KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.

Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024

The Supreme-Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei has ordered the Iranian Armed Forces to launch a Direct Strike against Israel, as Retaliation for last night’s Assassination of Hamas Chief Political Leader, Ismail Haniyeh in the City of Tehran. pic.twitter.com/x6C6hnv9P6

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) July 31, 2024

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

If Turkey and /or Iran declare war……all of Israel will be desperate forUS intervention.

boognish_bear said:

---

Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.

Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024

---

The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.

Sam Lowry said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.

Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024

---

The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.

---

Let's not give Iran too much credit.

Suspect Israel has the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.
However such an attack would certainly result in a ground war with Iran.

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

---

It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns .

The lives of our citizens determined by a handful of individuals who are only focused with holding onto their cushy governmental offices.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

Israel doesnt ask for permission.

Israel gives AIPAC the orders then AIPAC give Congress its orders.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

---

It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns .

The lives of our citizens determined by a handful of individuals who are only focused with holding onto their cushy governmental offices.

---

Part of it is the downside of democracy. Not necessarily a bad system, but all systems have their pros and cons.

More to your point, though, we used to expect at least a modicum of public concern from our elected leaders. I guess not so much any more.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

---

It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns ...

---

Oh I don't know about that…DC foreign policy is pretty consistent no matter who is in the White House.

If anything the American people live in a paper democracy (Constitutional Republic) and don't have much say over the foreign policy of the USA

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

---

It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns ...

---

If anything the American people live in a paper democracy (Constitutional Republic) and don't have much say over the foreign policy of the USA

---

We're misled, but willingly. Like many people in democracies and dictatorships.

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

I don't think they worry about it. If you strike them, they will strike you back harder. No matter what is going on.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.

---

Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...

I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.

52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump

---

1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.

---

No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.

I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.

Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.

---

3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.

---

NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.

---

The terminology is irrelevant. The point is that there's both a philosophical distinction and a historical division between the realist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush 41 and whatever it is that you want to call what you believe. You can call it Beatlemania for all I care, but it's not Reaganism.

---

This is where you go off the rails. Reagan and Bush 41 both supported NATO. They both supported assisting Nations trying to be free. Bush was the best example of "Reagan Foreign Policy" in the Gulf War. We went and helped a Nation invaded, threw out Iraq and set up a mechanism for Saudi and Kuwait to go forward. That is Reaganism, which is not far off Ukraine. NOBODY but you is claiming that the US is setting up a puppet Govt forcing American ideals on Ukraine. Ukraine WANTS to join the EU. You are way off base on this one...

---

No one is saying they didn't support NATO. I'm saying they didn't support NATO expansion into former Soviet or Warsaw Pact territories. Understand?

Reagan considered it his mission to end the Cold War. The last thing he wanted to do was turn around and start another one. Bush 41 assured Gorbachev that we wouldn't take advantage if Eastern Europe was allowed to choose its own leadership. Eisenhower was long gone, but since you brought him up recently, here's what his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower had to say (comparing NATO expansion to the sinking of the Titanic): "Like the captain of that ill-fated liner, Clinton has been warned that icebergs are everywhere, but he is steaming full speed ahead, ignoring what may lie beneath the surface, insisting that our vessel is indestructible, unsinkable."

We don't just act reflexively whenever a so-called ally is in trouble. Why didn't we act when Russia rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia in 1968? Or when Poland declared martial law in 1981? Because we understood that the US had different degrees of interest in Europe, with the strongest interest being in the West. There's a reason it's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- not the Black Sea Treaty Organization or the Baltic Treaty Organization.

Now it's been reported that Zelensky wants a new peace summit, with Russia invited to participate and with territorial concessions on the table. Do we go along with that just because Ukraine says so? I think you know the answer.

---

You seem to think that NATO troops are on the ground fighting Russia, at least you act like it.

---

What other plan is there? I've asked half a dozen times, and you can't tell me. Some version of Lend-Lease? That's what you do when you're gradually leading up to war. Or maybe you aren't ready commit and want to see what happens. Which is it?

It's like if I asked you in 1941 what the end game is and whether we're going to war with Germany and Japan. You say "What are you talking about? Why would we go to war with Germany and Japan? What does that have to do with anything?"

It has to do with long term strategy. Lend-Lease is not a strategy for winning a war. So if you're not at least thinking about NATO troops, you're not thinking.

Redbrickbear said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

---

It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns ...

---

Oh I don't know about that…DC foreign policy is pretty consistent no matter who is in the White House.

If anything the American people live in a paper democracy (Constitutional Republic) and don't have much say over the foreign policy of the USA

---

Reminds me of this funny TikTok they had on the Fleccas Talks podcast:

Sam Lowry said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.

Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024

---

The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.

---

They are all known.

Ismail Haniyeh meets his 72 virgins 👇
pic.twitter.com/7UAWIEswXz

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024

Mainly because of fear. War is a messy business. It's wise to avoid them when possible but timidity and weakness only invites aggressors to take advantage. That's why Putin attacked Ukraine when hd did: he thought he could get away with it.

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

They don't need anyones permission. Iranian nukes are an existential threat to Israel. They must destroy those facilities as they have done against Iraq & Syria in the past. And the rest of the region will privately applaud such action because Iran is a threat to them as well. Much more than any threat from Israel.

The U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers madd sure of it. The only proper use of the term "democratic" in the U.S. is the general sense of representative government but that is confusing and misleading.

nein51 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING:

France urges all its citizens to leave Lebanon immediately

🇫🇷🇱🇧 pic.twitter.com/FpwlSto4gV

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 28, 2024

---

I have friends in Lebanon (Christian) and they all got the hell out a year ago. Lebanon is a wonderful country, but Hezbollah and the the rising Muslim population have really effed things up. That situation is really complicated.

---

Lebanon hasn't been a wonderful country since 1983. It USED to be a wonderful country. It's still a beautiful country…when they aren't tearing it apart.

---

correct . it is really sad.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

---

It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns .

The lives of our citizens determined by a handful of individuals who are only focused with holding onto their cushy governmental offices.

---

Right there with on this.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

Israel doesnt ask for permission.

Israel gives AIPAC the orders then AIPAC give Congress its orders.

---

mucho correturnos. Eff Isreal.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.

Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024

---

The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.

---

They are all known.

---

That is great. Lovely to know after 15 years of you insisting the whole country was riddled with secret doomsday laboratories under every rock.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.

Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024

---

The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.

---

They are all known.

---

That is great. Lovely to know after 15 years of you insisting the whole country was riddled with secret doomsday laboratories under every rock.

---

What a dumbass comment. How else would we have known they've been illegally enriching uranium?

historian said:

---

Mainly because of fear. War is a messy business. It's wise to avoid them when possible but timidity and weakness only invites aggressors to take advantage. That's why Putin attacked Ukraine when hd did: he thought he could get away with it.

---

Mainly because stacking bodies on the 5 o clock news is wildly unpopular. To win at war you must do horrible things because war is horrible. We have generations of people that think you can fight a "fair" war which is not possible if you want to win. Want to know why they behead people? Because it's visually stunning, it's savage, it sends the message that they are willing to do what we are not.

Further, we play by the rules of the Geneva Convention (almost exclusively), they do not. They play by no rules. Imagine a game of monopoly where one player rolls the dice, ignores them, seizes your property, puts you in jail and takes your money. You say "hey that's not the rules!" And they say "I don't care". You cannot possibly win that game.

Men can't search women in hijab…guess who they start strapping bombs to? For example.

All the while we are pretending to care about what goes on over there while ignoring the rampant sex trade, stoning of women who dared to look at a soldier, etc.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Prediction: Israel 🇮🇱 is waiting for Islamic Republic's 🇮🇷 “retaliation” to give it an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities in response.

Israel's long range bombing of Yemen (2200km distance) proved that it can easily destroy Iran's facilities too (1600km distance). pic.twitter.com/1Uye0M35Kn

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) July 31, 2024

---

The issue is not distance but depth. We don't necessarily know where all the underground facilities are (thanks to our rejection of the nuclear deal), nor could they likely be destroyed if we did know.

---

Let's not give Iran too much credit.

Suspect Israel has the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.
However such an attack would certainly result in a ground war with Iran.

---

zero chance of a ground war between Israel and Iran.

Iran can neither transport nor supply an expeditionary force of any size into Israel. I mean, they could try. But Israel would smoke the whole force in transit.

odds of a ground war between Israel and Hizballah are, on the other hand, quite high. And Israel will smoke them too. That is good for us as well. We should send lots of bullets.

Hizballah has killed a 4-digit number of Americans over the years. Every day is open season on Hizballah.

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

---

It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns .

The lives of our citizens determined by a handful of individuals who are only focused with holding onto their cushy governmental offices.

---

it's not entirely a bad thing that American politicians consider the reaction of the American people when thinking about foreign policy.........

nein51 said:

---

historian said:

---

Mainly because of fear. War is a messy business. It's wise to avoid them when possible but timidity and weakness only invites aggressors to take advantage. That's why Putin attacked Ukraine when hd did: he thought he could get away with it.

---

Mainly because stacking bodies on the 5 o clock news is wildly unpopular. To win at war you must do horrible things because war is horrible. We have generations of people that think you can fight a "fair" war which is not possible if you want to win. Want to know why they behead people? Because it's visually stunning, it's savage, it sends the message that they are willing to do what we are not.

Further, we play by the rules of the Geneva Convention (almost exclusively), they do not. They play by no rules. Imagine a game of monopoly where one player rolls the dice, ignores them, seizes your property, puts you in jail and takes your money. You say "hey that's not the rules!" And they say "I don't care". You cannot possibly win that game.

Men can't search women in hijab…guess who they start strapping bombs to? For example.

All the while we are pretending to care about what goes on over there while ignoring the rampant sex trade, stoning of women who dared to look at a soldier, etc.

---

Trump is right in looking to Pershing. Look up Pershing in the Philippines. He didn't start getting control and their respect until he started understanding their culture. The pig's blood gets the press, because it is sensationalized. But, "Pershing brought down the levels of violence (which had been used liberally, and to little effect, by his predecessors), recruited Filipinos to carry out law enforcement duties, simplified the provincial court system, designated government land for the building of mosques, took a go-slow approach to changing tribal customs (which included polygamy), reformed the laws governing contract labor, put aside more money for the building of schools and established trading posts to rebuild the Moro economy."

He balanced the two. Trump needs to remember that. You can't do one without the other. We were doing that in Afghanistan, and it worked with the people. Talk to Afghani people, especially women. But it takes time and commitment. I am not sure the US people have that commitment anymore.

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

NATO was created in 1949, not 1945.

---

Yes, but what happened between 1945 and 1949 was instrumental in its creation and the GOP was right there as Eisenhower was all for its creation and saw a need. Point being to say anti-Expansion is a GOP policy tenant is not accurate. The GOP has been in favor or NATO since before its creation. Eisenhower agreed it was needed, played a central role in setting it up and the US had to be central to it. Not a ask and will the US come in like in WW2...

I am sick of "Conservatives" claiming that the GOP has always been against NATO expansion and if you are you are a Liberal or a NeoCon.

52- Greece & Turkey- Eisenhower
55- W Germany - Eisenhower
82- Spain - Reagan
04- Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia - Bush
17- Montenegro- Trump
20 - N Macedonia - Trump

---

1. You're using "creation" and "expansion" interchangeably when they are two different things.

2. We are obviously talking about post-Cold War expansion, not the 1950s.

---

No, I only listed ADDITIONS since 1949, which is pretty much expansion. NATO has expanded numerous times under both Conservative and Liberal Administrations. To say "Conservatives Philosophy" is to not expand is not true as several of our most Conservative Presidents expanded NATO.

I am looking forward to the explanation how adding more Nations and more square miles is somehow not an expansion.

Let's face it, you don't agree with NATO expanding. You don't agree with spending money in NATO. Whether or not those you (and others) want to see NATO expanded has nothing to do with "Conservatism" it is your personal opinion.

---

3. Now you're equating conservatives and Republicans, which is another error. Like it or not, NATO expansion is a neoconservative policy.

---

NATO expansion has been supported by Conservatives and Liberals, it is NOT a political philosophy tenant. There are varying positions with all groups. You say NeoConservative like it is Party, it is not. It is a label that people like you place on people. No one calls themself a NeoCon. Hell, George Bush doesn't consider himself a NeoCon. A bunch of Liberals got together and created the label. It is a childish way to label people rather than discuss policy issues.

---

The terminology is irrelevant. The point is that there's both a philosophical distinction and a historical division between the realist foreign policy of Reagan/Bush 41 and whatever it is that you want to call what you believe. You can call it Beatlemania for all I care, but it's not Reaganism.

---

This is where you go off the rails. Reagan and Bush 41 both supported NATO. They both supported assisting Nations trying to be free. Bush was the best example of "Reagan Foreign Policy" in the Gulf War. We went and helped a Nation invaded, threw out Iraq and set up a mechanism for Saudi and Kuwait to go forward. That is Reaganism, which is not far off Ukraine. NOBODY but you is claiming that the US is setting up a puppet Govt forcing American ideals on Ukraine. Ukraine WANTS to join the EU. You are way off base on this one...

---

No one is saying they didn't support NATO. I'm saying they didn't support NATO expansion into former Soviet or Warsaw Pact territories. Understand?

Reagan considered it his mission to end the Cold War. The last thing he wanted to do was turn around and start another one. Bush 41 assured Gorbachev that we wouldn't take advantage if Eastern Europe was allowed to choose its own leadership. Eisenhower was long gone, but since you brought him up recently, here's what his granddaughter Susan Eisenhower had to say (comparing NATO expansion to the sinking of the Titanic): "Like the captain of that ill-fated liner, Clinton has been warned that icebergs are everywhere, but he is steaming full speed ahead, ignoring what may lie beneath the surface, insisting that our vessel is indestructible, unsinkable."

We don't just act reflexively whenever a so-called ally is in trouble. Why didn't we act when Russia rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia in 1968? Or when Poland declared martial law in 1981? Because we understood that the US had different degrees of interest in Europe, with the strongest interest being in the West. There's a reason it's called the North Atlantic Treaty Organization -- not the Black Sea Treaty Organization or the Baltic Treaty Organization.

Now it's been reported that Zelensky wants a new peace summit, with Russia invited to participate and with territorial concessions on the table. Do we go along with that just because Ukraine says so? I think you know the answer.

---

You seem to think that NATO troops are on the ground fighting Russia, at least you act like it.

---

What other plan is there? I've asked half a dozen times, and you can't tell me. Some version of Lend-Lease? That's what you do when you're gradually leading up to war. Or maybe you aren't ready commit and want to see what happens. Which is it?

It's like if I asked you in 1941 what the end game is and whether we're going to war with Germany and Japan. You say "What are you talking about? Why would we go to war with Germany and Japan? What does that have to do with anything?"

It has to do with long term strategy. Lend-Lease is not a strategy for winning a war. So if you're not at least thinking about NATO troops, you're not thinking.

---

you are consistent with your faulty premise.

We did Lend-Lease because we realized war was inevitable and we needed time to ramp up mobilization, and we waited quite a bit too long to do it.

We have learned our lessons and are ahead of the curve this go-around.

WW3 is not something we can avoid. It has already started. The only question is where we intend to win it.
https://apnews.com/article/belarus-china-military-drill-poland-8558b0e413351caa89cfbb3c4441f016

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

historian said:

---

Mainly because of fear. War is a messy business. It's wise to avoid them when possible but timidity and weakness only invites aggressors to take advantage. That's why Putin attacked Ukraine when hd did: he thought he could get away with it.

---

Mainly because stacking bodies on the 5 o clock news is wildly unpopular. To win at war you must do horrible things because war is horrible. We have generations of people that think you can fight a "fair" war which is not possible if you want to win. Want to know why they behead people? Because it's visually stunning, it's savage, it sends the message that they are willing to do what we are not.

Further, we play by the rules of the Geneva Convention (almost exclusively), they do not. They play by no rules. Imagine a game of monopoly where one player rolls the dice, ignores them, seizes your property, puts you in jail and takes your money. You say "hey that's not the rules!" And they say "I don't care". You cannot possibly win that game.

Men can't search women in hijab…guess who they start strapping bombs to? For example.

All the while we are pretending to care about what goes on over there while ignoring the rampant sex trade, stoning of women who dared to look at a soldier, etc.

---

Trump is right in looking to Pershing. Look up Pershing in the Philippines. He didn't start getting control and their respect until he started understanding their culture. The pig's blood gets the press, because it is sensationalized. But, "Pershing brought down the levels of violence (which had been used liberally, and to little effect, by his predecessors), recruited Filipinos to carry out law enforcement duties, simplified the provincial court system, designated government land for the building of mosques, took a go-slow approach to changing tribal customs (which included polygamy), reformed the laws governing contract labor, put aside more money for the building of schools and established trading posts to rebuild the Moro economy."

He balanced the two. Trump needs to remember that. You can't do one without the other. We were doing that in Afghanistan, and it worked with the people. Talk to Afghani people, especially women. But it takes time and commitment. I am not sure the US people have that commitment anymore.

---

The Philippines is wildly different than the ME. But your point it taken

historian said:

---

The U.S. is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. The Founding Fathers madd sure of it. The only proper use of the term "democratic" in the U.S. is the general sense of representative government but that is confusing and misleading.

---

Remind me what part of the Constitution gives the Secretary of Defense unilateral power to declare war and commit US forces to combat?

nein51 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

nein51 said:

---

historian said:

---

Mainly because of fear. War is a messy business. It's wise to avoid them when possible but timidity and weakness only invites aggressors to take advantage. That's why Putin attacked Ukraine when hd did: he thought he could get away with it.

---

Mainly because stacking bodies on the 5 o clock news is wildly unpopular. To win at war you must do horrible things because war is horrible. We have generations of people that think you can fight a "fair" war which is not possible if you want to win. Want to know why they behead people? Because it's visually stunning, it's savage, it sends the message that they are willing to do what we are not.

Further, we play by the rules of the Geneva Convention (almost exclusively), they do not. They play by no rules. Imagine a game of monopoly where one player rolls the dice, ignores them, seizes your property, puts you in jail and takes your money. You say "hey that's not the rules!" And they say "I don't care". You cannot possibly win that game.

Men can't search women in hijab…guess who they start strapping bombs to? For example.

All the while we are pretending to care about what goes on over there while ignoring the rampant sex trade, stoning of women who dared to look at a soldier, etc.

---

Trump is right in looking to Pershing. Look up Pershing in the Philippines. He didn't start getting control and their respect until he started understanding their culture. The pig's blood gets the press, because it is sensationalized. But, "Pershing brought down the levels of violence (which had been used liberally, and to little effect, by his predecessors), recruited Filipinos to carry out law enforcement duties, simplified the provincial court system, designated government land for the building of mosques, took a go-slow approach to changing tribal customs (which included polygamy), reformed the laws governing contract labor, put aside more money for the building of schools and established trading posts to rebuild the Moro economy."

He balanced the two. Trump needs to remember that. You can't do one without the other. We were doing that in Afghanistan, and it worked with the people. Talk to Afghani people, especially women. But it takes time and commitment. I am not sure the US people have that commitment anymore.

---

The Philippines is wildly different than the ME. But your point it taken

---

I agree and there is no cookie cutter approach.

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

REPORTS: The leader of the Islamic Republic in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Hajj Baib Zadeh, was assassinated in SYRIA 🇸🇾

— Hen Mazzig (@HenMazzig) July 31, 2024

---

Israel obviously feels they can now fight a 2 front war.

Their prime minister's trip to DC last week must have generated the necessary assurances.

---

They're expanding it to two fronts because they can't win on one. Bibi is desperate to get the US involved. It's the only way his political career survives a little while longer.

---

Do you think Israel has permission to take out the nuclear enrichment facility?

---

I would have to know who's running the United States in order to answer that. But I suspect not. We have our hands full, and I don't see how the ruling party benefits from escalating with Iran at the moment.

---

It's sickening how many times US foreign policy decisions are determined by election concerns .

The lives of our citizens determined by a handful of individuals who are only focused with holding onto their cushy governmental offices.

---

it's not entirely a bad thing that American politicians consider the reaction of the American people when thinking about foreign policy.........

---

More often politicians attempt to hide actions they know are directly against the will of the American people until after an election.

FDR -WW2
Woodrow Wilson -WW1
LBJ- Vietnam


Now whoever is running our government ( incredible how quickly the American people have accepted this lack of executive presence ) has some huge choices to make in regards to the expansion of the war in the Middle East.