| ▲ | pjc50 5 hours ago |
| > It is a particularly interesting position when the US is trying to counter China. The US put countering China way behind on its priority list, below "owning the libs" and settling old scores. I am convinced that if the Iran decapitation had worked like Venezuela, which seems to have been what they expected, then Cuba would have been next. |
|
| ▲ | stevenwoo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I am surprised the USA has not attacked Cuba yet. I am guessing the rundown on missile stocks has eliminated the possibility of a 100 percent air/navy campaign like they failed at in Iran. |
| |
| ▲ | icantevenhold 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Why should they? Cuba is completely insignificant beyond some ideological value. | | |
| ▲ | microtonal 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Why should they? To get an easy win compared to Iran just before the midterms? Of course, it could end up in a mess, but it's a mess already anyway. | |
| ▲ | nizbit 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Russia doesn’t think so. | |
| ▲ | an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | chadgpt3 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because of the ideological value | | |
| ▲ | lukan 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. Cuba is a pain in the US politics since generations now. If Trump would solve it, that would boost him. But if it fails, with declared victory but significant partisan warfare afterwards - not so much. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bluGill 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is unfortunately that the choices didn't have counter China in the list. It was status quo or trump. I wasn't happy with either option there. |
|
| ▲ | lukan 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| And then greenland. |
|
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [deleted] |
|
| ▲ | soperj 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Cuba doesn't have oil. The point is to prop up Putin. |
| |
| ▲ | ben_w 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The point is to prop up Putin. Attacking one of Russia's few allies and weapon suppliers is counterproductive to such a goal, even if higher oil prices also help the Russian state finances. | | |
| ▲ | llm_nerd 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | This ill-conceived, Kegsbreath-run operation depleted weapons stocks, gave enormous levels of intel on its systems (which both Russia and China are loving), burned through hundreds of billions in spend, and made Ameirca look like an impotent pathetic joke. Yes, the Iran operation 100% served Russia and China. It could not have gone better for them. And of course it helped Russia make hundreds of billions more on oil. Win win win. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Yes, the Iran operation 100% served Russia and China. It could not have gone better for them. China yes, Russia no. > And of course it helped Russia make hundreds of billions more on oil. Win win win. For this to be intentional, the USA would have needed to intend Hormuz to be closed, rather than surprised and upset by it. (Not that it matters much, but estimates I see say about $50bn, which is closer to the destruction of Wildberries than it is to $100bn). | | | |
| ▲ | microtonal 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it is equally likely that Benny convinced the administration to attack Iran, emboldened by the 'success' in Venezuela. | |
| ▲ | 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | myko 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If the goal of a presidency was to destroy the country one could not do a better job than trump. |
