The War

[Westernhawk]

I will continue to make my political opinions clear. Will what I say have an impact? Only if many others follow the same path. It did end Viet Nam. Public opinion had a real impact on withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran? Stay tuned.

However. I see our law makers’ failure to follow public opinion at an all time high. That is dangerous.

Your point about rallying like-minded people is well taken. People who stay silent when the (and I'll say it like it is) fascists take over rarely are remembered well.

I said this in a post above, but I think the reactions of people in the city of Minneapolis had a substantial impact on the removal of two really awful people (Bovino and Noem) and also gave ICE a huge funding problem. Change can happen.

 

[Grady]

"But if we're defining usefulness as affecting the outcome of something, I still hold this as useless and even counterproductive. Counterproductive because it's energy spent being negative that you could have spent doing something that benefits yourself or someone else close to you."

This is an interesting perspective, and you're not alone -- it may be the majority opinion of adults in the U.S. these days. What's puzzling to me is that it presumes an either/or, zero-sum approach to all of life.

I love and spend time with my children and extended family, live a life of gratitude, thankfulness, etc. as you do. But I also speak out, write letters, call my reps, organize in my community, and try to have a positive impact on the world so when I die it's a better place for my children.

I don't see one of those being more valuable than the other -- they are both important to me, and I've lived long enough to know that they both can have a positive impact. As a parent, I've impacted and continue to influence my children; as an activist, I've been a part of bringing an end to the Vietnam war, stopping the construction of nuclear power plants, and influencing public policy created by elected officials. These two private and public parts of life don't need to be mutually exclusive...in my mind they complement each other.

I agree that things have gotten too partisan -- blindingly so. People say they don't want partisanship, but we'll see about that when the results of the next Iowa governor's race come in. On one hand, one party will have a very partisan nominee; the other party will have a candidate who apologizes that he had to even choose one of the 2 main parties to run on, knowing that he wouldn't stand a chance as a No Party candidate. People talk a good game about saying they are tired of partisanship, but often their votes don't back up the rhetoric.

As for phone calls, emails, and in-person contacts with elected officials: I and family members have worked on the inside of these offices. Anyone who thinks elected officials and their staff don't pay attention to these things, well, they're simply mistaken.

 

[Fryowa]

We actually agree on a lot. I was in a terrible accident last Aug and could have died. I'm super thankful to be alive, and I live accordingly each day. I totally agree that we need to spend our time wisely, and love those close to us.

I respectfully disagree that becoming angry about important issues is a complete waste of time, or that I'm in some sort of "echo chamber" as you say. In my real life, I have been able to participate in, and contribute to, changes in state law in my area of expertise. I also was part of a governor's fellowship in a state where two of my friends are now mayors of two significant cities in that state. At the state and local levels, we definitely can make a difference, and I've seen it (and been a part of it).

Your point is well taken that the billionaires (oligarchs) have control at the national level. Having said that, I'm the type of person who never gives up. If the people in Minneapolis just stayed in their houses after ICE murdered two of their citizens, maybe Bovino and Noem would still be at it, doing unconstitutional things. Currently, ICE funding is a big question, largely because of the actions of everyday citizens.

I'm an optimist (probably a fault). I'm not nearly as cynical as you are. My grandfather was literally on the scene when Dachau was liberated. I was a military officer. I advocate strongly for people in my current role, and I have some influence there. I'd rather be fighting the good fight and lose than just sit idle. To each his own.

With this war (called Excursion by DJT but I think he meant incursion), we may see some really unfortunate downsides in the coming weeks, months, and years. It should be noted that we killed a bunch of school girls as well. I'm not okay with that, and if occasionally venting on a message board with like dudes is a problem for you, then so be it.

So I'll occasionally go on a rant on a message board. I can assure you that I spend a minimal amount of time doing so, and spend most of my time doing things in the real world. Cheers. If I can persuade 50 people to think differently, or vote differently, it's a win. I've persuaded some!

As I explained in my previous posts, there are things you can affect. When it comes to things you can't, that's where I believe it's a waste of time. This war is one of them. As I said before, even if you were able to conjure up a 50 million person march on Washington against the war this very second, it will do nothing to change what Trump or any other sitting president does in regards to global politics. In fact, with the current administration I'd argue that it would only stir him up more. That's why I think it's a waste. Those are energies I can better spend being positive in areas I can affect. It takes effort to be angry. It takes time away from you. Even if it's a little. My folks both died when I was in my early twenties and now my own son has moved out of the house, and there's a degree of truth to Cats and the Cradle. He doesn't ignore me because I didn't ignore him like in the song...far from it...but he has his own life now and the part of my life where when I get off work and he comes running down the driveway with a big smile on his face, jumps up to give me a hug is gone forever. What I have left in the next 20-30 years is all I get and then it's lights-out.

Selfish or not, I'm not wasting a single second of my energy being angry about a war that I can quite literally do absolutely nothing about. Those billionaires might be permanently ruining this country soon, and I'm enjoying what I can, while I can. I'm not apologetic for that.

 

[Fryowa]

...I've been a part of bringing an end to the Vietnam war, stopping the construction of nuclear power plants, and influencing public policy created by elected officials...

I'm sorry to say that politicians in that era were different than what we have now. Those sorts of things were possible at that time. The politicians in place now--both republican and democrats--are not those people. They are partisan puppets of oligarch billionaires. Period, full stop. Please prove me wrong with evidence on that point. I would love to be wrong.

I do admire your optimism, though, and to be honest there's something to be said for that kind of blissful ignorance. False hope is still hope, and it's soothing to be sure.

 

[Westernhawk]

"But if we're defining usefulness as affecting the outcome of something, I still hold this as useless and even counterproductive. Counterproductive because it's energy spent being negative that you could have spent doing something that benefits yourself or someone else close to you."

This is an interesting perspective, and you're not alone -- it may be the majority opinion of adults in the U.S. these days. What's puzzling to me is that it presumes an either/or, zero-sum approach to all of life.

I love and spend time with my children and extended family, live a life of gratitude, thankfulness, etc. as you do. But I also speak out, write letters, call my reps, organize in my community, and try to have a positive impact on the world so when I die it's a better place for my children.

I don't see one of those being more valuable than the other -- they are both important to me, and I've lived long enough to know that they both can have a positive impact. As a parent, I've impacted and continue to influence my children; as an activist, I've been a part of bringing an end to the Vietnam war, stopping the construction of nuclear power plants, and influencing public policy created by elected officials. These two private and public parts of life don't need to be mutually exclusive...in my mind they complement each other.

I agree that things have gotten too partisan -- blindingly so. People say they don't want partisanship, but we'll see about that when the results of the next Iowa governor's race come in. On one hand, one party will have a very partisan nominee; the other party will have a candidate who apologizes that he had to even choose one of the 2 main parties to run on, knowing that he wouldn't stand a chance as a No Party candidate. People talk a good game about saying they are tired of partisanship, but often their votes don't back up the rhetoric.

As for phone calls, emails, and in-person contacts with elected officials: I and family members have worked on the inside of these offices. Anyone who thinks elected officials and their staff don't pay attention to these things, well, they're simply mistaken.

Thank you for this thoughtful and insightful post. Right on.

 

[Grady]

"....and I'm enjoying what I can, while I can. I'm not apologetic for that."

Nor should you be.

But some of the most meaningful and powerful parts of some of our lives have come from joining with other people to impact things at the local, state, and national level...again, with the intent of making this world a better place. That not blissful ignorance, or naive idealism, it's a proven way to be engaged with something larger than myself and make a positive difference.

It may not be for everyone. It's obviously not for you, and that's cool.

But saying that these actions are "stupid" or "useless" in the big picture -- it may seem that way to you, but history paints a different picture. There have been multi-millionaires for a hundred years...oligarchs are nothing new. But where do you think the 5 day work week came from? The 8 hour work day? Vacation benefits? Social Security? Do you think oligarchs started handing out these benefits out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not -- they were forced to, by people who banded together to create something better for themselves, yes, but also better for others.

There are more recent examples, closer to home. Bruce Rastetter, as you know, is the head of Summit Agricultural Group, and is likely a millionaire 100x over -- perhaps even a billionaire, I don't know. As one of the driving funders of the Iowa Republican Party and its candidates, he led the effort to build the carbon capture pipeline through Iowa and the Dakotas. He got all the top Republicans in the state behind him, because he funds their campaigns. But guess what, folks in rural Iowa didn't like the idea of a big corporation benefitting by taking their land through eminent domain. Farmers organized, and polling was done which showed 79% of Iowans -- rural AND urban -- didn't favor eminent domain for private company gain. Because of public outcry a group of rural Republican legislators were forced to come out against the pipeline, and it's been stalled in Iowa ever since. South Dakota farmers & ranchers banded together, voted out any legislator who voted for the pipeline, and their legislature then voted to put the kibosh on the entire pipeline proposed to run through their state.

I agree that oligarchs have an outsized influence on our politics at the state and national level. But I'm not ready to give up on people power just yet. Not as long as I continue to see examples where it makes a difference. That's not naivete, that's dealing with practical reality.

 

[Fryowa]

"....and I'm enjoying what I can, while I can. I'm not apologetic for that."

Nor should you be.

But some of the most meaningful and powerful parts of some of our lives have come from joining with other people to impact things at the local, state, and national level...again, with the intent of making this world a better place. That not blissful ignorance, or naive idealism, it's a proven way to be engaged with something larger than myself and make a positive difference.

It may not be for everyone. It's obviously not for you, and that's cool.

But saying that these actions are "stupid" or "useless" in the big picture -- it may seem that way to you, but history paints a different picture. There have been multi-millionaires for a hundred years...oligarchs are nothing new. But where do you think the 5 day work week came from? The 8 hour work day? Vacation benefits? Social Security? Do you think oligarchs started handing out these benefits out of the goodness of their hearts? Of course not -- they were forced to, by people who banded together to create something better for themselves, yes, but also better for others.

There are more recent examples, closer to home. Bruce Rastetter, as you know, is the head of Summit Agricultural Group, and is likely a millionaire 100x over -- perhaps even a billionaire, I don't know. As one of the driving funders of the Iowa Republican Party and its candidates, he led the effort to build the carbon capture pipeline through Iowa and the Dakotas. He got all the top Republicans in the state behind him, because he funds their campaigns. But guess what, folks in rural Iowa didn't like the idea of a big corporation benefitting by taking their land through eminent domain. Farmers organized, and polling was done which showed 79% of Iowans -- rural AND urban -- didn't favor eminent domain for private company gain. Because of public outcry a group of rural Republican legislators were forced to come out against the pipeline, and it's been stalled in Iowa ever since. South Dakota farmers & ranchers banded together, voted out any legislator who voted for the pipeline, and their legislature then voted to put the kibosh on the entire pipeline proposed to run through their state.

I agree that oligarchs have an outsized influence on our politics at the state and national level. But I'm not ready to give up on people power just yet. Not as long as I continue to see examples where it makes a difference. That's not naivete, that's dealing with practical reality.

We simply disagree on the personal ability to affect change at a given level of scale. That's ok. No hard feelings.

Again, this doesn't mean I don't care about issues or that I'm of no opinion. I have plenty of opinion. However I don't think politics is politics anymore at the largest scales. It's bought and paid for rather than decided democratically, and there's such a high percentage of toeing a party line (99%) that no matter what we as the peasantry do, it's just theater. For some folks the theater is better than nothing and I respect that. It's just not worth it to me.

This war is one of those things. in my opinion. Border control (under this administration) is another. Basically all foreign policy is another. It's just not worth my time to dedicate any of my attention to it because all it will do is piss me off. I don't like being pissed off.

 

[HuckFinn]

Trump meets with Emperor of Japan today. Jokes with her and says, quote, “who knows better about surprises than Japan!”

God help us.

 

[Fryowa]

Trump meets with Emperor of Japan today. Jokes with her and says, quote, “who knows better about surprises than Japan!”

God help us.

This is why I laugh about all this stuff instead of get angry. We're not dealing with diplomats anymore, we're dealing with mad men. Diplomats don't exist in the US anymore.

To be honest, we're coming right up on the average time most empires last so it's not a surprise. Throughout history most last 200-300 years on average as a world power. It's typically been around 10-12 generations of citizens. The communist version of China will be the next one...I ain't gonna be around to see much of it so c'est la vie...

Same thing happened to the British Empire, same thing happened to the Roman Empire, and so on and so on and so on...

The leaders get super wonky and insane, everything implodes at an exponential rate, and that's a wrap. I feel lucky to have grown up and lived when I did, to be honest.

 

[Fryowa]

I agree that oligarchs have an outsized influence on our politics at the state and national level. But I'm not ready to give up on people power just yet. Not as long as I continue to see examples where it makes a difference. That's not naivete, that's dealing with practical reality.

CO2 pipelines and ICE raids in Minneapolis, while important issues, ain't the same thing (nor the same scope) as a war being fought over oil, not the same as the isolationism going on at full speed, or the ruining of the global economy under this new era of politicians. In a few years something like a grass roots pipeline movement isn't even going to be a blip on the radar of the things affecting us. Like with this current deal going on...Netanyahu wanted Iran wiped off the earth because they don't want missiles being shot at them. Everyone knows they can't reach the US with their stuff...not even close...so he put a back-room plan together, pulled the puppet strings with Trump and in the space of a couple weeks Iran has been knocked back into the stone age while at the same time holding the world's energy economy hostage. The US can do nothing about "un-hostaging" it because like in Vietnam, the people holding it hostage are in guerilla mode, doing it with drones and little remote controlled boats built in mud huts that we can't shoot down.

Literally everyone in the world knows in their gut that Iran isn't going to go crusading around the world lighting nukes off even if they had them. Billions of people across the globe know it, and they know it's a dumb pretense. But there's a few hundred people in two countries driving what we're seeing right now and there's no stopping it. Be optimistic if you want...

March on congress? Do that and you'll get shot or put in prison. You think the entire military is going to strike and refuse to shoot missiles? Vote new people in? How's that worked so far? How did it work for Greece and Rome in the end?

I'm pretty sure there were millions of optimistic level-headed people in Rome and England and Greece and who thought they'd be able to stop the mad men and be ok in the end, too. How are we any different than any other empire if you're being objective? We're not. To think so is hubris.

 

[Westernhawk]

Even on this board, there is a spirit of helpfulness and activism. When I post about my frustration with the system and the actions of the oligarchs, it's not useless. I'm heartened by what folks on this board are saying.

 

[Fryowa]

Even on this board, there is a spirit of helpfulness and activism. When I post about my frustration with the system and the actions of the oligarchs, it's not useless. I'm heartened by what folks on this board are saying.

It's honestly not useless if it makes you feel better. What I'm saying is the feel-good isn't real in the sense that it's impossible to affect change in certain things. Like this war, like foreign policy, like a lot of huge things. And yes, I'm being serious when I say impossible. Just like I could train full time for the next 10 years to dunk a basketball...lifting weights, losing weight, doing everything physically possible to jump 12" higher, hire a trainer, etc. Is it possible for someone 6'1" to dunk a basketball? Absolutely. Is it possible for me at 45 years old and currently 5" below the rim to ever dunk one? Nope.

Like Marx's quote about religion being the opiate of the masses. It calms people, which I suppose is useful to those people even if it isn't real. If you can kid yourself sufficiently to the point that you believe in something that isn't real, that's all you need if you want to feel better.

 

[Westernhawk]

It's honestly not useless if it makes you feel better. What I'm saying is the feel-good isn't real in the sense that it's impossible to affect change in certain things. Like this war, like foreign policy, like a lot of huge things. And yes, I'm being serious when I say impossible. Just like I could train full time for the next 10 years to dunk a basketball...lifting weights, losing weight, doing everything physically possible to jump 12" higher, hire a trainer, etc. Is it possible for someone 6'1" to dunk a basketball? Absolutely. Is it possible for me at 45 years old and currently 5" below the rim to ever dunk one? Nope.

Like Marx's quote about religion being the opiate of the masses. It calms people, which I suppose is useful to those people even if it isn't real. If you can kid yourself sufficiently to the point that you believe in something that isn't real, that's all you need if you want to feel better.

A more activated populace may result in more voter participation. While you (may) believe that all politicians are the same, there is something especially odious about the Drumpf administration. These are not usual times, with dems and republicans sparring. While corruption always existed, this is a new level. You may disagree, but the current bunch of dumbassess in our federal government may be working to end democracy as we know it. I think that's worth fighting for, and it isn't impossible to bend that curve. Millions of Americans are really pissed about this, and if it means going back to somewhat corrupt but stable (in terms of our democracy, checks and balances, and the like), I'm all for it. I don't think it's at all hopeless, and it's people who shrug their shoulders who are the problem. I'm aok if you feel hopeless about it, but don't project that apathy and hopelessness onto others.

 

[HuckFinn]

A more activated populace may result in more voter participation. While you (may) believe that all politicians are the same, there is something especially odious about the Drumpf administration. These are not usual times, with dems and republicans sparring. While corruption always existed, this is a new level. You may disagree, but the current bunch of dumbassess in our federal government may be working to end democracy as we know it. I think that's worth fighting for, and it isn't impossible to bend that curve. Millions of Americans are really pissed about this, and if it means going back to somewhat corrupt but stable (in terms of our democracy, checks and balances, and the like), I'm all for it. I don't think it's at all hopeless, and it's people who shrug their shoulders who are the problem. I'm aok if you feel hopeless about it, but don't project that apathy and hopelessness onto others.

all of the above...Yup

 

[Fryowa]

...it's people who shrug their shoulders who are the problem.

Agree. And I'm a shoulder shrugger.

The difference is that I firmly believe that even if I didn't shrug my shoulders, there aren't enough others who will do the same to make a difference. It would take the entire populace to do that, and our military, and our police, and our elected officials. I believe the chances of it happening at a large enough scale to change anything are smaller than the lottery.

Dwelling on that causes anger, sadness, melancholy, you name it. Energy spent being negative and angry. So I don't dwell on it and let something I as an individual can't change bring me down, because there are lots of things individually I can do to make my own world better and people close to me better. You can believe me or not and take this however you want, but once a week I go up to our nursing home in town and play cribbage with two old guys who don't get visitors. I'm not going to paint myself as some morally superior guy who said, "You know what, I bet there's lonely people who live there and would like company so I'm going to go sit with them to make their day better." The way it happened was my uncle used to be there and his roommate was a nice old dude but had no family. When I visited my uncle I started inviting him to play with us. This uncle of mine isn't there anymore, but they had so much fun I kept stopping up and now there's one other person who plays too. I bring 'em Hardees breakfast biscuits and the one guy likes Arizona tea so I grab one of those for 99 cents. They're older than the hills, some grease and cholesterol ain't gonna make a difference at this point.

Again, nothing I'm doing is because I'm Mother Teresa. It's like $5 a week and about 90 minutes, and I like playing cribbage. I am not a superior example of morality, and if it was a pain in the ass I'm not gonna lie to you and say that I'm sure I'd still do it. I do it because I could sit around and get pissed off about Trump and Biden and RFK and AOC and get angry and spend $75 on gas and a full day of PTO driving to Minneapolis for a no kings rally, and post on internet forums to people who aren't going to change their votes anyway, but what good would that fucking do? None. Zero. It would literally affect no one and nothing other than giving me some warm and fuzzies. Zero change to the outcome. Maybe the warm and fuzzies are worth it to you to get that anger out, I don't know. I do know there aren't enough people out there willing to do extreme things to affect change no matter how much I wish and hope there were. Prove me wrong if so. I know there are enough people out there, but prove to me that we can somehow get them to participate at a level high enough to affect change on something like this war. You can't because there's 75 years of history of people not participating.

I go sit and play cards with a couple guys who have maybe a year or two left above ground, and they get to laugh, I get to laugh, and maybe they don't sit there depressed and staring out the window. Maybe it makes the rest of the week easier if they know they get a visitor again in a few days, maybe not. I get something out of it too. Maybe you do things that make you and others feel good too. But you'd have more energy to do more of it, and you'd probably be happier if you truly let it go. Because unless you're willing to martyr yourself, whatever you're doing thinking you can change Trump's actions isn't enough.

That's what I'm gonna keep doing. I can't control anything else so I do little shit that's actually worth my time.

Lastly, I think your viewpoint is clouded because of how insane you think the current administration is. I'm not saying you're wrong, but you're clouded and biased by your anger and lack of being able to rationalize what they're doing. I say that because for every one democrat such as yourself who thinks the opposition is insane and irrational and immoral and wrong...there is also one offsetting person on the other side who thinks you are just as insane. Your votes cancel each other out. What we're left with is a yo-yo effect that bounces back and forth every 4-8 years and no one gets anywhere. Maybe the answer is to be a moderate in the middle rather than extreme left like you or extreme right like some others on the board? You're a man of science apparently, you should know that in the end the bell curve always wins, and you and the far right constantly fighting over the pendulum keeps it from ever settling in the middle, where each side has at least 50% of what they want. But 50/50 isn't good enough for you...you want 90%, all of the time. That don't work, Jack.

If you object to my assumption about your willingness to compromise, list for me 5 MAGA agendas that you'd concede in return for 5 leftist agendas to be enacted...I'll wait.

You can fight that bell curve, but you're only going to cause it to swing your way temporarily and then it's going to swing back, and then back to you, and so on. Chaos, so to speak. If you disagree prove me wrong with a lasting example over the long run in politics. You talk about the other side being the problem, but yet you will give no meaningful concession the other way. You complain about the state of politics, but you're in a Mexican standoff with the other side and too proud to put your gun down because you're afraid the other side won't put theirs down. And so is the other side. You're just as much a cause of the chaos as MAGA because you think everything negative is their fault, they think everything negative is your fault, and so it goes ad nauseum until implosion.

I'm gonna go play cards and laugh a bunch tomorrow morning. When I get done, 3 people's days will probably have gotten better. How many people's days did I improve spending 10 minute typing this? Or a 12 hour day at a no kings rally or an anti immigration rally. Be honest and don't tell me it was worth it because by me showing up at a rally or casting a vote I improved the odds by 0.00005823%.

Be honest.

 

[MelroseHawkins]

I don't think Dear Leader has thought about the consequences beyond the initial stages of this war. Dear Leader has also changed the rationale for this war 4 or 5 times. Congress did not approve. There are a ton of unintended consequences and our blowhards in charge do not know any better, as they have apparently not studied history.

Economically, we will see supply shocks with LNG and oil.

Politically, there could be a number of negative consequences, including support for Iran by Russia and China. Also, we could see (or even expect) an uptick in worldwide terrorism.

Can someone refresh me on the criticality of this war for the US? It's costing a billion dollars per day.

Simply put. These people have developed long range missiles that are now able to reach the largest European cities with intentions of creating one to hit US coast. Once they are able to mount a nuclear warhead on said missile, many would be screwed because they are so extreme they most likely would use them. It's a different mindframe in the mid east and they have been fighting and launching missiles at different countries, mainly Isreal, for decades upon decades. I have not doubt they would have done that.

Pretty much every president (Dem & Rep) in the past 40 years have said we need to deal with Iran, but nobody did anything. It finally got to the point of no return and something had to be done as they are getting close to be able to mount a nuc on a missile. Yes, war sucks now but forward thinkers know it should be better in the future if they can get under control with a new regime.

Anyway, that's my take on it all.

 

[SwirlinLingerie]

Simply put. These people have developed long range missiles that are now able to reach the largest European cities with intentions of creating one to hit US coast. Once they are able to mount a nuclear warhead on said missile, many would be screwed because they are so extreme they most likely would use them. It's a different mindframe in the mid east and they have been fighting and launching missiles at different countries, mainly Isreal, for years. I have not doubt they would have done that.

Pretty much every president (Dem & Rep) in the past 40 years have said we need to deal with Iran, but nobody did it anything. It finally got to the point of no return and something had to be done as they are getting close to be able to mount a nuc on a missile. Yes, war sucks now but forward thinkers know it should be better in the future if they can get under control with a new regime.

Anyway, that's my take on it all.

#1 - So we are trying to install a new regime? Was that the point of the war? If it was, what's the plan for installing a new regime? We have a poor track record of success in that area, it is extremely hard to accomplish that, it typically involves years or even decades of US involvement, and I do not want to use US blood and treasure for that goal, especially without a very detailed plan that is also outlined to congress and ultimately approved.

#2 - We were told that the US strikes in June completely obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. Was this not true? If we fell short, how so?

 

[MelroseHawkins]

#1 - So we are trying to install a new regime? Was that the point of the war? If it was, what's the plan for installing a new regime? We have a poor track record of success in that area, it is extremely hard to accomplish that, it typically involves years or even decades of US involvement, and I do not want to use US blood and treasure for that goal, especially without a very detailed plan that is also outlined to congress and ultimately approved.

#2 - We were told that the US strikes in June completely obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. Was this not true? If we fell short, how so?

Well, it's not going to get done in a matter of 3 mo. Most who are able to do analytic thinking will realize this. I think the #1 goal was to stop them from getting a nuc. The regime change came as a collateral result from their decision to continue lying. They could have worked with us and other countries and avoided this. All they have done for decades is delay and lie while they continued down their path. It was their choice. The death to the regime was their choice. Could have had a different outcome.

Iraq people prob don't think the track record has been bad. That didn't happen overnight either, but you sure don't hear them complaining now. They seem to be flourishing much better. Again, have to be forward thinking instead of just thinking about the moment.

For cripes sake, many presidents in recent years did not get congress approval. More recently besides Trump, both Obama and Biden ordered strikes without approval. So, that debate is moot. It goes both ways.

Nobody wants bloodshed with wars. But, would you rather have a 6 week war now or them sending missiles to various places with nucs. Cripes people!

Not sure on your #2. I also have a hard time believing that in a matter of 8 mo they got it up and running again. Not sure if they still have the capability or if they were able get the uranium to the 60% threshold.

Also, who knows what goes behind the scenes for these decisions. I wonder if knowing Russia has been battling Ukraine for the past several years if they thought Russia may be depleted to a point that they could not help Iran militarily so was a good time. Dunno. That stuff plays a part in the decisions to, and has crossed my mind.

 

[Fryowa]

#1 - So we are trying to install a new regime? Was that the point of the war? If it was, what's the plan for installing a new regime? We have a poor track record of success in that area, it is extremely hard to accomplish that, it typically involves years or even decades of US involvement, and I do not want to use US blood and treasure for that goal, especially without a very detailed plan that is also outlined to congress and ultimately approved.

#2 - We were told that the US strikes in June completely obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities. Was this not true? If we fell short, how so?

#1 I am very, very confident this entire thing was Israel. Israel wanted Iran wiped off the face of the planet and they played our current president like a fiddle. There wasn't a plan, this was a "We'll figure that out later" thing.

However, I do think there is the potential for some positives long-term if it's played right. The IRGC theocracy has killed more of their own citizens than the United States and Israel ever will. They need a regime change for their own sake first, everyone else's sake 2nd.

I'll let everyone else argue about the best way to have tried doing it.

#2 What we get told, and the truth are usually two very different things.

 

[Westernhawk]

#1 I am very, very confident this entire thing was Israel. Israel wanted Iran wiped off the face of the planet and they played our current president like a fiddle. There wasn't a plan, this was a "We'll figure that out later" thing.

However, I do think there is the potential for some positives long-term if it's played right. The IRGC theocracy has killed more of their own citizens than the United States and Israel ever will. They need a regime change for their own sake first, everyone else's sake 2nd.

I'll let everyone else argue about the best way to have tried doing it.

#2 What we get told, and the truth are usually two very different things.

#1 I agree with you 100%. Our administration has changed their stance on why they started the war a few times. The only thing that actually tracks... Israel.

#2 Also agree.

The one comment I have about regime change: Do folks think that an arial campaign will cause regime change in Iran? I am highly doubtful that it will, which means sending ground troops if that is the actual goal. This means spilling of blood and treasure (ours).