Okay, last chance. Do you believe that it's more likely that the US started a conflict with Iran because of what-if report written in 2009 (when we were already in Afghanistan and Iraq) OR because Isreal is currently conducting a genocide and Iran is a direct threat to that?
TheVelvetGentleman
joined 2 years ago
Now imagine a cubic meter and put 27 people in it.
You are correct. I have no doubt that when deciding to go to war with Iran, someone looked at the Brookings reports. But I doubt very highly that they made the decision to go to war BECAUSE of the reports from almost 20 years ago.
That's not my point. My point is that these think tanks produce documents like that all the time, for countries all over the world. That's what they exist for. They get paid vast sums of money to have their interns come up with what-if scenarios. These aren't plans. They're proposals.
That's not the government planning an invasion of Iran in 2009. That's a think tank's proposal for an invasion. Saying that the US has been planning this since then is like saying we had planning the invasion of Iraq from the 90s when the Project for the New American Century drew up a proposal for the removal of Saddam.
Does anyone actually believe that the war with Iran is about distracting us from Epstein and not pressure from Israel? What are they supposed to be distracting us from in the first place? We knew basically everything that was in the last dump already. Epstein seems like the distraction to me seeing as how both "sides" of the political spectrum in America won't shut the fuck about it.
They used it extensively in Lebanon in the 80s too. If you got away with it once, why would you stop?
Why put the before after the after?
Who are these people you speak of? I know of three basic climate change opinion groups.
- Doesn't exist. (willfull ignorance)
- It exists but we can fix it. (Libs)
- It exists and we're fucked. (most scientists)
In this thread are a lot of terrible takes from people who don't seem to understand that quantum computers are already a thing? They're functional, and they can outperform conventional computers at limited tasks. They will probably never outperform them at everything, and that's okay. You will probably never own one, and that's also okay. You'll probably never own a particle accelerator. They really should have just called them something other than computers. Scientific advancement is a good thing.
Make Gavin try some whacky snacks from overseas and film his reactions, right?
view more: next ›
That is what we were arguing about. The OP said
But these aren't plans. This is not a smoking gun. This is a proposition that was made decades ago, while we already at war in the region, to extend that war into Iran. It's silly to point to this as the reason that the conflict started now, which is what the OP was doing.