421–430 of 486 posts
For the prospects of the freedom and subsequent prosperity of the oppressed Iranian people, peace in the Middle East, and safety of the commercial shipping routes, I fully approve my tax dollars to the matter.
Do you really believe killing 175 children[0] will bring peace and prosperity to the Iranian people? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/01/world/middleeast/girls-sc...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are being bigoted (“evil, evil people”) and if you believe what you say you can just answer my question directly. You won’t because it hasn’t happened.
No amount of proof will change your position, unfortunately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If the retaliation was preempted they wouldn't have retaliated, but they have. What the US actually did was provide justification for the retaliation against US bases in the region by joining in the opening salvo.
Most of the retaliation was preempted but they didn't get all the missile launch sites. They have blown up most by today though so you barely see any Iranian missiles coming out of the country now.
If they didn't do the opening salvo you would have seen much more death and destruction than we saw now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see how this is going to work without troops on the ground? The US had air supremacy, troops on the ground and a friendly regime in Afghanistan and Vietnam, and it did not work. (I am not sure if Iraq was a success, but I am sure that people were super tired of it, and did not want something like that again) What is just bombing going to do? They just rebuilt their weapons and you have to bomb them again in 1…
> I don't see how this is going to work without troops on the ground? Their goal is to kill the leaders until a sensible leader appears. They haven't tested that before, so we will see how it works out. Installing a puppet regime doesn't work well, but killing them until they put forward a reasonable regime might work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"terrorism" who bombed them first and repeatedly? and embargoed and sanctioned them before that? and tore up the nuclear deal? and before that installed the shah so we could get the oil?
> who bombed them first and repeatedly? and embargoed and sanctioned them before that? and tore up the nuclear deal? and before that installed the shah so we could get the oil? Not the people they are attacking. Intentionally attacking people unrelated to those you have a grievance with is terrorism, Iran has a terrorist regime. Russia doesn't do that, Ukraine doesn't do that, and so on.
Who are they attacking that isn't attacking them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see how this is going to work without troops on the ground? Their goal is to kill the leaders until a sensible leader appears. They haven't tested that before, so we will see how it works out. Installing a puppet regime doesn't work well, but killing them until they put forward a reasonable regime might work.
They killed Taliban leaders all the time. Did not work. And that is with troops on the ground and a friendly regime.
Wouldn't some of these costs be present either way? Without a war US would still have aircraft carriers, they would just be floating somewhere else. On the other side, it seems like this is not tracking interceptor costs (presumably due to it being classified), which have certainly been used extensively and are extremely expensive. For that matter i doubt we have a very clear picture of how much ordinance has been us…
A carrier operating at sea on the other side of the world is a ton more expensive than a carrier in port at home. The Ford in particular would probably be in port now if not for these back-to-back expensive adventures, they’ve been deployed for a remarkably long time now. (As for whether this reflects only those added costs, I don’t know)
Overtaxed crews can be a problem across the Navy’s fleet, beyond just the Ford. In April and May 2025, near the end of an eight-month deployment, the aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman lost several jet fighters while countering Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea. A Navy investigation blamed the high operational tempo of the mission.
One sailor on board the Ford told the Journal that many crew members are angry and upset, with some saying they want to leave the Navy at the end of the deployment.