re: War Officially ERUPTS In Iran - Will The US and/or Israel Protect the PEOPLE?

quote:

---

It is in the direct interest of the US to help take out that evil Islamic regime in Iran.

---

Assuming that statement is true, is it SOLELY the US's direct interest, or would other countries benefit from helping as well??

quote:

---

Would be incredible to see Iran, Venezuela, and Russia

---

Id love to hear the rationale how Russia or Iran for that matter is actually harming American citizens here in the US. For Venezuela, you can make that case. I respect Russia 1000x more than our establishment political class

quote:

---

Will The US and/or Israel Protect the PEOPLE?

---

I hope we stay the hell out of it.

Iraq has volunteered.

quote:

---

This is not a case of arm-chair quarterbacking

---

Of course it is.

Are you privy to all of the classified information the leaders who initiated those actions were privy to? That would be a nope.

quote:

---

Constant meddling in the Middle East has repeatedly produced consequences more destabilizing than the very conditions it sought to correct.

---

But not necessarily more destabilizing than what might have happened had we not intervened. Again, there's no way to know that.

As an analogy, let's say we have a patient with autoimmune vasculitis.

We have four different possible courses of action.

1. Ultra high dose immunosuppression, which stops the vessel destruction in 60% of patients, but which causes death roughly 20% of the time due to organ failure

2. Experimental gene therapy, which works roughly 40% of the time but which causes death 10% of the time and caries an unknown long term cancer risk

3. Targeted radiation, which reduces disease activity but can cause death 20% of the time from bone marrow failure and even if that is avoided, can cause permanent immune deficiency

4. Do nothing. 90-95% chance of death.

Now, no matter what you do, the patient may end up worse off in a month than he is right now. Or he might end up better off.

What you're doing is advocating for doing nothing, which almost guarantees that the problem progresses, and you're criticizing the outcomes from the other treatments while ignoring that your course of action is the one most likely to end up with a catastrophic result and also the one least likely to cause a positive change in the patient.

You're pointing at the doctors who chose option 1 and 2 and 3 and telling them that they need to learn from their mistakes and stop advocating these treatments because some of their patients died or were permanently negatively affected by the treatment and by doing nothing there is no risk of any negative side effects from treatment.

Yeah, but there's a 90-95% chance of death from the disease.

I'm sure you will say that the analogy is flawed because you will claim that there is NO chance of any positive outcome in any of the possible interventions, therefore a 5-10% chance of survival is better than none.

And then I will refer you back to the top of this post again. There is no way for you to know that, and unless you gain classified clearance, you never will.

You and I don't even necessarily know what the real objective of any given operation was/is.

Stop and think about that for a minute. We don't even necessarily know what the decision makers were trying to accomplish, therefore there is no way to know whether the operation succeeded or not.

You are literally asserting something that cannot be known and you are assuming that a destabilized Middle East is something that our leaders think is bad for the US.

You don't know that that is even true.

quote:

---

You want the element of surprise in any attack. Getting France, UK, etc involved is the opposite of that

---

Could they not surprise them on their own while the US stays out of it altogether??

Or, would seeing France & the UK actually fighting be a bigger surprise

Polymarket time

Did you take a red pill this morning? This is like the 2nd time I've agreed with you today, it makes me feel like I'm in an alternate reality.

quote:

---

Assuming that statement is true, is it SOLELY the US's direct interest, or would other countries benefit from helping as well??

---

The entire Middle East would benefit as they are the #1 exporter of Islamic terror in the region. One might argue the world.

quote:

---

As an analogy, let's say we have a patient with autoimmune vasculitis.

---

The autoimmune analogy, while interesting, is irrelevant to my stance. My argument is not advocating for inaction.

The argument here is the situation in Iran — and by extension the Middle East — does not necessitate U.S. intervention. I’m suggesting that the other powers in the region — namely Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey — are fully capable of addressing this situation without intervention by the United States.

Each of these other nations have a vested interest in Iran’s future stability and thus are better positioned to navigate the immense complexities of an Iranian civil war. Again, as we’ve seen repeatedly from past U.S. interventions, the repercussions can often lead to unforeseen consequences.

My whole point is we must learn from history and allow these regional players in the Middle East manage their own affairs. To quote George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”