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

[Yadryonych]

Iran bombed US facilities to no response, mmm

Smells like deterrence, right? @Skroe

[Edge-]

Something will coincide with this; War powers vote coming 'sooner rather than later'

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday that Democrats won't dally in voting on a resolution limiting President Trump's military powers amid a heightened conflict with Iran.

The Maryland Democrat did not commit to a tentatively scheduled vote this week, but he indicated that Tuesday's strikes by Iran on Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops would not deter Democrats from seeking to rein in Trump's authority to escalate aggressions with Tehran without congressional approval.

"We're working on this, and you're going to see it as soon as we believe it is prepared to move forward," he told reporters in the Capitol. "But it's going to be sooner rather than later."

Completely, totally pointless.

It will go nowhere in the Senate, and it shouldn't because this is a move targeting a specific president and sets a bad precedent.

If they want to "DO SOMETHING!", Congress can find their collective spine and rescind the AUMF. Anything short of that is pointless jabber that will go nowhere.

Iran bombed US facilities to no response, mmm

Smells like deterrence, right? @Skroe

With no injuries or deaths to US service-members. This was literally the best-case scenario.

Iran had to respond to save face, they couldn't let this slide. But they ensured that their strikes would not cause casualties specifically to provide a offramp for Trump to take to de-escalate. They get to save face. The US gets to save face and throw some sanctions back at them. We reset to square one.

And thankfully, Trump seems to be taking the offramp.

[Shadowferal]

An acquaintance of mine has a brother in Qatar. She says he's pretty chill...no real alert kicked in...it's just business as usual.

If If Mar-a-lago goes up in flames...

[Ihavewaffles]

Completely, totally pointless.

It will go nowhere in the Senate, and it shouldn't because this is a move targeting a specific president and sets a bad precedent.

If they want to "DO SOMETHING!", Congress can find their collective spine and rescind the AUMF. Anything short of that is pointless jabber that will go nowhere.



With no injuries or deaths to US service-members. This was literally the best-case scenario.

Iran had to respond to save face, they couldn't let this slide. But they ensured that their strikes would not cause casualties specifically to provide a offramp for Trump to take to de-escalate. They get to save face. The US gets to save face and throw some sanctions back at them. We reset to square one.

And thankfully, Trump seems to be taking the offramp.

But would he had done so if he had just won a 2nd term? Instead of worrying about winning a 2nd term (don't want to alienate his voter base with an unpopular war)

[Themius]

They have an air defense system that the US is capable of dealing with (Iraq had them in 1990), and there would be no need for ground forces. Air power works great for destroying things (especially ships, factories, nuclear power plants, etc.). Thankfully, Iran seems to have understood this and intentionally made a harmless display in "retaliation".

You say there would be no need, yet we have had troops inside Iraq for ages now.

[Edge-]

But would he had done so if he had just won a 2nd term? Instead of worrying about winning a 2nd term (don't want to alienate his voter base with an unpopular war)

That's even more likely, then. Trump doesn't like war, but he does like explosions. He's a fan of "MOAB" type spectacles, and doesn't' seem particularly interested in a bloody ground war.

That's not because of any ideology or strategy, but just because he's a TV president.

[Ihavewaffles]

That's even more likely, then. Trump doesn't like war, but he does like explosions. He's a fan of "MOAB" type spectacles, and doesn't' seem particularly interested in a bloody ground war.

That's not because of any ideology or strategy, but just because he's a TV president.

Tbh, MOABs are pretty kewl

[Kellhound]

You say there would be no need, yet we have had troops inside Iraq for ages now.

Im not sure what your point is with that statement.

[Themius]

Im not sure what your point is with that statement.

To say that if we ever got into a conflict with Iran that we never need to have any armies on foot doesn't make sense.

[Yadryonych]

With no injuries or deaths to US service-members. This was literally the best-case scenario.

Iran had to respond to save face, they couldn't let this slide. But they ensured that their strikes would not cause casualties specifically to provide a offramp for Trump to take to de-escalate. They get to save face. The US gets to save face and throw some sanctions back at them. We reset to square one.

And thankfully, Trump seems to be taking the offramp.

I hope it also ultimately helps him to fulfill his election promise and withdraw troops from middle east

[Kellhound]

To say that if we ever got into a conflict with Iran that we never need to have any armies on foot doesn't make sense.

The need for ground troops is only there if you intend to take and hold territory, which is not needed to decimate a military, especially one already hampered by sanctions.

[muto]

What happened to "if Iran attacks, they will be hit hard and hit fast" ?

It's been hours since the attack, no reported attacks on Iranian soil yet ?

They intentionally missed to send a message that they were ready and willing to fight back, but didn’t want a war. Being the logical man the president is he chose to deescalate. Believe it or not this president doesn’t like war unlike someone else had she got elected.

[Jessicka]

The need for ground troops is only there if you intend to take and hold territory, which is not needed to decimate a military, especially one already hampered by sanctions.

That idea was abandoned 30 years ago as a military doctrine. You have to have boots on the ground to achieve an objective, any objective, in conflict. What do you hope to achieve by blowing up tanks that aren't being used anyway, when all your fighting is in the air?

Even if your objective is to help an insurgent force on the ground (which doesn't exist in Iran), that's still boots on the ground who need coordination, supplies, communications and support; which requires boots on the ground. And then you just end up in a mess like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Vietnam... An insurgent Guerilla war, in which air supremacy actually means very little.

[solinari6]

So what's going on here?

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/roc...baghdad-report

There are multiple reports of air raid sirens going off at the United States embassy in Baghdad. In videos, loud pops and explosions followed.

The information hasn’t been confirmed by U.S. news outlets or by the White House. The action comes after two U.S. bases were bombed by Iran Tuesday night.

[Kellhound]

They intentionally missed to send a message that they were ready and willing to fight back, but didn’t want a war. Being the logical man the president is he chose to deescalate. Believe it or not this president doesn’t like war unlike someone else had she got elected.

They intentionally missed because they knew they no chance of winning a conventional conflict, but had to make it look like they did something.

[muto]

They intentionally missed because they knew they no chance of winning a conventional conflict, but had to make it look like they did something.

I also don’t think it would be wise of us to go to war either. Yeah we’d probably have the upper hand, but more than likely many American lives would be lost too, and probably not just soldiers.

[Kellhound]

That idea was abandoned 30 years ago as a military doctrine. You have to have boots on the ground to achieve an objective, any objective, in conflict. What do you hope to achieve by blowing up tanks that aren't being used anyway, when all your fighting is in the air?

Even if your objective is to help an insurgent force on the ground (which doesn't exist in Iran), that's still boots on the ground who need coordination, supplies, communications and support; which requires boots on the ground. And then you just end up in a mess like Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Vietnam... An insurgent Guerilla war, in which air supremacy actually means very little.

Sigh.... That is the case when the attack is used to bring about change, not when the attack's aim is to reduce the military infrastructure of the target. Why would the US hit tanks when it can sink ships, destroy missile and aircraft factories, and don't forget, they cant easily replace their F-4s, F-5s, and F-14s.

[Shadowferal]

Couple of things that might trigger Trump's panic attacks;

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) said Wednesday that he wanted to advance legislation reining in presidential authority on tariffs in 2020

House to vote Thursday on war powers resolution after Iran attacks

[Kellhound]

I also don’t think it would be wise of us to go to war either. Yeah we’d probably have the upper hand, but more than likely many American lives would be lost too, and probably not just soldiers.

War is never something to be entered into lightly, it is a matter of life and death. However, this is just a statement of who has more to lose, not an endorsement of war.

[Puupi]

So what's going on here?

https://www.rawstory.com/2020/01/roc...baghdad-report

2 rockets being shot. Probably some smaller ones?