Is infrastructure a viable target in a time of war?

[Votto]

I see it all coming, like a train about to plow into a car but can do nothing to stop it.

Iran is not going to agree to any terms with Trump. In fact, the more Trump wants them to agree to something, the more they will insist that they will not. So, Trump is now faced with going through with his threat to target infrastructure within Iran, simply because he has no more viable military targets to pursue. Personally, I would tell the world what he said before, if you want their oil come get it. And if they don't let you have it by opening the Straits of Hormuz, why not if they are only upset with Israel and the US? But Trump is too preoccupied on the negative effects on the world economy I reckon. Whatever. Really though, it is a prime chance to build a world consensus against Iran so that they all start coming after them, especially the countries that Iran indiscriminately attacked when the US and Israel attacked them.

But getting back to the topic of infrastructure as a valid military target, as in any war, infrastructure is targeted, such as knocking out bridges, and power stations, etc. The difference here is, there are no boots on the ground that this will benefit. How will this benefit the air only attacks on Iran, or is the thinking that it will help further delay them being able to build WMD's?

All I know is that it appears the DNC will take the House in the midterms, and when they do, they will try to impeach Trump for war crimes when he does take out their infrastructure, but does Trump care? Of course, I could be wrong, and they will try and impeach him for something else. I'm not even sure it matters what the reason is. They will either have control of the Senate as well so that they can throw him out after they impeach him or it will be as last time, they will impeach him to help aid their wet dreams. Then again, perhaps the lunatic Left don't even need a reason, so I'm not sure this even matters in that respect. All I know is that the vote in the midterm is only over whether you want Trump impeached or not, as nothing else will get done so vote "D" if you want this to happen or vote "R" if you don't. It really is that simple.

The sad truth is, at the political level, this debate will never be handled to get at the truth, rather, as always those discussing it in the Swamp will have hyper partisan reasons for their political position on the matter. In fact, I'm not even sure you can have a dialogue here about it for the same reason, but it is an interesting topic to discuss.

 

[Oddball]

Now it's a "war"....Interdasting....

 

[Votto]

Now it's a "war"....Interdasting....


View attachment 1240668

Cold war, hot war, police action, whatever you want to call it, Iran has been at war with Israel and the US since their revolution thingy. Neither the US nor Israel wanted such a war, but here it is anyway, so......................................

 

[Mashmont]

I see it all coming, like a train about to plow into a car but can do nothing to stop it.

Iran is not going to agree to any terms with Trump. In fact, the more Trump wants them to agree to something, the more they will insist that they will not. So, Trump is now faced with going through with his threat to target infrastructure within Iran, simply because he has no more viable military targets to pursue. Personally, I would tell the world what he said before, if you want their oil come get it. And if they don't let you have it by opening the Straits of Hormuz, why not if they are only upset with Israel and the US? But Trump is too preoccupied on the negative effects on the world economy I reckon. Whatever. Really though, it is a prime chance to build a world consensus against Iran so that they all start coming after them, especially the countries that Iran indiscriminately attacked when the US and Israel attacked them.

But getting back to the topic of infrastructure as a valid military target, as in any war, infrastructure is targeted, such as knocking out bridges, and power staties, etc. The difference here is, there are no boots on the ground that this will benefit. How will this benefit the air only attacks on Iran, or is the thinking that it will help further delay them being able to build WMD's?

All I know is that it appears the DNC will take the House in the midterms, and when they do, they will try to impeach Trump for war crimes when he does take out their infrastructure, but does Trump care? Of course, I could be wrong, and they will try and impeach him for something else. I'm not even sure it matters what the reason is. They will either have control of the Senate as well so that they can throw him out after they impeach him or it will be as last time, they will impeach him to help aid their wet dreams. Then again, perhaps the lunatic Left don't even need a reason, so I'm not sure this even matters in that respect. All I know is that the vote in the midterm is only over whether you want Trump impeached or not, as nothing else will get done so vote "D" if you want this to happen or vote "R" if you don't. It really is that simple.

The sad truth is, at the political level, this debate will never be handled to get at the truth, rather, as always those discussing it in the Swamp will have hyper partisan reasons for their political position on the matter. In fact, I'm not even sure you can have a dialogue here about it for the same reason, but it is an interesting topic to discuss.

Today's left will impeach every GOP president from now on. They don't need a reason. Those they used against Trump were ridiculous and unfounded in both cases. 1) He was proven to NOT have conspired with Russia and 2) he didn't incite an insurrection because there was no insurrection. Anybody who thinks it's about Trump need only remember how they treated GW Bush. This is why the GOP had better ram through the SAFE Act using any means necessary including elimination of the filibuster. As Trump said, there is no question the Democrats will eliminate the filibuster the first time they need to, and the leftwing media won't utter a peep about it. Trump is the first Republican president who understands you don't play nice with adversaries who don't. The fact that he's unapologetic about it is the reason he survives today.

 

[Votto]

Today's left will impeach every GOP president from now on. They don't need a reason. Those they used against Trump were ridiculous and unfounded in both cases. 1) He was proven to NOT have conspired with Russia and 2) he didn't incite an insurrection because there was no insurrection. Anybody who thinks it's about Trump need only remember how they treated GW Bush.

You could get another "W" in there who is more of a democrat than republican, as they will let him stay in office while making his life hell as much as possible, simply because of the partisanship.

You never know.

 

[Stryder50]

During World War Two it was.
Both Axis and Allies bombed each other's cities. Sometimes to destroy the war machine factories, other times to displace the workers in those factories.
USAAF and RAF were more effective and did such on much larger scale, flattened much of Germany's cities before the end of war came.

It's know as 'Total War' and destroying infrastructure reduced military effectiveness on the battlefield.

The invention of effective, precision munitions has opened a less massive, "carpet bomb" approach, but there are times the bombs miss, or unwanted objects/people are too close to the target.

 

[Votto]

During World War Two it was.
Both Axis and Allies bombed each other's cities. Sometimes to destroy the war machine factories, other times to displace the workers in those factories.
USAAF and RAF were more effective and did such on much larger scale, flattened much of Germany's cities before the end of war came.

It's know as 'Total War' and destroying infrastructure reduced military effectiveness on the battlefield.

The invention of effective, precision munitions has opened a less massive, "carpet bomb" approach, but there are times the bombs miss, or unwanted objects/people are too close tot e target.

But what is the military benefit for Trump doing it now?

 

[leftwinger]

I see it all coming, like a train about to plow into a car but can do nothing to stop it.

Iran is not going to agree to any terms with Trump. In fact, the more Trump wants them to agree to something, the more they will insist that they will not. So, Trump is now faced with going through with his threat to target infrastructure within Iran, simply because he has no more viable military targets to pursue. Personally, I would tell the world what he said before, if you want their oil come get it. And if they don't let you have it by opening the Straits of Hormuz, why not if they are only upset with Israel and the US? But Trump is too preoccupied on the negative effects on the world economy I reckon. Whatever. Really though, it is a prime chance to build a world consensus against Iran so that they all start coming after them, especially the countries that Iran indiscriminately attacked when the US and Israel attacked them.

But getting back to the topic of infrastructure as a valid military target, as in any war, infrastructure is targeted, such as knocking out bridges, and power stations, etc. The difference here is, there are no boots on the ground that this will benefit. How will this benefit the air only attacks on Iran, or is the thinking that it will help further delay them being able to build WMD's?

All I know is that it appears the DNC will take the House in the midterms, and when they do, they will try to impeach Trump for war crimes when he does take out their infrastructure, but does Trump care? Of course, I could be wrong, and they will try and impeach him for something else. I'm not even sure it matters what the reason is. They will either have control of the Senate as well so that they can throw him out after they impeach him or it will be as last time, they will impeach him to help aid their wet dreams. Then again, perhaps the lunatic Left don't even need a reason, so I'm not sure this even matters in that respect. All I know is that the vote in the midterm is only over whether you want Trump impeached or not, as nothing else will get done so vote "D" if you want this to happen or vote "R" if you don't. It really is that simple.

The sad truth is, at the political level, this debate will never be handled to get at the truth, rather, as always those discussing it in the Swamp will have hyper partisan reasons for their political position on the matter. In fact, I'm not even sure you can have a dialogue here about it for the same reason, but it is an interesting topic to discuss.

In General Admiral.....WTH? You marked that post funny? It is a good post. I am in agreement with "I would tell the world what he said before, if you want their oil come get it. And if they don't let you have it by opening the Straits of Hormuz," a lot of it.

 

[Stryder50]

Today's left will impeach every GOP president from now on. They don't need a reason. Those they used against Trump were ridiculous and unfounded in both cases. 1) He was proven to NOT have conspired with Russia and 2) he didn't incite an insurrection because there was no insurrection. Anybody who thinks it's about Trump need only remember how they treated GW Bush.

Trump has claimed it's not ALL about him.
The Left is after us, the conservatives, the MAGA, etc. We must all become compliant Komrades in new social order, etc., per the Left,, LWNJs.
As Trump has stated, it's us they are after, he happens to be in the way.

 

[Mashmont]

You could get another "W" in there who is more of a democrat than republican, as they will let him stay in office while making his life hell as much as possible, simply because of the partisanship.

You never know.

That's true. A simp like McCain, Boehner, or Ryan would have given them whatever they wanted in order to be liked. Just as Bush did. His first mistake was coining "compassionate conservatism" as if conservatism itself isn't compassionate.

 

[Oddball]

You could get another "W" in there who is more of a democrat than republican, as they will let him stay in office while making his life hell as much as possible, simply because of the partisanship.

You never know.

What do you mean "could"?

 

[Votto]

That's true. A simp like McCain would have given them whatever they wanted in order to be liked.

It reminds me of McCain who picked Sarah Palin for VP, someone he detested just to troll the GOP voters and generate hate from the Left who viciously attacked her more than they did McCain.

 

[Stryder50]

But what is the military benefit for Trump doing it now?

He's under the impression that with no more factories, energy, infrastructure, etc. Iran won't be able to build more weapons to replace they ones they've used. And the people will suffer more, enough to maybe take out the Mullah regime.

I'm not convinced nor accepting that. I'm hoping he's "bluffing" as a negotiation method. He's done that often and the Left usually is clueless, hence their rant TACO.

If I were advising and/or making the decisions, now would be the time to insert SOF, contact responsible, reliable leaders of the resistance, give them arms and direct them to liberate their country.

Problem of destroying a nations infrastructure to defeat them is that once defeated we (USA) seem to have to pay the tab for rebuilding.

 

[Votto]

What do you mean "could"?

View attachment 1240676

Trump has yet to commit to a major ground offensive like "W" did, so they are not the same. Trump has a better reason for the attack on Iran than "W" because there were no WMD's found in Iraq. Conversely, Iran dangles the nuke threat in the face of the US and the world like the trolls that they are.

And Trump has delivered with so many other things. He put justices in place to overturn Roe vs Wade, as where "W" verbally said he was against abortion, but did not put in justices who would do that. Trump exposed the corruption of USAID, something that "W" was against and never would have done. In fact, I don't recall "W" taking a bullet for anything like Trump did, as they wanted Trump dead more so than "W".

 

[leftwinger]

What do you mean "could"?

View attachment 1240676

Just hang on until June. He is not anywhere near as bad as GWB was.

 

[Independent thinker]

I see it all coming, like a train about to plow into a car but can do nothing to stop it.

Iran is not going to agree to any terms with Trump. In fact, the more Trump wants them to agree to something, the more they will insist that they will not. So, Trump is now faced with going through with his threat to target infrastructure within Iran, simply because he has no more viable military targets to pursue. Personally, I would tell the world what he said before, if you want their oil come get it. And if they don't let you have it by opening the Straits of Hormuz, why not if they are only upset with Israel and the US? But Trump is too preoccupied on the negative effects on the world economy I reckon. Whatever. Really though, it is a prime chance to build a world consensus against Iran so that they all start coming after them, especially the countries that Iran indiscriminately attacked when the US and Israel attacked them.

But getting back to the topic of infrastructure as a valid military target, as in any war, infrastructure is targeted, such as knocking out bridges, and power stations, etc. The difference here is, there are no boots on the ground that this will benefit. How will this benefit the air only attacks on Iran, or is the thinking that it will help further delay them being able to build WMD's?

All I know is that it appears the DNC will take the House in the midterms, and when they do, they will try to impeach Trump for war crimes when he does take out their infrastructure, but does Trump care? Of course, I could be wrong, and they will try and impeach him for something else. I'm not even sure it matters what the reason is. They will either have control of the Senate as well so that they can throw him out after they impeach him or it will be as last time, they will impeach him to help aid their wet dreams. Then again, perhaps the lunatic Left don't even need a reason, so I'm not sure this even matters in that respect. All I know is that the vote in the midterm is only over whether you want Trump impeached or not, as nothing else will get done so vote "D" if you want this to happen or vote "R" if you don't. It really is that simple.

The sad truth is, at the political level, this debate will never be handled to get at the truth, rather, as always those discussing it in the Swamp will have hyper partisan reasons for their political position on the matter. In fact, I'm not even sure you can have a dialogue here about it for the same reason, but it is an interesting topic to discuss.

I guess the question is: Are some targets not appropriate, even if your enemies are using schools, hospitals, churches, powergrids, and other infrastructure to not only conceal themselves but their military equipment as well? I think we need to get away from this thinking. You have to go after where your enemy actually is and their equipment. The more we let them get away with this the more they will do it.

 

[Votto]

He's under the impression that with no more factories, energy, infrastructure, etc. Iran won't be able to build more weapons to replace they ones they've used. And the people will suffer more, enough to maybe take out the Mullah regime.

I'm not convinced nor accepting that. I'm hoping he's "bluffing" as a negotiation method. He's done that often and the Left usually is clueless, hence their rant TACO.

If I were advising and/or making the decisions, now would be the time to insert SOF, contact responsible, reliable leaders of the resistance, give them arms and direct them to liberate their country.

Problem of destroying a nations infrastructure to defeat them is that once defeated we (USA) seem to have to pay the tab for rebuilding.

Well, he better have this reasoning in mind before he starts blowing things up, to make sure he targets things that are reasonable to use such a defense.

 

[Oddball]

Just hang on until June. He is not anywhere near as bad as GWB was.

I was supposed to "hang on" while Blondi failed to do her job and wasn't shitcanned.

I'm done "hanging on" for this shit show...Trump is clean off the rails.

 

[Votto]

I guess the question is: Are some targets not appropriate, even if your enemies are using schools, hospitals, churches, powergrids, and other infrastructure to not only conceal themselves but their military equipment as well? I think we need to get away from this thinking. You have to go after where your enemy actually is and their equipment. The more we let them get away with this the more they will do it.

As we saw with Hamas, Hamas could openly target women and children for rape and murder and kidnapping, and film it all proudly as they do it, and no one in the international community seems to give a damn. But by God, if women and children die as they retaliate for the above genocide and war atrocity, only the US and Israel are portrayed as war criminals.

But it does matter which administration is doing the war thingy and whether Europe is behind your war thingy. For example, Obama was told by the international community he needed to do something about Gaddafi, so he blew the country to bits and overthrew Gaddafi and got a Nobel Peace prize from the international community.

 

[22lcidw]

He's under the impression that with no more factories, energy, infrastructure, etc. Iran won't be able to build more weapons to replace they ones they've used. And the people will suffer more, enough to maybe take out the Mullah regime.

I'm not convinced nor accepting that. I'm hoping he's "bluffing" as a negotiation method. He's done that often and the Left usually is clueless, hence their rant TACO.

If I were advising and/or making the decisions, now would be the time to insert SOF, contact responsible, reliable leaders of the resistance, give them arms and direct them to liberate their country.

Problem of destroying a nations infrastructure to defeat them is that once defeated we (USA) seem to have to pay the tab for rebuilding.

We cannot do that. Not anymore.