EPTThings Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine - Page 430
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5617 Posts
| ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4769 Posts
Also, unless Iran leadership colapses, Isreal simply doesnt have bombs powerfull enough to take out its most secured nuclear resarch facilities. US have those, and as far as I understand, only B2s can deliver them. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22646 Posts
On June 17 2025 16:58 Elroi wrote: I don't see why the US would get involved if they don't think Israel is failing to dismantle Iran by themselves or if Iran pulls them in by attacking US forces. The dynamic, as it is, is good for the US. They achieve their goals (dismantling and disarming an enemy state) while managing to wash their hands of the consequences. Trump wants to look strong and wars help leaders divert attention away from internal issues. 'the us' has no reason to get directly involved. Trump absolutely does. | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5617 Posts
On June 17 2025 17:48 Gorsameth wrote: Trump wants to look strong and wars help leaders divert attention away from internal issues. 'the us' has no reason to get directly involved. Trump absolutely does. Well, he also wants to be known as someone who makes deals and don't get bogged down in conflicts. Sure, the US is involved in the way you outline Silvanel. But on the last page, people were speculating about the US taking an active role in the conflict. | ||
|
PremoBeats
650 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10006 Posts
On June 17 2025 17:48 Gorsameth wrote: Trump wants to look strong and wars help leaders divert attention away from internal issues. 'the us' has no reason to get directly involved. Trump absolutely does. This is Donald 'World peace on day 1' Trump? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22646 Posts
On June 17 2025 18:05 Jockmcplop wrote: that was before the economy tanked, his approval followed and his bigly birthday parade turned into a wet fart.This is Donald 'World peace on day 1' Trump? This is Trump we're talking about, the guy can flip flop every minute. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom10006 Posts
On June 17 2025 18:09 Gorsameth wrote: that was before the economy tanked, his approval followed and his bigly birthday parade turned into a wet fart. This is Trump we're talking about, the guy can flip flop every minute. Fair point lol TBH I think he gave up on being a peacemaker when he finally realised where the likes of Putin and Netenyahu see him in the world order. Just another player, not the game itself. | ||
|
Billyboy
2473 Posts
On June 17 2025 14:52 pmp10 wrote: Why would they block anything? The 'can't have nukes' narrative will prevail even if Iran responds proportionally. It's the political costs of starting of another war that worries US, but that's exactly why Israel is so convenient as it comes with the 'rogue state' deniability. Going back to war is pretty unpopular so both parties are putting forward proposals to block joining in. Could it be theater? Of course, but so is everything. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie said Monday he would lead a push in the Republican-led House of Representatives to prohibit US involvement in the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. Massie, who is fiercely opposed to US intervention in any foreign wars, wrote on X that he would introduce a bipartisan War Powers Resolution on Tuesday. “This is not our war. But if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution,” Massie wrote on X. “I’m introducing a bipartisan War Powers Resolution tomorrow to prohibit our involvement. I invite all members of Congress to cosponsor this resolution.” Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia on Monday introduced his own war powers resolution aimed at keeping US forces from involvement in Israel-Iran conflict. Kaine’s measure is considered privileged, a special status that means Kaine can force a vote on the measure on the Senate floor. It’s unlikely that House Republican leaders would bring Massie’s resolution to the floor. When the Democratic-led House took up a similar measure aiming to rein in presidential authority to use military action against Iran without congressional approval in 2020, only a handful of Republicans supported it, including Massie. | ||
|
pmp10
3399 Posts
On June 17 2025 16:58 Elroi wrote: I don't see why the US would get involved if they don't think Israel is failing to dismantle Iran by themselves or if Iran pulls them in by attacking US forces. The dynamic, as it is, is good for the US. They achieve their goals (dismantling and disarming an enemy state) while managing to wash their hands of the consequences. US cannot entirely escape the consequences of Iranian collapse. Granted, no refugee crisis is going to reach US. But whatever is left of Iranian nuclear technology still cannot be allowed to fall into the wrong hands. From there the way quickly leads to boots on the ground, blue wave at midterms and Trump's impeachment. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22646 Posts
On June 17 2025 22:19 Billyboy wrote: I mean your quote literally has the answer. Just because a small group of Republicans still think they have a conscious doesn't mean anything is actually going to happen.Going back to war is pretty unpopular so both parties are putting forward proposals to block joining in. Could it be theater? Of course, but so is everything. Plus even if it were to pass nothing stops Trump from ignoring them, by the time courts get involved the US is neck deep and there is nothing they can do. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
Its surprising to see Germany use such strong language here. It seems like multiple intelligence agencies have come to the same conclusion: Iran figures they have nothing to lose and they're going for it. | ||
|
Billyboy
2473 Posts
On June 17 2025 23:39 Gorsameth wrote: I mean your quote literally has the answer. Just because a small group of Republicans still think they have a conscious doesn't mean anything is actually going to happen. Plus even if it were to pass nothing stops Trump from ignoring them, by the time courts get involved the US is neck deep and there is nothing they can do. I don't make the kind of bold proclamations you do based on assumptions. But I will say its not 2020 and I don't remember a time when MAGA influencers were calling for Trumps resignation. No starting wars is a big deal to a bunch of his fan base and these politicians change their mind all the time. It also takes very few Republicans to cross the line and a bunch were already considering doing it to limit Trumps power on Tariffs. https://www.yahoo.com/news/absolute-betrayal-joe-rogan-regular-035024111.html Still waiting on how you were so absolutely sure about your last post BTW. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
Worth discussing (maybe?): https://x.com/anewpolicyorg/status/1934663186395091181 | ||
|
Billyboy
2473 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12889 Posts
On June 18 2025 02:14 Nebuchad wrote: I would say something about how "Don't worry all the other wars in the Middle East failed but this time you're going to win" but I'm increasingly convinced that it's not even that people think it's going to win this time it's just that they don't have object permanence and they don't even remember the others failing. Worth discussing (maybe?): https://x.com/anewpolicyorg/status/1934663186395091181 You could say the same for diplomacy. attempted to stop Iran having exceedingly high quality level of uranium enrichment for civilian energy use for years and obviously failed. You still gotta try both diplomacy and take action. And stronger action if needed, even if the consequences are unknown. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
On June 18 2025 04:57 ETisME wrote: You could say the same for diplomacy. attempted to stop Iran having exceedingly high quality level of uranium enrichment for civilian energy use for years and obviously failed. You still gotta try both diplomacy and take action. And stronger action if needed, even if the consequences are unknown. I was talking specifically at the level of our expression on this forum, at the level of taking these decisions the goal is to kill a bunch of muslims so obviously war is a very successful way of doing this. | ||
|
Billyboy
2473 Posts
On June 18 2025 05:17 Nebuchad wrote: I was talking specifically at the level of our expression on this forum, at the level of taking these decisions the goal is to kill a bunch of muslims so obviously war is a very successful way of doing this. What makes you think that is the goal compared to the stated goal of destroying Iran's nuclear capability forever and the side quest of regime change? So far they have hit military target after military target, gave evacuation orders, targeted top commanders. On top of that there is like 2 billion Muslims in the world, while all death is horrific clearly they are no where close to getting rid of them if that was the goal. And Iran has done at least as good a job killing Muslims and a better job oppressing them. Netanyahu is a lot of things but I don't think dumb is one of them. Is it not a whole lot more likely that he is doing exactly what he says? Why enter the world of conspiracy when destroying Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Assad and the Islamic Republic Party with zero regard for civilians caught in the way is super easy to prove and really darn awful all on its own? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
I think its just something to accept and move on. I've tried to dig a little deeper and it doesn't go anywhere. Him genuinely thinking that makes everything else he thinks a lot more reasonable. I often thing the assumptions are more important than the conclusions and his disagreements with me are a good example of that. Since we disagree on the fundamental assumptions, can't agree on conclusions. In his eyes, all the peace with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are temporary until Israel has the opportunity to conquer them. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12559 Posts
On June 18 2025 05:58 Billyboy wrote: What makes you think that is the goal compared to the stated goal of destroying Iran's nuclear capability forever and the side quest of regime change? Mainly having a good understanding of Netanyahu and what drives him (and other fascists in general). In terms of concrete indications pointing me in that direction, I for example remember that Israel has been saying that Iran is a few minutes away from a nuclear weapon probably like once a year in the last 30 years, so it seems to me that the idea that even though US intelligence doesn't think this is true this time either, this time they're nailing it, is silly. I also happen to remember how exactly the same things, from nuclear weapons to being greeted as liberators, were said 20 years ago to justify the last war in the region, by more or less the same people from neocons to Glenn Beck to Netanyahu, and that time they were lying. Please note that they weren't just wrong, incorrect, as that would create some other conclusions; they weren't incorrect, they were lying, on purpose, and now they're using the same arguments to justify the same things. It would be much more logical, in those circumstances, if they were lying again. | ||
| ||
