American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

In the end it doesn't matter what I think or you think, it matters what Israel thinks and they clearly think Iran is a threat, and a nuclear Iran is an existential threat.  They are obviously right but I have zero desire to try and change someone's mind on the Internet .

Darrell

[Charr Babies]

In the end it doesn't matter what I think or you think...
.... I have zero desire to try and change someone's mind on the Internet .

Truth! We can argue all day, but it won’t make a damn difference in the grand scheme of things. But, it begs the question why people post on political forums when they claim they “have zero desire to try and change someone's mind on the Internet?”

People often post on political forums despite claiming they have zero desire to try and change someone's mind because their motivations go beyond persuasion. These spaces offer a sense of identity affirmation, community, and emotional release. Posting allows individuals to express their values, connect with like-minded others, and feel heard, even if only symbolically. For many, it's less about convincing others and more about personal or collective validation, or simply for intellectual engagement.

I'm only responding to this because religious and political forum exchanges like these are often criticized for being unproductive. While productive discussions can happen, they're improbable. Anyone expecting these political exchanges to be productive is only fooling themselves.

it matters what Israel thinks and they clearly think Iran is a threat, and a nuclear Iran is an existential threat.

This is the same argument I use for the Russia/Ukraine conflict. Despite the fact that if Ukraine joins NATO, the nuclear threat, with an “unlimited” amount of nukes, IS REAL. While WMD from Iran is a manufactured pretext for war, the same lie they used with Iraq.

The only difference is, they didn’t even bother to stage a performance to present another Tube Of Lies this time around.

Everyone knows Iran is developing the bomb

For 40 years now!   Everyone knows I am hard at developing to become a billionaire (it doesn't even make me a millionaire ).

---

[Mjmd]

Again, I disagree there is a "correct" side in the Iran / Israel example. Both of them have a pretty bad long history at this point. I also think that Israel's actions are stupid for their goal. But just to be clear this is NOT the same as Russia attacking Ukraine. Or at the VERY least its EVEN CLEARER its a bad justification. Like you think Israel is in bad faith here and you might be right, but its EVEN CLEARER in Russia's case. Its so mentally disconnecting that you can look at Israel missile attacking Iran and go "this is not justified" and then look at Russia attacking Ukraine and go "totally justified". Its a mental disconnect.

Again these are NOT excusing Israel. I'm pretty firm in the camp of the party with more power has the responsibility in a situation to deescalate and they choose the opposite. I'm just going to list some ways this is different. Again, this is mainly to show that the Russia situation was WAY WAY WAY less justified.

1) Iran is funding proxy groups and shipping them weapons to attack Israel. Ukraine wasn't doing that against Russia. Quite the opposite. Russia has a long history of shadow operations vs neighbors. It also has a history of invading its neighbors using flimsy excuses and taking them over for territorial expansion.
2) You can tell Russia doesn't think NATO is a threat because they actively have moved troops and resources away from existing borders. Again, if the argument is "well if they think it is is fine" while not a good argument for war lets be clear, it isn't even true vs NATO. Despite a now longer border with NATO thanks to Finland Russia has moved resources away from that border.
3) The threat of a nuke from Ukraine IS NOT REAL. We've went over this. A) It doesn't matter where its launched from. B) there are multiple other NATO countries that are as close / closer / close enough to make no difference. Let alone the Baltic. C) no NATO nukes have ever been put in an eastern bloc country. D) the threat of Nukes from Iran MIGHT be real. Again, I would argue probably even if they did get them its not relevant and therefore this is a bad justification (see India Pakistan staring at each other / having minor scuffles but no more), but its way higher than if Ukraine joined NATO and was just protected from being nuked by America's existing nuclear umbrella. The odds and situation don't change if Ukraine joins NATO vs any of the other nearby NATO nations. The situation for Israel does change if Iran has nukes. Again, I tend to agree with Greenline that it probably just means they can't do whatever they want in retaliation (see #1), but that is a change. E) And just to be clear, it might not be real for Iran either as you've pointed out. You very well might be right and a stronger power is using it as a bad justification for war........ WHICH THEN YOU AGREE WITH ME!!!!! But for some reason not when it comes to Russia, just when it comes to Israel. Weird how that happens in peoples minds.

[Charr Babies]

You keep regurgitating the same BS I’ve debunked over and over again.

My point is simplified here for you, again, Nukes are real for NATO members. Iran's WMD is the same lie as Iraq’s WMD.

The US is funding the current Israel-Iran and the Russia-Ukraine war (among every shit show around the globe). Would you deem it to be just if Iran and Russia attack the US?

[Mjmd]

You've NEVER debunked them.

I mean nukes are real for NATO members, the DEFENSIVE alliance. It also doesn't matter in regards to said nukes if Ukraine is in NATO or out of it. Again, it doesn't actually change the situation other thank making Ukraine much safer. Finland joined NATO and Russia's reaction was to continue moving forces and material away from it. And Finland is spitting distance from Russia's second most important city and has a historical axe to grind, but yet forces move away from it. Its known Iran is enriching Uranium. Maybe they have a nuke / have gone farther towards, maybe they haven't / aren't. If you have the secret intel docs one way or another we can make some news. In any case Israel is using it as a justification. You stated its a bad justification, which if you agree this situation is wrong, THEN the Russia Ukraine one easily passes the test. Your ONLY counter is "no they don't". Which again, you can't back up. Not stellar logic.

I mean they have. Iran has fired missiles at US bases and Russia does shadow ops to the west all the time (hacking and cutting underwater cables come to mind). Both have funded and supplied against us in multiple proxy wars / flare ups. We don't directly attack Russia despite that. Because they have nukes (IE yes they have nothing to fear). We have attacked Iran, but mostly proxy against both. Proxy wars are a pretty common geopolitical tool. I want to be clear I don't think that makes any of it "just" or "morally correct". I also for the record don't think geopolitically it makes sense in either case (again the scale of the attacks Israel did are counter productive to their stated goal). But it is a pretty clear factor in this case and it wasn't a factor in the same direction in the Russia Ukraine case (IE Russia was shadow attacking Ukraine, vs Iran shadow attacking Israel).

[BING_XI_LAO]

In the end it doesn't matter what I think or you think, it matters what Israel thinks and they clearly think Iran is a threat, and a nuclear Iran is an existential threat.  They are obviously right but I have zero desire to try and change someone's mind on the Internet .

Darrell

If you're concerned about a "threat" to the region then we should start with the regimes who arranged the destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya. 

Additionally, Israel is a destabilising rogue state, engaging in a declared strategy of ethnic cleansing backed up by region-spanning terror-assassination-sabotage activities, and a nuclear weapons program of its own.

Why does it matter what Israel thinks about Iran, and not what Iran thinks about Israel? 

My answer to that question is that a critical mass of Americans are shabbos goyim whose religion has had the dispensationalist heresy written into it over the course of the past few centuries. Within the halls of power, these despicable slaves are joined by actual Zionist Jews and even dual citizen Israelis.

And this is one of the main reasons liberal democracy is illegitimate, because Jewish supremacy is objectively its most fundamental value. This has been a centuries-spanning process which began with Cromwell quietly violating the 1290 Edict of Expulsion in the 1650s, a violation of the English nation which escalated further after the 1688 coup, thanks to the nature of many of its financiers.

For example Germany has the survival of a certain country as its "reason of state", and the country in question is not Germany. Ergo, the German government is a foreign occupation regime, and completely illegitimate. That's just one case where the Jewish supremacy happens to be explicit. I already mentioned several unique privileges Jews enjoy in the US in a previous post.

Three of the other main reasons Western democratic regimes are illegitimate are their hostility to the traditional values of the indigenous white population (which has in the past decade escalated to the destruction of monuments by the regime, for example), the denial that the indigenous white population has a homeland and a heritage of its own (the nation of immigrants line has been applied not just to the US, but recently also to England), the introduction of hostile settlers who are then propandised by state outlets to resent "racist" whites. 

If none of that bothers you, because it's just multi-cultural tolerance at work... these same regimes provide military support to revanchist ethno-nationalist Israel as it uses ethnic cleansing to expand its territory. Israel is far more brutal than apartheid South Africa, but it's unimaginable that today's US and NATO would besiege it with sanctions. Just like the Ukraine's Azov-type Nazis are funded and armed, not sanctioned, as long as they fight for the Kolomoiskyberg-Reznikovstein-Zelenskyowitz government.

So no, Western democratic regimes are not "anti-racist". They support racism in favour of Jews, which means the real reason they are "anti-racist" the rest of the time is NOT a principled stance, it is NOT an ideology, it's because they must suppress and betray whites if they are to preferentially serve a different ethnicity, namely the Jews.

If you are a Western anti-racist, you are actually just a useful idiot for Jewish supremacy. You have completely failed to enforce your anti-racist beliefs. This whole time, anti-racism was promoted for the sole purpose of allowing a different, shapeshifting, ambiguous ethnicity to replace whites in the driver's seat.

Incidentally, there's also the constant capitalist scams, like the relentless leeching of wealth through the deliberate housing shortage, constantly draining the citizenry's earnings into American banks via rental and mortgages. It's not just the 'identity politics', democratic regimes are inferior and incompetent across the board. Western regimes can't build high-speed rail, or HVDC lines, or nuclear power plants, because they fundamentally don't care about the future of their society. Their ultimate loyalty lies elsewhere. 

It's bad enough when the western regimes organise the total eradication of the culture and nationhood of the European peoples, but in a sense this is "only their problem". It becomes a global SHAME when the Western regimes, acting once again in accordance with their Jewish supremacist values, to launch another region-spanning campaign of ethnic cleansing, sabotage, terrorism and occupation in the Middle East.

P.S. if you feel the need to ban me over this post, is it possible to just ban me from the politics thread, or threaten to ban me from the forum if I post in the same vein here again? I still play some civ4 here from time to time.

[greenline]

There is a large faction for whom anti-racism is a consistent ideology, because they support 'ending the Israeli apartheid state' and everything that entails. Or even Palestinian freedom 'from the river to the sea'. They do not have power as of yet, but I suspect they will among the left in some short decades.

[Charr Babies]

You've NEVER debunked them.
I mean nukes are real for NATO members, the DEFENSIVE alliance. It also doesn't matter in regards to said nukes if Ukraine is in NATO or out of it. Again, it doesn't actually change the situation other thank making Ukraine much safer. Finland joined NATO and Russia's reaction was to continue moving forces and material away from it. And Finland is spitting distance from Russia's second most important city and has a historical axe to grind, but yet forces move away from it.

This has been explained to you as simply as possible multiple times. The latest Post #4832
I’ve already dismantled your recycled narrative countless times, but I’ll bite one more time - because the parallel is unfolding in real time. The U.S. just repositioned the USS Nimitz from the South China Sea to the Middle East amid rising tensions with Iran. By your logic, should we conclude the U.S. no longer cares about Taiwan? Learn the nuance and stop pretending you grasp even the most basic mechanics of force projection.

And again, stop pretending this is just about nukes. The real issue is also the encroachment of NATO military infrastructure stretched across a 2,000 km border with Russia.  

Its known Iran is enriching Uranium. Maybe they have a nuke / have gone farther towards, maybe they haven't / aren't. If you have the secret intel docs one way or another we can make some news. In any case Israel is using it as a justification. You stated its a bad justification, which if you agree this situation is wrong, THEN the Russia Ukraine one easily passes the test. Your ONLY counter is "no they don't". Which again, you can't back up. Not stellar logic.

Same tired nonsense. Funny how you invoke logic . Isn’t the burden of proof on the accuser?  Show me the evidence that Iran has nukes. Is it so hard to produce another Tube Of Lies?

The director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. But “Taco” Trump said he doesn’t care. And hey, he’s right - we’re the mafia, and any excuse for a turf war will do.

According to your logic, any country enriching uranium deserves annihilation. There are 14 nations with nuclear weapons - should we bomb them all?

Then you say Russia cannot be worried about nukes since

no nuclear armed state has ever been seriously invaded

Well great - since Israel and the U.S. both have nukes, clearly we have nothing to worry about from Iran. Nothing at all.

And who the fuck are you to decide who gets to have nukes and who doesn’t?


If ever in doubt of your deceit and hypocrisy, just read my signature.

---

[Mjmd]

You're arguments basically boil down to "well they could". And yes I can't prove non existence. But that is a logical fallacy. Just because no nuclear state has been seriously invaded doesn't mean it COULDN'T happen. TRUE. But the logic of "I will invade into nukes" doesn't seem solid to me. That it COULD happen CERTAINLY isn't a good justification for war. This is a very low bar and I'll show you how absurd this is in a bit, but by that logic than its easy to justify ANY war.

I mean the US also probably doesn't believe China will invade Taiwan soon. Like Russia probably doesn't believe NATO will invade it even though they are super exposed to it at the moment. And if NATO was going to invade while most of the Russian army is in Ukraine and they are pretty depleted of conventional missiles and air defense seems like a good time to me. These situations aren't the same. If you are invading a country because you are worried about them joining a DEFENSIVE alliance and you say you feel threatened from that DEFENSIVE alliance, then logically another nation joining said alliance on your border and very near your second most major city should get you worried no? But it hasn't. An active flare up in one region vs just power projection / just in case you are wrong about timeline in another region from different threats, is different.

I mean Israel has in the past. There are some 2018 intel documents that were supposedly stolen. I'm not saying I believe them mind you. I'm definitely not saying I believe Tulsi Gabbard in a public hearing. I did not say this was a justification for war. You are putting words into my mouth again. All I'm doing is showing you your hypocrisy (again). When its your home boy Russia, invasion fine on way less grounds its fine. Israel attacking and suddenly you say not fine. Its just simple hypocrisy.

Let me break this down for you. By your Russia logic of invading Ukraine any nation that is a threat to another can be invaded even if its EXTREMELY UNLIKELY. Therefore by your logic (again yours not mine) Israel attacking Iran is also fine. In fact since Iran has a history of attacking Israel its far above the the extremely unlikely of "well it could" to "it happens constantly". Because Israel is an asshole true (and also religious bigotry), but Iran is actively engaged via proxy (and sometimes not proxy) in attacking Israel. So please explain why Russia theoretically COULD MAYBE even though they have nukes could get invaded is an excuse for them to invade another country. BUT Israel attacking another nation that is actively causing harm to them is not. Again, my position is the Russia example is clear cut bad morally. Israel Iran they both suck, BUT I generally put blame for a situation escalating on the side with the more power which is Israel. So ya please square this logical hypocrisy of yours.

Your signature is full of deceit and hypocrisy. As I've stated MULTIPLE times those pictures are of Xinjiang. I've never claimed otherwise. There also is a lot of false equivalency happening and just not caring about people because its Russia or China doing it. Sure US bad, it doesn't mean Russia invading Ukraine good. Sure US did terrible things to our indigenous populations in the past (and I won't claim its perfect now), but China and Russia doing far far worse in the present isn't something to just sweep under the rug because US bad / has been bad.

[Charr Babies]

P.S. if you feel the need to ban me over this post, is it possible to just ban me from the politics thread, or threaten to ban me from the forum if I post in the same vein here again? I still play some civ4 here from time to time.

I'll bet those who wanted bans and the forum deleted are still happily lurking 

---