there’s virtually no way the USA under Harris would have engaged twice in military adventurism in Iran.
Youre right. The person who’s a fervent supporter of Israel, genocide, who said “Iran is the biggest threat to the US” AND “we will have the most lethal military in the world” could never conceivably start a war with Iran.
Even if she as President had a stroke causing her to take Bibi’s bait and start a war with Iran
Definitely. Looking at her history we can safely conclude she would remain sceptical of Israel and not just do whatever they wanted her to do.
IF IT WERE OPPOSITE DAY!!! *GOTTEM
she wouldn’t have alienated beforehand every single potential ally through tariffs and belligerent rhetoric,
Yes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn’t been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.
Yes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn’t been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.
You’re taking the part where I’m being charitable and accepting the other person’s (and your) premise that a war under Harris is inevitable for the sake of argument, and twisting that into as if I was arguing for it, which is incorrect. I will engage no further with you on this.
No, I’m taking your argument: “If a war were to be waged with Iran, you would prefer it would be waged by Kamala, because then it would be done competently” and pointing out your main issue with the war in Iran is how it is waged. The rest of your argument is: “I don’t think Kamala would go to war with Iran.” So, while you make allusions, the only actual objection you place to the war is that it is waged incompetently.
You know, how I first took one part of your comment, and then the other, until I had addressed the whole. You should try it.
I am then making an assumption, which is unfalsifiable, that if a war were waged with Iran under democratic leadership, you would not find it disagreeable, because you would buy into the propaganda that would be used to make you accept it.
Probably something about the inflated number of dead protesters. Or some pinkwashing.
edit: How about you adress the rest of the comment?
Youre right. The person who’s a fervent supporter of Israel, genocide, who said “Iran is the biggest threat to the US” AND “we will have the most lethal military in the world” could never conceivably start a war with Iran.
Definitely. Looking at her history we can safely conclude she would remain sceptical of Israel and not just do whatever they wanted her to do.
IF IT WERE OPPOSITE DAY!!! *GOTTEM
Yes, the issue with the war in Iran is that it hasn’t been waged correctly. Im John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.
You’re taking the part where I’m being charitable and accepting the other person’s (and your) premise that a war under Harris is inevitable for the sake of argument, and twisting that into as if I was arguing for it, which is incorrect. I will engage no further with you on this.
No, I’m taking your argument: “If a war were to be waged with Iran, you would prefer it would be waged by Kamala, because then it would be done competently” and pointing out your main issue with the war in Iran is how it is waged. The rest of your argument is: “I don’t think Kamala would go to war with Iran.” So, while you make allusions, the only actual objection you place to the war is that it is waged incompetently.
You know, how I first took one part of your comment, and then the other, until I had addressed the whole. You should try it.
I am then making an assumption, which is unfalsifiable, that if a war were waged with Iran under democratic leadership, you would not find it disagreeable, because you would buy into the propaganda that would be used to make you accept it.
Probably something about the inflated number of dead protesters. Or some pinkwashing.
edit: How about you adress the rest of the comment?