Should We Get Some Boots On The Ground?

[candycorn]

The blob will NEVER put significant numbers of boots on the ground (2000+). Why? Because he doesn't have the guts. When bodies start arriving at Dover, he can't blame anyone else...and he doesn't have the guts to take the political hit with parents who lost a child.

I, personally, am glad he's gutless. It would be preferable that the gutlessness would be matched with not having to prove how tough he is; like sane people but its too late for that. So we have this quagmire.

He's demanded unconditional surrender twice. And now he's negotiating. That is, by definition, already a loss in American credibility. China is taking note where our deeds won't match our bluster.

 

[Independent thinker]

If negotiations haven't been made in say... About thirty days? Give or take that is but I would say that that would be a fair amount of time. I say yes because since Iran has been pumping out oil into the gulf, if being shot to death doesn't kill the Iranian people, pollution will at some point.

We need to do very targeted boots on the ground, eventually taking over the Strait and Tehran. I say with some good planning we can draw out their armed forces from hiding and then bomb the Shiite out of them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

We need to do very targeted boots on the ground, eventually taking over the Strait and Tehran. I say with some good planning we can draw out their armed forces from hiding and then bomb the Shiite out of them.

The logic of this plan escapes me. We would attack the IRGC where they are the strongest, on the ground and while I have no doubt we would win after we win the land we will have to keep troops there to protect it, and where will this end?

The problem we are having is the result of Trump agreeing to a ceasefire too soon. We should have continued the air assault until the leadership of Iran became convinced they could not survive this onslaught.