Valerie wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 10:47 pm
Trump & military advisors and all experts giving commentary. He’s not a Lone Ranger.
Which of his cabinet seems on the side of advising him to attack Iran?
This is one of the things that concerns me. It sounds like Trump has surrounded himself with sycophantic “yes men” who tell him what he wants to hear (For example, the fawning cabinet meetings where the press is allowed). Good leadership has close advisors who disagree.
There’s been some reporting that Vance initially opposed the attacks, but he seems fully on board now.
2 x
"Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey and robbing the fatherless."
Valerie wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 10:47 pm
Trump & military advisors and all experts giving commentary. He’s not a Lone Ranger.
Which of his cabinet seems on the side of advising him to attack Iran?
This is one of the things that concerns me. It sounds like Trump has surrounded himself with sycophantic “yes men” who tell him what he wants to hear (For example, the fawning cabinet meetings where the press is allowed). Good leadership has close advisors who disagree.
There’s been some reporting that Vance initially opposed the attacks, but he seems fully on board now.
Vance is much younger- we who remember what happened in 1979 and all since feel differently- I have heard a lot of politicians that aren’t part of his cabinet in favor of it. I’m not for war either, but I am for preventing it coming here, but that’s the way I was raised. My mother has followed politics all my life, my dad served in the Navy so no no one‘s in favor of wars but the reality is when you’re the commander-in-chief you look out for your country. Like I said Trump was for doing something about Iran when he was 34 years old in interview I listen to him on. But there are numerous politicians and people in the military that feel something had to be done about the situation in Iran and more have the attitude finally, something is being done about it. Then when you hear Iranians interviewed about it that are glad then it’s not like the way you make it sound that Trump just wanted to go invade a country and found people to support him. No, there are people that actually do support this that have nothing to do with just being Trump followers
And the Iranians remember what America did to them before… at some point people have to let go of past grievances otherwise they’ll never come to an accord.
Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 9:22 am
...Then when you hear Iranians interviewed about it that are glad then it’s not like the way you make it sound that Trump just wanted to go invade a country and found people to support him. No, there are people that actually do support this that have nothing to do with just being Trump followers
My suspicions are roughly the opposite. I think his cabinet largely believed in the isolationism he ran on in the campaign but he got caught up in the energy of seizing Venezuela with little consequence, listened to a nice presentation from Netanyahu and pulled the lever over the warnings of people like Vance.
Valerie wrote: ↑Fri Jul 17, 2026 9:22 am
...Then when you hear Iranians interviewed about it that are glad then it’s not like the way you make it sound that Trump just wanted to go invade a country and found people to support him. No, there are people that actually do support this that have nothing to do with just being Trump followers
My suspicions are roughly the opposite. I think his cabinet largely believed in the isolationism he ran on in the campaign but he got caught up in the energy of seizing Venezuela with little consequence, listened to a nice presentation from Netanyahu and pulled the lever over the warnings of people like Vance.
He is not influenced by Netanyahu if you go back through the years by Trump talking about Iran long before he was in politics. Abraham Accords was a very good move though.
By the way, Democrats John Fetterman of PA said regarding attack on Iran “ if you’re a Democrat, who dares to agree with anything from the other side, you’ll be punished “ then he gave a specific example: “ I am literally the only Democrat in America in Congress that I’ve come across that I think it’s a great thing to break and destroy the Iranian regime” Think about that he said he’s the only Democrat in Congress, who dares to say that destroying the Iranian regime is a good thing the only one that he asked the question no one in his party dares to ask-every single Democrat that runs for president says we must never allow them to acquire a nuclear bomb when that happens-Why not celebrate that or acknowledge that every Democratic presidential candidate says Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear bomb when that actually happens why not celebrate why not acknowledge the answer? Everyone knows because Trump did it and Federman said it straight what a good thing happens just because it comes from the different party that tells me that you’re choosing the demand of the base or the party over country you’re choosing party over country on camera. Fetterman didn’t just say the quiet part out loud he took out the megaphone. “
I admire Fetterman for speaking out- he believes Trump Derangement Syndrome has taken over his party.
Two U.S. servicemembers were killed and several were wounded in an Iranian attack on an air base in Jordan, further escalating a weeklong exchange of fire where both sides have been striking increasingly sensitive targets.
...
Iran has adapted to U.S. defenses, firing missiles that travel at extremely high speeds and can maneuver as they streak toward the earth, according to U.S. officials familiar with the attacks. Iran’s ability to hit sensitive targets also has raised concerns that the regime is getting targeting help from China or Russia, the officials said.
I remember as a young boy being told that the U.S. would shoot down missiles if they were sent our way. Then one day more recently, I learned that getting all of them shot down was wishful thinking.
Here we are, 40 years later, and hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars later, and missiles are still making it through air defenses.
It makes me wonder whether the Pentagon has a clear picture of the landscape.
0 x
A wee little man can’t say, I’m sorry. A big man owns his mistakes and apologizes.
A wee little man trusts himself and his own discernment. A big man is humble enough to know that he needs the counsel and input of others.
Two U.S. servicemembers were killed and several were wounded in an Iranian attack on an air base in Jordan, further escalating a weeklong exchange of fire where both sides have been striking increasingly sensitive targets.
...
Iran has adapted to U.S. defenses, firing missiles that travel at extremely high speeds and can maneuver as they streak toward the earth, according to U.S. officials familiar with the attacks. Iran’s ability to hit sensitive targets also has raised concerns that the regime is getting targeting help from China or Russia, the officials said.
I remember as a young boy being told that the U.S. would shoot down missiles if they were sent our way. Then one day more recently, I learned that getting all of them shot down was wishful thinking.
Here we are, 40 years later, and hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of dollars later, and missiles are still making it through air defenses.
It makes me wonder whether the Pentagon has a clear picture of the landscape.
Yeah... they know who butters their bread. Contractors and big mil companies.
Suppose we just don't care who the president is now, what party he belongs to, or whatever. Leave all the politics out of it.
Request: Try to do this without naming any politicians or framing it in culture war terms. I think that's important for thinking clearly about this issue.
What goal is being achieved? At what cost? At what cost to preparedness for protecting other areas if they are attacked? So far, I don't see a goal beyond:
1. Opening the Straits of Hormuz, which were open before the conflict began.
2. Getting some kind of agreement on nukes similar to the Obama agreement, with monitoring at least as good, improving some terms and conditions.
Doesn't seem like this war is an efficient way to get there from here. Not to mention what it is doing to the Iranian people. I don't think they are going to rise up and overthrow their government.
Is there a stable set of goals that doesn't change, and a strategy to get there from here? Written down somewhere? If so, where?
0 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Bootstrap wrote: ↑Sat Jul 18, 2026 9:54 pm
Suppose we just don't care who the president is now, what party he belongs to, or whatever. Leave all the politics out of it.
Request: Try to do this without naming any politicians or framing it in culture war terms. I think that's important for thinking clearly about this issue.
What goal is being achieved? At what cost? At what cost to preparedness for protecting other areas if they are attacked? So far, I don't see a goal beyond:
1. Opening the Straits of Hormuz, which were open before the conflict began.
2. Getting some kind of agreement on nukes similar to the Obama agreement, with monitoring at least as good, improving some terms and conditions.
Doesn't seem like this war is an efficient way to get there from here. Not to mention what it is doing to the Iranian people. I don't think they are going to rise up and overthrow their government.
Is there a stable set of goals that doesn't change, and a strategy to get there from here? Written down somewhere? If so, where?
I think you already named at least one politician.
