dagblog - Comments for "Israel to Attack Iran? Washington Gives the Green Light to the ‘Military Option’"

Yes, he ignored my qualifier

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 04 Nov 2021 06:10:46 +0000

In reply to Yes, he ignored my qualifier

Yes, he ignored my qualifier that EVEN IF that were to happen. Again IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN AND VERY UNLIKELY:

.There is no qualifier in your screed and saying that there is in hysterical all caps does not make it so.

You are apparently having

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 04 Nov 2021 06:04:19 +0000

You are apparently having trouble understanding what you read. That, or quite likely you find it easier to create a strawman and pretend I said something I didn't say so as to give you purchase to go on a stupid rant attack. I call it stupid because it is obviously baseless. I did not say or imply in any way that a strike to destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities would be conducted with nuclear weapons. What I did say, and only after AA suggested a few countries getting destroyed by nukes would be no big deal compared to the pandemic or global warming, is that stating that the nuclear destruction of a couple countries in the Middle East is nothing compared to what is happening now is a fucked up thing to say. It is a fucked up thing to say because it is a fucked up thing to believe.

Yes, he ignored my qualifier

artappraiser — Thu, 04 Nov 2021 04:39:04 +0000

In reply to 'You say that the nuclear

Yes, he ignored my qualifier that EVEN IF that were to happen. Again IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN AND VERY UNLIKELY: visualize something like Chernobyl, not Hiroshima. Nobody is going to play mutually assured destruction anymore, it's 2021 and everyone has had practice with covid. Furthermore, it's not Iran that's going to be hit with a nuke attack--Israel is not that stupid, what they do instead (since my links just went over his head? boots on the ground is not what Israel does anymore either) is take out possible nuke production in the neighborhood. They are not stupid enough to want to use them, they just want to be the only one in the neighborhood to have them. Because some mullahs have indeed promised to obliterate them and don't always sound like they care if they take half of their own population along with Israel, after all, they'd be martyrs.

Am I wrong? Check out North Korea, always ready to nuke South Korea at a moment's notice no matter how many North Koreans might be sacrificed in the process

'You say that the nuclear

PeraclesPlease — Thu, 04 Nov 2021 02:37:00 +0000

In reply to AA, I will start at your

'You say that the nuclear destruction of a few countries is “nothing by comparison ...” ' - you're talking stupid shit again - no one is predicting or advocating vast "nuclear destruction" of any countries - they're discussing fairly surgical strikes to *destroy* Iran's nuclear capability, almost assuredly using non-nuclear weapons to carry it out. While i think Israel is often exaggerating Iran's progress, i also don't expect them to wait for some historically crazy mullahs to go for Iran's top priority of "push Israel into the sea" (popular opinion poll) rather than say "make Iran prosperous and a fun place to live".

Show me where anyone thinks this leads to nuclear war, except "Uncle Pootie will then have to respond with nukes" fever dream.

I did not put my dukes up

artappraiser — Wed, 03 Nov 2021 23:47:31 +0000

In reply to AA, I will start at your

I did not put my dukes up until you challenged me posting a news story about what Biden said as if I had an agenda.

I posted the news story simply thinking "Lulu and everyone else interested would like to know what Biden said"

But no, you felt this need to insert an agenda.

So this time I decided to oblige and share my thoughts.

You like to argue with pseudonymous folks on the internet on your few favorite select topics, for like endless eternity as if that does something for you and could somehow impact what happens in the world.

It doesn't do a fucking thing for me and I don't think it effects anything in the world. And I thought what I decided to humor you with would get that across: I think things change, I think change is the only constant. That's why I like "news". I think arguing the same shit over and over is a useless exercise and actually, quite simpatico with conservative theory, that things never change, that there are constants in the world. And I don't believe that.

AA, I will start at your

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 03 Nov 2021 23:34:13 +0000

In reply to p.s. Actually I will opine a

AA, I will start at your first comment but skip around a bit in my response to your several comments. I made a statement which was a simple request for clarification of what you were specifically emphasizing but which I could not see the significance of. What I said which triggered you into a rant is, “ I do not see what your emphasis is intended to convey”. You respond saying,

”GEEZ. so paranoid! … … You always do this, write like you have your dukes up, spoiling for a fight, suspicious of every word. That's why I don't like to post on any of your threads on foreign policy. I'm not into arguing about it”.

Looks like it is you who jumped in with your dukes up. And to say you are not into arguing about it or anything else, is belied by your several long incoherent argumentative remarks in this thread and by literally hundreds of other arguments you have made on many other subjects. Have you heard of the concept of ‘projection’?

You got there first but I was going to say: isn't it that Lulu posts the same exact story about Israel attacking Iran at least once a year for like more than 10 years even going back to TPM Cafe?

Then you immediately list a few of the many attacks that Israel has in fact carried out against Iran followed by:

It's just that he uses scare headlines on his stories that make it sound like there's going to be a boots on the ground war. That's not going to happen.

Neither I nor the article I posted mentioned war worth being concerned about being defined by boots on the ground. And, I did not use “scare headlines”. I posted the news item at “In The News” with the headline it was published under. Isn’t that the correct way to do it? Isn't that the way that you do it? And, how can you be so sure that a wider war will not break out.

Apparently, based on what you have said here in one of your supposed non-arguments, you think as long as Israel doesn’t attack with boots on the ground that it is just fine if Israel uses U.S. supplied aircraft, bombs, and rockets to strike Iran any damned time they feel like it. You say that that is how they prevent a wider war, one with boots on the ground which would be bad, I guess, because in that case not only Iranians but also Israeli and U.S. citizens and soldiers will die. I disagree with your value judgments on this issue and with your confidence that Israel and the U.S. can keep on slapping Iran militarily as the U.S. tries to starve that country into submission with no worry that it will someday explode into a much more intense and widespread war.

Whatever Israel does it's not the end of the world.

It is for some people even though so far not the people of NYC.

THE PANDEMIC -cause by a continually mutating virus-COULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD, though, literally.

GLOBAL WARMING COULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD, though, literally.

Don't you realize these are more dangerous than nukes going off and destroying a few countries in the middle east are nothing compared to what is actually happening in the world right now? By both covid and it's economic effects and by global warming caused natural disaster and it economic after effects.

Now I will opine a bit. You say that the nuclear destruction of a few countries is “nothing by comparison ...” That is a sick fuck statement which I think you should reconsider. You point out two possibly existential threats and go on to say that nuclear war, which is certainly another existential threat, pales by comparison as something to worry about. I do not believe, as you assert, that destroying a few countries in the Middle East with nuclear weapons is “nothing”. That outcome, IMO and even if the destruction were limited to those far away countries, would be an immense tragedy no matter what other tragedy it could be compared to. Your mileage quite obviously varies.

I was rather amused by

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 01 Nov 2021 20:29:09 +0000

In reply to p.s. Actually I will opine a

I was rather amused by listing out the Jews in Biden's cabinet - is that kind of thing still done in the 21st Century?

p.s. Actually I will opine a

artappraiser — Mon, 01 Nov 2021 19:23:14 +0000

In reply to GEEZ. so paranoid! The

p.s. Actually I will opine a little. Whatever Israel does it's not the end of the world.

THE PANDEMIC -cause by a continually mutating virus-COULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD, though, literally.

GLOBAL WARMING COULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD, though, literally.

Don't you realize these are more dangerous than nukes going off and destroying a few countries in the middle east are nothing compared to what is actually happening in the world right now? By both covid and it's economic effects and by global warming caused natural disaster and it economic after effects?

But people like you and the sites you frequent are still obsessed with Israel.It strikes me as absurd in this day and age: FOREST/TREES.

Japan was nuked at end of WWII. They ALSO recently had a nuclear disaster. Where are they now? Many countries have experienced the equivalent in death and destruction from Covid right now, right now, you're living it, WE ARE LIVING THROUGH LIKE THE BLACK DEATH, it's going to be THE major story in the history books if humans survive. Your old timey concerns in the context of reality about this or that individual country being evil warmongers, like it is of the utmost importance and fear and loathing, they strike as absurd!

You got there first but I was

artappraiser — Mon, 01 Nov 2021 19:06:39 +0000

In reply to "So far his diplomacy is

You got there first but I was going to say: isn't it that Lulu posts the same exact story about Israel attacking Iran at least once a year for like more than 10 years even going back to TPM Cafe?

And this part, it's actually true, they do attack Iran once every so often! For examples, they even did so this year

It's just that he uses scare headlines on his stories that make it sound like there's going to be a boots on the ground war. That's not going to happen. They are next door neighbors, they are not interested in going there. That's exactly why they do covert attacks on things that Iran will naturally want to deny that they have, so there won't have to be a boots on the ground war. Iran doesn't complain too much as they want to hide that Israeli intel was correct.

Same with Operation Opera on neighbor Iraq going all the way back to 1981.

There's not going to be a boots on the ground war between Israel on neighbors precisely because they do pre-emptive attacks all the time, they want to prevent boots on the ground war.

Yes, they are always "at war." If you want to call it that. That's Israel! They want to be the only country in the hood with nukes. Deal with it!

The really big surprise is not "war" or whatever you want to call it, but that they've gotten very friendly with Sunni neighbors, who have lately seen the light of a kind of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing.

Look, the U.S. had an actual boots on the ground war with their neighbor Iraq for a long time. Did they send soldiers to participate? Nope! They mostly obeyed what western allies told them do: sit there and take incoming missiles and don't retaliate.

GEEZ. so paranoid! The

artappraiser — Mon, 01 Nov 2021 19:04:36 +0000

In reply to I would just emphasize that

GEEZ. so paranoid! The emphasis was intended to convey: he was announcing official U.S. policy to the rest of the world leaders. He is our elected leader and he chose the wording of the speech.

I was just pointing it out. That was the U.S. president speaking to the world. Official.

Now if you want to say he was lying, and the State Dept. or somebody else said different, go ahead, fine with me. I personally don't know.

You always do this, write like you have your dukes up, spoiling for a fight, suspicious of every word.

That's why I don't like to post on any of your threads on foreign policy. I'm not into arguing about it. I don't see what good that does, I think anonymice on dagblog fighting about foreign policy is a ridiculous use of time.