5 ms·

Make a genuine guess…

by gizajob 8mo ago

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 It cannot be rescinded without a veto-proof majority.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.

Make a genuine guess…

by gizajob 8mo ago

Make a genuine guess…

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.