3 ms·

You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This was their only leverage in negotiation. Trump is about to m

You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This was their only leverage in negotiation. Trump is about to make a speech in 30 minutes. It's over for them. The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. Israeli intelligence and bombing for the past week was setting up for this final act.

siltcakes 1y ago
They can continue to bomb Israel at will. These minimal attacks will not stop that and there will be no regime change.
- abletonlive 1y ago
  lol remind me in 2 weeks
  - fuckyah 1y ago
    [dead]
  - throwaway_dang 1y ago
    Indeed. You'll be wrong but I doubt you'll have the integrity to discover why you're wrong.
  - siltcakes 1y ago
    This morning in Israel: https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1936669160215355395 https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1936669160215355395
runako 1y ago
> The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. I'm old enough to remember when we (the US) ran this exact playbook, except the last letter was 'q' instead of 'n'. Spoiler: the B-2 played a part in both of the big wars we lost in the last couple of decades. The problem hinges on the definition of "work": yes, the bombs hit what they are aimed at. No, that does not result in operational success without a coherent theory of victory.
- abletonlive 1y ago
  I'm old enough to remember that Iraq had its entire government toppled in about 3 weeks after the US invasion so this is not the example you think it is lol. You conveniently redefined what we are talking about. You must not remember saddam getting dragged through the streets.
  - runako 1y ago
    I do remember all of that. What happened next? Did it go to plan? Nearly to plan? Close enough to plan that one could kind of squint and give partial credit? Worse than that? Did the US lose more lives in Iraq (and kill more Iraqis) before or after "Mission Accomplished"?
    - abletonlive 1y ago
      you don't have to squint to see reality. saddam is gone and there was a regime change. that's it. that's what we were talking about. no need to go into other areas of the conversation that didn't exist before you came along to insert some reason why you feel justified defending a regime that oppresses women through a "morality police" force. i don't care why you think they should be allowed to have nukes. i'm sure you can argue for it all day. you don't need to get philosophical about what is "winning" or "working". if you can't agree on objective reality and what we are discussing, we have nothing to discuss. move on
      - runako 1y ago
        Yes, the regime changed. Objectively, that is true. We agree on that. And then... the US lost nearly 5,000 service members in Iraq. We are still paying for the $3 trillion the war cost. Americans derived no benefit whatsoever from the change of regime in Iraq, a country that had not attacked us. As an American who lives in a US city not currently under attack by Iran, it is reasonable to ask why we should sign up for this again. This has absolutely zero with defending Iran. How they manage their domestic affairs has no bearing on me. If there is a case to be made that we should curtail our urgent domestic policy goals in favor of another war thousands of miles from the US, it has not been made. My concern is this: I have no dog in this fight, but now I am going to be asked to pay for it. And it working like it "worked" in Iraq is my primary concern on that front. Isolating the first 3 weeks or so from an 8-year war to say that it "worked" is obviously a special kind of sophistry. I'm not sure what purpose is served by such an analysis, honestly.
catlifeonmars 1y ago
What makes you think a ground invasion is likely?
denkmoon 1y ago
Just like the famously successful regime change enacted upon Afghanistan.
monkey_monkey 1y ago
> You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This hasn't aged well...unsurprisingly

siltcakes 1y ago

They can continue to bomb Israel at will. These minimal attacks will not stop that and there will be no regime change.

abletonlive 1y ago
lol remind me in 2 weeks
- fuckyah 1y ago
  [dead]
- throwaway_dang 1y ago
  Indeed. You'll be wrong but I doubt you'll have the integrity to discover why you're wrong.
- siltcakes 1y ago
  This morning in Israel: https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1936669160215355395 https://x.com/warfareanalysis/status/1936669160215355395

runako 1y ago

> The US does not just send B2 bombers without knowing it's going to work. I'm old enough to remember when we (the US) ran this exact playbook, except the last letter was 'q' instead of 'n'. Spoiler: the B-2 played a part in both of the big wars we lost in the last couple of decades. The problem hinges on the definition of "work": yes, the bombs hit what they are aimed at. No, that does not result in operational success without a coherent theory of victory.

abletonlive 1y ago
I'm old enough to remember that Iraq had its entire government toppled in about 3 weeks after the US invasion so this is not the example you think it is lol. You conveniently redefined what we are talking about. You must not remember saddam getting dragged through the streets.
- runako 1y ago
  I do remember all of that. What happened next? Did it go to plan? Nearly to plan? Close enough to plan that one could kind of squint and give partial credit? Worse than that? Did the US lose more lives in Iraq (and kill more Iraqis) before or after "Mission Accomplished"?
  - abletonlive 1y ago
    you don't have to squint to see reality. saddam is gone and there was a regime change. that's it. that's what we were talking about. no need to go into other areas of the conversation that didn't exist before you came along to insert some reason why you feel justified defending a regime that oppresses women through a "morality police" force. i don't care why you think they should be allowed to have nukes. i'm sure you can argue for it all day. you don't need to get philosophical about what is "winning" or "working". if you can't agree on objective reality and what we are discussing, we have nothing to discuss. move on
    - runako 1y ago
      Yes, the regime changed. Objectively, that is true. We agree on that. And then... the US lost nearly 5,000 service members in Iraq. We are still paying for the $3 trillion the war cost. Americans derived no benefit whatsoever from the change of regime in Iraq, a country that had not attacked us. As an American who lives in a US city not currently under attack by Iran, it is reasonable to ask why we should sign up for this again. This has absolutely zero with defending Iran. How they manage their domestic affairs has no bearing on me. If there is a case to be made that we should curtail our urgent domestic policy goals in favor of another war thousands of miles from the US, it has not been made. My concern is this: I have no dog in this fight, but now I am going to be asked to pay for it. And it working like it "worked" in Iraq is my primary concern on that front. Isolating the first 3 weeks or so from an 8-year war to say that it "worked" is obviously a special kind of sophistry. I'm not sure what purpose is served by such an analysis, honestly.

catlifeonmars 1y ago

What makes you think a ground invasion is likely?

denkmoon 1y ago

Just like the famously successful regime change enacted upon Afghanistan.

monkey_monkey 1y ago

> You don't seem to understand that the government of Iran isn't going to exist in about 2 weeks. This hasn't aged well...unsurprisingly