US expected to send thousands more soldiers to Middle East, sources say(reuters.com)
reuters.com
US expected to send thousands more soldiers to Middle East, sources say
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-expected-send-thousands-soldiers-middle-east-sources-say-2026-03-24/
131 comments
It’s just embarrassing at this point. How long will the Americans put up with this humiliation ritual?
As long as a significant portion of the population continues voting for it.
Well let’s hope, as Bush once said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice… can’t get fooled again.”
Hopefully. They've bene fooled into voting for him 3 times already.
The US have been fooled by Israel for the past... thirty, forty years at least? Look who Trump is sending around the world to negotiate on behalf of the US: two committed Zionists, personal friends of Netanyahu and past financers of the Israeli army. The other negotiators regard them as Israeli assets, plain and simple. While they pretend to "negotiate", Israel launches surprise attacks that have not been agreed with the US and that forces them to intervene.
Either Russian propaganda is leaking into US, or people are being so easy to manipulate it's becoming scary.
What's the deal the US not having agency? Lol
Russia was manipulated by NATO and they were fooled over and over again, according to the state propaganda - if that was true, why are they still stuck with the fool who keeps being fooled? Isn't that the sign of a deficient leadership?
Same applies to the Trump administration, until when will that narrative stick?
Because the "common sense", a big trope used by both states propaganda, claims that you can only be fooled once lol
What's the deal the US not having agency? Lol
Russia was manipulated by NATO and they were fooled over and over again, according to the state propaganda - if that was true, why are they still stuck with the fool who keeps being fooled? Isn't that the sign of a deficient leadership?
Same applies to the Trump administration, until when will that narrative stick?
Because the "common sense", a big trope used by both states propaganda, claims that you can only be fooled once lol
The US has an eternal fool on the throne. Common sense also claims that you can only declare bankruptcy once, and never with a casino, yet here we are.
It is also very clear that both the US and Israel have very different mission objectives, which is why there's no way out for this admin. A long war may destroy Iran but will also help them in the long run - a war that they're eager to fight. Furthermore it has been established that Trump was goaded into this war by his benefactors, as well as Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman.
What Israel and US (and MBS) don't understand is that they've just enabled a country 3 times the size of France to go militant, in their backyard.
It is also very clear that both the US and Israel have very different mission objectives, which is why there's no way out for this admin. A long war may destroy Iran but will also help them in the long run - a war that they're eager to fight. Furthermore it has been established that Trump was goaded into this war by his benefactors, as well as Netanyahu and Mohammed bin Salman.
What Israel and US (and MBS) don't understand is that they've just enabled a country 3 times the size of France to go militant, in their backyard.
So funny that you moved the discussion from Israel to Russia. But after checking your comments I see that Russia lives rent-free in your mind.
> Either Russian propaganda is leaking into US, or people are being so easy to manipulate it's becoming scary.
Manipulation, double standards and bias are very difficult to avoid and an average human with a job just have no time to verify everything, so they just consume and the more they consume the more they believe in it.
> Either Russian propaganda is leaking into US, or people are being so easy to manipulate it's becoming scary.
Manipulation, double standards and bias are very difficult to avoid and an average human with a job just have no time to verify everything, so they just consume and the more they consume the more they believe in it.
Coming from a 4 day old account with comments defending the capitulation of Ukraine.
> defending the capitulation of Ukraine
Could you elaborate on that? I never said anything negative about Ukraine. Your manipulation is not working.
Could you elaborate on that? I never said anything negative about Ukraine. Your manipulation is not working.
No, I won't elaborate.
Stick to the topic instead of trying to deflect.
What did I say from my comment that was wrong regarding the propaganda trope?
Stick to the topic instead of trying to deflect.
What did I say from my comment that was wrong regarding the propaganda trope?
I read somewhere that Bush made this awkward figure of speech not because he didn't know the idiom, but because he realized too late that he'd be saying "shame on me" on air, which is apparently a phrase absolutely Verboten by political media advisors (because it could have been taken out of context and used by his adversaries). In a way that says a lot about the political culture that resulted in a figure like Trump, I think.
Seems like the better option is to simply say, "you know the rest of the saying".
Perhaps he actually just flubbed. Many such cases.
Perhaps he actually just flubbed. Many such cases.
[deleted]
Meet the new boss…
There's still people out there that believe the west is a "democracy"?
People really think voting, elections, politics in general is even real and not a reality show/circus act put on for the masses?
If you don't see why Trump is worse than Kamala or Clinton would have been, I don't know what to say. The reputation of the US is in the gutter. Even European people are now openly expressing their hatred.
Had the same thoughts earlier:
Even IF tomorrow would come a fresh "and super nice US president", Trump et al crushed so much that the damage is already severe and will be permanent for the future: US gov lost so much trust in more or less everything that was perceived as somehow reliable by others.
The damage is that big that -apart from BigTech- the US-industry will have a hard time coming
Even IF tomorrow would come a fresh "and super nice US president", Trump et al crushed so much that the damage is already severe and will be permanent for the future: US gov lost so much trust in more or less everything that was perceived as somehow reliable by others.
The damage is that big that -apart from BigTech- the US-industry will have a hard time coming
That's not why they got this.
In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on.
And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too. Just like they got wars under Obama.
No matter who they vote, the bastards always win.
In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on.
And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too. Just like they got wars under Obama.
No matter who they vote, the bastards always win.
They voted for a proven con-man because they hated the idea of a black woman being president. US Racism - still going strong after 250 years...
>They voted for a proven con-man because they hated the idea of a black woman being president. US Racism - still going strong after 250 years...
Same US that put a black man in the house for two terms?
Maybe they just hated the idea of a shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist being president...
Same US that put a black man in the house for two terms?
Maybe they just hated the idea of a shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist being president...
In fact no. It's well documented that the voters who put Trump in the White House weren't voting until Trump galvanized them. It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one
>It's well documented that the voters who put Trump in the White House weren't voting until Trump galvanized them
It's even more well documented that Kamala is a "shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist", that even her own Party heads dismissed as inadequate decoration until Biden's faculties went even more downhill.
>It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one
Which makes sense, since, native americans aside, it was such demographics that first populated and established the US, the overwhelming majority of the rest came later.
But it's irrelevant as an argument to what we're discussing.
It's even more well documented that Kamala is a "shallow-as-they-come transparently-just-a-puppet empty-headed political careerist", that even her own Party heads dismissed as inadequate decoration until Biden's faculties went even more downhill.
>It's also been well known for centuries that white men are the single largest demographic in the US and that it is also the most fragmented one
Which makes sense, since, native americans aside, it was such demographics that first populated and established the US, the overwhelming majority of the rest came later.
But it's irrelevant as an argument to what we're discussing.
There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party here with their dysfunctional internal infighting with just being down to racism.
Milquetoast uninspiring leader should still beat someone who outright hates everything about our country, divides rather than leads, and plans to sell our institutions for scrap value while putting the proceeds in his own pocket.
Although I think the people blaming it on racism are hopeful. The real answer is that it struck a chord with people who do not want women in leadership positions.
I remember reading an article when Harris was nominated, about how it was set up to be a "historic moment". Indeed, it was.
Although I think the people blaming it on racism are hopeful. The real answer is that it struck a chord with people who do not want women in leadership positions.
I remember reading an article when Harris was nominated, about how it was set up to be a "historic moment". Indeed, it was.
It was historic in the sense that there were no primaries, and that she was chosen by an embittered Biden to precisely result in this outcome.
I hadn't heard that motive specifically, care to send any links that substantiate it?
(to be clear, the article was of course using "historic" in the sense of the DEI groupthink - since there's no way Trump could win then won't it be super historic to have a Black woman president)
(and disclaimer: criticism of DEI virtue signalling is in no way an endorsement of Maggot vice signalling)
(to be clear, the article was of course using "historic" in the sense of the DEI groupthink - since there's no way Trump could win then won't it be super historic to have a Black woman president)
(and disclaimer: criticism of DEI virtue signalling is in no way an endorsement of Maggot vice signalling)
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/joe-biden-legacy...
This was not a move by Biden to position Kamala for a loss, but he certainly did not want Pelosi and the Democratic establishment to gloat on a win. Which is why he immediately endorsed Kamala for the presidency, right after announcing he was stepping down from the race.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fSK2AR594
Pelosi suggested there should have been an open primary after Biden dropped out. But Biden's endorsement ensured that they could not backtrack from Harris.
This was not a move by Biden to position Kamala for a loss, but he certainly did not want Pelosi and the Democratic establishment to gloat on a win. Which is why he immediately endorsed Kamala for the presidency, right after announcing he was stepping down from the race.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9fSK2AR594
Pelosi suggested there should have been an open primary after Biden dropped out. But Biden's endorsement ensured that they could not backtrack from Harris.
chosen by an embittered Biden? what kind of crazy hot take is this?
she was the VP of the US and 2nd in line for the presidency and had been hand picked for her role previously.
she was a incredibly obvious choice and would have had a very strong likelihood of getting the nod had there been actual primaries.
she was the VP of the US and 2nd in line for the presidency and had been hand picked for her role previously.
she was a incredibly obvious choice and would have had a very strong likelihood of getting the nod had there been actual primaries.
> she was the VP of the US and 2nd in line for the presidency and had been hand picked for her role previously.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/joe-biden-legacy...
Selection as VP doesn't mean by default that the running candidate/party endorses the candidate. Most often, VPs are chosen because they are harmless enough to become opposition to them, as a concession to a former opponent, or in most cases to bridge the demographic gap and reach out to a particularly marginalized segment of voters who are not adequately represented in governance.
> she was a incredibly obvious choice and would have had a very strong likelihood of getting the nod had there been actual primaries.
Lol, hell no. She already lost the primaries multiple times. She was extremely unpopular. In the 2020 elections, running with Biden helped boost her profile slightly, but back then Biden was a much more stronger candidate and his choice of running mate wouldn't have mattered - Trump was extremely unpopular then.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/15/politics/joe-biden-legacy...
Selection as VP doesn't mean by default that the running candidate/party endorses the candidate. Most often, VPs are chosen because they are harmless enough to become opposition to them, as a concession to a former opponent, or in most cases to bridge the demographic gap and reach out to a particularly marginalized segment of voters who are not adequately represented in governance.
> she was a incredibly obvious choice and would have had a very strong likelihood of getting the nod had there been actual primaries.
Lol, hell no. She already lost the primaries multiple times. She was extremely unpopular. In the 2020 elections, running with Biden helped boost her profile slightly, but back then Biden was a much more stronger candidate and his choice of running mate wouldn't have mattered - Trump was extremely unpopular then.
you should familirize yourself with Kamala Harris before saying she is not a leader - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris
While Democratic Party could have picked another candidate, to appease comments like this (I heard this too many times by a lot of very, very smart people so I am not demeaning your comment/opinion in any way) that other candidate would have been a white male
While Democratic Party could have picked another candidate, to appease comments like this (I heard this too many times by a lot of very, very smart people so I am not demeaning your comment/opinion in any way) that other candidate would have been a white male
My point is that she was a poor candidate both times, and OP blaming this all on racism gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves. Obama would have beat Trump handily (a hypothetical), and not lost due to racism.
Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black?
If we are like “black people can do everything” (which is true, of course), why are the political figureheads of that progressive dimension only half black?
And, beyond that, the black half of each is not even African American! Harris is African Jamaican, and Obama is African African.
If anything, in retrospect the birther thing back then seems like it may have been some absurdist well poisoning on totally valid criticism of Obama’s real heritage vs the media optics of same.
I thought civil rights was for African Americans? Why have all the political figureheads African Americans have, or have been, rallied behind, not themselves been African American at all?
Quite strange.
If we are like “black people can do everything” (which is true, of course), why are the political figureheads of that progressive dimension only half black?
And, beyond that, the black half of each is not even African American! Harris is African Jamaican, and Obama is African African.
If anything, in retrospect the birther thing back then seems like it may have been some absurdist well poisoning on totally valid criticism of Obama’s real heritage vs the media optics of same.
I thought civil rights was for African Americans? Why have all the political figureheads African Americans have, or have been, rallied behind, not themselves been African American at all?
Quite strange.
> Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black?
Yeah - the "One Drop" PoV was beyond strange:
> I thought civil rights was for African Americans?
It was for the benefit of anyone sent to the back of the bus, forced to drink from other fountains, lynched, etc. That included minorities other than "classic Black" and all the people treated as Black despite not appearing black.
Yeah - the "One Drop" PoV was beyond strange:
The one-drop rule was a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of Black African ancestry ("one drop" of "black blood") is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.
> I thought civil rights was for African Americans?
It was for the benefit of anyone sent to the back of the bus, forced to drink from other fountains, lynched, etc. That included minorities other than "classic Black" and all the people treated as Black despite not appearing black.
I’m confused. From tone you seem to be comparing what I’m saying to the one drop rule as if this doesn’t support what I’m saying, but it does support what I’m saying.
Why are progressives using the one drop rule?
Why are progressives using the one drop rule?
> Why are progressives using the one drop rule?
I suspect you meant to ask "Why are people using the One Drop Rule" ? - in no way is its use exclusive to ( USofA? ) "progressives".
I suspect you meant to ask "Why are people using the One Drop Rule" ? - in no way is its use exclusive to ( USofA? ) "progressives".
No, I mean it is in line with the general character of conservatives to use the one drop rule, so I’m not surprised if they are using it.
Why are progressives using the one drop rule?
Why are progressives using the one drop rule?
Late to reply, but assuming you are not American, Black folks in America are quite a spectrum of mixed race from their history. It's not unreasonable to call/identify themselves as black in this situation. I would not extrapolate to the extremes like some repliers are talking about "one drop", etc. That's not practically what the situation is.
I am American, though I don’t really feel culturally American for whatever reason.
Anyway, the vast, vast, vast majority of self identifying blacks living in America at the time of the civil rights movement were of imported-by-force African slave ancestry.
Are we to believe that those people, whose line did not even come here voluntarily, and who were treated as literally subhuman for centuries, just cared about anybody who identified as “black” anywhere in the world who would voluntarily immigrate to America in the future? To the point that they would consider those people’s wins as their own? Even when they themselves still lacked such wins?
I believe they were mostly concerned about themselves and their own descendants, actually. That’s how humans are. The thing people say they thought is basically propaganda as far as I can tell. I don’t believe just about anybody back at that time thought that way.
Now I do believe that people “with the zeitgeist”, so to speak, think what you are saying. But I’m not asking what they think.
Anyway, the vast, vast, vast majority of self identifying blacks living in America at the time of the civil rights movement were of imported-by-force African slave ancestry.
Are we to believe that those people, whose line did not even come here voluntarily, and who were treated as literally subhuman for centuries, just cared about anybody who identified as “black” anywhere in the world who would voluntarily immigrate to America in the future? To the point that they would consider those people’s wins as their own? Even when they themselves still lacked such wins?
I believe they were mostly concerned about themselves and their own descendants, actually. That’s how humans are. The thing people say they thought is basically propaganda as far as I can tell. I don’t believe just about anybody back at that time thought that way.
Now I do believe that people “with the zeitgeist”, so to speak, think what you are saying. But I’m not asking what they think.
0% chance Obama would have beat DJT in 2024, 0!
> gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves
I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Sadly, they just shuffled aparatchniks around instead of cleaning house. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was put on the House Appropriations committee after stepping down from DNC chair. Donna Brazile was rewarded with the DNC chairmanship after slipping CNN town hall questions in advance to HRC. I suspect that the self-reflection to fix themselves is just not in the DNC DNA, sadly.
America runs better when both parties are effective. Currently, neither are.
I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Sadly, they just shuffled aparatchniks around instead of cleaning house. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was put on the House Appropriations committee after stepping down from DNC chair. Donna Brazile was rewarded with the DNC chairmanship after slipping CNN town hall questions in advance to HRC. I suspect that the self-reflection to fix themselves is just not in the DNC DNA, sadly.
America runs better when both parties are effective. Currently, neither are.
> I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss.
Trump's admin is overtly sexist, and Russian interference in the 2024 elections is extensive and well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
You need to take a hard look at yourself and iron out all that cognitive dissonance.
Trump's admin is overtly sexist, and Russian interference in the 2024 elections is extensive and well documented.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
You need to take a hard look at yourself and iron out all that cognitive dissonance.
I talked about DNC governance and accountability after the 2016 primary, not denying that Russia conducts influence operations or that sexism exists in politics. Pointing to Russian interference in 2024 does not answer whether the DNC cleaned house after 2016, and it does not change the fact that Wasserman Schultz landed on Appropriations and Brazile became interim DNC chair.
Weird that you would divert main factual points into non-sequiturs and then accuse me of cognitive dissonance. If you are free of cognitive dissonance, you can now address the points I made, not ones I did not.
Weird that you would divert main factual points into non-sequiturs and then accuse me of cognitive dissonance. If you are free of cognitive dissonance, you can now address the points I made, not ones I did not.
> There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party (...)
As a non-USian this blend of opinion just reeks of blame-shifting.
You guys have a two-party system. One proposed a candidate that continued Biden's administration. The other was this hot mess. You guys picked this hot mess over Biden's regime.
If you looked at Trump and somehow decided a second Trump administration was better than a continuation of Biden's administration, the blame lays square on you. Not on Kamala. Not on the democratic party. Not on DEI. Nothing.
Own your mistakes. Do better.
As a non-USian this blend of opinion just reeks of blame-shifting.
You guys have a two-party system. One proposed a candidate that continued Biden's administration. The other was this hot mess. You guys picked this hot mess over Biden's regime.
If you looked at Trump and somehow decided a second Trump administration was better than a continuation of Biden's administration, the blame lays square on you. Not on Kamala. Not on the democratic party. Not on DEI. Nothing.
Own your mistakes. Do better.
> non-USian
We prefer to be called Americans, which is also the correct demonym; it derives from United States of America, and isn't used by any other country in English. If you can call someone from South Africa a "South African" instead of an "SAian," then the same logic applies to make someone from the United States an "American."
We prefer to be called Americans, which is also the correct demonym; it derives from United States of America, and isn't used by any other country in English. If you can call someone from South Africa a "South African" instead of an "SAian," then the same logic applies to make someone from the United States an "American."
However, Canada and Mexico are also in the North American continent, so "North American" also refers to Canadians and Mexicans, and that's specifying which part of the Americas we're talking about. The term "American" can equally apply to someone living in Brazil or Peru (or at least "South American").
To my mind, it always strikes me as hubris for the USA to pretend to be the whole American continent.
To my mind, it always strikes me as hubris for the USA to pretend to be the whole American continent.
But they had voted for a black man a few elections ago?
if racism is the main driver then why did Hilary lose?
I voted for kamala but i didnt find her appealing at all. i could never get a read on her, it was so strange.
To be fair, we also ended up with a proven con-man because Southern Democrats don't approve of gays enough to win the primary for Buttigieg and we ended up with Biden only 1 term.
This both sides thing is stupid. Though there's always some form of military actions under either Democrats or Republicans, Republicans consistently start unilateral (and illegal) wars that leave us in massive quagmires, leave power imbalances in the middle east, and destabilize things considerably.
Trump won on anti-war talking points. His owners had other ideas.
Anyone that believed that should be locked in a psycward
They voted to "stick it to the libs" because of how much podcasts made them feel upset.
If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.
If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.
> And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too
Eh?
Are you seriously comparing the disaster that is Mango Mussolini to the likes of (practically any) former president of the USA?
My friend, if all candidates are crap, you vote for the one that will do least harm. And then look at reforming a political system which leaves voters with such a poor choice.
Eh?
Are you seriously comparing the disaster that is Mango Mussolini to the likes of (practically any) former president of the USA?
My friend, if all candidates are crap, you vote for the one that will do least harm. And then look at reforming a political system which leaves voters with such a poor choice.
> In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on.
In fact they voted for a convicted felon and rapist that lies to everyone as soon as he opens his mouth. A serial bankrupt that stole money from a charity.
That was all on the table and yet his voters said loud and clear: That guy, that criminal, that one full of hate and anger, who lies and does about everything if it is in his self interest, that's the guy that represents us best.
e:
"No more wars" didn't seem to be their main issue. Just imagine, Trump won the war after a week of bombing. The Iran regime is toppled and a US-friendly dictator is installed.
Are really sure his voters would not celebrate the war and great general Trump?
In fact they voted for a convicted felon and rapist that lies to everyone as soon as he opens his mouth. A serial bankrupt that stole money from a charity.
That was all on the table and yet his voters said loud and clear: That guy, that criminal, that one full of hate and anger, who lies and does about everything if it is in his self interest, that's the guy that represents us best.
e:
"No more wars" didn't seem to be their main issue. Just imagine, Trump won the war after a week of bombing. The Iran regime is toppled and a US-friendly dictator is installed.
Are really sure his voters would not celebrate the war and great general Trump?
Why on earth would anyone vote based on a Trump campaign promise?
I'm sorry but this is silly. I didn't vote for Obama either time but there is no comparison between Trump and Obama. Nothing Obama did had the negative impact like Trump's attack on Iran.
It’s been going on for a very long time. Remember USS Liberty?
It's everything they voted for...
If you take Russia as a boilerplate; never. Trump will "trickle down" the corruption to just enough people to keep everyone complacent and do as he wills.
I think "humiliation ritual" is a hugely important concept to keep in mind these days: It has a lot of explanatory power for the stuff we're seeing in politics. (For example, televised Trump cabinet meetings where the brown-nosing is almost beyond parody.)
A cult will demand members do things to "fit in", especially things that have a cost ("prove your sincerity") and also things which alienate them from the non-group. The latter is a ratcheting trap, leading to: "We are your only home now, nobody else will have you."
A cult will demand members do things to "fit in", especially things that have a cost ("prove your sincerity") and also things which alienate them from the non-group. The latter is a ratcheting trap, leading to: "We are your only home now, nobody else will have you."
It’s the psychological effect of a Mormon mission. Spend two years getting hate from all angles, teaching you just how good your home, family, and church are. Every ex-mormon I know contemplated suicide on their mission. Every practicing Mormon I know has a story about “their lowest point” and how actually it was a really really good thing if you think about it sideways
As long as their leaders care more about Israel than the nation they were sworn in to serve.
The response from Ted Cruz in the interview with Tucker Carlson was glaring, yet refreshing - it went from silly conspiracy to fact, overnight.
The response from Ted Cruz in the interview with Tucker Carlson was glaring, yet refreshing - it went from silly conspiracy to fact, overnight.
> As long as their leaders care more about Israel than the nation they were sworn in to serve.
Trump's wars and military threats (Greenland, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, etc) have more to do with Trump's ties to Epstein than Israel's foreign policy. The extent to which Russia and Israel manipulate Trump with kompromat is to be determined.
Trump's wars and military threats (Greenland, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, etc) have more to do with Trump's ties to Epstein than Israel's foreign policy. The extent to which Russia and Israel manipulate Trump with kompromat is to be determined.
So the Iraq war also was not tied to Israel's foreign policy? So it was just a coincidence that Netanyahu had been advocating for these wars? It was just a coincidence that the US got involved in last years 12 day war after Israel initiated the bombings in Iran?
Epstein represented the Rothschildes, the family that founded Israel. His girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell is a Mossad asset. Separating Trump’s influence by Epstein from Trump’s influence by Israel isn’t possible. The two are intertwined.
Quit it. Peddle your antisemitism elsewhere.
They’ll call you an antisemite, but never a liar.
Right, because we do believe that you believe what you're saying.
20 years.
So many people make so much money from it. I don’t personally this time but I did last time working for tech. Maybe I will again next time. This is the third time America been “humiliated” in my life and my life is awesome and getting better.
/s
But that is the overall sentiment if I had to describe it without pretense
/s
But that is the overall sentiment if I had to describe it without pretense
Who are the hackers?
The whole Western power against a deserted country and the USA will send young walking soldiers. AI, robots/drones, space tech, international hegemony, all inferior to a guy with a long gun.
Can there be any acceptable way out of this that doesn’t look like the Nuremberg trials?
It’s not like there can be any doubt about the criminality of all this, especially after Hegseth's “no quarter” comments. Hegseth explicitly stated that the current US policy is to summarily execute surrendering combatants!
It’d be convenient though, we could even use the same rope to hang both Trump and Putin.
It’s not like there can be any doubt about the criminality of all this, especially after Hegseth's “no quarter” comments. Hegseth explicitly stated that the current US policy is to summarily execute surrendering combatants!
It’d be convenient though, we could even use the same rope to hang both Trump and Putin.
White House said they'll bomb the energy sector if Iranians don't comply. That would be a war crime. Yes, Russia has been doing that for years, but a US president saying that is a new low.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-iran-trade-t...
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-iran-trade-t...
Nuremberg trials sounds good to me. Not that it's realistic though.
the only way cheeto is going to peacefully leave office is force. he's facing so many incredibly felonies, as does his family and associates, that he / they cannot.
they will burn the US to the ground before they face justice. it will require force, and once you have a mob angry enough to do that we'll see Nuremberg. Or perhaps something closer to Spanish or French revolutionary actions.
they will burn the US to the ground before they face justice. it will require force, and once you have a mob angry enough to do that we'll see Nuremberg. Or perhaps something closer to Spanish or French revolutionary actions.
Dunno. After Jan 6th we got Merrick Garland going um, er... for a few years until it was too late. I'm not holding my breath for Nuremberg 2.
sending young americans off to die for israels relgious war and bury epstein news. the entire usa still operating my team vs your team. president trump is pedophile child rapist and noone can bother to care. sad times all around
[deleted]
Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly?
Far too calmly. This is exactly why the Constitution requires Congress to declare war - so that we can't wind up in a war because of the decisions of one man.
Sure wish that was still in force...
Sure wish that was still in force...
Congress can stop it at any time. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5799286-iran-war-powers-...
This was true of past conflicts as well. Doe v. Bush tried to challenge the Iraq Resolution because Congress had not declared war, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Congress had not opposed funding the war. The sad reality is that this is what the people had voted for, and the government is still working as intended.
This was true of past conflicts as well. Doe v. Bush tried to challenge the Iraq Resolution because Congress had not declared war, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Congress had not opposed funding the war. The sad reality is that this is what the people had voted for, and the government is still working as intended.
>Congress can stop it at any time.
No. Your congress can't stop it because it takes two to tango and Iran is clearly not willing to end the war just like that.
You people should have stopped that criminal long ago.
No. Your congress can't stop it because it takes two to tango and Iran is clearly not willing to end the war just like that.
You people should have stopped that criminal long ago.
Sure, but do we agree that the unitedstatesian's (pet peeve: they shouldn't be called americans, per definition) Congress could at least stop one side of the war (the one that initiated the aggression). The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation.
The US would then need to comply with whatever sanctions the UN might apply due to them having started an illegal war.
The US would then need to comply with whatever sanctions the UN might apply due to them having started an illegal war.
> The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation.
I highly doubt it. Here are the facts from the viewpoint of Iran:
- The US and the UK overthrew the democratic iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh
- The US terminated the working nuclear deal.
- The US ambushed Iran twice in the midst of ongoing negotiations.
- Israel is on a conquest to annex new land and to rule over the middle east. At least that is likely there goal.
Iran clearly stated their demands. The US should pay up for the damage they caused and the US should give up its military bases in the Arab countries.
While the money will probably not be that big of a problem to negotiate, the military bases will be. At least Iran will insist on something substantive that guarantees that they are not ambushed a third time.
I highly doubt it. Here are the facts from the viewpoint of Iran:
- The US and the UK overthrew the democratic iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh
- The US terminated the working nuclear deal.
- The US ambushed Iran twice in the midst of ongoing negotiations.
- Israel is on a conquest to annex new land and to rule over the middle east. At least that is likely there goal.
Iran clearly stated their demands. The US should pay up for the damage they caused and the US should give up its military bases in the Arab countries.
While the money will probably not be that big of a problem to negotiate, the military bases will be. At least Iran will insist on something substantive that guarantees that they are not ambushed a third time.
you also left out all of the now-burning Middle Eastern powers, all of whom also hate Iran, and who won't just go away.
The US can take their ball and go home to a different hemisphere, but ME violence will continue.
IMO the real question is how long the Arabs will let Israel dictate their foreign policy via the US
The US can take their ball and go home to a different hemisphere, but ME violence will continue.
IMO the real question is how long the Arabs will let Israel dictate their foreign policy via the US
- Israel killed Irans negotiations last year as well.
But from the non-Iranian point of view, those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. So that's going to be problematic.
I mean, the US could unilaterally decide "no, we're not going to defend the Middle East anymore, good luck everybody" and leave. But it's not like the US is oppressing, say, Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
I mean, the US could unilaterally decide "no, we're not going to defend the Middle East anymore, good luck everybody" and leave. But it's not like the US is oppressing, say, Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
> those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran.
As far as I know: Israel and Saudi Arabia want these bases. I do not know the current opinion of the other Arab countries.
> Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
At least they are now noticing that there are risks in hosting the US military too.
> “One of the most significant outcomes of this war is the shattering of the concept of a regional security system in the Gulf region,” Mr. al-Ansari said. “The regional security framework in the Gulf was based on certain axioms. Many of these axioms have been bypassed in the current war.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/world/middleeast/qatar-us...
As far as I know: Israel and Saudi Arabia want these bases. I do not know the current opinion of the other Arab countries.
> Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
At least they are now noticing that there are risks in hosting the US military too.
> “One of the most significant outcomes of this war is the shattering of the concept of a regional security system in the Gulf region,” Mr. al-Ansari said. “The regional security framework in the Gulf was based on certain axioms. Many of these axioms have been bypassed in the current war.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/world/middleeast/qatar-us...
> At least they are now noticing that there are risks in hosting the US military too.
Exactly. It's like having a douchebag "friend" over that then goes ahead to sleep with some neighbor's wife. Suddenly, your car is scratched, everyone in your neighborhood hates you, and he just up and leaves you to pick up the pieces.
Although in this case the US — the douchebag "friend" — it would be more apt to say that they actually murdered some of the neighbors' daughters and jointly attacked with some racist buddy another neighborhood and went on a rampage burning random houses down while gunning down the parents trying to take them to court.
Exactly. It's like having a douchebag "friend" over that then goes ahead to sleep with some neighbor's wife. Suddenly, your car is scratched, everyone in your neighborhood hates you, and he just up and leaves you to pick up the pieces.
Although in this case the US — the douchebag "friend" — it would be more apt to say that they actually murdered some of the neighbors' daughters and jointly attacked with some racist buddy another neighborhood and went on a rampage burning random houses down while gunning down the parents trying to take them to court.
[deleted]
> Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly?
Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties.
Trump's wars are none of the above. Mobilizing a couple thousand troops here and there for a war that can be orders of magnitude more intensive than Iraq War V2 and without any semblance of support is a clear sign of starting a war while signaling their own impending defeat.
Let's not fool ourselves: the only parties benefiting from this nonsense is Russia and China.
Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties.
Trump's wars are none of the above. Mobilizing a couple thousand troops here and there for a war that can be orders of magnitude more intensive than Iraq War V2 and without any semblance of support is a clear sign of starting a war while signaling their own impending defeat.
Let's not fool ourselves: the only parties benefiting from this nonsense is Russia and China.
> Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties.
I think you mean the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The Iraq War, 2003 - ~2011, had relatively little international support, was poorly planned (they promised no more than 6 weeks, had no plans for occupation, etc.), and was spent fighting Iranian-backed militias and ISIS.
I think you mean the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The Iraq War, 2003 - ~2011, had relatively little international support, was poorly planned (they promised no more than 6 weeks, had no plans for occupation, etc.), and was spent fighting Iranian-backed militias and ISIS.
The 2003 Iraq war was a pretty decisive military victory for the invaders. Iraqi command and control destroyed in the opening stages. About a month to complete occupation of the country.
The subsequent years were a complete clusterfuck. Largely because of a missing theory of victory, the inept neocons the administration selected to run the civilian side, and the lack of strategic military-civilian coordination.
The subsequent years were a complete clusterfuck. Largely because of a missing theory of victory, the inept neocons the administration selected to run the civilian side, and the lack of strategic military-civilian coordination.
What you say is essentially accurate and we're debating semantics, but about those semantics:
Wars end with political solutions (otherwise, people keep fighting), and the US didn't achieve a political solution the first month, and never achieved a particularly desirable one. One step they took was dissolving the Iraqi army or military, and those people reformed into militias that continued fighting the US. Was the war really over?
The US won initial battles, as expected. The war lasted much longer.
Wars end with political solutions (otherwise, people keep fighting), and the US didn't achieve a political solution the first month, and never achieved a particularly desirable one. One step they took was dissolving the Iraqi army or military, and those people reformed into militias that continued fighting the US. Was the war really over?
The US won initial battles, as expected. The war lasted much longer.
Granted! But that's insurgencies vs wars IMHO. In one, you have irregulars trying to bleed an occupying power. In the other, you have regular military forces.
The US is great at winning the latter, but sucks at winning the former (largely because of a lack of coherent political-diplomatic-military fusion on the US side).
The US is great at winning the latter, but sucks at winning the former (largely because of a lack of coherent political-diplomatic-military fusion on the US side).
> The US is great at winning the latter, but sucks at winning the former
Also, enemies aren't suicidal. Why would they take on US tanks, fighter planes, missiles, satellites, etc. for more than five minutes? They know they can't win that way so they quickly abandon it for what does have some success, irregular warfare / insurgency.
Also, enemies aren't suicidal. Why would they take on US tanks, fighter planes, missiles, satellites, etc. for more than five minutes? They know they can't win that way so they quickly abandon it for what does have some success, irregular warfare / insurgency.
I think this war has been planned copiously and the fact that the front man makes it look stupid and takes all the blame is part of the plan
this never ends well....
Yeah but he painted himself into a corner with the Hormuz thing.
exabrial(3)