Looks like the war with Iran is cooking off

[YesItsMe]

Most of the world and the majority of Americans are against this war.

That's moving the goal posts again.  How popular this war is has nothing to do with the facts I presented.

[quintessentone]

Israel attacked first, so they do have the right to defend themselves. International Law states:

...

No, they did not... but I suspect that is something we will never see eye-to-eye on, so it's probably best for me to let it slide. I've already stated my case in that regard in any event, several times and upthread, and that case has not yet been refuted or even seriously challenged.

So, I rest my case.

.

Many in the international world sees it as Iran being attacked first while others buy in to Israel's having to attack it's neighbors to protect itself when it's not actually being attacked, so you can state your case all you want and I will do the same and we will never see eye to eye on this, that's for sure.

---

Most of the world and the majority of Americans are against this war.

That's moving the goal posts again.  How popular this war is has nothing to do with the facts I presented.

It has everything to do with the facts because where you get your facts matter with perspective, and you don't provide any sources where we can read your facts.

Ignoring the majority consensus doesn't help your case and lays bare your facts as being prone to subjectivity.

[Ninurta]

Iran didn't start this war, Israel did and dragged Trump along by the nose.

So forget the 47 years of suffering of the millions of average Iranian women at the hands of fanatical clerics who think women, your mothers, daughters, and sisters are subhuman animals to be used and abused by men?

The hypocrisy is thick...

The hypocrisy is thick because you nor your government give a rat's ass about the women in that country, nor in Afghanistan where you left that vile mess and where women are now the most abused in the world.

Keep your sympathies for the incarcerated women raped by ICE, with the women in some of your states where women have no dominion over their bodies, and where pastors like that Wilson guy want to strip women of their human and voting rights and whom Hegseth kisses his feet.

And there it is. Now we're making it a personal attack against another member. Not gonna fly here.

You might assume the desires and motivations of a government without cause, but not an individual. You are not them, and have nary a clue as to what they may or may not "give a rat's ass" about.

There are no states, at least not in the US, where "women have no dominion over their own bodies". None. Not a single one, anywhere in the US. That is a claim with neither proof nor evidence, and indeed there cannot be any such evidence, much less proof. Because it's not there. Oh, the Left TRIED to remove that dominion during the covid scare, but they were not successful. At least they were equal opportunity totalitarians about it - they tried to remove EVERYONE'S dominion over their own bodies, both male and female.

.

I was accused of hypocrisy first and then Omega caught that fact. You might want to chastise the other member as well.

I responded in kind because there certainly is hypocrisy in your government and laws (abortion banned) and now aggressive military actions in the Middle East.

I am anti-war and I will call out the illegality, self-serving elitist goals, and ulterior motives that I see with Israel and the USA in that region.

I posted International Law giving Iran the right to defend itself and under which circumstances.

Most of the world and the majority of Americans agree with my stance on this war.

I did catch the "hypocrisy is thick" comment, but could not apply it to you personally. Otherwise, it appears to be a true statement when applied to the internet at large, and that was how I took it, rather than personally.

In the matter of what the "majority of Americans" believe, that is subjective rather than objective. Myself, actually being here in America and milling about among the masses, I can say truthfully that I have not heard a single American comment negatively on the war in any face-to-face settings where I can verify it is an actual person speaking. The internet, now, not so much. I've heard a lot of disparagement among the warrens of the internet, but there I cannot verify that it is an actual person speaking.

Now, that does not mean there are no detractors out there. I'm sure there are. It just means I've not been able to find one in my travels. Therefore, I must question the assessment that "most" Americans feel in any way or another, either for or against the war.

So, if an objective assessment cannot be made by an American here on the ground, what hope does someone NOT here on the ground have of making an objective assessment of the "temperature of the Americans" have? 

We could fall to polls, I suppose, but I  have not seen an unbiased poll in either direction since around 2012 or 2014. In recent years, all of them have built-in biases, intending to sway the thought  of others in one direction or another using the "herd mentality" - i.e. trying to convince folks that "most" people think this way or that, so that person should think that way, too.

So, I can't endorse any polls in that regard, either. You can find polls slanted both for and against this war. It's just a matter of which polls one wants to drag out, and "poll wars" are probably not the direction to go to get at "truth", either.

.

[gortex]

The excuse is same as the Iraq war , WMDs , it's hard to see how the result won't be the same.

[Ninurta]

Afghanistan has the most horrific domestic violence against women in the world and guess which country created that or allowed that happen? Don't see it? Don't care?

Pakistan.

The Taliban, current government of Afghanistan and arbiter of "morals" there, was wholly and entirely created by Pakistani ISI in or around 1993 as a means of exercising Pakistani control over Afghanistan via a proxy / puppet government. This occurred in the power vacuum left by the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, which the US also declined to fill.

The original taliban was recruited from Pakistani madrasas by Pakistani ISI. a "madrasa" is a school, and it is built into the very name of the Taliban - "taliban" means "students". One student is a "talib".

As is usual with these sorts of things, however, the Taliban grew beyond Pakistani control, and is now a thorn in their side instead.

Original US culpability is in not filling the power vacuum left by the Soviets ourselves. Some of us argued strongly in favor of doing just that, but we were ignored. We weren't even over-ruled... just ignored.

Secondary US culpability lies with the BidenHarris administration in the US, who ran away from Afghanistan so fast it left a hole in the air... and yet another power vacuum to be filled. The Taliban was the only immediately available force to fill it.

.

US's culpability was explained very well in Afghanistan. Now how about the US's culpability in regards to the rise and emergence of ISIL/ISIS in Iraq?

Again, I'll say... Don't see it? Don't care? Walk away and leave your government messes for someone else to clean up?

---

That seems a fair question. I followed the inception and early development of ISIS pretty closely. I went so far as to obtain (through probably less than savory channels) their internal magazines such as "Dabiq" to stay abreast of their development. I couldn't find any US involvement there in it's beginning, but later, I DID find US involvement in it's development in Syria. The Obama regime was actually "accidentally" air dropping weapons to ISIS in Syria, thus assisting their development and aggression in that quarter.

Syria is probably yet another war we should not have involved ourselves in. The net result is that now we have "former" ISIS in charge of Syria, which is something we may have to go in and clean up later on down the road. As you say, Syria is, in large part, "our mess", and it should be up to us to clean it up.

ETA: oh, and there is no such thing as "ISIL". It is, and has always been since inception, "ISIS" (Islamic State in Iraq and Shams (Syria)). "ISIL" was an Obama regime term for his radicalized friends. He used it and demanded it's use to avoid offending those same friends by any association to an ancient Egyptian goddess, which they would consider "idolatry". Their own internal designation has always bee "ISIS" - it just didn't translate well for them into English.

Now ISIS did, and still does, have designs on the levant, but only in the sense that they intend to "fight until the whoole world if for Allah" - i.e. create a global caliphate, with themselves in charge of it. In that sense, and considering the Levant is a part of "the whole world", they may be said to have designs on the Levant as well. However, the Levant has never been included in ISIS's self-designation.

.

[The Crying Bunny]

The excuse is same as the Iraq war , WMDs , it's hard to see how the result won't be the same.

I disagree.  

The Trump doctrine appears that he wants to win wars, not prolong them.

[Ninurta]

Well, I'm glad the US and Israel are finally doing this to Iran.

We've had every president since Carter ignore Iran, or appease or bribe Iran.

Next is Cuba!

I wonder if Russia will repeat the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis and give them the means to prevent American aggression and piracy on their land?

Probably. It worked out so well for them last time, now didn't it? I see no reason for them not to repeat the same mistake over and over and over again...

.

Which country is repeating the same mistakes again?

Well, I thought the assertion was for Russia to house nuclear missiles in Cuba, so that would be Russia's mistake, eh?

And, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, it was my understanding that the missiles were not for Cuba's use, but instead were for the Soviet Union's use. I suppose I could be wrong about that, but that was my understanding of it. Folks were upset about "Soviet nukes within 90 miles of the US border". No one was crying about "Cuban nukes within 90 miles of the US border".

But, yeah, I reckon Russia is welcome to roll those dice again and see how it turns out. Trump seems to have a bug up his butt about events in the Western Hemisphere specifically, so it might not be the smartest thing they could do all week

.

[Ninurta]

If Iran wanted to destroy Israel they could have done it easily within that timeframe. Israel can't win any wars without the USA .

Not old enough to remember the Six Day War, I see.

It's not about that it's about Zionist donors buying your government leaders to push Zionist expansionist goals in that region.

That is perilously close to the White Supremacist doctrine regarding the "ZOG" (Zionist Occupation Government) in America. I remember the KKK pushing that pretty hard.

No one else back then, just the White Supremacists.

Are yo asserting that the White Supremacists were correct in their assumptions?

.

I followed the money and I hazard a guess so do the extreme right wingers in your country.

"Miriam Adelson, a dual Israeli-American billionaire and widow of casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, is one of the most prominent Zionist billionaires to donate to Donald Trump’s campaign.  She has contributed $100 million to Trump’s 2024 campaign through her political action committee (PAC), making her the single largest donor to his re-election effort.  Her support has been tied to her staunch pro-Israel stance, including advocating for the annexation of the occupied West Bank and pushing for U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over disputed territories."

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/miria...king-trump

That's an excellent argument in favor of campaign finance reform, but not such a good argument for the existence of a "ZOG" in America. A quick brush-up on the old White Supremacist literature - maybe the "Turner Diaries" or something like that - might provide a better argument in that regard.


.

My argument was sound, just because you won't accept it as fact well that's the way the cookie crumbles.

I didn't accept it as "fact" when it was the White Supremacists pushing it back in the day, so I cannot, in any degree of fairness, accept the same argument as "fact" now that someone else has dusted it off and is promoting it.

"Fact" does not depend on political, racial, or cultural leaning. It stands alone, independent of those factors. "Fact" just is. It exists without a need for any spin.

.

[The Crying Bunny]

Facts are objective.

Truths are subjective.

[Ninurta]

Many in the international world sees it as Iran being attacked first while others buy in to Israel's having to attack it's neighbors to protect itself when it's not actually being attacked, so you can state your case all you want and I will do the same and we will never see eye to eye on this, that's for sure.

  

An interesting choice of phrasing - one side "sees" while the other side "buys in", "Seeing" implies there is something concrete there to see, while "buying in" implies there is not, and indicates a belief that lying is going on, which the "buys in" side is susceptible to, but the other side isn't for some strange reason. Interesting choices of phrase indeed!

Now, with that said, I have no doubt that "many" in the international world "see" it that way. I don't globe-trot any more to be able to objectively assess that determination, but neither do I have any reason to doubt it.

However, what they think they "see" is irrelevant as far as the "truth" goes. It's just as likely that what they think they are "seeing" is manufactured pap, designed to stir up their feelings, which that particular side has a disposition towards.

Here's another fact: feelings come, and feelings go. "Fact" and "Truth" remain regardless of the ebb and flow of feelings

---

Most of the world and the majority of Americans are against this war.

That's moving the goal posts again.  How popular this war is has nothing to do with the facts I presented.

It has everything to do with the facts because where you get your facts matter with perspective, and you don't provide any sources where we can read your facts.

Ignoring the majority consensus doesn't help your case and lays bare your facts as being prone to subjectivity.

Another unfortunate fact is that neither "truth" nor "Fact" depend upon "consensus". Consensus can exist, and still be "wrong" so far as fact and truth are concerned.

As it was put to me long ago, "a man can be sincere, and he can still be sincerely wrong". The same applies to consensus, which is, after all, just the thoughts or beliefs of a collection of individual people. As such, there is no requirement that it have any bearing on truth or fact.

.

[Ninurta]

The excuse is same as the Iraq war , WMDs , it's hard to see how the result won't be the same.

I agree. It IS difficult to see, isn't it? Some times, one has to really dig through the rubble to find the nuggets.

One difference I can find is that there has been - so far anyways - no ground invasion. That was Bush's second mistake in the Iraq War, with his first being to unnecessarily attack in the first place when he should have been concentrating on AQ in Afghanistan instead..

Another difference I can find is that we did not have Iran buttoned up and locked down with "no fly zones" in the entire north and south of their own country for a whole decade before the strikes commenced, whereas in Iraq that actually WAS the case.

So, if I can find those two differences fairly quickly, it's possible that there may be yet others underneath the rubble.

.

[Ninurta]

Facts are objective.

Truths are subjective.

"Truths" (plural) have been redefined by the Left to be subjective, such that each person can have their own personal "truths". "Truth" itself (singular) is not subjective, nor does it depend of "feelings" or "consensus" or any individual's "belief". it just IS. It stands alone.

Since I've long fought against the redefinition of the English language by the Left to mean whatever the Left wants it to mean on any particular day, I do not accept any subjective, individual-based "truths". They are like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny (no offense intended there, bud!). They are convenient fictions redefined to keep the children calmed.

Examples: "My Truth" is that I am a male. That's what it feels like to me, and that is subjective. "Truth" is that I have X and Y chromosomes, plus dangly bits where the average man has dangly bits and the average woman does not, and that condition has been defined as "male" for millennia, in recognition of biological differences (i.e. "science"). That is objective "Fact" or "Truth". It just so happens, in my case, that both tend towards agreement.

.

[quintessentone]

Many in the international world sees it as Iran being attacked first while others buy in to Israel's having to attack it's neighbors to protect itself when it's not actually being attacked, so you can state your case all you want and I will do the same and we will never see eye to eye on this, that's for sure.

  

An interesting choice of phrasing - one side "sees" while the other side "buys in", "Seeing" implies there is something concrete there to see, while "buying in" implies there is not, and indicates a belief that lying is going on, which the "buys in" side is susceptible to, but the other side isn't for some strange reason. Interesting choices of phrase indeed!

Now, with that said, I have no doubt that "many" in the international world "see" it that way. I don't globe-trot any more to be able to objectively assess that determination, but neither do I have any reason to doubt it.

However, what they think they "see" is irrelevant as far as the "truth" goes. It's just as likely that what they think they are "seeing" is manufactured pap, designed to stir up their feelings, which that particular side has a disposition towards.

Here's another fact: feelings come, and feelings go. "Fact" and "Truth" remain regardless of the ebb and flow of feelings

---

Most of the world and the majority of Americans are against this war.

That's moving the goal posts again.  How popular this war is has nothing to do with the facts I presented.

It has everything to do with the facts because where you get your facts matter with perspective, and you don't provide any sources where we can read your facts.

Ignoring the majority consensus doesn't help your case and lays bare your facts as being prone to subjectivity.

Another unfortunate fact is that neither "truth" nor "Fact" depend upon "consensus". Consensus can exist, and still be "wrong" so far as fact and truth are concerned.

As it was put to me long ago, "a man can be sincere, and he can still be sincerely wrong". The same applies to consensus, which is, after all, just the thoughts or beliefs of a collection of individual people. As such, there is no requirement that it have any bearing on truth or fact.

.

Then again consensus can show the true feelings and desires of the majority. In this case, the majority are against Israel and the US in starting this war.

[The Crying Bunny]

We all embrace different truths, but with the caveat that it was always opinion-based.

A truth is that God exists.

We allow that.

The problem is when we accept "truth" as "fact".

Like men having babies, or Iran is an innocent nation.

[quintessentone]

We all embrace different truths, but with the caveat that it was always opinion-based.

A truth is that God exists.

We allow that.

The problem is when we accept "truth" as "fact".

Like men having babies, or Iran is an innocent nation.

Nobody said Iran is an innocent nation, I said Israel attacked Iran first so International Law kicked in.

Some facts need to be proven as truth is what I said also.

The majority of people do not want this war: that is fact.

Where does God exist?

[Ninurta]

Then again consensus can show the true feelings and desires of the majority. In this case, the majority are against Israel and the US in starting this war.

Agreed that consensus is entirely dependent on beliefs or feeling. That is not in dispute. I do, however, dispute the assertion that a "majority" has reached any such consensus on the matter. That has not been demonstrated within the sphere of my own reach, and I have no reason to believe it has been reached beyond that sphere, either.

I would also dispute the assertion that "Israel and the US  started this war". That's just not the view from down here in the trenches. It's possible that, if the propaganda machine works enough overtime, they may manufacture that view, but it's just not here yet.

BTW, I do appreciate the civil debate on these matters. They're important - too important to let emotion get in in the way of. :thumbsup:

.

[The Crying Bunny]

We all embrace different truths, but with the caveat that it was always opinion-based.

A truth is that God exists.

We allow that.

The problem is when we accept "truth" as "fact".

Like men having babies, or Iran is an innocent nation.

Nobody said Iran is an innocent nation, I said Israel attacked Iran first so International Law kicked in.

Some facts need to be proven as truth is what I said also.

The majority of people do not want this war: that is fact.

Where does God exist?

*shrugs*

Again, your opinion.

Not fact.

"Opinions are like assholes, at least most women marry one".
-My wife

[quintessentone]

Then again consensus can show the true feelings and desires of the majority. In this case, the majority are against Israel and the US in starting this war.

Agreed that consensus is entirely dependent on beliefs or feeling. That is not in dispute. I do, however, dispute the assertion that a "majority" has reached any such consensus on the matter. That has not been demonstrated within the sphere of my own reach, and I have no reason to believe it has been reached beyond that sphere, either.

I would also dispute the assertion that "Israel and the US  started this war". That's just not the view from down here in the trenches. It's possible that, if the propaganda machine works enough overtime, they may manufacture that view, but it's just not here yet.

BTW, I do appreciate the civil debate on these matters. They're important - too important to let emotion get in in the way of. :thumbsup:

.

Well the proof is in the pudding when Trump asks other countries to send in their warships to the Strait of Hormuz and he gets back silence.

Why doesn't he send his own warships there?

---

We all embrace different truths, but with the caveat that it was always opinion-based.

A truth is that God exists.

We allow that.

The problem is when we accept "truth" as "fact".

Like men having babies, or Iran is an innocent nation.

Nobody said Iran is an innocent nation, I said Israel attacked Iran first so International Law kicked in.

Some facts need to be proven as truth is what I said also.

The majority of people do not want this war: that is fact.

Where does God exist?

*shrugs*

Again, your opinion.

Not fact.

"Opinions are like assholes, at least most women marry one".
-My wife

There are opinions then there are majority consensus on assholes attacking other countries to further their own selfish goals, along with International Laws spelling it out.

[The Crying Bunny]

The majority does not own the franchise on facts.

The majority is often filled with people too damned lazy to think for themselves.

[YesItsMe]

I said Israel attacked Iran first

And yet it did not.

assholes attacking other countries to further their own selfish goals

Which is what Iran has been doing for 50 years.