Not only is hitting civilian infrastructure a war crime, this is a huge strategic blunder since Iran has escalation dominance. There are so many oil refineries and desalinization plants in the region that they can hit, but hopefully they find some way to save face and deescalate.
Yep - seems to be the standard these days that Israel, the US and Russia will hit primarily civilian targets and essential water supplies &c, while other countries merely defend themselves by striking military or oil reserve targets.
While I support a lot of what came out of the enlightenment, one of the flaws was convincing both the people and their leaders that the people and the government are a part of the same body. Since then civilians have always been either a direct or indirect target of war. Before then, when we had kings, wars were the personal sqabbles of rulers. Someone would have to be dumb to harm non-combatant civilians because pissing off an entire country of people would multiply by orders the number of people you'd have to fight vs just the few people a king could put together with his personal finances.
This is why I'm for sending politicians into war. Then it can become their personal problem again, and not be viewed as ours. The next logical step is they would hire paid mercenaries to avoid fighting themselves, and that's fine. As long as it doesn't involve disinvolved civilains. And the best part is that if they pay out of pocket to forego their responsibility to fight, they will be quick to dismiss their armies in times of peace to reduce their personal bill. In this model there would be no more standing armies stockpiled with weapons and bombs enough to destory the world several times over, with ichy trigger fingers. And this is a model that once worked. But democracy and the conflation of the people with their government changed that.
Interesting thoughts, enlightenment were first to brainwash people? Divine right of kings was how they did it before with religion. And civilians have always been attacked in wars.
If you're going to war, you might as well fight it to win. If we're at war with Iran right now, why? They must be a huge threat right? So let's take them down quick? Oh it's a proxy war and they want it to last for war profiteering?
Except that winning isn't winning. Our prize is starting a new 30 year liability. When winning isn't winning, you win by not playing.
It hurts the pride of some to act on that conclusion. But leaders that can't do such a basic strategic calculation aren't people you want to walk into a war with either.
Remember, our military had superior technology in Afganistan. It was still a total loss for us. Wars aren't won through competencies. They are lost by incompetencies. There is more than one layer to a military. And Afganistan proved that despite more training and more tech, our incompetencies are stiffer than the ones the Taliban had.
Islam is a death cult, they want to die for Allah in a war to go to paradise with virgins all their own. That's why we didn't win Afganistan, that plus Biden cutting and running and leaving billions in US weapons and vehicles behind.
Term death cult might sound bad but it could mean different things. In traditional Chinese religion they worship their dead ancestors and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
Absofuckinglutely. These barons, dukes and their knights previously had to join the poor sods they sent into war, and those war-profiteering rich bastards should always be at the front line. Officers in military history have been rarely at the front line, but they're the ones who absolutely should be leading the way in any conflict they cause. Not since WWI have we seen significant officer deaths in conflicts, and not since Louis XIV (in agreement with your Enlightenment comment) have we seen significant nobility on the front lines. Some would argue that even at that time the nobility could take a back-seat to a war, and one would look to the 15th century for the last case of nobility fighting with their soldiers on the front lines (all of this in European history of course).
Iran keeps bombing other countries near it, oil fields. Israel, controlling USA here, has long had the policy where if Muslims attack them they respond 100 times worse. Muslims are crazy tho, they're suicidal cuz of their religion, so they never back down.
Why is it crazy to respond 100 times worse? The idea is to get Palestinians to stop killing Israelis with terrorist attacks. It'd work against a sane enemy. For example when we nuked Japan, 100 times worse level of revenge for Pearl Harbor. They surrendered tho saving more American lives. Being pro suicide is a huge part of japans religion or culture too. They were kamikaze.
I wonder if any of those innocent civilians who have now been wronged by the US will ever become terrorists. Supposedly the US military exists to protect our domestic safety. But in this Iran war, it seems like we've only made enemies and multiplied our threats.
By whose definition? Israel says all Palestinians are born terrorists. Anyone against the establishment are deemed terrorists. We are all terrorists in the eyes of the AI data centers.
Supposedly the US military exists to protect our domestic safety.
Propaganda.
They serve and protect the ruling class interests.
Because their home countries are infiltrated and subverted by the CIA, evil corporations, and American bombs - so they have better prospects in the West, like our ancestors.
If you're blaming those with less power than you it's likely because those with more power convinced you to.
It started in 1979 when College students in Iran turned into Islamic terrorists and took control from the Shah and took some American hostages. Then Iran started to fund terrorist groups like Al Qeda that did 9/11 on the USA and other terrorist acts on other nations. So they poked the bear instead of leaving it to sleep, and the bear attacked back.
Log in
Not only is hitting civilian infrastructure a war crime, this is a huge strategic blunder since Iran has escalation dominance. There are so many oil refineries and desalinization plants in the region that they can hit, but hopefully they find some way to save face and deescalate.
Yep - seems to be the standard these days that Israel, the US and Russia will hit primarily civilian targets and essential water supplies &c, while other countries merely defend themselves by striking military or oil reserve targets.
While I support a lot of what came out of the enlightenment, one of the flaws was convincing both the people and their leaders that the people and the government are a part of the same body. Since then civilians have always been either a direct or indirect target of war. Before then, when we had kings, wars were the personal sqabbles of rulers. Someone would have to be dumb to harm non-combatant civilians because pissing off an entire country of people would multiply by orders the number of people you'd have to fight vs just the few people a king could put together with his personal finances.
This is why I'm for sending politicians into war. Then it can become their personal problem again, and not be viewed as ours. The next logical step is they would hire paid mercenaries to avoid fighting themselves, and that's fine. As long as it doesn't involve disinvolved civilains. And the best part is that if they pay out of pocket to forego their responsibility to fight, they will be quick to dismiss their armies in times of peace to reduce their personal bill. In this model there would be no more standing armies stockpiled with weapons and bombs enough to destory the world several times over, with ichy trigger fingers. And this is a model that once worked. But democracy and the conflation of the people with their government changed that.
Interesting thoughts, enlightenment were first to brainwash people? Divine right of kings was how they did it before with religion. And civilians have always been attacked in wars.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shermans-March-to-the-Sea It was done on the South in the US Civil War.
If you're going to war, you might as well fight it to win. If we're at war with Iran right now, why? They must be a huge threat right? So let's take them down quick? Oh it's a proxy war and they want it to last for war profiteering?
I agree, fight to win. Our military has superior technology and Iran has Russian surplus.
Except that winning isn't winning. Our prize is starting a new 30 year liability. When winning isn't winning, you win by not playing.
It hurts the pride of some to act on that conclusion. But leaders that can't do such a basic strategic calculation aren't people you want to walk into a war with either.
Remember, our military had superior technology in Afganistan. It was still a total loss for us. Wars aren't won through competencies. They are lost by incompetencies. There is more than one layer to a military. And Afganistan proved that despite more training and more tech, our incompetencies are stiffer than the ones the Taliban had.
Islam is a death cult, they want to die for Allah in a war to go to paradise with virgins all their own. That's why we didn't win Afganistan, that plus Biden cutting and running and leaving billions in US weapons and vehicles behind.
...Is dehumanizing propaganda.
Who worships a dead man crucified and ritually cannibalizes his blood and flesh?
Term death cult might sound bad but it could mean different things. In traditional Chinese religion they worship their dead ancestors and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
Fake war, w bush and Obama kept it going. Taliban coulda been taken out in one night.
You own and control it?
"Our military" has never been ours.
Having you pick sides that they created is their mind control over you.
Who is "us"?
"...sending politicians into war."
Absofuckinglutely. These barons, dukes and their knights previously had to join the poor sods they sent into war, and those war-profiteering rich bastards should always be at the front line. Officers in military history have been rarely at the front line, but they're the ones who absolutely should be leading the way in any conflict they cause. Not since WWI have we seen significant officer deaths in conflicts, and not since Louis XIV (in agreement with your Enlightenment comment) have we seen significant nobility on the front lines. Some would argue that even at that time the nobility could take a back-seat to a war, and one would look to the 15th century for the last case of nobility fighting with their soldiers on the front lines (all of this in European history of course).
Not a blunder if your goal is depopulation.
Unfortunately the duplicitous rich will survive longer.
Iran keeps bombing other countries near it, oil fields. Israel, controlling USA here, has long had the policy where if Muslims attack them they respond 100 times worse. Muslims are crazy tho, they're suicidal cuz of their religion, so they never back down.
Now that's actually crazy.
False.
If you have no other choices, you either lay down and die or keep on fighting.
If you corner a dog and keep kicking it why would you be surprised when it bites your foot?
Why is it crazy to respond 100 times worse? The idea is to get Palestinians to stop killing Israelis with terrorist attacks. It'd work against a sane enemy. For example when we nuked Japan, 100 times worse level of revenge for Pearl Harbor. They surrendered tho saving more American lives. Being pro suicide is a huge part of japans religion or culture too. They were kamikaze.
archive.today mirror | archive.org mirror
I wonder if any of those innocent civilians who have now been wronged by the US will ever become terrorists. Supposedly the US military exists to protect our domestic safety. But in this Iran war, it seems like we've only made enemies and multiplied our threats.
By whose definition? Israel says all Palestinians are born terrorists. Anyone against the establishment are deemed terrorists. We are all terrorists in the eyes of the AI data centers.
Propaganda.
They serve and protect the ruling class interests.
You likely support Muslims cuz of Israel being evil. Bad logic.
Then why are Muslims immigrating to western nations in the millions?
Because their home countries are infiltrated and subverted by the CIA, evil corporations, and American bombs - so they have better prospects in the West, like our ancestors.
If you're blaming those with less power than you it's likely because those with more power convinced you to.
It is the "Death to America" chants than sold me on blaming them, not the government.
Saying is one thing. Doing is another.
What do you think the bombs mean when we drop them on those people?
"We" started all that mess.
Time for you to accept that your team has some responsibility.
It started in 1979 when College students in Iran turned into Islamic terrorists and took control from the Shah and took some American hostages. Then Iran started to fund terrorist groups like Al Qeda that did 9/11 on the USA and other terrorist acts on other nations. So they poked the bear instead of leaving it to sleep, and the bear attacked back.
It's true cia was behind that
So they can become terrorists. Sleeper cells waiting for orders.
The Democrats/Biden want this with open borders?
For Muslims they just brought by them in by cia
I'm quite certain they've anticipated this.