It seems as if Israel and the US have been bombing hi-res images of Iranian aircraft. Doesn't exactly inspire confidence. It's what one might expect, though, from a US military whose CiC once regurgitated this word salad re: his country's 18th century war for independence: “Our army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports, it did everything it had to do, and at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory,” Of course, the Ft. McHenry incident was a completely different war in the 19th century (during which the White House was burned which is decidedly not 'nothing but victory'), and powered human flight didn't happen until the 20th century, but hey, those are just details.
Iran is a country. Iran has a government. Who calls the shots?
I have a pet peeve about people talking about populations of millions of people as if they were all one Hobbesian mega-person. Donald Trump is not America. Netenyahu is not Israel. Confusing "the leadership" with "the nation" is at least a small-f fascist take.
And the "what happens after" is a very interesting question.
A friend of mine, professor, once quipped something like this after Trump's election:
There are two kinds of poli sci professors right now.
One of them hasn't slept properly in a week, bags under the eyes, flask of something strong under their desk, depressed, thousand-mile stare, they've see it all and they know what's coming...
The other kind? Absolute psychopaths.
I think that's not inaccurate for how some of us are watching Iran if Trump gets to "have his way" with it. I don't think either our president or Netenyahu have any real concern for Iranians qua Iranians, which makes things very...interesting. It could be another America. It could be another Somalia. It'll likely be something in between.
I think it's very easy to forget just how damned big Iran is, both geographically and in terms of population. 90 million is a lot of people you have to get to acquiesce, whether you're the current regime or any future one.
lol. You're all complaining Trump won't do enough to change anything and it's America's responsibility to make sure Iran is a peaceable democracy post war.
Then you complain when he wants to be part of the leadership change.
Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is when Trump supporters tie themselves up in knots pretending that what he says is consistent and bears some relationship to reality?
No, I'm wrong, aren't I? Just as the sheep in Animal Farm bleated "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad," to make criticism of the pigs go away, so Trump supporters bleat "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to make criticism of Trump go away.
Wanting isn't doing anything. The question is, does Trump have a workable plan to get what he wants? In particular, is the Iranian leadership going to listen to Trump complaining that he should be consulted on the next supreme leader while he's bombing them?
Critics: Trump isn't doing anything to create a peaceful regime.
You: But he wants to choose the next leader.
Presumably if he just closes his eyes and wants it hard enough it'll happen? "Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed."
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are dying, will die - it may be many things but it is not funny. This is not a Hell thread, Purgatory is supposed to be for serious discussion, The next shipmate who posts a “lol” comment is getting three weeks shoreleave, as violating the 1st SoF Commandment.
I think it's very easy to forget just how damned big Iran is, both geographically and in terms of population. 90 million is a lot of people you have to get to acquiesce, whether you're the current regime or any future one.
Reminds me of a story about the Cuban Missile Crisis. These warmongers were so excited to invade Cuba. And it looked like they were about to decide to until someone walked in overlaying a map of Cuba with a map of Texas.
It's amazing how arrogant you can get when you look at a model without seeing what the model represents. You'd think we would learn that someday, but the powerful keep forgetting.
To anyone from the right--or from the left--accusing the side as having Trump Derangement Syndrome:
I’m not “deranged,” and I’m not driven by emotion. I’m raising concerns about specific actions and their impact on our country. When you label my perspective as “TDS,” it shuts down real conversation and treats disagreement as a flaw instead of a difference in judgment. I care about truth, accountability, and the health of our democracy—those values matter to me regardless of who holds office. If you think I’m mistaken on a point, I’m open to talking about it. But I won’t accept a label that dismisses my viewpoint instead of engaging it.
I've been getting emails every few minutes today from my Lebanese friend showing Tel Aviv looking indistinguishable from Gaza, expecting his homeland - and his family - a short distance away, to be overrun at any time. There are many hundreds, probably thousands of people dead or dying under that rubble a this moment, caused by a war between religious zealotry and hatred of several kinds and the crushing intellectual incapacity of the US leadership and the greed of its supporters. I grew up shortly after the second world war believing that our parents' generation had learned how to stop anything like this from ever happening. Our generation has much to answer for, and we have no answers.
lol. You're all complaining Trump won't do enough to change anything and it's America's responsibility to make sure Iran is a peaceable democracy post war.
Then you complain when he wants to be part of the leadership change.
Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed.
No it's nothing of the kind.
I'd say the same if it was any other incumbent in the White House.
It's not anti-American to say that they haven't got a good track record when it comes to effecting regime change or supporting coups in various parts of the world since WW2.
If you are worried about Taiwan then perhaps you should contact the Pentagon and ask them what they are going to do if China attacks before they've had a chance to replenish the stocks of expensive ground-to-air missiles they are expending at a rapid pace in this current conflict.
Does anyone besides Trump believe that the world will be a safer place after he stops bombing in a few weeks time?
There are concerns across his MAGA base as well as among US Democrats.
I really hope I'm wrong on this one but I don't think I am.
We may see a weakened Iranian regime but we may see civil war, huge casualties and massive displacement of refugees into Turkey and elsewhere.
What's Trump going to do if they turn up on his doorstep? Lock then all up? Send them back?
This just hasn't been thought through at all, any more than Iraq.
The only difference is that there aren't US ground troops this time round.
I agree that trying to stamp out terorrism and dictatorships has not gone well for the west. You can easily see this in Afghanistan where we spent ages and it seems the Taliban is still in charge and now at war with Pakistan.
But the bottom line is, what else can you do when you've tried everything else as in the case with Iran?
Is Israel not allowed to defend itself? Is the west not allowed to defend itself against Islamic militants that export terror to their own countries? (e.g. Bondi massacre?)
The expectation that you can only go to war with a country if you can rebuilt it from the ground up to be a proper democracy is ridiculous and paternalistic.
lol. You're all complaining Trump won't do enough to change anything and it's America's responsibility to make sure Iran is a peaceable democracy post war.
Then you complain when he wants to be part of the leadership change.
Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is when Trump supporters tie themselves up in knots pretending that what he says is consistent and bears some relationship to reality?
No, I'm wrong, aren't I? Just as the sheep in Animal Farm bleated "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad," to make criticism of the pigs go away, so Trump supporters bleat "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to make criticism of Trump go away.
Wanting isn't doing anything. The question is, does Trump have a workable plan to get what he wants? In particular, is the Iranian leadership going to listen to Trump complaining that he should be consulted on the next supreme leader while he's bombing them?
Critics: Trump isn't doing anything to create a peaceful regime.
You: But he wants to choose the next leader.
Presumably if he just closes his eyes and wants it hard enough it'll happen? "Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed."
To anyone from the right--or from the left--accusing the side as having Trump Derangement Syndrome:
I’m not “deranged,” and I’m not driven by emotion. I’m raising concerns about specific actions and their impact on our country. When you label my perspective as “TDS,” it shuts down real conversation and treats disagreement as a flaw instead of a difference in judgment. I care about truth, accountability, and the health of our democracy—those values matter to me regardless of who holds office. If you think I’m mistaken on a point, I’m open to talking about it. But I won’t accept a label that dismisses my viewpoint instead of engaging it.
I absolutely agree and you're on of the saner ones on this board.
A trump fan shouldn't be shut down just because they're a trump fan or the reverse.
Perhaps you could address my post re lots of people on this thread saying they don't want trump to be involved in choosing the next leader but they want him to solve all Iran's problems post war.
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are dying, will die - it may be many things but it is not funny. This is not a Hell thread, Purgatory is supposed to be for serious discussion, The next shipmate who posts a “lol” comment is getting three weeks shoreleave, as violating the 1st SoF Commandment.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
Did you mean me or @The_Riv ? My lol response was a response to absurdity in the current arguments on this thread. I'm sorry if recognition of absurdity in contradiction is not appropriate.
The Bondi Beach shooting was claimed by IS, who are an extremist Sunni organisation who oppose and are opposed by the Shi'ite leadership of Iran. According to the Wikipedia article on IS, Iran and IS are at war with each other.
But the bottom line is, what else can you do when you've tried everything else as in the case with Iran?
Try what hasn't been tried? Build on previous success a negotiated solutions to tensions between Iran and other nations - the deal negotiated between the governments of Iran, US and European nations in 2015 was a very promising approach that, though only addressing concerns over Iranian government plans to develop a nuclear bomb a similar approach would seem to be a decent place to start with concerns over exporting Islamic revolution to neighbouring nations. Of course, it helps when approaching such negotiations that you don't have a political leader on one side who has reneged on a good deal simply because it was negotiated under the Presidency of a black man (and, your current President is both a racist, and unable to negotiate his way out of a paper bag).
It is worth knowing the Taliban grew out of the Mujahideen which America funded so they would fight the Russians in a different proxy war. (They featured as allies in the James Bond film The Living Daylights). Colonisers desire to draw straight lines on maps and carve up territory for their own convenience lies behind quite a lot of long term problems in the Middle East. As does the colonisers’ favouring one ethnic or religious group over another in order to divide and rule, The regime in Iran is the result of the overthrow of a Shah who was installed in a western backed coup.
So it is valid to say ostensibly Christian countries, including Christian extremists, have been exporting terror to the Middle East. Arguably ever since the crusades. It is also well documented that Benjamin Netanyahu facilitated support to Hamas in order to undermine more moderate Palestinian groups who were winning international support.
lol. You're all complaining Trump won't do enough to change anything and it's America's responsibility to make sure Iran is a peaceable democracy post war.
Then you complain when he wants to be part of the leadership change.
Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed.
No it's nothing of the kind.
I'd say the same if it was any other incumbent in the White House.
It's not anti-American to say that they haven't got a good track record when it comes to effecting regime change or supporting coups in various parts of the world since WW2.
If you are worried about Taiwan then perhaps you should contact the Pentagon and ask them what they are going to do if China attacks before they've had a chance to replenish the stocks of expensive ground-to-air missiles they are expending at a rapid pace in this current conflict.
Does anyone besides Trump believe that the world will be a safer place after he stops bombing in a few weeks time?
There are concerns across his MAGA base as well as among US Democrats.
I really hope I'm wrong on this one but I don't think I am.
We may see a weakened Iranian regime but we may see civil war, huge casualties and massive displacement of refugees into Turkey and elsewhere.
What's Trump going to do if they turn up on his doorstep? Lock then all up? Send them back?
This just hasn't been thought through at all, any more than Iraq.
The only difference is that there aren't US ground troops this time round.
I agree that trying to stamp out terorrism and dictatorships has not gone well for the west. You can easily see this in Afghanistan where we spent ages and it seems the Taliban is still in charge and now at war with Pakistan.
Surprisingly allowing your special forces to run riot while playing divide and conquer with local groups isn't the route to long term stability.
I have seen photos of a destroyed building - but my understanding was Israel had intercepted almost everything fired at it, with Patriot missile systems etc.
Currently, people are reporting 11 fatalities in Israel and between 900 and 3000 in Iran depending on source, tens of thousands have been slaughtered in Gaza.
Perhaps you could address my post re lots of people on this thread saying they don't want trump to be involved in choosing the next leader but they want him to solve all Iran's problems post war.
I have not seen anyone on this thread say either of those things, and taken together they constitute a straw man.
The contradiction comes in when you use the phrase "want Trump to". There is no contradiction between eg thinking Putin morally ought to assist with the reconstruction of Ukraine and thinking Putin shouldn't be trusted anywhere near the reconstruction of Ukraine. It would also be ridiculous under the current circumstances for Putin to say that he wants a say in choosing the next Ukrainian President.
I have seen photos of a destroyed building - but my understanding was Israel had intercepted almost everything fired at it, with Patriot missile systems etc.
Currently, people are reporting 11 fatalities in Israel and between 900 and 3000 in Iran depending on source, tens of thousands have been slaughtered in Gaza.
A day later it looks as if some of the pictures claiming to be of Tel Aviv are faked or of other places. Some are not, and the damage is more severe than the Israeli government wants us to believe. The fakery is certainly troubling when we want to know what is happening. My friend says that his family in Lebanon can hear the bombing in Beirut 20 km away and will move back to their village in the mountains if it gets much closer.
lol. You're all complaining Trump won't do enough to change anything and it's America's responsibility to make sure Iran is a peaceable democracy post war.
Then you complain when he wants to be part of the leadership change.
Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed.
Trump Derangement Syndrome is when Trump supporters tie themselves up in knots pretending that what he says is consistent and bears some relationship to reality?
No, I'm wrong, aren't I? Just as the sheep in Animal Farm bleated "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad," to make criticism of the pigs go away, so Trump supporters bleat "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to make criticism of Trump go away.
Wanting isn't doing anything. The question is, does Trump have a workable plan to get what he wants? In particular, is the Iranian leadership going to listen to Trump complaining that he should be consulted on the next supreme leader while he's bombing them?
Critics: Trump isn't doing anything to create a peaceful regime.
You: But he wants to choose the next leader.
Presumably if he just closes his eyes and wants it hard enough it'll happen? "Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed."
See my response to Gamliel.
And this is Gamaliel's response to you.
Nobody has said that Trump should be responsible for rebuilding Iran if the current regime collapses.
What people are saying is that it doesn't make sense to go to war without any apparent game plan for what happens when the shooting stops. Which it might not do for a very long time despite Trump's quick-fix looney-tunes policies.
Nobody is being 'shut down' here for being a Trump fan. I've said that I would have the same reservations about this military operation whoever the incumbent was in the Oval Office.
You've said yourself that Western interventions in Afghanistan and elsewhere haven't ended well.
Nobody is saying that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself.
Nobody is saying that countries attacked by radical jihadists don't have the right to go after the perpetrators.
There might be differences in approach and emphasis across the various contributors and you will have noticed disagreements between some of them and myself. That's fine. That's normal. That's to be expected.
But what there does seem to be a consensus on, as a result of what happened in Iraq, is the undesirability of entering a war without apparently thinking through the consequences.
Trump hasn't even adhered to US law let alone the 'international law' that you tend to scoff at.
If I believed that the terrible regime in Iran would collapse tomorrow and everything would be hunky-dory and that peace could quickly be achieved in the Middle-East as a result I'd be applauding this campaign not expressing grave reservations about it.
Also, your praise of @Gramps49 as one of the 'sanest' posters here, whilst it may be gratifying on one level, implies that the rest of us are a few pennies short of a shilling.
A sweeping ad hominem remark. I don't always agree with everyone here but that doesn't mean I question their sanity.
It's not 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' to question the sagacity of his administration. If anything it's the opposite of 'derangement.'
Even those pundits I've heard who support the US/Israeli action in principle have reservations about various aspects - it's timing, the potential for factionalism and civil war to erupt within Iran, a potential refugee crisis.
You haven't addressed any of those scenarios in your posts as far as I can see. All you have done is criticise or bad-mouth anyone who disagrees with you.
If Gramps49 is one of the sanest posters here- and I agree, he talks a lot of sense but doesn't always get things right, as he'd be the first to admit, then I'm sorry, you must be one of the least informed posters we've had here recently.
I have seen photos of a destroyed building - but my understanding was Israel had intercepted almost everything fired at it, with Patriot missile systems etc.
Currently, people are reporting 11 fatalities in Israel and between 900 and 3000 in Iran depending on source, tens of thousands have been slaughtered in Gaza.
A day later it looks as if some of the pictures claiming to be of Tel Aviv are faked or of other places. Some are not, and the damage is more severe than the Israeli government wants us to believe.
"The first casualty of war is truth". There are also rumours that US bases in the region have taken significant damage to their (very expensive and time consuming to replace) infrastructure. I've only seen them on social media, however, so don't know how much credence to give them. It certainly seems to be the case that relying on technologically advanced, expensive weapons means war is a lot more expensive for you than for a less technologically sophisticated opponent.
I'm afraid I don't put much credence on anything said about the war by the Trump administration, or by the Israeli government, for that matter.
Maybe one of the benefits of the internet is that truth can be proclaimed, however difficult and fragmented that process might be. I do appreciate that Iran's internet block makes it even harder for Iranians to tell us what's happening, but there are ingenious ways of achieving it...
Sounds like the 82nd Airborne Division will be the boots on the ground if Trump pulls the trigger. It has cancelled a major exercise that was supposed to take place in Louisiana. It would take about 48 hours for them to deploy if so ordered. Story here.
That division has, it seems, around 4000-5000 troops ready for combat. Not a large force with which to invade a country of 90 million people...
That's going to depend on something that's unknown to me. How many of that 90 million will oppose US boots on the ground? There's going to be a substantial number of Iranians who are true believers in the Islamic Revolution, including significant numbers in the military (the Republican Guard are, by reputation, fanatically devoted to the Islamic Republic; other parts of the military are going to be equally loyal to the regime). There's a significant number of Iranians who have been on the streets protesting against the government - will they all support US forces on the ground? There are going to be lots of Iranians who have no love for the government, but will not welcome foreign soldiers on the street - especially if Iranian civilians are getting killed. Will any support US troops might get include any parts of the Iranian military - a few thousand troops supporting many times that in Iranian military forces if they rise up against the government, but if the only supporters US forces have are unarmed civilians then even if that's a majority of the population it won't make much difference if 5000 US troops need to engage many times their number of loyal Iranian soldiers.
If Trump is planning with an assumption that US forces will be given a heroes welcome, and face practically no opposition from what's left of the Iranian military, then he's very likely to be in for an unpleasant surprise - with a few thousand Airborne troops facing the brunt of it.
This is the difference between Israel and the USA, which is that Israel wants to destroy any weapons threatening Israel while the USA is pursuing regime change. I really doubt that regime change can be done by successive removals of the Iranian leaders, as it is like a serpent and I think there are hundreds if not thousands in the succession chain.
As for “boots on the ground” that must be an empty threat unless Trump thinks he can provoke an internal rebellion which will lead to an awful death toll and yet another refugee crisis.
That division has, it seems, around 4000-5000 troops ready for combat. Not a large force with which to invade a country of 90 million people...
That's going to depend on something that's unknown to me. How many of that 90 million will oppose US boots on the ground? There's going to be a substantial number of Iranians who are true believers in the Islamic Revolution, including significant numbers in the military (the Republican Guard are, by reputation, fanatically devoted to the Islamic Republic; other parts of the military are going to be equally loyal to the regime). There's a significant number of Iranians who have been on the streets protesting against the government - will they all support US forces on the ground? There are going to be lots of Iranians who have no love for the government, but will not welcome foreign soldiers on the street - especially if Iranian civilians are getting killed. Will any support US troops might get include any parts of the Iranian military - a few thousand troops supporting many times that in Iranian military forces if they rise up against the government, but if the only supporters US forces have are unarmed civilians then even if that's a majority of the population it won't make much difference if 5000 US troops need to engage many times their number of loyal Iranian soldiers.
Putting Pete Hegseth on 60 Minutes to say the U.S. is planning to kill all Iranians probably didn't do much to increase support for the U.S. among the Iranian people. Plus there's the fact that Iranians in general have a very strong sense of nationalism and the founding legend of the current regime is a revolt against a foreign-installed dictator. So it almost seems like every move taken by the Trump administration is designed to reduce the likelihood of ordinary Iranians supporting a foreign invasion of their country.
Comments
I have a pet peeve about people talking about populations of millions of people as if they were all one Hobbesian mega-person. Donald Trump is not America. Netenyahu is not Israel. Confusing "the leadership" with "the nation" is at least a small-f fascist take.
And the "what happens after" is a very interesting question.
A friend of mine, professor, once quipped something like this after Trump's election: I think that's not inaccurate for how some of us are watching Iran if Trump gets to "have his way" with it. I don't think either our president or Netenyahu have any real concern for Iranians qua Iranians, which makes things very...interesting. It could be another America. It could be another Somalia. It'll likely be something in between.
No, I'm wrong, aren't I? Just as the sheep in Animal Farm bleated "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad," to make criticism of the pigs go away, so Trump supporters bleat "Trump Derangement Syndrome" to make criticism of Trump go away.
Wanting isn't doing anything. The question is, does Trump have a workable plan to get what he wants? In particular, is the Iranian leadership going to listen to Trump complaining that he should be consulted on the next supreme leader while he's bombing them?
Critics: Trump isn't doing anything to create a peaceful regime.
You: But he wants to choose the next leader.
Presumably if he just closes his eyes and wants it hard enough it'll happen? "Trump Derangement Syndrome indeed."
Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are dying, will die - it may be many things but it is not funny. This is not a Hell thread, Purgatory is supposed to be for serious discussion, The next shipmate who posts a “lol” comment is getting three weeks shoreleave, as violating the 1st SoF Commandment.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
Reminds me of a story about the Cuban Missile Crisis. These warmongers were so excited to invade Cuba. And it looked like they were about to decide to until someone walked in overlaying a map of Cuba with a map of Texas.
It's amazing how arrogant you can get when you look at a model without seeing what the model represents. You'd think we would learn that someday, but the powerful keep forgetting.
I’m not “deranged,” and I’m not driven by emotion. I’m raising concerns about specific actions and their impact on our country. When you label my perspective as “TDS,” it shuts down real conversation and treats disagreement as a flaw instead of a difference in judgment. I care about truth, accountability, and the health of our democracy—those values matter to me regardless of who holds office. If you think I’m mistaken on a point, I’m open to talking about it. But I won’t accept a label that dismisses my viewpoint instead of engaging it.
I assumed Beirut, but agree Tel Aviv doesn't seem right.
I agree that trying to stamp out terorrism and dictatorships has not gone well for the west. You can easily see this in Afghanistan where we spent ages and it seems the Taliban is still in charge and now at war with Pakistan.
But the bottom line is, what else can you do when you've tried everything else as in the case with Iran?
Is Israel not allowed to defend itself? Is the west not allowed to defend itself against Islamic militants that export terror to their own countries? (e.g. Bondi massacre?)
The expectation that you can only go to war with a country if you can rebuilt it from the ground up to be a proper democracy is ridiculous and paternalistic.
See my response to Gamliel.
I absolutely agree and you're on of the saner ones on this board.
A trump fan shouldn't be shut down just because they're a trump fan or the reverse.
Perhaps you could address my post re lots of people on this thread saying they don't want trump to be involved in choosing the next leader but they want him to solve all Iran's problems post war.
Did you mean me or @The_Riv ? My lol response was a response to absurdity in the current arguments on this thread. I'm sorry if recognition of absurdity in contradiction is not appropriate.
You're absolutely right. War is serious business.
So it is valid to say ostensibly Christian countries, including Christian extremists, have been exporting terror to the Middle East. Arguably ever since the crusades. It is also well documented that Benjamin Netanyahu facilitated support to Hamas in order to undermine more moderate Palestinian groups who were winning international support.
Surprisingly allowing your special forces to run riot while playing divide and conquer with local groups isn't the route to long term stability.
Look for pictures of Tel Aviv.
Gaza looks like this.
Currently, people are reporting 11 fatalities in Israel and between 900 and 3000 in Iran depending on source, tens of thousands have been slaughtered in Gaza.
The contradiction comes in when you use the phrase "want Trump to". There is no contradiction between eg thinking Putin morally ought to assist with the reconstruction of Ukraine and thinking Putin shouldn't be trusted anywhere near the reconstruction of Ukraine. It would also be ridiculous under the current circumstances for Putin to say that he wants a say in choosing the next Ukrainian President.
A day later it looks as if some of the pictures claiming to be of Tel Aviv are faked or of other places. Some are not, and the damage is more severe than the Israeli government wants us to believe. The fakery is certainly troubling when we want to know what is happening. My friend says that his family in Lebanon can hear the bombing in Beirut 20 km away and will move back to their village in the mountains if it gets much closer.
And this is Gamaliel's response to you.
Nobody has said that Trump should be responsible for rebuilding Iran if the current regime collapses.
What people are saying is that it doesn't make sense to go to war without any apparent game plan for what happens when the shooting stops. Which it might not do for a very long time despite Trump's quick-fix looney-tunes policies.
Nobody is being 'shut down' here for being a Trump fan. I've said that I would have the same reservations about this military operation whoever the incumbent was in the Oval Office.
You've said yourself that Western interventions in Afghanistan and elsewhere haven't ended well.
Nobody is saying that Israel doesn't have the right to defend itself.
Nobody is saying that countries attacked by radical jihadists don't have the right to go after the perpetrators.
There might be differences in approach and emphasis across the various contributors and you will have noticed disagreements between some of them and myself. That's fine. That's normal. That's to be expected.
But what there does seem to be a consensus on, as a result of what happened in Iraq, is the undesirability of entering a war without apparently thinking through the consequences.
Trump hasn't even adhered to US law let alone the 'international law' that you tend to scoff at.
If I believed that the terrible regime in Iran would collapse tomorrow and everything would be hunky-dory and that peace could quickly be achieved in the Middle-East as a result I'd be applauding this campaign not expressing grave reservations about it.
Also, your praise of @Gramps49 as one of the 'sanest' posters here, whilst it may be gratifying on one level, implies that the rest of us are a few pennies short of a shilling.
A sweeping ad hominem remark. I don't always agree with everyone here but that doesn't mean I question their sanity.
It's not 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' to question the sagacity of his administration. If anything it's the opposite of 'derangement.'
Even those pundits I've heard who support the US/Israeli action in principle have reservations about various aspects - it's timing, the potential for factionalism and civil war to erupt within Iran, a potential refugee crisis.
You haven't addressed any of those scenarios in your posts as far as I can see. All you have done is criticise or bad-mouth anyone who disagrees with you.
If Gramps49 is one of the sanest posters here- and I agree, he talks a lot of sense but doesn't always get things right, as he'd be the first to admit, then I'm sorry, you must be one of the least informed posters we've had here recently.
"The first casualty of war is truth". There are also rumours that US bases in the region have taken significant damage to their (very expensive and time consuming to replace) infrastructure. I've only seen them on social media, however, so don't know how much credence to give them. It certainly seems to be the case that relying on technologically advanced, expensive weapons means war is a lot more expensive for you than for a less technologically sophisticated opponent.
Maybe one of the benefits of the internet is that truth can be proclaimed, however difficult and fragmented that process might be. I do appreciate that Iran's internet block makes it even harder for Iranians to tell us what's happening, but there are ingenious ways of achieving it...
@Gamma Gamaliel this crosses the line into personal attack. Desist or take it to hell, please.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Each new day brings yet more proof that Trump is a mad despot, who will surely lead the US into disaster after disaster.
@WhimsicalChristian this reads like a blanket attack on other posters. This is not permitted outside of hell.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
If Trump is planning with an assumption that US forces will be given a heroes welcome, and face practically no opposition from what's left of the Iranian military, then he's very likely to be in for an unpleasant surprise - with a few thousand Airborne troops facing the brunt of it.
Trump might quickly get bored of attending the 'dignified transfers'.
As for “boots on the ground” that must be an empty threat unless Trump thinks he can provoke an internal rebellion which will lead to an awful death toll and yet another refugee crisis.
Putting Pete Hegseth on 60 Minutes to say the U.S. is planning to kill all Iranians probably didn't do much to increase support for the U.S. among the Iranian people. Plus there's the fact that Iranians in general have a very strong sense of nationalism and the founding legend of the current regime is a revolt against a foreign-installed dictator. So it almost seems like every move taken by the Trump administration is designed to reduce the likelihood of ordinary Iranians supporting a foreign invasion of their country.