To ask Trump supporters if they support the attack on Iran or if they feel Trump has wrongly gone back on his 'no more foreign wars' promise?

[Carla786]

YABU = Yes, I support the attack on Iran
YANBU = No,he wrongly went back on his 'no more foreign wars' promise

Personally, I can see both sides. I don't personally support Trump, but I can see why some might support the attack. Khameini and is regime are certainly loathsome and Iranians and the rest of us would be much better off without them. They certainly pose danger to Israel, US etc too.

Otoh, is there a credible political opposition who could take over? The prince could, but only as a figurehead. The Iraq war, the Libya invasion and the Afghanistan war did not end very well- how do we know this one will end any better?

My understanding was that quite a few Trump supporters saw him as a welcome change from the neocons of the Bush era who led the US into ME wars. I could be wrong about this though.

Interested to hear replies!

Who is a Trump supporter? Who are you talking about? And what are you talking about?

Are you 12?

I really love the maturity with which you're dealing with the issues raised. You are here supporting Trump. So you. Hence the quote.

Are you not supporting Trump in this war?

What do you mean? This thread isn’t age related, is it.

This is true to a great extent but it’s not the whole story. In a democracy, even someone like Trump will be influenced by whether his electorate and the electorates of powerful allies consider his actions moral.

Who told you that?

None of the countries youve mentioned are building nuclear weapons though. Iran are. Id be happy to know that their capabilities to produce weapons of mass destruction has been removed. Problem is, in Iran, that their religion teaches that there is paradise waiting for them on death, so they would have no hesitation in pressing the button knowing that they might also be sending themselves to certain death.

To be honest he doesn’t need to be influenced by anything anymore. It’s not like he’ll have another term, despite the conspiracy theories.

The time to influence and exercise leverage was when Europe was busy destroying its own power and engaging in economic self sabotage. The US economy has run aaay with itself, while Europe and especially this country has been left behind since 2008. All of own making. When you are the tech, finance and defence powerhouse of the world, and your so-called allies are weak and defenceless themselves, the executive can do what Trump is doing.

You are here doing that. Saying morality doesn't matter and everyone has Trump Derangement Syndrome and other nations are wet wipes.

Yep that’s true but it just skews threads where the vote doesn’t match the posts.

Why don't you explain your views then for balance? I assume you are not left leaning?

That’s why it’s called Trump derangement syndrome. They can’t talk about a topic without frothing about Trump. And name calling other poster and personal attacks. And then if you say the phrase Trump derangement syndrome, they get even more riled. Like, why so angry? Just debate like normal person.

He protects child abusers. And you seem to be gushing all over him. Just my observation.

Sorry, we normal humans get a bit frothy about child abusers and those who go to extreme lengths to protect them. Our bad! 😁

Perhaps you could debate like a normal person instead of throwing out nonsense terms like Trump derangement syndrome. As soon as you invoke that stupid phrase, it tells everyone that you aren't a serious poster.

It’s called understanding the world as it is, not deluding yourself about how you would wish it to be. And if you do wish it to be a certain way, lecturing on morality alone won’t change it. It takes power and leverage to change stuff.

Out of interest do you get ‘frothy’ about regimes blinding, mutilating and killing anyone who dissents?

Thanks for making my point for me. It’s a phrase. The fact that you are so triggered by it that it invokes this reaction and personal attack from you proves why the phrase was created in the first place.

It’s revealing that some self-styled “patriots” in politics and the media, are attacking Starmer for refusing to risk British troops in a potentially open-ended conflict tied to Trump’s agenda.

Many of these same voices once criticised our involvement in Iraq. Their sudden appetite for escalation raises serious questions about what they mean by patriotism, and whose interests they prioritise. I guess their allegiance lies with the guy who claimed our troops did nothing in Iraq.

Also when is Trump sending his son, Baron?

Bit like ICE in the US

Finding a regime abhorrent doesn't mean supporting bombing it.

I'm not in the slightest bit triggered by it. It just marks you out as not having anything interesting or intelligent to say.

What should the Iranian people do?

Thanks again. Keep going.