Kamala Harris was right.

[Some Schmo]

Heard that before too.

I would like for the MAGA brain trust to explain just how that would even work.

There will be no answer.

There's no evidence MAGAtes think anything through. It appears they can only manage to think in slogans and hate speech.

[Res Ipsa]

The oil would pay for it

Heard that before too.

And the Iranians will greet us as liberators!

[Gadianton]

The only thing I'm a little unsure of is why we haven't yet occupied Iran and taken all their oil. We should be taking Venezuela's oil

You're only a "little unsure"? Given that you don't appear to know much about the world, shouldn't you be far less certain about invading two large countries at the same time, occupying them, and then "taking their oil?"

The administration has already spent a lot of money striking Iran without much to show for it, but you want to occupy the entire country of 97 million people? Have you looked into how much the US could theoretically make in oil and gas profits? How far do you think that's actually going to go?

I also find it humorous that you make these suggestions in threads with at least two career military people. I doubt you'd be mentally capable of combat yourself and you never served at all. But you're ready to sit back and spend the blood of however many American soldiers to secure an objective that there is no way in hell you could financially justify. Just 'cuz you're angry inside.

[Limnor]

What’s mind-boggling is that anyone could stick to those ideas in spite of the lessons from Iraq.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

The only thing I'm a little unsure of is why we haven't yet occupied Iran and taken all their oil. We should be taking Venezuela's oil

You're only a "little unsure"? Given that you don't appear to know much about the world, shouldn't you be far less certain about invading two large countries at the same time, occupying them, and then "taking their oil?"

The administration has already spent a lot of money striking Iran without much to show for it, but you want to occupy the entire country of 97 million people? Have you looked into how much the US could theoretically make in oil and gas profits? How far do you think that's actually going to go?

I also find it humorous that you make these suggestions in threads with at least two career military people. I doubt you'd be mentally capable of combat yourself and you never served at all. But you're ready to sit back and spend the blood of however many American soldiers to secure an objective that there is no way in hell you could financially justify. Just 'cuz you're angry inside.

It’s even worse than that. He clearly doesn’t understand what “taking their oil” means, anyway. It could really go two ways if we “take their oil”:

1) Private companies assume control over oil production and then they sell it on the market. They pay taxes on it and the government uses the money ‘towards the national debt’ - assuming, of course, a fascist government would actually force them into paying taxes, which is iffy with billionaires hooking billionaires up.

2) The government nationalizes oil production by seizing the means of production and then selling it either as a fixed-price commodity or as a commodity in the free market where speculators determine the price. Either way, we become a SOCIALIST SOCIETY within Ajax’s fever dream.

And, yes, Ajax is a yellow-bellied carnival barker who thinks the world works like a Chuck Norris film. We’ve tried for years to get through his thick damned skull, but he’s determined to die as stupid as he was when he was posting on Stormfront.

[Philo Sofee]

Are they incapable of admitting that Democrats were right?

Of course. Trump would rob this idiot at gunpoint and the idiot would still vote him back into power.

[Philo Sofee]

She predicted he’d crash the economy. She was right. They promised, repeatedly, a 6% GDP. It came in yesterday at 1.6%. Couple that with real inflation ~50%, gas at $6/gallon, and the economic isolation being imposed on us by both foreign governments and Trump.

Well.

Ya still winning, brother?

Unlike Tucker Carlson and Candice Owens, I want the US to be the dominant force in the world. I don't want a world where China and Russia control entire spheres of influence nor where the Huthis can block the strait of Hormuz. The only thing I'm a little unsure of is why we haven't yet occupied Iran and taken all their oil. We should be taking Venezuela's oil as well to reimburse us for flooding our country with impoverished migrants. I believe that isolationism is bad for America and bad for the world.

Yet Trump all by hisself gave you just that. China and Russia control entire spheres of influence and the Strait of Hormuz is closed. I remind you it was open before Donald attacked Iran so stupidly with no plan. You really don't know why we don't occupy Iran yet? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Gawd how ignorant are you really Ajax? You really don't grasp the logistics of the problem of our little military?! HOW many soldiers could the USA put into Iran? Honestly. Can you find that out for yourself? I'll give you a hint. It is a mere drop compared to what we had available under Bush for Iraq and Afghanistan. We couldn't hold the mere island of Kharg we have so few ground troops. EVERY single logistic analysis made so far demonstrates as does history that you cannot, you literally CANNOT........C-A-N-N-O-T win a war by bombing alone. There is not a single war in modern history that has won that way. NOT ONE. Trump already lost the war with Iran ya dope. That is why we will never occupy Iran you ding-a-ling. Gawd man do some research for once in your adult life.

[Philo Sofee]

Ajax said of Iran:

The only thing I'm a little unsure of is why we haven't yet occupied Iran and taken all their oil.

Let me show you what I mean by research on this important topic. Your ignorance is no excuse, everyone has access to this, why you are unsure is because I suspect you simply don't want the truth, you simply are wishing Trump is right, when it is patently obvious he is not anywhere near being right. Trump is not powerful enough to defeat Iran in any manner whatsoever. He literally has no cards.

We know that 50,000 troops of Americans is on the corps-scale, which means multiple divisions plus support. That number is possibly enough for a limited Hormuz coastal occupation only if air/naval superiority is already achieved and logistics are secure. And we have nothing of the sort in any manner whatsoever. We will never get that because Iran can control their entire coast from over 200 miles INLAND with their ballistic missiles. They keep our world's strongest Navy at bey over 700 miles out into the Indian ocean. Their mere $20,000 drones refute the 10 BILLION dollar aircraft carriers and the F-15s. That is precisely what Trump cannot overcome and defeat, and hence, the Strait of Hormuz is firmly closed until Iran decides to open it, PERIOD.

Our numbers for U.S. available manpower amounts to when they are battle hardened and ready for war as of today is literally 5 times too small to be effective. We find that information here at the FY2026 (Fiscal Year 2026) DoD budget request. And that lists 454,000 Active Army, 172,300 Active Marine Corps, and 1,302,800 total active-duty personnel. With Guard and Reserve included. This gives us the total military end strength projected at 2,067,700. But we simply CANNOT send that many into Iran. Why?

Because battle ready is not the same as total active-duty strength. The public sources don't give an exact number immediately deployable for an Iran ground war. A safe cited answer is:

U.S. ground pool is about 626,300 active Army + Marines in Fiscal Year 2026 request. But the immediately usable combat force: not publicly knowable from open sources. And it is NOT 626,300. In order for the US to control the Iran coast along with the Strait of Hormuz is far above 15,000 troops. If we had 50,000 troops that would be the low end of plausible, not a comfortable number.

Iran has approximately 600,000 troops available to protect the Strait of Hormuz. But they aren't at the shoreline. Iran can also deploy the IRGC Navy, Coastal missile batteries which use their ballistic missiles. They also have anti-ship cruise missiles, drones (tens of thousands) as well as fast attack boats, mines, Island garrisons and rapid-reaction ground units.

The IRGC Navy is specifically tasked with Persian Gulf and Hormuz operations and reportedly controls nearly 2,000 km of coastline in that region. Suppose you wanted to place a soldier every 100 meters along 1,800 km of coast. You would need at minimum 18,000 soldiers for one line. 36,000 for two shifts, and further yet 54,000 for three shifts. That sounds better, but there's a catch here. That still leaves ports, islands, supply depots, roads, missile sites from the coast to at least 200 miles inland and no known location of them - will the soldiers march that far to destroy them without any attacks from the over million populated area?! There are also command centers to destroy throughout hundreds and hundreds of square miles! That is why modern militaries do not defend coastlines by standing shoulder-to-shoulder on beaches. The length of the coastline is not the issue either when planning. It is the difficult geography.

Iran's southern coast is backed by mountains and rugged terrain. Former U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has emphasized the immense difficulty of securing the region because mobile missile launchers can hide and relocate along that coastline and interior terrain. It's horrific enough to try and control a long 1,200-mile coastline. But the real problem is that it is connected to a country of roughly 92 million people and a military establishment of roughly 600,000 active personnel. And I have heard that over 13,000,000 Iranian civilians have also volunteered to fight if the "Great Satan" tries to take the coastline and Strait of Hormuz. That's 13,000,000 more guns against American soldiers. You didn't think they'd just throw rocks did you? What this would need to be is a major theater campaign with very large force over a long time. And HOW would they get reinforcements when they run out of ammo? Water? Food? etc.

Compared to your unsureness, I am more than sure America will never take and control the coast of Iran let alone the Strait of Hormuz. It is, to be trite, simply impossible. Besides, it is illegal with International Law to just invade any country and take their oil. That's war crimes you blinkerin' MORON. So now you applaud a President who would commit war crimes for others' resources? What kind of a human are you Ajax? Gawd listen to yourself you creep!

[Gunnar]

Ajax said of Iran:

The only thing I'm a little unsure of is why we haven't yet occupied Iran and taken all their oil.

Let me show you what I mean by research on this important topic. Your ignorance is no excuse, everyone has access to this, why you are unsure is because I suspect you simply don't want the truth, you simply are wishing Trump is right, when it is patently obvious he is not anywhere near being right. Trump is not powerful enough to defeat Iran in any manner whatsoever. He literally has no cards.

We know that 50,000 troops of Americans is on the corps-scale, which means multiple divisions plus support. That number is possibly enough for a limited Hormuz coastal occupation only if air/naval superiority is already achieved and logistics are secure. And we have nothing of the sort in any manner whatsoever. We will never get that because Iran can control their entire coast from over 200 miles INLAND with their ballistic missiles. They keep our world's strongest Navy at bey over 700 miles out into the Indian ocean. Their mere $20,000 drones refute the 10 BILLION dollar aircraft carriers and the F-15s. That is precisely what Trump cannot overcome and defeat, and hence, the Strait of Hormuz is firmly closed until Iran decides to open it, PERIOD.

Our numbers for U.S. available manpower amounts to when they are battle hardened and ready for war as of today is literally 5 times too small to be effective. We find that information here at the FY2026 (Fiscal Year 2026) DoD budget request. And that lists 454,000 Active Army, 172,300 Active Marine Corps, and 1,302,800 total active-duty personnel. With Guard and Reserve included. This gives us the total military end strength projected at 2,067,700. But we simply CANNOT send that many into Iran. Why?

Because battle ready is not the same as total active-duty strength. The public sources don't give an exact number immediately deployable for an Iran ground war. A safe cited answer is:

U.S. ground pool is about 626,300 active Army + Marines in Fiscal Year 2026 request. But the immediately usable combat force: not publicly knowable from open sources. And it is NOT 626,300. In order for the US to control the Iran coast along with the Strait of Hormuz is far above 15,000 troops. If we had 50,000 troops that would be the low end of plausible, not a comfortable number.

Iran has approximately 600,000 troops available to protect the Strait of Hormuz. But they aren't at the shoreline. Iran can also deploy the IRGC Navy, Coastal missile batteries which use their ballistic missiles. They also have anti-ship cruise missiles, drones (tens of thousands) as well as fast attack boats, mines, Island garrisons and rapid-reaction ground units.

The IRGC Navy is specifically tasked with Persian Gulf and Hormuz operations and reportedly controls nearly 2,000 km of coastline in that region. Suppose you wanted to place a soldier every 100 meters along 1,800 km of coast. You would need at minimum 18,000 soldiers for one line. 36,000 for two shifts, and further yet 54,000 for three shifts. That sounds better, but there's a catch here. That still leaves ports, islands, supply depots, roads, missile sites from the coast to at least 200 miles inland and no known location of them - will the soldiers march that far to destroy them without any attacks from the over million populated area?! There are also command centers to destroy throughout hundreds and hundreds of square miles! That is why modern militaries do not defend coastlines by standing shoulder-to-shoulder on beaches. The length of the coastline is not the issue either when planning. It is the difficult geography.

Iran's southern coast is backed by mountains and rugged terrain. Former U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has emphasized the immense difficulty of securing the region because mobile missile launchers can hide and relocate along that coastline and interior terrain. It's horrific enough to try and control a long 1,200-mile coastline. But the real problem is that it is connected to a country of roughly 92 million people and a military establishment of roughly 600,000 active personnel. And I have heard that over 13,000,000 Iranian civilians have also volunteered to fight if the "Great Satan" tries to take the coastline and Strait of Hormuz. That's 13,000,000 more guns against American soldiers. You didn't think they'd just throw rocks did you? What this would need to be is a major theater campaign with very large force over a long time. And HOW would they get reinforcements when they run out of ammo? Water? Food? etc.

Compared to your unsureness, I am more than sure America will never take and control the coast of Iran let alone the Strait of Hormuz. It is, to be trite, simply impossible. Besides, it is illegal with International Law to just invade any country and take their oil. That's war crimes you blinkerin' MORON. So now you applaud a President who would commit war crimes for others' resources? What kind of a human are you Ajax? Gawd listen to yourself you creep!

I swear! Some of Ajax's ignorant comments make flat-earthers look intelligent by comparison to him!

ETA: He is too obtuse to realize that nothing has strengthened both the determination to and eventual certainty of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons than the policies and actions of Trump and his administration. We and the world are less safe now than we would have been had the international pact with Iran negotiated by Obama not been scuttled by Trump.

Not only that, but Trump has unequivocally demonstrated that neither friends nor foes of our nation can safely rely on any treaties or promises made by us from one administration to the next.

[Chap]

Ajax said of Iran:

The only thing I'm a little unsure of is why we haven't yet occupied Iran and taken all their oil.

Let me show you what I mean by research on this important topic. Your ignorance is no excuse, everyone has access to this, why you are unsure is because I suspect you simply don't want the truth, you simply are wishing Trump is right, when it is patently obvious he is not anywhere near being right. Trump is not powerful enough to defeat Iran in any manner whatsoever. He literally has no cards.

We know that 50,000 troops of Americans is on the corps-scale, which means multiple divisions plus support. That number is possibly enough for a limited Hormuz coastal occupation only if air/naval superiority is already achieved and logistics are secure. And we have nothing of the sort in any manner whatsoever. We will never get that because Iran can control their entire coast from over 200 miles INLAND with their ballistic missiles. They keep our world's strongest Navy at bey over 700 miles out into the Indian ocean. Their mere $20,000 drones refute the 10 BILLION dollar aircraft carriers and the F-15s. That is precisely what Trump cannot overcome and defeat, and hence, the Strait of Hormuz is firmly closed until Iran decides to open it, PERIOD.

Our numbers for U.S. available manpower amounts to when they are battle hardened and ready for war as of today is literally 5 times too small to be effective. We find that information here at the FY2026 (Fiscal Year 2026) DoD budget request. And that lists 454,000 Active Army, 172,300 Active Marine Corps, and 1,302,800 total active-duty personnel. With Guard and Reserve included. This gives us the total military end strength projected at 2,067,700. But we simply CANNOT send that many into Iran. Why?

Because battle ready is not the same as total active-duty strength. The public sources don't give an exact number immediately deployable for an Iran ground war. A safe cited answer is:

U.S. ground pool is about 626,300 active Army + Marines in Fiscal Year 2026 request. But the immediately usable combat force: not publicly knowable from open sources. And it is NOT 626,300. In order for the US to control the Iran coast along with the Strait of Hormuz is far above 15,000 troops. If we had 50,000 troops that would be the low end of plausible, not a comfortable number.

Iran has approximately 600,000 troops available to protect the Strait of Hormuz. But they aren't at the shoreline. Iran can also deploy the IRGC Navy, Coastal missile batteries which use their ballistic missiles. They also have anti-ship cruise missiles, drones (tens of thousands) as well as fast attack boats, mines, Island garrisons and rapid-reaction ground units.

The IRGC Navy is specifically tasked with Persian Gulf and Hormuz operations and reportedly controls nearly 2,000 km of coastline in that region. Suppose you wanted to place a soldier every 100 meters along 1,800 km of coast. You would need at minimum 18,000 soldiers for one line. 36,000 for two shifts, and further yet 54,000 for three shifts. That sounds better, but there's a catch here. That still leaves ports, islands, supply depots, roads, missile sites from the coast to at least 200 miles inland and no known location of them - will the soldiers march that far to destroy them without any attacks from the over million populated area?! There are also command centers to destroy throughout hundreds and hundreds of square miles! That is why modern militaries do not defend coastlines by standing shoulder-to-shoulder on beaches. The length of the coastline is not the issue either when planning. It is the difficult geography.

Iran's southern coast is backed by mountains and rugged terrain. Former U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis has emphasized the immense difficulty of securing the region because mobile missile launchers can hide and relocate along that coastline and interior terrain. It's horrific enough to try and control a long 1,200-mile coastline. But the real problem is that it is connected to a country of roughly 92 million people and a military establishment of roughly 600,000 active personnel. And I have heard that over 13,000,000 Iranian civilians have also volunteered to fight if the "Great Satan" tries to take the coastline and Strait of Hormuz. That's 13,000,000 more guns against American soldiers. You didn't think they'd just throw rocks did you? What this would need to be is a major theater campaign with very large force over a long time. And HOW would they get reinforcements when they run out of ammo? Water? Food? etc.

Compared to your unsureness, I am more than sure America will never take and control the coast of Iran let alone the Strait of Hormuz. It is, to be trite, simply impossible. Besides, it is illegal with International Law to just invade any country and take their oil. That's war crimes you blinkerin' MORON. So now you applaud a President who would commit war crimes for others' resources? What kind of a human are you Ajax? Gawd listen to yourself you creep!

Thank you for doing the job of assembling this information. I am glad that one of the US-based posters on this board has done the hard yards of writing it all out so clearly. You said:

I'm a little unsure of is why we haven't yet occupied Iran and taken all their oil

Ajax - are you now quite clear about the facts here? Do you agree that the short answer to your implied question is "Because the US simply does not have the military capacity to do that?"

And a second question: given that Trump knows all those facts (I mean, he is Commander in Chief), do you think he is justified in claiming that the US has basically won this war?

If you can answer those questions directly, you will have my respect, even if I don't agree with you. But if you don't, you will show yourself to be no more than a troll.