re: Why Can’t People Learn To Accept Permanent U.S. War In The Middle East?

Your argument that we are participating in permanent war is a picture of Trump and words he never said. Somehow, you just haven't convinced me to see it your way.

I don't use the term 'war' to describe every military action like you guys do, though. I like to reserve it for actual wars.

Trump dissolved the Iran deal after previously agreed on by multiple countries that included on site accountability per diplomacy.

You voted for America first no more wars?
Now bombing again bc he failed the first time?

What do you want to happen?

quote:

---

The objective now is regime change.

---

Of course NOW they tell us when it was always the reason the entire time. They just wanted to slow walk us into a war they'd always planned.

quote:

---

I was personally against the strikes last year on the nuke facilities but I pro regime change now. The reason I support it now is because conditions on the ground in Iran right now are conducive to toppling the current regime and replace it with, if not an ally, a much less disruptive one.

---

In theory it sounds acceptable (marginally) But how can we believe *anything* USreal tells us is truth of the matter? And frankly, who is being "disruptive" here in this case? Who is USreal to dictate and define "acceptible" leadership of another country? Irans never even threatened the US. Or Bibi-Land.

quote:

---

Right now is the best chance we’ll have to do so and we can accomplish without significant numbers of US boots on the ground.

---

So how are we doing this? With AI drones, "secret" weaponry, and commandos a la Venezuela?

quote:

---

The Iranian population is rising up against the regime and we have golden opportunity to effect regime change.

---

That's what we've been told. So I guess it must be true.

quote:

---

Next question.

---

What's the NEXT ME country scheduled for "regime change"?

Calm down Utah, it ain't about you.
Whats the question?

What say you about Dons Iran situation?

quote:

---

I don't know, why can't you accept that Iran needs to not have nukes

---

I thought we set their capabilities back decades with that strike last year?

quote:

---

But it is the answer, because no one else can.

---

The notion that America is an “essential” nation is warmed over Wilsonianism and is at it’s heart a progressive ideology. Such a world view is embraced by both neoconservatives and neoliberals.

Neoconservatives and neoliberals, though motivated by ostensibly opposing objectives — global militarism versus the promotion of a global “woke” corporate agenda — frequently pursue overlapping goals, resulting in remarkably similar societal outcomes. Neoconservatives are typically focused on achieving global military hegemony, while neoliberals — in their pursuit of corporate hegemony — similarly advocate for military dominance as a means of advancing their corporate and social agendas.

Both ideological camps justify their actions through the rhetoric of global stability, yet their policies often prioritize corporate hegemony at the expense of national sovereignty. A key example of their shared priorities is the promotion of regime change and nation-building, which serve as conduits for both neoconservative and neoliberal foreign policy objectives.

Ultimately, both neocons and neoliberals place corporate hegemony and profit above individual rights, a pattern observable in repeated U.S. interventions across the Middle East. Neoliberals champion public-private partnerships to enact social policies, while neoconservatives push for expansive military budgets that funnel vast sums of money into defense contracts.

Though framed as an effort to promote democracy, the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan offers a compelling case study of the intersection between these two ideologies. Military contractors in the defense-industrial complex secured lucrative contracts in the wake of the Afghanistan occupation, while major asset management firms — which hold substantial shares in arms manufacturers — also control significant stakes in mainstream media organizations that influence public perception of war.

Thus, while the military-industrial complex profited from the trillion-dollar contracts to produce weapons of war for Afghanistan, the same asset management firms which are heavily invested in defense contractors — also hold large shares in the corporate media which simultaneously were promoting progressive policies to appease progressive constituencies. This dualistic agenda serves to maintain both military and corporate dominance, with far-reaching implications for global geopolitics and public discourse.

This is why any vote in this UniParty® charade is ultimately a vote for the left or right wing of the Deep State. And also why Trumpism — like Reaganism and Bushism before it — will ultimately fail in stopping the progressive agenda.

Bibi: "Save some for me!!"