My latest series of interviews on podcasts and the texts which I set out on these pages to introduce the video links have stirred up a great deal of comment on my web platforms and of email letters sent directly to me.
Thanks for some needed insights, including the one about online forums potentially being dragged down, defined or destroyed by the commenters they attract. I see this happening on a number of sites that have important and valid content but attract some nasty commenters. (The Duran is an example.) As a commenter, I try to call out or rebuke some of the nastier comments, including the anti-semetic ones, as sort of corrective. It's important that the great majority of non-nasty followers of the site remember that they are not a minority there.
My explanation of the commenters is that they (sometimes effectively) serve through hijacking the source analysis and drive it into a discussion of red herrings.
Let’s assume, the US does not want a war against Iran. They could have waged this war 20 - 30 years ago, e. g. immediately after the Iraq-war(s) with a much stronger US army and a much weaker Iranian force. So why should they encourage „their proxy“ at this very inconvenient moment to provoke this war? The US military resources are not sufficient for a war in Ukraine, an effort to contain the power of China and a war against Iran at the same time. To retaliate for the humiliation of the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis 45 years later is a bit too late in my opinion. Mearsheimers explanations sound much more logic: Israel tries to become undisputed local hegemon for security and other reasons. And the US - if they like it or not - have to fight their war. Of course, there are US interests in this development. Look at the profits of the defense industry. And do not forget those christian zionists, who have a religious interest. But they are part of the lobby and represent the interests of Israel.
A discussion between you and Mearsheimer would be very interesting.
Thanks for some needed insights, including the one about online forums potentially being dragged down, defined or destroyed by the commenters they attract. I see this happening on a number of sites that have important and valid content but attract some nasty commenters. (The Duran is an example.) As a commenter, I try to call out or rebuke some of the nastier comments, including the anti-semetic ones, as sort of corrective. It's important that the great majority of non-nasty followers of the site remember that they are not a minority there.
My explanation of the commenters is that they (sometimes effectively) serve through hijacking the source analysis and drive it into a discussion of red herrings.
I think some commenter's are National security poking and probing and provoking to test and expose readers
Let’s assume, the US does not want a war against Iran. They could have waged this war 20 - 30 years ago, e. g. immediately after the Iraq-war(s) with a much stronger US army and a much weaker Iranian force. So why should they encourage „their proxy“ at this very inconvenient moment to provoke this war? The US military resources are not sufficient for a war in Ukraine, an effort to contain the power of China and a war against Iran at the same time. To retaliate for the humiliation of the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis 45 years later is a bit too late in my opinion. Mearsheimers explanations sound much more logic: Israel tries to become undisputed local hegemon for security and other reasons. And the US - if they like it or not - have to fight their war. Of course, there are US interests in this development. Look at the profits of the defense industry. And do not forget those christian zionists, who have a religious interest. But they are part of the lobby and represent the interests of Israel.
A discussion between you and Mearsheimer would be very interesting.