing really new huh?