re: General Jack Keane calling a spade a spade

quote:

---

Inside that deal it calls for the United States to pay them damages and war reparations.

---

Surely not.

Yep I’m afraid so along with one or two more winners.

I realize that Iran is going to say stuff for the folks at home and pound their chests. But these people are just not normal. They very well could mean it. If that’s the case then we don’t need a ceasefire we need to ship more bombs to the region.

I would imagine that Trump's war team is planning the destruction of Karg Island in these next two weeks...and will implement said plan when Iran walks on the cease fire and negotiations.
That destroys 60%+ of their distribution capability and it is accomplished without attacking civilians. Trump knows they will crawfish and this gives them time to plan the destruction.

quote:

---

How about we just see what happens?

---

Nah, let's just cry about OMB like usual. Why should the TDS f@gs stop now?

frick Jack he’s one of the top neocon warmongers who’s become filthy rich over pushing the Ukraine War over the last decade plus.

quote:

---

I would’ve preferred keeping the pressure up and finishing the job

---

We never finish the job. At least not since WW2. All by design. The MIC needs endless conflict to be able to eat.

quote:

---

finishing the job

---

They were declared militarily annihilated 26 days ago.

quote:

---

I would’ve preferred keeping the pressure up and finishing the job.”

---

Keane and Lindsey Scott are identical twins.

lol

HomoMisser

quote:

---

It's not about doing the right thing. It's about starting something without any intent of finishing. We have a history since Korea of not finishing conflicts and looking for politically expedient exits. If you're not going to finish the task at hand, do everyone a favor and save the lives, and the money, on what are tantamount to fishing expeditions.

---

Our system itself can’t reliably produce finished wars unless the objective is narrow and short-term. Whether that’s a feature or a bug is up for debate.

We’re designed to require consent, and consent has a shelf life. Long wars demand consistency across years, sometimes decades. Our system resets leadership, priorities, and tolerance for cost every election cycle.

Past empires didn’t have that constraint. Rome didn’t need to maintain public buy-in to finish a campaign. Britain didn’t run imperial wars through a population that could do anything meaningful to halt them midstream. The decision loop was tight, centralized, and insulated from the kind of political pressure that forces course changes here. They could define victory however they wanted and take as long as necessary to get there. We can't.

Our wars operate on two tracks at once: the battlefield and political ambitions. The second one eventually always dominates. Casualties, cost, and ambiguity erode support, and once that happens, the objective shifts from “win” to “end this without it looking like a loss.” That’s the pattern people keep misreading as softness.

And this is why “Americans lost the stomach for it” misplaces blame. It assumes populations in past empires were somehow more committed to long, grinding wars. They weren’t. The difference is it didn’t fricking matter. Their consent wasn’t required.

Here, they do. That’s the constraint. You can call it moral, you can call it limiting, but it’s real. So when someone says “we’ll escalate if needed,” the obvious follow-up is: to what end, and for how long? Because escalation inside a system that can’t sustain long, ambiguous conflicts isn’t a path to victory. We.ve seen this again and again.

It’s also not a coincidence that our two most brutal, sustained wars, the Civil War and World War II, were prosecuted under single administrations with continuity of leadership and total commitment. That’s the lesson: given our political constraints, the only way we reliably finish wars is by committing fully to decisive victory as fast as possible, or not starting them at all. That’s the mistake we keep making.