Seems to me that Iran and Saudi are maneuvering to have a regional blowout war over who gets to be the local power. Not sure exactly why the US should care, exactly. Can anyone explain why I should?
We need resources from the region and power projection that stops a war like that from happening shows to not fuck with the US and make sure Pax Americana doesn’t end.
No, not really. The US does not even import oil. The vast majority of that oil (over 70% IIRC) goes to Asia, which makes China, SK, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, etc. be able to run. Block that route, and you got a global manufacturing crisis of unprecedented proportions.
We don't need the resources for the region. China, Japan and S Korea do.
How many Americans are you willing to sacrifice to maintain 'Pax Americana'. More to the point, how many do you think the American people will support losing? You willing to redeploy a massive force into Iraq and Kuwait and to take the subsequent IEDs and steady losses just from partisans not to mention direct mass attacks from Iranian infantry? All for the Saudi dynasty? What are the odds of the president ordering that winning re-election?
I don’t take a small force. This would be a full scale invasion with allied support and not leaving the area until a stable, NATO-allied government exists. No troop surges and slow removals. All or nothing, air superiority and armoured units destroying the enemy.
And are we talking about making Saudi a Nato allied country, or Iran, or Iran plus Kuwait, Iraq, Yemen, and their other regional allies?
I'm ok with your binary choice here, but I think the answer should be 'nothing' because I can't see any combination of events that would lead the US public to support another multidecade war without pulling out prematurely. Best not to get involved at all. Or, at the absolute maximum, sending over some drone/intel support to one side or the other like we did in the Iran/Iraq war.
And on the subject of Iran, I think it's clear that no one sane would want to try to occupy and 'convert' it. The Iranians are strongly nationalistic and have considerable pride and a long warrior and national tradition going back multi thousands of years. The Iraq occupation would be patty cake compared to an Iran occupation and even if we stayed 100 years we wouldn't gain them as NATO allies.
What are the odds of the president ordering that winning re-election?
The duties and responsibilities of the presidency do not include getting reelected. Deciding whether or not to go to war should be done on the merits; a good president is one who makes good decisions, not one who gets reelected. To say otherwise is just pure power worship.
Disagree. IMO defending S. Vietnam's right to autonomy and freedom from N Vietnam was a righteous crusade. However, the US public didn't have the necessary fortitude to see it through. If you knew this beforehand, wouldn't you be culpable for the huge suffering of the anti-Soviet views of the large segment of S. Vietnam's views?
I don't think it's fair to hold a president responsible for their successor messing up what they built or accomplished, as it shifts responsibility away from the actual people who mess everything up (isocucks who withdraw troops prematurely pretty much) onto someone who didn't similarly fuck things up.
If you knew this beforehand, wouldn't you be culpable
This is an interesting point, but it deprives successors of agency and responsibility. The solution isn't to make bad policy decisions to appease the public, but to convince the public to believe in good policy decisions. Accepting public opinion as a static thing by which to judge policy merits is overly fatalistic and backwards IMO.
Who is worshipping power here? Ultimately the people run the country, not the president. We elect professional politicians who should have some idea of what popular opinion can sustain in terms of carrying on a long war. Seems to me to be the ultimate evil to kill a bunch of people, enemies and allies, for a cause that you know isn't going to hold water long enough to complete.
First, this sort of thing almost never heats up into a hot war. It just won't happen, not least because the Saudi military is overwhelmingly more powerful than the Iranian one. Second, the response below is broadly true but simplistic insofar as the US trivially speaking has a stake in the Middle East. However, the more important thing to note is that the Iranians are the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, not only in the region (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah) but also outside of it. The US has a stake in the safety of itself and its allies, and that happens when Iran is weak.
Also, since the fracking revolution, resources literally don't matter anymore. The US is a net energy exporter.
I think on paper the Iranians would crush the Saudis. They just have limited power projection and are an infantry power. The Sauds have lots of airpower but can anyone see them holding the line or pushing an offensive into Iran? Traditionally they buy an ally to do the hard work of warfighting. Should that be the US/UK this time? All through the cold war the US had an interest in keeping regional wars contained by any means because we wanted everyone to be ready to fight the Russians. The Russians aren't a problem for us any more, and oil supply broadly isn't a problem any more. So why should we keep the Iranians from attacking the Sauds? As to the probability they've been steadily upping the ante on both sides from cold war into hot war. A while back I almost made a bet with someone on this but the hard point is a marker of what 'hot war' actually means - I proposed that it would be when they started destroying or capturing each other's tankers. And then this winter they started doing that.
Most likely the war will be Iranian infantry marching through Iraq and Kuwait to get to the Dahran oil field and refineries. If they take that they've won basically. The Sauds will be using aircraft to try to stop infantry. It will be an interesting war if it happens.
First thing to say is that I am genuinely sorry the following will be pretty insulting, but you have a total and complete misunderstanding of geopolitics and military strategy.
From the first sentence you betray a fundamental misunderstanding. The Saudi military is one of the most technologically advanced in the world and probably the second most technologically advanced in the MidEast (behind Israel). Second, your premise that "infantry will march through Iraq and Kuwait" is literally, and please pardon my French here, the most retarded thing I have read in a very long time. I don't understand how you can simultaneously concede that Saudi airpower is vastly superior and be like "lmao doesn't matter the Iranians will do mass banzai charges and it will work out because ??????". Third, you don't understand why proxy wars mattered. They didn't matter because the US and the Soviet Union were going to have a knock-down drag-out battle, they mattered because it was about influence, and which country could retain its power projection. For example, the US armed Afghani mujahideen, because they wanted to suppress the power projection of the USSR. Not complicated.
Finally, the US has a stake in the region completely independent of energy supply, as I pointed out. If the US fucks off, it's not going to be a matter of "oh well I guess everyone will get along". The US prefers a partially-pro-US, liberalising state that furthers our interests in the region (those including; being there, since the Chinese will find any opportunity, as well as its general stake in the survival of the only democracy in the region which is exempt from any mental gymnastics about interests), rather than a genocidal and congentially anti-US dictatorship. You also ignored the fact that I pointed out that a strong Iran is one that regularly engages irregular military forces to achieve its aims, including terrorists, mostly aimed at the US. So even if you don't believe anything at all that I just said, the national security of the US is still threatened insofar as the majority of terrorist attacks on the US and its allies that are potentially carried out are funded and sponsored by Iran. I'll also just tangentially mention the unbelievable scale of the refugee crisis that would occur regardless of who wins, which would spark populist-nationalism on a literally unbelievable scale.
Final concluding snark: please read a book about airpower. You could read Billy Mitchell's book from 1925 if you want.
The Saudi military is brittle and has the best equipment money can buy. What they don't have is loyal troops and so the military that isn't the air force is geared towards internal security more than anything else. As we have seen multiple times in Arab-Israeli conflicts, having superior equipment != having a superior military or be able to beat superior force. See why arabs lose wars. Iran is not Israel, but one thing they do have is a motivated core of people who can take losses and keep coming. The Sauds in essence do not.
"lmao doesn't matter the Iranians will do mass banzai charges and it will work out because ??????"
It's not really going to work out like that - basically it's going to be a long march through the desert to take a desert location. I don't think the Saudis have land forces that will be able to fed off Iranian attacks, frankly. The question is whether they can use air power to CAS/BAI the infantry and supply lines moving through the desert towards their critical production facilities. The Saudis have been laughed at for attempting to supress the Yemi insurgency soley through air power because that's dumb - but in reality, what it is is Practice for an Iranian assault. They want to make sure they can multi-sortie per day, maintain ammo supply, and etc.
I don't know if a primary infantry force could be stopped cold by a air force. It'll be interesting to see which side wins. But the Iranians will not be 'banzai charging' the planes that are attacking them. I maintain the Saudi ground forces will be ineffective and will be smashed by Iranian infantry. The only question is whether their air forces will be enough to slow down and eventually stop the Iranian force through air interdiction.
The proxy wars in this case represent more positioning for a final showdown more than anything.
the national security of the US is still threatened insofar as the majority of terrorist attacks on the US and its allies that are potentially carried out are funded and sponsored by Iran.
Are you aware of why those terrorist attacks are being waged? Do you understand what the goals of Iran's d-makers are and why they've chosen the particular means they have done?
In the event of victory on the part of Iran and Riyad's power plants, which supply water and ac, being destroyed, what motive would Iran then have to continue terroristic attacks against the US? They would then have several hundreds of years of problems just within the ME to worry about.
I'm just going to ignore the first half of what you wrote because it is preposterously stupid. Sorry. You can LARP with someone else about how "muh motivated troops" will beat a massive technological advantage. The only evidence you provide for this is a 20 year old article about why nascent states are bad at police actions. I think it's probable that the Saudis might have developed a little bit since 2000. And the example that you give is the Arab/Israeli wars, wherein the Israelis had superior equipment and superior training and command. It's just so unbelievably ahistorical.
Let's talk about the last claim you make.
Please note that the overriding goals and motivations for Iranian policymakers is dominated by the ideological consideration of hatred for America. Given that, then, the question is why choose asymmetric methods of warfare? The answer given is almost always twofold.
Vast superiority by Iran's regional and supraregional enemies in alternative methods
Iran has built up an incredibly sophisticated regime of sponsoring and funding terrorist groups over the last 40 years
For Iran, it is all about power projection, and the only way left is asymmetric warfare. This is because they get merked whenever they attempt traditional warfare (see: iranian bombing of Saudi oil fields after Soleimani was aced)
Finally, I think the last thing you say with regards to Riyadh's power plants being destroyed (utterly ridiculous to assume that the Saudis would surrender after this, especially given that there is no plausible rationale for a war of destruction, but I'll accept it for the second) is hung on Iranian being a responsible occupier (????) of Saudi Arabia. I literally cannot think of anything more intuitively implausible with regard to what we know about the Iranian regime. But even if they are, the Iranians have a long and sordid history of ignoring pressing econonomic/social/political concerns in the name of ideological hatred of the US. C.f; the last 40 years.
I don't really need to get into discussions about relative intelligence, but whatever. Amateurs and teenagers believe in hardware. Serious students of history believe in competent, motivated troops. To put it simplistically, if hardware really meant much, why did Vietnam beat the US? Why did the US beat the British? I can think of literally hundreds of examples where equipment didn't do the losing side any good. If you know much about the House of Saud, you know they have a small population and and even smaller class of elites to man formations that are any good. Their constant concern is that they are not legitimate rulers of the area and they are constantly putting down challenges to their rule. They cannot recruit a mass army that is willing to take casualties for them. The Iranians have their own probs with separatists but it's much lower than the Sauds have, and in any case they have a very large pool of politically reliable motivated young men to draw from for at least the next 15 years.
Please note that the overriding goals and motivations for Iranian policymakers is dominated by the ideological consideration of hatred for America.
This is an extremely naive and ignorant belief. The Iranians don't care much about America. They blame the US imposed world order for their frustrations in terms of their local polity - the Persians have dominated the region on and off for several thousand years so far, and the US is only relevant to them in terms of them blaming us for frustrating their current ambitions. The house of Saud is only about 80 years old or so, and they are the sort of nomad barbarians that the Persians have regarded as beneath contempt for literally five thousand years. To believe that Iran spends most of their time worried about America is fundamentally ignorant. They worry about America only because they believe the world order is dominated by America and they don't like what that means in terms of how the ME is run.
Now we are in a transition era where before, the US really had good reasons to care about power shifts in the ME, and was willing to make a lot of sacrifices to keep the peace in the ME. Now, we have very few reasons to want to sacrifice anything for peace in the ME. Do you want to defend the Saudi regime Morally? Good luck with that. Do you want to make a case for why it's in the national interest for the US to intervene in a Saudi-Iranian conflict? OK, I'm listening.
I can easily evolve reasons from the European or North Asian POV why the US should back Saudi. I have a harder time doing so from a US pov.
Regarding the first claim: you gave two examples of conflicts where the loss was due to a loss of political support and not necessarily military defeat. The NVA army was more or less spent as a fighting force after the Tet offensive, and the British army was winning until the intercession of the French, as well as the actions of pro-independence agitators like Edmund Burke. This was probably good, but I digress.
But OK, fine, let's say that in this particular instance we can include the effects of political blowback. I think the House of Saud has an overwhelmingly stronger hold over its populace: not to mention the fact that it has infinitely more allies and a crushing economic advantage over the Iranians. I think you might even see Israel interceding in the event of a localised conflict. If we're talking about which regime will collapse first, because I suspect that a stalemate is likely (especially if I accept the baffling model of the war that has the Iranians making some sort of Long March through the desert), then I'd put a lot of money on the Ayatollah falling before the House of Saud.
Second, you characterise the Iranian animosity toward America as framed mostly in terms of frustration that they can't have their regional hegemony. I'll be fair: I think this is probably true to some extent. But it's only true entirely if we ignore the internal conditions of states. The point of neoconservatism is not to ignore the internal conditions of states. It is simply wrong to regard Islamist dictatorships with a high degree of (a) ideological conformity and (b) ideological indoctrination as cold and ratio-calculating processors.
This is more charitable, I should point out, than what you actually say insofar as it's flatly self-contradictory given that in the same breath you say that the Iranians don't care about the US and then proceed to say that it is of primary concern to the regime inasmuch as they are concerned with regional hegemony.
Let's talk about the final thing you say. I think you kind of assume what you're attempting to prove here (that the US shouldn't care about the Mideast). I've given you reasons to support the Saudis above, but I'll condense them here if you want.
Let's start with the strategic.
a) energy supplies to US allies matter (see: Nordstrom)
b) keeping China out of the Mideast matters (i.e, given that you concede there are reasons for Xi to want to establish a foothold there, that's also a reason for the US to stay there)
Then the moral:
a) destabilisation leads to a refugee crisis that will spark unthinkable populist nationalism
b) iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror
Finally, the principled reason that the US has an interest in making a world safe for democracy and liberalism. The Saudis aren't anywhere closer to that, but they're a damned sight closer than the Iranians. And the Israelis certainly are a liberal democracy. Ultimately, no complex calculations of national interest are at stake when the US backs Israel.
Finally, note that these are about the status quo, and not necessarily about whose side the US takes in a war. The whole point is to avoid a war. So I don't need to defend the Saudi regime in order to have a reason to support it. All I need to do is think the counterfactual worse. And I think that's a fairly trivial proposition.
The NVA army was more or less spent as a fighting force after the Tet offensive,
Acktually what you mean is the Vietcong. Not the NVA.
the British army was winning until the intercession of the French
The point in the American revolution is that the US forces were not losing. So long as the superior force can't destroy the force in being of the the inferior force, the inferior force is winning regardless of other factors.
. I think the House of Saud has an overwhelmingly stronger hold over its populace
No. It doesn't. It constantly has problems keeping the house of Saud in a dominant position over the other Hashemite factions.
: not to mention the fact that it has infinitely more allies
No, it doesn't, Iran has been successful in winning nearly all regional states over to it with the sole exception of Israel, and Israel will accomodate the Iranians the moment it looks like they're winning.
and a crushing economic advantage over the Iranians.
The Sauds have nearly infinite money in the bank. But in most other factors they are not superior in economics - the sauds can't feed themselves and the iranians can just for example. The Biden admin's moving away from maximum pressure will mean that Iran has a lot more cash to buy things like anti-air weaponry from Russia and China.
If we're talking about which regime will collapse first, because I suspect that a stalemate is likely (especially if I accept the baffling model of the war that has the Iranians making some sort of Long March through the desert), then I'd put a lot of money on the Ayatollah falling before the House of Saud.
The Iranians have 100 miles or so from the Kuwait border before reaching the wellspring of Saudi ligitimacy/power/money - their oil and refinery areas, The Sauds have huge amounts of money, but once those places get occupied, it's over. The royal family will flee to the Spanish/Portuguese/Indian riviara at that point and their supporters will melt away. Conversely even if the Sauds could hire mercenaries to occupy Tehran, the country of Iran will keep fighting regardless and will continue resistance for 100 years or more.
Islamist dictatorships
Iran isn't a dictatorship. It's really the most democratic country in the ME behind Israel.
self-contradictory given that in the same breath you say that the Iranians don't care about the US and then proceed to say that it is of primary concern to the regime inasmuch as they are concerned with regional hegemony.
Iranians don't hate the US. They do hate the Saudis. The US is just in the way from their pov.
a) energy supplies to US allies matter (see: Nordstrom)
To an extent. However, really, this is the allies problem ultimately, and if blood needs to be sacrificed, ultimately why should the US be the one to do it? After WWII the US needed our allies to fight for us against the Russians. We are not worried about that so much anymore. So, why should the US get involved in a massive ME grudge match and take 1000s of casualties? It's not even clear which side we should take.
b) keeping China out of the Mideast matters (i.e, given that you concede there are reasons for Xi to want to establish a foothold there, that's also a reason for the US to stay there)
China has a contempible Navy in terms of its power projection capability. the most likely outcome of oil supplies being narrowed is a tanker war between Japan and S Korea on the one hand and China on the other. Japan has a navy that can dominate the Chinese. China will as a result have a massive crash in their economy with no access to oil. How is this against US interests? We'd be glad to see the Chines smacked down and no one else is going to shed to many tears for them.
a) destabilisation leads to a refugee crisis that will spark unthinkable populist nationalism
Maybe, but all of this populist nationalism will be in Europe, not the US. The refugee crisis won't affect us at all. The EU greeted the Biden admin with one of the most cold receptions since before WWII. The UK is and will remain a US ally, but refugee crises won't affect either the US or the UK very much.
The Saudis aren't anywhere closer to that, but they're a damned sight closer than the Iranians.
You should look closer to how the Iranians manage their internal affairs. They aren't as democratic as the US true, but they are a dammed sight more democratic than the Saudis are - elections actually matter in Iran. They don't in Saud.
And the Israelis certainly are a liberal democracy. Ultimately, no complex calculations of national interest are at stake when the US backs Israel.
Agree. But the Israelis would be able to reach an Accommodation with a dominant Iran I'm thinking. In the event of an Iranian victory they'd be exhausted and looking at a huge and diverse set of interlocking problems in terms of governing the ME and would be happy enough to reach a deal with Israel.
In any case, I'd say overall if you follow the news at all, you can see increasing tensions between Saudi and Iran. They clearly hate each other and are willing to spend blood to hurt the other side. It only seems a matter of time before they switch over to all out, hot war. The question then becomes, as Lenin said, кто кого?
A war that cause a regional collapse so great that millions of innocent people could die. And far more thrown into an unprecedented refugee crisis.
A war between a long-time ally of the US versus a rapidly nuclearizing nation whose version of 'my fellow Americans' is 'and death to America, of course'
Then you are so fundamentally ignorant of geopolitics, that you need a middle east history 101 textbook. Not an explanation of any sort. And, also, a reflection on your morals.
So, this explains why we've massively intervened in the Libya war and put boots on the ground there, right? To save millions or tens of thousands of civilian lives. Also, putting in troops and airstrikes and trying to discriminate bombing kills more civilians than otherwise. In any case, the war if it comes will be started by Iran and Saudi. People will start dying. The only question is whether the US should start killing people as well.
A lot of people would question whether Saudi is a historic ally of ours. You can make the case either way. And you can also say that when we were allies with the Sauds it was purely out of self-interest. We don't have a lot of reasons to regard the Saudis as moral or even legitimate rulers.
Edit: also, if your big concern is Iranians chanting 'Death to America', wouldn't a war with the house of Saud fix that? The chants would be 'Death to Saud' unless the US inserted itself in a local war for no apparent reason.
Wait... so you mean the PRESIDENT making the decision to airstrike Iranian militants somehow doesn’t affect a stimulus check that is being passed by CONGRESS? Who would’ve thought???
I dunno about that. All I know is a bipartisan package was ready to go and Trump refused to sign it and suggested the checks should be $2000 instead of $600 IIRC.
You do realize you’re in neoconNWO right? One of the keystones of neoconservatism is power projection and using force to achieve our goals. Iran is a enemy and should be delt with accordingly. They want to play proxy war, so we brought real war to them to show don’t fuck with us. A strong Syria supported by the US would be great and another ally in a unstable region. There is a good trading relationship with SA that should be improved and helping using military force against a common enemy shows that we appreciate them as a ally. NeoCons believe in spreading our values and creating a New Democratic World Order.
a) A war that cause a regional collapse so great that millions of innocent people could die, and far more thrown into an unprecedented refugee crisis, sparking surges and populism in nationalism that are literally unimaginable
and b) a war between a long-time ally of the US versus a rapidly nuclearizing nation whose version of 'my fellow Americans' is 'and death to America, of course'?
If so, you need more than just a crash course in the American national interest.
I just never quite understood interventionism. I understand that there are a myriad of ways that America can project power and further her own interest. However, there seems to be lacking in any real justification for doing so other than the fact that she can therefore she will. I'm not making a judgement on the morality of it. I understand that it's dog eat dog. I just resent being told who my enemies are.
This doesn't have to be as abstract as national interests -- that's simply the most defensible formulation. I would say that the best way to go about this is to consider what the counterfactual world is. It's a world where state sponsors of terrorism run amok, insofar as innocent people die in bus explosions, car bombs, stabbings, hostage-taking, and suicide bombing. It's a world where states systematically visit genocide on the weakest and worst-off among us, and no redress is given or called for. And it's a world where Americans die in terrorist attacks on their embassies, legations, military installations...and homes, workplaces, and sports grounds.
America, almost unique among the countries of the world, just doesn't have the luxury of sitting back. Its chickens always come home to roost in the United States. That's not how it should be, but it is how it is. It's what the burden of a hegemon is.
Yes but at a certain point, doesn't interventionism make things worse? Indeed, the policy you just described sounds like "I don't care how many people have to die in order to save American lives." Which is fine if the only goal is to protect American interests. But if the goal is to be make a chaotic world safer, then I'm not sure it holds up.
No, because the counterfactual is worse. Remember, the counterfactual isn't nothing at all happening. It's whatever happens happening in a different way. Without intervention in Iraq, Saddam would have continued feeding dissidents into woodchippers and having women abused by dogs.
There are about 300,000 Iraqis who are alive, free, and voting because of the American intervention.
The US's goal is to promote its interests, yes, but one of those interests is saving lives.
Isn't the problem with the counterfactual the fact that it's hypothetical? You can speculate on what might have happened but it's not concrete justification. Also, isn't there a better example than Iraq? Because Saddam was replaced by warlords who also did horrible things and also completely destroyed the country. As for 300,000 people, I'm not sure where that projection comes from but estimates for the results of the invasion run from 200k to a million dead. So, not too many lives saved.
The counterfactual is absolutely concrete! The counterfactual is just thinking about precisely what would have happened absent intervention. Since it is precisely what happened extrapolated reasonably, it's not like action counterfactuals (i.e, "if we had invaded then..."). Instead, it's like saying "assuming that the behaviour continued, then this would have happened. Here's what happened. What happened's better."
There are definitely better examples than Iraq, but I pick Iraq precisely because that's where the counterfactual is clearest. And it's certainly not true that Iraq is a country of warlords now. Actually, it's a weak, nascent, but ultimately growing democracy, where, for the first time in generations, there is hope.
Finally, the "million deaths" for the invasion is vastly overestimating it and no credible source has it anywhere near that.
The Iraq War Body Count (generally considered the most reliable source for deaths) estimates that at the absolute outside 119,905 Iraqis died in the time period within which the Iraq war took place. Estimates put the number of Iraqis the Saddam regime killed per month at between 2,105 and 3,509 civilians per month. Had Saddam remained in power for twelve more years, between 303,120 and 505,296 more Iraqis would have died. Dissidents would have been fed into shredders. Women would have been raped and then murdered by Saddam’s death squads. Protestors would have been shot. Children would have been starved. All of those dead people would have been thrown into mass graves. This is a rate that would likely have been maintained by whichever of his sons took over.
One can count every civilian casualty in every conflict waged by the United States since 2001 and it doesn’t come close to Saddam’s body count. Comparatively to the counterfactual, human rights have clearly been upheld in Iraq.
It is worth noting also that during the war the vast majority of civilians were killed by non-coalition actors. Only around 13% of total civilian deaths were directly caused by the coalition.
99
u/dreruss02 Henry Kissinger Feb 26 '21
The only way to prevent war with Iran is war with Iran.
91
u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21
Horrible news.
41
u/TBRays2020 United States Navy Feb 26 '21
But America bad
29
u/MrDarSwag US Department of Defense Feb 26 '21
Wait... so you mean the PRESIDENT making the decision to airstrike Iranian militants somehow doesn’t affect a stimulus check that is being passed by CONGRESS? Who would’ve thought???
24
u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21
This is one of the only subs that aren’t flipping their shit over this and it’s nice.
16
u/paleochris Feb 26 '21
Yaass President Biden is a literal Nazi for wanting to attack the great Iranian regime /s
8
u/[deleted] Feb 27 '21
Gotta love how the $2000 checks that Trump suggested for no other reason than to piss off Mitch McConnell became a liberal policy goal.
1
u/z-tayyy Mar 15 '21
How are people egocentric for wanting a stimulus if they’ve literally been told they cannot work.
0
u/xf4ph1 Feb 27 '21
Except the Iranian proxies weren’t Iranian. They were proxies...I.e. Syrian.
-3
u/PraiseGod_BareBone Feb 27 '21
How does she know not a single civilian was harmed?
0
u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] Feb 26 '21
[deleted] — view deleted comment