sherpa
-
Posts
3,659 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by sherpa
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:
Regardless, can we trust Khomeini or Netanyahu? No. Not as far as you could throw them. What happens if the ceasefire doesn't hold? If it doesn't the real threats haven't even started. That was always the risk of handling things this way. It's the 1st quarter at this point. A lot of time to see what this ultimately results in.
I trust Netanyahu, but I expect Israel could use a ceasefire as a respite. The IAF is just not big enough and the distances too great to continue this pace.
Regarding the Iranian "regime," his kid is the odds on favorite.
But, given that the regime is held up by the IRGC, when IRGC senior leadership roll call occurs, there's going to be a lot less "here" responses.
Look at their actions defending the country during the strike.
Was anybody running that?
'Cause not a thing happened.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mikie2times said:
So what will allow that to happen now? Regime is still in place. Pursuit of Nuclear capability will still happen. Region will still be engulfed in holy wars as it has for nearly its entire existence. What exactly was accomplished again? A temporary slowdown in Irans nuclear capability?
The "regime" is in place in name only, which is not to say it doesn't have the ability to re-emerge.
Scores of the power folks have been killed. The leader is in a bunker somewhere, an 86 year old cancer surviving lunatic who has lost countless supporters.
This strike was immensely successful on so many levels.
Of course they will try to continue their useless nuclear goals, but they've just lost their three major facilities, at least for some time.
They have an estimated one half trillion dollars of spent cost in the program and in supporting their three major proxies, who have suddenly disappeared.
They have been exposed as a useless military, unable to even respond in most basis terms to an invasion of their airspace and the destruction of their prized hundred billion dollar underground effort.
They can evidently do nothing about it, except perhaps sleeper cells, which nobody know about.
Remember last week when two people here expressed angst that they could close the Strait of Hormuz? One actually stated it cause a major recession. Remember who stated that was unlikely?
That strike was a spotlight on the bullsttuff that is the Iranian "regime," and no matter what people on this forum think, that reality is not lost on Gulf states and others who feared them.
-
1 hour ago, Mikie2times said:
Evidence of what? They were trying to build a bomb. Nobody would dispute that. Why did Isreal choose not to attack until now? What is different right now (hint, it's not progress with a nuclear weapon).
The evidence is what I laid out.
As to the "why now," I think it is obvious, and it isn't strictly my opinion, it's from listening to countless discussions with Israeli officials, mostly ex ambassadors and others involved in dealing with this while living there and undergoing these relentless attacks.
To respond to the question, I think the Oct 7 2023 inhumane barbarism started it.
Prior to that, things were kind of quiet by local standards.
Hamas and the Palestinians enjoyed employment within Israel and the Israelis mistakenly thought that at long last there could be some kind of coexistence.
Then we witness the most barbaric attack in modern history. Babies killed, families butchhered and filmed, and a host of other unimaginable atrocities.
Israel responds by attempting to finally eliminate Hamas, which is nothing more than a murderous org taking intl relief and converting it into an underground weapons delivery system.
Hezbollah chips in, and hundreds of thousands of Israelis have to leave northern Israel.
The entire country is involved in supporting their defense. The economy is no longer functioning with so many displaced and so many reservists away from their usual careers.
Hamas gets set back and then the brilliance of Hezbollah getting severely castrated by the beeper thing.
Syria collapses, as the Israelis use that to destroy existing air defenses and create a corridor through there to Iran. That was a big deal, and I pointed that out at the time.
Now you have a very reduced capability from Hamas and Hezbollah, and the Iranian weapons program still a major threat.
Not just nuc procurement, but a massive ballistic missile capability.
Guess what?
They've got a clear path to Tehran after decades of threatened and backed up murder.
They've had scores of human assets inside Iran preparing for this moment for years, and the activated them, building drone launchers and other offensive weapons from within.
Air defense eliminated,
The timing was perfect, as was the execution.
It is the dream scenario for the west, the middle east countries wanting to live in peace and anyone else who is sick and tired of the worst regime on earth.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:
Trump Tells Netanyahu he will negotiate with Iran, to wait 60 days and if he doesn't get anywhere, then he can proceed.
Did I miss anything?
No.
Just 45 years of evidence.
Of course there's the Embassy seizure with 444 days of hostages, Beirut Marine Barracks, Kobar Towers, providing Iraq and Afghan insurgencies with IED's that killed and maimed over a thousand US troops.
Destroying any gov in Lebanon while launching attacks from Syria and using it as a conduit to funnel weapons to attack Israel.
Funding, training and supporting Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis to kill Israelis and disrupt an well as sink unarmed commercial shipping.
Pursuing a nuclear weapon against the backdrop of claiming intent to eradicate Israel and The US.
What an amazing failure that this or any other president has not been able to negotiate with them.
-
1
-
3
-
-
45 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
So let me play devil's advocate here for a moment. (I'll note that I don't disagree with seizing the moment to take out Iran's nuclear program, as long as the Admin officials who were sent out to say "this is not about regime change" are right.)
What does "energy independence" or "energy dominance" (in Trump's usage) get us? If it isn't about getting involved in the Middle East or choosing sides in the Iran-Saudi proxy war, what is it about? Why is it an important goal if we are still - for whatever reason - going to pay undue attention on a region that is otherwise pretty marginal to the world (and specifically US) economy?
Energy independence is the insurance policy against blackmail, as happened in Carter's 70's with the emerging belligerence of OPEC.
These days, we buy energy and sell energy in the open market using simple business decisions.
The backdrop is that we go go it alone, so we can't be as impacted by threats.
The problem with the middle east is that the hatreds there have the ability to lead to regional conflagration, and that would be immensely impactful.
That's why this is such a once in a lifetime opportunity.
Imagine no Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Syria not launching weapons into civilian areas of Israel.
Imagine Israel able to peacefully coexist with Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon Iran, Saudi Arabia and others.
Advanced commerce without constant threat and disruption.
All of these assets wasted on trying to kill each other spent my responsible govs on advancing their people.
-
4 minutes ago, Trump_is_Mentally_fit said:
If Iran still has the ability to build a bomb then jumping into do Israel's work will have been a mistake
Absolutely not true.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:
Are you willing to share your basis for the claim “Iran does not want to blow up Israel”?
I don't pay any attention to that guy, but the claim is in gross disagreement with their own statements.
Oh well.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I guess we can disengage from these ancient disputes, right? That seems to be a big motivator for Trump voters, right?
No. I guess not.
This is way beyond energy guarantees.
That issue has been largely de-weaponized.
Disruptions would have short term effect, but nothing like the old days.
The elimination of a rogue regime that has been at war with us for 45 years, killing thousands, and has an expressed intent of eliminating Israel and the US could prevent many future wars.
Removing their military offensive capability is doable.
Regime change is on their people though.
Want to live in peaceful coexistence, or want to pursue some wacky religious 12th Imam end times strategy?
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
yes, we know. not interested in any rebuttals. stop pretending you're the last word on any military operation.
I'm not interested in pretending anything.
Least of all your fantasies or judgements on this stuff.
Believe what you want.
Not my concern.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
There was plenty of time to involve Congress.
There are a few things I care absolutely nothing about regarding this.
First, Dems complaining about consultation and approval.
All Presidents have done the same thing, and the efficacy of the operation would have been in great jeopardy.
Second, anything from the useless UN. Just give up. Nobody pays attention.
Third, anything from John Bolton who I think has lost his mind and probably calls news outlets begging to get his comments paid any attention to.
-
1
-
1
-
2
-
-
39 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
I didn't state it as fact. The "if" kinda gives it away. Was it a "five day delay" or was it a planned delay to let Israel neuter Iran's air defenses first? You don't know. I don't know. But you seem to believe your view as fact. I anticipated your argument to be "it doesn't matter. Needed to be done". And I would argue against that because of war powers....
Ya. I'm completely confident that my view on redeploying Nimitz is correct.
Been there, done that.
Same waters.
South China Sea through Straits of Malacca, then same airspace, same enemy.
-
1 hour ago, SectionC3 said:
We’ll see if they can lay mines and sink a couple of tankers using surface mussels.
If you are an Iranian mine layer, you have the life expectancy of a lab rat.
If they bag a tanker using a mussel, we have an entirely new seafood industry to deal with.
But that's another subject.
'Houston....We've got a bivalve mullusc problem."
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, Homelander said:
This regime has no idea what it’s doing; total amateur hour as expected.
Are you capable of basic understanding?
Vance correctly noted that the US is not actively engaged in regime change.
Trump is opining why such a thing wouldn't occur if the gov is no longer serving its people.
Not externally forced, but a natural consequence like 1776.
-
2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said:
We don't know this.
"I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. We worked as a team like perhaps no team has ever worked before, and we’ve gone a long way to erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank the Israeli military for the wonderful job they’ve done."
The timing is vague at best. If we were working with them from the onset of the attack, that changes things imo. That would mean we were planning war all along which congress should have least been apprised of, if not voted on. The timing matters.
No surprise here.
You post a theory and then claim "foul" based on the denied theory being true.
All evidence points otherwise.
Nimitz would not have suddenly been redeployed to the IO resulting in a five day delay, if the US would have "known."
They would have been there.
Believe whatever you want, just don't state the belief as fact.
-
2
-
-
7 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
I don’t disagree with the point. But it actually undercuts the timing of the Trump actions. Once the horse is out of the barn (through the Israeli attack), why wait off you’re going to bomb? All the delay did was give Iran time and space to empty valuables from Fordow, like the enriched uranium
that we appear to have missed.
Sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct one.
The US did not know, thank God, of Israeli strike plans that were so incredibly successful.
To design a strike as complicated as what we just pulled off takes an immense amount of planning and coordination.
That takes time, and that detailed planning is what allowed the execution to be so successful.
I fully doubt the Russia/Tehran (IRGC), suggestion re the Strait of Hormuz in your post.
I don't think it's at all likely.
The IRGC has been decapitated.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Simply a brilliantly executed strike.
Immensely difficult to coordinate all of these players, and there were so many.
Exposes the comment made here last week that there was no interaction between the Pentagon and the WH.
I remember reading that and shaking my head at the gross ignorance that claim.
Just the tanking plan alone must have been incredible complicated as well as the timing of the "sweep" packages to clear the way and ensure the weapon deliverers were not engaged. Deconflicting many strike axis and precise timing of so many separate packages.
I am looking forward to a detailed explanation of the scope.
In the meantime, I sure hope the B2's get back to Knob Noster MO. safely.
Well done.
-
3
-
2
-
-
16 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Yet. What happens if Iran strikes U.S. troops in neighboring Iraq?
When you say "strike," I assume you mean missile launches, unless they still have some cells inside Iraq that could somehow penetrate US defenses.
I honestly believe one of the reasons for the dramatic decrease in Iranian ballistic missile launches against Israel is because they are keeping a number in reserve for potential use against US forces in the region.
If they do that, we will have two carriers in place by Sunday, and a host of incredibly capable Air Force assets, and I would unleash that capability within an hour, and completely eliminate whatever military they have left, along with the nuc facilities.
No talk.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
I think at a minimum Trump should bring Congressional leadership of both parties into the room and share the intel and conversation on the mreits and the mision with these representatives of Congress. That would be a more consensus building approach rather than a series of one liners that he will decide what to do here. This may be happening but I've heard little on what is customary protocol.
Agree.
Convene the House and Senate Intel Committees and lay it out.
But......The US Congress has a horrible reputation for leaking to generate political gain.
I still wish he took more of a stateman's approach than this silly "I'll decide" solo nonsense.
He is what he is, and that's why I've never really liked him as a leader.
I do think he is very reluctant to commit US assets to the fray, but it may be the best way.
And less someone get some crazy notion, that has nothing to do with US ground forces.
-
3
-
-
20 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
I thought Trump and the neo-neoconservatives were trying to swing the pendulum back. I'm not sure it need to go back to 1975, but it does need to go back to at least the early 2000s when everyone understood that congressional authorization (even if not a declaration of war) was necessary for action against Iraq.
Normally, I would agree with backtracking to more shared power, certainly in matters of the economy and spending.
But, regarding war powers, I expect and Congressional hearings would devolve into political grandstanding and sound bite seeking, and in no way have our nation's best interests as a goal.
Sound bite season contributing nothing.
-
Kind of nominating Josh for MVP with 13 secs left against KC.
Lots of stuff to be determined.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Or see Afghanistan and Iraq.
These were studied/contemplated/debated uses of U.S. military force against the ruling forces of sovereign nations. Say what you will about the results of the debate, but there were debates in Congress and an AUMF.
I see no reason why - with the "two week pause" - that debate isn't happening now in Congress. This is not a situation involving an immediate defensive action against an attack on the United States or United States interests abroad, nor is it a military action compelled by Senate-ratified treaty obligations.
The constitution is the constitution regardless of which party is in charge.
I get what you're saying, but the point is that right or wrong, Presidents have enjoyed very liberal interpretations of what constitutes use of military action.
Both sides.
Very disappointed that Tim Kaine went on this vector and I don't think his logic is close to what is being considered or likely.
I used to kind of like the guy, but he has become a speed bump.
-
36 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Constitutional conservatives: where's Congress? Where's the authorization for the use of military force in Iran?
Isn't that, at a minimum, what's required before Trump launches any U.S. assault?
If this is about regime change, isn't that essentially a declaration of war on Iran? Why no declaration?
This comes up every time military action is considered, always by the opposition.
See Obama and Libya/Syria.
See Clinton Bosnia.
-
1 hour ago, muppy said:
all this political intrigue and real drama makes me wanna HURL. I cant make it plain enough. Reading and pondering the types of people in this thread and the what ifs of the situation give me such anxiety I cant tell you.
Not my business to tell people what to think, but with the Israeli action and how this is playing out, we are WAY better off than we were a few weeks ago.
Cheer up.
Imagine no sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.
Imagine Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia able to coexist peacefully with Iran and Israel.
It is all possible.
Best two weeks in a very long time.
-
1
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:
Israel painted itself into a corner. This has to end with, at the very least, Fordow destroyed.
I don't see it that way at all.
Israel was completely aware of the Natanz and Fordow facilities prior to their action.
I read a detailed report of what it would take and the suggested efficacy of the US' Massive Ordnance Penetrator months ago, which isn't a guarantee.
Either way, the Israelis have prosecuted this action with incredible skill and I doubt there have been any surprises other than Iranian incompetence since it began.
-
1
-
UPDATE: ISRAEL v IRAN - Ceasefire reached?
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
The thing that gives me pause is that Trump seems to value a public victory lap over substantive results.
Hopefully, the success of this will lead to some reliable prohibitions against Iran resuming.
There is no evidence of that yet.
In the meantime, it seems there has been a Hamas ambush today that killed a number of Israeli soldiers.
Hasn't hit the media yet, but serves as a reminder of reality.