EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Fascinating pic.twitter.com/rx0UQkBSGi

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 31, 2026

---

The tone deafness of that statement is staggering. Literally the same could be said of the USA. What *if* we spent the $6-800Billion a year of our defense budget on domestic projects for the benefit of *checks notes* americans.... [insert mind blown gif here].

Or, better yet, what if we cut taxes and let people keep more of their earned money instead of stealing it to send off to buy bombs to blow up things in foreign countries.

---

Maybe the most powerful and richest country in the world should pull into its tortoise shell and create a nice, big power vacuum.

---

So is your position that not starting a preemptive war with Iran would have been "pulling into its tortoise shell"?

There is a difference between providing for the defense of the country (which is a legitimate and constitutional role of the federal government) and projecting force across the entire globe for 75+ years in support of anyone and everyone who dares not be too communist for our taste.

I think the point still stands. It is quite tone deaf for Rubio to make that statement when "defense" makes up a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the US discretionary budget each year. Note I am not excusing the entitlements and non-discretionary budget which is also very much out of control, but if you want to balance the budget and address the national debt (which every republican, including trump has beaten on the bully pulpit for the last ~15 years) then you have to reduce defense spending and stop engaging in world police activities.

The fact remains that the Arab nations and Israel are far more vulnerable to attacks on desalination. Iran's army is also larger, more capable, and more technologically advanced than Saddam's ever was...and that's not even accounting for the million-man Basij militia. It would not be Iraq all over again.

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

We are now threatening to blow up Iran's desalination plants. Humanitarian crisis on the way.

---

Long overdue.

Those desalination plants should have been destroyed on Day One.

---

And what happens when the Iranians take out the desalination plants in the GCC and Israel, both of whom rely far more on desalination than Iran? There's a very good reason they weren't destroyed on Day One.

---

Assumptions

We have total air supremacy.

Iran does not.

---

Zero evidence for that.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

We are now threatening to blow up Iran's desalination plants. Humanitarian crisis on the way.

---

Long overdue.

Those desalination plants should have been destroyed on Day One.

---

And what happens when the Iranians take out the desalination plants in the GCC and Israel, both of whom rely far more on desalination than Iran? There's a very good reason they weren't destroyed on Day One.

---

Assumptions

We have total air supremacy.

Iran does not.

---

Zero evidence for that.

---

Ridiculous

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Fascinating pic.twitter.com/rx0UQkBSGi

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 31, 2026

---

The tone deafness of that statement is staggering. Literally the same could be said of the USA. What *if* we spent the $6-800Billion a year of our defense budget on domestic projects for the benefit of *checks notes* americans.... [insert mind blown gif here].

Or, better yet, what if we cut taxes and let people keep more of their earned money instead of stealing it to send off to buy bombs to blow up things in foreign countries.

---

Maybe the most powerful and richest country in the world should pull into its tortoise shell and create a nice, big power vacuum.

---

So is your position that not starting a preemptive war with Iran would have been "pulling into its tortoise shell"?

There is a difference between providing for the defense of the country (which is a legitimate and constitutional role of the federal government) and projecting force across the entire globe for 75+ years in support of anyone and everyone who dares not be too communist for our taste.

I think the point still stands. It is quite tone deaf for Rubio to make that statement when "defense" makes up a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the US discretionary budget each year. Note I am not excusing the entitlements and non-discretionary budget which is also very much out of control, but if you want to balance the budget and address the national debt (which every republican, including trump has beaten on the bully pulpit for the last ~15 years) then you have to reduce defense spending and stop engaging in world police activities.

---

Well your post I replied to wasn't just about not bombing Iran. And this post by you isn't either. So your first sentence is way out of place.

As to Rubio:
Iran before the bombing was spending 40-50billion per year on their military. That is over 10% of their GDP. If we spent at that level, we would have a 3.5 trillion dollar military budget. The US isn't even close to what the Iranian government has done financially to their people.

The real problem in the US is the non-military 6 trillion dollars annual expenditures. The military needs more efficiency, but it is small potatoes to the garbage accounting we're doing with the rest of the "budget" - which we don't have really these days.

The most massive explosion observed since the beginning of the war. Isfahan, likely the underground "missile city", tonight 👇 pic.twitter.com/c8XDcatSdh

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) March 31, 2026

UPDATE: The U.S. hit a large ammunition depot in Isfahan with 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs, a U.S. official told WSJ https://t.co/2kWON2szXz

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) March 31, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

The most massive explosion observed since the beginning of the war. Isfahan, likely the underground "missile city", tonight 👇 pic.twitter.com/c8XDcatSdh

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) March 31, 2026

---

That would be great news if it is a missile city.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Fascinating pic.twitter.com/rx0UQkBSGi

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 31, 2026

---

The tone deafness of that statement is staggering. Literally the same could be said of the USA. What *if* we spent the $6-800Billion a year of our defense budget on domestic projects for the benefit of *checks notes* americans.... [insert mind blown gif here].

Or, better yet, what if we cut taxes and let people keep more of their earned money instead of stealing it to send off to buy bombs to blow up things in foreign countries.

---

Maybe the most powerful and richest country in the world should pull into its tortoise shell and create a nice, big power vacuum.

---

So is your position that not starting a preemptive war with Iran would have been "pulling into its tortoise shell"?

There is a difference between providing for the defense of the country (which is a legitimate and constitutional role of the federal government) and projecting force across the entire globe for 75+ years in support of anyone and everyone who dares not be too communist for our taste.

I think the point still stands. It is quite tone deaf for Rubio to make that statement when "defense" makes up a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the US discretionary budget each year. Note I am not excusing the entitlements and non-discretionary budget which is also very much out of control, but if you want to balance the budget and address the national debt (which every republican, including trump has beaten on the bully pulpit for the last ~15 years) then you have to reduce defense spending and stop engaging in world police activities.

---

Well your post I replied to wasn't just about not bombing Iran. And this post by you isn't either. So your first sentence is way out of place.

As to Rubio:
Iran before the bombing was spending 40-50billion per year on their military. That is over 10% of their GDP. If we spent at that level, we would have a 3.5 trillion dollar military budget. The US isn't even close to what the Iranian government has done financially to their people.

The real problem in the US is the non-military 6 trillion dollars annual expenditures. The military needs more efficiency, but it is small potatoes to the garbage accounting we're doing with the rest of the "budget" - which we don't have really these days.

---

Fair enough, I was a bit hyperbolic and snarky in my opening, but yet Rubio is making these comments about Iran, in the context of putting blame onto them after we started dropping bombs.

I admitted that the defense budget is not the root cause of our deficit issues, but it is part of the budget and therefore in play. I see little in the way of benefit of "defense" in any of the actions taken in the last month and certainly less in having 20+ bases and billions of dollars worth of equipment in the region. Any argument justifying attacking Iran could also justify attacking Russia, North Korea, China as well as several other less than fully friendly nations, and thus ring hollow to me.

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Fascinating pic.twitter.com/rx0UQkBSGi

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 31, 2026

---

The tone deafness of that statement is staggering. Literally the same could be said of the USA. What *if* we spent the $6-800Billion a year of our defense budget on domestic projects for the benefit of *checks notes* americans.... [insert mind blown gif here].

Or, better yet, what if we cut taxes and let people keep more of their earned money instead of stealing it to send off to buy bombs to blow up things in foreign countries.

---

Maybe the most powerful and richest country in the world should pull into its tortoise shell and create a nice, big power vacuum.

---

So is your position that not starting a preemptive war with Iran would have been "pulling into its tortoise shell"?

There is a difference between providing for the defense of the country (which is a legitimate and constitutional role of the federal government) and projecting force across the entire globe for 75+ years in support of anyone and everyone who dares not be too communist for our taste.

I think the point still stands. It is quite tone deaf for Rubio to make that statement when "defense" makes up a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the US discretionary budget each year. Note I am not excusing the entitlements and non-discretionary budget which is also very much out of control, but if you want to balance the budget and address the national debt (which every republican, including trump has beaten on the bully pulpit for the last ~15 years) then you have to reduce defense spending and stop engaging in world police activities.

---

Well your post I replied to wasn't just about not bombing Iran. And this post by you isn't either. So your first sentence is way out of place.

As to Rubio:
Iran before the bombing was spending 40-50billion per year on their military. That is over 10% of their GDP. If we spent at that level, we would have a 3.5 trillion dollar military budget. The US isn't even close to what the Iranian government has done financially to their people.

The real problem in the US is the non-military 6 trillion dollars annual expenditures. The military needs more efficiency, but it is small potatoes to the garbage accounting we're doing with the rest of the "budget" - which we don't have really these days.

---

Fair enough, I was a bit hyperbolic and snarky in my opening, but yet Rubio is making these comments about Iran, in the context of putting blame onto them after we started dropping bombs.

I admitted that the defense budget is not the root cause of our deficit issues, but it is part of the budget and therefore in play. I see little in the way of benefit of "defense" in any of the actions taken in the last month and certainly less in having 20+ bases and billions of dollars worth of equipment in the region. Any argument justifying attacking Iran could also justify attacking Russia, North Korea, China as well as several other less than fully friendly nations, and thus ring hollow to me.

---

Russia = lot of nukes
North Korea = enough nukes.
China = lot of nukes.

So, no, any argument justifying attacking Iran could NOT also justify attacking Russia, North Korea or China.

Realitybites said:

---

The Fatal Mirage of Kharg Island

An excellent analysis.

"Eerily similar to the British blockade that brought down Germany in WW1, the blockade of the Straits of Hormuz has effectively put a timer on America's war effort. The Gulf States import nearly 80% of their food, and 70% of that comes through the straits of Hormuz..."

"However, militarily, there is no viable means to break the blockade. The Lincoln Carrier Strike Group stationed in the Indian Ocean maintains a distance of 700-1000 km from Iranian shores to steer clear of anti-ship missiles.

The workhorse of the carrier group, the F/A-18 Superhornet, has a combat range of only 719 km with a typical interdiction loadout of 4 Mark 83 bombs, 2 AIM-9, and 2 drop tanks. As such, it cannot provide any meaningful coverage over the vast coastlines of Iran, where the anti-ship missile batteries and drone launchers of the country are situated.

It is equally impossible for US combat aircraft flying in from Israel, Jordan, and Cyprus, from 1200 km away and with multiple tanker refuelings, to provide any length of meaningful coverage over the vast coastal regions of Iran. Even if they could, most of Iran's missile infrastructure is hidden deep beneath the Zagros mountains and can quickly emerge from the tunnel complexes to fire a volley and withdraw. Buried beneath mountains in bunkers made from UHP concrete, these missile cities are practically indestructible, and even strikes with 200 kt nuclear warheads would not destroy them.

Drones can be launched from any repurposed Toyota Hilux,"

"The marine battalion of an MEU is built around its amphibious assault ships, and in order to reach Kharg, not only would these ships have to sail into the Straits of Hormuz through Iranian minefields, but they would also have to sail more than 900 km north to reach their destination. As they travel north, they would be in full view of the Iranian military and undoubtedly would be assaulted by a relentless deluge of drones, anti-ship missiles, and possibly even submarine attack or attacks by USVs (Unmanned Surface Vessels).

This is a feat even the Lincoln Carrier Group, with its escort of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers specialized in air defense missions, has not dared to attempt.

One could argue that the Marines could do an air assault on Kharg Island instead, flying there on helicopters from outside the Straits. However, such a plan is limited by the low combat range of the V-22 Osprey Helicopters that would be used to undertake the mission. With a combat radius of 720 km, they do not have the range to undertake such a mission.

For these reasons, I believe it is unlikely that the Marines would be the ones to undertake the operation to seize Kharg Island. That task will likely fall on the shoulders of the 82nd Airborne Division."

Lots more there.

---

A little exuberant on Iranian capabilities. Not that taking Kharg would be a cake walk, but comparing it to Iwo Jima is way off base.

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Fascinating pic.twitter.com/rx0UQkBSGi

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 31, 2026

---

The tone deafness of that statement is staggering. Literally the same could be said of the USA. What *if* we spent the $6-800Billion a year of our defense budget on domestic projects for the benefit of *checks notes* americans.... [insert mind blown gif here].

Or, better yet, what if we cut taxes and let people keep more of their earned money instead of stealing it to send off to buy bombs to blow up things in foreign countries.

---

Maybe the most powerful and richest country in the world should pull into its tortoise shell and create a nice, big power vacuum.

---

So is your position that not starting a preemptive war with Iran would have been "pulling into its tortoise shell"?

There is a difference between providing for the defense of the country (which is a legitimate and constitutional role of the federal government) and projecting force across the entire globe for 75+ years in support of anyone and everyone who dares not be too communist for our taste.

I think the point still stands. It is quite tone deaf for Rubio to make that statement when "defense" makes up a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the US discretionary budget each year. Note I am not excusing the entitlements and non-discretionary budget which is also very much out of control, but if you want to balance the budget and address the national debt (which every republican, including trump has beaten on the bully pulpit for the last ~15 years) then you have to reduce defense spending and stop engaging in world police activities.

---

The defense budget, while bloated and needing downsizing, does employ 3-4 million people. The irony is the fastest growing piece of the budget is pension, health and welfare costs. It's almost a 3rd of expenditures.

Reporter: The president said we might blow up and completely obliterate all of their generating electric plants, oil wells, Kharg island, and possibly all desalination plants. Under international law, striking infrastructure is generally prohibited. Why is the president… pic.twitter.com/TOR8rvFXM5

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that the Arab nations and Israel are far more vulnerable to attacks on desalination. Iran's army is also larger, more capable, and more technologically advanced than Saddam's ever was...and that's not even accounting for the million-man Basij militia. It would not be Iraq all over again.

---

That is in fact not completely accurate

1. In 1990 Iraq had the 4th-5th largest standing army in the entire world. And it did have serious expertise in combat (just finished a major war) and had a professional officer corps from its long conflict against iran

It did have advanced weapons and military capabilities for the time. It had deep military capabilities from robust trade with both the West and the Soviet Union. Both courting Iraq and working with them

2. Iran in 2026 does NOT have the 4th or 5th largest army in the world and has not fought a complex ground war against a major regional rival in decades

Its military experience is in mostly terrorism type operations and supporting local allies like Syria in civil war type operations.

3. No one said the Gulf War in the 1990s would be exactly the same as an Iran war in 2026.

The point was that if the American military could cut off and annihilate a large & powerful enemy army then….it could do so again

4. Iraq in 1990 successfully launched a large military invasion of a neighbor and conquered it quickly. Showing it could pull off complex operations…while Iran just lost a decade long proxy war in Syria (despite pouring in men and weapons & having Syrian government support…it still lost to rag tag bunch of Sunni Islamist rebels)

5. We should not even bring up the Basij

They are untrained thugs with baseball bats on motorcycles that drive around beating up protestors.

Street fighters for the clerics and the regime

Not a legitimate fighting force of any kind. And why do you claim only 1 million? They themselves say they have 20 million ready to fight!

Laughable but it's what they actually claim

[Today, the force consists of young Iranians, a significant portion drawn from the traditionally Shia cleric religious and politically loyalist parts of Iran's society, who volunteer, often in exchange for official benefits. With branches in "virtually every" city and town in Iran, the Basij serve as an auxiliary force engaged in enforcing state control over society, acting as a morality police at checkpoints and parks, and suppressing dissident gathering, as well as serving as law enforcement auxiliary, providing social services, and organizing public religious ceremonies. The force was often present and reacting to the widespread 2009 Iranian election protests, 2017-18 Iranian protests, and the 2022-23 Mahsa Amini protests.]

D. C. Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Fascinating pic.twitter.com/rx0UQkBSGi

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 31, 2026

---

The tone deafness of that statement is staggering. Literally the same could be said of the USA. What *if* we spent the $6-800Billion a year of our defense budget on domestic projects for the benefit of *checks notes* americans.... [insert mind blown gif here].

Or, better yet, what if we cut taxes and let people keep more of their earned money instead of stealing it to send off to buy bombs to blow up things in foreign countries.

---

Maybe the most powerful and richest country in the world should pull into its tortoise shell and create a nice, big power vacuum.

---

So is your position that not starting a preemptive war with Iran would have been "pulling into its tortoise shell"?

There is a difference between providing for the defense of the country (which is a legitimate and constitutional role of the federal government) and projecting force across the entire globe for 75+ years in support of anyone and everyone who dares not be too communist for our taste.

I think the point still stands. It is quite tone deaf for Rubio to make that statement when "defense" makes up a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the US discretionary budget each year. Note I am not excusing the entitlements and non-discretionary budget which is also very much out of control, but if you want to balance the budget and address the national debt (which every republican, including trump has beaten on the bully pulpit for the last ~15 years) then you have to reduce defense spending and stop engaging in world police activities.

---

Well your post I replied to wasn't just about not bombing Iran. And this post by you isn't either. So your first sentence is way out of place.

As to Rubio:
Iran before the bombing was spending 40-50billion per year on their military. That is over 10% of their GDP. If we spent at that level, we would have a 3.5 trillion dollar military budget. The US isn't even close to what the Iranian government has done financially to their people.

The real problem in the US is the non-military 6 trillion dollars annual expenditures. The military needs more efficiency, but it is small potatoes to the garbage accounting we're doing with the rest of the "budget" - which we don't have really these days.

---

Fair enough, I was a bit hyperbolic and snarky in my opening, but yet Rubio is making these comments about Iran, in the context of putting blame onto them after we started dropping bombs.

I admitted that the defense budget is not the root cause of our deficit issues, but it is part of the budget and therefore in play. I see little in the way of benefit of "defense" in any of the actions taken in the last month and certainly less in having 20+ bases and billions of dollars worth of equipment in the region. Any argument justifying attacking Iran could also justify attacking Russia, North Korea, China as well as several other less than fully friendly nations, and thus ring hollow to me.

---

Russia = lot of nukes
North Korea = enough nukes.
China = lot of nukes.

So, no, any argument justifying attacking Iran could NOT also justify attacking Russia, North Korea or China.

---

Help me understand your position. Are you saying we could not/should not attack any of the listed countries because they have nukes? Is the fact that each has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons and overall policy aims that dont align with / threaten US interest not an equal or greater reason to justify preemptive action? Or are we falling back to the Cold War status quo of mutually assured destruction and proxy wars? Either way I am out for it.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

In an open fight I agree. We ate Iraq's lunch, that antiquated equipment was no match for the M1s and AH-64s. Those were the 2 that were the most impressive back then. I believe the Bradleys are more front and center than they were then. Iraq was stupid to fight us that way. They should have gone Fallujah on us, they would have stood a better chance.

I don't believe Iran will fight us in an open war, it will be asymmetrical, terrain and guerilla. They can draw it out, I think more Afghanistan IED-fest.

Will be interesting if it goes conventional.

Conversation has been fun, what could have been with a different path! As long as it wasn't Light Infantry...

As for the quagmire, yes....

---

The IEDs fly around now. We live in droneworld. There may not be another classic tank battle, just like there may not be another classic battle between battleships...ever.

But the most interesting thing about this war is the willingness of the government so far to give the middle finger to the populace and business and propagandize both 24/7.

Casualties? Not going to tell you. KIA? Not going to tell you. When we say damaged, we mean destroyed. Not to mention the constant filp flopping between peace talks and a ground invasion designed to head fake the market.

Shut up, peasant, and prepare for your kids to be drafted.

---

If there's one thing the Trumps have been able to do, that's avoid fighting in war. His family came to America to avoid military service in Germany.

---

?

"Mary Anne MacLeod Trump, emigrated from Scotland in 1930"

"Friedrich Trump (Grandfather): Immigrated to the U.S. from Kallstadt, Germany, in 1885 at age 16. He moved to the West during the gold rush, running restaurants and hotels before settling in New York."

---

(Grandpa Trump) Born and raised in Kallstadt, in what was then the Kingdom of Bavaria, Trump immigrated to the United States in 1885.

As he had failed to complete mandatory military service and notify the authorities of his departure in 1885, the Bavarian government stripped him of his citizenship in 1905 and ordered him to leave.

---

So he was 16 years old (a kid) in 1885 when he left the Kingdom of Bavaria

No war was on at the time

Pretty brave to head out and try to make his way in the world at that age

And we are attacking him why?

---

A Trump avoiding service isn't an attack. It's a fact. (Here is my attack. His dad got citizenship via birthright) (14th amendment)
.

---

Friedrick Trump was a legal immigrant and applied for citizenship legally

Are you under the impression he was an illegal immigrant? And that the 14th amendment (passed for freed slaves) is meant to cover the offspring of people who have no legal right to be in the USA?

"Friedrich Trump (age 16) immigrated from Bavaria aboard the Eider in October 1885.

He was processed at Castle Garden in New York City, the precursor to Ellis Island, and his entry was officially recorded.

He was a naturalized U.S. citizen, having registered in 1892."

BREAKING: President Trump is willing to end the Iran War even if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed, per WSJ.

Details include:

1. Trump and his aides assessed that a mission to reopen Hormuz would push the conflict beyond his timeline 4-6 weeks

2. Trump believes the US should…

— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) March 31, 2026

Watching Fox News assure viewers the Iran war is going SUPER well and Trump is a total stud is like watching the same network assure viewers that Dominion Voting Systems rigged the 2020 election and Trump was the winner.

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) March 29, 2026

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that the Arab nations and Israel are far more vulnerable to attacks on desalination. Iran's army is also larger, more capable, and more technologically advanced than Saddam's ever was...and that's not even accounting for the million-man Basij militia. It would not be Iraq all over again.

---

That is in fact not completely accurate

1. In 1990 Iraq had the 4th-5th largest standing army in the world. And it did have expertise in combat (just finished a major war) and had a professional officer corps from its long conflict against iran

It did have advanced weapons and military capabilities for the time. It has deep military capabilities from trade with both the West and the Soviet Union.

2. Iran in 2026 does NOT have the 4th or 5th largest army in the world and has not fought a ground war against a major regional rival in decades

Its military experience is in mostly terrorism type operations and supporting local allies like Syria in civil war type operations

3. No one said the Gulf War in the 1990s would be exactly the same as an Iran war in 2026.

The point was that if the American military could cut off and annihilate a large and powerful enemy army then….it could do so again

4. We should not even bring up the Basij

They are untrained thugs with baseball bats on motorcycles that drive around beating up protestors. Street fighters for the clerics and the regime

Not a legitimate fighting force of any kind. And why do you claim only 1 million? They themselves say they have 20 million ready to fight!

Laughable but it's what they actually claim

[Today, the force consists of young Iranians, a significant portion drawn from the traditionally Shia cleric religious and politically loyalist parts of Iran's society, who volunteer, often in exchange for official benefits. With branches in "virtually every" city and town in Iran, the Basij serve as an auxiliary force engaged in enforcing state control over society, acting as a morality police at checkpoints and parks, and suppressing dissident gathering, as well as serving as law enforcement auxiliary, providing social services, and organizing public religious ceremonies. The force was often present and reacting to the widespread 2009 Iranian election protests, 201718 Iranian protests, and the 20222023 Mahsa Amini protests.]

---

There may have been a few intense battles in the Iraq war, but overall they didn't put up much of a fight. They lacked communication and coordination, a failure from which the Iranians have diligently learned. Iraqi troops were poorly motivated and poorly equipped. And perhaps most important, the US quickly achieved air supremacy in Iraq, which we have not done in Iran despite what you may be hearing.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that the Arab nations and Israel are far more vulnerable to attacks on desalination. Iran's army is also larger, more capable, and more technologically advanced than Saddam's ever was...and that's not even accounting for the million-man Basij militia. It would not be Iraq all over again.

---

That is in fact not completely accurate

1. In 1990 Iraq had the 4th-5th largest standing army in the world. And it did have expertise in combat (just finished a major war) and had a professional officer corps from its long conflict against iran

It did have advanced weapons and military capabilities for the time. It has deep military capabilities from trade with both the West and the Soviet Union.

2. Iran in 2026 does NOT have the 4th or 5th largest army in the world and has not fought a ground war against a major regional rival in decades

Its military experience is in mostly terrorism type operations and supporting local allies like Syria in civil war type operations

3. No one said the Gulf War in the 1990s would be exactly the same as an Iran war in 2026.

The point was that if the American military could cut off and annihilate a large and powerful enemy army then….it could do so again

4. We should not even bring up the Basij

They are untrained thugs with baseball bats on motorcycles that drive around beating up protestors. Street fighters for the clerics and the regime

Not a legitimate fighting force of any kind. And why do you claim only 1 million? They themselves say they have 20 million ready to fight!

Laughable but it's what they actually claim

[Today, the force consists of young Iranians, a significant portion drawn from the traditionally Shia cleric religious and politically loyalist parts of Iran's society, who volunteer, often in exchange for official benefits. With branches in "virtually every" city and town in Iran, the Basij serve as an auxiliary force engaged in enforcing state control over society, acting as a morality police at checkpoints and parks, and suppressing dissident gathering, as well as serving as law enforcement auxiliary, providing social services, and organizing public religious ceremonies. The force was often present and reacting to the widespread 2009 Iranian election protests, 201718 Iranian protests, and the 20222023 Mahsa Amini protests.]

---

There may have been a few intense battles in the Iraq war, but overall they didn't put up much of a fight. They lacked communication and coordination, a failure from which the Iranians have diligently learned. Iraqi troops were poorly motivated and poorly equipped. And perhaps most important, the US quickly achieved air supremacy in Iraq, which we have not done in Iran despite what you may be hearing.

---

1. Iraq was not poorly equipped in 1990

You have to stop pushing out easy to disprove statements

[In 1990, the Iraqi army was numerically massive and well-equipped by world standards, ranking as the fourth or fifth largest in the world. Following the Iran-Iraq War, it was highly experienced and heavily armed with a mix of Soviet & Western, armored vehicles, artillery, & chemical weapons.

[By worldwide standards, Iraq's army was formidable. Iraq was equipped with
modern systems of Soviet & Western design and combat-experienced by eight years of war with Iran.
Further, its senior military leaders had planned and executed corps-sized maneuvers in combat. The Iraqi army was large, possessed a professional officer corps, and had the potential to expand through national mobilization. Iraq held weapons of mass destruction and had used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War to support combat maneuver.
Why did this force immediately crumble against the coalition?
Most of the answers are found in the unity, determination, and superior quality of US and allied forces. However, Iraqi political and military failures at critical points in the conflict also contributed to the collapse of the Iraqi army in the Kuwait Theater of Operations (KTO). Throughout the confrontation, Saddam Hussein's personal actions were focused on political outcomes, lacked comprehension of military realities, and undermined the will of the very military forces that were critical to Iraqi strategy]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA527997.pdf

2. No proof that Iran has actually learned anything from Iraq's failure or been able to create a better command & political system to prevent the same thing happening to them.

Islamists are not any better at that sort of thing than are Baathists (in fact they might be worse)

3. Considering how unpopular the Islamist regime is among Iranian youth..their army might have the same motivation issues when faced with a strong and competent enemy force coming at them.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

The fact remains that the Arab nations and Israel are far more vulnerable to attacks on desalination. Iran's army is also larger, more capable, and more technologically advanced than Saddam's ever was...and that's not even accounting for the million-man Basij militia. It would not be Iraq all over again.

---

That is in fact not completely accurate

1. In 1990 Iraq had the 4th-5th largest standing army in the world. And it did have expertise in combat (just finished a major war) and had a professional officer corps from its long conflict against iran

It did have advanced weapons and military capabilities for the time. It has deep military capabilities from trade with both the West and the Soviet Union.

2. Iran in 2026 does NOT have the 4th or 5th largest army in the world and has not fought a ground war against a major regional rival in decades

Its military experience is in mostly terrorism type operations and supporting local allies like Syria in civil war type operations

3. No one said the Gulf War in the 1990s would be exactly the same as an Iran war in 2026.

The point was that if the American military could cut off and annihilate a large and powerful enemy army then….it could do so again

4. We should not even bring up the Basij

They are untrained thugs with baseball bats on motorcycles that drive around beating up protestors. Street fighters for the clerics and the regime

Not a legitimate fighting force of any kind. And why do you claim only 1 million? They themselves say they have 20 million ready to fight!

Laughable but it's what they actually claim

[Today, the force consists of young Iranians, a significant portion drawn from the traditionally Shia cleric religious and politically loyalist parts of Iran's society, who volunteer, often in exchange for official benefits. With branches in "virtually every" city and town in Iran, the Basij serve as an auxiliary force engaged in enforcing state control over society, acting as a morality police at checkpoints and parks, and suppressing dissident gathering, as well as serving as law enforcement auxiliary, providing social services, and organizing public religious ceremonies. The force was often present and reacting to the widespread 2009 Iranian election protests, 201718 Iranian protests, and the 20222023 Mahsa Amini protests.]

---

There may have been a few intense battles in the Iraq war, but overall they didn't put up much of a fight. They lacked communication and coordination, a failure from which the Iranians have diligently learned. Iraqi troops were poorly motivated and poorly equipped. And perhaps most important, the US quickly achieved air supremacy in Iraq, which we have not done in Iran despite what you may be hearing.

---

1. Iraq was not poorly equipped in 1990

You have to stop pushing out easy to disprove statements

[In 1990, the Iraqi army was numerically massive and well-equipped by world standards, ranking as the fourth or fifth largest in the world. Following the Iran-Iraq War, it was highly experienced and heavily armed with a mix of Soviet & Western, armored vehicles, artillery, & chemical weapons.

[By worldwide standards, Iraq's army was formidable. Iraq was equipped with
modern systems of Soviet & Western design and combat-experienced by eight years of war with Iran.
Further, its senior military leaders had planned and executed corps-sized maneuvers in combat. The Iraqi army was large, possessed a professional officer corps, and had the potential to expand through national mobilization. Iraq held weapons of mass destruction and had used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War to support combat maneuver.
Why did this force immediately crumble against the coalition?
Most of the answers are found in the unity, determination, and superior quality of US and allied forces. However, Iraqi political and military failures at critical points in the conflict also contributed to the collapse of the Iraqi army in the Kuwait Theater of Operations (KTO). Throughout the confrontation, Saddam Hussein's personal actions were focused on political outcomes, lacked comprehension of military realities, and undermined the will of the very military forces that were critical to Iraqi strategy]

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA527997.pdf

2. No proof Iran has actually learned anything form Iraq's failure or been able to create a better command and political system to prevent the same thing happening to them

Islamists are not any better at that sort of thing than are Baathists (in fact they might be worse)

3. Considering how unpopular the Islamist regime is among Iranian youth..their army might have the same motivation issues when faced with a strong and competent enemy

---

Ukraine had the largest army in Europe, until most of them got killed.

The proof of Iran's learning is in its actions. They are escalating in a clearly calculated and coordinated way.

Iran has a more democratic government and a more organic political base than its neighbor regimes, most of which have been bought off by the US.

To the platinum credentialed Expert, such a decisive military success being presided over by consensus idiot Donald Trump is completely inconceivable; so they will carry on strutting mindlessly, like a chicken which has been relieved of its head.

— Stranger Ranger (@couragemerry) March 30, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Reporter: The president said we might blow up and completely obliterate all of their generating electric plants, oil wells, Kharg island, and possibly all desalination plants. Under international law, striking infrastructure is generally prohibited. Why is the president… pic.twitter.com/TOR8rvFXM5

— Acyn (@Acyn) March 30, 2026

---

ok Sugar Tits!

303Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Fascinating pic.twitter.com/rx0UQkBSGi

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 31, 2026

---

The tone deafness of that statement is staggering. Literally the same could be said of the USA. What *if* we spent the $6-800Billion a year of our defense budget on domestic projects for the benefit of *checks notes* americans.... [insert mind blown gif here].

Or, better yet, what if we cut taxes and let people keep more of their earned money instead of stealing it to send off to buy bombs to blow up things in foreign countries.

---

Maybe the most powerful and richest country in the world should pull into its tortoise shell and create a nice, big power vacuum.

---

So is your position that not starting a preemptive war with Iran would have been "pulling into its tortoise shell"?

There is a difference between providing for the defense of the country (which is a legitimate and constitutional role of the federal government) and projecting force across the entire globe for 75+ years in support of anyone and everyone who dares not be too communist for our taste.

I think the point still stands. It is quite tone deaf for Rubio to make that statement when "defense" makes up a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the US discretionary budget each year. Note I am not excusing the entitlements and non-discretionary budget which is also very much out of control, but if you want to balance the budget and address the national debt (which every republican, including trump has beaten on the bully pulpit for the last ~15 years) then you have to reduce defense spending and stop engaging in world police activities.

---

Well your post I replied to wasn't just about not bombing Iran. And this post by you isn't either. So your first sentence is way out of place.

As to Rubio:
Iran before the bombing was spending 40-50billion per year on their military. That is over 10% of their GDP. If we spent at that level, we would have a 3.5 trillion dollar military budget. The US isn't even close to what the Iranian government has done financially to their people.

The real problem in the US is the non-military 6 trillion dollars annual expenditures. The military needs more efficiency, but it is small potatoes to the garbage accounting we're doing with the rest of the "budget" - which we don't have really these days.

---

Fair enough, I was a bit hyperbolic and snarky in my opening, but yet Rubio is making these comments about Iran, in the context of putting blame onto them after we started dropping bombs.

I admitted that the defense budget is not the root cause of our deficit issues, but it is part of the budget and therefore in play. I see little in the way of benefit of "defense" in any of the actions taken in the last month and certainly less in having 20+ bases and billions of dollars worth of equipment in the region. Any argument justifying attacking Iran could also justify attacking Russia, North Korea, China as well as several other less than fully friendly nations, and thus ring hollow to me.

---

Russia = lot of nukes
North Korea = enough nukes.
China = lot of nukes.

So, no, any argument justifying attacking Iran could NOT also justify attacking Russia, North Korea or China.

---

Help me understand your position. Are you saying we could not/should not attack any of the listed countries because they have nukes? Is the fact that each has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons and overall policy aims that dont align with / threaten US interest not an equal or greater reason to justify preemptive action? Or are we falling back to the Cold War status quo of mutually assured destruction and proxy wars? Either way I am out for it.

---

Yes to the first bit of bolded text, no to the second. Nuclear weapons change the calculations and make preemptive action too risky. Even if China decided they would not longer support North Korea, South Korea, and the U.S., would have to leave them alone.

D. C. Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

303Bear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

Rubio: “Imagine if instead of spending billions on weapons, Iran spent that money on its people. They’d have a much different country.” Fascinating pic.twitter.com/rx0UQkBSGi

— The_Real_Fly (@The_Real_Fly) March 31, 2026

---

The tone deafness of that statement is staggering. Literally the same could be said of the USA. What *if* we spent the $6-800Billion a year of our defense budget on domestic projects for the benefit of *checks notes* americans.... [insert mind blown gif here].

Or, better yet, what if we cut taxes and let people keep more of their earned money instead of stealing it to send off to buy bombs to blow up things in foreign countries.

---

Maybe the most powerful and richest country in the world should pull into its tortoise shell and create a nice, big power vacuum.

---

So is your position that not starting a preemptive war with Iran would have been "pulling into its tortoise shell"?

There is a difference between providing for the defense of the country (which is a legitimate and constitutional role of the federal government) and projecting force across the entire globe for 75+ years in support of anyone and everyone who dares not be too communist for our taste.

I think the point still stands. It is quite tone deaf for Rubio to make that statement when "defense" makes up a majority (or at least a large plurality) of the US discretionary budget each year. Note I am not excusing the entitlements and non-discretionary budget which is also very much out of control, but if you want to balance the budget and address the national debt (which every republican, including trump has beaten on the bully pulpit for the last ~15 years) then you have to reduce defense spending and stop engaging in world police activities.

---

Well your post I replied to wasn't just about not bombing Iran. And this post by you isn't either. So your first sentence is way out of place.

As to Rubio:
Iran before the bombing was spending 40-50billion per year on their military. That is over 10% of their GDP. If we spent at that level, we would have a 3.5 trillion dollar military budget. The US isn't even close to what the Iranian government has done financially to their people.

The real problem in the US is the non-military 6 trillion dollars annual expenditures. The military needs more efficiency, but it is small potatoes to the garbage accounting we're doing with the rest of the "budget" - which we don't have really these days.

---

Fair enough, I was a bit hyperbolic and snarky in my opening, but yet Rubio is making these comments about Iran, in the context of putting blame onto them after we started dropping bombs.

I admitted that the defense budget is not the root cause of our deficit issues, but it is part of the budget and therefore in play. I see little in the way of benefit of "defense" in any of the actions taken in the last month and certainly less in having 20+ bases and billions of dollars worth of equipment in the region. Any argument justifying attacking Iran could also justify attacking Russia, North Korea, China as well as several other less than fully friendly nations, and thus ring hollow to me.

---

Russia = lot of nukes
North Korea = enough nukes.
China = lot of nukes.

So, no, any argument justifying attacking Iran could NOT also justify attacking Russia, North Korea or China.

---

Help me understand your position. Are you saying we could not/should not attack any of the listed countries because they have nukes? Is the fact that each has a large stockpile of nuclear weapons and overall policy aims that dont align with / threaten US interest not an equal or greater reason to justify preemptive action? Or are we falling back to the Cold War status quo of mutually assured destruction and proxy wars? Either way I am out for it.

---

Nuclear weapons change the calculations and make preemptive action too risky.

---

Yep, exactly

Hegseth: "As far as President Trump and boots on the ground, I don't understand why the base wouldn't have faith in his ability to execute on this. Look at his track record." pic.twitter.com/v73s09B8BA

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 31, 2026

Patriot missiles are running low: Gulf countries have nearly exhausted their stockpiles due to the war with Iran

According to Bloomberg, around 2,400 out of 2,800 PAC-3 and GEM-T missiles have been used, most of the arsenal. Production remains limited at about 650 missiles per… pic.twitter.com/QD2VGrdhu3

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) March 31, 2026

B 52's are now bombing targets in Iran.

Which means the JCS decided we have established air superiority over Iran.

Otherwise they would not risk those big, old, slow airframes.

The destruction of Iran is accelerating.

More casualties will inevitably come…..but unless Russia or China get directly involved…….

Iran's fate is sealed.

Watch for a negotiated peace by May 1st.

Realitybites said:

---

Iran defiant as Trump threatens to destroy oil island

Headline at 9:03pm, 3/30.

Trump tells aides he is willing to end Iran war without reopening Hormuz

Headline at 9:24pm, 3/30.

---

TACO Tuesday..............

- UF

D!

{ sipping coffee }

W/ a side of Bloviating Flatulence.

BID.

KaiBear said:

---

B 52's are now bombing targets in Iran.

---

Source? I've not seen anything that referenced B-52s entering Iranian airspace.

They were being used a few weeks ago as airborne missile launching platforms for stand off weapons from friendly airspace.

Realitybites said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

B 52's are now bombing targets in Iran.

---

Source? I've not seen anything that referenced B-52s entering Iranian airspace.

They were being used a few weeks ago as airborne missile launching platforms for stand off weapons from friendly airspace.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/03/31/world/iran-war-oil-trump?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20260331&instance_id=173362&nl=breaking-news®i_id=98308315&segment_id=217523&user_id=c2abe1d2d1a3a1fe920616481e5dc710