By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Analysis of strike footage and subsequent damage indicates the use of a Precision Strike Missile (PrSM), a short-range ballistic missile designed to detonate above its target, scattering tungsten pellets. Videos show the weapon exploding midair, creating a fireball approximately 900 feet from a sports hall and directly above a school and sports hall structure. Post-strike imagery revealed numerous small holes consistent with tungsten pellet impact, along with scorch marks, roof collapse, blown-out windows, fire damage, and blood spatters at the school and sports hall. The PrSM, which recently completed prototype testing, has now been confirmed as having seen its first combat use during this conflict, as announced by U.S. Central Command.
Read the original article here
It seems the prevailing sentiment is that a dangerous pattern is emerging, where Republicans are increasingly looking to dismantle essential social programs, particularly healthcare, to fund military endeavors, with a specific focus on a potential conflict with Iran under the Trump administration. This isn’t just a theoretical concern; there’s a strong feeling that this is a continuation of a long-standing strategy.
The narrative suggests that Republicans have a playbook: first, they provide substantial tax breaks to the wealthy, then they engage in costly, often unfinished wars, and finally, they damage the economy. The current situation is viewed as being well into the second step of this destructive cycle, with the potential consequence being that citizens’ healthcare will be sacrificed to finance a war that could also drive up gas prices.
There’s a deep cynicism about the stated priorities, particularly concerning the well-being of veterans. The idea is that if the focus is on sending people to war, there’s a glaring hypocrisy in not ensuring their healthcare needs are met upon their return, with some suggesting a bleak outlook for those who serve.
Many express a profound sense of disillusionment and anger, labeling those in power as uncaring and driven by greed, with a desire to see everyone suffer for the sake of oil and a particular leader. The call for universal services – healthcare, childcare, elder care, and housing – is presented as a necessary counterpoint, a “New Deal” approach to survival.
The argument is made that the vast wealth concentrated in the hands of a few has been used to create a false narrative that these vital safety nets are unaffordable. The proposed solution to fund such programs is straightforward: end perpetual wars, stop corporate welfare, and eliminate tax cuts for the wealthy. The diversion of taxpayer money towards what is described as a “Trump’s Epstein War” is seen as a direct cause of homelessness and other societal ills.
The longer a particular leader remains in power, the greater the perceived suffering for the populace. The core grievance is that when wars become expensive, the immediate go-to is to slash funding for programs that benefit the most vulnerable. This is juxtaposed with the seemingly endless availability of funds for less critical projects, like ballrooms, highlighting a skewed sense of priorities.
There’s a prediction that this approach could lead to significant electoral losses, a “greatest midterm wipeout.” Some speculate that this might even be a deliberate strategy, allowing Democrats to gain power and potentially impeach and remove the leader, thus shielding Republicans from direct blame from their base. If this isn’t the case, then the reasoning behind these decisions is considered remarkably flawed.
The comparison to other developed nations is stark. Countries like Mexico and Canada are highlighted for their universal healthcare systems, while the United States is characterized as having a military that struggles to win wars and primarily serves to enrich billionaires. The question is repeatedly raised: where is the consideration for taxing the wealthy more?
The inability or unwillingness of the GOP to implement progressive taxation means the burden inevitably falls on lower and middle-income individuals. The idea of the Iran War funding itself is presented sarcastically, alongside dismissive notions about lifestyle expenses like “avocado toast.”
The recurring question is “What healthcare?” given the extent to which it is perceived to have already been diminished. There’s a palpable anger and a belief that the actions of some in government warrant severe condemnation. The idea of repeatedly “gutting” something until nothing remains is a powerful metaphor for the erosion of essential services.
The feeling is that many Americans are unaware of the extent to which their country is being damaged by these actions. The precedent is drawn to past instances, such as Social Security being compromised for previous military ventures. The contrast is made between the supposed justifications for cuts and the trivialities that seem to capture public attention, implying a deliberate distraction.
The notion of “waste and fraud” is re-examined, with a pointed question about the Pentagon’s audit failures, suggesting that the accusations of waste are often misdirected. The suggestion of a direct choice on paychecks, allowing individuals to allocate their taxes to war or healthcare, is presented as a way to expose the public’s true desires. The emphasis is on prioritizing weapons over basic human needs like food, homes, and shoes, feeding a “war cannibal animal.”
The question of whose healthcare is being targeted is raised, with the implication that it’s a foregone conclusion. The existing state of American healthcare is described as already being deficient compared to peer nations, making further cuts akin to delivering a “final nail in the coffin.”
The alternative is presented: why not cut war funding to pay for healthcare? The argument is that the financial constraints cited for universal healthcare or lower prescription costs disappear when it comes to engaging in new conflicts. The continuous cycle of cutting the social safety net to fund wars, which in turn exacerbate economic problems like inflation, is seen as a direct path to bankrupting the working class.
The idea of “looting” is used to describe the current situation, with the US potentially becoming a dystopia similar to the Fallout video game, characterized by a focus on fortified compounds rather than societal well-being. The blame is also placed on voting patterns, suggesting that the outcomes are a direct result of choices made by the electorate.
The concern extends beyond healthcare, with predictions of further erosion of programs like the VA, Social Security, and USPS. These are seen as targets for elimination, with the P2025 agenda implying a long-term plan. The fundamental issue, as articulated, is a voter preference for spending money to harm perceived enemies abroad over investing in domestic infrastructure, education, or healthcare, especially if such investments might benefit minority populations.
The distinction is drawn between American “healthcare” and actual healthcare systems in other civilized countries, with the former being characterized as a “capitalist grift.” The notion of joining the military to access healthcare is presented with a grim caveat: do so at your own peril, as the VA has also been compromised.
The endgame scenario envisioned is one where government spending is exclusively focused on the military, homeland security, and the salaries of elected officials, leaving everyone else without support. The proposed tax policies suggest a shift where the wealthy are relieved of taxes while everyone else faces increased burdens.
The question arises: what happens when there is literally no healthcare left to cut? Or when it’s removed entirely as a budget category? The idea of the boomer generation losing their benefits is presented as a potential catalyst for broader support for universal healthcare, the system enjoyed by most industrialized nations.
The fiscal “conservatism” is lampooned with a comparison of the cost of a bomb to a medical procedure, highlighting the warped economic logic. The ultimate sentiment is that the intention is to “harm as many as possible,” fueled by a deep weariness of funding Middle Eastern wars. The denial of medication by insurance companies further underscores the perceived failure of the current healthcare system and the injustice of prioritizing military spending. The “Epstein class” comment suggests a belief that the wealthy elite view ordinary citizens as mere commodities. The notion of “repeal and replace” is dismissed as a non-existent plan, with the current war serving as an opportune moment to enact pre-existing desires to dismantle social programs.