We bomb Iran

[c_hawkbob]

Knew he wouldn't be able to resist.

[Aseahawkfan]

One of the few decisions Trump made I agree with. Iran has been funding these violent conflicts in the Middle East and pushing their power into every area trying to establish themselves as the leaders of the Islamic world. They been doing this since we took out the Shah. They are Russia's last major tie to the Middle East. Take them off the board and maintain America's dominance in that region. Once they are gone, the Palestinians will be forced to negotiate peace or have no backing for their violent excursions.

I'm glad Trump has ignored the MAGA isolationists. Those jackasses would give up control of the world to Russia and China or whoever else has the money and juice to try to replace us if we go hermit for four years. America needs to stay in the game for world control and not abdicate to China or Russia.

Take Iran off the board, same as we took Iraq and Syria off the board. No help for Russia. No allies in the Middle East. Isolate and ruin Putin until he is dead and gone. Take more Russian pieces off the board. Shore up American power in the world.

We help drive the current Iranian regime out, the Iranian people can build a better nation. They are being held back by their leaders. I say break them now before a psychotic can get a nuke made.

If it were up to me, we'd be breaking North Korea and moving against Russia even more aggressively to push them out of Ukraine. Try to finish the job we should have finished in years past while we have the juice to do it.

I know Trump won't push much farther because of his MAGA isolationists, but what I wouldn't give to push harder like an older America that believed the world was a better place with us running it. It is. An American world is far superior to a Chinese or a Russian-led world.

[Stream Hawk]

So suddenlyno congressional approval needed? Trump didn’t listen to his self-appointed security advisor. What the hell was that? No nukes, so we still attack? I thought he was the anti-war president? This should be a massive stain on his crumbling empire, but I’m sure he’ll gaslight and deflect this to blame Biden. He was played by Israel in one of the most blatant BS strikes I’ve ever seen. I’m sure most of you won’t agree, but wake up.

[River Dog]

I don't have a problem with him not seeking Congressional approval if it is just a single attack. But if he's going to get into anything more, he absolutely should be going to Congress as both Bush 41 and 43 did over Iraq. It takes it out of the realm of a decision made by a POTUS to protect the country from an attack or responding to one and puts it into a national decision to take on an offensive war with a defined objective. He's a lame duck POTUS with no accountability to voters, and a decision to expand the conflict beyond a single strike could commit the country to a years long engagement.

I'm not exactly sure why it was necessary for us to initiate this strike. Why couldn't Israel have taken out this facility? Why subject us to retaliation? The Arab world views us as Israel's puppet master, and this just reinforces that perception. I don't have a problem with that if the attack was necessary to protect ourselves and our allies and if we were the only ones that could pull it off, but he needs to make his case, and so far from what I've read, he hasn't explained his rationale. But then again, this man does not think logically, so him giving a rational explanation is next to impossible.

[c_hawkbob]

Yeah there is supposed to be congressional approval for going to war just like congress is supposed to control the budget, that's all pretty irrelevant with Trump isn't it?

Trump's doing this because he can and he can justify his authoritarianism more easily during wartime.

[River Dog]

Yeah there is supposed to be congressional approval for going to war just like congress is supposed to control the budget, that's all pretty irrelevant with Trump isn't it?

Trump's doing this because he can and he can justify his authoritarianism more easily during wartime.

Trump's not the only POTUS to launch an attack w/o Congressional approval. Reagan, for example, didn't get approval for his attacks on Grenada and Libya. There are times when informing Congress could take away the element of surprise and put our guys/gals in jeopardy. It also helps a POTUS's bargaining position if our antagonists know that the POTUS can pull the trigger at any given time on his own authority.

But if he goes any further, starts some sort of offensive campaign, the right thing is for him to seek Congressional support.

[Aseahawkfan]

So suddenlyno congressional approval needed? Trump didn’t listen to his self-appointed security advisor. What the hell was that? No nukes, so we still attack? I thought he was the anti-war president? This should be a massive stain on his crumbling empire, but I’m sure he’ll gaslight and deflect this to blame Biden. He was played by Israel in one of the most blatant BS strikes I’ve ever seen. I’m sure most of you won’t agree, but wake up.

You need to wake up. Pretending we're alone in the world and can just sit in America singing Kumbaya expecting other world powers to sit quiet has never, ever happened, ever in the history of the world. We need to exert force to maintain control, not pretend the 60s anti-war movement was good for anyone but dictators that want to see America become a nation with a weak foreign policy. America's anti-war policies under Democrat after Democrat is why men like Putin and Xi are emboldened to expand their power into the world as they look across the sea and see a weak America run by bureaucrats who couldn't out fight them if their very freedom depended on it.

That's why Putin takes more when a Democrat is in office. I'm sure he loves to see the rise of Trump and his isolationist MAGA trash who want to drive out all immigrants and ruin our carefully built world power. Democrats have already been dismantling it since Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton and Obama continuing the process. I'm sure other world powers love to see a chump like Trump further dismantle it by removing Republicans from maintaining America's global power.

Ever since the 60s when the anti-war movement forced us out of Vietnam even though our military was winning every battle including the Tet Offensive and had mostly crushed the NVA, we have been abdicating power decade by decade, taking half measures, and allowing other nations to expand their power and influence against our waning and weakening resolve.

Hollyweird's revisionist Vietnam history claiming the American military lost the Vietnam War after winning every major battle has taught the anti-war movement they've been effective, when all they have done is the bidding of Communists and other nation's pushing propaganda America is the bad guy in the world when men like Putin and Xi are far worse than what America has done. These people just help our enemies and the enemies human freedom and prosperity.

I'm tired of them. I would love to see some old school Republican exertion of necessary force to pacify a regional antagonist like Iran. They've had it coming for a while thinking they can keep paying for the Palestinians to launch these attacks that lead to bad outcomes to Palestinians and the entire region.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't have a problem with him not seeking Congressional approval if it is just a single attack. But if he's going to get into anything more, he absolutely should be going to Congress as both Bush 41 and 43 did over Iraq. It takes it out of the realm of a decision made by a POTUS to protect the country from an attack or responding to one and puts it into a national decision to take on an offensive war with a defined objective. He's a lame duck POTUS with no accountability to voters, and a decision to expand the conflict beyond a single strike could commit the country to a years long engagement.

I'm not exactly sure why it was necessary for us to initiate this strike. Why couldn't Israel have taken out this facility? Why subject us to retaliation? The Arab world views us as Israel's puppet master, and this just reinforces that perception. I don't have a problem with that if the attack was necessary to protect ourselves and our allies and if we were the only ones that could pull it off, but he needs to make his case, and so far from what I've read, he hasn't explained his rationale. But then again, this man does not think logically, so him giving a rational explanation is next to impossible.

It was explained in the multiple stories on the subject. We have bunker buster bomb tech that we don't even give to Israel. It was necessary to use the bunker buster bombs to reach the deep underground nuclear facilities.

I never thought we gave all our tech to Israel or any other ally. We have war tech you wouldn't suspect or believe that maintains our advantage in the realm of warfare. We don't hand it out to anyone.

Even now while we're selling other nations our F-35s, we already have an F-47 in development to maintain our advantage. Even presidents don't stop the American war machine from maintaining its advantage. Not until we clear the board of enemies will their be permanent peace and I doubt other nations will cooperate with that any time soon. So we must maintain our advantage.

[Aseahawkfan]

Authoritarianism...what a tired story. Americans don't even know what authoritarianism is, the left just eats up that tired Democratic narrative like the Fox news followers eat up their trash. All while the Dems sit in their houses eating their fast food, watching Netflix, and getting fatter and stupider and Nancy Pelosi makes more money in the stock market.

Trump won't get approval for a war...nor will he go to war...in Iran. Trump did strikes to kill that Iranian general his first term and oked strikes in Syria, but never sent boots on the ground. He won't commit to a ground war. Signing an order for strikes he is ok with it, going in on a ground war he won't do.

It's one of the reason why I consider Trump more Democrat than Republican. This is the same kind of BS half-measure you would see from a Bill Clinton like Democrat than a Bush or Reagan Republican. I still remember Bill Clinton launching missiles into Iraq when he was on trial for impeachment as a distraction. I remember Clinton pulling us out of Somalia as shown in Blackhawk Down and doing nothing when dead American soldiers were dragged through the streets. Then his deal with the Serbs after they massacred 10,000 in a Bosnian town. So many Democrats and left wing people forget about the slimy president they put in office named Bill Clinton.

Trump is the Republican Bill Clinton. Even all his cheating and sex scandals are like Clinton and his cult of personality in the face of all his wrongdoing. Main difference is his stupid tariff policy and his unwavering support for Israel.

I'd give him some credit if he actually pushed into Iran to take out their regime. I'd support that. Syria is off the board for Russia. Iraq and Saddam off the board. Khaddafi and Libya off the board. Take Iran off the board. I don't think he'll do it. He'll back down just like the Trump TACO tariff trade, "Trump Always Chickens Out."

[Aseahawkfan]

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-says-countries-now-ready-supply-iran-nuclear-weapons-2088979

Can Russia talk Iran into using a nuclear weapon against Israel or the United States? Russia would love to see us in a war with Iran as that would draw resources from Ukraine, allowing them to take it easier. Can Russia convince Iran to commit suicide by using a nuclear weapon they provide through proxies? Would America not see this as an act of war by Russia and engage them?

If we do go after Russia, does China sit out and watch America and Russia wipe each other out or side with Russia and see if their combined might can defeat us? How far can this situation be pushed?

I doubt Russia can talk Iran into launching a nuke and committing suicide, but it is at least a small possibility given sources in the above story claim some unnamed nations are ready to supply Iran with a nuclear weapon to use in this conflict. Seems a reach as Iran for all their bluster isn't interested in suicide, which is what would happen to them if they launched a nuclear weapon against Israel or the United States.

[River Dog]

And here are the consequences of Trump's military action:

Iran’s parliament has voted to close the Strait of Hormuz, the vital shipping channel through which around 20% of the world’s daily oil flows.

The move, which could block $1 billion in oil shipments per day, is likely to send oil prices soaring.

It will come into effect pending a final decision by Iran’s Supreme Council.

The Supreme Council’s decision must be made by tonight, according to Iran’s state-run Press TV.

Iran’s major escalation in response to US strikes on its nuclear facilities “will be done whenever necessary,” Email Kosari, Commander in the Revolutionary Guards, said on Sunday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ir ... 8007&ei=18

We have a lot of Navy personnel in that area that patrol the Strait of Hormuz, and now they are under a direct threat of attack. If something goes wrong where Iran sinks one of our ships and a lot of our people get killed, there's going to be a retaliation, perhaps an all-out war. And don't forget, China is one of Iran's closest allies. This could very easily get out of control.

And that's not to mention what losing 20% of the world's oil supply will do to the economy. This move by Trump could end up being worse than his tariffs.

[Stream Hawk]

You need to wake up. Pretending we're alone in the world and can just sit in America singing Kumbaya expecting other world powers to sit quiet has never, ever happened, ever in the history of the world. We need to exert force to maintain control, not pretend the 60s anti-war movement was good for anyone but dictators that want to see America become a nation with a weak foreign policy. America's anti-war policies under Democrat after Democrat is why men like Putin and Xi are emboldened to expand their power into the world as they look across the sea and see a weak America run by bureaucrats who couldn't out fight them if their very freedom depended on it.

That's why Putin takes more when a Democrat is in office. I'm sure he loves to see the rise of Trump and his isolationist MAGA trash who want to drive out all immigrants and ruin our carefully built world power. Democrats have already been dismantling it since Jimmy Carter with Bill Clinton and Obama continuing the process. I'm sure other world powers love to see a chump like Trump further dismantle it by removing Republicans from maintaining America's global power.

Ever since the 60s when the anti-war movement forced us out of Vietnam even though our military was winning every battle including the Tet Offensive and had mostly crushed the NVA, we have been abdicating power decade by decade, taking half measures, and allowing other nations to expand their power and influence against our waning and weakening resolve.

Hollyweird's revisionist Vietnam history claiming the American military lost the Vietnam War after winning every major battle has taught the anti-war movement they've been effective, when all they have done is the bidding of Communists and other nation's pushing propaganda America is the bad guy in the world when men like Putin and Xi are far worse than what America has done. These people just help our enemies and the enemies human freedom and prosperity.

I'm tired of them. I would love to see some old school Republican exertion of necessary force to pacify a regional antagonist like Iran. They've had it coming for a while thinking they can keep paying for the Palestinians to launch these attacks that lead to bad outcomes to Palestinians and the entire region.

I’m seeing myself out of this, Asea. You clearly are drinking the orange guy’s Kool-Aid.

[c_hawkbob]

Whataboutism aside, the standard for a president to take unilateral action is "eminent danger". The US was not in eminent danger of attack by Iran if this action were not taken. This, by the book, was congress' call to make.

[River Dog]

Whataboutism aside, the standard for a president to take unilateral action is "eminent danger". The US was not in eminent danger of attack by Iran if this action were not taken. This, by the book, was congress' call to make.

I agree that we were not in eminent danger and that Trump was wrong to take the action that he did, at least based on the information that I've read. But I don't agree that Congress should be as involved in the decision-making process as you are claiming they should have been. You're essentially saying that you want 535 heads of state, a decision by committee that could take months to gain a consensus from. Those decisions need to be made in minutes, hours, or days, not in months. We need one man to hang his balls on the line when a decision like this has to be made. The problem is that we have the wrong pair of balls in the saddle.

[c_hawkbob]

Not my rules. It's a Nixon era federal law called the War Powers Act.

[River Dog]

Not my rules. It's a Nixon era federal law called the War Powers Act.

That doesn't apply in this situation, at least not yet:

The War Powers Resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

There's nothing in there that says a POTUS has to give advance notice to Congress of the use of military force, only that he notifies them within 2 days of such action. We're 2 months away from that law having any relevance. And like I said, there have been multiple incidents in the past where a POTUS has used military force without advising Congress.

[NorthHawk]

In the short term it looks like it might be a successful strategy, but there was a report that former Russian President Medvedev (sp) said countries are lining up to see Iran nuclear warheads. I don't know if this is true, but it sounds like something North Korea would do. If it's true and Iran gets them then the strategy has failed and possibly doomed the region and maybe mankind.

[River Dog]

In the short term it looks like it might be a successful strategy, but there was a report that former Russian President Medvedev (sp) said countries are lining up to see Iran nuclear warheads. I don't know if this is true, but it sounds like something North Korea would do. If it's true and Iran gets them then the strategy has failed and possibly doomed the region and maybe mankind.

Whether or not the short-term strategy is successful depends on how Iran responds and if they do, how successful they are. If they succeed in closing the Strat of Hormuz, it will plunge the world into recession and likely touch off a regional if not international war.

Here in the US, we get just 7% of our crude oil from the Middle East, but China gets a whopping 43%. As heavily dependent as China is on that oil, I have a hard time believing that they'd support Iran in such a war. I'm not as concerned as you appear to be about a nuclear war breaking out as Iran does not have an ICBM or other means of threatening countries outside their region, but it could wreak a heck of a lot of economic havoc on the world if that oil supply is interrupted.

I'm still not clear on our objective. Yes, Iran is a bad boy, sponsors of state terrorism and has been for decades. But what change in the status quo was it that mandated a military attack?

[Aseahawkfan]

This is why I don't even know what to believe any more. We bombed Iran's nuclear centers. Iran announces a bunch of claimed retaliation. Iran let's us know they're retaliating, seems to tell us what base they are launching at, we shoot down all the missiles, no American casualties. This all seems like political theater. The Iranian leader called Trump and this was all orchestrated to amount to a big fat nothing but some press. Do we have hired screenwriters working in some global command center that script this crap to ramp us all up for nothing?

Did Iran build a bunch of disposable movie sets to look dangerous? Get notified the bombers were coming? Then cleared out, the bombs are dropped, get some nice pictures, put an Ayatollah looking guy on TV to make some comments, launch some useless retaliation, then claim a truce is made.

I don't even know any more.

I keep wondering if once AI gets good enough, someone will just script a video for the news of a bunch of bad stuff happening, the news will report it scaring us all, just to keep us all thinking there are problems while in reality all the politicians and super rich are partying while they keep the working class idiots afraid of each other so we never talk or fix anything.

The whole thing is bizarro world. It makes you wonder if Iran is told to rattle some sabers every once in a while to pretend something might happen. It feels like we live in The Matrix now and I feel like it will just get worse as AI and robots advance.

[Aseahawkfan]

Whether or not the short-term strategy is successful depends on how Iran responds and if they do, how successful they are. If they succeed in closing the Strat of Hormuz, it will plunge the world into recession and likely touch off a regional if not international war.

Here in the US, we get just 7% of our crude oil from the Middle East, but China gets a whopping 43%. As heavily dependent as China is on that oil, I have a hard time believing that they'd support Iran in such a war. I'm not as concerned as you appear to be about a nuclear war breaking out as Iran does not have an ICBM or other means of threatening countries outside their region, but it could wreak a heck of a lot of economic havoc on the world if that oil supply is interrupted.

I'm still not clear on our objective. Yes, Iran is a bad boy, sponsors of state terrorism and has been for decades. But what change in the status quo was it that mandated a military attack?

I don't even worry that much about China. The Chinese and American economies are so intertwined, the would ruin each other countries if they went to war. China makes the majority of their money off America and American investment. No one buy smore than us and has more money than us. Our manufacturing is heavily intertwined with China.

That's why I don't even watch the mainstream news with their saber rattling about China and some war. It's stupid. A war between China and America is economic Armageddon for both countries and the entire world economy. No one benefits from war between China and America other than maybe Russia from the power vacuum.

People who believe this trash have never read on what caused the first two World Wars. The conditions for a world war don't even exist due to the economic interdependence built by American power. Even The Donald has little interest in any extreme change that costs him money. Neither do the people that back Trump. It is not in anyone's economic best interests to have serious warfare globally.

That punk Putin who treats the Russians like his personal slaves is gaining anything from warfare. Even Russia and Putin would have been better off had he never entered Ukraine, but the dumb tyrant can't admit his failure or his lose face in a country waiting to see him fall.

[River Dog]

I don't even worry that much about China. The Chinese and American economies are so intertwined, the would ruin each other countries if they went to war. China makes the majority of their money off America and American investment. No one buy smore than us and has more money than us. Our manufacturing is heavily intertwined with China.

That's why I don't even watch the mainstream news with their saber rattling about China and some war. It's stupid. A war between China and America is economic Armageddon for both countries and the entire world economy. No one benefits from war between China and America other than maybe Russia from the power vacuum.

People who believe this trash have never read on what caused the first two World Wars. The conditions for a world war don't even exist due to the economic interdependence built by American power. Even The Donald has little interest in any extreme change that costs him money. Neither do the people that back Trump. It is not in anyone's economic best interests to have serious warfare globally.

That punk Putin who treats the Russians like his personal slaves is gaining anything from warfare. Even Russia and Putin would have been better off had he never entered Ukraine, but the dumb tyrant can't admit his failure or his lose face in a country waiting to see him fall.

That's why I'm for a good, solid trade relationship with the Chinese. It makes a shooting war much less likely. It's one of the reasons why I don't see China backing up Iran in this instance.

But war doesn't always start in a logical, predictable manner. WW1 started with the assassination of a figurehead, the Archduke Ferdinand, who wasn't even a head of state and who's death wasn't sponsored by a government. One country declares war on another because of it, and it sets motion a bunch of agreements with other countries, and they go to war. Any time tensions are high, and you have these militaries facing off with each other, it runs the risk of something stupid happening that triggers a war.

Yesterday when Trump announced that Iran and Israel had agreed to a cease fire, I told a friend not to believe him, that he'll lie to make himself look good, just like he did when he claimed that he had negotiated a trade deal with China, and sure enough, Iran is still at this moment firing missiles at Israel. I guess someone forgot to tell Iran that they had agreed to a Trump-brokered cease fire.

[Aseahawkfan]

That's why I'm for a good, solid trade relationship with the Chinese. It makes a shooting war much less likely. It's one of the reasons why I don't see China backing up Iran in this instance.

But war doesn't always start in a logical, predictable manner. WW1 started with the assassination of a figurehead, the Archduke Ferdinand, who wasn't even a head of state and who's death wasn't sponsored by a government. One country declares war on another because of it, and it sets motion a bunch of agreements with other countries, and they go to war. Any time tensions are high, and you have these militaries facing off with each other, it runs the risk of something stupid happening that triggers a war.

Yesterday when Trump announced that Iran and Israel had agreed to a cease fire, I told a friend not to believe him, that he'll lie to make himself look good, just like he did when he claimed that he had negotiated a trade deal with China, and sure enough, Iran is still at this moment firing missiles at Israel. I guess someone forgot to tell Iran that they had agreed to a Trump-brokered cease fire.

The assassination of Ferdinand may have been a catalyst, but it was all the secret agreements made years in advance that caused nations to back other nations if they went to war that caused the problem. Europe was very different at that time. Still in their colonial period and interested in dividing up the world. The British Empire was still premier world empire. That is another example of what I'm talking about for preconditions. That colonial mentality doesn't exist as it did during World War 1. World War 2 was mostly caused by the impositions from World War 1 put on the German economy which motivated the German people to feel imprisoned and attacked by the economy destroying impositions, which I believe the United States considered a mistake to impose by the other European powers. You can't bankrupt a nation and expect them not to react badly.

Iran isn't doing crap. Probably called the Israelis in advance to tell them where the launch would come from. Iran is the biggest joke of a villain I've seen since Iraq and Saddam. The whole thing is a big joke of a conflict where nothing really happens, but I guess it makes for great news ratings.

You think Trump is lying? How about Iran? Two peas in a pod. Iran talking big, doing nothing. They lie all the time and they have no capability to launch an effective strike against America apparently. Or they are telegraphing them because behind the scenes they don't want what they will have coming if they really hit America.

Biggest joke of a conflict I've seen in my lifetime. Iran and North Korea just keep pretending their relevant. They make Trump seem like a soothfast speaker compared to their rubbish.

[Aseahawkfan]

That was funny. I have never seen a president say, "They don't know what the f*** they are doing." That's a first. Maybe Riverdog can recall another president talking like this, but I cannot. In this statement, he isn't wrong. Looney Netanhayu keeping power by keeping the threat of Iran going and Iran launching attacks to save face. I almost expect secret camera footage showing Iranians launching rockets with matches and fuses it's so ridiculous.

[River Dog]

That was funny. I have never seen a president say, "They don't know what the f*** they are doing." That's a first. Maybe Riverdog can recall another president talking like this, but I cannot. In this statement, he isn't wrong. Looney Netanhayu keeping power by keeping the threat of Iran going and Iran launching attacks to save face. I almost expect secret camera footage showing Iranians launching rockets with matches and fuses it's so ridiculous.

Lyndon Johnson used to talk like that all the time. It didn't get reported because there wasn't social media or 24/7 news up the ying yang like there is today, but he'd put DJT to shame with the colorful language he would use. Once, when discussing having a political adversary in his cabinet, Johnson said "I'd rather have him inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in." His VP Hubert Humphrey once said of LBJ that he wished the American public could hear some of the things he said in private as it was quite humorous. Johnson would do things like lift his dog, a beagle, off its front feet by its ears for the TV cameras or pull up his shirt to expose a scar from a surgery. Johnson's idea of deer hunting was to sit in the back seat of his Cadilac convertible with his rifle while his driver sped him around the ranch.

[River Dog]

That's why I'm for a good, solid trade relationship with the Chinese. It makes a shooting war much less likely. It's one of the reasons why I don't see China backing up Iran in this instance.

But war doesn't always start in a logical, predictable manner. WW1 started with the assassination of a figurehead, the Archduke Ferdinand, who wasn't even a head of state and who's death wasn't sponsored by a government. One country declares war on another because of it, and it sets motion a bunch of agreements with other countries, and they go to war. Any time tensions are high, and you have these militaries facing off with each other, it runs the risk of something stupid happening that triggers a war.

Yesterday when Trump announced that Iran and Israel had agreed to a cease fire, I told a friend not to believe him, that he'll lie to make himself look good, just like he did when he claimed that he had negotiated a trade deal with China, and sure enough, Iran is still at this moment firing missiles at Israel. I guess someone forgot to tell Iran that they had agreed to a Trump-brokered cease fire.

The assassination of Ferdinand may have been a catalyst, but it was all the secret agreements made years in advance that caused nations to back other nations if they went to war that caused the problem. Europe was very different at that time. Still in their colonial period and interested in dividing up the world. The British Empire was still premier world empire. That is another example of what I'm talking about for preconditions. That colonial mentality doesn't exist as it did during World War 1. World War 2 was mostly caused by the impositions from World War 1 put on the German economy which motivated the German people to feel imprisoned and attacked by the economy destroying impositions, which I believe the United States considered a mistake to impose by the other European powers. You can't bankrupt a nation and expect them not to react badly.

Iran isn't doing crap. Probably called the Israelis in advance to tell them where the launch would come from. Iran is the biggest joke of a villain I've seen since Iraq and Saddam. The whole thing is a big joke of a conflict where nothing really happens, but I guess it makes for great news ratings.

You think Trump is lying? How about Iran? Two peas in a pod. Iran talking big, doing nothing. They lie all the time and they have no capability to launch an effective strike against America apparently. Or they are telegraphing them because behind the scenes they don't want what they will have coming if they really hit America.

Biggest joke of a conflict I've seen in my lifetime. Iran and North Korea just keep pretending their relevant. They make Trump seem like a soothfast speaker compared to their rubbish.

Yeah, WW1 may not be the perfect analogy to today's situation. And you're right, it was the series of treaties that were the real cause of that war. It's a lesson in that treaties can sometimes be counterproductive as it might force the hand of an otherwise reluctant nation.

I am in no way, shape, or form defending Iran. My problem the attack is what's changed that has precipitated this action? Were they a threat? Did they present, as Cbob said, an eminent danger to us or our citizens? If it's just one single attack with a specified objective that has now been achieved, I'm OK with it. I just worry about getting into a tit-for-tat pissing contest with them.

[Aseahawkfan]

Yeah, WW1 may not be the perfect analogy to today's situation. And you're right, it was the series of treaties that were the real cause of that war. It's a lesson in that treaties can sometimes be counterproductive as it might force the hand of an otherwise reluctant nation.

I am in no way, shape, or form defending Iran. My problem the attack is what's changed that has precipitated this action? Were they a threat? Did they present, as Cbob said, an eminent danger to us or our citizens? If it's just one single attack with a specified objective that has now been achieved, I'm OK with it. I just worry about getting into a tit-for-tat pissing contest with them.

Riverdog, don't fall into the MAGA isolationist crap or the Democratic isolationist hiding behind anti-war credentials. This is a world built on American power. This idea that we only go to war or attack other nations if they are a threat to a United States citizen is ridiculous. Same type of thinking that kept us out of both World Wars as they grew out of control and caused a much larger loss of life and risk later.

I've never been a short-term thinker. I'm also not a poorly read and educated American who thinks America should only act if threatened or a risk against it. I believe we should stay engaged in the world, should exert political, economic, social, and military influence in the world constantly. The failure of a strong nation to maintain order is what truly causes world wars and the like. It is in the best interests of Americans to defuse geopolitical competition and warfare before it grows out of control and draws everyone in creating a world war. Those are the preconditions for a world war. A slow build where some series of interconnected conflicts suddenly bloom into a world conflict with multiple competing nations in conflict. The cost to win such a conflict becomes much higher the more competitors become involved, especially if they have had a long time to build up the necessary resources and military power to feel they can challenge for world domination or domination of their neighbors. If you allow this to happen, you increase the cost of warfare much higher.

That's why leaders who look at Iran's destabilizing influence and attempts to build up sufficient military, economic, and political power to threaten regional stability in the Middle East, continue to foment war against Israel, and desire to unite and concentrate the power of the Middle East into a competing world power are wise to seek to defuse that before it happens. This short-term thinking of "Is Iran a threat now" is a poorly thought out strategy that leads to problems later.

It is in our best interests to pacify Iran. They have been funding wars against a major strategic ally in the Middle East aka Israel. They threaten regional stability with their fomenting of the Shia sect of Islam as the superior form of Islam. If we stay uninvolved, they may even invade Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations seeking to depose them and replace them with a Shia friendly government. It is in our best interests to keep them contained and encourage a regime change from their aggressive religious leadership to a more Democratic form of government as they had pre-Ayatollah. I have no great love of Saudi Arabia as I have stated many times. But I see no move by our government to dismantle that relationship as it is a cornerstone of our strategy to be global reserve currency which keeps dollars in demand and keeps our currency strong. The effect of us losing reserve currency status would likely have a massive negative impact on the American economy causing demand for U.S. dollars to fall weakening our currency causing our buying power to drop substantially possibly causing very substantial inflation due currency weakness. Long-term is might improve investment in our nation, shorter term it would be incredibly painful to have U.S. dollars suddenly worth what a Canadian dollar or other weak currency is worth. It would require a serious reduction in money supply and much tighter control as well as seriously weakening us in the global economy.

I also don't much care for us pushing other nations to militarize. The more we control military conflict in the world, the better. If other nations are not militarizing, they have less resources invested in their ability to create military conflicts. That means fewer military competitors. This makes it easier to control conflict in the world.

To sum it up, this is an American built world. To suddenly give that up because of MAGA isolationists and Democratic anti-war isolationists who think the world will sing Kumbaya together if we just lay down our weapons is naïve and ridiculous. There is no historical precedent that isolationist or anti-war mentalities create peace in the world where existing global competitors who will use military force to achieve their objectives exist. The world is far more peaceful when a single or fewer strong military competitors are active in the world keeping the peace in their region. America is the currentl world police force or army that keeps the peace in the world for peaceful trade and political interaction to occur. It's in our best interests to keep it that way. We should be working to pacifc Iran to further stabilize the Middle East as they are one of the last holdout nations. The Iranian people as a whole can be turned to less militaristic endeavors if we unseat the current regime trying to take the lead in the Islamic world, same we rebuffed Turkey's play to return to prominence when they tried to embarrass and turn America against Saudi Arabia by setting the new Crown Prince for murder when he took out Jamal Khashoggi.

It's a foolish idea. It's one of the many reasons I don't like Trump as president and don't care for Democrats. They are native and foolish about world politics. They have little to no education on world history or how military competition in the world works and has worked for time eternal. It even ties into our debate on the use of nuclear weapons and why they were made. It had nothing to do with "shortening wars" or that trash sold to use to make us think it was done for a moral purpose. Nuclear weapons were made and used due to global military competition. Just as that global military competition for an advantage in weaponry, army size, resources, technology, and the like is still ongoing. We are in constant competition in this world. America has made enough nations feel secure that they have lessened their investment in this global competition. This has been great for our world and ushered in an unprecedented era of peace and prosperity globally.

The MAGA isolationists and anti-war Democrats want us to return to an era of warfare by abdicating global power. It's why Putin waits for a Democrat to be in office because the Democrats have managed to convince their voters that us keeping out of military conflict is in the best interests of Americans even while Putin and his backers look to expand their power and become the next America. Same with China and nations like Iran or North Korea. Modern Democrats spend almost no time studying world history. They are emotionally driven. They have been following their 60s anti-war model thinking it worked when it did not. It's why I didn't mind Biden as much as others as he at least had the sense to know it is necessary to use America's global power to check Russia's expansion unlike the president he served name Obama, a more modern Democrat looking to dismantle America's carefully built power that keeps the peace.

I don't agree that we should only move if threatened. We should move when world peace is threatened. We should move against nations looking to destabilize peace and global trade early before they can become more dangerous and problematic. We should spend the minimum resources possible to defang them maintaining strong trading relations with most nations and be highly involved in ensuring the peace is kept with us as the dominant mlitary power in the world. That is what is best for Americans and the world long-term.

[River Dog]

I'm not an isolationist and I would support interventions into foreign affairs if I were presented with certain fact, of which in this incident, I have had very few.

One piece of information is that I'm not clear on what in the status quo has changed that required this action to be taken. Iran has been working on nukes for several decades and in earnest since 2018 when Trump withdrew from the agreement reached during Obama. Did our intelligence show that they were on the verge of obtaining a weapon? And why couldn't have Israel have carried out this attack?

You can't use ending state-sponsored terrorism as an objective as that is only going to be achieved with a regime change, and a single strike is not going to achieve that goal and would require boots on the ground like it was in Iraq, and I don't think that there's much support either in this country or abroad for another war against a Middle Eastern country.

We'll see what happens from here.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not an isolationist and I would support interventions into foreign affairs if I were presented with certain fact, of which in this incident, I have had very few.

One piece of information is that I'm not clear on what in the status quo has changed that required this action to be taken. Iran has been working on nukes for several decades and in earnest since 2018 when Trump withdrew from the agreement reached during Obama. Did our intelligence show that they were on the verge of obtaining a weapon? And why couldn't have Israel have carried out this attack?

You can't use ending state-sponsored terrorism as an objective as that is only going to be achieved with a regime change, and a single strike is not going to achieve that goal and would require boots on the ground like it was in Iraq, and I don't think that there's much support either in this country or abroad for another war against a Middle Eastern country.

We'll see what happens from here.

That deal with Iran Obama created was nothing short of extortion. It allowed Iran to gain access to the oil markets to build capital to further foment war in the region and build up their resources for military attacks. Trump was right to pull us out of that deal. I'm fairly certain he's not the one who thought of it.

I thought you chatted with Irish Greg on occasion. He stated in the other thread how Iran was using their influence and resources to continue to fund military action like that taken by Hamas in Palestine, The Houthis along the Strait of Hormuz, and Hezbollah which pushes Shia militarism around the region.

Hezbollah: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-hezbollah

Allowing Iran to access the oil markets and receive their 100 billion and growing money is like funding terrorism against yourself and your allies. Obama's deal was ridiculous and one of the worst acts of foreign policy I've seen in my lifetime. It showed how poorly Democrats manage foreign policy. Same reason why you and others cannot seem to explain why Putin waits for a Democrat to get in office before he takes more of Ukraine if Trump is the one colluding with him. I know why Putin waits for Democrats and it has everything to do with the Democratic unwillingness to enter a war against almost any foreign power even when it would be better for us long-term. Putin likely wouldn't be still taking parts of Ukraine if Obama and the Dems has made it clear with military action when Putin took Crimea and started his piecemeal taking of Ukraine, but Obama didn't.

You should already know what Iran is doing against us as an American. You should not need facts as the facts have been present if you have been following Iran's actions over the years such as funding the attack Hamas made into Israel to start this regional war, during Biden (why attack during Biden if they respect Democrats), the funding of the Houthis shooting at American ships along the Strait of Hormuz, and the rockets and other military excursions along the Strait of Hormuz. Where do you think they are getting the funding for this equipment to use to push their military aims? Some Sunni nation they aren't allied with? No, these are Shia funded attacks and Iran is the source of Shia monetary power.

Trump isn't going to do enough to hammer Iran as we should. But man, he was right to bomb them. If we would take care of Iran while they are weak, we would save ourselves massive headaches down the line. 90 million people in Iran for the Iranian Shia government to draw from. At least Trump ended their easy access to the oil markets and as far as I know Biden didn't rebuild that stupid deal that let Iran build up the resources for further fund military action against us. They are one of the worst sources of instability in the region.

[Aseahawkfan]

I knew Trump the Demopublican wouldn't go after Iran. The Democratic left got their panties in a bunch again about Trump and he doesn't do much of anything with Iran other than drop some bombs that maybe had an effect and an hilarious quote that I have never heard uttered from a president's mouth. I'll give him credit for the quote. That was funny.