Trump says he bombed Iran

[CriticalStinker]

Did he say it wasn’t a US problem only?  

I thought the post he made recently regarding the subject was directed at any country not participating in operations, why single out the UK, they’re one of our closest allies?

Not that they should be left out of his previous statement.

The UK was the first to signal participation, offering to send an aircraft carrier the first week. Trump told them we didn’t need them, and he didn’t want people joining after we already won.

I think this goes to the point earlier, for every comment or signal of direction, there is a completely contradictory statement as well. 

Some may see that as a tactic for dealing with enemies, madman… but it doesn’t work the same with allies. I for one wouldn’t help someone or a group if I already offered and they threw it in my face.

[Oldcarpy2]

The UK was the first to signal participation, offering to send an aircraft carrier the first week. Trump told them we didn’t need them, and he didn’t want people joining after we already won.

I think this goes to the point earlier, for every comment or signal of direction, there is a completely contradictory statement as well. 

Some may see that as a tactic for dealing with enemies, madman… but it doesn’t work the same with allies. I for one wouldn’t help someone or a group if I already offered and they threw it in my face.

He also said our carriers were "toys" that didn't work and that we didn't have a Navy.

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

Now he's talking about leaving NATO.

Champagne corks popping in the Kremlin.

Or maybe not, if chatter about a coup might be correct?

[andy06shake]

He also said our carriers were "toys" that didn't work and that we didn't have a Navy.

With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

Now he's talking about leaving NATO.

Champagne corks popping in the Kremlin.

Or maybe not, if chatter about a coup might be correct?

As far as i can determine, Trump cannot unilaterally leave NATO.

Withdrawal would require the US to follow its constitutional processes.

Congress would need to approve it.

Since they ratified the treaty...

[Oldcarpy2]

As far as i can determine, Trump cannot unilaterally leave NATO.

Withdrawal would require the US to follow its constitutional processes.

Congress would need to approve it.

Since they ratified the treaty...

Yes, but when did he ever bow to Congress? Or the Senate or whatever?

[andy06shake]

Yes, but when did he ever bow to Congress? Or the Senate or whatever?

Congress is the main check.

And their courts. 

But if he chooses to sidestep them.

And disregard the will of the people they represent.

You have to ponder who the military would choose to follow?

Given that they are supposed to obey civilian leadership...

[CriticalStinker]

Congress is the main check.

And their courts. 

But if he chooses to sidestep them.

And disregard the will of the people they represent.

You have to ponder who the military would choose to follow?

Given that they are supposed to obey civilian leadership...

On paper that’s how it works. But I wouldn’t be so confident now. Trump just kind of does things, and Congress will just refuse to touch it so their hands are “clean”.

The tariffs are Congress’s decision, Birthright citizenship is a Congress matter (being argued in supreme court today after his executive order).

Trump is entering lame duck, he can’t run for reelection, but many congressmen will. It’s why even some democrats didn’t touch a war powers resolution act even though they publicly talk like they’re against war.

I liked Massies idea of bringing a declaration of war to the floor. Make people put their names on it in no uncertain terms.

[andy06shake]

On paper that’s how it works. But I wouldn’t be so confident now. Trump just kind of does things, and Congress will just refuse to touch it so their hands are “clean”.

The tariffs are Congress’s decision, Birthright citizenship is a Congress matter (being argued in supreme court today after his executive order).

Trump is entering lame duck, he can’t run for reelection, but many congressmen will. It’s why even some democrats didn’t touch a war powers resolution act even though they publicly talk like they’re against war.

I liked Massies idea of bringing a declaration of war to the floor. Make people put their names on it in no uncertain terms.

Im not even that confident he won't try and run for reelection in a third term, given his tenacity for simply disregarding the rule of law...

[Maxmars]

I fear that what we as a society will do is labor to narrate this into an event.

But I have listed some assertions (ideas) such as,

"This war is about 'oil' and money."
"This war is about 'empire.'
"This war is about 'ambition and power."

The truth seems to me to be more like a mix of opportunism, and 'cultivated' hatreds... the one's that feel good by making us feel better about our worthiness... by selecting an appropriately suitable enemy.  It seems more and more that this is a "campaign" - not of war - but of mind pabulum.

It seems like no one planned this... but with the entire world talking over one another to signal engagement...

it makes it clear...

Gosh, the idea of a united inter-sovereign peaceful platform of diplomacy seems good...

Too bad the Globalist WEF/UN dumped it for "Whatever we do, you will be happy... it's the definition we will use."

Presume someone other than Iran will,  one day casually, as if they knew it all along... will describe the conflict in terms of anything except grudges, inherited biases, and the ever-popular 'pride.'

Until then media will 'angst-it-up' and never remind us to step back... because this, like all theater, requires disbelief to suspend in the first place.  Otherwise, you end up a prop in someone else's screen play.

Find reporters and sources that don't deny you both arguments, full historical contexts, and ....

Eliminate the desire to make "how the reader should feel about it" a thing you see.

As one side how the other 'feels....'

It a joke of rationalization, presumptions, and worse... irrelevancies.

The poison is so deep in whose information we 'consume' that even the narratives reek of base prejudice, bias, and a universe of political adolescence...

Ironically... if you placed all the noise from one  side, TOGETHER with all the noise from the other...
I challenge an LLM to make any sense of it.   I don't think it's a deficiency of the tech... but a reflection of just how stubbornly insistent we are they it simply must come to killing thousands and spending billions.

Notice that the "win" is about $$$$... How charming.
Someone has made a killing by making 'wars' happen... 

The spice must flow.

[KrustyKrab]

The UK was the first to signal participation, offering to send an aircraft carrier the first week. Trump told them we didn’t need them, and he didn’t want people joining after we already won.

I think this goes to the point earlier, for every comment or signal of direction, there is a completely contradictory statement as well. 

Some may see that as a tactic for dealing with enemies, madman… but it doesn’t work the same with allies. I for one wouldn’t help someone or a group if I already offered and they threw it in my face.

The Brits were cowardly to begin with and I agree with Trump.  They didn’t want to send anything in the beginning, that came after some thought on the ramifications of doing nothing or so I believe    So, they offered and Trump basically told them the hard works done, forget about it, worry about your own oil.  I don’t see a problem with that.

[CriticalStinker]

Im not even that confident he won't try and run for reelection in a third term, given his tenacity for simply disregarding the rule of law...

I’m not too concerned about that aspect. He’s no spring chicken. I don’t think he could do another 7 years from here. Also not hopeful that any other candidate is going to be much better. At best they’ll just be less chaotic but with all the debt and other baggage.