361–370 of 419 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden or Kamala aren't under Israeli influence?
Its pretty safe to say that Biden didn't go start a disastrous war because Netanyahu said a nice thing about him. It also seems unlikely that Harris would have started such a war with her 2-state stance. There's such a thing as degrees of influence. A fool who is strictly against anything Israel suggests is just as manipulable as a narcissistic moron.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are at war because Hezbollah attacked... again.
Let me repeat: They are about to annex a sovereign nation while reducing the capital city to rubble. May or may not remind you of another country further north.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you run the numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504505 You will see, that anything else other than a ground invasion, is guaranteed to give Iran a war victory.
Iran can block the Strait of Hormuz indefinitely. They are demanding war reparations from the United States. Since Trump won't do that, the best case scenario seems to be that one or more third parties - Europe, India, Japan, Saudi Arabia, etc. - offer(s) Iran a package of financial incentives and security assurances which convince Iran to end the war. If only Muad'dib were here. He could find a way through.
So can the US leaving Iran without means for existence. Right now Iran can export own oil but denies Arab countries form exporting their oil, I don't think such arrangement could last indefinitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its pretty safe to say that Biden didn't go start a disastrous war because Netanyahu said a nice thing about him. It also seems unlikely that Harris would have started such a war with her 2-state stance. There's such a thing as degrees of influence. A fool who is strictly against anything Israel suggests is just as manipulable as a narcissistic moron.
[flagged]
Isn’t this just about the easiest thing to investigate (at least to know the parties n loved and the purported basis for the trade)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me repeat: They are about to annex a sovereign nation while reducing the capital city to rubble. May or may not remind you of another country further north.
One may argue that Lebanon is already annexed by Iran using Hezbollah which has more power than the official Lebanon government or at least had more power before attacks from Israel in recent years. Also I don't beleive Israel is going to annex Lebanon but they may create a buffer zone in the south of the country.
No one serious is arguing this. Total nonsense as far as anyone in Lebanon is concerned.
>I don't beleive Israel is going to annex Lebanon but they may create a buffer zone in the south of the country.
So they are going to annex but under a different term. Got it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you run the numbers: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47504505 You will see, that anything else other than a ground invasion, is guaranteed to give Iran a war victory.
The loss of ability to intercept missiles does not mean that the war is lost for America. It just means that it now has to contend with more of its own losses during the war. America always goes to war with the handicap that 1 American life is worth hundreds of enemy lives. This handicap is why one gets the impression (illusion) that countries like Iran are able to hold their own against the great mighty USA. But if…
Woodrow Wilson only joined WW1 once the Lusitania was sunk, which caused American deaths. FDR only joined WW2 once Pearl Harbor was attacked. Reagan got away with Grenada because it was a quick and dirty operation. Same with GHWB and First Gulf War. The younger Bush could justify the Afghan invasion only because of WTC, yet even as more Intel dropped on the identity of the terrorists and the lack of progress in locating Bin Laden, domestic support fell.
> But if America stops playing as cautiously as it does, it turns into a very different war machine.
Good luck trying to convince average Americans to do that. On the other hand, the US and Israel have managed to convince the same for the Iranians. They literally rained bombs on the upper class neighborhoods of Teheran, the places where moderates and regime opposition actually lived.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US would not win a ground war in Iran. Before every US war, people tend to think the US military and their $800 billion/year budget are unbeatable. But look at outcomes of significant US ground wars since WWII - only one clear victory: * Korea: Stalemate, which is still a problem now 70 years later * Vietnam: Loss * Gulf War: Victory * Afganistan: Loss, after 20 years of fighting * Iraq: Mixed results after 8 yea…
All the lost wars had very vague objectives. A war where you try to fight a military while trying to “liberate” the population in the same area basically can’t succeed. In WW2 they bombed the hell out of Japan and Germany and after the war they were the winners who set the course. They were also lucky that Germany and Japan were functioning societies that didn’t have much violent infighting. In Gulf War 1 there was a…