Trump created this problem, as he always does

[BabaVoss]

We learned hard lessons about mission creep with Vietnam and Afghanistan - - how a "quick" and "decisive" military intervention can turn into a 20 year conflict.

Have we?

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[gbg3]

If Trump decides to stay out of the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he needs to intervene.

If Trump decides to take action in the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he should not intervene.

That's certainly true on this forum, but it's also true for most Dems in general.

Meanwhile, internally within their own party - the DNC is quickly running out of money, they've lost almost all their large donors, and Ken Martin is demoralized and choking up/maybe even wanting to give up. They are just sinking further and further and are left with nothing but Trump hate and Trump criticism - nothing but that "piss and moan" tactic. They have no money, no ideas, no platform, no one successfully stepping up, no internal agreement, few donors, and a financial crisis. They are offering absolutely nothing which could or would garner increased support. And all of this is making them very, very angry and very, very whiny/snarky - as they just chase Trump with all their negativity and no ideas of their own.

You see it here on the forum too. In literally no posts, do they suggest alternative strategies. They don't talk about what they or their party thinks should happen regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities. They have no ideas and when it comes to Trump, they'll do precisely what you said - complain no matter what decision he makes or action he takes.

 

[gbg3]

The average civilian in Iran is just about fed up enough to risk going out on the streets to demand changes.

I think this is very likely true and this would be such a good outcome for the country. But it is a bold, hard, and dangerous step for average citizens to take. I hope they feel and decide they can and should.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

If Trump decides to stay out of the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he needs to intervene.

If Trump decides to take action in the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he should not intervene.

More baseless babbling reich-wing bullshit.

 

[noonereal]

View attachment 67575685

Duh

I have posted this scores of times.

 

[noonereal]

I think this is very likely true and this would be such a good outcome for the country. But it is a bold, hard, and dangerous step for average citizens to take. I hope they feel and decide they can and should.

Totally disagree. This goes against human nature.

 

[WisconIndependent]

If Trump decides to stay out of the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he needs to intervene.

If Trump decides to take action in the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he should not intervene.

If we just bomb them, they will hit back with terrorism at a time when the Trump Administration is cutting our ability to stay safe. If we put boots on the ground, we will end up with a war that will cost ten times as much as Iraq or Afghanistan in both money and dead Americans. So you tell me what we should do? I suggest that if we do either, we need to shore up our ability to keep us safe rather than cut that ability.

 

[JMR]

If Trump decides to stay out of the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he needs to intervene.

If Trump decides to take action in the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he should not intervene.

Boo-hoo. Say with a straight face that you feel confident that the Trump-Gabbard-Hegseth triangle will handle this situation well.

Trump wants to avoid criticism? He should surround himself with better people. And read his friggin briefings. This is a topic that requires more attention than planting flag poles on the White House lawn.

 

[gbg3]

It's not the Democrats objecting that is the problem. It is the Republicans objecting. A rebellion in the ranks of MAGA would have far reaching and serious impact in his agenda.

It's not a minor scenario we're in. This is not a game and there are enormous ramifications of all decisions and directions in this situation.

There are a wide variety of opinions, many good and intelligent ones. Trump is and always has been one to listen to and consider many various options and ideas, including opposing ones. Once, he's done that, he decides. I'm confident he is doing just that, and there will be no rebellion. The Republican party is more united than at any time I can remember.

 

[SCrider]

If Trump decides to stay out of the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he needs to intervene.

If Trump decides to take action in the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he should not intervene.

Wrong again.
Trump broke it and now has no way to fix it.
Trump ran on no wars are you going to hold him to that? Oh of course you won't you'll bend to what ever trump says next.

 

[gbg3]

And you would be familiar with how he makes his decisions because you work in what government position? Or you are relying on reports from others? Please fill me in on how you manage to deduce these things. Thank you.

She's doing nothing more than swimming in her personal animosity toward Trump - and every comment she adds, is solely from that perspective and that perspective alone.

 

[SkyChief]

Boo-hoo. Say with a straight face that you feel confident that the Trump-Gabbard-Hegseth triangle will handle this situation well.

You missed the point. The point being that no matter WHAT Trump does or doesn't do, dems will piss and moan about what he did, or didn't do.

The clinical term for this phenomenon is TDS.

Trump wants to avoid criticism?

Trump loves criticism. It gives him reason to come up with clever nicknames for incompetent democrat leaders like 'Pocahontas', 'Newscum', 'Crooked Hillary', 'Sleepy Joe', Lyin' Kamala' et. al.

He should surround himself with better people. And read his friggin briefings. This is a topic that requires more attention than planting flag poles on the White House lawn.

Flag poles on the White House lawn are meaningful to Trump, apparently.

 

[gbg3]

Flag poles on the White House lawn are meaningful to Trump, apparently.

I've loved seeing the news coverage from the White House lawn since the installation of those two flags a couple days ago. I've commented to my husband several times - how very nice those impressive big flags look in the front and back of that pretty white house. I now think it's rather odd those weren't added much sooner and I'm very glad Trump had the idea and then saw it to completion. I think they are a really great addition!

 

[trixare4kids]

She's doing nothing more than swimming in her personal animosity toward Trump - and every comment she adds, is solely from that perspective and that perspective alone.

That's an understatement.

It's not a minor scenario we're in. This is not a game and there are enormous ramifications of all decisions and directions in this situation.

There are a wide variety of opinions, many good and intelligent ones. Trump is and always has been one to listen to and consider many various options and ideas, including opposing ones. Once, he's done that, he decides. I'm confident he is doing just that, and there will be no rebellion. The Republican party is more united than at any time I can remember.

It needs to get even more united so that the big, beautiful bill gets passed.

 

[lynnwinslow]

She's doing nothing more than swimming in her personal animosity toward Trump - and every comment she adds, is solely from that perspective and that perspective alone.

If you have something to say about someone, tag them. This underhanded mean girl posting is weak.

 

[mike2810]

If Trump decides to stay out of the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he needs to intervene.

If Trump decides to take action in the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he should not intervene.

sounds like the politics of today.

The same could be said about the Republicans when there is a Democrat President.

It is a shame the US has become so divided.

 

[Deuce]

I am going to say this before Trump decides: we should stay out of it unless attacked. Helping Israel in purely defensive ways is fine, but strikes or other attacks should not be done unless we are attacked first.

There is no "purely defensive" measure in military aid for Israel.

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Ikari]

What a remarkably dumb post - even for you.

No useful information - just a load of

It's not like you offered anything insightful at all, you immediately deflected to the Democrats.

Trump should back down from this one, US military intervention will only make matters worse. We did have a deal with Iran before Trump regarding the development of nuclear weapons. Trump threw it out, and now we're in a bigger mess. Iran is even contemplating leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty now.

If we're to have meaningful progress in terms of restricting Iran from weapons, it will need to come through diplomacy and not military interventionism.

 

[BabaVoss]

The current spin form the trumpers - to explain his dithering and vague answers - is that he is being 'strategic'.
No.
Trump probably can't spell or even pronounce the word.
Mad King Donald always always always wants all of the attention, all the time.
That's all this is. He has a content need to soothe his own poor self-esteem.
He's a deeply disturbed man.

Imagine the reaction from the right if Obama or Biden had ever said "nobody knows what I'm going to do".
They would lose their minds.
That may be redundant. though.

 

[eohrnberger]

View attachment 67575685

"Trump created this problem"

The are a number of implicit and flawed assumptions in this declaration:

• The JCPOA assumed Iran would dismantle excess centrifuges, halt enrichment at Fordow, and redesign the Arak reactor to prevent plutonium production, all verified by IAEA inspections.
  It presumed Iran’s political will to comply, driven by sanctions relief incentives (e.g., $100 billion in unfrozen assets, per The New York Times).
  
  Assumption: The IAEA would have unfettered access to Iran’s nuclear facilities, including military sites like Parchin, to verify compliance through continuous monitoring, real-time cameras, and the Additional Protocol (enhanced safeguards). This assumes Iran would provide “full and timely cooperation” on undeclared activities and allow experienced inspectors to operate freely.
  
  Details: The JCPOA mandated 24/7 IAEA access to Natanz, Fordow, and other sites, with 130–150 inspectors deployed. The Additional Protocol required Iran to declare all nuclear activities and allow snap inspections.
  The assumption hinged on Iran’s transparency and the IAEA’s ability to detect any covert weaponization efforts.
  
  
• International Cooperation and Enforcement
  Assumption: The P5+1 would maintain unified pressure on Iran to comply, with mechanisms like the U.N. Security Council’s “snapback” sanctions (Resolution 2231) to deter violations. It assumed continued U.S. participation and European commitment to sanctions relief, ensuring Iran’s economic incentive to adhere.
  
  
• Long-Term Sustainability of Restrictions
  Assumption: The JCPOA’s phased restrictions (e.g., 10–15-year limits on enrichment, centrifuges, and Arak) would delay Iran’s nuclear capability long enough to build trust, leading to permanent non-proliferation commitments. It assumed Iran would not resume enrichment post-restrictions (e.g., after 2030).
  
  Details: The deal’s “sunset clauses” allowed Iran to expand nuclear activities after 2025–2030, assuming compliance would foster diplomatic normalization.
  
  
• It presumed ongoing U.S. and P5+1 engagement to negotiate follow-on agreements.
  Critical Analysis
  Flawed Assumptions: The JCPOA’s reliance on Iran’s compliance, robust IAEA access, and P5+1 unity faltered post-2018 U.S. withdrawal, as Iran’s 60% enrichment and restricted inspections (your IAEA question) demonstrate. The assumption of non-weaponization intent is questionable given unresolved pre-2003 activities and recent advances (web:14).
  
  
• Enforcement Weakness: Snapback sanctions require Security Council consensus, unattainable with China and Russia’s opposition (GOV/2025/24). Iran’s economic isolation reduced compliance incentives, as sanctions relief didn’t materialize fully, per Reuters.
  
  Current Risks: Iran’s breakout time is now weeks, not a year, per the IAEA, with 233 kg of weapons-grade uranium possible in three weeks.

 

[Fearandloathing]

My screen is showing that I posted that 24 minutes ago and in just 24 minutes you were able to do a proper search? You must have one fine piece of equipment there. Must be a tower. I'm not working with such fine equipment, so it'll take me a little longer. Especially as you used the plural form and didn't just ask for one example.

Yep, 24 minutes; mighty fast that was.

Oh come on!


I've done full searches in under a minute!

What the **** are you using. An XT?

 

[Fearandloathing]

Can you link me to your posts in this thread "explaining the logic behind some of the present administration's decision making"? I don't see them.

There isn't any.

Donald Trump is insane.

Deal with it.

 

[Jetboogieman]

If Trump decides to stay out of the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he needs to intervene.

If Trump decides to take action in the Iran conflict, then dems will piss and moan, and say that he should not intervene.

On the world stage the Democrats have become largely irrelevant. They don't represent anyone and having no core ideology they struggle to even find a viable position or stand.

24/7 hate Trump is who they are, period and that's it. When they run for elections, it's whoever raises the hate the highest wins. Programmed to be insane.

That's certainly true on this forum, but it's also true for most Dems in general.

So it's the usual from the Cultists.

You don't want to talk about the fact that Trump did create this mess by tearing apart the agreement, for no other reason than it had Obamas name on it, because I guarantee he actually knew absolutely NOTHING about the agreement.

And all you want to do is piss and moan that Trump gets criticized rather than actually addressing the criticism.