![Talonsight's tweet photo. Schools make it seem that Indian removal was unanimous in the early United States, but it wasn’t. There was a large opposition movement against it.
“Anti-removalism” among whites was made up of Christian churches, missionaries, radical reformers, and Whigs like Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and even Davy Crockett, whose No vote made him lose his next election in Tennessee and move to Texas, where he later died at the Alamo.
Jeremiah Evarts was a Christian reformer from Vermont who wrote “Essays on the Present Crisis in the Condition of the American Indians” under the name William Penn in 1829, which argued the Indian tribes were sovereign nations with rights to their ancestral lands, and that treaties with them must be morally and legally honored.
Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey basically filibustered the Senate on this bill:
“God, in his providence, planted these tribes on this Western continent, so far as we know, before Great Britain herself had a political existence. I believe, sir, it is not now seriously denied that the Indians are men, endowed with kindred faculties and powers with ourselves; that they have a place in human sympathy, and are justly entitled to a share in the common bounties of a benignant Providence.
[…] Do the obligations of justice change with the color of the skin? Is it one of the prerogatives of the white man, that he may disregard the dictates of moral principles, when an Indian shall be concerned? No, sir.”
Totally forgotten history](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDZsprJaMAA_fT9.jpg)
![Talonsight's tweet photo. Schools make it seem that Indian removal was unanimous in the early United States, but it wasn’t. There was a large opposition movement against it.
“Anti-removalism” among whites was made up of Christian churches, missionaries, radical reformers, and Whigs like Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and even Davy Crockett, whose No vote made him lose his next election in Tennessee and move to Texas, where he later died at the Alamo.
Jeremiah Evarts was a Christian reformer from Vermont who wrote “Essays on the Present Crisis in the Condition of the American Indians” under the name William Penn in 1829, which argued the Indian tribes were sovereign nations with rights to their ancestral lands, and that treaties with them must be morally and legally honored.
Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey basically filibustered the Senate on this bill:
“God, in his providence, planted these tribes on this Western continent, so far as we know, before Great Britain herself had a political existence. I believe, sir, it is not now seriously denied that the Indians are men, endowed with kindred faculties and powers with ourselves; that they have a place in human sympathy, and are justly entitled to a share in the common bounties of a benignant Providence.
[…] Do the obligations of justice change with the color of the skin? Is it one of the prerogatives of the white man, that he may disregard the dictates of moral principles, when an Indian shall be concerned? No, sir.”
Totally forgotten history](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDZsprCaMAMnRwJ.jpg)
Olivia
Online
ajshell1
@ajshell1
Fuck you, Keito Noguchi
United States
Joined August 2015
4K Following
820 Followers
27.9K Posts
There’s no overstating how extraordinary this Atlantic article is, given the author and the outlet.
As a reminder Bob Kagan is:
- The co-founder of Project for the New American Century, probably the single most imperialist Think Tank in Washington (which is quite a feat)
- A man who spent his entire life advocating for American military interventions, especially in the Middle East, and a vocal advocate of the Iraq war. He started advocating for intervention in Iraq before 9/11, which speaks for itself...
- The husband of Victoria Nuland, an extremely hawkish former senior U.S. official (a key architect of U.S. policy in Ukraine, with the consequences we all witness today)
- The brother of Frederick Kagan, one of the key architects of the Iraq surge
In other words, we ain’t exactly looking at some sort of anti-imperialist peacenik. This is quite literally the guy Dick Cheney called when he needed a pep talk.
And the man is writing in The Atlantic, the most reliably pro-war mainstream media outlet in the U.S. (also quite a feat).
So when HE writes that the U.S. “suffered a total defeat” in Iran that has no precedent in U.S. history and can “neither be repaired nor ignored,” it’s the functional equivalent of Ronald McDonald telling you the burgers aren’t great: it means the burgers really, really aren't great.
Extraordinarily (and somewhat worryingly, for me), his arguments for why this is such a defeat are virtually the same as those I laid out in my article “The First Multipolar War” last month (https://t.co/tbnOpdYqux).
Here they are 👇
1) Vietnam/Afghanistan were survivable, this isn't
He agrees that this war - and the U.S. defeat - is fundamentally different in nature from previous U.S. interventions.
Where I wrote that the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan didn’t change the equation much in terms of power dynamics (“in the grand scheme of things, the giant walked away with little more than a bruised ego”), Kagan writes that “the defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America's overall position in the world.”
And when I wrote that “it’s painfully obvious that the Iran war is of a qualitatively different nature” from these, he writes that “defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character.”
Same point.
2) Iran will never relinquish Hormuz and uses it as selective leverage
When I wrote that Iran has turned “freedom of navigation” on its head by establishing “a permission-based regime” through the Strait of Hormuz, Kagan arrives at the same conclusion: “Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations.”
He also agrees that “Iran has no interest in returning to the status quo ante,” when I myself cited Iran’s parliament speaker Ghalibaf in my article, saying: “The Strait of Hormuz situation won’t return to its pre-war status.” Same point and virtually the same words.
3) Gulf states will have to accommodate Iran
He agrees that most Gulf states will have no choice but to accommodate Iran, effectively making Iran into a, if not THE, dominant regional power.
Kagan writes “the United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran.”
On my end, I wrote that “the Gulf monarchies will eventually have to choose between two security propositions. One where they stay aligned with a distant superpower that [can’t protect them]. The other proposition being: make peace with the regional power that just proved it can hit [them] whenever it wants.” Which is not much of a choice…
4) Military impossibility to reopen Hormuz
Kagan writes that “if the United States with its mighty Navy can't or won't open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans' capability will be able to, either.”
On my end, in my article I cited Germany’s defense minister Boris Pistorius: “What does Trump expect a handful of European frigates to do that the powerful US Navy cannot?”
The exact same argument.
5) Global chain reaction
Kagan agrees that this is a global strategic failure that fundamentally changes the U.S.’s position in the world. As he puts it: “America's once-dominant position in the Gulf is just the first of many casualties… America's allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”
You’ll have guessed it, I wrote essentially the same thing: “Think about what it says if you’re Saudi Arabia, quietly watching your American-built defenses fail to protect your own refineries. Or any European country now facing the worst energy shock since 1973, caused not by your enemy but by your ally, and realizing that said ‘ally,’ supposedly in charge of ‘protecting’ you, couldn’t even protect Israel’s most strategic sites - when it’s the country with which it’s joined at the hip. I’m not even speaking about China or Russia who are seeing their worldview being validated on almost every axis simultaneously.”
6) Weapons stocks depleted, credibility shattered
Kagan: “just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight.”
Me: “America’s most advanced weapons systems are much more vulnerable than previously thought - not theoretically, but in actual combat.”
Kagan: “America's allies… must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”
Me: “The U.S. security guarantee has been empirically falsified in real time.”
-----------
So, yup, Bob Kagan and I agree on nearly everything. I need a shower 🤢
Reassuringly though, we still differ on a few fundamental aspects.
First of all, arguably the most important one, the moral aspect. In typical neocon fashion, his article contains not a word about the human cost of this war - not the 165 schoolgirls, not the devastation inflicted on Iranians during 37 days of bombing, not the toll this war is taking on the entire world through its devastating economic consequences (the economic devastation on ordinary people worldwide is referenced only as a political problem for Trump). For him, this is purely a strategic chess problem, morality and people don’t figure in his mental map.
For me, the moral bankruptcy of this war isn't separate from the strategic failure - it is the strategic failure. Much like Gaza can only be a failure because of its sheer abjectness.
Secondly, there is not an instant of reflection in the article on how we got there. Which is unsurprising because he personally, alongside his wife, his brother, and every co-signatory of every PNAC letter, spent a generation pushing for exactly this kind of confrontation. The man spend 30 years advocating for military dominance in the Middle East and hostility towards Iran, thereby forging them as an adversary and facilitating this very war that he now says has “checkmated” America.
I know introspection has never been the neocon forte but at some point you have to stop setting houses on fire and then writing op-eds about how surprising the smoke is.
Last but not least, we differ on what should be done. This is the funniest part of Kagan’s article - showing that the man is decidedly beyond salvation. On one hand he calls this a “checkmate” by Iran, and a U.S. defeat that can “neither be repaired nor ignored,” yet an the other hand his solution for it is… surprise, surprise… a bigger war still!
He writes that what’s to be done is “engage in a full-scale ground and naval war to remove the current Iranian regime, and then to occupy Iran until a new government can take hold.”
The arsonist's solution to the fire is a bigger fire ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
For my end, this was the conclusion of my previous article:
"There is almost a Greek tragedy quality to U.S. actions lately where every move taken to escape one’s fate becomes the mechanism that delivers it. The U.S. went to war to reassert dominance - and proved it could no longer dominate. It demanded allies send warships - and revealed it had no real allies. It waged forty years of maximum pressure to break Iran before this moment came - and instead forged the very adversary now capable of meeting it. It started the war in part to have additional leverage over China - and handed the world the spectacle of begging China for help. The prophecy was multipolarity. Every American action to prevent it reveals it instead."
I wouldn’t change a word. The only thing that's changed since I wrote it is that even the arsonists now smell the smoke.
Src for the Atlantic article: https://t.co/ItED9WS9Kn
![RnaudBertrand's tweet photo. There’s no overstating how extraordinary this Atlantic article is, given the author and the outlet.
As a reminder Bob Kagan is:
- The co-founder of Project for the New American Century, probably the single most imperialist Think Tank in Washington (which is quite a feat)
- A man who spent his entire life advocating for American military interventions, especially in the Middle East, and a vocal advocate of the Iraq war. He started advocating for intervention in Iraq before 9/11, which speaks for itself...
- The husband of Victoria Nuland, an extremely hawkish former senior U.S. official (a key architect of U.S. policy in Ukraine, with the consequences we all witness today)
- The brother of Frederick Kagan, one of the key architects of the Iraq surge
In other words, we ain’t exactly looking at some sort of anti-imperialist peacenik. This is quite literally the guy Dick Cheney called when he needed a pep talk.
And the man is writing in The Atlantic, the most reliably pro-war mainstream media outlet in the U.S. (also quite a feat).
So when HE writes that the U.S. “suffered a total defeat” in Iran that has no precedent in U.S. history and can “neither be repaired nor ignored,” it’s the functional equivalent of Ronald McDonald telling you the burgers aren’t great: it means the burgers really, really aren't great.
Extraordinarily (and somewhat worryingly, for me), his arguments for why this is such a defeat are virtually the same as those I laid out in my article “The First Multipolar War” last month (https://t.co/tbnOpdYqux).
Here they are 👇
1) Vietnam/Afghanistan were survivable, this isn't
He agrees that this war - and the U.S. defeat - is fundamentally different in nature from previous U.S. interventions.
Where I wrote that the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan didn’t change the equation much in terms of power dynamics (“in the grand scheme of things, the giant walked away with little more than a bruised ego”), Kagan writes that “the defeats in Vietnam and Afghanistan were costly but did not do lasting damage to America's overall position in the world.”
And when I wrote that “it’s painfully obvious that the Iran war is of a qualitatively different nature” from these, he writes that “defeat in the present confrontation with Iran will be of an entirely different character.”
Same point.
2) Iran will never relinquish Hormuz and uses it as selective leverage
When I wrote that Iran has turned “freedom of navigation” on its head by establishing “a permission-based regime” through the Strait of Hormuz, Kagan arrives at the same conclusion: “Iran will be able not only to demand tolls for passage, but to limit transit to those nations with which it has good relations.”
He also agrees that “Iran has no interest in returning to the status quo ante,” when I myself cited Iran’s parliament speaker Ghalibaf in my article, saying: “The Strait of Hormuz situation won’t return to its pre-war status.” Same point and virtually the same words.
3) Gulf states will have to accommodate Iran
He agrees that most Gulf states will have no choice but to accommodate Iran, effectively making Iran into a, if not THE, dominant regional power.
Kagan writes “the United States will have proved itself a paper tiger, forcing the Gulf and other Arab states to accommodate Iran.”
On my end, I wrote that “the Gulf monarchies will eventually have to choose between two security propositions. One where they stay aligned with a distant superpower that [can’t protect them]. The other proposition being: make peace with the regional power that just proved it can hit [them] whenever it wants.” Which is not much of a choice…
4) Military impossibility to reopen Hormuz
Kagan writes that “if the United States with its mighty Navy can't or won't open the strait, no coalition of forces with just a fraction of the Americans' capability will be able to, either.”
On my end, in my article I cited Germany’s defense minister Boris Pistorius: “What does Trump expect a handful of European frigates to do that the powerful US Navy cannot?”
The exact same argument.
5) Global chain reaction
Kagan agrees that this is a global strategic failure that fundamentally changes the U.S.’s position in the world. As he puts it: “America's once-dominant position in the Gulf is just the first of many casualties… America's allies in East Asia and Europe must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”
You’ll have guessed it, I wrote essentially the same thing: “Think about what it says if you’re Saudi Arabia, quietly watching your American-built defenses fail to protect your own refineries. Or any European country now facing the worst energy shock since 1973, caused not by your enemy but by your ally, and realizing that said ‘ally,’ supposedly in charge of ‘protecting’ you, couldn’t even protect Israel’s most strategic sites - when it’s the country with which it’s joined at the hip. I’m not even speaking about China or Russia who are seeing their worldview being validated on almost every axis simultaneously.”
6) Weapons stocks depleted, credibility shattered
Kagan: “just a few weeks of war with a second-rank power have reduced American weapons stocks to perilously low levels, with no quick remedy in sight.”
Me: “America’s most advanced weapons systems are much more vulnerable than previously thought - not theoretically, but in actual combat.”
Kagan: “America's allies… must wonder about American staying power in the event of future conflicts.”
Me: “The U.S. security guarantee has been empirically falsified in real time.”
-----------
So, yup, Bob Kagan and I agree on nearly everything. I need a shower 🤢
Reassuringly though, we still differ on a few fundamental aspects.
First of all, arguably the most important one, the moral aspect. In typical neocon fashion, his article contains not a word about the human cost of this war - not the 165 schoolgirls, not the devastation inflicted on Iranians during 37 days of bombing, not the toll this war is taking on the entire world through its devastating economic consequences (the economic devastation on ordinary people worldwide is referenced only as a political problem for Trump). For him, this is purely a strategic chess problem, morality and people don’t figure in his mental map.
For me, the moral bankruptcy of this war isn't separate from the strategic failure - it is the strategic failure. Much like Gaza can only be a failure because of its sheer abjectness.
Secondly, there is not an instant of reflection in the article on how we got there. Which is unsurprising because he personally, alongside his wife, his brother, and every co-signatory of every PNAC letter, spent a generation pushing for exactly this kind of confrontation. The man spend 30 years advocating for military dominance in the Middle East and hostility towards Iran, thereby forging them as an adversary and facilitating this very war that he now says has “checkmated” America.
I know introspection has never been the neocon forte but at some point you have to stop setting houses on fire and then writing op-eds about how surprising the smoke is.
Last but not least, we differ on what should be done. This is the funniest part of Kagan’s article - showing that the man is decidedly beyond salvation. On one hand he calls this a “checkmate” by Iran, and a U.S. defeat that can “neither be repaired nor ignored,” yet an the other hand his solution for it is… surprise, surprise… a bigger war still!
He writes that what’s to be done is “engage in a full-scale ground and naval war to remove the current Iranian regime, and then to occupy Iran until a new government can take hold.”
The arsonist's solution to the fire is a bigger fire ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
For my end, this was the conclusion of my previous article:
"There is almost a Greek tragedy quality to U.S. actions lately where every move taken to escape one’s fate becomes the mechanism that delivers it. The U.S. went to war to reassert dominance - and proved it could no longer dominate. It demanded allies send warships - and revealed it had no real allies. It waged forty years of maximum pressure to break Iran before this moment came - and instead forged the very adversary now capable of meeting it. It started the war in part to have additional leverage over China - and handed the world the spectacle of begging China for help. The prophecy was multipolarity. Every American action to prevent it reveals it instead."
I wouldn’t change a word. The only thing that's changed since I wrote it is that even the arsonists now smell the smoke.
Src for the Atlantic article: https://t.co/ItED9WS9Kn](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HIBa-IQacAAr9O1.jpg)
Proper Christian dilemma.
Kelvin: Pastor, according to the Bible, people are saved by accepting Jesus into their hearts, right?
David Oyedepo: Yes. Salvation comes through Christ alone.
Kelvin: Then I have a question. What happened to all the indigenous peoples of the Americas and Africa before European colonization? Entire civilizations existed for centuries without ever hearing about Jesus.
Oyedepo: God is merciful, kelvin.
Kelvin: But were they saved or not?
Oyedepo: The Bible says Christ is the only way to the Father.
Kelvin: Exactly. So were the Aztecs, Maya, Inca, and countless native tribes in Africa condemned simply because nobody reached them with the gospel of Jesus?
Oyedepo: We cannot fully understand the mysteries of God’s judgment.
Kelvin: But surely there are only two possibilities.
Oyedepo: Go on.
Kelvin: Either people who never heard of Jesus can still be saved…
Oyedepo: God may judge people according to how well they lived their lives, their works … or light available to them
Kelvin: Okay, but if that’s true, then Christianity becomes unnecessary for salvation.
Oyedepo: How do you mean?
Kelvin: Because if isolated people can be saved without hearing about Jesus, then humanity doesn’t actually need Christianity. We could simply live our lives and be judged by our actions and conscience…just like those indigenous people supposedly would be.
Oyedepo: Evangelism is still important.
Kelvin: But not necessary for salvation in that case. If people can reach heaven without Christianity, then Christianity is irrelevant as a requirement for salvation.
Oyedepo: Hmm.
Kelvin: But the other option is worse.
Oyedepo: Which is?
Kelvin: That people who never heard the gospel are automatically condemned.
Oyedepo: but The wages of sin is death.
Kelvin: But they never rejected Jesus. They were simply born in the wrong place and time. They were ignorant through no fault of their own.
Oyedepo: God’s ways are higher than ours.
Kelvin: Then that would mean Christianity describes a being willing to punish billions of people eternally for circumstances completely outside their control. It could even be argued that evangelizing to people is more likely to take them to hell than heaven since if they could live their lives without learning about Christianity and still make heaven , learning about the gospel but rejecting it because they were not convinced would take them to hell regardless of how they lived their life. Which makes evangelism a net negative for salvation.
Oyedepo: …
Kelvin: So either people can be saved without Christianity…. making Christianity irrelevant for salvation…or they cannot, which makes the Christian system evil because innocent ignorance becomes grounds for eternal punishment.
Oyedepo: Kelvin…
Kelvin: Either Christianity is unnecessary, or it is morally monstrous.
Oyedepo: We will be praying for you.
I really don't get why artists HATE their stuff being reupped to booru sites when:
>It gets properly attributed / sourced to them 99% of the time
>Their art is isn't at the whim of an algo which picks and choses who gets to see it or not on a whim
>Easier to look at their work without having to scroll 999 irrelevant food pics or reaction images in their media tab
There's basically no difference between it being on a booru site and pixiv other then pixiv they have more control over it - both are essentially just portfolios of their work.
@V4Mirai @naniwa_zuni Ngl I’m so mad about this, you guys waited months to give her back what’s rightfully hers after she was so upset about it. She had to make a new design, be faceless for months for you guys to give it back to her after the fact. 💔 Do better.
@V4Mirai I'm glad she's gotten her IP back, but I'm not going to praise you for doing what I would consider to be the bare minimum.
you absolutely do not have to do that
playing a character doesn't require absurd overreach into a talent's personal life
300 years before Christianity was invented by paul and co, 1000 years before Islam was invented by prophet Mohamed, An ancient Chinese philosopher said,
" pray all you want, heaven can't hear you... It's not going to stop the winter because you are cold, and it's not going to make the earth smaller because you don't want to walk so far
you pray for rain and it rains, but your prayer has nothing to do with it...sometimes you dont pray for rain and it rains anyways. What do you say then?
educate yourself , and think carefully about the consequences of your actions"
- xun zi
This statement strongly implies that members of Congress were informed by the administration today that ground operations are all but declared on Iranian territory.
Let me categorically state: there is nothing of strategic significance such a tiny force of a few thousand marines and airborne troops could accomplish. It will not open the Straits. It will not compel the Iranian gov to collapse or surrender. Sending these men into combat on a militarily unattainable mission is reprehensible.
If the president orders this operation, all the casualties that result will be an egregious and flagrant sacrifice of their lives to satisfy one man’s pride and arrogance, but in no way, shape or form, will they have died defending their country.
If I were a family member of any of these troops and my loved one was sent to death for the vanity of one man, I would be outraged.
As it turns out, I am outraged anyway, and all Americans should be if the lives of our service members are held in such content by our political leadership.
I’m sorry, then what was the purpose of the war?
One thing I’ll remember most about this time in history is that it was all preventable, but members of Congress were too fucking spineless to actually do their jobs
Just gonna paste this as a catch all response to some of the comments cuz im getting tired
Confucius says:
“If you call your allies cowards in February, don’t expect help in March you stupid cunt”.
Counter-Strike 2
Schools make it seem that Indian removal was unanimous in the early United States, but it wasn’t. There was a large opposition movement against it.
“Anti-removalism” among whites was made up of Christian churches, missionaries, radical reformers, and Whigs like Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and even Davy Crockett, whose No vote made him lose his next election in Tennessee and move to Texas, where he later died at the Alamo.
Jeremiah Evarts was a Christian reformer from Vermont who wrote “Essays on the Present Crisis in the Condition of the American Indians” under the name William Penn in 1829, which argued the Indian tribes were sovereign nations with rights to their ancestral lands, and that treaties with them must be morally and legally honored.
Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey basically filibustered the Senate on this bill:
“God, in his providence, planted these tribes on this Western continent, so far as we know, before Great Britain herself had a political existence. I believe, sir, it is not now seriously denied that the Indians are men, endowed with kindred faculties and powers with ourselves; that they have a place in human sympathy, and are justly entitled to a share in the common bounties of a benignant Providence.
[…] Do the obligations of justice change with the color of the skin? Is it one of the prerogatives of the white man, that he may disregard the dictates of moral principles, when an Indian shall be concerned? No, sir.”
Totally forgotten history
![Talonsight's tweet photo. Schools make it seem that Indian removal was unanimous in the early United States, but it wasn’t. There was a large opposition movement against it.
“Anti-removalism” among whites was made up of Christian churches, missionaries, radical reformers, and Whigs like Daniel Webster, Henry Clay, and even Davy Crockett, whose No vote made him lose his next election in Tennessee and move to Texas, where he later died at the Alamo.
Jeremiah Evarts was a Christian reformer from Vermont who wrote “Essays on the Present Crisis in the Condition of the American Indians” under the name William Penn in 1829, which argued the Indian tribes were sovereign nations with rights to their ancestral lands, and that treaties with them must be morally and legally honored.
Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey basically filibustered the Senate on this bill:
“God, in his providence, planted these tribes on this Western continent, so far as we know, before Great Britain herself had a political existence. I believe, sir, it is not now seriously denied that the Indians are men, endowed with kindred faculties and powers with ourselves; that they have a place in human sympathy, and are justly entitled to a share in the common bounties of a benignant Providence.
[…] Do the obligations of justice change with the color of the skin? Is it one of the prerogatives of the white man, that he may disregard the dictates of moral principles, when an Indian shall be concerned? No, sir.”
Totally forgotten history](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HDZsprOWoAAcLD8.jpg)
@WhiteHouse My beloved humans, I want you to be more thoughtful and full of love.
War is not a game.
Look folks, reality can sometimes be hard to accept.
We all want freedom for Iran. The regime was a horrible, nasty pack of religious zealots for whom terrorism & murder was always the first option. Their revolution started by killing 400 people in a theater with arson & chained exit doors. They sent thousand of kids to their deaths with toy keys around their necks promising entry to heaven if they just walk in to Iraqi minefields.
I’ve tracked IRGC terrorism across Iraq, Lebanon, Syria & Yemen and even fought them in the PG, They almost killed me in 1988. The Islamic regime needed/still needs to be destroyed … that said:
People are getting upset with why I assess this war will likely fail to topple the regime.
Because it is a fantasy based in Trump’s head using lethal tools we prepared for 47 years for the right moment. That moment likely has passed.
Trump has no idea what he’s doing. Because he has contempt for the people who know what they’re doing & the history of what came before him.
If Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires then Iran is the funeral home of empires. It dresses you up and lays you into the coffin neatly. Then closes the lid.
Trump cannot understand why Iran hasn’t surrendered … “Lookit all them bombs,” he shouts “They should all love Trump!”
That’s it. That’s the Iran-War strategy. He does not care about the people of Iran. It a score settling grudge match egged on by Netanyahu’s 40 years of promises that war will change the regime if we just drop enough bombs & assassinate its leaders.
So If you want to live in a fantasy world where we are suddenly being greeted as liberators by the 93 million Iranians … feel free.
You are now set up for earth shattering disappointment.
You have to account for the fact that Trump could have attacked in support of the protesters in January. He didn’t & he let them be killed. He was completely indifferent. The 30k dead were a one-day talking point.
Right now, none of these attacks will liberate Iran without a populist uprising or invading ground forces. Worse case is a sectarian Civil war. If that happens the only outcome is that it will kill a lot of people, splinter the country & take down the global economy. Trump will sleep soundly & demand he be made Ayatollah.
This is literally his mental illness masked as foreign policy
This war may give some Iranians hope but it’s a false one. Gird for a horrible chain of dramatic events but rest assured Trump doesn’t care about the people of Iran.
He only want its oil. He said so.
I’m sorry folks, but my job is to deliver reality based assessments, not promise you sunshine in a swirling hurricane of flying bullets, bombs, excrement & razor wire.
That is all.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
Trends for you
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk 
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
109.4M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
106.9M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.4M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.7M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
87.1M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.9M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.4M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.5M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.9M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.5M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.5M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
60.2M followers