No tags, links or clips by myself

Just a recommendation which I've mentioned before 

Watch Bitter Lake by Adam Curtis 

It's the closest explanation I've seen to our relatively modern fucked up world

11 hours ago, Casino said:

Has he seen the state of Iran

Nobody is beating them on the ground without many casualties and loads of money

I was listening to the former allied commander of NATO forces in Europe talk about this yesterday.

He reckoned the US would need somewhere between 800,000 and a million troops on the ground to achieve a full scale ground invasion. I just can't see it.

1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

Without a doubt. Still how it ends.

I just don't see them doing it, especially as they'll get no support from any other nation (Israel aside.....and fuck knows what happen in "the region" if Israel did actually send troops into Iran)

7 hours ago, Sweep said:

I just don't see them doing it, especially as they'll get no support from any other nation (Israel aside.....and fuck knows what happen in "the region" if Israel did actually send troops into Iran)

I don't either if I'm honest.

I imagine there would be extremely heavy losses for the Americans and DT seems to only want to pick fights in places where he thinks it's going to be an easy win, with little risk.

If he really believed Iran posed some thought of imminent threat of developing a nuclear weapon - or that it was some sort of existential threat to the US, we'd have had boots on the ground by now. But he doesn't. So we won't.

That's my guess anyway.

This is a good read if you are interested in such things -

Saudi Arabia's dilemma as it tries to stay out of US-Iran war - BBC News

The War is going well.

Latest if you've not followed it -

• Trump stops the bombing because the US is running out of defensive missiles, even though Trump said Iran was totally defeated on Day 1 (five months ago!)

• The sneaky (and already utterly defeat Iranians for over 5 months now) read this and you know what fired a few more drones that they don't have (which have been constantly been shipped in from Russia and Trump wont do anything about it) at the US bases across the Middle East to deplete the US stockpile even further.

• The thing is though the cunning Iranians (who's regime change Trump brought about by murdering the Ayatollah and the Ayatollah's son's wife and children and replaced him with the son who has just had his dad, wife and kids murdered by Trump) used their proxy forces in Iraq to fire the missiles from.

• For the first time Saudi Arabia got involved with the war directly (although they had previously bombed Yemen's main airport) and attacked the rebels in Iraq

• The US said it was all agreed by the Iraq government in advance to do this - the Iraq government apparently said they knew fuck all about it

• Yemen, since Saudi attacked their airport, have been attacking Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea.

• Saudi now think they have dug a massive big hole for themselves, see link from me on post above on this thread.

• Meanwhile petrol prices have shot up by 10p in the last two weeks around where I live, I imagine this isn't the end to it either.

Might need a little bit of explanation but Trump is talking about imposing tariffs on Iran.

The thing is though that the US imports NOTHING from Iran.

On 29/07/2026 at 16:03, kent_white said:

I was listening to the former allied commander of NATO forces in Europe talk about this yesterday.

He reckoned the US would need somewhere between 800,000 and a million troops on the ground to achieve a full scale ground invasion. I just can't see it.

Not factoring in other entities. IDF, Kurds etc.

If it ever happens they will both be heavily involved. You never know, the Saudi's may even step in to help and possibly other ME states who have been in Iran's crosshairs in recent times.

It is the way it ends once and for all. These fucking fanatical Islamic madmen have to be stopped.

And, of course, there is nothing to confirm that this 'formers' estimate is anywhere close to being correct.

Edited July 31Jul 31 by bolty58

On 29/07/2026 at 16:47, Sweep said:

I just don't see them doing it, especially as they'll get no support from any other nation (Israel aside.....and fuck knows what happen in "the region" if Israel did actually send troops into Iran)

Don't think you are correct there mate.

8 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Not factoring in other entities. IDF, Kurds etc.

If it ever happens they will both be heavily involved. You never know, the Saudi's may even step in to help and possibly other ME states who have been in Iran's crosshairs in recent times.

It is the way it ends once and for all. These fucking fanatical Islamic madmen have to be stopped.

And, of course, there is nothing to confirm that this 'formers' estimate is anywhere close to being correct.

To be honest I can't understand why anyone converses with Bolty as he's either completely barking mad and/or the most obvious troll/wum I've ever seen on social media.

To boot he is also completely humourless in his supposedly 'witty' replies.

Anyway there are two points in general that I wish to make regarding the 'boots on the ground' scenario, the first being that warfare has changed dramatically in the last few years and whilst the former allied commander of NATO forces in Europe might well be correct in his estimation of circa 900,000 troops to take Iran, the use of drones war against them would now incur unacceptable casualties for the politicians and society in general of those countries providing the troops - it would in simple terms be seen to be a disaster military, politically and socially at 'home'.

The second being even if Iran was taken, it still could not be held as history has shown us with Iraq and Afghanistan - the 'never ending wars'.

14 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

To be honest I can't understand why anyone converses with Bolty as he's either completely barking mad and/or the most obvious troll/wum I've ever seen on social media.

To boot he is also completely humourless in his supposedly 'witty' replies.

Anyway there are two points in general that I wish to make regarding the 'boots on the ground' scenario, the first being that warfare has changed dramatically in the last few years and whilst the former allied commander of NATO forces in Europe might well be correct in his estimation of circa 900,000 troops to take Iran, the use of drones war against them would now incur unacceptable casualties for the politicians and society in general of those countries providing the troops - it would in simple terms be seen to be a disaster military, politically and socially at 'home'.

The second being even if Iran was taken, it still could not be held as history has shown us with Iraq and Afghanistan - the 'never ending wars'.

This is why it's highly unlikely boots on the ground will happen - probably the way it finishes, is when there is a change in US President, which means it'll still carry on as it is doing now, in a tit for tat fashion for a few more years yet. It's a good job that Irans military has been completely decimated (at least 10 times) otherwise there could be all sorts of problems......

9 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Not factoring in other entities. IDF, Kurds etc.

If it ever happens they will both be heavily involved. You never know, the Saudi's may even step in to help and possibly other ME states who have been in Iran's crosshairs in recent times.

It is the way it ends once and for all. These fucking fanatical Islamic madmen have to be stopped.

And, of course, there is nothing to confirm that this 'formers' estimate is anywhere close to being correct.

Yeah there's a possibility that the IDF might support. I'm not sure about the other gulf states though - even the Saudis. I've read other people talk about troop numbers and they're all fairly consistent in that it would need to be an enormous force. And it would leave the US vulnerable elsewhere (like the Pacific for example).

What we absolutely can't have is Iran being able to charge a toll and/or be able to shut down the SOH at will.

They would become a superpower overnight. Largely because they would have Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain by the bollocks, as they all use the SOH for exports - and they would be able to manipulate the global price of oil, making them massive players on the world stage. Russia and China would be rubbing their hands too.

Militarily Iran might be heavily curtailed in the short term. But they're actually in a much stronger position strategically than they've been for a long time.

Trump has been an absolute disaster for the west. Actually much worse than I imagines when he came into office for the second time.

11 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Yeah there's a possibility that the IDF might support. I'm not sure about the other gulf states though - even the Saudis. I've read other people talk about troop numbers and they're all fairly consistent in that it would need to be an enormous force. And it would leave the US vulnerable elsewhere (like the Pacific for example).

What we absolutely can't have is Iran being able to charge a toll and/or be able to shut down the SOH at will.

They would become a superpower overnight. Largely because they would have Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain by the bollocks, as they all use the SOH for exports - and they would be able to manipulate the global price of oil, making them massive players on the world stage. Russia and China would be rubbing their hands too.

Militarily Iran might be heavily curtailed in the short term. But they're actually in a much stronger position strategically than they've been for a long time.

Trump has been an absolute disaster for the west. Actually much worse than I imagines when he came into office for the second time.

It is far to late for that, that horse has long since bolted.

There is actually no reason not to believe that Iran would not do all that they've previously said in that they do not want to make a nuclear bomb and would agree to return to something very much like the Obama agreement which Trump ripped up (seemingly for no better reason that he hated Obama) and which more or less was recently agreed in the MoU.

I would suggest Saudi and the Gulf States will end up funding the $300 billion 'rebuild Iran' fund and pay the 'administration' charges Iran would levy for ships to pass through Hormuz,.

I'm not a Iranian apologist, clearly they suppress (and kill) their own people - and that isn't about to change, nor will their wish to wipe Israel off the map (although let us face it, Israel's behaviour in respect to Palestinians has long since been abhorrent, even prior to the massacre of a couple of years ago but the regime hasn't changed and won't anytime soon.

Trump (and Netanyahu) have simply made things multiple times worse with this needless war and which (in all but name) is already lost.

Russia is openly sending drones and satellite targeting of US bases information to Iran and China known to be sending them military equipment such as man-pads - and Trump is completely helpless to stop them.

The reality is there will be no ground war, Iran controls Hormuz and Trump doesn't know how to get himself out of the mess he created for himself (and the rest of the world)

27 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

It is far to late for that, that horse has long since bolted.

There is actually no reason not to believe that Iran would not do all that they've previously said in that they do not want to make a nuclear bomb and would agree to return to something very much like the Obama agreement which Trump ripped up (seemingly for no better reason that he hated Obama) and which more or less was recently agreed in the MoU.

I would suggest Saudi and the Gulf States will end up funding the $300 billion 'rebuild Iran' fund and pay the 'administration' charges Iran would levy for ships to pass through Hormuz,.

I'm not a Iranian apologist, clearly they suppress (and kill) their own people - and that isn't about to change, nor will their wish to wipe Israel off the map (although let us face it, Israel's behaviour in respect to Palestinians has long since been abhorrent, even prior to the massacre of a couple of years ago but the regime hasn't changed and won't anytime soon.

Trump (and Netanyahu) have simply made things multiple times worse with this needless war and which (in all but name) is already lost.

Russia is openly sending drones and satellite targeting of US bases information to Iran and China known to be sending them military equipment such as man-pads - and Trump is completely helpless to stop them.

The reality is there will be no ground war, Iran controls Hormuz and Trump doesn't know how to get himself out of the mess he created for himself (and the rest of the world)

Trump is a stain on the US.

The other day - I heard him asked whether he though Russia was supplying targeting information to Iran that is used to harm US troops.

His answer was that he didn't think so (they are), but that even if they were - it wasn't having much of an effect so he's not bothered.

This is days after 4 more US servicemen were killed.

He's absolutely pathetic. Imagine any world leader saying that? They'd be laughed at.

On 30/07/2026 at 12:11, Sluffy said:

The War is going well.

• Meanwhile petrol prices have shot up by 10p in the last two weeks around where I live, I imagine this isn't the end to it either.

UK petrol prices hit highest level since Iran war began - BBC News

22 hours ago, Sweep said:

This is why it's highly unlikely boots on the ground will happen - probably the way it finishes, is when there is a change in US President, which means it'll still carry on as it is doing now, in a tit for tat fashion for a few more years yet. It's a good job that Irans military has been completely decimated (at least 10 times) otherwise there could be all sorts of problems......

Not at your post but the fucking epistle writers inane bleatings.

22 hours ago, Sweep said:

This is why it's highly unlikely boots on the ground will happen - probably the way it finishes, is when there is a change in US President, which means it'll still carry on as it is doing now, in a tit for tat fashion for a few more years yet. It's a good job that Irans military has been completely decimated (at least 10 times) otherwise there could be all sorts of problems......

As some geezer on the radio pointed out, area-wise Iran is the size of the UK, France, Spain and Germany combined. That's a lot of boots...

….or a proper bombing blitz to persuade the secular majority that an uprising is their best option.

2 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Not at your post but the fucking epistle writers inane bleatings.

Ha, ha ha!

How old are you Bolty, 5 or 6 maybe?

This the sort of stuff children do...

Tell Sluffy this because I'm not speaking to him.

Pretends to put people on ignore yet still reads every word from everyone.

On 31/07/2026 at 11:18, Sluffy said:

To be honest I can't understand why anyone converses with Bolty as he's either completely barking mad and/or the most obvious troll/wum I've ever seen on social media.

To boot he is also completely humourless in his supposedly 'witty' replies.

He refuses to engage anyone in any form of debate and sticks to his unfailingly, unfunny, one liners telling everybody is wrong who doesn't share his extreme views.

We are on a forum Bolty not in a kindergarten.

16 minutes ago, green genie said:

….or a proper bombing blitz to persuade the secular majority that an uprising is their best option.

And they will take on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps tanks and machineguns with sticks and stones will they?

34 minutes ago, green genie said:

….or a proper bombing blitz to persuade the secular majority that an uprising is their best option.

Trump inferred that was part of the plan originally didn't he?

Edited Saturday at 15:495 days by Sweep

OSINTdefender

@sentdefender

2h

The commander of U.S. European Command has privately warned the Pentagon that he does not have enough naval forces to continue defending Israel against Iranian ballistic missile attacks and may soon have to prioritize defense of the U.S. homeland unless another Navy destroyer is assigned. The warning from Gen. Alexus Grynkewich underscores the growing strain the Iran war has placed on U.S. military resources. The Washington Post reports that near-daily operations have stretched the Navy's destroyer fleet, while previous reporting from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and Reuters has detailed mounting concerns over dwindling stocks of Patriot and other air defense interceptors needed to protect U.S. forces and allies. The Pentagon declined to comment on the correspondence, but officials told the Post the warning reflects the military's process for alerting senior leaders when operational risks begin to exceed available resources.

General warns he lacks sufficient forces to protect Israel amid Iran war - The Washington Post