Trump Enters the US in War with Iran

[CeeCee72]

I don't know if Harris actually would have done it. After all, Biden has four years to bomb Iran and he never did (although he did bomb Syria, Iraq, and Yemen). Also, a strike against Iran is pretty unpopular among many Democrats in Congress.

But it doesn't matter now. It is what it is and we got what we got.

Iran has launched missiles at US based now.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

I don't know if Harris actually would have done it. After all, Biden has four years to bomb Iran and he never did (although he did bomb Syria, Iraq, and Yemen). Also, a strike against Iran is pretty unpopular among many Democrats in Congress.

But it doesn't matter now. It is what it is and we got what we got.

Iran has launched missiles at US based now.

We need new targets. We want their oil -- and we want it for free. Some of the AIPAC-funded Democrats are only pretending disapproval because it's Trump.

 

[Frank Underwood]

We wish to have our Presidents use good judgement which is what Trump does not have nor will ever have. President Obama wisely kept us out of Syria because he saw it as a possible quagmire that we would never get out of.

Barack Obama, the man many hoped would be the 'peace President' when he was elected, has bombed seven countries during his six years in office.

The US President oversaw the first US air strikes launched in Syria this week, in a huge escalation of America’s military campaign against Isis (also known as Islamic State).

Mr. Obama was elected in 2009 partly of his opposition to the Iraq war and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after he assumed office.

The arguably optimistic decision taken by the Norwegian Nobel Committee was taken just nine months into his Presidency and came as he was trying to manage the war in Afghanistan.

His famous 'A New Beginning' speech in Cairo saw the President declare he was seeking a fresh start "between the United States and Muslims around the world", increasing hopes he would be the antidote to George W. Bush's controversial term.

Almost six years later, Mr Obama has approved military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya and now Syria.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) estimates the Obama administration has launched more than 390 drone strikes in five years across Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia – eight times as many approved during the entire Bush Presidency.

Source: 'Peace' President? How Obama came to bomb seven countries in six years | The Independent | The Independent

As for Netanahyu I had no use for him after he disrespected President Obama the way he did with his speech to Congress. He finally has an American President who is eager to go to war with Iran which is something that Bush, Obama, and Biden refuse to do.

The targets were different, but Bush, Obama, and Biden were certainly war mongers in their own right. Or have we forgotten Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc.?

Also, the reason we bombed Iran now is because Israel recently declared war on them. Both parties cater to Israel, so any US president would have likely done the same thing.

 

[Frank Underwood]

In 2012, Patrick Clawson, who heads the Washington Institute’s Iran Security Initiative, answered a question at as to what should be done if negotiations with Tehran fail:

“I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States President can get us to war with Iran. Which leads me to conclude that, if in fact compromise is not coming, that the traditional way America gets to war is what would be best for US interests. Some people might think that Mister Roosevelt wanted to get us into World War II. You might recall that we had to wait for Pearl Harbour. Some people might think that Mister Wilson wanted to get us into World War I. You may recall that we had to wait for the Lusitania episode. Some people might think that Mister Johnson wanted to send troops into Vietnam. You may recall that we had to wait for the Gulf of Tonkin episode. We didn’t go to war with Spain until the Maine exploded. And may I point out that Mister Lincoln did not feel he could call out the federal army until Fort Sumter was attacked, which is why he ordered the commander at Fort Sumter to do exactly that thing that the South Carolinians said would cause an attack. So, if, in fact, the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war."

I don't know if Harris actually would have done it. After all, Biden has four years to bomb Iran and he never did (although he did bomb Syria, Iraq, and Yemen). Also, a strike against Iran is pretty unpopular among many Democrats in Congress.

But it doesn't matter now. It is what it is and we got what we got.

Iran has launched missiles at US based now.

The reason we're at war with Iran now is because Israel attacked them earlier this month. We likely would have got dragged into this regardless of who was president.

All presidents ultimately end up being huge war mongers, but they often pretend to be doves on the campaign trail to placate the war weary public.

 

[Gabriel Maxwell]

It’s interesting to hear the same woke lefties who want the US and NATO to continue to support Ukraine in its defense efforts unconditionally and indefinitely — never mind 6300 people died just last week without the front lines moving significantly since 2022, when the war began — and some perhaps even salivate at the thought of troops being sent to Ukraine to beat Putin, now criticize Trump for strikes on Iran. Do they no longer support Ukraine?

Because, if there is a country that’s showering Trump and the US with praise over Iran strikes which is not Israel, it’s Ukraine. Or are they conveniently ignoring the glowing statement released the other day by the thrilled Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs?

Iran is the #2 collaborator of Russia (after China) not only supplying drones that kill Ukrainians every day, but also help Russians evade Western sanctions on multiple levels — via strategic partnerships, energy deals, ghost-fleet shipping, oil smuggling, money laundering, etc.

80% of Americans don’t want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and yet 60% disapprove of Donald Trump’s strikes. And then you see it’s because once again Americans are divided along party lines.

Which leads me not only to believe the sentiment above that any President would’ve bombed Iran (especially Hillary Clinton, gotta agree here with MSNBC’s Joe “This is the best Biden ever” Scarborough), but if it were a Democrat, many libs would’ve most likely supported it.

 

[CeeCee72]

I don't know about other libs, but I wouldn't support it no matter who did it. I was very critical of both Biden and Obama for their strikes on other countries.

Having said that, if Trump was going to do it anyway (which he promised he wouldn't), then yeah, I'd take a Democrat - or any other Republican - as President over Trump.

 

[Frank Underwood]

I'm not going to criticize people who see their vote as being pragmatic, but I can't vote that way anymore. I get the concept of "harm reduction," but it's not a sufficient enough reduction for me. When you look at the cumulative damage caused by US Presidents starting with Reagan, it's no wonder a faux populist con man was eventually elected twice.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

This can't be good...

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, reported killed by US-Israeli airstrikes

 

[Laurie!]

This can't be good...

You have two real-estate tycoons pretending to be conducting multiple diplomatic missions, social media influencers, former Faux News hosts and reality TV stars in the most vital US government roles with a bunch of spineless Republicans in control of the other branches, who capitulated a long time ago. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Frank Underwood]

This can't be good...

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, reported killed by US-Israeli airstrikes

Anything for Israel.

Many of Trump's MAGA supporters are celebrating on social media. Some even want Trump to continue his regime change spree in other countries such as North Korea. I guess they're just going to overlook the fact that Trump campaigned on ending US involvement in regime change wars. But then you can't expect consistency from hacks.

 

[Karin]

This can't be good...

Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, reported killed by US-Israeli airstrikes

I wish this means that they could reinstate the Royal Family that the Ayatollah Khamenei were instrumental in removing in the revolution in 1979. After reading a book about the way Iran was before the revolution and after by an Iranian nobel peace prize winner called Shirin Ebadi it's obvious that the people of Iran and especially women had it a lot better before the country became an Islamic Republic under a dictator that implemented strict Sharia laws that were based on the way people lived for over 1000 years ago when the Koran was written.

I don't think reinstating the Royal Family in Iran is a realistic outcome in this mess. History has taught us that when one dictator is overturned he is often suceeded by another dictator. But I do wish for the Iranian people that something good could come out of this.

 

[Crimson]

I do wish for the Iranian people that something good could come out of this.

I'm no fan of the USA engaging in regime changes, but I don't feel a bit of regret seeing a brutal dictatorship being toppled. I hope the Iranian people can return to their pre-revolution level of freedom, although not necessarily under a new Shah. Unfortunately, it's true that new dictatorships tend to fill these vacuums.

I find myself wondering why previous American administrations dragged us into wars that lasted years, even decades, when apparently the US military can take out entire regime leadership ranks in like 90 minutes with zero US casualties. It's almost like those forever wars were intentional.

 

[Frank Underwood]

The world would be better off without brutal dictators, but toppling them shouldn't be the agenda of the US. For starters, it has nothing to do with our defense. Whether a resource-stealing forever war or a quick "neutralizing" of dissidents, the fact is that it's never about "liberating" an oppressed population. This is about furthering the alliance between the US and Israel so they can remain the world's dominant nuclear superpowers. They're fine with dictators, just as long as they're responsive to their interests.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

But I do wish for the Iranian people that something good could come out of this.

Israel has seven wars going. Iran's welfare is of concern to precious few, unfortunately.

I hope the Iranian people can return to their pre-revolution level of freedom, although not necessarily under a new Shah.

Ugh. The Shah. Triple Scorpio -- what could one expect...?

I find myself wondering why previous American administrations dragged us into wars that lasted years, even decades, when apparently the US military can take out entire regime leadership ranks in like 90 minutes with zero US casualties. It's almost like those forever wars were intentional.

Yep.

The world would be better off without brutal dictators, but toppling them shouldn't be the agenda of the US because it has nothing to do with our defense. Whether a resource-stealing forever war or a quick "neutralizing" of dissidents, the fact remains that it's never about "liberating" an oppressed population. This is simply about furthering the alliance between the US and Israel so they can remain the world's dominant nuclear superpowers. They're fine with dictators, just as long as they're responsive to their interests.

Also, yes.

 

[Angela Channing]

I'm don't know who will take power in Iran after Khamenei, but I think the most likely outcome is a military dictatorship headed by the IRGC, which would probably be just as bad as the previous leadership, if not worse. The return of the Shah would just be replacing one corrupt, undemocratic dictatorship that has little respect for human rights with another corrupt, undemocratic dictatorship that has little regard for human rights.

Whatever the outcome, Trump has just created hundreds of thousands of war refugees so I hope he and his MAGA sycophants will be welcoming them to take refuge in the USA. As the saying goes, if you break it, you pay for it.

 

[Frank Underwood]

Whatever the outcome, Trump has just created hundreds of thousands of war refugees so I hope he and his MAGA sycophants will be welcoming them to take refuge in the USA. As the saying goes, if you break it, you pay for it.

That goes for Israel and Netanyahu too, but they'll all get away with it. The US and Israel both have a history of killing and displacing people without a concern for the refugees.

 

[Seaviewer]

I'm don't know who will take power in Iran after Khamenei, but I think the most likely outcome is a military dictatorship headed by the IRGC, which would probably be just as bad as the previous leadership, if not worse. The return of the Shah would just be replacing one corrupt, undemocratic dictatorship that has little respect for human rights with another corrupt, undemocratic dictatorship that has little regard for human rights.

The so-called theocracy probably already has a successor lined up but how long they can keep the regime going is debatable. The Crown Prince claims he only wants to lead a transition to democracy which would be a good thing but history is littered with rulers who wouldn't let go of power once they got a taste of it.

 

[CeeCee72]

I am not for misusing and abusing our men and women in uniform to protect the interests of Israel, to secure more oil, or to affect regime change on a foreign sovereign country.

Period.

I was against this shit when both Bushes did it and when Obama and Biden did it.

Having said that, I will repeat something I wrote earlier in this thread:

War under this administration will be catastrophic. The sheer number of political, military, and national security appointees who are vastly unqualified to hold their position is astounding.

The whole world is getting ready to severely suffer for the stupidity of American voters and the American wanna be tyrant.

 

[Frank Underwood]

"And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next ten years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that. Because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic." - Hillary Clinton campaigning in 2008

It seems to me that they're all wanna be tyrants. Democrat or Republican, qualified or unqualified (whatever that means these days), the foreign policy is the same.

The real stupidity is thinking we can ever vote our way out of it.

 

[Snarky Oracle!]

Apparently, Rubio is conceding. in the corners, that Israel forced the U.S. into war with Iran, and that it's not a good thing.

And I'll never be 100% convinced that all of Iran's retaliatory strikes on 500 countries in the last few days have all originated from Iran.