Compare/Contrast, Exhibit A:
Replies to: Compare/Contrast, Exhibit A:
Lots of Iranians are thrilled
And others are pissed off, and will consider the Ayatollah to be a martyr.
And they will try to avenge him.
No sign yet that the regime is in any trouble…that can change, but as of now, the new boss is the same as the old boss.
If only there were some way to determine which side is good....
Right now, we have two sides of the issue, as you point out:
1) Those who support the ayatollah's regime, including Democrats; and
2) Those who oppose the ayatollah's regime, including the rest of the world with the GOP and Fetterman.
The best method for determining who is in the right seems to be to look for the side Democrats are protesting for, and then select the opposite side.
I don’t think anyone supports Iran. The problem…
That the Dems have is Trump’s lack of a plan. It’s ridiculous for Trump to make regime change a goal of he’s unwilling to commit ground troops. Air power alone won’t accomplish that goal.
It appears our Commander in Chief is unfamiliar with reverse planning.
Everyone on this Board who served understands the basic concept of (1) defining the objective and (2) identifying what steps are necessary to achieve the objective.
Example: Pegasus Bridge, Normandy, WW II
War is easy to plan compared to managing a successful post-war peace process.
But, yeah, you'd think they'd have solved the Iran problem already. I mean, it's already been, what, a day and a half?
Should one person have the ability to pull the trigger? In America?
(no message)
Seems like a bad idea, esp. when Obama & Bush were going around eliminating all ME secular leaders..
Seems like a better idea when we are eliminating the leadership of Iran.
Granted, I don't like systems that rely on the good judgement of those in charge. I would rather have a good system regardless of who is making the decisions.
But, you have to admit that the president has had, and used, this power for almost 240 years...since Washington used the military to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion. Any ideas regarding how to change things?
Wrong Ned. You are distorting history and distracting from what is afoot.
(no message)
Learn some history.
(no message)
Maybe he is the “peace president.” Seems he should leave the war shit to the pros
(no message)
Says the Epstein Administration sycophant and biggest hypocrite on the board
Does the Baltimore Catechism leave outthe part of child molestation being a mortal sin. And complicity in violence being violence.
Nonsense Ned -- no one supports the regime.
That's not the point of those who are critical of Trump's decision yesterday.
Going to war and launching military power comes with risk and costs.
Congress is entitled to know:
What's the mission?
What's the objective?
What's the basis in international law?
What is the action plan for regime change?
Intelligence estimate for success?
What are the risks?
What are the US casualty estimates?
Duration?
Costs?
How much of our military hardware will be depleted?
Impact on economy?
Support from our allies?
All of the above are reasonable questions .... and consistent with a democracy weighing in thru elected members of Congress.
Notice that Putin on his own, decided to invade Ukraine 4 years ago.
We are not Russia.
I'm glad the War Powers Act requires the president to answer reasonable questions.
Please provide a link to Obama's answers to these questions when he supported toppling Muammar Gaddafi.
The Gaddafi operation was led by NATO...the U.S. played a support role and had no troops engaged in
the fighting...a nuance that resulted in no Congressional action against Obama.
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jun/16/barack-obama-libya-congress#:~:text=In%202011%2C%20President%20Barack%20Obama%20defended%20his,bombing%20does%20not%20amount%20to%20full%2Dblown%20war.
Oh, so we get to go to war when Congress declares it, or NATO leads it. Thanks, I didn't know that.
The US, at Obama's orders, bombed a hundred different locations, all to effect regime change.
I guess we need to see if there is no Congressional action against Trump. Then we'll know this is all good. That is your stated standard.
Read the attached summary of the NATO intervention in Libya, including Obama's video address...the
goal and objectives were clearly set in the U.N. and they were adhered to by not just the U.S., but a broad coalition of allied countries at least a month before the operation. That was much different than Trump and Netanyahu's surprise attack in the middle of negotiations, where even the Chairman of the JCOS expressed serious misgivings about the buildup by them. The ramifications of killing the Ayatollah and several other senior officials won't be forgotten by the IRG forces, and as the Iran/Iraq War demonstrated, they can cause a great deal of harm in the name of their God, over a very long time...(Think "Suicide Bombers")
If Trump has been true to form, he spent precious little time considering the downsides of this attack...not unlike Putin with Ukraine. I'm saying prayers every day for my nephew on the Ford, as well as for all the others in harms way that Trump is saying can be expected to become casualties.
ALL of this could have been avoided had Trump not been so bent on un-doing anything and everything Obama did...including the very successful JCPOA.
Note: Just as with all the preparations and oversight Obama insisted on in the mission to get bin Laden, there's little doubt that he applied the same rigor to the Libya campaign...and both worked extremely well. Trump doesn't have that kind of pedigree.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya
So, we are good if (1) Congress declares, (2) NATO leads, (3) the president lists goals in a speech.
You keep loosening the standard when I point to Democrat presidents, but you tighten the standard when talking about Trump. Totally disingenuous.
You assume that all situations are exactly the same...Libya involved much more collaboration
and discussion amongst allies and the goals/objectives were clearly stated. Also, several other countries had boots on the ground...our national risk level was far lower against Gaddafi than it is against Iran. Additionally, our "Leadership Team" is comprised of incompetent amateurs. Libya didn't rise to a level requiring Congressional approval since it was low and the commitment minor, given all the other nations doing the heavy lifting. Not the case with Iran where Trump and Bibi are on record seeking complete regime change in a country rife with millions of people who are religiously driven to defeat the "Great Satan"...Americ a. Good Luck making that work while annoying China and Russia at the same time...think they won't join the party in ways that cost this country lives and trillions of dollars?
Time to get real, Ned...stop betting on the Loser.
Pretty sure I can guess which side the "Globalize the Intifada" crowd is on.
(no message)
Ned is not into the 'Nuance' of military planning...unfortunately neither is Trump or anyone in
his administration.
Is there a Mullah succession plan or is more like the pope?
(no message)
They have already chosen an interim leader
They’ll elect a permanent one when things calm down.
When a car bombing results in white smoke...a new Mullah has been chosen...
(no message)
That is believable.
(no message)
Exhibit B:
Indeed...from your link...
Not your problem, right Cheeks?
--------------------
"I want real help for the Iranians, not bombs," protest organizer Etan Maburakh said.
The issue is personal for Maburakh. His family was forced to flee Iran to the United States, and he says while he understands the need for regime change, war is not the answer.
"When they bomb elementary schools killing 85 schoolgirls, that doesn't bring freedom and democracy," he said.
------------------
Consent Management