Jump to content

chainsaw

Full Members
  • Posts

    9065
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chainsaw

  1. At this point you're basically just wishcasting that the power vacuum would magically be filled by someone kind and aligned with US interests. History teaches that US intervention is almost never beneficial for the targeted nation. We have never been "greeted as liberators." There is almost no upside for getting involved.
  2. I did not say it was necessarily better for Iraq. I'm saying the world is better off without Saddam. We don't know of anyone in the bullpen for Iran, so how can anyone say that there's someone better waiting to rule it? And if that person had existed why would we have waited so long to intervene? What do you know that Obama, Trump, and Biden didn't know?
  3. Some people interpret facts as criticism and cry "CR" when they feel attacked. You are 100% correct.
  4. International relations are not a black and white thing. Some of our "allies" do unspeakable things, including genocide. Obama made a deal with some bad people, and Trump tore it up. It's possible to strike a good deal with bad people, and Trump was on the verge of doing that so that we could get closer to stability in the region. If we learned anything from Iraq, it's that there are high costs and long lasting consequences for trying to be the hero on every corner of the globe. Yes the world is better off without Saddam, but was the invasion truly necessary to get rid of him? Could that not have been achieved with soft power? With diplomacy? By propping up his internal adversaries? The goal was to prevent Iran from having nukes, and I fail to see how or why American intervention is the only way to achieve that. If you believe that's the same thing as "cheering for the bad man to stay in power forever," then that says more about you than it does about me.
  5. True, but arguably CR.
  6. Are you not paying attention? We fucked up in Iraq and we fucked up in Afghanistan because we had no clear plan for the country after toppling its leadership. We have no idea who will step up or if they will be better or worse. Without a plan, we're signing up for another longterm stabilization/supervision engagement that we can't afford.
  7. All we want is for Iran not to have nukes. Obama got that done. Trump was going to get that done again, until Israel said hell no we want to drag the Americans into a war. I won't go too CR because this is DT but this will not be good politics. Much of his base has loved ones in the military and don't want them in harm's way.
  8. Have you forgotten what timeline we're in? Russia actually believed Kyiv would fall in a matter of hours. These "military operations" have a way of going into double overtime.
  9. They are bad, but nothing better is in the bullpen. We should have learned this from Iraq and Afghanistan.
  10. Nobody has an appetite for war with Iran. Iran was abiding Obama's deal, and they were actively engaged in peace talks with Trump's guy. Absofuckinglutely they have a bad reputation, but to my knowledge they didn't invade Ukraine or attack anyone else without provocation. The unwashed masses on X need more analysis than "Iran bad," even if you personally might think it's as self-evident as OU sux.
  11. More likely that there's a higher percentage of people working in law enforcement. I bet nationwide a law enforcement household correlates to a Trumpist household by over 90%
  12. Not a peep from Little Marco. He's probably seething inside.
  13. So we have no idea where he is then
  14. I agree that a lot of theories can be ruled out based on technological impossibility but at the same time I don't need to know the exact details of how they pulled off the heist, yet. Right now I just want to see all the anomalies investigated. Start with the statistical anomalies (the bullet ballots and other odd patterns) and see where the evidence leads.
  15. It's pretty common knowledge that Trump had been favoring diplomacy over Kurilla's "joint strike" idea. None of the facts on the ground had changed since April. Bibi just lost patience and decided to start a war, which now forces Trump to make a more decisive commitment toward diplomacy or war. For the sake of our troops, we should be hoping he sides with diplomacy.
  16. This is where I am at. Let's look into it more, but for now I'm not convinced.
  17. Yeah I think enrichment must be much more difficult to achieve in practice. The three week timetable probably assumes a bunch of highly improbable events go in Iran's favor. I hate Tulsi but there is no reason to think she was wrong.
  18. Not saying he's lying, but just to shed light on what Israel thinks of him and why he might be more willing to vouch for this "three weeks" timetable https://allisraelnews.com/israel-reportedly-pushes-for-iran-strike-before-pro-israel-us-centcom-chief-kurilla-retires Article is from April 2025
  19. MAGAts alone, yes. But the right wing?The dark money guys? Leonard Leo and Koch Bros motherfuckers? Who see Trump as a useful idiot and MAGA as a means to an end? I think they know how to get it done competently, and to keep the Trump campaign as uninvolved as possible both for plausible deniability and because the more involved they are the more likely one of his incompetent sycophants will fuck it up.
  20. I was making fun of Abrams. You can't criticize someone else for being simplistic about a topic and then, in the same tweet, offer a simplistic analysis on the same topic. I found the hypocrisy amusing. The similarities between Iran and Pakistan are superficial. One is majority Shia, the other is majority Sunni. One has an ongoing territorial dispute with a nuclear-armed neighbor, the other does not. What does Abrahms even mean by "ramped up" or "support for terrorism" here? How does he know that the "ramping up" didn't simply coincide with a global trend? How is he so sure that it was Pakistan's nuclear program that enabled it? Just because I disagree with his analysis (which, yeah, more or less boils down to "Pakistan bad ergo Iran bad") doesn't mean I "stan" for Iran. I just wish we didn't have to deal with a social media environment where a platform like X allows someone to post dogshit takes and get millions of views.
  21. It's "stanning" to not want a hot war in the middle east. Okay buddy. Don't forget who launched the first attack here.
  22. I agree that it's vague, but in this age of political violence and right wing extremism I won't give anyone a hard time about being anonymous. Their evidence boils down to the fact that the results are statistically nonsensical (in their opinion): They were concentrated. Targeted. Specific to swing states and Texas—and specific to Election Day voting. And the supposed explanation? “Her policies were unpopular.” Let’s think this through logically. We’re supposed to believe that in all the battleground states, Democratic voters were so disillusioned by Vice President Harris’s platform that they voted blue down ballot—but flipped to Trump at the top of the ticket? Not in early voting. Not by mail. With exception to Nevada, only on Election Day. And only after a certain threshold of ballots had been cast—where VP Harris’s numbers begin to diverge from her own party, and Trump’s suddenly begin to surge. As President Biden would say, “C’mon, man.” In the world of election data analysis, there’s a term for that: vote-flipping algorithm. I think it should be investigated.
×
×
  • Create New...