17 ms·

You'd have trouble finding a candidate who wouldn't predictably start a major war in the middle East. Biden and Trump 1 were kind of exceptions. Kamala certainl

You'd have trouble finding a candidate who wouldn't predictably start a major war in the middle East. Biden and Trump 1 were kind of exceptions. Kamala certainly seemed pro-war-in-the-middle-East with her support for Israel, so she's out. Who did you vote for instead?

watwut 4mo ago
Frankly, bullshit. Harris did not seemed more pro war or aggressive, unless you live in deep conservative bubble.
- pjc50 4mo ago
  The slight problem here is that the war was started by Netenyahu, whom US voters are unable to remove. But yes, I doubt Harris would have gone for the decapitation strike that destabilized everything.
  - watwut 4mo ago
    War was started by Trump, Hegseth and Netenyahu. Hegseth specifically wants wars for emotional reasons - it makes him feel good. America has a lot of Iran hawks, especially in goverment/military circles. They got their way.
    - foxglacier 4mo ago
      See what I mean? America keeps starting wars in the middle east. Go back further in time and it was Obama, then Bush, then a little bit of Clinton, then the other Bush. It doesn't matter who or what party they're in, they mostly end up doing it anyway. No reason to think Harris would be anything different, especially considering her statements of promising military support to Israel.
      - saulapremium 4mo ago
        It sounds like you are trying to both-sides away the fact that Trump (or "Trump 2", if you insist) is an outlier here. US support for Israel has been pretty invariant over the years but nobody went along with Bibi's wet dream until now.
      - watwut 4mo ago
        No I dont see what you mean. You are trying to Harris sound the same as Trump. That is extremely dishonest framing. There is a reason why Israel and pro-Israel Americans went with Trump - because he was giving them a lot more of what they wanted. Trumps military/war track record so far is a.) Iran war b.) Venezuela kidnapping c.) pro-Russia stance in Ukraine d.) board of peace composed of dictators and murderers e.) regular boatsmen murders f.) trying to steal Greenland. The Harris "refuses to take pro-palestinian side and refuses to abandon Israel entirely, but still not enough for pre-Israel side to accept her" is weak sauce.
        foxglacier 4mo ago
        We're talking about before his election. What made it predictable that Trump would bomb Iran but Harris wouldn't? Whoever the president is, the forces that make America fight wars seem to keep on successfully pushing them to do it. Both their parties started a lot of wars in the middle east with their previous presidents (Obama and Bush II).
        defrost 4mo ago
        Trump avoided briefings like they were his uglier children, famously first term rumours claimed the intelligence crowd had to dumb down two hour compact briefings to 5 minute cartoon animated toilet reading fodder. Harris has a background as a prosecutor and has a track record of being literate and processing stacked feet thick piles of paper. The force pushing to bomb Iran has always been Israel, the counter force has always been detailed backlogs of military exercises that relentlessly conclude that to be a bloody stupid idea. It was predictable that Harris would take good advice (and perhaps follow that), and equally predictable that Trump would bluster his way forward and ignore the existing weight of experience and prior exercises. FWiW I would not have predicted that Trump would stick himself into Iran ... I honestly thought he was stupid, just not that stupid. Although the Obama deal was famously one of his weird tic like bugaboos .. correctly factoring in how much room the former POTUS occupied in the Trumple cranium was likely where I failed.
        foxglacier 4mo ago
  - defrost 4mo ago
    Netenyahu has been pushing the "Iran is building a nuke; they're literally a week away" line for decades. Trump and the day drinker were the first senior US officials to take that seriously - Trump kicked that off by neutering a working and workable international agreement that capped HEU levels and allowed routine inspection and on site monitoring agreement, with more stupidity following. Harris, and most other "traditional" (non MAGA) candidates typically follow the advice of the core military and intelligence services; it's unlikely any career politician would have jumped into open assault on either alleged drug boats or Iran.
  - krior 4mo ago
    Is Netanyahu now an official representative of the american government?
    - ben_w 4mo ago
      No, but neither was Musk, yet DOGE happened. Trump isn't just a malignant sadistic narcissist, he's also a vulnerable senior with dementia that others can exploit.
  - 8note 4mo ago
    netenyahu may have convinced trump tp go to war, but its the US that started the war. it would be a different case, and very likely a different iranian response if israel had started the war, and the US did its more typical "is nearby and shoots down missiles flying overhead"

watwut 4mo ago

Frankly, bullshit. Harris did not seemed more pro war or aggressive, unless you live in deep conservative bubble.

pjc50 4mo ago
The slight problem here is that the war was started by Netenyahu, whom US voters are unable to remove. But yes, I doubt Harris would have gone for the decapitation strike that destabilized everything.
- watwut 4mo ago
  War was started by Trump, Hegseth and Netenyahu. Hegseth specifically wants wars for emotional reasons - it makes him feel good. America has a lot of Iran hawks, especially in goverment/military circles. They got their way.
  - foxglacier 4mo ago
    See what I mean? America keeps starting wars in the middle east. Go back further in time and it was Obama, then Bush, then a little bit of Clinton, then the other Bush. It doesn't matter who or what party they're in, they mostly end up doing it anyway. No reason to think Harris would be anything different, especially considering her statements of promising military support to Israel.
    - saulapremium 4mo ago
      It sounds like you are trying to both-sides away the fact that Trump (or "Trump 2", if you insist) is an outlier here. US support for Israel has been pretty invariant over the years but nobody went along with Bibi's wet dream until now.
    - watwut 4mo ago
      No I dont see what you mean. You are trying to Harris sound the same as Trump. That is extremely dishonest framing. There is a reason why Israel and pro-Israel Americans went with Trump - because he was giving them a lot more of what they wanted. Trumps military/war track record so far is a.) Iran war b.) Venezuela kidnapping c.) pro-Russia stance in Ukraine d.) board of peace composed of dictators and murderers e.) regular boatsmen murders f.) trying to steal Greenland. The Harris "refuses to take pro-palestinian side and refuses to abandon Israel entirely, but still not enough for pre-Israel side to accept her" is weak sauce.
      - foxglacier 4mo ago
        We're talking about before his election. What made it predictable that Trump would bomb Iran but Harris wouldn't? Whoever the president is, the forces that make America fight wars seem to keep on successfully pushing them to do it. Both their parties started a lot of wars in the middle east with their previous presidents (Obama and Bush II).
        defrost 4mo ago
        Trump avoided briefings like they were his uglier children, famously first term rumours claimed the intelligence crowd had to dumb down two hour compact briefings to 5 minute cartoon animated toilet reading fodder. Harris has a background as a prosecutor and has a track record of being literate and processing stacked feet thick piles of paper. The force pushing to bomb Iran has always been Israel, the counter force has always been detailed backlogs of military exercises that relentlessly conclude that to be a bloody stupid idea. It was predictable that Harris would take good advice (and perhaps follow that), and equally predictable that Trump would bluster his way forward and ignore the existing weight of experience and prior exercises. FWiW I would not have predicted that Trump would stick himself into Iran ... I honestly thought he was stupid, just not that stupid. Although the Obama deal was famously one of his weird tic like bugaboos .. correctly factoring in how much room the former POTUS occupied in the Trumple cranium was likely where I failed.
        foxglacier 4mo ago
- defrost 4mo ago
  Netenyahu has been pushing the "Iran is building a nuke; they're literally a week away" line for decades. Trump and the day drinker were the first senior US officials to take that seriously - Trump kicked that off by neutering a working and workable international agreement that capped HEU levels and allowed routine inspection and on site monitoring agreement, with more stupidity following. Harris, and most other "traditional" (non MAGA) candidates typically follow the advice of the core military and intelligence services; it's unlikely any career politician would have jumped into open assault on either alleged drug boats or Iran.
- krior 4mo ago
  Is Netanyahu now an official representative of the american government?
  - ben_w 4mo ago
    No, but neither was Musk, yet DOGE happened. Trump isn't just a malignant sadistic narcissist, he's also a vulnerable senior with dementia that others can exploit.
- 8note 4mo ago
  netenyahu may have convinced trump tp go to war, but its the US that started the war. it would be a different case, and very likely a different iranian response if israel had started the war, and the US did its more typical "is nearby and shoots down missiles flying overhead"