Looks like the war with Iran is cooking off

[Ninurta]

Funny, when it's the US, Israel, and the West, it's called "government".
But when it's Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and China, it's called "regime".

Not true. The Biden years were a "Regime". The Obama years were a "regime" The years of both of the Bushes were "Regimes". The Clinton Years were a regime". The US has been under regimes for most of the last few decades. At this very moment, in Virginia, the Spamburger regime is a "regime". I've consistently referred to all of them as such.

In bald terms, any government is a "regime", but the term "regime" has certain connotations not spelled out in the dictionary definitions, but understood by most to be included all the same. A "regime" is generally understood as a government prone to authoritarian crackdowns on it's own people. All of the regimes I mentioned above did, or in some cases are still doing, that.

So is Iran. Hence, it's a "regime"

When it's the US, Israel, and the West, it's called "preemptive strikes".
But when it's China, Russia, and Iran, it's called "aggressive attack".

I can give ya that, but with caveats. ANY strike, whether defensive, preemptive, or invasive, is "aggression" or "aggressive". What damned good is an attack that isn't? Also, as is the case in many arenas, the word choice depends on who is doing the talking. For example, the Iranian government propagandists makes no bones about calling US actions "Aggression" and a "war of aggression", as if those terms are not oxymoronic. As I mentioned above, what damned good is a war that ISN'T aggressive? If you're not willing to get aggressive with your enemy, you might as well just pull out the old barbecue and invite them over for a cookout.

When it's the US, Israel, and the West, it's called "defense".
But when it's China, Russia, and Iran, it's called "retaliation".

There is no particular reason that both can't be true simultaneously. Bullies stealing lunch money in the schoolyard tend to get all kinds of put out when one acts in a "defensive" manner and dots their damned eyes for them, and will often try to "retaliate". Both can be true at the same time.

When it's the US, Israel, and the West, it's called "intervention".
But when it's China, Russia, and Iran, it's called "invasion".

I recall vividly the Iraq War being called an "invasion", which it was. That wasn't China, Russia, or Iran doing the invading. Ya call a spade a spade, whomever plays it.

When it is the US and the West, they are called allies.

When it is Iran, China, or Russia, they are called axis of evil.

Allies are allies, whichever side they are allying with. However, just a couple days ago I saw an X post by the "Axis of Evil" powers, I think it was the Houthis, calling THEMSELVES. along with Hamas, Iran, and Hezbollah, "The Axis". I find it hard to argue when they themselves are saying the same thing, you know?

Control the media and you'll control the people.

Now THERE i a true statement. Which media outlet (propaganda outlet) one chooses to believe is wonderfully informative of whom they  want controlling them. In this current propaganda war, the two choices are either the US, government or the Iranian mullahs. You just have to watch to see which side a person is rooting for to figure out which Overlord they want to win.

https://x.com/RT_com/status/2038705687639855383

"Iran is not a conquerable land" Of course that's true. NO land is a "conquerable land". You don't go into a war intending to conquer land - inanimate dirt - you go into it to deal with people not dirt. What the propagandist is doing there is making an assumption for the sake of supporting their argument. That assumption is that the intent is to "conquer Iran". That's a might big assumption given the facts so far of the war. I'm surprised more people don't see right through it... but see my comment above about how to tell who anyone wants to have ruling over them. People often see only what they want to.

So, what if the US is only trying to change out one government for another? Why would they want to "conquer" dirt, since dirt doesn't govern much at all? It may be that it's not the territory we are at war with, but the mullahs. I think maybe the propagandist there doesn't want anyone to figure that out...

The same argument goes for "you can't fight 'em 'coz they got MOUNTAINS!" Mountainous terrain is not unconquerable. It can be, and has been repeatedly, quite thoroughly conquered. It's just very difficult, but it's not at all impossible. That's one of the reasons I live in Mountains. I know how to work 'em to my advantage. Woe betide anyone that thinks conquering me will be easy, but likewise woe betide anyone that thinks they can hide from me behind a mountain. It's not undo-able if one knows what he is doing. The US military seems to have a clue. It's the politicians they answer to that worry me. Politicians have lost more wars for the west than any number of soldiers fighting the wars. The politicians seem to have a knack for snatching defeat right out of the jaws of a victory.

I will reiterate, again, that the US should not send in US troops to "invade" or "conquer" That is a recipe for disaster, just as it was in Iraq. Our troops are not needed. There are plenty of other willing locals that would do the job for free if we just sent arms to them. So, if the folks running this war are smart, the Mullah regime can wish for invasion in one hand and shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.

Iran has offered no evidence that they US attacked DURING negotiations... but the US HAS offered evidence that the negotiations were over at Iran's insistence before any attacks took place. But, with that said, I'm not a big fan of negotiations anyhow. It's just one side trying to beat the other without a stick. Case in point - Iran's "conditions" Those are nothing short of laughable. They know the US isn't going for that any more than they'd go for what the US was insisting on before Iran started threatening us with nukes in the negotiation chambers, ending the negotiations.

It all really reminds me of an old book and movie (with Peter Cushing) I recall from the 1960's called "The Mouse That Roared".

"Reparations" my dyin' ass. Maybe Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman,Kuwait, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, all the countries hurting for oil at the moment, and the US need to demand "reparations" from Iran instead, seeing as how they started all this shit to begin with... and given that fact, they might want to rethink that "aggressor punished" demand. Let that roarin' mouse chew on that for a while.

ETA: What worries me the most at the moment is this - who in the hell is this "new government in Iran" that Trump keeps yammering on about? I don't see any "new government" in Iran, just the same old totalitarian regime with new chess pieces in place, just the same old turd with a flashy paint job. So who in the hell is it?

.