The war you're watching isn't a war. What unrestricted US warfare actually looks like.

[Anomalism]

Bullshit. The war in Iran, is a war. Specifically, a war by the choice (not of necessity) of one man, who offers no consistent reason for starting it.

It's a conflict we're showing extreme restraint in. Restraint that wouldn't be reciprocated if the roles were reversed.

 

[gipper]

"We'd be breaking the law and upsetting people!"

Not the point. We only follow those laws out of good will. Nobody could stop us if we made that decision.

You may like a government committing war crimes. Most don’t.

 

[22lcidw]

I agree about “winning”. Not sure that paying $3.87 a gallon for gasoline is winning when they weren’t much of a threat to us though. And when the Arabs start rolling out their next wave of terrorism in response to this it will be interesting to see what remaining freedoms are taken from us (i.e. getting on airplanes without removing your shoes). You DO realize that blowback is coming our way for this, right?

At some point the terrorism has to stop. And we have green lit terrorism here in the United States as part of politics.

 

[Anomalism]

You may like a government committing war crimes. Most don’t.

 

[MarathonMike]

They would use it without hesitation and a clear conscience. This is the depth of their hatred and commitment to their prophet.

They removed all doubt just how evil they are when they massacred over 30,000 of their own people just a few weeks ago. There is NOTHING they wouldn't do to stay in power. They are emptying the tank right now hitting Israel with aerial cluster munitions.

 

[martybegan]

Total war is a war crime.

Dragged on low grade war carried out by people whos only hope is wearing out the other side via civilian casualties is a crime against humanity.

The rules of war are supposed to be followed by both sides. They aren't designed to reward a rule breaker with extra tactics the other side cannot also use.

 

[22lcidw]

Bullshit. The war in Iran, is a war. Specifically, a war by the choice (not of necessity) of one man, who offers no consistent reason for starting it.

Right or wrong you are wanting the shit to hit the fan. That will only cause mass misery. Only the arrogance of the current ruling establishment keeps this going. They had their chance since 1979. They abused their own people and exported terrorism to parts of the world while attempting to build nuclear weapons. We were in our younger days of taking the alme for the ills of the world tour and replacing the Shah put the onus on us.

 

[BlindBoo]

The US does not need to behave differently. When left alone, the United States is one of histories most benevolent nations to have ever existed.

Hell, we tolerated a nation waging war on us for 47 years before saying, "Enough."

How convenient you ignore what we did 73 years ago in Iran. How benevolent was our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. Not only did we supply Iraq with spare parts for their Soviet military hardware, but we also removed Iraq from the nations who supported terrorist and allowed them to purchase duel use technology and all the precursor chemicals for them to develop and use chemical weapon on Iranian troops as well as Iraqi civilians. How about when we allowed them to get biological agents to develop advanced biological weapons?

U.S. Involvement In The 1980s Iran-Iraq War: America’s Haphazard Extension Of Gulf Insecurity - The Yale Review Of International Studies

In a televised address on September 17, 1980, president Saddam Hussein stood before the National Assembly of Iraq and condemned the neighboring state Iran.

yris.yira.org

 

[justoffal]

The ugly answer here is that there's no way out of this without massive suffering and bloodshed of Innocents. It's a pretty horrible situation

Yes, and that was 80 years ago. Hell, the military has shit we don't even know about. It probably gets worse than B-2 bombers.

Right now, China has a severe puckering asshole, having watched all of their detection and repelling systems completely fail in the face of the American bombing campaign without taking out a single flying machine with an American flag on it.

 

[Anomalism]

Right now, China has a severe puckering asshole, having watched all of their detection and repelling systems completely fail in the face of the American bombing campaign without taking out a single flying machine with an American flag on it.

China isn't stupid. They're not going to pick a fight with us. They're just going to complain.

 

[martybegan]

How convenient you ignore what we did 73 years ago in Iran. How benevolent was our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. Not only did we supply Iraq with spare parts for their Soviet military hardware, but we also removed Iraq from the nations who supported terrorist and allowed them to purchase duel use technology and all the precursor chemicals for them to develop and use chemical weapon on Iranian troops as well as Iraqi civilians. How about when we allowed them to get biological agents to develop advanced biological weapons?

U.S. Involvement In The 1980s Iran-Iraq War: America’s Haphazard Extension Of Gulf Insecurity - The Yale Review Of International Studies

In a televised address on September 17, 1980, president Saddam Hussein stood before the National Assembly of Iraq and condemned the neighboring state Iran.

yris.yira.org

Welcome to the Cold War. Realpolitik is a *****.

 

[Stryder50]

Not sure what your point is.

You do quite effectively spell out why nations such as Iran want an ICBM so badly. The US would behave quite differently if Iran could nuke Atlanta

If nations like Iran weren't funding Islamic Jihad, and attacking anyone pro-West, etc., they wouldn't be on USA target list.

DUH !

 

[Darkwind]

How convenient you ignore what we did 73 years ago in Iran. How benevolent was our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's. Not only did we supply Iraq with spare parts for their Soviet military hardware, but we also removed Iraq from the nations who supported terrorist and allowed them to purchase duel use technology and all the precursor chemicals for them to develop and use chemical weapon on Iranian troops as well as Iraqi civilians. How about when we allowed them to get biological agents to develop advanced biological weapons?

U.S. Involvement In The 1980s Iran-Iraq War: America’s Haphazard Extension Of Gulf Insecurity - The Yale Review Of International Studies

In a televised address on September 17, 1980, president Saddam Hussein stood before the National Assembly of Iraq and condemned the neighboring state Iran.

yris.yira.org

Learn to read. You're little talking point misses the mark.

 

[Darkwind]

China isn't stupid. They're not going to pick a fight with us. They're just going to complain.

justoffal has a point. China may have had some false concept of just how powerful we are and that emboldens them.

Now, they can see what we can do only 'half' trying. Their aerial defense systems fell inside the first few hours and proved to be wholly ineffective. They now know that we can control the air over any target and that includes them.

They'll whine and they'll get their proxies inside the USA to whine, but they'll think twice before challenging our military.

 

[toobfreak]

It's not a war, it's a "bitchslap."

Ayatollah, don't even wanna know ya.

 

[BlindBoo]

Welcome to the Cold War. Realpolitik is a *****.

The history of our interventions has not been the benevolent fairytale the politicians and talking heads claim. Those claims are simply pasteurized history.

Remember "He who controls the spice, controls the world". Ops, did I say spice, I meant oil.....

 

[White 6]

It's a conflict we're showing extreme restraint in. Restraint that wouldn't be reciprocated if the roles were reversed.

The roles cannot be reversed, so it is a straw man argument. Iran could not carry out 5,500 strikes on military and civilian targets in the US in 10 days if it's life depended on it.

 

[martybegan]

The history of our interventions has not been the benevolent fairytale the politicians and talking heads claim. Those claims are simply pasteurized history.

Remember "He who controls the spice, controls the world". Ops, did I say spice, I meant oil.....

Oil is required for a modern economy. Ignore that at your own peril.

I actually read about history, but I also don't go out of my way to say "USA BAD BAD BAD" like the left does.

The "Pax Americana" has been one of the most benign world spanning dominances in history.

People think if we go away something worse won't take over the power vacuum.

 

[martybegan]

The roles cannot be reversed, so it is a straw man argument. Iran could not carry out 5,500 strikes on military and civilian targets in the US in 10 days if it's life depended on it.

Yet they would do so in a second if they had the capability. That's the difference you people ignore.

Give Hamas the military capability of the IDF. Is Israel still around?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

When you see headlines about US strikes on Tehran, attacks on Iranian military infrastructure, or casualties from bombing campaigns, your brain categorizes this as "war" or "military conflict." That categorization is technically correct but functionally misleading. What you're actually watching is a demonstration of restraint, not capability.

What unrestricted US capability looks like:

The United States has 20 operational B-2 Spirit stealth bombers. Each one carries 40,000 pounds of ordnance - typically 16 JDAMs or 80 smaller precision munitions. Iran has approximately 200 critical infrastructure nodes: power generation facilities, water treatment plants, oil refineries, major bridges, communications hubs, ports, government centers.

Five B-2s on a single mission could hit every single one. Iran cannot see these aircraft on radar, cannot track them, cannot intercept them. The current strikes prove this daily. They're penetrating Tehran airspace, hitting leadership targets, and leaving without engagement. Within 48 hours of unrestricted conventional warfare: no electricity grid, no water purification, no fuel distribution, no communications network, no functioning government buildings, no port operations. You'd have 88 million people in cities with no power, no water, no food supply chain. Mass casualties from infrastructure collapse alone before you count direct deaths from the strikes themselves.

That's conventional weapons. I haven't mentioned nuclear capability yet.

Each B-2 can carry 16 B83 nuclear bombs at 1.2 megaton yield each. Tehran has 9 million people. Mashhad has 3 million. Isfahan has 2 million. Shiraz has 1.5 million. Tabriz has 1.5 million. Those five cities contain roughly 20% of Iran's population. A single B-2 could hit all five in one sortie. The US could execute complete strategic destruction of Iran, every city over 50,000 population, all military installations, nuclear facilities, government centers, in under 90 minutes from decision to final weapons release. ICBMs from US silos reach Iran in 30-35 minutes. SLBMs from the Persian Gulf reach targets in 10-15 minutes. B-2s already in theater could complete full weapons release in under 2 hours.

Now contrast that with current operations. We're conducting limited strikes on military targets. Iranian infrastructure is mostly intact. Their power grid functions. Water runs. Hospitals operate. Food supply chains continue. The government still meets. The new Supreme Leader is in hiding but alive. Millions of Iranians go to work every day in buildings that still exist. We're watching a calibrated pressure campaign with massive restraint architecture, rules of engagement, target approval processes, proportionality calculations, diplomatic considerations, alliance management. Every single strike that happens is simultaneously evidence of dozens of strikes that didn't happen.

Here's where it gets uncomfortable. Iran's state ideology has been explicitly eliminationist toward the United States for 45 years. "Death to America" has been formalized state policy since 1979. Their leadership has openly called for the destruction of the United States and Israel as theological and political imperatives. If the capability differential were reversed, if Iran had 20 stealth bombers that could penetrate US airspace undetected, if they had 100+ strategic nuclear warheads, if they could destroy every US city in 90 minutes, what do you think they would do with that capability?

Would they conduct limited strikes on military targets while leaving infrastructure intact? Would they have rules of engagement protecting civilians? Would they worry about proportionality or international law? Or would they pursue maximum destruction in line with their stated ideological goals?

Iran is currently making demands for "war reparations" and "guarantees against future aggression" while unable to stop attacks on their own capital or protect their new Supreme Leader from going into hiding. They're making these demands from a position where they literally cannot defend their territory, cannot intercept our aircraft, and cannot prevent the systematic destruction of their military capabilities. This is like someone with a knife demanding terms from someone with their finger on a trigger. The only reason they still have a state to make demands from is because we're choosing not to end it.

Even your beloved right wing nut warmonger Secretary of War disagrees with you. He recently said: