Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Iran attack: US airbases in Iraq hit by ballistic missiles
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51028954
31 comments
I wonder how Iraq is going to respond to this? It seems like they've been pretty friendly with Iran lately, but now Iran is lobbing missiles at their country. For that matter, the U.S. lobbed missiles at their country too the other day. I can't imagine they're happy about two major powers lobbing missiles at each other in their territory, but I don't know what they can do to get them to stop in the short term. (Kicking them all out may be the long-term solution.)
If Iraq stated that US strikes violated their sovereignty, surely they would say the same about Iran's strikes?
Iran probably received permission from Iraq. They have a strong influence on the country al all levels.
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).
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).
> 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
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
Correct.
Conventional War =/= Guerrilla War
Guerrilla Wars can go on for decades even with lots of boots on the ground.
Conventional War =/= Guerrilla War
Guerrilla Wars can go on for decades even with lots of boots on the ground.
there's no way at all we (the US) could win a boots-on-the-ground war with Iran.
Winning is bad for business anyway.
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.
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.
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]
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]
Democrat voters may oppose war, but the same can not be said for democrat politicians.
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]
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.
Republican bobble heads gave up reason, along with morality and honesty, a long long time 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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
"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.
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.
I've seen estimates on the amount of US soldiers dead ranging from 0 to 180 while this article doesn't mention any deaths. It's crazy how large of a fluctuation there is, it's so hard to know what news sources are valid.
If casualties are zero, we can laugh it off as an impotent hissy fit by an incompetent adversary.
If casualties are non-zero, the President will be obliged to carry out his “52 targets” threat. This is probably the right move — don’t play tit-for-tat against a less powerful adversary, instead immediately escalate to a level they can’t possibly match.
Unfortunately Iran’s air defences are more potent than anyone the US has bombed recently, so we might be about to find out just how good US technology really is.
What happens next? I’m not sure. I can’t imagine the US committing to a ground invasion of Iran, but it should be possible with an air campaign to reduce Iran to the level of a 2000-era Iraq.
Edit: President Trump’s latest “all is well” tweet, and his intention to hold off on doing a briefing until tomorrow, seems to imply that US casualties were zero after all and that he’s chosen the “laugh it off” response, which is a great relief to me.
If casualties are non-zero, the President will be obliged to carry out his “52 targets” threat. This is probably the right move — don’t play tit-for-tat against a less powerful adversary, instead immediately escalate to a level they can’t possibly match.
Unfortunately Iran’s air defences are more potent than anyone the US has bombed recently, so we might be about to find out just how good US technology really is.
What happens next? I’m not sure. I can’t imagine the US committing to a ground invasion of Iran, but it should be possible with an air campaign to reduce Iran to the level of a 2000-era Iraq.
Edit: President Trump’s latest “all is well” tweet, and his intention to hold off on doing a briefing until tomorrow, seems to imply that US casualties were zero after all and that he’s chosen the “laugh it off” response, which is a great relief to me.
Those bases house American, allied/coalition and Iraqi soldiers. The US forces will respond regardless what the casualty count looks like. Something like that even if they missed can’t be ignored.
Iranian air defenses are on about the same level as Syria and Israel has been running circles around those.
The US might actually get to use it’s SEAD capabilities for a change....
The US might actually get to use it’s SEAD capabilities for a change....
You could well be right, maybe Iran’s air defences are on a par with Syria’s.
I’ve suddenly realised something important — I’m commenting on important issues based on nothing but information gleaned from probably equally ignorant comments posted somewhere else. Why the heck am I doing this? I’m no expert on Iranian military capabilities.
Why do we all feel compelled to pollute the Internet with our ill-informed speculation on important issues?
I feel like I should just quit commenting on anything outside the narrow areas in which I’m a proper expert, and so should everyone else.
I’ve suddenly realised something important — I’m commenting on important issues based on nothing but information gleaned from probably equally ignorant comments posted somewhere else. Why the heck am I doing this? I’m no expert on Iranian military capabilities.
Why do we all feel compelled to pollute the Internet with our ill-informed speculation on important issues?
I feel like I should just quit commenting on anything outside the narrow areas in which I’m a proper expert, and so should everyone else.
Is this how it ends?