sherpa
-
Posts
3,488 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sherpa
-
-
20 minutes ago, Coffeesforclosers said:
What a peculiar situation.
So why does every presidential administration since 1979 approach Iran the same way? Which is basically to put up with their nonsense without stopping it.
We've tried everything from negotiations to sinking half their Navy in a day and assassinating their equivalent of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
Every new provocation feels like ***** groundhog day with Iran.
A few points.
Minor edit.
The Reagan Administration did not react to them in the same way.
It is my belief that they offered them an ultimatum after the election, and the offer was release the hostages of we were going ashore.
In my view......First, no administration wants to commit a full scale military response to them.
That is a very big deal, and their pin-prick offensive actions have never pissed anybody off enough to really go after them.
The US deals with an election cycle. That cycle has a huge impact on foreign policy.
To get them to cease, you either destroy them militarily, of work significant internal opposition to the Islamic regime that controls them.
No real motivation on western countries to commit the resources to deal with them militarily, and the internal resistance, though significant, has never reached critical mass, so the regime survives.
They have responded to direct military action. Operation Praying Mantis shut them down for a bit and ended the insanity of them mining and attacking shipping in the Persian Gulf.
A similar response would probably be effective, but we don't have the leadership to do so, though some quite large events are likely in the near future.
Ultimately, unless the regime is removed, they will threaten the world with nuclear weapons.
That will trigger and Israeli action, and the stuff will hit the fan, as that is the course we have been on for decades.
-
2
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
So what would you do?
The drone attacks on U.S. armed forces are a direct consequence of U.S. support - moral, legal, and real world weapons - of Israel. Should we have not expressed such support for Israel? Should we be officially neutral here, not get involved at all?
So I hear we are soft on Iran. Should we get into a shooting war directly with Iran?
Whether anybody addresses the undeniable reality, Iran has been at war and killing Americans since 1979.
Claiming that US support for Israel, in their justified Gaza action suddenly triggered them is false.
It is the usual excuse for energizing their subcontractors to kill US folks.
They always have a reason, but the real reason is that they are a wacky regime intent on pushing Shiite Islam at any cost, down to the last Arab they can con into doing their wet work.
They simply don't care.
-
2
-
-
By the way, and from a tactical viewpoint--not that anyone here cares about this stuff....
The excuse for the penetration and fatal attack was that the US had it's air defenses standing down as it was expecting to recover a friendly drone.
Transponders are built for this very purpose.
In strike planning, we always built an evacuation route, complete with transponder codes that identified us a friendly.
We build multi million dollar drones and don't give them a box that ID's them as friendly to protect their egress.
I'm not familiar with what is being done here, but it seems like an obvious oversight.
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
No one is saying not to retaliate.
Like it or not, there has to be a retaliation, and it must be strong.
-
1
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
You are not even making sense anymore
How can an isolationist congress be strong in foreign affairs?
Truman got the congress behind him. Marshall Plan got through congress, so did aide to Greece and Turkey when threatened with Russian aggression.
You support an isolationist. That's the definition of foreign policy weekness
Prove otherwise, or shut your obvious ignorant mouth
Not making sense to you is an accolade.
Congress is not isolationist, and even if they were, it would have no restraint on the President's ability to respond to Iran.
What Congress is doing; what has been done for years, makes perfect sense.
The Administration wants to support Ukraine.
Congress does as well.
They also want to support Israel.
But....Pay attention to this, because you seem to be completely ignorant of how the sausage is made, Congress wants a firm stand against the border invasion, and is linking aid to that issue.
Perfect sense. Perfect logic and in our best interests, and has nothing to do with a response to Iran.
Nothing.
What you post about me doesn't concern me.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
so transparent.
Honestly, you are just not smart enough to see yourself for what you are
You lack self-awareness, which is a form of intelligence
This is funny!
You are a Trump supporter alright!
The more you post, the more goofy you get.
Bizarre judgement. Idiotic accusations. Refusal to acknowledge reality. Refusal to back up wacky claims. Ignorant lack of understanding of the US military or the Administration's options regarding that.
It goes on and on.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Just now, Tiberius said:
Congress is doing nothing while Iran aids in attacks on two places. The Congress is appeasing Iran
For you to say this is nonsense shows how shamelessly partisan you are. It's the obvious truth
Oh, btw, Biden has already launched attacks, duh
You are truly an #######.
Your repeated claims of partisanship on my part are preposterous.
There is nothing in my posts regarding military stuff that is pro party.
This is a product of your incredibly idiotic imagination.
Biden is an abject failure.
-
3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
Well, Iran see his own Congress not supporting ANY foreign policy support, so they see the weakness that Congress is projecting
This is all on MAGA
Another "absolute nonsense" claim.
The US president has remarkable and almost totally discretionary authority by law and precedent responding to anti US military actions, and that extends to preemptive actions to prevent them.
I can name scores of strikes that support that claim.
Biden is viewed as a clown, and unfortunately, he's going to have to use his powers to prove otherwise.
Suggesting this is a Congressional failure is ludicrous.
-
2
-
-
Very big deal.
Might be an interesting week.
-
2
-
-
Count me in.
-
2 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Heritage Foundation 😂😂😂😂 why would I listen to a neonazi group?
Migrants buy things (sales tax) and often work under the table. They are a net tax positive.
Absolute horsecrap.
3 minutes ago, Roundybout said:Migrants buy things (sales tax) and often work under the table. They are a net tax positive.
Absolute, complete horsecrap.
Take the cost of border enforcement. Add to it the cost associated with housing illegals and their healthcare, add to it the cost of deportation, which is all done by the wonderful US taxpayer, and present any reasonable argument that illegals are a net positive.
The claim is preposterous.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, wnyguy said:
Is there an article here explaining this with facts and figures? And our we talking about immigrants who legally come into the country or those who enter illegally?
Any claim that illegal immigration is a net revenue positive for US taxpayer is pure lunacy.
Absolute lunacy.
-
3
-
-
29 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
“we’re being invaded and America is doomed but don’t you dare try to pass any legislation to fix itWe have laws to stop it.
This administration chooses to not enforce those restraints for political reasons.
Same as the goofy strategy of buying votes by promising to strap the US taxpayer with student loan obligations.
Pure nonsense from a failed administration.
-
2
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
You're supposed to admit that you're a racist.
Oh.
I wonder what race?
Ten years of South/Central America trips watching this industry.
Ya. Must be racist.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Why would it be suicide?
Go on, you know you want to say it.
I'm not sure what you are inferring, but the US taxpayer cannot support this level of illegal immigration.
Simply economically impossible.
-
10 minutes ago, Roundybout said:
Sounds like they want opportunity for a better life and to advance themselves, then. You know, the principles that America was founded on?And who came here legally?
Welcoming should not be suicide.
That's why we have laws.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Doc said:
I agree. I'm saying they need to fix their own countries. We can't do it.
We're both on the same page.
I am merely pointing out that US influence is much less than it used to be.
The first thing we need to do is lock the border to illegal immigration.
Unless that happens, and we develop a spine, nothing else matters.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Doc said:
They can improve their own countries. Their elected leaders choose not to do so.
That would be great, and I fully agree, but we are much further away from attaining change than we were decades ago.
The US' reputation in South/Central America has declined over the years.
Trump didn't help and polling revealed that.
Biden certainly hasn't moved the ball forward.
I spent ten months a year going down there from 2003 until 2015. Had a business partner in Paraguay who is still one of my best friends.
Had the opportunity to witness the entire Chavez political nonsense up close.
The systemic problems are immense. Corruption is an intractable, accepted way of life.
There is profound class structure and sexism.
Anyway, it's a problem that the US does not, currently, have the ability to influence.
The first step is to lock the border to any non legal immigration.
Once these failed govs are unable to dispose of those they don't want, they will have to deal with the very significant problems they are not addressing.
Each country is different, but the ruling political entities are all powerful.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, wnyguy said:
After reading the account it seems a US merchant ship decided tp retreat after a close call with a Houthi missile attack. It was deemed that the US defense of that particular area was lacking in capability.
Not true.
The US has been very effective in thwarting missile attacks.
What we should do is demolish these non-state attacks against commercial, non combatant commerce.
It would take less than a day, if the administration had the nuts to do it.
Otherwise, we have what we have, which is a task force under constant alert, responding to a threat we could end in a wink.
Make sense to the Biden group here?
Not to me.
-
Jesus.
The claim that the US Navy "lost a battle at sea" is idiotic.
-
12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
I wasn't saying that. I was just mocking your idiotic point that since the USA has natural gas Israel did not invade for that reason
I'm not claiming that's why Israel invaded
But do tell us, what does the USA having natural gas have to do with anything?
And why "invaded"? No, it's invaded. Gees, you even try to deceive yourself
First, Israel did not invade the Gaza.
I was responding to a claim suggested by someone else.
Perhaps you didn't, or couldn't read it, so I'll post it again:
"What if this is about natural gas in Gaza? Would your opinion of Israel and our government change if there’s gas in Gaza? "
I have no idea why you couldn't figure this out, but my claim that it is a preposterous theory stands.
Hamas did this, and actions cause reactions.
Maybe you can get this without a Trump/Putin reference.
By the way, still waiting for anything that supports your revisionist claim.
Total, unsupported nonsense.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Doc said:
This. And the left will just do what they do with any Repub candidate, probably saying that "she could even be worse than Trump because "she's a female POC wolf-in-sheep's clothing" or something similar.
Look at how the media has framed the New Hampshire thing.
Trump suggested she claimed victory.
Absolute nonsense, unless you disregard her acknowledgement of his win and her congratulations directed to him.
He made the ridiculous claim and they ran with it.
Perhaps they are deeply concerned with how Haley demolishes Joe in current polling.
-
2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:
We? The USA? Last I checked we are not invading Gaza.
Brilliant observation
They lie like Trump and Putin do
You post the most stupid crap,
If you are inferring that Israel "invaded" Gaza as a desire to obtain a potential energy source, that is lunacy.
If not, I don't get what you are suggesting.
Nobody on planet earth is desirous of the potential fuel resources in the Gaza strip.
Hamas broke a ceasefire. Hamas has had 16 years of rule to advance those people's lives.
All they have done is take all their resources and build an underground war bunker designed to eliminate Israel.
Neither Putin nor Trump has anything to do with this, but like a drug addict, you simply cannot resist.
-
2
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:
I'm saying that we are well, well past the point of no return on uniting the country. I'm not uniting with DEI, trans-ing kids, wide open borders, inflation denying leftists. Ever. No one is capable of bringing us back to the level of even 90's era partisan bickering, certainly not Nikki Haley.
Therefore I'm saying if it has to be Trump running again then let's burn this thing to the ground quickly so we can get to the other side of where this runaway train is taking us regardless.
Got it.
I'm not there yet, but all signs affirm your view.
My hope is that a more reasonable, less martyr mission candidate causes Congress to shift in ways Trump's presence has been woefully horrible in the past two elections.
While I detest this "lawfare," it is what it is.
-
1
-
Mike Macdonald hired by Seahawks
in The Stadium Wall
Posted
"What a fool believes."