He's not dumb. He's evil. He knows the consequences of ground troops in Iran because once upon a time, he was conscripted to go and fight in Vietnam, but he chickened out and "keng" his way out of the conscription. A fucking coward he is.I think he is too dumb to know what pressure it. Also, he'll deceive himself just like he's always trying to deceiving everyone else.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Iran Wars : 5,000 U.S. Marines on the way! Semper Fi!!!!
- Thread starter glockman
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 41,416
- Points
- 113
He's a coward, not fit to be the commander in chief. To him, lives mean nothing to him. As long as they're not his own family. I have zero respect for him and his cronies.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 41,416
- Points
- 113
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2018
- Messages
- 19,679
- Points
- 113
May the fearless Iranians finish off each and every mother fucker who lands on their country.
The USS Tripoli will be heavily guarded with early warning aircraft, fighter jets, and escort warships.
The Iranians are likely formulating a strategy to act upon the Tripoli's arrival, bolstered by their confidence from recent incidents involving two carriers.
One advantage Iran possesses is its hypersonic anti-ship missile, which has demonstrated effectiveness in evading U.S. anti-missile interception systems.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 45,342
- Points
- 113
Real life CS 2 start LiaoU.S. military chiefs have reportedly been granted permission to deploy a unit specializing in amphibious landings to the region.
David Gardner
Chief National Correspondent
Published Mar. 13 2026 2:00PM EDT
Petty Officer 1st Class Danian D/Chief Mass Communication Specialist Leonard Adams/U.S. Navy
As many as 5,000 additional U.S. Marines are heading for the Middle East in a possible escalation of Donald Trump’s war on Iran, according to a report.
Days after Trump appeared to suggest the conflict was “done,” the Pentagon has reportedly agreed to send additional warships and troops to bolster U.S. forces in the region.
U.S. administration officials have refused to rule out using boots on the ground to launch an all-out assault on the Iranian regime.
Hegseth has been nonstop complaining about coverage of his boss's war. Alex Wong/Getty Images
With the two-week air assault failing to bring down the regime and growing pressure from the president’s MAGA base for a quick win, the development suggests the administration is planning a change of strategy to take out Tehran.
Pentagon Pete Ignores Dead Troops to Melt Down at CNNOUT OF CONTROL
Sarah Ewall-Wice
The Wall Street Journal has claimed that the newly deployed troops include a Marine expeditionary unit with several warships and a potential landing force of 5,000 Marines.
It will be part of an “Amphibious Ready Group,” reports the Journal, based on interviews with three U.S. officials.
U.S. Marines with Lima Company, Battalion Landing Team 3/5, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, board a CH-53E Super Stallion with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 163 (Reinforced), 11th MEU, before an amphibious assault in the Pacific Ocean, March 2, 2026. Lance Cpl. Luke Rodriguez/U.S. Marine Corps
An ARG usually includes three ships—an amphibious assault ship, a dock landing ship, and a transport dock—along with helicopters and fighter jets such as the F-35B Lightning II.
The expeditionary unit provides an all-purpose Marine air-ground assault team for sea, air, and land combat.
One of the ARG’s chief uses, as explained in its official guide, is, under certain situations, to carry out “the rapid insertion of sustainable combat forces—“boots on the ground”—to underscore the nation’s commitment to an ally or to protect our National Security interests."
The Pentagon guide on the ARG and Marine Expeditionary Force. Dept of Defense
The USS Tripoli and its Marine detachment are said to be heading for the Middle East from their current location in Japan.
Trump’s War Is Burning Through Years' Worth of StockpilesTIMEBOMB
Ewan Palmer
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth reportedly agreed to the request from U.S. Central Command. The Pentagon has not commented on the Journal report.
The use of ground troops would raise the stakes in a war that has so far been fought in the air. It would also make it impossible for Trump to declare victory and move on, as he did with Venezuela after snatching the South American country’s leader, Nicolás Maduro.
Three crew members from the Thailand-flagged cargo ship Mayuree Naree are reported missing after being struck in the Strait of Hormuz. ROYAL THAI NAVY/Royal Thai Navy/Handout via REUTERS
Trump has been under pressure to act over the impasse in the Strait of Hormuz, the key world waterway for oil, which has been paralyzed by Iranian missile attacks.
Pentagon Pete Fumbles Claim Iran Leaders Hiding Like ‘Rats’BAD INTEL
Leigh Kimmins
The U.S. death toll is also mounting, with six more U.S. deaths confirmed on Friday after a KC-135 refueling aircraft crashed in western Iraq.
David Gardner
Chief National Correspondent
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2024
- Messages
- 7,850
- Points
- 113
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 41,416
- Points
- 113
I agree. I stopped listening to what he says, because, as you've said, he's a serial liar. Talk so much cock, day after day. Conned americans into voting for him. Now they need to fix the problem they have created by voting for him.
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2024
- Messages
- 2,907
- Points
- 83
You Sinkies dream and hallucinate too much
You think US soldiers love to sacrifice their lives for some lunatics hiding underground?
You think US soldiers love to sacrifice their lives for some lunatics hiding underground?
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2024
- Messages
- 2,907
- Points
- 83
Forget about a well armed resistance.
Just look at the ancient warriors of Afghanistan who defeated the US soldiers as though they were little cats.
How many of you guys dare to face the Pathans of Afghanistan?
Dumb Trump should just get the Sikhs to fight their wars
lol
Only the Sikhs have defeated the Pathans of Afghanistan.
Why?
Answer - whoeever looks fiercer will win
lol
During the initial NS years most of the top officers who led SAF were Sikhs.
Now there are no or very few Sikhs left in Singapore.
The conflict between Sikhs and Afghan Pathans (primarily the Durrani Empire) was a series of intense 18th and 19th-century wars for control of Punjab, resulting in a shift of power from Afghan to Sikh dominance. While Afghans initially held the upper hand, Sikh Misls and later the Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh pushed the Afghans back, capturing key cities like Lahore, Peshawar, and Kashmir, with noteworthy battles including the 1837 Battle of Jamrud.
Facebook +3
Key highlights of this historical rivalry:
The Sikh is the guardian of the Marches. He was originally invented to combat the Pathan. His religion was designed to be diametrically opposed to Mahommedanism. It was a shrewd act of policy. Fanaticism was met by fanaticism. Religious abhorrence was added to racial hatred. The Pathan invaders were rolled back to the mountains, and the Sikhs established themselves at Lahore and Peshawar. The strong contrast, and much of the animosity, remain to-day. The Sikh wears his hair down to his waist; the Pathan shaves his head. The Sikh drinks what he will; the Pathan is an abstainer. The Sikh is burnt after death; the Pathan would be thus deprived of Paradise. As a soldier the Pathan is a finer shot, a hardier man, a better marcher, especially on the hillside, and possibly an even more brilliant fighter. He relies more on instinct than education: war is in his blood; he is a born marksman, but he is dirty, lazy, and a spendthrift. In the Sikh the more civilised man appears. He does not shoot naturally, but he learns by patient practice. He is not so tough as the Pathan, but he delights in feats of strength - wrestling, running, or swimming. He is a much cleaner soldier and more careful. He is frequently parsimonious, and always thrifty, and does not generally feed himself as well as the Pathan.”
- Winston S. Churchill, The Story of the Malakand Field Force (1898), pp. 317-318.
Just look at the ancient warriors of Afghanistan who defeated the US soldiers as though they were little cats.
How many of you guys dare to face the Pathans of Afghanistan?
Dumb Trump should just get the Sikhs to fight their wars
lol
Only the Sikhs have defeated the Pathans of Afghanistan.
Why?
Answer - whoeever looks fiercer will win
lol
During the initial NS years most of the top officers who led SAF were Sikhs.
Now there are no or very few Sikhs left in Singapore.
The conflict between Sikhs and Afghan Pathans (primarily the Durrani Empire) was a series of intense 18th and 19th-century wars for control of Punjab, resulting in a shift of power from Afghan to Sikh dominance. While Afghans initially held the upper hand, Sikh Misls and later the Sikh Empire under Maharaja Ranjit Singh pushed the Afghans back, capturing key cities like Lahore, Peshawar, and Kashmir, with noteworthy battles including the 1837 Battle of Jamrud.
Facebook +3
Key highlights of this historical rivalry:
- The Struggle for Punjab (18th Century): The Sikh Misls used guerrilla warfare to fight against repeated invasions by Ahmad Shah Durrani. Despite major defeats, such as the 1762 "Vadda Ghalughara" (Great Massacre), the Sikhs regained strength and forced the Afghans out of Lahore, ultimately taking control of the region.
- Maharaja Ranjit Singh's Era (1799–1849): The Sikh Empire, under Ranjit Singh, expanded its frontiers, decisively defeating Afghan forces at the Battle of Attock (1813) and capturing Peshawar (1834), which was previously under Afghan influence.
- Battle of Jamrud (1837): A significant conflict where Afghan forces, led by Wazir Akbar Khan, clashed with the Sikh army. While the Sikh commander-in-chief, Hari Singh Nalwa, died in this battle, the Sikh garrison continued to hold the fort until reinforcements arrived, forcing the Afghans to retreat, according to Wikipedia. Other perspectives describe this engagement as a severe setback for the Sikhs, resulting in the death of their leader, notes Reddit.
- Battle of Saragarhi (1897): Though technically British Indian Army troops, the 21 soldiers of the 36th Sikhs who famously fought against over 10,000 Pashtun/Afghan tribesmen on September 12, 1897, exemplify the fierce military engagements between these two groups, notes Facebook and YouTube.
The Sikh is the guardian of the Marches. He was originally invented to combat the Pathan. His religion was designed to be diametrically opposed to Mahommedanism. It was a shrewd act of policy. Fanaticism was met by fanaticism. Religious abhorrence was added to racial hatred. The Pathan invaders were rolled back to the mountains, and the Sikhs established themselves at Lahore and Peshawar. The strong contrast, and much of the animosity, remain to-day. The Sikh wears his hair down to his waist; the Pathan shaves his head. The Sikh drinks what he will; the Pathan is an abstainer. The Sikh is burnt after death; the Pathan would be thus deprived of Paradise. As a soldier the Pathan is a finer shot, a hardier man, a better marcher, especially on the hillside, and possibly an even more brilliant fighter. He relies more on instinct than education: war is in his blood; he is a born marksman, but he is dirty, lazy, and a spendthrift. In the Sikh the more civilised man appears. He does not shoot naturally, but he learns by patient practice. He is not so tough as the Pathan, but he delights in feats of strength - wrestling, running, or swimming. He is a much cleaner soldier and more careful. He is frequently parsimonious, and always thrifty, and does not generally feed himself as well as the Pathan.”
- Winston S. Churchill, The Story of the Malakand Field Force (1898), pp. 317-318.
Similar threads
