Iran..

Quote: fleaswatter

If you find yourself siding with drug cartels and terrorists just because Trump is fighting with and ending them, you MIGHT want to think about what it is you really stand for.

Bingo. Geno used his brilliant mind to come up with blah blah blah. There are celebrations going on amongst the Iranians who have escaped the murderous regime. Even countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and the UAE are not condemning the attack. I’m beginning to think it was the right move.

The point is valid. Probably 40% of America is against the attack SOLELY because Trump initiated it.

Quote: SOOPOO

Bingo. Geno used his brilliant mind to come up with blah blah blah. There are celebrations going on amongst the Iranians who have escaped the murderous regime. Even countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and the UAE are not condemning the attack. I’m beginning to think it was the right move.

The point is valid. Probably 40% of America is against the attack SOLELY because Trump initiated it.

Yes, also:

If you’re bombing a country
And the citizens of that country are celebrating
You’re doing the right thing

Quote: SOOPOO

Bingo. Geno used his brilliant mind to come up with blah blah blah. There are celebrations going on amongst the Iranians who have escaped the murderous regime. Even countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan and the UAE are not condemning the attack. I’m beginning to think it was the right move.

The point is valid. Probably 40% of America is against the attack SOLELY because Trump initiated it.

GCC countries are not going to openly condemn the U.S. It's the same as Venezuela, Venezuelians and Iranians that "fled" are probably thrilled the current regime is being disrupted. Just like those that remain loyal are upset. I mean if Trump was killed by a foreign power, there would be expat communities of Americans in foreign countries that would be thrilled. People that leave a country because they don't like a leader/regime, are of course going to be happy that party is gone regardless of the circumstances or groups involved.

That being said, it is highly dishonest to hide behind Trump. We have been going back and forth about a war with Iran my whole adult life, and well before. The same groups against it are always against it, and the same groups for it are always for it. You can go back and watch the 2008 and 2012 Presidential debates to get a taste of the mainstream talking points on both sides. This is not an issue that has anything to do with Trump personally. A lot of people don't like Trump, or things that he does, but Iranian policy does not fall in that category.

For example Ron Paul was against the proposed strike in 2008, 2012, and today. It didn't matter if Obama was President or Trump was President. People philosophically against invading Iran have pretty principled views.

Quote: Evenbob

There is no doubt in anybody's mind that if this was the 1930s that you would be in Germany sucking Hitler's cock and swallowing gleefully on a daily basis. You really are a useless prick, aren't you.

Don't you have a cat to fuck????

Quote: Gandler

GCC countries are not going to openly condemn the U.S. It's the same as Venezuela, Venezuelians and Iranians that "fled" are probably thrilled the current regime is being disrupted. Just like those that remain loyal are upset. I mean if Trump was killed by a foreign power, there would be expat communities of Americans in foreign countries that would be thrilled. People that leave a country because they don't like a leader/regime, are of course going to be happy that party is gone regardless of the circumstances or groups involved.

That being said, it is highly dishonest to hide behind Trump. We have been going back and forth about a war with Iran my whole adult life, and well before. The same groups against it are always against it, and the same groups for it are always for it. You can go back and watch the 2008 and 2012 Presidential debates to get a taste of the mainstream talking points on both sides. This is not an issue that has anything to do with Trump personally. A lot of people don't like Trump, or things that he does, but Iranian policy does not fall in that category.

For example Ron Paul was against the proposed strike in 2008, 2012, and today. It didn't matter if Obama was President or Trump was President. People philosophically against invading Iran have pretty principled views.

Wife’s best friend is Iranian. Has been in America since early adulthood. Still has strong ties and feelings with Iran. Hates the regime. Hates the way women are treated there. Hates the oppression of LGBT people. Hates the lack of basic freedoms there.
Will celebrate if a new government with modern norms comes out of this. But I’m not sure if she’d be for this attack. Her parents still live in Tehran. They must be happy enough in their lives there in that they could have emigrated to the USA or Canada if they wanted to. I’m sure they’d be for a regime change, but doubtful they’d feel USA/Israeli bombing is the proper way to do it.

The issue is always nuanced. Should WE be the police force of the world? If opposing tribes in the Sudan are slaughtering each other’s women and children, do WE intervene? If Gazans storm into Israel to rape and murder concert goers, do WE punish them? If China keeps purging their Muslim citizens, what do WE do? When Russia lays siege to Ukraine, how do WE respond?
I’m sure there are reasonable people whose answers range from ‘nothing’ to ‘everything’.

Quote: SOOPOO

Wife’s best friend is Iranian. Has been in America since early adulthood. Still has strong ties and feelings with Iran. Hates the regime. Hates the way women are treated there. Hates the oppression of LGBT people. Hates the lack of basic freedoms there.
Will celebrate if a new government with modern norms comes out of this. But I’m not sure if she’d be for this attack. Her parents still live in Tehran. They must be happy enough in their lives there in that they could have emigrated to the USA or Canada if they wanted to. I’m sure they’d be for a regime change, but doubtful they’d feel USA/Israeli bombing is the proper way to do it.

The issue is always nuanced. Should WE be the police force of the world? If opposing tribes in the Sudan are slaughtering each other’s women and children, do WE intervene? If Gazans storm into Israel to rape and murder concert goers, do WE punish them? If China keeps purging their Muslim citizens, what do WE do? When Russia lays siege to Ukraine, how do WE respond?
I’m sure there are reasonable people whose answers range from ‘nothing’ to ‘everything’.

That is my main problem with regime change, we always target weak countries. We will never will attempt regime change in a nuclear power. Is Iran more oppressive than North Korea? Almost certainly not, by any reasonable metric (gay rights may be the rare exception, only because it is not explicitly charged in North Korea, but social policies whimsically change there, so who knows...) But, people are afraid of what will happen if we start attacking North Korea.

Same with Russia, I would almost argue Russia is worse than Iran, they are certainly a bigger threat to us (Iran is no threat to us.) But, we will never attack them because they are a nuclear power.

We only target countries with no capabilities to strike back. Which while safer, does not do much for the humanitarian argument.

Iran specifically, throughout all of post WWII history, all of our involvement has always made things worse, I don't think that will change now.

Based on what Hegseth is saying in his speech, if Iranians don't take over their government, we will be sending in ground troops, because you can't finish a war from the air alone. Unless you drop a nuke.

Because he said America is finishing a war started long ago. What else could he mean?

Or it's just another TACO move by Trump.

Quote: rxwine

Based on what Hegseth is saying in his speech, if Iranians don't take over their government, we will be sending in ground troops, because you can't finish a war from the air alone. Unless you drop a nuke.

Because he said America is finishing a war started long ago. What else could he mean?

Or it's just another TACO move by Trump.

You absolutely can finish a war from the air. You can’t take over a country from the air alone, but enough devastation from an air only mission could be enough to force a ‘we give up’ from Iran. And then hopefully the regime change that most want. Ground troops in Iran would accomplish very little at a steep cost in American lives. That being said, there is nothing wrong at all with using the THREAT of ground troops to accomplish our goals.

Quote: SOOPOO

You absolutely can finish a war from the air. You can’t take over a country from the air alone, but enough devastation from an air only mission could be enough to force a ‘we give up’ from Iran. And then hopefully the regime change that most want. Ground troops in Iran would accomplish very little at a steep cost in American lives. That being said, there is nothing wrong at all with using the THREAT of ground troops to accomplish our goals.

Primary reason it won't finish from the air, is the US won't bomb everything like the Russians do. But then again, "Trump."

Shock and Awe didn't finish Iraq. Took 78 days of bombing for Serbia vs Kosovo to end. There may be something different in Iran as the lots of the population aren't on the side of the government, probably worse than Saddam had it for people against him in his own country.

Leadership could give up. But these are likely fanatics. If they're just cynical than they may capitulate.