5 ms·

This war is completely on Trump since he didn't get Congress' approval or even justify it to the American public. I wonder if the "no new wars" voters will cond

This war is completely on Trump since he didn't get Congress' approval or even justify it to the American public. I wonder if the "no new wars" voters will condemn him?

nailer 8mo ago
The Iranian regime funded Hamas that started the last major war and the regime was responsible for the mass slaughter 30 to 40,000 people a few weeks ago.
- hypeatei 8mo ago
  The campaign promises from Trump were "no new wars" and "America First" along with a bunch rhetoric saying that his political opponents were war mongers. What do Hamas or Iran protestors have to do with America? I agree that it's bad but you have to admit that it goes against literally all the "peace" talk that MAGAs were pushing.
  - nailer 8mo ago
    [flagged]
    - hypeatei 8mo ago
      Since when do American deaths (in an attack that happened 2+ years ago mind you) mean you can unilaterally go to war with an entire country? > and Iran constantly threatens to hit America (and about everyone else) with nuclear weapons Okay, but he campaigned as the peace ticket so presumably he'd be able to figure that out without resorting to military action, no? Obama managed to work out a deal with them (that Trump then tore to pieces in 2018)
      - nailer 8mo ago
        [flagged]
        hypeatei 8mo ago
        Your second question isn't coherent and I didn't see it as relevant regardless. I think Republicans are sycophantic MAGAs at this moment, does that answer it? You're not answering any of my questions, though and instead just word vomiting about a hostage release deal under Biden.
        nailer 8mo ago
        Due to the rate limit, I made an edit reply above answering your questions.
- caconym_ 8mo ago
  So what? It's an argument that maybe we should do something, for the American people's consideration, but it doesn't change the fact that this war has been started without Congressional approval by a president who IIRC explicitly campaigned on "no new wars" or something to that effect. As far as I can tell, he has stated no consistent or coherent justification for any of this. If we are going to engage in brute force regime change on the other side of the world, regardless of how bad the current regime is (yes, they are evil), this is not how it should happen. And everyone should take a moment to remind themselves why the term "regime change" carries the connotations it does.
- srean 8mo ago
  Well that would implicate the state of Israel as well. It's Israel that set up Hamas in the 1970s to split the support of the largely secular PLO.
  - spwa4 8mo ago
    Israel did not set up Hamas, Israel prevented the PA, then the PLO, which was taken over and supported by the KGB from massacring Hamas in it's krib. That's one very underappreciated part of the conflict there. That the KGB and Israel fought one another, obviously long ago. As part of that fight, they both helped/financed/protected/... lunatic Palestinian movements. The KGB is long dead and Israel started regretting many of it's actions against Russia decades ago, but the lunatic movements each created are still massacring one another. Oh and the UN is still supporting and financing the PA, even against Hamas. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone at the top of the UN ever had any affiliation with Soviet Foreign policy ... (say, for example, the best-paid politician in the entire world, obviously a communist)
    - srean 8mo ago
      What I am claiming isn't even controversial. It's quite well known and accepted. So much so all the standard search engines will confirm it, and search engines typically reflect a consensus view of crawlable documents. This is what I get when I pose the question "Yes, Israeli officials have acknowledged providing covert financial support to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s Islamist networks in Gaza during the late 1970s and 1980s. This was done to bolster religious groups as a counterweight to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was viewed as the primary adversary at the time"
      - dlubarov 8mo ago
        This is a common talking point, but if we look at the underlying facts of what Israel did to "support" or "set up" Hamas, they... allowed Qatar to provide aid to Gaza to fund some infrastructure and civil servants' salaries. Would you have preferred that they block the aid and Gaza's governance collapse?
mothballed 8mo ago
What does that mean in practical terms though? The absolute worst that can happen to trump is he is both impeached and successfully indicted. When the worst case is maybe by some extremely unlikely "luck" he loses his job and has to sulk back into his billions and golden towers, and on the other hand he can gamble with the lives of million of serviceman and the tax money Americans could otherwise spend on healthy food, healthcare, education and other things they need -- why not? He's not up for re-election anyways. Trumps an unhealthy older man, with no prospect for re-election, and a big golden parachute even in the worst case scenario. The fact the war is all on him is seen as a plus because he gets all the credit for the history books and the mothers of the dead servicemen are just forgotten trash used to achieve his objective. Trump is acting completely rationally. His MO is to push the envelope until he is stopped. It is mostly others who are irrationally acting in the service of Trump that are acting irrationally.
gruez 8mo ago
>I wonder if the "no new wars" voters will condemn him? They'll retcon it and fall in line behind Trump, just like with Venezuela. This is from both opinion polls and also interactions with actual MAGA people. https://files.catbox.moe/h2wqwz.png https://files.catbox.moe/h2wqwz.png https://files.catbox.moe/64uhqw.png https://files.catbox.moe/64uhqw.png
- techblueberry 8mo ago
  I understand the cynicism, but Trump is a lame duck president, and there are plenty of incentives for people outside and inside the government to continue to move against him, because even if he moves for a third term he's old and the leadership vacuum is inevitable. Also, anti-israel sentiment has been growing on the right, which is one reason people think Israel pushed so hard for this. People who have and continue to identify as Republican will for sure support him because most of those folks have always been neo-cons who liked Bush and preferred the old school Republican interventionism to what Trump offered. They held their nose for Trump thinking he wouldn't do things like this. But the MAGA / "America First" crowd led by such folks as Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes absolutely have the incentive to move against Trump. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-trump-iran-strikes-b2929530.html https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit... Iran strikes are ‘disgusting and evil’ says longtime Trump ally and MAGA stalwart Tucker Carlson.
  - spwa4 8mo ago
    Isn't half the MAGA movement funded by Russia? Pretty sure I think I know why they'd be defending Iran ...
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- duxup 8mo ago
  George Bush Jr. ran on a very front and center campaign of "no nation building". He then chose to do that in spades.
tim333 8mo ago
He has put out at least one video justifying it to the public - https://youtu.be/o-E7DIctrzo https://youtu.be/o-E7DIctrzo I can sort of see his position. When there were mass protests around Jan 2nd he said to the Iranian government don't kill them or else: >US President Donald Trump has warned Iran's authorities against killing peaceful protesters, saying Washington "will come to their rescue". In a brief post on social media, he wrote: "We are locked and loaded and ready to go," but gave no further details. (bbc) And the Iranian government are now in the find out stage.

This war is completely on Trump since he didn't get Congress' approval or even justify it to the American public. I wonder if the "no new wars" voters will condemn him?

nailer 8mo ago

The Iranian regime funded Hamas that started the last major war and the regime was responsible for the mass slaughter 30 to 40,000 people a few weeks ago.

hypeatei 8mo ago
The campaign promises from Trump were "no new wars" and "America First" along with a bunch rhetoric saying that his political opponents were war mongers. What do Hamas or Iran protestors have to do with America? I agree that it's bad but you have to admit that it goes against literally all the "peace" talk that MAGAs were pushing.
- nailer 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  - hypeatei 8mo ago
    Since when do American deaths (in an attack that happened 2+ years ago mind you) mean you can unilaterally go to war with an entire country? > and Iran constantly threatens to hit America (and about everyone else) with nuclear weapons Okay, but he campaigned as the peace ticket so presumably he'd be able to figure that out without resorting to military action, no? Obama managed to work out a deal with them (that Trump then tore to pieces in 2018)
    - nailer 8mo ago
      [flagged]
      - hypeatei 8mo ago
        Your second question isn't coherent and I didn't see it as relevant regardless. I think Republicans are sycophantic MAGAs at this moment, does that answer it? You're not answering any of my questions, though and instead just word vomiting about a hostage release deal under Biden.
        nailer 8mo ago
        Due to the rate limit, I made an edit reply above answering your questions.
caconym_ 8mo ago
So what? It's an argument that maybe we should do something, for the American people's consideration, but it doesn't change the fact that this war has been started without Congressional approval by a president who IIRC explicitly campaigned on "no new wars" or something to that effect. As far as I can tell, he has stated no consistent or coherent justification for any of this. If we are going to engage in brute force regime change on the other side of the world, regardless of how bad the current regime is (yes, they are evil), this is not how it should happen. And everyone should take a moment to remind themselves why the term "regime change" carries the connotations it does.
srean 8mo ago
Well that would implicate the state of Israel as well. It's Israel that set up Hamas in the 1970s to split the support of the largely secular PLO.
- spwa4 8mo ago
  Israel did not set up Hamas, Israel prevented the PA, then the PLO, which was taken over and supported by the KGB from massacring Hamas in it's krib. That's one very underappreciated part of the conflict there. That the KGB and Israel fought one another, obviously long ago. As part of that fight, they both helped/financed/protected/... lunatic Palestinian movements. The KGB is long dead and Israel started regretting many of it's actions against Russia decades ago, but the lunatic movements each created are still massacring one another. Oh and the UN is still supporting and financing the PA, even against Hamas. Hmmm, I wonder if anyone at the top of the UN ever had any affiliation with Soviet Foreign policy ... (say, for example, the best-paid politician in the entire world, obviously a communist)
  - srean 8mo ago
    What I am claiming isn't even controversial. It's quite well known and accepted. So much so all the standard search engines will confirm it, and search engines typically reflect a consensus view of crawlable documents. This is what I get when I pose the question "Yes, Israeli officials have acknowledged providing covert financial support to Sheikh Ahmed Yassin’s Islamist networks in Gaza during the late 1970s and 1980s. This was done to bolster religious groups as a counterweight to the secular Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was viewed as the primary adversary at the time"
    - dlubarov 8mo ago
      This is a common talking point, but if we look at the underlying facts of what Israel did to "support" or "set up" Hamas, they... allowed Qatar to provide aid to Gaza to fund some infrastructure and civil servants' salaries. Would you have preferred that they block the aid and Gaza's governance collapse?

mothballed 8mo ago

What does that mean in practical terms though? The absolute worst that can happen to trump is he is both impeached and successfully indicted. When the worst case is maybe by some extremely unlikely "luck" he loses his job and has to sulk back into his billions and golden towers, and on the other hand he can gamble with the lives of million of serviceman and the tax money Americans could otherwise spend on healthy food, healthcare, education and other things they need -- why not? He's not up for re-election anyways. Trumps an unhealthy older man, with no prospect for re-election, and a big golden parachute even in the worst case scenario. The fact the war is all on him is seen as a plus because he gets all the credit for the history books and the mothers of the dead servicemen are just forgotten trash used to achieve his objective. Trump is acting completely rationally. His MO is to push the envelope until he is stopped. It is mostly others who are irrationally acting in the service of Trump that are acting irrationally.

gruez 8mo ago

>I wonder if the "no new wars" voters will condemn him? They'll retcon it and fall in line behind Trump, just like with Venezuela. This is from both opinion polls and also interactions with actual MAGA people. https://files.catbox.moe/h2wqwz.png https://files.catbox.moe/h2wqwz.png https://files.catbox.moe/64uhqw.png https://files.catbox.moe/64uhqw.png

techblueberry 8mo ago
I understand the cynicism, but Trump is a lame duck president, and there are plenty of incentives for people outside and inside the government to continue to move against him, because even if he moves for a third term he's old and the leadership vacuum is inevitable. Also, anti-israel sentiment has been growing on the right, which is one reason people think Israel pushed so hard for this. People who have and continue to identify as Republican will for sure support him because most of those folks have always been neo-cons who liked Bush and preferred the old school Republican interventionism to what Trump offered. They held their nose for Trump thinking he wouldn't do things like this. But the MAGA / "America First" crowd led by such folks as Tucker Carlson and Nick Fuentes absolutely have the incentive to move against Trump. https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/tucker-carlson-trump-iran-strikes-b2929530.html https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-polit... Iran strikes are ‘disgusting and evil’ says longtime Trump ally and MAGA stalwart Tucker Carlson.
- spwa4 8mo ago
  Isn't half the MAGA movement funded by Russia? Pretty sure I think I know why they'd be defending Iran ...
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
duxup 8mo ago
George Bush Jr. ran on a very front and center campaign of "no nation building". He then chose to do that in spades.

tim333 8mo ago

He has put out at least one video justifying it to the public - https://youtu.be/o-E7DIctrzo https://youtu.be/o-E7DIctrzo I can sort of see his position. When there were mass protests around Jan 2nd he said to the Iranian government don't kill them or else: >US President Donald Trump has warned Iran's authorities against killing peaceful protesters, saying Washington "will come to their rescue". In a brief post on social media, he wrote: "We are locked and loaded and ready to go," but gave no further details. (bbc) And the Iranian government are now in the find out stage.