Anarchistbear said:

---

I suspect they are for it, will vote to approve money and then hold a "No Kings Rally"

---

Therein lies the rub, the Democrat establishment is 100% pro-Israel while the base has moved on.

So yes, there is a strong need to hold them accountable.

Anarchistbear said:

---

I suspect they are for it, will vote to approve money and then hold a "No Kings Rally"

---

This is the real answer. They support attacking Iran, are as in bed with Israel as the Republicans, but don't want the heat that comes with it. So they're quite happy to let Trump take the fall for all the bad fallout that will come from this while at the same time being wishy-washy in their public comments so as to not offend their Israeli overlords, who provide the money to keep them in power.

Big C said:

---

Leaders can galvanize support/dissent and public sentiment. At the very minimum, we can show our allies (former allies?) that we're not all "the bad guys", which is what we're rapidly becoming on the world stage lately. Additionally, when the smoke clears, we're gonna see that this war is similar to the one we had in Iraq, only worse (if we persist with it long enough). For the future of the Democratic Party -- whose present isn't doing so well lately -- maybe it might be a good time to be on the right side of history.

Moreover, I have never taken a Constitutional Law class, but don't we have congressional elections every two years? Elections in which the minority party may become the majority party? Asking for my American Political Systems professor.

Let me ask you, wifeisafurd: You have posted on some of the threads on this topic, but you have not come out and stated: Are you for this war, or not? And why? (or why not?)

---

This sounds like a Tom question.

My answer is from my professor who can read a calendar. It is mid-March and the election is in November. We have the fire power to basically level the country and curb all meaningful resistance long before November, if Trump choses to do so. The politics likely turns on how the US leaves. If I were advising the Dems, I would say be against Trump's handling of the war, and see how it turns out. Militarily at least, that is out the Dem politicians control, If there is a good result, Dems run the risk will be on every hit political ad voicing opposition.

As for your commentary about being for the war or not, we are already in a war. I said repeatedly said this war didn't seem thought out and was likely to be a mistake. Just one of some posts of mine over in the main thread:

"Without an understanding of what comes next (Trump's video just makes you just want to squirm - "maybe they will ask me who should lead?" ), the attack could create a chaotic power vacuum in Iran. With all the fanatics wondering around in that part of the world, you really could get worse - which is shocking. Is there any reason to believe that hardline, anti-West types will not continue to rule Iran? This also means potentially, dramatic regional instability. They are not taking down Iran's capabilities with one night of strikes. This could mean Iran threatening vital economic capacity, such as oil shipments in the Straits of Hormuz.

Will this could embolden or weakenen Iranian-backed proxy groups across the Middle East? They will seek support from elsewhere and that may mean benefactors who may not be willing to force restraint like Iran, who put Iran's economic needs for regional stability before the interests of their proxy groups.

Not getting a real sense this has been thought out after listening to Trump's comments, though presumably this attack was being planned for some time. I guess time will tell on this gamble. If I was in Congress, I would wait to see how this plays out. If the US has a say about what happens in Iran, this administration is not into democratic nation building as evidenced by Venezuala, but wanting economic allies. Just call us China light."

I absolutely concede this was a war of choice by Israel and the US. I suggested it was a mistake - I may be validated. At this juncture, I have no idea what is actually happening on the ground in Iran or what Trump's plans will be. Do you? The media certainly isn't covering most military operations.

The real question is what do you do now since you are in active war? We are bombing away and degrading Iran. Any material casualties to the US are economic and maybe political (we are already at odds with Europe). I don't have any answers for a real strategy, I'm not an expert and I'm not sure there is much information in the media. Really no confidence in Trump. Can't say pulling out immeaditley does any good. Don't know what benchmark you use to know when to stop the bombing. This is not a direct answer to your question, nor my question, but it is an answer. I just don't know.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Big C said:

---

Leaders can galvanize support/dissent and public sentiment. At the very minimum, we can show our allies (former allies?) that we're not all "the bad guys", which is what we're rapidly becoming on the world stage lately. Additionally, when the smoke clears, we're gonna see that this war is similar to the one we had in Iraq, only worse (if we persist with it long enough). For the future of the Democratic Party -- whose present isn't doing so well lately -- maybe it might be a good time to be on the right side of history.

Moreover, I have never taken a Constitutional Law class, but don't we have congressional elections every two years? Elections in which the minority party may become the majority party? Asking for my American Political Systems professor.

Let me ask you, wifeisafurd: You have posted on some of the threads on this topic, but you have not come out and stated: Are you for this war, or not? And why? (or why not?)

---

This sounds like a Tom question.

My answer is from my professor who can read a calendar. It is mid-March and the election is in November. We have the fire power to basically level the country and curb all meaningful resistance long before November, if Trump choses to do so. The politics likely turns on how the US leaves. If I were advising the Dems, I would say be against Trump's handling of the war, and see how it turns out. Militarily at least, that is out the Dem politicians control, If there is a good result, Dems run the risk will be on every hit political ad voicing opposition.

As for your commentary about being for the war or not, we are already in a war. I said repeatedly said this war didn't seem thought out and was likely to be a mistake. Just one of some posts of mine over in the main thread:

"Without an understanding of what comes next (Trump's video just makes you just want to squirm - "maybe they will ask me who should lead?" ), the attack could create a chaotic power vacuum in Iran. With all the fanatics wondering around in that part of the world, you really could get worse - which is shocking. Is there any reason to believe that hardline, anti-West types will not continue to rule Iran? This also means potentially, dramatic regional instability. They are not taking down Iran's capabilities with one night of strikes. This could mean Iran threatening vital economic capacity, such as oil shipments in the Straits of Hormuz.

Will this could embolden or weakenen Iranian-backed proxy groups across the Middle East? They will seek support from elsewhere and that may mean benefactors who may not be willing to force restraint like Iran, who put Iran's economic needs for regional stability before the interests of their proxy groups.

Not getting a real sense this has been thought out after listening to Trump's comments, though presumably this attack was being planned for some time. I guess time will tell on this gamble. If I was in Congress, I would wait to see how this plays out. If the US has a say about what happens in Iran, this administration is not into democratic nation building as evidenced by Venezuala, but wanting economic allies. Just call us China light."

I absolutely concede this was a war of choice by Israel and the US. I suggested it was a mistake - I may be validated. At this juncture, I have no idea what is actually happening on the ground in Iran or what Trump's plans will be. Do you? The media certainly isn't covering most military operations.

The real question is what do you do now since you are in active war? We are bombing away and degrading Iran. Any material casualties to the US are economic and maybe political (we are already at odds with Europe). I don't have any answers for a real strategy, I'm not an expert and I'm not sure there is much information in the media. Really no confidence in Trump. Can't say pulling out immeaditley does any good. Don't know what benchmark you use to know when to stop the bombing. This is not a direct answer to your question, nor my question, but it is an answer. I just don't know.

---

I appreciate your response,

This is not necessarily a direct response to you, but there have been numerous US attempts over the years to bomb a country into a regime change favoring the US, but it has rarely, if ever, worked.

This just sounds so much like GW Bush and the Iraq War fiasco. And there, we even had boots on the ground.

At this point, our best bet is to find a stopping point where the bombing is no longer achieving marginal results and make a compromise with Iran in which both sides can pretend they won.

In the meantime, people are getting killed and this war ain't exactly helping the economy. Nor is it boosting our standing in the world.

Aunburdened said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I suspect they are for it, will vote to approve money and then hold a "No Kings Rally"

---

This is the real answer. They support attacking Iran, are as in bed with Israel as the Republicans, but don't want the heat that comes with it. So they're quite happy to let Trump take the fall for all the bad fallout that will come from this while at the same time being wishy-washy in their public comments so as to not offend their Israeli overlords, who provide the money to keep them in power.

---

They will complain about process- we should have been consulted but this is BS. They should be happy they weren't consulted because it allows them to become an anti war party, but we know they don't choose that, nor do they choose to trade "No Kings" for "No war" because they'd rather have little old ladies with cute signs than red meat associated with " against our troops" or anti- Israel ( Semitic)

wifeisafurd said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

Anarchistbear said:

---

I suspect they are for it, will vote to approve money and then hold a "No Kings Rally"

---

This is the real answer. They support attacking Iran, are as in bed with Israel as the Republicans, but don't want the heat that comes with it. So they're quite happy to let Trump take the fall for all the bad fallout that will come from this while at the same time being wishy-washy in their public comments so as to not offend their Israeli overlords, who provide the money to keep them in power.

---

Maybe they just want to stay on the sidelines and second guess?

---

It is their favorite pastime. Love to be the critic, hate to have to actually do things.

Given how much Trump’s attack on Iran is rapidly escalating and the stakes involved, it seems now would be a good time for No Kings and Indivisible to marshal their tremendous resources and hold an actual antiwar march with clear demands, not more partisan pep rallies.

— Adam Johnson (@adamjohnsonCHI) March 22, 2026

whenever No Kings or its organizing orgs are criticized for hyper generic activism-by-nonprofit committee they say they have no centralized messaging and the individual rallies are allowed to back whatever causes they wish but clearly their national messaging sets the tone

— Adam Johnson (@adamjohnsonCHI) March 22, 2026

Sad to see @ChrisMurphyCT echoing false neocon narratives about Iran's threat to US

"The minute they stop bombing... It will only take a handful of months to reconstitute that threat"

This closes space for a diplomatic deal to end the war and bolsters case for war in future https://t.co/S97gjjfheK pic.twitter.com/wxvinKSc0q

— Erik Sperling (@ErikSperling) March 22, 2026

This moment would be monumental for a genuine opposition party, but the Democratic Party is led by Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, two Israel-first Zionists. Our democracy is a joke.

— Lee Fang (@lhfang) March 21, 2026

Morning Joe Bizarre MELTDOWN Over Democrats Not Enthusiastically Supporting Iran War.

We all know Democrats passively support war with Iran, but for Joe Scarborough that is not enough! https://t.co/b1a9I6mM8d

— Nick Cruse 🥋 (@SocialistMMA) March 27, 2026

Big C said:

---

^ So much for "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
Still waiting to hear more Dems denounce this war. The clock is ticking...

---

BearlySane88 said:

---

Big C said:

---

^ So much for "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Still waiting to hear more Dems denounce this war. The clock is ticking...

---

Do you expect they will? Not until it's over and it's time for their election cycle

---

The smiles and laughter from Biden, Obama, and Hillary in this video creep me out every time. Real demon energy.

RIP, Senator Gravel. pic.twitter.com/BJe695DFtc

— Liam McCollum (@MLiamMcCollum) November 23, 2022

Prof. Mearsheimer nails it as usual. pic.twitter.com/efuT11rn1n

— Thomas Fazi (@battleforeurope) April 1, 2026

Will it is April 1 appropriately, and Trump is making a speech to supposedly say the war is ending soon, time is running out to oppose to war....Asking again for my professor who can read a calendar.

Funny that Trump may end the Iran war with a U.S. military defeat before the Democrats even develop a position on the conflict.

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) March 31, 2026

Long, but worth reading

The reason Democrats have no position on the war is because no one has a coherent view on what to do. It’s not on them.

The U.S. is basically the bank account and army for global oligarchs. This positioning is not good for Americans and it’s not good for the world. But it’s…

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 1, 2026

The main enemy of Americans is Wall Street, not Iran. pic.twitter.com/QFK3J5g56x

— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) April 1, 2026

Boom: Long overdue, I have written my Senators (Padilla and Schiff) and my Representative (Lateefah Simon) about taking a more prominent role in denouncing this stupid war.

(I hope they understood when I wrote that, if they don't stand up pretty soon, I will be "this far" from joining the Yogi Party.)

And while I was on a roll, I wrote Mark Madsen about bringing in a power forward!!!

Big C said:

---

Boom: I have written my Senators (Padilla and Schiff) and my Representative (Lateefah Simon) about taking a more prominent role in denouncing this stupid war.

(I hope they understood when I wrote that, if they don't stand up pretty soon, I will be "this far" from joining the Yogi Party.)

And while I was on a role, I wrote Mark Madsen about bringing in a power forward!!!

---

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1588113113317294&id=100063558617653



https://instagr.am/p/DVTnbQdgLXU

In other words, the so-called "extreme" left (ie, the actual left) was correct all along:

The US empire's goal is to extract rent from the rest of the world, at gunpoint, to protect corporate monopolies and enrich a few capitalist oligarchs.

You were simply too naive to see it. https://t.co/DebOLusQKx

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) April 2, 2026

dajo9 said:

---

Big C said:

---

Boom: I have written my Senators (Padilla and Schiff) and my Representative (Lateefah Simon) about taking a more prominent role in denouncing this stupid war.

(I hope they understood when I wrote that, if they don't stand up pretty soon, I will be "this far" from joining the Yogi Party.)

And while I was on a role, I wrote Mark Madsen about bringing in a power forward!!!

---

https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1588113113317294&id=100063558617653



https://instagr.am/p/DVTnbQdgLXU

---

This is good but I want to hear it louder and more prominently, rather than having to search via a college sports fan site off-topic forum.