YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #police #astronomy #florida #law #racism
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2025 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
News Feed (Home) Popular Posts Events Blog Market Forum
Media
Go LIVE! Headline News VidWatch Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore Offers
© 2025 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Group

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

YubNub News
YubNub News
4 w

6 reasons for Israel’s strike based on Just War Theory
Favicon 
yubnub.news

6 reasons for Israel’s strike based on Just War Theory

By Joshua Arnold, Op-ed contributor Wednesday, June 18, 2025People and first-responders gather atop a building that was hit by an Israeli strike in Tehran on June 13, 2025. Israel hit about 100 targets…
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
4 w

Celebrity culture will eat you alive. Avoid it
Favicon 
yubnub.news

Celebrity culture will eat you alive. Avoid it

By Shane Idleman, CP Guest Contributor Wednesday, June 18, 2025iStock/KhosrorkScandal after scandal. Accusation after accusation. Who are we to believe, and how are we to handle it? First, we must…
Like
Comment
Share
YubNub News
YubNub News
4 w

Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters
Favicon 
yubnub.news

Why believing in a literal Adam and Eve matters

By Dillon Burroughs, Op-ed contributor Wednesday, June 18, 2025A museum worker cleans the floor in front of true to scale copies of the paintings "Adam" and "Eve" by Hans Baldung Grien, the apprentice…
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
4 w

'The Five' on Trump's response to Israel-Iran war
Favicon 
www.brighteon.com

'The Five' on Trump's response to Israel-Iran war

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
4 w

'TAKE COVER': Sirens sound off as Yingst reports from Tel Aviv
Favicon 
www.brighteon.com

'TAKE COVER': Sirens sound off as Yingst reports from Tel Aviv

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
4 w

Inside Trump's response to the Iran-Israel conflict: 'KEY OPPORTUNITY'
Favicon 
www.brighteon.com

Inside Trump's response to the Iran-Israel conflict: 'KEY OPPORTUNITY'

Follow NewsClips channel at Brighteon.com for more updatesSubscribe to Brighteon newsletter to get the latest news and more featured videos: https://support.brighteon.com/Subscribe.html
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
4 w

America Is Being Chain-Ganged Into a War 
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

America Is Being Chain-Ganged Into a War 

Uncategorized America Is Being Chain-Ganged Into a War  Empires collapse due to overstretch and insolvency. More often than not, the public wills it.  Credit: Anas-Mohammed/Shutterstock “Every civilization that has ever existed has ultimately collapsed,” Henry Kissinger once noted, in the most Kissingerian tones imaginable. “History is a tale of efforts that failed, or aspirations that weren’t realized. So, as a historian, one has to live with a sense of the inevitability of tragedy.” What the most famous realist of American diplomatic history did not add is that, more often than not, the failure stems from a combination of sheer hubris, mediocrity, and idealism—and that no amount of tinkering on the edges can solve the problem that all those qualities are, in the U.S., byproducts of the strangest, arguably most toxic combination of hegemony and mass democracy in any regime in history anywhere.  This is not some random philosophical musing. Lately with the drumbeats of conflict rising again in the Middle East, I have been told to “trust the plan,” whatever it is. No one has told me what the plan is. But, having actually lived through observing rapid changes in the global order, first during Kosovo, then in Iraq and Libya, color me skeptical. I don’t share the optimism about mass prudence. It is easy to perform a mea culpa or to be fashionably regretful about supporting a previous ideological crusade, and then proceed to claim that the future one will be different.  I have been fascinated with the conduct of empires in their late stages because they are so multicausal and historically rich: the combination of public apathy, war hysteria led by half-literate and ahistorical midwits, ideologically misaligned elites, structural decline due to complacency and overspending, self-sustaining bureaucratic inertia, and reckless protectorates and alliance entrapment.  In Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition, Jack Snyder wrote why great powers overextend, go insolvent and, eventually, undergo some sort of an imperial collapse. He identified that the three drivers of the behavior are “domino theories” (the idea that one gain would lead to another), offensive advantage, and thinking both allies and adversaries are paper tigers. But his core thesis was one that applies to the United States: domestic politics, particularly by interest groups—foreign lobbyists, military, bureaucracies—often manufacture, promote, and sustain the three ideas that lead to the aforementioned imperial extension, which often goes against the more narrow interest.  A theoretical problem with the U.S. is that it is neither so rational as a smart meritocratic empire nor so socially coherent as a republic. It therefore suffers from the worst of both accompanying instincts. The U.S. lacks the tight hierarchy of an empire; hence, the decision making process suffers from both the manufactured hysteria and ignorant general apathy of a volatile public opinion. Simultaneously, given that the U.S. is in all but name an empire, and the most powerful and unipolar one at that, it also suffers from the disjointed advocacy of foreign interest groups, coupled with bureaucratic inertia and domestic interest groups that sustain themselves by maintaining a toxic status quo. The smaller protectorates such as Israel and Ukraine understand that. Ukraine knows that the administration’s desire for glory will keep them perpetually entwined to a futile war, even when Ukrainians can, crudely speaking, wreck the chances of a peace talk a day before by blowing up the strategic component of the Russian bomber fleet. Likewise, Israel logically understands that it can expand its frontiers on the back of American hegemony while the conditions are good. It rightly senses an approaching multipolarity and resultant decline and retrenchment of American relative power, as well as American domestic political trends and where they will lead in another two generations. Unfortunately, we are perhaps entering the terminal phase of this dynamic with another misadventure like Rome’s—this time in Persia after Mesopotamia and Libya. The chief casualty of this dynamic is long-term diplomacy. But there is more. It is one thing to say “America First.” That term has a strategic coherence and therefore allows both allies and adversaries to plan, trust, and accept redlines. What we are seeing now is “America First—but with a few exceptions.” Given that international politics is anarchical, every state, allies and adversaries, seeks order and equilibrium. No one trusts, or prefers to deal with, a great power that is basically chaotic, revolutionary, hysterical, and incoherent. It didn’t matter in unipolarity, but in an emergent multipolarity it will come back to haunt the U.S. in the next few decades. The post America Is Being Chain-Ganged Into a War  appeared first on The American Conservative.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
4 w

The Neocons Are Working Hard to Co-Opt MAGA
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

The Neocons Are Working Hard to Co-Opt MAGA

Uncategorized The Neocons Are Working Hard to Co-Opt MAGA Perpetual war hawks are trying hard to fool conservatives into believing that “America First” really means America last. As the military conflict between Israel and Iran raged Monday, the Republican senator Tom Cotton (Ark.) wrote on X that “President Trump created and shaped the Make America Great Again movement and defined America First foreign policy.” “He is absolutely right that Iran’s terrorist regime cannot be trusted with a nuclear weapon,” Cotton added. Cotton wanted people to know that the true definition of “America First” is for the United States to be part of yet another regime-change war. Makes perfect sense, right? Not for anyone who has actually been paying attention. Kelley Vlahos, editorial director for Responsible Statecraft, replied to Cotton, “THIS IS NOT AMERICA FIRST. Cotton co-opted this language when he wet his finger and put it up to the wind and figured out the MAGA base was done with neocons. He is a fake.” Vlahos is right. It was just a month ago that President Donald Trump buried the neoconservatives during his speech in Saudi Arabia: “The so-called nation-builders wrecked far more nations than they built, and the interventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves.” (No modern presidency was more associated with “nation-building” than that of George W. Bush, a legacy Trump vehemently rejected early in the 2016 GOP presidential debates.) The president said next, “The gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called ‘nation-builders,’ neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Baghdad, so many other cities.” Despite what is transpiring right now between Israel, Iran, and the United States, it was Trump’s Saudi speech that most clearly laid out for a global audience what MAGA is supposed to look like on the world stage. On foreign policy, that vision is what 77 million Americans voted for in November and what polls show a majority of Republicans want. Even if this is not what Trump seems to be doing right now. It’s one thing for realists and non-interventionists to question whether Trump is going back on his word. It’s quite another to pretend this president never said those words. But from a neoconservative perspective, why wouldn’t Cotton and his friends try to use the current zeitgeist to reorient Republicans toward that old-time religion of the Bush-Cheney GOP? They are certainly working hard to do so. The neocon fanatic Mark Levin went on a long screed Monday about what is “Real MAGA and Fake MAGA.” “Real MAGA” in his eyes means anyone who is for war for Israel first. “Fake MAGA” for him means conservatives who might dare to put their own country first. Levin constantly attacks Tucker Carlson, whose conservative voice, audience, and influence has arguably eclipsed Levin’s at this point, precisely because Carlson is urging Trump not to repeat the foreign policy mistake of Iraq in Iran. Levin also bashed another reliable antiwar voice, Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.), as “not MAGA.” Not surprisingly, the 82-year-old former Republican speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was all about a U.S. war with Iran on X as well. The Cato Institute’s Brandon Buck shared Gingrich’s post, asking “Do you ever feel like you’re the only person who hasn’t been in a 25 year coma?” The American Conservative’s executive director, Curt Mills, shared Gingrich’s obtuse observations as well, adding, “Old Guard, Baby Boomer conservatives = the greatest threat to the success of the Trump political project.” “Not even close,” he added. Through continued and unbroken support, the United States and the Trump administration are aiding and abetting Israel’s actions against Iran already. If this president manages to stumble into a full U.S. war with Iran on Israel’s behalf, everything he ever said about ending “endless wars” will have been for naught. As Iraq will forever be Dubya’s primary legacy, it is likely Trump’s Iran war will become his. This is exactly what the neoconservatives want most from this Republican administration: oblivious ideologues who still see no fault in what George W. Bush and Dick Cheney did. They would very much like a repeat of what Bush-Cheney did and are aching for Donald Trump to give it to them. He might. If so, it would not be the fulfillment of MAGA—as neocons are now so desperate to pretend—but a complete repudiation of what Donald Trump promised it would be. The post The Neocons Are Working Hard to Co-Opt MAGA appeared first on The American Conservative.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
4 w

Can Trump Manage an Unbelievably Small War?
Favicon 
www.theamericanconservative.com

Can Trump Manage an Unbelievably Small War?

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.
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
4 w

MOSAD HEADQUARTERS DESTROYED. Pounded By Iranian Missiles. Iron Dome Fails, Hacked?
Favicon 
api.bitchute.com

MOSAD HEADQUARTERS DESTROYED. Pounded By Iranian Missiles. Iron Dome Fails, Hacked?

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
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 3459 out of 85471
  • 3455
  • 3456
  • 3457
  • 3458
  • 3459
  • 3460
  • 3461
  • 3462
  • 3463
  • 3464
  • 3465
  • 3466
  • 3467
  • 3468
  • 3469
  • 3470
  • 3471
  • 3472
  • 3473
  • 3474
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund