Free and open trade (creating the peace on the oceans that allows for flags of convenience), and the space and expectation for countries to resolve differences through dialogue and membership in international institutions.
Far too calmly. This is exactly why the Constitution requires Congress to declare war - so that we can't wind up in a war because of the decisions of one man.
This was true of past conflicts as well. Doe v. Bush tried to challenge the Iraq Resolution because Congress had not declared war, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Congress had not opposed funding the war. The sad reality is that this is what the people had voted for, and the government is still working as intended.
Sure, but do we agree that the unitedstatesian's (pet peeve: they shouldn't be called americans, per definition) Congress could at least stop one side of the war (the one that initiated the aggression). The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation.
The US would then need to comply with whatever sanctions the UN might apply due to them having started an illegal war.
> The Iranians would probably call that a victory, and probably not pursue further retaliation.
I highly doubt it. Here are the facts from the viewpoint of Iran:
- The US and the UK overthrew the democratic iranian government of Mohammad Mosaddegh
- The US terminated the working nuclear deal.
- The US ambushed Iran twice in the midst of ongoing negotiations.
- Israel is on a conquest to annex new land and to rule over the middle east. At least that is likely there goal.
Iran clearly stated their demands. The US should pay up for the damage they caused and the US should give up its military bases in the Arab countries.
While the money will probably not be that big of a problem to negotiate, the military bases will be. At least Iran will insist on something substantive that guarantees that they are not ambushed a third time.
But from the non-Iranian point of view, those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran. So that's going to be problematic.
I mean, the US could unilaterally decide "no, we're not going to defend the Middle East anymore, good luck everybody" and leave. But it's not like the US is oppressing, say, Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
> those countries want those bases to protect them against Iran.
As far as I know: Israel and Saudi Arabia want these bases. I do not know the current opinion of the other Arab countries.
> Qatar by having a base there. They willingly let the US stay there.
At least they are now noticing that there are risks in hosting the US military too.
> “One of the most significant outcomes of this war is the shattering of the concept of a regional security system in the Gulf region,” Mr. al-Ansari said. “The regional security framework in the Gulf was based on certain axioms. Many of these axioms have been bypassed in the current war.”
> Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly?
Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties.
Trump's wars are none of the above. Mobilizing a couple thousand troops here and there for a war that can be orders of magnitude more intensive than Iraq War V2 and without any semblance of support is a clear sign of starting a war while signaling their own impending defeat.
Let's not fool ourselves: the only parties benefiting from this nonsense is Russia and China.
> Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties.
I think you mean the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The Iraq War, 2003 - ~2011, had relatively little international support, was poorly planned (they promised no more than 6 weeks, had no plans for occupation, etc.), and was spent fighting Iranian-backed militias and ISIS.
The 2003 Iraq war was a pretty decisive military victory for the invaders. Iraqi command and control destroyed in the opening stages. About a month to complete occupation of the country.
The subsequent years were a complete clusterfuck. Largely because of a missing theory of victory, the inept neocons the administration selected to run the civilian side, and the lack of strategic military-civilian coordination.
What you say is essentially accurate and we're debating semantics, but about those semantics:
Wars end with political solutions (otherwise, people keep fighting), and the US didn't achieve a political solution the first month, and never achieved a particularly desirable one. One step they took was dissolving the Iraqi army or military, and those people reformed into militias that continued fighting the US. Was the war really over?
The US won initial battles, as expected. The war lasted much longer.
Granted! But that's insurgencies vs wars IMHO. In one, you have irregulars trying to bleed an occupying power. In the other, you have regular military forces.
The US is great at winning the latter, but sucks at winning the former (largely because of a lack of coherent political-diplomatic-military fusion on the US side).
> The US is great at winning the latter, but sucks at winning the former
Also, enemies aren't suicidal. Why would they take on US tanks, fighter planes, missiles, satellites, etc. for more than five minutes? They know they can't win that way so they quickly abandon it for what does have some success, irregular warfare / insurgency.
Vaccine mandates agent quite comparable to a court ordered C-section. The vaccine mandates were about employment, the State didn't force injections or send anyone to jail for not getting vaccinated. The government even had the power to fine people and didn't use it
Your continued employment as a healthcare worker, government worker or contractor, could be made conditional on vaccination status, though.
The sabotage is interesting. Just a protest about an extended deployment in an old boat, or a broader statement about dissatisfaction with an unprepared Middle East forever war?
Ukraine has unutilised domestic production capacity. They can turn the good money the Gulf states will be paying for the drones into more drones for the frontlines.
When people say ”time is money”, there is usually an amount of money that makes you go ”… but then again a lot of money is also money” and give up some time in exchange for that money.
Wartime resources are similar, in the sense that they’re at least partially fungible. Maybe the amount of money the Gulf states are willing to pay for borrowing those people buys you a lot of the other stuff.
Dems are supposed to be able to talk frankly about their beliefs without the left wing of the party destroying them. There shouldn't be political consequences from within the Dem coalition for saying "I don't think we should have trans people in professional women's sports".
Since the Dems can't talk about the policies, the right wing gets to take up all the attention on them.
I don't care about China at all. I'm actually suggesting that the US fight Israel because it's attacked us by staging a soft coup of our country's leadership.
reply