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.