The Mission
Link to quote: Marco Rubio on Capitol Hill: 'Hardest Hits Yet To Come' Against Iran | Military.com
Two days ago, the Secretary of State laid out what the US is trying to accomplish and what to expect in the coming days. The dying fanatical regime in Iran is desperately trying to inflict as many casualties as possible and widen the war hoping that President Trump will worry about midterms or lose heart and quit. Once again, they are misjudging Donald Trump. I suppose that is because of the recent policies of weakness in place before the Trump Presidency.
The cowards in Europe have not supported our President. In England where Islamists have political power in the Labor Party along with those who hate Isreal, the US and even Britian itself, the Prime Minister has knuckled under to the pressure and turned his back not only on the US, but on the west as well. Keir Starner wants it to be clear that the UK played no part in the strikes in Iran that removed a murderous dictator. Other European nations seem to have their fingers in the air, waiting to see how things turn out. By denying the US military air space and logistics they made the effort a bit harder. Let us never forget.
That brings us to the American left which dominates the democrat party:
"Congressional Democrats are expected to push a vote this week on whether to authorize the use of further military force in Iran .
On February 28, President Donald Trump began what he called “major combat operations” in Iran that resulted in the death of nation's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , dozens of top officials and four U.S. Service members – without asking Congressional approval . While most Republicans in Congress are supporting his actions, Democrats are calling it “a war of choice” that should have required approval by lawmakers under the Constitution.
Many of them are demanding a vote on the War Powers Resolution, which would restrain Trump’s ability to further attack Iran without congressional approval.
Democrats call for vote on Trump war powers. How will your senator vote?
We all recall when the shoe was on the other foot:
"A clip of former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has resurfaced online where she flatly defended the then-Obama administration’s decision to strike Libya — without the congressional authorization she believes President Donald Trump should have secured before conducting his own strikes over the weekend.
"You’re saying that the president did not need authorization initially and still does not need any authorization from Congress on Libya?" a reporter asked Pelosi at a press event back in 2011.
"Yes," Pelosi answered plainly.
FLASHBACK: Nancy Pelosi defended Obama's Libya strikes without Congress approval | Fox News
As some may recall, Obama's war on Libya went on for 7 months. Trump has only hit Iran for 4 days.
The exercise is invoking the act is nothing more than political theatre for the democrat base. Trump can veto any restrictions if they ever got through congress.
One final thing is the issue of treason:
"House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries predicted failure for the U.S. in an interview on Monday after the U.S. and Israel carried out strikes against Iran over the weekend.
CNN's Bolduan asked the House minority leader if he thought Trump could pull off regime change without boots on the ground.
"No, that's impossible for him to do. Now, he's claiming that he's not going to put U.S. boots on the ground, but he's claimed a lot of things only to do the exact opposite. This is the same person who said he is coming back to the presidency to get America out of endless wars, and now he has just gotten us into a potential endless war in the Middle East of all places, where we know, based on what happened in Afghanistan, based on what happened in Iraq, based on what happened in Libya, it's not going to end well for American interests," he responded."
Hakeem Jeffries predicts Iran strikes will result in failure for US | Fox News
Aside from the military action in Iran, there were primaries held last night:
In Texas the democrats appear to have accomplished their goal of defeating Jasmine Crockett, whom many feel could never win a statewide election in Texas. They are going with one of their so-called "moderates" in James Talarico.
Republicans are on their way to a runoff.
In North Carolina Roy Cooper, a former Democratic governor, won the Democratic primary for a Senate seat. Michael Whatley, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, won the Republican primary.
At a Senate hearing yesterday, Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, was grilled by both democrats & Republicans. Today she testifies before a House Committee.
Tags
Who is online
95 visitors
Good morning and welcome to the Vic Eldred Cast.
in a large number of national polls, 60% of americans don't support the criminal/traitor/child molester POS/POTUS ...
Time will tell.
I think this action lasts about 1 month.
According to the presidential war powers act he had 60 days to conduct operations , he has about 55 left i think if my computations are correct .
the infamous prediction made of almost every war a republican president has started ...
The 'action' may not last a month. But the United States won't be able to walk away. All those European 'traitors' know a quagmire when they see one.
So, what's the scoreboard look like?
Trump cannot tell us why he started the Iranian war. Trump cannot tell us how he will end the Iranian war. But Trump has assured us we have endless stockpiles for endless war.
You want everyone to bobble-head that Trump is removing 'bad men'. Yeah, that's true. But why is Trump doing it in such fumb duck manner?
Once again, you are correct.
Thus far the US military is meeting all of their primary objectives. I don't see the need for 60 days.
You mean FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ and Barack Obama?
I didn't know they all said that!
I think they will and we can finally leave the middle east to others.
So, what's the scoreboard look like?
It looks like a lot of shit is getting solved.
Trump cannot tell us why he started the Iranian war. Trump cannot tell us how he will end the Iranian war. But Trump has assured us we have endless stockpiles for endless war.
He told us. Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. The entire world should be thankful. I'm sure future generations will be.
He also told us he obliterated Iran's capability. (And deserved a Nobel Prize for doing it.) Trump's house of fibrications is beginning to look like the East Wing.
Trump may think he's the best thing since the Maxim gun but not even Trump can kill a religion. Ali Khamenei was the Muslim pope for Shia Islam. Trump has destabilized an entire religion. And those hardline religious fanatics don't seem to respect western measures of defeat. How many are residing in the United States?
Trump Republicans have steadily beat the drum of warning about Sharia Law in the United States. Ali Khamenei was the Shia religious leader. And we're supposed to believe everything will be fine? Don't Trump Republicans listen to their own 'enemy within' rhetoric?
Yes, he did AND WE HAVE INTELL PICTURES OF THEM TRYING TO REBUILD IT.
Trump may think he's the best thing since the Maxim gun but not even Trump can kill a religion. Ali Khamenei was the Muslim pope for Shia Islam. Trump has destabilized an entire religion. And those hardline religious fanatics don't seem to respect western measures of defeat. How many are residing in the United States?
I really don't like to be put in the position, but not all Islam is Shia, nor was all of it so radical. Why do you favor them? Isn't that what Obama did? I have no idea how many reside here, but if you recall I once said we should not allow people in who are in conflict with our culture.
Trump Republicans have steadily beat the drum of warning about Sharia Law in the United States. Ali Khamenei was the Shia religious leader. And we're supposed to believe everything will be fine?
The alternative is to do what Britain has done, surrender and beg for their mercy.
How the fuck do we know that? The Iranians can't just abandon enriched radioactive material in bombed out facilities. So it is plainly obvious that material will have to be moved and stockpiled somewhere. Iran really is operating a nuclear power reactor, too. The Iranian Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant Unit 1 is a 1,000 MWe PWR generator unit.
That's true. Shia Muslims are a minority of about 15% of the 2 billion Muslims around the world. (For the scorekeepers the size of the global Shia population is close to the size of the population of the United States.)
Why are Trump Republicans so binary? This 'with us or against us' bullshit has become juvenile jingoism. If I tell you that poking a skunk with stick is a bad idea that doesn't mean I'm rooting for the skunk.
So, when do the deportations start? Dearborn seems a good place to start. EPIC in Texas needs to be cooled by ICE. Or is Kristi Noem only going to shoot Democrats?
“Trump has destabilized an entire religion.”
More specifically, he has disrupted the entire world and most frighteningly, here at home. All with no coherent plan, no concept of the ramifications, and with puerile disdain of established principles and blatant disregard of established laws
And to what end? Other than a costly and dangerous and ultimately unjustifiable attempt at self-aggrandizement and self-preservation.
Pathetic does not begin to describe the level of ignorance and incompetence that comes to light with every detail of every aspect of this administration.
You also thought the Ukraine would fall to Russia faster than that.
Along with just about everyone else.
Did you think it would go on for 4 years?
That's actually rather insignificant. What is alarming is that Trump seems to believe that he can bomb Iran back to the stone age and then just walk away. Doesn't Trump realize that Israel's involvement confounds the 'conquering hero' narrative? Turning Iran into another Gaza won't end well. And Trump's Board of Peace may balk at the expectations being dumped on them.
The thing to watch at home is how Kristi Noem uses Iranians to try to rehabilitate public perception of ICE. It seems quite predictable that Noem will use 'national security' to justify a crackdown on Iranians in the US. Noem would be stupid enough to broaden that to labeling all Muslims a security threat and transforming Trump's Iranian operation into a holy war.
The opportunities for incompetent screw-ups are as bottomless as our military stockpiles.
I see we are still dwelling in fiction.
Longer, and so far it has much like 99.9% of wars. The US is not the sole nation in which "my country right or wrong" is a maxim.
It's a tossup as to who among the 'best of the best' goes first, Noem, Bondi, Hegseth, Pirro ...
Jed Vance needs all the sympathy he can get, right now, because he's stuck in the middle of the circular firing squad.
Vance was brutally buried in Southpark.
Then how, exactly, does this make sense to you:
Given this:
Despite destroying the sites, Iran had ballistic missiles and already had nuclear enrichment:
"President Trump’s top Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, revealed that Iran had amassed enough highly enriched uranium for 11 nuclear bombs and could have upgraded some of it to weapons-grade within days — a realization he said underscored the urgency of Operation Epic Fury."
Witkoff warns there was 'almost no stopping' Iran from enriching uranium
Trump does not know what he is talking about. He constantly invents an alternate reality and does not care (or know) that he contradicts himself and solid facts.
Why do his supporters continue to think this buffoon is grounded in reality?
You still lack the proof that he is wrong.
He constantly invents an alternate reality and does not care (or know) that he contradicts himself and solid facts.
Saying that nuclear sites were destroyed and that Iran is trying to rebuild them is in no way a contradiction.
Why do his supporters continue to think this buffoon is grounded in reality?
I can only speak for myself. I am 100% against what the left has done to America and I want it eradicated.
He contradicts himself, Vic. That, for those who understand logic, is proof of being wrong.
Saying they were obliterated and then saying they would have had a bomb in two weeks is a contradiction.
You blame everything on 'the left'. That is irrational reasoning.
No moving goalposts. We are talking specifically about the attack on Iranian nuclear sites. There was no contradiction.
Saying they were obliterated and then saying they would have had a bomb in two weeks is a contradiction.
No, it is not. Destroying the sites had nothing to do with enrichment the Iranians already had.
You blame everything on 'the left'.
Yes, I do.
That is irrational reasoning.
Today I begin with American education.
[✘]
But have you considered the possibility of the Iranians having "sleeper cells" in place within the continental U.S.?
at the rate of hate trump is fomenting internationally, they'll have to take a number and wait like everyone else ...
/s
Some leftists either have, or on their way to stage 4 terminal TDS...just like Carville
" “I Want To Hate Him More”: Carville Embraces “TDS” In Unhinged Viral Rant Against Trump - AOL "
Exactly, Vic. Trump claimed their nuclear capabilities were obliterated and now tries to justify this attack (war, whatever this is) by claiming that unless he acted they would have a nuclear bomb in two weeks.
That is a contradiction.
Trump is a buffoon.
Do not support, do not defend a buffoon.
Then you admit to clear irrational thinking.
The Iranian regime is hell bent on developing nuclear weapons.
Thank God Trump came along. It is too bad we had to go through the Biden years, but at least we got Trump back.
Clear thinking = Iran can never have nuclear weapons.
Of course Iran has been trying to be a nuclear power.
You keep deflecting from the fact that Trump bragged that he had obliterated their nuclear abilities (we all knew that was bullshit) and now claims that they would have had a bomb in two weeks had he not started this war/bombing party/… He blatantly contradicted himself.
Tell us how you know that those facilities weren't destroyed??????
and now claims that they would have had a bomb in two weeks had he not started this war/bombing party/…
I got that part. He says things in a way that he shouldn't. As we speak, Martha Raddatz hosting ABC's This Week just asked about Trump's latest statement to the British Prime Minister, who is suddenly considering sending warships to the middle east as support for the US. Trump said the following:
"The United Kingdom, our once Great Ally, maybe the Greatest of them all, is finally giving serious thought to sending two aircraft carriers to the Middle East," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "That’s OK, Prime Minister Starmer, we don’t need them any longer — But we will remember. We don’t need people that join Wars after we’ve already won!"
Trump slams British PM over possible aircraft carrier deployment to Middle East | Fox News
So, Raddatz latched onto the last part of that. She asked a Republican congressman "If the war has been won?"
Obviously, the war is not yet won, though Iran has been largely defanged militarily. It is equally obvious as to what Trump meant. The British Prime minister denied the US use of bases in Britain and refused to support the US until it became clear that the US had taken control of the air space over Iran and knocked out about 75% of Iran's missile launchers. He could have simply said that he refused the aid of fair-weather friends, but he left himself open by saying the war was already won.
I'm 100% in favor of what Trump has done to Iran. Should I be against it because of these comments?
You are not paying attention. I have not expressed personal knowledge but rather exposed yet another contradiction from the liar in chief.
Trump claims the nuclear capabilities were obliterated.
Trump now claims that if he had not started this war that Iran would have had a nuclear bomb in two weeks.
Yeah, an understatement when it comes to Trump. He lies ... constantly ... he just says whatever he wishes were true. The man is sick.
This is an example of denying what Trump says and does and substituting one's own alternate reality.
Of course you are. Trump did it, you support it. No surprise. And if Trump had done it as a D PotUS you would almost certainly be 100% against it.
No, you should base your opinions on solid facts using critical thinking. Right now it is very difficult to determine if this war is justified given we do not have the intelligence and must give Trump the benefit of the doubt. But note that Trump does not have the authority to declare war but he has ipso facto done so with his actions (and words).
clearer thinking = name the 2 republicans from both bush administrations that enabled iran and NK to produce their own weapons grade materials. [insert double jeopardy theme music]
I seem to remember some scandal during Reagan's presidency, too. Something about selling weapons (admittedly not nuclear, so far as I know) to Iran in order to fund some fighters in Nicaragua, not to mention Manuel Noriega, whom we had to go back and arrest a few years later.
Like Bush II. He must have studied Bush's time in office
Do you a problem with the US fighting Nazis in WWII? You are forever bringing up FDR like he's a devil or something
that goes back to the last time nazi loving republicans, preston bush and some of his republican millionaire pals, were fantasizing about a military coup to take over american gov't ...
the actual imminent threat to america is sitting in the oval office ...
Imagine telling someone is 2015 after Iran captured American sailors and mistreated them how powerless the regime actually was and that there were other options instead of giving them pallets of cash to fund even more terrorism.
And that is their untouchable hero
ODS
By the way, Trump cannot make an insurance company out of thin air.
trumpco casualty insurance, where their motto is-
"we cost less than anyone has ever seen before, because we only deny claims due to acts of war"
For the first time since WWII:
US Secretary of War Hegseth: "An American submarine sunk an Iranian warship that thought it was safe in international waters. Instead, it was sunk by a torpedo, quiet death, the first sinking of an enemy ship by a torpedo since World War II."
American Submarine Sank Iranian Warship in Indian Ocean, Hegseth Says
I think it is one thing if that vessel is, or has shown that it is actively hostile. That ship finished training with the Indian Navy a week ago; why was it still loitering near Sri Lanka?
Why sneak up on a barely moving ship full of sleeping sailors and then celebrate their murder?
They could have been easily persuaded to surrender and put into a neutral port in Sri Lanka instead of further polluting the Indian Ocean.
No planning, no vision.
SMH
Yup, we shouldn't have bombed Hiroshima either / S
SMH
Who struck first and declared war on us? Japan.
Who declared war on Japan and vowed to avenge the 2400 killed at Pearl Harbor. FDR for the USA.
Hiroshima was the culmination of 4 years of reaction, industrialization and island hopping across the Pacific to minimize our casualties.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were intended to avoid 3 more year of fighting for every inch of Japan and the remaining 72 million Japanese.
Post Shah Iran and the USA have never formally declared war.
One reason is that Iran is more than 4 times larger than Japan with 92 million people many of whom are just as devoted to their theocrasy as the Japanese were to the Emperor.
The POTUS and Speaker of the House insist that this isn't a war, war. The SOS gives one reason, POTUS another why it is a defensive first strike to stop a war.
Remember how stupid it sounded when Bill Clinton wanted to know what the definition of "is" is?
Well we seem to have come full circle, only this is going to cost trillions more than a silly old impeachment.
The regime in Iran has been at war with us for the entire time it has been in power and if they had a nuclear bomb they would have used it.
Prove it....
Asking someone to prove a hypothetical...
You believe they wouldn't?
I consider the Iranians to be far superior in intelligence to the North Koreans who somehow figured it out, possibly with the help of India or Pakistan, who also figured it out decades ago in spite of the secrecy and reticence of the original 5 nuclear powers.
If believe if they wanted a nuke they would have had it a long time ago.
You justified a sneak attack against an ideological foe that didn't attack us and your justification was purely hypothetical. They have no nukes. There has been no evidence presented to even suggest that they are close to having nukes. But you think because if they had them someday, they would hypothetically use them immediately unlike all the other countries that have them and don't. Can you get more dishonest? Nope, I don't think you can.
I have no love for the crazy Iranian religious conservative regime, I think they should all rot in hell if it actually existed. But the tens of millions of Iranian people should not have to suffer for the crimes of a few, and they certainly shouldn't have to suffer for hypothetical crimes made up by some other fucking crazy religious conservatives. The problem isn't Iran or America; it's these fucking crazy religious conservatives on both sides who are forcing everyone else into their god damned pointless stupid religious wars.
Pete Hegseth has a hands free orgasm every time he says the words " We are killing them"
Then he shouldn't have made the claim...
Correct, I do not believe they would.
While successful in preventing direct war between major powers, nuclear deterrence has not prevented proxy wars or peripheral conflicts. It is criticized for its ethical implications and the risk of catastrophic failure. Modern applications, particularly by the U.S., focus on targeting adversary, leadership, and command/control structures rather than populations.
Well I could simply use the obvious and use the words of Iran's dead leader. On the other hand I could respond in a way that might get me a justified suspension.
Still deciding.
Remember, our mostly dead POTUS has also talked and threatened to nuke hurricanes. But he hasn't yet. Talk is cheap.
I double-dog dare you...
Listen to the bluster of other dictators. Remember our ally Sadam Hussein. He blustered and threatened too.
Have you listened to our own POTUS?
More of the same.
Although we did attack them on a Saturday morning break in negotiations just like the Japanese did to the USA..
and y'alls are cheering the sinking and cold blooded murder on the high seas of their frigate by one of our submarines in international waters in an undeclared war
breaking every maritime law that hasn't been done since the Germans in both World Wars.
that is a prime example of what Kelly and others were talking about, an illegal order.
What an asinine meme. Have you no shame?
Ask AI or any adult when Iran's nuclear pursuits began. It was the Shah. Obama wasn't even born yet.
Our ally? The question is who are you allying with?
Have you listened to our own POTUS?
Yes, I have and I voted for him 3 times.
More of the same.
Wha?
Although we did attack them on a Saturday morning break in negotiations just like the Japanese did to them.
I'm not getting it. Who is them?
and y'alls are cheering the sinking and cold blooded murder on the high seas of their frigate by one of our submarines in international waters in an undeclared war
breaking every maritime law that hasn't been done since the Germans in both World Wars.
That is false on many grounds. Iran has been conducting a war with us since the ayatollah took power in 1979. They either killed American directly or where behind the killing of Americans. They have assassinated innocent people all over the world. They also have steadfastly declared death to America and death to Israel. And they were intent on building nuclear weapons. They just shot missiles into approximately 11 countries who did nothing to Iran. They killed tens of thousands of their own people. I can't believe I have to explain all this.
Do you really want us to be dealing with this regime into the future?
(And one more thing you are wrong about: Germany warned nations supplying Britian that they would be subject to submarine attack in both wars. Do you recall the Lusitania, the passenger liner which Wilson used to get us into WWI? Below the passenger decks it was loaded with ammunition for Britian.)
that is a prime example of what Kelly and others were talking about, an illegal order.
The orders are perfectly legal and what Kelly and other democrats were calling for was for the US military to ignore the Commander-in-Chief.
Obama has as much responsibility for Iran's "nuke program" as you do.
Well, technically the deal the Obama administrations set Iran back or at a minimum stalled them for a decade where they would not be able to reach nuke capability. The problem was that there were sunset clauses in the deal which would expire and would have to be renegotiated after 10 years and Iran would get access to some of its frozen assets aka the "pallets of cash" conservatives continue to harp about. So, Obama did have an effect. The effect of delaying their nuclear program for about a year. But of course, as soon as trump came in, he broke the deal, so they broke the deal which meant they got the pallets of cash for almost nothing and here we are.
Oh, you mean we aren't supposed to talk bad about democrats? No, I'm never going to abide by that rule.
It was the Shah. Obama wasn't even born yet.
You mean what was meant for an ally was going to be in the hands of an enemy?
In that case what did we do about it?
Here is what Obama did:
"Last week, Iran and the six world powers—the United States, China, Russia, Great Britain, France, and Germany—plus the European Union signed a nuclear deal called the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.” Any examination of this deal has to start with the ugly but accurate assumption that Iran will, at every opportunity, act in bad faith.
The agreement starts off on a grand note: “The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iranˈs nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons.” But it is straight downhill from there.
The first problem with the deal is that it gives Iran an undeserved respectability that comes simply from being allowed to sign a significant international agreement.
Worse still, China and Russia should not be understood as adverse to Iran, their present and future ally. They are better understood as a Fifth Column against the West, and Iran’s many other foes, whose role in the negotiations is akin to the role that Vladimir Putin played in the embarrassing negotiations over chemical weapons in Syria that all but destroyed Obama’s credibility in foreign policy. Putin will be happy to take any excess uranium ore off the hands of the Iranians. But at the most opportune time, he might be prepared to return it to Iran if doing so would benefit Russia. The Chinese, for their part, also sense weakness in the United States and the West, as they build up illegal islands in the South China Sea subject to our diplomatic objections that accomplish nothing.
The remaining parties are our nominal allies who must believe that this nuclear deal represents a retreat from the basic proposition of Pax Americana —the guarantee that the U.S. will provide meaningful guarantees for the security of its allies. Our allies may well become less hostile to Russia and China precisely because they cannot count on U.S. leadership in tough times. The situation is starker still for the Israelis, who fear that the deal will embolden the Iranians to create more mischief in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Saudis are probably next in line in this belief. And both are surely right.
Iran’s promises count for nothing. Iran is quite happy to fund Bashar al-Assad in Syria, to back Hamas, and to launch terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East. It is eager to confront its Sunni rivals, most notably Saudi Arabia, by supporting their enemies. It is eager to annihilate Israel. Indeed now that the agreement seems in place, the Ayatollah says flat out that deal or no deal, “we will never stop supporting our friends in the region and the people of Palestine, Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain and Lebanon.”
Why then would anyone be surprised that Iran would be willing to make high-sounding promises that it has every intention to quickly break? Does anyone really agree with the President’s rosy view that Iran will reciprocate our respect with its respect? Putting our best foot forward makes sense with ordinary business deals where reputations count. It makes no sense when dealing with a Holmesian bad man who has no need or intention of reciprocating good will with good will.
In this sort of negotiating environment, reviewing the counterparty’s track record is a must, and Iran’s is far from laudable. Hence the guts of this deal lie not in lofty preambles, but in its gritty details of enforcement and sanctions, two issues which should be non-negotiable—a word that President Obama never invokes to defend our position.
One issue concerns the sequence in which the various stipulations of the agreement go into play. The black mark against this agreement is that it virtually guarantees immediate removal of the full set of economic sanctions against Iran, which will lead to an infusion of cash, perhaps in excess of $150 billion, into the country, some fraction of which will promptly flow to affiliate groups that cause mayhem around the world. But what does the President say about this substantial negative? Nothing. He just ignores it.
In his much-ballyhooed interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, he stated: “Don’t judge me on whether this deal transforms Iran, ends Iran’s aggressive behavior toward some of its Arab neighbors or leads to détente between Shiites and Sunnis. Judge me on one thing: Does this deal prevent Iran from breaking out with a nuclear weapon for the next 10 years and is that a better outcome for America, Israel and our Arab allies than any other alternative on the table?”
In fact, we should judge President Obama and his treaty harshly on each of these points. By providing Iran with billions of dollars of immediate cash, this agreement will help Iran fund wars and terrorist attacks that could take thousands of lives. To offset this possibility, the President has indicated that he will try to bolster American assistance to the various countries that will be affected by Iranian aggression, but none of our allies can have much confidence in the leadership of a President who has made at best negligible progress in dealing with ISIS. His public vow to never put American ground forces in the Middle East turns out to be the only promise that he is determined to keep—for the benefit of our sworn enemies who have greater freedom of action given his iron clad guarantee. The objection to the President here is not that he has merely failed to curb Iranian mischief. It is that his clumsy deal will massively subsidize it.
Second, there is no more “snap back” here. Once the sanctions set out explicitly in the agreement are lifted from Iran, they won’t be reinstated any time soon. Gone are the days of anytime, anywhere inspections. In stark contrast, Articles 36 and 37 of the agreement outline a tortuous review process to reinstate any sanctions. First the Joint Commission must act, then the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, and then a nonbinding opinion by a three-member Advisory Board must be issued. If the matter is not resolved to mutual satisfaction after this process runs its course, any participant “could treat the unresolved issue as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this ICPOA.”
Section 37 then contains a murky provision under which the UN Security Council might possibly reimpose sanctions in part. But the entire procedure could take months, and at the end of this process Iran is free to walk if it does not like the outcome. Iran would also know that reassembling the original set of sanctions would be extremely difficult. Putting this agreement in place will likely end collective sanctions irreversibly.
And what do we get in exchange for all of the added risks we assume? The President claims that we have secured the best path possible to slow down the ability of the Iranians to make a nuclear weapon for at least ten years. But why should anyone believe that that will be the result when we are dealing with the quintessential bad man? The only safe way to slow down Iran’s nuclear capabilities is to do what the President claimed was necessary earlier, which is to knock out Iran’s total production of enriched uranium, subject to constant supervision.
It is all too clear that what Obama has offered today is a far cry from the deal he outlined to the country before these negotiations. It was easy for the President to talk tough to Mitt Romney in the course of their 2012 debates by then claiming it was “straightforward” that Iran has to “give up” its nuclear program in its entirety. As the President once recognized, there are no peaceful ends for which Iran needs a nuclear program. It is awash in oil, and it can satisfy any desire for medical isotopes by buying off-the-shelf products from any of a dozen nations that would be thrilled to supply them for free.
The agreement dramatically changes Iran’s status as an international aggressor. Elliott Abrams gives us the grim tally . Right off the bat, Iran’s nuclear program has gone from illegal to legal. The new agreement lets Iran keep 6,000 centrifuges and it allows the country to continue to do its own weapons research. It is likely that it can do a lot more outside the agreement as well. In five years the agreement lifts an arms embargo and in eight years all restrictions on ballistic missiles will be lifted.
It is often said that negotiation involves the process of give and take, by which it is not meant that the United States and its allies give and Iran takes. Unfortunately, that pattern has been observed in this recent deal. Iran had no hesitation in stating in the eleventh hour that various limitations on its sovereignty, e.g. inspections, were “unacceptable.” Today its position is that the sanctions must be lifted immediately. But the Obama administration was extraordinarily reluctant to say that any Iranian proposal was unacceptable. The drama in the negotiation was how far the Iranians would push the agreement to their side of the table—which is exactly what to expect from any negotiation that relies exclusively on carrots and disdains all sticks.
This agreement does not require detailed study to conclude that it is a dead loser. Nonetheless, the United States has put it forward in the United Nations for approval before Congress has spoken, and the President, incorrigible as ever, has announced that he will veto any Congressional legislation that seeks to block the treaty. Many members of his own party do not share the President’s unfailing instinct for self-destruction. They should join the Republicans to reject the treaty by veto-proof majorities in both houses before the President and his team can do any further harm. "
Obama’s Disastrous Iran Deal | Hoover Institution Obama’s Disastrous Iran Deal
He did it and he financed it.
How do you know that.
Where inspectors allowed to go anywhere they wanted to go?
Nice, But you have to teach your AI to render pallets properly.
Iran's nuclear program was started in the 1950's by Dwight D. Eisenhower in the "Atoms For Peace" initiative.
It got a little sidetracked when the Islamic revolution occurred, But by 1990's it was going again, this time covertly enriching Uranium towards bomb grade, even though Iran was still considered to be a signatory of the NPT of 1968.
Ok that was a long winded opinion by a right wing screamer.
Obama as the head of one of the JCPOA was obligated by that Treaty and by International law to return any frozen Iranians assets held in his country
just as the other 6 countries did.
We are a nation of laws and abide by those treaties and laws.
That Iran didn't is a separate matter.
you are living in a hypothetical world.
And where necessary, Bush and Obama and Trump retaliated.
If hateful rhetoric were illegal, you certainly would not be allowed to participate here.
Another huge failure.
The Lusitania was not stopped and searched. 1,198 drowned including 128 Americans.
There is no declared war by Congress, ergo, sinking a combatant without warning violates US and Admiralty laws.
You do realize that the USA does not allow IAEA inspectors to go anywhere they want, right? We lean on "National Security" and only allow our people under the NRC to do the work for the IEAE.
Pretty cozy arrangement, eh?
Yes Sadam
The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the legal truth.
But thanks for the inuendo.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. And even now you do not realize how you have contributed to the whole planetary drive.
Stop.
Think.
Then take action.
With this administration it is more like:
Act
What the fuck did we just do?
Justify.
Gee, what a misleading thing to say!
It was Iran who placed limits on inspections as part of Obama's "deal."
"The Obama administration’s nuclear agreement with Iran has major flaws that could dangerously undermine the long-term national security interests of the United States and its allies.
Although the administration entered the negotiations pledging to cut off all pathways to a nuclear weapon, the agreement amounts to little more than a diplomatic speed bump that will delay, but not permanently halt, Iran’s drive for a nuclear weapons capability.
The agreement in effect legitimizes Iran as a nuclear threshold state.
Once key restrictions on uranium enrichment expire in 10 to 15 years, Iran will have the option to develop an industrial scale enrichment program that will make it easier for it to sprint cross that threshold.
Iran used red lines and deadlines to wear down the administration, which played a strong hand weakly.
The administration undermined its own bargaining position by making it clear that it wanted a nuclear agreement more than Tehran seems to have wanted one, despite the fact that Tehran needed an agreement more for economic reasons.
The administration’s downplaying of the military option and front-loading of sanctions relief early in the negotiations reduced Iranian incentives to make concessions.
This gave the Iranians bargaining leverage they have used shrewdly.
Iran dug in its heels on key red lines proclaimed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, while the administration’s red lines gradually became blurred pink lines.
Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is left largely intact. Centrifuges will be mothballed but not dismantled.
Iran’s illicit nuclear facilities Natanz and Fordow, whose operations were supposed to be shut down under multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions, have now been legitimized, despite the fact that they were built covertly in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Iran is essentially rewarded for cheating under the agreement.
It gained a better deal on uranium enrichment than Washington has offered to its own allies.
Taiwan, South Korea and the United Arab Emirates were denied enrichment arrangements that Iran now has pocketed.
Instead of dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the agreement dismantles the sanctions that brought Tehran to the negotiating table in the first place.
This fact is not lost on our allies, friends and “frenemies” in the region.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who understandably sees Iran’s potential nuclear threat as an existential issue, denounced the deal as “a historic mistake.”
Sunni Arab states threatened by Iran are likely to hedge their bets and take out insurance by working to expand their own nuclear options.
Saudi Arabia already has let it be known that it will demand the same concessions on uranium enrichment that Iran received.
The Saudis have begun negotiations to buy French nuclear reactors and this civilian program could become the foundation for a weapons program down the line.
Other Arab states and Turkey are likely to tee up their own nuclear programs as a prudent counterweight to offset to Iran’s expanding nuclear potential, after some of the restrictions on its uranium enrichment program automatically sunset.
The end result could be accelerated nuclear proliferation and a possible nuclear arms race in the most volatile region in the world.
Another major problem is verification of Iranian compliance.
The administration’s initial insistence on “anytime/anywhere” inspections was downgraded to “sometimes/some places.”
Iran has up to 14 days to weigh the requests of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. If it decides to object, its objections would be relayed to an arbitration committee that would have 7 days to rule. If it rules against Iran, Tehran would have another 3 days to arrange an inspection.
This gives Iran up to 24 days to move, hide or destroy materials sought by inspectors. This is far from a foolproof system, particularly in light of Iran’s long history of cheating.
Sanctions relief is another potential headache. Tehran would benefit by the release of about $150 billion of its money frozen in overseas accounts.
Ultimately the Iranian economy would be boosted by tens of billions of dollars more through a surge of oil revenues as oil sanctions are lifted.
This could help Iran reshape the regional balance of power and establish hegemony over Iraq, Yemen, important oil resources and oil supply routes.
Much of this money will go to fund the Assad regime, Hezbollah, Yemeni Houthi rebels, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other terrorist groups funded by Iran.
This would rapidly lead to escalation of the wars, shadow wars and civil wars already taking place around the Middle East.
The dangers posed by Iran’s enhanced ability to finance global terrorism would be compounded by the administration’s last minute capitulation on the U.N. arms embargo, which will be gradually eased if Iran remains in compliance with the agreement.
This would allow Iran to upgrade its conventional weapons through imports from foreign suppliers and enable it to more easily arm its foreign allies and surrogates.
The bottom line is that the Obama administration now has signed an agreement that will expand Iran’s power and influence, strain U.S. relations with its regional friends, weaken long-standing non-proliferation goals on restricting access to sensitive nuclear technologies and contribute to the evolution of a multi-polar nuclear Middle East."
The Most Glaring Flaws in Obama’s Iran Deal | The Heritage Foundation
Oh, but I do realize that I'm part of a counter-revolution against the left.
And we know how much Iran obeyed "International Law." And the JCPOA was not a "treaty!" The US congress never voted on it. Thus, it was called the "Iran Deal."
The money involved was supposed to go to the Shah's government, not the rogue regime which overthrew it. More consequential was the end of sanctions which restored the ability of Iran to sow terror throughout the region. I guess one could argue that Obama created the behemoth which is now being slaughtered.
Ok that was a long winded opinion by a right wing screamer.
Try and remember the rules.
As is every other sane American
Don't worry, they know what this is about.
It is 100% the truth.
The NRC limits the IEAE to 20 locations but the NRC does the work for them, the IEAE hasn't participated in decades.
Those sites almost exclusively deal with electrical generation and storage sites for nuclear waste.
The IEAE has ZERO access to US military nukes, silos, storage or naval reactors.
NADA.
The Iranian's just want to be treated like the USA< China and Russia when it comes to uranium.
Your biased opinions from The Heritage Foundations are meaningless.
What? the Shah's government no longer exists; isn't that why we dropped out of two or three nuclear treaties with Russia, because the treaties were with the U.S.S.R.?
What?
Unlike many on this seed, I will take a ticket in stride and never look back, never go to META or HD to vomit hatred and churlish threats with sweeping comments
or to threaten to quit the site, again and again...
Thanks for another enlightening episode of The Vic Eldred Cast. /S
[deleted][✘]
LMAO! Yup!
Where did that happen and what are you implying?
I'm sure you can list the times that Iran has physically attacked the USA? We'll wait.
Our troops and citizens ARE the USA.
Enjoy the read
November 1979-January 1981 : Iranian students — with the backing of Tehran — take dozens of Americans hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.
April 1983: A suicide car bombing kills 63 people, including 17 Americans, at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. The Iran-backed terrorist group Islamic Jihad, a precursor and early branch of Hezbollah (not to be confused with Palestinian Islamic Jihad), claims responsibility.
October 1983: Operatives of the Iran-backed Hezbollah drive a truck bomb at a Marine compound in Beirut, killing 220 U.S. Marines and 21 other service personnel.
December 1983: Hezbollah operatives drive an explosives-filled dump truck through the gates of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait City. No Americans are harmed.
March 1984: Terrorists kidnap CIA station chief William Buckley in Beirut, subsequently torturing and ultimately killing him in 1985. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.
December 1984: Hezbollah terrorists hijack Kuwait Airways Flight 221 on its way from Kuwait to Pakistan and divert it to Tehran, killing two American officials from the U.S. Agency for International Development.
June 1985: Hezbollah terrorists hijack TWA Flight 847 en route from Athens to Rome and kill a U.S. Navy diver.
July 1989: Hezbollah operatives kill U.S. Marine Corps Col. William Higgins after kidnapping him the previous year while on a UN peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon.
April 1995: An explosives-laden van crashes into a bus near Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip, killing one American and seven Israelis. Palestinian Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.
August 1995: A Hamas suicide bomber blows up a bus in the Ramat Eshkol neighborhood of Jerusalem, killing an American and three other passengers and wounding more than 100.
February 1996: A Hamas suicide bomber blows up a Jerusalem bus, killing three Americans and wounding three other Americans. A total of 26 people die in the attack.
March 1996: A suicide bomber blows up the Dizengoff shopping center in Tel Aviv, wounding two Americans. Twenty people die and 75 others are injured in the attack. Both Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad claim responsibility.
May 1996: Gunmen kill an American-Israeli dual citizen in the community of Beit El in the West Bank. Another U.S. citizen and three Israelis are wounded. No group claims responsibility, but Israel suspects Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
June 1996: A truck carrying 5,000 pounds of explosives blows up the Khobar Towers, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in the Saudi Arabian town of Khobar. Nineteen Americans die and some 500 people are injured. The Iran-backed Hezbollah Al Hijaz, a terrorist group in Saudi Arabia, is deemed responsible.
September 1997: Three Hamas suicide bombers blow themselves up at the Ben Yehuda shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing a U.S.-Israeli dual citizen and wounding seven other American citizens. Four other people die and nearly 200 are wounded in the attack.
August 1998: With the assistance of Hezbollah, al-Qaeda suicide bombers almost simultaneously blow up the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 people, including 12 Americans, and wounding thousands. According to the 9/11 Commission Report , al-Qaeda developed “the tactical expertise for such attacks months earlier, when some of its operatives — top military committee members and several operatives who were involved with the Kenya cell among them — were sent to Hezbollah training camps in Lebanon.”
August 2001: A Hamas suicide bomber blows up the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem, killing a U.S.-Israeli dual citizen and two other Americans. A total of 15 people die in the attack.
September 11, 2001: While the 9/11 Commission Report concludes that Iran had no foreknowledge of al-Qaeda’s attacks on the World Trade Center, the report indicates that Tehran facilitated the travel of some of the terrorists. “In sum,” the report notes, “there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers.”
January 2002: Gunmen affiliated with the Iran-backed al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade kill a U.S.-Israeli dual citizen and wound another individual in the West Bank community of Beit Sahur.
July 2002: A bomb planted by a Hamas terrorist kills five American students at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, including an American-Israeli dual citizen and an American-French dual citizen. A total of nine people die in the attack.
June 2003: An American citizen, along with 16 other people, die when a Hamas terrorist blows himself up on a bus in Jerusalem.
October 2003: Terrorists from the Iran-backed Popular Resistance Committees kill three U.S. diplomatic personnel in a bombing in Gaza.
2003-2011: Iranian-backed militias kill at least 603 U.S. troops in Iraq, according to the Pentagon. Iranian training and material support for Iraqi militias during the surge greatly increased the difficulties U.S. forces faced while combating the insurgency and included some of the deadliest weapons used against American troops, such as explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) and improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
August 2003: A Hamas suicide bomber blows up a bus in Jerusalem, killing five Americans and wounding one other American. A total of 24 people die in the attack.
August 2006: Hezbollah fighters kill American citizen Michael Levin, a soldier in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), during the Second Lebanon War. He is the only American to die in the conflict.
January 2007: Twelve men affiliated with the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) disguise themselves as U.S. soldiers, enter the Provincial Joint Coordination Center in the Iraqi city of Karbala, kill five U.S. soldiers, and wound another three. In 2019, the U.S. State Department issues a $15 million bounty for information on an IRGC Quds Force commander who planned the attack and other “assassinations of coalition forces in Iraq.”
July 2014: Hamas terrorists kill two Americans serving in the IDF during fighting between the terrorist group and Israel in Gaza as part of Operation Protective Edge.
October 2015: Hamas terrorists kill an American citizen and his wife, residents of the West Bank community of Neria, in their car in a drive-by shooting.
December 2019: Rockets fired by Kataib Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militia, kill an American security contractor and wound several U.S. service members and Iraqi personnel at the K1 military base in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk.
January 2020: A direct Iranian ballistic missile attack against the Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq causes more than 100 U.S. troops to suffer traumatic brain injuries.
March 2020: The family of former FBI agent Robert Levinson, who disappeared in Iran in 2007, announces that he likely died in an Iranian prison at an unknown date.
September 2020: U.S. intelligence reports indicate that Iran is weighing a plot to assassinate U.S. Ambassador to South Africa Lana Marks.
February 2021: A rocket fired by an Iran-backed militia at coalition forces in the Iraqi city of Erbil wounds a U.S. service member and four U.S. civilian contractors.
July 2021: Iranian-backed militias conduct at least three rocket and drone attacks against U.S. forces in 24 hours in Iraq and Syria, wounding two U.S. service members.
September 2022: An Iranian rocket attack kills an American citizen in Iraqi Kurdistan.
November 2022: A captain in Iran’s IRGC orchestrates the killing of an American citizen living in Baghdad who worked at an English language institute.
March 2023: An Iranian drone kills an American contractor and wounds five service members and another contractor when it strikes a coalition base near the Syrian city of Hasakah.
October 7, 2023: Hamas kills at least 48 Americans and kidnaps at least 12 Americans in a massacre of 1,200 people in southern Israel.
December 2023: A drone attack conducted by an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia against U.S. forces in Erbil wounds three American soldiers, including one critically injured with shrapnel to the head, which placed him in a coma.
January 2024: A drone launched by Kataib Hezbollah kills three U.S. soldiers at a U.S. military base in Jordan and wounds more than 40 other service members.
October 2024: Iran executes German-Iranian national and U.S. permanent resident Jamshid Sharmahd on fraudulent terrorism charges.
November 2024: A report released by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies indicates that Iran and its proxies have conducted more than 180 attacks against U.S. forces in the Middle East between October 17, 2023, and November 19, 2024, resulting in more than 180 wounded and three killed U.S. service members.
November 2024: The U.S. Department of Justice announces charges against an Iranian national and two American accomplices for plotting to assassinate President Trump.
March 2025: A U.S. jury convicts two agents of Iran for plotting to assassinate Iranian-American journalist Masih Alinejad in New York in 2022.
June 2025: At least three U.S. bases in Syria and two U.S. bases in Iraq are attacked with missiles or drones, likely by Iranian-backed militias.
March 2026: Six American soldiers are killed in action during U.S. operations against Iran.
Perhaps U.S. escalation will trigger Iranian "counter-escalation"?
Apparently Spaid doesn't understand the purpose of US military being stationed around the globe.
It is shameful for a country that remained out of WWII, survived terrible droughts and was once ostracized by the west, to now emerge as a Socialist, Trump-hating jellyfish.
Let us once again do what we so egregiously did to them during the post WWII period.
What is your learned opinion of the US military commanders who are telling their troops that the Iran War is the start of the biblical apocalypse?
US troops were told war on Iran was ‘all part of God’s divine plan ...
Oh, that is BY FAR the funniest and dumbest thing I've read. "Religious groups" being The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) ....
They were silent as money from the DoD Budget flowed into their coffers.
I really don't care John
Tell us why you wanted that regime left to continue murdering people and trying to develop a nuclear weapon?
Many on the left change with the wind, especially if the wind is coming out of trump's mouth.
We could write an encyclopedia about the completely objectionable things Trump has done that you don't care about.
And I could write a 15 volume encyclopedia on what the fucking left has done to this country.
Why don't you do that right now?
Sure, when one writes fiction, one can create an enormously large work.
Blaming everything that you perceive as bad on the "fucking left" is irrational.
I totally agree.
... oh goody, a bookshelf filled with pages that repeat "I hate libs because they mock the imperial POTUS's unique alt-right versions of the constitution and traditional american values", like they would be scrawled on a blackboard over and over every afternoon after elementary school was let out.
And calling people irrational does not change the facts.
I'm ready. Chapter 1: How the left destroyed American education is already in the works. I may start Saturday.
Generally speaking it does show a weakness to the argument if that is what is resorted to.
Perhaps that is why I usually feel so good about these little debates.
If you feel as good about the war in Iran as you do about you "winning" debates on NT, the US is in a lot of trouble over there.
Same here, when the discussion becomes about me I have won the argument. Generally speaking I disengage at that point.
Let's face it, they're not here to debate honestly. They know as well as we do that the reason Democratic Presidents haven't done what Trump is doing now is because they actually understood the cost of a war with Iran unlike these dumb fuck white conservative Christian militia elected by poor gullible conservative saps. They worked on a peaceful resolution which they got until dumb fuck and the shit show clown car of a Trump administration rolled in honking their horns and screaming. And of course, their little rabid dumb fuck moron base believed their lies which brings us to where we are now, another unjustified war started on false pretenses by Republicans.
We have to remind ourselves; rightwing conservative Christian's objective differs from actual patriotic Americans loyal to the constitution. They believe they're either preparing for or are already fighting some holy war and see everyday news events as portents and signs of prophecy, and it's happening on both sides of this stupid semi-cold religious war between Christians/Jews vs Islam and supported by & even hoped for by millions of Zionists and evangelical Christians.
The war with Iran is just another box these Christo-fascists are checking off on their Armageddon to-do list. And of course, Israel is all supportive of it because it's their longtime foe that they also believe their God will help them defeat. Of course both the Christians and Jews are looking over their shoulders at each other thinking "Haha, you have no idea but after Islam is dealt with 'OUR' God will deal with you traitors!", with the Christian Zionists only thinking the Jews will be needed to fulfill prophecy of them being on the plains of Megiddo before Christ comes back to judge them all. It's all quite the game of religious 'Fuck You!' backstabbery. And all three of these religions worship the same God which makes it all the more hilarious and pitiful.
I can't wait. I will have to add it to my "alternative history" section.
But it gives them the warm and fuzzy feeling inside.
I agree with you but I would add in addition to Christianity they want to protect their interpretation of Western Civilization
hell yeah, conscript all US evangelical males above the age of 15 directly out of churches on sundays to immediately go serve in trump's iran war, along with the male family members of maga republicans in the trump administration and congress. put the fear of death back into religious devotion. let geezus save them.
Like Trump?
Maybe everything doesn't boil down to lefty, righty.
Noting irrational reasoning is productive.
In America it's lefty vs everyone & everything else.
It is an act of desperation.
Irrational.
That is just ridiculous. You have posted irrational claims. That, if anything, would be an indication of desperation in your impossible attempts to defend Trump (hint, he is indefensible).
Some could start their fiction book with the following passage...
"I am non partisan"
Let's say that fantasy actually happens. The response from many on the left, because of their hatred of America, they would travel there and fight for Iran. It is all about being triggered, the hatred for Trump and the hatred of America, one hundred percent fitting their ideology
the death toll for maga domestic terrorists will exceed that of american service members in trump's war ...
Lincoln project is just as loony as the democratic party. Just not sure who hates Trump and America more.
There are far more maga in the military than leftists, as most leftists would never join a group they hate.
It is well known that many leftists that were in the military during the Gulf War ran to Canada because of their cowardice.
As more and more Americans start to die, its comforting to know that God is on our side!
Over the years I've known many "leftists" who enlisted in the U.S. military!
I love America so you can shove that opinion back up wherever you got it from. You can love America and hate Trump. In fact, that is the only patriotic thing to do if you look at Trumps record and what he's done to our nation and the constitution with any objectivity. Fuck anyone who claims that you have to love Trump to love this country, that's just fucking outrageous un-American bullshit. I know many veterans who despise Trump and they actually served this country; they didn't dodge service claiming phony bone spurs. Are you going to claim those veterans hate America simply because they despise Trump?
It's 100% about loving this country and the constitution while being forced to watch vile pieces of rightwing religious conservative criminal trash shit all over it. Of course it might 'trigger' patriotic Americans to see such wretched worthless scum bags shit all over our laws and our country. It's disheartening, it's sad for all those who have fought so long for this nation to see it being dragged through the mud by these dishonest bigoted rightwing fascists on a power trip. But that doesn't mean the rest of us stopped loving this country. I love it even more now which is why I know I have to fight even harder to keep it alive and out of the hands of despicable criminals and those who would elect such mobsters by getting out to vote. We will metaphorically kick these fascists in the fucking heads in the midterms and we're going to splatter their brains, metaphorically, in the 2028 election and get this country back on track and out of the hands of dangerous rightwing religious conservative fascists.
I'm really going to enjoy celebrating july 4th this year ...
Some folks don't know the difference between noting irrational posts and claiming irrational posts.
Usually as a last resort but some folks start with it.
Or "I used to be a Republican" (or "I used to be Democrat")
OK..And?
Like many of your "opinions", they start out semi sane, then by the end, delve into conspiracy theories. This one is just another of those.
Apparently you do not recognize the difference between noting (or claiming) irrational posts and deeming an individual irrational.
How ironic coming from Boston.
Oh but I do. How many claims of irrational posts before someone is considered irrational? Often times claiming a post is irrational and not the person is just a game of semantics. Most rational folks can see right through it.
No, you just make unsubstantiated claims (illustrated nicely in this thread). Low grade trolling.
Blind partisans typically cannot even imagine that someone could operate based on facts regardless of party positions. Most believe everyone is partisan.
If that was the case (it is not) why would you respond to trolling? My observations stand
Rarely see themselves as blind partisans and often project their own blind partisanship (or blind hate) onto others.
You are of course implying that I am a blind partisan. So you must bizarrely assume I am a D and that my positions are based on D talking points. Thus you ignore that I have never been a D, that I was supporting Haley, and apparently naively assume that merely being against Trump and his minions defines blind partisanship.
I conclude that you have no idea what you are claiming or (almost certainly) are yet again trolling.
Not really, it might be more of an unhealthy dislike of an individual or anyone that supports said individual getting in the way of rational thinking.
Again, not really but it is noted that a good amount of your points are the same as dem talking points.
And I am not a Trump supporter and would have liked to see Shapiro get the dem nomination or Haley get the Rep nomination. but here we are.
I am not talking about blind partisanship, see above
No surprise there
see 5.1.48
I suspect you translate any anti-Trump criticism into "D talking point".
You defend him at every turn but you are not a Trump supporter.
No, only 90%
I don't and I am not.
Exactly. Anti-Trump criticism is not the same as blind partisanship.
Indeed, Rs should be criticizing Trump ... that would not make them blind partisans.
No doubt those who have read your posts would never consider you a Trump supporter.
So give us a 3 page sample?
While I don't care what folks reading my posts think I am I am confident logical critical thinkers can tell the difference between supporting Trump and not wanting to get on the Trump hysteria train
Pretty sure anyone with at least normal intelligence can distinguish supporting Trump vs. not supporting Trump (what you deem as "hysteria train").
About as easy as distinguishing between supporting a demagogue vs. criticizing a demagogue.
Evidence suggests otherwise.
No it does not. The distinction is easy. Those like you who routinely defend Trump (or deflect) are generally supporting Trump. Those like me who criticize Trump (without deflection and based on stated cause) are not supporting Trump. Support vs. non-support is quite easy to distinguish.
Given Trump's extreme behavior and words, one can easily criticize him based on solid facts. What is emotional and irrational are the pathetic attempts to defend Trump (and the constant deflection by those who want to defend but can only try to change the topic).
Obviously it does.
You would think it should be. But alas, not so much.
Again, there is a difference between between supporting Trump and not wanting to get on the Trump hysteria train
And sometimes the criticism is based on emotion.
And sometimes he deserves the criticism. And many times the criticism is either hyperbolic chicken shit criticism or misrepresentation of the facts. It is like watching CNN when they tell you they are not biased.
What I find emotional and irrational is folks so consumed with hate for Trump that all rationality and credibility is gone.
It's easy not to be on the 'hysteria train' while also recognizing that Trump is a convicted felon, admitted sexual predator, been accused of raping a child, was good friends with a known child rapist and child trafficker and on top of all that is inflicting serious damage to our nation, our economy and the American people.
Now a supporter would try and diminish all of those obvious facts about Donald Trump and try to claim things aren't what they look like or claim that those who think such things must be on the 'hysteria train' even when such beliefs are rational, sane and based on facts.
And yet those same gullible pricks watch Fox News that claims it's not biased, and they all nod their heads going "Yup, only unbiased facts here!". It's truly laughable.
The rationality and credibility are only gone for those ignoring the facts about Trump and giving him a pass on everything and continuing to carry water for him while saying "Nope, I'm not carrying water for him, I'm not defending him" all while doing exactly that in every comment and every post.
Define what you mean by "Trump hysteria train". Are the 'passengers' hysterical Trump supporters or hysterical Trump defenders?
Oh, I forgot, thanks. People sometimes make stuff up about others when they are on the Trump hysteria train. Facts matter less and less when trying to accuse others of something. I really don't know why though.
You make it about you when you don't pay attention to the arguments being made. Trust me, when you engage with certain people here on NT, they run circles around you
Of course not, and you know it. I can only surmise the comment and questions are a weak troll.
aren't they the same?
you're not that good
Okay, so by "Trump hysteria train" you are referring to Trump critics. That is what I figured you meant.
Given that, I can now illustrate that the reasoning of your comments in this thread are confused.
For example:
You are simply stating that there is a difference between what you believe to be 'rational support of Trump' and hysterical criticism of Trump. Of course there is a difference. The difference is obvious. You are speaking of the difference between rationality and irrationality.
And of course there is a difference between supporting Trump and not supporting Trump. Your comments here state the obvious and present it as insight, though it's no more profound than saying daylight exists because of the sun.
The point, however, was that your comments are typically in defense of Trump (or deflection away from criticism of Trump). You like to think of your comments as rational support of Trump (generally they are not), but the opportunities to rationally defend Trump is far and few between. Most of the time, Trump defenders/supporters like you, are forced into making entirely irrational 'arguments' and playing dishonest games.
Yet, of course, you try to cast criticism of Trump as "hysterical". This is yet another dishonest game by you. Most of what Trump has said and done in his second term enables well-justified criticism. You cannot defend him (with facts and sound reasoning) so you try to claim that rational, justified criticism of Trump is just hysterical rhetoric.
Do you support Trump's ... ?
Trump is damaging our nation on a weekly basis and you pretend that your defense of same is rational while pretending that sound, rational, fact-based criticism of his words and deeds is hysteria.
I was trying to get him to be specific because his language is confused. (Not confusing, confused.)
See: @5.1.69
He of course dodged with trollish snark because my question likely caused him to realize his comparison was fundamentally flawed.
The more some folks feel the need to make it personal the better I am.
I'm always reminded of ahab's last whaling scenes in moby dick whenever maga attempts to take on TiG ...
Actually I mean the folks that criticize Trump for everything he does or says. They criticize Trump while they would not criticize any other president for doing the same thing. They spin everything he does to try to make him out to be much worse than he is. In some cases they just lie or don't give the correct context. It is pathetic, there are many things worthy of criticizing and the folks on the train just lose all credibility with their chicken little imitation.
It should be
No matter how many times you say it you will always be incorrect. The difference is I have no problem criticizing Trump when he deserves it. I don't criticize him for things I would not criticize any other president for. That is the difference between rational thought process and the Trump hysteria train.
If I don't buy into the hysteria it is not supporting anyone, it is just calling out the bullshit.
For those on the train, yes
Yea, yea, yea. The ole accusations when you have nothing worthwhile to add.
I will try one more time. Some criticism of Trump is valid, and some is just people on the train looking for something to be upset about every day. If they can't come up with something of their own they just see what AOC, Schumer or Jeffries have to say for the day.
Yea, yea, yea. The ole accusations when you have nothing worthwhile to add and feel the need to make something up.
Some, yes. Most, Nope. Not everyone gets there panties in a twist over everything he does
Once again, I don't defend him, the folks on the train might think so because I am not in the train but they left rational thinking a few stops ago.
As for your litany:
Some I agree with or think the criticism is invalid(failure to end the Ukraine war) He is dealing with a mad man and a guy that thinks he has the upper hand. Blaming him for a no win situation is ridiculous, renaming the Kennedy center to arrogantly put his own name as top billing
Some I don't agree with Trump (removing watch dogs (e.g. inspectors general, FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter,...) and fired DoJ attorneys, et.al. who worked on his indictments, attempt to keep classified documents and obstruct their safe return for months
Many items are just your (and many on the train)opinion (continuing national embarrassment ) or spun as something you believe is more than opinion,
Some are not even valid (Trump did not need congressional approval)
And some I don't care about at all(unilaterally destroying the East Wing)
Note, it is possible to agree with something someone does without being a supporter.
I hope you got what you want because I am done with this conversation.
Well if someone were to criticize Trump for everything he does or says then that would be emotional since he clearly does sometimes say the right thing and does sometimes act in ways that are arguably responsible. It is rare with this buffoon, but he is not 100% wrong.
But you apparently do not recognize how wrong and how bad Trump is. You apparently think the criticism of Trump is based on emotions rather than facts. You fail to recognize that Trump will naturally be subjected to ongoing criticism because he keeps providing solid ground for criticism.
Your criticism of Trump has been rare and always a softball (e.g. I disagree with ...). Your defense/support of Trump, in contrast, is predominant.
He claimed he could stop the war with a phone call. He should have never stated that. And even after failing for over a year (which of course he did), he still claims that the war would have not started if he were PotUS.
Yes, you do not agree. That is the depth of your criticism. Softball and brief sans any real criticism.
Perfect, you do not even recognize that Trump is a national embarrassment. And you try to claim you are not a Trump supporter?? That you do not predominantly try to defend him?
You do not know that a PotUS cannot declare war? You do not recognize that engaging in a war ipso facto is a declaration of war?? Keep illustrating how you try to defend Trump.
A PotUS can engage in warfare unilaterally, but Trump has, with Iran, now fully engaged in war. He has no authority to do that.
Now that is revealing. A PotUS unilaterally destroys the East Wing and you do not care. You probably 'do not care' because you realize there is no way to defend that act.
The rest of your post is your silly strawman where you claim that Trump critics are all emotional and get upset at everything Trump says. Exactly the kind of crap one would expect from a Trump supporter who clearly has no way to legitimately defend Trump so they, like Trump, try to push an alternate reality where Trump is really not so bad and all the critics are just irrational.
Get a grip.
Good grief, person, change one word twice and then imagine how "the other side' feels.
or we had additional fun with the racism in this one.
from there I skipped your litany down to where you tried to agree with TiG, admirable.
Many disagree; don't you want a voice in increasing the national debt yet again?
Good, Betsy Ross' house should be bulldozed and who needs a Liberty bell that can't be rung, melt it down.
Absolutely, unless your written word almost continuously, every damned day indicates complete displeasure with every non conservative position everywhere.
Good, me too.
It is a basic tenet of the MAGA religious worship of Trump that he is no worse than any other president.
No matter how many thousands of times it is pointed out how he is worse than any other president they refuse to see. Clearly they never will see, which is why a lot of these "discussions" are completely pointless.
Everyone here is now dizzy, with the exception of Vic
You know I'll probably get yet another ticket this month but I truly believed this and have expressed this in so many different words since 2008 and almost every year
since; politely, this is a frugal person's therapy.
Amen.
Thanks for letting me know. I wasn't aware we were having a conversation with each other.
Saying the same opinion over and over does not make it fact.
Instead of yet another platitude in a feeble attempt to defend Trump, provide an actual argument as to why Trump is not the worst PotUS in our lifetimes.
Again the lame accusations fly. Yawn
I will wait for the people that claim he is to prove it with something other than opinions. And the claim was not in our lifetimes. Changing the goal post is dishonest
Many historians say Buchanan is the worst . They also say it is too early to determine where Trump falls on the list.
Suffice it to say there are several lists with several different winners of the worst president award. In the end it is mostly opinion.
Yikes!
Interesting, you seem to make the same unsubstantiated claim to anyone that suggests it is a waste of time continuing a "conversation".
Yikes indeed!
Illustrating that you ignore all the damage Trump has done and continues to do to our nation. The same feeble excuse ... "wait and see"
I usually limit this to our lifetimes to make it easier since the information is better and the analysis is easier and more verifiable. But of course you complain rather than answer.
Look at you run all the way back to Buchanan. When Trump's term ends, historians will include him in their analysis. As you noted, they have not done so yet so referencing historians is pointless.
Yes and clearly you do not think Trump is the worst PotUS even in our lifetimes! You run to Buchanan and cannot even admit that Trump is the worst PotUS in our lifetimes even though this is overwhelmingly obvious.
The use of strawman arguments is unfortunately common. When you make them expect to be called out.
It sure is
And ironically TiG wasn't aware he was talking to you instead of Drak, right?
Goebbels thought that behavior was political genius.
Who died and made you Trump Minister Of Propaganda ? Congratulations!
The entire Iranian leadership!
We can only hope that the 72 virgins look like Rosie O'Donnell.
or Bella Abzug doing a fan dance .
(have to be a certain age to get that one .)
They do seem to be a draw for ugly beasts.
I think we must do something on a large part of the democrat party base: bitter old Karens!
unlike the maga bicycles with mar-a-lardo faces ...
Alas they all look like Virginia Foxx.
Did Rosie sneak back in to the country?
You should ask Little Bo Peeping Noem.
It's not leaning to one side so I don't think so.
She may have been on that Iranian ship that went down today.
Now, now, we aren't supposed to slander political parties.
Or was that just the democrat party?
OR 72 blue haired transgender "women".
Naw, she is living in Rush Limpdicks place.
I get it. Does that mean I'm old?
I dont think so , personally i think your in your prime , just like me ........( but i hate the rice crispy snap crackle pop when i stand up).
Good answer!
would have answered sooner but have been busy making venison jerky , and Italian sweet sausage .
I love good Italian sausage. I like it hot
>sigh< no comment ...
<giggity>
When did he start working for the Democrats?
Right now, they are getting crucified!
It is on C-Span 3
Has he even asked for their support? Trump has been stomping around, talking shit about Europe as long as he has been president. He has abrogated trade agreements and slapped tariffs on our allies that were wholly unnecessary. He threatens to take over their territories through the use of force. He has repeatedly shown disrespect for NATO, the UN, economic fora like G7 and Davos - and much of that, barely a month ago.
Regardless of whether or not his current action is a good idea, why the fuck should Europe, or anyone else, support him in anything?
Europe is petrified of Iran. They can't do much anyway
Their military is underfunded
Doesn’t answer my questions, does it.
That's the point
Actually, the questions were answered. It appears that it's just not to your liking.
I think someone has the answer. Her name is Kemi Badenoch and she may just be the only Brit with guts!
How's that for an answer!
Her name is Kemi Badenoch and she may just be the only Brit with guts!
England's done. Everyday is a fresh humiliation for Starmer.
It's only use is as a reminder of how quickly can a superpower can become irrelevant.
Ask the UK's Conservative Party which she has singlehanedly pushed over a cliff.
Why is that?
Don't tell me there are now more Muslims that Christians in the UK.
I didn't think it would be so soon.
You should do more research before blithely posting anything to do with politics from YouTube.
If you listen to fear mongers like Nigel Ferage etc. Muslims have taken over. In reality Muslims comprise but 6.5% of the population and half of those were born there.
The Growing Muslim Population in the UK
Current Population Statistics and Projections for 2025
As of 2025, estimates suggest that Muslims will represent approximately 6-8% of the UK’s total population, a figure that has grown steadily over the past few decades. Major urban centers such as London, Birmingham, and Manchester have seen significant increases in Muslim populations due to immigration and higher-than-average birth rates within these communities. In particular, London’s Muslim population is expected to surpass 1 million by 2025, contributing to the growing visibility of Islam across the UK.
Factors Driving the Increase in Muslim Population
Several factors contribute to this demographic shift. Immigration, both legal and illegal, plays a significant role, as many individuals from Muslim-majority countries have sought refuge in the UK due to ongoing global crises. Additionally, the natural population growth within the Muslim community, driven by higher birth rates, has contributed to this rise. Refugees and asylum seekers from conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, further amplify these demographic changes.
Is the UK Becoming an Islamic Country? Immigration & Sharia Law
LONDON: The Muslim population of the UK has risen 44 percent in a decade, according to the latest census figures published by the Office for National Statistics. Of the country’s total population, 6.5 percent — 3.9 million people — are adherents of Islam.
Number of Muslims in UK up 44% in a decade | Arab News
Because they vote as a bloc (including illegal family voting in the recent by election) and the the leftist parties need their support. So when they decide desert Labour en masse (like they did in said election) and defect to the Greens because somehow even Labour isn't antisemitic enough for them, Labour panics and decide to oppose helping the US because "it would look bad for the party". Not that it would be bad for the country. Allying with America would be bad for the party.
ut 6.5% of the population
Guess how math works? A declining native population that doesn't reproduce itself imports millions who not only replace themselves but have a higher birth rate leads to massive relative growth in of that segment of the population. The leftists government is already catering to their ideology at 8%. What happens when that triple again over the next couple decades?
???
Europe ramps up defense spending to 21% of global total
This is a fact free zone.
Exactly who defines the relevancy of a superpower?
obviously
Hallux already gave an answer. Vic tries to one up him by giving the same answer only with more bloviating and word wasting
maga is running out of viable wedge issues for the midterms, so they're sending sharia law back up the flagpole to see how many morons salute it ...
Doesn't need to.
Them supporting the US is all dependent on how much they depend on the US.
Now that is a question that many are asking!
From the Associated Press :
He prays for the strength and skill to kill. But don't the Iranian soldiers do the same ?
Um...I'm gonna say yes.
What verse was he quoting?