News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, it was made at a time when the concept of a war was a months long preparation of deploying troops and moving assets into place. They didn't anticipate just attacking countries overnight.
This was a months- or weeks-long preparation. It’s been known for a while that the US was moving aircraft carriers towards Iran. This absolutely did not happen overnight.
The BBC from 2026-02-20
Its not unusual for US air assets and carriers to be in this region in general. You might want to look at the preparations for the invasion of Iraq if you want to know what an actual preparation for a war looks like.
Right, and the massing of troops on the Ukrainian border by Russia was not a prelude to that invasion either. /s
This was in no way a bolt from the blue. People knew this was coming.
Yes. You are aware that February 20th wasn't "months ago" right?
But January 29th was over a month ago, and you can bet that this plan started before the news noticed and reported on it.
Its OK that you said a stupid thing and then pretended you didn't by changing the definition of what "stupid" is.
what? not them but they did add a source as early as January 29th.
I'm lost, how is that redefining stupid?
Because my argument is that this was not a well prepared war with adequate assets put into place in the region which would take months to do, much like was the case with the 2003 Iraq war. And their counter-argument to that was "look, someone dispatched a carrier to the middle east 33 days ago!"
You tell me if you think that is stupid or not.
Okay, but can you see how that's not actually what you said?
You just called it stupid.
But with hindsight, do you think that carrier deployment unrelated?
Because if it is, then some planning went into it.
Does that article support the conclusion that Trumps attack on Iran was adequately planned?
Do you have something to say there wasn't planning? Because that's your claim with 0 evidence, which beats their something.
Sorry, my argument depends on reality that someone who isn't a moron can observe. If you haven't been able to discern a lack of preparation from all of the available evidence that we have been bombarded with over the last three days then nothing I say is going to pull your head out of your ass for you.
No your point is that your trying to be the loudest voice.
All you have are insults instead of anything of substance.
Have the day you deserve.
Sorry you are too fucking stupid to have a conversation with normal people. I hope you go away and never come back. Oh wait, that is achievable. Buh bye.
He said, and I quote:
Note the plural in "months".
Then he added:
If you don't know, the prep for the 2003 invasion of Iraq took 18 months.
Even the extremely rushed (due to the fact that Saddam was actively killing Kuwait) Desert Storm took almost 6 months to prepare.
Note that Iraq is 1/3rd the size of Iran.
It's not that it's unrelated. It's barely consequential considering the scale of the operation. And by "operation" I mean "the actual preparation that would normally take place if someone competent was responsible for the planning of the attack".
The US has assets (including carriers) in the region practically non-stop. One more or less doesn't really change much in the context of them burning through ammo supplies, or the fact that @UnspecificGravity@piefed.social was 100% right in saying that this was completely rushed.
Thank you for coming with more sources.
Half of US state capitals are in the middle of states because they were created at a time when travel times were large enough that you wanted to minimise them for political centres. I'm assuming this was around the same time so maybe it even took time to get congress together?
Oh, I can scroll up two comments. 1973. Scratch that
The interstate system wasn’t completed until 1992. Speed limits were lower in the 1970s as well and vehicles were not designed to go 70+mph at that time.
They were designed for the faster speeds. Speeds were lowered to 55 mph in most of the country during the 1970s as a (perfectly rational) response to the OPEC oil embargoes in that decade. Lower speeds = lower fuel consumption per mile.
No, it was in the 1970s, for which 60 days was a reasonable amount of time to get soldiers into place in order to fight a war.
Doesn't that just mean that there is no need to bypass Congress. They can approve while the troops are getting in position.
Yes, that is the entire point of the war powers act. It allows the president to quickly deploy troops to respond to issues and provides enough time for congress to approve the declaration of war once they are ready to go. Prior to this the US president was NOT permitted to deploy troops at all until congress declared war. The War Powers Act was an EXPANSION of presidential authority.