Iran War: Dems who want a future had better stand up soon

3,742 Views | 71 Replies | Last: 1 day ago by Aunburdened
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

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.

it was also dead on arrival irrelevant as the Congress didn't exercise any war power authority it might have had. Which explains why the whole discussion on the war's legality and the war power act lasted a microsecond with the media, and why you are reading this very out of date comment on a college sports fan site..
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Schiff is an ardent Israeli supporter and Jewish. He's not voting against Israel. " Process" is a dodge.
PAC-10-BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Kamala Harris, I have low expectations for you, but surprise me. Do the right thing, even if you think it might not be popular. I'd still never vote for you in a primary, but at least I'd toss you some respect.

Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?

^ That was somewhat entertaining. Whatever Kamala Harris thinks about this war now, she ought to come out and say it. Be for it or be against it. One of her biggest weaknesses has been her lack of "authenticity", which to me means carefully curating positions on the issues with the goal of not losing any voters.

I'm not interested in her as a future candidate but rather as a Democrat who might garner some national attention when she says something. She wrote a book and did a little press tour. Testing the water? Whatever, how does she feel about this?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Trump is now looking to her for justification for his horrible actions?
Wow.

Desperate. Somebody save him from himself.
chazzed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

This thread is only a few months from blaming Democrats for this war, ala Hillary Clinton and Iraq, the Syrian Civil War, the Libyan Civil War, etc. Looking forward to the dems on this site reflecting on the merits of the case.


It is reminiscent of the pitch bot.

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Lolol
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:


^ That was somewhat entertaining. Whatever Kamala Harris thinks about this war now, she ought to come out and say it. Be for it or be against it. One of her biggest weaknesses has been her lack of "authenticity", which to me means carefully curating positions on the issues with the goal of not losing any voters.

I'm not interested in her as a future candidate but rather as a Democrat who might garner some national attention when she says something. She wrote a book and did a little press tour. Testing the water? Whatever, how does she feel about this?


The door is wide open for a Democrat to step in and take on the antiwar mantle, but none have, other than one passing statement by Newsom about the girls school massacre. Half of them are hardened neocons like Buttigig or Booker, and the other half are just out of touch or too cowardly.
Big C
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Big C said:


^ That was somewhat entertaining. Whatever Kamala Harris thinks about this war now, she ought to come out and say it. Be for it or be against it. One of her biggest weaknesses has been her lack of "authenticity", which to me means carefully curating positions on the issues with the goal of not losing any voters.

I'm not interested in her as a future candidate but rather as a Democrat who might garner some national attention when she says something. She wrote a book and did a little press tour. Testing the water? Whatever, how does she feel about this?


The door is wide open for a Democrat to step in and take on the antiwar mantle, but none have, other than one passing statement by Newsom about the girls school massacre. Half of them are hardened neocons like Buttigig or Booker, and the other half are just out of touch or too cowardly.

Agree with this, in general.

Based on posts here and the replies I received from my Congresswoman and Senators, they have taken a stance against the war. However, it has not been loud enough for me to hear. I follow the news, but am not a "news junkie".

Folks like me should be able to hear it, otherwise, it barely counts. What say there, Gavin?
BearlySane88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Cal88 said:

Big C said:


^ That was somewhat entertaining. Whatever Kamala Harris thinks about this war now, she ought to come out and say it. Be for it or be against it. One of her biggest weaknesses has been her lack of "authenticity", which to me means carefully curating positions on the issues with the goal of not losing any voters.

I'm not interested in her as a future candidate but rather as a Democrat who might garner some national attention when she says something. She wrote a book and did a little press tour. Testing the water? Whatever, how does she feel about this?


The door is wide open for a Democrat to step in and take on the antiwar mantle, but none have, other than one passing statement by Newsom about the girls school massacre. Half of them are hardened neocons like Buttigig or Booker, and the other half are just out of touch or too cowardly.

Agree with this, in general.

Based on posts here and the replies I received from my Congresswoman and Senators, they have taken a stance against the war. However, it has not been loud enough for me to hear. I follow the news, but am not a "news junkie".

Folks like me should be able to hear it, otherwise, it barely counts. What say there, Gavin?


Can you post the replies you got? Interested to see what they said
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Chris Murphy cannot be President

BearlySane88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened said:

Chris Murphy cannot be President




We can both agree on that
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cal88 said:

Big C said:


^ That was somewhat entertaining. Whatever Kamala Harris thinks about this war now, she ought to come out and say it. Be for it or be against it. One of her biggest weaknesses has been her lack of "authenticity", which to me means carefully curating positions on the issues with the goal of not losing any voters.

I'm not interested in her as a future candidate but rather as a Democrat who might garner some national attention when she says something. She wrote a book and did a little press tour. Testing the water? Whatever, how does she feel about this?


The door is wide open for a Democrat to step in and take on the antiwar mantle, but none have, other than one passing statement by Newsom about the girls school massacre. Half of them are hardened neocons like Buttigig or Booker, and the other half are just out of touch or too cowardly.


I'd say 70% of Americans are hardwired to believe in military strength, chants of USA, and Pavlovian flag waving.

It's too easy for an opposition candidate to label someone with an anti war, international cooperation proponent, pacifist stance as Anti American - and it would work.

Americans like blue jeans, hot dogs, and pregame flyovers.

"Bomb Them!"
-George Carlin


Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened said:





This is what Democrats voted for
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Don't stand up
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PAC-10-BEAR
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Big C said:

Somebody lead. Stop the war.

concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened said:




I see a MAJOR difference which you should acknowledge! It includes two simple letters: U. N.


Quote:

The U.S. began military action on 19 March 2011, after the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.


This included:

Airstrikes on Libyan air defenses
Enforcement of a nofly zone
Strikes on Gaddafi's military assets


---

2. How long the Libya air war lasted

The full NATOled intervention ran:

19 March 2011 -> 31 October 2011

(7 months, 1 week, 5 days) Wikipedia

This period covers:

Operation Odyssey Dawn (initial U.S.-led phase)
Operation Unified Protector (NATOled phase after handoff)


---

3. U.S. role and level of involvement

Initial phase: U.S.-led (Operation Odyssey Dawn)

The U.S. launched the opening wave of strikes.
Targets included Libya's air defenses, command-and-control sites, and armored units.
Obama framed the action as necessary to prevent a massacre in Benghazi.


Transition to NATO command

Within days, the U.S. shifted to a supporting role under NATO's Operation Unified Protector.
NATO forces (including the U.S.) continued:
Airstrikes
Nofly zone enforcement
Naval blockade



Scale of the campaign

NATO forces deployed:

260 aircraft
21 ships
Thousands of strike sorties


The U.S. contributed:

Strike aircraft
Cruise missiles
ISR (intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance)
Aerial refueling
Electronic warfare


Obama emphasized that no U.S. ground troops were deployed.

---

4. Outcome

The intervention helped antiGaddafi forces overthrow the regime.
Muammar Gaddafi was killed on 20 October 2011.
NATO formally ended operations on 31 October 2011.



How convenient of you to insert misinformation.
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Aunburdened
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Impact of Iran War on China

"The U.S. committed roughly 80% of its JASSM-ER stealth cruise missile inventory to the Iran fight, pulling stockpiles from the Pacific to feed it. The conflict significantly depleted U.S. supplies of Tomahawk and Patriot missiles, THAAD interceptors and drones.

Beijing got a free masterclass in modern American warfighting: how we use AI to target, how we rotate carrier groups, how cheap Iranian drones drain our most expensive interceptors. For Chinese war planners gaming out a Taiwan invasion, it's better than any simulation.

On energy, China emerges a huge winner of the ongoing Hormuz shockwaves:

When oil and gas supplies get weaponized, import-dependent countries accelerate renewables. China owns over 70% of global solar, wind, battery and electric vehicle supply chains. The longer Hormuz stays disrupted, the deeper the world's dependency gets.
The war was the stress test that Beijing's energy strategy was designed for.

The diplomatic optics couldn't have been better for the Chinese:

While Trump was threatening to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages," Beijing was quietly helping Pakistan bring both sides to the table in Islamabad, while capitals from Riyadh to Jakarta are weighing which superpower to align with.

As Ian Bremmer points out, America's allies saw the U.S. pull missile defense assets from South Korea, leave allies in Asia without Patriot coverage, and shift naval power from the Pacific to the Gulf. The message received in Seoul, Tokyo, Canberra and Taipei: American security commitments have an asterisk.

China's AI push got a clear boost from the war's financial consequences:

The Gulf's massive AI buildout billions from Microsoft, Oracle, Nvidia and others, faces indefinite geopolitical risk after Iranian strikes on AI-related targets across the region.

The rare earths piece, out of sight for most Americans, might be Beijing's biggest asset right now:

There's currently no heavy rare-earth separation capacity in the U.S. at meaningful scale. China controls roughly 70% of rare-earth mining and 90% of separation and magnet manufacturing. New Pentagon procurement rules banning Chinese-sourced rare earths take effect in 2027, but domestic alternatives won't be ready for years.

The weapons the U.S. fired in Iran Tomahawks, JDAMs, Predator drones all require rare earths for their precision guidance systems.

The bottom line: The country that may have gained the most from the Iran war never fired a shot."
Axios

*Hey, don't be so negative, at least the Trump's are makin' bank.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside

“I love Cal deeply, by the way, what are the directions to The Portal from Sproul Plaza?”
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

Aunburdened said:




I see a MAJOR difference which you should acknowledge! It includes two simple letters: U. N.


Quote:

The U.S. began military action on 19 March 2011, after the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973, authorizing "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.


This included:


How convenient of you to insert misinformation.


He's right, the Libya war was a military regime change engineered and financed by the US and France.

Forget your AI slop (and BTW please edit your AI texts to remove all the blank spaces that clog up the threads), this is all you need to know about who was behind the destruction of Libya:



concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:

Impact of Iran War on China

"The U.S. committed roughly 80% of its JASSM-ER stealth cruise missile inventory to the Iran fight, pulling stockpiles from the Pacific to feed it. The conflict significantly depleted U.S. supplies of Tomahawk and Patriot missiles, THAAD interceptors and drones.

Beijing got a free masterclass in modern American warfighting: how we use AI to target, how we rotate carrier groups, how cheap Iranian drones drain our most expensive interceptors. For Chinese war planners gaming out a Taiwan invasion, it's better than any simulation.

On energy, China emerges a huge winner of the ongoing Hormuz shockwaves:

When oil and gas supplies get weaponized, import-dependent countries accelerate renewables. China owns over 70% of global solar, wind, battery and electric vehicle supply chains. The longer Hormuz stays disrupted, the deeper the world's dependency gets.
The war was the stress test that Beijing's energy strategy was designed for.

The diplomatic optics couldn't have been better for the Chinese:

While Trump was threatening to bomb Iran "back to the Stone Ages," Beijing was quietly helping Pakistan bring both sides to the table in Islamabad, while capitals from Riyadh to Jakarta are weighing which superpower to align with.

As Ian Bremmer points out, America's allies saw the U.S. pull missile defense assets from South Korea, leave allies in Asia without Patriot coverage, and shift naval power from the Pacific to the Gulf. The message received in Seoul, Tokyo, Canberra and Taipei: American security commitments have an asterisk.

China's AI push got a clear boost from the war's financial consequences:

The Gulf's massive AI buildout billions from Microsoft, Oracle, Nvidia and others, faces indefinite geopolitical risk after Iranian strikes on AI-related targets across the region.

The rare earths piece, out of sight for most Americans, might be Beijing's biggest asset right now:

There's currently no heavy rare-earth separation capacity in the U.S. at meaningful scale. China controls roughly 70% of rare-earth mining and 90% of separation and magnet manufacturing. New Pentagon procurement rules banning Chinese-sourced rare earths take effect in 2027, but domestic alternatives won't be ready for years.

The weapons the U.S. fired in Iran Tomahawks, JDAMs, Predator drones all require rare earths for their precision guidance systems.

The bottom line: The country that may have gained the most from the Iran war never fired a shot."
Axios

*Hey, don't be so negative, at least the Trump's are makin' bank.




I guess Trump didn't learn why the US won the Cold War?


Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.