Trump supporters: Why do you support a war that has such limited benefits to the US people?
Without a doubt if Biden or Obama had started bombing Iran indiscriminately and caused this economic crises, you all would be singing a different tune! Explain your cognitive dissonance please.
Replies to: Trump supporters: Why do you support a war that has such limited benefits to the US people?
Much more potential benefit to American people than any "war" initiated since 2002.
Why do you think it has limited benefits? Iran publicly states it wants us destroyed, and it was developing a nuclear weapon. The benefits to the American people seem obvious and substantial.
Why do you not support it, when you "no doubt" supported Obama's wars (against Libya, just for example...ELP had a good link below on this). There was no benefit at all to the United States in participating in that war. In 2004, Libya shipped its nuclear materials and equipment to the United States. After Bush's "if you are not with us you are against us" speech, they had basically become an ally in the war on terror. But, Obama attacked them anyway, which was contrary to the interests of the American people (and communicated to the world that our allies could not trust the US government to consistently stand by them...and maybe they should develop a nuke to keep us at bay, especially if Obama was willing to help pay for it in the case of Iran). Did you support the war on Libya which had no benefit to Americans, but you now oppose this attack which at least has a chance to benefit the American people?
I don't know if this "war" is right or wrong. I questioned the attack on Iraq in 2003, and I always said the war would be easy but the peace would be hard. I was right. But, once the president decided to move forward, I hoped for the best. That is how I feel about this "war," which has clearer benefits to the American people than the Iraq invasion.
Time after time...you leave out critical information...once again, the JCPOA was working extremely
well at keeping Iran from enriching uranium past 3.7% with expert inspectors on the ground visiting known sites for nuclear development...and using environmental detection methods elsewhere to verify no nuclear enrichment activities. All without a single bomb being dropped on a girl's school.
Per Rex Tillerson...Trump is a moron...don't support such proven 'Losers'...or risk falling into the same category.
Bookmark. Cheerleading practice at 3:30.
(no message)
What did I say that was worth a bookmark?
I basically said:
1) Potential benefits of attack on Iran greater than any similar attack since 2002.
2) Obama did similar things for less potential benefits.
3) I hope for the best.
Are you hoping for the worst, so that you can catch me on point #3?
Trump launched a war for "potential benefits?" What about potential risks? Potential costs?
Potential loss of American lives? Potential instability to the region? Potential economic consequences? Potential terrorist plots against US targets and people? Potential alienation of our friends and allies?
Oh wait ... Obama did the same thing. No Ned. No President has been this reckless in using massive military power against a foreign sovereign with no strategic objective or end game and without Congressional approval.
Yes, let's just "hope for the best."
Incredible how Ned fails to pay any attention to the other side of the ledger...
(no message)
Who is delivering the "facts" regarding Iran's nuclear weapon potential? Didn't we do this in '02?
We just bombed them 7 months ago and declared victory and now we're back at it.
I didn't believe we were done 7 mos ago. Did you? Looking forward to your answers to my other Q's.
...by which I mean my questions regarding your position on Obama's "wars."
As for Iran, they were not hiding their nuclear weapon ambitions. Do you think they were bluffing?
I don't support it. My stance has always been consistent
You don't start a war over what a country might possibly do someday. Unlike the lefties here on the board (Ty is the most sycophantic) who never criticize their own, I call it like it is.
I disagree. I like beating somebody to the punch when it is necessary. I hope I'm not wrong.
(no message)
It is absolutely a betrayal. The demise of DOGE was an early signal of how the resolve of the
administration was already weakening on stances taken during the campaign.
Any foreign policy question can be solved with a simple Lindsey Test: If Lindsey thinks it's a great idea, it's not, and it's not in the country's best interest.
23% of the GOP supported an attack on Iran before it happened
Now: 85%
The cult has fallen into line. The idea that this is splitting the GOP - despite some high-profile dissenters - is not supported by the evidence.
I understand why the left doesn't support our military fighting the Iran government.
MAGA has no excuse for their contention. If we all have been paying attention, DJT was talking Iran since the '80s. He actually talked about Iran can't win a war against Iraq but they give the United States all it can handle with little pushback from any U.S. president. He talked about Kharg Island. Iran was part of his agenda and he made no secret of it. He's had threats from Iran on his life and the United States. You think "Death to America" is just a bumper sticker slogan? You know who didn't want this to happen? China and Russia, so there you go.
I remember a guy named Cole who would rail on the neocons
Trump would never get us into unnecessary wars, he said. A vote for Kamala was a vote for war.
Wonder where that guy went.
I like Trump's record on wars and do you think he wanted the stock market to go down, knowing it
would happen. He must have firmly believed it was necessary.
What is his record? What a silly comment.
(no message)
Consent Management