• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Monitoring the situation in Iran

7csYCTRxnELkZk1f.jpeg

Surely everyone seen that coming?
 
Am trying to find details of total number of ballistic missiles and drones fired by Iran per each today. If anyone else has this would appreciate it if you can share it.
it's hard to know average, there were info that uae shot 400 pac3 in just 3 days assuming they don't used these on drones probably over 100 in a day for ballistics but not only uae intercepts, but it's far less now my guess.
 
They should not be expected to contribute as much.
Maybe they can just contribute a little back from the front lines?

Need to cook up better false flags to pull NATO into this unprovoked war.
Better than what?

But they weren't given an opportunity to share in the risk...
Do you believe if the UK or France etc. had informed the US in recent months that they were willing to play an active role in the looming military action against Iran -if it happened- that they would have been told no? It seems unlikely to me. I bet even now they would not be told no.

is it to free the Iranian people from a despot
No, this appears to be an optional side quest.

prevent Iranian nuclear ambitions
Yes, and to denude the IRGC of its military capability as much as can be achieved from a distance.

what is happening achieving those things?
They are having their leadership, military and anything possibly of use to their nuclear ambitions blown to smithereens.

Europe is set to have another wave of mass immigration of refugees...
No Western nation needs to be so pathetic as to accept these mass invasions of their countries. It is a choice.
 
The end goal is MIGA apparently

v5YEsWwlb4nA6a9I.jpeg
Well, they took a look at the situation with Iran and realized that there is no point in making any deal with Iran anymore considering how it is being dismantled.

Do you believe if the UK or France etc. had informed the US in recent months that they were willing to play an active role in the looming military action against Iran -if it happened- that they would have been told no? It seems unlikely to me. I bet even now they would not be told no.
Didn't UK try to cut off USA from 5 eyes intelligence sharing some time ago?
 
Last edited:
Maybe they can just contribute a little back from the front lines?

Is this supposed to be sarcastic? When we were attacked (9/11), allies sent forces who died in combat, not while sitting in AA batteries.

Now that we are an untrustworthy ally, yes. They are likely to "prove Trump right" by sitting back from the front, if they show at all.
 
The end goal is MIGA apparently

Seems that way. Time to throw another another trillion dollars away in the pursuit of death instead of life.

image




if Trump campaigned as a President of peace, he has governed as the opposite. Now he has drawn the U.S. into the kind of conflict he long pledged to avoid.

How Trump responds to those pressures may determine how long the war continues, especially if it grows unpopular. The dynamic is one that haunted Bush, whose war in Iraq became so politically toxic that members of his own party abandoned him. The irony would be profound: Trump, who electrified Republican politics in part by repudiating the foreign policy legacy of the Bush family, could find himself ensnared by the very forces that helped undo that dynasty.
 
CNN's Nic Robertson is like the cool uncle you always bug about hearing his war stories but he always politely declines.

Then one night while you're both out together for a beer he finally relents and talks to you non-stop for 4 and a half hours.

You regret asking because you can't sleep for a week thinking of all the shit he's seen over the years.
5rfayM6xDZnYiCdJ.jpg
 
Part of me can see future generations visiting this big utopia inside Iran, but then my head says "at what cost?". What's the price. In my mind Iran is up there with North Korea in terms of places I'd ever want to visit. Maybe that's why this is all happening. It feels like a bee hive than a country I'd want to visit. Maybe that's what's wrong. Again, what's the price to fix all that? MLK's teachings don't seem to work anymore.
 
Is this supposed to be sarcastic? When we were attacked (9/11), allies sent forces who died in combat, not while sitting in AA batteries.
A few NATO members incurred casualty rates comparable to the US. The vast majority did not and the non-US group collectively did not. Not even close. How was this achieved? Mostly by unwillingness at a national level to share the risk.

The rocket to Turkey comes to mind.
Who was this a false flag by?
 
Who was this a false flag by?
Duh, if we knew it wouldn't be a false flag. You silly boy.

Iran sending it just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If anything, Erdogan is pro Iran. And given that Israel hates Turkey AND Iran... Could be a classic case of "let your enemies fight".

But as I said, if it was a false flag from Israel, it wasn't a very good one. Do better.
 
A few NATO members incurred casualty rates comparable to the US. The vast majority did not and the non-US group collectively did not. Not even close. How was this achieved? Mostly by unwillingness at a national level to share the risk.

I already explained why other countries should not be expected to contribute as much in this arrangement, to which you implied almost agreement by then suggesting maybe they can do so then, from a safe distance; when I point out it was not a safe distance, we're back at how much they should be expected to risk, going in circles.

The fact that there were NATO countries at all with casualty rates like the US, while fighting our war, makes this kind of a joke. No one will do it for Ukraine, fighting an existential threat. While we tick ally checkboxes for the War on Terrorlevel. That is actually how loyal they were, before we started treating them like garbage!
 
The end goal is MIGA apparently

v5YEsWwlb4nA6a9I.jpeg


If you're going to talk about UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, then you'd better be prepared to go the "full FDR" at least in some form or fashion.
Otherwise, if the enemy visibly stands firm and doesn't unconditionally surrender...you're going to risk looking like a clown. I sure hope that doesn't happen.

For the record, I think the single worst part of this whole operation so far has been the attack on the school. Many other things can be explained, but not that.
There's no way to justify this. I'm sure it'll be investigated, but I have little or no faith in anyone actually being held accountable for the decision.
 
Last edited:
If you're going to talk about UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, then you'd better be prepared to go the "full FDR" at least in some form or fashion.
Otherwise, if the enemy visibly stands firm and doesn't unconditionally surrender...you're going to risk looking like a clown. I sure hope that doesn't happen.

For the record, I think the single worst part of this whole operation so far has been the attack on the school. Many other things can be explained, but not that.
There's no way to justify this. I'm sure it'll be investigated, but I have little or no faith in anyone actually being held accountable for the decision.

The school was adjacent to military targets. It's almost like they do it on purpose!

If we were to become a fascist nation, and foreign heroes came to save us, some "good guys" who wanted liberation would get caught in the crossfire. And of course, the "bad guys" will use those events, which they encourage, as propaganda for who the bad one really is, why they must clamp down further.
 
Seems that way. Time to throw another another trillion dollars away in the pursuit of death instead of life.

image



I think you'd be a bit less stressed if you didn't take every tweet or press conference so literally, and also if you adopted a more patient approach to dealing with crisis.

Talk is cheap. Let Trump say whatever he wants. When it comes to actions he's not done anything to suggest he's interested in involving the U.S. in prolonged wars, unlike his predecessors.
 
I think you'd be a bit less stressed if you didn't take every tweet or press conference so literally, and also if you adopted a more patient approach to dealing with crisis.
I'm not stressed, but that sounds like copium to me.

Talk is cheap. Let Trump say whatever he wants.
I am letting him say whatever he wants.

When it comes to actions he's not done anything to suggest he's interested in involving the U.S. in prolonged wars, unlike his predecessors.
He's not done anything except start a damn war, lol. Step back and listen to the mental gymnastics you have to tell yourself to justify this unneeded and expensive aggression.
 
I'm not stressed, but that sounds like copium to me.


I am letting him say whatever he wants.


He's not done anything except start a damn war, lol. Step back and listen to the mental gymnastics you have to tell yourself to justify this unneeded and expensive aggression.
We've already established that we disagree on the necessity. That's fine. You're now making a projection about the cost and duration of this conflict as part of your argument against it. That's the part that's not.
 
I think you're literally trying to be angry.

I'm going to be honest with you - I'm not using verbiage or sentence structure or punctuation that would suggest an angry tone, so you shouldn't read it like that in your internal reading voice.

Your response avoided the question I asked. Do you think that is cheap?
 
I'm going to be honest with you - I'm not using verbiage or sentence structure or punctuation that would suggest an angry tone, so you shouldn't read it like that in your internal reading voice.

Your response avoided the question I asked. Do you think that is cheap?
I think it's a bizarre question, frankly.
 
Of course, I expect both Russia and China to help with intel. There are also musings that China will use this as a welcome testing ground for their weapons. Tbh, why wouldn't they? USA does the same in Ukraine.
Russia's intel sucks ass. I doubt they have anything the Iranians didn't already know. China is a different story, though.
 

Par for the course - because the US was giving Ukraine intel to target Russians.




It's not like Ukraine has their own spy satellites hanging above Russia.
 
It's quite reasonable. What makes it bizarre to you?
Perhaps you should try explaining to yourself the line of thinking between whatever you think the answer should be, and your conclusion that this will be a prolonged and expensive war.

From where I'm sitting that line looks full of holes far bigger than whether a particular tactical decision is financially optimal, given endless constraints neither of us is aware of.
 
I just can't believe ghe White House posted that video. Who's running America? A bunch of teenagers? If I was American I would be ashamed.

Trump and bibi are playing with fire and our lives. I'm getting really worried with the path this war may follow and becomes into WW3. Oil is that important.
 
Perhaps you should try explaining to yourself the line of thinking between whatever you think the answer should be, and your conclusion that this will be a prolonged and expensive war.

From where I'm sitting that line looks full of holes far bigger than whether a particular tactical decision is financially optimal, given endless constraints neither of us is aware of.
Asking me what I think about it instead of answering my one simple question is not the response I'm looking for.
 
Asking me what I think about it instead of answering my one simple question is not the response I'm looking for.
I understand that. To me it looks like you're just trying to extend this argument. And I think doing so will not lead to a productive outcome for either of us unless you make a better case for yourself upfront.
 
Top Bottom