Iran War?

[Razgovory]

However give me a second to rage againt my party. The goddamn Democratic Party. What a bunch of fuckers. Even in a totally symbolic vote to curb the war powers of the President, which would have been vetoed anyway, we had fuckers breaking ranks to suck Trump cock.

All four are large AIPAC beneficiaries. Probably a total coincidence... 

Yeah, we should have listen to the Aryan Nations about the Zionist Occupied Government.

[OttoVonBismarck]

So I think Trump very likely went into this war with little thought of "what do I do if Iran doesn't just cave right away?" But Israel I feel has a more realistic outlook on the region and Iran, so I suspect Netanyahu and his regime knew the odds of Iran just falling apart from aerial bombardment had to be low.

Do we think Israel's real motive is just massively degrading Iran's capabilities for the time being? Netanyahu has always seemed like his take on Israeli strategy is basically that they're always going to have to just keep revisiting issues like this and he's good with the idea of occasional regional wars. Bibi also personally benefits from "crisis mode" in Israel. Bonus for Israel that this war does appear to be ruining Iran's attempts the last few years to normalize relations with the Gulf States.

[The Minsky Moment]

I've said this before in other contexts (IIRC Russia-Ukraine) but IMO people tend to really underrate the degree to which wars end up with both sides losing.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yeah, we should have listen to the Aryan Nations about the Zionist Occupied Government.

I am concerned about how the angry antiwar wing of MAGA is tipping into virulent antisemitism, pushed by Owens and Carlson and the like.  Those ideas were already endemic in the population, but it is becoming more open and flagrant by the day.

[Bauer]

Trump now demands Irans unconditional surrender.

Who's going to tell him how that usually works?

[Valmy]

I was greatly disturbed by Witkoff's ramblings about "capitulation". Both he and Trump didn't seem to understand why Iran was taking a hardline stance given the asymmetry in military power. They are both real estate moguls from New York and it would appear that they think that everybody thinks like they do; which is quite a stupid error to make when you are dealing with hardline religious fundamentalists.

I'm hoping I'm wrong and a more amenable group of people take over Iran; but, if they don't , I have a gut feel that the war will be long, tedious and expensive in both blood and money.

What the sensible solution? The United States has only vague demands and has clearly shown we will not abide by any agreements. We attacked before and then rested up before attacking again. I just don't see any way out for Iran besides making this as painful as possible for the United States so we will stop attacking them. Or get a nuke.

What is this amenable group supposed to do with a state that refuses to abide by treaties and that repeatedly attacks for vague and unclear reasons, often striking surprise attacks in the middle of negotiations?

If the United States was in Iran's shoes I would have come to the logical conclusion that there is nothing to do but fight until our enemy finally agrees to back off.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Trump is writing checks with his mouth that would have to involve a ground invasion to cash. I very seriously doubt that will happen--for all of Trump's faults he fears the kind of failure I think that would represent. But he's setting himself up for obvious failure by making unrealistic maximalist demands in public.

[jimmy olsen]

I agree with Otto here

[Valmy]

However give me a second to rage againt my party. The goddamn Democratic Party. What a bunch of fuckers. Even in a totally symbolic vote to curb the war powers of the President, which would have been vetoed anyway, we had fuckers breaking ranks to suck Trump cock.

Perhaps you are seeking some sort of purity or uniformity that will never happen? I do not see how it is warranted to rage against the entire Democratic because of 4 shitty and irrelevant representatives.  Huh:

The Purity and Uniformity of wanting the Constitution abided by? The purity and uniformity of opposing a President who insists that every Democratic victory is a hoax and a stolen election? Is that really an unreasonably pure or radical position?

Then there is the tendency of the Democrats to come right to the verge of victory and then just coincidentally a few traitors, perfectly sized and situated, arrive to successfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Just wow what a coincidence. That was sure convenient if the party's goal was to just not pass anything. And this has happened over and over again for decades.

But I am sure it was just the firm personal convictions of these four guys. Who feel so strongly as to go against their own party, not even bother to explain themselves, and then leadership is weirdly ok with it.

Getting a little tired of it.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, we should have listen to the Aryan Nations about the Zionist Occupied Government.

I am concerned about how the angry antiwar wing of MAGA is tipping into virulent antisemitism, pushed by Owens and Carlson and the like.  Those ideas were already endemic in the population, but it is becoming more open and flagrant by the day.

Oh, certainly.  Tucker Carlson is now arguing that Chabad is the secret mastermind behind this war.  It's all a plot to destroy Al-Aqsa.  But what does it tell us when antiracists and racists are on the same page?  One side says "Soros", the other says "AIPAC".  It's like two people agreeing in different dialects.

The Gaza protests seemed to have opened this up.  Now, even leftists refuse to criticize antisemitism.  They opened a door and guys like Fuentes stepped right in.  And really, what else could you expect?  If you stand with people who say that killing Jews is worship of Allah, can really criticize the guys who rant about the Synagogue of Satan?

[The Minsky Moment]

He's saying unconditional surrender because he has a vague recollection of someone saying that when he watched Victory at Sea and it sounded badass. A couple of days from now he will forget it about like he forgot where his own father was born.  He'll deny ever saying it. At this point, it's pointless to talk about things he says as though he is concerned about being consistent or maintaining credibility.

[celedhring]

Trump now demands Irans unconditional surrender.

Who's going to tell him how that usually works?

Not gonna get that 100% warscore just by bombing, for sure. Need to take a few fortresses at least.

[garbon]

The Purity and Uniformity of wanting the Constitution abided by? The purity and uniformity of opposing a President who insists that every Democratic victory is a hoax and a stolen election? Is that really an unreasonably pure or radical position?

Then there is the tendency of the Democrats to come right to the verge of victory and then just coincidentally a few traitors, perfectly sized and situated, arrive to successfully snatch defeat from the jaws of victory? Just wow what a coincidence. That was sure convenient if the party's goal was to just not pass anything. And this has happened over and over again for decades.

But I am sure it was just the firm personal convictions of these four guys. Who feel so strongly as to go against their own party, not even bother to explain themselves, and then leadership is weirdly ok with it.

Getting a little tired of it.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98qm5m8dj6o

The House war powers resolution - rejected in a narrow vote of 219-212 - was largely symbolic and would have been unlikely to survive an expected veto from the president.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5769994-house-war-powers-iran/

The vote was largely symbolic, coming one day after the Senate killed a similar resolution along similar partisan lines. And some observers had questioned the Democrats' strategy of forcing the vote, since failure of the resolution is its own roundabout form of authorization for Trump to continue the strikes.

Democratic leaders dismissed those concerns, arguing for the importance of fighting to reestablish Congress's war powers as defined by the Constitution — and putting lawmakers on record for perpetuity.

"The Constitution is not ambiguous on this subject," House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) told reporters in the Capitol shortly before the vote. "There's no evidence that there was an imminent threat to the United States of America."

It didn't matter. I don't really see that there was a world in which it passed in the House and the Senate suddenly flips too.

Hakeem Jeffries is also quoted basically saying he wanted the vote for the same reasons you think so.

[crazy canuck]

Looks like the US is in another forever war.

[viper37]

Trump now demands Irans unconditional surrender.

Who's going to tell him how that usually works?

With a nuclear attack and the threat of a land invasion by an ally?