Forums / Discussion / General

America invading Hyperborea for her resources:

Iran loses so bad their next regime changes its name back to Persia.

Ok but seriously, what is this thread title.

The American-Aryan war also known as ww2

>"American-Aryan War"
The nazis came back for a second beating, huh?!

Iran means "land of the Aryans". Aryan, in the sense of the general ancient Indo-Iran peoples from whom modern European/near-East/South Asian languages are derived.

Come to think of it, I don't know how the Nazi/White supremacist fixation on being Aryan came to be.

Early linguistics studies placed Aryan peoples as the starting origin of all indo-european languages and became a commonly regarded factoid for intellectual circles (some genuine, many quacks) at the start of the 20th century. Nazi ideology regarded the Germanic people as the progenitors for all civilization from which everyone else on Earth derived from. In that regard, "Aryan" became appropriated as a term to give weight to the Nazi worldview to place their superiority in the human lineage.

That's how Aryan came to be linked with White supremacy.

I didn't care that it became appropriated. Only the neurotics care deeply about how the Nazis abuse language.

I unappropriated it. It means "person from Iran" now.

Regarding the first sentences: Thank you.

But if you call it that then Trump will want to join the "Ayran" side and start a war against himself

No, just the US's war with Iran.

You'd be referring to the misapproriation of "Aryan" if you assume it means Nazis. Although, its funny, you'd think people would be glad the US is handily removing another group of Fascists.

Really? If that were true, then I would think you'd start calling them Aryans too.

That's not how language works, my dude.

The entire situation gives the Arab world all the more reason to hate Iran, as if relations weren’t already bad enough.

You can say that, and prove why that is. Yet, you'll still get downvoted by people convinced that Iran's tactic of bombing their neighbors will somehow cause them to "Pressure the US to end the war."

In the minds of some people, apparently:
P1) US bombs [Place] --> [Place] gains Anti-American feeling.
P2) Iran bombs [Place] --> [Place] does not gain Anti-Aryan feeling.
QED: Bombing people is good for Iran, and bad for the US.

That’s just getting lost in argument and rhetoric. What they should do is take several steps back and acknowledge the situation for what it is.

Of course, this assumes you’re talking about actual freethinkers instead of strawman npcs.

You ignore a pretty important part about who started this war. Of course these neighbors are going to blame US for this. It would be stupid of them not to.
So yes. Iran bombs [Place] that has American bases --> [Place] gains anti-American feelings because the US can't protect them.
Maybe they are starting to think that having these bases there in the first place was a bad idea. Not a single rocket hit Turkmenistan, for example. Can you guess why that is?

A group that threw the world into the largest war in Earth's history, using the term it in their justification to commit some of the worst atrocities of mankind, and later being used for the next 80 years by people trying to imitate them.

Versus one (1) person using it's less well-known meaning on meme site article because "it sounds cooler" and "more aesthetically pleasing" than the accepted modern word that only has one definition.

At best, you are an idiot; at worst, you are someone who is deliberately and desperately trying to normalize a white supremacist language.

At best, one is neurotic about White Supremacist (ab)use of language, and being called racist because others were too dull to understand what one meant terrifiies them.

At worst, one seem to assume a word has mystical powers, and is afraid that it'll somehow contaminate them by its usage, just because it has some previous mental association.

The mere use of the word "Aryan" does not justify a worldview of "violently and eugenically engineering the human race, in favor of blue-eyed, Blonde-haired White people imagined to be superior" by some racialist loons.

Its only "White Supremacist" because you happen to insist it is, and even to some extent because you agree with them that its "White Supremacist".

But the wonder of language is, you actually don't have to. No one does.

Surely, you're familiar with the euphemism treadmill:
Idiot and "r***ard" used to have a medical meaning to describe the mentally ill and incapable, before it took on derogatory connotations that used the status of disability to disparage. Though, idiot seems to have settled into a more generic and less emotionally laden term of insult against intelligence.

Relatedly, terms for ethnicities may carry insulting and racist connotations, but never neccesarily stay that way, assuming they ever did.

The difference between Black or African-American for example: there was some social pressure at some point to abandon "Black" as racist, in favor of "African-American". But this quickly fizzled out, because no one was really invested in either name, the racists will be racist using either regardless, and Black is easier to say anyways.

Arab or Arabian had a similar issue. Post 9/11, there was some concern dedicated to encouraging use of "Arabian" instead of "Arab", in order to refer to the ethnicity respectfully. In the long term, no one deeply cared about this. Other debates around diversity and non-discrimination took more priority, and what mattered more was avoiding ethnic stereotypes, or just not mistaking them for Aryans/Persians. Whether someone used "Arab" or "Arabian", or even "Arabic", was eventually left up to context and grammatical smoothness.

Gypsy or Romani? That bit of linguistic contention weighs more heavily on the Europeans, with an ongoing history of discrimination amd stereotyping against Gypsies, than the Americans who lack such a reputation for hatred against them.

But part of the point is that language is malleable to some degree. A word can take on different meanings if you just bother to use it differently. It doesn't have to carry third or fourth associations, based on some ridiculous ideas from Nazis and others assuming the racism is inherent to the word.

And I use Aryan to mean "Persons from Iran" because thats precisely what it means.

Yes. Its a forum. Thats what its for.

Except the neighbors wanted the US to do this, with Saudi Arabia reportedly urging Trump to do this. The Arab states do not like Iran, and they knew Iran would lobby rockets at them, which is why they are reliant on US to protect them.

This isn't how it works.

No country works like that.

How it works all the time, and in reality, is that when a country is attacked, for whatever reason, they do not evaluate the deeper reasons why their enemy struck them or the relationships they were struck for. All that the population of a country will percieve is "an attack was carried out against Us, by Them."

In fact, we already have a pretty good example experienced to us here at home. Did you know that part of the reason why the 9/11 attacks were carried out against the US, was because Al-Qaeda wanted to punish us for our relationship to Israel?

Last I checked, this didn't make us reconsider our relationship to Israel. All it did was inform us that "This irredeemable asshole killed 3000 of us, so we're going to do whatever we can to make him pay for it."

Furthermore, returning our attention to the present, the strategy didn't work. Iran bombing its neighbors only created Anti-Aryan sentiment and reasons to retaliate against Iran.

Well I hope they learned their lesson: never attack America.

Also, yeah, it was only a matter of time before someone mentioned Israel. It’s alliances like that which started World War 1. But there’s another valuable lesson Israel teaches us: you can larp something into reality.

The United States had been opposed to Iran since the Carter administration, and their government had been funding terrorist organizations throughout the Islamic world. I consider their regime to have a similar shelf life as the Soviet Union: as their revolutionary generation dies, so would their state.

Largely depends on which targets are being hit. The response would be quite different if Iran was deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and residential areas, versus the targeting of military bases, oil infrastructure, luxury hotels or anything that only benefits the 1%.

As a general rule, most people around the world don't particularly like having foreign troops stationed in their country, especially from overseas countries with no cultural ties or proximity. When missiles rain on those bases not many are going to shed tears for them.

If you're talking about governments, the complaints about them being left hanging out to dry already started:

"One of the officials said that Gulf countries were frustrated and even angry that the U.S. military has not defended them enough. He said there is belief in the region that the operation has focused on defending Israel and American troops, while leaving Gulf countries to protect themselves, and said that his country’s stock of interceptors was “rapidly depleting.”

Gulf states, basically:

Do you think families of the American soldiers located in these bases and the public at large would rather blame Iranian rockets or the US government for dragging them into this stupid war and putting them at risk?

No joke, depends on how right-wing those people are.

The Aryan rockets, duh.

Its Likely that As far as the families of those soldiers are concerned, Iran had no business shooting at members of their family.

No, don't cite laws of war, geneva conventions, or geopolitics to them, because all they would've seen was that the enemy killed one of theirs.

Some things are that painfully simple.

We'll see how popular this war is during the next election, then.

Targeting oil infrastructure would ultimately lead to a rapid rise in oil prices. Which in turn result in rapid rise in fuel prices. This overwhelmingly affects the 99% not the 1%.

The armada of ships, trucks and planes that transport tons of food, goods, supplies, etc across the world would cost more, and the price would ultimately be paid by the consumer. The consumer themselves would have to now pay more for commuting to work, or to any other location.

Iran shutting down the Straight of Hormuz is effectively slowing down the distribution of oil by a global quarter – even a third by some estimates. O

The Gulf countries are frustrated largely because their fears were justified. It was Israel and America that launched the attack, but they were some of the meat shields that took the brunt of the retaliation. It cements the idea that Iran views them as disposable enemies.

In reality, from what I gathered, after the last war with Israel in 2025, the Iranian leadership decentralized, which has a benefit of: top leadership being killed doesn't impact efficacy of lower ranking soldiers. With the cost of: top leadership being killed doesn't impact efficacy of lower ranking soldiers.

It's no wonder Iran is effectively attacking everyone. Even countries neutral to warm to it. Hell even Turkish occupied Cyprus got hit, and the Turks are desperate to wave it off.

It's been exactly a week since the war started.
Iran has suffered greatly. It lost it's Supreme Leader, and some have said also his successor. It's top leadership is dead. It's troops are in disarray and launching attacks on neighbors with he intention of forcing them to pressure America to stop – and in turn, this backfired. Rumors of IRGC defectors and abandonment. Estimates that rocket attacks and drone attacks have started to slow down by as much as 90%. Casualties across the ME, Israel, and America, remain relatively low. Regime change is, technically, already here. It's naval assets have been decimated. It's Airforce seems non existent. It's capacity to launch rockets is shrinking and it's only major asset; drones, is not enough as a defense. The pressure for total collapse of the state is mounting by the hour not days.

Meanwhile the election is 8 months away. Yes, the Trump administration is facing a Blue-Wave sweep in November. But. And this is a big but, if Trump is able to pull off a significant victory in Iran – i.e. regime change for a government more pro-Western and pro-American, in a relatively short amount of time with relatively low casualty rate, it would be a massive political win.

However if this becomes an Iraq style quagmire that goes on to 8 months that blue wave will turn into a blue tsunami.

Targeting oil affects everyone. The consumer might take the brunt, but corporations and investment funds will be affected significantly by a prolonged energy war. Within the region itself, even if refineries and infrastructure itself are not hit, the oil sheikhs in the region aren't going to be happy if they have to shut down their refineries because they can't ship the oil out of the region. Bessent is talking about removing sanctions from Russian oil to stabilize prices, but the longer it goes on, the worse it will get. Overall, I don't think the strategy has backfired. And there is no such thing as a "disposable enemy". There are, however, "disposable allies". Brings to mind the famous quote from Kissinger about being a friend of the US.

I would be cautious of using estimates of the volume of missile attacks and drones as an indication of how the war is going. The two opening days saw the majority of launches as they were intended to be saturation attacks. Most obviously, it forces the enemy to spend their expensive and limited interceptors to destroy them. On the less obvious side, it helps map out the position of assets like radars, launchers and their respective infrastructure.

The capability of Iran to do this by themselves would be limited, but rumors are that Russia and China are providing ISTAR capabilities to Iran, which is quite plausible considering the intelligence assets in the area, the capabilities of both countries and their geopolitical interests. For Russia, it's also a possibility of paying the US back with the same coin after four years of intelligence sharing with Ukraine.

Some of the assets confirmed hit in Jordan, the UAE and Saudi Arabia include the AN/TPY2 radars for THAAD and the AN/FPS-132 early warning radar. Not only are these assets really expensive and difficult to replace (taking replacements from places like the Pacific means weakening the US' capabilities in the region, with no guarantee the replacements won't be also destroyed. Making new ones will take years), but it suggests Iran was deliberately aiming at degrading the missile detection capability for early warning and interception.

If detection and efficiency of air defense has been degraded, the need to continue those large scale saturation attacks also decreases. A reduction in launches is not necessarily related to capability, especially if they are planning for a long war and preserving assets is a necessity.

Now, from the US DoD's own map of the first 100 hours of Operation Epic Fail, you can see the bulk of airstrikes have occurred along the southern coast and into areas near Tehran. While it makes sense that's where the majority of launchers, it's quite possible that a significant amount of launchers are placed elsewhere.

The Navy and Air Force were never a significant factor to begin with. Aside from optics, touting how sinking a few ships and targeting a few planes (mostly on the ground, chances are the USAF has lost more airworthy planes at this point) is a PR win (The White House Twitter account constantly spamming cringe edited videos showing off the same footage of their strikes over and over again), it's meaningless from a strategic standpoint.

Could it be that Iran really is running out of launchers, running on fumes at the moment and about to collapse? Are their soldiers in disarray and defecting? Possibly. From what I'm seeing about the situation? No, not even close. The fog of war is thick out there, though. Your sources might be better than mine. But what you're saying sounds exactly like what the DoD and people like Cringy Pete Hegseth have been repeating nonstop for a week, though. You know, "this is four week operation that might drag on for six months or more" people. I'll leave it up to you if you trust what they say.

Even if the US and Israel wins against Iran, there's potentially going to be a refugee crisis for Iranians. Not sure if the US is going to take any of them in given the current administration's stance, but do we expect the middle east take care of that?

Probably not a large refugee crisis. If the victory results in regime change to one that is either friendlier to the US or abandons it's nuclear program then there would probably be a lot of money flowing to rebuild. Seems to me the majority of current destruction is military targets.

But the greater reality facing Iran isn't a refugee crisis from the war, but a refugee crisis from mismanagement of their water resulting in greater and greater droughts. If there is indeed a new friendlier government then Israel could sell Iran their water-conservation technology.

So, is the war over or ongoing, and has the US and Israel accomplished anything in the short term and long term?

Ongoing, obviously. There might not be much time left.

Sadly, Tel Aviv has been lost, according to reports this morning. Netanyahu and other senior members of Israeli government have also been killed or found to be MIA.

Missile fire from Tehran has completely destroyed all US Naval and Centcom assets in the region, and inflicted over 10,000 US casualties.

There should be an emergency broadcast from the Whitehouse about this situation tonight, I think. I can't believe it.

Very much ongoing. Whether yesterday's comments were just an attempt to manipulate markets or an attempt to pave the way for an off-ramp later is the question.

As for accomplishing anything, they killed the leadership of Iran, destroyed a number of surface vessels of both the IRIAN and the IRGCN, bombed some aircraft on the ground, shot down a trainer aircraft and damaged or destroyed infrastructure such as surface military bases, fuel depots and energy infrastructure, airports. Some TEL vehicles and drone launchers were also destroyed. How many? Difficult to say, but the capability to launch missiles doesn't seem to be significantly hampered.

Short term, it's meaningless. Iran isn't showing any signs that it's about to crack any time soon. You don't end wars with air power alone, especially a country the size of Iran, and any ground invasion would be a catastrophe for the US.

The markets are buckling under pressure. People get fixated on oil prices, but that's not everything that goes through the Strait of Hormuz. And I'm by no means an expert on the stuff, but apparently restarting oil production can be difficult even in cases where no damage was done to infrastructure, taking weeks to months. The longer this goes on, the worse it will be.

There are also reports that the US is already moving its THAAD radars from South Korea. See my previous post and the part about taking radars from the Pacific theater. I mentioned those systems are very expensive (We're talking about billions of dollars per unit), but I forgot to mention that it requires a lot of Gallium to even build one. You know, one of those rare earths China controls 98% of the world supply, has imposed export controls on after Trump's idiotic trade wars. The US can obtain its own supply, but it will be long and expensive. Those radars are being hit by drones that cost $30k a piece, by the way.

Long term, I suspect it will be disastrous. Potential worldwide economic recession aside, the damage on infrastructure on the region is likely worth trillions. US bases have been severely damaged, relations with allied countries strained. Reputational damage to the "most powerful army in the world" is likely and, incidents like the Minab school airstrike have soured the perception for a lot of people across the world.

Outside of some black swan event changing the odds, this seems like a strategic defeat in the making.

@krashlia

You specifically are going to need to cite sources, both in this thread and the entry you started. Its been 10 days, and the entry still looks like a placeholder write-up. Use the
KYM Guide to Textile and the Style Guide.

Your post is so bad, I had to double-check that you were not an alt deliberately spreading misinformation to make the actual Krashila look bad. You are spending way more time arguing with others without any citations as to why you think what you do than actual research. Make more posts like your last one in the thread, and you're not going to be welcome to stay on the site.

Krashila wrote:

Sadly, Tel Aviv has been lost, according to reports this morning. Netanyahu and other senior members of Israeli government have also been killed or found to be MIA.

Literally what reports. The only thing I'm getting when I look are news articles saying "Iranian media publishes false conspiracy theory claiming Netanyahu’s death or injury" You would think that the capital city of a country "being lost" would be international frontpage news, not something I'm struggling to find any evidence on where that's supposed to come from.

Krashila wrote:

Missile fire from Tehran has completely destroyed all US Naval and Centcom assets in the region, and inflicted over 10,000 US casualties.

Ten thousand US casualties? Ten thousand? While I may have skepticism that the seven deaths announced by the Pentagon are 100% accurate with, 'at what degree of separation is this a death considered/not considered to be "caused" by war?' Really, the real number isn't seven, it's ten thousand? Again, you would think something like this would be international front-page news, not something that I'm struggling to find any shred of evidence about.

Krashila wrote:

There should be an emergency broadcast from the Whitehouse about this situation tonight, I think. I can't believe it.

You are so tantalizingly close to the realization that maybe you shouldn't believe whatever """"reports"""" you're getting this from.

And despite this belief that " Tel Aviv has been lost" and "over 10,000 US casualties" have occurred, you are also simultaneously of the belief that if the US were to attempt to take over Cuba, "The US will accomplish its goals there too.""

The reports:

You know there are live reports of the Tel Aviv skyline right? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4m7gmWQAzY

And some of us have family there – grilling on their porch as we speak.

He already said he was trolling from his last comment.

yeh it was hidden so i didn't check.

i'm going to be completely honest man, shit like this does not positively engender you to the rest of the userbase when it comes to your conduct with this entire conflict

To be fair, I joined the internet in the 90s. Back then, everything on the internet was 100% factual.

Well, I'm not proud of being a terrible and inconsistent article writer.

Though I'm rather annoyed at the initial reaction my posts got, even after I explained myself.

It might have to due with your reputation from your previous comments on the site.

Its still annoying.

Though, fair enough, since I'm narccisistically pinning to be validated as ultimately correct, and planned on being obnoxious about it if and when I'm proven to be.

(So, I'm not the best forum poster)