Man oh man, it was fun reading the threads last night and this morning on the bombing of Iran ordered by Trump.
I swear, day in and day out, the virulent and hyperbolic responses, pro or con, are becoming more and more unglued.
Some observations:
Righties were having a party. They were positively glowing. Never mind if the attack was wise or what might be future consequences, to them, it was ALL about Trump proving he was the tough guy.
Leftists were of course against the strikes. Purely on ideological lines. Never explaining really what would happen if those sites were to continue to exist and eventually Iran would get a nuke.
Yet, the few of us who carefully read up on considered analysis from non hyper-partisan sources read about the fact the Iran was NOT on the brink of a nuke. But of course the counter argument still persisted that while not on the brink, it they chose, they could produce one within weeks, maybe months.
<snipped -- I needed the characters>
This is not a simple poll as the question as to whether we should have or should not have is quite complicated. Though we can attempt to answer it in the short-run, that answer will be ill-informed and therefore likely wrong.
Personally, I am generally against war. I argued vehemently against our incursion into Iraq some 22 years ago (on political usenet groups) as I could see we were being sold a bill of goods. I think we are largely being sold a bill of goods here, but I could be wrong. I just think we are quick to rush to war. IMHO, the US may have fought three or four just wars in its entire history, the others were foolish, costly endeavors. I worry that we are adding this one to that list.
We tend to manufacture a boogey-man, get the people riled up and then do something stupid, like invade Iraq or go to Vietnam or name a ton of other wars, wasting time, money, goodwill and American lives, including the lives of people that do not die in the war, but return home physically or mentally damaged for life, only to scar/ruin the lives of those around them, while running up the national debt. (interesting that Trump wants to engage in a war AND cut taxes)
I do not trust a government that did not install the best and the brightest in positions of power and influence, leaving the decision in the hands of a POTUS who is poorly informed and impulsive. I believe this situation exists because our poorly informed, thin-skinned, impulsive narcissist ripped up a decent peace initiative during his last term. I believe diplomacy generally leads to superior results than military conflict, but in ripping up the peace deal we proved ourselves to be untrustworthy, which led us down this ugly path.
Surely we did damage, but likely no where near the damage we think we did. We did not end Iran's nuke program, but likely instilled in them the importance of it. Though they are weaker than we militarily, that does not stop them from engaging in 4th generation warfare with us, including terrorism on our soil, maybe including the use of a dirty bomb. While I believe we are safer in this moment than we were last week, I do not believe our future is safer, in fact, I believe the opposite.
This was a bold move, but bold actions beget heroes and fools. The future will tell us which one called this shot this weekend.
I completely trust Trump and the amazing team of people like Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, and Noem to keep us safe if Iran tries anything.
*massive amounts of sarcasm*
That well articulates a big part of the problem.... I didn't trust Dick Cheney and Rusfield to tell us the truth (and they didn't), but at least they were competent. This class of clowns are liars, fools and ignoramuses. The problem is we lack wise, informed and steady hands at the till.
Your argument is we should wait for Iran to nuke a city before we do anything about their nuclear weapons program.
I see you dug up an argument that was used to sell Iraq. I believe this line came from Condoleeza Rice. Again, I hold Trump accountable for Iran's nuke program in the first place.....
