5 ms·

I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor. So your country went into

by ozgung 8mo ago

I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor. So your country went into war mode by changing the name of the Department of Defence to Department of War. This was not a cosmetic change. This means peace times are over and you are in war. Your government acts accordingly. Since you are still a democracy find those people who make your policy decisions. It's not that yellow man.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> find those people who make your policy decisions Genuine question: who put Iran in their policy portfolio?
- gizajob 8mo ago
  Make a genuine guess…
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    I was hoping someone serious (versus the everything is AIPAC nutters) had put thought into it. Rubio and Walz have been Iran hawks. But I’m not yet convinced they were unilateral. Instead, it looks like a Rice-Powell alignment of vague interests with enough groupthink that dissenters weren't in the room.
    - hightrix 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > it literally is the AIPAC AIPAC isn't a person. Who is the person who convinced the President to order these strikes? It could be someone at AIPAC. There is no evidence for that, I suspect, because it's highly unlikely.
        mixmastamyk 8mo ago
        Lindsey Graham and cronies. Tons of evidence, he travels to israel every month or so.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > Lindsey Graham and cronies Lindsey Graham doesn't have that kind of pull in the White House. I'm not saying he didn't influence someone with it. But he isn't the power player.
        mixmastamyk 8mo ago
        I wouldn’t think so, but obviously things have changed significantly in the last few months.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > obviously things have changed significantly in the last few months Not to the point that Graham makes such calls. (Hint: the person will be in the Situation Room with Trump.)
        mixmastamyk 8mo ago
        The "convincers" and those directing military operations are obviously different folks. I'd follow the money from Graham and Trump backward. Oh, and by the way you don't have to quote single sentences from my responses when they consist of one or two sentences. ;-)
  - galangalalgol 8mo ago
    The current Israeli government obviously has a great deal of influence in the US government. That much is not conspiracy theory. The evangelicals involved in project 2025 have a very real interest in middle eastern conflict from an ideological standpoint. If you want a cynical follow the money villain look no farther than Al Saud and friends. Also, this weakens Russia and further restricts oil reaching China from anywhere. Every oil feed reaching China over water is at this point being curtailed. Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned. The US president hasn't required a new war resolution since Afghanistan. They each keep stretching it farther and farther. It cannot be rescinded without a veto-proof majority. If there was a veto proof majority willing to stand up to the executive, a conviction and removal would have already occurred. The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy. It is also worth noting that it only takes senators receiving the votes of <7% of the total population to filibuster all legislation, prevent overriding any vetos, and halt all impeachment trials. The fact it has looked like a democracy for so long is astounding.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned Correct. But interests need to be animated to have power. Who was arguing that this should be a priority, and a priority now, who is familiar in the White House? > The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy This is nonsense. > halt all impeachment trials False. Senate Rule 193 sets time limits on debate for impeachment trials [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf/CDOC-117sdoc1.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf/CDOC-1...
      - galangalalgol 8mo ago
        You seem to have a singular villain ready to point at. I do not see it. The president reportedly thinks whatever the last person to speak said. So are you proposing a mastermind or simply a catalyst? As far as vdem goes, Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status.
- nostrademons 8mo ago
  The rumor I heard was that high-level Pentagon generals had subtly suggested that Trump target Iran. The reason was to distract his attention from Greenland. Logic goes that if you have a reality TV star who built his brand on being a tough guy in the White House, it's far better that he attack a theocratic dictatorship that funds a host of terrorist organizations and whose country is already on the verge of collapse than a NATO ally and fellow democracy that didn't do anything to us.
  - qup 8mo ago
    He's been talking about Iran since 2011
    - underlipton 8mo ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
  - byproxy 8mo ago
    From where did you hear this rumor?
    - nostrademons 8mo ago
      Was a news article from a reputable source (Reuters or PBS?), around the time of the Greenland flap in early January, but Google Search now sucks and the results are all polluted with news articles from the strikes today so I wasn't able to find it again.
- ThagH 8mo ago
  Indeed, the permanent bureaucracies and think tanks have advised all administrations: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg This is bipartisan. The long term goals were to start with Libya, Iraq, Syria and then Iran. The latter two required Russia to be tied up in another conflict. They don't explicitly put Iran in their portfolio because for Reality TV it is better to be a peace lover. Now, undoubtedly the Democrats will pretend to complain, but Schumer and Pelosi want this, too. [I am expanding on your comment, not trying to contradict anything.]
- oldnetguy 8mo ago
  I see this as Trump going after governments that were close to Russia and China. Which is why he is going after Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. Also there are many countries in the middle east that we are friends with which would be happy if Iran falls.
  - bell-cot 8mo ago
    > ...would be happy if Iran falls. Literally, perhaps true...at least initially. But: - Take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out for the U.S. and its regional friends. - Iran has 92 million people, very deep issues with being able to support that large a population, and very long borders. If things really went to crap there, it could produce tens of millions of desperate refugees.
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out This is an immensely risky operation. But part of the reason for Iraq being a shitshow was De-Ba'athification. You don't need to clean house to effect regime change. My guess would be we're hoping someone in the IRGC disappears Khamenei and a few senior commanders and then makes a call to Geneva.
      - arw0n 8mo ago
        This is assuming a coherent national security strategy, which is unlikely. We know a lot of generals disagree with the attack on Iran, and none of the geopolitical experts I trust think it is a good idea, be they conservative, realist, liberal, leftist or something else. There's a number of reasons this is happening now that I think are more plausible than American interest: - Saudis want Iran weak as they are primary geopolitical rivals. There are deep ties between the Saudi dynasty and the Trump dynasty. Without Iranian support, the Houthis will have a much tougher time. (Although they should not be underestimated regardless. They are not an Iranian proxy, but an ally, and field one of the strongest armies in the whole region.) - Israel wants Iran weak, and pro-zionism is a strong wedge in American politics. Again, there's also a lot of personal business interests involved. Iranian allies and proxies are the chief causes of grief for Israel's expansionist agenda, and a very credible threat to their national security. - This war conveniently moves the headlines away from a faltering economy, the Epstein files, and ICE overreach. There's probably hope that it will improve chances with the 'war president bonus' in the mid-terms. It could also be a convenient cover for and excuse to increase rigging in the elections. Expecting positive regime change after bombing a school full of little girls is... naive. This is not how you turn an enemy into a friend.
- jacquesm 8mo ago
  AIPAC is a thing... And now of course you're going to label me an AIPAC nutter, but in this particular case I think the evidence is fairly plain given the collaboration between the two countries on this. If Israel had done this by their lonesome or if the US had not involved Israel then you could make the case that they reached this point independently, right now it looks to me as if collusion is a 100% certainty and that the US is executing a foreign policy that will not benefit it but that will benefit Israel. It also makes me wonder whether this will end up as a Venzuela re-run where the top names change but everything else remains the same, just with US companies the beneficiaries of the oil, which is, besides policy the main driver behind these things anyway.
  - heraldgeezer 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - frmersdog 8mo ago
      Well, we're certainly not collaborating with West Africa to bomb France. Not even the Philippines, Taiwan, and Uyghur and Hong Kong dissidents to bomb China. I mean, it could just be the evangelicals hoping to start a holy war that heralds the End of Days. And now that I type that out, I have to agree with your implicit position that it's definitely the more rational catalyst.
    - jacquesm 8mo ago
      You've been uncritically supportive of Israel in plenty of other threads on HN already so I'm not sure if your exaggeration of my comment should even be taken serious. Israel has a massive lobbying effort in the United States and that's not exactly news, on top of that there have been many documented pieces of interaction between Trump and Nethanyahu that seem to be evidence that Trump is doing a lot of things to please Israel, besides that they are actively collaborating on these attacks.
      - heraldgeezer 8mo ago
        [flagged]
- Braxton1980 8mo ago
  The voters
gslepak 8mo ago
An honest discussion about this cannot be had on this site, it's kinda funny how pointless all the comments are here. Yours is the closest anyone is allowed to get and I wonder if yours will stay up.
- junofan 8mo ago
  The guy’s in the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame. He’s been seeking or serving in office for over ten years. We all know. It’s old ground.
  - gslepak 8mo ago
    No I'm talking about who is responsible for all of this. You're allowed to misunderstand (as you did here), you're allowed to downvote (as they do to me), you're allowed to lie, and allowed to be mistaken. But truth is nowhere to be found on Hacker News on this subject. There can be a million comments. All of them varying degrees of wrong or closer to the money and then removed.
    - rHashg 8mo ago
      It is funny that the AIPAC influence narrative is allowed now, but think tank papers are greyed out and will disappear soon. So I guess "blame Bibi" is one of the desired narratives now.
armada651 8mo ago
The moment they made that name change and stated their expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism. Whether you think the current targets are legitimate or not, the fact that the U.S. is going to war without seeking any democratic approval anymore is deeply troubling.
- Saline9515 8mo ago
  This is clearly not fascism, and not very different from what the US is accustomed to. Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.
  - mint5 8mo ago
    Are you claiming Harris or Biden would have bombed Iran like this? That does not sound credible, but if the other party wouldn’t have attached Iran then this is not business as usual, it’s the GOP as usual.
    - etc-hosts 8mo ago
      from 2024: "Harris to Jewish voters: ‘All options on the table’ to stop Iran from going nuclear In pre-election High Holidays call, US vice president says diplomatic solution still preferable to keep Islamic Republic from the bomb, charges Trump won’t stand by Israel" https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-options-on-the-table-to-stop-iran-from-going-nuclear/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-op...
    - mixmastamyk 8mo ago
      Maybe not exactly but Dems have started many wars, often to look tough due to the perception of them being weaker.
    - Saline9515 8mo ago
      Biden and Harris didn't have any problems shipping tons of bombs to Israel, aimed at being exploded on dense civilian zones so I don't think that there is are dramatic differences between the two parties.
thiagoharry 8mo ago
I don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system. This is a constant state policy, regardless of the party or the president. So it can be said that the United States is not a democracy. Money and capital rule, not the people.This can only be changed by a fundamental shift that empowers people over capital. Of course, I agree that Trump is worse because, by removing the mask of civility and attacking others without first bothering to create propaganda and a narrative about how it is for the greater good and justice, he made the plundering and crimes faster and more efficient.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system Of course we can. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they don't exist. These are the Senate seats in play this cycle [1]. How many of those do you think would be flipped based on any foreign policy item? If you're on this thread you pay attention to foreign policy. The notion that someone doesn't–not isn't informed, but literally doesn't to any degree–is almost more foreign than the strangest countries we read about. But the truth is most Americans have never ranked any foreign policy item as being in their top three issues since the Vietnam War. We could change it if we wanted to. We don't because it's not personally pertinent or worse, it's boring. (And, I'd argue, because a lot of foreign-policy oriented activists are preaching for the choir versus trying to actually effect change.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elec...
  - somenameforme 8mo ago
    Americans ranked foreign policy as the third most relevant issue for them in 2016, tied with immigration. [1] It's disingenuous to ignore that both parties have traditionally had mostly the same foreign policy stance. So you're voting for forever war, or forever war. How can it be a deciding factor for voters in this context? But 2016 was different because Trump was the first candidate in some time to run on something even vaguely flirting with being anti-war, as he actively called out the endless wars of the political establishment, and argued that America first should not involve us wasting our money bombing countries half-way around the world. It was a relatively weak position but even that was enough to get 13% of voters to declare foreign policy as their key issue, tied with immigration. And Trump ended up winning their vote by an 18 point margin. Anti-war is one of the relatively large number of issues that Americans largely agree on, but the political establishment makes it impossible to vote for, because you'll never find a mainstream candidate running on a platform that aligns with public interest. So for instance 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Exit_poll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [2] - https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-poll-shows-public-overwhelmingly-opposed-to-endless-us-military-interventions/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-poll-shows-pub...
yoyohello13 8mo ago
The Trump admin would sooner drop nukes on LA then cede a fair election.
coldtea 8mo ago
>I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor. All of them are, even those that haven't had a show on TV.
nixon_why69 8mo ago
I'm not disagreeing with you but "Dept of War" is ENTIRELY a cosmetic change. It's literally just a name. There are people, mostly with desk jobs, who really want to feel like badasses and they really want the Dept of War. The real human consequences of this are unimportant to them and sadly unimportant to the rest of us also.
- delichon 8mo ago
  Cosmetic changes are frequently decisive in politics. "literally just a name" discounts the genuine power of names.
  - nixon_why69 8mo ago
    Agreed 100%
- avaer 8mo ago
  If you go to https://www.war.gov/ https://www.war.gov/ it says Department of War. The person in charge calls himself the Secretary of War. Warfighters are being sent into Iran. Presumably to engage in warfare. People are gonna die. What's cosmetic about this?
  - delichon 8mo ago
    Agree, essentially the Department of War is the Department of Defense with a little less makeup.
  - lo_zamoyski 8mo ago
    It's cosmetic because it is business as usual. And the DoW was the original name from 1789 to 1947.
  - WrongAssumption 8mo ago
    Seems more accurate to me. Department of Defense was the one that seemed like a euphemism.
- 8mo ago
trenning 8mo ago
Ukraine’s TV personality leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems to be doing alright. Also went into war, but not of their own doing, and he has been measured, insightful, aware, throughout this whole war. There’s more to it than Trump being a TV show personality. Far too complex and insidious than a simple quip.
epolanski 8mo ago
I'm not American.

by ozgung 8mo ago

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> find those people who make your policy decisions Genuine question: who put Iran in their policy portfolio?

gizajob 8mo ago
Make a genuine guess…
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  I was hoping someone serious (versus the everything is AIPAC nutters) had put thought into it. Rubio and Walz have been Iran hawks. But I’m not yet convinced they were unilateral. Instead, it looks like a Rice-Powell alignment of vague interests with enough groupthink that dissenters weren't in the room.
  - hightrix 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
      > it literally is the AIPAC AIPAC isn't a person. Who is the person who convinced the President to order these strikes? It could be someone at AIPAC. There is no evidence for that, I suspect, because it's highly unlikely.
      - mixmastamyk 8mo ago
        Lindsey Graham and cronies. Tons of evidence, he travels to israel every month or so.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > Lindsey Graham and cronies Lindsey Graham doesn't have that kind of pull in the White House. I'm not saying he didn't influence someone with it. But he isn't the power player.
        mixmastamyk 8mo ago
        I wouldn’t think so, but obviously things have changed significantly in the last few months.
        JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
        > obviously things have changed significantly in the last few months Not to the point that Graham makes such calls. (Hint: the person will be in the Situation Room with Trump.)
        mixmastamyk 8mo ago
        The "convincers" and those directing military operations are obviously different folks. I'd follow the money from Graham and Trump backward. Oh, and by the way you don't have to quote single sentences from my responses when they consist of one or two sentences. ;-)
- galangalalgol 8mo ago
  The current Israeli government obviously has a great deal of influence in the US government. That much is not conspiracy theory. The evangelicals involved in project 2025 have a very real interest in middle eastern conflict from an ideological standpoint. If you want a cynical follow the money villain look no farther than Al Saud and friends. Also, this weakens Russia and further restricts oil reaching China from anywhere. Every oil feed reaching China over water is at this point being curtailed. Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned. The US president hasn't required a new war resolution since Afghanistan. They each keep stretching it farther and farther. It cannot be rescinded without a veto-proof majority. If there was a veto proof majority willing to stand up to the executive, a conviction and removal would have already occurred. The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy. It is also worth noting that it only takes senators receiving the votes of <7% of the total population to filibuster all legislation, prevent overriding any vetos, and halt all impeachment trials. The fact it has looked like a democracy for so long is astounding.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Looking for a single reason is very hollywood, enough interests aligned Correct. But interests need to be animated to have power. Who was arguing that this should be a priority, and a priority now, who is familiar in the White House? > The assertion that the US is a democracy is nisguided. It will be downgraded by vdem this month to an electoral autocracy This is nonsense. > halt all impeachment trials False. Senate Rule 193 sets time limits on debate for impeachment trials [1]. [1] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf/CDOC-117sdoc1.pdf https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CDOC-117sdoc1/pdf/CDOC-1...
    - galangalalgol 8mo ago
      You seem to have a singular villain ready to point at. I do not see it. The president reportedly thinks whatever the last person to speak said. So are you proposing a mastermind or simply a catalyst? As far as vdem goes, Lindberg has recently as much as confirmed they will down grade the us below democracy status.
nostrademons 8mo ago
The rumor I heard was that high-level Pentagon generals had subtly suggested that Trump target Iran. The reason was to distract his attention from Greenland. Logic goes that if you have a reality TV star who built his brand on being a tough guy in the White House, it's far better that he attack a theocratic dictatorship that funds a host of terrorist organizations and whose country is already on the verge of collapse than a NATO ally and fellow democracy that didn't do anything to us.
- qup 8mo ago
  He's been talking about Iran since 2011
  - underlipton 8mo ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7s5pT3Rris
- byproxy 8mo ago
  From where did you hear this rumor?
  - nostrademons 8mo ago
    Was a news article from a reputable source (Reuters or PBS?), around the time of the Greenland flap in early January, but Google Search now sucks and the results are all polluted with news articles from the strikes today so I wasn't able to find it again.
ThagH 8mo ago
Indeed, the permanent bureaucracies and think tanks have advised all administrations: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7864/j.ctt6wpgvg This is bipartisan. The long term goals were to start with Libya, Iraq, Syria and then Iran. The latter two required Russia to be tied up in another conflict. They don't explicitly put Iran in their portfolio because for Reality TV it is better to be a peace lover. Now, undoubtedly the Democrats will pretend to complain, but Schumer and Pelosi want this, too. [I am expanding on your comment, not trying to contradict anything.]
oldnetguy 8mo ago
I see this as Trump going after governments that were close to Russia and China. Which is why he is going after Iran, Venezuela and Cuba. Also there are many countries in the middle east that we are friends with which would be happy if Iran falls.
- bell-cot 8mo ago
  > ...would be happy if Iran falls. Literally, perhaps true...at least initially. But: - Take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out for the U.S. and its regional friends. - Iran has 92 million people, very deep issues with being able to support that large a population, and very long borders. If things really went to crap there, it could produce tens of millions of desperate refugees.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > take a look at how poorly the fall of the Iraqi gov't in 2003 actually worked out This is an immensely risky operation. But part of the reason for Iraq being a shitshow was De-Ba'athification. You don't need to clean house to effect regime change. My guess would be we're hoping someone in the IRGC disappears Khamenei and a few senior commanders and then makes a call to Geneva.
    - arw0n 8mo ago
      This is assuming a coherent national security strategy, which is unlikely. We know a lot of generals disagree with the attack on Iran, and none of the geopolitical experts I trust think it is a good idea, be they conservative, realist, liberal, leftist or something else. There's a number of reasons this is happening now that I think are more plausible than American interest: - Saudis want Iran weak as they are primary geopolitical rivals. There are deep ties between the Saudi dynasty and the Trump dynasty. Without Iranian support, the Houthis will have a much tougher time. (Although they should not be underestimated regardless. They are not an Iranian proxy, but an ally, and field one of the strongest armies in the whole region.) - Israel wants Iran weak, and pro-zionism is a strong wedge in American politics. Again, there's also a lot of personal business interests involved. Iranian allies and proxies are the chief causes of grief for Israel's expansionist agenda, and a very credible threat to their national security. - This war conveniently moves the headlines away from a faltering economy, the Epstein files, and ICE overreach. There's probably hope that it will improve chances with the 'war president bonus' in the mid-terms. It could also be a convenient cover for and excuse to increase rigging in the elections. Expecting positive regime change after bombing a school full of little girls is... naive. This is not how you turn an enemy into a friend.
jacquesm 8mo ago
AIPAC is a thing... And now of course you're going to label me an AIPAC nutter, but in this particular case I think the evidence is fairly plain given the collaboration between the two countries on this. If Israel had done this by their lonesome or if the US had not involved Israel then you could make the case that they reached this point independently, right now it looks to me as if collusion is a 100% certainty and that the US is executing a foreign policy that will not benefit it but that will benefit Israel. It also makes me wonder whether this will end up as a Venzuela re-run where the top names change but everything else remains the same, just with US companies the beneficiaries of the oil, which is, besides policy the main driver behind these things anyway.
- heraldgeezer 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - frmersdog 8mo ago
    Well, we're certainly not collaborating with West Africa to bomb France. Not even the Philippines, Taiwan, and Uyghur and Hong Kong dissidents to bomb China. I mean, it could just be the evangelicals hoping to start a holy war that heralds the End of Days. And now that I type that out, I have to agree with your implicit position that it's definitely the more rational catalyst.
  - jacquesm 8mo ago
    You've been uncritically supportive of Israel in plenty of other threads on HN already so I'm not sure if your exaggeration of my comment should even be taken serious. Israel has a massive lobbying effort in the United States and that's not exactly news, on top of that there have been many documented pieces of interaction between Trump and Nethanyahu that seem to be evidence that Trump is doing a lot of things to please Israel, besides that they are actively collaborating on these attacks.
    - heraldgeezer 8mo ago
      [flagged]
Braxton1980 8mo ago
The voters

gslepak 8mo ago

An honest discussion about this cannot be had on this site, it's kinda funny how pointless all the comments are here. Yours is the closest anyone is allowed to get and I wonder if yours will stay up.

junofan 8mo ago
The guy’s in the World Wrestling Entertainment Hall of Fame. He’s been seeking or serving in office for over ten years. We all know. It’s old ground.
- gslepak 8mo ago
  No I'm talking about who is responsible for all of this. You're allowed to misunderstand (as you did here), you're allowed to downvote (as they do to me), you're allowed to lie, and allowed to be mistaken. But truth is nowhere to be found on Hacker News on this subject. There can be a million comments. All of them varying degrees of wrong or closer to the money and then removed.
  - rHashg 8mo ago
    It is funny that the AIPAC influence narrative is allowed now, but think tank papers are greyed out and will disappear soon. So I guess "blame Bibi" is one of the desired narratives now.

armada651 8mo ago

The moment they made that name change and stated their expansionist agenda it finally became clear to me that this wasn't just MAGA anymore, this was actual fascism. Whether you think the current targets are legitimate or not, the fact that the U.S. is going to war without seeking any democratic approval anymore is deeply troubling.

Saline9515 8mo ago
This is clearly not fascism, and not very different from what the US is accustomed to. Let's not waste the meaning of words by throwing them at any occasion.
- mint5 8mo ago
  Are you claiming Harris or Biden would have bombed Iran like this? That does not sound credible, but if the other party wouldn’t have attached Iran then this is not business as usual, it’s the GOP as usual.
  - etc-hosts 8mo ago
    from 2024: "Harris to Jewish voters: ‘All options on the table’ to stop Iran from going nuclear In pre-election High Holidays call, US vice president says diplomatic solution still preferable to keep Islamic Republic from the bomb, charges Trump won’t stand by Israel" https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-options-on-the-table-to-stop-iran-from-going-nuclear/ https://www.timesofisrael.com/harris-to-jewish-voters-all-op...
  - mixmastamyk 8mo ago
    Maybe not exactly but Dems have started many wars, often to look tough due to the perception of them being weaker.
  - Saline9515 8mo ago
    Biden and Harris didn't have any problems shipping tons of bombs to Israel, aimed at being exploded on dense civilian zones so I don't think that there is are dramatic differences between the two parties.

thiagoharry 8mo ago

I don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system. This is a constant state policy, regardless of the party or the president. So it can be said that the United States is not a democracy. Money and capital rule, not the people.This can only be changed by a fundamental shift that empowers people over capital. Of course, I agree that Trump is worse because, by removing the mask of civility and attacking others without first bothering to create propaganda and a narrative about how it is for the greater good and justice, he made the plundering and crimes faster and more efficient.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> don't think the American people can change their country's policy oriented toward a constant state of war, aggression, and invasions of other countries under the current system Of course we can. People disagreeing with you doesn't mean they don't exist. These are the Senate seats in play this cycle [1]. How many of those do you think would be flipped based on any foreign policy item? If you're on this thread you pay attention to foreign policy. The notion that someone doesn't–not isn't informed, but literally doesn't to any degree–is almost more foreign than the strangest countries we read about. But the truth is most Americans have never ranked any foreign policy item as being in their top three issues since the Vietnam War. We could change it if we wanted to. We don't because it's not personally pertinent or worse, it's boring. (And, I'd argue, because a lot of foreign-policy oriented activists are preaching for the choir versus trying to actually effect change.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_United_States_Senate_elec...
- somenameforme 8mo ago
  Americans ranked foreign policy as the third most relevant issue for them in 2016, tied with immigration. [1] It's disingenuous to ignore that both parties have traditionally had mostly the same foreign policy stance. So you're voting for forever war, or forever war. How can it be a deciding factor for voters in this context? But 2016 was different because Trump was the first candidate in some time to run on something even vaguely flirting with being anti-war, as he actively called out the endless wars of the political establishment, and argued that America first should not involve us wasting our money bombing countries half-way around the world. It was a relatively weak position but even that was enough to get 13% of voters to declare foreign policy as their key issue, tied with immigration. And Trump ended up winning their vote by an 18 point margin. Anti-war is one of the relatively large number of issues that Americans largely agree on, but the political establishment makes it impossible to vote for, because you'll never find a mainstream candidate running on a platform that aligns with public interest. So for instance 84% of Americans think that "the American military should be used only as a last resort", that Congressional approval should be required for military action, and so on. [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Exit_poll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidentia... [2] - https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-poll-shows-public-overwhelmingly-opposed-to-endless-us-military-interventions/ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-poll-shows-pub...

yoyohello13 8mo ago

The Trump admin would sooner drop nukes on LA then cede a fair election.

coldtea 8mo ago

>I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor. All of them are, even those that haven't had a show on TV.

nixon_why69 8mo ago

I'm not disagreeing with you but "Dept of War" is ENTIRELY a cosmetic change. It's literally just a name. There are people, mostly with desk jobs, who really want to feel like badasses and they really want the Dept of War. The real human consequences of this are unimportant to them and sadly unimportant to the rest of us also.

delichon 8mo ago
Cosmetic changes are frequently decisive in politics. "literally just a name" discounts the genuine power of names.
- nixon_why69 8mo ago
  Agreed 100%
avaer 8mo ago
If you go to https://www.war.gov/ https://www.war.gov/ it says Department of War. The person in charge calls himself the Secretary of War. Warfighters are being sent into Iran. Presumably to engage in warfare. People are gonna die. What's cosmetic about this?
- delichon 8mo ago
  Agree, essentially the Department of War is the Department of Defense with a little less makeup.
- lo_zamoyski 8mo ago
  It's cosmetic because it is business as usual. And the DoW was the original name from 1789 to 1947.
- WrongAssumption 8mo ago
  Seems more accurate to me. Department of Defense was the one that seemed like a euphemism.
8mo ago

trenning 8mo ago

Ukraine’s TV personality leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems to be doing alright. Also went into war, but not of their own doing, and he has been measured, insightful, aware, throughout this whole war. There’s more to it than Trump being a TV show personality. Far too complex and insidious than a simple quip.

epolanski 8mo ago

I'm not American.