|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 03 2026 00:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 00:41 Billyboy wrote: the people are not mad about them being bombed. Really? Has anyone actually asked them?
The cheering would indicate that they are happy. That they tried to over throw them with no weapons vs a heavily armed government forces says they really really really want them gone.
But go ahead and talk to some Iranians near you. There are a lot of refugees pretty much all over, shouldn’t be too hard.
Also maybe bold the part you want to ask about or spoiler the rest. Removing all the context is not something appreciated and you of course would feel the same.
|
United States43627 Posts
On March 03 2026 00:41 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2026 14:50 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 02 2026 06:42 Manit0u wrote:On March 02 2026 06:29 ZeroByte13 wrote:On March 02 2026 05:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Sorry but Trump and Netanyahu don't give a fuck about the people. The problem here is that nobody does.  At least enough for it to actually matter. Government of Iran killed ~30k of their own people in a month or so - which is probably more than USA's and Israel's strikes will have killed in total when it ends (talking about civilians). Iranians (in Iran) are fooked just like Palestinians are. Iranians were screwed ever since CIA removed their last democratically elected leader (who was pro-west BTW) to put a dictator in place, which they did on behalf of British Petroleum who got greedy and didn't want to take a fair deal Iran was offering them. This. I don't think people realize how galvanizing these strikes are going to be for the existing regime. The west might not remember, or care, about the history of their interference in Iran, but the Iranians do. Even the current regime is in some sense, the consequences of the actions of the US. After Operation Ajax, the Pahlavi regime was deeply unpopular (and had been since before the 1952 Iranian uprising), and the Iranians certainly knew it he was put there by CIA action. Another popular uprising was inevitable, as Pahlavi was never popular enough to take back the throne without the US literally putting him on it. The Islamists was just one of MANY factions(which included basically everyone) that wanted to topple the Pahlavi regime, which was widely seen as (and frankly was) illegitimate. They just happened to be the first and best positioned to turn on all their allies and purge them after the revolution. So as much as people hate the current regime and the IRGC, they very much know how much they have been fucked around with by the US, and even consider the regime at least partially the fault of the US. The West (mostly the UK and the US) might not accept this reasoning for their blame in this, but I assure you the Iranians definitely lay the blame at their feet. I'm sure the current regime has been running the narrative of constant US interference so the Iranians never forgot. So between the existing theocracy and the US, the Iranians, even those already opposed to the regime are definitely going to hate the US more. They think you are responsible for their current situation to begin with. You toppled the much more popular and much more stable (and democratic) government to begin with, and this regime was the result. The current regime was just the botched result of 'fixing' the problem of the US putting Mohammad Reza Pahlavi back in charge. If they ever had any intention of helping overthrow the existing regime, this is not the way to do it. Further US interference in Iranian politics was always just going to make the US their common enemy again. It appears much more likely for this to galvanize the Arab world against the Iranians than what you are speaking of. This is not a popular government, the people are not mad about them being bombed.
Persia isn't part of the Arab world FYI. Arabs vs Persians for hegemony within Islam is a very old conflict.
|
Oath of Enlistment
Oath of Enlistment
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oath of Commissioned Officers I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. (Title 5 U.S. Code 3331, an individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services)
I mean.. an comissioned (army) officer is very likely also a soldier who pledged the first part before.. but I like the idea that the oath IS different.. and also 60 years ago somebody thought it's good to exclude POTUS.
|
On March 03 2026 01:21 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 00:41 Billyboy wrote:On March 02 2026 14:50 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:On March 02 2026 06:42 Manit0u wrote:On March 02 2026 06:29 ZeroByte13 wrote:On March 02 2026 05:52 Gorsameth wrote:
Sorry but Trump and Netanyahu don't give a fuck about the people. The problem here is that nobody does. At least enough for it to actually matter. Government of Iran killed ~30k of their own people in a month or so - which is probably more than USA's and Israel's strikes will have killed in total when it ends (talking about civilians). Iranians (in Iran) are fooked just like Palestinians are. Iranians were screwed ever since CIA removed their last democratically elected leader (who was pro-west BTW) to put a dictator in place, which they did on behalf of British Petroleum who got greedy and didn't want to take a fair deal Iran was offering them. This. I don't think people realize how galvanizing these strikes are going to be for the existing regime. The west might not remember, or care, about the history of their interference in Iran, but the Iranians do. Even the current regime is in some sense, the consequences of the actions of the US. After Operation Ajax, the Pahlavi regime was deeply unpopular (and had been since before the 1952 Iranian uprising), and the Iranians certainly knew it he was put there by CIA action. Another popular uprising was inevitable, as Pahlavi was never popular enough to take back the throne without the US literally putting him on it. The Islamists was just one of MANY factions(which included basically everyone) that wanted to topple the Pahlavi regime, which was widely seen as (and frankly was) illegitimate. They just happened to be the first and best positioned to turn on all their allies and purge them after the revolution. So as much as people hate the current regime and the IRGC, they very much know how much they have been fucked around with by the US, and even consider the regime at least partially the fault of the US. The West (mostly the UK and the US) might not accept this reasoning for their blame in this, but I assure you the Iranians definitely lay the blame at their feet. I'm sure the current regime has been running the narrative of constant US interference so the Iranians never forgot. So between the existing theocracy and the US, the Iranians, even those already opposed to the regime are definitely going to hate the US more. They think you are responsible for their current situation to begin with. You toppled the much more popular and much more stable (and democratic) government to begin with, and this regime was the result. The current regime was just the botched result of 'fixing' the problem of the US putting Mohammad Reza Pahlavi back in charge. If they ever had any intention of helping overthrow the existing regime, this is not the way to do it. Further US interference in Iranian politics was always just going to make the US their common enemy again. It appears much more likely for this to galvanize the Arab world against the Iranians than what you are speaking of. This is not a popular government, the people are not mad about them being bombed. Persia isn't part of the Arab world FYI. Arabs vs Persians for hegemony within Islam is a very old conflict.
That’s good additional information, that I would have missed. Perhaps just another reason why Iran has been so against Israel normalizing relations and why their proxies seem to have absolutely no care to what happens to the locals.
|
Northern Ireland26304 Posts
On March 03 2026 00:39 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2026 07:24 ChristianS wrote:On March 02 2026 06:12 Billyboy wrote:On March 02 2026 06:00 ChristianS wrote:On March 02 2026 04:30 Billyboy wrote:On March 02 2026 03:57 ChristianS wrote:On March 02 2026 02:45 Billyboy wrote:On March 01 2026 09:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 09:02 Ze'ev wrote:
Just keep kill every damn political and military leader until the regime collapses for lack of authority and organizational capacity. Whack a mole. Theoretically this works, right? Your issue is with the government, not the people, so with smart enough targeting you should be able to force surrender without invading, right? Trouble is, if you think about everybody in a country and rank them in descending order of how much their death would contribute to regime change, and then rank them in descending order of how much ability/resources they have to avoid being hit by foreign bombs, you’re likely to find the two lists look pretty similar. Blowing up schools and hospitals is a lot easier than blowing up command and control points or secret bunkers. Occasionally you get lucky and take out a high-ranking general or politician but modern states are extraordinarily resilient to having a handful of leading officials evaporate here or there. And as long as your goal is regime change, no matter who you kill, whoever takes their place is not incentivized to give you what you want. We first started bragging about “smart bombs” in the 90s, said they were gonna revolutionize our ability to do targeted bombings. Then we spent the rest of the decade bombing Iraq periodically. That was pretty effective at, for instance, keeping large sections of the country without power indefinitely, but never threatened to approach regime change. Only invading did that. I hesitate to focus exclusively on the efficacy criticism here – we should always keep in mind the massive humanitarian costs of civilian bombings that make them immoral. That would be true even if they *were* somewhat effective at achieving military objectives. But I think it’s also worth emphasizing the pointlessness of it. I agree on much of your analysis on this topic. But one factor you tend to be drastically underestimating, or even missing is how much the supreme leader and IGRC are hated. It was only a few weeks ago that there was massive protests against them and 10000 ish civilians died at their hands. There is like 95% (maybe 99%) happy that all those high ups died. If a bunch of civilians start dying in the conflict that could change. But so far it looks like the Americans and Israelis are valueing Iranian life a lot more than the IGRC ever has. That’s fine, I have no expert knowledge of Iranian public opinion but I’m sure you’re right ( except your last sentence, that’s silly). But I don’t think it’s hard to understand why getting massacred by your own government doesn’t become any less shitty if you’re also getting bombed by Americans. Iranians have had a pretty rough time for the last century, generally either at the hand of their own government or (directly or indirectly) at the hand of Americans. In the most horrific moments in their recent history, no positive outcome was possible because the Americans wouldn’t allow it. I sincerely hope they find a more humane system in my lifetime but American bombs are an impediment to that outcome, not an assist. Sadly it is true, not because the US and Israel care so much, but because of how awful the Iranian gov is. You are vastly under estimating how many civilians the Iranian kills, tortures, locks away for any number of "crimes". There is a reason so many refugees were cheering about this. Your last sentence may be true, or may not be. I certainly do not know. But it is a ignorant take to think you with such little knowledge know so much more than Iranian refugees. At some point being a little more thoughtful than America and Israel are always the bad guys is useful. Especially when there are plenty of bad guys in the world. It is not hard to look up how awful this regime is, and how awful the regimes it has supported externally are. I'm sure you can find plenty of sources that you trust that can go into detail. I also think the 30000 people that died protesting would have loved these airstikes to have happened earlier, when promised. Every Iranian civilian death is a tragedy, every IGRC member, and political member dead is a victory. + Show Spoiler +On March 02 2026 03:33 Yurie wrote:
How does the city vs countryside split in Iran look like? Or the educated vs the uneducated? We know educated city people hate the regime. Does the same apply to the farmers etc? They are 75% urban. The popularity is hard to determine in the sense they don't do polling because if you said anything not extremely positive you be put in jail or killed. But the massive protests where they knew a bunch of people were going to get gunned down a disappeared suggests extreme unpopularity. If you trust those who have left, the only ones who support the government are those in it and directly benefiting which is a super small percentage. No, it’s silly because currently the Americans and Israelis value Iranian lives at 0. Under ordinary circumstances they would care a *little* about Iranian lives because death counts create international outcry, but the current Americans and Israelis have made very clear they don’t give a shit about that, maybe even consider it a badge of honor. Bombs are expensive, so they’re not going out of their way to kill every civilian they can, but they do not value their lives. Meanwhile the Iranian government, like any totalitarian government, views its people as a resource to be harnessed and controlled. That means they’re prepared to expend considerable resources to police, surveil, terrorize, imprison, or whatever else they think will keep people productive and compliant. To read that situation as “the Americans and Israelis value their lives more” is silly; the Iranian government views them as “our people” (emphasis on the possessive) while the bombers assign them no value or importance of any kind. Agreed that “the Americans and Israelis are always the bad guys” is a framing with limited utility. But try to take it one step further and recognize that “good guys and bad guys” in general is only slightly less limited. It leads to morally deficient sentiments like: Every Iranian civilian death is a tragedy, every IGRC member, and political member dead is a victory. I say this not because I doubt the Iranian government are “bad guys” but since you seem convinced I do, I’ll speak by analogy to a faction everybody should agree was evil (wouldn’t that be nice), the Nazis. I think defeat of the Nazi regime was a huge victory, and to the extent killing a Nazi soldier was helping achieve that goal I’ll call it a subvictory. If that soldier was personally complicit in atrocities I’d even call it a form of justice, albeit a shoddy one. But I would not say “every dead Nazi was a victory.” The Allies did plenty of Nazi-killing (shooting enemies trying to surrender, as one of the more polite examples) that did not further the war effort, and that is (IMO) a black mark on the otherwise heroic cause they undertook. Then Iran values them less than zero. America is not actively targeting and killing civilians, that makes them better. You even point it out, America is not using their bombs actively on civilians. Iran is using much of the IGRC bullets, bombs and other less deadly forms of repression on the people. That was probably broad strokes. But the whole IGRC is not the Iranian army, they are separate and only loyal to the supreme commander not the people. They are not the NAZI's they are the SS. I'm pretty sure there are cases where they were not awful, I doubt that rises to 1%. You’re missing the point, and I’m not totally sure what your motivation is. Imagine two cars are coming towards me on the road. The first driver has absolutely no care whether I live or die – he won’t even brake or swerve if I’m in his path – but has no desire to steer his car just to hurt me. The second driver is planning to pull over in front of me, get out, club me over the head, throw me in the trunk, chain me in a storage container, and force me to manufacture cheap crafts for him to sell on Etsy. Which one “values my life more”? The second one, I think pretty obviously. To him I’m a resource to be exploited, to the other I’m literally nothing. But that mostly shows “which values my life more” is not a useful framing for comparison. They’re each different types of threats to my well-being. But if the former starts setting off explosions in the storage park I’m chained up in, mostly so he can brag to his friends about it, that’s not *good news* for me. If he happens to kill the second guy in the process, I might cheer, even if his son will just take over there Etsy slave empire; fuck that guy, I’m glad he’s dead. But it certainly doesn’t make “second guy is the bad guy, first guy is the good guy“ a useful understanding of the situation. Your analogy is incredibly flawed compared to what is actually happening. You have 3 groups A B and C. B is in the middle and is a huge number, A and C are on the outsides with far fewer numbers but all the power. C has been using its power for a long time to kill, rape, torture and jail B. C takes there tank and runs over as many of B as possible. A on the other hand is only interested in destroying C. If people from B end up getting run over on the way, they are not slowing down. Well you are correct that on a 1-1 ratio there isn’t a big difference for those who die. But to the survivors there is a pretty big one as A is killing people they hate as well and C is only killing those they love. And then of course the ratio, at least now, is not 1-1 it’s closer to 1-1000. Then the next part you seem to be missing is that Iranians are willing to sacrifice themselves to over throw this ultra repressive theocracy. I know this because hundreds of thousands protested with rocks against guns and grenades. To the point that 30,000 or more died. So it is not hard to see why many of them would be happy to see some bombs get dropped on those who have inflicted so much pain on them. I’m not saying that the Iranian people all the sudden love the US. But in the short term there is an enemy of my enemy thing going on.
That doesn’t tend to be how it plays in actuality though. I mean laid out like that it makes intuitive sense that it should, but it just tends not to. It’s that ‘I know I talk shit about my brother all the time, but you can’t.’ played out on a much larger scale with many more moving parts.
|
Iran has reason to make the situation as bad as possible before returning to negotiations. Hitting oil production and targeting the leaders of countries hosting US bases are obvious steps in this direction. Getting Europe involved would also be great, as Europe is already pissed off with Trump, and memories from the Iraq war are not great. If the US lands any soldiers, it would easily prolong the war and greatly increase the number of casualties. It would also make any retreat look like a defensive victory. Increasing others' stakes is smart when your own are already getting killed by missiles, by mobs, or executed under a new regime.
|
On March 03 2026 01:20 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 00:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2026 00:41 Billyboy wrote: the people are not mad about them being bombed. Really? Has anyone actually asked them? The cheering would indicate that they are happy. That they tried to over throw them with no weapons vs a heavily armed government forces says they really really really want them gone. But go ahead and talk to some Iranians near you. There are a lot of refugees pretty much all over, shouldn’t be too hard. Also maybe bold the part you want to ask about or spoiler the rest. Removing all the context is not something appreciated and you of course would feel the same. I understand the refugees would be cheering for the possibility of the government they fled from being overthrown, but I more wonder if those people who are actually in Iran having bombs dropped on/near them are cheering.
|
Bush Junior got about 5-10 times more US Soldiers killed per opponent casualty than Bush senior - who was smart enough to not leave an occupational force.
I am not sure what the US is to gain from all of this. Will they install another Shah? Will Baron Trump just become Prince of Persia?
The only reasonable explanation is: Netanyahu has Epstein knowledge that Trump also fears... A war in the middle East might be the right way to not have midterm elections.
|
On March 03 2026 01:39 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 00:39 Billyboy wrote:On March 02 2026 07:24 ChristianS wrote:On March 02 2026 06:12 Billyboy wrote:On March 02 2026 06:00 ChristianS wrote:On March 02 2026 04:30 Billyboy wrote:On March 02 2026 03:57 ChristianS wrote:On March 02 2026 02:45 Billyboy wrote:On March 01 2026 09:30 ChristianS wrote:On March 01 2026 09:02 Ze'ev wrote:
Just keep kill every damn political and military leader until the regime collapses for lack of authority and organizational capacity. Whack a mole. Theoretically this works, right? Your issue is with the government, not the people, so with smart enough targeting you should be able to force surrender without invading, right? Trouble is, if you think about everybody in a country and rank them in descending order of how much their death would contribute to regime change, and then rank them in descending order of how much ability/resources they have to avoid being hit by foreign bombs, you’re likely to find the two lists look pretty similar. Blowing up schools and hospitals is a lot easier than blowing up command and control points or secret bunkers. Occasionally you get lucky and take out a high-ranking general or politician but modern states are extraordinarily resilient to having a handful of leading officials evaporate here or there. And as long as your goal is regime change, no matter who you kill, whoever takes their place is not incentivized to give you what you want. We first started bragging about “smart bombs” in the 90s, said they were gonna revolutionize our ability to do targeted bombings. Then we spent the rest of the decade bombing Iraq periodically. That was pretty effective at, for instance, keeping large sections of the country without power indefinitely, but never threatened to approach regime change. Only invading did that. I hesitate to focus exclusively on the efficacy criticism here – we should always keep in mind the massive humanitarian costs of civilian bombings that make them immoral. That would be true even if they *were* somewhat effective at achieving military objectives. But I think it’s also worth emphasizing the pointlessness of it. I agree on much of your analysis on this topic. But one factor you tend to be drastically underestimating, or even missing is how much the supreme leader and IGRC are hated. It was only a few weeks ago that there was massive protests against them and 10000 ish civilians died at their hands. There is like 95% (maybe 99%) happy that all those high ups died. If a bunch of civilians start dying in the conflict that could change. But so far it looks like the Americans and Israelis are valueing Iranian life a lot more than the IGRC ever has. That’s fine, I have no expert knowledge of Iranian public opinion but I’m sure you’re right ( except your last sentence, that’s silly). But I don’t think it’s hard to understand why getting massacred by your own government doesn’t become any less shitty if you’re also getting bombed by Americans. Iranians have had a pretty rough time for the last century, generally either at the hand of their own government or (directly or indirectly) at the hand of Americans. In the most horrific moments in their recent history, no positive outcome was possible because the Americans wouldn’t allow it. I sincerely hope they find a more humane system in my lifetime but American bombs are an impediment to that outcome, not an assist. Sadly it is true, not because the US and Israel care so much, but because of how awful the Iranian gov is. You are vastly under estimating how many civilians the Iranian kills, tortures, locks away for any number of "crimes". There is a reason so many refugees were cheering about this. Your last sentence may be true, or may not be. I certainly do not know. But it is a ignorant take to think you with such little knowledge know so much more than Iranian refugees. At some point being a little more thoughtful than America and Israel are always the bad guys is useful. Especially when there are plenty of bad guys in the world. It is not hard to look up how awful this regime is, and how awful the regimes it has supported externally are. I'm sure you can find plenty of sources that you trust that can go into detail. I also think the 30000 people that died protesting would have loved these airstikes to have happened earlier, when promised. Every Iranian civilian death is a tragedy, every IGRC member, and political member dead is a victory. + Show Spoiler +On March 02 2026 03:33 Yurie wrote:
How does the city vs countryside split in Iran look like? Or the educated vs the uneducated? We know educated city people hate the regime. Does the same apply to the farmers etc? They are 75% urban. The popularity is hard to determine in the sense they don't do polling because if you said anything not extremely positive you be put in jail or killed. But the massive protests where they knew a bunch of people were going to get gunned down a disappeared suggests extreme unpopularity. If you trust those who have left, the only ones who support the government are those in it and directly benefiting which is a super small percentage. No, it’s silly because currently the Americans and Israelis value Iranian lives at 0. Under ordinary circumstances they would care a *little* about Iranian lives because death counts create international outcry, but the current Americans and Israelis have made very clear they don’t give a shit about that, maybe even consider it a badge of honor. Bombs are expensive, so they’re not going out of their way to kill every civilian they can, but they do not value their lives. Meanwhile the Iranian government, like any totalitarian government, views its people as a resource to be harnessed and controlled. That means they’re prepared to expend considerable resources to police, surveil, terrorize, imprison, or whatever else they think will keep people productive and compliant. To read that situation as “the Americans and Israelis value their lives more” is silly; the Iranian government views them as “our people” (emphasis on the possessive) while the bombers assign them no value or importance of any kind. Agreed that “the Americans and Israelis are always the bad guys” is a framing with limited utility. But try to take it one step further and recognize that “good guys and bad guys” in general is only slightly less limited. It leads to morally deficient sentiments like: Every Iranian civilian death is a tragedy, every IGRC member, and political member dead is a victory. I say this not because I doubt the Iranian government are “bad guys” but since you seem convinced I do, I’ll speak by analogy to a faction everybody should agree was evil (wouldn’t that be nice), the Nazis. I think defeat of the Nazi regime was a huge victory, and to the extent killing a Nazi soldier was helping achieve that goal I’ll call it a subvictory. If that soldier was personally complicit in atrocities I’d even call it a form of justice, albeit a shoddy one. But I would not say “every dead Nazi was a victory.” The Allies did plenty of Nazi-killing (shooting enemies trying to surrender, as one of the more polite examples) that did not further the war effort, and that is (IMO) a black mark on the otherwise heroic cause they undertook. Then Iran values them less than zero. America is not actively targeting and killing civilians, that makes them better. You even point it out, America is not using their bombs actively on civilians. Iran is using much of the IGRC bullets, bombs and other less deadly forms of repression on the people. That was probably broad strokes. But the whole IGRC is not the Iranian army, they are separate and only loyal to the supreme commander not the people. They are not the NAZI's they are the SS. I'm pretty sure there are cases where they were not awful, I doubt that rises to 1%. You’re missing the point, and I’m not totally sure what your motivation is. Imagine two cars are coming towards me on the road. The first driver has absolutely no care whether I live or die – he won’t even brake or swerve if I’m in his path – but has no desire to steer his car just to hurt me. The second driver is planning to pull over in front of me, get out, club me over the head, throw me in the trunk, chain me in a storage container, and force me to manufacture cheap crafts for him to sell on Etsy. Which one “values my life more”? The second one, I think pretty obviously. To him I’m a resource to be exploited, to the other I’m literally nothing. But that mostly shows “which values my life more” is not a useful framing for comparison. They’re each different types of threats to my well-being. But if the former starts setting off explosions in the storage park I’m chained up in, mostly so he can brag to his friends about it, that’s not *good news* for me. If he happens to kill the second guy in the process, I might cheer, even if his son will just take over there Etsy slave empire; fuck that guy, I’m glad he’s dead. But it certainly doesn’t make “second guy is the bad guy, first guy is the good guy“ a useful understanding of the situation. Your analogy is incredibly flawed compared to what is actually happening. You have 3 groups A B and C. B is in the middle and is a huge number, A and C are on the outsides with far fewer numbers but all the power. C has been using its power for a long time to kill, rape, torture and jail B. C takes there tank and runs over as many of B as possible. A on the other hand is only interested in destroying C. If people from B end up getting run over on the way, they are not slowing down. Well you are correct that on a 1-1 ratio there isn’t a big difference for those who die. But to the survivors there is a pretty big one as A is killing people they hate as well and C is only killing those they love. And then of course the ratio, at least now, is not 1-1 it’s closer to 1-1000. Then the next part you seem to be missing is that Iranians are willing to sacrifice themselves to over throw this ultra repressive theocracy. I know this because hundreds of thousands protested with rocks against guns and grenades. To the point that 30,000 or more died. So it is not hard to see why many of them would be happy to see some bombs get dropped on those who have inflicted so much pain on them. I’m not saying that the Iranian people all the sudden love the US. But in the short term there is an enemy of my enemy thing going on. That doesn’t tend to be how it plays in actuality though. I mean laid out like that it makes intuitive sense that it should, but it just tends not to. It’s that ‘I know I talk shit about my brother all the time, but you can’t.’ played out on a much larger scale with many more moving parts.
Yes analogies are over simplifications basically by definition. And there are tons of moving parts, which is circling around my point. I’m getting tired of the, this is all good, or this is all bad analysis. There are a lot of interesting discussions to be had, especially by a deep thinker like ChristianS that gets missed if we ignore a bunch of the situation to fit a narrative.
The MAGAs are obviously the worst in regards to this, but slipping to their level is not something I’m interested in doing.
|
On March 03 2026 01:40 Legan wrote:Iran has reason to make the situation as bad as possible before returning to negotiations. Hitting oil production and targeting the leaders of countries hosting US bases are obvious steps in this direction. Getting Europe involved would also be great, as Europe is already pissed off with Trump, and memories from the Iraq war are not great. If the US lands any soldiers, it would easily prolong the war and greatly increase the number of casualties. It would also make any retreat look like a defensive victory. Increasing others' stakes is smart when your own are already getting killed by missiles, by mobs, or executed under a new regime.
Spain was the only bigger European country that condemned the strikes. It looks like everyone else wanted to stay neutral or win something elsewhere by praising the US indirectly. Iran's retaliatory strikes made staying neutral impossible. The UK, France and Germany agreed to work together with the US because of them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/joint-e3-leaders-statement-on-iran-1-march-2026
|
On March 03 2026 02:00 KT_Elwood wrote:
Bush Junior got about 5-10 times more US Soldiers killed per opponent casualty than Bush senior - who was smart enough to not leave an occupational force.
I am not sure what the US is to gain from all of this. Will they install another Shah? Will Baron Trump just become Prince of Persia?
The only reasonable explanation is: Netanyahu has Epstein knowledge that Trump also fears... A war in the middle East might be the right way to not have midterm elections. Supposedly this war has been heavily pushed by Israel and the UAE, both of whom Trump is biggest buddies with so he seems to be there to help his pals out while they turn Iran into a failed state ala Gaza 2.0 so that Netanyahu can keep the people of Israel distracted.
I don't see the US putting boots on the ground, it will be bombing Iran for a couple of weeks and then declaring victory.
I don't even think this is about ceasing their oil (got that sounds weird to say, the US not going to war over oil) after Trump tried to sell Oil companies Venezuela's oil and they went "oh please no". Iran would be even worse with the power vacuum that is going to happen if the Regime actually falls. Everyone got to see what happened with Afghanistan and ISIS.
|
On March 03 2026 01:59 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 01:20 Billyboy wrote:On March 03 2026 00:47 Gorsameth wrote:On March 03 2026 00:41 Billyboy wrote: the people are not mad about them being bombed. Really? Has anyone actually asked them? The cheering would indicate that they are happy. That they tried to over throw them with no weapons vs a heavily armed government forces says they really really really want them gone. But go ahead and talk to some Iranians near you. There are a lot of refugees pretty much all over, shouldn’t be too hard. Also maybe bold the part you want to ask about or spoiler the rest. Removing all the context is not something appreciated and you of course would feel the same. I understand the refugees would be cheering for the possibility of the government they fled from being overthrown, but I more wonder if those people who are actually in Iran having bombs dropped on/near them are cheering.
Yes, there have been reports of Iranians cheering in Iran when they heard that the supreme leader and his lackeys were dead.
I’m guessing the closer you are to the bombs the less excited you are. And the more personal and recent the tragedy you have faced at the IGRC hands the more excited you are.
|
On March 03 2026 01:40 Legan wrote:Iran has reason to make the situation as bad as possible before returning to negotiations. Hitting oil production and targeting the leaders of countries hosting US bases are obvious steps in this direction. Getting Europe involved would also be great, as Europe is already pissed off with Trump, and memories from the Iraq war are not great. If the US lands any soldiers, it would easily prolong the war and greatly increase the number of casualties. It would also make any retreat look like a defensive victory. Increasing others' stakes is smart when your own are already getting killed by missiles, by mobs, or executed under a new regime. They stand a good chance of uniting more countries against Iran and proving that they're too dangerous and reckless to hold stockpiles of weapons and weapons manufacturing plants for the near future. That's not a good spot to be in for negotiating an end to the war with some current capabilities intact.
|
The motivation goes right along the idea of authoritarians doing whatever they like with no consequences, plus, the timing is great for Nethyanahu who is facing elections.
Trump, well, who knows, there are so many interests bribing him and people influencing him that it's hard to tell, plus, he really, really likes to be in the middle of the attention and of course he likes killing people and blowing shit up.
He is a vicious old man surrounded by insane ideologues like Miller and complete chameleons serving the Christo-facist agenda like Vance, what we are buying with the blood of Iranian people, in a lot of cases completely innocent civilians is the time before he decides to move on to the next target.
Who might it be, maybe it's Nigeria, or South Africa, perhaps he gets emboldened by another spineless EU reaction and decides to go take Greenland, who knows, we are all at mercy of this mad tyrant, his sycophants and insane morons like Hegseth.
|
On March 03 2026 02:00 KT_Elwood wrote:
The only reasonable explanation is: Netanyahu has Epstein knowledge that Trump also fears.
While entirely possible, it's now public knowledge that Trump is a child molester and Republicans have decided they're ok with it, or at least not going to riot over it, so there's nothing more Netanyahu or Putin can do to blackmail him.
More obvious explanation: he thinks a good war will boost his poll numbers. Look at the number of times he predicted Obama would bomb Iran to boost his own poll numbers or to make up for Obama's supposed lack of negotiation ability.
.. A war in the middle East might be the right way to not have midterm elections.
He might think that's possible but there's no legal mechanism to declare elections canceled. The U.S. had elections during almost every war in its history, including the Civil War when half the country was occupied by traitors.
|
trying to stabilize will inevitably pull EU countries in, we have got our own interests. for some controlling the flow of migration is on top of the list.
which this will help tremendously I am sure.
I remember I read a while ago that oil prices were predicted to fall quite a bit for 2026 before all the saber rattling exercises. with half of the US fleet as "negotiation tools" in place and then the fireworks starting... so yeah, who knows really why those things happen?
Trump's legacy just gets better by the day though! trade wars, Epstein, affordability and health care totally fixed - and another conflict with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.
to fulfill the good old pattern of R leadership an economic meltdown is all that's missing.
|
On March 03 2026 02:51 Doublemint wrote:
Trump's legacy just gets better by the day though! trade wars, Epstein, affordability and health care totally fixed - and another conflict with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.
When you think that Trump can do nothing dumber anymore...
...he shouts "Watch this!"
|
I did not even mention ICE and their atrocities done to people and the rule of law.
|
On March 03 2026 02:51 Doublemint wrote:
trying to stabilize will inevitably pull EU countries in, we have got our own interests. for some controlling the flow of migration is on top of the list.
which this will help tremendously I am sure.
I remember I read a while ago that oil prices were predicted to fall quite a bit for 2026 before all the saber rattling exercises. with half of the US fleet as "negotiation tools" in place and then the fireworks starting... so yeah, who knows really why those things happen?
Trump's legacy just gets better by the day though! trade wars, Epstein, affordability and health care totally fixed - and another conflict with absolutely no mandate whatsoever.
to fulfill the good old pattern of R leadership an economic meltdown is all that's missing. you mean the AI bubble bursting in the next 2.5 years?
Seems kinda likely
|
Maybe Papa Gabe will be able to save the world from the Hodenkobold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
