What Kind of Country Is The US Becoming?

[John Stone]

17 hours ago, Venandi said:

Still at it I see.

All IMO but... the absence of co-ordination was due to the amount of dithering and telegraphing that would have accompanied it.

Surprise, overwhelming force, and violence of action was paramount here. 

In the absence of US involvement, Israel would most certainly have acted unilaterally.... they had no choice and I'd invite you to consider the ramifications of that.

The entire region would have been destabilized, and far more than it is now, the initial wave of deliberate attacks would have been significantly reduced by virtue of assets available and the conflict would have been prolonged far beyond what ever the endex date ultimately turns out to be.

The disruption in merchant shipping would have been more extreme, more prolonged, and more costly. Had that happened, the current discussion would have been about US failure to act and you would be leading the charge.

This was going to happen in one form or the other and to prevail with your argument you would have to provide a logical estimate of why you feel that having Israel go it alone would have been more beneficial, less costly and of shorter duration.

I don't see how that is even remotely possible.

Please educate me....

“Many hands make light work” – speaks for itself - nuff said! 

Immediately following the opening of, ‘Epic Fury’, Trump repeatedly said HE didn’t need any help from longtime US allies.

Less than two months later he DEMANDED help in the war of choice HE started.

To paraphrase, HE insulted the sacrifices of HIS allies (begin with 9/11) and then asked them to sacrifice again.

BTW: Israel would have acted alone, and they will continue to do so. It was Israel that defeated Iran's air defense that enabled op, 'Midnight Hammer'.

The braggadocio re: op, 'Epic Fury' is for domestic consumption - civilians?  The air strikes on defenseless Iranian targets is akin to hot runs on the weapons range - beating a dead horse. The IDF had scoured the skies months before and alone had complete air superiority. 

Oh yes, Israel could have handled this alone - so, why the US. (the What is TBD?)

Why indeed.

Nice play, Bibi (seriously) 

 

 

Edited April 17 by John Stone

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

That's a big dare.

For a group of people to associate themselves politically, it requires sustained economic engagement. That is happening between Canada and America. Becoming a state would invite more investment into infrastructure that facilitates further economic development between the two regions. The same is happening south of the US border with Northern Mexico being intergrated into American industrial complex. And yes there are early discussion of absorbing northern Mexico into America if necessity dictates.

Edited April 17 by paxamericana

[paxamericana]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

It’s a bold move.  Hope it works.  

Greatest presidential president! 

[John Stone]

Tehran announces??

Objectives left undone remain undone in two places – at the actual location of the objective and inside ur head. Incomplete objectives in ur head consume the energy of your attention as they gnaw at ur conscience............ I'm sure you would agree, Mr. President. 

Opening the Strait

Regime change

Recovering the 'dust'. 

[User]

55 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Tehran announces??

Objectives left undone remain undone in two places – at the actual location of the objective and inside ur head. Incomplete objectives in ur head consume the energy of your attention as they gnaw at ur conscience............ I'm sure you would agree, Mr. President. 

Opening the Strait

Regime change

Recovering the 'dust'. 

Can you take a moment, gather your thoughts, and try this post again? 

[paxamericana]

23 minutes ago, User said:

Can you take a moment, gather your thoughts, and try this post again? 

Maybe he’s got the early onset stages of TDS

Edited April 17 by paxamericana

[Venandi]

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

“Many hands make light work” – speaks for itself - nuff said! 

 

Many hands wasn't going to happen, it would only have subverted an objective that required surprise, violence of action and overwhelming force. Only pipers, Pipe Majors, and Drum Majors are likely to share that sentiment with you... and it's because they like noise.

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

BTW: Israel would have acted alone, and they will continue to do so.

Indeed... but that would have been problematic in many ways and it would require a whole new thread to reach a consensus on why.

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

HE insulted the sacrifices of HIS allies (begin with 9/11)

I'd suggest keeping your feelings about Trump from impinging on the strategic and tactical factors at play here. I happen to like his wife but I don't allow those delusional fantasies to factor into my assessment of the issues at hand.

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

Oh yes, Israel could have handled this alone - so, why the US.

 As I see it, you've been finding fault with the mess created. I'd simply urge you to reflect on the dimensions of the mess had Israel acted unilaterally... it really is a whole new thread and everything you don't like about the present situation would likely have been orders of magnitude worse if that happened.

Please be careful what you wish for. US involvement in what would otherwise have been a unilateral effort qualifies as an unpleasant but necessary task IMO... somewhat akin to gutting the fish you plan to make for supper.

Yes, you could always eat them raw but I don't think you'd like it and even the guests who don't like fish would wonder WTF was wrong with you.

Edited April 17 by Venandi

[John Stone]

20 hours ago, Venandi said:

Many hands wasn't going to happen, it would only have subverted an objective that required surprise, violence of action and overwhelming force. Only pipers, Pipe Majors, and Drum Majors are likely to share that sentiment with you... and it's because they like noise.

Indeed... but that would have been problematic in many ways and it would require a whole new thread to reach a consensus on why.

I'd suggest keeping your feelings about Trump from impinging on the strategic and tactical factors at play here. I happen to like his wife but I don't allow those delusional fantasies to factor into my assessment of the issues at hand.

 As I see it, you've been finding fault with the mess created. I'd simply urge you to reflect on the dimensions of the mess had Israel acted unilaterally... it really is a whole new thread and everything you don't like about the present situation would likely have been orders of magnitude worse if that happened.

Please be careful what you wish for. US involvement in what would otherwise have been a unilateral effort qualifies as an unpleasant but necessary task IMO... somewhat akin to gutting the fish you plan to make for supper.

Yes, you could always eat them raw but I don't think you'd like it and even the guests who don't like fish would wonder WTF was wrong with you.

We all deflect sometimes, but growth begins when we catch ourselves doing it

 Feb 26^th A third round of negotiations between Iran and the US facilitated by Oman in Switzerland  concludes with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi stating “significant progress” has been made.

Feb 28^th A short time ago, the United States began major combat operations in Iran,” / Trump 

 Feb 28th “Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard terrible people” / Trump Feb 28^th

Feb 28th  Israel has launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran to remove threats against the state of Israel. / Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz. / 

 I think we can agree that this ‘excursion’ was never imagined to be a protracted struggle ……… despite the intel presented to Trump before hostilities began (think Hormuz). So-called ‘short-term’ operations may achieve tactical objectives as in a ‘set piece battle – enemy annihilation’, but ‘long-term’ stability requires skilled diplomacy, regional cooperation (allies) and political legitimacy (regime). Lacking such a balanced strategy, the risks of domestic / regional crises, global economic disruption, terrorism and broader geopolitical asymmetrical warfare (Yemen) will grow.

Although the regional players would have discouraged U.S.  engagement on Feb 28^th, they now realized that for the U.S. to ‘pull up stakes’ without a resolution  would be disastrous – their desire now (and Israel’s) is for the U.S. to finish it - U.S. ground troops are desirable to them (and Israel)

Please amplify on ur comment,  “ I'd simply urge you to reflect on the dimensions of the mess had Israel acted unilaterally” / Venandi.

I’d argue that Israel saw tactical advantage and was successful drawing the U.S. into their long range regional plans – the argument that Iran was a threat to the U.S. is a strawman – the threat if anything was regional and possibly Europe.

re: ???? "I'd suggest keeping your feelings about Trump from impinging on the strategic and tactical factors at play here." / Venandi 

Truman reportedly had a sign on his desk which stated 'The buck stops here'

Of course this was meant to indicate that he didn't pass the buck (press, allies, political opponents, media) but accepted personal responsibility for the manner in which the country was governed. 

Edited April 18 by John Stone

[John Stone]

On 4/16/2026 at 3:15 PM, WestCanMan said:

To live in Canada and worry about the state of America's democracy is like being in Iran and speculating about the Swiss gov't's aggression towards Israel. 

....................Indeed, Trump just being Trump!

The US is the elephant of the Continent?

When it rolls over, gets a cold, or feels something in its bones, there is need for conern.

But, carry on, Canuck .............. don't worry, be happy. 

Bobby McFerrin - Don't Worry, Be Happy - Lyrics

[Venandi]

7 hours ago, John Stone said:

Please amplify on ur comment,  “ I'd simply urge you to reflect on the dimensions of the mess had Israel acted unilaterally”

The AI critter saved me a bunch of typing, too busy to add my own feeble thoughts for now but this should be sufficient.

Don't let your hatred of Trump influence strategic and tactical thinking, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Even if Iran didn't use nuclear weapons, the deterrence factor it provides would have green lighted a wave of proxy attacks with limited response options at the source/supplier. Israel would never have gone for it.

To prevail here you would have to show that their fears were groundless... a tough sell IMO but best of luck with ti. 

• Legitimacy and international law: U.S. or coalition action can provide broader legal and political justification (UN/coalition backing, diplomatic cover), reducing accusations of unlawful aggression.
• Burden-sharing and resources: The U.S. brings substantial military assets (intelligence, long-range strike, logistics, air refuelling, carrier strike groups, missile-defense networks) that improve operational reach and sustainability.
• Deterrence and escalation control: Joint planning and combined capabilities can better shape deterrence messaging and coordinated de‑escalation channels with third parties, reducing risks of uncontrolled escalation.
• Risk distribution and domestic politics: Shared responsibility reduces political and casualtyrisk for any single state; it helps both governments manage domestic opposition to militaryaction.
• Intelligence and targeting accuracy: U.S. intelligence (SIGINT, overhead ISR, satellite reconnaissance) improves target identification and reduces collateral-damage risk.
• Regional partner management: U.S. involvement can help coordinate with Gulf states andNATO partners to secure basing, overflight rights, and regional defenses.
• Military scale and sustainment: A campaign against Iran’s dispersed and layeredcapabilities (missiles, air defenses, naval forces, proxies) likely requires large, sustained,multi-domain operations beyond Israel’s logistic depth.
• Post-strike stabilization and escalation mitigation: The U.S. can provide broader diplomatic,economic, and military cushion to manage fallout (sanctions, humanitarian aid, regionalsecurity arrangements).
• Signal to adversaries: U.S. participation conveys stronger deterrent signaling to Iran and itsproxies, potentially reducing retaliatory incentives.

Edited April 18 by Venandi

[WestCanMan]

4 hours ago, John Stone said:

....................Indeed, Trump just being Trump!

The US is the elephant of the Continent?

The biggest problem in the US is the weaponization of the DoJ by the Dems.

Trump is solving problems around the world that you can't even appreciate yet. 

[John Stone]

6 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

The biggest problem in the US is the weaponization of the DoJ by the Dems.

Trump is solving problems around the world that you can't even appreciate yet. 

...................hanging on the front of the DOJ building.

U know the DOJ, the institution tasked with being independent of Government.?

[User]

2 minutes ago, John Stone said:

...................hanging on the front of the DOJ building.

U know the DOJ, the institution tasked with being independent of Government.?

Where is that defined as their task?

They are literally the government, falling under the Executive branch. 

 

[John Stone]

13 minutes ago, Venandi said:

The AI critter saved me a bunch of typing, too busy to add my own feeble thoughts for now but this should be sufficient.

Don't let your hatred of Trump influence strategic and tactical thinking, this shouldn't be a partisan issue. Even if Iran didn't use nuclear weapons, the deterrence factor it provides would have green lighted a wave of proxy attacks with limited response options at the source/supplier. Israel would never have gone for it.

To prevail here you would have to show that their fears were groundless... a tough sell IMO but best of luck with ti. 

• Legitimacy and international law: U.S. or coalition action can provide broader legal and political justification (UN/coalition backing, diplomatic cover), reducing accusations of unlawful aggression.
• Burden-sharing and resources: The U.S. brings substantial military assets (intelligence, long-range strike, logistics, air refuelling, carrier strike groups, missile-defense networks) that improve operational reach and sustainability.
• Deterrence and escalation control: Joint planning and combined capabilities can better shape deterrence messaging and coordinated de‑escalation channels with third parties, reducing risks of uncontrolled escalation.
• Risk distribution and domestic politics: Shared responsibility reduces political and casualtyrisk for any single state; it helps both governments manage domestic opposition to militaryaction.
• Intelligence and targeting accuracy: U.S. intelligence (SIGINT, overhead ISR, satellite reconnaissance) improves target identification and reduces collateral-damage risk.
• Regional partner management: U.S. involvement can help coordinate with Gulf states andNATO partners to secure basing, overflight rights, and regional defenses.
• Military scale and sustainment: A campaign against Iran’s dispersed and layeredcapabilities (missiles, air defenses, naval forces, proxies) likely requires large, sustained,multi-domain operations beyond Israel’s logistic depth.
• Post-strike stabilization and escalation mitigation: The U.S. can provide broader diplomatic,economic, and military cushion to manage fallout (sanctions, humanitarian aid, regionalsecurity arrangements).
• Signal to adversaries: U.S. participation conveys stronger deterrent signaling to Iran and itsproxies, potentially reducing retaliatory incentives.

OMG! 

I'll read (2) chapters before going to bed - sure to put me to sleep. 

[John Stone]

1 minute ago, User said:

Where is that defined as their task?

They are literally the government, falling under the Executive branch. 

 

No, the DOJ has what is called, 'operational independence' from the Executive. 

The DOJ is NOT  the President's hired gun ............ Bondi notwithstanding. 

 

[Venandi]

3 minutes ago, John Stone said:

I'll read (2) chapters before going to bed - sure to put me to sleep. 

There's lots more. The strategic and tactical advantages of a joint strike are compelling IMO. 

[John Stone]

1 minute ago, Venandi said:

There's lots more. The strategic and tactical advantages of a joint strike are compelling IMO. 

 

Word to the wise, stay away from those Pentagon Pete vids - they're BS - he's pi$$'n  on ya. 

 

[WestCanMan]

11 minutes ago, John Stone said:

...................hanging on the front of the DOJ building.

U know the DOJ, the institution tasked with being independent of Government.?

Ooooh. 

Is that as bad as when Obama used the DoJ to attack the dems political opponents? 

• Recent Allegations and Investigations
  As of July 2025, new declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have sparked fresh controversy: 
• Manufactured Intelligence: Declassified reports and internal communications allegedly suggest that the Obama administration directed top officials (including John Brennan and James Comey) to create a false Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). This assessment reportedly claimed Russia interfered to help Donald Trump, which critics now argue was a manufactured narrative designed to undermine his presidency.
• DOJ Referrals and Grand Jury: The Department of Justice recently confirmed receipt of a criminal referral regarding these claims. Additionally, a secret grand jury investigation was reportedly launched to evaluate potential criminal indictments related to these allegations.

 

[User]

10 minutes ago, John Stone said:

No, the DOJ has what is called, 'operational independence' from the Executive. 

The DOJ is NOT  the President's hired gun ............ Bondi notwithstanding. 

 

Your assertion was not about operational independence. 

You have moved the goal post now. 

They mostly operate independently, but not by law or the Constitution. They still fall under the Executive branch, where the President has authority over them to both hire and fire people, as well as to give guidance and direction. 

 

[John Stone]

9 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Ooooh. 

Is that as bad as when Obama used the DoJ to attack the dems political opponents? 

• Recent Allegations and Investigations
  As of July 2025, new declassified documents released by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard have sparked fresh controversy: 
• Manufactured Intelligence: Declassified reports and internal communications allegedly suggest that the Obama administration directed top officials (including John Brennan and James Comey) to create a false Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA). This assessment reportedly claimed Russia interfered to help Donald Trump, which critics now argue was a manufactured narrative designed to undermine his presidency.
• DOJ Referrals and Grand Jury: The Department of Justice recently confirmed receipt of a criminal referral regarding these claims. Additionally, a secret grand jury investigation was reportedly launched to evaluate potential criminal indictments related to these allegations.

 

Ya mean the investigation the fired Pam Bondi  has launched against the Obama and Bidens administrations re: lawfare and ongoing  'criminal conspiracy'?

Bring it!

OMG, man ....................  Bondi has lost all cred .......... rumor has it she's in a straightjacket in some asylum. 

Right now  there is NO confirmed DOJ. 

 

5 minutes ago, User said:

Your assertion was not about operational independence. 

You have moved the goal post now. 

They mostly operate independently, but not by law or the Constitution. They still fall under the Executive branch, where the President has authority over them to both hire and fire people, as well as to give guidance and direction. 

 

The accepted 'norm' is that the DOJ operates independently - largely for political reasons and to prevent accusations of 'weaponizing' 

Trump has taken weaponization to new and absurd levels - DOJ and the FBI. 

Edited April 18 by John Stone

[User]

3 minutes ago, John Stone said:

The accepted 'norm' is that the DOJ operates independently - largely for political reasons and to prevent accusations of 'weaponizing' 

Trump has taken weaponization to new and absurd levels - DOJ and the FBI. 

Once again, this started with your blatantly on its-face absurdly wrong assertion that:

"the institution tasked with being independent of Government"

Instead of just owning up to being wrong, you move the goal posts. 

I don't give a shit that he is weaponizing the DOJ, in fact, I want more of it than is going on. 

After what Biden did for 4 years, I am a firm believer in payback being the only way to ensure this doesn't happen again. 

Screw any/all leftists that broke the law, prosecute them all as much as they can. 

 

[Legato]

5 minutes ago, John Stone said:

Trump has taken weaponization to new and absurd levels - DOJ and the FBI. 

and yet Trump can't hold a candle to Biden.

[John Stone]

1 minute ago, User said:

Once again, this started with your blatantly on its-face absurdly wrong assertion that:

"the institution tasked with being independent of Government"

Instead of just owning up to being wrong, you move the goal posts. 

I don't give a shit that he is weaponizing the DOJ, in fact, I want more of it than is going on. 

After what Biden did for 4 years, I am a firm believer in payback being the only way to ensure this doesn't happen again. 

Screw any/all leftists that broke the law, prosecute them all as much as they can. 

 

Re: "I don't give a shit that he is weaponizing the DOJ, in fact, I want more of it than is going on."

What goes around, comes around, dude. lol

[John Stone]

Just now, Legato said:

and yet Trump can't hold a candle to Biden.

........................ haha ............ what's ur evidence. 

Supposition counselor.

Really don't think u would want a comparison. 

[Legato]

1 minute ago, John Stone said:

Re: "I don't give a shit that he is weaponizing the DOJ, in fact, I want more of it than is going on."

What goes around, comes around, dude. lol

started by the Biden admin.

Just now, John Stone said:

........................ haha ............ what's ur evidence. 

Supposition counselor.

Really don't think u would want a comparison. 

it went on for 4 years so don't act like you're unaware.