How does this thing in Iran end?

gantry25
Posts
301
Joined
2/28/2015
Location
Henderson, NV, USA
9/4/2026 7:21am
gantry25 wrote:
President Trump is navigating global politics like he should. It's unfortunate so many of our allies refuse to pay their fair share for their own national...

President Trump is navigating global politics like he should. It's unfortunate so many of our allies refuse to pay their fair share for their own national defense. Their defense is not our responsibility.. 

Working with WW2 era trade policies is selling America short. President Trump is finally addressing it.

Chastising democratic  "allies" that our values are supposed to be fairly closely aligned with for denying free speech to it's citizens? This is exactly what this administration should be doing. 

Get use to it we'll have JD Vance for 8 years to follow president Trump. It's so enjoyable to watch the complete internal destruction of the democrat party. Go DSA!

Twigster wrote:
It's a slow day, so allow me a part 2... "President Trump is navigating global politics like he should. It's unfortunate so many of our allies refuse...

It's a slow day, so allow me a part 2... 

  • "President Trump is navigating global politics like he should. It's unfortunate so many of our allies refuse to pay their fair share for their own national defense. Their defense is not our responsibility.."

Second part, absolutely true. Too many have scaled back defense for too long and not stepped up. No arguments. To add nuance, countries proritised citizens over defense when faced with a global economic crash and a major pandemic shock followed by the huge cost to citizens of Russia starting a war In Ukraine, but it was with hindsight the wrong decision. However, there's a way to get that sorted which is to bolster those economies, strengthening military sales and development and build capability. You don't achieve it by starting another war in an energy providing area and taking a dump on everyone's front lawn...

  • "Working with WW2 era trade policies is selling America short. President Trump is finally addressing it."

If you guys feel that way, it's your prerogative. There's plenty of diplomatic ways to address that which don't smack the shit out of working people in all the countries you feel so aggrieved by though. Including 'diplomacy' which you seem an advocate of...

  • "Chastising democratic  "allies" that our values are supposed to be fairly closely aligned with for denying free speech to it's citizens? This is exactly what this administration should be doing."

Bullshit. Firstly because your point is not what is happening (and you'd do well to educate yourself a bit on cultural differences), Free speech in the UK and Europe is not what it is in the US, it never has been and never will. If that's to change, it should be done through electoral and democratic processes on the choice of electorates in those countries. Put simply, just how Trump and Vance and whoever you elect to do whatever you'd like to do domestically is up to you, these are choices for us. Shut the fuck up and stay in your own lane, rather than trying to educate democracies that have existed from before the Vikings first landed on your shores how it's all supposed to work. It's none of your fucking business what we do domestically, just as your domestic choices aren't ours. 

  • "Get use to it we'll have JD Vance for 8 years to follow president Trump. It's so enjoyable to watch the complete internal destruction of the democrat party. Go DSA!"

In line with my point above - Domestically, not my problem. God speed to him, you and whatever domestic agenda he sees fit to deliver. Globally, he'd be a clusterfuck. Already is. 

Anyway, fun over, back to the shadows for me. Trying to debate things on here is a bit of a hiding to nothing and normally I know better. Thankfully, I have far more pressing shit to deal with including my end of year strip-down and regrease of all the bearings and moving bits on my 450 plus F1 practice starts soon.

Robgvx wrote:
Two things. I’d add that you won’t get your allies to spend more on their defence by hurting their economies with tariffs.And secondly, you really think that...

Two things. 

I’d add that you won’t get your allies to spend more on their defence by hurting their economies with tariffs.

And secondly, you really think that the UK doesn’t have free speech?

The tarriffs are necessary to even the trading playing field from years of America being taken advantage of. Those trade deals went back to WW2. No more sweet heart deals.

How many people in the UK have been arrested for "grossly offensive speech".  There are dozens of examples of what the government deems "offensive language" arrests online. The problem is who determines what is offensive? That is not free speech.

16
Twigster
Posts
477
Joined
8/29/2018
Location
GB
9/4/2026 7:21am
borg wrote:

To the OP's original point, that would be me, here is a recent column by an "international security expert". He offers a 3 point plan. 

https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-906985

The article is an Israeli fantasy.Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent...

The article is an Israeli fantasy.

Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.

If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent to Iran, 50-70% would be fatalities, Iran has 2 years compulsory military service for 18 year olds and a total population of $90 million, a large percentage of them would fight, they have been preparing for this for 47 years.

China would not withdraw support for Iran, the US has no leverage over China.

Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. 

You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off. The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine, and they're bloody good at dealing with insurgents and the kind of guerilla tactics the IRGC would use. Don't get me wrong, it would hurt the US and there'd be a severe cost to it, but 50-70%? Not even close. 

China isn't interested in this conflict other than the opportunity it offers in tying the US down to a regional dispute while they go about 'settling' their Taiwan problem. They get less than 2% of their total crude production from Iran, and sell very little military capability to the Iranians. What 'support' they provide is very low level so they'd drop them in a heartbeat if they needed to. 

 

2
borg
Posts
7011
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
9/4/2026 8:05am Edited Date/Time 9/4/2026 1:14pm
borg wrote:

To the OP's original point, that would be me, here is a recent column by an "international security expert". He offers a 3 point plan. 

https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-906985

The article is an Israeli fantasy.Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent...

The article is an Israeli fantasy.

Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.

If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent to Iran, 50-70% would be fatalities, Iran has 2 years compulsory military service for 18 year olds and a total population of $90 million, a large percentage of them would fight, they have been preparing for this for 47 years.

China would not withdraw support for Iran, the US has no leverage over China.

Twigster wrote:
Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off...

Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. 

You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off. The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine, and they're bloody good at dealing with insurgents and the kind of guerilla tactics the IRGC would use. Don't get me wrong, it would hurt the US and there'd be a severe cost to it, but 50-70%? Not even close. 

China isn't interested in this conflict other than the opportunity it offers in tying the US down to a regional dispute while they go about 'settling' their Taiwan problem. They get less than 2% of their total crude production from Iran, and sell very little military capability to the Iranians. What 'support' they provide is very low level so they'd drop them in a heartbeat if they needed to. 

 

Maybe now they get less that 2% but before the war started it was more like 12%.  40% of their imports came through the strait. They were Iran's biggest customer through the shadow fleet. China is very much concerned about this war but I doubt it would give them any incentive to join in an agreement with the US unless we ended the blockade and additional sanctions.

Reese95w
Posts
250
Joined
2/7/2011
Location
Kent, WA, USA
9/4/2026 12:02pm
1
3

The Shop

TeamGreen
Posts
37519
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
9/4/2026 3:33pm
bugnboo wrote:
IMG 4662 7.jpeg?VersionId=WD98
gantry25 wrote:
Strange. I wonder why Biden didn't release the Epstein files? With everything the Clinton and Biden camp tried to do to destroy trump, if his name...

Strange. I wonder why Biden didn't release the Epstein files? With everything the Clinton and Biden camp tried to do to destroy trump, if his name is all over the Epstein files seems like low hanging fruit for the dirty democrats. They could have buried him, right? Really strange. 

The involved don’t want to know about their culpability.

They’re neither aware nor are they interested in honest dialogue.

They are the most ignorant among us.

They are not legitimate individuals.

2
9
White Feather
Posts
286
Joined
2/5/2026
Location
1600 Pennsylvania, DC, USA
9/4/2026 3:38pm
gantry25 wrote:
Strange. I wonder why Biden didn't release the Epstein files? With everything the Clinton and Biden camp tried to do to destroy trump, if his name...

Strange. I wonder why Biden didn't release the Epstein files? With everything the Clinton and Biden camp tried to do to destroy trump, if his name is all over the Epstein files seems like low hanging fruit for the dirty democrats. They could have buried him, right? Really strange. 

Robgvx wrote:
IMG 1092 3.jpeg?VersionId=E
gantry25 wrote:
"They followed historical precedents" Two of the most corrupt presidents and weaponized DOJ's of all time. A those court cases that President Trump fought just after...

"They followed historical precedents" Two of the most corrupt presidents and weaponized DOJ's of all time. A those court cases that President Trump fought just after he made it clear he may run again were just coincidence. I must say the funniest one was when they found classified documents in Biden's garage but refused to prosecute. This was after the FBI did a full raid on Mar-a-logo and brought federal charges against Trump for classified documents. This is really funny the excuses the left makes trying to justify the actions of the corrupt democrats.

Really enjoying the implosion of the democrat party after being the "big tent". You welcomed the DSA in along with all their ridiculous ideas. You reap what you sow. GO DSA! 

I like "the cut of your jib".

6
9/4/2026 5:36pm
borg wrote:

To the OP's original point, that would be me, here is a recent column by an "international security expert". He offers a 3 point plan. 

https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-906985

The article is an Israeli fantasy.Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent...

The article is an Israeli fantasy.

Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.

If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent to Iran, 50-70% would be fatalities, Iran has 2 years compulsory military service for 18 year olds and a total population of $90 million, a large percentage of them would fight, they have been preparing for this for 47 years.

China would not withdraw support for Iran, the US has no leverage over China.

Twigster wrote:
Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off...

Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. 

You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off. The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine, and they're bloody good at dealing with insurgents and the kind of guerilla tactics the IRGC would use. Don't get me wrong, it would hurt the US and there'd be a severe cost to it, but 50-70%? Not even close. 

China isn't interested in this conflict other than the opportunity it offers in tying the US down to a regional dispute while they go about 'settling' their Taiwan problem. They get less than 2% of their total crude production from Iran, and sell very little military capability to the Iranians. What 'support' they provide is very low level so they'd drop them in a heartbeat if they needed to. 

 

"The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine"

The US military does not have 750 thousand to 1.5 million active troops, reserves and new recruits, including conscripts, would be needed to reach those numbers. Iran has 27 million men of fighting age who have had or currently serve in their military.

27 million fighting to defend their country, against 1.5 million fighting in a foreign land, with disrupted supply chains, in mountainous terrain, 50-70% is not unrealistic. Iran has been preparing it's population for this for 47 years.

 

6
1
TeamGreen
Posts
37519
Joined
11/25/2008
Location
Thru-out, CA, USA
9/4/2026 6:40pm

Do our resident IRGC/pro-Iran cheerleaders have any info on how many of those 27 million Iranian would-be fighters are getting paid or have gas for their vehicles? 

What are they paying for food? 

What’s the value of their rial? (As in what does it buy them these days?)

Also, why don’t you explain to the rest of us the difference between the IRGC and the typical Iranian militia members…? 

Asking for a friend. 

5
10
gantry25
Posts
301
Joined
2/28/2015
Location
Henderson, NV, USA
9/5/2026 7:09am
The article is an Israeli fantasy.Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent...

The article is an Israeli fantasy.

Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.

If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent to Iran, 50-70% would be fatalities, Iran has 2 years compulsory military service for 18 year olds and a total population of $90 million, a large percentage of them would fight, they have been preparing for this for 47 years.

China would not withdraw support for Iran, the US has no leverage over China.

Twigster wrote:
Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off...

Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. 

You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off. The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine, and they're bloody good at dealing with insurgents and the kind of guerilla tactics the IRGC would use. Don't get me wrong, it would hurt the US and there'd be a severe cost to it, but 50-70%? Not even close. 

China isn't interested in this conflict other than the opportunity it offers in tying the US down to a regional dispute while they go about 'settling' their Taiwan problem. They get less than 2% of their total crude production from Iran, and sell very little military capability to the Iranians. What 'support' they provide is very low level so they'd drop them in a heartbeat if they needed to. 

 

"The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine"The US...

"The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine"

The US military does not have 750 thousand to 1.5 million active troops, reserves and new recruits, including conscripts, would be needed to reach those numbers. Iran has 27 million men of fighting age who have had or currently serve in their military.

27 million fighting to defend their country, against 1.5 million fighting in a foreign land, with disrupted supply chains, in mountainous terrain, 50-70% is not unrealistic. Iran has been preparing it's population for this for 47 years.

 

27 million men that will not fight for this regime. Regardless, the country is going to collapse from within there will be no need for ground troops.

3
10
9/5/2026 6:05pm
Twigster wrote:
Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off...

Just to try and highlight I've no axe to grinds on any particular 'side' here.. 

You casualty figure guesses there are miles off, like ludicrously far off. The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine, and they're bloody good at dealing with insurgents and the kind of guerilla tactics the IRGC would use. Don't get me wrong, it would hurt the US and there'd be a severe cost to it, but 50-70%? Not even close. 

China isn't interested in this conflict other than the opportunity it offers in tying the US down to a regional dispute while they go about 'settling' their Taiwan problem. They get less than 2% of their total crude production from Iran, and sell very little military capability to the Iranians. What 'support' they provide is very low level so they'd drop them in a heartbeat if they needed to. 

 

"The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine"The US...

"The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine"

The US military does not have 750 thousand to 1.5 million active troops, reserves and new recruits, including conscripts, would be needed to reach those numbers. Iran has 27 million men of fighting age who have had or currently serve in their military.

27 million fighting to defend their country, against 1.5 million fighting in a foreign land, with disrupted supply chains, in mountainous terrain, 50-70% is not unrealistic. Iran has been preparing it's population for this for 47 years.

 

gantry25 wrote:
27 million men that will not fight for this regime. Regardless, the country is going to collapse from within there will be no need for ground...

27 million men that will not fight for this regime. Regardless, the country is going to collapse from within there will be no need for ground troops.

Iran has been sanctioned for 47 years and the government hasn't collapsed, why do you think this time will be any different?

7
2
gantry25
Posts
301
Joined
2/28/2015
Location
Henderson, NV, USA
9/6/2026 5:51am
"The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine"The US...

"The US military isn't some group of conscripts thrown together at the last second and marched forwards with tracksuits on a-la Russia in Ukraine"

The US military does not have 750 thousand to 1.5 million active troops, reserves and new recruits, including conscripts, would be needed to reach those numbers. Iran has 27 million men of fighting age who have had or currently serve in their military.

27 million fighting to defend their country, against 1.5 million fighting in a foreign land, with disrupted supply chains, in mountainous terrain, 50-70% is not unrealistic. Iran has been preparing it's population for this for 47 years.

 

gantry25 wrote:
27 million men that will not fight for this regime. Regardless, the country is going to collapse from within there will be no need for ground...

27 million men that will not fight for this regime. Regardless, the country is going to collapse from within there will be no need for ground troops.

Iran has been sanctioned for 47 years and the government hasn't collapsed, why do you think this time will be any different?

Iran has never been sanctioned or isolated like this before. Watch the news and see what secretary Bessent is doing to their economy. They have been shut off from their access to money. Rampant inflation, can't pay their soldiers, any military moves they make are soundly defeated. Doesn't matter how much you hate President Trump or the US, this strategy will prove to be effective. The collapse of Iran is imminent. The world will be a better place.

12
9/6/2026 6:40am
gantry25 wrote:
27 million men that will not fight for this regime. Regardless, the country is going to collapse from within there will be no need for ground...

27 million men that will not fight for this regime. Regardless, the country is going to collapse from within there will be no need for ground troops.

Iran has been sanctioned for 47 years and the government hasn't collapsed, why do you think this time will be any different?

gantry25 wrote:
Iran has never been sanctioned or isolated like this before. Watch the news and see what secretary Bessent is doing to their economy. They have been...

Iran has never been sanctioned or isolated like this before. Watch the news and see what secretary Bessent is doing to their economy. They have been shut off from their access to money. Rampant inflation, can't pay their soldiers, any military moves they make are soundly defeated. Doesn't matter how much you hate President Trump or the US, this strategy will prove to be effective. The collapse of Iran is imminent. The world will be a better place.

"Watch the news"

Are you referring to Fox News or Newsmax, who only provide one side's perspective?

5
2
gantry25
Posts
301
Joined
2/28/2015
Location
Henderson, NV, USA
9/6/2026 6:53am

Iran has been sanctioned for 47 years and the government hasn't collapsed, why do you think this time will be any different?

gantry25 wrote:
Iran has never been sanctioned or isolated like this before. Watch the news and see what secretary Bessent is doing to their economy. They have been...

Iran has never been sanctioned or isolated like this before. Watch the news and see what secretary Bessent is doing to their economy. They have been shut off from their access to money. Rampant inflation, can't pay their soldiers, any military moves they make are soundly defeated. Doesn't matter how much you hate President Trump or the US, this strategy will prove to be effective. The collapse of Iran is imminent. The world will be a better place.

"Watch the news"

Are you referring to Fox News or Newsmax, who only provide one side's perspective?

Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news sources it doesn't take long to figure out who has credibility.

1
6
9/6/2026 7:14am
gantry25 wrote:
Iran has never been sanctioned or isolated like this before. Watch the news and see what secretary Bessent is doing to their economy. They have been...

Iran has never been sanctioned or isolated like this before. Watch the news and see what secretary Bessent is doing to their economy. They have been shut off from their access to money. Rampant inflation, can't pay their soldiers, any military moves they make are soundly defeated. Doesn't matter how much you hate President Trump or the US, this strategy will prove to be effective. The collapse of Iran is imminent. The world will be a better place.

"Watch the news"

Are you referring to Fox News or Newsmax, who only provide one side's perspective?

gantry25 wrote:
Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news...

Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news sources it doesn't take long to figure out who has credibility.

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...

Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OP

Try reading news from countries near Iran, like Turkey, Pakistan, India, Qatar, they aren't trying to push a Republican or Democratic agenda.

3
2
gantry25
Posts
301
Joined
2/28/2015
Location
Henderson, NV, USA
9/6/2026 9:44am

"Watch the news"

Are you referring to Fox News or Newsmax, who only provide one side's perspective?

gantry25 wrote:
Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news...

Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news sources it doesn't take long to figure out who has credibility.

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OPTry reading news from countries near...

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...

Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OP

Try reading news from countries near Iran, like Turkey, Pakistan, India, Qatar, they aren't trying to push a Republican or Democratic agenda.

I don't care about their rating system, the articles are there for all to read. From the looney left to the radical right.

I don't have that much time or interest in going to Iran or Turkey's country to look for news. All of the countries you mentioned have their own biases whether those biases are left or right determines if they align with the democrat or republican party. Most countries will be biased against America from the foreign articles I have read, I get all the diversity I need from groundnews. My only interest with Iran is how quickly they fall and with Turkey, whether or not America authorizes them to purchase F35's. Hope not.

Regardless, Iran needed to be dealt with. The rest of the world just watched and waited for them to have a nuclear bomb. President Trump had the courage to finally do something about it. The world should be thanking him, including you.

17
mvd61
Posts
1327
Joined
10/15/2021
Location
Brandon, SD, USA
9/6/2026 10:22am

Pretty bold post by the President. If I had made a post like this I’d bet anything there would be folks in here screaming about stolen valor. Instead I suppose I’ll be met with something about having TDS and he’s just trolling. I digress?

https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-fantasizes-about-himself-as-decorated-general-alongside-patton-and-macarthur-in-bonkers-ai-image/

7
2
gantry25
Posts
301
Joined
2/28/2015
Location
Henderson, NV, USA
9/6/2026 10:27am
borg wrote:

To the OP's original point, that would be me, here is a recent column by an "international security expert". He offers a 3 point plan. 

https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-906985

The article is an Israeli fantasy.Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent...

The article is an Israeli fantasy.

Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.

If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent to Iran, 50-70% would be fatalities, Iran has 2 years compulsory military service for 18 year olds and a total population of $90 million, a large percentage of them would fight, they have been preparing for this for 47 years.

China would not withdraw support for Iran, the US has no leverage over China.

These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would be different in Iran, that is far weaker than Iraq was at the time, doesn't make sense. It's obvious you hate America but one thing you can't argue with is America's military being astonishingly powerful and well run. 

1
7
byke
Posts
3141
Joined
8/12/2015
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
9/6/2026 10:56am

Not sure that makes sense given the last 75 years. Things only feel new if it's new to us, but we've been in basically the same war for 75 years. Thats why Trump was originally against another forever war and that did well for him in the polls, swing voters were tired of it. They ignored all the other flops, but they're not ignoring this one. 

1
3
APLMAN99
Posts
12792
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Tualatin, OR, USA
Fantasy
9/6/2026 4:19pm
TeamGreen wrote:
Do our resident IRGC/pro-Iran cheerleaders have any info on how many of those 27 million Iranian would-be fighters are getting paid or have gas for their...

Do our resident IRGC/pro-Iran cheerleaders have any info on how many of those 27 million Iranian would-be fighters are getting paid or have gas for their vehicles? 

What are they paying for food? 

What’s the value of their rial? (As in what does it buy them these days?)

Also, why don’t you explain to the rest of us the difference between the IRGC and the typical Iranian militia members…? 

Asking for a friend. 

Who are these “resident IRGC/pro-Iran cheerleaders” you are referring to?  
 

7
3
byke
Posts
3141
Joined
8/12/2015
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
9/6/2026 4:26pm
TeamGreen wrote:
Do our resident IRGC/pro-Iran cheerleaders have any info on how many of those 27 million Iranian would-be fighters are getting paid or have gas for their...

Do our resident IRGC/pro-Iran cheerleaders have any info on how many of those 27 million Iranian would-be fighters are getting paid or have gas for their vehicles? 

What are they paying for food? 

What’s the value of their rial? (As in what does it buy them these days?)

Also, why don’t you explain to the rest of us the difference between the IRGC and the typical Iranian militia members…? 

Asking for a friend. 

APLMAN99 wrote:

Who are these “resident IRGC/pro-Iran cheerleaders” you are referring to?  
 

Either you love bombing schools and civilian infrastructure or you support terrorism, duh!

11
1
9/6/2026 8:15pm Edited Date/Time 9/6/2026 8:46pm
borg wrote:

To the OP's original point, that would be me, here is a recent column by an "international security expert". He offers a 3 point plan. 

https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-906985

The article is an Israeli fantasy.Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent...

The article is an Israeli fantasy.

Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.

If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent to Iran, 50-70% would be fatalities, Iran has 2 years compulsory military service for 18 year olds and a total population of $90 million, a large percentage of them would fight, they have been preparing for this for 47 years.

China would not withdraw support for Iran, the US has no leverage over China.

gantry25 wrote:
These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would...

These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would be different in Iran, that is far weaker than Iraq was at the time, doesn't make sense. It's obvious you hate America but one thing you can't argue with is America's military being astonishingly powerful and well run. 

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"

Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out maneuver the Iraqi army. Iran has mountainous terrain, restricting possible routes, reducing maneuverability, which makes it ideal for ambushing advancing troops.

The US "owned the night" during the Iraq war, Iran has night vision sourced from China and Russia.

Iraq had little intelligence on US troop positions, and few ways to target them, Iran has it's own satellites, access to Chinese and Russian intel and has shown they can target them with drones and missiles.

During the Iraq war Abrams tanks were superior to Iraqi tanks, but vulnerable to RPGs and IEDs, the Ukraine war has shown Abrams tanks are also vulnerable to drone attacks.

I could go on, but I doubt you care, hooah.

5
2
gantry25
Posts
301
Joined
2/28/2015
Location
Henderson, NV, USA
9/7/2026 4:38pm
The article is an Israeli fantasy.Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent...

The article is an Israeli fantasy.

Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.

If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent to Iran, 50-70% would be fatalities, Iran has 2 years compulsory military service for 18 year olds and a total population of $90 million, a large percentage of them would fight, they have been preparing for this for 47 years.

China would not withdraw support for Iran, the US has no leverage over China.

gantry25 wrote:
These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would...

These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would be different in Iran, that is far weaker than Iraq was at the time, doesn't make sense. It's obvious you hate America but one thing you can't argue with is America's military being astonishingly powerful and well run. 

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out...

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"

Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out maneuver the Iraqi army. Iran has mountainous terrain, restricting possible routes, reducing maneuverability, which makes it ideal for ambushing advancing troops.

The US "owned the night" during the Iraq war, Iran has night vision sourced from China and Russia.

Iraq had little intelligence on US troop positions, and few ways to target them, Iran has it's own satellites, access to Chinese and Russian intel and has shown they can target them with drones and missiles.

During the Iraq war Abrams tanks were superior to Iraqi tanks, but vulnerable to RPGs and IEDs, the Ukraine war has shown Abrams tanks are also vulnerable to drone attacks.

I could go on, but I doubt you care, hooah.

All of things you have stated have already been considered by the US military. With the US military recognizing what you have brought up as well as things you have not, the military would make the necessary changes to tactics to nullify any perceived advantage the Iranians nay have. If the American military needed to wage a ground campaign they would absolutely crush the Iranians. The Americans have complete and unopposed control of the air. Try to move troops or armor without any air support. Like I said, they will be crushed. 

You seem to be hoping for a quagmire for the US troops. Do you in fact support the current murderous regime in Iran, Sure seems like it.

Regardless, there will be no ground campaign, it will not be necessary. The Iranian regime will collapse upon itself.  

1
11
Chance1216
Posts
8910
Joined
4/1/2018
Location
Carson, CA, USA
9/7/2026 5:05pm

"Watch the news"

Are you referring to Fox News or Newsmax, who only provide one side's perspective?

gantry25 wrote:
Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news...

Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news sources it doesn't take long to figure out who has credibility.

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OPTry reading news from countries near...

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...

Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OP

Try reading news from countries near Iran, like Turkey, Pakistan, India, Qatar, they aren't trying to push a Republican or Democratic agenda.

They’re just pushing their own agenda. Like most western news outlets. 

2
1
9/7/2026 5:30pm
gantry25 wrote:
These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would...

These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would be different in Iran, that is far weaker than Iraq was at the time, doesn't make sense. It's obvious you hate America but one thing you can't argue with is America's military being astonishingly powerful and well run. 

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out...

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"

Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out maneuver the Iraqi army. Iran has mountainous terrain, restricting possible routes, reducing maneuverability, which makes it ideal for ambushing advancing troops.

The US "owned the night" during the Iraq war, Iran has night vision sourced from China and Russia.

Iraq had little intelligence on US troop positions, and few ways to target them, Iran has it's own satellites, access to Chinese and Russian intel and has shown they can target them with drones and missiles.

During the Iraq war Abrams tanks were superior to Iraqi tanks, but vulnerable to RPGs and IEDs, the Ukraine war has shown Abrams tanks are also vulnerable to drone attacks.

I could go on, but I doubt you care, hooah.

gantry25 wrote:
All of things you have stated have already been considered by the US military. With the US military recognizing what you have brought up as well...

All of things you have stated have already been considered by the US military. With the US military recognizing what you have brought up as well as things you have not, the military would make the necessary changes to tactics to nullify any perceived advantage the Iranians nay have. If the American military needed to wage a ground campaign they would absolutely crush the Iranians. The Americans have complete and unopposed control of the air. Try to move troops or armor without any air support. Like I said, they will be crushed. 

You seem to be hoping for a quagmire for the US troops. Do you in fact support the current murderous regime in Iran, Sure seems like it.

Regardless, there will be no ground campaign, it will not be necessary. The Iranian regime will collapse upon itself.  

I don't hope for a quagmire for US troops, I hope the US walks away from this, and lets the Iranian people decide their own fate, without outside interference.

4
2
9/7/2026 5:47pm
gantry25 wrote:
Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news...

Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news sources it doesn't take long to figure out who has credibility.

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OPTry reading news from countries near...

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...

Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OP

Try reading news from countries near Iran, like Turkey, Pakistan, India, Qatar, they aren't trying to push a Republican or Democratic agenda.

Chance1216 wrote:

They’re just pushing their own agenda. Like most western news outlets. 

"Like most western news outlets"

Which western outlet do you think is not pushing their own agenda?

1
1
borg
Posts
7011
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
9/7/2026 5:47pm
gantry25 wrote:
Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news...

Groundnews. News from every perspective. I do my best to not allow a one sided viewpoint, groundnews allows for this. After looking at all the news sources it doesn't take long to figure out who has credibility.

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OPTry reading news from countries near...

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...

Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OP

Try reading news from countries near Iran, like Turkey, Pakistan, India, Qatar, they aren't trying to push a Republican or Democratic agenda.

Chance1216 wrote:

They’re just pushing their own agenda. Like most western news outlets. 

Yup. That is what it has come down to. 

Ground news does not have a news broadcast. It's a news aggregator like Drudge kind of used to be. I don't need their opinion on bias. The closest thing to an unbiased news source I have ever seen is C-SPAN. Me and twelve other people used to watch it. I don't have a way to watch it now. 

1
Chance1216
Posts
8910
Joined
4/1/2018
Location
Carson, CA, USA
9/7/2026 9:10pm Edited Date/Time 9/7/2026 9:12pm
Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OPTry reading news from countries near...

Groundnews has been criticized for using false equivalency in their ratings methodology...

Is Ground News a Right Wing Psy OP

Try reading news from countries near Iran, like Turkey, Pakistan, India, Qatar, they aren't trying to push a Republican or Democratic agenda.

Chance1216 wrote:

They’re just pushing their own agenda. Like most western news outlets. 

"Like most western news outlets"

Which western outlet do you think is not pushing their own agenda?

I actually quit watching the news. 
I either let the Vital experts form my opinion on what’s going on. Joking aside, I  read my sons emails “VERY CAREFULLY”….. 
 

I don’t trust any news outlet at the end of the day. Reporting on, isn’t live coverage. 

whethefakawe
Posts
242
Joined
10/14/2021
Location
Scottsdale, AZ, USA
9/7/2026 11:26pm
The article is an Israeli fantasy.Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent...

The article is an Israeli fantasy.

Congressional recognition of Iranian minority independence would not achieve anything within Iran.

If 750 thousand to 1.5 million American troops were sent to Iran, 50-70% would be fatalities, Iran has 2 years compulsory military service for 18 year olds and a total population of $90 million, a large percentage of them would fight, they have been preparing for this for 47 years.

China would not withdraw support for Iran, the US has no leverage over China.

gantry25 wrote:
These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would...

These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would be different in Iran, that is far weaker than Iraq was at the time, doesn't make sense. It's obvious you hate America but one thing you can't argue with is America's military being astonishingly powerful and well run. 

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out...

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"

Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out maneuver the Iraqi army. Iran has mountainous terrain, restricting possible routes, reducing maneuverability, which makes it ideal for ambushing advancing troops.

The US "owned the night" during the Iraq war, Iran has night vision sourced from China and Russia.

Iraq had little intelligence on US troop positions, and few ways to target them, Iran has it's own satellites, access to Chinese and Russian intel and has shown they can target them with drones and missiles.

During the Iraq war Abrams tanks were superior to Iraqi tanks, but vulnerable to RPGs and IEDs, the Ukraine war has shown Abrams tanks are also vulnerable to drone attacks.

I could go on, but I doubt you care, hooah.

Can't remember who it was, but some "expert" went on a rant some weeks ago about "air superiority" and what a fake concept it  This was some "leading journalist" which tells you the level of awareness and knowledge the fools on TV possess. 

Like YOU, bogan. 

In short, the side that has air superiority calls the shots. Many, MANY examples in history going back to WW1,

Probably THE most vicious example was the "Falaise Pocket" after the Normandy landings on 6 June 1944. Read up on it, the USAAF and RAF had absolute control of the skies, and slaughtered the retreating German armies in the area of Falaise. Horrific to read about, I'm not going to regurgitate any statistics or stories. Look it up.

Same with D-Day itself, the Allied air forces kept the Luftwaffe away from the kanding beaches, if I remember right the Luftwaffe flew two? sorties over the beaches all day.  Or only two got back, rather -- everything else was shot won. Again, look it up, I'm talking off my top of my head....not out my ass 🤣

Like that TV muppet, YOU -- yes YOU,  bogan -- clearly understand or know FUCKALL about anything military.

Your U-boob talking points are valid to some extent,  but do you clearly don't understand that there's two sides to the story. The same terrain that will impede an attacking force in Iran, will bog down the defenders, especially when the attacker has air superiority. 

Drones? Yes, definitely a factor.... for one or two rounds. When a large air force loiters overhead 24/7, you'll only get off 2 or 3 drones before they locate you and wipe you out. 

Yes, drones have changed tactics like tank attacks, even infantry, but it's still a technology war, and guess which side dominates that?

Iran has only 3 or 4 ports to import ANYTHING. No planes in and out with US air superiority, the mountainous terrain make railways impossible and/or extremely vulnerable. The what? 1/3? 2/3? (look it up) of their FOOD they can't produce and must import, is a critical choke point. 

Point being, a sophisticated military that is serious about fucking Iran up, will have little difficulty in shutting the country down. 

While blowing up rocket launchers and patrol boats make for great TV clips, destroying power stations and desal plants and Kharg island -- and all the huge bridges, needed to traverse the same mountainous terrain -- is the way you shut Iran down in a month flat. 

Trump and The Gang don't seem very serious about doing that, so.... lots of pyrotechnics  and, of course, BLABLABLABLABLABLA....

Sometimes, "making a fantastic deal" is not the way to go. If Trump was serious about this "war' it would have been over months ago. And he wouldn't blab on TV about what the US military is going to do next.     

For the record --  everyday Iranians aren't the enemy, it's the goatfuckers who run the place --  IRGC. and Co. 

2
1
9/8/2026 12:30am
gantry25 wrote:
These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would...

These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would be different in Iran, that is far weaker than Iraq was at the time, doesn't make sense. It's obvious you hate America but one thing you can't argue with is America's military being astonishingly powerful and well run. 

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out...

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"

Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out maneuver the Iraqi army. Iran has mountainous terrain, restricting possible routes, reducing maneuverability, which makes it ideal for ambushing advancing troops.

The US "owned the night" during the Iraq war, Iran has night vision sourced from China and Russia.

Iraq had little intelligence on US troop positions, and few ways to target them, Iran has it's own satellites, access to Chinese and Russian intel and has shown they can target them with drones and missiles.

During the Iraq war Abrams tanks were superior to Iraqi tanks, but vulnerable to RPGs and IEDs, the Ukraine war has shown Abrams tanks are also vulnerable to drone attacks.

I could go on, but I doubt you care, hooah.

Can't remember who it was, but some "expert" went on a rant some weeks ago about "air superiority" and what a fake concept it  This was...

Can't remember who it was, but some "expert" went on a rant some weeks ago about "air superiority" and what a fake concept it  This was some "leading journalist" which tells you the level of awareness and knowledge the fools on TV possess. 

Like YOU, bogan. 

In short, the side that has air superiority calls the shots. Many, MANY examples in history going back to WW1,

Probably THE most vicious example was the "Falaise Pocket" after the Normandy landings on 6 June 1944. Read up on it, the USAAF and RAF had absolute control of the skies, and slaughtered the retreating German armies in the area of Falaise. Horrific to read about, I'm not going to regurgitate any statistics or stories. Look it up.

Same with D-Day itself, the Allied air forces kept the Luftwaffe away from the kanding beaches, if I remember right the Luftwaffe flew two? sorties over the beaches all day.  Or only two got back, rather -- everything else was shot won. Again, look it up, I'm talking off my top of my head....not out my ass 🤣

Like that TV muppet, YOU -- yes YOU,  bogan -- clearly understand or know FUCKALL about anything military.

Your U-boob talking points are valid to some extent,  but do you clearly don't understand that there's two sides to the story. The same terrain that will impede an attacking force in Iran, will bog down the defenders, especially when the attacker has air superiority. 

Drones? Yes, definitely a factor.... for one or two rounds. When a large air force loiters overhead 24/7, you'll only get off 2 or 3 drones before they locate you and wipe you out. 

Yes, drones have changed tactics like tank attacks, even infantry, but it's still a technology war, and guess which side dominates that?

Iran has only 3 or 4 ports to import ANYTHING. No planes in and out with US air superiority, the mountainous terrain make railways impossible and/or extremely vulnerable. The what? 1/3? 2/3? (look it up) of their FOOD they can't produce and must import, is a critical choke point. 

Point being, a sophisticated military that is serious about fucking Iran up, will have little difficulty in shutting the country down. 

While blowing up rocket launchers and patrol boats make for great TV clips, destroying power stations and desal plants and Kharg island -- and all the huge bridges, needed to traverse the same mountainous terrain -- is the way you shut Iran down in a month flat. 

Trump and The Gang don't seem very serious about doing that, so.... lots of pyrotechnics  and, of course, BLABLABLABLABLABLA....

Sometimes, "making a fantastic deal" is not the way to go. If Trump was serious about this "war' it would have been over months ago. And he wouldn't blab on TV about what the US military is going to do next.     

For the record --  everyday Iranians aren't the enemy, it's the goatfuckers who run the place --  IRGC. and Co. 

According to the Pentagon, "Air Superiority" was achieved 6 months ago...

It has not stopped Iranian drones, ballistic missiles, or fast attack boats hitting targets.

1
2
ns503
Posts
4623
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NS Toolies, CA
9/8/2026 3:37am
gantry25 wrote:
These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would...

These are all the same things they said about Iraq. The US military went in and crushed them with little loss. Why you think it would be different in Iran, that is far weaker than Iraq was at the time, doesn't make sense. It's obvious you hate America but one thing you can't argue with is America's military being astonishingly powerful and well run. 

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out...

"Why you think it would be different in Iran"

Iraq has flat open terrain, making fast overland travel possible, enabling the US's "left hook" which out maneuver the Iraqi army. Iran has mountainous terrain, restricting possible routes, reducing maneuverability, which makes it ideal for ambushing advancing troops.

The US "owned the night" during the Iraq war, Iran has night vision sourced from China and Russia.

Iraq had little intelligence on US troop positions, and few ways to target them, Iran has it's own satellites, access to Chinese and Russian intel and has shown they can target them with drones and missiles.

During the Iraq war Abrams tanks were superior to Iraqi tanks, but vulnerable to RPGs and IEDs, the Ukraine war has shown Abrams tanks are also vulnerable to drone attacks.

I could go on, but I doubt you care, hooah.

Can't remember who it was, but some "expert" went on a rant some weeks ago about "air superiority" and what a fake concept it  This was...

Can't remember who it was, but some "expert" went on a rant some weeks ago about "air superiority" and what a fake concept it  This was some "leading journalist" which tells you the level of awareness and knowledge the fools on TV possess. 

Like YOU, bogan. 

In short, the side that has air superiority calls the shots. Many, MANY examples in history going back to WW1,

Probably THE most vicious example was the "Falaise Pocket" after the Normandy landings on 6 June 1944. Read up on it, the USAAF and RAF had absolute control of the skies, and slaughtered the retreating German armies in the area of Falaise. Horrific to read about, I'm not going to regurgitate any statistics or stories. Look it up.

Same with D-Day itself, the Allied air forces kept the Luftwaffe away from the kanding beaches, if I remember right the Luftwaffe flew two? sorties over the beaches all day.  Or only two got back, rather -- everything else was shot won. Again, look it up, I'm talking off my top of my head....not out my ass 🤣

Like that TV muppet, YOU -- yes YOU,  bogan -- clearly understand or know FUCKALL about anything military.

Your U-boob talking points are valid to some extent,  but do you clearly don't understand that there's two sides to the story. The same terrain that will impede an attacking force in Iran, will bog down the defenders, especially when the attacker has air superiority. 

Drones? Yes, definitely a factor.... for one or two rounds. When a large air force loiters overhead 24/7, you'll only get off 2 or 3 drones before they locate you and wipe you out. 

Yes, drones have changed tactics like tank attacks, even infantry, but it's still a technology war, and guess which side dominates that?

Iran has only 3 or 4 ports to import ANYTHING. No planes in and out with US air superiority, the mountainous terrain make railways impossible and/or extremely vulnerable. The what? 1/3? 2/3? (look it up) of their FOOD they can't produce and must import, is a critical choke point. 

Point being, a sophisticated military that is serious about fucking Iran up, will have little difficulty in shutting the country down. 

While blowing up rocket launchers and patrol boats make for great TV clips, destroying power stations and desal plants and Kharg island -- and all the huge bridges, needed to traverse the same mountainous terrain -- is the way you shut Iran down in a month flat. 

Trump and The Gang don't seem very serious about doing that, so.... lots of pyrotechnics  and, of course, BLABLABLABLABLABLA....

Sometimes, "making a fantastic deal" is not the way to go. If Trump was serious about this "war' it would have been over months ago. And he wouldn't blab on TV about what the US military is going to do next.     

For the record --  everyday Iranians aren't the enemy, it's the goatfuckers who run the place --  IRGC. and Co. 

Well then,  Afghanistan should have been a cake walk. What went wrong there?

4

Post a reply to: How does this thing in Iran end?

The Latest