• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump created this problem, as he always does

SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
Have we?
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
medi said:
The average civilian in Iran is just about fed up enough to risk going out on the streets to demand changes.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
More baseless babbling reich-wing bullshit.
 
gbg3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. This goes against human nature.
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SavannahMann said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
medi said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
JMR said:
Boo-hoo. Say with a straight face that you feel confident that the Trump-Gabbard-Hegseth triangle will handle this situation well.
Click to expand...
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.

JMR said:
Trump wants to avoid criticism?
Click to expand...
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.
JMR said:
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.
Click to expand...
Flag poles on the White House lawn are meaningful to Trump, apparently.
 
SkyChief said:
Flag poles on the White House lawn are meaningful to Trump, apparently.
Click to expand...
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!
 
gbg3 said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's an understatement.

It needs to get even more united so that the big, beautiful bill gets passed.
 
gbg3 said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you have something to say about someone, tag them. This underhanded mean girl posting is weak.
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Redress said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no "purely defensive" measure in military aid for Israel.
 
SkyChief said:
What a remarkably dumb post - even for you.

No useful information - just a load of
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
BabaVoss said:
View attachment 67575685
Click to expand...
"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.
 


Oh come on!


I've done full searches in under a minute!

What the **** are you using. An XT?
 
SkyChief said:
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.
Click to expand...

dmpi said:
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.
Click to expand...

redbeer said:
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.
Click to expand...

gbg3 said:
That's certainly true on this forum, but it's also true for most Dems in general.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…