|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
Northern Ireland26616 Posts
On June 12 2025 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2025 06:37 WombaT wrote:On June 11 2025 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2025 11:08 WombaT wrote:On June 11 2025 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2025 08:38 WombaT wrote:On June 11 2025 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2025 07:37 WombaT wrote:On June 11 2025 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 10 2025 23:19 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
A sensible move from the UK, I’m assuming other nations are set to follow?
While I might personally want them to go further again, I think it’s a pretty judicious way to do it.
By sanctioning specific individuals who seem utterly reprehensible, rather than more broadly, it’s kinda hard to frame this as a hostile move to Israel itself. No doubt some will try mind. Seems Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway are who is joining. It's obviously far too little, and far too late. It's also not really about Gaza, it's about the West Bank. That said, it is a bit of a canary in the coal mine for stepping a little out of line as vassals to the US under this retracting US regime. How are Norway and New Zealand especially vassals of the United States? I’d agree that it’s too little, too late, 100%. But the same is true for much of the globe, many of whom have done even less here. The US's racial capitalist global hegemony that makes any of its allies taking any unapproved position outside of US foreign policy orthodoxy dangerous to that allies' global standing because of their dependence on their relationships with the US. I'd bet Norway would be doing much more were it not fearful for how the US might interpret/react to much tougher/wider sanctions. They know as well as the US does that "without a doubt" Israel is committing war crimes. What much tougher sanctions should ANZAC nations and EU nations go to in your opinion? While I don’t think it’s sufficient myself, it’s a clear divergence from US policy, that’s actually happened. Plenty of the ‘global South’ are doing the square root of fuck all, some are doing the right thing. Of great powers with a bunch of individual sway in the modern era, well there’s two of them, and the US is stanning for Israel and China isn’t exactly doing a huge amount to counteract that. I’m personally on board with a critique based in ‘not enough’, would be my position. But you seem to be more critical of nations who are at least doing something and letting others skate Rationally, the ANZAC nations and EU nations sanctions on Israel should be more comparable to those on Russia. Netanyahu (and several others) certainly shouldn't be escaping these personalized sanctions (it should be noted we don't know what they are and when/how/whether they will be implemented afaict). China and Israel have had a complicated relationship over the years (this is just one non-comprehensive summary) but it's pretty clear China has been moving away from Israel and recent events are only accelerating that. They’ve still done much less, and why is it complicated? Europe has many nations with very sizeable Jewish populations to consider, not really a political dynamic the Chinese have to grapple with. Why do Europeans and non-US ANZAC nations have to go bat for Palestinian’s out of the goodness of their hearts, but if it’s someone else suddenly it’s some case of nuance and practicality? I’d personally be in favour of a Russian level of ostracisation, but there’s pretty obvious reasons as to why that’s occurred in one case. Russia is literally in Europe, and is being actively antagonistic. Israel yes, behaving reprehensibly and should be being opposed, they’re not a threat to European security. Did you read the link? Basically, Israel has been double dealing for decades and the US finally made them choose and they chose the US/West. I feel like these (whataboutism) questions are more out of frustration than good faith. Not sure how you're measuring or what you're expecting when you say "done much less". China isn't the international interventionalists that the US/West has been for the last ~100 years, so of course they are going to have a different role. As for me personally, surely you understand how it makes more sense for me to discuss my thoughts about the US's and Europe's role with people in the US/Europe that ostensibly could influence their peers/governments vs pissing into the wind about China to distract from that instead? I wouldn’t consider that especially whataboutery. I’m not saying ‘what about x other thing?’ I’m asking why you seem to apply different analytical frameworks to different scenarios. It leads to a perception of inconsistency, which then rears its head any time you raise certain things. Even things I agree with. And seems to be something you don’t especially address, but simultaneously wonder why people aren’t receptive to your missives. Or, alternatively a consistent worldview that is based with ‘US bad’ as the central pillar. I did read the link, it’s all very transactional politics. I didn’t jump to mentioning China for any other reason other than as a singular state it’s amongst the world’s most powerful, and it’s not exactly best buddies with the USA. It has those two characteristics that many individual European nations lack. The clout to push things as a singular state, and without certain entanglements with the US. So what are you suggesting?
I’m suggesting what I just said.
If you want to lecture Europeans, or New Zealanders or whoever for not doing enough, from an idealist position, or a ‘doing the right thing’ position. Fair enough
If it’s realpolitik, fair enough.
Instead you seemingly want to pick and choose from those two, rather broad churches depending on one or the other suits your argument. And then get indignant when people notice this particular pattern.
It’s really the fundamental problem with your politics. You correctly ascertain that power usually trumps sentiment. And the world is ordered as it is largely in adherence to that. But your solution to most problems is go ‘well if things weren’t like that we could do x.’ Which is also true IMO.
But there’s no intermediary steps. You can’t concede anything. Which one needs to do to bridge the idealism/realpolitik divide.
You spent months slamming the Dems on their policy, I think rightly so.
However, as I said at the time, Trump is a much worse option there. And, if the US is the baseline for much of Western policy on certain issues, that’s impactful over here as well.
Who’s in the White House matters, precisely because of US hegemony, not in spite of it.
This is something Europeans told you at the time, but you knew best of course.
And then we’re subject to some moralising about how we should be doing more, but other nations get a pass. While you’re simultaneously arguing Russian talking points and concessions elsewhere.
Doesn’t stack up man
|
On June 12 2025 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:https://apnews.com/article/state-department-embassy-baghdad-f892ebd6a50850ef5650f31819541bffShow nested quote +
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is drawing down the presence of staffers who are not deemed essential to operations in the Middle East and their loved ones due to the potential for regional unrest, the State Department and military said Wednesday.
The State Department said it has ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad based on its latest review and a commitment “to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.” The embassy already had been on limited staffing, and the order will not affect a large number of personnel.
The department, however, also is authorizing the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. That gives them the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations” across the region, U.S. Central Command said in a statement. The command “is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East.”
Maybe this is all smoke and mirrors to strong arm Iran for a deal. But it also might not be. The economic and political damage from an "actual" bombing campaign on Iran would be enormous. That is why we've never seen a president willing to throw away their political prospects on it. Trump likely not needing to worry about 2028 as things are going might make him the idiot dumb enough to pull the lever.
Israel has been planning it for some time, I doubt the US would do it. They would let Israel do it and just provide support both intelligence and missile defense IMO.
If the US is going to actually do it themselves, they will wait until the next big Trump controversy, which will not be far down the line.
Having the Iranian regime fall would be great for the middle east and really the whole world. But the human cost on top of the economic damage you speak of would be hard to reconcile. On top of that no one has successfully improved a country defeated in war since ww2, you could through this horrible event and be exactly where you started or worse off when it is done.
|
On June 12 2025 08:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2025 07:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 12 2025 06:37 WombaT wrote:On June 11 2025 12:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2025 11:08 WombaT wrote:On June 11 2025 09:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2025 08:38 WombaT wrote:On June 11 2025 07:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2025 07:37 WombaT wrote:On June 11 2025 07:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Seems Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway are who is joining.
It's obviously far too little, and far too late. It's also not really about Gaza, it's about the West Bank. That said, it is a bit of a canary in the coal mine for stepping a little out of line as vassals to the US under this retracting US regime. How are Norway and New Zealand especially vassals of the United States? I’d agree that it’s too little, too late, 100%. But the same is true for much of the globe, many of whom have done even less here. The US's racial capitalist global hegemony that makes any of its allies taking any unapproved position outside of US foreign policy orthodoxy dangerous to that allies' global standing because of their dependence on their relationships with the US. I'd bet Norway would be doing much more were it not fearful for how the US might interpret/react to much tougher/wider sanctions. They know as well as the US does that "without a doubt" Israel is committing war crimes. What much tougher sanctions should ANZAC nations and EU nations go to in your opinion? While I don’t think it’s sufficient myself, it’s a clear divergence from US policy, that’s actually happened. Plenty of the ‘global South’ are doing the square root of fuck all, some are doing the right thing. Of great powers with a bunch of individual sway in the modern era, well there’s two of them, and the US is stanning for Israel and China isn’t exactly doing a huge amount to counteract that. I’m personally on board with a critique based in ‘not enough’, would be my position. But you seem to be more critical of nations who are at least doing something and letting others skate Rationally, the ANZAC nations and EU nations sanctions on Israel should be more comparable to those on Russia. Netanyahu (and several others) certainly shouldn't be escaping these personalized sanctions (it should be noted we don't know what they are and when/how/whether they will be implemented afaict). China and Israel have had a complicated relationship over the years (this is just one non-comprehensive summary) but it's pretty clear China has been moving away from Israel and recent events are only accelerating that. They’ve still done much less, and why is it complicated? Europe has many nations with very sizeable Jewish populations to consider, not really a political dynamic the Chinese have to grapple with. Why do Europeans and non-US ANZAC nations have to go bat for Palestinian’s out of the goodness of their hearts, but if it’s someone else suddenly it’s some case of nuance and practicality? I’d personally be in favour of a Russian level of ostracisation, but there’s pretty obvious reasons as to why that’s occurred in one case. Russia is literally in Europe, and is being actively antagonistic. Israel yes, behaving reprehensibly and should be being opposed, they’re not a threat to European security. Did you read the link? Basically, Israel has been double dealing for decades and the US finally made them choose and they chose the US/West. I feel like these (whataboutism) questions are more out of frustration than good faith. Not sure how you're measuring or what you're expecting when you say "done much less". China isn't the international interventionalists that the US/West has been for the last ~100 years, so of course they are going to have a different role. As for me personally, surely you understand how it makes more sense for me to discuss my thoughts about the US's and Europe's role with people in the US/Europe that ostensibly could influence their peers/governments vs pissing into the wind about China to distract from that instead? I wouldn’t consider that especially whataboutery. I’m not saying ‘what about x other thing?’ I’m asking why you seem to apply different analytical frameworks to different scenarios. It leads to a perception of inconsistency, which then rears its head any time you raise certain things. Even things I agree with. And seems to be something you don’t especially address, but simultaneously wonder why people aren’t receptive to your missives. Or, alternatively a consistent worldview that is based with ‘US bad’ as the central pillar. I did read the link, it’s all very transactional politics. I didn’t jump to mentioning China for any other reason other than as a singular state it’s amongst the world’s most powerful, and it’s not exactly best buddies with the USA. It has those two characteristics that many individual European nations lack. The clout to push things as a singular state, and without certain entanglements with the US. So what are you suggesting? I’m suggesting what I just said. If you want to lecture Europeans, or New Zealanders or whoever for not doing enough, from an idealist position, or a ‘doing the right thing’ position. Fair enough If it’s realpolitik, fair enough. Instead you seemingly want to pick and choose from those two, rather broad churches depending on one or the other suits your argument. And then get indignant when people notice this particular pattern. It’s really the fundamental problem with your politics. You correctly ascertain that power usually trumps sentiment. And the world is ordered as it is largely in adherence to that. But your solution to most problems is go ‘well if things weren’t like that we could do x.’ Which is also true IMO. But there’s no intermediary steps. You can’t concede anything. Which one needs to do to bridge the idealism/realpolitik divide. You spent months slamming the Dems on their policy, I think rightly so. However, as I said at the time, Trump is a much worse option there. And, if the US is the baseline for much of Western policy on certain issues, that’s impactful over here as well. Who’s in the White House matters, precisely because of US hegemony, not in spite of it. This is something Europeans told you at the time, but you knew best of course. And then we’re subject to some moralising about how we should be doing more, but other nations get a pass. While you’re simultaneously arguing Russian talking points and concessions elsewhere. Doesn’t stack up man
What specifically are you asking me to do?
|
On June 12 2025 08:55 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2025 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:https://apnews.com/article/state-department-embassy-baghdad-f892ebd6a50850ef5650f31819541bff
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is drawing down the presence of staffers who are not deemed essential to operations in the Middle East and their loved ones due to the potential for regional unrest, the State Department and military said Wednesday.
The State Department said it has ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad based on its latest review and a commitment “to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.” The embassy already had been on limited staffing, and the order will not affect a large number of personnel.
The department, however, also is authorizing the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. That gives them the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations” across the region, U.S. Central Command said in a statement. The command “is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East.”
https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1932904040763175391Maybe this is all smoke and mirrors to strong arm Iran for a deal. But it also might not be. The economic and political damage from an "actual" bombing campaign on Iran would be enormous. That is why we've never seen a president willing to throw away their political prospects on it. Trump likely not needing to worry about 2028 as things are going might make him the idiot dumb enough to pull the lever. Israel has been planning it for some time, I doubt the US would do it. They would let Israel do it and just provide support both intelligence and missile defense IMO. If the US is going to actually do it themselves, they will wait until the next big Trump controversy, which will not be far down the line. Having the Iranian regime fall would be great for the middle east and really the whole world. But the human cost on top of the economic damage you speak of would be hard to reconcile. On top of that no one has successfully improved a country defeated in war since ww2, you could through this horrible event and be exactly where you started or worse off when it is done.
Publicly, Israel doesn’t have either the planes or bombs to sufficiently bunker bust the uranium refinement facilities. So I suppose I’ve assumed the US would be needed for the particularly well protected facilities. And of course the US will be providing intelligence and other soft forms of support.
Trump has made such a big deal about Iran I would have expected he would want our name on whatever operation intends to wipe out their refinement. Iran having nukes isn’t just an Israel problem, though it is of course their problem most of all.
|
On June 12 2025 08:55 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2025 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:https://apnews.com/article/state-department-embassy-baghdad-f892ebd6a50850ef5650f31819541bff
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is drawing down the presence of staffers who are not deemed essential to operations in the Middle East and their loved ones due to the potential for regional unrest, the State Department and military said Wednesday.
The State Department said it has ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad based on its latest review and a commitment “to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.” The embassy already had been on limited staffing, and the order will not affect a large number of personnel.
The department, however, also is authorizing the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. That gives them the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations” across the region, U.S. Central Command said in a statement. The command “is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East.”
https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1932904040763175391Maybe this is all smoke and mirrors to strong arm Iran for a deal. But it also might not be. The economic and political damage from an "actual" bombing campaign on Iran would be enormous. That is why we've never seen a president willing to throw away their political prospects on it. Trump likely not needing to worry about 2028 as things are going might make him the idiot dumb enough to pull the lever. Israel has been planning it for some time, I doubt the US would do it. They would let Israel do it and just provide support both intelligence and missile defense IMO. If the US is going to actually do it themselves, they will wait until the next big Trump controversy, which will not be far down the line. Having the Iranian regime fall would be great for the middle east and really the whole world. But the human cost on top of the economic damage you speak of would be hard to reconcile. On top of that no one has successfully improved a country defeated in war since ww2, you could through this horrible event and be exactly where you started or worse off when it is done. odds are a bombing campaign and regime change is only going to lead to something worse. You don't improve the world by creating another series of generations that hate your guts.
|
On June 13 2025 02:37 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2025 08:55 Billyboy wrote:On June 12 2025 08:29 Mohdoo wrote:https://apnews.com/article/state-department-embassy-baghdad-f892ebd6a50850ef5650f31819541bff
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is drawing down the presence of staffers who are not deemed essential to operations in the Middle East and their loved ones due to the potential for regional unrest, the State Department and military said Wednesday.
The State Department said it has ordered the departure of all nonessential personnel from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad based on its latest review and a commitment “to keeping Americans safe, both at home and abroad.” The embassy already had been on limited staffing, and the order will not affect a large number of personnel.
The department, however, also is authorizing the departure of nonessential personnel and family members from Bahrain and Kuwait. That gives them the option of leaving those countries at government expense and with government assistance.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth “has authorized the voluntary departure of military dependents from locations” across the region, U.S. Central Command said in a statement. The command “is monitoring the developing tension in the Middle East.”
https://twitter.com/SenTomCotton/status/1932904040763175391Maybe this is all smoke and mirrors to strong arm Iran for a deal. But it also might not be. The economic and political damage from an "actual" bombing campaign on Iran would be enormous. That is why we've never seen a president willing to throw away their political prospects on it. Trump likely not needing to worry about 2028 as things are going might make him the idiot dumb enough to pull the lever. Israel has been planning it for some time, I doubt the US would do it. They would let Israel do it and just provide support both intelligence and missile defense IMO. If the US is going to actually do it themselves, they will wait until the next big Trump controversy, which will not be far down the line. Having the Iranian regime fall would be great for the middle east and really the whole world. But the human cost on top of the economic damage you speak of would be hard to reconcile. On top of that no one has successfully improved a country defeated in war since ww2, you could through this horrible event and be exactly where you started or worse off when it is done. odds are a bombing campaign and regime change is only going to lead to something worse. You don't improve the world by creating another series of generations that hate your guts.
Its all about what the goal is. In the case of Iran, downgrading it from "jihad with nukes" to "just another run of the mill jihad failed state has huge benefits. And Trump is probably Israel's best hope for doing something like this. In the past, officially downgrading Iran was considered too harmful to the world economy. I am not sure if that is still the case with all the new gas dynamics from the Russian war.
But the main thing is Trump and his administration isn't actually accountable for anything. They've managed to build such a weird little "nothing is real" messaging system they would never be politically harmed by harming the world economy again. It will never hurt his chances of re-election, if we even have a 2028 election.
And if we look at the Trump/MAGA worldview, there's nothing wrong with causing all this pain and suffering in Iran and the Middle East as a whole.
|
United States43905 Posts
A lot of Iranians recognize that Israel isn't their enemy, their government is. Israel isn't the one dragging people off the street, executing children, using sexual violence as a tool of state repression against women etc., their government is. Adding Israeli bombs to the mix isn't going to help with that message, it's quite easy to sell the force dropping bombs on you as the enemy.
So then the question is "if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, what next?". A nuke obviously makes them invulnerable to external attempts of regime change, see NK. But Iran is not NK, Iranians are very connected to the outside world, their economy is very linked to the outside world, they have a series of relationships that they depend upon. NK can go full pariah forever, it can get a nuke to deal with external threats and starve the population until there are no internal threats. Iran can't. A nuke does nothing to deal with the biggest threat to the Iranian regime, the Iranian people.
I'm also not convinced that Iran wants to get a nuke. They want the option to get a nuke for leverage and they want to be close enough to a successful test that if the global political winds change against them and their hand is forced then they can get one. But again, Iran is suffering pretty significant economic issues and is very connected to the global economy, they are vulnerable to diplomatic pressure and sanctions. That vulnerability is why they've been slowwalking their nuclear program, they're afraid of what their population will do if China stops buying their oil.
In my view the best answer to Iran is the established policy of the last 20 years.
1. Don't force their hand on a nuke, if you tell them the only thing that will stop you invading them is a nuke then you're not helping yourself.
2. Work with Russia/China/EU to create an economic cost to getting a nuke.
3. Keep reinforcing to their population that they live on a fucking oil well and yet they're poorer than ever while their government takes all their money and gives it to the Houthis.
Iran is a hostile actor but not an irrational actor. They could go full pariah but they'd really rather not. They've been six months from a nuke for a decade and they'll happily do another decade. In the scenario that they successfully test a nuke then oil sanctions will do far more to destroy the regime than Israeli bombs ever could, the Iranian people would rightly see it as just another government folly that devastates their lives. Israeli bombs will only unify them and show the government was right to pursue it.
|
The essential nature of nukes isn't something up for debate at this point. Ukraine and North Korea do a perfect job at highlighting how essential nuclear weapons are. Iran is right. They are just a pawn and they have no actual sovereignty without nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean they are owed nuclear weapons. And in a world so packed with conflict and tribalism, of course their enemies want to make sure they never get a nuke.
Oh and Pakistan. Look at how much cash gets dumped into Pakistan because all they gotta do is yell some Jihad stuff and the world bank sends them $5B. So if we examine Ukraine, Pakistan, and North Korea, its incredibly easy to see there is nothing you could ever offer Iran to convince them to give up on nukes. Anything you give Iran can just be taken away later unless they have nukes.
|
Iran wants a nuke because its the only defence against the US and Afghanistan and Iraq showed why that is relevant.
If Bush hadn't invaded the middle east Iran wouldn't need a nuke.
|
On June 13 2025 04:08 Gorsameth wrote:
Iran wants a nuke because its the only defence against the US and Afghanistan and Iraq showed why that is relevant.
If Bush hadn't invaded the middle east Iran wouldn't need a nuke.
Everyone needs a nuke. Ukraine wishes they had nukes for reasons entirely unrelated to Afghanistan
|
Nuke rules for small countries:
1. Get nukes.
2. Don't give up the nukes.
3. If you get falsely accused of having nukes, drop everything and get nukes immediately.
|
On June 13 2025 04:52 Gahlo wrote:
Nuke rules for small countries:
1. Get nukes.
2. Don't give up the nukes.
3. If you get falsely accused of having nukes, drop everything and get nukes immediately.
Every modern/successful country either has their own nukes, widely assumed protection of a nuclear power, or formal protection of a nuclear power.
It kinda gets back to my original point I've always made regarding Palestinian suffering. They are a failed state because they simply never acquired adequate diplomatic/military ties.
Estonia is only a country because Russia is currently unable to conquer it. I think a lot of people fail to realize every nation's border is militarily defined. Somewhere along the chain of diplomacy is a weapon protecting them.
Russia conquering nearby nations to build an empire, losing part of that empire, then taking parts of it back, are clear examples of how the world works. As much as we love to glamorize how "peaceful" modern times are, its more like a whole bunch of stalemates rather than peace.
|
Man this is so bad. Its actually happening. Ooooffffff.
https://x.com/manniefabian/status/1933315015710220565
Israel entirely shutting down their country is something they would absolutely never do unless they expected Iran to rain hell on them in response to whatever Israel is currently doing.
This is all quite grim. Whatever Israel is doing right now, its apparently major enough that they expect Iran won't hold anything back.
|
Oh is it time for more self-defense?
|
Northern Ireland26616 Posts
|
If they’re going this high up the ladder I feel like they may as well go for the big cheese himself. It’s wild to think he may even already be dead.
|
United States43905 Posts
On June 13 2025 09:25 Nebuchad wrote:
Oh is it time for more self-defense?
This ain’t it chief. Of the various groups Israel could legitimately claim self defence against Iran is #1 and is the primary funder of #2-5. Iran launched a huge missile salvo against Israel pretty recently and then attempted to say it wasn’t a big deal because Israel’s defences prevented a mass casualty event. As if they hadn’t put warheads on their missiles and as if mass casualties weren’t their goal.
Iran is at war with Israel and has been for some time. This isn’t defenseless Palestinian children being bombed, this is a capable peer adversary getting the war it wanted.
You can sarcastically question Israel’s self defence interests in the West Bank and expanding the Golan Heights but Iran is a completely different story.
|
On June 13 2025 11:02 KwarK wrote:This ain’t it chief. Of the various groups Israel could legitimately claim self defence against Iran is #1 and is the primary funder of #2-5.
Of course it is. Thats why they defended themselves against Hamas first. Next they gonna defend themselves against Egypt. Here is me naively thinking Hitler was a monster, when he was merely a tutor...
|
It’s important to remember tons of Arab nations have billions of reasons to hate Israel and yet most of them have thrown in the towel and realized jihad ain’t worth it. Iran is the only one who is absolutely committed to Israel being destroyed and they actually mean it. The sacrifices they have made without any benefit other than working towards Israelis dying is enormous.
Iran would be a utopia of oil income if they were pragmatic like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and other Arab countries. It’s not some freak accident how many formerly adversaries are now neutral or cooperative. There’s no shame or moral failing by those nations. Think about how much Japan has benefited from surrendering. Or Germany. Losing a conflict and finding a way to move forward has been a gigantic positive thing for so many countries. Even when the bad guys win, surrendering has been really great for many countries.
And this remains true in conflicts when the aggressor wins. Not all, of course. But Israel isn’t bombing Egypt nearly as much as they used to and Iran should really consider how much this conflict is worth to them.
|
United States43905 Posts
On June 13 2025 12:45 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2025 11:02 KwarK wrote:On June 13 2025 09:25 Nebuchad wrote:
Oh is it time for more self-defense? This ain’t it chief. Of the various groups Israel could legitimately claim self defence against Iran is #1 and is the primary funder of #2-5. Of course it is. Thats why they defended themselves against Hamas first. Next they gonna defend themselves against Egypt. Here is me naively thinking Hitler was a monster, when he was merely a tutor...
You're a weird guy with a weird brain and I don't think there's enough reality in your post for me to anchor any kind of response to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
