Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 5K
  • Views: 138K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548) is a federal law designed to limit the U.S. President's authority to commit armed forces to hostilities without congressional consent. Enacted over President Nixon's veto on November 7, 1973, the act requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops and mandates their withdrawal within 60 to 90 days unless Congress authorizes continued action.
Click to expand...
JD Vance I believe just stated in an interview that no president has indicated that they think that the War Powers Resolution is Constitutional so they would likely challenge all the way to the SC, and during the delay keep up the relevant war unless the SC issued an injunction, assuming the administration would obey the injunction.
 
CRHeel94 said:
What's the condition for victory here?
Click to expand...
My guess is that Trump is hoping for some kind of regime change with a strong man he picks with the promise of democratic elections in a few years. I don't think that's very realistic absent a massive commitment by the United States and then still probably not.

More realistic: best case, punish Iran enough to get them to commit to stop supporting proxies against Israel and agree to completely dismantle their nuclear program military and civilian.

Worst case, we're in an unpopular war for years and the next president ends it with very, very limited objectives accomplished but victory still declared.

Really, really worst case is an Afghanistan where we're in a low-grade war for decades and eventually some president ends it.
 
Everyday I am going to ask when oil shipping is going to be normalized thru the Strait? Just now getting caught up for the day and judging by the stock market, I see normalization is still not in sight.
 
lawtig02 said:
This is a case in point, calla. How can we possibly believe any of this is about a national security concern over Iran's nuclear program when Trump is saying things like this? It will NEVER be a valid exercise of American military power to kill another country's leadership and thousands of its civilians just because we would prefer different leadership. And yet, that's the best explanation we've received for what we're doing.
Click to expand...
tig, I don't fault anyone for disagreeing on the issue of attacking or not attacking. There are rational arguments to be made for either decision. I support the 4 to 5 week plan (6 - 8 weeks giving a little latitude). My reason for supporting a short term engagement is based on the interview with Witcoff and the comments he made as negotiations began. I never believed the first bombing obliterated their nuclear program. Damaged, yes. But then I have learned to speak trump. Applying common sense nobody would believe his rhetoric hours after the bombing with giving no time for assessment. Again, that's trump beating his chest which is consistent with his personality. Those getting all bent out of shape by him and saying he either lied then or now are absolute idiots and are ignorant on this topic. They can't seperate trump from whether or not to attack iran was good or bad and why.

1) Iran admitted they had 60% enriched uranium. They also manufacture their own centrifuges. So, it doesn't take a nuclear scientist to understand how quickly they could go from 60% to 90%. They continually denied inspections to sensitive areas. No country only pursuing nuclear energy needs uranium enriched to 60% and hidden a mile underground. So, I believe they were fairly close to having enough uranium for a bomb.
2) They were also focused on growing their missle program for the delivery of a bomb. It isn't just about the nuclear program.
3) Iran vs iraq isn't the same thing. Iran was / is bat shit crazy in their well stated intent of their purpose on earth. It is America first and the world first to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. It isn't just about protecting Israel. What happens to the world economy and life in America if Iran used a nuke?
4) Hating trump doesn't mean he is wrong about the timing of the attack. Israel was going to do it with or without us. They had made that decision. trump has built a pretty strong coalition in the ME. More so than any president in history. Outside of iran and its proxies, the ME has been pretty calm historically speaking. Attacking with support from the rest of ME was better than Israel doing it alone and undoing all the good that had been done which would have drawn us into it anyway. Attacking now gave better control than having to be involved later. The US is in a far better position control wise.
5) This does nothing but hurt the pubs politically in the short term. Why risk a guaranteed loss in the house and possible loss in the Senate for bravado? trump knows if he loses both he likely gets impeached. It wasn't an insignificant decision driven by ego. If he is correct and we are out in 4 or 5 weeks with minimal loss of life then maybe he gains some political capital but it is a massive gamble.
6) Regime change is much less clear in my opinion, and not justification alone for attacking. If it happens, great but I'm not going to say the thing was a failure if it doesn't happen because preventing iran's ability to obtain nukes and wage war was justification enough for me. I absolutely consider a short term blip of gas prices and a slight drop in the market worth the effort because the alternative for not acting would have much greater negative impacts on American's lives than what we will see if we are out by mid april.

No issues with anyone disagreeing with my opinions but it is laughable to go back and read the comments of supposedly educated and intelligent people and see that the comments are just "trump bad". 10% discussion of the actual pros / cons and 90% trump hatred and mindless reposts of social media influencers who's comments are as dumb as the people influenced by them. I respect your opinion so if you think I am wrong, please share where you disagree.
 
Enigma94 said:
Your cult leader's entire persona is built around being a celebrity. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.
Click to expand...
The difference is nobody voted for him just because he was a celebrity. You guys vote on whether taylor swift and oprah gives the green light. To say the left isn't influenced more by celebrity endorsements is inaccurate. Hell, you guys build entire campaigns (looking at you kamala) around celebrities.
 
Ddseddse said:
Weekly P.S.A.: Please do not engage posters who are not posting in good faith.

You are playing directly into their hands, and handing them their hearts desire on a silver platter.

Piss them off by ignoring them and letting them howl impotently into the void.
Click to expand...
I think he is posting good faith. Sadly, I believe he actually believes the nonsense he is posting.
 
Calheel said:
There is 0.0% chance Trump will voluntarily be at war with Iran in September or anywhere near the midterms. The amount of misinformation being leaked to the media reminds me of the runup to the NFL draft.
Click to expand...
Are You Sure About That John Cena GIF by MOODMAN
 
Callatoroy said:
tig, I don't fault anyone for disagreeing on the issue of attacking or not attacking. There are rational arguments to be made for either decision. I support the 4 to 5 week plan (6 - 8 weeks giving a little latitude). My reason for supporting a short term engagement is based on the interview with Witcoff and the comments he made as negotiations began. I never believed the first bombing obliterated their nuclear program. Damaged, yes. But then I have learned to speak trump. Applying common sense nobody would believe his rhetoric hours after the bombing with giving no time for assessment. Again, that's trump beating his chest which is consistent with his personality. Those getting all bent out of shape by him and saying he either lied then or now are absolute idiots and are ignorant on this topic. They can't seperate trump from whether or not to attack iran was good or bad and why.

1) Iran admitted they had 60% enriched uranium. They also manufacture their own centrifuges. So, it doesn't take a nuclear scientist to understand how quickly they could go from 60% to 90%. They continually denied inspections to sensitive areas. No country only pursuing nuclear energy needs uranium enriched to 60% and hidden a mile underground. So, I believe they were fairly close to having enough uranium for a bomb.
2) They were also focused on growing their missle program for the delivery of a bomb. It isn't just about the nuclear program.
3) Iran vs iraq isn't the same thing. Iran was / is bat shit crazy in their well stated intent of their purpose on earth. It is America first and the world first to keep them from getting nuclear weapons. It isn't just about protecting Israel. What happens to the world economy and life in America if Iran used a nuke?
4) Hating trump doesn't mean he is wrong about the timing of the attack. Israel was going to do it with or without us. They had made that decision. trump has built a pretty strong coalition in the ME. More so than any president in history. Outside of iran and its proxies, the ME has been pretty calm historically speaking. Attacking with support from the rest of ME was better than Israel doing it alone and undoing all the good that had been done which would have drawn us into it anyway. Attacking now gave better control than having to be involved later. The US is in a far better position control wise.
5) This does nothing but hurt the pubs politically in the short term. Why risk a guaranteed loss in the house and possible loss in the Senate for bravado? trump knows if he loses both he likely gets impeached. It wasn't an insignificant decision driven by ego. If he is correct and we are out in 4 or 5 weeks with minimal loss of life then maybe he gains some political capital but it is a massive gamble.
6) Regime change is much less clear in my opinion, and not justification alone for attacking. If it happens, great but I'm not going to say the thing was a failure if it doesn't happen because preventing iran's ability to obtain nukes and wage war was justification enough for me. I absolutely consider a short term blip of gas prices and a slight drop in the market worth the effort because the alternative for not acting would have much greater negative impacts on American's lives than what we will see if we are out by mid april.

No issues with anyone disagreeing with my opinions but it is laughable to go back and read the comments of supposedly educated and intelligent people and see that the comments are just "trump bad". 10% discussion of the actual pros / cons and 90% trump hatred and mindless reposts of social media influencers who's comments are as dumb as the people influenced by them. I respect your opinion so if you think I am wrong, please share where you disagree.
Click to expand...

I mean Calla I follow your reasoning... I guess I have a hard time squaring what we know about Trump and the supposed mastermind you make him out to be. I'd wager that you are more well-read and intelligent than he is.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
My guess is that Trump is hoping for some kind of regime change with a strong man he picks with the promise of democratic elections in a few years. I don't think that's very realistic absent a massive commitment by the United States and then still probably not.

More realistic: best case, punish Iran enough to get them to commit to stop supporting proxies against Israel and agree to completely dismantle their nuclear program military and civilian.

Worst case, we're in an unpopular war for years and the next president ends it with very, very limited objectives accomplished but victory still declared.

Really, really worst case is an Afghanistan where we're in a low-grade war for decades and eventually some president ends it.
Click to expand...
Iran isn't Afghanistan.
 
tallheel95 said:
I mean Calla I follow your reasoning... I guess I have a hard time squaring what we know about Trump and the supposed mastermind you make him out to be. I'd wager that you are more well-read and intelligent than he is.
Click to expand...
This is Bibi's War. How much more American treasure and lives do we want to spend in the M.E.?
 
UNCatTech said:
I thought the cult leader was all for Americ first?

His own statements make this relevant.

We should be focusing on America's before wasting money bombing other countries.
Click to expand...
What is the impact to America if iran acquired a nuke?
What is the impact to America if israel attacked iran without the US and it turned the ME against israel?

The impact would be far greater than what we will experience from this.
 
CFordUNC said:
You know, calla, this might be beyond your very limited capacity for introspection and self reflection, but you might want to consider what it says about you as a person that you are so angry with those of us on this board and on this thread who are expressing sadness, sorrow, and compassion for all of the innocent people who are losing their lives, their belongings, and their loved ones to this senseless conflict. You should think about what it says about you that you are angry that there are those of us who are sick and tired and frustrated of our government- people in both parties – who continue to lie to us, manipulate us, and lead us into committing atrocities that none of us want. Think about what it says about you that you are so antagonized that most of the rest of us are tired of seeing our country violating human rights and committing brazen war crimes.

Like I keep saying, I will pray for you to find the help that you need, because nobody should live the way you are living with such callous disregard for other human beings. You may have a miserable life and existence, but you don’t need to project that onto everyone else. You have a choice, brother!
Click to expand...
Don't forget to turn the light out in your mom's basement when you go to bed.
 
Calheel said:
There is 0.0% chance Trump will voluntarily be at war with Iran in September or anywhere near the midterms. The amount of misinformation being leaked to the media reminds me of the runup to the NFL draft.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you can call that misinformation with any confidence. It’s very likely Trump has expressed a desired outcome and CENTCOM is acting in a rational way to work towards that goal. I agree Trump won’t want to be fighting Iran in September (or even June), but if he said X is the goal it would be malpractice for the professionals in DOD to treat it as a passing whim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top