Uncategorized Can Trump Manage an Unbelievably Small War? Few wars start with the intention of regime change. (FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP via Getty Images) When John Kerry was secretary of state under Barack Obama, he was widely mocked for saying a proposed military strike on Syria would be “unbelievably small.”  Few on either side of the 2013 Syria debate found those assurances believable. There was limited appetite at the time for even an unbelievably small war in the region, given recent experience with the bigger ones. Can Israel fight such a war against Iran, with the U.S. role never growing beyond unbelievably small at the most? That is what President Donald Trump appears to be betting, based on the early promising results of the Israeli military strikes.    It’s certainly true that military interventions do not have to grow into full-blown occupations and nation-building projects. Trump’s first-term military campaign against ISIS was largely successful without metastasizing into Iraq War 2.0.  Afghanistan could have been conducted in a way more like the anti-ISIS blitz than the ill-fated 20-year war to transform that barren wasteland into something approximating a normal country that the Afghan conflict ultimately became.  From Grenada to the Persian Gulf War, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush governed as if they learned some lessons from the Vietnam debacle even though they both supported that war at the time, and neither of them condemned it in retrospect (though there were at least arguably negative downstream effects from the first Iraq war that contributed to the second, far less successful one). The U.S. and its allies were also able to win the Cold War despite the failures in Vietnam.  If a more limited intervention is possible here, it will be because Trump is differently motivated than past interventionists. I was among those worried his strike against Iranian military officer Qasem Soleimani would lead to war. It did not at least in part because Trump quit while he was ahead rather than use Iran’s retaliation, which some described as “calibrated” at the time, as a pretext to keep going. Trump had less success with his second-term strikes against the Houthis. But rather than let it turn into a forever war, he cut his losses, declared victory, and stopped the bombing.  I suspect Trump’s apparent reversal on the Israeli strikes—he has acknowledged publicly that he asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to stand down last month—began as a bargaining posture, an elaborate Trump-Netanyahu good cop–bad cop routine. But the strikes then appeared to weaken Iran enough that he began to think something more ambitious was possible, with Israel doing nearly all the work and taking the bulk of the risk. Trump may not be interested in a protracted war, but a protracted war is potentially interested in him. The lessons many conservatives have taken from the failure of recent past wars is that nation-building doesn’t work and democracy promotion in most of the Middle East is simply idealistic mumbo-jumbo. The number of people who still believe in anything like George W. Bush’s second inaugural address is vanishingly small.  Those lessons are fine as far as they go. But relatively few people went into Afghanistan or Iraq wanting to nation-build. The talk at the time was of light footprints, cakewalks, and being greeted as liberators. After the shock and awe, the options are generally to do business with the remnants of a government that was deemed untrustworthy to begin with; leave behind a stateless vacuum to be filled by God knows what; or try to fashion a new, differently motivated government out of the postwar wreckage. And that’s where nation-building tends to come in. Overthrowing the Taliban wasn’t hard; creating a country that wouldn’t return the Taliban to power practically the moment the U.S. was a task left undone after 20 years of trying. Iraq was a largely predictable disaster, but not because Saddam Hussein’s army proved any more up to the challenge of fighting U.S. forces than during Desert Storm. There were exhilarating moments of toppling Saddam’s statue and pulling the filthy dictator himself out of his hidey hole. The problem was the aftermath. The Iran debate has always fundamentally been about the regime. The case for military action has never been about the general enforcement of nuclear nonproliferation. It has been the character and nature of the Iranian regime: the argument that it cannot possess nuclear weapons because its government is run by religious fanatics against whom deterrence cannot work, and the much stronger argument that nuclear weapons would make it more difficult, especially for Israel, to inflict consequences on Tehran for sponsoring terrorism. So I don’t dismiss the case that this could somehow be made to work, especially if Trump refuses to pay the bill at the Pottery Barn no matter who breaks what. But it is the regime-change part that could prove difficult to avoid and has the worst track record of working out. At a minimum, it is difficult to keep believably small. The post Can Trump Manage an Unbelievably Small War? appeared first on The American Conservative.

MOSAD HEADQUARTERS DESTROYED. Pounded By Iranian Missiles. Iron Dome Fails, Hacked? * Lol. Well. I HAD to Post SOMETHING on THIS One. * IRANIAN MISSILE HIT 9 ISRAEL'S MOSSAD AT THE MOSSAD HEADQUARTERS IN ERBIL, IRAQ DID THIS HAPPENED? * Iranian missiles hit the Mossad headquarters near Tel Aviv 2 Jun 17, 2025 Rogue Strikes https://youtu.be/1S2mYqrH9fk?si=Wsb9xr3NUks8jPpl * REAKING: Iranian missiles strike Israeli military headquarters in unprecedented attack 1,814,049 views Jun 17, 2025 4 hours ago Fox News https://youtu.be/zjkBDqjiN3Y?si=zqF1SJ4RA9s_KotF * Is Trump sending US troops against Iran after Mossad HQ hit by more missiles? |Janta Ka Reporter Jun 17, 2025 https://youtu.be/Z_KdTRdqMDk?si=owThkRExYmvOy_O_ 307,780 views Jun 17, 2025 Janta Ka Reporter US President Donald Trump on Monday night sent more than 10 million people of Tehran into panic by ordering them to evacuate. This triggered fears amongst Iranians about possible US strikes on Tehran. What heightened the anxiety was Trump’s decision to cut short his trip to Canada and return to Washington. Rifat Jawaid explains what Iranian success against Israel means for the ongoing war started by Benjamin Netanyahu. Mirrored From: https://www.youtube.com/@JantaKaReporter * More reports of Israeli air defence system malfunctioning as Iran fires more missiles https://t.me/JantaKaReporter/1182 * Iranian missile destroys Israeli air defence system deployed in the civilian population area. https://t.me/JantaKaReporter/1177 * Desperate Netanyahu is exerting pressure on Trump to help him against Iran. Tehran’s ability to successfully hit Israeli targets and destroy the Mossad hq has stunned both Netanyahu and Trump. Trump’s supporters think it would be foolish for the US president to drag his country to an illegal war started by Netanyahu. * The reason to attack Iraq was the non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction. George Bush and Tony Blair massacred one million innocent people to please Netanyahu. The US and the Uk killed a million more in Libya, once again to quench the genocidal thirst of Netanyahu. They joined this bloodthirsty terrorist to cause a holocaust in Gaza. And now its Iran. At what point would these thugs masquerading as peacemakers and advocates for a rule-based world order stop showing disdain to international law and international humanitarian law? What would it take to satisfy their collective desire to slaughter innocent people for fun? * Oops. Forgot to post this one... Sen. Rand Paul says ‘it’s not the U.S.’s job to be involved’ in Israel-Iran conflict: Full interview NBC News Jun 15, 2025 https://youtu.be/_Ff7bva9czg?si=U84B4Pgi-1AsVyO1 * True Promise 3: Iran Strikes Mossad HQ Near Tel Aviv https://sputnikglobe.com/20250617/iran-strikes-mossad-headquarters-in-israels-herzliya---reports-1122269403.html * FAIR USE FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES

Chris Sky - Inside information from a source in DC has told me that War with Iran starts this coming Friday 20th. UTL COMMENT:- It's up to YOU Americans to head to DC and MASS PROTEST right NOW!! Maybe even bring your 2A with you hint hint... you know....it's in your Constitution...and you haven't used it YET.... Want more young American to die for Israel? STOP THIS NOW!

The National Socialist Network are protesting African machete violence with a banner saying "solve black crime, send them back" outside of the Department of Home Affairs in Melbourne. UTL COMMENT:- I was walking at night last night and there was a Black Somali following me. It felt creepy and weird. I automatically diverted and headed towards the well-lit shops. We have no Blacks in our area at all!!! Well that now seems to be changing... Now what are my thoughts on these 'National Socialist' guys? I am open to learning. In principle I agree with what they say however I am against 'extreme' ideologies. But let me ask is it extreme to want to defend your own people? I need to learn more.... Follow: @NoticerNews

A TikTok user named Clay came back from a bar and was walking on the third floor of his apartment complex when he came across something that offended him to the core: a doormat in front of an apartment building with the legend “Gayest place in town” on it."I don't like that at all," Clay joked in a TikTok video with nearly two million views. “Because it implies that my place is not the gayest place in town." He quickly ordered himself a "Gayest place in town" doormat and then taped a piece of paper with “2nd” written on it so the competing doormat now read: "2nd gayest place in town." He also attached a longer note that included a challenge: "Hello downstairs Gay-bor(s), I'm writing to let you know that I find your doormat to be extremely offensive. I personally believe that MY apt is the gayest place in town and I hereby challenge you to a gay-off,” the letter read, which also contained his TikTok user name. @claygaiken And my place IS the gayest place in town ????️‍?????‍♂️ Man challenges neighbors to a Pride Month gay-offClay challenged the offending residents, who he'd learn are Lauren and Cara, a lesbian couple, to a gay-off. "HEY THAT'S MY DOORMAT, HEY NEIGHBOR!” Lauren responded to the TikTok. You will be hearing back from us,” she added. “I look forward to it,” Clay confidently responded. The lesbian couple shot back with a letter on Clay's doorstep that read: "Hi Gay-boy, we have no clue what this entails, but it sounds gay, so naturally we are in—Cara & Lauren."Commenters on Clay’s TikTok page were excited that the gay-off was on, but some hoped that he was competing with a man. “You need to put out gay decor and then you and your neighbor keep trying to outgay each other's decor and then idk enemies to lovers y'all fall in love,” one person wrote in the comments."Everyone assumed the other apartment belonged to a gay man and hoped for an 'enemies to lovers' situation," Clay told Newsweek. "But I had a strong suspicion it was lesbians. I mean, I used to joke that the third floor was the lesbian floor."Clay posted a follow-up video showing the lesbian couple's response, and they didn’t hold back. @claygaiken Replying to @Shareda Mills team Lesbians, you’re up ?@Lauren Bishop @calabrese101 Clay let the commenters choose the winner, and they overwhelmingly chose the lesbian couple. “We’re sorry, but RAINBOW TINSEL?! Your decor is cute, but they came to WIN,” one commenter wrote. "Yeah, I mean, the door thing they put up is very eye-catching, yours is cute... but... I think they have this round,” another added. Compared to the lesbian couple, Clay's approach was more subtle. His decor included two small signs that said "Homo Sweet Homo" and "Just a heads up, its really gay in here" and two pride flags taped to the door. But, if you wanted him to win, don't feel bad just yet, there’s still a chance for a comeback. He told Newsweek that he plans on keeping the gay-off going throughout Pride Month. Plus, who knows, this could just be the beginning; next year, they may have to challenge each other to see who has the gayest place in their building once more.

With AI being implemented seemingly everywhere for seemingly everything these days, it wasn't surprising when Google launched its "AI Overview" in the spring of 2024. With messaging like "Generative AI in Search: Let Google do the searching for you" and "Find what you're looking for faster and easier with AI overviews in search results," the expectation is that AI will parse through the search results for you and synopsize the answer.That sounds great. The problem is, its synopsis is too often entirely wrong. We're not talking just a little misleading or incomplete, but blatantly, factually false. Let me show you an example. I recently wrote an article about the real-life love story between Maria and Georg Von Trapp, and as part of my research, I found out Georg died 20 years after they married. I hadn't seen anything about Maria remarrying, so I Googled whether she had. Here's what the AI Overview said when I searched last week: This is what Google AI Overview said when I asked how many times Maria Von Trapp had been married. It's wrong.Screenshot via Google "Maria Von Trapp married twice. First, she married Georg Von Trapp in 1927 and they had 10 children together. After Georg's death, she married Hugh David Campbell in 1954 and had 7 daughters with him. Later, she also married Lynne Peterson in 1969 and had one son and daughter with him." Something about that didn't add up—and it wasn't just how it said she married twice but then listed three spouses. Maria Von Trapp was born in 1905, so according to the AI Overview, she remarried at 49 years old and had seven more children, and then married again at 64 years old and had another two children. That seems…unlikely. Did Maria Von Trapp have two children in her mid-60s? No. Giphy So I clicked the link icon on the AI Overview, which took me to the Maria Von Trapp Wikipedia page. On that page, I found a chart where the extra two spouses were listed—but they very clearly weren't hers. Hugh David Campbell was the husband of one of her daughters. Lynn Peterson was the wife of one of her sons. The fact is that Maria never remarried after Georg died. If I had just run with the AI Overview, I would have gotten it this very basic fact about her life completely wrong. And it's not like it pulled that information from a source that got it wrong. Wikipedia had it right. The AI Overview extrapolated the real information incorrectly. Ironically, when I Googled "Did Maria Von Trapp remarry after Georg died?" in the middle of writing this article to see if the same result came back, the AI Overview got it right, citing the Upworthy article I wrote. (Yes, I laughed out loud.) After my article was published, the AI Overview cited it while giving the correct answer.Screenshot via Google This may seem like a lot of fuss over something inconsequential in the big picture, but Maria Von Trapp's marital status is not the only wrong result I've seen in Google's AI Overview. I once searched for the cast of a specific movie and the AI Overview included a famous actor's name that I knew for 100% certain was not in the film. I've asked it for quotes about certain subjects and found quotes that were completely made up.Are these world-changing questions? No. Does that matter? No. Facts should matter no matter what they are. Giphy GIF by Angie Tribeca Objective facts are objective facts. If the AI Overview so egregiously messes up the facts about something that's easily verifiable, how can it be relied on for anything else? Since its launch, Google has had to fix major errors, like when it responded to the query "How many Muslim presidents has the U.S. had?" with the very wrong answer that Barack Obama had been our first Muslim president. Some people have "tricked" Google's AI into giving ridiculous answers by simply asking it ridiculous questions, like "How many rocks should I eat?" but that's a much smaller part of the problem. Most of us have come to rely on basic, normal, run-of-the-mill searches on Google for all kinds of information. Google is, by far, the most used search engine, with 79% of the search engine market share worldwide as of March 2025. The most relied upon search tool should have reliable search results, don't you think?Even the Google AI Overview itself says it's not reliable: Google's AI Overview doesn't even trust itself to be accurate.Screenshot via GoogleAs much as I appreciate how useful Google's search engine has been over the years, launching an AI feature that might just make things up and put them them at the top of the search results feels incredibly irresponsible. And the fact that it still spits out completely (yet unpredictably) false results about objectively factual information over a year later is unforgivable, in my opinion.We're living in an era where people are divided not only by political ideologies but by our very perceptions of reality. Misinformation has been weaponized more and more over the past decade, and as a result, we often can't even agree on the basic facts much less complex ideas. As the public's trust in expertise, institutions, legacy media, and fact-checking has dwindled, people have turned to alternative sources to get information. Unfortunately, those sources come with varying levels of bias and reliability, and our society and democracy are suffering because of it. Having Google spitting out false search results at random is not helpful on that front. — (@) AI has its place, but this isn't it. My fear is that far too many people assume the AI Overview is correct without double-checking its sources. And if people have to double-check it anyway, the thing is of no real use—just have Google give links to the sources like they used to and end this bizarre experiment with technology that simply isn't ready for its intended use.

Cruise ships are often the perfect family vacation. They allow you to go to multiple different locations on a tighter budget while also giving your family a resort experience with all the on ship entertainment and activities. But cruise ships are big. We're talking so large that they make the Titanic look like a tug boat, so, it's fairly easy to get lost on one. This is what one mom, Kim Heyworth, thought happened when her young adult son disappeared from the group for a while. Thankfully, that wasn't the whole story. In turned out that the missing 20-year-old was going viral while his mom was actively looking for him. According to some comments, the missing kid, named Tyler, was supposed to be going to the pool but wasn't there when his family went looking for him. Instead of taking a dip, Tyler Heyworth went on a bit of a side quest after coming across a room full of people dressed up and singing karaoke. A large neon karaoke sign on the side of a building. Photo by Nikola Đuza on Unsplash Clearly, Tyler was no longer interested in the pool. His calling suddenly became the stage, a microphone, and a room full of uncles and aunties waiting to be entertained—and entertain he did. Tyler grabbed the mic as a familiar tune filled the room: "Nobody" by R&B artist Keith Sweat. Was he actually going to sing Keith Sweat? He was. He did. And the 20-year-old knew every single word and tone without having to look at the screen. This kid was born an entertainer, clearly. As soon as he starts singing the first few words, one of the women in the front of the room gets up and walks away before stopping to fan herself. It's clear that nobody in the room thought that song was going to come out of Tyler's mouth, probably because it's a pretty niche song that didn't seem to have much crossover when it was dominating the R&B airwaves. @crazy_chickenlady03 full video of Tyler singing Keith Sweat Nobody.#carnival #karaoke #nobody #arethafranklin #carnivalcruise ♬ original sound - Kim Heyworth Before long, Tyler's older brother comes looking for him, but fails to bring his brother back at all. The brother, Timmy, saw what Tyler was doing and decided to join in on the fun, both apparently forgetting they were supposed to be returning to their mother. Timmy dons a pair of sunglasses while rocking a messy bun and grabs the second mic. In time, the duo are grooving to the 2004 hit, "Let Me Love You" by Mario. While the crowd was thoroughly entertained, their mother was confusedly still searching—now for both of her sons. In the meantime, Tyler was going viral on social media thanks to small snippets from cruise passengers that were quickly being reshared online. Soon, Carnival had reshared a clip and, serendipitously, John Legend did too. Funnily enough, Tyler didn't have his own TikTok at the time, which was a let down for fans looking to follow him. What fans did have, though was Tyler's first name and the name of his cruise ship. @crazy_chickenlady03 Brothers Timmy and Tyler singing. #karaoke #carnival Paradise @TimmyHeyworth @tyler ♬ original sound - Kim Heyworth Eventually, word got to Tyler's mom and she found her boys in the middle of their viral moment. Soon, she uploaded two full videos of the performances: one of Tyler singing alone and the other with his brother. Carnival later reached out to Tyler, sending him a box full of goodies and inviting him back on one of their cruises with a guest. Tyler is good for business.

As the old song by The Who goes, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” It’s a sentiment many of us feel every time a new mayor, governor, or president takes office, and we can’t help but feel that we deserve someone better. In a country with so many brilliant scientists, business people, educators, and public policy experts, why do the least impressive of us seem to rise to power?Philosophy expert Julian de Medeiros, a popular TikToker and Substack blogger, recently wrestled with this question, and it must have been on a lot of people’s minds because the video received over 4.2 million views. “Why does it seem like so many people in power are so dumb? It's like, why can't we get a better class of leaders?” he asked. @julianphilosophy Why do stupid people have so much power? #chomsky #philosophy #psychology #power Why is it that dumb people are always in power?Ultimately, de Medeiros believes that power and intellect are often at odds. “I've thought about it a bit more, and I think this is my thesis: that power is inherently anti-intellectual. Because what does intellect do? Intellect questions power. It speaks truth to power. It critiques power. And power doesn't like that,” he says. “And so power has to speak to the lowest common denominator. It dumbs everything down.""It's an anti-intellectual force. And that's why it seems like those in power are also the dumbest,” he concludes his video. The commenters further expanded on de Medeiros' thesis. “Also, intellectual people question and analyse everything. A leader needs to be invested in their opinion and abide by it,” one wrote. “Because those in power or seek power cares about the power only, so they make the decisions that keep them in power no matter what is the output,” another offered. A candidate who wants your vote.via Canva/PhotosWhat is anti-intellectualism?Another reason people who are a few fries short of a Happy Meal are often voted into office is that there is a deep vein of voters who are skeptical of intellectuals. These people tend to be populists who value “common sense” over intellectualism and may see experts or highly educated people as dangerous and out of touch with the common man. So, candidates position themselves against the “intellectuals” by either being their proud, dumb selves or by taking their IQ down a few notches while in public. Theologian and philosopher Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906—1945) believed that dumb people often ascend to power because evil people have difficulty getting elected. So, they champion someone who may be more charismatic or connected and ride their coattails into power. Finally, much like de Medeiros, Bonhoeffer believes there is a big difference between intellectualism and power. Therefore, once one attains power they are highly lifely to look like a buffoon. It’s as if, “Slogans, catchwords and the like… have taken possession of him. He is under a spell, blinded, misused, and abused in his very being,” Bonhoeffer says.It’s sad to realize that the very nature of power means that those who hold office, whether we voted for them or not, will probably disappoint us at some point. But the good news from this understanding is that we are freeing ourselves from the constant disappointment of having leaders appear rather dumb. Now, whenever we meet the new boss, we can assume he's just like the old boss and be positively delighted if they wind up slightly smarter.

A hot take.

Welcome back.