Utopia Talk / Politics / Iranians are stupid

smart dude Member	Tue Jan 07 23:37:02 So Trump kills one Iranian guy. In response, Iranians accidentally kill 35 of their own people in your typical third-world shithole stampede. Then Iran launches a dozen missiles at American military personnel, and manage to kill or injure exactly zero people.
smart dude Member	Tue Jan 07 23:38:18 Great start to this "war" so far. When Iran can develop a weapon more effective than a potato gun maybe I'll start to care about this.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Jan 07 23:42:00 Dont forget the nuetral airliner with ~170 people their jittery, scared shitless, third world air defenses just blew up.
Arab Member	Wed Jan 08 00:24:31 Iran is good at using proxies and hiding behind Russian (Syria) and American (Isis) airpower.
smart dude Member	Wed Jan 08 03:26:53 So the tally is in. The U.S. has killed: 1 Iranian (military) Iran has killed: 117 Iranians (civilian) 63 Canadians (civilian) q1 Ukrainians (civilian) 10 Swedes (civilian) 4 Afghans (civilian) 3 Germans (civilian) 3 Britons (civilian) 0 Americans (lol) Seriously. How on Earth can they possible bungle things so horribly. These idiots make Trump look good, which is hard to do and also very unfortunate.
smart dude Member	Wed Jan 08 03:33:47 So basically Trump rubber-stamped his own removal from office. And then Iran swooped in and saved his orange ass by fucking up so catastrophically. I'm speechless.
smart dude Member	Wed Jan 08 03:37:53 Trump just Mr. Magoo'd himself into a second term because now he accidentally has the moral high ground. You can't make this shit up.
smart dude Member	Wed Jan 08 04:00:49 Major airline crashes are exceedingly rare. To happen by accident within days next to the capital city of a country embroiled in a major potentially war-inducing conflict seems...improbable. "But my wife's boyfriend said it was engine malfunction. It must be true because she told me 15 minutes before it happened." -Sen INB4 "durrrrr Boeing 737." It wasn't a MAX
smart dude Member	Wed Jan 08 04:01:21 *Seb
Seb Member	Wed Jan 08 04:40:12 Smart Dude, you seem to be getting rather carried away with your own imagination. If you don't even see the need to wait for me to express an opinion before criticising it, why not be even more efficient by simply engaging in intellectual onanism in private rather than posting it?
Seb Member	Wed Jan 08 04:45:46 Granted the plane seems a coincidence, but coincidences happen. There was also an earthquake this morning (4.3) near their nuclear power plant. So while the timing seems odd, it also seems odd given several bits of video showing the plane on fire in the sky that there wouldn't also be one showing the incredibly visible missile launch etc. This took place over a city shortly after launch? Also, the video appears to show the plane to continue to fly while on fire for a bit, and normally a hit from anti aircraft missiles on a liner cause mid air disintegration. So I shall reserve judgement for now.
smart dude Member	Wed Jan 08 05:46:41 "Earthquakes cause planes to crash." -Seb
murder Member	Wed Jan 08 07:23:02 No, he's saying that the US clearly nuked Iran's nuclear plant. :o)
Seb Member	Wed Jan 08 07:57:56 Murder: Uh, more that people are actually pretty shit at intuiting likelihoods. Hence simple algorithms will allow you to get scarily accurate predictions from the Bible. And also Moby Dick. And it's not magic or prophesy, just probability, even though it seems it ought to be really unlikely. The Americans didn't secretly bomb Bushere, it was an earthquake. And it may well be that it was an engine malfunction.
murder Member	Wed Jan 08 08:02:13 Yeah, I know. :oP
smart dude Member	Wed Jan 08 08:44:41 I said it was "improbable," and Seb suggests it might be a "coincidence." I'm not sure what his point is, given that improbability is one of the defining characteristics of coincidences. I'm not sure which of the following will be more useful for you, buddy, but you should consider reading them both: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Jan 08 10:02:07 Improbablities is the lifeline of 9/11 ”truth” and JFK assassination and, well all conspiracy thinking. We all enjoy it to some degree so I can’t really blame you. Two skyscrapers had never been hit by two jetliners in the same day, burn and as in the case of building 7 specifically, just fall at near freefall speed like a controlled demolition. Building 7 was not even hit by an airplane!
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jan 08 10:10:54 Soviet bloc air defenses dont really work against military aircraft, but man they do a great job on airliners.
jergul large member	Wed Jan 08 10:30:31 Lucky then that soviet block air defenses have been phased out for the most part.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 08 10:39:32 Smart Dude: The general thrust of your point was - I take it given your idiotic apeing of Sam (seriously, who takes Sam as a role model?) - was that it was unlikely to be a coincidence. While it seems unlikely I don't think that's necessarily true - see e.g. the Bible code. "X seems a coincidence" is a standard colloquial British way of saying "that's too unlikely to be a coincidence". Like when I say your post is "increasing", I mean it's actually very stupid. I hope this helps you. Evidently Murder understood. He's not an idiot though.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 08 10:41:08 Murder: I presumed, but it is necessary to clarify these points for others sadly.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jan 08 13:13:27 Seb, expert of probability and deduction: When a terrorist bomb goes off in europe: "I dont think it was muslims" When a body is found stabbed 13 times in an african neighborhood: "not africans commiting crime" When a plane climbing normally out of a two bit dictator city precisely when its air defenses are at their most freaked out, suddenly loses telemetry and comes down in a ball of fire: "Maybe it was engine failure" Rofl
Seb Member	Wed Jan 08 14:22:32 Sam: You've seen the video I trust?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jan 08 17:09:13 Indeed. Setting jet-a on fire is pretty hard. She was shattered and tumbling.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jan 08 17:26:57 Only a broken wide open fuel tank could have caused that.
Seb Member	Wed Jan 08 17:50:08 Clearly not tumbling Sam, unless you are looking at a different video. https://www.rferl.org/a/the-plane-is-on-fire---ukrainian-passenger-jet-goes-down-in-iran/30366120.html It's a smooth continuous trajectory and you can see the trail and indeed some kind of debris. The very large explosion in impact indicates a lot of fuel still in the main body, which implies the wings were still attached to the main body without too many ruptures. So while the fuel tank does look ruptured, a direct him from an air defence SAM would shed the wings as they are expanding rod fragmentation warheads, not hit to kill. You'd see much more fire, and the plane would disintigrate, so there ought to be multiple light sources and tumbling. A smaller manpad maybe or an air to air - but
Seb Member	Wed Jan 08 17:59:24 Uncontained engine failure could do it. Broken bit of turbine fan (particularly if poorly maintained) can rupture the fuel tank. Engines are designed to try and contain them but it's not always successful. It'd look a lot like this. 3 minutes into the flight, and I think Tehran's a tricky airport with a steep ascent isn't it?
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jan 08 22:01:42 "A smooth continuous trajectory" The video is taken from too far away to permit this kind of assessment. "and indeed some kind of debris." Because she is broken and tumbling. Aerodynamic forces on unusual/damaged places are tearing chunks of her off. The wingtips for sure are gone... perhaps portions of her tail, maybe an engine, even chunks of midwing maybe. Also the sudden catostrophic nature of the event and massive flames implies tumbling. Whatever did that did not leave her in a controllable state, and aero forces are breaking her open even if the missile did not. " direct him from an air defence SAM would shed the wings" Probably not by itself. Aerodynamics might. A plane losing it beyond maunuever speed (this was) generates beyond-design force, and things tend to come off. "Uncontained engine failure could do it. Broken bit of turbine fan" A fan blade does not have a fraction of the energy to do that. A much more energetic... and much rarer... burst high pressure turbine disk might, but only if it hit the exact right structual elements in the hull and broke her back. The combination therof is 1e-9 by design. Plus these tend to happen within moments of thrust increasing at the start of the takeoff roll, not 3 minutes later. " Tehran's a tricky airport with a steep ascent isn't it? " No. The mountains are to the side of, not inline with, the runway.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jan 08 22:04:03 "which implies the wings were still attached to the main body without too many ruptures. " There are big ruptures and there remains a significant amount of fuel aboard for the final blast. How much of each i cannot say.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Jan 08 22:14:48 Also rumor is an iranian peasant found a tor m1 seeker/nav head in his backyard a few miles away and put it on social media. Lol. And man western capitalism is awesome. We created a world where we make so much awesome shit that iranian peasants have smartphones.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 01:22:36 China makes*
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 02:02:40 "Starting late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, Iran initiated contact with the administration through at least three back channels, including Switzerland and other countries, according to a senior administration official. The message from Iran was clear: This would be their only response. They would now wait to see what the US would do. As part of its response back, the US conveyed that it was fully aware that Iran controls its proxies in the region, including Hezbollah. The source told CNN that Iran tried to "squeak out of it," saying they are not responsible for those proxies, but the US made clear it didn't buy that argument." I buy the Iranian argument. They have a lot of influence, but do not control the "proxies". Or to put it another way. Can anyone name a single Arab group under control of any over country ever? I ultimately do agree with the underlying sentiment. If you sponsor shit, then you own it. But that would have to be true for every country, not just Iran. And it would take a long time to get that understanding firmly cemented.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 02:03:05 other country*
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 02:04:11 "The Iranian Civil Aviation authority has found that Ukrainian Airlines flight PS 752 was on fire before it crashed, it said in an initial report on Thursday, citing witnesses. The report also mentions that the plane changed directions after a problem and turned back towards the airport."
seb Member	Thu Jan 09 02:51:47 Sam: "Because she is broken and tumbling." Where is the evidence for this? You've just said it's too far away to interpret the apparent smooth trajectory as being smooth. "Probably not by itself" You've seen the reconstruction of the damage the BUK did in Ukraine. Essentially these missiles chuck out a net of expanding rebar. There would be multiple penetration of the cabin and wings, and the plane comes to pieces very quickly (yes aerodynamics play a role in this, does that need to be stated?) Turbine blades can lead to a rupture in the fuel tank. It's not supposed to happen but it can. https//www.newscientist.com/article/dn19685-what-happened-to-that-superjumbo/ From there fire and crash. "Plus these tend to happen within moments of thrust increasing at the start of the takeoff roll, not 3 minutes later." The flight profile shows the plane was making an ascent of around 2500ft in around 45 seconds. If it was a missile, it would seem more likely a small one.
Paramount Member	Thu Jan 09 10:59:13 Maybe it was a smaller American spy drone that collided with the plane.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 09 11:29:29 Seems unlikely. So potential causes: 1. Collision 2. Manpad 3. bomb 4. Engine failure 5. Air defence battery Evidence so far not really certain enough to rule anything out. I don't know if the Iranians have any smaller htk type air defence missiles that might be a better fit.
Allahuakbar Member	Thu Jan 09 11:30:41 Israeli false flag attack to make Iran look bad.
Rugian Member	Thu Jan 09 11:33:18 BREAKING NEWS Iran believed to have shot down Ukrainian plane by accident By Yaron SteinbuchJanuary 9, 2020 | 12:07pm An anti-aircraft missile is believed to have shot down the Ukrainian plane that crashed moments after takeoff from Tehran, killing all 176 people aboard, according to reports. The Boeing 737-800 is believed to have been struck by a Russian-built Tor M-1 surface-to-air missile, known to NATO as Gauntlet, US officials told Newsweek. The incident was likely an accident, two Pentagon officials told Newsweek. CBS News also reported that US officials are confident that Iran shot down the plane. http://nyp...n-ukrainian-plane-by-accident/
Rugian Member	Thu Jan 09 11:50:43 In a way, this is a good thing. Never again do we have hear about Iranian Air #655. Iran has sort of ceded the moral high ground on that now.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 12:14:42 "Where is the evidence for this?" You mean other than the fire and the pieces coming off? She is broken and tumbling. It could not be otherwise. Thats what fire like that means. "https//www.newscientist.com/article/dn19685-what-happened-to-that-superjumbo/" That was a turbine disk, not a fan blade. And the plane didnt burn break up and crash. "and the plane comes to pieces very quickly " Indeed. Hence the sudden telemtry cutout and then giant fire and pieces coming off as the plane comes down. A manpad doesnt have the strength to do that to a 737 ott sized aircraft. It was almost certainly a proper air defense battery. "Iran has sort of ceded the moral high ground on that now." Indeed. Huge win for trump, huge loss for iran and the soviet bloc military again. Lol.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 12:27:26 I should reiterate that a turbine disk through a fuel tank is not something i can recall ever bringing down a plane. Ive seen a number of minor fires where such aircraft stop shortly into their takeoffs rolls. The flip side is that soviet bloc air defenses are experts at shooting down airliners. Combined with the timing... precisely when the iranian military is the most scared... places the odds at >99% in favor of a missile.
patom Member	Thu Jan 09 13:32:20 And yet Trump is still hedging and hawing. Not sure, but he suspects it could have been, Maybe an accident but he's not sure. Can't possibly come out and accept US intelligence because he has stated that they can't be trusted on numerous occasions. He'll have to wait for the GRU to confirm.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 09 13:40:55 Interesting. Shortly before the plane went down, Sean Hannity announced on fox that he had confirmed from Trump that six b52s were on their way to attack Iran. That would make it far more likely for a battery commander to shoot an airliner in error.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 09 13:43:35 Sam: "You mean other than the fire and the pieces coming off?" Yes, other than the images that are indistinguishable to a single engine and wing on fire and spitting out debris, which superficially doesn't appear to be tumbling but in a smooth trajectory; but which you have said are too distant to be resolvable, and therefore cannot logically be said to be evidence of the reverse.
Seb Member	Thu Jan 09 13:46:12 The single light source, single impact and single explosion doesn't seem at all consistent with the plane coming to bits.
swordtail Anarchist Prime	Thu Jan 09 14:03:53 "Interesting. Shortly before the plane went down, Sean Hannity announced on fox that he had confirmed from Trump that six b52s were on their way to attack Iran. That would make it far more likely for a battery commander to shoot an airliner in error." holy fuck! seb=sam adams.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 14:23:17 It will be interesting to see how Iran deals with the allegations. Coincidentally finding debris from a Tor missile is starting to take coincidences a bit too far. Sammy How many combat aircraft have Aegus+Patriot shot down? How many combat aircraft have buk+tor shot down? GG.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 14:28:48 "Iran’s Civil Aviation Authority head, Ali Abedzadeh, told CNN the country may need outside help to decode the black box on the Ukrainian airliner because it is damaged. "Generally speaking, Iran has the potential and know-how to decode the black box. Everybody knows that," he said. However, Abedzadeh said, “the black box of this very Ukrainian Boeing 737 is damaged. Ukrainian Aviation experts arrived here in Tehran today. We had a session with them. From tomorrow they will start decoding the data.” He added: “If the available equipment is not enough to get the content,” Iran will outsource the boxes to “the experts from France or Canada.” “Then whatever is the result will be published and publicized to the world," Abedzadeh said. More on this: CNN’s aviation expert Richard Quest said the important point here is Iran will need the help of very experienced people to download the data if the boxes are damaged. Quest said it is unlikely the boxes would be opened if damaged. If damaged, they would only be opened under the most exacting circumstances. Quest said data cannot be read until the boxes are opened, the data is downloaded and then analyzed. French or Canadian aviation officials would have the needed experience and equipment to do this." It looks like they are going to handle it like adults. Refreshing.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 14:46:23 The size of the fire is the evidence that she is broken and tumbling, seb, in combination with the sudden loss of telemetry. "How many combat aircraft have buk+tor shot down?" Well we are up to one 777 and one 737. I guess if you are soviet bloc aa gunner, those count as combat aircraft.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Jan 09 14:47:59 new possible video http://www.liveleak.com/view?t=u3CLB_1578595454 can see a little dot moving in the first couple seconds i think New York Times also has that video in an article so some credibility... (i don't have a subscription)
Rugian Member	Thu Jan 09 14:56:36 "i think New York Times also has that video in an article so some credibility" You think the NYT is credible? LMAO! That explains so much.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 15:00:18 New york times just posted a video of the shootdown btw. You can see the distant exhaust glow of a high speed large missile climbing rapidly and intercepting something. The something burns temporarily. Presumably the fire gets much worse later as she loses control and aero forces begin taking off chunks.
Paramount Member	Thu Jan 09 15:02:45 ” Thu Jan 09 13:40:55 Interesting. Shortly before the plane went down, Sean Hannity announced on fox that he had confirmed from Trump that six b52s were on their way to attack Iran. That would make it far more likely for a battery commander to shoot an airliner in error. ” In that case, Sean Hannity and FoxNews are ultimately responsible.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 15:05:47 Cuckhat, seb, jergul. I will accept your surrender at your convenience.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 15:59:59 Sammy Gaslighting again. My first instinct was "shot down by air defences" I posted as much. Shit happens when people think they are in a combat zone. In this case, I think the trigger was a non-operating transponder. Iranians are aware of the IDF trick of hiding out behind neutral aircraft, so other civilian aircraft would not cause the Iranians to discount an unidentified aircraft. You would have felt completely justified if flight 655 had not had its transponder turned on. Explain to us again why that was actually Irans fault. I forget the humourous details. The Iranian Tor is an old system (almost old enough to actually be soviet block). Its targetting imagery is rudimental. The Iranians do not have the linked in capability or FoF systems available on later models. Its just a point defence asset really. Patriot+Aegis are 0 military aircraft and 1 civilian. Buk+Tor are 7 military aircraft and 2 civilian.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 16:03:10 There are parallels to the two downings. I am quite interested in the Iranian response, though it would hard to be less gracious about it than the US was back in the day.
Forwyn Member	Thu Jan 09 16:04:51 "Gaslighting again" Confusing your position with Seb's because you two so often share views is not gaslighting, stop misusing the term. That goes to you too, Cuckhat
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 16:05:20 Lol. Iran apologists ard going to be seriously butthurt.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 16:06:13 (I am not counting drones. The score would still be 0 for the US, but scores for the buk+tor).
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 16:09:48 Forwyn I will retract if sammy says he was mistaken. Its gas lighting as it stands. Sammy I am sure that Iran apologists will be serious butt-hurt. Neutral observers just call it as they see it. You are too vested to have any judgement. You declared this a Trump win for goodness sake. Feel free to explain that logic to me if you like. I think it revolves around you being butthurt by the US backing down from a war.
jergul large member	Thu Jan 09 16:21:44 The Iranians have solid grounds to be trigger-happy. Your just pre-emptively assasinated an individual. Your president had just said any attack by Iran would be punished really fast. Iran was in the process of making an attack. It would not take much to see air defence missiles launched. The air defence guys have reasons to be worried. Degrading air defences is always job number 1 in a conflict.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Thu Jan 09 16:31:25 "You think the NYT is credible? LMAO! That explains so much." compared to a random person posting on LiveLeak, incredibly much so also, it's been around since 1851 & does NOT in fact have a reputation for faking news or sources
patom Member	Thu Jan 09 17:03:12 Hannity speaks and all of a sudden Iran is on alert? Are some of you saying that their early warning system is Fox News??? Am I mistaken but didn't this flight originate in Tehran? Had only climbed to 8,000' altitude? Is their radar system so bad that they didn't know the plane originated from their airport??? Maybe they should switch to MSNBC or CNN.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 17:22:18 "The air defence guys have reasons to be worried" Yes, they did. And this particular battery fired the moment the civil airplane turned in the direction of a major well-defended iranian weapons research facility. On a published instrument departure procedure from their main airport. Still retarded.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 17:27:34 Lots of retardation to go around. The battery itself of course, the retarded iranian leaders that placed the SID over an illegal secret weapons research facility, and the airline itself to continue to try to operate into a third world muslim warzone.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Jan 09 17:36:58 http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/lh600#2377a7a5 Speaking of retardation. Why would these germans even think about trying that?
Seb Member	Fri Jan 10 01:24:14 There is a video of the missile hitting the plane, absence of which is one of the main reasons I'd been low weighting missile. They are big, bright and noisy. And looking up tor, it's only a 15kg warhead for point defence so explains the rest. Definitely an accidental shoot down. Patom: Your president is known for having a weird relationship with Fox, phoning in etc, and issues formal notices to the legislature via Twitter. He prefers assassination of foreign officials you are not at war with on the soil of allied countries. Of course it's an intelligence source. You seem to be neglecting the fact that the US behaves very much like an erratic dictatorship, largely because with trump and a dysfunctional legislature that refuses to hold him to account or act as a check and balance, from a foreign affairs perspective that's functionally what the US is right now.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Jan 10 01:36:32 some shit Hannity was saying: “There is a massive price to pay,” Hannity, sometimes referred as President Donald Trump’s shadow chief of staff, continued. “They don’t get to do what they did tonight. They have now been begging—the president wanted to talk and wants peace. They are going to get hit hard. Their hostility will now be met with the full force of the greatest, most advanced, most sophisticated military this world has ever seen.” “As Lindsey Graham tweeted out over the weekend, if you work in an Iranian refinery, you might want to get a new job,” he proclaimed. “I’d start now. The three major refineries could soon go up in flames.” “Their illicit nuclear sites may finally be annihilated,” Hannity added. “And the mullahs of Iran, they may want to keep a watchful eye on the sky tonight as they look from their bunkers, where I’m sure they are hiding. Powerful U.S. military forces, they are in position tonight. We can report six B-52 bombers are on their way to the region.” --- Trump regularly speaks with Hannity, plus gets more of his 'info' from Fox than any professionals
tumbleweed the wanderer	Fri Jan 10 01:54:21 between Fox News and Trumps twitter it's like having a spy in the White House... you get to see almost everything he's seeing & thinking... would be crazy for foreign powers not to monitor both Hannity killed those people, he should be executed (plus for treasonously harming the nation daily with his show)
Seb Member	Fri Jan 10 03:45:05 A national security accident due to coincidence and misinterpretation of the media complex of insanity trump has built is a known risk. Theres a book by Jeffry Lewis that uses it to illustrate how the US could stumble into war with Iran that has a very similar mechanism. In it, a plane deviates from course slightly, at a time of hostility, looking to NK like a provocation of the type the US has run several times, shortly following a trump tweet. A local battery commander misinterprets and shoots down the plane. Escalation follows. This is very similar here: as Jergul points out, shadowing airliners is a known IDF and US tactic, tensions were high, battery commanders on hair triggers. A glitch in radar control is all it takes. And while Sam makes out this is this world, I can point out numerous examples of the US attaking obviously allied forces when their technology failed. From staffing a British convoy of tanks due to failing to read map coords and not recognising the giant flags painted on top of the vehicles; through to shooting down a British jet by accident in Iraq. Ultimately, this is the cost of starting a shooting war, and rests with Trump. And why Obama and Bush both thought this kind of move too risky.
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 12 01:10:54 Iranians are stupid. How stupid are they? Well After the US killed one of their top generals they retaliated by blowing up some military sheds killing zero Americans and then shooting down a civilian plain killing mostly Iranians and Canadian Iranians. Think about that for a minute thats equiva. The revenge amounts to them killing their own people and no Americans while simultaneously angering there own people and Several other countries.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 03:52:01 Thats a bit short-sighted. Iran demonstrated its conventional deterrent in a credible, rational, and responsible way. Shooting down a civilian aircraft revealed structural weaknesses in its air defence capabilities. This gives an Iran motivated to actually invest more in ballistic and air defence capabilities. American losses? Well, most of the people at the Al Asad base huddled in bunkers for 3 hours. Is that the plan for all bases within range of Iranian missiles if tensions are heightened? Hide until the threat some day passes? And you know the damage was in the 100ds of millions to low billion range. Don't you? I think the US has learned to not assassinate high level officials. The loss of life remains tragic and deeply worrying.
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 12 04:22:35 Jergul, "Iran demonstrated its conventional deterrent in a credible, rational, and responsible way" Against who? Civilian planes? US reigns supremely unchallenged in conventional* warfare. We suck against rogue militant groups. Iran's power militarily against the us os just that, they are great at fighting with proxies and such militant groups. Now from what I gather Solemani was instrumental in that, but im sure he can be replaced and they can be back up to speed quickly. A conventional war between the US and Iran would last days.The aftermath could take decades though.... As for there air defense capabilities, let them invest all they want.The US military again in terms of conventional warfare is unchallenged. 100s of.millions? It.may be cite? Whatever shall we do at the loss.of 100s.of.millions?ghasp are military is crippled its not like we spend 650 BILLION a year and have been spending other such ridiculous amounts for 70 years. You do.realize that our military budget is vastly larger than Iran's entire gdp. Killimg Solemani did seem to have skme negative political backlash. However it was minor and is already no longer an issue. The tactical value? That has yet to be determined. And since they fucked up the retaliation so bad, the political backlash has been worse for them...epic failure.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 04:39:40 Habebe Against US bases in Iraq. Suleimani was extremely good at reigning in Shia militia groups. He may not be replaced in the same way. See ISIS for what unreigned militant groups look like. You cannot currently attack Iran conventionally. Because they have a conventional deterrent that would destroy gazillions in US military hardware and you do not have the production capacity to replace it in a timely manner. I do realize that the US still lacks two theater capability (you cannot fight larger conflicts in two theaters at the same time). The budget you are citing is predominantly military wellfare. You cannot attack people with wellfare payments. Their retaliation was picture perfect. Their response to an announced and expected retaliation for their retaliation was what caused the tragedy. The political value of Iran demonstrating a rational, reasonable, timely, and compassionate response to the tragedy is incalculable. Trump did it with Kim and is doing it with Iran. He is making the world look at them like reasonable countries under great pressure making rational and reasonable decisions. Good job!
Habebe Member	Sun Jan 12 04:54:29 "You cannot currently attack Iran conventionally. Because they have a conventional deterrent that would destroy gazillions in US military hardware and you do not have the production capacity to replace it in a timely manner." This is so absurd that it deserves its own thread. Go sober up.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 12 05:01:27 What military production lines do you currently think you have?
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: