ISRAEL V IRAN: Trump just warned everyone should evacuate Tehran

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

17 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

International economic sanctions would serve as the carrot and the stick. A “kinetic” approach shouldn’t be necessary because the IAEA found Iran fully compliant during the JCPOA v1.0. Iran’s era of non-compliance began after Trump suddenly reneged on the deal.

 

I don't know, Kay, because while Iran was potentially compliant during v1.0, they clearly were not compliant after being compliant.  In addition, it seems logical to question the arbiters of compliance, given Iran's wax on/wax off approach to being good international citizens.  It seems more likely to me that they are playing a long gane, moving forward with the intent to secure nuclear capability. 

 

17 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

“Intervening via low-key revolution and king-making” is still letting the Iranians decide for themselves how they want to be governed. ~80% of Iranians are already dissatisfied with a theocracy. Basically, Iranian women can come visit me in NYC and watch my TikTok videos on how to wear bell-sleeved floral-patterned skater dresses while haughtily flipping one’s hair out in public, on the way to one’s appointment to abort one’s rapist’s baby. Iranians will want to live like Kay because who wouldn’t?? This is the extent of the revolution fomentation: simply opening up channels of communication (internet, travel, etc.) that promote the awesomeness of secular humanism and the American Bill of Rights. Iran’s government would theoretically agree to this because it would be part of the prospective international peace deal.

 

And while I’m proposing theoretical solutions, allow me to expound on an additional carrot we are morally obligated to dangle in front of Iran: the full dismantlement of the genocidal Zionist project…a new one-state solution, under equally full IAEA surveillance as Iran, and with all Israeli government war criminals sent to The Hague. This would make the Houthis and Hezbollah happy, too, to go along with their Abraham Accords brethren and the rest of the Middle East (if they’re all being honest with their feelings about the psychopathic country that is Israel).

Ah, so you were not talking at all about the US government/intelligence apparatus covertly encouraging regime change.  It seems to me that a fundamentalist regime like Iran would not be comfortable as all with allowing the Tok (et al) and western decadence into the homeland.  CKA shows way too much skin for the average extremist, I would think, and they view that as a non-negotiable and far beyond the pale. Maybe, though. 

 

As to Israel, you've beaten that drum loudly and clearly, and at some point to me you cross from sensible citizen of the world to...well, to something I'm not interested in debating.  

 

 

Edited 11 hours ago by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Big Blitz]

Side note - we used to be taught in America that in regimes like the Soviet Union or North Korea, if anyone fled and saw what was happening or had happened in the real world, they would have absolutely no clue about any of it.  
 

Having been fed revisionist history their whole lives.  
 

What if that is us:

 

 

 

[nedboy7]

But the tensions surrounding Ms. Gabbard are now in the open, as Mr. Trump considers mounting a military strike on Iran. Ms. Gabbard, a critic of overseas entanglements, has privately raised concerns of a wider war. And on Friday Mr. Trump said “she’s wrong” when he was asked about her testimony in March that Iran had not decided to build a nuclear weapon.

After the video was posted, the president also told Ms. Gabbard that he was disappointed in her, and wished she had used better judgment, according to one of the two people briefed on the conversation. He told Ms. Gabbard that he believed she was using her time working for him to set herself up for higher office. Mr. Trump told Ms. Gabbard that if she wanted to run for president, she should not be in the administration, one of the people briefed on the meeting said.

 

Gabbard with the TDS brewing...

 

“The president needs someone who will give him the right intelligence information, whether he likes it or not,” said Daniel L. Davis, an analyst at the think tank Defense Priorities, which advocates a restrained foreign policy. “If you put someone else in there, they might only tell him what he wants to hear.”

Mr. Davis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, was Ms. Gabbard’s choice for a top intelligence role before criticism from Republicans over his skepticism of Israel’s war in Gaza forced her to rescind the appointment.

Edited yesterday at 09:26 PM by nedboy7

[Homelander]

14 hours ago, Doc said:

Yeah, it was inevitable.  If a Dem had been President, travel wouldn't have been curtailed early for fear of being "racist" and the number of infected coming in would have made it exponentially worse.  Remember all the whining by Dems when Trump restricted travel?

 

And would a Dem President have gotten the vaccines, which were so instrumental, out as quickly?  BTW, no one said they were "useless," just that they weren't as perfect as they said and probably led to a lot of complacency.

 

Then again, maybe if a Dem had been President, the superspreader Summer of 2020 riots would have been curtailed?

 

You’re truly delusional but predictable. Nothing screamed ‘pandemic leadership’ like bleach cures, anti-mask meltdowns, and promising it’d vanish by Easter.

[Homelander]

Putin's going to be pissed with his is Lassie.

 

 

[Big Blitz]

Trump should call for an evacuation of Saint Paul, MN. 

[Albwan]

Where the hell is the sympathy for iran/trump sucks post????

democrats always take the side of the bad guys. what gives.

[ComradeKayAdams]

17 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

I don't know, Kay, because while Iran was potentially compliant during v1.0, they clearly were not compliant after being compliant.  In addition, it seems logical to question the arbiters of compliance, given Iran's wax on/wax off approach to being good international citizens.  It seems more likely to me that they are playing a long gane, moving forward with the intent to secure nuclear capability. 

 

Ah, so you were not talking at all about the US government/intelligence apparatus covertly encouraging regime change.  It seems to me that a fundamentalist regime like Iran would not be comfortable as all with allowing the Tok (et al) and western decadence into the homeland.  CKA shows way too much skin for the average extremist, I would think, and they view that as a non-negotiable and far beyond the pale. Maybe, though. 

 

As to Israel, you've beaten that drum loudly and clearly, and at some point to me you cross from sensible citizen of the world to...well, to something I'm not interested in debating.  

 

 

 

Your first paragraph: Sure, but Iran was reasonable to not be compliant after being compliant. That’s what tends to happen when one side suddenly reneges on a deal! The IAEA works for the countries of the United Nations, so it is incumbent on those countries to make sure a more stringent JCPOA v2.0 is composed.

 

Your second paragraph: Correct, I was not arguing in favor of any covert CIA government nonsense! Fully open channels of communication, like what we have with other countries of the West, must be part of any potential treaty with Iran. The Iranian theocrats are just going to have to deal with my ridiculously chic outfits in my Instagram photos.

 

Your third paragraph: Oh boy…you are on thin ice with me, Leh-nerd. Thin. Ice. And believe me, your 24.8 BMI is the least of our problems on this frozen metaphorical pond. “Dismantlement of the genocidal Zionist project” is a peaceful proposal that simply means bestowing upon Palestinians the exact same citizen rights that Jewish Israelis enjoy, while at the same time prosecuting all war criminals within both the Israeli government and Hamas.

 

I should also clarify that I’ve been using a colloquial definition of “non-interventionism,” when I probably should be saying “anti-imperialism.” As a self-described “ardent non-interventionist,” I still want to “intervene” multilaterally to stop blatant acts of aggression if it makes sense to do so. The MOTIVES behind military and economic pressure are paramount to me.

 

I keep repeating myself about Israel and Gaza because you guys keep framing the Iran-Israel conflict so ignorantly! On one side, Iran’s government is a socially regressive theocracy guilty of making irresponsible verbal threats to Israel and funding terrorists/resistance fighters. On the other side, Israel is an apartheid state guilty of genocide and illegal occupation of land. Neither are good, but only one side here is initiating acts of aggression against its neighbors. Only one side here has fully functioning nuclear weapons not monitored by the IAEA. Only one side here agreed to become a member of the NPT. Which side, exactly, is the greater threat to nuclear escalation at the moment??

 

But fine, I’ll stop bringing up the worst human rights crisis since the Holocaust because doing so challenges your infantile black vs. white worldview. Paradigm-shifting thoughts affect poor wittle Weh-nerd in the feel-feels, and awww…Weh-nerd’s feel-feels are what weally matter!!

 

<< haughty eyeroll >>

<< tosses baby formula bottle at Leh-nerd’s face >>

<< uploads latest cut-out maxi pic to Instagram page >>

<< sends Instagram page link to Ali Khamenei >>

[nedboy7]

Proud Boys turning on Trump if he gets involved.  So interesting to see the different species of scum in this country start infighting. 

[aristocrat]

2 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Your first paragraph: Sure, but Iran was reasonable to not be compliant after being compliant. That’s what tends to happen when one side suddenly reneges on a deal! The IAEA works for the countries of the United Nations, so it is incumbent on those countries to make sure a more stringent JCPOA v2.0 is composed.

 

Your second paragraph: Correct, I was not arguing in favor of any covert CIA government nonsense! Fully open channels of communication, like what we have with other countries of the West, must be part of any potential treaty with Iran. The Iranian theocrats are just going to have to deal with my ridiculously chic outfits in my Instagram photos.

 

Your third paragraph: Oh boy…you are on thin ice with me, Leh-nerd. Thin. Ice. And believe me, your 24.8 BMI is the least of our problems on this frozen metaphorical pond. “Dismantlement of the genocidal Zionist project” is a peaceful proposal that simply means bestowing upon Palestinians the exact same citizen rights that Jewish Israelis enjoy, while at the same time prosecuting all war criminals within both the Israeli government and Hamas.

 

I should also clarify that I’ve been using a colloquial definition of “non-interventionism,” when I probably should be saying “anti-imperialism.” As a self-described “ardent non-interventionist,” I still want to “intervene” multilaterally to stop blatant acts of aggression if it makes sense to do so. The MOTIVES behind military and economic pressure are paramount to me.

 

I keep repeating myself about Israel and Gaza because you guys keep framing the Iran-Israel conflict so ignorantly! On one side, Iran’s government is a socially regressive theocracy guilty of making irresponsible verbal threats to Israel and funding terrorists/resistance fighters. On the other side, Israel is an apartheid state guilty of genocide and illegal occupation of land. Neither are good, but only one side here is initiating acts of aggression against its neighbors. Only one side here has fully functioning nuclear weapons not monitored by the IAEA. Only one side here agreed to become a member of the NPT. Which side, exactly, is the greater threat to nuclear escalation at the moment??

 

But fine, I’ll stop bringing up the worst human rights crisis since the Holocaust because doing so challenges your infantile black vs. white worldview. Paradigm-shifting thoughts affect poor wittle Weh-nerd in the feel-feels, and awww…Weh-nerd’s feel-feels are what weally matter!!

 

<< haughty eyeroll >>

<< tosses baby formula bottle at Leh-nerd’s face >>

<< uploads latest cut-out maxi pic to Instagram page >>

<< sends Instagram page link to Ali Khamenei >>

The worst human rights crisis since the holocaust? lol this ain’t even top 25. What? 50-60k dead? Those are rookie numbers. 
 

https://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

[The Frankish Reich]

Constitutional conservatives: where's Congress? Where's the authorization for the use of military force in Iran?

Isn't that, at a minimum, what's required before Trump launches any U.S. assault?

If this is about regime change, isn't that essentially a declaration of war on Iran? Why no declaration?

[yall]

19 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Constitutional conservatives: where's Congress? Where's the authorization for the use of military force in Iran?

Isn't that, at a minimum, what's required before Trump launches any U.S. assault?

If this is about regime change, isn't that essentially a declaration of war on Iran? Why no declaration?

The last time we declared war was WWII. 

 

Funny you mention the Constitution because many of the arguments against the Constitutionality of the War Powers act were in fact claiming that that the imposed limit on POTUS were unconstitutional, not the other way around.

 

So your point about constitutional conservatives being upset is a bit misguided.

[Big Blitz]

24 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Constitutional conservatives: where's Congress? Where's the authorization for the use of military force in Iran?

Isn't that, at a minimum, what's required before Trump launches any U.S. assault?

If this is about regime change, isn't that essentially a declaration of war on Iran? Why no declaration?

 

Ask them 60 days from if and when we get involved.   

[sherpa]

36 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Constitutional conservatives: where's Congress? Where's the authorization for the use of military force in Iran?

Isn't that, at a minimum, what's required before Trump launches any U.S. assault?

If this is about regime change, isn't that essentially a declaration of war on Iran? Why no declaration?

 

This comes up every time military action is considered, always by the opposition.

See Obama and Libya/Syria.

See Clinton Bosnia.

[Trump_is_Mentally_fit]

2 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

This comes up every time military action is considered, always by the opposition.

See Obama and Libya/Syria.

See Clinton Bosnia.

Yup, this has a long history, Jefferson attacked the Barbary Pirates without Congressional authorization. 

7 hours ago, Albwan said:

Where the hell is the sympathy for iran/trump sucks post????

democrats always take the side of the bad guys. what gives.

Maybe you just got us wrong. Maybe you are just all wrong, period. 

 

You do seem like a pathetic joke 

[The Frankish Reich]

13 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

This comes up every time military action is considered, always by the opposition.

See Obama and Libya/Syria.

See Clinton Bosnia.

Or see Afghanistan and Iraq.

These were studied/contemplated/debated uses of U.S. military force against the ruling forces of sovereign nations. Say what you will about the results of the debate, but there were debates in Congress and an AUMF.

I see no reason why - with the "two week pause" - that debate isn't happening now in Congress. This is not a situation involving an immediate defensive action against an attack on the United States or United States interests abroad, nor is it a military action compelled by Senate-ratified treaty obligations.

The constitution is the constitution regardless of which party is in charge.

32 minutes ago, yall said:

The last time we declared war was WWII. 

 

Funny you mention the Constitution because many of the arguments against the Constitutionality of the War Powers act were in fact claiming that that the imposed limit on POTUS were unconstitutional, not the other way around.

 

So your point about constitutional conservatives being upset is a bit misguided.

Those were the Cold Warrior conservatives. The roles are reversed now. The post-neocon conservatives are supposed to be about appropriate debate and authorization before we get involved in foreign wars.

[sherpa]

15 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Or see Afghanistan and Iraq.

These were studied/contemplated/debated uses of U.S. military force against the ruling forces of sovereign nations. Say what you will about the results of the debate, but there were debates in Congress and an AUMF.

I see no reason why - with the "two week pause" - that debate isn't happening now in Congress. This is not a situation involving an immediate defensive action against an attack on the United States or United States interests abroad, nor is it a military action compelled by Senate-ratified treaty obligations.

The constitution is the constitution regardless of which party is in charge.

 

 

I get what you're saying, but the point is that right or wrong, Presidents have enjoyed very liberal interpretations of what constitutes use of military action.

Both sides.

Very disappointed that Tim Kaine went on this vector and I don't think his logic is close to what is being considered or likely.

I used to kind of like the guy, but he has become a speed bump.

[The Frankish Reich]

37 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

I get what you're saying, but the point is that right or wrong, Presidents have enjoyed very liberal interpretations of what constitutes use of military action.

Both sides.

Very disappointed that Tim Kaine went on this vector and I don't think his logic is close to what is being considered or likely.

I used to kind of like the guy, but he has become a speed bump.

You're right - we have consistently seen presidents construe their war powers authorities broadly.

In my career I've seen a huge shift here. In the early 90s (the time of the first Iraq war), one of my law profs was probably the leading hawkish war powers proponent. He characterized the post-Vietnam era as an age of "Congressional Supremacy" in which the unconstitutional War Powers Act restrained the President's clear constitutional authorities. But we've seen the pendulum swing - Serbia was one big one, then the never-ending congressional authorizations that let Bush 43 do all sorts of things far beyond the intended scope.

I thought Trump and the neo-neoconservatives were trying to swing the pendulum back. I'm not sure it need to go back to 1975, but it does need to go back to at least the early 2000s when everyone understood that congressional authorization (even if not a declaration of war) was necessary for action against Iraq. 

[sherpa]

20 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I thought Trump and the neo-neoconservatives were trying to swing the pendulum back. I'm not sure it need to go back to 1975, but it does need to go back to at least the early 2000s when everyone understood that congressional authorization (even if not a declaration of war) was necessary for action against Iraq. 

 

Normally, I would agree with backtracking to more shared power, certainly in matters of the economy and spending.

But, regarding war powers, I expect and Congressional hearings would devolve into political grandstanding and sound bite seeking, and in no way have our nation's best interests as a goal.

Sound bite season contributing nothing.

[Homelander]