Are you kidding? I’d celebrate, at least if it was replaced by something better (and not total chaos). Some of us actually consistently care about human beings. Some of us don’t accept the delusional ravings of liars, clowns, and the worst people on the planet as if they have anything to do with reality.
If this insanity works, I will be very pleased and excited to admit how wrong I was.
If it doesn’t, what will you say?
Ok, I guess we will see. If Trump doesn’t find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, which is always possible with someone so stupid, you’ll celebrate the regime’s fall and admit that these military actions were a good move even if you disagree with Trump’s likely domestic motives for taking said actions?
…LOL.
EVERYTHING that doesn’t agree with you is “propaganda”. It was founded by Ryan Grimm and Jeremy Scahill, both formerly of the Intercept.
edited to add…what part of what I quoted are you actually disputing? The 170-truck average comes from the United Nations. The quote came from COGAT. What do you dispute?
Explain how banning food and aid and stopping medical evacuations and stopping doctors and aid workers from getting in and out prevents “Hamas opening a second front.” Be explicit.
Oh, you are accusing Ryan Grimm of being a “Kremlin agent?”
LOL.
How far down the conspiracy rabbit hole are you?
What the hell are you talking about?
If Trump fucks up in Iran I’m more than happy to criticize him. Even if he does succeed, he’s still a piece of shit, this doesn’t outweigh January 6 much less all the other crap he’s done.
The jaws of victory? What are you smoking? How can you be this certain of victory when we have absolutely no idea what’s going to happen to Iran in the long run?
Yes, if this works, and there are minimal civilian casualties, and a democratic Iran emerges that respects human rights, I will be so ecstatic that you won’t be able to shut me up about how wrong I was.
If it doesn’t, and we killed hundreds or thousands of civilians and accomplished nothing beyond a few dead bad guys, what will you say?
If this fails, will you admit that attacking Iran was a terrible and destructive idea?
If the Regime doesn’t fall and maintains it’s nuclear program, ballistic missile manufacturing and launch capacity, or ability to support a network of foreign proxies across the middle east, then of course I’ll be extremely critical of Trump’s failure.
I don’t think Iran views that as very likely, considering how they’re lashing out at other Gulf states, at UK bases, etc. They believe that this war is existential for the regime even if you don’t.
I, unfortunately, quote this for truth.
I have worked with and befriended many Jews who have done their military service in Israel, including a tank commander and several paratroops. (I think it is established that I am South African, these were locals who travelled for their military service)
All incredibly nice people. Only guy I would not fuck with, he was a very amiable former tank commander.
But having lived through - albeit, early age and well protected, the Rhodesian Bush War - i have very little respect for Israel. They are doing the apartheid Rhodesia and South Africa did, but exponentially worse.
Sure, but about the more likely sort of clusterfuck, where Iran collapses into a chaos of civil war, refugees, mass starvation/dehydration and ISIS/Boko Haram style jihadist groups, but too busy concentrating on survival and fighting amongst themselves to worry about nukes, ballistic missles, or proxies. In otherwords, good for Israel security, but bad for everyone else. Would you consider that a good thing or a bad thing.
Honest question.
That’s an awfully low bar. Are you really not concerned about long term ramifications both in the region and worldwide if this kind of military action, including attacks meant to kill leadership, is normalized and becomes common?
Also, because it’s important… what about the human cost? How many dead civilians (both in the attacks and from whatever happens next) would cause you to believe this attack was a bad idea?
I would be incredibly surprised if that happens. ISIS and Boko Haram took power in places that were not real states where the people living within the borders believe in said state and its institutions. The states in question were arbitrarily drawn on the map when the British and French went home after the second World War.
Iran is nothing like that. Iran has existed as a polity of one sort or another within the area that is modern day Iran for about 2,500 years. If an ISIS-like group arrives, Iranian armed forces aren’t going to drop their weapons and go home because their tribal identity matters more to them than their national identity, as happened in Iraq, because Iranians believe in the concept of Iran, even if they aren’t fans of the people currently in charge.
I genuinely can’t imagine that situation arising in Iran. Maybe in some of the border provinces that are heavily non-Persian ethnically, but my understanding is that most ethnic minorities (Azeris, etc) are very well integrated in Iran and view themselves as Iranian.
To try and avoid fighting the hypothetical, I’ll answer the question anyways, but I did want to establish that I really don’t see any realistic change at all of that being the outcome in Iran, because of the big historical differences between Iran and Iraq, or Nigeria.
But if somehow this did end up being the outcome, it would be a slight improvement over the Ayatollah regime, but still a very bad situation overall.
I’m not even sure that “good for Israeli security” applies. This just increases the chance of terrorism within Israel.
I predict some time in the future when an explosive is launched at the White House, and Americans find themselves collectively horrified that evil-doers would try to kill a nation’s leader in his own home.
I think if it became normalized and common to respond to the things Iran was doing - building up massive ballistic missile stockpiles, nuclear weapons, and actively attacking their enemies through proxy groups - rather than ignore those things - that would be very good. Countries shouldn’t be able to get away with proxy wars indefinitely.
…are we ignoring the monumental numbers of civilian deaths caused by the regime’s crackdown on its own citizens? How many civilians would they need to slaughter before you decide intervention is justified, since 30,000 is apparently not enough?
I don’t accept that such military intervention would prevent those kinds of civilian deaths. Quote the opposite, in fact, especially with these liars and clowns in charge.
So I’ll ask again - how many civilian deaths, from the attacks and what comes next, would be too many for you?
But that’s not what happened, by your own admission - Trump attacked because of bullshit domestic concerns, not because of Iran’s behavior.
Further, America (and Israel, for that matter) are doing lots of terrible things, and even if you reject that, lots of things most of the world currently sees as terrible, likely at least as bad as they view anything Iran has done recently.
Under that perception, Israel and the US could be targets with similar reasoning, under this precedent. You have no concerns about this?
Please tell me that you are not genuinely comparing any of the heinous stuff that Trump is doing to butchering 30,000 of your own people in the street, which is just one of the many things Khamenei has done.
Trump is the worst thing to ever happen to the United States; been so since Jan 6. Nothing as bad as Khamenei has ever happened to the United States.
Since my question was directed as Bable, I was presupposing his view that Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile capability is an imminent existential threat to Israel that eclipses any other security concerns that Israel has.
You do know that Iran hit Bibi’s house with a UAV in the 12 day war? You know that Putin has been trying to kill Zelensky for years?
"Nooooo! You can’t break this norm, or the other side, which has been breaking this norm for years and years, might get some bad ideas!"
There aren’t enough eyeroll emojis in the world.
I came from the time of the Rhodesian Bush War. The two major (and several minor) factions managed to win.
“Divide and Conquer” doesnt always work.
Granted, there was chaos afterwards, as power struggles lead to horrendous pograms, but during the actual war, two deeply divided political parties and their respective armies managed to cooperate.
No, I get that it’s an international concern. I just don’t think it’s an American concern. Yet.