John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Either that or MBS will try to obtain WMD.
Middle East Defence & Security
- Thread starter MaenZ
- Start date
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
boots on the ground in Iran is science fiction, get real please.
Why is it science fiction? It might not be a good idea. It might not succeed. But it can be done.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
What would a land invasion of Iran look like?
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
Do you see the US alone, led by the least popular president ever in the history of the country and without the support of its allies (Europe didnt even allow US fighters to refuel in march) launch an invasion of Iran, a 90 million people country?
To do what? To achieve which objective?
20 years of war in the middle east after 9/11 and the talibans are back into power in Afghanistan.
rsemmes
Active Member
It is certainly possible, but not probable...
POTUS just has to create another 11S, another WMD or another Tonkin (or Maine); a Congress happy to accommodate and... Done! It happened before, it will happen again.
Iran or Yemen?
After Iraq, US may need a 10 year campaign to sell a 10 or 20 years (failed) war in Iran. In Yemen, they may get an easy one year "mission accomplished" and then hand over the mess to Saudi Arabia's puppets who may need 10 years to lose again.
I wonder if Trump would win the midterm elections with that, how many dead civilians?
POTUS just has to create another 11S, another WMD or another Tonkin (or Maine); a Congress happy to accommodate and... Done! It happened before, it will happen again.
Iran or Yemen?
After Iraq, US may need a 10 year campaign to sell a 10 or 20 years (failed) war in Iran. In Yemen, they may get an easy one year "mission accomplished" and then hand over the mess to Saudi Arabia's puppets who may need 10 years to lose again.
I wonder if Trump would win the midterm elections with that, how many dead civilians?
To lower oil prices and re-open the strait. It won't work of course, but consider who is in charge.
You're confusing success with attempt. The US wouldn't likely be able to achieve something useful. But invade? Yes that's possible. It's a bad idea, but again, consider who is in charge.
SolarisKenzo
Well-Known Member
An Italian Air Force EF-2000 was hit by a Houthi attack tonight, while parked in Taif Air Base in Saudi Arabia.
Not clear if the plane was destroyed or how extensive the damage is.
No personnel injured.
www.rid.it
Not clear if the plane was destroyed or how extensive the damage is.
No personnel injured.
RID Rivista Italiana Difesa - Yemen, attacco alla base saudita di Taif. Colpito Eurofighter TYPHOON italiano
Yemen, attacco alla base saudita di Taif. Colpito Eurofighter TYPHOON italiano
www.rid.it
Unclear how true is this report.
But it is back to the same point of Saudis tactic of paying other people to do their dirty work and cleaning up their mess, but now finding that money isn't working.
www.turkiyetoday.com
Now the question is Pakistan. Defend Saudi does not equate to boots on the ground in Yemen so they are threading a fine line.
www.aljazeera.com
But it is back to the same point of Saudis tactic of paying other people to do their dirty work and cleaning up their mess, but now finding that money isn't working.
Exclusive—Syria refuses Saudi Arabia's request to send Syrian fighters to Yemen - Türkiye Today
Sources speaking to Türkiye Today say Saudi Arabia sought fighters to meet its military needs in Yemen, but the Syrian government rejected the request
www.turkiyetoday.com
Now the question is Pakistan. Defend Saudi does not equate to boots on the ground in Yemen so they are threading a fine line.
Pakistan pledges full committment to defence of Saudi Arabia
Assurance comes amid questions over Pakistan and Turkiye's stance on Riyadh's fight with Houthis following defence pact.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
^ Hadn’t both Pakistan and Türkiye already said that this conflict does not fall under the newly signed agreement simply due to it having existed at the time of signing? I remember reading a few articles on the subject. But I could easily be wrong here.
KipPotapych
Well-Known Member
I see.
Frankly, I do not see this agreement to be credible anyway. A gesture, at most.
Frankly, I do not see this agreement to be credible anyway. A gesture, at most.
rsemmes
Active Member
John Fedup
"Russian incursions into NATO airspace need a response that hurts IMHO."
So, the only logical conclusion is that Iran has to kill, at least, one hundred American children. Don't you agree?
"Russian incursions into NATO airspace need a response that hurts IMHO."
So, the only logical conclusion is that Iran has to kill, at least, one hundred American children. Don't you agree?
That is stupid, malicious & childish. You should be ashamed of yourself.
rsemmes
Active Member
Well, calling for escalation ("hurts", a direct attack against Russia; sanctions are already in place) thinking that there will be no consequences and forgetting about the nuclear winter is not specially intelligent, true.
Yes, as we all have a certain education, looking at the world in a simplistic black or white way, thinking that actions will not have consequences, is a bit childish; I agree.
He didn't mention hurting children, true, just "hurt" but, as we have seen, children get hurt. Wishing to hurt, is it "malicious"?
His post was about hurting a country for trespassing or it was about hurting Russia no matter what? I think that the consequences, conclusions, of his post are quite clear.
IMHO.
Yes, as we all have a certain education, looking at the world in a simplistic black or white way, thinking that actions will not have consequences, is a bit childish; I agree.
He didn't mention hurting children, true, just "hurt" but, as we have seen, children get hurt. Wishing to hurt, is it "malicious"?
His post was about hurting a country for trespassing or it was about hurting Russia no matter what? I think that the consequences, conclusions, of his post are quite clear.
IMHO.
rsemmes
Active Member
BTW, Trump is not going to declare Bab al-Mandab part of the USA.
www.theguardian.com
It seems that US elections are more important than Saudi Arabia.
US opts not to back Saudi Arabia in Yemen after meeting Houthi leaders
Iran-backed militants have offered Trump administration assurances over safety of Red Sea shipping
www.theguardian.com
rsemmes
Active Member
Escalation.
www.independent.co.uk
UK is involving itself (maybe a hint from Trump?) in this conflict, should any Houthi attack against UK interests be consider an unprovoked attack?
Britain will provide military support to Saudi Arabia to counter attacks by Iran-backed Houthis and protect energy supplies.
-Like protecting Russian/German energy supplies?
Mr Burnham revealed he had agreed to Riyadh’s request for defensive air-to-air refuelling.
The Independent understands that the UK is expected to deploy support within days, involving a single Royal Air Force aircraft.
-Escalation doesn't start with an invasion... necessarily.
The support is understood to be focused on defensive capabilities, but could include shooting down drones, which is considered a defensive measure.
-The Houthis don't have satellites, Russia downing satellites should be considered "defensive"? Every country can down all drones, defensively? The attacks on USS Maddox and USS Liberty were "defensive", obviously.
And I go back to the point I made about cost of living pressures and acting to secure the interests of Britain and the wider region, because of course Saudi Arabia has been experiencing attack, is looking at potential further disruption, and we need to keep those pathways open.”
-Can we replace "Saudi Arabia for "Russia"?
The UK government says some civilians have been injured after drone and missile launches targeted several cities, airports, military bases and energy infrastructure sites across Saudi Arabia, including in Riyadh and Jeddah, as well as Saudi shipping vessels in the Red Sea.
-Not to mention Houthi civilians. In 1973 there was already a conflict in that area between Saudi Arabia and... Egypt!
In "acting to secure the interests of Britain" should we remember who "started" (is it that important?) this conflict? This conflict because this area is conflict-prone.
"It is understood that the time limit is weeks not months." Hopefully, as long as we don't get boots on the ground (or a ship is sunk) we can abandon the conflict almost as easily as we got there.
It is surprising how US is not getting involved and UK is.
Edit
"We", in this one, is the UK.
Burnham approves UK military support for Saudi Arabia in war against Houthis
Support focused on ‘defensive capabilities’ but could include shooting down drones
www.independent.co.uk
Britain will provide military support to Saudi Arabia to counter attacks by Iran-backed Houthis and protect energy supplies.
-Like protecting Russian/German energy supplies?
Mr Burnham revealed he had agreed to Riyadh’s request for defensive air-to-air refuelling.
The Independent understands that the UK is expected to deploy support within days, involving a single Royal Air Force aircraft.
-Escalation doesn't start with an invasion... necessarily.
The support is understood to be focused on defensive capabilities, but could include shooting down drones, which is considered a defensive measure.
-The Houthis don't have satellites, Russia downing satellites should be considered "defensive"? Every country can down all drones, defensively? The attacks on USS Maddox and USS Liberty were "defensive", obviously.
And I go back to the point I made about cost of living pressures and acting to secure the interests of Britain and the wider region, because of course Saudi Arabia has been experiencing attack, is looking at potential further disruption, and we need to keep those pathways open.”
-Can we replace "Saudi Arabia for "Russia"?
The UK government says some civilians have been injured after drone and missile launches targeted several cities, airports, military bases and energy infrastructure sites across Saudi Arabia, including in Riyadh and Jeddah, as well as Saudi shipping vessels in the Red Sea.
-Not to mention Houthi civilians. In 1973 there was already a conflict in that area between Saudi Arabia and... Egypt!
In "acting to secure the interests of Britain" should we remember who "started" (is it that important?) this conflict? This conflict because this area is conflict-prone.
"It is understood that the time limit is weeks not months." Hopefully, as long as we don't get boots on the ground (or a ship is sunk) we can abandon the conflict almost as easily as we got there.
It is surprising how US is not getting involved and UK is.
Edit
"We", in this one, is the UK.
Good grief!
Drones flying in your airspace without permission can be downed if you wish. Drones operated by a government or organisation that has attacked you can be destroyed at will. That's obvious & shouldn't need explaining. I find it hard to believe that you don't understand it. I suspect that you do understand, & are trolling.
And WTF is the relevance of the stuff about satellites?
What does any of this have to do with Russia? The UK is getting involved in supporting the Saudi government. It's fine to think that's a bad idea. But let's be clear about what we're saying instead of making oblique remarks and trying to drag in various unrelated topics.Escalation.
UK is involving itself (maybe a hint from Trump?) in this conflict, should any Houthi attack against UK interests be consider an unprovoked attack?Burnham approves UK military support for Saudi Arabia in war against Houthis
Support focused on ‘defensive capabilities’ but could include shooting down drones
Britain will provide military support to Saudi Arabia to counter attacks by Iran-backed Houthis and protect energy supplies.
-Like protecting Russian/German energy supplies?
Mr Burnham revealed he had agreed to Riyadh’s request for defensive air-to-air refuelling.
The Independent understands that the UK is expected to deploy support within days, involving a single Royal Air Force aircraft.
-Escalation doesn't start with an invasion... necessarily.
The support is understood to be focused on defensive capabilities, but could include shooting down drones, which is considered a defensive measure.
-The Houthis don't have satellites, Russia downing satellites should be considered "defensive"? Every country can down all drones, defensively? The attacks on USS Maddox and USS Liberty were "defensive", obviously.
And I go back to the point I made about cost of living pressures and acting to secure the interests of Britain and the wider region, because of course Saudi Arabia has been experiencing attack, is looking at potential further disruption, and we need to keep those pathways open.”
-Can we replace "Saudi Arabia for "Russia"?
The UK government says some civilians have been injured after drone and missile launches targeted several cities, airports, military bases and energy infrastructure sites across Saudi Arabia, including in Riyadh and Jeddah, as well as Saudi shipping vessels in the Red Sea.
-Not to mention Houthi civilians. In 1973 there was already a conflict in that area between Saudi Arabia and... Egypt!
In "acting to secure the interests of Britain" should we remember who "started" (is it that important?) this conflict? This conflict because this area is conflict-prone.
"It is understood that the time limit is weeks not months." Hopefully, as long as we don't get boots on the ground (or a ship is sunk) we can abandon the conflict almost as easily as we got there.
It is surprising how US is not getting involved and UK is.
Edit
"We", in this one, is the UK.
rsemmes
Active Member
Even if they are two different threads, it is hard for me to keep them separate, we have a military intervention to safeguard interests.
Russian and Ukrainian drones have been downed, an Ukrainian naval drone ended up in Greece and there was an incident between a Russian aircraft and an US drone; was that one a case of legal gathering of information, also known as spying? The problem, and my reference, is that any incident can be taken as an "oops" moment, like the Liberty, or as an excuse for escalation, like the Maddox; we are in very murky waters. The UK didn't pay any attention to missiles against Cyprus, Russia is not downing satellites.
Worse, if any involvement of Iran, helping the Houthis, is discovered in the killing of the British Admiral commanding the RN in Yemen or in a SF attack against a British ship in Cyprus, is not the UK helping Saudi Arabia? A commitment to help.
Iran is involved in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is involved in Yemen and now, thanks to Trump (by starting the conflict, not by telling Burnham what to do), the UK is involved in Yemen; I cannot see Saudi Arabia fearing an invasion by Yemen. What is obvious to me is that these are really murky waters.
The point is that the UK has decided to carry out a military intervention to safeguard its own interests, that is escalation. I cannot see any clear cut non-implications of that.
Russian and Ukrainian drones have been downed, an Ukrainian naval drone ended up in Greece and there was an incident between a Russian aircraft and an US drone; was that one a case of legal gathering of information, also known as spying? The problem, and my reference, is that any incident can be taken as an "oops" moment, like the Liberty, or as an excuse for escalation, like the Maddox; we are in very murky waters. The UK didn't pay any attention to missiles against Cyprus, Russia is not downing satellites.
Worse, if any involvement of Iran, helping the Houthis, is discovered in the killing of the British Admiral commanding the RN in Yemen or in a SF attack against a British ship in Cyprus, is not the UK helping Saudi Arabia? A commitment to help.
Iran is involved in Yemen, Saudi Arabia is involved in Yemen and now, thanks to Trump (by starting the conflict, not by telling Burnham what to do), the UK is involved in Yemen; I cannot see Saudi Arabia fearing an invasion by Yemen. What is obvious to me is that these are really murky waters.
The point is that the UK has decided to carry out a military intervention to safeguard its own interests, that is escalation. I cannot see any clear cut non-implications of that.