Trump looking bad here. Shut your mouth. Get off twitter. Make a decision and lead. Trump is one of most anti-war Presidents we’ve had in my memory. Even with the unanimous backing of our allies he’s still balking and appears to be looking for an off ramp.
The next 100 days
- Thread starter watu05
- Start date
I'd rather he said we weren't going to strike than this vacillation.
This makes us look like we aren't the leader of the free world anymore. Which we aren't. At least not until we get another president in office. This is what I was afraid was going to happen. The worst way we could have gone about it.
He is the X-ident.
None of my opinion is that of the extreme left. The extreme left are the folks who were refusing to support Biden, Clinton, etc… because of being too hawkish on things like Palestine despite being much less Hawkish than the opposing Republican alternative. They get mad at the Democratic Party for force feeding them people like Kamala and they pout and sit out of elections because of those kinds of things wishing the could vote for Bernie.
I don’t think you actually know what extreme left is.
Last edited:
Again, Trump doesn’t care about waging war, dropping missiles, etc… he cares about keeping oil prices low because it’s a fundamental requirement for the economic success of his administration. That’s why he has asked the Ukrainians to not target Putin’s energy infrastructure. https://kyivinsider.com/ukraine-confirms-us-is-now-protecting-putins-oil-assets/
We have to re-enforce our terrible trade policy with terrible military decisions. You can’t attack Iran (which seems to be a dream of yours for some reason) because doing so risks crashing your economy. Congratulations for shooting yourself in the foot Lawpoke.
Aston….Iran IS being attacked. Israel only needs us to destroy the underground nuclear facility. That would be our role. If our economy crashes over Iran (it won’t) it will solely be due to Israel. Dropping a couple to bombs on a mountain has minimal effect. Iran is looking for an off ramp. The regime is in trouble and as the war wages on the dissent grows. Destroying Fordow has zero effect. They will still be looking for an off ramp once it’s gone. Check the stock market since the war was started and even since the anticipation of us bombing Fordow. That should educate you as to the perceived economic risk.
Now an entering a ground war against Russia would be an entirely different conversation yet WW3 is something you’re willing to accept. Weird
Funny…I figured Kamala was about as far left of a candidate the Dems could run and still have a chance to win the general. Bernie isn’t getting near the support from independents needed to win the general.
I probably misspoke regarding far left. A more accurate description would be you follow the party line without much thought as to whether the position makes sense. Case in point Ukraine and going from sticking our head in the sand to boots on the ground. Now boots on ground is admitting an extreme pro-Ukraine position. Transitory inflation is another. I could go on.
My position in Ukraine is this prior to hostilities, I want to give both sides the opportunity to back down. I don’t want things to spin out of control because of my actions, even though I want to be prepared. I’m not going to be the one that pulls the trigger.
After hostilities have commenced, the gloves are off. They chose not to de-escalate, now they will deal with the consequences. They called my bluff and now I’m going to call theirs.
Only an idiot believed Putin wasn’t going to invade especially after we failed to take any measures to prevent the same. You DO NOT allow your enemy to take your territory and place defensive positions in the same and then say…ok…I’ll fight now. That’s about as dumb of a military position as I’ve ever heard. The cost of life to take fortified defended positions the size of what we’re talking about here will be immense. Once that first tank crosses my border the gloves should be off. Who the hell waits until they’ve taken hundreds of square miles?
Preventing the leading sponsor of terrorism in the world from acquiring nuclear weapons certainly seems like a good idea by most Americans. With the possible exception of the far left I assume. Not much logic there just extreme ideology
Last edited:
Self destructive behavior continues
So what does this good idea mean in terms of US action now? If Trump called you and said he was looking for advice, what would your advice be? Mine would be along the lines of stay the heck out of Netanyahu’s war Supplying bombs and munitions is bad enough.
My advice would be that it’s in the best interest of the US, our Allies as well as the Middle East for Iran not to have nuclear weapons. The other countries in the Middle East agree with this position btw. Therefore, US involvement should be limited to the bombing of Fordow or supplying Israel with the weapon platform capable of eliminating the program. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the largest supporter of terrorism in the world would have disastrous consequences.
Guess you would stick your head in the sand and allow Iran to become a nuclear power ?
I'll gladly have a hamburger on Tuesday rather than make a decision about this. He has already made the decision, he is not striking Iran. What a lilly livered way to deliver that decision. We are asleep at the wheel on real foreign policy decisions.
There is no point in arguing with them. Aston insisting he is not far left is amusing. He is not extreme far left like Rashida, and that is what his argument is. Yeah right.
Aston is always moving the goal posts. Dude didn’t want to defend Ukraine and now he wants to start WW3 with US troops fighting Russian forces while being perfectly fine with Iran obtaining nuclear weapons (due to economic risk he claims…never mind WW3) Both extreme nonsensical positions. My point with him all along is he adopts the Dem position regardless of whether said position is good and then changes as the Dem position changes. WATU is no different . Very little independent thought
Worst foreign policy decision in our lifetime ? We won’t know for 20-30 years but it certainly has that possibility. I can’t recall many times when I was more disappointed in a President.
My only caveat would be if we believe the current regime is close to falling and us entering the war would jeopardize the same. Which is doubtful
Last edited:
I'm disappointed daily with Trump's policies, but this one just shows how bad of a President he is. He will have nothing in his legacy that says at least he did this right. Everything he has done will be viewed negatively as far as historical reports of his administration go.
Trump might as well have kept the Iranian deal that the Democrats signed off on. Because he isn't going to get an agreement with them that provides any more security than that deal did. He just wants to defy the Democrats to piss them off. No deal whether it is a Democratically signed plan or a Republican plan will deter Iran from their goals. And I doubt this put them off their progress that much.
If they stopped the war today I'm betting they would be right back to now, as far as progress goes, in a year at most. You can't give them this much warning as far as Israel attacking, (What did they have, something like two or three weeks notice that Israel was going to attack?) without using extreme measures like a bunker buster to do extreme damage. They've already taken measures to protect their program without extreme measures.
Miserable excuse for actions. The axis of evil will be utterly stronger and in a better position thanks to his policies. If they didn't pay him off, then they got it for free. I guess he doesn't care seeing as how he is grafting the hell out of the American public. I still think they have something over him. If they don't then he is just a fool, or someone with bad intentions toward America. Either way he has done damage to the US that probably can't be undone, ever.
I keep looking for things that could be positive too. I didn't post it, but I had a post typed up that the only way Trump's indecision could be for the good was if he had already launched the attack, and we would hear about the bombs falling in the next hour or less. Thinking that the 'indecision' was just a cover for the fact that we had already launched the attack, so as not to give them any warning.
I didn't post that because I knew it wasn't true. Same as I know it probably isn't true that the regime is close to falling.
It’s not our territory. We can’t just go occupy countries. I do agree, once the first tank crosses the border, gloves should be off… but Biden didn’t want to risk a multi-superpower direct conflict. I don’t quite agree with that standpoint. At a certain point you’re going to have to have a line in the sand. You can’t just cede territory until they’re on the beaches of the Carolinas.
I have long thought that we should have stayed in the media that our troops are going to retain physical access to the Donbas. We will be patrolling the area daily and conducting drills alongside our Ukrainian partners there. If you shoot at us, then we will respond accordingly, up to and including with ICBM’s. Choose your fate Mr. Putin. Is the Donbas worth starting a thermonuclear war over?
Last edited:
Probably just a surface strike by israel after Trump two week delay. If it was us I would think we would have already relayed it to the major media outlets. That was a daytime strike. It's 3am in iran.
Intelligence showing they have achieved 80% Uranium purity is too close for comfort, even if there were other factors saying they were as much as several years away. That's Hiroshima level purity. That's time to act. But let's sit on our butts and make another negotiated plan like we have for years, while they have illegally continued to improve their nuclear capabilities.
They will have a bomb soon if we continue to operate like we have and expect different results. I'm sure Trump's negotiated plan will be so much better! Him being the stable genius that he is, but only if he is the only one who concocts this plan. You have been given the opportunity, you don't pass it up. I don't care if our economy worsens and we have to deal with Irans terrorist organizations for the next couple of years. This is our best shot, take it.
I joined board about 25 years ago shortly before the US had to decide how to respond to an actual terrorist attack. I was against invading Iraq but at least there was public debate and some basis for claiming Congressional approval. Now it seems it is up to one man’s whims and the possibility of a new nuclear power in the Middle East where Israel, Pakistan and India are already in the club. Allowing Israel to determine whether the US attacks another country will not work out well and will end the fiction that only Congress can declare war.
Strongly disagree. I was against the Iraq invasion as well and spoke out strongly against the same. I am in favor of bombing the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism nuclear facility. We are not talking about an invasion or US boots on the ground. You’re making a false equivalency. We are talking about flying two B-2s and dropping a couple of bombs on a mountain. What won’t end well is Iran with nuclear weapons. That’s not only the opinion of the west but also the opinion of Iran’s neighbors. You would be well advised to listen to them. They know the current regime better than any of us. You think Iran is brazen with their sponsor of terrorism across the world now. Just wait until they have the bomb. The world will become a much more dangerous place within the next 12 months if that facility isn’t taken out
I’m so tired of the war on terror being used as an excuse for every dumb decision we make to bomb the Middle East.
Remember the hubbub about WMD’s being used as justification for military intervention? What’s to say this isn’t that again?
Do you think bombing Tehran like we have will produce more or fewer terrorists?
Last edited:
When have we bombed Tehran? Have we ever bombed Tehran? All I’m talking about is dropping a few bombs on a mountain.
Fewer terrorist is likely never going to happen due to their extremist religious ideology. Now terrorist who don’t have access to nuclear devices would be a positive
We just helped defend Israel who was in the midst of bombing Tehran. You think that such an activity made us more endeared there?
I can assure you the common Iranian who just lost his brother, mother, father, wife, child in a blast doesn’t make any distinction.
I was correcting your statement that we are bombing Tehran. Not sure why you make such an assertion. We are in fact not. Not clear on my history but have we ever bombed Tehran?
Terrorist with access to nuclear weapons does not sound like a great thing for all of us posters less our two resident leftist.
My guess is that the common Iranian would welcome a regime change away from the religious extremist now in power. Hopefully they get it.
You are copping out on a technicality…. The missiles that hit Iran (Tehran and elsewhere) were mostly fired from Israel…. But they had made in the USA on them, and when Iran tried to retaliate we (USA) actively stopped them from being able to do so. The Iranians don’t differentiate between missiles fired from a US cruiser or from Tel Aviv. We are the same enemy to them.
We already have nuclear weapons in the hands of mad men in North Korea. I don’t see you advocating for bombing Pyongyang (or any surrounding mountain areas)
Listen to the video I sent. You have to think about what comes after…. And as much as we think the Iranians may not like their government, having security access to nuclear weapons is quite possibly a different idea for them and one they may continue to pursue regardless of their regime.
PS your desire for regime change probably has nothing to do with bombing mountain nuke facilities.
lol If we’re going to start blaming the US for every instance when a country uses US made military assets to attack another then that blame list is going to be very very long. Hell…Iran is still using a few US made fighters to battle the Israelis. They have certainly used US military systems through the years to attack their enemies. Not sure why your concerned about US weapons in this little tit for tat anyway
Not sure why you can’t understand the difference between NK and Iran. NK is an isolationist country. They aren’t controlled by religious extremist who believe non believers should be exterminated. The don’t fund terrorism across the globe. They don’t attack their neighbors via proxies. Yeah….lets give those guys access to nuclear weapons and see how it goes. How long until one of their proxy groups gets access to a nuclear weapon? Great f ing idea . Quit parroting left wing Dem talking points and use some common sense here. Again…no one thinks Iran should have nuclear weapons except yourself and WATU. Our two extreme leftist who simply repeat the company line.
Last edited:
You keep saying "Parroting Left Wing Dem Talking Points"lol If we’re going to start blaming the US for every instance when a country uses US made military assets to attack another then that blame list is going to be very very long. Hell…Iran is still using a few US made fighters to battle the Israelis. They have certainly used US military systems through the years to attack their enemies. Not sure why your concerned about US weapons in this little tit for tat anyway
Not sure why you can’t understand the difference between NK and Iran. NK is an isolationist country. They aren’t controlled by religious extremist who believe non believers should be exterminated. The don’t fund terrorism across the globe. They don’t attack their neighbors via proxies. Yeah….lets give those guys access to nuclear weapons and see how it goes. How long until one of their proxy groups gets access to a nuclear weapon? Great f ing idea . Quit parroting left wing Dem talking points and use some common sense here. Again…no one thinks Iran should have nuclear weapons except yourself and WATU. Our two extreme leftist who simply repeat the company line.
I don't digest left wing media. I haven't looked at an media that could be considered left wing for months. I don't watch CNN, I don't watch MSNBC, not ABC. I don't know where you think I get the party line from so I can repeat it. I occasionally look at local news which is very right wing and CNBC which is mostly economic in nature.
Apparently facts and logic seem to have a liberal bend.
Also, you completely miss the point... over and over and over. You spew far more fox news bull
these days than anyone here (even if it comes from a fox news adjacent source)
