Iran: the collapse

I don't know if this war is illegal, and I don't really care.

I don't support this attack on Iran because I don't see what the potential end game is that will further American national security interests.

 

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...tollah-ali-khamenei/articleshow/129079903.cms

 

War making/declaring powers in the United States have never been as black and white as many naive Constitutionalists would believe. The grayness hinges on the distinction between the power to make war and the power to declare war. What we have seen in recent decades is the realization that the power to make war is more consequential than the power to declare war. Indeed, the power to make war tends to render the power to declare war moot.

 

Yes to this post. Even if Congress decided that we were done with the War at this point that doesn't mean the Iranians are done waging it. It's not like all of the sudden they'd be like well shit Congress decided the War is over so we're done using the drones. Let's pack it in guys!

 

Winning/losing for the various parties runs from a continuum where the US and Israel get tired of bombing Iran, declare victory, on one end, and Iran collapses along ethnic lines and sinks into a decade of internecine warfare, on the other end. Regardless of the outcome, the Iranian people will likely be the losers.

 

You werenot asking a person a question, you were posting a remark that had nothing to do with the purpose of the thread, but to troll.
It's in your warped mind that questioning that remark is the same as defending someone...It's the same bullshit make up stories you come up with regarding me.

I've been posting factual information from sources linked so one can judge their reliability.
But you're not asking a question, you're reciting what trump says, while military experts arenot certain if the stated destruction actually is that complete as is being suggested by the WH.
And as usual you insert a phantasy of yourself about what I think with "Iran is 30 days away from Tel Aviv or something?"
You're a sick person, lying constantly by putting things in as someones opinion and then attack that made up story.
I think it is called strawman MO.

 

Anyway, an actual warship being sunk in international waters seems like the least troublesome part of this whole situation.

 

A 'victory' as you define it might well resemble a Pyrrhic victory, so excessive does the price to pay seem.

 

I really think folks need to step back from the Israel and Trump angles and start to think about the other shoes that are about to drop -- and perhaps very quickly.

I'm not specifically talking about the Russian and China angles. Russia's involvement was discussed in this thread earlier. China is apparently "preparing to provide Iran with financial assistance, spare parts and missile components."

The big shoe that's going to drop is this:

Qatar warns war will force Gulf to stop energy exports ‘within days’
Financial Times - http://archive.today/iu357

Kuwait Cuts Oil Production as Fallout From Iran Conflict Intensifies
Wall Street Journal - https://www.wsj.com/business/energy...uction-as-storage-fills-up-3766b2eb?st=dx5mWk

 

I think the post you were responding to was making the point that this is a clearcut war of aggression and thus the very thing the Geneva conventions set out to forbid.

 

Perhaps. But that's not an especially consequential argument to make these days either.

Plus, the stated rationales (plural) are so muddied and convoluted:

Six Days of War, 10 Rationales
The Atlantic - http://archive.today/dzSeL

 

My point is in some ways more subtle and in some ways less subtle, but it boils down to this: legality appears to be a moot point.

 

So now he's demanding "unconditional surrender." WTF, does he think it's 1945?