• queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Cool, crash the price of oil right be fore the election.

    Biden is trying to make Harris lose. He hates her for taking his job.

    • goferking (he/him)@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Biden’s bitter at people realizing he’s too old. Pretty sure he was hoping to go out like feinstein.

      Bibi just wants someone he can influence with shiney things rather than needing to pull strings.

      What a fantastic democracy/republic we have in the USA 😭

  • Teils13@lemmy.eco.br
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since i’m in south america, i will grab the popcorn and watch the gringos fighting with brown people for the nth time.

  • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    If anyone wants, here’s an extremely optimistic 2009 Brookings Institute white paper on how various hostile actions against Iran would play out based off numbers and history.

    Chapter 3 analyses a “boots on the ground” invasion, Chapters 4-6 analyze American and Israeli airstrikes. Neither of them expect Iran to employ masses of drones or close the strait, and they consider ballistic missiles against US assets unlikely.

    While they have an extreme western bias, there’s no way you can twist the numbers to look good.

    • TheLepidopterists [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chapter 3 analyses a “boots on the ground” invasion (the occupation would require a draft)

      Good luck, I’m defecting as soon as they don’t have eyes on me.

      • alcoholicorn@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It makes it pretty clear how insanely unfeasible a ground invasion of Iran would be even with the most optimistic assumptions.

        1.3 million just for the occupation of an 88 million pop country, and that number just comes from other occupations, without taking into consideration the terrain or people or last 50 years of preparation for asymmetrical warfare.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s called deescalation through escalation.

      America supports it when Israel does it, that means it’s okay.

      Iran, go right ahead. Lebanon, go right ahead. Hamas, go right ahead.

      Israel and America have already stated this is a perfectly valid reasoning. The rules of war go both ways.

      Again: If America is the world ethics, these actions are perfectly valid. This is what America does.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is what America does.

        Except it isn’t. USA does not preemptively attack countries which plan to attack USA, since nobody is doing that. USA wrecks and coups countries because they are either trying to leave the US hegemonic control or the ones that are simply appealing targets for imperialism.

    • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem (aside from international relations nonsense) is that Iran’s air force and missiles won’t be able to inflict significant damage on Israel, which aside from the Iron dome has the strongest air force in the region.

      • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They already proven twice it is not the case, they hit what they wanted to hit. Why do you people always have to take the US wars modus operandi as a standard, where an attack needs to wreck everything and kill as many civilians as possible? When is the attack “damaging”, when it’s doubletapping the rescuers?

        • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          They hit (some of) what they wanted to hit, but didn’t inflect significant damage. Which is why a preemptive strike would be meaningless; those only matter when they can seriously reduce the enemy’s ability to wage war. Iran simply doesn’t have anything that can seriously reduce Israel’s ability to wage war in one attack.

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        We already saw that the dome cannot intercept Iranian missiles just days ago. Also, the math doesn’t work in favor of the dome given that they need 2 interceptors per missile. There’s also the issue of production capacity. Once it runs through the existing stockpiles of interceptors, making new ones at the rate they’re being consumed is not possible. For example, from 2008 to present, Lockheed Martin was able to produce 800 missiles, around 50 a year. https://armyrecognition.com/news/army-news/2023/lockheed-martin-announces-delivery-of-800th-thaad-interceptor-missile-system

        To counter the 180 missiles Iran reportedly launched, requiring up to 2 interceptors each, would have exhausted nearly HALF of all THAAD missiles ever produced. And that’s assuming there are enough launchers to even fire that many interceptors at once. The US is completely unprepared for the scale of war it is provoking around the globe.

        Iran can absolutely cripple Israel by destroying its energy infrastructure.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just the thing to endear your party to the electorate before an election. For Republicans, a war actually does this. Not so sure about Democrats.

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Because the term isn’t up yet and taking him down for being unable to perform his duties would be greatly damaging to US optics-based politics.

          • NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s when the war is harmless to US interests. This war has the potential to increase Iranian influence (and decrease US influence) in the region. That is, to put it lightly, not good for oil shareholders.

            • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nearly all of those wars were also lost. This also didn’t harm them in the least, even genocidal scum like Cheney are just hidden for few years and them publicly rehabilitated by the opposing party. USA is more and more resembling one big Holden Bloodfest.

    • Crikeste@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I remember when Democrats gave a fuck about 1 thing. Now they care about 0 things.

      Imagine this:

      -A democrat who supports genocide.

      -A democrat who is championing Trump’s border policy.

      That’s where we are now. That’s who democrats are now.

      But I’m a ‘tankie’ for pointing that out, I guess.

      Have fun explaining your way out of how you supported a candidate who supported genocide and deportations, liberals. ❤️

      • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yep. And when Kamala wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college because swing stat voters actually don’t support GENOCIDE the Dems won’t show a degree of self awareness or accept any responsibility, they will just blame Jill Stein voters

        I say let them attack iran. It will be the final thrashing before the American empire collapses completely.

        • Crikeste@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Brother, while I can agree with the, I guess, ‘good’ interpretation of societal overhaul and accelerationism, I think I need to point out that there are far more powerful entities engaging in the same thing, and they might have the power to completely dominate you in a society without “rules”.

          Alls I’m saying is: be careful what you wish for.

          If you’re going to be an accelerationist, you need to do things like BILLING certain people named G-LON TUSK, and others like them.

          Otherwise, you’ll just be breaking down the government for them to build one that fits them better.

          Remember: BILL them.

          • lemmyseizethemeans@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m saying that we had tens of millions of people mobilized in the streets before the Iraq war and those powerful entities did not give a Kentucky fried fuck about the will of the people. I don’t see hardly anyone protesting this latest war so I hate to say it but they are going to do whatever they want. And if the decide to attack Iran it will be the gravesite of empire. Because the entire region will attack Saudi oil infra, US bases will be obliterated, Russia has already signalled solidarity with Iran, it will be a total disaster.

              • Crikeste@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ahhhhhh, sorry, I misinterpreted your comment. It seems we agree. I’ve been trying to get this knee jerk reactionary bullshit out of me, but it’s pretty hard in this climate lmfao

      • AVincentInSpace@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago
        1. There are two choices in the United States 2024 election. No third party stands a ghost of a chance of winning. No, not even if the 30,000 people you can reach on Lemmy all vote for Timothy Greenparty.
        2. A Trump victory in 2024 would not only be just as bad if not worse for the citizens of Gaza than Harris would, but also pose an existential threat to a large number of vulnerable Americans (trans people, immigrants, women seeking abortions).
        3. Given the margins of victory in 2016 and 2020, Kamala might not win if leftists don’t vote for her.
        4. Snoozing fascism for four years is better than inviting it through the door now, and buys us time to build our defenses for when it comes back.

        I’d like to focus my counterargument. Which of these statements do you disagree with?

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          What are you doing to stop fascism outside of voting for the lesser fascist?

          Fascism cannot be defeated through the ballot box. It is capitalism in decay, when capitalist democracy becomes unviable and the capitalist ruling class choose capitalism over democracy.

            • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m dismissing your framing; I dont live in a swing state, dont try to convince me to vote for the lesser fascist.

              My question is, do you care about stopping fascism or do only you care about delaying it for another four years?

              Do you care enough about stopping fascism to put in work to stop it outside of election day and trying to post your way into getting people to vote? Like, seriously, are you interested in putting in actual work to prevent fascism in the US in our lifetimes? This isn’t a gotcha I’m trying to set a baseline.

              • Tiefling IRL@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’d like to ask what are you doing to stop fascism? You’re actively stopping people from voting for the only person who can defeat Orange Hitler, so what are you doing to make up for that?

                • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m doing about 20 hours of work a week as part of a socialist org, in service of building up a center of power to actually be able to challenge the lesser and greater fascist.

                  I’m thinking long term, because I’m not satisfied with “just vote for the less fascist party every four years as each party keeps getting more fascist” If all the work you’re doing is within the confines of bourgeois sham-democracy you’ll never be able to defeat fascism. Fascism is capitalism in crisis. You can either find a magic cure to stop the contradictions of capitalism from heightening or you can move toward defeating it.

                  The latter is the only one that has been demonstrated to actually work.

    • azimir@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      According to Fox News, President Obama is still president and so is Traitor Trump. Everyone is president, depending upon who is watching at the moment to stir up one kind of hatred or another.