How do we get out of this?

[Independent thinker]

Calling Trump’s bluff. If we give in, we’ll be faced with this blackmail every few months, as long as Epstein is hanging over his head.

Say what? We need to finish the job in Iran. It has nothing to do with Epstein.

 

[gipper]

You should know.
You've been trying that self-improvement for a long time now it seems.

I’m not the one who can’t think and always abides by a criminal authority. Nor am I the one supporting a genocide and another war of aggression. You are!!!

 

[gipper]

Note the way that you are a. UTTERLY RUDE AND HYSTERICAL and b. completely failing to address the topic.


That's you doing you.

Yes I’m rude to warmongers, statists, and Zionist traitors. Shoot me!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And then what? Iran builds back up again, murders tens of thousands of more of their own people, and uses nukes against Israel and the US?

You forgot to say

"In two weeks"

 

[SaxonJackson]

And then what? Iran builds back up again, murders tens of thousands of more of their own people, and uses nukes against Israel and the US?

America murders more than a million babies each year. Try not to sound so sanctimonious.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

America murders more than a million babies each year. Try not to sound so sanctimonious.

 

[gipper]

And then what? Iran builds back up again, murders tens of thousands of more of their own people, and uses nukes against Israel and the US?

Dumb American on full display.

 

[gipper]

America murders more than a million babies each year. Try not to sound so sanctimonious.

And millions of people. In fact, 38 million since 1971. Yet dumb Americans accuse other nations of committing heinous atrocities. Can’t fix stupid.

The claim that the United States has "murdered 38 million" people since 1971 stems from a 2025
Lancet Global Health study, which argues that unilateral economic sanctions imposed by the US and European nations are responsible for an estimated 38 million excess deaths between 1970 and 2021.

 

[BlindBoo]

Since 1979, The Iranian revolutionaries......

Our history with Iran didn't start in 1979. The US/UK overthrew their legitimate government in 1953 over their oil reserves.

In the 1980's we not only armed Iraq in their war against Iran by selling them spare parts for their Soviet Military hardware, but we also sold Missiles to Iran in a scheme to fund some South American terrorist groups who were terrorizing Nicaragua. Raygun took Iraq off the nation who support terrorist. US businesses and EU businesses could then sell Iraq duel use technology along with precursor chemical to make WMD in the form a chemical weapons. Those weapons were used against Iranians as well as an Iraq village. Remember Halabja? Americans can say "And I helped"

This is not to say the Theocracy in Iran is innocent, far from it.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly of Intervention

www.cato.org

"When Iranian revolutionaries entered the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979 and seized 52 Americans, President Jimmy Carter dismissed reminders of America’s long intervention in Iran as “ancient history.” Carter’s point was not merely that previous U.S. policy could not excuse the hostage taking. His adjective also implied that there was nothing of value to be learned from that history. In his view, dredging up old matters was more than unhelpful; it was also dangerous, presumably because it could only serve the interests of America’s adversaries. Thus, to raise historical issues was at least unpatriotic and maybe worse.[1]"

 

[konradv]

Say what? We need to finish the job in Iran. It has nothing to do with Epstein.

It has everything to do with Epstein. What else would make a no-new-wars president do an about face and start so many wars in such a short time?

 

[Stryder50]

Don't worry, I respect people who disagree with me and give me valid reasons why. I don't respect people who disagree with me and their only reason is But TRUMP!!!

I am much more anti-war than most people. I was definitely unhappy that Trump attacked Iran and thought he was a complete idiot. It took awhile to think it through that maybe he really had to other solution. I still have minor doubts. As a lifetime student of engineering and constantly looking for better solutions, I can easily say there is always a more intelligent solution to a problem than war. The problem is, some problems don't want to be solved. And the people we trust to solve problems are not engineers, they are politicians who are paid to create problems that make the rich richer. I have little patience for political solutions and often believe the best solution to a problem that doesn't want to be solved is to reduce it to dust and move on. I'm definitely not a politician nor do I think like one. I hope it doesn't come to my preferred solutions, but we have to live with the consequences if the political solutions are just more of kicking the can down the road.

I wrangled with whether to do a thumbs up or thumbs down here. I lament there are so few "emojis" to use, especially when there are none to cover the vast middle ground of issues.

I also have tended to be "anti-war" especially in my earlier years/decades, but in retrospect that was because of a desire to see injury~death~destruction~etc. kept to a minimum versus an excess. Also a position that conflict/combat/war should be a last resort rather than a first solution.

This has been balanced by the realization that if swift and intense response of conflict/combat is imposed by an opponent, then swift and intense response is the only viable solution to survive and prevail to such.

There is strong value in the concept of Peace through (Military) Strength.

As you suggest, if the prospect of even more lethal and destructive response to aggression is the optimal counter-balance, than such it should be. Also, such a position/stance should not preclude pre-emptive strike is such will reduce the damage and disadvantage of allowing one's enemy to land the first punch.

Individual street fight experiences should provide a clear example here.

Wars between nations often start as differences between the individuals leading those nations.

Waiting top let the other guy throw and land the first punch might seem noble/heroic, but reality is that it can be too damaging to be worth the save of face. Considering the intense consequence of combat and the ready shifts of advantage, a responsible leader will realize, appreciate and use the advantage of the per-emptive first strike.

We aren't talking sports matches here, but life or death survival. In such case it is an obligation of a nation's leader to what they can to reduce damage and disadvantage in a developing fight/conflict/combat/battle/war.