| |
| ▲ | usrbinbash 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > iran's dickhead move... Remind me again, which country started this whole mess? > what choice do the gulf nations, or even all the asian+european (strait users) nations have? They can go "yeah, you know, the US has been less than reliable as an ally recently, what with absurd tariffs, saber rattling around greenland, belitteling NATO, etc., and they seem unwilling to change, so we're just gonna pay the piper, and get oil, and make arrangements with the Chinese (aka. the worlds most powerful industry), and if they US doesn't like it, that sounds like a them-problem..." What's very likely not gonna happen, is other countries fighting the US's war for them. NATO already told trump no, other countries won't give different answers. And anyone who wants to actually invade Iran...well, let's put it this way: Iran is 3-4 times the size of Afghanistan, with even more difficult terrain, and has a standing army of 600,000 men, with over 300,000 in reserve. They have an air force, are proficient in the manufacture of drones, have a working intelligence network. And they've had 4 decades to dig into defensive positions. In short, it's not gonna happen. | | |
| ▲ | ozgrakkurt 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Don't think there is much of a point replying to this person seriously as he is obviously a troll. You can take half a minute to check his profile | | |
| ▲ | zahlman a day ago | parent [-] | | People having worldviews you disagree with does not make them "trolls". |
| |
| ▲ | sysguest 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > which country started this whole mess? what has already started, is already started -- I agree on Trump being dick, but does that make iran's "making new enemies" a wise move? > NATO already told trump no, other countries won't give different answers. of course it said no BEFORE IRAN started the $2M toll (and other countries don't like trump due to tariff-for-everyone) if the current iran regime was strategically wise, iran should have fired everything it got to Israel, and make the missile interception rate down to 40%. That would have actually showed it's power. now, with even UAE's missile interception rate of 96%, iran actually showed its missiles are nuisances, not some existential threat. 600,000 men and 300,000 in reserve -- well that would have mattered a lot in medieval wars...
"they have an airforce" -- well do they actually have planes?
"have a working intelligence network" -- hmm... no you're way way way over-estimating iran the only strategic move for iran was selecting one specific target (israel) and focusing all its might, not becoming a rambo | | |
| ▲ | daheza 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Their win condition isn't destroying Israel, its outlasting the American will for the war until a leadership change happens. They aren't the attackers in this war. They need to just defend until America and Israel give up because it is too costly at home. | | |
| ▲ | sysguest a day ago | parent [-] | | > its outlasting the American will for the war until a leadership change happens well even in the best-case scenario (trump impeachment), I highly doubt any democrat president can actually stop at status quo -- rather, the next president has exactly zero choice but to wipe out iran MORE than trump (and call trump a weakling) just leave Iran be and get out? well he/she could, GIVEN that Iran didn't show its potential to be bully on the gulf states and didn't even think about that $2M toll... now? well even if a pirate has a sad back story, doesn't mean the navy can leave them be. by missiling everyone nearby, iran just became too dangerous to nearby neighbors... by even talking about $2M toll, iran just became too financially dangerous even to strait users... I mean, even if it's "just $2M", what will stop iran from asking $5M, $10M, or even $100M ? |
| |
| ▲ | surgical_fire a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > iran's "making new enemies" Those countries were already enemies of Iran by virtue of housing US bases, military installations, etc. | |
| ▲ | samus 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > what has already started, is already started -- I agree on Trump being dick, but does that make iran's "making new enemies" a wise move? There is no downside on making the Gulf states enemies. Quite to the contrary: they might lobby the USA to end this madness. It's a serious damage to the importance of the USA in the region if it can't or doesn't want to open the strait again, either by force or by making a deal. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fogzen 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Delusional. The GCC has only 40,000 troops. | | |
| ▲ | JackFr 2 days ago | parent [-] | | But they swear an oath to serve Richard Stallman unto death. |
| |
| ▲ | pphysch 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | sysguest 2 days ago | parent [-] | | woah so you read this as "iran is morally wrong"? well, that's secondary thing right now what's dumb is dumb what's the least thing you should do when fighting a war? making more enemies. even on moral side... if someone in walmart bullies you, and you bully back to your classmates, does that make you morally justified? plus, if you showed your cards ("decades-old deterrence threats"), you're out of options | | |
| ▲ | pphysch 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Iran is not flattening Emirati hospitals, like Israel would be doing in their shoes. Iran is targeting direct US/Israeli interests, which includes military facilities, military personnel, and energy facilities with substantial US/Israeli partnerships. That latter part is particularly key here, and what pro-Israeli propaganda is anxious to suppress. > plus, if you showed your cards ("decades-old deterrence threats"), you're out of options Yes, it is a desperation move after undeterred US-Israeli terrorism and brazen violations of international law. But it's also working. |
|
|
|
