move on.
i mean, at least trump can't accuse him of being low-energy.
but you know he was there to plug his platform.
Wednesday, October 9, 2024
the other difference between iraq and iran is that iraq was not responsible for 9/11 and iran is responsible for 10/7.
that was the reason the world supported an invasion of afghanistan and not an invasion of iraq, and should be the reason the world supports an invasion of iran, if it's done correctly.
the difference between iraq and iran is that saddam hussein was a secular dictator and iran is run by a theocracy. the long term goals in the middle east should be secularization - that is, decolonization, deislamicization. saddam hussein was an asshole, but he was keeping the religious out of power, and he should have been kept in place for that reason, as it was obvious that taking him out would unleash a pandora's box of religious extremism, and that was what we got. then, we had to go in and erase isis from history.
in iran, it's the opposite; the religious extremists are in power and the population is largely fairly moderate. iran is a white country that is relatively european in culture but has been colonized by arabs and islamicists that are trying to enforce their rules on a population that doesn't want it.
regime change can plausibly work in iran; it was obviously going to fail in iraq, at least in the medium term.
now, i need to be careful about this. it has to be done the right way, and iraq is a poor model. i'd actually like to see a united nations mission that is led by the turks and indians on a mission to remove the irgc, because it is an illegitimate and undemocratic terrorist group. that would look more like afghanistan, which was the right way to do iraq, but suffered from the problem that too many countries realized it was a bad idea and wouldn't vote for it.
i would like to see canada vote in favour of a united nations mission to remove the irgc and push for regime change in iran, as we voted in favour of removing the taliban after 9/11.
israel should be careful not to do anything that creates inflationary pressure in the west, as that is going to get them strangled by the americans. bombing the oil is a bad idea.
bombing the nuclear facilities is a non-starter because it's essentially impossible.
i would support an assassination of the ayatollah, although they could never tell anybody they did it (kind of like they haven't taken responsibility for eliminating the hardline prime minister).
and i think that serious regime change in iran is a good idea that the people of iran are likely in support of.
canada's position on israel is clearly out of date and needs a complete overhaul. it has no relevance in today's world, and does not reflect reality on the ground.
the fake left parties in canada are currently run by very stupid people. that wasn't always the case. the reality is that they're running against the iraq war, which this is definitely not, and which nobody thinks it is.
should israel take out iran's nuclear facilities? this is not a helpful question. if they could do it on their own, they already would have.
the real question is whether the united states would do this, and it has not been american policy for the reason that it would be very difficult. these facilities are cut into mountains. the americans have preferred to use the iaea because it's more effective.
that said, israel does have an active policy on the issue, which is sabotage. the israelis have used cyberwarfare, assassinations, infiltration, etc to slow the iranians down. this is the approach the israelis will continue to use until or if the americans order a strike and that will depend largely on whether they think it will work or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)