Iran

[marcusluvsvols]

I'm with you. Anything's possible including that it was due to one of our weapons. If it was, I'm confident that it was not intentional but instead was because the school was on a naval base

Same here. Its too early to tell. That Xpost with all the photos seems somewhat credible, but with AI and disinformation being commonplace you cant trust anything you see or hear online anymore. Such a strange time to be alive for those of us who remember the 80s, 90s etc.

 

[EasternVol]

I do understand. The reason this is an issue is because idiots are saying that illegals are being deported without due process. Everyone of them has gotten their due process.
The left is using and it is just another lie, hoax, etc. Just add it to the list. Pandemic, climate change, we have no interest and Iran is no threat, Trump is a facist... We live in the golden age of suckers.

@InVOLuntary had been whining that 'leftist' judges were blocking deportations and my reply in 14,152 was that judges were blocking deportations because the people pending deportation weren't getting due process, and that due process and rule of law are fundamental American principles. If you understand that, why did you dispute it?

 

[n_huffhines]

Korea wasn't a "war" either, supposedly (police action).

Even if Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. were formally declared wars, I still think they'd be controversial regardless. With the exception of Afghanistan (the initial airstrikes/invasion, not the occupation and nation building that occurred afterwards), it was hard for the general public to understand what exactly the United States stands to gain from that conflict, or how that conflict is in the best interests of the United States. I guess the post-9/11 Afghan invasion was the last time people truly united around the flag (not Pearl Harbor), and it was because that was really easy for people to understand. They hit us, so we're going to hit them.

For the most part, in a post-WWII world and in a post-Cold War world, the national defense strategy of the United States isn't about doing something when the homeland is directly threatened but rather about maintaining a global balance of power/preventing power vacuums that would otherwise be assumed by someone else (Soviet Union pre-1991, China, Russia, etc.). That's just harder for people to understand; it also doesn't mean that everything we've done was the right thing to do though.

Thanks for the correction about Korea and that was my point. We have a representative government set up so the military can get consensus on whether or not we should go to war. We've completely abandoned this mechanism. You're saying Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. would have been unpopular either way. My point is we're probably not getting congress to declare war on Vietnam and it never happens. Is there any chance right now that we'd be at war with Iran if congress had to declare war?

Alternative universe:
Vietnam - we don't declare war.
Iraqi Freedom - we declare war, but find out we were lied to along the way, and was super expensive, so of course we become divided either way.
Afghanistan - we declare war but then it goes on for 2 decades, and was super expensive, so of course we become divided either way.
Iran - we don't declare war.
Desert Storm - we declare war, get in and get out, so not much division.

And we glossed over Desert Storm. It was popular. It had a clear, attainable objective, which we achieved quickly.

 

[volbound1700]

Thanks for the correction about Korea and that was my point. We have a representative government set up so the military can get consensus on whether or not we should go to war. We've completely abandoned this mechanism. You're saying Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. would have been unpopular either way. My point is we're probably not getting congress to declare war on Vietnam and it never happens. Is there any chance right now that we'd be at war with Iran if congress had to declare war?

Alternative universe:
Vietnam - we don't declare war.
Iraqi Freedom - we declare war, but find out we were lied to along the way, and was super expensive, so of course we become divided either way.
Afghanistan - we declare war but then it goes on for 2 decades, and was super expensive, so of course we become divided either way.
Iran - we don't declare war.
Desert Storm - we declare war, get in and get out, so not much division.

And we glossed over Desert Storm. It was popular. It had a clear, attainable objective, which we achieved quickly.

Kind of an unpopular theory (and not thought or discussed about often) but I am curious if operation Iraqi Freedom was actually a success (just a costly one). Iraq, today, is a pretty stable society and isn't threatening its neighbors or the USA. It has basic democratic representation for the region.

Afghanistan was clearly a failure with the Taliban taking back control but you really can't say that for Iraq. Iraq has, for the most part, been quiet.

 

[volfanhill]

Thanks for the correction about Korea and that was my point. We have a representative government set up so the military can get consensus on whether or not we should go to war. We've completely abandoned this mechanism. You're saying Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. would have been unpopular either way. My point is we're probably not getting congress to declare war on Vietnam and it never happens. Is there any chance right now that we'd be at war with Iran if congress had to declare war?

Alternative universe:
Vietnam - we don't declare war.
Iraqi Freedom - we declare war, but find out we were lied to along the way, and was super expensive, so of course we become divided either way.
Afghanistan - we declare war but then it goes on for 2 decades, and was super expensive, so of course we become divided either way.
Iran - we don't declare war.
Desert Storm - we declare war, get in and get out, so not much division.

And we glossed over Desert Storm. It was popular. It had a clear, attainable objective, which we achieved quickly.

Bush 1 had an approval ratings in the high eighties after Desert Storm.

And your right, the whole point of actually getting congressional approval is to insure the country wants to go to war. Not one person in the White House

 

[rikberry31]

That last comment is full of irony coming from a proud Trump supporter

Well that is rich coming from someone who thought voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris was good thing to do.

 

[05_never_again]

Thanks for the correction about Korea and that was my point. We have a representative government set up so the military can get consensus on whether or not we should go to war. We've completely abandoned this mechanism. You're saying Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, etc. would have been unpopular either way. My point is we're probably not getting congress to declare war on Vietnam and it never happens. Is there any chance right now that we'd be at war with Iran if congress had to declare war?

Alternative universe:
Vietnam - we don't declare war.
Iraqi Freedom - we declare war, but find out we were lied to along the way, and was super expensive, so of course we become divided either way.
Afghanistan - we declare war but then it goes on for 2 decades, and was super expensive, so of course we become divided either way.
Iran - we don't declare war.
Desert Storm - we declare war, get in and get out, so not much division.

And we glossed over Desert Storm. It was popular. It had a clear, attainable objective, which we achieved quickly.

Desert Storm wasn't as popular as you might think. The vote in the Senate was very close (52-47) and arguably was tipped in favor of authorizing the use of force by the Nayirah testimony, which turned out to be completely fabricated. IMO, the only reason that war isn't incredibly controversial is because it turned out OK.

Of the conflicts you mentioned, Desert Storm happened to be the one that ended up going like we intended it to. Yes, it did have the use of force authorized by Congress, but so did Afghanistan and Iraq, which ended up being quagmires. Sure, Congress is Constitutionally provisioned to declare war, but that doesn't prevent them from giving a blank check to the Executive, which is what happened after 9/11.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

It was targeted intentionally, not because it was a school, but because our intel thought it was something else besides a school.

Exactly

 

[volfanhill]

Desert Storm wasn't as popular as you might think. The vote in the Senate was very close (52-47) and arguably was tipped in favor of authorizing the use of force by the Nayirah testimony, which turned out to be completely fabricated.

Of the conflicts you mentioned, Desert Storm happened to be the one that ended up going like we intended it to. Yes, it did have the use of force authorized by Congress, but so did Afghanistan and Iraq, which ended up being quagmires. Sure, Congress is Constitutionally provisioned to declare war, but that doesn't prevent them from giving a blank check to the Executive, which is what happened after 9/11.

Congress has chosen to give their power to an executive branch so they don't take political hits over war. It's gross and further proof of the incompetent governance we have to deal with. Our founders never dreamed they would just allow executive branch abuse like this

 

[CagleMtnVol]

If so, would you call that terrorism?

Not in a combat situation.

 

[rikberry31]

@InVOLuntary had been whining that 'leftist' judges were blocking deportations and my reply in 14,152 was that judges were blocking deportations because the people pending deportation weren't getting due process, and that due process and rule of law are fundamental American principles. If you understand that, why did you dispute it?

I'm sorry I forgot activist judges don't have political agendas. Saying a judge ruled and believing it is correct is like saying it's true because I saw in on the internet. It doesn't end with partisan district judge. Judge shopping is a real problem and will be the end of our Republic if it is not stopped.

 

[Smokey123]

 

[hog88]

Congress has chosen to give their power to an executive branch so they don't take political hits over war. It's gross and further proof of the incompetent governance we have to deal with. Our founders never dreamed they would just allow executive branch abuse like this

Our FFs never envisioned congress as being a full time career.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Well that is rich coming from someone who thought voting for Joe Biden and Kamala Harris was good thing to do.

I didn't vote for either one of them. Nice try, dumbass

 

[n_huffhines]

Desert Storm wasn't as popular as you might think. The vote in the Senate was very close (52-47) and arguably was tipped in favor of authorizing the use of force by the Nayirah testimony, which turned out to be completely fabricated. IMO, the only reason that war isn't incredibly controversial is because it turned out OK.

Of the conflicts you mentioned, Desert Storm happened to be the one that ended up going like we intended it to. Yes, it did have the use of force authorized by Congress, but so did Afghanistan and Iraq, which ended up being quagmires. Sure, Congress is Constitutionally provisioned to declare war, but that doesn't prevent them from giving a blank check to the Executive, which is what happened after 9/11.

This whole time I thought you were talking about popular among the people, not the senate. 60% of America supported the objective when it kicked off and that immediately jumped to 75%-80% and I'm not sure why that is, but it's obviously not because it turned out OK.

Regarding the bolded, these things work in concert together. If the war is justifiable to the public, then it's more likely to turn out OK compared to a war that doesn't pass the public's smell test. It doesn't/won't always work out, but if you have unilaterally decided intervention-worthy "emergencies," the batting average will be lower than if we follow the process of declaring war set up by the founders.

 

[RavinDave]

Viet Nam was the exception and folks took on heavy criticism for their comments. Look up Jane Fonda. Let's not act like Jane Fonda here.

Not Fonda Hanoi Jane

 

[NorthDallas40]

Exactly

Who exactly has stated otherwise? Had we not taken on the folly of hitting Iran (again) then we wouldn’t have struck that school by accident. And those kids would still be alive. And if we did strike it, even by accident, then we need to own up to it. We’re supposed to be the “good guys” … remember?

 

[CagleMtnVol]

Who exactly has stated otherwise? Had we not taken on the folly of hitting Iran (again) then we wouldn’t have struck that school by accident. And those kids would still be alive. And if we did strike it, even by accident, then we need to own up to it. We’re supposed to be the “good guys” … remember?

I have seen people say the US did it intentionally.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I have seen people say the US did it intentionally.

Then they’re idiots

 

[MOOOOONEY]

Our FFs never envisioned congress as being a full time career.

It turned into a helluva way to be rich and powerful.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

Then they’re idiots

They are, there are also lots of people on social media that are somehow convinced Trump is going to announce a military draft anyday.

Despite the fact we basically fought two wars for two decades without one.

 

[NorthDallas40]

They are, there are also lots of people on social media that are somehow convinced Trump is going to announce a military draft anyday.

Despite the fact we basically fought two wars for two decades without one.

Those people thinking we are going to have a draft are idiots also.

 

[Matt2496]

Oil prices are falling from their high already. Whether it continues remain to be seen.

 

[05_never_again]

This whole time I thought you were talking about popular among the people, not the senate. 60% of America supported the objective when it kicked off and that immediately jumped to 75%-80% and I'm not sure why that is, but it's obviously not because it turned out OK.

Regarding the bolded, these things work in concert together. If the war is justifiable to the public, then it's more likely to turn out OK compared to a war that doesn't pass the public's smell test. It doesn't/won't always work out, but if you have unilaterally decided intervention-worthy "emergencies," the batting average will be lower than if we follow the process of declaring war set up by the founders.

Support for it was very wishy-washy in both the general public and Senate before it began.

Americans Believe U.S. Participation in Gulf War a Decade Ago Worthwhile

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the end of the Persian Gulf War, when U.S. and allied troops forced the Iraqis out of Kuwait and a cease-fire was declared. According to a new Gallup poll, conducted February 19-21, as Americans reflect on their country's participation in that action a decade...

news.gallup.com

Despite the eventual popularity of the Persian Gulf War, Americans had to be coaxed into support for that effort. In response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, they did give immediate support to President Bush's decision to send American forces to Saudi Arabia in early August 1990, by 78% to 17%, but they were about evenly divided over whether the situation there was really worth going to war over, and a majority opposed the United States' initiating military efforts to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.

Four polls conducted between mid-August and November 1990 showed a divided public on whether the situation was worth going to war over or not. On average, 47% thought it was, while 43% thought it was not. And when Americans were first asked -- in a Gallup poll conducted right before Thanksgiving 1990 -- about U.S. forces being used to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait, they opposed such action by 51% to 37%.

The Bush administration put considerable effort into persuading U.S. allies about the need to oppose Saddam Hussein, and its success in that effort was reflected in a November U.N. resolution that authorized the use of "all means necessary" to evict Iraq from Kuwait. Following that resolution, a new Gallup poll showed a 27-point swing in public support, with a majority of Americans now in support of military action against Iraq if it did not leave Kuwait.

As I mentioned earlier, Congressional testimony by a Kuwaiti girl that was demonstrated after the war to be completely fabricated played a not-insignificant role in changing public opinion into supporting removing Saddam from Kuwait. The public and the rest of the world really had to be convinced into supporting that war, for the reasons I mentioned earlier (i.e., it wasn't a clean "they attacked us so we're going to attack them" deal).

If Desert Storm ended up heading south like Afghanistan or Iraq Part 2 did, it would have been a very politically divisive and eventually immensely unpopular conflict, just like the other 2 ended up being (and were both broadly publically supported before they began). It ended up being a very successful operation, so the criticism of it initially kind of ends up being forgotten. I don't think that war was successful because it had broad public support; it (ended up) having broad public support because it was successful. It's not altogether different from fans jumping on the bandwagon of a successful sports team, or a fan yelling "no no no!" before a basketball player jacks up a wild, contested 3 then cheers "yeah, great shot!" after it goes in.

 

[volfanhill]

Oil prices are falling from their high already. Whether it continues remain to be seen.
View attachment 818800

Trumps going to announce tonight that he's releasing 20% of the strategic oil reserve. Other G 7 countries to do similar