whiterock said:
ATL Bear said:
whiterock said:
ATL Bear said:
Oldbear83 said:
ATL Bear said:
Air Superiority was never in question even before the conflict started. Its relevance to victory completely depends upon how you define it (victory). Welcome to asymmetric war.
We certainly see how some here hang on every rumor, hoping they can crow about American losses.
My son is in the process of becoming a Marine officer, so you can **** right off with that sentiment you miserable sycophant.
My daughter is an Air Force officer directly involved in the airlift for this operation, so why don't you lighten up, Francis.
Why do you want Americans to die?
I want the mullah regime to die and am not in the least bit amused with those who are trying to undermine the effort to make that happen by romancing discontent of actions they do not even care to try to understand. I participated in the quiet part of the front-end of our 47-yr long war that Iran has waged against us, against both Iran and Hizballah. I now have an offspring invested in the hot end that war, comfortably within range of Iranian missiles. She's going to get to be there when it finishes, like I was with the Cold War. So....lighten up, Francis. This thing is going to take a minute to resolve. We are the side engaging in asymmetrical warfare, dictating virtually every aspect of the battle and denouement approaches. Iran's "Seoul Hostage Problem" is over. They are not going to be able to use conventional deterrence to shield their pursuit of nukes. Sit down, shut up, watch & learn.
The Clerical Islamist state isn't a temporary glitch. It is a deeply entrenched power structure that has become inseparable from the Iranian state. It has been around for centuries. Even if we went "all in" with a ground war, the underlying political culture would remain, and we'd simply be left policing a power vacuum for the next thirty years.
We have already decimated their nuclear program and dismantled their primary military and strike capabilities. To give the Trump administration and subsequent actions their due, by demonstrating a willingness to strike, we have fundamentally altered Iran's deterrence calculus. We've forced them to weigh the survival of the regime against the utility of their proxies. We have accomplished what is necessary for our own security at this point, and any further escalation is acting solely for the benefit of others.
So I ask again, why do you want Americans to die so Iranian citizens can pursue something they've shown only a partial willingness to address? We cannot want Iranian liberty more than the Iranians do. Haven't we learned that from multiple situations in the Middle East? The primary driver of domestic unrest has been economic grievance rather than a rejection of the theocratic structure, which means an American-Israeli led regime change is a solution in search of a problem.
Why do you want Americans to die so Israel can have less pressure from Hamas and Hezbollah? As they've shown, they are the regional superpower. They are able to control/address their own backyard, especially with us fueling their battle machine. They are more than capable of handling this "their way" if the West simply gets out of the way.
Why do you want Americans to die so other countries can gain access to energy resources we don't need? Why can't they negotiate their own resolutions like France or India? We have sufficiently resolved the issues that impact us, and the Iranians certainly understand by now that attacks on U.S. interests carry harsh, devastating consequences. That's a pretty easy deal point for both parties.
But your "this will take a minute" gave me distinct Rumsfeld vibes. The same "patience" mantras we heard as the post war situation in Iraq escalated. "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down," if I recall. You're asking for the same patience now, which is almost always just a rhetorical cover for open ended engagements and mission creep.
Finally, your condescending "shut up, watch and learn" approach grates on everyone you engage with, and on multiple topics. You assume that those of us questioning the strategy are either uninformed or, as inferred earlier, cheering on American losses or failure. It's a tired tactic. Sophisticated strategy shouldn't require a blind leap of faith. If the only way to defend your position is to tell others to "watch and learn" while ignoring the parallels to past failures and geopolitical realities, you're not presenting answers, you're presenting a dogma that refuses to be questioned. Frankly you're pressing the sunk cost fallacy wrapped in arrogance because you're so invested in this Administration.
