More comment-preservation, re the Iran conflict.
______
It's the Libs on this thread showing irrational paranoia. You want to celebrate Iran as the "good guys" in this geopolitical contest, simply because "they didn't attack first"-- even though Iran sent agents to assassinate a sitting US president, which in your world is not an "attack."
And then there's the rush to assume that whatever Iran says is an honest representation of the facts on the ground, that they control the Straits because they say they do. Here's what they control: drones that can attack cargo ships if those ships don't pay up. Can other European and Middle Eastern countries choose to fight? Sure, but apparently, according to Louis Vittert (on a recent O'REILLY SHOW), they won't because Euro insurance companies have already rolled over, stating that they won't pay for cargo ships being attacked, but they will pony up for extortion. Vittert has a refreshingly practical take that you Libs could benefit from-- don't assume that either Iran or the US is telling the unvarnished truth, but judge what happens from the actual results. The constant carping of the media, Vittert points out, has strengthened Iran's position, not anything Trump did, because thanks to the Menace of the Midterms, the Iranians feel they can ask for more stuff despite their having been the aggressors in the conflict. To Trump it's like, "I'll use American resources to protect American interests, but I'm not doing squat for Europe. They can roll over and show their bellies, or they can fight."
No comments:
Post a Comment