yep and when you think about it the 'us modus operandi' has been for the 300 million to be completely inert while the lunatic few at the top practice their lunacy.
we seem to always concentrate on the lunatics without ever doing anything about them. aren't we looking in the wrong direction?
I could give you several different answers as to why, but I’ll just save time and say it’s a combination of all of them. I just revisited Russia’s 1905 Revolution, and it provides several clues about ourselves.
The basic point is many common Russians and other Europeans at that time were easily radicalized because of the feudal oppression they'd experienced for so long. Life was even cheaper then than now. Easily radicalized people challenge authority and revolt easily. In comparison, we're not easily radicalized because our lives have many comforts. In short--we're soft; they're hard. And when you look, you'll see that's reflected in Western militaries, particularly the Empire's. Bombing's easy.
I'm sure it is a fact and a basic point somewhere in the discussion, any discussion, about this war and many others. But you've lost me a bit about where it applies right here and now in this thread.
However I fully agree with it. I've often mused on its corollary if that's the right word: the poorer and less educated people are the more likely they are to go willingly to the trenches. Or if not 'willingly' then at least 'docilely'.
We see the poverty of Ukraine in TG vids clearly enough.
and a that further 'corollary' that you point to: 'they are hard' as reflected in the militaries is tied to that poverty, that lifelong experience of discomfort. hardship, need to suffer in silence and expect no help.
I guess you've alluded to that bit, though where you say 'feudal oppression'.
At the time in question, all of Eastern Europe was seething, revolution in the air everywhere within the three main Empires—Hapsburg, Russian, Ottoman. All three were riddled with incompetent and corrupt officials allowing governance to slide into anarchy. The Ottomans weren’t the only “sick man of Europe”; all three were, and the world war broke all three, with Germany coming very close to being included in the war’s aftermath.
Judge Nap asked the same question of former Ambassador Charles Freeman, as to whether Russia and China would sit back and allow the US-Israel to mount a full-blown attack on Iran and not do anything. His answer was that he thought Russia probably wouldn't do anything, but China might use that opportunity to create a diversion/distraction by taking military action against Taiwan – an option that would create a second front to throw the US attention off guard and into disarray.
Scott Ritter's statement that the US could "destroy" Iran in retaliation for potential Iranian counterattacks on US military bases in the region is hyperbole. Unlike the US aggression against Iraq (as per Ritter's experience), the US losses would be far more severe in this case. What he doesn't know – none of us does – is the extent to which Russia would help defend Iran with advanced AD (as they did in Syria at one point) without proclaiming it, and in that interview he didn't comment on the potential for Iran to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off oil transport to disrupt Western economies, although he has posited that scenario in the past.
Trump is a blowhard, an obstreperous child in his approach to diplomacy, however in spite of his ideologically prejudiced advisors and supporters, I doubt he would be allowed to take extreme risks if the Pentagon deems them unacceptable. What is needed now is a thorough diplomatic discussion of the issues and the positions of both sides on every aspect of the dispute, rather than bellicose threats and saber rattling that are not helpful toward a peaceful resolution. The US must finally hold back Israeli aggression because it is not in the US's best interest to be involved in such dangerous and ill-conceived actions.
We've seen the complete degeneration in the west of capable and rational people at the helm, and it bodes badly for those behind them pulling the strings as ruthless stupid people is a bad combination. We've avoided previous catastrophes because of brave souls, but now? I'm afraid that we're approaching the point of being "shit out of luck".
The US can't "destroy" Iran without massive use of nuclear weapons. We've seen a lot of bombing campaigns in the last and this century, none of them by themselves resulted in a country being destroyed. The whole world combined doesn't have enough conventional bombs and missiles to literally destroy a big country like Iran. Iran is not like the Gaza strip.
That’s my point and concern. Trump has already demonstrated he doesn’t care who or how many he kills as long as he gets his way. We’ve seen many Ugly Americans; IMO, Trump’s the ugliest to-date.
With respect to Scott Ritter and the arrogance of empire, Eva Bartlett posted this on her telegram account:
Says it better than anything I have seen in a long, long time, if ever.
🤯
Ritter keeps displaying how vile the US is.
*
[Scott Ritter: "I've had an interesting exchange about the Vietnam War. You know, we could have ended that instantly. And there were plans to do so. Nuke Hai Phong. Nuke Ha Noi. War's over. Ends instantly. We didn't—because we made a decision that that's not in our best interest, that that's not the right direction to go. But we didn't not do that because we were afraid of anything. We made it because it was the right decision."]
Sony Thang:
"Scott, thank you for that unfiltered glimpse into the heart of Western imperial psychology.
It's always chilling—and useful—when the mask slips.
So now we have it, in your own words:
The United States considered nuking Vietnam.
Not as a last resort.
But as an option.
A plan.
A thing placed calmly on the table like a napkin.
Hai Phong. Ha Noi.
Cities full of children, women, and elders.
You say, "We didn’t do it—not because we were afraid—but because we decided it wasn’t in our best interest."
Not morally wrong.
Not a war crime.
Just not convenient.
That’s all your conscience can offer: cost-benefit analysis.
And you still think Iran is the threat?
Let me explain something as simply as possible, since clarity seems to elude you despite your obsession with charts and doctrine:
The fact that America had plans to commit nuclear genocide against a people fighting for their own land—and only backed off because it wasn’t strategically "optimal"—doesn’t make you disciplined.
It makes you monstrous.
And now, you drag that same mindset into this century, repeating the same delusion: that nuclear annihilation is always on the table, just waiting for the right justification.
Iran, this time.
Always someone else.
Always another "outlaw nation."
But never you.
You even try to dress this madness in legal ritual: Chapter 7 resolution, congressional authority, existential threat.
You think if you baptize war crimes in procedure, they’ll come out clean.
But here’s the truth, Scott:
The U.S. never needed a nation to "self-identify" as an existential threat.
It creates them.
Manufactures them.
Then nukes them—if not physically, then economically, diplomatically, psychologically.
You did it to Vietnam.
You’re trying it with Iran.
And now, the world is watching—and I hope, finally, the world sees.
Not just the hypocrisy.
But the sickness.
Because what you’ve described isn’t defense.
It’s pathology.
It’s empire so obsessed with control that it views any refusal to kneel as grounds for annihilation.
You speak of restraint, but what you really mean is the luxury of pacing your violence.
You speak of justice, but what you really mean is the theater that precedes the bombing.
And you speak of America’s right to destroy nations if they cross a threshold—but what you’ll never admit is that the only real threshold is independence.
You know why you didn’t nuke Vietnam, Scott?
Because deep down, you knew it wouldn’t kill us.
Not really.
Not spiritually.
And that’s what still haunts you.
That’s what haunts all of empire.
You can bomb cities.
You can poison rivers.
But you cannot kill the will of a people who’ve looked death in the eye and kept walking.
Iran has that will now.
And you know it.
So keep talking about nukes.
Because every time you do, the world sees the truth more clearly:
Lovely, Thank you. Yep, my take on Scott is that he's simply a man on his way down (in his own estimation) from a high point in his career: when he was 'somebody', when he 'advised' presidents. He tries to carve out a niche for himself, tries to make himself pertinent, even valuable, but actually he's got nothing.
None of those american ex military have anything.
Larry Johnson if you count him as ex military maybe. None of the others.
They are a waste of time.
They demonstrate it every time they open their mouths and refer to it as the 'Ukraine v Russia' war. That's sloppy, slack, incorrect, untrue, prejudicial to clarity and swift resolution of the thing. It is Ukraine v Ukraine. A civil war. That is the official position of Kiev and Washington and London et al. The invasion by Kiev of Donbas never ended. They still consider the Donbas to be 'Ukraine' and the Donbas people, therefore, to be "Ukrainians' hence we have to question: how is it 'supporting Ukraine' to send money and goods to Kiev Ukraine when they are used to kill 10 million Donbas Ukrainians?
Nope. Sloppy dangerous talk.
From men pretending to be serious and analytically precise military men.
Can't even be bothered getting the facts right. Like that Witkoff: came to make peace didn't even know what peoples/areas he was talking about.
The significance? Well how many people would think twice about 'supporting Ukraine' if they knew they were supporting the destruction via civil war of Ukraine?
Hey?
And if it were not supported it would end quicker.
And it it ended quicker there'd be fewer deaths and injuries.
Hence we can lay a portion of the deaths and injuries at the door of Ritter, McGregor, Davies, etc..
Beautiful - wish I could restack it. The only thing I might add is that the US is just the muscle. I see far more hatred and propagandised brainwashing in the UK (obviously not the peasants and proletariat, but their leaders); not sure who captured whom - Zionists captured both the UK/US, or the UK elite is using Zionists and the US as a battering ram, but the viper’s head is definitely in London.
Thanks for providing that excellent comment. Yes, the immorality imbedded within megalomania and pleonexia is part of Exceptionalism. The glee we see expressed when killing by those pressing the button. The gloating by Netanyahu; his evident thirst for dead Iranians whenever he mentions that nation. Now we have "Obey or you'll get bombed Trump"--there's no morality, only the need to claim victory in the Zero-sum game the West invented for itself long ago when the goal was to attain Catholic Exceptionalism--Catholic meaning Universal then and now.
I too listened to Scott Ritter on Judge Napolitano. He makes some good points. A conventional attack on Iran won't work. If the US hits Iran conventionally it's unlikely to do devastating damage. Some missiles will be intercepted and some planes will be shot down. But suppose they do destroy Iran's nuclear potential. So what? Iran can destroy Israel and kill as many US soldiers as it wants with conventional attacks. They don't need nukes. Having said that, if attacked by the US Iran would be foolish to launch an all out conventional strike against US forces in the ME. Because Scott's right, if Iran causes 1000's of US casualties the US will go nuclear. So what does Iran do in response to an attack? It launches limited attacks on US forces, it closes the Strait of Hormuz, and it continues to shoot down attacking missiles and aircraft with the full logistical and diplomatic support of the Russians and the Chinese. In other words, don't attack. Go into a defensive crouch and turn it into a war of attrition that the Empire will lose—economically and militarily. Who knows how things will play out? But that's my best case fantasy.
Concur wholeheartedly. Though, just to continue the thought exercise: suppose the US goes nuke to bring down Iran. What then? Will Russia and China allow a vacuum, chaos, or pro-Western Iran? Iran is a keystone of Russia's north-south corridor and China's east-west belt and road. But they do not want to go to war with the US and risk general nuclear war. But they must defend their geopolitical interests. My bet is that they would step into Iran itself with military forces, at the invitation of the Iranians, declare Iran a sovereign protectorate, secure Iran, and prevent chaos. The whole world would celebrate and the US/Israel would be universally condemned for having used nuclear weapons. A lot of dead people but essentially a happy ending. Of course this assumes the US would not start a nuclear exchange with Russia/China. Just having a little fun with this. I do think BN Murmansk will play a big role.
Yes, I agree with your scenario. Iran supposedly has what’s known as a Dead Man’s Switch aimed to direct retaliation at the Zionists and all regional Outlaw US Empire outposts should the leadership be taken out. I presume that would include targeting Dimona for destruction. And as Larijani said for Khamenei, the fatwa will be revoked if we’re attacked in such a manner, and that work will proceed underground in places American nukes can’t reach. The question then becomes one of delivery vehicles. At this point I’d hope that saner minds would prevail within Team Trump, but as I’ve stated, there aren’t any such minds on that Team. Pentagon generals, perhaps. At an earlier point in this century, I wrote of the need for a real Seven Days in May but to keep the POTUS from attacking instead of what the movie portrayed.
It’s not the US, it’s the Zionists. Trump’s 100% Zionist as we learned from his first term. He knows he’s going to die sometime soon so he doesn’t care how many die first.
I understand your point, and surely someone is waiting in the wings to replace Netanyahu when he's driven out by opponents or ill health. Sadly I think it's also the entire US political class/government which has attempted to overthrow 50+ other governments since WWII for no reason--after Truman had dropped two atom bombs on Japanese civilians in Aug. 1945. Luckily for the US, its "ally" USSR had defeated Hitler at the cost of 25 million of its citizens. Truman thanked them by declaring US policy was that USSR/Russia the enemy and must be defeated. That "policy" has continued for 80 years and has been the fall back excuse for enslaving US taxpayers to the weapons industry. In 1946 Truman fired a cabinet official who dared to suggest detente with USSR. In Trump's first term he was thrilled to sign Colombia to NATO and demanded during Covid that he still be allowed to run NATO air exercises in various places.
As you know, Henry Wallace had been FDR's VP going into 1944 Dem. convention. Warmongers hijacked the convention. Delegates wanted Henry, so it took several ballots for warmongers to get their "little known" guy Harry Truman. What was "known" was that FDR was about to die which would leave his VP Truman free to convert the US to a global military police force (for "democracy," of course).
By all accounts, Iran is a highly nationalistic society. I've not seen any convincing evidence that any such "decapitation" would have any effect on Iranian policy other than their stated result of accelerating a nuclear program. It's doomed to failure, either way, but typical of US/Israeli "leadership" to think in such abysmally stupid terms.
Yes, we’re likely correct that such an attack would merely galvanize Iranians, but those that push the button are convinced by the propaganda/group think that the Zionist decapitation policy has yielded “positive” results.
So the same country--the United States of America--that lied through its teeth about Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to wage a war of aggression that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is once again deploying its "Weapons of Mass Destruction" propaganda to threaten an escalation of its current covert war against Iran into an overt hot war.
This is also the same America that has the dishonor of being the only nation to use nuclear weapons not once but twice to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki--nuclear bombings that were also rationalized by lies that they were militarily needed to summarily end World War 2, as opposed to an implicit threat against the Soviet Union to launch the nascent (first) Cold War .
This America believes it has unquestioned moral and political legitimacy to accuse Iran of illegally developing nuclear weapons, even though its own CIA spy agency does not support this accusation, and Iran is within its rights to develop its nuclear program, as even the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) specifies.
Then, there is the minor little issue that America's Best Friend Forever, Israel, has been allowed to have an undeclared nuclear weapons program, which is primarily targeted against Iran.
This is the world that we live in.
There is no rule of law.
There is only the law of the jungle.
This is the true murderous character of American/Western civilizational values.
Like the Gaza Genocide, the USA-Israeli campaign against "Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction" further demonstrates this reality.
Although Iran would (probably) not be able to hit the US directly, there are at least 800 US bases (Assets) around the world, Tto which you must include Israel (who commands the US including the White house and thus is at the origin of any attack on Iran)
Thinking of the problems the US already have to organise several "Stealth Bombers", it is obvious that if Iran reacts ALONE then it is not going to be in a winning position. However, many US bases are in /on the Gulf states etc. All of which could be hit easily. Would the Rulers of those countries (Saudi, Bahrein Qatar etc) , finding themseves on the front line with (hopefully) a population that is increasingly anti-zionist, suddenly have a "light-bulb" monent about saving their own skins and change sides? The "Royal" and tribal families represent only a minority and there are many willing tribes and others who would take their place if they could.
The Arab Royals only seem to be concerned with the safety of their wealth, not their people or nation. And with their wealth mostly under Western lock & key, I don’t see any sudden epiphanies happening.
Cowards acting like cowards. I’m even disgusted by the fact that I’m using the English language to say this. These people need to be dethroned as fast as possible.
Sorry, contrary to you, I do not agree at all with Ritter's assessment.
He says it is not acceptable that Iran is 1 week away from building nukes, and he cites the NPT that Iran has signed up to.
Iran has been threatened for years with nuclear annihilation. Iran showed its goodwill with the JCPOA, it was stabbed in back on that by DJT, who also went ahead and assassinated General Qasseem Suleimani. And there are of course the numerous Iranian nuclear scientists that the genocidal sewer has assassinated.
Over the past couple of years the pressure on Iran has been ratcheted up to such a level that a nuclear attack on Iran is imminent. And now Ritter comes out with the NPT that Iran should stick to no matter what? Go fly a kite and stop talking nonsense, Ritter, you live in a bubble.
Yes, an attack on Iran will be devastating, no it will not take out the political leadership, yes the genocidal sewer will cease to exist because Iran has the capability to turn it into a parking lot. How will DJT explain that to Miriam Adelson?
We don’t differ much. My point is that Iran will be nuked because it’s Iran, JCPOA or not. That urge has existed for many decades prior to Netanyahu. Other ways were tried first.
If Trump were a man of peace as he claims, he must declaim the policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Domination. Until he does that, he’s the head of an Outlaw Empire.
What would Russia defend? Human liberty and its own economic survival against a rogue nation that would initiate a nuclear war. Were the act to go unpunished we would all be slaves and that in a literal sense.
Un freaking believable that anyone would even consider nuclear weapons just because a country doesn't like another country. What a bunch of thugs!
"What a bunch of thugs!"
But ... that's been the USA's modus operandi for 200 years, so nothings changed.
yep and when you think about it the 'us modus operandi' has been for the 300 million to be completely inert while the lunatic few at the top practice their lunacy.
we seem to always concentrate on the lunatics without ever doing anything about them. aren't we looking in the wrong direction?
I could give you several different answers as to why, but I’ll just save time and say it’s a combination of all of them. I just revisited Russia’s 1905 Revolution, and it provides several clues about ourselves.
so you'll be doing a piece about that, maybe?
The basic point is many common Russians and other Europeans at that time were easily radicalized because of the feudal oppression they'd experienced for so long. Life was even cheaper then than now. Easily radicalized people challenge authority and revolt easily. In comparison, we're not easily radicalized because our lives have many comforts. In short--we're soft; they're hard. And when you look, you'll see that's reflected in Western militaries, particularly the Empire's. Bombing's easy.
I'm sure it is a fact and a basic point somewhere in the discussion, any discussion, about this war and many others. But you've lost me a bit about where it applies right here and now in this thread.
However I fully agree with it. I've often mused on its corollary if that's the right word: the poorer and less educated people are the more likely they are to go willingly to the trenches. Or if not 'willingly' then at least 'docilely'.
We see the poverty of Ukraine in TG vids clearly enough.
and a that further 'corollary' that you point to: 'they are hard' as reflected in the militaries is tied to that poverty, that lifelong experience of discomfort. hardship, need to suffer in silence and expect no help.
I guess you've alluded to that bit, though where you say 'feudal oppression'.
At the time in question, all of Eastern Europe was seething, revolution in the air everywhere within the three main Empires—Hapsburg, Russian, Ottoman. All three were riddled with incompetent and corrupt officials allowing governance to slide into anarchy. The Ottomans weren’t the only “sick man of Europe”; all three were, and the world war broke all three, with Germany coming very close to being included in the war’s aftermath.
Judge Nap asked the same question of former Ambassador Charles Freeman, as to whether Russia and China would sit back and allow the US-Israel to mount a full-blown attack on Iran and not do anything. His answer was that he thought Russia probably wouldn't do anything, but China might use that opportunity to create a diversion/distraction by taking military action against Taiwan – an option that would create a second front to throw the US attention off guard and into disarray.
Scott Ritter's statement that the US could "destroy" Iran in retaliation for potential Iranian counterattacks on US military bases in the region is hyperbole. Unlike the US aggression against Iraq (as per Ritter's experience), the US losses would be far more severe in this case. What he doesn't know – none of us does – is the extent to which Russia would help defend Iran with advanced AD (as they did in Syria at one point) without proclaiming it, and in that interview he didn't comment on the potential for Iran to retaliate by closing the Strait of Hormuz and cutting off oil transport to disrupt Western economies, although he has posited that scenario in the past.
Trump is a blowhard, an obstreperous child in his approach to diplomacy, however in spite of his ideologically prejudiced advisors and supporters, I doubt he would be allowed to take extreme risks if the Pentagon deems them unacceptable. What is needed now is a thorough diplomatic discussion of the issues and the positions of both sides on every aspect of the dispute, rather than bellicose threats and saber rattling that are not helpful toward a peaceful resolution. The US must finally hold back Israeli aggression because it is not in the US's best interest to be involved in such dangerous and ill-conceived actions.
Yes, that’s a sound—sane—response. But the action levers aren’t manned by sane people.
We've seen the complete degeneration in the west of capable and rational people at the helm, and it bodes badly for those behind them pulling the strings as ruthless stupid people is a bad combination. We've avoided previous catastrophes because of brave souls, but now? I'm afraid that we're approaching the point of being "shit out of luck".
The US can't "destroy" Iran without massive use of nuclear weapons. We've seen a lot of bombing campaigns in the last and this century, none of them by themselves resulted in a country being destroyed. The whole world combined doesn't have enough conventional bombs and missiles to literally destroy a big country like Iran. Iran is not like the Gaza strip.
That’s my point and concern. Trump has already demonstrated he doesn’t care who or how many he kills as long as he gets his way. We’ve seen many Ugly Americans; IMO, Trump’s the ugliest to-date.
With respect to Scott Ritter and the arrogance of empire, Eva Bartlett posted this on her telegram account:
Says it better than anything I have seen in a long, long time, if ever.
🤯
Ritter keeps displaying how vile the US is.
*
[Scott Ritter: "I've had an interesting exchange about the Vietnam War. You know, we could have ended that instantly. And there were plans to do so. Nuke Hai Phong. Nuke Ha Noi. War's over. Ends instantly. We didn't—because we made a decision that that's not in our best interest, that that's not the right direction to go. But we didn't not do that because we were afraid of anything. We made it because it was the right decision."]
Sony Thang:
"Scott, thank you for that unfiltered glimpse into the heart of Western imperial psychology.
It's always chilling—and useful—when the mask slips.
So now we have it, in your own words:
The United States considered nuking Vietnam.
Not as a last resort.
But as an option.
A plan.
A thing placed calmly on the table like a napkin.
Hai Phong. Ha Noi.
Cities full of children, women, and elders.
You say, "We didn’t do it—not because we were afraid—but because we decided it wasn’t in our best interest."
Not morally wrong.
Not a war crime.
Just not convenient.
That’s all your conscience can offer: cost-benefit analysis.
And you still think Iran is the threat?
Let me explain something as simply as possible, since clarity seems to elude you despite your obsession with charts and doctrine:
The fact that America had plans to commit nuclear genocide against a people fighting for their own land—and only backed off because it wasn’t strategically "optimal"—doesn’t make you disciplined.
It makes you monstrous.
And now, you drag that same mindset into this century, repeating the same delusion: that nuclear annihilation is always on the table, just waiting for the right justification.
Iran, this time.
Always someone else.
Always another "outlaw nation."
But never you.
You even try to dress this madness in legal ritual: Chapter 7 resolution, congressional authority, existential threat.
You think if you baptize war crimes in procedure, they’ll come out clean.
But here’s the truth, Scott:
The U.S. never needed a nation to "self-identify" as an existential threat.
It creates them.
Manufactures them.
Then nukes them—if not physically, then economically, diplomatically, psychologically.
You did it to Vietnam.
You’re trying it with Iran.
And now, the world is watching—and I hope, finally, the world sees.
Not just the hypocrisy.
But the sickness.
Because what you’ve described isn’t defense.
It’s pathology.
It’s empire so obsessed with control that it views any refusal to kneel as grounds for annihilation.
You speak of restraint, but what you really mean is the luxury of pacing your violence.
You speak of justice, but what you really mean is the theater that precedes the bombing.
And you speak of America’s right to destroy nations if they cross a threshold—but what you’ll never admit is that the only real threshold is independence.
You know why you didn’t nuke Vietnam, Scott?
Because deep down, you knew it wouldn’t kill us.
Not really.
Not spiritually.
And that’s what still haunts you.
That’s what haunts all of empire.
You can bomb cities.
You can poison rivers.
But you cannot kill the will of a people who’ve looked death in the eye and kept walking.
Iran has that will now.
And you know it.
So keep talking about nukes.
Because every time you do, the world sees the truth more clearly:
The greatest threat to humanity isn’t Iran.
It’s the system you serve.
The logic you defend.
The dead-eyed doctrine you recite.
And the fact that you still don’t realize this?
That’s what makes you dangerous.
But also—inevitable in your own collapse."
Lovely, Thank you. Yep, my take on Scott is that he's simply a man on his way down (in his own estimation) from a high point in his career: when he was 'somebody', when he 'advised' presidents. He tries to carve out a niche for himself, tries to make himself pertinent, even valuable, but actually he's got nothing.
None of those american ex military have anything.
Larry Johnson if you count him as ex military maybe. None of the others.
They are a waste of time.
They demonstrate it every time they open their mouths and refer to it as the 'Ukraine v Russia' war. That's sloppy, slack, incorrect, untrue, prejudicial to clarity and swift resolution of the thing. It is Ukraine v Ukraine. A civil war. That is the official position of Kiev and Washington and London et al. The invasion by Kiev of Donbas never ended. They still consider the Donbas to be 'Ukraine' and the Donbas people, therefore, to be "Ukrainians' hence we have to question: how is it 'supporting Ukraine' to send money and goods to Kiev Ukraine when they are used to kill 10 million Donbas Ukrainians?
Nope. Sloppy dangerous talk.
From men pretending to be serious and analytically precise military men.
Can't even be bothered getting the facts right. Like that Witkoff: came to make peace didn't even know what peoples/areas he was talking about.
The significance? Well how many people would think twice about 'supporting Ukraine' if they knew they were supporting the destruction via civil war of Ukraine?
Hey?
And if it were not supported it would end quicker.
And it it ended quicker there'd be fewer deaths and injuries.
Hence we can lay a portion of the deaths and injuries at the door of Ritter, McGregor, Davies, etc..
Beautiful - wish I could restack it. The only thing I might add is that the US is just the muscle. I see far more hatred and propagandised brainwashing in the UK (obviously not the peasants and proletariat, but their leaders); not sure who captured whom - Zionists captured both the UK/US, or the UK elite is using Zionists and the US as a battering ram, but the viper’s head is definitely in London.
Thanks for providing that excellent comment. Yes, the immorality imbedded within megalomania and pleonexia is part of Exceptionalism. The glee we see expressed when killing by those pressing the button. The gloating by Netanyahu; his evident thirst for dead Iranians whenever he mentions that nation. Now we have "Obey or you'll get bombed Trump"--there's no morality, only the need to claim victory in the Zero-sum game the West invented for itself long ago when the goal was to attain Catholic Exceptionalism--Catholic meaning Universal then and now.
🍄☁️
Excellent move by Iran that if attacked they will develop nuclear weapons for retaliation .
Diego Garcia makes an ideal target for a nuclear bomb by anyone.
Hard to know how stupid the Americans really are.
They give no cause for hope in coming to their senses.
lets hope it doesn't come to this, but with zionist freaks, anything is possible and that would include trump as a zionist freak..
I really wanted to comment directly to the show, but it had already ended, so, the note. There were other important points Ritter raised too.
I too listened to Scott Ritter on Judge Napolitano. He makes some good points. A conventional attack on Iran won't work. If the US hits Iran conventionally it's unlikely to do devastating damage. Some missiles will be intercepted and some planes will be shot down. But suppose they do destroy Iran's nuclear potential. So what? Iran can destroy Israel and kill as many US soldiers as it wants with conventional attacks. They don't need nukes. Having said that, if attacked by the US Iran would be foolish to launch an all out conventional strike against US forces in the ME. Because Scott's right, if Iran causes 1000's of US casualties the US will go nuclear. So what does Iran do in response to an attack? It launches limited attacks on US forces, it closes the Strait of Hormuz, and it continues to shoot down attacking missiles and aircraft with the full logistical and diplomatic support of the Russians and the Chinese. In other words, don't attack. Go into a defensive crouch and turn it into a war of attrition that the Empire will lose—economically and militarily. Who knows how things will play out? But that's my best case fantasy.
I believe Iran could also rain hypersonic missiles on Dimona with impunity, and irradiate swaths of Israel in response, if they so chose 🤔
Iran has the capability to destroy the entire ZioNazi entity and turn it into a parking lot.
Nice effort. Team Trump is all Ga-Ga over going decapitation on Iran, and that means nukes to me given Iranian defenses. Here’s something cheery, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/01/cory-booker-senate-speech-trump
If the opening move is nukes then we're all fucked.
The best move is to not play the game, sorry but that's it, for if
anyone makes a move, unintended consequences will surely happen.
Raygun pulled back when 200+ marines were killed in Lebanon, but
the peacemaker with all of his blustering bullshit might have lost that
option just because of all of that blustering bullshit.
What Ritter should be saying is President Trump don't play this losing
hand. The Iranians have been extremely patient so far. One mistake may
take Israel out, then what you'll go to war for a country that no longer
exists.
My belief is that the air forces of the empire won't be effective against
the defenses of Iran/China/Russia for if they were effective Ukraine would
be using them already. Could the BN Murmansk be a game changer?
Supposedly Iran was gifted a couple of them before Israel's first try some
months ago, a raid that was totally ineffective
https://armyrecognition.com/military-products/army/electronic-warfare/murmansk-bn-electronic-warfare-communications-jamming-system-data
Concur wholeheartedly. Though, just to continue the thought exercise: suppose the US goes nuke to bring down Iran. What then? Will Russia and China allow a vacuum, chaos, or pro-Western Iran? Iran is a keystone of Russia's north-south corridor and China's east-west belt and road. But they do not want to go to war with the US and risk general nuclear war. But they must defend their geopolitical interests. My bet is that they would step into Iran itself with military forces, at the invitation of the Iranians, declare Iran a sovereign protectorate, secure Iran, and prevent chaos. The whole world would celebrate and the US/Israel would be universally condemned for having used nuclear weapons. A lot of dead people but essentially a happy ending. Of course this assumes the US would not start a nuclear exchange with Russia/China. Just having a little fun with this. I do think BN Murmansk will play a big role.
Yes, I agree with your scenario. Iran supposedly has what’s known as a Dead Man’s Switch aimed to direct retaliation at the Zionists and all regional Outlaw US Empire outposts should the leadership be taken out. I presume that would include targeting Dimona for destruction. And as Larijani said for Khamenei, the fatwa will be revoked if we’re attacked in such a manner, and that work will proceed underground in places American nukes can’t reach. The question then becomes one of delivery vehicles. At this point I’d hope that saner minds would prevail within Team Trump, but as I’ve stated, there aren’t any such minds on that Team. Pentagon generals, perhaps. At an earlier point in this century, I wrote of the need for a real Seven Days in May but to keep the POTUS from attacking instead of what the movie portrayed.
Trump fears Netanyahu and the Mossad. They have a history of terrorism and assassinations.
Unit 8200 is the elite special forces assassination squad for the Greater Israel project.
US is about bullying and bombing. For no reason except that US has unlimited access to US taxpayer cash. What has Iran ever done to the US?
"US President Donald Trump on Sunday warned of bombing Iran if Tehran fails to reach a deal over its nuclear program.
"If they don't make a deal, there will be bombing —
and it will be bombing the likes of which they have never seen before,"
Trump was quoted as saying during a phone interview with NBC News' Kristen Welker."...https://www.iranintl.com/en/202503308784
It’s not the US, it’s the Zionists. Trump’s 100% Zionist as we learned from his first term. He knows he’s going to die sometime soon so he doesn’t care how many die first.
I understand your point, and surely someone is waiting in the wings to replace Netanyahu when he's driven out by opponents or ill health. Sadly I think it's also the entire US political class/government which has attempted to overthrow 50+ other governments since WWII for no reason--after Truman had dropped two atom bombs on Japanese civilians in Aug. 1945. Luckily for the US, its "ally" USSR had defeated Hitler at the cost of 25 million of its citizens. Truman thanked them by declaring US policy was that USSR/Russia the enemy and must be defeated. That "policy" has continued for 80 years and has been the fall back excuse for enslaving US taxpayers to the weapons industry. In 1946 Truman fired a cabinet official who dared to suggest detente with USSR. In Trump's first term he was thrilled to sign Colombia to NATO and demanded during Covid that he still be allowed to run NATO air exercises in various places.
That was Henry Wallace, The last real anti-fascist American leader.
As you know, Henry Wallace had been FDR's VP going into 1944 Dem. convention. Warmongers hijacked the convention. Delegates wanted Henry, so it took several ballots for warmongers to get their "little known" guy Harry Truman. What was "known" was that FDR was about to die which would leave his VP Truman free to convert the US to a global military police force (for "democracy," of course).
I believe that the UK has played a bigger part than most think.
Does the City of London own the Federal Reserve?
I believe the lawless "City of London" and "The Crown" are the last words.
Unfortunately for Iran they overthrew the Shah, the petulant children leaders of amerika have had it out for Iran ever since.
Trump you dunce it was you who left the JCPOA, why should Iran trust you in the 1st place
By all accounts, Iran is a highly nationalistic society. I've not seen any convincing evidence that any such "decapitation" would have any effect on Iranian policy other than their stated result of accelerating a nuclear program. It's doomed to failure, either way, but typical of US/Israeli "leadership" to think in such abysmally stupid terms.
Yes, we’re likely correct that such an attack would merely galvanize Iranians, but those that push the button are convinced by the propaganda/group think that the Zionist decapitation policy has yielded “positive” results.
So the same country--the United States of America--that lied through its teeth about Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to wage a war of aggression that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is once again deploying its "Weapons of Mass Destruction" propaganda to threaten an escalation of its current covert war against Iran into an overt hot war.
This is also the same America that has the dishonor of being the only nation to use nuclear weapons not once but twice to murder hundreds of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki--nuclear bombings that were also rationalized by lies that they were militarily needed to summarily end World War 2, as opposed to an implicit threat against the Soviet Union to launch the nascent (first) Cold War .
This America believes it has unquestioned moral and political legitimacy to accuse Iran of illegally developing nuclear weapons, even though its own CIA spy agency does not support this accusation, and Iran is within its rights to develop its nuclear program, as even the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) specifies.
Then, there is the minor little issue that America's Best Friend Forever, Israel, has been allowed to have an undeclared nuclear weapons program, which is primarily targeted against Iran.
This is the world that we live in.
There is no rule of law.
There is only the law of the jungle.
This is the true murderous character of American/Western civilizational values.
Like the Gaza Genocide, the USA-Israeli campaign against "Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction" further demonstrates this reality.
No rebuttal here since the overall reality is even worse than what you described.
Although Iran would (probably) not be able to hit the US directly, there are at least 800 US bases (Assets) around the world, Tto which you must include Israel (who commands the US including the White house and thus is at the origin of any attack on Iran)
Thinking of the problems the US already have to organise several "Stealth Bombers", it is obvious that if Iran reacts ALONE then it is not going to be in a winning position. However, many US bases are in /on the Gulf states etc. All of which could be hit easily. Would the Rulers of those countries (Saudi, Bahrein Qatar etc) , finding themseves on the front line with (hopefully) a population that is increasingly anti-zionist, suddenly have a "light-bulb" monent about saving their own skins and change sides? The "Royal" and tribal families represent only a minority and there are many willing tribes and others who would take their place if they could.
The Arab Royals only seem to be concerned with the safety of their wealth, not their people or nation. And with their wealth mostly under Western lock & key, I don’t see any sudden epiphanies happening.
Cowards acting like cowards. I’m even disgusted by the fact that I’m using the English language to say this. These people need to be dethroned as fast as possible.
Sorry, contrary to you, I do not agree at all with Ritter's assessment.
He says it is not acceptable that Iran is 1 week away from building nukes, and he cites the NPT that Iran has signed up to.
Iran has been threatened for years with nuclear annihilation. Iran showed its goodwill with the JCPOA, it was stabbed in back on that by DJT, who also went ahead and assassinated General Qasseem Suleimani. And there are of course the numerous Iranian nuclear scientists that the genocidal sewer has assassinated.
Over the past couple of years the pressure on Iran has been ratcheted up to such a level that a nuclear attack on Iran is imminent. And now Ritter comes out with the NPT that Iran should stick to no matter what? Go fly a kite and stop talking nonsense, Ritter, you live in a bubble.
Yes, an attack on Iran will be devastating, no it will not take out the political leadership, yes the genocidal sewer will cease to exist because Iran has the capability to turn it into a parking lot. How will DJT explain that to Miriam Adelson?
We don’t differ much. My point is that Iran will be nuked because it’s Iran, JCPOA or not. That urge has existed for many decades prior to Netanyahu. Other ways were tried first.
If Trump were a man of peace as he claims, he must declaim the policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Domination. Until he does that, he’s the head of an Outlaw Empire.
What would Russia defend? Human liberty and its own economic survival against a rogue nation that would initiate a nuclear war. Were the act to go unpunished we would all be slaves and that in a literal sense.
Read Leon Trotsky's book 1905. I recommend it.
Thanks for the FYI. I knew Trotsky was a participant but didn’t know of his book. I found it available online here, https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1907/1905/1905.pdf
It will be interesting to see how it compares to Witte’s account.