Alright, move along, nothing to see here, woke Reich Panicans - the Iran war has long been over and you were WRONG about a predictions of a long quagmire that destroys the country & Europe with refugees.
The first criticism? By whom? It's literally all you guys bring up, while telling us that we're not allowed to bring up Iraq. No word on which of the glorious regime changes we are allowed to bring up. You didn't answer that when you chided me for bringing up Iraq.
The loony tune "I'll believe whatever Trump tells me to" brigade literally brags "HEY, NO 20 YEAR QUAGMIRE" the day after. Yes, Mark, it's been 24 hours. We haven't had time for a 20 year quagmire. It's like a guy who smokes three packs in a day and, when cancer fails to materialize the day after, brags about how all the people who said that this would have long-term consequences were totally wrong.
And since when is it wrong to warn against quite predictable results from the actions of war pigs? Which of their 'interventions' turned out well again? That all of nothing.
and tens of thousands of American dead. That, obviously, didn't happen.
I can assure you that warmongers are going to warmonger until it does. It was thousands, and it was said in the context of the regime change demanded by the war pigs. Which, in fact, did happen in the case of Iraq, so the non-crazies have history on their side.
Can we at least accept that if the Ayatollah's government collapses
Can we at least accept that the war pigs who advocate for regime change in Iran were monumentally, disastrously wrong about every single regime change that they previously advocated?
but can we at least agree on that?
Can we at least agree that there will not be an alien invasion if the "Ayatollah's government" collapses?
"You guys". AoV, it's me. I don't know if you realize this, but I'm not acting in bad faith with you here. And if I didn't answer you, I suspect it was because I literally couldn't keep up with your constant multi-threaded replies, in multiple comments. Come on now. I'm not gonna stay in the same thread for days.
Tucker was the one running with the WW3 thing.
I can assure you that warmongers are going to warmonger until it does.
Okay, but in order to make a prediction, we have to establish a timeframe. We can't just bound a prediction by "any time in the future". WW3 didn't happen and thousands of Americans didn't die in the exchange of fire between the US and Iran. Fair enough if you say that the conflict isn't really over, just like it's not really true to say that the war in Gaza and the war with Iran are two different things, when they're really the same offensive. There's you're steelman.
However, I can say that thousands of Americans didn't die in Panama, Grenada, Haiti. Nor did thousands of BritBongs die in The Falklands. It must be reasonable to say, that even if adventurism continues, it is not reasonable to argue that seizing Noriega would kill thousands of Americans in a protracted civil war in Panama, as it has been 3 decades.
Where can we establish a time frame on these events? 1 year? 5 years?
Can we at least accept that the war pigs who advocate for regime change in Iran were monumentally, disastrously wrong about every single regime change that they previously advocated?
No, because as cited above, the war pigs have been at this for some time, and some regime changes did not turn out to be a disaster, and I would identify a disaster as 'quagmire that lasts at least 5 years of at least Battalion sized infantry conflict'. Let's say they were disastrously wrong about Iraq and Lybia, but not about Grenada.
Can we at least agree that there will not be an alien invasion if the "Ayatollah's government" collapses?
Which aliens to where. If the Iranian government collapses, I would suspect Iranians would go back, even to fight. Frankly, I think the idea of a massive refugee crisis to the west is a myth. We weren't flooded by refugees from countries that were destroyed by us, that was Lebanon. We were flooded by countries, most of whom were not at war, by people who were invited in by our own governments. If we had no incentive system, we would have recieved no refugees.
"You guys". AoV, it's me. I don't know if you realize this, but I'm not acting in bad faith with you here.
I did my best to frame it as criticisms of other people and hypotheticals, so you wouldn't think that I'm going after you personally. But this was one thing that you didn't do. You told me that I shouldn't bring up Iraq, but then didn't say what I could bring up, even though I think you did reply to that comment.
Tucker was the one running with the WW3 thing.
Then ask him. What does that have to do with everyone else? And there are serious limits to this "hey, it's not been a disaster so far". People warned me not to play Russian Roulette, but I've played it three times already and I'm still here!
We can't just bound a prediction by "any time in the future".
I disagree. Blowback often does come 'any time in the future'. So whenever a country wants to do a war crime, it has to keep that in mind.
WW3 didn't happen and thousands of Americans didn't die in the exchange of fire between the US and Iran. Fair enough if you say that the conflict isn't really over
No one here said WW3, and thousands was contingent on Trump doing what the maximalist war pigs demanded: a regime change. And as you say, it's not done yet. Even when it's done, it was 25 years after Mossadegh that the Ayatollah came to power.
No, because as cited above, the war pigs have been at this for some time, and some regime changes did not turn out to be a disaster,
The most recent 'not a disaster' was 1989. And even there. "Thousands of dead" is not the only measure of a massive failure.
Which aliens to where
From Omicron Persei 8.
We weren't flooded by refugees from countries that were destroyed by us, that was Lebanon. We were flooded by countries, most of whom were not at war, by people who were invited in by our own governments. If we had no incentive system, we would have recieved no refugees.
I'm talking about Europe. Syria was destroyed by the US. And we paid the price.
I did my best to frame it as criticisms of other people and hypotheticals, so you wouldn't think that I'm going after you personally
I'm sorry, I was confused. I don't consider myself to be on a faction on adventurism. I am just going to tolerate geo-political realism first; and then any moral impious as a added bonus if it's right.
You told me that I shouldn't bring up Iraq, but then didn't say what I could bring up, even though I think you did reply to that comment.
I don't remember saying that to you. I just, genuinely, don't see the kind of Paul Wolfowitz style Neo-Con regime change plans here. I don't see ambition of a Neo-Liberal Empire to change a people, just effect a policy and geo-political maneuvering. I don't see the same thing.
Then ask him. What does that have to do with everyone else?
Well, that's where the WW3 refrain came from is all, and that's what I've seen criticized the most. I'm not really talking about anyone here in particular, or conversations that took place here.
I disagree. Blowback often does come 'any time in the future'. So whenever a country wants to do a war crime, it has to keep that in mind.
Blowback is different from Quagmire. I brought up the Philippines before, and this is good case for that. The murderous, adventurist, imperialist, American conquest of the Philippines create blowback in the form of slow, methodical, but actually amicable subversion of the American control over the islands. It became a peaceful independent movement that successfully negotiated the independence of the Island, and the creation of a friendly state. But the Philippines never became a quagmire.
Even in the event that something went bizarre, and the Philippines decided to go to a hot-war with the Americans at some point; the quagmire would not have been a result of the initial conquest, but in response to the Philippines aggression at that point in time. Even unjust imperial conquests do not have to result in quagmire or disaster for the empire.
The most recent 'not a disaster' was 1989. And even there. "Thousands of dead" is not the only measure of a massive failure.
I don't consider that to be a failure because it was never about drugs or killing nuns. It was about one man jeopardizing shipping in the most important canal in the world.
From Omicron Persei 8
Well, in that case, I'm from Buenos Ares, and I say kill 'em all!
I'm talking about Europe. Syria was destroyed by the US. And we paid the price. I don't appreciate that, OK?
I'm aware you're talking about Europe, and that was my point. There was no ME refugee crisis in Europe. That was merely an excuse to import them. No one had to let them in, and hardly any of them were Syrian or Iraqi. The Cologne Rape Riot wasn't the result of George Bush, it was the result of Angela Merkel. If the Iraq War or Syrian Civil War had never happened, the Rape Riot would have still happened because Merkel would have found warm bodies to rape women and children.
I'm sorry, I was confused. I don't consider myself to be on a faction on adventurism. I am just going to tolerate geo-political realism first; and then any moral impious as a added bonus if it's right.
Is waging wars of aggression for Israel and for the deep state neocons "realism" now?
I don't remember saying that to you. I just, genuinely, don't see the kind of Paul Wolfowitz style Neo-Con regime change plans here. I don't see ambition of a Neo-Liberal Empire to change a people, just effect a policy and geo-political maneuvering. I don't see the same thing.
Ah, so that is why you framed "Libya" as an attempt to create a neoliberal whatever, because you wanted to dissociate it from very similar actions now. Truth is, that was the same, and don't go around telling me that the coordinates in spacetime are different.
Well, that's where the WW3 refrain came from is all, and that's what I've seen criticized the most. I'm not really talking about anyone here in particular, or conversations that took place here.
You've "seen" it criticized the most, so you bring it up to people who haven't made that argument? When I see a strawman, I don't bring it up to you when you haven't advocated for it.
Blowback is different from Quagmire.
Quagmire is a subset of blowback.
But the Philippines never became a quagmire.
Wasn't there an insurgency? What qualifies as a quagmire?
Even in the event that something went bizarre, and the Philippines decided to go to a hot-war with the Americans at some point; the quagmire would not have been a result of the initial conquest, but in response to the Philippines aggression at that point in time.
So... when they try to take their own country back, you go "you're trying to take what I've rightfully stolen"?
All of this makes no sense, and I can't believe you're actually making these arguments with a straight face. It's just so absurd. Of course taking other people's lands, even if they later "aggress" in trying to take it back, is the ultimate cause of the initial aggression. If I kick you out of your home, and you lived with it for a year, and then tried to kick me out... then it's not your aggression.
Americans pretend to believe in all sorts of things, but ultimately, it's just "might makes right".
I don't consider that to be a failure because it was never about drugs or killing nuns. It was about one man jeopardizing shipping in the most important canal in the world.
The first part is definitely true, but under the pretexts sold to Americans, it was a big, fat failure.
Well, in that case, I'm from Buenos Ares, and I say kill 'em all!
FYI: there is no Buenos Aires in Guadalajara.
I'aware you're talking about Europe, and that was my point. There was no ME refugee crisis in Europe. That was merely an excuse to import them. No one had to let them in, and hardly any of them were Syrian or Iraqi.
We're run by traitors, and America gave them a casus belli to take in people ruining our countries.
The Cologne Rape Riot wasn't the result of George Bush, it was the result of Angela Merkel. If the Iraq War or Syrian Civil War had never happened, the Rape Riot would have still happened because Merkel would have found warm bodies to rape women and children.
Nope. She wouldn't have been able to. I do agree that it's not solely the fault of George Bush and Obama's dirty war in Syria. Merkel, Obama ans Bush are all 100% responsible as far as I'm concerned.
I can't believe you're actually making these arguments with a straight face. It's just so absurd. Of course taking other people's lands, even if they later "aggress" in trying to take it back, is the ultimate cause of the initial aggression. If I kick you out of your home, and you lived with it for a year, and then tried to kick me out... then it's not your aggression.
Yes it is. The initial conflict ended, and I lost. I now, regardless of justification, would have to aggress upon you to take it away from you. It's not "in the process of being stolen", it's actually stolen. Even if you took my house from me, I have to attack you to get it back. I'm not defending against you because the defense failed.
Traitors don't need causus belli from someone else. They already have it for themselves.
The "protests" are already swarmed with pro-Israel shooters to create violence and casualties. They got the satellite telephones. (according to insiders)
Just like the Roman Empire, just like Ceausescu, Iran will fall because parasites want to steal wealth from single men. And for what? Natalists want more children so that they can molest them. They are Epstein.
Alright, move along, nothing to see here, woke Reich Panicans - the Iran war has long been over and you were WRONG about a predictions of a long quagmire that destroys the country & Europe with refugees.
Don't you worry. Razorfag is going to explain to you why you are wrong.
The first criticism was that it would be WW3 and tens of thousands of American dead. That, obviously, didn't happen.
Can we at least accept that if the Ayatollah's government collapses, that would not cause WW3?
I'm not going to say there will be no Civil War or quagmire, but can we at least agree on that?
The first criticism? By whom? It's literally all you guys bring up, while telling us that we're not allowed to bring up Iraq. No word on which of the glorious regime changes we are allowed to bring up. You didn't answer that when you chided me for bringing up Iraq.
The loony tune "I'll believe whatever Trump tells me to" brigade literally brags "HEY, NO 20 YEAR QUAGMIRE" the day after. Yes, Mark, it's been 24 hours. We haven't had time for a 20 year quagmire. It's like a guy who smokes three packs in a day and, when cancer fails to materialize the day after, brags about how all the people who said that this would have long-term consequences were totally wrong.
And since when is it wrong to warn against quite predictable results from the actions of war pigs? Which of their 'interventions' turned out well again? That all of nothing.
I can assure you that warmongers are going to warmonger until it does. It was thousands, and it was said in the context of the regime change demanded by the war pigs. Which, in fact, did happen in the case of Iraq, so the non-crazies have history on their side.
Can we at least accept that the war pigs who advocate for regime change in Iran were monumentally, disastrously wrong about every single regime change that they previously advocated?
Can we at least agree that there will not be an alien invasion if the "Ayatollah's government" collapses?
"You guys". AoV, it's me. I don't know if you realize this, but I'm not acting in bad faith with you here. And if I didn't answer you, I suspect it was because I literally couldn't keep up with your constant multi-threaded replies, in multiple comments. Come on now. I'm not gonna stay in the same thread for days.
Tucker was the one running with the WW3 thing.
Okay, but in order to make a prediction, we have to establish a timeframe. We can't just bound a prediction by "any time in the future". WW3 didn't happen and thousands of Americans didn't die in the exchange of fire between the US and Iran. Fair enough if you say that the conflict isn't really over, just like it's not really true to say that the war in Gaza and the war with Iran are two different things, when they're really the same offensive. There's you're steelman.
However, I can say that thousands of Americans didn't die in Panama, Grenada, Haiti. Nor did thousands of BritBongs die in The Falklands. It must be reasonable to say, that even if adventurism continues, it is not reasonable to argue that seizing Noriega would kill thousands of Americans in a protracted civil war in Panama, as it has been 3 decades.
Where can we establish a time frame on these events? 1 year? 5 years?
No, because as cited above, the war pigs have been at this for some time, and some regime changes did not turn out to be a disaster, and I would identify a disaster as 'quagmire that lasts at least 5 years of at least Battalion sized infantry conflict'. Let's say they were disastrously wrong about Iraq and Lybia, but not about Grenada.
Which aliens to where. If the Iranian government collapses, I would suspect Iranians would go back, even to fight. Frankly, I think the idea of a massive refugee crisis to the west is a myth. We weren't flooded by refugees from countries that were destroyed by us, that was Lebanon. We were flooded by countries, most of whom were not at war, by people who were invited in by our own governments. If we had no incentive system, we would have recieved no refugees.
I did my best to frame it as criticisms of other people and hypotheticals, so you wouldn't think that I'm going after you personally. But this was one thing that you didn't do. You told me that I shouldn't bring up Iraq, but then didn't say what I could bring up, even though I think you did reply to that comment.
Then ask him. What does that have to do with everyone else? And there are serious limits to this "hey, it's not been a disaster so far". People warned me not to play Russian Roulette, but I've played it three times already and I'm still here!
I disagree. Blowback often does come 'any time in the future'. So whenever a country wants to do a war crime, it has to keep that in mind.
No one here said WW3, and thousands was contingent on Trump doing what the maximalist war pigs demanded: a regime change. And as you say, it's not done yet. Even when it's done, it was 25 years after Mossadegh that the Ayatollah came to power.
The most recent 'not a disaster' was 1989. And even there. "Thousands of dead" is not the only measure of a massive failure.
From Omicron Persei 8.
I'm talking about Europe. Syria was destroyed by the US. And we paid the price.
I don't appreciate that, OK?
I'm sorry, I was confused. I don't consider myself to be on a faction on adventurism. I am just going to tolerate geo-political realism first; and then any moral impious as a added bonus if it's right.
I don't remember saying that to you. I just, genuinely, don't see the kind of Paul Wolfowitz style Neo-Con regime change plans here. I don't see ambition of a Neo-Liberal Empire to change a people, just effect a policy and geo-political maneuvering. I don't see the same thing.
Well, that's where the WW3 refrain came from is all, and that's what I've seen criticized the most. I'm not really talking about anyone here in particular, or conversations that took place here.
Blowback is different from Quagmire. I brought up the Philippines before, and this is good case for that. The murderous, adventurist, imperialist, American conquest of the Philippines create blowback in the form of slow, methodical, but actually amicable subversion of the American control over the islands. It became a peaceful independent movement that successfully negotiated the independence of the Island, and the creation of a friendly state. But the Philippines never became a quagmire.
Even in the event that something went bizarre, and the Philippines decided to go to a hot-war with the Americans at some point; the quagmire would not have been a result of the initial conquest, but in response to the Philippines aggression at that point in time. Even unjust imperial conquests do not have to result in quagmire or disaster for the empire.
I don't consider that to be a failure because it was never about drugs or killing nuns. It was about one man jeopardizing shipping in the most important canal in the world.
Well, in that case, I'm from Buenos Ares, and I say kill 'em all!
I'm aware you're talking about Europe, and that was my point. There was no ME refugee crisis in Europe. That was merely an excuse to import them. No one had to let them in, and hardly any of them were Syrian or Iraqi. The Cologne Rape Riot wasn't the result of George Bush, it was the result of Angela Merkel. If the Iraq War or Syrian Civil War had never happened, the Rape Riot would have still happened because Merkel would have found warm bodies to rape women and children.
Is waging wars of aggression for Israel and for the deep state neocons "realism" now?
Ah, so that is why you framed "Libya" as an attempt to create a neoliberal whatever, because you wanted to dissociate it from very similar actions now. Truth is, that was the same, and don't go around telling me that the coordinates in spacetime are different.
You've "seen" it criticized the most, so you bring it up to people who haven't made that argument? When I see a strawman, I don't bring it up to you when you haven't advocated for it.
Quagmire is a subset of blowback.
Wasn't there an insurgency? What qualifies as a quagmire?
So... when they try to take their own country back, you go "you're trying to take what I've rightfully stolen"?
All of this makes no sense, and I can't believe you're actually making these arguments with a straight face. It's just so absurd. Of course taking other people's lands, even if they later "aggress" in trying to take it back, is the ultimate cause of the initial aggression. If I kick you out of your home, and you lived with it for a year, and then tried to kick me out... then it's not your aggression.
Americans pretend to believe in all sorts of things, but ultimately, it's just "might makes right".
The first part is definitely true, but under the pretexts sold to Americans, it was a big, fat failure.
FYI: there is no Buenos Aires in Guadalajara.
We're run by traitors, and America gave them a casus belli to take in people ruining our countries.
Nope. She wouldn't have been able to. I do agree that it's not solely the fault of George Bush and Obama's dirty war in Syria. Merkel, Obama ans Bush are all 100% responsible as far as I'm concerned.
Yes it is. The initial conflict ended, and I lost. I now, regardless of justification, would have to aggress upon you to take it away from you. It's not "in the process of being stolen", it's actually stolen. Even if you took my house from me, I have to attack you to get it back. I'm not defending against you because the defense failed.
Traitors don't need causus belli from someone else. They already have it for themselves.
The "protests" are already swarmed with pro-Israel shooters to create violence and casualties. They got the satellite telephones. (according to insiders)
Israel's 60IQ governmentards cannot go even one week without blabbing.
EDIT: JIDF goon successfully offended.
And the mods ban TheImp when we most needed him/her/it
She would just call the Iranians natalists and say they deserved it.
https://english.alarabiya.net/variety/2013/11/01/Baby-boom-essential-for-future-of-Iran-says-supreme-leader
Just like the Roman Empire, just like Ceausescu, Iran will fall because parasites want to steal wealth from single men. And for what? Natalists want more children so that they can molest them. They are Epstein.
That's a disturbingly good imitation.
KiA2 needs TheImp like a fish needs a bicycle.
KiA don't need no imp like no fish need no bicycle