exchemist
Valued Senior Member
OK, declaring a special military operation then.
War on Iran
- Thread starter ele
- Start date
Yep. Trump, Hegsesth, Rubio et al have all discussed their war.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Didn't Orango-tan repeatedly call it an "excursion" or "a short excursion" ? We've had presidents who struggled with using alternative terminology for waging war, to make it somehow more palatable, but a natural grifter like Orango just slips effortlessly into doubletalk. Dementia may progress, but he can still do that much.
His problem is that he forgets and keeps calling it what it is - a war.
He is now in a huge bind. He didn't do much damage to Iran; they missed most missile emplacements for example. And Iran did far more damage to US forces than Trump admits. And every time he attacks, the price of gas takes another jump. And if it's high enough in November republicans will lose control of Congress - so he can't afford to do that very much.
Plus which, of course, he can no longer stay awake long enough for negotiations.
So if he attacks? Price of gas skyrockets, he loses control of Congress, and gets impeached. If he doesn't attack? Iran does whatever it wants and develops nuclear weapons - and THEN they have a much better bargaining position. If he tries to negotiate? He falls asleep and Iran has some great propaganda to use against him. If he sends his real estate agents to Iran to negotiate again? They'll fail since they have no training in this. If he continues to ignore negotiation, and just makes endless impotent threats? Iran effectively wins the war and develops nuclear weapons - but sadly this is his best option right now.
His best option would be to send an actual negotiating team to Iran to hammer out a deal. If he were smart he'd send people with proven negotiating chops. Say Obama, Mark Rutte, Ursula von der Leyen, Catherine Ashton and Rafael Grossi (or their designees) - the same sort of people who got the deal done last time.
Of course Trump will NEVER EVER do that because it will make him seem like he is incompetent.
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
This is practically an ideology free post. Congrats...
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
One shudders to imagine a thread on a political topic being contaminated with ideology. Thank heavens the damage to our discourse was minimal.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
For sure, his noticeable increase in Kinsley gaffes is bringing down the quality of grifting. AFAICT, the one slightly intelligent thing he's done is putting more of a muzzle on Stephen Miller. The rest of your analysis of possible paths for him seemed spot-on to me. (I did a little spit-take with my tea at the notion of Orango sending a negotiation team that included the Kenyan usurper who poked fun at him during the 2011 WHCD. )
Seattle
Valued Senior Member
That's because Bill has been an engineer for 40 years. Imagine what the damage would be otherwise! Let's bring in Tiassa and have a showdown...
Another new risk is that when he sundowns and starts tweeting insane nonsense at night, he might end up declaring war on someone else. or ordering a strike on Cuba or something.
During his first term, Mattis and Kelly made a pact that both would never leave DC at the same time, so that someone would always be there to stop Trump from doing anything truly insane. Gary Cohn would literally snatch executive orders off Trump's desk so he wouldn't see them and pull the US out of trade deals that he had a transient distaste for.
Now we have no such guardrails.
Outside of maths and maybe some sciences, I don't think that anything can ever be truly free of ideology. People may perceive something as being less informed by ideology, but to regard something as wholly free of such seems profoundly delusional.
That said, I have noticed that two groups, in particular, tend to see their musings as non-ideological--specifically, capitalists and those whose philosophies hew closer to Analytical traditions. Such persons tend to regard their views as somehow in accordance with the "natural order of things"--or, that's just the way things are--and similarly regard such views as "commonsensical" or reflective of "critical thinking". One observes similar thinking within cults.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
Yep, much harm has come from ideologies positioning themselves on the natural order. My earlier comment was an attempt at jocular sarcasm, of course, directed at Seattle's (tongue in cheek one hopes) notion of ideology-free political discussions. Akin to water-free watermelons or no-heat baking.
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
The "war" with Iran was/is stupid. It was poorly planned and badly executed, and displays a specific failure of the u.s.a. 's military industrial complex. Much like Robert E. Lee throwing his army away at Gettysburg. One wonders: What is/was the point? Really?
............
Perhaps, the USA is clinging too dearly to the petrodollar?
Iraq chose to accept other currencies for their oil---and then the usa destroyed them.
Libya tried to create a pan african currency to replace the us dollar---and the usa destroyed them.
.................
Is this a real pattern, or am i severely biased?
............
Perhaps, the USA is clinging too dearly to the petrodollar?
Iraq chose to accept other currencies for their oil---and then the usa destroyed them.
Libya tried to create a pan african currency to replace the us dollar---and the usa destroyed them.
.................
Is this a real pattern, or am i severely biased?
So, Donald Trump, Robert E. Lee, and Uphill Harvey All Walk Into The Stonewall
Priorities.
Any appearance of subtlety about it is entirely accidental.
(In re dollars and alternative currencies, it's been about the oil itself at least since '53.)
Priorities.
「But when you look at some of the movies and documentaries about the founding of our country, and all of the great people; George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and Lincoln later, but Thomas Jefferson, all of the original Founders, and some of the ones that are the least known are actually the most important and the most interesting, actually. But when you look at all, then you have the Civil War, the Civil War was brutal. It was a brutal, I always said, Why couldn't that have been settled, and maybe it could have been. But it was a brutal war, it was supposed to last one day, and because Robert E. Lee was an amazing General, y'know, I deal with generals a lot. And I ask who was the best general, a lot of 'em say Robert E. Lee 'cause he took something that was supposed to end in one day and it went four years. And, with the exception of Gettysburg, that was not good, that was not a good one. That was not a good day for him, but, if that didn't happen he would've actually won, they were going for New York, and, they heard they were going up a hill, Harvey, just going up a hill, Robert E. Lee heard that and Stonewall Jackson was killed, this great general, and so he didn't have him, he had another general.」
(President Donald Trump [May 2026]↗)
(President Donald Trump [May 2026]↗)
Any appearance of subtlety about it is entirely accidental.
(In re dollars and alternative currencies, it's been about the oil itself at least since '53.)
The 2026 military build-up more or less began in earnest after the Iran massacres. So it seems to have initially been an emotional response or impulsive gesture that gradually had to justify itself in other ways after the fact, including a shift to actual war planning. With what seems, in retrospect, like little realistic consideration for the Strait of Hormuz consequences. (Rationale for the 2026 Iran war)
- Trump approved Iran operation after Netanyahu argued for joint killing of Khamenei: Throughout war planning, Netanyahu waged lobbying campaign in favor of Iran attack - though no proof it was decisive factor. US president Secretary of State Rubio told lawmakers in days before strikes that US would likely get dragged in. War planning picked up after the January massacres.
Less than 48 hours before the U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran began, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke by phone to President Donald Trump about the reasons for launching the kind of complex, far-off war the American leader once had campaigned against.
Both Trump and Netanyahu knew from intelligence briefings earlier in the week that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his key lieutenants would soon meet at his compound in Tehran, making them vulnerable to a “decapitation strike” – an attack against a country's top leaders often used by Israelis but traditionally less so by the United States.
[...] Netanyahu, determined to move forward with an operation he had urged for decades, argued that there might never be a better chance to kill Khamenei and to avenge previous Iranian efforts to assassinate Trump. Those included a murder-for-hire plot allegedly orchestrated by Iran in 2024, when Trump was a candidate.
[...] By the time the call took place, Trump already had approved the idea of the United States carrying out a military operation against Iran but had not yet decided when or under what circumstances the United States would get involved, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal deliberations.
Last edited:
There is a theory in some conservative circles that if you just kill enough of them, they will stop hating us.
TheVat
Valued Senior Member
There's that surreal moment that recurs, where one realizes this person is POTUS. That quote sounds like something from that Dudley Moore/Peter Cook sketch where Cook wrote a strongly-worded letter against WW2.
Apparently if you kill enough people and crush the economy, they feel liberated and pretty chipper. That's why Germany was really no trouble at all after WWI.
The problem, clearly, is that we didn't kill ENOUGH of them.
Sooooo. The Senate voted to advance a resolution to curb Trump's Iran war powers, 50-47, with a number of Republicans joining the Democrats. There was due to be a vote in the House on the same, and it was a "privileged resolution" - meaning that the matter is of such importance that anyone can bring and it can't be blocked. It looked as though it, too, would be passed with sufficient number of the GOP siding with the Dems. So Mike Johnson decided instead to simply close the House. Until at least the start of June. There was a recess planned, but it has been called early and before any vote on the matter could be called.
Even if both the House and Senate approved the resolution, Trump would undoubtedly have vetoed it. And likely will when it gets improved in June, and so will require a supermajority to overturn that veto, which the resolution won't have. So this is all ultimately not going anywhere with regard curbing Trump's behaviour, but it does serve to provide transparency over who supports or not the way the war is being conducted, and will serve to give the members accountability to their voters on this matter.
And the utter chaos in the House under the leadership of Johnson is its own theatre, which should be giving the Democrats a boost in the polls regardless. Let's just hope they don't get too complacent, especially given that Trump has helped oust a number of GOP candidates/members that aren't sufficiently MAGA.
And then there's the whole $1.8bn slush fund that the majority seem to be concerned about, and will be interesting to see which GOP members are too frightened to do anything about it. But that's another matter.
Even if both the House and Senate approved the resolution, Trump would undoubtedly have vetoed it. And likely will when it gets improved in June, and so will require a supermajority to overturn that veto, which the resolution won't have. So this is all ultimately not going anywhere with regard curbing Trump's behaviour, but it does serve to provide transparency over who supports or not the way the war is being conducted, and will serve to give the members accountability to their voters on this matter.
And the utter chaos in the House under the leadership of Johnson is its own theatre, which should be giving the Democrats a boost in the polls regardless. Let's just hope they don't get too complacent, especially given that Trump has helped oust a number of GOP candidates/members that aren't sufficiently MAGA.
And then there's the whole $1.8bn slush fund that the majority seem to be concerned about, and will be interesting to see which GOP members are too frightened to do anything about it. But that's another matter.