4 ms·

Look, I choose to be honest and see the response I am getting. Being called a troll. Is it really surprising that I can relate?

by qsera 6mo ago

bigyabai 6mo ago
No, not surprising. But some of your statements are hard to square with the current circumstances, so help us understand where you're coming from: > When he says "I will end the war in three days", I think he genuinely believes it. So I think he is genuine. This is what Putin said about his "Special military operation" that has stretched on for 4 years now. Hostomel turned into an irreversible, taxing conflict on the Russian people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport If the United States' hubris costs it half as much as Russia's did, we'll never be respected on the global stage again. The best option was to honor and enforce Iran's JCPOA agreement with the IAEA, but that's not possible now that America and Israel climbed the escalation ladder. Any deal we strike under duress will be worse and cost taxpayers more than peacetime diplomacy. I think we can see eye-to-eye with each other, but I'd have to hear how you think this type of strategy benefits America. From the macro-scale, this does nothing to bolster a conflict over the First island chain and weakens America's strategic credibility abroad. Iran and Israel are a sideshow compared to the eventual conflict with China, and the results we've seen from the Persian Gulf do not bode well for America's power projection.
- fc417fc802 6mo ago
  Largely agreed but if one expects any sort of escalation with China that actually makes this (and Ukraine) quite useful by providing real world data about the recent technological changes to war as well as serving as a minor stress test for the military's organizational structures. To be clear I don't mean to imply that as being even remotely reasonable as justification.
  - bigyabai 6mo ago
    Kinda? The US already has materiel and operators on the ground in Ukraine and exercising with NATO. This is mostly practice for the US Navy, and the PLAN looks nothing like the IRGC's Navy. One's in the missile age, the other uses FACs with .50 cals as their anti-shipping weapon. The other US forces like the Army, Marines and Special Forces/Pararescue really really risk attriting and dulling themselves if CENTCOM demands more troops.
- qsera 6mo ago
  >I'd have to hear how you think this type of strategy benefits America The only answer I have is the one that Trump keep on repeating, about how Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. > JCPOA agreement If I am the POTUS and is really concerned about what happens to US after my term, I would be very concerned about what happens when the term of the agreement expires. This fits with Trump has been saying. That he became the POTUS because he found those that came before him not doing a good job. So it follows that he might think his successors also would not do a good job. So when he says he want a permanent solution to Iran's nuclear threat, I think that is why. This is what I said before. If you take what Trump says and do, in different contexts, it matches. I mean, he has an underlying philosophy and world view that he has built up, and is not derived from the thoughts and philosophy of others. This is another reason why I like him, but causes a huge majority of intellectuals to hate him. Because most of the intellectuals derive or outsource their view and thinking to other thought leaders...
  - bigyabai 6mo ago
    > The only answer I have is the one that Trump keep on repeating, about how Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. Then you don't have an answer. The Israeli media played that line for close to 40 years, lamenting Iran being "mere months" away from a nuke - for decades at a time. Iran has nothing to do with American homeland security. America's involvement in Iran is purely for political and economic reasons, there is no credible threat to America in Iran any more than there is in Sudan or Yemen. > If I am the POTUS [...] I would be very concerned about what happens when the term of the agreement expires. Genuinely, why? The JCPOA is a joint plan, America's opinion only matters insofar as we can compel Iran to comply. Pulling out increases the likelihood that Iran races to build a bomb with their HEU. Bombing them, like in the Twelve-Day War and Operation Midnight Hammer, did not compel any compliance. The uranium is still a problem. > So when he says he want a permanent solution to Iran's nuclear threat, I think that is why. I think that is bogus. Iran is not a credible nuclear threat to the United States or it's citizens, so the US would only be going to war to protect Israel. In which case, we don't even need the nuke pretext and we can just admit that it's a protectionist war to defend our fragile satellite state instead of lying about ICBM threats.
gitaarik 6mo ago
That you say that he will win again is kind of trolly, you want Trump for a 3rd presidency? You really want a dictator?

Look, I choose to be honest and see the response I am getting. Being called a troll. Is it really surprising that I can relate?

by qsera 6mo ago

Look, I choose to be honest and see the response I am getting. Being called a troll. Is it really surprising that I can relate?

bigyabai 6mo ago

No, not surprising. But some of your statements are hard to square with the current circumstances, so help us understand where you're coming from: > When he says "I will end the war in three days", I think he genuinely believes it. So I think he is genuine. This is what Putin said about his "Special military operation" that has stretched on for 4 years now. Hostomel turned into an irreversible, taxing conflict on the Russian people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Antonov_Airport If the United States' hubris costs it half as much as Russia's did, we'll never be respected on the global stage again. The best option was to honor and enforce Iran's JCPOA agreement with the IAEA, but that's not possible now that America and Israel climbed the escalation ladder. Any deal we strike under duress will be worse and cost taxpayers more than peacetime diplomacy. I think we can see eye-to-eye with each other, but I'd have to hear how you think this type of strategy benefits America. From the macro-scale, this does nothing to bolster a conflict over the First island chain and weakens America's strategic credibility abroad. Iran and Israel are a sideshow compared to the eventual conflict with China, and the results we've seen from the Persian Gulf do not bode well for America's power projection.

fc417fc802 6mo ago
Largely agreed but if one expects any sort of escalation with China that actually makes this (and Ukraine) quite useful by providing real world data about the recent technological changes to war as well as serving as a minor stress test for the military's organizational structures. To be clear I don't mean to imply that as being even remotely reasonable as justification.
- bigyabai 6mo ago
  Kinda? The US already has materiel and operators on the ground in Ukraine and exercising with NATO. This is mostly practice for the US Navy, and the PLAN looks nothing like the IRGC's Navy. One's in the missile age, the other uses FACs with .50 cals as their anti-shipping weapon. The other US forces like the Army, Marines and Special Forces/Pararescue really really risk attriting and dulling themselves if CENTCOM demands more troops.
qsera 6mo ago
>I'd have to hear how you think this type of strategy benefits America The only answer I have is the one that Trump keep on repeating, about how Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. > JCPOA agreement If I am the POTUS and is really concerned about what happens to US after my term, I would be very concerned about what happens when the term of the agreement expires. This fits with Trump has been saying. That he became the POTUS because he found those that came before him not doing a good job. So it follows that he might think his successors also would not do a good job. So when he says he want a permanent solution to Iran's nuclear threat, I think that is why. This is what I said before. If you take what Trump says and do, in different contexts, it matches. I mean, he has an underlying philosophy and world view that he has built up, and is not derived from the thoughts and philosophy of others. This is another reason why I like him, but causes a huge majority of intellectuals to hate him. Because most of the intellectuals derive or outsource their view and thinking to other thought leaders...
- bigyabai 6mo ago
  > The only answer I have is the one that Trump keep on repeating, about how Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. Then you don't have an answer. The Israeli media played that line for close to 40 years, lamenting Iran being "mere months" away from a nuke - for decades at a time. Iran has nothing to do with American homeland security. America's involvement in Iran is purely for political and economic reasons, there is no credible threat to America in Iran any more than there is in Sudan or Yemen. > If I am the POTUS [...] I would be very concerned about what happens when the term of the agreement expires. Genuinely, why? The JCPOA is a joint plan, America's opinion only matters insofar as we can compel Iran to comply. Pulling out increases the likelihood that Iran races to build a bomb with their HEU. Bombing them, like in the Twelve-Day War and Operation Midnight Hammer, did not compel any compliance. The uranium is still a problem. > So when he says he want a permanent solution to Iran's nuclear threat, I think that is why. I think that is bogus. Iran is not a credible nuclear threat to the United States or it's citizens, so the US would only be going to war to protect Israel. In which case, we don't even need the nuke pretext and we can just admit that it's a protectionist war to defend our fragile satellite state instead of lying about ICBM threats.

gitaarik 6mo ago

That you say that he will win again is kind of trolly, you want Trump for a 3rd presidency? You really want a dictator?