Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Ali Larijani has warned of what he described as a possible conspiracy to frame Iran for a major terrorist incident.
in WW2, was there a distinction on which parts of Germany were more or less in favour of Hitler? When we carpet bombed Cambodia, did we looked into the regional polls? when we bombed Teheran, do they look at which neighbours and school girls were more or less in favour of the regime? When we endorsed a genocide in Gaza, did we ask to only target certain neighbours based on polls?
This “In hope they spare the blue states” is such an unimaginably entitled statement. Sounds like “But I am one of the good guys!!!”
No, the US has a long imperialist career of wars of aggressions and war crimes. You have personally benefited from them by having low fuel costs, you are not innocent, you might not have consented to this, but you are part of it, your taxes paid for it. If anything the US is the nation that need to be liberated.
in WW2, was there a distinction on which parts of Germany were more or less in favour of Hitler?
In WW2, the war was explicit and you could be prosecuted for protest in Germany. There’s little reason at all to account for the political climate aside from the states official stance.
When we carpet bombed Cambodia, did we looked into the regional polls? when we bombed Teheran, do they look at which neighbours and school girls were more or less in favour of the regime? When we endorsed a genocide in Gaza, did we ask to only target certain neighbours based on polls?
We as a militaristic superpower similarly have zero need for as much. We impose by domination, which I’m literally arguing Iran can’t do.
This “In hope they spare the blue states” is such an unimaginably entitled statement. Sounds like “But I am one of the good guys!!!”
I hear you, it sounds wishful and entitled. Yet, my point has nothing to do with how I perceive myself and whether that’s any “good” or not. My point was that Iran would most likely want to consider how best to approach such an attack. I can’t help but feel it would behoove them to not unite the US by making war with Iran something Texas and California agree on.
Iran has already made public statements to include the likes of “we are not at war with the American people.” I interpret that to mean they understand Trump (et al) as the enemy, not the American people. Therefore, I again state with conviction, I can not see a single scenario where the political climate of a state is not considered prior to any attack. This is political and if they were going to attack at all — it’ll be somewhere alined with their enemy (who they themselves said was not the American people). Sorry to say, but that’s not California. My point was merely that Texas would make more sense than California… not that any of this makes much sense in the first place.
No, the US has a long imperialist career of wars of aggressions and war crimes. You have personally benefited from them by having low fuel costs, you are not innocent, you might not have consented to this, but you are part of it, your taxes paid for it. If anything the US is the nation that need to be liberated.
Is this a different subject? I don’t really understand why this was the closing argument.
in WW2, was there a distinction on which parts of Germany were more or less in favour of Hitler? When we carpet bombed Cambodia, did we looked into the regional polls? when we bombed Teheran, do they look at which neighbours and school girls were more or less in favour of the regime? When we endorsed a genocide in Gaza, did we ask to only target certain neighbours based on polls?
This “In hope they spare the blue states” is such an unimaginably entitled statement. Sounds like “But I am one of the good guys!!!”
No, the US has a long imperialist career of wars of aggressions and war crimes. You have personally benefited from them by having low fuel costs, you are not innocent, you might not have consented to this, but you are part of it, your taxes paid for it. If anything the US is the nation that need to be liberated.
In WW2, the war was explicit and you could be prosecuted for protest in Germany. There’s little reason at all to account for the political climate aside from the states official stance.
We as a militaristic superpower similarly have zero need for as much. We impose by domination, which I’m literally arguing Iran can’t do.
I hear you, it sounds wishful and entitled. Yet, my point has nothing to do with how I perceive myself and whether that’s any “good” or not. My point was that Iran would most likely want to consider how best to approach such an attack. I can’t help but feel it would behoove them to not unite the US by making war with Iran something Texas and California agree on.
Iran has already made public statements to include the likes of “we are not at war with the American people.” I interpret that to mean they understand Trump (et al) as the enemy, not the American people. Therefore, I again state with conviction, I can not see a single scenario where the political climate of a state is not considered prior to any attack. This is political and if they were going to attack at all — it’ll be somewhere alined with their enemy (who they themselves said was not the American people). Sorry to say, but that’s not California. My point was merely that Texas would make more sense than California… not that any of this makes much sense in the first place.
Is this a different subject? I don’t really understand why this was the closing argument.