[Breaking News] US base in Iraq struck by Iranian and Iraqi militia missiles.

[Skroe]

This matches what their top diplomat said in public last night. They at least claimed they didn't want to escalate.

My concern is the "off the books" retaliation. Like, in March or April when Iran says "Whaaaaaaat? A bomb went off in XXX and it killed a bunch of people, including a few Americans? Perhaps if you hadn't made so many enemies things like this that couldn't possibly be traced back to us wouldn't happen?" followed by an Alfred E. Newman grin/shrug.

Iran is many things, but most of them are not idiots. If a straight-up one-on-one toe-to-toe fight happened, Iran would fare slightly better than Iraq or Afghanistan. Which is why they won't engage in one. $5 worth of rubles says some of their men are in Russia right now, clarifying the rules as to what Iran can do before Russia won't back them.

Today Iran is saying the strikes killed 80 Americans.

That's for domestic consumption but it will convince people in the region, who are prone to conspiracy theories.

It's very strange Iran would send two messages. Clearly not killing US troops (or evidently, even hitting the bases directly), but saying they did. Because by saying they did, they are making the US show they either either liars, or forcing escalation to prevent Iran from claiming a victory.

They had a rational exit strategy... and then they just went and muddled it.

[CostinR]

$5 worth of rubles says some of their men are in Russia right now, clarifying the rules as to what Iran can do before Russia won't back them.

That isn't the nature of Iran's relationship with Iran.

Seriously where do you get this stuff?

[Orange Joe]

LOL It maybe the General was a fucking terrorist and responsible for the deaths of many Americans was the poke. Even Warren had to admit he was a fucking terrorist.

I'm pretty sure they could say the same exact thing about a couple of our generals. Our hands aren't clean when it comes to Iran.

[Skroe]

I'm pretty sure they could say the same exact thing about a couple of our generals. Our hands aren't clean when it comes to Iran.

Why should our hands be clean with Iran. They have been our enemy, and rightfully so, for 40 years.

[Orange Joe]

Why should our hands be clean with Iran. They have been our enemy, and rightfully so, for 40 years.

Been longer than 40 years. We started shit with them back in 1953.

[Stormspark]

Imagine the state of the US right now, where I'm taking the side of Iran over it.

It's fucking IRAN. When you're in a room with a despotic theocracy with a litany of human rights abuses and YOU'RE the asshole? Holy shit.

Yep...I'm as athiest as it's possible to be, and I have more respect for Iran than the current resident (no that's not a typo). And if things do escalate I won't be rooting for the US. I just hope that if there is a war, that it is as costly to the US as possible. I know that there is no way Iran could possibly "win" but they can make the victory VERY costly.

[Skroe]

Yep...I'm as athiest as it's possible to be, and I have more respect for Iran than the current resident (no that's not a typo). And if things do escalate I won't be rooting for the US. I just hope that if there is a war, that it is as costly to the US as possible. I know that there is no way Iran could possibly "win" but they can make the victory VERY costly.

You're talking about American troops - your own countryman - dying when you say "costly".

You stand by this?

[Azadina]

Trump addressing his base from the balcony of Trump Tower:

[Stormspark]

You're talking about American troops - your own countryman - dying when you say "costly".

You stand by this?

I don't want troops to die, but there is no reason for a lot of innocent Iranians to die, with no cost to the person who instigated the war, either.

[Thepersona]

What you're describing is World War III.

If that happens, everyone gets fucked.

we are not. My country is outside the range of ICBMs and most of the radiation would be in the north hemisphere.
We'd get a nuclear winter though

[Skroe]

I don't want troops to die, but there is no reason for a lot of innocent Iranians to die, with no cost to the person who instigated the war, either.

So what does your "costly" look like then. What precisely does it look like? You say costly but don't want US troops to die. What do you mean?

Do you even know what you mean? You can say no and admit it was emotive and not rational. I would admire such honesty.

[zenkai]

How many Iraqis was Dick Cheney responsible for the deaths of? If Iraq had him assassinated, would that be fine and not provocative?

You have no argument so you derail the conversation to a different topic, nice.

[Skroe]

EU leaders plead with Trump not to respond to Iranian attacks

Individual-1 should ignore them and strike Iran directly, either the launcher sites or refineries.

There can be some debate as to structure it to avoid Iranian casualties or not. But there must be a response.

Europe is dead wrong to seek to avoid the US holding Iran responsible. But Europe always does that every time the US flashes its teeth. And we should just ignore them.

[Thekri]

Today Iran is saying the strikes killed 80 Americans.

That's for domestic consumption but it will convince people in the region, who are prone to conspiracy theories.

It's very strange Iran would send two messages. Clearly not killing US troops (or evidently, even hitting the bases directly), but saying they did. Because by saying they did, they are making the US show they either either liars, or forcing escalation to prevent Iran from claiming a victory.

They had a rational exit strategy... and then they just went and muddled it.

Wrong on both counts. First, they did hit the bases directly, it just didn't kill anyone. If you look back on the earlier posts from the night, I showed why that was probable. When I refer to defensive measures, I am not talking about multi-million dollar anti-ballistic missile tech, I am referring to the very cheap bunkers that are everywhere, and restrict the kill radius enormously. The bases are also huge, and about 85-90% empty space inside the perimeter. These are very large warheads relative to what usually gets shot at those bases, but most of it will still hit harmlessly in the dirt between the taxiways.

Second, the casualties claim. This is standard for all Middle Eastern governments, and the US won't care. Every time some Taliban group shot rockets at us, the local media would run stories about how the Americans were loading body bags full of our dead into cargo planes. Nobody actually believed that crap, they were well aware how much our demeanor changed when we actually lost somebody, and they were well aware that if someone died in that strike we would be ripping up half the province to get everyone involved. But they claimed casualties anyway.

The middle east doesn't work on the same mindsets as America does, which is something you don't really understand for all your obsessing over weapons and politics. The difference between truth and lies is not nearly as clear over there, and it doesn't matter that much to the people. Picture a world with a 100 Donald Trumps in each area of it, each with followers that will believe anything they say, regardless of apparent facts. Picture a world where this has been true for six thousand years. Facts aren't important there, loyalty is, and saving face is.

[Stormspark]

So what does your "costly" look like then. What precisely does it look like? You say costly but don't want US troops to die. What do you mean?

Do you even know what you mean? You can say no and admit it was emotive and not rational. I would admire such honesty.

It can be financially costly (after all money matters to the US more than lives - politicians have openly said so - so that will hit the US where it hurts). But I don't think a fatass orange shitstain should be able to start a war and have the entire country just get away with it.

[matt4pack]

You're talking about American troops - your own countryman - dying when you say "costly".

You stand by this?

Oh please. 4000 troops died any many more were maimed because of you idiot neocons.

You don't give a damn about troops as long as those tax dollars flow into your defense contractors.

[Jessicka]

There can be some debate as to structure it to avoid Iranian casualties or not. But there must be a response.

Why? It was nothing more than a show of capability. And it was itself a response to an assassination of one of their country's leaders, which you're going to tell me was a response to attacks on US service personnel, which we'll go all the way back to being a response to the CIA overthrowing their government.

It doesn't much matter though. The US demands perpetual war since the Cold War ended, it's the only way to fuel the Military Industrial Complex and it's fascistic tendencies.

[Adam Jensen]

Ours worked fine until they got hit by a rocket. Then not so much. Maybe you were the next unit that came in after us.

Probably not, I don't think Ali Al Salem has taken damage in war since the Gulf War.

[Thekri]

Probably not, I don't think Ali Al Salem has taken damage in war since the Gulf War.

Oh, Ali is just a terrible place in general. I have passed through there a lot, always hated it. Never stayed more then a week.

[Skroe]

It can be financially costly (after all money matters to the US more than lives - politicians have openly said so - so that will hit the US where it hurts). But I don't think a fatass orange shitstain should be able to start a war and have the entire country just get away with it.

So how does Iran, a bankrupt country, make it financially costly to the US. What does that look like? It's not like we get much oil from the Middle East anymore.

It's clearly not what you meant by the way, because the word "costly" in relation to wars almost always means lives.