Iran War?

[mongers]

Looks like the US is in another forever war.

It's only natural that trump should harken back to the days of his youth, when the US was trying to heavily bomb a country into submission.

And the war strategy was built on the fairy tale of a democratic country coming into existence and from which all the darker forces had suddenly disappeared; be those nationalist communism or now Shia Islam.



I suspect when the bombers have few remaining targets, he'll look on the map for a Laos or Cambodia?

[crazy canuck]

Looks like the US is in another forever war.

It's only natural that trump should harken back to the days of his youth, when the US was trying to heavily bomb a country into submission.

And the war strategy was built on the fairy tale of a democratic country coming into existence and from which all the darker forces had suddenly disappeared; be those nationalist communism or now Shia Islam.



I suspect when the bombers have few remaining targets, he'll look on the map for a Laos or Cambodia?

Yes, and I don't think that way of viewing the world is limited to just him.

[Razgovory]

Looks like the US is in another forever war.

It's only natural that trump should harken back to the days of his youth, when the US was trying to heavily bomb a country into submission.

And the war strategy was built on the fairy tale of a democratic country coming into existence and from which all the darker forces had suddenly disappeared; be those nationalist communism or now Shia Islam.



I suspect when the bombers have few remaining targets, he'll look on the map for a Laos or Cambodia?

He wasn't even born yet when WW2 happened.

[Jacob]

The US hasn't driven straight into another quagmire quite yet. They're still hanging out at the edge of it, revving their engines. But I expect the odds of them going in are higher than them staying out. And while nothing's guaranteed either way, I expect that any ground involvement in Iran is more likely to end as a grind rather than a quick intervention resulting in significant desired change.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The US hasn't driven straight into another quagmire quite yet. They're still hanging out at the edge of it, revving their engines. But I expect the odds of them going in are higher than them staying out. And while nothing's guaranteed wither way, I expect that any ground involvement in Iran is more likely to end as a grind rather than a quick intervention resulting in significant desired change.

they'll drive into it just as eagerly as the fools in Moscow did in theirs. And they'll be there for just as long with all the consequences that entails.

[Valmy]

He's saying unconditional surrender because he has a vague recollection of someone saying that when he watched Victory at Sea and it sounded badass. A couple of days from now he will forget it about like he forgot where his own father was born.  He'll deny ever saying it. At this point, it's pointless to talk about things he says as though he is concerned about being consistent or maintaining credibility.

Yeah but he is the President...he is the guy who started the war...

[Threviel]

He's saying unconditional surrender because he has a vague recollection of someone saying that when he watched Victory at Sea and it sounded badass. A couple of days from now he will forget it about like he forgot where his own father was born.  He'll deny ever saying it. At this point, it's pointless to talk about things he says as though he is concerned about being consistent or maintaining credibility.

And the American people will lap it up an think him better than Biden.

[Bauer]

If they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.

[Valmy]

If they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.

He did make a reference to our allies and partners helping so congrats guys! We thank you for your help.

[Jacob]

The girls' school being destroyed is an absolute tragedy: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-school-bombing-investigation-9.7114994

I'm going to withhold judgement, but my expectations are that no one will be held responsible and not much will change as a result of it.

[Jacob]

If they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.

Iran has a little over 90 million people.

What does "bombing into oblivion" mean in this context?

[OttoVonBismarck]

Well, in terms of holding people responsible--the girl's school is clearly inside an area where it shares walls with an IRGC compound. The reporting I have heard is that it used to actually be part of the compound, but was turned into the school some years ago, and then a wall was added separating the school from the rest of the compound.

That means it was either struck due to bad targeting (intel failure / mistake) or bad execution. Neither of which rise to anything we'd call a "crime", in the nebulous world of war crimes and the Geneva Convention.

Such things are basically intrinsic to war, and unlike in civilian law where "negligence" can sometimes be criminal, in war crimes a targeted munition simply missing and hitting the wrong target isn't really that level of mistake. My understanding is the only scenario where an unintended civilian death is criminal in the various war crime treaties is if certain prohibited weapons are being used in an indiscriminate way--but unsurprisingly I think the U.S. and Israel never signed some of those conventions so I'm not even sure it applies to them (plus I don't think it would apply to a targeted munition either missing its target or firing based on mistaken intel.)

The fact that such things happen is why prudent leaders don't start wars without a very good reason.

Something that I think may rise to being criminal are reports that after we sunk Iran's ship that was leaving India, we made no effort to save the surviving sailors. My understanding is we are signatory to the 1949 convention that requires us to at least attempt to render aid in such circumstances (and while I think there are some exceptions, I don't believe any apply to that situation.)

It's also IMO just a disreputable action and brings shame to the U.S. Navy. While the convention in question is, I believe, from 1949, we actually usually made "reasonable efforts" to recover sailors of both German and Japanese ships during WWII--and that was a much more brutal, existential war where particularly the Japanese were regularly imposing significant losses on our Navy. I think it says a lot that even in those circumstances we generally made some effort (I'm sure not 100% of the time), to rescue Japanese sailors, and makes it seem even worse we didn't do so here--in the Indian Ocean where we knew we weren't in any danger if we stopped to try to participate in search and rescue.

[Bauer]

If they are successful in bombing Iran to oblivion, then the quagmire may be outsourced to Turkey and Europe with a new destabilized country and refugee crisis.

Iran has a little over 90 million people.

What does "bombing into oblivion" mean in this context?

Destabilizing the regime to the point it isn't a threat externally, but gets left with internal strife indefinitely.

[Syt]

The girls' school being destroyed is an absolute tragedy: https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-school-bombing-investigation-9.7114994

I'm going to withhold judgement, but my expectations are that no one will be held responsible and not much will change as a result of it.

"America is winning decisively, devastatingly and without mercy." - Pete Hegseth

[Jacob]

Destabilizing the regime to the point it isn't a threat externally, but gets left with internal strife indefinitely

I see. That's a relatively clear definition, thank you.

I don't think it's going to be easy to achieve, whether through bombing alone or through a wider military campaign.