Comments by "T WE" (@TWE_2000) on "Cotton says "unprovoked attacks" from Iran "warrant a retaliatory military strike"" video.

  1. He's not calling for an Afghanistan style war he's calling for military retaliation like what Reagan did in the 1980s with operation Earnest Will and operation Praying Mantis, which were huge successes.
    2
  2. I like how you pretend that hostages being fed and Iran removing evidence of their crime is saving anyone but themselves.
    2
  3.  @eagerobserver6813  and given that their most advance fighter jet is a painted F-5 which was given to them by the U.S. in the 1970s, meanwhile the U.S. has the most powerful navy in the world, with the navy's airforce being larger than any other country's entire airforce, I'd say the U.S. would have no problem destroying Iran's navy a second time. And I am one of those men who'd be in harm's way and I'm confident in the U.S. capabilities to destroy the outdated, outnumbered, undertrained, outmatched navy of Iran a second time.
    1
  4. @outlawfly somebody has been watching too much Iranian propaganda. Let me explain all the problems with what your belief that Iran could win against the U.S 1: Iranian forces have a range problem. U.S. forces, particularly those on aircraft carriers, have a much greater operational range than Iranian forces. The longest-range Iranian coastal defense missile, the Ghader antiship cruise missile, has a range of 186 miles—less than half that of a F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The same goes for Iranian air power, where Iranian warplanes and their weapons are outranged by American defenses. Major U.S. warships such as aircraft carriers can stay well out of range of Iranian forces and operate with impunity. 2: Iran's 2nd problem is their firepower. Although Iran has scores of ships armed with antiship missiles, few if any have a warhead powerful enough to seriously damage an American carrier. The Chinese C-892 antishio cruise missile, from which Iranian antiship missiles are derived, has a warhead weighing just under four hundred pounds. During the Cold War, the Soviet Navy and Air Forces designed for the anticarrier role typically had a warhead size of 1,600 to 2,200 pounds. Most Soviet missiles designed for the anticarrier role, such as the AS-4 Kitchen, were optionally armed with nuclear warheads, which speaks volumes about how difficult the Soviets thought it would be to reliably sink a carrier. Fortunately, Iran does not have nuclear weapons. 3: this is all assuming Iran even gets the opportunity to use their weapons. Even if Iran were to somehow acquire the resources to sink a carrier, the United States could simply avoid it and choose another means of attack. The United States will never place an aircraft carrier with 5,500 American servicemen and servicewomen within range of an enemy force at risk unless there was little to no alternative—and the Pentagon has plenty of alternatives to a carrier’s firepower, including cruise missiles launched from warships and long-range strategic bombers. 4: And the U.S. has an overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces in the defense. U.S. aircraft carriers are typically escorted by one Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruiser and one or two Arleigh Burke–class guided missile destroyers, all of which have the Aegis combat system. These ships were specifically designed for protecting aircraft carriers against mass air and missile attacks. Combat air patrols flown by F/A-18E/F Super Hornets will be able to take out aircraft and warships at long ranges. Finally, Phalanx close-in Gatling guns, five-inch, twenty-five-millimeter and .50 caliber guns scattered throughout a carrier strike group can make short work of any drones, helicopters, or fast attack boats that somehow make it through the carrier’s wall of air power. 5: The overwhelming superiority of U.S. forces in the offense. Any campaign against Iran would almost certainly see the United States striking first, and striking hard against any and all Iranian ships and aircraft that are a threat to American forces. Naval bases, air bases, air defenses, IRIN and IRGCN ships at sea, port facilities, antiship missile batteries and bases would all come under attack from land- and carrier-based aircraft, long-distance bombers operating from bases such as Diego Garcia, and ships and submarines firing cruise missiles. Iranian naval forces would suffer heavy attrition from the strikes, which would be unrelenting until intelligence indicated they were no longer a threat. Iran’s naval forces might very well be unable to cobble together a meaningful counterattack force from the survivors of such a devastating campaign.
    1
  5.  Mike Smith  the fact that you think I'm Jewish or Israeli (which I'm not) shows just how much of a conspiracy theorist nutjob you are.
    1
  6. It amazes how you conspiracy theorist nuts try to blame everything on Israel, even when it had nothing to do with Israel and is about ran attacking ships to raise oil prices.
    1
  7. That's not in violation of any law on Cotton's part. If the fact that the money is from Russia is hidden from the person receiving it under the guise that its from the NRA, then he is not liable for any violations.
    1