sherpa

Maybe not. Iran's chief customer is China. Disrupt oil supplies through the Gulf and you really screw one of your few allies. Further, screwing with the Strait of Hormuz has not worked well for them and guarantees US involvement immediately, which they clearly don't desire. There's plenty of supply, and Saudi Arabia and OPEC would be more than willing to boost production. As well, oil is Iran's near only money making export, so they'd be hurting themselves. The IRGC made a fortune smuggling oil during sanctions. On the underground stuff, I don't think Israel has the ability to destroy those from the air, but I expect that with the absolute shocking display on intel capability inside Iran on the ground, they may be able to have a significant impact via espionage. Different subject, but it is pure idiocy to suggest that the Sect. of Defense is in any way responsible for a towing mishap when the Truman executed an extremely aggressive turn while the process was underway, and the other one didn't "fall off," it was an arrested landing mishap, probably a wire failure from the ship, or a hook failure on the Hornet. You think they're stalling? My guess is they have no leadership left and don't even know who is dead yet.

Insane claims warrant no response. To the subject, the program never stopped, and I consider it a waste of time, just as the agreement Jimmy Carter worked out with North Korea, the "Agreed to Framework," a deal he sprung of the Clinton Administration, never stopped N. Korea. Kicking the can is a regular strategy of politicians refusing to deal with the realities of the day.

Back to the subject, I never thought he was a particularly good deal maker. His deals involved negotiating real estate deals. Real estate is a particularly easy deal, because both parties are dealing with an appreciating asset. Thus, it is profitable to both parties to conclude an agreement. I am not aware of him ever getting a tough deal done.

Laughable. Nothing has changed. The facilities to complete the project were constructed and didn't stop. Grow up. Iran is not some goofy name within the four walls of some stupid Democrat party attempt to claim success. They never changed and they won't until stopped.

Complete nonsense, and any informed individual who knows about this stuff would laugh at this. The JCPOA did nothing to stop the Iranian development. It sought to delay it while guaranteeing it. The Iranians have never lived up to anything regarding this, and your claim is ignorant and ill informed.

I think you are making this far too complicated. The US has a bunch of personnel and equipment, including a carrier task force, in the area. Given the likelihood of an Iranian response, the Israelis probably told the US they were going to do something on Iranian soil. The US would then be prepared for a response. Thus the well publicized effort to allow non US combatants to leave the area over the past few days.

You are so clearly ignorant. The airstrikes were hardly "fantasy." What I "offer" is reality. Iran is going to develop a nuclear weapon capable of being delivered to Israel, unless stopped. No diplomacy is going to stop them, unless they view the option as a threat to their survival.

I honestly don't believe that these type of claims have any basis in reality. The bottom line is that the world is dealing with a fundamentalism Islamic group at the head of Iran and its nuc program. Do any of you care to understand what "diplomacy" means to a fundy Islamic group that thinks it has a God directive to eliminate Israel? You can disagree, but I don't think "diplomacy" means the same to the Iranian regime as it does to an obviously uninformed westerner. To change course, but I think is important, the status of this confrontation has changed immensely in the past few months since the fall of Syria. So as to not waste words, Iran is infinitely more vulnerable to offensive air strikes than it was earlier. That is not to say they can't energize their third party proxies in other countries, but they are quite vulnerable.

All of this internecine arguing in this forum is a waste of time. There is no agreement that Iran was going to sign on to to stop it's nuclear program. Only an ignorant fool with no knowledge of that regime would conclude that any US administration could force it, short of military action. Waste of time targeting the US policy. The Israelis have this figured out, and have for some time.

Buying them from N. Korea would e a gross violation of many agreements. Their nuc program has Pakistani origins and N. Korea technical support, and has for years. Producing them in N. Korea would not get them in place to launch. Delivering one of these things is a multi pronged issue. The warhead, which needs about 90% pure, the missile range and accuracy, as well as mounting the warhead on it. If they did it in N. Korea they would be found out and the weapons would likel never make it to Iran without interdiction.

No US president since 1980 has had the ability to get them to stop. The regime is intent on completing the program.

All the usual blaming of various US administrations in this thread, but that doesn't address the reality. Iran is run by an individual who thinks he has a God given mission to destroy Israel. That is that group's raison d'etre. It's been that way for decades, just as the Iranian nuclear weapons program has been going on for that long. There is no chance any US president was going to stop it unless by force, which is not a pleasant option, or by regime change brought on by internal force. That is the reality, and anyone who has looked at their program for years would know that. How they built their facilities, where they put them, how they spread them out etc. Fortunately, the Iranian air defense system has been denigrated to the point of ensuring strike success against various sites, but the thought that Iran was suddenly going to stop is pure folly.

Remind the individual of Kent State.

I've been stating this for years on this site. US citizens are completely ignorant of the industrialization and profiteering of the illegal immigration trade.

Archetypal musician.

The great orange.

That would also be an illegal order, and they would be bound not to abide by it. Support of others or respond to threats against them is authorized. "Attack" is not.

You've gone full blown Sunday afternoon wacko.

Your exaggerations are pathetic. Calling up the NG to prevent a potential catastrophe in an area known for very serious rioting is not "going nuclear," nor is it a military "attack." Further, you have zero credibility on the subject of what I think of the MAGA group, so give up the idiotic judgement, which you repeatedly place too much self confidence in. It's just stupid.

Regarding the thread title, the National Guard does not "attack." Responding to another claim, you know what's a "good look," and would have prevented this nonsense? Denying illegals entry. That was intentionally decided against, and so we have this.

Just a feeling, but a strong one. I think this past week was the beginning of the end for Putin. Highly publicized destruction of a significant amount of his strategic air assets, which the Russian people saw. Underwater droning an important bridge. Oil revenue greatly decreased. 27% inflation. 600,000 or so dead or significantly injured while in the years of this war they hold an area about the size of LA County in Ukraine. The same as 89. The economy will bring him down, and once started, it may happen quickly. Just my view, but the economic and military momentum and vector is horrible for them.

Jim Ritcher. I know he's on the wall, but never got much ink when he was here. I got to know him pretty well post football, sitting next to him and chatting for hours. Just a great guy.

Short answer, US military could not operate like this, and no caring gov should ever allow it. I read yesterday from an informed source that the Russians are losing 1000 people a day. They are untrained and ill-equipped. This war has become a useless slaughter.

That's fine. I'm just saying buyer beware after reading scores of nonsense from X people who lead with opinion against zero knowledge of existing situations, any acknowledgement of the other point of view, history or current context. And no credit goes to mainstream either, but they are a bit more disciplined as there are ways to get at them if wrong. To each his own.

The difference is the reader's subjective response to whether such claims are justified. There is some implied suggestion of credibility when these no names/no knowledge sources post some giant X view. A poster doesn't get that same response, and believing some ignorant goof simply because it's an X post is a really bad idea.