Itching for a replay of that invasion that became a quagmire where thousands of US soldiers and mercenaries died, tens of thousands were wounded, and the conflict ended up killing around half a million people?
I'm not.
War with...Iran?
- Thread starter Technarch
- Start date
I'm not.
They don't attract much argument because nobody in is trying to justify them, unlike Gaza and the impending Iran war.
I think not because of either. They don't want to be implicated in disrupting half the world's oil supply and economy. There's a definite risk Iran can cut off all oil shipments in the Persian Gulf.
Yemen will probably throw in and make getting ships out of the Red Sea a problem too.
Yeah, I wouldn't want somebody else's war in my back yard either, or to make a possibly long term enemy out of my next door neighbor.
Super Hornets can operate as tankers too. Alongside standoff weapons, they may not need to directly overfly Tehran either. Move the Ford into the Arabian Sea, and you have a lot of potential strike aircraft in the area with no restrictions between them and Iran.
And, yet, he seems to be advocating for a war in Iran. So... You know, he's telling us we should do to Iran what we did in Afghanistan, something that wouldn't make sense if he thought Afghanistan were a great failure. So, no, sarcasm is not a particular good interpretation.
There are also concerns related to international law and being dragged into in yet another illegal war by the US:
https://archive.is/NjyUQ
Well, yeah, my point was that if you're going to point at numbers as your justification for an intervention, there are a number of other locations that appear at the top of the list. That is, using numbers just shows that your priorities and justifications lie elsewhere. Which is fair enough, as I said in the first part.
If we're in learning mode anyway...ever used a site with the top domain .io? It is popular with startups and some online games, but it is meant to be the top domain for "British Indian Ocean Territory", which is what Diego Garcia belongs to.
To be fair (not about my sarcasm take), as far as the success of an invasion, Iran is far, far more modern and civilized than Afghanistan has ever been. And there are a lot of younger people who absolutely fucking HATE the Islamic government. They see what the rest of the world has and want to throw off the cloak of this conservative religious regime (funny how conservative religion fucks up everything it touches, aka Abrahamic religions mostly). I am not really pro war with Iran, and definitely don't want to see anyone killed, especially our soldiers or civilians in Iran, but if the Islamic Republic disappears, it can only be a net positive in the end. And I am definitely not pro-Israel in this regard, I am tired of the US being made the big brother bully to slap around Israel's targets, but that doesn't mean that just because it benefits Israel doesn't mean we should not do it.
But lets be real and clear about this: Iran is NOT Afghanistan, not by a long shot. Afghanistan was rubble before we invaded and continues to be rubble. They were in the stone age when Alexander came through and when Britain came through, and modernity has never touched the place, their culture doesn't want to evolve or get better, regardless of what some individuals in that country might want. Iran on the other hand is completely different despite the predominate religion. Maybe, just maybe, it could have been different if we focused on that country instead of going nuts on Iraq, but its done.
Most Iranians are young, hip, and are no where near like the Khomeini regime, and they want change. No, this is not some talking points from some Mossad agent, this is from actual conversations with a lot of them over the last 20+ years on TeamSpeak (thank you Discord for your fuckup, now TS is more popular than ever).
I just hate that the bottom line is that the only reason we would be doing this is because of the cocksuckers who want it more: Evangelical nuts like Huckabee (I remember seeing how ecstatic he was when we bombed Iran, he was hoping for Armageddon...this is why I hate, absolutely hate conservative religions the world over, they want the world to end and fuck them for wanting or believing it), profiteers like the oil companies and the orangutan in the WH, and the Zionists.
I know I will get a few dislikes from this post, but I am not running a popularity contest
Perhaps you need to look no further than Top Gun: Maverick for the template. With this administration, it would be no surprise to see some type of operation along those lines.
I really don't see Saudi Arabia not giving permission, because their leadership hate the Khomeini regime as much as Israel from what I have seen. I guess possibly stemming from the Sunni/Sufi divide in Islamic outlook but also other factors. Saudi Arabian royal family are no fans of Iran and align more with Israel than them. Saudi Arabia war in Yemen, aka Iranian-backed Houthi, pretty much shows where they stand.
I thought Saudi Arabia had banned the use of their airspace for attacking Iran back in January? From Al Jazeera:
Can you elaborate for those who don't consume jingoistic fantasy content?
Iran is Shia, not Sufi, but yes that division is the root of it. In general though, nobody really likes Iran in that neighborhood.
Too much is made of that. For a thousand years, almost everybody in Europe was Roman Catholic. It didn't stop them fighting each other.
Think impossible Death Star trench run made possible by American technology and patriotism. It’s like AI psychosis, except that you believe your military technology makes you capable of the impossible.
It's worth remembering that although people may not like the current regime, they may still not welcome foreign invaders.
Saudi and Iran also started normalizing relations in 2023. I hope that might have something to do with refusing airspace.
Well yes, people fought each other for reasons other than religion. There have been wars for as long as we have recorded history, and they didn’t begin to be about religion until fairly recently (the Arab invasions of Persia and the ERE count, maybe, but I’m not sure that there is anything before that). I’m just saying that both Iran (Shia) and Saudi Arabia (Wahhabism) use their brand of Islam as one of the unifying factors of their state, so they are naturally inclined to be enemies. Saudi Arabia retreated from their endorsement of Wahhabism in 2022 and have been more inclined to seek peace after that, but it is still a recent thing. Remains to be seen if it will last.
For those who have not seen the movie: a significant plot point is that the enemy nation is still using some F-14 Tomcat, the planes that Maverick flew in the first movie and which are no longer used by the US. The only country that owns any active F-14 is Iran.
Lots of USAF traffic going through the stationary carrier in the middle of the North Atlantic, Lajes Airbase.
A few days ago it was 12 F-16s and a tanker.
And now a C-5
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI0qID90LQ
People in the comments were 'mirin the pilots' butter-smooth landing (considering the horrendous crosswind) until someone noticed it didn't have any markings (apart from the US flag on the tail).
Is the USAF so starved of C-5s they don't even paint the markings any more and rush them into service, or is this something else?
A few days ago it was 12 F-16s and a tanker.
And now a C-5
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfI0qID90LQ
People in the comments were 'mirin the pilots' butter-smooth landing (considering the horrendous crosswind) until someone noticed it didn't have any markings (apart from the US flag on the tail).
Is the USAF so starved of C-5s they don't even paint the markings any more and rush them into service, or is this something else?
F-16s carrying Angry Kittens.
https://www.twz.com/air/f-16s-headi...ped-with-angry-kitten-electronic-warfare-pods
This has been USAF policy for a couple years now to make it harder to track what aircraft are where.
Edit to add link:
https://theaviationist.com/2023/03/...rs-and-unit-markings-from-aircraft-for-opsec/
Say what? The conquest wars of Arabic Islam (622-750CE, creating an empire as large as Rome's in a quarter of the time) were all about religion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests
Ditto at least half of the Crusades.
Yes, that is the one I mentioned. I know that some scholars say that they weren’t really about religion and more about recognizing a weakness in Persia and ERE, hence the ”maybe”, but that one was at least partially about religion IMO. I just can’t find anything earlier.
It’s also been said that the Crusades were more about distracting from problems back at home, similar to what the Trump Administration is probably trying to accomplish with Iran conflict.
Hilarious name, and very cool read thank you! And good info to know about the livery too, I was wondering about that myself.
Ah. I wasn't familiar with the acronym ERE, apologies.
In that case we're not in disagreement;
I would however add the First Sacred War (595 BCE), as well as the Second & Third, (not the Fourth and Fifth which were more about territorial control), between Greek city-states for the control of the Oracle of Delphi and/or about treatment of pilgrims as religious wars.
Ditto the Hebrews' Maccabean Revolt (167 BCE), First Jewish-Roman War (66 CE) and the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (132 CE).
The Crusades is a fraught topic, because the history has been so distorted by the Catholic Church. The first one was an attack to take back all the coastal cities of ERE/Byzantium which they had lost after Manzikiert. As a fig leaf to the pope not wanting to entice people into a war, it was phrased as a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, so that was added at the end. Absolutely nobody thought anyone could take it. The fact that the people they were fighting were muslim was a detail - Christians in the area had co-existed with muslims for centuries at this point, and didn't really have a problem with that. The problem was that the enemy were Turks who would not honor the old agreements about respect for "peoples of the book".
All the Crusades after were for different reasons. The ones immediately after were gold rushes for plunder. After that came the ones that were as you say, distractions for a domestic audience.
ERE = Eastern Roman Empire. I am reluctant to use Byzantium for the empire before 750 or so, so ERE is a compromise. I know that ERE also doesn't make a lot of sense, but it is what it is. If I say Rome, people get even more confused.
Your second link is the same as the first. Note sure about the Greek examples, but the Jewish rebellions are indeed relevant. Typical that it is the Abrahamic religions that do it first...
Oh. My. A quick Google suggests that District Pizza Palace offers halal options. Hegseth gonna blow a fuse if he finds out.
Trump getting manipulated by Netanyahu into attacking Iran, do Israel's dirty work.
Making Americans targets for terrorists.
Making Americans targets for terrorists.
While I despise Trump, this isn't new.
The US has been Israel's patsy for as long as I can remember.
Military brass outlines risks ion war with Iraq, in particular low supplies of interceptor missiles and extended deployment for some naval assets which could lead to accidents.
WSJ article in Apple News:
https://apple.news/AE89CXFYkQza3C4VncfFp0g
WSJ article in Apple News:
https://apple.news/AE89CXFYkQza3C4VncfFp0g
I can confirm from personal experience (6 years Navy) that an over-extended deployment will cause accidents and other issues with the crew. Sewage problems? That's going to have a huge impact, life on ship is rough enough!
I'm sure it'll be okay, it's just carrier aviation, explosives, and nuclear power, what could go wrong?
Hasn't the USN already had a string of issues & collisions in the last few years at least partly due to undermanning / overstretching the crew?