(03-27-2026 08:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Good grief, do some more research, dude. We aren't bombing schools and hospitals and civilian targets. One terrible mistake was made when a bomb hit a school, but certainly not intentional. You need better sources.

No I don't, and there are 2 countries doing bombings. One of them, Israel, has much different rules of engagement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

You can argue that this is the Iranian's intentionally putting military targets inside civilian areas (and that's obviously true), and obviously Israel's conduct in Gaza shows they are fine with killing civilians to get those military targets. However, the consequence of that is you are going to kill a lot of civilians and not exactly make them happy for your liberating 2,000lb bombs.

Head over to Iran, and be sure to report back to us.

(03-26-2026 10:09 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 10:02 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 09:59 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 09:49 AM)mlb Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 09:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  6 letters. Starts with an R. Rhymes with Prussia.

Could be, but Iran is quite sophisticated when it comes to computer attacks and Handala is suspected to be state sponsored by Iran. But I was referring to where the data originated, not who stole it. If it is limited to just the people serving in Israel then who had that spreadsheet that could have been compromised (or handed it over)?

Iran is basically being threatened existentially...they're not just going to wave the white flag.

No **** sherlock... again, I was wondering WHO had access to that list and how it got out.

Those are the types of things a curious politician has access to. Let me think, do we have anyone who might be sympathetic to radical Islam in Congress? Hmm.

It's also the kind of thing someone with personnel access within corporations would be able to access. Do we have anyone who might be sympathetic to radical Islam in corporate positions with that kind of access? Hmm.

Now toss out those who might be sympathetic to radical Islam, and insert those which may be sympathetic to Russia or China? Yep, got those too!

How about regular old malcontents who think they are stirring the pot by ridiculously supporting things hostile to the U.S.? Got those too!

Perhaps Pogo is correct again, "I have met the enemy and he is us!"

Perhaps it's time to have background checks mandatory for access to any information deemed critical to national security or critical to the safety of our personnel. And perhaps it is also time to quit playing gender and racial and religious politics with national security.

In doing this you would completely take away the Democratic Party playbook for politics.

(03-27-2026 09:12 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Head over to Iran, and be sure to report back to us.

How much of that article did you read?

(03-27-2026 09:15 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 09:12 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Head over to Iran, and be sure to report back to us.

How much of that article did you read?

I didn't have to read the article to say what I did, lol. Which was: "Head over to Iran, and be sure to report back to us."

You're obviously the expert on war and Iranians and revolutions and...

(03-27-2026 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Good grief, do some more research, dude. We aren't bombing schools and hospitals and civilian targets. One terrible mistake was made when a bomb hit a school, but certainly not intentional. You need better sources.

No I don't, and there are 2 countries doing bombings. One of them, Israel, has much different rules of engagement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

You can argue that this is the Iranian's intentionally putting military targets inside civilian areas (and that's obviously true), and obviously Israel's conduct in Gaza shows they are fine with killing civilians to get those military targets. However, the consequence of that is you are going to kill a lot of civilians and not exactly make them happy for your liberating 2,000lb bombs.

I also have zero problem with such during engagement...

is reason #39807346 why one can NEVER negotiate with terrorists...

(03-27-2026 09:23 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 09:15 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 09:12 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Head over to Iran, and be sure to report back to us.

How much of that article did you read?

I didn't have to read the article to say what I did, lol. Which was: "Head over to Iran, and be sure to report back to us."

You're obviously the expert on war and Iranians and revolutions and...

Good grief, do some more research, dude. We aren't bombing schools and hospitals and civilian targets. One terrible mistake was made when a bomb hit a school, but certainly not intentional. You need better sources.

That was a pretty declarative statement, maybe take your 79 year old decrepit arse over there and report back to us.

(03-27-2026 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Good grief, do some more research, dude. We aren't bombing schools and hospitals and civilian targets. One terrible mistake was made when a bomb hit a school, but certainly not intentional. You need better sources.

No I don't, and there are 2 countries doing bombings. One of them, Israel, has much different rules of engagement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

You can argue that this is the Iranian's intentionally putting military targets inside civilian areas (and that's obviously true), and obviously Israel's conduct in Gaza shows they are fine with killing civilians to get those military targets. However, the consequence of that is you are going to kill a lot of civilians and not exactly make them happy for your liberating 2,000lb bombs.

oh, yes......sure... this explains why the iranian people record tiktoks from their balconys cheering as bombs drop nearby. this also explains why they call in targeting info to the israeli's.

your statements are dumb. like, taking out student loans you cant pay back dumb. they are that level of dumbassery.

(03-26-2026 11:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

We cannot send troops in. We could take Tehran fairly easily (with a couple of months to position forces), but then the guerilla warfare would be awful.

You just have to keep killing them and hope the Iranian people take matters into their own hands.

So, your strategy...like trumps...seems to be hope?

Gee, what could possibly go wrong.

(03-27-2026 09:40 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Good grief, do some more research, dude. We aren't bombing schools and hospitals and civilian targets. One terrible mistake was made when a bomb hit a school, but certainly not intentional. You need better sources.

No I don't, and there are 2 countries doing bombings. One of them, Israel, has much different rules of engagement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

You can argue that this is the Iranian's intentionally putting military targets inside civilian areas (and that's obviously true), and obviously Israel's conduct in Gaza shows they are fine with killing civilians to get those military targets. However, the consequence of that is you are going to kill a lot of civilians and not exactly make them happy for your liberating 2,000lb bombs.

oh, yes......sure... this explains why the iranian people record tiktoks from their balconys cheering as bombs drop nearby. this also explains why they call in targeting info to the israeli's.

your statements are dumb. like, taking out student loans you cant pay back dumb. they are that level of dumbassery.

Narrator: Umabla bases his Iranian strategic thoughts on TikTok videos.

(03-27-2026 09:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 11:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

We cannot send troops in. We could take Tehran fairly easily (with a couple of months to position forces), but then the guerilla warfare would be awful.

You just have to keep killing them and hope the Iranian people take matters into their own hands.

So, your strategy...like trumps...seems to be hope?

Gee, what could possibly go wrong.

No, the strategy is to destroy the regime's ability to terrorize the rest of the world.

Regime change is merely a hope, not something we are willing to put troops on the ground for. That's been explained many times, but I guess you can't get off your talking points.

(03-27-2026 09:53 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 09:46 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 11:24 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:49 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(03-26-2026 08:28 PM)hburg Wrote:  I think he is trying for the surprise.

That's not how he sounded today while answering questions from the media. He seems to think we're getting closer to a negotiated settlement.

I think he is overly optimistic.

On top of that, you CANNOT leave that regime in power under any circumstances.

We cannot send troops in. We could take Tehran fairly easily (with a couple of months to position forces), but then the guerilla warfare would be awful.

You just have to keep killing them and hope the Iranian people take matters into their own hands.

So, your strategy...like trumps...seems to be hope?

Gee, what could possibly go wrong.

No, the strategy is to destroy the regime's ability to terrorize the rest of the world.

Regime change is merely a hope, not something we are willing to put troops on the ground for. That's been explained many times, but I guess you can't get off your talking points.

Right...I'm the one using talking points.

Ground troops are coming in some fashion. I can't wait for the thoughts to quickly change around here to then justify it because their orange cult leader did it.

(03-27-2026 09:40 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 09:09 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:58 AM)TripleA Wrote:  Good grief, do some more research, dude. We aren't bombing schools and hospitals and civilian targets. One terrible mistake was made when a bomb hit a school, but certainly not intentional. You need better sources.

No I don't, and there are 2 countries doing bombings. One of them, Israel, has much different rules of engagement.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

You can argue that this is the Iranian's intentionally putting military targets inside civilian areas (and that's obviously true), and obviously Israel's conduct in Gaza shows they are fine with killing civilians to get those military targets. However, the consequence of that is you are going to kill a lot of civilians and not exactly make them happy for your liberating 2,000lb bombs.

oh, yes......sure... this explains why the iranian people record tiktoks from their balconys cheering as bombs drop nearby. this also explains why they call in targeting info to the israeli's.

your statements are dumb. like, taking out student loans you cant pay back dumb. they are that level of dumbassery.

This is really the best you can offer? Some tiktoks and a story that's planted? If that were true where is the uprising? When is it coming? How many more tiktok dances to bombs landing will it take before it happens? This is the retardiest of retard statements I've ever read. You can't be this stupid, this is trolling no one is this stupid.

(03-25-2026 03:38 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-25-2026 03:27 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Commie Tom has been reduced to spell checking.

he does it every time when his flaccid bs implodes in his mouth...

get me off of this board

(03-27-2026 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There remains this fantasy that just a few more bombing runs on civilian targets, blowing up a few more critical infrastructure targets, that killing a few more regime leaders, is going to make the people rise up. There are so many examples throughout history of the exact opposite happening, where relentlessly attacking an unpopular government just makes them more popular with the people, the whole rally around the flag thing. If you take even the slightest step back and think objectively it makes perfect sense. How many people are seriously going to say "I hate my own government so much that I'm going to side with the countries that are relentlessly bombing me and overthrow my government and then trust that my current attackers are going to support and help me during and after the revolt." That in general would be stupid, and especially so when Israel is out there making it clear they are at the very least perfectly comfortable with Iran becoming Libya 2.0 if not fully hoping for that to be the end state of this.

Why would or should the people on the ground who supposedly we want to liberate so much trust that the US and Israel would back them in their attempts to rise up, would allow them to hold free and fair elections, would respect the will of those elections regardless of who was elected, would allow the new democratically elected government to have their own military and defense capabilities not controlled by anyone else, and would not try to either outright steal or force through insanely favorable contracts regarding oil and gas rights? We all know that's not what would happen. We'd put in some kind of puppet regime for "stability" and then if we ever did allow elections if they elected someone the US or Israel didn't approve of we would pretend they weren't fair and not recognize them, we wouldn't let them have any control over their own military and defense, and we'd for sure take advantage of their oil and gas resources. And all of that is under the "best case scenario" where we helped. In the worst case scenario where we didn't help the whole country falls into massive civil war and you have the whole country fall apart and become a complete fail state. Neither of those sound like scenarios where I'd want to rise up and risk my life to attempt to overthrow my own government.

The people hated their government enough to risk their lives protesting in the streets just weeks ago. Some 35K paid for that decision with their lives---and you think by killing of 35K of their citizens their government became more popular with the people? The people arent willing to take to the streets and overthrow their government in Iran because they are afraid they will die---not because they now support their government against the US. When the Ayatolla's death at the hands of coalition bombs was announced, the people audibly cheered. The problem is the people of Iran dont believe the air planes can protect them on the street from IRGC soldiers armed with machine guns---and they arent wrong. There is only so much an air campaign can accomplish.

(03-27-2026 11:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There remains this fantasy that just a few more bombing runs on civilian targets, blowing up a few more critical infrastructure targets, that killing a few more regime leaders, is going to make the people rise up. There are so many examples throughout history of the exact opposite happening, where relentlessly attacking an unpopular government just makes them more popular with the people, the whole rally around the flag thing. If you take even the slightest step back and think objectively it makes perfect sense. How many people are seriously going to say "I hate my own government so much that I'm going to side with the countries that are relentlessly bombing me and overthrow my government and then trust that my current attackers are going to support and help me during and after the revolt." That in general would be stupid, and especially so when Israel is out there making it clear they are at the very least perfectly comfortable with Iran becoming Libya 2.0 if not fully hoping for that to be the end state of this.

Why would or should the people on the ground who supposedly we want to liberate so much trust that the US and Israel would back them in their attempts to rise up, would allow them to hold free and fair elections, would respect the will of those elections regardless of who was elected, would allow the new democratically elected government to have their own military and defense capabilities not controlled by anyone else, and would not try to either outright steal or force through insanely favorable contracts regarding oil and gas rights? We all know that's not what would happen. We'd put in some kind of puppet regime for "stability" and then if we ever did allow elections if they elected someone the US or Israel didn't approve of we would pretend they weren't fair and not recognize them, we wouldn't let them have any control over their own military and defense, and we'd for sure take advantage of their oil and gas resources. And all of that is under the "best case scenario" where we helped. In the worst case scenario where we didn't help the whole country falls into massive civil war and you have the whole country fall apart and become a complete fail state. Neither of those sound like scenarios where I'd want to rise up and risk my life to attempt to overthrow my own government.

The people hated their government enough to risk their lives protesting in the streets just weeks ago. Some 35K paid for that decision with their lives---and you think by killing of 35K of their citizens their government became more popular with the people? The people arent willing to take to the streets and overthrow their government in Iran because they are afraid they will die---not because they now support their government against the US. When the Ayatolla's death at the hands of coalition bombs was announced, the people audibly cheered. The problem is the people of Iran dont believe the air planes can protect them on the street from IRGC soldiers armed with machine guns---and they arent wrong. There is only so much an air campaign can accomplish.

This is at least a rational response so I'm happy to respond rationally to it. I don't think they became "more popular" with their people by killing 35k (I'll assume that number is right could be more could be less not really worth debating) of their citizens during the protests. That would be a very very stupid thing to say. What I suspect though is that our and Israel's attacks, especially our bombing of a girls school and Israel's general strategy of tolerating a much higher civilian death toll to kill a target (the BBC link below goes into some of Israel's strikes and that's just a very small part of the story) is not going to make the general population view us as "liberators." You are probably correct that the people of Iran don't believe airplanes can protect them on the streets, but I also suspect they probably don't view us as the "good guys" in this situation. That's not me saying I think that means they view the regime as the good guys either, just makes you ask which group of people killing me are worse? My other guess is that for them to want to take the risk to mass rise up they'd need to believe and trust that if it works the US and Israel would actually let them have autonomy and control their country, form a government how they wish, and control decisions regarding their military and oil supply. Lets just all be adults and be honest, the US and Israel probably wouldn't allow that in the dream world where the people rose up and won. Nothing in the past 50 years of US history shows we'd allow that. Everything in the past history of the US shows that we'd try to prop up some kind of short term puppet leader, maybe allow elections but if they go a way we don't approve of disregard and discredit them, and not allow them autonomy over key strategic decisions over things like their military and oil/gas resources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

(03-27-2026 12:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 11:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There remains this fantasy that just a few more bombing runs on civilian targets, blowing up a few more critical infrastructure targets, that killing a few more regime leaders, is going to make the people rise up. There are so many examples throughout history of the exact opposite happening, where relentlessly attacking an unpopular government just makes them more popular with the people, the whole rally around the flag thing. If you take even the slightest step back and think objectively it makes perfect sense. How many people are seriously going to say "I hate my own government so much that I'm going to side with the countries that are relentlessly bombing me and overthrow my government and then trust that my current attackers are going to support and help me during and after the revolt." That in general would be stupid, and especially so when Israel is out there making it clear they are at the very least perfectly comfortable with Iran becoming Libya 2.0 if not fully hoping for that to be the end state of this.

Why would or should the people on the ground who supposedly we want to liberate so much trust that the US and Israel would back them in their attempts to rise up, would allow them to hold free and fair elections, would respect the will of those elections regardless of who was elected, would allow the new democratically elected government to have their own military and defense capabilities not controlled by anyone else, and would not try to either outright steal or force through insanely favorable contracts regarding oil and gas rights? We all know that's not what would happen. We'd put in some kind of puppet regime for "stability" and then if we ever did allow elections if they elected someone the US or Israel didn't approve of we would pretend they weren't fair and not recognize them, we wouldn't let them have any control over their own military and defense, and we'd for sure take advantage of their oil and gas resources. And all of that is under the "best case scenario" where we helped. In the worst case scenario where we didn't help the whole country falls into massive civil war and you have the whole country fall apart and become a complete fail state. Neither of those sound like scenarios where I'd want to rise up and risk my life to attempt to overthrow my own government.

The people hated their government enough to risk their lives protesting in the streets just weeks ago. Some 35K paid for that decision with their lives---and you think by killing of 35K of their citizens their government became more popular with the people? The people arent willing to take to the streets and overthrow their government in Iran because they are afraid they will die---not because they now support their government against the US. When the Ayatolla's death at the hands of coalition bombs was announced, the people audibly cheered. The problem is the people of Iran dont believe the air planes can protect them on the street from IRGC soldiers armed with machine guns---and they arent wrong. There is only so much an air campaign can accomplish.

This is at least a rational response so I'm happy to respond rationally to it. I don't think they became "more popular" with their people by killing 35k (I'll assume that number is right could be more could be less not really worth debating) of their citizens during the protests. That would be a very very stupid thing to say. What I suspect though is that our and Israel's attacks, especially our bombing of a girls school and Israel's general strategy of tolerating a much higher civilian death toll to kill a target (the BBC link below goes into some of Israel's strikes and that's just a very small part of the story) is not going to make the general population view us as "liberators." You are probably correct that the people of Iran don't believe airplanes can protect them on the streets, but I also suspect they probably don't view us as the "good guys" in this situation. That's not me saying I think that means they view the regime as the good guys either, just makes you ask which group of people killing me are worse? My other guess is that for them to want to take the risk to mass rise up they'd need to believe and trust that if it works the US and Israel would actually let them have autonomy and control their country, form a government how they wish, and control decisions regarding their military and oil supply. Lets just all be adults and be honest, the US and Israel probably wouldn't allow that in the dream world where the people rose up and won. Nothing in the past 50 years of US history shows we'd allow that. Everything in the past history of the US shows that we'd try to prop up some kind of short term puppet leader, maybe allow elections but if they go a way we don't approve of disregard and discredit them, and not allow them autonomy over key strategic decisions over things like their military and oil/gas resources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

I dont think the Iranian public fears or is concerned with a US takeover because the US has no intention of invading in a way where they would become an occupier. Same reason Im not concerned this will become a replay of Iraq.

(03-27-2026 12:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 12:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 11:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There remains this fantasy that just a few more bombing runs on civilian targets, blowing up a few more critical infrastructure targets, that killing a few more regime leaders, is going to make the people rise up. There are so many examples throughout history of the exact opposite happening, where relentlessly attacking an unpopular government just makes them more popular with the people, the whole rally around the flag thing. If you take even the slightest step back and think objectively it makes perfect sense. How many people are seriously going to say "I hate my own government so much that I'm going to side with the countries that are relentlessly bombing me and overthrow my government and then trust that my current attackers are going to support and help me during and after the revolt." That in general would be stupid, and especially so when Israel is out there making it clear they are at the very least perfectly comfortable with Iran becoming Libya 2.0 if not fully hoping for that to be the end state of this.

Why would or should the people on the ground who supposedly we want to liberate so much trust that the US and Israel would back them in their attempts to rise up, would allow them to hold free and fair elections, would respect the will of those elections regardless of who was elected, would allow the new democratically elected government to have their own military and defense capabilities not controlled by anyone else, and would not try to either outright steal or force through insanely favorable contracts regarding oil and gas rights? We all know that's not what would happen. We'd put in some kind of puppet regime for "stability" and then if we ever did allow elections if they elected someone the US or Israel didn't approve of we would pretend they weren't fair and not recognize them, we wouldn't let them have any control over their own military and defense, and we'd for sure take advantage of their oil and gas resources. And all of that is under the "best case scenario" where we helped. In the worst case scenario where we didn't help the whole country falls into massive civil war and you have the whole country fall apart and become a complete fail state. Neither of those sound like scenarios where I'd want to rise up and risk my life to attempt to overthrow my own government.

The people hated their government enough to risk their lives protesting in the streets just weeks ago. Some 35K paid for that decision with their lives---and you think by killing of 35K of their citizens their government became more popular with the people? The people arent willing to take to the streets and overthrow their government in Iran because they are afraid they will die---not because they now support their government against the US. When the Ayatolla's death at the hands of coalition bombs was announced, the people audibly cheered. The problem is the people of Iran dont believe the air planes can protect them on the street from IRGC soldiers armed with machine guns---and they arent wrong. There is only so much an air campaign can accomplish.

This is at least a rational response so I'm happy to respond rationally to it. I don't think they became "more popular" with their people by killing 35k (I'll assume that number is right could be more could be less not really worth debating) of their citizens during the protests. That would be a very very stupid thing to say. What I suspect though is that our and Israel's attacks, especially our bombing of a girls school and Israel's general strategy of tolerating a much higher civilian death toll to kill a target (the BBC link below goes into some of Israel's strikes and that's just a very small part of the story) is not going to make the general population view us as "liberators." You are probably correct that the people of Iran don't believe airplanes can protect them on the streets, but I also suspect they probably don't view us as the "good guys" in this situation. That's not me saying I think that means they view the regime as the good guys either, just makes you ask which group of people killing me are worse? My other guess is that for them to want to take the risk to mass rise up they'd need to believe and trust that if it works the US and Israel would actually let them have autonomy and control their country, form a government how they wish, and control decisions regarding their military and oil supply. Lets just all be adults and be honest, the US and Israel probably wouldn't allow that in the dream world where the people rose up and won. Nothing in the past 50 years of US history shows we'd allow that. Everything in the past history of the US shows that we'd try to prop up some kind of short term puppet leader, maybe allow elections but if they go a way we don't approve of disregard and discredit them, and not allow them autonomy over key strategic decisions over things like their military and oil/gas resources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

I dont think the Iranian public fears or is concerned with a US takeover because the US has no intention of invading in a way where they would become an occupier. Same reason Im not concerned this will become a replay of Iraq.

We'll see regarding that, but either way though why would or should the Iranian public trust that the US and Israel wouldn't just do exactly this again if their new government wasn't 100% subservient to US and Israeli interests? I mean there's already evidence in people's lifetimes of us doing that in Iran, see the 1953 coup over Iran trying to have some control over their oil industry, the "revolution" no one ever wants to talk about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani...7%C3%A9tat

(03-27-2026 01:05 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 12:55 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 12:37 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 11:22 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-27-2026 08:37 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  There remains this fantasy that just a few more bombing runs on civilian targets, blowing up a few more critical infrastructure targets, that killing a few more regime leaders, is going to make the people rise up. There are so many examples throughout history of the exact opposite happening, where relentlessly attacking an unpopular government just makes them more popular with the people, the whole rally around the flag thing. If you take even the slightest step back and think objectively it makes perfect sense. How many people are seriously going to say "I hate my own government so much that I'm going to side with the countries that are relentlessly bombing me and overthrow my government and then trust that my current attackers are going to support and help me during and after the revolt." That in general would be stupid, and especially so when Israel is out there making it clear they are at the very least perfectly comfortable with Iran becoming Libya 2.0 if not fully hoping for that to be the end state of this.

Why would or should the people on the ground who supposedly we want to liberate so much trust that the US and Israel would back them in their attempts to rise up, would allow them to hold free and fair elections, would respect the will of those elections regardless of who was elected, would allow the new democratically elected government to have their own military and defense capabilities not controlled by anyone else, and would not try to either outright steal or force through insanely favorable contracts regarding oil and gas rights? We all know that's not what would happen. We'd put in some kind of puppet regime for "stability" and then if we ever did allow elections if they elected someone the US or Israel didn't approve of we would pretend they weren't fair and not recognize them, we wouldn't let them have any control over their own military and defense, and we'd for sure take advantage of their oil and gas resources. And all of that is under the "best case scenario" where we helped. In the worst case scenario where we didn't help the whole country falls into massive civil war and you have the whole country fall apart and become a complete fail state. Neither of those sound like scenarios where I'd want to rise up and risk my life to attempt to overthrow my own government.

The people hated their government enough to risk their lives protesting in the streets just weeks ago. Some 35K paid for that decision with their lives---and you think by killing of 35K of their citizens their government became more popular with the people? The people arent willing to take to the streets and overthrow their government in Iran because they are afraid they will die---not because they now support their government against the US. When the Ayatolla's death at the hands of coalition bombs was announced, the people audibly cheered. The problem is the people of Iran dont believe the air planes can protect them on the street from IRGC soldiers armed with machine guns---and they arent wrong. There is only so much an air campaign can accomplish.

This is at least a rational response so I'm happy to respond rationally to it. I don't think they became "more popular" with their people by killing 35k (I'll assume that number is right could be more could be less not really worth debating) of their citizens during the protests. That would be a very very stupid thing to say. What I suspect though is that our and Israel's attacks, especially our bombing of a girls school and Israel's general strategy of tolerating a much higher civilian death toll to kill a target (the BBC link below goes into some of Israel's strikes and that's just a very small part of the story) is not going to make the general population view us as "liberators." You are probably correct that the people of Iran don't believe airplanes can protect them on the streets, but I also suspect they probably don't view us as the "good guys" in this situation. That's not me saying I think that means they view the regime as the good guys either, just makes you ask which group of people killing me are worse? My other guess is that for them to want to take the risk to mass rise up they'd need to believe and trust that if it works the US and Israel would actually let them have autonomy and control their country, form a government how they wish, and control decisions regarding their military and oil supply. Lets just all be adults and be honest, the US and Israel probably wouldn't allow that in the dream world where the people rose up and won. Nothing in the past 50 years of US history shows we'd allow that. Everything in the past history of the US shows that we'd try to prop up some kind of short term puppet leader, maybe allow elections but if they go a way we don't approve of disregard and discredit them, and not allow them autonomy over key strategic decisions over things like their military and oil/gas resources.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0w1qxzd4xo

I dont think the Iranian public fears or is concerned with a US takeover because the US has no intention of invading in a way where they would become an occupier. Same reason Im not concerned this will become a replay of Iraq.

We'll see regarding that, but either way though why would or should the Iranian public trust that the US and Israel wouldn't just do exactly this again if their new government wasn't 100% subservient to US and Israeli interests? I mean there's already evidence in people's lifetimes of us doing that in Iran, see the 1953 coup over Iran trying to have some control over their oil industry, the "revolution" no one ever wants to talk about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Irani...7%C3%A9tat

Really, 1953, how many 88 year old people in Iran do you think are thinking...Oh my god, here we go again? Yes I know that would be 73, but come on man anyone under 15 years old wouldn't have gave it a though.


You have posted some stupid shite....

right up there with David St but at least he has a reason