"Doing the same thing, hoping for a different result". But don't forget, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." There is a platitude for every opinion, of every situation.
I don't think the USA should go to war for Iran. But once there is already a war, more like an asswhipping, and the one thing that the USA policy goals requires (no Iran nukes) is easily in our grasp and not in Israel's hands due to lack of those bombers, I think it's insane to not take the easy win of bombing the nuclear facilities and then let Israel finish the job.
Yes I am Jewish. Feel free to attack the messenger instead of the message. But isolationism shouldn't mean not taking easy wins with no obvious downside.
It’s ok because the US will pay then price for the downside, not Israel. I read ySohrab Amari who said Israel will internationalize the aftermath. This is exactly what will happen. Upside for Israel, downside for the US.
However letting Iran have nukes also has a downside. Especially once Israel went to war, if we let them keep the nuclear program they will make the bomb (even if they weren't planning to before).
I think I know what you mean, that it is impossible to attack Fordo w/o doing collateral damage.
Additionally, we are probably not told how the scientists and government officials were assassinated because they were bombed at home in residential areas. However, it is also possible that, since the attacks started early Friday, the ordnance actually exploded during normal working hours at their offices or labs. Details are lacking from both Jewish nationalist and anti-Zionist news sources.
Oh no - it is definitely the message that needs attacking.
How many times has Tulsi Gabbard said there are no Iranian plans for nuclear bombs?
But if you are jewish have you understood the risk that this puts israel under?
First Iran can out missile Israel and has far creater tolerance of casualties.
Then what happens if Israel uses nukes - I hesitate to offer a psychlogical assessment of the Israeli state - you can do that yourself - but Israel using nukes seems pretty likely to me.
Israel and US, the only nations ever to use nukes against civilians? How is that going to look.
The ICC will move out of reach of US sanctions or be replaced by a BRICS version.
And the message "not the essenger of course" says this should happen
Because it's not a win for America lol. It's just a win for Israel, which is also why you feel the need to advocate for it. Demanding that other countries don't get nukes is an insane power play that pretty much only shows that you should be the one without nukes. Personally, I believe we should bomb Israeli nuclear facilities, if no one except America is allowed to have nukes.
They used to drive a billboard vehicle around Beverly Hills (like the kind that drives around the Vegas Strip promising "Girls, Girls, Girls, NOW!") with a sad photo of the current heir. It was pretty funny.
It's easy to imagine him as a Chalabi (that guy who convinced Bush that if Saddam was overthrown all of Iraq would accept him as president immediately, no questions asked), but who knows? I mean, certainly he wouldn't show up and be granted the keys to the castle, but with all of the Persian California money... who knows if some heir might, either crookedly or not, enter their democratic system? Being a Napoleon still means something generations later, ditto even for Stalin and Mussolini. Hell being a Clinton or a Bush, or a (ahem) KENNEDY still means something today in TLOTFATHOTB ("the land of the free, etc") so who knows?
Most humans are more herdish than sheep (and they assume that *others* are even *more* so) which gives name recognition a hell of a heads up.
Me too. The three things I really liked about Trump were 1) thought he'd get us out of Ukraine war and keep us out of any new ones, 2) thought he was going to get serious about national finances, 3) he'd bring back our national sovereignty and stop the invasion of illegals. Now left with only #3 and we're having another ZOG war.
Neither major party is in favor of any such thing. I don't know about the minor parties.
Personally, I wrote to my member of the US House & both of my Senators. I asked that any proposal to spend (including tax spending) must include at least a good-faith attempt to increase revenue more than it spends, at least until the unfunded COVID-19 relief and stimulus debts are paid off. I asked my member of the House to take the lead -- which is a lot to ask -- because no one else in Congress will do so.
Not jumping at a chance to get involved in another ME war and nation-building is a rational and practical response to reality, not some idealistic, naive and dangerous view that foreign interventionism is always the answer.
Israel is kicking everyone’s ass. They can figure this out on their own.
Not sure what else you're including, but regarding Iran, his only concern this past week has been that he get to claim credit if the Israelis manage to pull off the whole chalupa.
What with Iran still capable of firing missiles, he's less enamored by the Israelis, but, really, that's his concern -- that if the Israelis win BIGLY in short time -- he not be left out of the credits.
I don't know why people still discuss Trump as if he has policies or values or anything else like that. The man has been the most honest open book in America for decades. Anyone who fails to understand him by now is a total mystery to me.
We have our own interests in the Middle East. Are our bases in Germany and Japan also for Israeli interest? Who murdered them? Are they are friends? Would they harm us with nuclear weapons if they could? See how it keeps repeating itself?
But the bases in Germany and Japan haven't been bombed by Israel's enemies either, so your argument has no merit, since there is no comparison. The only reason to get involved in the ME is because of Israel, and we military aged men are tired of boomers like you voting us into wars.
No Muslim states would have any interest in attacking America if it wasn't for the support for Israel. That has always been the explicit goal of Muslim terrorism (with the exception of the Israel-sponsored ISIS).
You’re deeply full of crap. Muslim states attack every state that isn’t a Muslim state and would certainly be attacking the U.S. and its interests at every opportunity. As Churchill said regarding western countries: “Muslims fight for minority rights until they are a majority. Then there are no minority rights.” Islam has been a war cult long before modern day Israel existed. Israel is doing our dirty work against a death cult.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Japan and Germany haven’t been engaging in endless wars with their neighbors and then dragging us in. As far as our “interests” in the Middle East, they begin and end with one thing: oil. And supporting Israel imperils the flow of oil. All the “bad guys” in the Middle East will gladly sell us oil. (Saddam Hussein was sanctioned for trying to sell us oil after the UN prohibited it!)
Open your history books. Japan and Germany have done nothing but engaging in wars with their neighbors and dragging us in. As far as oil, our interests in the Middle East have been repeatedly attacked and appropriated by Islamic countries. How many U.S. companies that built exploration and processing facilities in the ME have not been stolen? Zero. You have no evidence that supporting Israel has “impeded” a single drop.
Servicemen killed trying to rescue American hostages. US. sailors killed. Americans killed by Iranian proxy groups in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Americans killed by terrorist attacks from Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis. 43 Americans murdered on Oct 7th.
I do. Very well. Do you? A mistaken fire upon what was believed to be an Egyptian boat for which Israel paid apologies and huge reparations to the families of the servicemen killed and injured. Are you also attempting a moral equivalence between that combat accident and Irans deliberate murder of thousands of Americans continuously for 45 years?
You prove once again that facts and reality hold no standing whatsoever for the sick antisemites more commonly known as paranoid schizophrenics. But please, share your precious knowledge about the ongoing war between the U.S. and Israel and how Israel plots to murder American soldiers and citizens. Please don’t leave out any details! This is an opportunity for you to show your special knowledge.
Nice easy try. But sir your mouthwash,,,it ain't making it. For it seems you now and of course, low brow Tucknuts and Estebannon, there are only two tightly sealed categories. That is your problem but I do not sense the same arrogance of lil' deckshoes Carlson or the glib effeminate democrat Tully Gabfest. The least you could do is get down to the differences in what is at stake and who is running things. But you did not want to take a beating from the NEO or NoNEO crowd where the vocabulary is down to two words and the slightest deviation or application of analytics would put you on someone's shitlist and God Forbid it would be the blabbermouths grubbing for money who I named above. Not sure you could take not being a member of their club.
I think we need to define "go to war." Trying to forcibly occupy the nation, tear out the prior regime, and replace it with an alternate like our 30-40 engagements with Germany or Japan would seem insane unless there is a similar existential threat to the US. However, in both Iraq and Afghanistan the US was highly successful in overthrowing and reducing the power of the regimes. In the case of Afghanistan where we had a real beef with the Taliban for harboring Al Qaida, we should have done what we could in the first few months - killing leaders, smashing up military resources, and sending a clear warning signal and then left - a classic punitive expedition. Iraq was based on a false premise but nonetheless highly successful in overthrowing the regime at a relatively low cost (for the US). But pulling out a noodle from a plate of spaghetti is a lot easier than trying to push one in - which is what nation building in both cases amounted to. God only knows why anyone would even try.
If we want to do some bunker busting in Iran, why not? But why would we want to have a "war" with Iran? The current regime really can't hate us anymore than the already do. (It actually seems pretty ironic to me that the Islamic regime is so angry with us in part for our overthrow of the socialist government pre Shah. If we hadn't, how would they have ever come to power? They should be thanking us.
Yes. So? Is the objection to our Afghanistan adventure that we toppled the Taliban and made Al Qaida run for the hills in a perfectly good object lesson for all to see - or that we hung around for 20 years afterwards doing nothing useful? Besides I'm pretty sure the Iranian leadership would say that the US is already at war with them and that they are at war with us. North Korea is at war with South Korea. This "at war" thing does not mean what you seem to think it does.
So, contrary to your assertion above, we do NOT need to define "go to war". War is already well-defined. And it absolutely does include dropping giant bombs on a foreign country.
They re-define winning and ignore the fact they dialed to accomplish their initial goals.
We had to get into Iraq because of WMD. Once that statement was proven to be a lie, we got the line that we toppled an evil, brutal regime and Iraq’s GDP is now higher. Ignore all the terrible effects of war, like the rise of ISIS, ancient Christian communities being decimated, looting, violence and anarchy, then Iraq was a slam dunk success.
WMD was a mistake, not a lie. Saddam postured like he had them. UN weapons inspectors had withdrawn 2 years prior, blaming Iraq for blocking access to sensitive sites. An MI6 mole claimed that Iraq had an active program. Iraq had in fact used WMD a decade earlier. All evidence suggested Iraq had WMD.
The lie doesn’t even pass the sniff test. Why would anyone stake their reputation and legacy on a lie which they would’ve known would inevitably be exposed in months when inspectors would fail to find WMD post invasion? They could’ve used any other excuse, eg Iraqi support for designated terror groups like ANO and MEK or their belligerence against Saudi.
We defeated Iraq during the Gulf War and a little over 10 tests later they’d advanced so much that there was certainty about its WMD. If the government choose to overstate and misrepresent intel, then it’s a lie not a mistake. If it was a mistake there would have been consequences for those championing the war. I don’t trust our intel if we made that big a mistake with massive negative consequences. They haven’t often better since then.
They would stake their reputation and legacy on that lie if they knew that they would never face any consequences for it. Everyone who advocated for war in Iraq is still in Congress or in the mainstream media.
Thanks for making the point that for Israel and its apologists, more regional chaos IS success. Mangled American boys, mangled Muslims, cackle cackle yes my pretties.
You articulate the case clearly: more of the same old shit IS success from Israel’s POV.
I have known Iranians all my life. My next door neighbor in my midwestern city was an Iranian doctor whose wife was half German and half Jewish. The daughters were all quite beautiful and very smart and would never have been caught dead dating me.
In high school, I worked at the city's largest bank and ended up interning with an Iranian senior VP who was extremely nice to me, he used to take me out for beer on Fridays (it was the 1970s) and hired me for the summer. I never quite figured out what he did but after the shah fell, I found out that he was the Shah's bagman.
I had a number of Iranian friends in grad school who had fled the revolution and then when I started to teach, I became friends with an Iranian economist who had to flee from the regime in the middle of the night with his family. I later worked with a Jewish Iranian who parents still lived in Iran but had a sister who was a doctor in LA (not too surprising). She was a doppelganger for Marjane Satrapi who wrote Persepolis (and is about the same age).
I always viewed the Iranian revolution being analogous to Hasmonean uprising in ancient Israel. In that case a corrupt Greek regime angered people so much that they replaced it with a nasty sectarian regime (the Maccabees) who were ultimately more corrupt. Iran has an incredible culture much of it repressed by the mullahs and is very nasty to its young women.
If the mullahs and their fellow assholes can be removed that would be good. Something worse could take its place though and our and Israel's track record on regime change is not inspiring. .
I'm clearly being fed different YouTube videos from you. I see a lot of suggestions of regime change. One video tried to convince me that Iranian army defections have already begun and they are joining the crown prince of Iran (who knew?). The ayatollah is in a bunker and put the target on the back of his second in command (vice-ayatollah?). Is all that bullshit? Maybe. These days you can watch convincing videos to validate any point of view.
Publicly supporting it no but highly likely wanting it, discussing it and trying to make it happen. The US is definitely on board the war train at Israel’s behest. Lots of reports of Israeli pressure.
Knowing these Semites well (as the Chief Rabbi of Egypt I ought to), they are passionate and fickle.
The very same Yemenites who had to flee the Houthis after their family members were tortured to death by them, became their fiercest supporters as soon as they began to fire at Israel. Ditto for (many) Egyptians regarding Iran today.
Obviously they'll return to their long standing (I mean Karbala WAS a long time ago) enmities when the moment is passed, but for the moment, anyone who can get rid of the (presumably) arrogant Jews is Muslim enough for them.
As for the accuracy of this perceived Jewish arrogance, the truth is nuanced.
Israel isn’t asking for help because of Iran’s missile attacks.
The entire thing hinges on Iran developing an atomic bomb, which the Ayatollahs have been working on for years. They have all these uranium enrichment plants in the country.
The Ayatollahs have despised Israel since 1979 and the atomic bomb is intended for Israel. They make no secret of it.
It’s the uranium enrichment plants that Israel is attacking, to put them out of commission.
But there’s one big plant at Fordow that’s deep underground and requires bunker buster bombs of the type only the US has.
That’s the issue. I don’t think Trump will do it though—he’s pretty averse to war.
If Iran really does control Hezbollah, I suspect the Marine Corps would like revenge for Beirut '83, but I don't think they should do it in person.
Iraq and Afghanistan did not go as we hoped, but I persist in believing many international jihadis were killed who would otherwise have done much damage in the West. Would we have foolishly opened the gates to Muslim migrants if we hadn't stirred things up over there?
Sadly, there is no way to cut the entire Middle East loose from planet earth and send it out to space on its own. Then again, sadly there is no way to Africa loose from planet earth either.
> Would we have foolishly opened the gates to Muslim migrants if we hadn't stirred things up over there? <
Yes.
I'll never understand this willingness of based folks to trot out the lamest leftist blame America/the West nonsense. On an HBD blog no less.
Muslims were already flooding into the US--and the West--before all these wars, because treasonous Western elites let them in. Bush responded to 911 by *increasing* Muslim immigration--to show how we weren't against Muslims or something, while he was doing the US national security critical job of trying to rearranged Afghanistan's and Iraq's governing class. Seriously you can't make this stuff up.
Muslims are in the West because their countries are shittier than the West--because they are full of Muslims. And the West has--stupidly--let them come in. Colonialism, war, intervention nor anything else is required.
Just look at US immigrants. The US has some DEA agents down there, but really hasn't done much of anything to try and meddle in the Mexican mess since trying to chase down Villa after the Colombus raid. But we have more Mexicans here than from anywhere else. Why? Because Mexico is right next door and sucks compared to the US--because it is full of Mexicans. And we stupidly let them in.
India is literally on the other side of the world and the US has basically had nothing--zero, nada, zilch--to do with India, with its history, its evolution, its problems. Yet there are now 5 million--yeah, 5 million, more than twice as many as the UK, which ruled the joint for 200+ years. Why? Because we let them in.
If you allow foreigners to come in, then people--especially ones from anywhere shittier than your place--will show up. Try it with your house and see what I mean.
And with most of the Muslim countries you can't make the argument that they suck because they were under the western colonial yoke and therefore held back from their potential. We're raised to be too polite to speak of one culture being better than another, but it's pretty easy to tell by who wants to migrate where vs the opposite direction.
Seems like it's a lot cheaper to hire immigration officers to stamp REJECTED on visa applications than it is to buy cruise missiles to bomb random Jihadis with.
What's that colloquial definition of Insanity again?
"Doing the same thing, hoping for a different result". But don't forget, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again." There is a platitude for every opinion, of every situation.
I don't think the USA should go to war for Iran. But once there is already a war, more like an asswhipping, and the one thing that the USA policy goals requires (no Iran nukes) is easily in our grasp and not in Israel's hands due to lack of those bombers, I think it's insane to not take the easy win of bombing the nuclear facilities and then let Israel finish the job.
Yes I am Jewish. Feel free to attack the messenger instead of the message. But isolationism shouldn't mean not taking easy wins with no obvious downside.
The downside is often not obvious. But there is always a downside.
It’s ok because the US will pay then price for the downside, not Israel. I read ySohrab Amari who said Israel will internationalize the aftermath. This is exactly what will happen. Upside for Israel, downside for the US.
Of course. Agreed.
However letting Iran have nukes also has a downside. Especially once Israel went to war, if we let them keep the nuclear program they will make the bomb (even if they weren't planning to before).
This much is true -- not including your last sentence, which I am unable to read.
Fixed. Sorry about that
I find killing innocent men, women and children to be a pretty compelling downside.
Yes we shouldnt do that.
How is bombing Fordow bombing innocent people?
I think I know what you mean, that it is impossible to attack Fordo w/o doing collateral damage.
Additionally, we are probably not told how the scientists and government officials were assassinated because they were bombed at home in residential areas. However, it is also possible that, since the attacks started early Friday, the ordnance actually exploded during normal working hours at their offices or labs. Details are lacking from both Jewish nationalist and anti-Zionist news sources.
Random poster from out of nowhere saying the U.S. should bomb Iran but it’s not because I’m Jewish.
Oh no - it is definitely the message that needs attacking.
How many times has Tulsi Gabbard said there are no Iranian plans for nuclear bombs?
But if you are jewish have you understood the risk that this puts israel under?
First Iran can out missile Israel and has far creater tolerance of casualties.
Then what happens if Israel uses nukes - I hesitate to offer a psychlogical assessment of the Israeli state - you can do that yourself - but Israel using nukes seems pretty likely to me.
Israel and US, the only nations ever to use nukes against civilians? How is that going to look.
The ICC will move out of reach of US sanctions or be replaced by a BRICS version.
And the message "not the essenger of course" says this should happen
Because it's not a win for America lol. It's just a win for Israel, which is also why you feel the need to advocate for it. Demanding that other countries don't get nukes is an insane power play that pretty much only shows that you should be the one without nukes. Personally, I believe we should bomb Israeli nuclear facilities, if no one except America is allowed to have nukes.
"Let's Not Go to War with Iran"
Hey, there's an idea!
I'd like to stay out.
But also, I'd like to make the Pahlavis great again.
Perhaps we could find an heir to King Xerxes.
The cia has probably been grooming xerxes clan in the hollywood hills for a few decades.
There’s a Pahlavi heir I believe (I’m not sure that would be a good idea).
They used to drive a billboard vehicle around Beverly Hills (like the kind that drives around the Vegas Strip promising "Girls, Girls, Girls, NOW!") with a sad photo of the current heir. It was pretty funny.
It's easy to imagine him as a Chalabi (that guy who convinced Bush that if Saddam was overthrown all of Iraq would accept him as president immediately, no questions asked), but who knows? I mean, certainly he wouldn't show up and be granted the keys to the castle, but with all of the Persian California money... who knows if some heir might, either crookedly or not, enter their democratic system? Being a Napoleon still means something generations later, ditto even for Stalin and Mussolini. Hell being a Clinton or a Bush, or a (ahem) KENNEDY still means something today in TLOTFATHOTB ("the land of the free, etc") so who knows?
Most humans are more herdish than sheep (and they assume that *others* are even *more* so) which gives name recognition a hell of a heads up.
In the late 70s, there was a poster war in DC: Down with the Shah! Long Live our King!
Trump’s turn to an interventionist foreign policy has been a grave disappointment. I can’t even blame Jared Kushner this time.
Me too. The three things I really liked about Trump were 1) thought he'd get us out of Ukraine war and keep us out of any new ones, 2) thought he was going to get serious about national finances, 3) he'd bring back our national sovereignty and stop the invasion of illegals. Now left with only #3 and we're having another ZOG war.
> 2) thought he was going to get serious about national finances,
And would you have been willing to support what that entails, i.e., massive cuts to entitlements?
"...get serious about national finances...."
Neither major party is in favor of any such thing. I don't know about the minor parties.
Personally, I wrote to my member of the US House & both of my Senators. I asked that any proposal to spend (including tax spending) must include at least a good-faith attempt to increase revenue more than it spends, at least until the unfunded COVID-19 relief and stimulus debts are paid off. I asked my member of the House to take the lead -- which is a lot to ask -- because no one else in Congress will do so.
Ah, yes. That Trump is actually dealing with reality and not pacifist fantasies inevitable disappoints many.
Not jumping at a chance to get involved in another ME war and nation-building is a rational and practical response to reality, not some idealistic, naive and dangerous view that foreign interventionism is always the answer.
Israel is kicking everyone’s ass. They can figure this out on their own.
Not sure what else you're including, but regarding Iran, his only concern this past week has been that he get to claim credit if the Israelis manage to pull off the whole chalupa.
What with Iran still capable of firing missiles, he's less enamored by the Israelis, but, really, that's his concern -- that if the Israelis win BIGLY in short time -- he not be left out of the credits.
I don't know why people still discuss Trump as if he has policies or values or anything else like that. The man has been the most honest open book in America for decades. Anyone who fails to understand him by now is a total mystery to me.
The U.S. has been at war with Iran for 45 years. Thousands of Americans killed. If this isn’t the right time to help end it, what would be?
I have no idea what you’re talking about. Thousands of Americans killed?
Seriously??? Google Oct 23rd 1983 for the first 241 murdered.
Where were they murdered? In Lebanon.
What were U.S. troops doing in Lebanon? Defending Israeli interests!
See how it keeps repeating itself?
We have our own interests in the Middle East. Are our bases in Germany and Japan also for Israeli interest? Who murdered them? Are they are friends? Would they harm us with nuclear weapons if they could? See how it keeps repeating itself?
But the bases in Germany and Japan haven't been bombed by Israel's enemies either, so your argument has no merit, since there is no comparison. The only reason to get involved in the ME is because of Israel, and we military aged men are tired of boomers like you voting us into wars.
No Muslim states would have any interest in attacking America if it wasn't for the support for Israel. That has always been the explicit goal of Muslim terrorism (with the exception of the Israel-sponsored ISIS).
You’re deeply full of crap. Muslim states attack every state that isn’t a Muslim state and would certainly be attacking the U.S. and its interests at every opportunity. As Churchill said regarding western countries: “Muslims fight for minority rights until they are a majority. Then there are no minority rights.” Islam has been a war cult long before modern day Israel existed. Israel is doing our dirty work against a death cult.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Japan and Germany haven’t been engaging in endless wars with their neighbors and then dragging us in. As far as our “interests” in the Middle East, they begin and end with one thing: oil. And supporting Israel imperils the flow of oil. All the “bad guys” in the Middle East will gladly sell us oil. (Saddam Hussein was sanctioned for trying to sell us oil after the UN prohibited it!)
Open your history books. Japan and Germany have done nothing but engaging in wars with their neighbors and dragging us in. As far as oil, our interests in the Middle East have been repeatedly attacked and appropriated by Islamic countries. How many U.S. companies that built exploration and processing facilities in the ME have not been stolen? Zero. You have no evidence that supporting Israel has “impeded” a single drop.
Iran provided many if not most of the IEDs in Iraq and had some personnel fighting, too, according to soldiers on X.
By that standard we are at war with Russia.
Servicemen killed trying to rescue American hostages. US. sailors killed. Americans killed by Iranian proxy groups in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Americans killed by terrorist attacks from Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis. 43 Americans murdered on Oct 7th.
Israel has murdered more American sailors than Iran. Strafed them while they were helpless in the water.
Does that tin hat make your scalp sweaty?
Remember the USS Liberty
I do. Very well. Do you? A mistaken fire upon what was believed to be an Egyptian boat for which Israel paid apologies and huge reparations to the families of the servicemen killed and injured. Are you also attempting a moral equivalence between that combat accident and Irans deliberate murder of thousands of Americans continuously for 45 years?
You prove once again that facts and reality hold no standing whatsoever for the sick antisemites more commonly known as paranoid schizophrenics. But please, share your precious knowledge about the ongoing war between the U.S. and Israel and how Israel plots to murder American soldiers and citizens. Please don’t leave out any details! This is an opportunity for you to show your special knowledge.
Pathetic how trump bends over backwards for the Jews and putin the thug. His recent comments at thr G7 summit were embarrassing.
Nice easy try. But sir your mouthwash,,,it ain't making it. For it seems you now and of course, low brow Tucknuts and Estebannon, there are only two tightly sealed categories. That is your problem but I do not sense the same arrogance of lil' deckshoes Carlson or the glib effeminate democrat Tully Gabfest. The least you could do is get down to the differences in what is at stake and who is running things. But you did not want to take a beating from the NEO or NoNEO crowd where the vocabulary is down to two words and the slightest deviation or application of analytics would put you on someone's shitlist and God Forbid it would be the blabbermouths grubbing for money who I named above. Not sure you could take not being a member of their club.
Tulsi Gabfest. lol
I think we need to define "go to war." Trying to forcibly occupy the nation, tear out the prior regime, and replace it with an alternate like our 30-40 engagements with Germany or Japan would seem insane unless there is a similar existential threat to the US. However, in both Iraq and Afghanistan the US was highly successful in overthrowing and reducing the power of the regimes. In the case of Afghanistan where we had a real beef with the Taliban for harboring Al Qaida, we should have done what we could in the first few months - killing leaders, smashing up military resources, and sending a clear warning signal and then left - a classic punitive expedition. Iraq was based on a false premise but nonetheless highly successful in overthrowing the regime at a relatively low cost (for the US). But pulling out a noodle from a plate of spaghetti is a lot easier than trying to push one in - which is what nation building in both cases amounted to. God only knows why anyone would even try.
If we want to do some bunker busting in Iran, why not? But why would we want to have a "war" with Iran? The current regime really can't hate us anymore than the already do. (It actually seems pretty ironic to me that the Islamic regime is so angry with us in part for our overthrow of the socialist government pre Shah. If we hadn't, how would they have ever come to power? They should be thanking us.
Every single thing you mentioned is clearly an act of war.
Except for the spaghetti thing...
Yes. So? Is the objection to our Afghanistan adventure that we toppled the Taliban and made Al Qaida run for the hills in a perfectly good object lesson for all to see - or that we hung around for 20 years afterwards doing nothing useful? Besides I'm pretty sure the Iranian leadership would say that the US is already at war with them and that they are at war with us. North Korea is at war with South Korea. This "at war" thing does not mean what you seem to think it does.
So, contrary to your assertion above, we do NOT need to define "go to war". War is already well-defined. And it absolutely does include dropping giant bombs on a foreign country.
Yes we successfully toppled the Taliban and now who is in charge of Afghanistan? At least the defense contractors made $$
Yes, that was also clearly a war, and it did not go well. Wars usually don't.
Ya my point : we spent a fortune and many lives to replace the Taliban w the Taliban
You realize we lost, right?
They re-define winning and ignore the fact they dialed to accomplish their initial goals.
We had to get into Iraq because of WMD. Once that statement was proven to be a lie, we got the line that we toppled an evil, brutal regime and Iraq’s GDP is now higher. Ignore all the terrible effects of war, like the rise of ISIS, ancient Christian communities being decimated, looting, violence and anarchy, then Iraq was a slam dunk success.
WMD was a mistake, not a lie. Saddam postured like he had them. UN weapons inspectors had withdrawn 2 years prior, blaming Iraq for blocking access to sensitive sites. An MI6 mole claimed that Iraq had an active program. Iraq had in fact used WMD a decade earlier. All evidence suggested Iraq had WMD.
The lie doesn’t even pass the sniff test. Why would anyone stake their reputation and legacy on a lie which they would’ve known would inevitably be exposed in months when inspectors would fail to find WMD post invasion? They could’ve used any other excuse, eg Iraqi support for designated terror groups like ANO and MEK or their belligerence against Saudi.
The WMD lie is itself a baseless myth.
We defeated Iraq during the Gulf War and a little over 10 tests later they’d advanced so much that there was certainty about its WMD. If the government choose to overstate and misrepresent intel, then it’s a lie not a mistake. If it was a mistake there would have been consequences for those championing the war. I don’t trust our intel if we made that big a mistake with massive negative consequences. They haven’t often better since then.
They would stake their reputation and legacy on that lie if they knew that they would never face any consequences for it. Everyone who advocated for war in Iraq is still in Congress or in the mainstream media.
Our Brand Is Chaos
Thanks for making the point that for Israel and its apologists, more regional chaos IS success. Mangled American boys, mangled Muslims, cackle cackle yes my pretties.
You articulate the case clearly: more of the same old shit IS success from Israel’s POV.
I have mixed feelings about this.
I have known Iranians all my life. My next door neighbor in my midwestern city was an Iranian doctor whose wife was half German and half Jewish. The daughters were all quite beautiful and very smart and would never have been caught dead dating me.
In high school, I worked at the city's largest bank and ended up interning with an Iranian senior VP who was extremely nice to me, he used to take me out for beer on Fridays (it was the 1970s) and hired me for the summer. I never quite figured out what he did but after the shah fell, I found out that he was the Shah's bagman.
I had a number of Iranian friends in grad school who had fled the revolution and then when I started to teach, I became friends with an Iranian economist who had to flee from the regime in the middle of the night with his family. I later worked with a Jewish Iranian who parents still lived in Iran but had a sister who was a doctor in LA (not too surprising). She was a doppelganger for Marjane Satrapi who wrote Persepolis (and is about the same age).
I always viewed the Iranian revolution being analogous to Hasmonean uprising in ancient Israel. In that case a corrupt Greek regime angered people so much that they replaced it with a nasty sectarian regime (the Maccabees) who were ultimately more corrupt. Iran has an incredible culture much of it repressed by the mullahs and is very nasty to its young women.
If the mullahs and their fellow assholes can be removed that would be good. Something worse could take its place though and our and Israel's track record on regime change is not inspiring. .
No one’s suggesting regime change.
I'm clearly being fed different YouTube videos from you. I see a lot of suggestions of regime change. One video tried to convince me that Iranian army defections have already begun and they are joining the crown prince of Iran (who knew?). The ayatollah is in a bunker and put the target on the back of his second in command (vice-ayatollah?). Is all that bullshit? Maybe. These days you can watch convincing videos to validate any point of view.
I’m not watching YouTube but reading mainstream media. They’re a lot more cautious.
They’re likely rumours. Could be some truth there but who knows?
And mainstream media doesn’t lie.
Not usually.
So that’s a yes they do.
Yes they are.
Who? Source?
https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/netanyahu-thanks-trump-for-support-tells-iranians-your-liberation-from-tyranny-is-closer-than-ever/
Now you’re going too say liberation doesn’t mean regime change , just no nukes.
Netanyahu definitely wants regime change. I meant the western countries aren’t calling for it (yet). They might if the situation changes.
Publicly supporting it no but highly likely wanting it, discussing it and trying to make it happen. The US is definitely on board the war train at Israel’s behest. Lots of reports of Israeli pressure.
I agree there's a lot of very nice Iranians over here.
I think even if there weren't we shouldn't be trying to invade their country.
On the apprentice, along with Right Guard and Kodak, One of Trump's regulars was an Iranian barber.
It's always funny to me when stupid people talk about Trump as though he were a hick. Trump knows has dealt with pretty much everyone and everything.
He too, knows Iranians. Hell, It would not be in the least surprising if he's met the Ayatollah.
He does not need our stories of Iranians we have known and loved (or in your case, just lusted after 😉).
Besides the Israelis, I suspect the other Semites in the area won't object too much if Iran gets hammered by us.
Then the Arabs can support Israel by having their troops and book a used. Pure Arab cowardice.
Knowing these Semites well (as the Chief Rabbi of Egypt I ought to), they are passionate and fickle.
The very same Yemenites who had to flee the Houthis after their family members were tortured to death by them, became their fiercest supporters as soon as they began to fire at Israel. Ditto for (many) Egyptians regarding Iran today.
Obviously they'll return to their long standing (I mean Karbala WAS a long time ago) enmities when the moment is passed, but for the moment, anyone who can get rid of the (presumably) arrogant Jews is Muslim enough for them.
As for the accuracy of this perceived Jewish arrogance, the truth is nuanced.
https://youtu.be/-_GeG4iepA8
Israel isn’t asking for help because of Iran’s missile attacks.
The entire thing hinges on Iran developing an atomic bomb, which the Ayatollahs have been working on for years. They have all these uranium enrichment plants in the country.
The Ayatollahs have despised Israel since 1979 and the atomic bomb is intended for Israel. They make no secret of it.
It’s the uranium enrichment plants that Israel is attacking, to put them out of commission.
But there’s one big plant at Fordow that’s deep underground and requires bunker buster bombs of the type only the US has.
That’s the issue. I don’t think Trump will do it though—he’s pretty averse to war.
> I don’t think Trump will do it though—he’s pretty averse to war.
On the other hand Trump can’t help himself from trying to take credit for and joining into any winning happening in his vicinity.
I see that Neo-Con'ish appetites on the American right haven't really diminished even in the Trump era.
I am sure Mark Levin is foaming at the mouth on his radio show.
It's the macho half of the electorate, and war is fun.
As long as you don't actually have to fight in it, of course, and die or wind up coming back home with traumatic brain injury and two missing limbs.
If Iran really does control Hezbollah, I suspect the Marine Corps would like revenge for Beirut '83, but I don't think they should do it in person.
Iraq and Afghanistan did not go as we hoped, but I persist in believing many international jihadis were killed who would otherwise have done much damage in the West. Would we have foolishly opened the gates to Muslim migrants if we hadn't stirred things up over there?
They stir themselves up to an extent. I agree Iraq was a bad idea but internal problems (eg civil war in Syria) produce floods of refugees.
The civil war in Syria was financed and sponsored by the west - that's the printable version.
But the west wouldn’t have taken sides if there hadn’t already been a lot of fighting and bad feelings.
Sadly, there is no way to cut the entire Middle East loose from planet earth and send it out to space on its own. Then again, sadly there is no way to Africa loose from planet earth either.
Well, there is ONE way...
Sorry Dad, but we are ALL guilty.
Also, there but for the grace of God goest thou.
> Would we have foolishly opened the gates to Muslim migrants if we hadn't stirred things up over there? <
Yes.
I'll never understand this willingness of based folks to trot out the lamest leftist blame America/the West nonsense. On an HBD blog no less.
Muslims were already flooding into the US--and the West--before all these wars, because treasonous Western elites let them in. Bush responded to 911 by *increasing* Muslim immigration--to show how we weren't against Muslims or something, while he was doing the US national security critical job of trying to rearranged Afghanistan's and Iraq's governing class. Seriously you can't make this stuff up.
Muslims are in the West because their countries are shittier than the West--because they are full of Muslims. And the West has--stupidly--let them come in. Colonialism, war, intervention nor anything else is required.
Just look at US immigrants. The US has some DEA agents down there, but really hasn't done much of anything to try and meddle in the Mexican mess since trying to chase down Villa after the Colombus raid. But we have more Mexicans here than from anywhere else. Why? Because Mexico is right next door and sucks compared to the US--because it is full of Mexicans. And we stupidly let them in.
India is literally on the other side of the world and the US has basically had nothing--zero, nada, zilch--to do with India, with its history, its evolution, its problems. Yet there are now 5 million--yeah, 5 million, more than twice as many as the UK, which ruled the joint for 200+ years. Why? Because we let them in.
If you allow foreigners to come in, then people--especially ones from anywhere shittier than your place--will show up. Try it with your house and see what I mean.
And with most of the Muslim countries you can't make the argument that they suck because they were under the western colonial yoke and therefore held back from their potential. We're raised to be too polite to speak of one culture being better than another, but it's pretty easy to tell by who wants to migrate where vs the opposite direction.
Seems like it's a lot cheaper to hire immigration officers to stamp REJECTED on visa applications than it is to buy cruise missiles to bomb random Jihadis with.