They always have been, always are…..and probably always will be.
Hmmm…it never has been, is not, and probably never will be.
We have the reach to keep the boots off the ground. Perhaps we won’t alienate the Iranian public.
I know this is a comment made in jest (it is, right ???) But it’s a good idea to be aware that there really are people who imagine that this hasn’t yet happened….and it’s entirely possible for that state of Nirvana to continue. Whole Empires have been built….and fallen….on this embarrassingly dumb idea.
The neocons thought US presence in Iraq in the middle of the Mideast would stabilize things in the area as had US presence in Germany after WWII. Afghanistan was a just cause but in the wrong place. Obviously that idea did not pan out.
No it was not made in jest.
I am beginning to wonder if this will be a relatively small military action without boots on the ground.
Iran’s forces fire everything off.
Israel targets everything to a T.
Iran’s opposition takes over and is liberal. Things move on in a much better direction.
Meanwhile, the news networks
Then there is the old joke come true repeatedly, the French have surrendered again.
adding
VeeEnn,
This is the height of the action…Bagdhad Bob rides again…
16 mins ago
Dylan Stableford
U.S. military refutes Iran claim that it sank an American aircraft carrier
Since the military operation in Iran began Saturday, the U.S. Central Command has been using social media to refute claims made by Tehran.
In its latest “fact check,” the U.S. Central Command said in a post on X that Iran “continues to falsely claim that it has sunk a U.S. aircraft carrier.”
“The TRUTH: The only carrier that has been hit is the Shahid Bagheri, an Iranian drone carrier,” the U.S. Central Command wrote in its post. “U.S. forces struck the ship within hours of launching Operation Epic Fury.”
On Sunday, CENTCOM called Iran’s claim of a ballistic missile strike against the USS Abraham Lincoln a “LIE.”
The constant refrain Israel costs us too much money.
I am asking Google AI about the Pentagon Budget NOT about aid which is separate. At the bottom is Israel’s turn, but the machine could not separate out the budget well.
The U.S. Department of Defense spends billions annually on the Asia-Pacific region, with direct costs for Japan and South Korea estimated at roughly $10-$13 billion annually for base operations and personnel, while the broader “pivot to Asia” strategy influences a significant, larger portion of the $850 billion+ 2025 budget.
[image]Econofact +3
Key details regarding U.S. defense spending in Asia include:
- Direct Costs (Japan/South Korea): In recent years, direct costs for maintaining U.S. military presence in Japan and South Korea have been estimated at approximately $5.7 billion and $4.5 billion annually, respectively.
- Historical Spending: Between 2016 and 2019, the Department of Defense spent roughly $20.9 billion in Japan and $13.4 billion in South Korea.
- Burden Sharing: Japan and South Korea provide significant host-nation support, withJapan contributing $12.6 billion and South Korea $5.8 billion in recent, recorded, multi-year periods.
- Future Pressures: The U.S. is pushing for higher contributions from allies, aiming for a 5% of GDP defense spending standard in the region.
- Context: The total U.S. defense budget for 2025 is $850 billion, with the “Indo-Pacific” region being a primary focus of strategic competition.
[image]Econofact +4
Direct U.S. spending on European defense, including NATO commitments, military presence, and aid, is estimated to range between 5.1% and 5.5% of the total U.S. defense budget, which amounted to roughly $36 billion in recent years. While the U.S. accounts for 62% of total NATO defense spending, actual costs related to Europe have fluctuated, National Defense Magazine notes.
[image]Visual Capitalist +1
- Key Spending Components: Direct costs include funding NATO as an organization, maintaining the U.S. military presence in Europe, and providing foreign military assistance to allies.
- Defense Burden: The U.S. contributes over two-thirds of the overall defense spending within NATO.
- European Dependency: European security heavily depends on U.S. support, Intereconomics explains.
- Rising Costs: Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO members are actively increasing their spending, with many aiming for at least 2% of their GDP, Visual Capitalist reports.
- Arms Purchases: A significant amount of European defense spending goes toward purchasing US-made equipment.
[image]Intereconomics | Review of European Economic Policy +3
While some figures suggest the U.S. spends over 5% of its defense budget in Europe, the Atlantic Council notes that for the first time in 2025, another ally (Norway) surpassed the U.S. in per capita defense spending.
[image]Atlantic Council
The U.S. provides over $3.8 billion in annual military aid to Israel, with a significant portion funded through the Department of Defense (DoD) budget, including at least $500 million for joint missile defense projects like the Iron Dome. Since October 2023, the U.S. has provided over $21.7 billion in total military aid, with over $10 billion specifically authorized through the Pentagon for replenishment and security
Happy to eat my hat, the French have not surrendered as of late. Macron has doubled down.
Only the Europeans are allowed to double down. Never the Americans.
The war between Iraq and Iran resulted in about total 250,000 dead on each side. Iraq started the war. Regan Administration supported Iraq.
With Iranian success on the battlefield, the U.S. increased its support of the Iraqi government, supplying intelligence, economic aid, and dual-use equipment and vehicles, as well as normalising relations (which had been broken during the 1967 Six-Day War).[128] In June 1982, U.S. president Ronald Reagan signed a directive which determined that the U.S. “would do whatever was necessary to prevent Iraq from losing”.[130][131][132]
In 1982, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries “supporting terrorism” and sold weapons such as howitzers to Iraq via Jordan.[128] France sold Iraq millions of dollars’ worth of weapons. Both the United States and West Germany sold Iraq dual-use pesticides and poisons that would be used to create chemical weapons.[128]
I have seen this movie before. We started out in Vietnam within an overwhelming show of force with our bombing campaign called Operation Rolling Thunder. In Afghanistan our overwhelming bombing campaign was the start of operation Enduring Freedom. Now it’s Epic Fury.
It appears to me that our newest rendition of this strategy was actually planned by Fox News hosts: In Iran, the most consequential test of the Fox-Trump feedback loop yet | Media Matters for America
I am sure it will end well..
1 Like
Not sure what Roaring Thunder is/was. At any rate, US forces in Viet Nam started as a counter insurgency campaign – on the ground. When I was there in 1964 US troops went from 15K to over 20K and had passed the 10,000 mark back in 1962. We did not start out with a bombing campaign.
DB2
4 Likes
Iran has had its hands in Syria and Yemen. The regime is so used to going after Arab nations they have lashed out at 9 Arab nations during this war.
Protests against Lend Lease.
Hitler was years off from getting a nuclear weapon. Iran just wanted 20% enrichment. Sure!
I think I know the answer!!@!@
Could it be Rolling Thunder? A decade or so ago (I know…..almost pre history by USian standards) we had a thread on one of my IDC internet sites about a class profile with this title. Primarily a playlist of “biker hits”. I checked it out online and the Google Bamboozle (that wasn’t such an example of bamboozlement then as it is now) informed me that it was, in fact, the moniker given to the operation starting the Vietnam War. Seeing as a good many of my class members were my age and even older, I got a few first hand accounts from that era.
Eerily reminiscent of the Bamboozle of “The War To End All Wars” etc.
Now I know I’m not really an american….I’m even casting back to fathom the recruitment posters for The Crusades.
Usual caveat …. no AI overview used…..
1 Like
Once again, the war had been going on for years at that point (March 1965). US forces were being sent to Viet Nam by President Kennedy by the thousands. Operation Rolling Thunder certainly did not start the war in Viet Nam.
DB2
2 Likes
Correct. The French had been fighting since the 1946 (which we mostly paid for) and they had conducted numerous bombing campaigns including extensive use of napalm.
The French had mostly used bombing as a tactic against military targets. Rolling Thunder was a big upgrade both in size and that it targeted both military and civilian targets in order to reduce morale. By its conclusion, the US dropped double the amount of tonnage of bombs dropped in all of World War II.
As in WWII, targeting civilians caused the population to rally against the “invaders” and strengthened the North Vietnamese government politically.
The Iranian’s roadmap to success is clear and they are following it: Damage oil and gas infrastructure in neighboring countries, shut the Strait of Hormuz to shipping and drive up global energy prices and inflation, knowing the US pursuing a bombing campaign that is guaranteed to fail.
3 Likes