• Welcome to TalkWeather!
    We see you lurking around TalkWeather! Take the extra step and join us today to view attachments, see less ads and maybe even join the discussion.
    CLICK TO JOIN TALKWEATHER

2025 Political Thread

OH-IOan said:
Hey, can the world survive another three years of Trump? He just dragged us into yet another volatile Middle East conflict we should 100% not be involved in, with nuclear bomb threats flying out the wazoo.
Click to expand...

We absolutely should be involved. In fact, I think the Enola Gay should be taken out of retirement. Not like Iran has any air defense left.
 
Evan said:
We absolutely should be involved. In fact, I think the Enola Gay should be taken out of retirement. Not like Iran has any air defense left.
Click to expand...
Give me one single reason we should be in a conflict that both 80% of the population opposes and that will likely result in a homeland terrorism jump. This war isn’t for “the people” at all; if anything it’s just going to result in American deaths that wouldn’t happen had Trump not illegally bombed another country without discussion (an impeachable offense, by the way!)
 
OH-IOan said:
Give me one single reason we should be in a conflict that both 80% of the population opposes and that will likely result in a homeland terrorism jump. This war isn’t for “the people” at all; if anything it’s just going to result in American deaths that wouldn’t happen had Trump not illegally bombed another country without discussion (an impeachable offense, by the way!)
Click to expand...

There's no evidence 80% of any group on the entire planet opposes the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not sure 80% of the people in Iran even oppose it.

Do you have any evidence for your claims? I've seen the polling from Reuters, Axios, YouGov, and WaPo. What I've seen is that the vast majority of Americans are greatly concerned about Iran's nuclear program. A program, which by the way, is almost exclusively geared toward obtaining a nuclear weapon. You do not enrich uranium to double digit percentage for peaceful purposes.

The current Iranian regime has been heavily weakened and has lot much of the support of their proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and even the Houthis. Is there concern that a terrorist could attack due to sympathies with Iran or the recent Israeli conflict with Gaza? Sure. But that's not what you claimed -- you claimed it is is LIKELY. That's a big claim.

I actually agree that Trump didn't have authorization to conduct the bombing attack. Yes, what he did was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, neither party has shown any inclination to reign in the power of the Executive as it pertains to war powers. Wasn't done with any President in my lifetime. I hate Trump with every fiber of my being, however, his strike on Iran was no more illegitimate than a sundry dozen of other American military engagement of the past several decades.

Nonetheless, I absolutely agree that striking Iran's program was the correct decision even if the President is obligated to properly obtain permission from Congress. I hate this is our current reality, however, our current two party system is impotent and allows this to happen every single time.

The biggest issue is that Trump is chickening out like he always does. He won't actually handle this appropriately because he's largely a lot of talk. He doesn't have the strength to actually do what needs to be done.
 
Oh, as for the single reason for why? The Beirut 1983 barracks bombing. That alone is reason enough to strike Iran.
 
Evan said:
Oh, as for the single reason for why? The Beirut 1983 barracks bombing. That alone is reason enough to strike Iran.
Click to expand...
Oh, okay, so should Iran get to strike us for our flagrant attack on their democracy by CIA coup removing the wildly popular Mossadegh in 1953?

Americans are way, way too gullible to be involved in the Middle East. All we do is throw our weight around and destroy.

And I am not a Democrat, FYI.
 
Evan said:
There's no evidence 80% of any group on the entire planet opposes the strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. I'm not sure 80% of the people in Iran even oppose it.

Do you have any evidence for your claims? I've seen the polling from Reuters, Axios, YouGov, and WaPo. What I've seen is that the vast majority of Americans are greatly concerned about Iran's nuclear program. A program, which by the way, is almost exclusively geared toward obtaining a nuclear weapon. You do not enrich uranium to double digit percentage for peaceful purposes.

The current Iranian regime has been heavily weakened and has lot much of the support of their proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, and even the Houthis. Is there concern that a terrorist could attack due to sympathies with Iran or the recent Israeli conflict with Gaza? Sure. But that's not what you claimed -- you claimed it is is LIKELY. That's a big claim.

I actually agree that Trump didn't have authorization to conduct the bombing attack. Yes, what he did was unconstitutional. Unfortunately, neither party has shown any inclination to reign in the power of the Executive as it pertains to war powers. Wasn't done with any President in my lifetime. I hate Trump with every fiber of my being, however, his strike on Iran was no more illegitimate than a sundry dozen of other American military engagement of the past several decades.

Nonetheless, I absolutely agree that striking Iran's program was the correct decision even if the President is obligated to properly obtain permission from Congress. I hate this is our current reality, however, our current two party system is impotent and allows this to happen every single time.

The biggest issue is that Trump is chickening out like he always does. He won't actually handle this appropriately because he's largely a lot of talk. He doesn't have the strength to actually do what needs to be done.
Click to expand...
Apparently you misread Axios, because “Only 16% support U.S. military action, and 24% are unsure”. “Concerned about nuclear program” and “lets bomb the hell out of civilians” aren’t the same thing.
 
Aaron Rider said:
Oh, okay, so should Iran get to strike us for our flagrant attack on their democracy by CIA coup removing the wildly popular Mossadegh in 1953?

Americans are way, way too gullible to be involved in the Middle East. All we do is throw our weight around and destroy.

And I am not a Democrat, FYI.
Click to expand...

You are comparing providing intelligence support and financial backing to an opposition party with a brutal terror attack on peacekeepers? Really? I don't say this often but that's sickening. Do you know what country you live in? How is there any equivalence whatsoever? What's even more absurd is ignoring Iran's continued destabilization of the entire Middle East and trying to blame the United States. Clearly you're not nearly as familiar with the history of the region as you're trying to imply.

Do you even understand why the 1983 barracks bombing happened? Do you understand that the United States was engaged in a peacekeeping role to support the democratically elected government of Lebanon? And that Iran, no fan whatsoever of democracy, backed Hezbollah and helped build them into a proxy force to keep Lebanon from peace and democracy for DECADES. I'm guessing you've never had many conversations with Lebanese people. Ask them their opinion on the Iranian regime. Ask a Syrian. You think Iran's neighbors are in any way upset that the IRGC has been degraded by Israel and the United States significantly disrupted their nuclear program.

I could list another half-dozen examples. What about Iranian support for the Houthis? They're straight up terrorists. What about their support for Hamas?

I can add even more rationale quite easily. Are you familiar with EFPs? Do you know the role of Iran in destabilizing Iraq after Debaathification by fomenting unrest among Shia militias? Iran intentionally inflamed sectarian tensions in Iraq to prevent the country from gaining any level of peace and stability. As part of that plan, they operated financial and smuggling networks overseen by elements of the IRGC who's sole goal was to teach Shia radicals how to best create EPFs and kill American soldiers.

I think you might be the gullible one. We severely degraded Iran's nuclear program and they've now backed down entirely. Their FM has explicitly stated the regime accepts the ceasefire and plans no further military action. We saw a similar song and dance when Soleimani was taken out. I'm curious -- since you presuppose Americans are gullible -- how many times have you left American soil? Just curious what your extensive experience abroad looks like.

Trump is a blithering fool. He likely didn't do enough to neuter the program. If there's a mistake here it is they we didn't go far enough. The United States should aggressively protect our interests at home and abroad.

I'll reiterate since no one wanted to try and answer -- for what civilian purpose do you enrich uranium to double digit percentages? Surely you have an answer, yes?
 
OH-IOan said:
Apparently you misread Axios, because “Only 16% support U.S. military action, and 24% are unsure”. “Concerned about nuclear program” and “lets bomb the hell out of civilians” aren’t the same thing.
Click to expand...

I didn't misread anything. You cherry picked a single poll and exaggerated it. I already told you I'm familiar with the polling. There's not a single poll that shows 80% opposition. The Axios poll shows 60% opposition -- a pretty significant exaggeration by you that undermines your credibility. Of course, for some strange reason, you ignored the Reuters and WaPo polls that show less than 50% of people oppose military action.

More to the point, polling can differ substantially based off of exactly how questions are worded. The Economist/YouGov poll reported by Axios asked if the United States should get INVOLVED militarily. That implies a direct coordination with the broader Israeli war effort. It is telling that the WaPo poll, which asked about airstrikes, if Iran doesn't dismantle its nuclear program, only had 45% opposition. The Reuters poll, which was conducted in the immediate aftermath of the strikes, showed 36% support, 18% were not sure, and 49% said they didn't support it.

Sticking with your stated premise, where did the 80% number originate from? To me, it seems like you completely fabricated your claim and expected people to just accept it. Pretty sinister if you ask me.
 
Aaron Rider said:
Good Lord, man.


Click to expand...


Let me guess -- this post is the first time you've heard of Anfal and Halabja? Or heard that Saddam used Sarin gas during the Shia uprising in Karbala and Najaf? Those are just a FEW of the domestic uses of WMDs by Saddam.

You were pimping the Iranian regime pretty hard earlier. Are you aware that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran at least 350 different times during the Iran-Iraq war? Or that he maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity about Iraq's WMD programs -- heavily implying to domestic and regional audiences that his WMD program was alive and well (something our intelligence community paid close attention to) -- while cheekily telling Western media sources he doesn't have any WMD programs and never did?

I am having a difficult time taking some of these posts seriously. Were you guys even alive during the Iran-Iraq war or the first Gulf War? It feels to me like you guys are repeating cliches you heard from someone online versus actually knowing he history of what transpired. I'm trying to be fair-minded here, however, I'm not sure what else I can conclude at this point.

You guys think the several million MOPP suits dragged all the way to Iraq, which were universally issued to all service-members by CENTCOM, was all for show? Because the military had to wear them for the first several weeks of the invasion. You don't do that unless you think there's a real risk of NBC attack. Saddam gambled that his strategic ambiguity gambit would let him have Schrodinger's WMDs. It didn't work out for him.

For the record, I wasn't a big fan of the Iraq invasion. I posted about it a lot on this very forum at the time. Strategically, it was a mistake. Regardless, Iraq absolutely HAD chemical, biological, and nuclear programs and regularly used chemical weapons on numerous occasions. But those programs were stopped or fell into disarray when Saddam tried to get sanctions relief in the mid-to-late 90s. By the time 9/11 happened, Saddam no longer had WMDs or working WMD programs.

Flawed and fabricated raw intelligence on Iraq's programs in the 2000s was fed to the intelligence agencies by 3rd parties (the mobile biolabs claim, for example) and no one chose to engage in rigorous analysis. Parts of the Intel community then cherry-picked the most disturbing claims and sent it to the White House. They were clearly wrong for falling into group think and trying to please the White House. It was a grave error.

Nome of the above has anything to do with the Iranian nuclear program. Many of their enrichment activities have been publicly claimed by the Iranian regime, documented by the Iaea and media, inspected by the IAEA, and even televised. Comparing the WMD situation in Iraq to Iran is similar to saying the old pony at the county fair is Secretariat. They're both horses, sure. But, that's where the similarities end. Making such a comparison with a misleading meme is nothing more than fallacious argumentation intended for people who don't think critically about issues.
 
Iran already showing why Trump didn't do enough. Let's see if he falls into the escalation trap.
 
Evan said:
The United States hasn't bombed any civilians. What are you even talking about?
Click to expand...
Trump bombed a country and a country has civilians. This current iteration of a millennia-old human civilization has some very likable ones, too.

Nice going, Donald. This latest skeer has effectively distracted attention away from the millions who protested your regal-like approach; masked enforcers in US streets who harass, break car windows of, and disappear some unfortunate brown people while journalists condemn that but insist on calling the real gangsters "youths"; the constitutional questions regarding use of the military in Los Angeles; deportations to Third World countries, reportedly including the Sudan for hapless Asian immigrants (Abrego was just released from jail on bail, BTW) (update: SCOTUS is fine with this :( ); that monstrosity of a finance bill that keeps failing to pass: the handing over of our personal data to Palantir and other effects brought about by that chainsaw-wielding white immigrant you unleashed; the Qatar jet emolument; the uproar over what appears to be a Paramount bribe; the $5 million-dollar visas to let in your pals and our future bosses; etc.

And now, of course, there will be an excuse to beef up our internal security apparatus even more.

But you were forced into it by all the negative reactions, weren't you, Donald? After the 2026 elections would have been ideal for this big move. As it is, now your MAGA base is riven beyond even your power to fix.

And a good thing, too, though it's always hard to wake up to the realization that you and all the political ideas you cherish have been manipulated to advance the career of a politician who doesn't really care about anything but themselves, power, and money and does not try very hard, once they've gotten what they're after, to fit the rosy picture you once saw them in and voted for (happened to me after the '92 elections).
 
Last edited:
I believe Gabbard's original statement and those of earlier intelligence experts regarding the unlikelihood of Iran's soon building a functioning nuclear weapon of some sort.

I don't believe that the attacks, made on claims that it was imminent, really had to happen right now.

Yet they did.

If it went down as my cynical side suspects, and if undeniable evidence of it exists, then a proven connection between either Trump and Netanyahu setting up Israel's initiation of strikes on Iranian nuclear program sites to coincide with and overshadow the No King's protests and divide the US afterward OR between Trump and Bukele before that deportation flight but after the Supreme Court ruling might eventually lead to a document like this, issued toward the end of the debacle that occurred the last time this country punched down in a big way (but not until almost 60,000 of my generation had died in it and countless more US soldiers/spooks/support personnel had been traumatized):

Nixon_Resignation_Letter.jpg
 
Come to think of it, while Dave Barry's correct and Democrats do have the management skills of celery, some real stinkers (let's include Prescott Bush and his Business Plot, too) have come out of the Republican Party over the last hundred years or so.
 
From the BBC -- not something that I've ever heard in connection with United States military moves before...brand? We're acting in a way that might make the world see us as a rogue nation and it's a power-player's personal brand crisis now?

...After the weekend’s strikes, Trump’s brand is stamped firmly on this conflict.

His reputation as a dealmaker is on the line. The gamble that American bombs would bring calm hasn’t yet paid off. Will Israel heed the President’s call to resist further strikes?

The next few hours are critical in determining whether peace has a chance in the days ahead.
Click to expand...


I feel so dam' helpless in this new "great" America. This wasn't our nation's direct problem last week.

Peace in the Middle East I'm all for -- but it's never going to come with bunker busters and "brands."
 
Evan said:
Let me guess -- this post is the first time you've heard of Anfal and Halabja? Or heard that Saddam used Sarin gas during the Shia uprising in Karbala and Najaf? Those are just a FEW of the domestic uses of WMDs by Saddam.

You were pimping the Iranian regime pretty hard earlier. Are you aware that Saddam used chemical weapons on Iran at least 350 different times during the Iran-Iraq war? Or that he maintained a policy of strategic ambiguity about Iraq's WMD programs -- heavily implying to domestic and regional audiences that his WMD program was alive and well (something our intelligence community paid close attention to) -- while cheekily telling Western media sources he doesn't have any WMD programs and never did?

I am having a difficult time taking some of these posts seriously. Were you guys even alive during the Iran-Iraq war or the first Gulf War? It feels to me like you guys are repeating cliches you heard from someone online versus actually knowing he history of what transpired. I'm trying to be fair-minded here, however, I'm not sure what else I can conclude at this point.

You guys think the several million MOPP suits dragged all the way to Iraq, which were universally issued to all service-members by CENTCOM, was all for show? Because the military had to wear them for the first several weeks of the invasion. You don't do that unless you think there's a real risk of NBC attack. Saddam gambled that his strategic ambiguity gambit would let him have Schrodinger's WMDs. It didn't work out for him.

For the record, I wasn't a big fan of the Iraq invasion. I posted about it a lot on this very forum at the time. Strategically, it was a mistake. Regardless, Iraq absolutely HAD chemical, biological, and nuclear programs and regularly used chemical weapons on numerous occasions. But those programs were stopped or fell into disarray when Saddam tried to get sanctions relief in the mid-to-late 90s. By the time 9/11 happened, Saddam no longer had WMDs or working WMD programs.

Flawed and fabricated raw intelligence on Iraq's programs in the 2000s was fed to the intelligence agencies by 3rd parties (the mobile biolabs claim, for example) and no one chose to engage in rigorous analysis. Parts of the Intel community then cherry-picked the most disturbing claims and sent it to the White House. They were clearly wrong for falling into group think and trying to please the White House. It was a grave error.

Nome of the above has anything to do with the Iranian nuclear program. Many of their enrichment activities have been publicly claimed by the Iranian regime, documented by the Iaea and media, inspected by the IAEA, and even televised. Comparing the WMD situation in Iraq to Iran is similar to saying the old pony at the county fair is Secretariat. They're both horses, sure. But, that's where the similarities end. Making such a comparison with a misleading meme is nothing more than fallacious argumentation intended for people who don't think critically about issues.
Click to expand...
The fact that you thought I was pimping Iran tells me that a good faith argument with you is utterly impossible on these issues. I look forward to discussing the weather with you. I am not trying to be rude.

Neocons have wanted war for a generation. I'm not listening to them.
 
Aaron Rider said:
The fact that you thought I was pimping Iran tells me that a good faith argument with you is utterly impossible on these issues. I look forward to discussing the weather with you. I am not trying to be rude.

Neocons have wanted war for a generation. I'm not listening to them.
Click to expand...

It would've been easier for you to post you have no rebuttal and are bowing out. Because, ultimately, that's essentially what you are saying.

I'm not convinced you understand what a bad faith argument actually looks like. I resolutely believe in the position I expressed, I provided numerous examples to backup my broader argument, and explicitly rebutted the direct argument you made.

You may not like some of the rhetorical techniques I used, however, none of them in any way are demonstrative of bad faith.

I said you were pimping the Iranian regime because you directly invoked their go-to argument for both their legitimacy and the justification for their anti-American activities. The current regime frequently points to the Mossadegh coup to argue that they are anti-imperialists and anti-colonialists overthrowing an illegitimate authoritarian regime (the Shah) imposed by the USA and Great Britain. The intent is to both legitimize their own regime and cast the previous regime as an illegitimate puppet of the Anglo West. It's hardly a bad faith argument to call that out and say you are pimping for them. It's simply saying you are serving as a mouthpiece or proxy for the person/organization.

This seems to be employing tone policing instead of constructively engaging in the merits of the argument I made. Remember your response that precipitated this exchange? It started with an impatient and exasperated "Good Lord, man" message. I didn't tone police. Instead, I constructively engaged with your argument and used a similar tone to express my own frustration with your position. Seems pretty fair to me. We'll let the readers of the thread decide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top