US/Israel and Iran- (7 Viewers)

[efil4]

Thought we should start thread here - over weekend, US carried out strikes against Houthi elements in Yemen in retaliation for their actions in Red Sea.



Houthi leader issued this statement- no US ships in Red Sea


Houthis then attempted to strike US Carrier group

This morning Trump took to Truth Social:



So any missile/shot fired from Houthi elements in Yemen will be considered coming from Iran. Obviously this is wrought with problems, but we know Houthis will respond and continue attacks.

So then what does this mean for Iran? Lots to unpack, but seems to me that the NO WAR POTUS is hell bent on getting into yet ANOTHER conflict in the ME. He is backing himself into a corner with statements and we could find ourselves embroiled in ME conflict again.

 

[bird]

Self awareness of a potato.

Nah. A potato has more self-awareness. Rubio sold his entirety to Trump. There is nothing but air inside a Marco Rubio skin suit.

 

[efil4]

LOL - "yall want oil? go get it yourselves"

 

[efil4]

LOL - "yall want oil? go get it yourselves"

 

[zztop]

The forking irony:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio with George Stephanopoulos of ABC Good Morning America

Rubio: "Imagine an Iran that, instead of spending their wealth, billions of dollars, supporting terrorists or weapons, had spent that money helping the people of Iran. You’d have a much different country. "

 

[J-DONK]

The forking irony:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio with George Stephanopoulos of ABC Good Morning America

Rubio: "Imagine an Iran that, instead of spending their wealth, billions of dollars, supporting terrorists or weapons, had spent that money helping the people of Iran. You’d have a much different country. "

They just voted for an amendment to cut medicare and social security.

 

[wardorican]

Then I have a hard time understanding your original premise. In the the context of my comment of needlessly endangering our troops by placing them in a small area, I find it cruel to say we can use them to learn more about drone warfare. Using live humans as test subject is immoral. However, I don’t think you are saying that. I think you are trying to find a silver lining in what is this large pile of flaming poop of our own making. Though that is like burning our house down and finding a microwave unscathed and say, at least we can now find out why that microwave didn’t get burned down. We launched 8 multimillion dollar patriots and only one hit a 50k drone. Yes! Positive.

I mean, we can also send in our 10 billion dollar carriers to test their efficacy against drones and supersonic missiles too? Why though? The risk reward of even implying that there is a positive just doesn’t make sense. We have already lost servicemen. 2 500 million dollar radars. Billion dollars of equipment. Destabilized an entire region and halted 20 percent of our global energy commerce. Some countrries are now strapping in just to get by. Possible food scarcity as the economist that I linked earlier thinks could happen. All because fertilizer is a infungible resource which would be difficult to find alternatives once a good amount is now cut off. Now you tell us we had alternatives to learn about drone warfare?

I don’t think I have any particular insight more clever than the next person. You suggested Israel’s more advance technology and tactics. However, we clearly saw that the iron dome was overwhelmed by just cheap numbers of drones. Such that Israel wanted to invade Lebanon to stop the launches. We talk of Ukraine, but we see still have news of drones getting through. And they have the advantage of geography meaning the drones have to travel through their controlled territory. And yeah, they have said they tactically and cost efficiently shot down drones using jet fighters.

Now we re staring at mountainous terrain in Iran next to a narrow body of water on an island right next to them. Grabbing an island and then have our troops fire upon will escalate again. Like Israel’s urge to invade Lebanon, we will find that we have to control land on Iran’s coast to prevent more launches. And then rinse repeat until we control all of Iran? Except…we don’t have the troops. Nah….I don’t see positives.

Im not a fan of this war. I agree with the needless sacrifice.

I was just pointing out that part of your premise came off as a learn from others or war. And I'm just saying its a bit of both. Not advocating something.

However, I am pushing back a bit on this narrative that Iran's drones are some unstoppable horde. Thats not true. However, we can improve there.

 

[not2rich]

LOL - "yall want oil? go get it yourselves"

Days without our President being a National Embarrassment: 0.

 

[UriUT]

Im not a fan of this war. I agree with the needless sacrifice.

I was just pointing out that part of your premise came off as a learn from others or war. And I'm just saying its a bit of both. Not advocating something.

However, I am pushing back a bit on this narrative that Iran's drones are some unstoppable horde. Thats not true. However, we can improve there.

I just dont think there is any doubt that we cannot stop them on a macroscopic view based the damages that they have inflicted. That isnt to say we dont have the means to shoot one down. Cost effectiveness and numbers are the factors. We have electromagnetic jammers and the shahed arent using fiber optics. We dont control land and therefore cannot deploy those guns (sorry im not technical enough to know their names...the ones used on ships). Patriots can shoot down shahed but cost effectiveness? Plus we obviously have problems against hypersonic missiles. The iron dome has a good hit percentage but it was overwhelmed. These are lessons learned from the Ukrainian war. We couldn't give them enough patriots bc we cannot produce them fast enough. Its expensive. The Ukrainians used our aid early in the war like it was water. They adapted after understanding even w our vast economy, we couldn't keep up.

War has now become wars of economic scaling unless the blitzkrieg is of great success in preventing wars of attrition.

 

[superchuck500]

The forking irony:
Secretary of State Marco Rubio with George Stephanopoulos of ABC Good Morning America

Rubio: "Imagine an Iran that, instead of spending their wealth, billions of dollars, supporting terrorists or weapons, had spent that money helping the people of Iran. You’d have a much different country. "

 

[SamAndreas]

I want to be clear. I'm talking about Harris winning the nomination. She won't make it out of the primaries.

I do want to address one thing people on this board keep repeating as if it's fact.

Progressives are the base of trhe party now.

How popular are progressive policies with the base? How unpopular is the DNP overall with the base?

There are obvious conclusions you can draw from those two facts. If you want to argue against that, you need to figure out why M4A, wealthy tax, etc are all majority positions, and why the DNP has a favorability of -20.

You can come on this board and tell me the sky is green. It won't make it true.

FYI: This polling was BEFORE the Iran war.

Poll: Israel's standing plummets among Democrats, fueling primaries on the left

More registered voters view Israel negatively than positively in the latest NBC News poll, driven by change among independents and especially Democrats.

www.nbcnews.com

J-Donk you clearly have the opinion that progressives are the base. But that's a personally held opinion, not a fact. I don't agree with you about that.

Have you considered the possibility that the Democratic party liberals and progressives might hold the similar if not the same positions regarding a whole host of issues. We do. We also disagree on stuff.

I showed you in another post how the Republican party did that way back in 1860, they were a conservative progressive party. I posted the 1860 Republican party plank to prove that association.

In 1860 the Republican party was THE progressive party, it had been created by progressives. If they were conservative, and many of them were, then it was because they were progressive conservatives.

 

[SamAndreas]

If true that is a major development. But I don't know if that is true because Trump is the source.

 

[J-DONK]

J-Donk you clearly have the opinion that progressives are the base. But that's a personally held opinion, not a fact. I don't agree with you about that.

Have you considered the possibility that the Democratic party liberals and progressives might hold the similar if not the same positions regarding a whole host of issues. We do. We also disagree on stuff.

I showed you in another post how the Republican party did that way back in 1860, they were a conservative progressive party. I posted the 1860 Republican party plank to prove that association.

In 1860 the Republican party was THE progressive party, it had been created by progressives. If they were conservative, and many of them were, then it was because they were progressive conservatives.

You can disagree, but let's be clear. Progressive economic positions have majority support within the DNP. Also progressives are way less supportive of Israel, which appears to be the view of the majority of the party as well.

In fact, if you want to dig into Kamala Harris we know her support for Israel cost her votes.

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaza

P.S. I personally think the entire current leadership structure should be removed, and banned from any future positions. Stuff like this is simply unacceptable.

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/18/dnc-kills-its-own-public-2024-autopsy-00697403

A bigger point would be the DNP has a net favorability of -20. Moderates live in this fantasy land of "everything is fine".