Yet another war, this time with Iran

[pood]

Has anyone mentioned that bringing back the draft is being considered.

That would require an act of Congress. So, it's unlikely to happen even if it were needed, which I do not think it will be.

Get your protests ready young ones and start to realize what boomers had to deal with during the Viet Nam War. Sadly, this could be even worse! Soon, you will be using our hippy slang, not that I think we currently have any members here who are young enough to be drafted, but some of you might have kids who are.

I do not have kids myself, but know a 20-something who is afraid that the draft is coming because of all the nonsense on social media he is watching.

Have Bannon go first, assuming he has no bone spurs.

Bannon? He is 72. Do you mean Barron?

So you don’t have kids yourself and I assume are too old to fight yourself. How nice for you!

Just keep pounding those keys, Keyboard Warrior, secure in the knowledge that you are physically secure.

After telling how Trump would keep us out of war.

Yet here you are rooting on the destruction of others.

 

[Derec]

Buddy! Why would the Mullahs care about that? They don’t give a damn about their people let alone their economy.

The Mullahs themselves might not. But IRGC is all about the money. Partly because they are highly corrupt organization with their tentacles in all the cookie jars of the Iranian economy. But also because prosecuting a war genuinely requires funds. Rank and file soldiers would get restless if they don't get paid.
And make no mistake, with the new Ayatollah being "Weekend at Mojtaba"-ed, the IRGC is the faction in charge of the Regime right now.

 

[Derec]

So you don’t have kids yourself and I assume are too old to fight yourself. How nice for you!

Too old and too fat. And it's not really nice. I'd much rather be 25 and fit.

Just keep pounding those keys, Keyboard Warrior, secure in the knowledge that you are physically secure.

After telling how Trump would keep us out of war.

When have I told that?
If anything, I have criticized Trump for lacking follow-through when he does something. Like when he followed up the successful droning of IRGC head Soleimani with absolutely nothing.
We see those "TACO Tuesday" tendencies with this ceasefire where the Regime is still blocking free passage through the Strait. No free passage, no exports for the Regime either, is what should have been the ultimatum. Say what you will about Hillary, I think she would have been a bit more resolute here. Biden and Kamala, I am not so sure about. Just look at how well the Afghanistan retreat went - worthy of Monthy Python - "Sir Robinette bravely turned his tail and ran away when danger reared its ugly head."

Yet here you are rooting on the destruction of others.

Sometimes military action is necessary. I think a war with the Regime has always been inevitable. But had we done it 12 years ago instead of giving them sanction relief and pallets of cash it would have been less deadly for everybody - first and foremost the Iranian people. The Regime used this time and money to greatly expand their missile and drone capabilities and to further fund their vassals abroad. Without the rotten JCPOA deal strengthening the Regime, Houthis might not have taken over most of Yemen and Hamas might not have been emboldened to do October 7th.

 

[laughing dog]

Has anyone mentioned that bringing back the draft is being considered.

That would require an act of Congress. So, it's unlikely to happen even if it were needed, which I do not think it will be.

Get your protests ready young ones and start to realize what boomers had to deal with during the Viet Nam War. Sadly, this could be even worse! Soon, you will be using our hippy slang, not that I think we currently have any members here who are young enough to be drafted, but some of you might have kids who are.

I do not have kids myself, but know a 20-something who is afraid that the draft is coming because of all the nonsense on social media he is watching. And no, automatic selective service registration (which should be extended to young women as well) does not mean the draft is being reinstated.

So why is this administration bringing up automatic selective service registration in an era where Congress gives?Diaper Donny just about anything he wants.

 

[Derec]

Piracy, in other words.

Not really. More like a naval blockade.

Two wrongs make a right, in other words.

Why should we tie our hands behind our backs? Rules are contingent on both sides following them. If one side does not respect free passage, then they should not expect that they should enjoy free passage either.

We don't care how much we or our allies suffer, as long as our enemy is also suffering, in other words.

Temporary suffering that would likely lead to a defeat of the Regime is preferrable to still suffering, but a little less, and for a longer time, because that state of affairs benefits the enemy.

Schoolyard reasoning from infantile morons, in other words.

No, what is schoolyard reasoning is allowing the enemy to benefit economically because we do not want to do what is necessary.

The US, having (like Iran) failed to ratify UNCLOS, have no lawful basis to demand Iran open the strait. Iran has the ability to close it, and has done so.

So we close it for Iranian vessels. We have that ability.

The US could close Hormuz to Iranian vessels, or even to "Iranian affiliated" vessels (however they want to define that), but there seems no reason to expect that doing so will have any serious negative effect on Iranian resolve to keep the strait closed for "US affiliated" shipping.

Why not? Most of their economy is dependent on keeping the spice oil flowing.

When your victim has swallowed his lunch money to stop you from getting it, he is not likely to capitulate just because you punch him harder. The Iranian regime doesn't give a shit what violence America brings. The more pain America inflicts, the less likely they are to give an inch on anything. They welcome martyrdom.

The Regime are not "victims". They are the bullies who have murdered tens of thousands of their own citizens and who are arming and funding terrorist groups all over the region.
And I do not care what their leaders welcome. You need money to prosecute a war and for the economy to function. Even before the war, the Iranian economy was in dire straits, which was the inciting reason for the January protests. Closing Kharg would make it much worse. Maybe bad enough for the rank and file soldiery to turn on the Regime.

 

[bilby]

Hamas has been greatly diminished. Sure, they still rule the pile of rubble that is western Gaza Strip. But they have lost tens of thousands of fighters, including many senior commanders. Most of their tunnel network and offensive capabilities are destroyed. I would call that "it worked". The rest is up to the people of Gaza. They can embrace Hamas and their Ilk and continue to suffer, or they can reject their ideology and seek a peaceful coexistence. But in the absence of that, military action worked in the sense of greatly reducing the danger that Hamas poses to Israel.

I think you are only right in the very short term, and that you are still clinging to demonstrably failed strategic bombing doctrines that originated with Douhet back in WWI when air power was first developed, and which dominated WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. The risk that Hamas (and/or their successors) pose to Israel has been worsened by the military action in the medium to long term.

This address by Colonel Everest E. Riccioni, U.S. Air Force (Retired), made in November 1996 - thirty years ago - to the US Naval Institute, contains some vitally important conclusions from real-world applications of strategic bombing, that still hold true today:

The Vietnam War saw more bomb tonnage dropped on North Vietnam than was dropped on Germany by a factor of three. We had complete air superiority. Yet, clearly, we lost the war. There were few strategic targets in North Vietnam. General LeMay said he wanted to bomb the North back into the Stone Age, apparently unaware that North Vietnam was not developed much beyond that point. Bombing Hanoi and Haiphong had little effect, other than the usual one of raising the morale of the population and ensuring their will to continue the war.

(my bold)
...

Ten years of war in Vietnam lead to these familiar conclusions:

• Strategic heavy bombers are relatively useless in insurgent warfare​
• Bombing disenfranchised civilian populations is either ineffective or counterproductive​

...

The data on the value of strategic bombing with conventional weapons are complete enough, and some of the major lessons of the past have been revalidated:

• Bombing cities and killing the innocents and the disenfranchised in enemy countries—ruled by despots or not—usually is either counterproductive or ineffective.​
• The past failures of heavy bombers are: They were not survivable in autonomous operation. They were inaccurate. And the wrong targets were selected or they were given the wrong priority. The latter was a military intelligence failure—and a human intelligence failure.​
• The commonsense weapons of a sane future are conventional. The need for heavy, global-ranging strategic bombers to carry nuclear weapons has atrophied severely.​
• Strategic bombers will have little effect in wars of religious fervor; in combating undeveloped countries; and in insurgent and guerrilla wars.​
• History has proved Douhet wrong on essentially everything he believed.​

(again, my bold).

 

[bilby]

Sometimes military action is necessary.

And other times, like right now, it is unnecessary and counterproductive. The US is in a far worse position, by almost any measure, and in almost every field of international relations, than it was before they attacked Iran.

The world and domestic economies have been severely harmed. Relations with allies (other than Israel) have been severely harmed. Influence over rivals and enemies has been sharply diminished. The nascent opposition in Iran has been massacred. NATO has been severely weakened, and Russia both emboldened and provided with economic windfalls both from increased oil prices and reduced sanctions.

Not only was this military action not necessary, it was foreseeably and obviously stupid and counterproductive in a vast array of ways.

 

[bilby]

Temporary suffering that would likely lead to a defeat of the Regime is preferrable

What basis do you have for your unsupported belief that there is any military action the US could plausibly take that would "likely lead to a defeat of the Regime"?

This is the error at the heart of all of this shit. And it is caused by Trump's absurd simpleton view, presumably taken from Saturday morning Westerns, that violence is a good solution to problems, because the world is cleanly divided into black hats and white hats, so all we need do is shoot the black hats and ride off into the sunset.

Are you really naïve enough to concur with that insanity?

 

[crazyfingers]

Commenting on the peace talks with Iran in Pakistan, Trump says:

“Regardless what happens, we win,” “Whether we make a deal or not, makes no difference to me.”
“We’ve totally defeated that country and so let’s see what happens,” “Maybe they make a deal, maybe they don’t, it doesn’t matter. From the standpoint of America, we win.”

Who on Earth does Trump think he is fooling?
Definitely not the Iranians
Definitely not anyone who thinks
Definitely not the rest of the world

The US has destroyed a lot of military capability but that's it.

The Iranian Regime is intact. It survives and they hold the global economy by the balls.

Iran is winning this.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/11/world/live-news/iran-us-war-talks?post-id=cmnutaqxg00003b6q0mwvszjo

 

[ZiprHead]

Sometimes military action is necessary.

And other times, like right now, it is unnecessary and counterproductive. The US is in a far worse position, by almost any measure, and in almost every field of international relations, than it was before they attacked Iran.

The world and domestic economies have been severely harmed. Relations with allies (other than Israel) have been severely harmed. Influence over rivals and enemies has been sharply diminished. The nascent opposition in Iran has been massacred. NATO has been severely weakened, and Russia both emboldened and provided with economic windfalls both from increased oil prices and reduced sanctions.

Not only was this military action not necessary, it was foreseeably and obviously stupid and counterproductive in a vast array of ways.

Intelligence advisors told Trump everything that is happening now and advised against the attack. They said the possibility of regime change is extremely unlikely.

Some advisors have resigned over Trump's decision.

 

[bilby]

Some advisors have resigned over Trump's decision.

Which is entirely the wrong response.

TRUMP should have resigned over Trump's decision, and if he refused to, Congress should have sacked him.

That's how it's supposed to work when a President is actively harming the USA and is flagrantly disregarding his oath of office, right?

 

[barbos]

Britain says

You should have stopped here.

 

[barbos]

I think that this has been a real eye opener for our Russian comrades. I keep hearing that it is NATO (the US) fighting Russia not Ukrainians! It's the US and Nato giving all the tech and teaching Ukrainians to fight. Nope! The other way around! They are now the experts in modern warfare as they have been fighting for their lives for the past 5 years.

Yes, it's a real eye opener on the level of your delusion