News outlets like to pretend that cessation of further attacks is failure. We started the war with a Tomahawk missile which killed 168 people, more than 100 school children. Destroyed apartments, hospitals, bridges, water supply. Continuing that shit would have been a success? A victory?
Defeat was inevitable already when the first missile was sent. No matter if USA sent more or didn’t. there was no possible winning strategy. All analysts knew this.
Probably more like the initiation of attacks was a failure. Me yielding when getting beaten up by a boxer isn’t the mistake. Me starting a fight with one in the first place was.
That’s just wrong. The war started with great many missiles and bombs some of which did what you claimed. A single missile can only destroy a single thing. And when you remember how many bombs fell a minor amount of collateral and misstargeting is the usual horror of war.
I mean, America likes to destroy civilizations (a country that has Native genocide as its origin story), it’s the anti-civ “civ” after all, so I guess it is an American failure. Now, those now left in power in Iran could still sell off the country to Western oligarchs, which would be a victory for America but that’s still seemingly undecided.
Not really, because he describes an escalation, which is the third option. As in there are 2 ways to continue the war, status quo or escalation, and the alternative to those is the peace agreement.
Holy fuck I’ve never seen someone so callously support continuing to kill civilians just to get “a better deal” when it took 3 months of killing civilians and life supporting infrastructure to get to this deal.
News outlets like to pretend that cessation of further attacks is failure. We started the war with a Tomahawk missile which killed 168 people, more than 100 school children. Destroyed apartments, hospitals, bridges, water supply. Continuing that shit would have been a success? A victory?
Defeat was inevitable already when the first missile was sent. No matter if USA sent more or didn’t. there was no possible winning strategy. All analysts knew this.
I’m pretty sure they’re saying trump didn’t achieve what he wanted. Mainly because he didn’t even know what he wanted.
He wanted what Israel wanted and Netanyahu promised, for Iran to collapse completely.
Probably more like the initiation of attacks was a failure. Me yielding when getting beaten up by a boxer isn’t the mistake. Me starting a fight with one in the first place was.
That’s just wrong. The war started with great many missiles and bombs some of which did what you claimed. A single missile can only destroy a single thing. And when you remember how many bombs fell a minor amount of collateral and misstargeting is the usual horror of war.
I mean, America likes to destroy civilizations (a country that has Native genocide as its origin story), it’s the anti-civ “civ” after all, so I guess it is an American failure. Now, those now left in power in Iran could still sell off the country to Western oligarchs, which would be a victory for America but that’s still seemingly undecided.
You’re presenting a false binary where this MOU and continuing the conflict, as it is, are the only options.
Not really, because he describes an escalation, which is the third option. As in there are 2 ways to continue the war, status quo or escalation, and the alternative to those is the peace agreement.
There are other peace agreements available. A continued engagement would be more likely to generate them, too.
Holy fuck I’ve never seen someone so callously support continuing to kill civilians just to get “a better deal” when it took 3 months of killing civilians and life supporting infrastructure to get to this deal.
So you are saying an infinite number of possible peace agreements equals infinite possibilities?
That’s not how this works, peace talks is one option, not infinite.