221–230 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
History does not say otherwise. The US however has a history of attacking Iran, including murdering 190 people on a civilian flight: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
*290 people. Mistook an Airbus A300 for an F-14. Maybe it's an easy mistake to make on radar back in the day?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because when you give someone the keys to the US military to some people, they lack the imagination to think beyond piracy and raiding. The war in its current inception is Hamas levels of planning. 1. Do a big attack 2. ???? 3. Profit! Depends of if the Iranian state is weak enough to collapse on its own, because I imagine a land assault in Venezuela or Iran would be a horrific mistake due to the terrain.
This strike isn't even close to Hamas-levels of planning. If anything Hamas got the US to make an unforced mistake in a game of checkers three moves out. According to the IDF's analysis of captured Hamas documents, step 2 was: "Get Israel to commit so many war crimes that we actually have the moral high ground. Then, regional partners will be forced to support us again, and our recruitment numbers go back up. Do ever…
Yes it is, its an attack without any surefire plans for later stages of the war. While they might fluke it, I don't see how just missiling a bunch of targets and murdering a nation's leader really achieves tangible change. Its like a bully taking a swing at someone in class, they can, so they do, but there's no thought about end outcomes. They might get lunch money, or get away with doing it, but they could also get detention, or be suspended or expelled.
The Hamas plan was something like:
1. we murder them
2. they retaliate horrifically
3. ???
4. the intifada goes global and lebanon and syria and maybe other arab nations all rise up and attack israel.
and that remains my issue with the US plan, there isn't one. Either have ground troops ready or militias in place and armed. Don't just start a war for a laugh and if you do; then take it seriously. We're talking about worst case outcomes for hundreds of thousands if not millions and the US is currently just treating with the seriousness of a casual hand of poker.
This doesn't include generational damage in sentiment: * Europe is in trouble because they can't get gas from Russia, Qatar stopped supplying gas * Japan is in trouble because Middle East supplies its 75% of oil, which is blocked now * Ukraine is in dilemma, because US giving every support to Israel, but not to Ukraine * Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain is asking questions, if US can't defend us and is moving all defensiv…
I think citizens in those countries recognize that allowing a repressive regime to exist simply for cheap oil costs is not necessarily a good solution, either.
That's what at least this european thinks of US, yeah. :)
Unhinged country with unhinged lunatic at the top, all this is. That's what americans should be thinking hard about, not about another new ways to rationalize his insanity and insane criminal acts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US has tons of interests in the region. This is just as much for america's benefit as it is for Israel's.
"Interests." I'd love to know what the price per barrel the U.S. has paid in the last few years when you factor in additional costs incurred due to involvement in Iraq and Syria.
USA is still playing at being world hegemon in competition with china and to a lesser extent russia. Maintaining alliances is a part of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Carriers aren't meant to hang out at port at home. The US has protected global sea lanes for 80 years.
Exactly: that protection isn't happening right now because those resources are doing something else. The money would be spent anyway, but doing something that is normally considered useful, and that useful thing is not happening to the same capacity as before. Therefore there is an opportunity cost to consider.
Iran's Islamic regime has provided material and monetary support to the Houthis.
Crippling their capabilities aligns with the goal of protecting global shipping.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Israel attacked Iran and dragged us into the war as per Rubio: https://x.com/Acyn/status/2028573242173366282
More accurately, Israel was going to attack Iran, and US intelligence stated that Iranian retaliation planning was to target US forces, along with most gulf nations and shipping lanes, so US preempted that retaliation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is an unrealistic goal. Likely the actual goal, as dictated by Israel and the Jewish Lobby in the US, is to destabilise Iran long term in a sort of Syria situation, so they cannot threaten Israeli hegemony in the region. Remember even a non Islamic Iran is still a threat to Israeli power if it remains unified and intact.
I don't agree with your perspective, but I do support Iran no longer being a threat to anyone else in the region, no matter what.
What would have happened if the US dis not get involved in WWII. We would probably not be here... Not everything is short sighted bean counters. Having major cities explode by nuclear devices in the US will surely cost more.
What would have happened if the US dis not get involved in WWII. We would probably not be here... Not everything is short sighted bean counters. Having major cities explode by nuclear devices in the US will surely cost more.