"https://www.euractiv.com/news/denmark-considered-destroying-..."
Unpleasant if this escalates.
Also, the gasoline prices are only "momentary" up, if the whole area does not burst into flames. Then it doesn't matter if the trait is closed, as no more oil is being produced.
The only bright side is, this is a great push for renewables.
I'm confused how this interpretation could ever come about. No, I mean his point about "Trump trying to bolster NATO" is comic, as Trump is actively weakening NATO, no matter his stated goals wrt. improving funding and having member states "carry their load". _Especially_ his threats to Greenland and Canada, for no apparent reason. It's really mind-boggling. Perhaps my fault, since I expect mental consistency from post-truth populists and authoritarians.
We've still got some kind of karmic notion that inconsistency is bad for you in the long run. Maybe it is, but that run keeps getting longer and longer.
Not that my country fared any better with this kind of rhetoric in last couple of years. But we don't have the democratic tradition as rich as you had (or at least I felt you had). I feel like despair will be the feeling for me this decade.
That wouldn't be possible if he were any smarter. Nor is he a Boris Johnson type character, playing the clown while being quite well educated in private.
The right wing coalition will survive and thrive even without him. But it's hard to predict just how, because it will have to adapt.
Trump's attitude towards NATO member state spend it widely publicized [0] so I don't think there's much to debate here. Trump wanted member states to spend more, not less.
He was somewhat prescient during his 45th presidency, given what happened in Ukraine in 2022 and how it forced US to spend huge amounts of money and military hardware which the EU simply didn't have. Maybe with a stronger standing EU army, that invasion would not have happened in the first place.
[0] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01495933.2021.19...
Yes. By design. But if the US decouples, the rest of the countries can and will make their own alliance, with blackjack and hookers. Greenland thing is peak wierdness and the only explanation of it would be pride, stupidity or active undermining of NATO.
> Trump's attitude towards NATO member state spend it widely publicized [0] so I don't think there's much to debate here. Trump wanted member states to spend more, not less.
Yes. But, you have a very shallow reading of this and you're taking things at face value. He latched on the spending as a pretext, and as a way to increase US income for the defense industry. He doesn't give a rat's ass about the security of NATO countries. US has entered a very transactional, bully, phase and this is a bad way to maintain international standing.
- Europe's monetary aid for Ukraine far outweighs that of the US.
- The US military aid for Ukraine mostly consisted of old and obsolete hardware.
- Since about a year or so, all weapons and munitions delivered by the US are paid for by Europe.
Huh, I wonder what happened a year or so ago? What could have led to the US cutting off so much support? /s
The US chose to be the premiere military power and as a result reaped the benefits that come with having bases all over the world. This absurd claim by Trump that the relationship is one-sided is completely without merit. It was mutually beneficial, arguably better for the US. Just like being the world’s reserve currency. The complicated system of soft power reinforced by the threat of hard power that the US created over the last 80 years was no small feat and frankly we will never get that back now. Maybe it’s for the best! But this nonsense about NATO being a one-sided deal where Europe overwhelmingly benefits from US dollars/military presence is absolutely ridiculous and just another piece of evidence that Trump has no clue how foreign policy works.
Additionally, any argument about not wanting to spend all that money lacks legitimacy given how the administration is spending.
"There was also a second related initiative, the European Defense Fund, that will support continental defense research and development. The projects were widely seen as attempts to address a long-standing American concern – that Europe lacks usable military equipment, and is overly reliant on Washington for military deployments.
But instead of reacting with satisfaction that the continent was finally addressing a long-standing weakness, the United States expressed frustration, noting that the projects could decrease trans-Atlantic cooperation and could also cut out American defense companies from bidding on future European defense projects."All he wanted was EU to buy more US weapons (also to help with his wars). Guess what is happening now, we still do buy US weapons where there is no other choice, but apart from that, we build and buy our own things now. Try to get rid of US software depenencies - in general, get rid of any dependency we have towards you. If this was Trump's goal, great job I have to say.
Europe didn't slack off militarily during the Cold War. Germany, for example, poured massive amounts of money and resources into the Bundeswehr to be able to fend of the Soviets. The US relied as much on the European members of NATO as the Europeans did on the US.
After the Cold War, both the US and Europe scaled back their military spending and enjoyed the peace dividend. It was only after 2001 that the US increased its budget again – but to fight insurrectionist wars (which EU members aren't particularly interested in), not in a peer conflict. They're not prepared for a pro-longed war against a near-peer power.
So although I agree that Europe should be rearming heavily, and should have started in 2022 at the very latest, it's not like the US did really much better. They're really good at curb-stomping much weaker opponents, like Venezuela or Iran, but they haven't seriously prepared for a war against China.
That remains to be seen, though. Really winning that war requires either lots of boots on the ground and a long occupation (where the outcome might still be like in Afghanistan) or using nukes, which could escalate quite badly for us all. There is a reason no other POTUS has attacked Iran before.
Of course Trump can at every point in time just declare victory and leave the mess to all others for cleaning up. That is the most likely outcome, IMHO.
Problem is that Trump wants to eat the cake and have it too. If we’re no longer being protected by the US then US companies should not expect preferential laws and access to the EU market.
As adwn says, it's a globally priced commodity, and the US is not in a position to disentangle itself from that market because in spite of being one of the world's largest producers, US refineries are not in a position to process that product, so it needs to go abroad. The US needs to import significant amounts of sour crude to be refined for their own use.
The US is just as screwed as the rest of us.
Also, the primary worry for Europe isn't oil, it's natural gas.
Did you not see the lead up to the 2024 election and all the whining about how Biden, specifically, caused gasoline prices to go up? This is a very important issue to Americans because we use gas cars to go everywhere and all our food is transported using vehicles that consume gas. GP is obviously being rhetorical here because MAGAs wouldn't stop railing on Biden for global COVID inflation (mostly out of his control) but they're now making excuses for Trump starting a war that's spiking gas prices.
In reality someone made a mistake. It can happen. It should be investigated. It should not deter from achieving the military objectives.
It's never just one mistake. It's usually a chain of mistakes and bad decisions that make the final mistake possible.
I'd estimate that there were likely 77,168,458 mistakes/bad decisions made by individuals before this mistake could happen.
But when you use autonomous targeting systems (with "human oversight" in theory) and tell your soldiers:
"no stupid rules of engagement,” “no politically correct wars,” and “no nation-building quagmire.” (Hegseth)
And the top commander says that he would intentionally kill the families of terrorists if voted into power:
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-ter...
Then at some point I do not believe the term "mistake" is appropriate here.
You do not get to decide that. If we allow everyone to invade other countries and murder leaders because they deem those people worse than themselves, the world will be engaged in endless war. Or do you think perhaps deciding who to invade and kill is a special privilege reserved only for your country, which should be emperor of the world?
The preceding comment was about holding someone responsible. It appears you might have misunderstood that mine points out that this is exactly how the school was hit.
I also don't even know what you're getting at. There was nothing "relativistic" or "morally grey" about my argument. My point is that in order for any kind of peace to exist, each country must be able to accept that there will be other people in the world who are morally repugnant to them. Because there will always be leaders who consider each other repugnant, so if you endorse starting wars over that, you're committing to a world where everyone is starting wars all the time as the international norm.
My understanding is that the regime in Iran has been terrorizing around the world for decades. It's not just disagreeable. People are seeking justice.
It's one thing to dislike another politician. No one needs justice for repugnancy. But if they are committing acts of terror, that's a totally different thing.
Yeah, that already happened. Now what? How do we stop more kids from getting kidnapped, raped, murdered, or bombed?
Your proposed solution is essentially a leader in every country that has suffered from Iran's terror who can convince his/her people that their kidnapped children are worth it.
Obviously that isn't feasible. But worse, how is that different than saying it's okay for Iran to kidnap children?
Not launching missiles at schools would be a great start to stopping kids from being bombed!
Do you think America thought of that already? I think they did and civilians still died.
Do you have any realistic suggestions?
But there you suggested that the US should stop because they make Iran want to bomb and that's why there's war. And we can say the same about Iran.
So, your solution is hopeless as we already know from centuries of conflict history. Iran wants to kill us for historical events. We want to kill them for those too. Very insightful.
But we're bigger and the war is just on the TV in America. You have a much better shot of convincing them that we'll stop bombing them if they just take it for a while and then don't seek revenge.
I didn't know why you think America will be easier to convince of that.
No, Iran wants to kill you for current events. You're talking like American imperialism in the Middle East is past-tense. It is on-going, constantly. It is happening right now. This, itself, is an imperialist war. Trump is not going to war for whatever fucking reason you think he is, like stopping terrorism or changing the Iranian regime to help the Iranian people.
> You have a much better shot of convincing them that we'll stop bombing them if they just take it for a while and then don't seek revenge.
They LITERALLY DID THAT. The first invasion striking their nuclear facilities was itself an act of war that would have justified closing the Strait and all other measures they could take to fight back. Yet they accepted such a blatant crime against them and tried to de-escalate, were in the middle of negotiating a humiliatingly one-sided deal (after Trump tore up the one they had made with Obama, for no reason), and then the US attacked them in the middle of negotiations for the second time in a row. This time killing their leader, 150 children, and countless other crimes. Nobody could ever lay down and accept that. You have just created a country full of people that will justifiably hate you for another 80 years, minimum. They have been taught that the only thing trying to appease the US does is embolden the US to take even more from them.
I don't know how to communicate this to you, but your country IS THE AGGRESSOR. The US is worse than Iran. Fullstop. The Iranian regime is evil, and despite that, the American regime manages to be multiple times worse. Peace in the Middle East was possible. It is the US who is constantly, constantly, constantly stirring up conflicts there, and you have the gall to blame Iran for it.
Did you just not know that or you would still call that negotiating?
Are you talking about Hamas?
He was also a high ranking military leader in Iran, which implies that he commanded, or maybe organized, but at the very least funded terror in Gaza, Israel, the US, Australia, France, etc.
I don't see that as a negotiator any more than the assassins who finally killed him were negotiators.
And yes, I was talking about Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamic Revolution export efforts stemming from the Islamic Republic government in Iran.
Whatever you say is besides the point, there's plenty of war crimes and terrorism to go around on both sides. Israel kills negotiators during an active negotiation. They have no interest in solving this other than Iran becoming a failed state. They are manufacturing this situation, its been the goal of Netanyahu for 4 decades, and he was there in congress to lie about WMDs when Iraq was attacked.
That's not happened when we talk about "plenty of war crimes and terrorism to go around." Not the US and not Israel.
It seems the goal (and Khameini stated this not just once but it's literally the stated primary goal of the Islamic Republic) is to bait other countries into war and use the media to blame them for war crimes generating support for the Islamic Revolution.
And that seems to be exactly what they've succeeded in doing here with your commentary. Here you are critical of the US.
If there is plenty to go around then why pick the side that promotes revolution and mutilation and opposes civil rights?
Export revolution is not the stated goal of the US. Whether it happens or not is irrelevant. It shouldn't be considered a good thing, right? One of these countries thinks it should be and that's worse.
>a regime that has been firing rockets at civilians in neighboring countries for 4 decades during peace time.
Hard to tell if you're talking about Israel or Hamas etc.
Laughable that you think that Iran can control western media.
I've been critical of the US for much longer than after oct 7. All the wars since WW2, overthrowing of governments, support of dictators, ignoring genocides for profit, all for US imperialism and weapon sales.
There is not a country that has caused more global suffering post WW2.
Let them violently export Islamic Revolution or don't. Those are our options.
I choose don't. I prefer civil rights.
Can you name one conflict in which Israel attacked during peace time? I can't. Interested to see where you go on this.
Reporters can only publish what Hamas allows. They will be banned from visiting otherwise. There was a good article about this in the Atlantic a while back.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/11/ho...
So yes, they do control your media on that topic. And clearly you're eating it up.
I certainly don't find that funny. You're siding with terrorists and voting for them, unknowingly it seems. You're comparing them with people defending their homes, a complete reversal of reality. That's deeply disturbing. It's not funny at all.
Which events were they wanting to kill Israelis and Americans for on October 7th? Or is it totally acceptable for Iran to start wars by kidnapping and torturing civilians and filming it, but not for America to do it without celebrating the death, kidnap, torture and rape of children?
The list of Iranian terror attacks in America amounts to a whole lot of fuck all. Whatever Iran might be doing elsewhere shouldn't be America's problem.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/03/06/iranian-and-iranian-...
And anyway, even if that weren't happening, most Americans are immigrants within two or three generations. This is a country of immigrants. A huge number of Americans have families that are affected by Islamic Republic terror attacks outside of the US. India, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, basically all of the countries in northern and eastern Africa, France, Germany, the UK.
The list of countries that haven't been attacked by terror groups funded and/or organized by Iran's Islamic Republic is pretty short.
While this certainly accords with the promulgations of the morally bankrupt UN, it is not a recipe for existing in our world. This is why it is important to have a powerful military.
yes. we got the bomb before they did, because our policies are better than theirs.
Why do people think that since Iran is evil all actions against Iran are justified?
Iran will go the same way, one way or another.
That was pretty validating for the war effort.
"supposed to be allowed to have."
Ridiculous premise. They armed themselves thusly because American politicians have been singing "Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran!" for generations.
Most of Europe is within striking distance of their current capabilities that they were not supposed to have.
Treaties gave terms to limit the range of their missiles. Treaties were agreed to to prevent them from enriching uranium.
They violated both. Had they been allowed to continue on their path, we can all expect that we would be looking at a nuclear terror attack in the near future.
People are going to react for their left/right politics but the Iranian regime is a danger to the entire planet. There’s a reason that Iranian expats world wide have been celebrating in the streets.
Their biggest fear is that we are going to leave before the regime is fully removed.
Sponsoring and funding global terror networks is not a “defensive posture”. Giving speeches about nuking your enemy while secretly developing those capabilities isn’t either.
Gee, I wonder why they want nukes. Pity they didn't get them in time, this whole war might have been averted.
At least Iran's been pretty transparent about their intentions for a while now.
Israel maintains the "strategic ambiguity" about its nuclear "energy" development which is the stupidest fucking thing ever. Of course they've got nuclear weapons.
Also I am confused which contry you mean, mutual bombing has going on there since a while.
Iran bombed Israel in January as a distraction tactic during the protests.
The compound of the school physically separated from the military buildings since 10 years. Clearly visible on sat pictures.
Trump's reaction?
It could have been anyones Tomahawks missiles.
Is that where your information comes from, that there was a missile launcher next to it?
Oh and are you aware that Trump once said he will intentionally kill the families of terrorists, if voted into power?
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-ter...
And because I dislike a regime that wants to kill me, I must automatically worship Trump?
That's just moving the goalposts because the original comment said
>What part of "doing the right thing" is bombing an all girls school?
which is calling out that particular event specifically, other than the war itself. Otherwise you can just head over to the wikipedia page and point out the casualty figures.
You should really unpack these statements, especially if you're trying to have a "grown up conversation". You're saying that no price is too high for achieving military objectives, even those that are very unclear and unilaterally defined without justification by a easily distracted narcissist with obvious goals of distracting from his domestic problems.
It's absolutely fucking insane to downplay it like these things just happen and are unavoidable. What is wrong with you? Maybe you don't understand these are not just numbers on a screen? How many children do you know in your life? Is it even close to 150? Can you imagine every single child you know being killed and shrugging that off, insulting people who bring it up as being "sensationalist" and "polluting the conversation"?
You should see how many innocent people US's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq killed. And that's only the ones we know of before the era of smartphones and social media where people could more easily document war crimes. Did anyone go to jail for it? No. Will anyone go to jail for killing innocent people in Iran? Also no.
Trump is gonna fuck some more shit up in the area, declare "victory" when he's bored or the political pressure gets too high while leaving the middle east in a bigger mess than it was before.
These dots don't seem hard to connect.
This is a lie. Not only is it not the stated purpose of the war, even Netanyahu himself went out of the way to say that Iran had no remaining capability to accomplish this and that was not why they were invaded.
> They currently have demonstrated missiles that can reach Europe.
The US demonstrated its missiles can reach schools in Iran. Why are we more concerned with scaremongering about what hypothetical evil acts Iran could commit while downplaying the evil acts that are actually being propagated by the US?
> Why are we more concerned with scaremongering about what hypothetical evil acts Iran could commit while downplaying the evil acts that are actually being propagated by the US?
Because normal people can understand the difference between a mistake and intentional acts. And between the scales of different actions.
One of which is explicitly not Iran's nuclear capacity, as confirmed by one of the heads of state invading.
> Because normal people can understand the difference between a mistake and intentional acts.
Normal people can also understand that some things are too serious to pass off as "oopsie". We have terms like "manslaughter" or "aggravated murder" for when your reckless negligence leads to loss of human life. You are still responsible for the murders you cause when you take actions with intent that you know will lead to people dying without intending any specific one of those deaths.
But America is the bad guy? No... Not even close. Do you see Americans cheering for the dead school children?
I'm watching Iran cheering for the dead children in countries around the world every day for 40 years.
You should be ashamed of yourself for even comparing.
I agree, people should be ashamed of supporting killing civilians and any society that supports that should be criticized.
I’m not familiar with any instances of Iranis celebrating civilian deaths though? Do you have any examples?
Maybe something like this;
https://youtube.com/shorts/2jTZwSPdK8I
Or
https://www.timesofisrael.com/watch-far-right-israelis-celeb...
?
https://www.thejewishstar.com/stories/palestinian-tradition-...
Thousands more similar articles. This is not a new tradition. Decades of this same behavior everywhere that Iran operates terror orgs.
I asked for proof of your claim that Iranis celebrated civilian deaths and you still have not shown that.
Additionally your statement:
“ Iran (govt) is not Iranian. They are occupied.” betrays a basic ignorance of Iran. Irans government is comprised entirely of Iranians.
Lastly, to paraphrase your earlier statement:
> I'm watching Israel cheering for the dead children Palestine for decades. You should be ashamed of yourself for even comparing.
I’m fine arguing with the ignorant or unprincipled, but it’s not worth my time interacting with someone who displays both.
First, you'll need to apologize as a show of good faith.
I did provide you with proof, and I can help you to see it. But I don't get from your angry tone that you want proof. It looks to me more like you want to shut down proof before it changes your mind.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2026/03/06/iranian-and-iranian-...
Many people, myself included, watch very loud righteous indignation about this awful event…while hearing absolutely nothing from the same people about…
- The Iranian women’s soccer team who are returning home from asylum to likely torture and execution due to regime threats against their families.
- The thousands of Iranian protesters who were shot by the regime.
- The 19 year old wrestling champion who was executed for participating in a protest.
Nobody is saying the school wasn’t terrible, but it’s not some situation where if we just leave the regime in power it’s going to be all sunshine and roses over there.
Show equal parts outrage and people will take you more seriously. Show equal parts outrage and you will find far more outrage from leaving the regime in power.
> while hearing absolutely nothing from the same people about…
Also, really? You think anybody who opposes the US bombing a school is cheering on protestors being shot and all other crimes of the Iranian regime? Well, I guess I'll be the first: Iranian regime bad. Killing protestors bad. Executing dissenters bad. There you go. Your argument is defeated. You can no longer make that claim. But I reckon most people aren't couching their statements by bringing up the whudabbouts because first it's not the direct topic of the conversation, and second it's a fucking given. But it being a given that X is bad does not justify doing more bad things.
That genie isn’t going back in the bottle though so now we have to deal with the very real threat to the world that we certainly had a hand in creating.
Glad to hear your opposition to all of the evil as well. The desire for vocal, social righteous indignation with most of this dialog does not follow your fervor though. People remain silent until it supports their local politics, for the most part.
He doesn't care about the Iranian people either, so there's some other reason. I'm not going to carry water for a secretly-motivated war where the "good" effects are secondary, post-hoc rationalizations.
At least just say they're a grave threat we should destroy or whatever, don't play along with the game that the American government and people care so much for Muslims on the other side of the world.
None of that happened because the US was unprepared for this war. It was Bibi's idea and Trump is weak and incompetent so he just went along with it, ironically because he thought it would avoid making him look weak and incompetent.
Trump is what a weak man imagines a strong man to be like. Just look at his official portrait [1], trying to look tough and dangerous. Compare that to Dwight D. Eisenhower's portrait [2], a man who commanded entire armies in the largest war in human history.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#/media/File:Offic...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower#/media/Fi...
Like, yes, evil military planners did sat down and said "rules of engagement are woke, the working groups handling civilian safety are waste of money, be maximum lethal".
Also, they had no stable military objectives except "make my insecure masculinity feel manly".
I have heard more than one Trump-defender say “well they would have grown up to attack us.”
In reality, in same vein quite a few US laws are set. If you are not US passport holder you are subhuman. Less rights, less care, more disposable, just a garbage to step on. We saw it enough in past 80 years to see a clear pattern everywhere US went and (mostly) failed.
For those slow in back rows - this is how you get almost endless stream of new fanatical recruits to merry groups like isis or al-queda. Dumb, supremely dumb. Yeah, 'a mistake, it can happen'. Fuck that american self-entitled rotten racist mentality. Then you wonder why whole world hates you now and what you stand for and represent. What a success story for america in past year.
Regarding the USA-Iran war, the president of the USA has threatened to destroy essential infrastructure (e.g. electricity) if Iran doesn't surrender in 48 hours. Which, from my understanding, is a war crime. I think Trump is perfectly ok with bombing schools and hospitals.
---
[0]: https://x.com/haaretzcom/status/2035545687006298392?s=20
There has been little planning and there are no sane military objectives beyond blow stuff up. How can there be when the objectives of the overall war change depend on what side of the bed Bone Spurs got out.
Why shouldn’t he believe it?
You people believe the same kind of crap when you're told that X (insert the current boogeyman de jour) hates Murica and wants to kill you all.
Absolutely. Russia does it all the time, IDF does it all the time, why would the Pentagon be any different?
Edit: *triple tap.
They both suck and both collectively fuck off for the betterment of humanity.
Despite the war aims being nebulous, illegal, and ever changing, none of them would be advanced by bombing a girls school.
no shit... this is not proof of a mistake.
The "proof" of the mistake is Hanlon's razor and the fact that the school was adjacent a military facility and the building itself used to be for military purposes.
>Footage from Russian state broadcaster RT has captured the moment a missile lands just a few feet from where its reporter was broadcasting in southern Lebanon.
What's this supposed to be proof of? That because a bombing happened near a journalist, that he must have been intentionally targeted? Does the US even have capabilities to track journalists in Iran, of all places? Given that journalists are specifically going into war zones, what even is the expected amount of journalists to get bombed, from pure chance alone?
At this point, Hanlon's razor should be considered a fallacy.
In fact, quite a lot of what looked like incompetence was malice. Intentional and proud malice. It does not mean there is no incompetence, but Hanlon's razor is no longer valid.
Second, army working group meant to ensure these mistakes wont happen was dismantled by Hegseth. All the while he framed such efforts as woke nonsense and praised lethality only. He was sending clear message about what matters to troops
The system was changed to allow and facilite errors like that.
I think that covers a lot of western media in all the wars the US has waged in my lifetime:
it's always "a regrettable (but worthwhile) mistake" until it's a "horrific but unique war crime"... it's never "who the fuck said these vicious idiots could kill whoever they want and never face just and material consequences for their crimes".
This shit certainly seems intentional. Maybe the folks who are attributing things to "incompetence" are just projecting their own incompetencies in interpreting the world, but at this point I suspect that they to are complicit in this malice.
It certainly seems that there was an intentional decision to disband departments in the military last year that were intended to confirm targets are appropriate before a strike (although I can't find a reference now). There's also a lot of reporting that they used AI to do the targetting selection; if so that was an intentional decision to allow for poor selection; especially since it doesn't appear there was validation of targets. There's a lot of intentional decisions to make comments declaring 'no stupid rules of engagement' and such.
I think it's most likely that the intentional decisions led to the situation where the targetting of a school would not be noticed until after the school was hit and international outcry was made, but that doesn't mean it was not a targetting mistake. You can certainly hold people accountable for the decisions that lead to the targetting of a school, at least in the court of public opinion since there's an accountability vacuum in washington DC lately.
There are many examples of targetting mistakes that are excusable. I don't think this is one of them; but that it is inexcusable and was the result of intentional decisions doesn't make it necessarily an intentional act and not a mistake.
On the Media recently interviewed somebody involved with that effort, and they discuss the bombing of the school.
https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/articles/hegseths-p...
If the goal is to force the enemy into giving up? Many are willing to give their life to a cause, but way less are willing to give the lifes of their children.
This was not just some school, but a school where the children of the iranian leadership are going to.
And coincidently Trump himself said he would target the families of terrorists, if voted into power.
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/02/politics/donald-trump-ter...
"The Shajareh Tayyebeh school in Minab is part of a broad network of schools structurally and administratively affiliated with the IRGC Navy.
These schools are classified as nonprofit institutions and are primarily intended to provide educational services to the sons and daughters of members of the IRGC Navy."
IRGC means leadership (I did not said highest leadership, they would be in Teheran)
>Independent analysis of satellite imagery suggested that the school and the Sayyid al-Shuhada military complex had been struck near-simultaneously by air-delivered munitions.[39]
The objectionable part of double/triple tap strike is that you're killing rescuers or aid workers. Otherwise from a morality perspective there's no meaningful difference between 1 bomb and 2/3 bombs, especially if the actual incident was by all accounts caused by a targeting error.
Due diligence isn’t really an option.
Yes, was is bad, trump is a massive ego and idiot. But nothing we've done has come even close to what the regime has been doing to their own people since 1979.
Besides, Israel wont allow democratic or other functional regime change. Their goal is failed state with forever civil war in it. Something they can regularly bomb whenever it will seem functional. This can still happen, so everyone around should be ready for refugees waves.
Trumps idea of regime change is replacing head for someone who pays him personally - while keeping regime in place. This wont happen now.
Iranian monarchists want own dictatorship, but wont be getting it either.
Iranians who protested were just fucked and that is all about it.
and now we find ourselves in nearly the same situation "they will welcome us as liberators", "it will just take two weeks", "the United States was in imminent danger of attack by weapons of mass destruction", "these are really bad totalitarian people and we are morally required to intervene". word for word.
and still, after doing this twice to countries directly to the east and west, and having poured money and blood into the sand to end up in a worse position than before, we're taking another run at it, with even less justification.
before bringing up the fate of the Iranian people, maybe we should look at the Iraquis - they certainly didn't benefit, or the Afghanis, or the Venezuelans to take a more recent example. It takes a special kind of idiot to ignore all that recent history and support this assault.
But the most important question is, what's next? If depriving tens of millions of people of energy doesn't work, what will he do next?
One hypothesis is he'll threaten Iran with a nuclear strike. In response, either China or Russia or both, will say that's a line that cannot be crossed.
And then, we will either all die, or be living in a world saved by authoritarian regimes from the irresponsibility of the US.
It will be interesting! But probably extremely unpleasant.
Given how much money the US has given Israel compared to how tiny their GDP is it is also clear the US financially owns Israel. If I were US president I would annex Israel so that they no longer determine US foreign policy. Of course Israel would agree to be annexed because otherwise they can be easily isolated like the way they isolate Gaza.
Who, the US? Quite obedient I'd say.
Yes, that's it. The only reason for imperialism is "what's in it for me".
All the rest is bullshit.
Source: I am not American, therefore I know American Imperialism when I see it.
This is all being done to prop up oil prices, but China is going to be the silent killer here, helping the world move to renewables and OPEC won't be a thing anymore. Its to see a country committing suicide like this.
Say the goal is to get rid of the regime by giving the protesters an opening to rebel. Then Trump blew the metaphorical load too early by encouraging the protesters on truth social. Tens of thousands of them being killed destroyed the momentum. Smarter people would have tried to arm them first, or discouraged the protests until we could hit them at the same time.
Say the goal is to "do the right thing." Then we shoudn't be tag-teaming with a country doing a genocide, clearly. We'd probably be hesitant to help them destroy their enemy or realize their interests in general. We've had endless opportunity to reign them in and done nothing about it. "Oh, but we need them to project force in the middle east for us." Well then why the fuck are we starting a war? Let's force that ally to reform before starting the war. There was no fucking rush man.
Say the goal is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Well, Iran isn't (wasn't) run by stupid people. They knew we could likely set back their nuclear program before it completed and they knew the best-case-scenario in building nukes would be to get some leverage. They therefore opted to take a deal, using the threat of becoming armed to have some leverage. For us this is a great deal because we don't need to pay the costs of fighting Iran and we don't need to give them a better deal at nuke-point, and for them it's pretty solid because it's less risky. There's no evidence the terms were violated before WE ripped up the deal.
"Well however we got into this situation, we're here now and they could have nukes within seconds, I mean minutes, I mean hours, I mean days, I mean months, I mean years..." Maybe before creating an international energy crisis, just bomb the damn nuclear program again. Worst case scenario they get a nuke and what? The whole point of a nuke is leverage, when you use it you lose the leverage. We would be forced to cut another deal with better terms for Iran. Whatever dude, maybe that's not worth fighting another middle eastern war idk maybe I'm crazy.
I'm not a big war guy who just loves killing for the fun of it or whatever but even a war of aggression can be competent. I can admit when competence is exhibited and when something I otherwise dislike at least works out well. This shit is the most monumental blunder in decades. It wasn't planned, it has no goal, it will either end in a pointless withdrawal or (most likely) a Vietnam-esque quagmire. Every single problem was foreseeable and foreseen, that's why we didn't do this before. But some fucking moron pedophile gets blackmailed hard enough by a genocidal war criminal to say "what's one more, for old times sake?" and I'm supposed to want to shout hurrah and put my goddamn body and soul on the line for absolutely literally jack shit? Utterly ridiculous.