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?
i just got finished reading his monday post about iran. at first I was laughing my ass off . "Im winning a the war BY ALOT" like lmao instead of the united states he says me and he calls it a war straight up. Was actually a rare based post by him after that tho going after the media "the enemies is confused because they get these same reports". Do we think he actually writes his own stuff? because it sure does not look like it gets vetted. considering how many misses he puts out tho it has to be him
Mahdi Mohammadi - an adviser to the Iranian parliament speaker - said the move by the US president is "certainly a ploy to buy time for a surprise strike". 3 western ships were attacked and seized in the last few hours . I would get on polymarket and bet on the ceasefire not holding much longer guys
We'll see but the 60 day Presidential War Powers Resolution expires on 5/1. So rather than just blocking the Dems the Reps will need to vote to basically declare war on Iran. They might just wash his hands of this for him.
And if Trump continues the conflict without a formal declaration, which governing body do you think is going to hold him accountable?
I would assume that Trump would state this is not a war as there are no troops on the ground and he has won. If there is a vote he will just ignore it .
Morgue would be better. His death will be good for America (and all of humanity), although it may be too late given the damage he has already caused.
Electing that monster will go down as the worst error the American electorate has ever made, and it’s not close.
If a person forgets for a moment about whether they support Trump or not, and just considers the current status of the standoff, I think most people would agree that Trump must be quite confused.
Iran has already had a large dose of the US war machine, and Iran has been set back considerably. Iran has also faced several ultimatums that have involved doing X by Y time or face the consequences, but they have ignored most of the deadlines and generally seem indifferent to the threats. They didn't even send a team to Pakistan for this round of talks. That is a pretty bold position to take when you are on the beatdown end of a mismatched war.
Iran either doesn't believe that an even more destructive bombing campaign is likely, or they simply don’t care and have decided that they will not make certain concessions, regardless of the consequences. In other words, the signal to the US is "do what you are going to do."
I think the leadership in Iran (whoever that is!!) believes that the US will eventually act on the ultimatums that Trump has outlined, at least to some extent. I don't think they are being stubborn because they believe the US wont attack again. I think they are being stubborn because they are prepared to take what comes, and that has to puzzle Trump
Did Trump anticipate that Iran would, considering the military mismatch, take a logical and rational path of conceding to demands by the US to ensure Iran’s survival?
And, now that this concession does not seem to be happening, what is Trump’s next move?
If you believe that you are fighting a holy war with paradise waiting at the other side, are you really concerned about ultimatums?
If you believe that you are fighting a holy war with paradise waiting at the other side, are you really concerned about ultimatums?
Yet, I get that there would be a much higher degree of resolve in Iran than you'd find in a secular state, but was that resolve considered by the US to be as high as it appears to be?
Iran either doesn't believe that an even more destructive bombing campaign is likely, or they simply don’t care and have decided that they will not make certain concessions, regardless of the consequences. In other words, the signal to the US is "do what you are going to do."
They probably figure that the US is running low on munitions and has inadequate resolve, that Trump's actions are unpopular with his own base and that he doesn't really have a clue what he's doing.
[....]
Did Trump anticipate that Iran would, considering the military mismatch, take a logical and rational path of conceding to demands by the US to ensure Iran’s survival?
And, now that this concession does not seem to be happening, what is Trump’s next move?
Going back to day 1, I think his strategy was pretty obvious: cut the head off and the body will wither. It's pretty clear from what he was saying and doing early on that the thought was the protesters, their president and their general army would topple the regime. Not inconceivable. But as with Putin in the Ukraine, there was no contingency plan for what to do if the initial volley failed.
Now it's basically turned into a freeroll for the regime. Short of a massive ground invasion, they really can't lose and they know it. And the only card Trump has left is blowing up Iran and killing millions of Iranians, which probably isn't really a live option. It's kind of like in poker when once you lose the lead, it really just comes down to cutting your losses.
They probably figure that the US is running low on munitions and has inadequate resolve, that Trump's actions are unpopular with his own base and that he doesn't really have a clue what he's doing.
This seems likely with the caveat that we don’t really know who is running Iran at the moment and how much power they actually possess. The new Supreme leader hasn’t actually made any public appearances and with information coming out of Iran being scarce we don’t have a very accurate picture.
Here is an estimate:
Uncertainty surrounding the strait is extremely bad for the GCC countries and China. We don’t have any visibility into Chinese Iranian talks but I’d guess China is not pleased with the current situation and the outlook for the future.
And it’s sounding like the rest of the ME won’t be satisfied with a deal unless it curtails Iran’s nuclear capabilities and ability to control the strait.
It's not just how much it costs. it's how much pain a country can take. USA not much I suspect
which is alot but its mostly money that would be spent anyway. for example this article claims 33% of vets in desert storm (a ground invasion) claimed lifetime disability trying to say that 33% of the 5500 people in this war would do the same. but it excluded what % of vets who don't go to a warzone claim lifetime disability which I happen to know is quite high and close to 33% already.
So I stopped reading it there heres a source that shows its pretty normal
NOV. 6, 2024 — The share of U.S. veterans with service-connected disabilities increased from 15% in 2008 to about 30% in 2022, according to a new report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.
It will cost a lot of money but that's more on maintaining your ridiculous military a lot of the expenses are already budgeted for. Remember missile and planes have a selve life. After the first few days the us stopped using its tomahawks and went with older supply's. If you go back to bombing them its going to be a lot of your expiring supply. It costs alot of money but probably 80%+ of it is paid for already and the anti semits like to leave that out when they discuss the cost of war and use the biggest number they can find. its like claiming gross revenue as your business income
which is alot but its mostly money that would be spent anyway. for example this article claims 33% of vets in desert storm (a ground invasion) claimed lifetime disability trying to say that 33% of the 5500 people in this war would do the same. but it excluded what % of vets who don't go to a warzone claim lifetime disability which I happen to know is quite high and close to 33
Great. We are back to the ripe avocado theory of war.
I mean its a huge talking point from your side. If you wanna agree that the us spends too much money on its military I would be on your side. but that's a completely different thing then we can't afford this war! its a drop in the bucket. your actually using the money you wasted on overpaying for your military for good for once imo even tho that's probably not the main intention
I mean its a huge talking point from your side. If you wanna agree that the us spends too much money on its military I would be on your side. but that's a completely different thing then we can't afford this war! its a drop in the bucket. your actually using the money you wasted on overpaying for your military for good for once imo
Who are you referring to as "my side"? And whoever you think my side is, why should their opinion influence my opinion?
