Trump says he bombed Iran

[SomeStupidName]

No there other option is to dig in and force an occupation .

USA doesn't fair well in occupations....

No one is looking for that. If we have to bomb the shit out of Iran every few months then that works too.

[vonclod]

I’m not getting into the partisan politics bs, but here in Alberta we’re paying about $5.75 a gallon for regular gasoline.
I spoke to my brother in law yesterday and they are paying about $6.4 a gallon in BC…

Absolutely fucking ridiculous as we produce and refine it here in Alberta.

Talk about corporate greed and any excuse to screw the consumers…

As usual, my 2 pesos…


Tecate

Yesterday in the Vancouver area it was between 2.09-2.14, so just under 9$ a gallon

[andy06shake]

A bit too close to home for my liking.

Just up the road, really, comparatively speaking. 

About 30 miles to Faslane from here in Glasgow. 

I think that's where America and the UK have been known to store atomic ordnance for the submarines.

[Maxmars]

I feel torn, in that no human being living in a community which celebrates 'visceral ideological hatred' can easily avoid the 'leaders' mandates for support... even if they precipitate the deaths of their families and friends over an enemy they report to have the effect and magnitude of "Satan."

Many of the fighters for the ideals of the Iranian leadership are expected to bare their breasts to the fire

I feel horribly when I revisit the images of war... regardless of the 'reason.'

Can we "justify" the mangling and death of children as a 'sacrificial price' to eliminate the 'image' of evil?

There's a disconnect... and I can't reconcile it yet.

It's almost a trap... or it is one... and we already know we might spring it... again.

Who prospers?, has become the only question to resolve in the hopes of a more robust understanding of why anyone ever would choose to sacrifice their countrymen... as if 'citizens' were a fungible 'commodity' to be expended... or if not citizens... 'faithful.'

[vonclod]

You missed the fact that Trump plans to personally make an obscene amount of money by seizing control of as much of the world's oil supply as possible while simultaneously increasing the demand by opposing renewable energy projects wherever he can. First, Venezuela, with the world's largest known oil reserves.  Then--a couple of months later--Iran, with the world's third largest reserves.  Why do you suppose he keeps on fantasizing about making Canada the 51st state?  Oh, that's right, Canada has the world's fourth largest known reserves.

We have lots of fresh water too, and that will be a thing people/countries will fight over at some point.

[EXETER]

No one is looking for that. If we have to bomb the shit out of Iran every few months then that works too.

I think you're mistaken.  

Israel is not looking to occupy Iran for a variety of reasons--the main one being that their military is nowhere big enough to do that.

But people need to understand that Netanyahu and Trump have very different motivations for being there in the first place. To Netanyahu, Iran is an existential threat.  He wants to destroy their military and nuclear programs, cause a regime change, and get Iran's proxies under control in places like Lebanon. And I think he has a reasonable chance of achieving those objectives.  None of that requires a permanent presence in Iran after hostilities cease.

Trump's motive for being in this war right now is to take Iran's oil and make it his own so that he can make a shit load of money after hostilities cease by deciding who gets the oil and who doesn't.  This was the plan in Venezuela and Trump has more or less openly admitted that he was trying to run the same play in Iran.  Basically, he's using the US military to make himself into an oil baron.

In order for that to work, the Iranian oil infrastructure has to be intact enough after hostilities cease to actually get a substantial amount of oil to market. That includes, but is not limited to Kharg Island. Last week, he bombed military installations on Kharg but left the oil handling infrastructure intact.  If he simply wanted to put the IRGC out of business he could have taken out a few pieces of the oil infrastructure there and 90% of Iran's cash flow would have stopped instantly.  But what he actually did is take out the military installations there that would be used in defending the island when the Marines show up at the doorstep.  So he was obviously planning then for the Marines to take the island after they arrive in the Persian Gulf (probably next week).  

But that won't be enough.  Kharg Island is only the terminal where oil is loaded onto ocean-going tankers. The oil flows to there from 3 of Iran's major oil fields through pipelines.  In order for Trump's get-rich-quick scheme to work, Kharg Island, the pipelines, AND those oil fields will have to be not only functional, but actually functioning.  

One way for that to happen is if there is a regime change in Iran that is either friendly to the US or at least amenable to cutting a deal to keep the oil flowing under Trump's terms.  Trump was obviously hoping that would happen relatively quickly in Iran as it did in Venezuela.  But it didn't, and doesn't look like it's going to happen any time soon. Maybe never.  Mainly because Trump made no serious effort to figure out how to get someone to replace the Ayatollah after he helped Netanyahu snuff the guy.  

And the Israelis just keep killing any senior  member of the previous regime on sight, so there won't even be anyone to negotiate with until all of the dust settles after hostilities cease.  And then, why would any Iranian negotiate with Trump considering his pattern of constantly making and breaking agreements?

I think that at some point Trump is going to realize that if he wants to control Iran's oil output for his own purposes, he would have to militarily occupy and control the oil fields, the pipelines, and Kharg Island.  That's what eventually happened in Iraq, just for reference, so we are looking at something of that scale.

[CriticalStinker]

I feel torn, in that no human being living in a community which celebrates 'visceral ideological hatred' can easily avoid the 'leaders' mandates for support... even if they precipitate the deaths of their families and friends over an enemy they report to have the effect and magnitude of "Satan."

Many of the fighters for the ideals of the Iranian leadership are expected to bare their breasts to the fire

I feel horribly when I revisit the images of war... regardless of the 'reason.'

Can we "justify" the mangling and death of children as a 'sacrificial price' to eliminate the 'image' of evil?

There's a disconnect... and I can't reconcile it yet.

It's almost a trap... or it is one... and we already know we might spring it... again.

Who prospers?, has become the only question to resolve in the hopes of a more robust understanding of why anyone ever would choose to sacrifice their countrymen... as if 'citizens' were a fungible 'commodity' to be expended... or if not citizens... 'faithful.'

I think that has been what society has been grappling with since WWII.

When do we go to war? Is it okay to do for “national interest” which is a fancy way of saying resources? 

Is it okay to do when we perceive a possible threat and want to preempt it? 

I think the lesson is no for both of those. While some may see that as weak, I think bad wars make us weak.

Look at WWII for instance, we were still in or just exiting the Great Depression, a time where people would pull nails out of structures to reuse them. Frugality had a different meaning in those times. Yet, much of the war was funded through war bonds. The populace was behind it because they understood what was at stake.

If the nation is convicted, “winning” is a lot more attainable.

The problem with the Middle East wars is the population knows they’re not the same existential threat as we’ve seen before. There’s no doubt we can topple governments and destroy most military capabilities, but at what cost? We’ve decided that thousands of US troops and trillions of dollars for an area that goes right back to the way it was is losing… Even if we “won” militarily. I think that is growth in a superpower, not weakness. We don’t view our troops lives and resources as simply expendable.

We’re not going to topple the regime from the air. We’re not going to neuter them from the air either. That’s not because we’re weak, we can fight several fronts at the same time. It’s because we’ve decided it’s not worth a full scale war, and for good reason.

[putnam6]

Uncle Sammy had better call uncle... Iran's winning the war FFS such rubbish



If 2026 Democrats were in WWII, they would have surrendered to Germany 2 weeks after D-Day

[cherokeetroy]

https://x.com/MarioNawfal/status/2035068...95351?s=20

"Pentagon officials have already made plans for sending U.S. ground troops into Iran if Trump gives the order. This isn’t just talk… they’re even planning what to do with captured Iranian soldiers and where they’d be held. Forces are already lining up, including the 82nd Airborne’s rapid unit and about 5,000 Marines moving into the region."

[Maxmars]

In this contextually constrained argument about should we do what we have already done, I think we might be destined to run aground.

It is both pertinent and proper to classify the arguments as what they are...

a collection on encounters between the physical act of translating "national/private interest" into military hands, and synthesizing a set of narratives about the war-state of Iran.  It never wasn't a war-state.  It's distinction was virtue pea-cocking over the death and suffering of those they hate... and using violence for 'activism.'

Since the idea of 'classical warfare' has been rendered by technology and 'willingness to kill remotely' into a new kind of 'war' reality...

Nations not able to cope with high tech personally-targeted attacks are doomed...
(Even the narco-Kings took a long time to learn that lesson...
"The Remote Kill" ... maybe good thread idea)

Iran's ruling 'regime' may (or may not) learn how they really killed their regime, in the final analysis...
if they survive. (there's a world of "coulda, shoulda, woulda," in that story.)

The global lesson is that for right or wrong we can no longer allow the world to suffer you teaching us lessons of human conduct."

(Most globalists hate learning that lesson... they are still deeply broken over their b/s "choices.")

We are here now... the only thing about war that is good is it's end.
(Watch for those who simply won't ever let war die...
let the warning bells sound.)