I don’t disagree with most of what you said here. My point isn’t necessarily about the number of bombs dropped, but rather about the attitude that drives the war. I think there’s a very big difference between a war that’s started under dishonest pretexts to grift and pillage, and a war that’s fueled by revenge and anger caused by a legitimate reason of going to war, like the sinking of this carrier. The difference in attitude will determine the lengths the country is willing to go to achieve its aims, and that matters. If the general public supports the war and is motivated to see results, then that gives the government a lot of options and leeway to carry out things that are new, unprecedented, and extreme.
Think about it like this. The former would be a war like the one in Vietnam or Iraq, but the latter would be like the war against Japan in WWII or against Mexico in the Mexican American war. Japan got burnt down and then nuked, Mexico got half the country annexed. That’s a pretty big difference in results when you compare them to wars where the public wasn’t really into like Iraq or Vietnam.
The only statement that you said that I disagree with is this one:
Iran has a firm fervent base of support
I don’t think this is true at all. The only people who support the regime are those in the regime or who directly benefit from its corruption and tyranny. Historically speaking, when regimes try to rule with violence and fear, it’s a pretty strong indicator that they lost all legitimacy with the people and are clinging on to power for dear life. They know the moment they lose power the people will come after them, and I think that’s what we’re seeing in Iran now.
I don’t disagree with most of what you said here. My point isn’t necessarily about the number of bombs dropped, but rather about the attitude that drives the war. I think there’s a very big difference between a war that’s started under dishonest pretexts to grift and pillage, and a war that’s fueled by revenge and anger caused by a legitimate reason of going to war, like the sinking of this carrier. The difference in attitude will determine the lengths the country is willing to go to achieve its aims, and that matters. If the general public supports the war and is motivated to see results, then that gives the government a lot of options and leeway to carry out things that are new, unprecedented, and extreme.
Think about it like this. The former would be a war like the one in Vietnam or Iraq, but the latter would be like the war against Japan in WWII or against Mexico in the Mexican American war. Japan got burnt down and then nuked, Mexico got half the country annexed. That’s a pretty big difference in results when you compare them to wars where the public wasn’t really into like Iraq or Vietnam.
The only statement that you said that I disagree with is this one:
I don’t think this is true at all. The only people who support the regime are those in the regime or who directly benefit from its corruption and tyranny. Historically speaking, when regimes try to rule with violence and fear, it’s a pretty strong indicator that they lost all legitimacy with the people and are clinging on to power for dear life. They know the moment they lose power the people will come after them, and I think that’s what we’re seeing in Iran now.