War with...Iran?

[GloatingSwine]

Bringing up the Falklands is absurd. The USA under Reagan gave no support to the UK in 1982 when Argentina invaded.

You have to remember that Donald Trump is the king of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, who gets to say who owns which bit of the world.

I fully expect our plastic patriots to jump on board with this realignment of who owns the Falkland Islands and look forward to Zia Yusuf explaining why Las Malvinas have been Argentine territory all along on the next Question Time.

 

[Cthel]

Bringing up the Falklands is absurd. The USA under Reagan gave no support to the UK in 1982 when Argentina invaded.

Actually, the US offered quite a bit of support to the UK - there was even discussion of lending the Royal Navy a US carrier if the Argentinian's disabled HMS Ark Royal (similar to the RN lending HMS Victorious to the USN during WW2 after they lost 2/3rd of their Pacific carrier fleet)

 

[Cthel]

You have to remember that Donald Trump is the king of the United States, the most powerful country in the world, who gets to say who owns which bit of the world.

I fully expect our plastic patriots to jump on board with this realignment of who owns the Falkland Islands and look forward to Zia Yusuf explaining why Las Malvinas have been Argentine territory all along on the next Question Time.

It will be fun watching Nigel Farage try and spin why his "good friend" Donald Trump is talking about handing over land that British troops died for within living memory

 

[AverageDutchGuy]

Some in Washington think the US is NATO, with other members being at best adjuncts who dance to their beat.

Let's be honest, for a long time this was pretty much true, but importantly, that's how US international policy WANTED IT!! It didn't get to be that way just because the other countries in NATO were lazy, it's because they were actively encouraged by the US policy to go that route.

 

[Cthel]

Well, they did give us the Stinger, which we used for the first time in anger.

and the cutting-edge AIM-9L version of the Sidewinder, which had all-aspect capability (unlike previous IR-homing missiles) and contributed a lot to the effectiveness of the British Harrier fleet

 

[Zod]

But Milei, the current President of Argentina, is a favourite among parts of the Maga movement. Kind of like Orban.

“CHAINSAW!!”

$40 billlion bailout, for his failed policies.

 

[karolus]

Let's be honest, for a long time this was pretty much true, but importantly, that's how US international policy WANTED IT!! It didn't get to be that way just because the other countries in NATO were lazy, it's because they were actively encouraged by the US policy to go that route.

It’s a golden ticket the current administration and their backers don’t get—and will only realize in retrospect. By that time, much of the benefits that arrangement conferred will be pissed away, never to return.

That is the price to be paid by putting ideologues into positions of power. They never learn.

 

[dave99]

From a perspective outside the USA, the days of belief in "the US having an unstoppable military" ended decades ago. Vietnam, Afghanistan, the list goes on. This is just another example of how intelligent countries use soft power, something Trump has thrown out the window.

The military itself is as unstoppable as any force on the planet. Nobody can do step 1 better, which is go in and blow up all the shit. It's everything past step 1 that we suck at, peace, rebuilding, trying to pretend middle east cultures can be adapted to american democracy etc.

 

[Zod]

Actually, the US offered quite a bit of support to the UK - there was even discussion of lending the Royal Navy a US carrier if the Argentinian's disabled HMS Ark Royal (similar to the RN lending HMS Victorious to the USN during WW2 after they lost 2/3rd of their Pacific carrier fleet)

Eventually, yes, but Reagan could have nipped the whole thing in the bud at the beginning by telling Galtieri to get out.

 

[Anacher]

Sounds like woke cuck shit to me. —Sec'y Hegseth

I read that as "Sexy Hegseth"... and threw up in my mouth a little bit.

 

[timby]

I read that as "Sexy Hegseth"... and threw up in my mouth a little bit.

He's bringing Hegsexy back.

 

[FranzJoseph]

I read that as "Sexy Hegseth"... and threw up in my mouth a little bit.

You now owe me at least ten litres of mind bleach for bringing that oxymoron up in my mind...

 

[m0nckywrench]

The USA under Reagan gave no support to the UK in 1982 when Argentina invaded.

Covert and overt US support was considerable including fuel, Sidewinder missiles,supporting UN Resolution 502, logistics support at the shared base Wideawake Air Field on Ascension Island, etc.

Paste "US support UK Falklands war" into your search engine of choice. It's interesting stuff.

It's everything past step 1 that we suck at, peace, rebuilding, trying to pretend middle east cultures can be adapted to american democracy etc.

All those things rely on local initiative because they cannot be imposed by force. That's why it's inherently wrong to want to consider them at all. Americans are technically capable but breathtakingly socially clueless. That can never be different in a useful way.

Secular democracy (which has no cultural roots outside Europe) evangelists insist on its universality per their reflexive cultural imperialism, as if humanity were eager to become their colonizers. Theocratic fundamentalists win because they are true believers unwilling to share power. Iranian resistors cannot match fundamentalist dedication or ruthlessness at scale. This is too painful for many outsiders to accept, so they don't.

One "condition of Israeli/US operational victory" exists, the economic implosion and breakup of Iran. The US operational goal of destroying the high level Iranian military threat to Israel is attainable IF Iran disintegrates. There is no possible peaceful Iranian reset because fundamentalists ARE the Iranian nation. Fans of the protestors forget they're a broken minority which is why they continually lose. Only a breakup could free competing stakeholders to pursue self-determination no central theocracy would grant.

 

[chateauarusi]

I read that as "Sexy Hegseth"... and threw up in my mouth a little bit.

I apologize. I originally included an unflattering nickname before I remembered the official rules against doing so, and quickly edited to replace it with something intended to be neutral. It was far from my intention to fill your mind with images of Secretary Hegseth shirtless, oily, and gyrating sensually on a slowly rotating mechanical bull. I would never deliberately do such a thing. Please forgive me.

 

[VividVerism]

Denying a war powers resolution would be an extreme unforced error by the US. Like how we got here or not (emphasis on not) we're (and I speak, as a non-American, in a global sense.. since this affects everyone) in it now.

All denying a resolution would do is give Iran even more leverage, making the resulting deal ending the war worse for us all.

Strong disagree on that. Entering this war was actively harmful to US interests. Remaining in this war is actively harmful to US interests. Every day that goes by still fighting this war does more and more harm to US interests and the well-being of US residents.

It is clear by now there is no military way to accomplish our full set of goals, to the extent we had any goals other than "kill the supreme leader and blow shit up." We're not getting Iran to abandon the nuclear program. We're not getting them to abandon their missile programs. We're not getting them to stop supporting their militias across the region. If anything, we've strengthened their resolve in all these areas. The best we can hope for is a return to the status quo, and the course of action available to us that is most likely to succeed there is to admit defeat and unilaterally withdraw. Iran's goal in this conflict is to survive, and to get us to stop bombing them. Once that goal is achieved, they benefit from trade through the strait as much as everyone else. More now, since they've decided to start charging tolls. That part of the status quo is probably not coming back.

America's reputation is already broken beyond repair. We won't do any more damage to it by withdrawing. In fact, we'll do more damage to it by staying in indefinitely and throwing money and lives away at a clearly lost cause than we would by quitting.

If Congress, particularly if Democrats, approve continuing the war, all they will accomplish is to prove the war powers act is completely toothless. Presidents can stir up whatever trouble they want to, knowing that Congress will just roll over when the time comes for them to have a chance to assert their authority.

 

[Lt_Storm]

It was far from my intention to fill your mind with images of Secretary Hegseth ...

No. No. Stop. Have mercy upon our poor imagination and memories.

Your a horrible person and should feel bad. Now where did you put that brain bleach?

 

[m0nckywrench]

I guess the US really doesn't want to keep those European bases...

A great portion of their value is continuous US presence plus unit visits including many practice deployments both from CONUS and within NATO since WWII. Overlapping generations of US military and civilian personnel got intimate operational experience not otherwise obtainable. REFORGER was far from being just a show of force. US personnel are often as familiar with their long and short tour duty stations as their home towns.

That said, European NATO members should be delighted to rearm for collective defense. Suitably redundant European military hardware and logistic interdependence would mitigate damage from "social defector" remimes in member states nostalgic for the Warsaw Pact. Needing US support should be seen as an embarrassing social and military defect.

Additional treaty arrangements should be made to mitigate internal sabotage by untrustworthy members.

 

[TheColinous]

No. No. Stop. Have mercy upon our poor imagination and memories.

Your a horrible person and should feel bad. Now where did you put that brain bleach?

What? You have never seen, in your minds eye, a topless oiled up Secretary Hegseth gyrating around a dancing pole, dressed in too tight shiny black latex shorts, while Rihanna's "Umbrella" thumps from the speakers? Figures.

 

[Lt_Storm]

What? You have never seen, in your minds eye, a topless oiled up Secretary Hegseth gyrating around a dancing pole, dressed in too tight shiny black latex shorts, while Rihanna's "Umbrella" thumps from the speakers? Figures.

If I have, I have also managed to lobotomize the brain cells responsible for remembering it. Now, excuse me while I go pour a glass of brain bleach. I shall strive to replicate the feat.

 

[Lt_Storm]

Nope, I take that back, a few of the the brain cells responsible for remembering that video of Hegesth and RFK Jr. shirtless and oiled up doing pullups and other exercises seem to have managed to survive. Thankfully the memory is a bit hazy, but, sadly, it's still present.

Figured if I must suffer it, you should to. . Also, I need to go pickle a few brain cells again.

 

[fractl]

No. No. Stop. Have mercy upon our poor imagination and memories.

Your a horrible person and should feel bad. Now where did you put that brain bleach?

I keep mine right next to the ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.

 

[DarthSlack]

I'm pretty sure this thread now contravenes both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. And probably the Geneva Convention.

 

[m0nckywrench]

but importantly, that's how US international policy WANTED IT!!

That's zero excuse for educated adults to BELIEVE what governments say. (Trust is for "little people" who require simple constructs.) US policy conveyed a message clients chose to believe so they could disarm their nations under the guise of pacifism. The early Cold War like the current version had many Western Europeans who favored Russia and Communism in general.

Disarmament invites conquest yet was somehow seen as admirable rather than the abject surrender it truly is. Gutting NATO armed forces was an act of greed. The US did not encourage that informed adult choice.

 

[Stern]

Nope, I take that back, a few of the the brain cells responsible for remembering that video of Hegesth and RFK Jr. shirtless and oiled up doing pullups and other exercises seem to have managed to survive. Thankfully the memory is a bit hazy, but, sadly, it's still present.

When RFK Jr. became secretary of disease, he promised that he would come in liIIIKE A WRRREEEECKING BAAAALLL.

 

[Cthel]

That's zero excuse for educated adults to BELIEVE what governments say. (Trust is for "little people" who require simple constructs.) US policy conveyed a message clients chose to believe so they could disarm their nations under the guise of pacifism. The early Cold War like the current version had many Western Europeans who favored Russia and Communism in general.

Disarmament invites conquest yet was somehow seen as admirable rather than the abject surrender it truly is. Gutting NATO armed forces was an act of greed. The US did not encourage that informed adult choice.

Europe didn't disarm "in the early cold war", it disarmed after the end of the cold war, when the threat from the east collapsed. - at the end of the cold war, the Bundeswehr was nearly half a million strong versus the US Military's 2.25 million (normalised for relative populations, almost the same size), while France actually had a higher proportion of their population in the military than the USA.

Should Europe have responded to the resurrection of the Russian threat sooner? Absolutely.

 

[m0nckywrench]

it disarmed after the end of the cold war,

The Cold War remains in progress so that statement (which I've made before) was deliberate. Russia and Communist China remain enemy military and economic entities (no matter how eagerly the Epstein class enriched Beijing.)

The Warsaw Pact went away, not the permanent Russian enemy former Pact members (and recently Sweden and Finland) joined NATO to attempt to contain. The Russian threat was and remains permanent. It's regimes are its natural products because it is a diverse captive empire held together by military force.

Disarming instead of militarily evolving with an appreciation that only credible social, civil government and military preparedness for war deters present and future enemies was naive self-sabotage. Having higher proportions of French and German populations in their armed forces than the USA made perfect sense because the enemy was next door with no Atlantic ocean barrier to buy time.

Sustaining effective armed forces requires never disarming because a large, effective, talented and thriving military-industrial-corporate complex is a condition of national survival over time. Force size adjustment to preserve a capable cadre is different than the general abandonment of effective armed force.

 

[Shavano]

If Congress, particularly if Democrats, approve continuing the war, all they will accomplish is to prove the war powers act is completely toothless. Presidents can stir up whatever trouble they want to, knowing that Congress will just roll over when the time comes for them to have a chance to assert their authority.

It's not the War Powers Act that's toothless, it's Congress. The War Powers Act gives the President permission to start wars without a Declaration of War from Congress, and Congress gets to object after people have already been killed and vast amounts of money have already been spent and the national interest has already been thrown on the fire. If they didn't want that to happen, they shouldn't have passed that stupid law.

 

[m0nckywrench]

If Congress, particularly if Democrats, approve continuing the war, all they will accomplish is to prove the war powers act is completely toothless.

Their motivation is reality. The ever-insightful American public don't blame pols who start wars, they blame pols in charge when failed wars end. Ending a war means automatic stab-in-the-back narratives and lost votes.

The American public love wanking to war. It costs them nothing they can't ignore by changing the channel.

 

[Shavano]

Their motivation is reality. The ever-insightful American public don't blame pols who start wars, they blame pols in charge when failed wars end. Ending a war means automatic stab-in-the-back narratives and lost votes.

The American public love wanking to war. It costs them nothing they can't ignore by changing the channel.

This one costs them at the gas station and on their utility bill.

 

[Alexander]

The American public love wanking to war. It costs them nothing they can't ignore by changing the channel.

The last of the tankers out of the Middle East have reached their destinations and now excess crude inventories are being drawn down all around the world. By the end of May the only asian countries with remaining stockpiles will be Japan and China. Everyone else will be bidding on a market with the same demand but missing 20% of the supply.

So by June, Indonesia, South Korea, etc., are all bidding for the same barrel of oil that came out of the ground in Texas (for example) and the supply chain that ends at the local gas station in Ohio has to outbid them.

By July, US crude inventory will be drawn down to "operational minimum" (370-380 million barrels) and Trump will be forced to ban exports.

At this point Asian countries that are not China, along with the EU, Australia, etc., start implementing draconian policies intended to reduce demand: forced WFH policies, reduced numbers of flights, curfews, whatever you can think of that might reduce demand by approximately the same amount that COVID lockdowns did. Policies will be local, but the world overall is missing 20% of production and needs to reduce demand by the same amount.

All of this happens even if the Strait of Hormuz opens tomorrow. Anybody's guess what happens to the world economy after

 

[m0nckywrench]

This one costs them at the gas station and on their utility bill.

I nowhere accused them of logic and reason, and impact varies by location.

Note recent ICE systems aren't especially thirsty while insurance, property tax/registration and loan payments are high enough for petrol not to stand out much in favorable geographic locations. The 1970s oil embargo (also blowback against US support for Israel!) supercharged by US domestic price limits (preventing price increase to meet market demand) had far more severe impact...so far.

 

[Bardon]

Yes, the current administration has worked really hard to make "ITAR Free" almost as valuable a sticker on the marketing material as "Combat Proven".

So now you have Germany talking about domestic production of medium-range ballistic missiles (in conjunction with France), and students of history looking even more nervous...

Why would history students look nervous? Germany today is far from Germany of the 1930s and anyone who thinks they'll revert has never set foot in the country.

 

[Bardon]

The military itself is as unstoppable as any force on the planet. Nobody can do step 1 better, which is go in and blow up all the shit. It's everything past step 1 that we suck at, peace, rebuilding, trying to pretend middle east cultures can be adapted to american democracy etc.

So how's step 1 going in Iran? Has the USA completely destroyed their ability to fight back?

And given what's happening right now in the USA, can it really be called "american democracy" and would any other country want to emulate it?

 

[Technarch]

So how's step 1 going in Iran? Has the USA completely destroyed their ability to fight back?

America is good at winning set piece battles and that's it. Which is not nothing, but America is way less good at winning the kinds of wars adversaries actually fight, like the quagmire happening in Iran right now.

It's almost as if foreign governments look at the super expensive conventional military might of the U.S. and make other plans, which never fails to surprise the U.S. Seriously, America gets caught out by asymmetrical warfare every single fucking time, going back sixty years. Are we stupid? We might be stupid.

 

[Neill78]

America is good at winning set piece battles and that's it. Which is not nothing, but America is way less good at winning the kinds of wars adversaries actually fight, like the quagmire happening in Iran right now.

It's almost as if foreign governments look at the super expensive conventional military might of the U.S. and make other plans, which never fails to surprise the U.S. Seriously, America gets caught out by asymmetrical warfare every single fucking time, going back sixty years. Are we stupid? We might be stupid.

Nawww, don't say that about yourself eh. You're "special". And your mom thinks you're cool. Just, you know, maybe tone it down a bit? Sometimes it's hard to be your friend when you go off on these benders, y'know?

XXX OOO
Canada

 

[unregister]

This one costs them at the gas station and on their utility bill.

Already gonna cost more on a lot more than those few:
https://meincmagazine.com/civis/threads/war-with-iran.1511432/post-44370595

 

[unregister]

A former US to NATO (and Trump admin) official tells the Euros to shut it with criticisms over this war, if they can't be more servile like Rutte, or at least be "mellow" like Merz:
https://www.politico.eu/article/for...er-warns-huge-folly-criticizing-donald-trump/

 

[Yagisama]

America is good at winning set piece battles and that's it. Which is not nothing, but America is way less good at winning the kinds of wars adversaries actually fight, like the quagmire happening in Iran right now.

It's almost as if foreign governments look at the super expensive conventional military might of the U.S. and make other plans, which never fails to surprise the U.S. Seriously, America gets caught out by asymmetrical warfare every single fucking time, going back sixty years. Are we stupid? We might be stupid.

I read this article on politico last month and almost made a thread about here. It's about a novel and movie, "Sole Survivor" about the only member of a Navy SEAL team to survive a 2005 covert mission in Afghanistan. The movie makes it sound like the SEAL team was betrayed by goat herders they had spared but the truth is that there were so many failures on the military side. Still, the movie turns an operational disaster into a recruitment tool.

So the takeaway is that empathy got the Navy SEAL team killed and the warrior ethos doesn't care about some "rules of engagement." Add in all the other pro war movies and I'm not surprised that many of these recruits are genuinely surprised that they enemy would dare to fight back.


This Military Tragedy Became a Blockbuster Movie. Here’s What It Didn’t Tell You.

For decades, Baggett, his fellow SEALs and other veterans with direct knowledge of Operation Red Wings have mostly remained silent about what really happened on that ill-fated mission. In public, many rallied around Luttrell’s memoir, but in private, they agreed the book was full of exaggerations and other inaccuracies. They questioned whether government or military officials had tried to control the narrative. And they lamented how the book and movie versions of Lone Survivor had transformed one of Naval Special Warfare’s greatest disasters into a major recruitment tool, spawning a string of SEAL-related movies, podcasts and leadership seminars. “We morphed,” Baggett said, “from an operational unit into something more commercial.”

But what amazes me is that in other countries like China and Iran, those criticizing policy have to do it in subtle ways, but here, there have been a number of anti-war movies. But I've seen viewers who just watched for the "cool parts" ignoring the liberal hippies, etc (Full Metal Jacket for example). To this day, either willingly or unwillingly, so many ignore the fact that Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A." is actually a protest song.

Not to mention movies like Star Wars, where the rebels were modeled after the Vietcong. And all of Andor. Heck even the latest "Mission Impossible" had some prominent parts of the US government be the bad guys. But it seems like American viewers watch these movies as complete fiction, detached from reality.

 

[Welcome to Darwin]

I'm pretty sure this thread now contravenes both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. And probably the Geneva Convention.

Not sure Conde Nast is a signatory to the Geneva Convention.

 

[Welcome to Darwin]

America is good at winning set piece battles and that's it. Which is not nothing, but America is way less good at winning the kinds of wars adversaries actually fight, like the quagmire happening in Iran right now.

It's almost as if foreign governments look at the super expensive conventional military might of the U.S. and make other plans, which never fails to surprise the U.S. Seriously, America gets caught out by asymmetrical warfare every single fucking time, going back sixty years. Are we stupid? We might be stupid.

Asymmetric warfare: the only way to win is not to play.

At least not playing offense.