War with Iran - DEFCON 3

[dabrockster]

How was regime change going to realistically happen? What realistic chance got blown to remove a theocratic government that controlled 90 million people?

The question was whether a unique window existed to weaken the regime’s ability to repress its people and the window was in January and even now, the people want that intervention.

I said I support regime change. Regime change was never guaranteed.. But dismissing the possibility because the government controlled 90 million people assumes authoritarian regimes are invulnerable and they in fact controlled 90-million people. The recent protest suggest not.. The conversation is whether an unusual opportunity existed to increase the odds of change, not whether success was certain. It was there and like usual, Trump puffed his chest and then did a TACO. In this case, his whole approach was flawed. But since he bombed them, the only option was to go full tilt, which he failed miserably.

[Northwestcoug]

The question was whether a unique window existed to weaken the regime’s ability to repress its people and the window was in January and even now, the people want that intervention.

I said I support regime change. Regime change was never guaranteed.. But dismissing the possibility because the government controlled 90 million people assumes authoritarian regimes are invulnerable and they in fact controlled 90-million people. The recent protest suggest not.. The conversation is whether an unusual opportunity existed to increase the odds of change, not whether success was certain. It was there and like usual, Trump puffed his chest and then did a TACO. In this case, his whole approach was flawed. But since he bombed them, the only option was to go full tilt, which he failed miserably.

I don't think any of us wouldn't want to see regime change in many instances around the world. There's a little fire burning in all of us who are fortunate to live in democracies, that lead us to believe that everyone else desires similar lives. While I believe that's true in a significant population, it's also true that there's quite a few who are content living in less free societies.

But even if everyone living in oppressive societies actively yearned freedom and were just waiting for a revolutionary spark to happen, we have an absolutely abysmal record exporting our brand of democracy anywhere. Unless of course, we're willing to destroy countries before building them up. Which we are not willing to do anymore, thank the maker.

Please country, no more talk of regime changes until we get our own house in order.

[Shaka]

The question was whether a unique window existed to weaken the regime’s ability to repress its people and the window was in January and even now, the people want that intervention.

I said I support regime change. Regime change was never guaranteed.. But dismissing the possibility because the government controlled 90 million people assumes authoritarian regimes are invulnerable and they in fact controlled 90-million people. The recent protest suggest not.. The conversation is whether an unusual opportunity existed to increase the odds of change, not whether success was certain. It was there and like usual, Trump puffed his chest and then did a TACO. In this case, his whole approach was flawed. But since he bombed them, the only option was to go full tilt, which he failed miserably.

I agree with most of this.

I think Trump should have used the initial two-week ceasefire to negotiate, resupply, and develop targeting for future bombing. Trump should have resumed hostilities after two weeks. Had he done so, this whole thing could have wrapped up much sooner. Had Trump not dinked around for so long I think regime change, without resorting to boots on the ground, might have been possible.

[frank ryan]

We needed to commit boots on the ground for that to happen. I doubt Congress or The People would be on board with that. For that matter, I don't think that is anything that was ever on the table for Trump.

Thank God we didn't commit ground troops to this

[dabrockster]

I don't think any of us wouldn't want to see regime change in many instances around the world. There's a little fire burning in all of us who are fortunate to live in democracies, that lead us to believe that everyone else desires similar lives. While I believe that's true in a significant population, it's also true that there's quite a few who are content living in less free societies.

But even if everyone living in oppressive societies actively yearned freedom and were just waiting for a revolutionary spark to happen, we have an absolutely abysmal record exporting our brand of democracy anywhere. Unless of course, we're willing to destroy countries before building them up. Which we are not willing to do anymore, thank the maker.

Please country, no more talk of regime changes until we get our own house in order.

I disagree. The idea that the people desire to remain oppressed is inherently contrary to an individuals spiritual desire but lends to this idea that forcefully their people to live a certain way bring them joy. The only people who enjoy that is the oppressor and evil of that individual.

While every society has people who support the status quo, the evidence coming out of Iran over the last several years suggests that a very large portion of the population is not content with the current regime.

We’ve seen repeated waves of protests, from the 2022 “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement to more recent demonstrations, despite the fact that participants risk imprisonment, torture, and even death for speaking out. Hundreds have been killed and thousands arrested for opposing the regime. People generally don’t take those kinds of risks if they are satisfied with their government.

I agree that we have a mixed record. But saying the U.S. has an “abysmal” record ignores cases like Kuwait, where American intervention helped liberate a country from conquest and restore its independence. More importantly, my argument isn’t that America can perfectly export democracy. It’s that people living under oppression, under Iran, Iraq (Saddam), or elsewhere—generally desire greater freedom and self-determination. The failure of some interventions doesn’t mean the desire for liberty doesn’t exist. I would also say Iraq may be somewhat dysfunctional but watching the Iraqi soccer team and the players and where they play professionally. None of that is possible or as successful if Sadam remained in control. At least their freedom to do what they want.

[dabrockster]

I agree with most of this.

I think Trump should have used the initial two-week ceasefire to negotiate, resupply, and develop targeting for future bombing. Trump should have resumed hostilities after two weeks. Had he done so, this whole thing could have wrapped up much sooner. Had Trump not dinked around for so long I think regime change, without resorting to boots on the ground, might have been possible.

Yes, when he had the cease fire and instead of hammering them afterwards and use that time to reload. Was a colossal mistake. But not gaining support with our allies and going alone with Israel was also another example of his arrogance to think he can do this alone and win.

[frank ryan]

I don't think any of us wouldn't want to see regime change in many instances around the world. There's a little fire burning in all of us who are fortunate to live in democracies, that lead us to believe that everyone else desires similar lives. While I believe that's true in a significant population, it's also true that there's quite a few who are content living in less free societies.

But even if everyone living in oppressive societies actively yearned freedom and were just waiting for a revolutionary spark to happen, we have an absolutely abysmal record exporting our brand of democracy anywhere. Unless of course, we're willing to destroy countries before building them up. Which we are not willing to do anymore, thank the maker.

Please country, no more talk of regime changes until we get our own house in order.

I think the Iranians lost their appetite for regime after they kept getting bombed to smithereens.

They probably just wanted it to stop. That's an aspect of why this was a failure. He replaced the regime as an enemy #1.

[chrisrenrut]

Those using oppression of the people as the reason primary reason this was a good idea are fooling themselves. Why aren’t you equally incensed about oppression of other in Africa, east Asia, etc.? This was because of oil and Israel. Any other justification is window dressing.

[Shaka]

Those using oppression of the people as the reason primary reason this was a good idea are fooling themselves. Why aren’t you equally incensed about oppression of other in Africa, east Asia, etc.? This was because of oil and Israel. Any other justification is window dressing.

There aren't any nukes in Africa.

[dabrockster]

I think the Iranians lost their appetite for regime after they kept getting bombed to smithereens.

They probably just wanted it to stop. That's an aspect of why this was a failure. He replaced the regime as an enemy #1.

Just stop. Your assumption based on your opinion doesn’t mean shit.

[dabrockster]

Those using oppression of the people as the reason primary reason this was a good idea are fooling themselves. Why aren’t you equally incensed about oppression of other in Africa, east Asia, etc.? This was because of oil and Israel. Any other justification is window dressing.

Umm. The killing of 36K people is something to think about. Never mind the fact Iran has bankrolled Hamas and Hezbolla and their terrorist activities seems to be a valid reason. Oh, let’s not forget the pursuit for nuclear weapons. Just some minor detail..

The question for you. Why are you not incensed for that level of killing as well. Gonna venture to guess it doesn’t fit your approved narrative so. Here we are. It is laughable the level of hypocrisy when it comes to the value of life from the liberals/left which has been a badge of honor to now flip that ideology. But I am not surprised.

[chrisrenrut]

There aren't any nukes in Africa.

There aren’t any in Iran either. And there wouldn’t have been any concern about that if the JCPOA had been kept in force.

[Northwestcoug]

Umm. The killing of 36K people is something to think about. Never mind the fact Iran has bankrolled Hamas and Hezbolla and their terrorist activities seems to be a valid reason. Oh, let’s not forget the pursuit for nuclear weapons. Just some minor detail..

The question for you. Why are you not incensed for that level of killing as well. Gonna venture to guess it doesn’t fit your approved narrative so. Here we are. It is laughable the level of hypocrisy when it comes to the value of life from the liberals/left which has been a badge of honor to now flip that ideology. But I am not surprised.

Here we go again with the hypocrisy police. Come. On.

How easy would it be to go through your posts and find a lack of interest in any political topic, and claim that's evidence of your conservative hypocrisy? Or that it doesn't fit your approved narrative?

[frank ryan]

I didn't disclose how I felt about Iranians being oppressed. I'm not callous to the cause of the oppressed but that has never been a primary motive in any war we fought. Even WW2, as clearly moral as it was, wasn't driven by trying to free anyone but rather it was about our survival.

Remember when Obama wanted to retaliate against Syria for using (with Russian help) chemical weapons in their civil war, Republicans but the kibosh on doing so. That war was insanely viscous and complex. And we did make an attempt to intercede with air strikes special forces etc. Trump pretty ended that while attempting to take credit for stopping ISIS.

The most awful warzone and oppressive hot spot around the globe are places we're shown no interest in intervening. Sudan's civil war is an example. Some of the massacres were so awful that the blood was visible from space:

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/africa...cre-rcna240708

No one is doing anything besides arming proxies. UAE and Turkey in particular has driven that war.

My heart definitely bleeds for Ukraine; but even with that conflict, the US wasn't just backing Ukraine out of nobility or obligation. It was a smart move to push back from imperialist agenda.

[dabrockster]

There aren’t any in Iran either. And there wouldn’t have been any concern about that if the JCPOA had been kept in force.

Did you type that with an actual straight face. You are talking about Iran who refused to let the Atomic International Agency to inspect their facilities for decades.