https://theintercept.com/2024/01/30/us-m...amas-gaza/

Hope it’s not true. That would be an expensive mistake thay would end up costing us billions more that we can’t afford.

On the other hand, I don’t really care about Israel or Gaza, so perhaps spending our money and efforts there will spare us from using that money and energy from stirring up new trouble somewhere else. At least this is an old issue that’s been going on since the Israelis arrived anyway.

Political suicide for Biden if he does.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anybody remember Lebanon?

It would be idiotic. You need somebody relatively neutral. Brazil, India, South Africa, Turkey. No Americans or Europeans.

(01-31-2024 11:34 AM)bullet Wrote:  Anybody remember Lebanon?

It would be idiotic. You need somebody relatively neutral. Brazil, India, South Africa, Turkey. No Americans or Europeans.

Pretty sure everyone remembers Lebanon. Of course the article indicates there is no current intent to land US troops anywhere. It merely suggests they be ready to land---which is all amphibious troops train to do every day. Its literally their job.

I suspect a notice that places specific defense assets in a state of being ready for a possible deployment is simply part of the US military deterrent function. I dont see US troops on the ground anywhere unless something changes radically. Im with you, I cant imagine putting boots on the ground anywhere in the Middle East right now. On the other hand, I can see having some ready to go should one of these small outposts get pressured to the point of needing some sort of back up.

(01-31-2024 11:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Pretty sure everyone remembers Lebanon. Of course the article indicates there is no current intent to land US troops anywhere. It merely suggests they be ready to land---which is all amphibious troops train to do every day. Its literally their job.

As I have pointed out before in discussions of navy matters, our current amphibious forces are pretty much incapable of performing an opposed landing, and only marginally able to achieve an unopposed administrative landing of any significant size.

(02-01-2024 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-31-2024 11:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Pretty sure everyone remembers Lebanon. Of course the article indicates there is no current intent to land US troops anywhere. It merely suggests they be ready to land---which is all amphibious troops train to do every day. Its literally their job.

As I have pointed out before in discussions of navy matters, our current amphibious forces are pretty much incapable of performing an opposed landing, and only marginally able to achieve an unopposed administrative landing of any significant size.

If we put troops in Gaza it will be because they are invited. I think we are not a good choice for peace keepers there. Someone like India makes more sense as an unbiased broker given the past history of the region. I see the possibility that we may need to insert reinforcements in some outpost that is in danger and in need of relief. So, I get that we need to have force prepared to intervene in the area. Beyond that, I think inserting more US troops in the area makes a little sense.

(02-01-2024 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-31-2024 11:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Pretty sure everyone remembers Lebanon. Of course the article indicates there is no current intent to land US troops anywhere. It merely suggests they be ready to land---which is all amphibious troops train to do every day. Its literally their job.

As I have pointed out before in discussions of navy matters, our current amphibious forces are pretty much incapable of performing an opposed landing, and only marginally able to achieve an unopposed administrative landing of any significant size.

If we put troops in Gaza it will be because they are invited. I think we are not a good choice for peace keepers there. Someone like India makes more sense as an unbiased broker given the past history of the region. I see the possibility that we may need to insert reinforcements in some outpost that is in danger and in need of relief. So, I get that we need to have force prepared to intervene in the area. Beyond that, I think inserting more US troops in the area makes a little sense.

I frankly think you hit Iran somewhere that hurts and then GTFO--and stay TFO unless some compelling problem appears.

My thought would be destroying the Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas and possibly the submarine base at Ras Jask--and any ships that happened to be in. Those are purely military targets that can be hit without a lot of incidental civilian casualties. It is co located with a small commercial port, but the city is several miles down the beach from the port. Bandar Abbas is the base for their harassment actions in the Straits of Hormuz and any activities in the Arabian Sea or Bab el Mandeb or Red Sea.

Of course, maybe I have a bad attitude toward Bandar Abbas because I once saw a camel die there while a huge fly landed in my beer.

(02-01-2024 05:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-31-2024 11:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Pretty sure everyone remembers Lebanon. Of course the article indicates there is no current intent to land US troops anywhere. It merely suggests they be ready to land---which is all amphibious troops train to do every day. Its literally their job.

As I have pointed out before in discussions of navy matters, our current amphibious forces are pretty much incapable of performing an opposed landing, and only marginally able to achieve an unopposed administrative landing of any significant size.

If we put troops in Gaza it will be because they are invited. I think we are not a good choice for peace keepers there. Someone like India makes more sense as an unbiased broker given the past history of the region. I see the possibility that we may need to insert reinforcements in some outpost that is in danger and in need of relief. So, I get that we need to have force prepared to intervene in the area. Beyond that, I think inserting more US troops in the area makes a little sense.

I frankly think you hit Iran somewhere that hurts and then GTFO--and stay TFO unless some compelling problem appears.

My thought would be destroying the Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas and possibly the submarine base at Ras Jask--and any ships that happened to be in. Those are purely military targets that can be hit without a lot of incidental civilian casualties. It is co located with a small commercial port, but the city is several miles down the beach from the port. Bandar Abbas is the base for their harassment actions in the Straits of Hormuz and any activities in the Arabian Sea or Bab el Mandeb or Red Sea.

Of course, maybe I have a bad attitude toward Bandar Abbas because I once saw a camel die there while a huge fly landed in my beer.

What world do you live in do you think a military strike on one of Iran's largest naval bases would lead to us "staying tfo"?

(02-01-2024 05:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-31-2024 11:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Pretty sure everyone remembers Lebanon. Of course the article indicates there is no current intent to land US troops anywhere. It merely suggests they be ready to land---which is all amphibious troops train to do every day. Its literally their job.

As I have pointed out before in discussions of navy matters, our current amphibious forces are pretty much incapable of performing an opposed landing, and only marginally able to achieve an unopposed administrative landing of any significant size.

If we put troops in Gaza it will be because they are invited. I think we are not a good choice for peace keepers there. Someone like India makes more sense as an unbiased broker given the past history of the region. I see the possibility that we may need to insert reinforcements in some outpost that is in danger and in need of relief. So, I get that we need to have force prepared to intervene in the area. Beyond that, I think inserting more US troops in the area makes a little sense.

I frankly think you hit Iran somewhere that hurts and then GTFO--and stay TFO unless some compelling problem appears.

My thought would be destroying the Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas and possibly the submarine base at Ras Jask--and any ships that happened to be in. Those are purely military targets that can be hit without a lot of incidental civilian casualties. It is co located with a small commercial port, but the city is several miles down the beach from the port. Bandar Abbas is the base for their harassment actions in the Straits of Hormuz and any activities in the Arabian Sea or Bab el Mandeb or Red Sea.

Of course, maybe I have a bad attitude toward Bandar Abbas because I once saw a camel die there while a huge fly landed in my beer.

Are you ******* insane? Why the **** is the the US military in all of these places to begin with. Not sure where you copied and pasted this garbage from but **** that.

(02-01-2024 08:27 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 05:52 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 04:50 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(02-01-2024 11:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-31-2024 11:51 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Pretty sure everyone remembers Lebanon. Of course the article indicates there is no current intent to land US troops anywhere. It merely suggests they be ready to land---which is all amphibious troops train to do every day. Its literally their job.

As I have pointed out before in discussions of navy matters, our current amphibious forces are pretty much incapable of performing an opposed landing, and only marginally able to achieve an unopposed administrative landing of any significant size.

If we put troops in Gaza it will be because they are invited. I think we are not a good choice for peace keepers there. Someone like India makes more sense as an unbiased broker given the past history of the region. I see the possibility that we may need to insert reinforcements in some outpost that is in danger and in need of relief. So, I get that we need to have force prepared to intervene in the area. Beyond that, I think inserting more US troops in the area makes a little sense.

I frankly think you hit Iran somewhere that hurts and then GTFO--and stay TFO unless some compelling problem appears.

My thought would be destroying the Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas and possibly the submarine base at Ras Jask--and any ships that happened to be in. Those are purely military targets that can be hit without a lot of incidental civilian casualties. It is co located with a small commercial port, but the city is several miles down the beach from the port. Bandar Abbas is the base for their harassment actions in the Straits of Hormuz and any activities in the Arabian Sea or Bab el Mandeb or Red Sea.

Of course, maybe I have a bad attitude toward Bandar Abbas because I once saw a camel die there while a huge fly landed in my beer.

What world do you live in do you think a military strike on one of Iran's largest naval bases would lead to us "staying tfo"?

Iran isn't going to do anything. The regime doesn't want to lose their power.

This thread is a perfect example of how ****** we are.

I have two boys draft age. No way in hell I send to them to defend this demented President's agenda. No today, not tomorrow or ever. Israel can and will handle this, we just need to stay the f out and let them finish what Hamas started.

If the DNC (because we all know president pudding isn't making any decisions) puts boots on the ground, which side will they they fight on???
The terrorists or Israel?