trollslayer · 51-55, M
View 8 more replies »
CedricH · 22-25, M
@trollslayer No, you can’t just defeat ideologies. And liberalism, the human desire for self-determination, equality before the law, and personal freedom is just as much an ideology as the Mullah‘s islamist fanaticism. And it’s an even more potent force.
It is an ideology the regime in Tehran hasn’t been able to extinguish. Not in 1999, not during the Green Revolution in 2009, not in 2017/18, not in the throes of the Women, Life, Freedom protests in 2023 and not even now after the Islamic Republic killed about 30.000 Iranians back in January.
It is our responsibility, our destiny and strategically consistent with our self-interest to support those courageous men and women who seek to rid themselves off any hostile regime that violates both their rights & dignity as well as the norms of the American-led world order.
People in Iran don’t oppose their regime because they resent the absence of McDonalds or GI Joe action figures. That’s trivial.
They may just want a government that won’t slaughter, impoverish and oppress them under the guise of a dilapidated Islamic ideology that has lost much of its appeal since 1979.
Also, I suppose it’s time to revive some Cold War-style propaganda in the US (and especially in Europe) to lead people like yourself back to the light.
It is an ideology the regime in Tehran hasn’t been able to extinguish. Not in 1999, not during the Green Revolution in 2009, not in 2017/18, not in the throes of the Women, Life, Freedom protests in 2023 and not even now after the Islamic Republic killed about 30.000 Iranians back in January.
It is our responsibility, our destiny and strategically consistent with our self-interest to support those courageous men and women who seek to rid themselves off any hostile regime that violates both their rights & dignity as well as the norms of the American-led world order.
People in Iran don’t oppose their regime because they resent the absence of McDonalds or GI Joe action figures. That’s trivial.
They may just want a government that won’t slaughter, impoverish and oppress them under the guise of a dilapidated Islamic ideology that has lost much of its appeal since 1979.
Also, I suppose it’s time to revive some Cold War-style propaganda in the US (and especially in Europe) to lead people like yourself back to the light.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@trollslayer 😏
LamontCranston · M
SunshineGirl · 36-40, F
I think the "trajectory" you have described is wishful thinking at best.
I find it difficult to know where to begin . . but to take up your point about success in intercepting Iranian drone attacks. A drone costs in the region of $5K. The interceptor missile rquired to stop it costs in the region of $500,000. The asymmetry of cost alone is eye watering and goes a long way to explaining why a "weak" Iranian regime has been able to hold its own on the battlefield for the best part of half a year. And American missile stocks are dangerously depleted.
I find it difficult to know where to begin . . but to take up your point about success in intercepting Iranian drone attacks. A drone costs in the region of $5K. The interceptor missile rquired to stop it costs in the region of $500,000. The asymmetry of cost alone is eye watering and goes a long way to explaining why a "weak" Iranian regime has been able to hold its own on the battlefield for the best part of half a year. And American missile stocks are dangerously depleted.
LamontCranston · M
@SunshineGirl The US--thanks in part to Ukraine and vendors like Anduril--is rapidly adopting drone offensive and defensive technology.
In fact, the dispute with Iran may have hastened the US shift and have prepared it better for disputes with other adversaries.
In fact, the dispute with Iran may have hastened the US shift and have prepared it better for disputes with other adversaries.
CedricH · 22-25, M
@SunshineGirl I‘m not quite sure that‘s right. See, the impressively high US and allied interception rates are a statistical fact. Interceptors are mostly expended to neutralize missiles. Drones, on the other hand, can be downed by fighter aircraft (fixed-wing or rotary), with relatively cheap air-to-air missiles.
And there‘s a whole range of cheap and easy to produce counter-drone systems, which is why Ukraine is currently intercepting a large amount of enemy drones but, unfortunately, a declining fraction of incoming Russian ballistic missiles.
It’s these very ballistic missiles that Russia can produce en mass because Ukraine, unlike the US and Israel, hasn’t been able to seriously degrade Russia‘s military industrial base or hunt for ballistic missile launchers deep inside Russia at scale. That’s exactly what the USAF and the IAF have been doing in Iran, however, which is why the ballistic missiles and missile launchers are now arguably a scarcer commodity for the Islamic Republic than Patriot, Thad or ship-borne interceptors for the US.
I also wouldn’t characterize Iran‘s military performance as "holding its own on the battlefield". Its military has lost in any measurable sense.
The fact that its regime is still standing does not disprove the military defeat it is currently experiencing.
Nevertheless, the military defeat and a political defeat have to coincide for the regime to finally collapse which is why the campaign isn’t over yet.
Contrast Ukraine and Iran‘s battlefield performance. Ukraine‘s holding its own. Iran is not. Just because both employ drones doesn’t mean both have to be equally proficient at it.
In Russia, refineries are burning all over the country. Iran‘s incapable of replicating Ukraine‘s western supported deep strikes.
Its military situation is dire and progressively deteriorating as it expends scarce projectiles and opens itself up for further strikes.
And there‘s a whole range of cheap and easy to produce counter-drone systems, which is why Ukraine is currently intercepting a large amount of enemy drones but, unfortunately, a declining fraction of incoming Russian ballistic missiles.
It’s these very ballistic missiles that Russia can produce en mass because Ukraine, unlike the US and Israel, hasn’t been able to seriously degrade Russia‘s military industrial base or hunt for ballistic missile launchers deep inside Russia at scale. That’s exactly what the USAF and the IAF have been doing in Iran, however, which is why the ballistic missiles and missile launchers are now arguably a scarcer commodity for the Islamic Republic than Patriot, Thad or ship-borne interceptors for the US.
I also wouldn’t characterize Iran‘s military performance as "holding its own on the battlefield". Its military has lost in any measurable sense.
The fact that its regime is still standing does not disprove the military defeat it is currently experiencing.
Nevertheless, the military defeat and a political defeat have to coincide for the regime to finally collapse which is why the campaign isn’t over yet.
Contrast Ukraine and Iran‘s battlefield performance. Ukraine‘s holding its own. Iran is not. Just because both employ drones doesn’t mean both have to be equally proficient at it.
In Russia, refineries are burning all over the country. Iran‘s incapable of replicating Ukraine‘s western supported deep strikes.
Its military situation is dire and progressively deteriorating as it expends scarce projectiles and opens itself up for further strikes.
Elessar · 31-35, M
Enjoy paying gasoline $20/gallon I guess
trollslayer · 51-55, M
Because “regime change” is nearly always a disaster and usually makes the situation worse. Especially in the middle east.
trollslayer · 51-55, M
@Waveney well, how do you measure success?
Almost none of the above countries were a direct threat to US safety - including Iran. So our interventions were motivated by other things. So, you cant say “eliminated a threat to the safety USA” because none of them were direct threats in the first place. Yes, some were lawless breeding grounds for terrorists. But so is Idaho. Iraq never attacked us. Neither did Iran, Libya, panama, Cuba, vietnam…. The threats were to our national interests (such as oil) but the average US citizen in milwaukee was not in any danger of being bombed.
Almost none of the above countries were a direct threat to US safety - including Iran. So our interventions were motivated by other things. So, you cant say “eliminated a threat to the safety USA” because none of them were direct threats in the first place. Yes, some were lawless breeding grounds for terrorists. But so is Idaho. Iraq never attacked us. Neither did Iran, Libya, panama, Cuba, vietnam…. The threats were to our national interests (such as oil) but the average US citizen in milwaukee was not in any danger of being bombed.
Waveney · M
@trollslayer I know.
Waveney · M
@LamontCranston why a thumbs down?
ElyssTTTrucks · M
ElyssTTTrucks · M
@CedricH And maybe you'll get captured and become a mullah's dancing boy. 😆😆😆
CedricH · 22-25, M
@ElyssTTTrucks *Sigh*
LamontCranston · M
@ElyssTTTrucks Why do I believe you would not volunteer for any conflict, no matter how essential?
