Evacuate Tehran? And Trump called Biden a warmonger?
Background;
https://www.salon.com/2025/06/16/evacua … th-social/
I find it at the height of arrogance for Trump to tell Iran that they cannot have a nuclear weapon, is not Israel a nuclear power?
The balance of power requires that both sides have similar weapons, to discourage aggression from one side toward the other. It has worked for almost 80 years on the global scene.
Since Trump so foolishly eliminated previous diplomatic and negotiation options, this is where we are. What is going to take to stop Iran, short of war? Is it a war that we, the US, will find itself in the middle of? I thought that Trump was speaking of reducing our involvement in international matters of this sort?
So Trump boasted that he could solve major international conflicts at the wave of his magic wand? Both Netanyahu and Putin see him as nothing more than a useful idiot. They are both going to do want they want and Trump just makes it easier for them. If you are on the opposing side, of course you want to keep Colonel Klink in charge of Stalag 13.
He is being made a fool of by Putin and has merely exacerbated the mess in the Ukraine. Iran is not Iraq as they have a substantial military force, will Russia support Iran against the US? This all remains to be seen.For those interested in real-time monitoring of the world, I have a group that compiled all of the relevant real-time monitoring systems and instructions. It's a good time, and it's all relatively easy to use with direct access to information before the news tweaks it to their agenda.
Popular Wide-band Web Receivers
>http://websdr.ewi.utwente.nl:8901/
>http://websdr.k3fef.com:8901/
OR Select one geographically close to you
>http://websdr.org/
>http://rx.linkfanel.net/
INSTRUCTIONS
>Set Frequency to 4724.00, 8992.00 or 11175.00
>Set Mode to USB
>Tap "Wider" to increase bandwidth (2.7-3.0 kHz)
>Press "Chrome audio start" if necessary
>Get /comfy/
NOTE:
>At night, 4724 is clearest along with 11175. (Take into account the location of your SDR)
>Daytime 8992 replaces 4724.
>Click the "wider" button once to get 2.7kHz.
CSV OF FREQUENCIES:
>https://pastebin.com/nRaDXdZN
WHAT IS SKYKING???
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Frequency_Global_Communications_System
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Action_Message
AIR TRAFFIC:
> https://globe.adsbexchange.com/
> https://www.flightradar24.com/
MARITIME TRAFFIC
> https://www.marinetraffic.com/
> https://www.vesselfinder.com/
LIVE UNIVERSAL AWARENESS MAP
>https://liveuamap.com/en/
REAL TIME RADIATION WORLD MAP
>https://www.gmcmap.com/index.asp
MORSE CODE DECODER
>https://morsecode.world/international/decoder/audio-decoder-adaptive.html
SSTV DECODER (app for download)
>https://hamsoft.ca/pages/mmsstv.php
THE DOT
>https://global-mind.org/gcpdot/
>https://beigexperience.github.io/ponderthedot/
As for this new, hip and happening war, I already have buddies on their way over there. Hopes, prayers, pleas, etc. all going toward hoping a hot war isn't popping off. The juice isn't worth the squeeze.
I think it's time for America to focus on its own problems for a hot minute, and only be in the mix when it directly serves strengthening our bonds around the world as a whole. Israel has already admitted it could single-handedly wipe Iran, so let them if that's their course in life.Yes, the juice is not worth the squeeze. This regime change, nation building stuff of the Bush era is passe. You wonder why so many domestic problems remain unsolved, so here stuff like this is part of the answer.
Thanks for the other sources, quite a bit to cull through.Bush era... you mean Biden era...
Bush started a war against a lesser nation that had no chance.
Biden started WWIII... against Russia... the country with a couple of nukes, the country now joined at the hip with China.
No contest which Administration was filled with bigger idiots... none.
Although it sounds honest, like give both parties the same amount of weapons...I disagree here. There is a huge difference between Israel and Iran. Israel is a democracy and Iran is a theocracy. I'm definitely not a fan of Netanyahu but he will be replaced in a couple of years through a fair election. (and yes there are some religious nut cases in Israel too!)
In Iran there are no fair elections. The supreme leader rules, with laws following an extreme religious interpretation of the Koran.
Iran has used children in the name of Allah to clean up mine fields. (Basij Militia).
Extreme religious people think completely different than ordinary people. They are willing to make suicide attacks in the name of God (think 9-11)
Now imagine Osama Bin Laden had the possibility to use a nuke. Do you think he would not have used it? He could have put it into an airplane and ramp it into a building..
This is what Iran would do. And this is not what Israel would do.
Now another point of concern is AI. Artificial Intelligence is developing with an extreme rapid rate. And is available for everybody. Now some countries with the resources can easily use AI to construct all kinds of malicious tools and weapons. (and cheap)
The regime in Iran is a religious dictatorship now free liberated person can or should defend. As women's rights don't exists and if you are gay your life is in danger.
Now, hopefully, as the Iranians themselves are fed up with the dictatorship, this war with Israel will topple the regime. The frightening question is, what will replace it?Peter, nice to hear the perspective from the other side of the pond as I have serious concerns about the opinions of our American Right wing. Do you really believe that Trump’s involvement was something most of you on “the continent” support?
I know that Iran is not exactly a liberal democracy, but neither is Pakistan, China or Russia. Short of out and out war, do we really need this sort of intimidation right now? We have a variety of tinder boxes all over the world. I blame Trump for choosing not to negotiate over using brute force. It is characteristic of him, look at Greenland and Panama. Is not North Korea just as savage? The world is not a pretty place and sticking our noses in the affairs of others as we did in 2003 Iraq based on moral indignation has not worked. Are the mass of Iranians really willing to destroy themselves? Do they not realize that the retaliation from the rest of the world from mature nuclear powers would not wipe them from the map? Are they all in a hurry to meet with Allah? Up to now, I have seen more aggression from Israel than from Iran. Iran has been saying for years that they want Israel removed from the map, but yet Israel is still here. I want thinking people (our leaders) to use a little discernment and avoid putting adversaries into corners from which they cannot extricate themselves. There remains a few minutes before midnight, can we not use that time to defuse this matter?I can't really talk for the whole of Europe. But what I feel is that the general consensus among European politicians and the public is that Trump is an unreliable person. One day he is saying and doing this, the other day he turns 90°. He has shown that he has a different objective than Europe and isn't looking for a partnership and dialogue but for conflict.
Trumps involvement? It is more a lack of involvement. Trump abandoned the nuclear deal with Iran without replacing it with an alternative. Leaving a gap. Same with the Trump leaving the Paris agreement without offering an alternative.
And same with Ukraine, Trump talks a lot but does not want to make tough decisions. He does not offer realistic solutions.
The fact that Netanyahu does what he does is because the US has a weak leader who is not able to push back against Israel. (Same with Russia, Trump is terrible in Geo politics.)
Basically Trump does not care what is happening outside the US. This ostrich politics will hit home. As if the US is unwilling to "police the world" someone else will (China) or nobody ( resulting in many conflicts around the world)
Or in the words of James Brown... "It pays to be the boss." If you want to be the boss, it comes with responsibilities. And Trump wants the benefits of being the top dog country asking for tariffs etc, but is not willing to accept the responsibilities.
What happens is that Netanyahu, Putin, China and bit by bit smaller terrorist groups will become more active in the world, as Trump does not step in. These terrorist groups will also hit the US in the end.
About the nuclear bomb and Iran.
I don't think Iran is the same as Pakistan or even North Korea.
Iran is ruled by extreme religious fanatics. This is even worse that an extreme ideology like Nazi Germany. Iran would use the atom bomb to destroy Israel, a country pretty close. It has said so over the years.
I don't think Nazi Germany would have used the bomb to destroy Paris. But would have used it, just like the US and Russia as a thread. I think even North Korea is not as bad as Iran, although this is a society that's brainwashed as well. (much more so than Iran, as the majority of the people in Iran are sick of their leadership)
Iran is really a different case, as they have lunatics who will do suicide bombings, that's a complete different mindset than an ordinary war. And I think this extreme religious mindset is something we can hardly imagine in the west. As all religions have become much more moderate over the centuries in the west. But the extreme Islam in the middle east is a different thing all together. They will not care about retaliation from the west. Just like Hamas does not care about their own citizens being carpet bombed and use them as human shields. As it is a sacrifice for God (Allah)
So yes, I think it would be incredibly unwise to give Iran an atom bomb, as they will use it for real and not just as a threat.Yes, if I were on your side of the pond, I would see Trump as an unreliable flip flopper who will change with the weather and just drag everyone along.
Russia or China just might not sit still as Iran is allied with Russia. Trump is gullible and easily swayed and manipulated.
But you have to wonder, Peter, if jihad is so certain from Iran why does Iran even consider negotiations? Why not simply build the weapon and use it? Why would extreme religious zealots bother to negotiate? Another poster revealed that the threat posed by Iran in acquiring sufficient fissionable material to make a bomb has been akin to ‘sky is falling” for the last 30 years. It reminds me of the coming breakthrough regarding successful nuclear fusion, “it is just around the corner”. But it has been just ‘around the corner’ for 3 or 4 decades.
In the film and novel “Is Paris Burning” I recall Hitler planing to decimate Paris prior to its liberation by the allies. The German officer assigned to carry out Hitlers command had second thoughts and did not carry out the order. Based on the film and Hitlers behavior, I would believe that he would have used all the conventional munitions available at the time, even though he did not have nuclear capacity.The nuclear bomb capacity of Iran is a pretext for the war. If it is true is irrelevant.... Just like the US used the lie of Iraq having chemical weapons. Or the made up fights across the border of Poland and Germany.
Governments make up stories to justify a war.
The reason why Israel attacks Iran today is as it has disabled Hezbollah and Hamas who were fighting a shadow war for Iran.
They aren't a threat anymore.
Also as said Trump is not able to stop Netanyahu as he does not know how to handle this kind of situations. (Same with not doing a thing about Ukraine and Russia.)
He walked away from the G7 where all the diplomacy takes place. And is staling with making a move.
So basically giving Netanyahu card blanch.
Iran as we know is since 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini a theocracy and a problem in the region.
The west could say, let it be. Don't bother, let them fight among themselves. Why should we care that human rights are being violated. And normally that's the attitude of the rich countries. They only come to action if there is financial gain. Human rights is not important (as a classic example the many dictatorships in South America who were directed by the CIA, and the colonialism by Europe..)
Now I'm sure, as Trump is only thinking in dolars, that this will be a motivation for the US to support or not to back Israel.
The war between Israel and Iran was waiting to happen. There are a lot of arguments. But my own argument is that Israel is a democracy and Iran is a dictatorship. I support a democracy. Same with Ukraine fighting Russia. I support Ukraine because it is a democracy and Russia a dictatorship.
We can say that Israel has used to much violence. And I totally agree, and Netanyahu is an extreme right wing populist (defiantly not my vote). But the other side is much worse in my opinion. Imagine that Hamas had conquered Israel. What would have happened? Or what would have happened if Iran was stronger than Israel and conquered the land?
The difficult thing about these conversations I find is that we are talking about a war from our comfortable home. Having different theories of how the war can develop and what will happen etc... And often I think, I don't know anything about this whole thing...
I remember the live images of CNN of the Iraq war of missiles being shot at people on a bridge, destroying the bridge but missing the people, and the commentators yelling, oh boy that was their lucky day...
Like war is some entertainment.
Today with social media people have lots of opinions following influencers like Joe Rogan and other people who don't know anything about the background of a conflict and are just yelling things to get more likes, to become more popular using controversial statements or conspiracy theories.“Iran as we know is since 1979 when Ayatollah Khomeini a theocracy and a problem in the region.
The west could say, let it be. Don't bother, let them fight among themselves. Why should we care that human rights are being violated. And normally that's the attitude of the rich countries. They only come to action if there is financial gain. Human rights is not important (as a classic example the many dictatorships in South America who were directed by the CIA, and the colonialism by Europe..)
Now I'm sure, as Trump is only thinking in dolars, that this will be a motivation for the US to support or not to back Israel.”
—-
Trump is in it for political “browny points”with certain constituencies in this country, I don’t believe that he has any ideals or preferences for either side
Interesting points, Peter, but was not the Shah of Iran seen as merely a western puppet? As far as I can see, much of the globe suffers injustice. It is almost too overwhelming for any one nation or group of nations to grasp a hold of. Philippines, Central America, north and sub Saharan Africa, where has it stopped? Ending the suffering and making an example of one part of it depends on strategic interests of the wealthy nations and not so much about “human rights” Why would I think that the focus on Iran is any different?
——-
“The war between Israel and Iran was waiting to happen. There are a lot of arguments. But my own argument is that Israel is a democracy and Iran is a dictatorship. I support a democracy. Same with Ukraine fighting Russia. I support Ukraine because it is a democracy and Russia a dictatorship.”
—-
The problem with that for me, is that at least here in the United States, the designation of the country as a Democracy is circumstantial. We claim to be a democracy, but internally that has not always been the case. We both know of situations where the CIA would undermine democratic governments in central and South America in favor of tyrants that would toe the line regarding American political and economic interests, while the best interests of the inhabitants are not considered. I see the designation of “free world” as those that conform to western political and economic interests and the “bad guys” as always being the ones to challenge Western hegemony. But, is there anything wrong in challenging Western hegemony? Does anyone want to be ruled over and controlled? That observation is particularly true of the United States. So, in my opinion there is more involved than labels. I support the Ukraine because there should be no situation where one nation invades another in a tyrannical fashion, regardless of its form of government. We have virtually gotten into bed with Saudi Arabia, certainly not a democracy, while castigating Cuba 90 miles from our shores over a “pi$$ing contest” 65 years ago.
Peter, after looking at some statistics, Iran has 10 times the population of Israel. Looking at the numbers, Iran may well use its greater numbers and subdue Israel with conventional munitions, if it really wanted to. Netanyahu, “the beast of the Middle East” is taking advantage, after decimating the Palestinian question via Hamas terrorism he really thinks now that he can subdue a nation 10 times more populous. Frankly, Peter, it stinks, all of it….I does stink. But more I think it is the result of the US (Trump) not understanding GEO politics. Or better said, not caring. Trump only cares if he benefits personally. (Getting some crypto currency from companies and states, or airplanes as a bribe.)
What stinks is that Netanyahu is misusing war for personal benefit. As he knows that his political days are over the moment the war stops. Thatcher did the same thing. She started the war with the Falklands at the time her popularity was far into the red. And thanks to this war she could continue.
I guess Trump will do the same thing before the midterm election and create a "crisis" or use the Iran-Israel war.I will make another prediction, Trump will use the war to abuse his executive power and find a way to nullify the risk of Democrats taking over congress in the fall of next year.
He has to be sweating, because a screwup in the economy and a war of aggression where we should not have been involved, combined with the tendency of midterms outcomes to be negative for the party in power, may mean “lame duck” status for the rest of his term where Congress would not so much as pass gas on his behalf, let alone anything else associated with his agenda.
Right now, my problem is that too many members of Congress are a mere collection of a ventriloquist’s dummies, allowing Trump to usurp their authority and role and allowing him to get away with it.
I was not talking about Biden. I was talking about Trump.
Good points. I feel the same way about the CCP. As we say in Arabic `Do not change your friends unless the new one is certainly better`
I think some of your points are oversimplified or even upside down when examined with a clear-eyed view of the facts. Equating Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons with Israel’s existing arsenal ignores a critical distinction: Israel is not a state sponsor of terrorism, nor has it called for the annihilation of any other country. Iran, on the other hand, has consistently threatened Israel’s existence, chants “Death to America” in its parliament, and funds terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Giving a regime like that nuclear weapons isn’t balancing power, it’s inviting chaos.
Your opening sentence suggests you may see Iran as just another nation, but do you believe Iran should have access to a nuclear weapon?
Calling Trump arrogant for opposing a nuclear-armed Iran misses the larger truth: for decades, both Democratic and Republican administrations have maintained that Iran must never obtain nuclear weapons. That’s not a Trump idea, it’s longstanding U.S. foreign policy rooted in the real threat Iran poses to the region and beyond. You also mentioned deterrence working globally for 80 years. That’s true, but only when dealing with rational actors. The Iranian regime has shown time and again it values ideology over survival, which undermines traditional deterrence theory.
As for diplomacy, it’s worth pointing out that the Obama-era JCPOA legally gave Iran billions in relief, yet allowed them to resume advanced enrichment over time. Trump pulled out of that deal because it was temporary and unverifiable in key areas. Instead, he applied a “maximum pressure” strategy, which crippled Iran’s economy, reduced its ability to fund proxies, and, most recently, he took military action again just five days ago with targeted airstrikes against Iranian-backed targets, sending a clear message that nuclear ambitions and aggression won’t go unchecked. That’s not negligence, that’s deterrence in action.
Calling Trump a “useful idiot” for Putin and Netanyahu also doesn’t stand up to facts. Under Trump, the U.S. provided lethal aid to Ukraine after Obama refused to do so, sanctioned Russian oligarchs, and even killed Russian mercenaries in Syria. That’s hardly appeasement.
As for Israel, Trump facilitated the Abraham Accords, historic peace agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, something critics said couldn’t happen without solving the Palestinian issue first. Again, those are real-world results, not magic wand promises.
I end with suggesting that Trump “exacerbated” the mess in Ukraine, ignores the timeline: Putin invaded Crimea under Obama, all held steady under Trump, and escalated into a massive war under Biden.
Trump may be unconventional in style, but that doesn’t make him weak. In fact, his unpredictability kept adversaries cautious. And that’s exactly what we need with Iran right now, measured strength, not passive optimism. War is not inevitable, but peace through strength has historically been more effective than appeasement through naiveté.
Just a reminder, the ceasefire between Israel and Iran is still holding. Trump managed to help bring that about after just 12 days of conflict. Yet you don’t mention a single accomplishment of his. How do you overlook so much?The cease fire is just the beginning and is precarious at best. Short of all out war, there is no way that you can really prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, after all we have thousands of them. I am not willing to go to war and tally up casualties to defend a nation on the other side of the globe. But, you can send your kids, if you want.
Yes, I know that Iran has been a thorn in the side of much of the world, but I don’t trust Trump or his proposal of a pax-Americana as a solution. If I were Iran, I would just keep moving facilities around, and no one will know what the extent of the development is.
I guess that we are all entitled to our perspectives of the facts at hand.
Trump was just lucky that the crisis in the Ukraine region did not occur under his watch, he deserves no credit for simply not being at the wrong place at the wrong time.
It is too early to speak of results. It still remains to be seen. Destroying the Palestinians and their concerns in the region does not make Trump a problem solver. I don’t recall Russia attempting to invade Ukraine during Obama’s term?
The iAEC said that Iran was basically in compliance with the terms of Obama’s agreement. I don’t believe Trump in saying that it was inadequate. The whole point was to avoid having to drop bombs, realizing that forced capitulation will never yield a lasting peace, not in these times.
Who was to say that the Soviet Union and China were rational actors? During much of the Cold War and the geopolitical struggle, the finger on the nuclear trigger was a characteristic of all sides.
Pakistan and India have the “bomb”, under what duress would they use them? What is rational about their long running conflicts?
Is it a war that we, the US, will find itself in the middle of? I thought that Trump was speaking of reducing our involvement in international matters of this sort?
So, apparently, the US is at war with Iran.
Yes, and what is the justification for it? Everybody is so certain that Iran will use its nuclear weapon if it acquires one. It just might need to have one to get Israel to stop its attacks, in fear of reprisal. Iran knows that it territory will be reduced to a large crater is they start anything like employ nuclear ordinance. We all know it.
It is not just President Donald Trump who believes Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.
It is all the leaders of the G7. The wealthiest countries in the world.
They made a unified statement at the recent G7 summit.
The statement reads: "We, the leaders of the G7, reiterate our commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East. In this context, we affirm that Israel has a right to defend itself. We reiterate our support for the security of Israel.
"We also affirm the importance of the protection of civilians. Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror. We have been consistently clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon."That is something I’m gonna have to read for myself. I’ll check it out.
Yes, they did make such a statement but are any of them willing to go to war to prevent it?"It is not just President Donald Trump who believes Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.
LOL....you do realize that he withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal during his first term? A deal that by all accounts was working... Yes, the rest of the world has believed that Iran should not have nuclear weapons for quite a long time... I suppose that you could say we are in the current situation because of Trump's idiotic policy. He came into the office the first time wanting to destroy as much of Obama's legacy as he could... And now look where we are. We will probably be joining Israel in this war by this evening.
CBS reports that Trump is considering joining Israel's strikes of Iranian nuclear sites...
Latest poll with
YouGov conducted over the weekend, asked Americans if the US military should get involved in the war in Iran.
Overall:
60% no
16% yes
Republicans:
53% no
23% yes
America first? No new wars? Tell me how it's ok if he backtracks, maga...Iran Is Preparing Missiles for Possible Retaliatory Strikes on U.S. Bases, Officials Say...
Commanders put American troops on high alert at military bases throughout the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The United States has more than 40,000 troops deployed in the Middle East.
Two Iranian officials have acknowledged that the country would attack U.S. bases in the Middle East, starting with those in Iraq, if the United States joined Israel’s war.
Who thinks we're joining tonight?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/us/p … bases.htmlYou are determined to keep yourself in a constant state of agitation, aren't you?
Salon... that's like asking you to read a National Review article... just as biased, just in the other direction.What parts of the article do you take issue with? Are you claiming that it isn't factual?
Let's be clear...
This war is on TRUMP.
This chaos traces directly back to his 2018 stunt pulling out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.
He gave Iran the runway to enrich uranium and build weapons.
Now the region is on fire. Everything he touches implodes.
There is no individual more singlehandedly responsible for there being a war in Iran right now than Trump. We literally had Iran's nuclear program contained by a deal that everyone admitted they were following until he unilaterally pulled out of it.You, the rightwinger community and Trump keeps me and thoughtful others in constant agitation. There is no point in shooting the messenger, Ken, that will get you nowhere. Is any of the parts of the article untrue?
Trump's way of communicating has never really been my cup of tea.
I am not following either war... I have enough concerns... I don't need to add to them considering the probability that Biden has put us on the road to complete destruction... both these conflicts would NOT have occurred without Biden's funding and escalation efforts.
And by Biden... I mean all the dirtbags behind the scenes that were making all these wonderful things happen while Stooge was President.Trump got out of the Iran nuclear deal during his first circus. By all accounts it was working but Trump, apparently just to spite obama, thought it'd be a good idea to let Iran enrich uranium to the point of being able to make nuclear weapons. He is a huge factor in why we are apparently on the brink of getting involved in this war. And we've got this inept Administration. Tulsi telling us there's no nuclear capability in Iran and Trump saying he doesn't care what she says... A real shit show. Did she lie during her confirmation hearing? Or does Trump just not know what's really going on?
Well, Ken, I always worry about war and everything associated with it. It provides the Right an excuse to ration resources from domestic concerns. Biden may have taken us down the road of destruction, but Trump insures that we arrived there. It is all Biden and Trump is a pure as wind driven snow as to the cause? Yeah, right…
We shall see... clearly the Administration that was insane enough to start and escalate war with Russia... then sabotage the peace negotiations that could have been had just weeks after the war started... I will always hold in contempt and consider outright evil. That will never change.
They were STARTED and FUNDED by the Biden Administration...
And millions have died in them since.
It's interesting that one of your frequent complaints during the Biden administration was the idea that you felt he would "get us into World war III". but now you can't be bothered by Trump's crew leading us into war with Iran? Lol , I'm pretty sure that Bibi started this war knowing we would come in to finish it.
https://youtube.com/shorts/JC56Ltg5zDE? … Czj9fhiEzt
Iran: Weeks away from having nuclear weapons... since 1995Let's be perfectly clear.
Under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, Iran agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons and allow continuous monitoring of its compliance in exchange for relief from economic sanctions. The agreement was set to expire over 10 to 25 years.
Trump withdrew from the agreement in 2018. He broke his 2016 campaign promise to renegotiate the agreement.
After dropping out of the compact, the U.S. put economic sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. Iran reduced its compliance with the deal and stopped complying with international inspectors.
This expanded Iranian enrichment activities, bringing it closer to the capability to produce a bomb, while reducing the visibility of those activities and making them harder to monitor.
Trump and officials in his administration said they wanted a new deal, but that never happened...
And because of Trump? Iran is much closer to the bomb than it ever has been before.
Now the U.S. has very few options available to stop them other than war. We missed the chance to do it diplomatically because of the false hope we could get a better deal by forcing them to capitulate...
The art of the deal fails yet again.Yes, we all know who is responsible, It is just tough to get Ken to dispense with his crimson colored glasses and the see reality of this situation.
Well said. In a nutshell.
Trump walks away from the Paris accord
Trump walks away from the Nuclear Deal with Iran
Trump walks away from USAID
Trump walks away from the G7
Trump is only good at shouting but when it comes to it he runs away.
Man, right when you think that you have heard it all, we just have to admit that at times we all must simply concede to the absurd.
https://www.salon.com/2025/06/18/couldv … n-lincoln/
So, Trump in his imminent wisdom and 20/20 hindsight could have avoided the American Civil War? Now, I have heard everything….
Abraham Lincoln verses Donald Trump? I can’t imagine any two people who are exact opposites of one another. One being, in my opinion, our greatest president and the other being our worst.
Trump knows nothing about American History, and with his ham handed handling of our current international crises, what would possess him to say such things? Trump never tells us HOW he would have prevented the Civil War, would we refer to a chapter of his “Art of the Deal”?
Lincoln was a great man, Trump, in just mentioning his name, soiles his memory.
Only a stupid and ignorant person would utter things like this.Only a malignant narcissist would make such an idiotic claim. And why is he connecting the Declaration of Independence to the civil war?? Apparently he doesn't understand when it was written. He also previously stated that Andrew Jackson was really angry about the civil war and could have done something to prevent it.... The man died 16 years before the war even began.
I never want to hear about Biden's mental acuity again...Trump is very simple, he made Andrew Jackson his poster boy because he saw Jackson as an outsider, like himself. Of course, he never bothered to read the man’s biography which revealed a strong Presidency will an above average ratings by historians. That was in his first term.
In the second term, now his hero is President William McKinley, who during the late 19th century employed the use of the tariff in the ways Trump wants to now. Never mind the fact that 1895 is not 2025 by a long shot.
It reminds me of teenage girls putting up posters of Elvis Presley or Frankie Avalon, or the old cheesecake pinup girls that GIs had posted during WWII, Betty Grable, being an example. Not a lot of thought or consideration involved in either circumstance. But that is Trump.
Trumps thoughts never rise above his head, even if Jackson survived to see the Civil War, how was he going to prevent it? He, himself was a slaveowner and slavery was the cause of the civil war. Although he was strong on federal power against states attempt to nullify a national mandate, what would prompt him to negotiate a topic that he was already on the wrong side of?
But Trump would know that already if he had simply read a high school level textbook.
Lets believe in Myths and the Right holds onto facts when it comes to the Iran nuclear deal.
Myth: The Agreement Contains Unprecedented Inspections and Verification
“We will have installed an unprecedented inspections regime”… “That entire infrastructure that we know
about, we will have sophisticated 24/7 monitoring of those facilities”… “the nature of nuclear programs and facilities is such -- this is not something you hide in a closet. This is not something you put on a dolly and kind of wheel off somewhere.” – President Obama
The Facts
Just a few months ago, the Secretary of Energy—himself a nuclear physicist—make it clear that “we expect
to have anywhere, anytime access.”
Yet after the Iranians boasted that “They will not even be permitted to inspect the most normal military site
in their dreams,” we ended up with “managed access.”
“Managed access” would be better called “manipulated access” as inspectors will get access to suspected
sites only after consultations between the world powers and Iran, over as long as 24 days. China, Russia
and Iran will have a say on the consultations as to who can go where.
The former head of the CIA, Michael Hayden, testified in front of the Committee, “we never believed that
the uranium at Iran’s declared facilities would ever make its way into a weapon. We always believed that
that work would be done someplace else, in secret.” As a top State Department official has said, the Iranians
have deception in their DNA.
Hayden also explained that requiring consultations between the world powers and Iran takes inspections
from the technical level and puts it at the political level, which he calls “a formula for chaos, obfuscation,
ambiguity, doubt…”
Former top weapons inspector Charles Duelfer explained to this Committee that after the First Gulf War—
even with anytime, anywhere inspections; sanctions remaining on; and the burden of proof on the Iraqis—his team “could not do their job” and were stymied. Yet, the inspections process negotiated by the Obama Administration would have much less authority.
Myth: Critics of the Agreement Do Not Want Iran To Have Peaceful Nuclear Program
“I think the suggestion among a lot of the critics has been that a – a better deal, an acceptable deal would be
one in which Iran has no nuclear capacity at all, peaceful or otherwise.” – President Obama
The Facts
Iran can have a peaceful nuclear program without the ability to enrich uranium. It is this key bomb-making
technology that is so objectionable.
Preventing the spread of this dangerous technology has been the foundation of U.S. nonproliferation policy
for decades. As a result, over 20 countries have peaceful nuclear energy programs without a domestic enrichment program. In fact, buying fuel for nuclear power plants abroad, from countries like Russia, is much more cost effective than producing it domestically.
Myth: The Agreement Is Permanent, With No “Sunset”
The Facts
The essential restrictions on Iran’s key bomb-making technology do expire, or “sunset” in 10 to 15 years.
After these restrictions expire, Iran will be left with an internationally recognized, industrial scale nuclear
program—just like Japan. Iran could even legitimately enrich to levels near weapons grade under the pretext
of powering a nuclear navy—as Brazil is currently doing.
All these activities are permissible under the NPT – and all would be endorsed by this agreement. Indeed, as President Obama said of his own agreement, in year “13, 14, 15,” Iran’s “breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero.”
As a result, the U.S. and its allies will be left with no effective measures to prevent Iran from initiating an
accelerated nuclear program to produce the materials needed for a nuclear weapon. And Iran surely would be able to speed toward a nuclear weapon faster than an international sanctions regime could be reestablished. One nonproliferation expert told the Committee that this sunset clause is “a disaster.”
It is precisely this sunset clause that the Prime Minister is referring to when he notes that this agreement paves the way for a nuclear Iran.
https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/files/ … 0Facts.pdfUnder the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the International Atomic Energy Agency was responsible for inspecting Iran's nuclear sites.
The JCPOA granted the IAEA greater access to Iranian nuclear sites than previously allowed, including the ability to install cameras and sensors, collect environmental samples, and conduct on-site inspections
IAEA reported that Iran was complying with the deal's restrictions at the time the US withdrew from the deal.
Trump is backtracking on what he ran and won on. No one voted for new wars. It has to be so challenging to be a Maga follower...
Trump.....
"The war in Ukraine could be ended in as little as 24 hours, he said. He would knock heads to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas to stop the fighting in Gaza. And he said he would strike a nuclear deal with Iran, ‘because the consequences are impossible. We have to make a deal.’
How's this working out? Revisiting trump’s prediction about stopping ‘all wars,’ five months later...
Trump’s failed promises on resolving Russia’s war in Ukraine are an ongoing embarrassment, and the Republican’s latest position is, effectively, to stop trying. “Sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while,” he said a couple of weeks ago.
Trump’s failed promises on resolving the crisis in Gaza follow his boasts in December about how much “easier” he saw the conflict, as compared to the war in Ukraine...the combat he said he’d end in one day.
And Trump’s failed promises on reaching a new nuclear agreement with Iran now appear increasingly out of reach, in part because he directed Israel not to attack Iran ahead of the next round of diplomatic talks, and Israel IGNORED him. His new position related to Israel and Iran is, “Sometimes they have to fight it out,” which is nearly identical to the phrasing he used earlier this month about Russia’s offensive in Ukraine...go figure?
five months into his term, Trump’s predictions about his administration’s ability to “stop all wars” and “bring a new spirit of unity” to the world lie in tatters. Conditions in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran are worse now than when he first made the comments.Maga, do you feel scammed?
Trump said that he’ll be the one to decide what America First means:
“Well, considering that I’m the one that developed ‘America First’ and considering that the term wasn’t used until I came along, I think I’m the one that decides that.”
And it looks like the "meaning" changes daily LOL.REPORTER QUESTION: 20 years ago you were skeptical of a GOP administration that attacked a Middle East country on the idea of questionable intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. How is this different?
TRUMP: "That was somewhat pre-nuclear. It was the nuclear age but nothing like it is today. "
He proceeds to lie about being opposed to the Iraq War...but also, "pre nuclear"? What the hell is he talking about...Trump just said the Iraq War, which happened almost 60 years after we dropped atomic bombs on Japan, was “somewhat pre-nuclear” in terms of its timing in relation to the nuclear age...LOL
https://x.com/LincolnSquareHQ/status/19 … 8657663029
Trump supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2002 and turned against it in 2004. He first said the US should "keep the oil" not in 2003 but in 2011, when he told Bill O'Reilly: “I’ve never said this before. This is a first, on your show”
Flip flopin his way through history. Does he ever have a consistent view on anything
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/liv … 982823bb4eFor all those who talked up Tulsi... Who is wrong here?
https://x.com/RCPolitics/status/1935045679883153432
https://x.com/AnalystNews_/status/1934981025920135613
Trump doesn't care what his Director of National intelligence says
Trump told reporters he believes Iran was “very close” to getting a nuclear weapon, dismissing DNI Gabbard’s testimony, saying, “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.”
He's concerned now???
He abandoned & withdrew the deal in 2018 because it was “a SIGNATURE FOREIGN POLICY ACHIEVEMENT of his predecessor” Obama
The man always puts vengeance & his own pettiness above anything, including our country's safety & securityAt least W went to trouble of making up some intelligence to claim Iraq was cooking up WMD. With Iran, Trump simply says 'because I said so' when it comes to how close Iran is to a nuke and his base? WHATEVER YOU SAY, SIR! MAGA FOREVER!!!
Trump’s “Iran has nuclear weapons” is Bush’s “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction”
You can see the playbook now right?
Facts? Obama's nuclear deal had limited enrichment to less than 5 percent. Today, we have 60 percent enrichment in Fordo and high levels of enrichment scattered across Iran. Obama showed us how tough diplomacy actually is the best way to deny Iran a bomb....
Breaking news if you haven't seen/heard yet.
BREAKING: Trump Announces US Bombing Of Iran by the Daily Caller (June 21, 2025)
https://dailycaller.com/2025/06/21/trum … n-bombing/
Truth Details (From Truth Social Post)
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
We have completed our very successful attack on the three Nuclear sites in Iran, including Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. All planes are now outside of Iran air space. A full payload of BOMBS was dropped on the primary site, Fordow. All planes are safely on their way home. Congratulations to our great American Warriors. There is not another military in the World that could have done this. NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jun 21, 2025, 4:50 PMAnd just like that, the ‘No New Wars’ people are all-in on a new war. Proving yet again that they really believe in nothing other than what one man tells them to believe today. Which could be different tomorrow. The very definition of a cult.
So, now he has done it, the bastard has provoked WWIII. I despise the conservatives that beat on Biden during his term and yet have excuses justifying dropping bombs because it is Trump that does it. Does he really think that China and Russia are not going to help Iran, even if it is surreptitiously?
And now he wants his hideous mug represented among great men on Mt. Rushmore?I concur with you on this one. Trump started World War III. Iran isn't going to take this act of aggression passively. They will retaliate, mark my word.
Yet, conservatives voted for this “peacemaker” with the MidASS touch, everything he touches turns to (fill in the blank) s_____
Very disappointing, as the whole point of MAGA was to focus on America. I hope that Iran does not retaliate but I do not see how they can sit and do nothing. Iraq and Bush taught them that they may as well.
Iranian state TV displayed a message saying “Mr. Trump, you started it, and we will end it.”
There are around 40,000 troops active-duty troops and civilians working for the Pentagon in the Middle East. Trump has put all of them in danger. Thousands of sitting ducks...
For Israel.They think Iran will say, now that you have bombed us, there will be peace. The cluelessness in this regime is breathtaking....
Whiskey Pete moments ago:
“Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran’s nuclear program, and none could until President Trump.”
This is garbage. Other Presidents could have done the same thing but they chose not too. Obama chose a nuclear deal that Iran was obeying until Trump tore it up.
Trump got us here because of that.
He has taken the US into a new war because his "art of the deal" is nothing but BS... How many will die because of this man's arrogance?Yes Trump STARTED WW3. There will be VERY DIRE consequences for America.
International news saying Iran is going to shut down the Straight of Hormuz.
Make sure y’all top off your gas tanks ASAP...Israeli forces kill 51 Palestinians in Gaza
As Israel’s conflict with Iran rages, the Israeli military also continues deadly attacks on Gaza.
The Health Ministry said it registered the killing of at least 51 people in the past 24-hour reporting period, with another 104 wounded. At least six of those were killed while waiting for aid.
SMHBibi has the greenlight from trump. I would expect that the atrocities will really ramp up. The world is absolutely on fire under trump, isn't it?
“Do you have 100% confidence that Iran's nuclear sites were totally destroyed?” - Welker
“I feel confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon.” - JD Vance
Doesn’t sound like Fordow was destroyed.
Last night Trump said Iran's nuclear program was "completely and totally obliterated"
And this morning we have Vance saying "we will permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years"
My God... Which one is it?JD Vance to Kristen Welker:
“The president has clear authority to act to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
Tulsi testified before Congress UNDER OATH that Iran didn’t have nukes.
Iraq War 2.0 thanks to Donald Trump.
Was she lying? Should she be fired? Should she resign? Or is Trump just the liar?She told the truth.
They didn't HAVE nuclear weapons.
They were close to being able to develop them.
President Donald Trump made a move to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon and having nuclear capability.
Why is this so difficult to understand for people on the left?
Newscasters are the biggest idiots.Trump clearly stated she was wrong and that he did not believe her LOL
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/shes-w … pabilities
Look, I don’t trust Tulsi either. But then again I also didn’t nominate her to be the Director of National Intelligence. This is ridiculous. So where did he get his Intel then??Trump bombs Iran and then asks China to prevent any consequences? I don't think it works that way
U.S. calls on China to prevent Iran from closing Strait of Hormuz and disrupting global oil flows
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/bu … 046/?amp=1I don't think that the Trump team has really evaluated the variety and levels of reciprocity that can be employed by Iran response to Trumps declaration of war. Who would trust a drunk with the nation's security?
Oh it gets worse...God help us all': Trump's appointment of 22-year-old college grad to terrorism unit amid Iran crisis faces backlash..
Inspiring huh? Don't worry he used to be a grocery store assistant and a gardener!
https://m.economictimes.com/news/intern … 023695.cmsMaybe, its just me, but he looks older than 22.
Sorry but I have to compare him to the crossdresser that Biden appointed to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy who turned out to be a panty thief.
Pretty terrible being that age. Are you familiar with he ages of the founding fathers of the US? I think people like Hamilton, Madison, and James Monroe may have felt they were old enough.
What if . . . ?
Most news sources are talking about variants of this thought:
What if the thought is right and Iran's next move is diplomacy?
What if that move is acceptable to Israel and the U.S and a temporary ceasefire happens?
Woo eee, going for the brass ring, what if an acceptable diplomatic solution is found and Iran takes a new path?
That may be wishful thinking, but it could happen if those thoughts (the blurb) are right. Looks like a reason for optimism to me.
As a sidenote, if you look for it, you can find a lot of news from sources you trust, describing just how detailed, planned (for both pre and post Op), and far-reaching their 'war' evaluation was.
The Qatar base was anticipated as a target and was prepared and ready. I bet a lot of other targets were similarly prepared.
GAIt may well be that Iran’s next move will be a desire for a diplomatic solution.
After 30 years of the threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon with the overriding threat being more useful to Iran than the weapon itself, the threat has been and will be used to extract concessions from both Israel and the West in return for standing down its nuclear weapon program. Obama played that card back in 2015.
It seemed to me that if Iran was that intent in destroying Israel, Iran with their greater population and manpower, would have accomplished this long before now, even with conventional military tactics and weapons. There were plenty of opportunities for America’s enemies to assist Iran toward this end if only to derail American foreign policy in the region. Will Russia and China intervene in some way?
To save face, I don’t believe that the threat of war and endless attacks will drive Iran to capitulate. They have to get something out of it besides the removal of the pistol from their head.
I don’t see the possibility of a “new Iran” or the mullahs giving up its power and authority. It is more realistic to work with them where they are.
I have read that Iran had prepared for this possibility for many years, who is to say that all of the bases are covered by the US government regarding retaliation options that Iran could employ? Make a reasonable entreaty to Iran and we may not have to find out, is my opinion.
There will be no “unconditional surrender”, only first rate diplomacy and negotiation will do. I certainly would not capitulate in that way, if I were them.The second step looks good too: an agreed-upon ceasefire.
"Capitulate" is a negative word choice. Compromise would be a more positive one. Adapt (change something) or compromise were my choices. A win-win.
GACapitulation is an accurate word when using military force, and speaking terms like "unconditional surrender". A "compromise" in this affair has yet to be realized.
Yeah, unconditional surrender was also a poor word choice — maybe.
This plan of action looks successful (relative to the moment) to me, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. Maybe the cease-fire fails and capitulation and unconditional surrender do become the final requirement. Maybe the smart folks were just skipping the obvious. *shrug*
GA
"It seemed to me that if Iran was that intent in destroying Israel, Iran with their greater population and manpower, would have accomplished this long before now, even with conventional military tactics and weapons."
Iran was constantly in war with Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas. bus bombings, kidnapping, suicide bombings etc.
Iran is not next to Israel and has to cross Iraq first!!!
Israel's air defense and air power is far greater that that of Iran.
So Iran had no other option than to fight against Israel through Hamas and Hezbollah. And did this over a 40 years time.
Now that Hezbollah and Hamas are decapitated and very weak, plus the US has a more willing president to have an aggressive stand towards Iran, Israel finally can attack this fascist regime fully.
Remember this is a war between a fascist theocracy and a democracy.Remember this is a war between a fascist theocracy and a democracy.
----
I don't know, Peter, but the way the Israeli Goverment dealt with the Palestinian issue makes me wonder if Israel's commitment to democracy is based on merely expediency and convenience.
I have said as much about the United States...You have many levels. It's easy to see that the freedom of speech in Israel is far greater than in Iran. No women wants to live in Iran. Israel had a couple of years back a queer singer at the Euro Song Festival. I can't imagine Iran doing so. (promoting it's country by a queer singer) (of course you also have the extreme Jewish sects where as a women you don't have all the freedom. But compared with living under Sharia it's peanuts.)
When looking at the Palestinian issues one should also look at how Hamas treats the Palestinians. They are sacrificed and used as human shields. Who does this with their own people?
But well, this is a big discussion.
Israels war against Hamas and against Hezbollah is the same war as the war against Iran. It's a survival war for Israel against extreme Islamists who pledge to eradicate the Jews from the face of the earth. (between the river and the see...) It's a sad story that will not end tomorrow or in a years time. But a regime change with the help of the Iranian people would help a lot. 60% of the Iranians want a regime change, they are sick of the Islamic state and the National Guard. Perhaps the destruction of the nuclear capabilities could be the final nudge for the people to revolt.
For the US going in would be a disaster, but I don't think Trump will do so. Also Israel is not interested to do so, and they certainly will not be seen as liberators. So it''s on the Iranians themselves to change the regime. Which will be pretty difficult as the Ayatollah and the National Guard have become experts in creating a dictatorship.
And yes, the US is slipping away into a dictatorship too. And democracy is not something self evident, we now notice in many democratic countries. You have to fight for it. And especially the free press is important in doing so. But with the influecers gaining more power in the public domain, democracy all over the world is becoming more fragile.Well,I suppose, Peter, that everything outside of physical sciences and mathematics is relative. That is how I see things
I am all for the people in Iran revolting against the regime as long as it is them rather than the US as the instigators. Then it could become a civil war, but you can bet that the Mullahs are going to keep a firm grip. I don’t want to see bullying from either side and I see every country as equal even if they do not have my preferred form of government. But, I would not want to live in other than a democratic based society. I don’t trust anything else.
Professed democracies with enough power and money could export corruption abroad, just as we do in America.I believe it was Socrates that exposed Democracy...
The weakness when the uneducated and uninformed are allowed to determine the fate and direction...
The fall of Rome... when citizenship was given away to all, requiring none of the commitment, loyalty, or production that was expected from the many generations previously that had to earn citizenship.no, that's not it. Just the opposite.
It is about education and be capable of doing your job. If you have a senior function in a company or in the government and you got this through loyalty to your boss or position of birthright or bought yourself in... Things go wrong as you don't have the know how to do the job.
That's why it is a bad idea to put a businessman who worked all his life in business into a government position. Those are two different jobs with different educational background and requirements.
Same with proper journalism, journalists who do research and write after they have proper knowledge about something in contrast of an influencer who is just talking whatever gets the most likes.
In a good government people with know how organize a country. In a bad government people with a lack of education reign.
That' s why a kingdom or a dictatorship will not last. As the power is not gained by education but by birthright. So in the end a democracy is a far better system as it is build on a system where people with knowledge and education climb the ladder of governing.
And that's also why the elite prefers not to give education to everybody. And you have highly expensive elite universities. It is to consolidate this power.Agreed. Trump's goal is to turn America into a country of uneducated imbeciles and idiots. Don't be fooled by all the America first bullshit. Authoritarian fascism can flourish more easily in countries whose institutions of higher education are in a state of decay.
"That's why it is a bad idea to put a businessman who worked all his life in business into a government position."
You are at least semi-correct here. But the far bigger problem is the question of just what is the job of the politician? Is it to run the country, preserving it for future generations? Is it to play "nanny" to everyone, providing support and sustenance to all? Is it to work towards ever more power and control over others, particularly in growing your particular political party? Is it to gain wealth/power for yourself as a politician?
Because we are finding the first one - maintain our country - nearly impossible to find and instead settle for the last couple. It isn't working.
So what do we do? Keep on "hiring" lying politicians we know will make little to no effort to keep our country going, or try something new?Oh no, I disagree. Imagine that. ;-)
Consider the bones supporting your perspective.
You say the answer is a properly educated populace. One who will understand the right choices to make. I say Ken is right, a human populace will always vote for their self-interest first. And the lowest level of education group will always be larger than the highest.
Pure democracy means the majority rules. The poor are that majority, but by your inference (education for good decisions), they are the least qualified to make good decisions.
The government 'expertise' vs business expertise argument is a legitimate debate, but I'm on the other side. Businesses must deal with reality or fail. The government doesn't. Our political history's national debt shows that.
As a side note, the internet has changed the educational landscape. The "elites" can't control it, and almost any educational goal is easily accessible to almost everyone.
GAI always have a natural suspicion of people who believe that the few should rule over the many without their consent.
Everybody puts their self interests first, better the majority over the privileged few. There are no prima-Donna’s here.
Lack of education has always been an excuse to disenfranchise people, as if I am not aware of the history.
The government is NOT a business. While fiscal responsibility is part of it, the bottom line is serving the people that put the politicians in their places, and not having them seeing themselves as any other than public servants accountable to the me (the voters) Have you looked at how Republican legislatures have attempted to thwart the will of the people as expressed in plebiscites or ballot issues? I did not put these people in office to operate outside of the will of the majority of people who put them there.
I will bet you that the “elites” would want to control it to deliberately keep more people uneducated and uniformed. And that may be coming to a town near you, sooner than you think.In the context of the discussion, the "few" that you have a natural distrust for are the representatives that the majority consents to represent them. Elites and 'the privileged' weren't part of the discussion until you injected them.
If you delete "privileged," do you still believe "the majority over the few" is the right way to go?
As for the education point, it wasn't about disenfranchising anyone. The internet turned that point into a trope that betrays its user. The "elite" haven't been able to control knowledge (education) since the 1990s. A lack of individual effort is the only real barrier now.
The point about education was relative to knowing enough about the world around you to be able to make an informed choice (not "informed" as in voting "the right way").
That the government is not a business does not mean it can ignore the economic realities that successful (and failed) business models prove to be real. The government must operate in the same basic supply and demand systems as businesses. From retail resources for a business to Medicaid dollars for the government, the supply and demand scales must be balanced or the enterprise fails. That's the reality that our government has ignored, to the tune of almost $40 trillion dollars.
Sigh, Hegseth was right, you can't help it, it's in your DNA. ;-)
GA‘As a side note, the internet has changed the educational landscape. The "elites" can't control it, and almost any educational goal is easily accessible to almost everyone.”
You did refer to “elites” in your comments.
====
If you delete "privileged," do you still believe "the majority over the few" is the right way to go?
Yes, if a decision is to made more credibility is given to the masses/majority than to the few, even though you omit ‘privilege’. As I told you before, the Bill of Rights protects abuses of that principle from my standpoint.
————
The "elite" haven't been able to control knowledge (education) since the 1990s. A lack of individual effort is the only real barrier now.
Certainly hasn’t been due to any lack of trying. What are the conservatives trying to do with public schools and colleges and university, replacing the principles of free inquiry with those of indoctrination? Information is power and it is the conservative that is most afraid of the dissemination of knowledge and information that they did not have the chance to season first.
It is the elite conservatives that claim that people are not educated enough to make an informed choice. They, starting with the father of Conservatism, William F. Buckley, advocated for disenfranchisement of select populations based on that specious idea. Boy, I had no idea how much of authoritarian and racist/fascist he actually was, and he was the standard bearer for your side. I had an opportunity to watch a 1965 debate in England between Buckley and James Baldwin. This was 1965, not the dark ages, I was laughing while Buckley eloquently attempted to defend segregation and disenfranchisement in America and fell flat on his face. I think that foundation promoted by Buckley has not really changed but was merely made to accommodate changing times.
=======
Hegseth is talking about government fiscal austerity? As far as I am concerned, he just as well return to his bottle for a little more comfort. And what does he, his party or Trump have to do with fiscal austerity? From what I read, Trump’s beautiful budget will increase the deficit out of sight. I cant stand conservatives, they talk about austerity which applies only to the aspects of the economy that are not among their sacred cows. Such hypocrites I have never seen before. Republican/conservative austerity is an oxymoron.
Okay, say it differently.
If you have a king or a dictator. The opposite of a democracy. You have a country ruled by someone who became a ruler by birthright (education is not a necessity to rule) Or a one point of view ruling. "My point of view is the right one" and kept in place by force.
Compare this with a system with a democracy with different parties. (Best more than two. As two is barrely a democracy as it is like choosing between life and death. Officially you have two choices, but in reality you don't)
So people can vote for their party. As their are lots of different opinions, you will get debates.
Those parties have to work together to rule a country. And here you have different points of view. This makes progress/development. As people change ideas, give feedback, are corrected etc.
This is automatically an educational-learning system.
With a king-dictator system everybody follows orders and criticism and a self correcting systems don't exist as everything has to be in line with the point of view of the dictator.
In other words, a dictator/king is a system that doesn't give freedom of speech, it does not give innovation and leads to lying and corruption.
If you look at the richest countries in the world and the countries with the most freedom of speech, these are democratic countries. Their is a close connection between a democracy and human rights.
That in a democracy the (stupid) mob rules is an over simplification to justify the ruling of the elite.
If you talk about binding referendums about every subject. Than you have a point. But that is hardly never the case (Brexit is a classic example, but still it was legally non-binding.). All important subjects are looked at by experts (you hope) - At the department of sport or traffic, people work that are knowledgeable and have studied about these subjects. And they are part of the machinery that make decisions.
The only decision the "majority" makes is the vote. The rest is done by people who have governmental functions.Oops, wrong "disagreement." My bad.
My disagreement was primarily with your "businessman" point, and the elite/education one as a sidenote. I didn't intend to sound supportive of dictators.
Relative to the value of and need for experienced government personnel (as you described), I agree, with a caveat that I see a difference between bureaucrats* and bureaucratic experience/expertise. That's a different discussion. *(BBC's Yes, Prime Minister does a good of saterizing my point 'as-I-see-it.')
My "businessman" thoughts are relative to reality (our U.S. experience) vs. our procedures, goals, and dreams. Government isn't beyond economic realities. Just like a business, it cannot live beyond its means and survive. Our politicians think they have to because that's what the majority elected them to do — get them the things they want. Majority rule (pure democracy) is mob rule, regardless of how it is rationalized. This one also has a caveat: "majority rule" isn't always bad, but when it's an emotionally driven "rule," it usually is.
GAGood points. My bad too, I guess of focusing more on the democracy/dictatorship thing than the other points.
As we touch a lot of points here I think.
like - democracy and bureaucracy.. (let alone power management of an elite group)
Business versus governing a country
The influence of the internet and especially social media nowadays.
The mob underbelly sentiments.
I guess business/big corp and power have always been close. The Medici in renaissance Italy, The Dutch East India Company when the Netherlands went into conquering the world. King Leopold of Belgium with his own enterprise robbing the Congo of it's rubber. (Heart of Darkness- J. Conrad)
And today's tech giants like Elon Musk incredibly close connected with the government.
The problem with it is (in my opinion) that a business primary goal is to make money. The business of a government is to rule a country and protect it citizens. A government is doing a lot of things without the goal to make a profit. Like NASA, or building roads. Or supporting business, religious groups or people who are homeless etc.
A business attitude would be to scrap all these things that don't make a profit.
Still business want to have a say in politics. Which they do through lobbying etc. I guess it's a balancing act.
I agree that the underbelly feelings from the mob are dangerous. As they are not based upon facts but upon hear say and emotions. Influencers like Joe Rogan have a lot of power to influence peoples opinions, without proofing any evidence. They are not news reporters who have to do an investigation first. They ventilate their opinion on the spot. With more care about the likes they get than the giving a truthful story.
Never trust the opinion of the mob is what I was told by my father. And I completely agree as people easily get excited about ideas without thinking things through. Like supporting Hamas or justifying the Jan. 6 attack on the Capital. Or believing that you go to heaven if you rape a infidel. etc. there are lots of examples of today and through history that shows that you have to be on you guard if the "mob" is mesmerized with a specific idea.Relative to the thought of 'government being run like a business', Try this for a possible perspective:
For examples of what "business" means, sit back and substitute non-profit(s) for your examples. Take five minutes and argue with yourself using a non-profit business model as your criticism.*
*(Forum posts frequently cause me to just sit back and argue concepts in my head—sometimes for 10 or 15 minutes. And I don't always win.)
It's like the most successful economies (for their citizens) are mixed ones: The mix is the bones, and its application is the skeleton. It's a beauty or beast thing. But it's also a 'fact of reality' thing—recognize that or fail. Let me know later if that perspective seems a reasonable alternative to the evils-of-big-business one.
GAI watch 'Bones' three times a week on different days. It comes on two different channels. All three show 8 - 12 hours one episode after another. It's amazing how the show shared Temperance Brennan portrayed by Emily Erin Deschanel can solve a murder from the bones/skeleton. She is a forensic anthropologist. David Boreanaz played Booth her costar who later was in the TV show Seal Team.
When I wrote this I was thinking about an ordinary business who's goal it is to sell something for profit. This model as I argued is, in my point of view, not suitable for a government.
Now a non-profit system like an NGO or a church is something different. A religion for obvious reasons does not work. Religion and government have to be separate entities. It is the same argument as a one party system. If there is only one point of view of how to live, stagnation is inevitable. And freedom of speech and human rights will suffer.
You need at least two (although I think two is hardly a democracy, as it is like the choice of life and death... officially you have two choices but in practice hardly any... I think the polarization in the US is a clear example. Many people do not vote for a president but against the other candidate.)
So yes, for a democracy to work you need minimum of 2 parties. Not something a business wants. A business wants a clear objective without any obstructions. (like laws ans layers of bureaucracy).
I think this friction of business versus government was clearly shown when Elon Musk was trying to do his thing. And how Donald Trump rules his presidency. They think like businessmen and don't like laws ans constitutional ways that do not support their vision. They are used to be the top boss in their business. But in a government things are different. You have to negotiate and take into account that there are lots of different approaches towards a problem.
So in the end I think that even a non-profit business model is not a good model for a government.
As you say the best governments are the mixed ones. A government working together with businesses and with universities. (Like working together with NASA and with Space X).
But you don't want all things a government organizes to be a private entity. Like water distribution or the police or the fire brigade.
And you also don't want a government organizing everything. So yes, it's a delicate balance.It appears there was an unconsidered aspect in your thinking about the government vs. business conversation—the elimination of the profit motive, ie. non-profits. That's a start.
The most basic business principle has to be solvency. Profit is secondary, you have to stay alive first. Our Western governments — because of our fiat monies — ignore that reality—because they can.
A half dozen years ago MMT (Modern Money Theory) was the big rationalzation. 'We couldn't go broke because we (all fiat currencies) could just print the money we need. There was one good thread here that went in-depth and argued the most contentious details. It turned out, by my thinking, to be like the theories of communism and socialism: they looked good on paper, but didn't work in the real world.
Like a business, a government must live within its means. Ours aren't. Also like a business, a government must serve its customers (citizens). Ours aren't. A business must be efficient (even non-profits). Our governments aren't. That doesn't mean there won't be inefficiencies (social programs like police, fire, etc.), but it does mean those inefficiencies are mitigated as much as possible. Our governments don't do that either, the common solution is usually more money supporting the inefficiency.
Consider a rethink. One where "running a country like a business" means operating with those goals; solvency, efficiency, and product service. In short, accountability for actions, not intentions.
As for the 2-party system of the U.S., you're right, it's not a good thing. We need moderating choices. A coalition-style government would be more representative.
GANo... no they do not... I worked for a couple of non-profits as a Director... I went to meetings that included Lt. Governors and/or deputy directors from the likes of the EPA and DOE... went to dinner parties that cost tens of thousands to throw...
Unless by efficient you mean: how to spend money in self serving ways, and then pretending that you are trying to do good in the community... I doubt anything has done more harm to our nation than the rampant abuse of Non-Profits and NGOs...maybe not more harm than all the wars we've spent trillions on these past decades... but close.
I ran programs with multi-million dollar budgets... insane considering I had no real background or education for such... it taught me a lot about how much fraud and abuse there is in the non-profit world.
Until you are knee deep in writing grant proposals, developing budgets and seeing how the money is spent... from inside... it really would be hard to grasp the severity it.
One good example... far more typical than you'd believe:
https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/blm- … fraud-scamDamn, could I be that wrong? You made me look.
Nope, given the context was good business practices relative to success or failure, I'll stand by my non-profits thought.
Even though you are right that charities and NGOs are non-profits, they are more organizations than businesses (yep, I see what's coming). My life experience made me think of cooperatives (agriculture and utilities), which are non-profits operating in the business world, not charitable functions.
Even so, your BLM example shows that NGOs aren't immune to my point. Their poor and illegal business practices, under legal scrutiny and on the verge of bankruptcy, are causing them to fail.
So yes, they do. ;-)
GAYes that was a more extreme example due to the severity of the abuse.
But, unfortunately, I never came across a non-profit where the people who were running it.., such as the CEO, weren't using it as their personal piggy bank and enriching themselves (and their friends) with it... but I admit, that was in NY... a very corrupt State through and through, so perhaps in other parts of the country...
The difference between a business and a non-profit... is you don't earn money with a non-profit, you get taxpayer's money from the government to fund one program after another, while also getting business to chip in.
Where-as a business has to actually produce something of value, or it will not profit and go bankrupt.
DOGE was providing plenty of examples of fraud and abuse in the NGOs and non-profits that was funded by USAID.
I suspect as high as 90% of non-profits would be 'out of business' the moment the government stopped giving them taxpayer money.
Just have to know the right people in State and/or Federal politics and the taxpayer funds will flow to make all your dreams and fantasies come true...
In a State like NY that is.
I am not trying to lump charities into that... there is a difference I believe, some are community funded, rather than government funded... a different animal IMO.
Trump has spoken no truer words...
https://x.com/cmadsq/status/1936604230619385950Just hours after Vance goes on the Sunday shows and whiskey Pete does a presser saying that the U.S. isn't interested in a regime change...
What a sh*t showHegseth says that Trumps wars are different because he says that the Presidents of the last 25 years were inept, but Trump knows what he is doing. Interesting excuse from the Trump team, breaking a campaign pledge of eliminating foreign entanglements.
Excerpt from a recent and poignant Atlantic Monthly article by David From.
——
Now Americans face the consequences of Trump’s intervention to thwart Iran’s aggression.
Some of those consequences may be welcome.
The attack on Iran is perhaps the first time that President Trump has ever done anything Vladimir Putin did not want him to do. That’s one of the reasons I personally doubted he would act strongly against Iran. Maybe Trump can now make a habit of defying Putin—and at last provide the help and support that Ukraine’s embattled democracy needs to win its war of self-defense against Russian aggression.
The strike on Iran was opposed by the reactionary faction within the Trump administration—and in MAGA media—that backs America’s enemies against America’s allies. It’s very wrong to call this faction “anti-war.” They want a war against Mexico. They have pushed the United States on the first steps to that war by flying drones over Mexican territory without Mexican permission. This faction is defined not by what it rejects, but by what it admires (Putin’s Russia above all) and by whom it blames for America’s troubles (those it euphemistically condemns as “globalists”). That reactionary faction lost this round of decision making. Perhaps now it will lose more rounds.
But if some of the domestic consequences of this strike are welcome, others are very dangerous.
Presidents have some unilateral war-making power. Barack Obama did not ask Congress to authorize his air campaign in Libya in 2011. The exact limits of that power are blurry, defined by politics, not law. But Trump’s strike on Iran has pushed that line further than it has been pushed since the end of the Vietnam War—and the pushing will become even more radical if Iranian retaliation provokes more U.S. strikes after the first wave.
Trump has abused the president’s power to impose emergency tariffs, and created a permanent system of revenue-collection without Congress. He asserts that he can ignore rights of due process in immigration cases. He has defied judicial orders to repatriate persons wrongfully sent to a foreign prison paid for by U.S. taxpayer funds. He is ignoring ethics and conflict-of-interest laws to enrich himself and his family on a post-Soviet scale—much of that money flowing from undisclosed foreign sources. He has intimidated and punished news organizations for coverage he did not like by abusing regulatory powers over their corporate parents. He has deployed military units to police California over the objections of the elected authorities in that state.
This is a president who wants and wields arbitrary power the way no U.S. president has ever done in peacetime. And now it’s wartime.
Americans have a right and proper instinct to rally around their presidents in time of war. But in the past, that rallying has been met by the equal instincts of presidents to rise above party and faction when the whole nation must be defended. Trump’s decision to brief Republican leaders of Congress before the Iran strike, but not their Democratic counterparts, was not merely a petty discourtesy—it confirmed his divisive and authoritarian methods of leadership and warned of worse to come.
It is not confidence-inspiring that Pete Hegseth leads the Pentagon. Or that Kash Patel, Dan Bongino, and Kristi Noem are in charge of protecting Americans from Iranian retaliatory terrorism. Or that Tulsi Gabbard is coordinating national intelligence. Or that enemy-of-Ukraine J. D. Vance is poised to inherit all.
Trump exercises national power, but he cannot and will not act as a national leader. He sees himself—and has always acted as—the leader of one part of a nation against the rest: the wartime leader of red America in its culture war against blue America, as my former Atlantic colleague Ron Brownstein has written. Now this president of half of America has commanded all of America into a global military conflict. With luck, that conflict will be decisive and brief. Let’s hope so.
———————
I think that it is dastardly that Trump briefed Republican legislators and left Democrats in congress deliberately uninformed. I still believe that Iran is more interested in concessions from Israel and the West than it is in building a bomb. This is what Obama attempted to accomplished before it was derailed by Trump out of sheer jealousy and spite.Regime change... Campaign Trump versus White House Trump:
Who voted to make Iran great again?Excuse me, but why is there always money available for regime change around the world but not enough to fully fund Medicaid or food assistance? I know maga voted for this but It is absurd.
Anyone else notice that maga these days aren't going on record with positions on absolutely anything? It's tough when your leader pushes out a bunch of platitudes in the morning and completely reverses them by evening LOL.
It's an "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" scenario. Regular thinking people are decimated one by one and replace with obedient Trumpbots. The "Little Bo Peep" similarity with the sheep following a wolf in sheeps clothing. It is no longer about committing to adhere campaign promises but about hanging on and believing every word Trump says.
This is the dangerous aspect of Trumpism and the biggest threat to our society to date.
Oh who is he kidding? His followers are absolutely okay with gas prices going through the roof, as long as he says it's okay... This is exactly what they voted for.On Sunday, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a top Putin ally, noted in a series of X posts that “a number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.” This news could have cataclysmic implications.
“If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace. I am peace.”
Donald J. Trump, 1 November, 2024, Warren, Michigan...
You got what you voted for maga
Iran has Retaliated. Missiles have been launched against multiple US Bases in the Middle East. It’s a shit show. Everyone is evacuating.
“President of Peace” My Ass.So,the plot thickens. Will Putin now use American vulnerability in the Middle East region to gain concessions in his war on the Ukraine? Instead of diplomacy are we again reduced to just threats? Not exactly the 24 hour solution to the crisis in Ukraine that Trump boasted about. We are not invincible, no one is.
Reminds me of red light, green light. I'm keeping an eye on Saudi Arabia and UAE. Will they change course and align with Tehran via back doors? Which threat however that is defined is greatest?
President Trump announced a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran that will begin at midnight.
Why it matters: The ceasefire will end a 12-day war between Israel and Iran that led to the destruction of significant parts of Iran's nuclear program by Israel and the United States.
Trump wrote on his Truth Social account that the ceasefire begins at 12 a.m. ET. Until then, Israel and Iran will complete their final military missions that are in progress, he said.
Trump said Iran will begin the ceasefire for 12 hours, and then Israel will begin. After 24 hours, an official end to the war will be announced.
Trump said that during each 12-hour ceasefire, the other side "will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL."
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/23/trump- … -ceasefireWe will see if it all works out as Trump says.....
So, now what?
Excerpt from a recent Atlantic article:
“By his own account, the military operation that Donald Trump mounted against Iran over the weekend was an unqualified success. Saturday’s covert raid, in which U.S. bombers dropped a series of massive, tailor-made bombs onto fortified Iranian sites, left Tehran’s nuclear capability “completely and totally obliterated,” the president proclaimed in a triumphant White House address late that night.
The reality is more complex. Although the operation achieved an impressive level of tactical success, with a swarm of warplanes penetrating Iran unchallenged following a long, undetected flight from Missouri, it will be far harder than the president has suggested to reliably evaluate the damage inflicted on Iran’s ability to manufacture a nuclear weapon. The information that’s emerged so far suggests to experts that Iran’s nuclear capacities have been set back significantly but that the two-decade atomic standoff with Iran is by no means over.
In the 48 hours since the strikes, Trump’s top advisers have given differing answers about the fate of Iran’s stockpiles of enriched uranium, which, satellite imagery suggests, Iranian authorities may have relocated prior to the strikes. Iranian leaders, meanwhile, have given no indication that they are ready to surrender the nuclear program. Facing the likelihood of ongoing U.S. and Israeli attacks, they may be more likely to make the long-feared decision to try to race toward a bomb.
“This is probably not the end of the program, and certainly not the end of their aspirations,” Daniel Shapiro, a former U.S. ambassador to Israel and a top Pentagon official for the Middle East under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, told us.
He said that, prior to Saturday’s strikes, Iran had been “days away” from being able to enrich to weapons-grade levels, and had been working to shorten the time required to turn its material into a bomb. “That means that absent the U.S. and Israeli strikes, we would be sitting on a knife’s edge, which was not acceptable,” said Shapiro, who is now a fellow at the Atlantic Council. Iranian leaders, however, may now judge it necessary to abandon United Nations restrictions and rush toward weaponization to survive. “And so there’s the other side of the knife’s edge, which has the potential to be even worse,” Shapiro said.”
——————
Time for the rest of the story? Time for the hard part? Getting Iran to AGREE to shelve its nuclear weapon ambitions, dropping bombs is no replacement for diplomacy or an agreement. If I were them, I would just move facilities and capabilities like peas under a shell. There will be no “regime change”, as the only sure way to neutralize Iran as a threat. That means boots on the ground and war, who is ready for that? Trump has no real knowledge of the extent of the damage from the attacks, snipping a weed does not prevent it from growing back.
As the article implies, the Trump solution is half-assed and is wanting for a lasting resolution to the underlying issues which has yet to be accomplished.Per the NYT, classified findings indicate that the US failed to collapse the underground buildings in Iran, and only set back the country's nuclear program by a few months....
"the Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as much as some administration officials had hoped, and that Iran retains control of almost all of its nuclear material"
And now they're pissed...OH WELL...
Trump is going to be furious.. he's got himself a leaker."The attack on Iran] gives us a chance to have peace, chance to have a deal, and an opportunity to prevent a nuclear Iran, which President Trump talked about for 20 years and no other Presidents had the courage other actually do." -- Pete Hegseth
FACT CHECK: Obama actually stopped a nuclear Iran, not with bombs, but with diplomacy. No airstrikes. No war. Just a signature on a deal that worked.
That’s courage. Real leadership isn’t about blowing things up. It’s about knowing how to get results with words. Obama mastered that. It’s called 'the art of the deal.'
The Iran Nuclear Deal capped uranium enrichment at 3.67%, enough for peaceful nuclear energy, not weapons.
Iran will never give up enrichment entirely. No country with a serious energy future would. To think they should or could isn’t strategy. It’s ignorance.... This morning's performance by a hopped up whiskey Pete was simply to fluff up dear leaders ego...a pathetic display from a US Secretary of Defense. This guy needs rehab and a good therapist.
Pete's performance this morning? Sweaty and clownish...nothing more than lectures to the press about the press from a media personality.
This is where we are now…Today we are in 2025. And to make a nuclear bomb is easier than it used to be. Just like with every technology. Things become cheaper and easier to make.
On top of that you have the exponential growth of Artificial Intelligence. A thing that hardly existed in Obama's time.
Those two things combined are incredibly dangerous in the hands of religious fanatics. Like Iran.
-
Iran has never been military wise so weak. But as it turns out the bomb that the US dropped was mere for show than that it really did some damage to the nuclear program. A PR stunt.
I don't know how to solve this Iranian crisis. But not like the west has done for over the last 40 years. Iran has supported so many radical Islamist groups in the region like Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthi Movement, Syrian's Bashar al-Assad's regime.
It would be much more peaceful in the middle east without the Ayatollah that's for sure.Your perception of "this morning's performance" is the opposite of mine. I thought it was factually and historically supported by the 'back story', properly harsh in condemning the anti-Trump press, and properly supported the efforts of our military.
You (generic for anti-Trump folks) hear an explanation of 15 years of mission planning, through multiple administrations, and paint it as a failure because Pres. Trump was the one who ordered the strike.
What I heard in those 45 minutes made me proud. I think there are more of me this morning than there are of you.
GA"FACT CHECK: Obama actually stopped a nuclear Iran, not with bombs, but with diplomacy. No airstrikes. No war. Just a signature on a deal that worked."
Obama gave Iran over a billion dollars in cash.
Iran is a state sponsor of terror and used this money to build a proxy terrorist network. They've killed countless numbers of people. Destroyed and damaged shipping. They've even attempted to close shipping lanes.
That is obama. All bluster and no substance. A shameful decision for any president of the United States.
"Obama should apologize for shameful cash payment to Iran
Since the elimination of Iranian terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani, much of the world has rightfully held its collective breath in fearful anticipation of what might be to come.
Iran is indeed a dangerous terrorist state that not only has a powerful standing army, air force, navy and advanced weapons systems — including ballistic missiles and a growing space program — but also controls multiple proxy terrorist organizations responsible for killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
Included on that list of victims are thousands of American military personnel and contractors.
These were facts that former President Obama knew when he deliberately chose a policy of appeasement and cash payoffs instead of strength and accountability as the way to deal with Iran.
President Trump spelled this out in no uncertain terms on Wednesday when he addressed the nation while seeking to dial down the imminent threat Iran may pose to our nation, the Middle East and the world.
Said the president in part, “Iran’s hostilities substantially increased after the foolish Iran nuclear deal was signed in 2013 and they were given $150 billion, not to mention $1.8 billion in cash. … Then, Iran went on a terror spree, funded by the money from the deal and created hell in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq. The missiles fired last night at us and our allies were paid for with the funds made available by the last administration.”
As we have seen and heard, some — especially Democrats, their allies in the media and Obama supporters — chose to challenge or quibble with Trump’s statement. That said, I spoke with a former senior intelligence official who said that much of the $1.8 billion cash payoff from the Obama administration was used explicitly to fund terrorism as an additional “screw you” from the leaders of Iran — including Soleimani — to the United States. The rest of the money, my source believes, ended up in the bank accounts of corrupt Iranian leaders and terrorists.
The cash payment authorized by Obama is one of the most disgraceful and shameful “negotiations” in the history of our nation. It was a payment the Obama White House first denied, then ignored and then grudgingly acknowledged.
We paid in cash, but not U.S. currency. Wary of using U.S. bills for a variety of reasons involving concealment, the Obama White House had the money converted to untraceable Euros, Swiss francs, and other foreign currencies. More troubling than those initial denials and deceptions was the fact that $400 million of that all-cash payment was used to pay a ransom to the government of Iran for the release of four American prisoners, in violation of standing U.S. policy.
In a pathetic attempt to hide behind semantics, the Obama administration finally did acknowledge that $400 million was delayed as “leverage” until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran.
While the Obama White House hid from the true definition of the word “leverage,” Iran’s state-run media was more than happy to brag that Iran had just forced the United States to pay a ransom.
Former Congressman Ed Royce (R-Calif.), who chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee at that time, condemned the deal: “Sending the world’s leading state sponsor of terror pallets of untraceable cash isn’t just terrible policy. It’s incredibly reckless, and it only puts bigger targets on the backs of Americans.”
Former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) seconded Royce’s warning: “Paying ransom to kidnappers puts Americans even more at risk. … The White House’s policy of appeasement has led Iran to illegally seize more American hostages.”
Said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), “President Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with Iran was sweetened with an illicit ransom payment and billions of dollars for the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism.”
What many Americans don’t realize is that the Obama White House took the ransom money from something called the “Judgment Fund,” which is administered by the Treasury. That little-known account is entirely paid for by American taxpayers and was set up in such a way that Obama could bypass congressional approval to pay the cash to Iran.
Those who continually praise and defend Obama often describe him as “brilliant.” There is no doubt the former president is an intelligent person, certainly bright enough to realize — and admit, at least to himself — that the cash he turned over to the murderous regime leading Iran to ruin was not used for altruistic purposes.
Any honest assessment would conclude that at least part of that secretive, massive payment was used to finance terrorist attacks against Americans, our allies and innocent civilians. Trump is correct on that point.
For that reason, Obama should apologize for the thousands wounded and killed in terrorist attacks since Iran took possession of that tainted cash. That is his debt to pay.Are you reading what you post? Where does this come from?
HEGSETH: The sources the CIA is seeing are highly credible. That's what Director Ratcliffe is basing it off
REPORTER: Don't you think we need to see that?
HEGSETH: Do you have a top secret clearance, sir?
REPORTER: Eventually, the American public wants to see it
They're going to hide it aren't they?
What was not answered during this performance? WHERE DID THE HIGHLY ENRICHED URANIUM GO??Anyone who has been on any high-level military missions know there are certain things that can't be released to the public as it can damage on-going missions and put military and other personnel in danger.
I, personally, wouldn't release the uniform of the day information to the left wing media.Or they just want to conceal their lies LOL
The Democrats in Congress are not “left wing media”. They should have been briefed as the Republicans were. I hold that behavior against Trump as being partisan buffoon operating outside of boundaries of decency and decorum.
Congress was recently briefed on the Iran mission.
So that they could leak it and get the pilots killed? Would never happen? Did you see the speech of the minority leader of congress telling everyone how they planned on DOXing the ICE agents that were wearing masks? they are the partisan buffoons operating outside of the boundaries of decency.
That’s bullshyte, Doc. Are we saying that Democrats in Congress would risk National Security in a crisis that involves us all? The Executive is obligated to inform pertinent personal from BOTH parties as to what his intended strategy regarding Iran was.
Otherwise, we have a one party rule and as much as you admire Trump he is just as I described. These approaches and attitudes are new and are pure Trump, I abhor that man. And if he disappeared tomorrow, I would not blink an eye. However, If the minority leader of Congress undermined ICE agents as you say, then they would be guilty.
This is a bad trend and I see no good coming from it.The BS is all of those Dems who think their TDS is more important than their country standing united. You and I are both old enough to rememeber Reagen consulting Tip ONeil. That is never going to happen now since the libs are proving they are against whatever the WH does, even if it is in the best interests of the US, at least according to those in the WH.
Hi Doc, I agree, but it’s important to recognize that so many positive things are coming from the Trump White House right now. It would take serious blindness not to notice it. More and more people are waking up from the confusion and realizing what’s really happening. Sure, some still get caught up in the word games and focus on what Trump said, like it’s just a “word of the day.” But I believe many will come to see the truth—that while words are tossed around, Trump is actually doing a good job making our country better.
It is not “my country right or wrong”. when my country breaks international laws of behavior and decorum, it is not my country anymore. Because the values that it extols upon itself as a definition of America ceases to be, therefore there no longer is an America just a geographic designation. What has replaced it is far uglier. Trump has taken liberties not prescribed to the Executive, usurping Congress or ignoring court rulings. The White House is not free to do whatever it wants without being held accountable, that where the “libs” stand, the true libs and not the accomodationalists, who believe that co-existence and harmony with Trump and his administration can even be considered.
Reagan and Tip ONeill just as well have existed in another century and they did. The ideological and political extremes did not exist in the same way during the 1980s, even though I did not care for Reagan and his politics, he was no Trump and had characteristics that redeemed him. There was no chickensh!t Congress in the 1970s when both sides of the isle told Nixon that he was through.
What Pete Hegseth fails to understand is that literally no one is blaming the pilots for the failed mission in Iran. We are blaming him, trump and the entire administration for carelessly wasting billions of taxpayer dollars and putting the lives at risk.
And now??
trump is now going to limit sharing classified information with Congress.
Shared info will now be limited to trump's inner circle and Pete Hegseth's drinking buddies on Signal.This is something that goes on in every administration.
Related Discussions
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 2 years ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 166
Is Nuclear War inevitable?
by rhamson 15 years ago
With Irans new revelations that they have a secret site for the nuclear capabilities is this the latest step in the path to a nuclear war?
- 23
The next war to begin soon...target Iran!
by AngelTrader 13 years ago
It is all falling neatly into place for the US to attack Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia. The US views the plot as state-sponsored terrorism. Secretary of state Hillary Clinton described it as a "violation of international norms" and said she would discuss with allies in Europe and...
- 256
A Warning From Biden Or Just Another Confused Statement?
by Sharlee 2 years ago
Biden on Thursday when addressing the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee let loose with this --- This statement appears to be when Biden went off script. He was closing and decided to add this ....."So I guess — I said I was not going to talk very long; I’ve already talked too...
- 70
How worried should we be about a nuclear threat from Iran?
by Ralph Deeds 13 years ago
How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is intolerable and something must be done to prevent it from happening. A timely and...
- 6
Obama Paid, Trump Pressured, Biden Lost Control, Trump Solved
by Sharlee 2 weeks ago
The JCPOA was often praised as a diplomatic achievement, but in reality, it offered only temporary limits rather than lasting solutions. The deal imposed time-bound restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities, most of which begin expiring in the 2030s, meaning Iran could simply wait out the clock and...