Memes

“How can you say Harris would be the same as Trump? She would have prosecuted the brutal war of aggression competently!”

And this is why BlueMaga are just as fascist as their red counterpart

The point is though, USA’s ill treatment of those states hurt a major source of the USA’s own soft and hard power.

Yes. That is a good thing. The USA is a genocidal imperialist fascist oligarchy. Making it a less effective agent of capitalism is a positive.

You may say losing that power is better, well that’s great, I’m glad you are getting what you want from Trump.

Thank you. Normally when people are engaged in an argument and they present the expected counterargument, they usually have some refutation of it. Especially if they present it with the framing "you may say..."

it wouldn’t be waged this illegally, and it wouldn’t be waged alone,

Neither of these things are the issue with the war. And "illegal" war is an oxymoron. If you mean domestivally, then it is far from unique, if you mean internationally then it is a useless moniker.

With no regard for human life anywhere

What is your basis for this assumption? The democrats designated all male afghanis over the age of 14 "combat-ready males". Obama dropped more drone strikes than Bush. Biden loved genocide, and Kamala wouldn't change a thing. The only difference is the majority of popular media pays less attention when Democrats do it, because they use nicer words.

on-again-off-again, which I argue would be less harmful for everybody.

The war would be less "harmful" if it was "legal"? If it was done with support from other imperialists? If we got all the bombing over with at once? IT IS A WAR. THE POINT IS TO CAUSE HARM.
Apart from that, more people causing harm or causing harm with more perceived legitimacy does not make the harm less harmful.
Not to mention this statement is akin to that dimwitted guy who thought he had WWII figured out
The reason the war is "off again, on again" is because Iran is an actual country with actual military capabilities that allows them to absolutely demolish US equipment in the area, and exert pressure upon the US. Iran makes reasonable demands, but they are unreasonable in the eyes of the propagandised American masses, so the political establishment cannot accept them. This would still be the situation under a democratic president.
You'd just be foaming at the mouth due to some rainbow imperialist propaganda instead.
Even if the democrats would be capable of leading a successful war, then that would not be "less harmful" it would, in fact, be worse - because the US is a fascist genocidal imperialist state. A victory would further empower the US, further entrench the establishment and leave Iran like every other nation the US has benevolently invaded - With millions dead, warlords roaming around, bored US rapist murderers guarding poppyfields, fucked infrastructure and growing right-wing radical militants. This would be the outcome of your utopian idealist view of the war if it were waged "less harmfully".

In the large majority of potential outcomes, most of them NOT engaging in needless wars

In the majority of potential outcomes the following things are still the same for Harris:

• Fervent supporter of Israel
• Critiqued the pull-out of Afghanistan
• Views Iran as a geopolitical rival, she even stated Iran is the number one US enemy
• Such a xenophobe she ran on deporting more people than Trump
• Fervent supporter of US militarism, supporting past invasions and intrusions
• Fervent supporter of the US military, which she wanted to be "the most lethal"

So, given Harris' political platform, her political history, the history of her party, the interests of her major donors and supporters, her view of geopolitics and her support for Israel (who were the ones to push Trump to war with Iran ) we have every reason to assume, in the vast majority of "potential outcomes" the situation would be practically the same.

but you are most welcome to disagree.

Don't make this out to be some silly little "oh its just my opinion".
An opinion is something you have about an actual concept, it is not the concept itself. "War is bad" is an opinion. "Grass does not exist" is not an opinion. You can have an opinion on the conclusions of the analysis of what is going on and how things might have been differently, but if your opinion is that the analysis itself is incorrect, then you need to present why said analysis is incorrect. Just spouting "well I think something else" is completely useless.