USA Goes to War Against Iran
Time for a dedicated thread to the war.
How long will it last and what will be the probable outcome?
So, let's say Israel and us pound down iran and hezbollah. What exactly is achieved? Long lasting peace? There's now young generations of iranians, Lebanese, gazams etc. that have grown up getting bombed. They are growing up to love Israel?
This just doesn't seem like it does anything but prolong middle east hostilities for generations.
Probably Jiang Xuegin. He said Trump would win the election, Trump would start a war with Iran, the US would lose the war (that's an easy one if you look at any conflict post-WWII), and million-dollar interceptors can't compete with $50K drones.
Did you listen to it all and he gets into some conspiracy theories with the Illuminati and Free Masons and ???
So, let's say Israel and us pound down iran and hezbollah. What exactly is achieved? Long lasting peace? There's now young generations of iranians, Lebanese, gazams etc. that have grown up getting bombed. They are growing up to love Israel?
This just doesn't seem like it does anything but prolong middle east hostilities for generations.
Lebanon seems very willing to get rid of Hezbollah and make peace. There is no love for Israel, but everyone else is just sick of Shia's starting wars with Israel on behalf of Iran and decisively losing.
I know this goes against liberal orthodoxy; but the truth is Israel has ONLY made peace with its neighbors when they got exhausted from trying to destroy it and failing miserably and eventually sued for peace. Seems likely Lebanon is going to finally follow in Egypt and Jordan's footsteps on this path. With Syria possibly next (this will depend on whether Turkey wants them to or not).
Will probably be similar to Egypt and Jordan, where there is no love lost, but there is peace and some trade and normalization over time.
Again, there may not be any love lost, but it is unlikely any democratically elected Iranian govt (or even a secular authoritarian state) would make waging war against a country thousands of miles away such a priority. But I dont really see the path to getting to a Democratic Iran to find out.
Seems more likely Iran just turns into a hermit pariah satellite of China like North Korea. And there is massive flight, unless the regime is willing to shoot people who try to leave (like NK).
The WHO reported today: "As of now, for Iran we have verified 13 attacks on health care, resulting in 3 deaths."
But yeah, let's pretend that these highly sophisticated bombs that are "surgical" to within 5 meters are anything but surgical. Easier to swallow that boot polish that way.
The school was hit 3 separate times, so obviously the building was targeted. What I'm pushing back on is you essentially arguing that they knew it was a school when they drew a bull’s eye around the building.
I think the most likely explanation is bad intel, or more apt, a lack of it, in that no one could say it wasn't a school. For that to be false, the only thing I can imagine is that there was some nefarious plot to identify civilian targets in close proximity to legitimate military targets for the sake of plausible deniability.
My point is that there’s no point debating the facts, because either there wasn’t a secret plot to do that and therefore no evidence to find, or there was and it will be covered up.
So at the end of the day it’s your take on things versus not only mine, but every defense analyst in the world who thinks it was some kind of intelligence failure. And they’re the ones who understand in detail how targets are selected and vetted. And I’m sure they would also agree that their analysis is contingent on the aforementioned nefarious plot not being in play....something they have no way of disproving to your satisfaction, either.
Again, in direct negation of liberal orthodoxy; negotiating and peacefully trying to work things out has not brought peace between Israel and its neighbors. Breaking their will to keep trying to destroy Israel is the only thing that has worked to date.
- are you asking what tactical advantage there is to hit civilian targets when a country is trying to cripple and/or overtake another country? - are you asserting that bombs with a 5m accuracy rate are landing 500m off target due to what exactly? - Iran doesn't give a chit about its citizens - that is true. But what does that have to do with the military targeting civilians? I'
If it’s true that the building has been a school for 10 years then there should probably be an investigation into why there was such a massive intelligence failure. I wouldn’t hold your breath though.
so your claim of 25 hospitals is factually incorrect its health infastruce. could be a local seven eleven that sells condoms or what ever alchohol or drugs iranians do. talking about getting fact checked by your own facts
It doesn't really matter. That they're non-military means someone needs to explain why they got hit.
Before the major provocation of starting a war against them?
It does't really matter. That they're non-military means someone needs to explain why they got hit.
So if we shoot 5,000 missiles into Iran, you really think there should be 0% miss rate, with no collateral damage? And even a minuscule miss rate or collateral damage is evidence of malfeasance?
I am going to go out on a limb and guess understanding probability (or really being able to think critically at all) was not a strong suit of yours at the poker table.
So, let's say Israel and us pound down iran and hezbollah. What exactly is achieved? Long lasting peace? There's now young generations of iranians, Lebanese, gazams etc. that have grown up getting bombed. They are growing up to love Israel?
This just doesn't seem like it does anything but prolong middle east hostilities for generations.
That would be pretty incredible if their aim was lasting peace because there's goijg to be generations of hostilities no matter what and that should be obvious. You would assume that it would have been something along the lines of either preventing or at least pushing back nuclear risk but even that could have very likely been solved to a reasonable degree without any of this.
That would be pretty incredible if their aim was lasting peace because there's goijg to be generations of hostilities no matter what and that should be obvious. You would assume that it would have been something along the lines of either preventing or at least pushing back nuclear risk but even that could have very likely been solved to a reasonable degree without any of this.
There is? What evidence do you have to support this.
Obama gave the IRGC very favorable terms under the JCPOA, with the hopes they would embark on a rationale path of responsible nation building. Instead the IRGC violated most of the nuclear terms short of building an actual bomb (that we know of anyways, maybe they did), poured all their resources into brutalizing their own people, building up Arab paramilitaries, destabilizing much of the Middle East, creating several Civil Wars and humanitarian crises; and ultimately leading towards the last 3 years of hostilities with Israel and now the US.
I would say there is very little evidence anything meaningful would have been achieved without "any of this." Now I guess you can still argue letting sleeping dogs lie and kicking the can down the road for someone else to deal with the problem would have been preferable to "any of this." But there isn't really any evidence negotiating with the IRGC would have achieved anything more than a temporary detente at best.
I will say on the nuclear issue specifically, the regime seemed far more interested in threatening nuclear armament to extract concessions than actually building a bomb. Probably because no one, including the regime, really wants a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, if they can achieve their objectives without doing so.
That being said, the bigger issue is that the IRGC was very committed to destabilizing the region with Arab militias, causing very destructive Civil Wars, and starting wars with Israel. And this isn't even addressing their horrible human rights record agains their own people. And there is no indication any negotiation was ever going to fix this problem, as these actions are directly tied to their ideological foundations of perpetuating an Islamic Revolution.
So the real question seems to be whether trying to contain Iran's militias and wars with Israel, and deal with all the civil wars and instability it was causing, and destroying their capacity for nuclear blackmail in the short term would have been preferable to whatever new status quo this war is going to bring. Including possibly the IRGC going nuclear and starting a nuclear arms race.
And that I really dont know.
Trump and Netanyahu have decided that going down this path is a gamble worth taking. And I guess we shall see if they are right. Trump has been running pretty good on foreign policy, and Netanyahu very good on using fighting to achieve his own foreign policy objectives, which has emboldened them both; so maybe a little too much hubris everything would work out again.
So, let's say Israel and us pound down iran and hezbollah. What exactly is achieved? Long lasting peace? There's now young generations of iranians, Lebanese, gazams etc. that have grown up getting bombed. They are growing up to love Israel?
This just doesn't seem like it does anything but prolong middle east hostilities for generations.
And you think our primary goal in the ME is peace, based on the preponderance of evidence we've provided over the last few decades? Now that we're out of the kiddie pool...
I think this is top-level national security, not just for the US but for the entire West. Not that it's proof, but it just seems like opposition votes, either internally or among our allies coincidentally come up just short enough to stop it. Nor do I think the nuclear issue is the primary reason, but more of a justification; if it weren't that, we would have found something else. The same goes for merely getting rid of state-sponsored terrorism.
What makes the most sense to me is that we're preparing for war with China. That's not to say we're planning to do so, but preparing for it in case things head in that direction. We see it with Ukraine, too. On a few occasions they've reached deep enough into Russia for no real tactical advantage other than to show China that Russia can't stop the West from severing its supply of oil and gas to China.
So at the end of the day, I think the primary objective is basically to render Iran and its proxies unable to inflict much damage on either our assets or those of our allies in the ME. But due to the way they integrate their military among civilian populations, it would be a humanitarian nightmare if the regime decided to fight to the death. And to that end? I really can't think of two more deserving and convenient guys to scapegoat it on than Trump and Netanyahu to expunge the West's moral guilt.
It seems the White House's PR dept has been taken over by teenagers.
I think the current narratives surrounding "war with China" to be very disingenuous. We aren't wasting interceptors in the Middle East that would have been used in Taiwan. That is nonsense. We aren't fighting directly over Taiwan, or probably anywhere else in the Pacific.
The terms of engagement will be using geopolitical leverage to convince China the costs of belligerence (sanctions, embargo, cutting trade routes and energy supplies) are too high to invade Taiwan. Or deciding on our end it isn't worth it and letting them do so without a belligerent response.
Ok, so in Iran's column it looks like we have:
-a willingness to let their civilians die
-a willingness to attack countries that wanted to stay out of the war, bringing them into war against them
-a Chinese guy who is into Illuminati conspiracy theories that has a lot of confidence
-an assumption that Trump will behave like other US Presidents have post ww2
-an assumption that the only way the US has to defeat $50K drones is $1M interceptors
It's a bold strategy, let's see how it works out.
Cnn is reporting that Russia is supplying intel on us military locations to iran and China appears willing to supply iran with supplies, maybe weapons.
This is to kelhus .
Trump is pretty hated by a lot of people, but how do you think the American people would react if another country killed him, then kept bombing us? I seriously doubt many would be dancing in the streets. My guess is we would fight to the death as a nation.
So, how do you figure the lebanese and Iranians are going to just thank us for all we did for them when this is over?
I may end up another victor before this is all over.
Are we going to bomb sri Lanka now?
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) — Sri Lanka transferred more than 200 sailors from an Iranian naval vessel to shore Friday after it sought assistance while anchored outside the country’s waters, as tensions mounted in the Indian Ocean following the sinking of an Iranian warship by a U.S. submarine.
Are we going to bomb sri Lanka now?
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) — Sri Lanka transferred more than 200 sailors from an Iranian naval vessel to shore Friday after it sought assistance while anchored outside the country’s waters, as tensions mounted in the Indian Ocean following the sinking of an IraNah just 200% tariffs and cut all trade.
Are we going to bomb sri Lanka now?
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka (AP) — Sri Lanka transferred more than 200 sailors from an Iranian naval vessel to shore Friday after it sought assistance while anchored outside the country’s waters, as tensions mounted in the Indian Ocean following the sinking of an IraDid you read the article? Sri Lanka is taking custody of the ship indefinitely. If the ship is taken off the chessboard for the duration of the war seems like an ok outcome.
We can always destroy it later if/when Sri Lanka gives it back if it comes to that.
So if we shoot 5,000 missiles into Iran, you really think there should be 0% miss rate, with no collateral damage? And even a minuscule miss rate or collateral damage is evidence of malfeasance?
I am going to go out on a limb and guess understanding probability (or really being able to think critically at all) was not a strong suit of yours at the poker table.
Yeah, I could never quite get my head around the whole probability thing, and I only have so many fingers to count with. So maybe help me out here: if you're firing a missile into an area with a high civilian concentration, shouldn't you have zero doubt you're hitting a legitimate military target? You can flip the coin next.
