This has to be the first war to have started after negotiations succeed.
06.03.2026 21:59
👍 1
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
This has to be the first war to have started after negotiations succeed.
He has also very obviously been punched in the head one too many times in his previous career.
Kristi Noem was consistently corrupt and grossly incompetent. But anyone who thinks she was the problem with DHS's output is not paying attention.
The US has told the IRGC to surrender and receive immunity.
Nobody appears to have thought about who they should surrender to, nor how (and from whom) they will receive immunity.
It's like HAL 900 once Dave has ripped out enough chips. He's down to parroting the same superlatives over and over as he gets slower and more slurred.
Short of filling the shells with $100 bills I cannot even begin to fathom how US operations in Iran can cost $1 billion PER DAY.
One thousand million dollars in Ordance, fuel, hazard pay etc. EVERY DAY.
The drones must be diamond-studded. The pilots must be fed on a diet of Krug '82 and caviar.
I don't want to appear dismissive of Scripture, but I am dubious tbat a legally defensible justifcation for bombing Iran can be found in the Book of Ezekiel.
If I was compiling a global risk register I would honestly put "President Donald Trump" alongside all the really scary stuff we know can wipe us out.
He's an Armageddon-style asteroid in human form.
He is genuinely an existential threat to humanity.
I'm not saying choosing war is always wrong. Sometimes it's the least bad option.
Just don't call it retaliation. Don't pretend that you didn't have a choice.
You cannot say "that regime may at some point in the future, develop capabilities that pose a greater threat to us. Therefore, as a defensive measure, we will now cripple that country."
I mean, you can. But that is not you retaliating or defending yourself. That is you opting for war.
A clear case means clear thinking.
In that case, I suggest only going to war as an absolute last resort, with a clear and achievable objective and - as per the Constitution - with Congress having resolving to do so.
But I'm sure you've got that all in hand, no?
Crazy idea: why not direct US foreign policy so that the people of Iran are involved in choosing the leaders of Iran?
A democratic Iran is the best guarantor against it sponsoring terrorism,/nuking North America/invading Israel/rigging the election*
* Delete according to Presidential whim
Ha ha ha. Funny joke, White House. For a minute, you actually had me believing that you'd put a dribbling fool like Markwayne Mullin in charge of a major Federal department.
So who's the *actual* new DHS sec.?
btw, Israel is believed to possess tactical nukes, neutron bombs and even suitcase devices. It can launch strategic nukes by submarine.
If you want to panic about a belligerent Middle East regime's nuclear capability, panic about an Israeli government in the midst of a unrestrained killing rage.
Israel's vow to eliminate any new head of state of Iran is a recipe for state failure and even more chaos.
Israel is by far the greatest impediment to peace in the Middle East. It is a nuclear-tipped, genocidal rogue state.
Also that.
Blame Iran's travails on the 1953 British/US engineered coup if you want. It was a major factor leading to the '79 revolution.
But the coup didn't dictate the second Pahlavi Shah would be so awful, nor that students could overthrow his regime.
Nor that a theocracy would succeed it. And endure.
Yeah, but one that typifies the whole approach.
It's not that they are incapable of fabricating a causus belli, sticking to it and getting some allies along for cover.
It's that they don't see the point when they can just do what they want and nobody can stop them.
It's a definition of despotism.
The movement of refugees is trivial in volume ought to pose no real consequences for a mature, well-run state like the UK.
The volume of legal migration, by contrast, continues to represent a significant demographic phenenemon and should properly be the focus of this debate.
That's what I think.
This war on Iran is a case study in an administration that believes it has the means - and therefore the moral authority - to do whatever it wants.
It could have assembled a case, enlisted allies, stuck to a script.
But it can't be bothered, because it feels that to all be unnecessary.
On reflection, one would fill a swamp to the bank and not the brim.
Plus, you are now required to be in favor of foreign wars and flaky on the Second Amendment.
And when it comes to the swamp, it turns out the thing you *really* wanted to do was fill it right to the brim.
So confusing.
As reluctant as I am to do so, it is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge that that the adbduction of Nicolās Maduro and the attempted decapitation of the Mullahs both sit firmly in the the "Trump is not a Russian stooge" column.
I point out that the official position of His Majesty's Opposition is:
1) yup. We're totally up for this.
2) legality is for sissies.
As the PM noted, moments like this are the proving of a Leader of the Opposition.
And Kemi Badenoch has proved how deep she is in Trump's pocket.
Raiding your life savings is such a Golden Age thing to do.
Say what you like about Russell Brand but to go from anarcho-syndicalist to neo-Nazi bootlicker in, what, 10 years is a political journey of almost complete breadth.
Even Oswald Moseley only managed boring old democratic socialism to fascism in a decade.
Trump stated something he couldn't stand behind (we'll use the base without Spain's permission) followed by a threat he couldn't enact (we'll blockade Spanish trade) so now - of course - the next step is lying about Spain caving.
Only the Spanish government having a Twitter account foiled the plan.
This is correct. Article 5 enshrines the principle of collective self-dedence.
It does not require NATO members to join in the prosecution of a war.
Also: claiming Iran was about to attack won't wash. Even if it were true, it didn't happen.
