Posted on 04/04/2026 4:50:46 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Legacy media is doing what it does best – spread misinformation and confusion – in regard to Friday’s downing of a USAF F-15E Strike Eagle in western Iran.
Legacy media is doing what it does best -- spread misinformation and confusion -- in regard to Friday’s downing of a USAF F-15E Strike Eagle in western Iran. According to the usual suspects, this means that America has lost “air supremacy” and marks the moment when the tide turns completely in Iran’s favor and, sweeping all before them, enables them to achieve absolute victory by Sunday. Monday at the latest.
In truth, air supremacy (sometimes called “air dominance”) has nothing to do with anti-aircraft fire or the losses that it can incur. The USAF considers air supremacy to be the highest level of air superiority, when air assets can operate without meaningful opposition from enemy air forces. What this means is that the enemy will choose not to confront your air assets at all and will instead run like the wind, as has currently occurred in Iran. (With air superiority, while enemy aviation may attack, they can be easily dealt with and chased back where they came from.)
This does not mean that the enemy is totally helpless. If they possess anti-aircraft cannon and missiles, as the Iranians do, they can shoot down attacking aircraft, as we saw on Friday. But what does this have to do with air supremacy? Absolutely nothing. There is no way that flak (as the Germans called it) can dispute air dominance by a superior air force. In late 1944, when the U.S. achieved air superiority over Hitler’s Luftwaffe (apart from a handful of Me-262 jets), German flak was still taking down hundreds of Allied aircraft. In response, the USAAF assigned several wings of heavy bombers
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
On it’s first air raid over Schweinfurt Germany in 1943 an attacking force of some 300 B-17’s with no fighter escort faced stiff German opposition. Out of the 300 bombers 60 were shot down.
A B-17 had a crew of ten men,, 60 bombers is 600 men lost in a single raid. While the loss of even one of our soldiers is a serious loss one missing pilot shouldn’t qualify as a military disaster I should think.
Your #13 was pure Alinsky aimed at shutting down discussion.
#13 wasn’t posted by me.
“#13 wasn’t posted by me.”
Correction. #15. Your reply to #13.
No -- I just pointed out to you why whatever information you may have had at your disposal didn't mean anything.
If this military campaign was as popular as you say it is, you'd have U.S. political figures -- especially Republicans -- all over the media clamoring for more. It isn't happening, and I'd say other than Lindsey Graham I'd say the support for this in Congress is tepid at best and quietly alarmed at worst.
The other Freeper is perfectly able to post whatever he wants. Based on my past experience with him here on this website, I have absolutely no reason to pay any attention to him (for reasons I explained).
I see where Hezbollah launched a SCUD the other day. That is a huge rocket where do they hide those at ?
I’ve always wanted to be on a list! /sarc
Please get tired of arguing with your betters.
And the sooner that happens the better.
L
“It isn’t happening, and I’d say other than Lindsey Graham I’d say the support for this in Congress is tepid at best and quietly alarmed at worst. “
As soon as the bombing began, Dems have submitted a resolution to require Trump to have the approval of Congress (War Powers Resolution ) to bomb Iran and all Republicans at the Senate have voted to reject that resolution allowing Trump to continue the bombing. Same for the House. So Trump has the support of Congress in this war, evidence by the votes. And you, what do you have? Feelings...
It’s ironic that you have the chutzpah to say “the information I had at my disposal did’nt mean anything”. Projection much?
(Ironically, in the course of defending our military operations against Iran, I'd argue that most of the pro-war FReepers have been getting plenty of mileage out of Alinsky's Rule #9, what with the apocalyptic scenarios they've thrown out about Iran: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.")
“which one”
Which two.
Oh gee, I post articles that destroy the common narrative that there was nothing in Iraq worth going to war for, and now you spout that crap about being "reliable sources".
You can't handle the truth.......F' off
And as far as I'm concerned, you are a Canadian......
Which two?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.