re: Trump considering winding down military operations in Iran

At the end of the day the US isn't going to allow the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world to develop nuclear weapons. This is not a new policy the US is enforcing. This has been the stance of the US ever since the current regime took power in 79. They won't allow it under any circumstances. And it's not necessarily out of concern that they would immediately lob nukes at Israel, although I think the bigger concern would be with them "losing" one of those nukes only for it to wind up in the hands of one of their terror proxies who WOULD use them, because why not?

The real reason it won't be allowed is because having nukes takes leverage off the table for the US or anyone else who may decide the terrorists need to be kept in check in regards to what we can do militarily to stop them from acting like the terrorists they are.

They're not going to allow a terroristic regime to join the Mutually Assured Destruction game. Not when that regime has a 50 year history of attacking American interests around the world and who just attempted to assassinate our POTUS twice.

Anyone who has problems with Trump enforcing this long-standing American policy can just keep crying about it because these things have been in the works a very long time. Eventually someone was going to have to address their bullshite and Trump is exactly the type of man who will do so rather than giving the Iranians hundreds of billions of taxpayer money in exchange for a promise to be good (even though they just kept right on funding terror proxies right on through it and after leading up to two near assassinations on our POTUS which, in and of itself is enough reason for him to bomb their frickin asses into oblivion.) Or is this no longer America? Do we no longer have the authority to hold someone responsible who nearly overthrew our entire government with a single bullet?

quote:

---

although I think the bigger concern would be with them "losing" one of those nukes only for it to wind up in the hands of one of their terror proxies who WOULD use them, because why not?

---

There’s no functional difference, meaning no—that wouldn’t happen either. Nuclear devices and their fuel are incredibly traceable. “Losing” one would provide Iran zero insulation.

What the frick if they are not over thrown we will pay the price

Maybe you should press pause on that thinking, unless and until you have ready on hand a rational explanation as to what Trump’s reasoning would be for each thing you attributed to him there. Perhaps you already have thought that through and can pop it off to those of us interested.

Now, if you haven’t exactly gotten to that yet, I would only say that it’s quite bizarre to make such strong statements, but not really have any detail as to why you made said strong statements.

quote:

---

There’s no functional difference, meaning no—that wouldn’t happen either. Nuclear devices and their fuel are incredibly traceable. “Losing” one would provide Iran zero insulation.

---

Of course they're traceable and this is probably true. But still, it makes no difference. It won't be allowed. Once a country develops nukes they have a certain amount of leverage when it comes to developing other capabilities that Iran absolutely would use and sell off to terrorists. You can't just step in and kick their arse like we are currently doing out of fear that in an existential crisis they might decide to go ahead and lob a nuke at Israel.

If they don't like it, tough shite. You shouldn't have been funding terrorists for the past 50 frickin years and attacking American interests over and over. You don't get a seat at the big boys table. Period.

quote:

---

They're not going to allow a terroristic regime to join the Mutually Assured Destruction game. Not when that regime has a 50 year history of attacking American interests around the world and who just attempted to assassinate our POTUS twice.

---

hold up
you're claiming iran was behind the trump assassination attempts?
or am i reading that wrong?

I mean, do you think Trump is that desperate to have some emergency parachute cord to pull, that he is even that worried about trying to come up with an acceptable explanation, particularly to try to “appease” folks who he quite likely knows cannot possibly be appeased anyway, no matter what? Plus, being of the lame duck persuasion that he is, i.e. ain’t exactly concerned with that pesky reelection bid?

Just my opinion, only, I think maybe that’s reading just a tad too much into it.

Yes, I do think he’s looking for an emergency cord. That was well put on your part. He’s clearly concerned about the midterms, probably not for his reelection bid, but because his control over Congress would be lost. So, if he had impeachment concerns or legal concerns, all of that would be relevant.

No. I don’t think he’s trying to appease anybody, that’s not my contention.

But having the ability to claim that we are on a wartime footing allows for more unique and broader executive powers.

Also, the freak out over the SAVE act, being the most important piece of legislation, and nothing else will be signed until that - is a flashing billboard that he’s concerned about the midterm elections to an extreme level.

There are more urgent issues, and we all know that. But that’s not his focus.