Not murdered. Bombed in the fog of war.
Speaking of murder, the regime just killed 40000 by actual murder for protesting.
Agreed that this isn’t worth it as it is now.
1 Like
No one wants Iran to get a nuclear bomb. But they also weren’t close to doing so.
We needed to engage and work the issue for sure. The problem is we started bombing without a clear plan or the political will to do what’s needed to be done to win the war. So we ended up where we are.
We are in a mess which is what happens every time we do this in the ME. You’d think we would learn.
At this point, it seems we would be thrilled to get back to where we were.
4 Likes
Gotta figure out which defense contractors make our drones, bombs, and air to ground missiles.
Their stocks have gotta be shooting through the roof with all the fresh orders they must be receiving!
Using fear of atomic weapons to conduct wars makes sense to you but not to me.
No i don’t want to starve 15 million people out of fear
1 Like
I’m not where you think I am either but I’m not sure how you proceed either.
Iran was in trouble before bombs dropped because they haven’t invested in infrastructure for so long.
Now it’s close to a disaster.
And you can’t get it back to where they are.
From the get go i said there is a possibility of huge change to the region. I just don’t know if moderates will ever come to power in Iran. I’m not convinced we can bomb our way to that
.
1 Like
There are no good answers.
Maintaining the blockade as long as you politically can and then bombing Kharg is probably the best available bad outcome long term.
J/K
2 Likes
And tomorrow it will be back on. What a steady rationale leadership we have
2 Likes
There never is in the ME.
1 Like
Big welcome back to O Emmanuel
1 Like
Along with all the other deadly mistakes, walk backs, and 180s already made, looks like
the negotiators were equally inept as well in wording. Par for the course.
1 Like
Awe, did a participation award make someone sad?
1 Like
I’m confused. You realize ISIS and Iran are enemies, right? Iranians are predominantly Shia Muslims. ISIS is a
jihadist Sunni militant group birthed in Iraq and Syria. ISIS literally stands for the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
Anyhow, the idea of starving millions of people (90 million) by taking out their energy infrastructure and water supplies would be inhumane and possibly a war crime under the Geneva Convention… not that our administration seems to care.
3 Likes
Was curious if that different scenario warranted it in people’s minds.
This is a different scenario right now.
A nation doesn’t care if its populace gets hurt and keeps launching missiles. They won’t surrender or negotiate in good faith… the only ways to win are a siege; to bankrupt the country; or stage a WW2 style land war.
We could hit Kharg but there is no appetite for that. Democrats are forcing this to get done.
Hitting power plants and bridges might really be on the table.
1 Like
Maybe not ISIS.
But if Iran gets a nuke…it might very well fall into the hands of one of their terroristic Islamist proxies: Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, etc.
We certainly won’t stand idly by and allow that to happen.
And of course, we don’t want a regimes like Iran to have a nuke in the first place, given that they’ve called for the destruction of US allies like Israel, and call us “The Great Satan.”
1 Like
Truly winning long term in the ME is nearly impossible. We haven’t learned that yet unfortunately.
2 Likes
You may not have been following along, but there’s no shortage of people from both sides of the aisle that are ready for this administration to stop trying to play war games that they don’t understand. This is not a Democrat vs Republican divide except where some on one side feel obligated to line up behind one person.
4 Likes
Yeah, there is no political will on either side to escalate this war.
That has been evident from the jump.
1 Like