cosmicdisaster

@Difawn175292 @Harryme123 @mrddmia @Article3Project You get your news directly from Mossad

@Harryme123 @mrddmia @Article3Project Fucking retard. You obviously don’t understand what the Iran War is about. Do you get your info from CNN? Fucking fool with 500 followers and a subscription talking out his ass. Have a seat little fella. Mama is making your Sammie.

Dear China: We can crush you. Instantly. Sincerely, America

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith A regime sometimes changes when a leader is killed because the leader was the only thing holding the system together, but when a nation continues to operate the same way after the loss of their leader, the regime has not changed. Regime ≠ Leader.

OK. So if they do shift on policy it is regime change. But if they don't make any significant changes it's not? Even though it's an entirely different leadership/administration? How much do they have to adjust on policy for you to not have an issue calling it a regime change? What's the threshold?

What can you say to a Trump supporter who tells you the regime has been changed and the uranium surrendered? It’s like talking to a Democrat convinced that’s Trump’s a Russian spy in 2017. You’ve been fed a bunch of bs that simply isn’t true.

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith Now, I am willing to entertain the idea that a government could change it's operating system so much while still being under the same flag that it could be considered a regime change, but it would need to about as drastic of a change on a practical level as if if we're a new gov.

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith So yes, no significant changes = no regime change. To answer your final question, generally, a regime change wouldn't involve adjusting policy, it would involve setting new policy. Russia didn't adjust policy after the fall of the USSR. They were different entities.

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith To me, (and I believe the general public) a regime is the operating system of a country. It's the fundamental rules, norms, and institutions thst govern how a state operates and how power is distributed. A regime isn't a person, it's a system.

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith It would take longer than a month to see if they were actually going to follow through on anything, but i would agree with the general sentiment that if they did follow through, then yeah I wouldn't have an issue calling it a regime change. I just find that highly unlikely.

I think the key there is they operate differently. But sure, we've veered into a semantic debate. We actually don't know if they will act and operate differently. I suppose we'll see soon. Possibly after talks in Pakistan this weekend. Let me ask you this. Suppose the new people in charge agree to all or most everything we demand after talks. And a month or so goes by and they follow through on those commitments. Would it be correct to say that with new leadership and new policy decisions we had a regime change?

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith Follow up: this is all semantics anyways, because definitions aside, in the minds of the American people, regime change has meant that a new government is in place that acts and operates differently from the last. By that measure, there is 0 evidence that the regime has changed.

So the fuck what? Who said we have to pick their new leader? None of that matters. The leadership has completely changed. The new people were not part of the old regime. They likely had no proximity to any of the previous decisions. They are a new regime. They might do things exactly the same. Who knows? But they also may not.

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith You stated earlier that, if it's the same party, but they do a 180 in behavior, it's a regime change, but now you're saying if nothing changes, it's still a regime change. Can I ask, what isn't a regime change to you?.

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith You're assuming that the new people in charge aren't going to have the exact same goals, objectives, and tendencies as the previous, which is a wild assumption to make.

@Michael48600506 @PanarchyJay @ComicDaveSmith Your first message started with such certainty, your last one had so much uncertainty. Regime change typically means at least a new political party is in charge, a.d ideally a new form of government. Not just new people to run the old system.

You don't know that. The people they are replacing are no more. They don't have to be loyal to dead people. They may very well have different agendas. You don't know what they think. Maybe they are willing to do things differently so they don't get killed. Maybe they are more moderate. Maybe they are more extreme. I'm not saying they won't be the same. I'm just saying that it's a new regime and they are free to move how they see fit.

@jasonwagne99010 @DanHollaway @ComicDaveSmith His parties point is that there is 0 reason why we should fight for change or action in Iran. This does nothing for us. Just Isreal

@DanHollaway @ComicDaveSmith Oh fuck you Dave smith, you're party has no real answers on anything, all you do is bitch about people who are willing to actually fight for change and take action

By launching this illegal war of aggression against Iran, Donald Trump has betrayed the American people and his own base, none of whom wanted this. He has sided with Lindsay Graham, Mark Levin and Benjamin Netanyahu, the most despised laughingstocks on the planet. By announcing that this is indeed a regime change war (as anyone paying attention and being honest has known all along) he has tied his entire legacy to this action. If he isn’t able to achieve a regime change, he will have killed a bunch of people for no reason. If the regime does fall, we have already admitted that we have no one to install and without boots on the ground, it is difficult to install a regime even if you had someone. Trump will be responsible for what comes next- the thing war hawks never consider.