Political Posts

[Dalal.Holdings]

17 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

+1 - how can one argue with that?

 

They'll find some angle how he is supposed to profit from it.

Well cry babys in Europe & Canada are arguing some gibberish about "International Law" (of course they didn't prod the regime in Iran much about that)

 

Quite a good read on that subject:

 

https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/?edition=us

 

 

[Maverick47]

12 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

1) Insure no nukes primarily

2) Bonus objective: payback for 47 years of terrorism.

 

Works for me. Retribution is a beautiful thing.

The only observation I have on this is that retribution is indeed satisfying, but at least in this area of the world, is unlikely to be the end of the matter.  For millennia, groups in this area of the world have held onto grudges from past harms, either real or perceived.

 

Whenever one “side” or the other gains some level of power or the ability to attack the other, they are tempted to use it against their enemies, and afterwards, to say, in effect, that “okay, now we’re even”.  
 

This far, the history of the regional conflicts appears to indicate that the party last attacked doesn’t appear to have agreed with that thought, and instead will nurse hatred for years, decades, centuries or even millennia before responding with retribution of their own that they either feel or believe will finally settle the matter once and for all.

 

Cycles of violence are extremely difficult to break.  Probably the best we can hope for is that when a response occurs, it will be long after we ourselves are no longer here.

Edited March 4 by Maverick47

[Sweet]

1 hour ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

Well cry babys in Europe & Canada are arguing some gibberish about "International Law" (of course they didn't prod the regime in Iran much about that)

 

Quite a good read on that subject:

 

https://spectator.com/article/international-law-is-not-a-suicide-pact/?edition=us

 

 

Exactly, good read.

[dealraker]

Crusades?  Trump anointed?

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/military-leaders-iran-war-trump-172548999.html

[Spekulatius]

9 hours ago, backtothebeach said:

But I do find the moral outrage a bit funny. I mean half the porn online is something like "I fcked my 18yo stepsister", not like anyone posting in this thread would ever watch such a thing, lol!

I would not be so sure about that one.

[Castanza]

4 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Yes, Vance is also thinking the same thing.  Put up with 4 years and get a shot at the title to do it the way I want.  But Rubio understands global politics better than anyone in the Trump administration.  He also has balls that I don't think Vance has.  So to keep MAGA world happy and Dems glad it isn't Trump, he's the best solution long-term.  Cheers!

Vance is too ideologically driven. He subscribes to and cites some very questionable philosophies and philosophers. He's smarter and more organized than Trump but is also more easily influenced. Trump is not ideologically driven (a positive). 

 

Rubio is a veteran politician. He only looks sharp because he's on a team of amateurs....I'd like to see some new entrants from both parties. 

[Spekulatius]

5 hours ago, Libs said:

 

To me, this was by far the most important issue in the 2024 election - who, if anyone, would stop Iran from going nuclear.

Any regime that would slaughter 30,000 of its own people would not have hesitated to use them.

 

All the other crap we fight about pales in comparison. IMHO.

 

 

 

Russia has slaughtered a million of its own and does so at a 50K rate per month and has much more and much better nukes than Iran might ever have, has attacked another country with its army (not just military proxy’s) and yet is not a problem, based on the security strategy paper from 2025 where it barely get any mention.

 

Now one could say that we are chipping away at the axes of evil starting with the weakest links first (Venezuela—> Iran —>NK —> Russia—> China). Maybe there is a grand plan, maybe there is not.

Edited March 4 by Spekulatius

[Parsad]

3 hours ago, cubsfan said:

 

+1 - how can one argue with that?

 

They'll find some angle how he is supposed to profit from it.

 

Of course he's going to profit from it...you don't think he's going to take a chunk of Gaza...that the value of that land will be worth a fortune if Iran is out of the picture?  What do you think Kushner is doing in the region...his only goal is to make money there.  Cheers!

[changegonnacome]

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

As long as Trump is President - then it's over to Israel - who knows what nut-bag gets elected in this country.

 

OK that's short term really.

 

I mean your happy with periodically mowing the lawn in Iran then?...vis-a-vie their nuclear capability...I mean we mowed the lawn eight months ago and supposedly 'obliterated' their nuclear program and we are here again going after their nukes............bombing Iran every eight, 12 , 18, 24 months into perpetuity sounds a lot like a forever war to me....but perhaps this bombing will be sufficient to see them capitulate into a JCPOA++++++ (I'd be surprised but its possible). The much more likely scenario is they become wholly convinced of the need for a nuke and just go for it in a way that we haven't seen them do before.

 

Of course a Bibi would say that a no nuke Iran can only be assured by a complete root and branch regime change in Tehran. If you want real assurity on a no nuclear Iran this is the only way and is undoubtedly Bibi's strategic objective.

 

1 hour ago, cubsfan said:

What is your view @changegonnacome on strategic objectives?

 

I really dont know. The fact we are even having this discussion says a lot about where we are. If you think the US is leading events here you're mistaken. It is reacting to events.

 

One day they say its regime change, the next day the US is simply defending itself via preemptive attacks (as Israel had decided to move on Iran with or without the US's support). The following day its all about the nukes again.

 

Presented with this fact pattern its clear to me that the US is not leading here it is reacting here. The US at least now gets to shape the conflict perhaps and more importantly I think Trump gets to control the messaging on the remaining threat Iran poses at the end of this campaign. I think Trump is hopeful that the damage will be so extensive, so public in Iran that Bibi will be in no position to cry wolf on Iran for at least the next three years and he gets to kick the Iran problem to President Newsom

 

Conversely Bibi's job is to somehow engineer a scenario, in the next few weeks/months, where the US is forced to commit ground forces to full on regime change. Its a long way from here to there.....but look how far we've come from defending Israel against rocket attacks, to Fordow to here. The commitments grow deeper with each passing month.

 

The good thing with Trump is that say what you will about him is that he's slippery and he understands optics and PR better than anyone...the Iranian war is terrible politics for him and the GOP, its a huge expense impossible to justify when you are cutting ACA subsidies for 24m Americans...while Bibi works to pull the US further in Trump will be working to create a narrative around Iranian capabilities (post US destruction) that is going to be very hard for Bibi to counter both domestically and in the US.  I'm very curious to see what tricks Bibi has up his sleeve - but make no mistake about it we arent in a forever war yet but we are dangerously close to getting pulled into one. I hope Trump uses every skill he has to ensure that doesn't happen but I fear for him and us......... he's up against an elite level operator in Bibi.

 

 

[Spekulatius]

6 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

 

I think preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is long term oriented thinking.

He should not have torn up Obama’s deal then and made sure the terms were enforced and surveillance thorough. He could always have cancelled the deal later under his presidency if the Iranians would not play ball.

 

I think the issue with that is they he thinks only he can make deals and he is not bound to any deals made by predecessors.

[Red Lion]

2 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Of course he's going to profit from it...you don't think he's going to take a chunk of Gaza...that the value of that land will be worth a fortune if Iran is out of the picture?  What do you think Kushner is doing in the region...his only goal is to make money there.  Cheers!

Would this be such a horrible thing? At least it would help out a lot of other people if this scenario played out, and that would maybe be a first. 

[Libs]

3 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

Russia has slaughtered a million of its own and does so at a 50K rate per month and has much more and much better nukes than Iran might ever have, has attacked another country with its army (not just military proxy’s) and yet is not a problem, based on the security strategy paper from 2025 where it barely get any mention.

 

Now one could say that we are chipping away at the axes of evil starting with the weakest links first (Venezuela—> Iran —>NK —> Russia—> China). Maybe there is a grand plan, maybe there is not.

 

Nuclear weapons in the hands of a doom cult theocracy is much more dangerous than in Russia's hands.

[Red Lion]

2 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

The good thing with Trump is that say what you will about him is that he's slippery and he understands optics and PR better than anyone...the Iranian war is terrible politics for him and the GOP, its a huge expense impossible to justify when you are cutting ACA subsidies for 24m Americans...while Bibi works to pull the US further in Trump will be working to create a narrative around Iranian capabilities (post US destruction) that is going to be very hard for Bibi to counter both domestically and in the US.

You’re probably right, but cutting ACA subsidies for people at >400% of the poverty limit and bombing the shit out of Iran are two (out of 3 total) things that I’m really happy with Trump about. The third being the tax bill. 
 

[Parsad]

29 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

Would this be such a horrible thing? At least it would help out a lot of other people if this scenario played out, and that would maybe be a first. 

 

Nope...would be a good thing.  But let's not pretend that there isn't anything in this for the Trump dynasty.  Cheers!

[changegonnacome]

17 minutes ago, Red Lion said:

bombing the shit out of Iran are two

Understand your point of view on Iran but the American public writ large is not with you on Iran it polls terribly…..if that weren’t enough such expansive and expensive foreign policy is being deployed overseas while at the exact same time at home Government cuts due to “fiscal constraints” are hitting Medicaid, ACA populations ….. well you know your writing the lefts campaign ads for them here.
 

We can debate the merits of the Iran war over the medium long term - short term given they presented no real imminent threat to the US you must acknowledge that what the President is doing in Iran is bad politically for him and the GOP with the midterms looming. 
 

[UK]

16 hours ago, Xerxes said:

The Assembly of Experts may have had its last meeting …

[UK]

16 hours ago, backtothebeach said:

But I do find the moral outrage a bit funny. I mean half the porn online is something like "I fcked my 18yo stepsister", not like anyone posting in this thread would ever watch such a thing, lol!

 of coure not! maybe...for research purposes only 

[UK]

12 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

What is the US strategic objective here in Iran as you understand it?

 

More than 80 percent of Iranian oil exports go to China?

[UK]

11 hours ago, Dalal.Holdings said:

Considering all the drones, arms, etc that Iran has given Russia in its fight with Ukraine, Russia not doing anything material to help Iran's regime is especially noteworthy.

 

 

It sends a clear signal to everyone in the world that thinks that allying with Russia/China will bear fruit one day...

 

+1

[73 Reds]

8 hours ago, Spekulatius said:

He should not have torn up Obama’s deal then and made sure the terms were enforced and surveillance thorough. He could always have cancelled the deal later under his presidency if the Iranians would not play ball.

 

I think the issue with that is they he thinks only he can make deals and he is not bound to any deals made by predecessors.

That deal was perhaps the worst deal in the history of deals.  The Iranians did everything they could to prevent surveillance and they never had any intention of complying anyway so what was the point?  How many times does this have to be stated?   You don't do "deals" with terrorists intent on destroying you.  You don't trust them, you don't placate them, and you don't wait 47 years to finally do something about them.  Tough decisions don't depend on polls and popularity contests.  We finally have the right guy for the job.  

[cubsfan]

9 hours ago, changegonnacome said:

We can debate the merits of the Iran war over the medium long term - short term given they presented no real imminent threat to the US you must acknowledge that what the President is doing in Iran is bad politically for him and the GOP with the midterms looming. 

 

See this is what I don't get - capping Iran was never going to be a winning voter issue. Foreign policy rarely wins elections in America.  So, yes, it's a huge risk to his re-election lest something go catastrophically wrong.  But it's the right thing to do and that goes against your narrative that there is something in it for Trump.

 

My simplistic view is this - there were 2 choices - both bad - therefore difficult.

 

1) Military action against Iran now - bad choice

2) Military action against Iran later -  worse choice

 

All other Presidents took the easy way out and kicked the can down the road- for 47 years running.   Trump choose to option 1, which is deal with it NOW, when Iran is weak. Definitely not popular with his MAGA base - especially if the effort gets the USA dragged into ground action.

 

True leaders make tough awful decisions where the only "safe" alternative is kicking the can down the road making the problem worse. 

 

This is a calculated risky decision that actually could endanger his Presidency - but it's the right one.

[73 Reds]

2 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

 

See this is what I don't get - capping Iran was never going to be a winning voter issue. Foreign policy rarely wins elections in America.  So, yes, it's a huge risk to his re-election lest something go catastrophically wrong.  But it's the right thing to do and that goes against your narrative that there is something in it for Trump.

 

My simplistic view is this - there were 2 choices - both bad - therefore difficult.

 

1) Military action against Iran now - bad choice

2) Military action against Iran later -  worse choice

 

All other Presidents took the easy way out and kicked the can down the road- for 47 years running.   Trump choose to option 1, which is deal with it NOW, when Iran is weak. Definitely not popular with his MAGA base - especially if the effort gets the USA dragged into ground action.

 

True leaders make tough awful decisions where the only "safe" alternative is kicking the can down the road making the problem worse. 

 

This is a calculated risky decision that actually could endanger his Presidency - but it's the right one.

@Cubs Agreed.  In this instance the US should take a cue (and maybe has) from Israel.   In its short existence it has been under constant attack from all its neighbors yet it has never cared about others' opinions when it comes to its own security and defense.  It didn't and does not deal with terrorists and despite forums like the UN that consistently sanction Israel for everything under the sun while ignoring world-wide murderous regimes, it has become the greatest success story in the history of the World with the possible exception of the US in its short 77 year existence, despite starting as a largely barren piece of earth about the size of the State of New Jersey.  A moral compass always transcends politics and Israel is a living example.

[changegonnacome]

46 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

But it's the right thing to do and that goes against your narrative that there is something in it for Trump.

 

I've no narrative on there being something in it for Trump - to the contrary I'm in the camp here that Trump is a reluctant participant and that Bibi is leading events here and Trump reacting. I think Trump naively hoped the Iran matter was closed after Fordow bombings........in the word "obliterated" one can see a whole truckload of hope that he could forget the Middle East for the rest of Presidency and move on.

 

One can see "obliterated" as typical Trump bravado, to me now it seems more like an incantation......his dream at that moment was Iran's nuclear capability was obliterated so he could be done with the Iran/Israel question.

 

49 minutes ago, cubsfan said:

All other Presidents took the easy way out and kicked the can down the road- for 47 years running.   Trump choose to option 1, which is deal with it NOW, when Iran is weak. Definitely not popular with his MAGA base - especially if the effort gets the USA dragged into ground action.

 

True leaders make tough awful decisions where the only "safe" alternative is kicking the can down the road making the problem worse. 

 

 

You may be right - but I think your ascribing too much agency to the President of the United States here......I would re-write your sentence and sub the US President for the Prime Minister of Israel.....as I've said the Trump isnt leading events here, he is reacting to the agency of Bibi. Bibi has come to the same assessment as you have if ever there was a time to hit Iran its now.....they are weak and you've squeezed military commitments from the US President considered previously impossible, its a time (for Bibi) to maintain the momentum and push for more! 

[Red Lion]

11 hours ago, Parsad said:

 

Nope...would be a good thing.  But let's not pretend that there isn't anything in this for the Trump dynasty.  Cheers!

Agreed. I’m not pretending, I’m sure you’re right. 

[cubsfan]

1 hour ago, changegonnacome said:

 

I've no narrative on there being something in it for Trump - to the contrary I'm in the camp here that Trump is a reluctant participant and that Bibi is leading events here and Trump reacting. I think Trump naively hoped the Iran matter was closed after Fordow bombings........in the word "obliterated" one can see a whole truckload of hope that he could forget the Middle East for the rest of Presidency and move on.

 

One can see "obliterated" as typical Trump bravado, to me now it seems more like an incantation......his dream at that moment was Iran's nuclear capability was obliterated so he could be done with the Iran/Israel question.

 

 

You may be right - but I think your ascribing too much agency to the President of the United States here......I would re-write your sentence and sub the US President for the Prime Minister of Israel.....as I've said the Trump isnt leading events here, he is reacting to the agency of Bibi. Bibi has come to the same assessment as you have if ever there was a time to hit Iran its now.....they are weak and you've squeezed military commitments from the US President considered previously impossible, its a time (for Bibi) to maintain the momentum and push for more! 

 

I stand corrected on the "what's in it for Trump". I actually knew that but meant others that claim he's doing it as a way to gain popularity. It's certainly not popular among MAGA - but necessary.

 

As far as Bibi - I'm not privy to what POTUS or Bibi really know in terms of "imminent threat" - but I do know that the nuclear threat must be eliminated regardless.  

 

And yes, it does bother me that in the summer - we were one and done with the nuclear threat, but now all of a sudden - we're not.  I trust Trump & Bibi far more than any of our other past actors that just tried to pay off Iran and hope for the best.

 

One of these days we will know whether Trump was Bibi's sucker.