Looks like Trump is avoiding war. Love it.

250,000 civilians died and two cities wiped away in the single largest mass casualty event in world history. To say America was completely justified to kill civilians and it is not an atrocity is frankly insane. Based on your posting history I am truly not surprised though.

jaborch99 said:

---

It's true that some see Iran's nuclear ambitions and regime as obstacles to broader normalization in the region. But the situation is far more complex than suggesting military strikes alone will "extend" the Abraham Accords or guarantee Saudi-Israeli normalization.

Recent developments show Saudi Arabia is actually prioritizing engagement and de-escalation with Iran, not confrontation. Saudi officials have held high-level talks in Tehran and signaled they don't want their territory used for military operations against Iran. (see here). Riyadh's approach is currently focused on dialogue and avoiding escalation, not regime change or military solutions.

While some Israeli and U.S. officials hope that weakening Iran will open the door to normalization, most experts agree that Saudi Arabia's willingness to normalize with Israel depends on a broader set of issues - including progress on the Palestinian question and regional stability - not just Iran's nuclear status or leadership. In fact, ongoing conflict and instability make normalization harder, not easier.

So while military action may shift some calculations, long-term peace and expanded normalization are more likely to come from diplomacy, regional engagement, and addressing core disputes not just strikes or regime change.

---

Agree it is very complex and that has been factored in to my assessment that the strikes and likely subsequent actions including regime change will lead to expanded Abraham Accords. In fact, it is part of the rationale for the strikes.

Israel rendered the Palestinian situation moot. Well, Hamas rendered it moot with the October 7th action. Long-term peace more often results from decisive military action than from diplomacy.

Can you help me with what "core disputes" were left to address with Iran? They want a nuclear weapon to kill us and Israel and we said no? They want to sponsor terrorist groups to attack us and our allies in the region and we said no?

What about the last 45 years of the regime in Iran has suggested that we just need to understand them better and it will be good.

You do realize they planned, funded and executed assassination attempts on Trump?

KillerAg21 said:

---

250,000 civilians died and two cities wiped away in the single largest mass casualty event in world history. To say America was completely justified to kill civilians and it is not an atrocity is frankly insane. Based on your posting history I am truly not surprised though.

---

Losing millions of American soldiers whilst likely causing 10s of millions of Japanese civilian death from direct conflict, then disease and famine with a prolonged military invasion of mainland Japan would have been what... better?

And I am insane?

Jet White said:

---

Quote:

---

You are the ONLY one who REPEATEDLY tries to silence folks with snark and name calling. Happy to discuss things, but you should cut out the name calling all the time.

---

You are quite literally labeling people un-American with zero support behind it whatsoever. Strategic disagreements don't make you in-American, any person with an IQ above room temperature understands this.

The fact that you can claim other people are trying to silence debate when you've been using "you are Un-American for disagreeing with this line of argumentation" (literally) is hilarious. How in the world does that supposition further substantive discussion in the slightest? It does the exact opposite. Exactly as it's intended to.

---

So calling be dumb, stupid is an improvement in fostering discussion?

I have now in several posts indicated WHY (i.e. supporting my position) for calling the posted positions "un-American".

KillerAg21 said:

---

250,000 civilians died and two cities wiped away in the single largest mass casualty event in world history. To say America was completely justified to kill civilians and it is not an atrocity is frankly insane. Based on your posting history I am truly not surprised though.

---

It was better than us losing a ton of soldiers in continued island hopping and an invasion of Japan proper.

Millions upon millions of deaths that didn't happen is justification to literally incinerate an entire population. Yes that is insane logic.

It's fear porn disguised as patriotism.

flown-the-coop said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

It's true that some see Iran's nuclear ambitions and regime as obstacles to broader normalization in the region. But the situation is far more complex than suggesting military strikes alone will "extend" the Abraham Accords or guarantee Saudi-Israeli normalization.

Recent developments show Saudi Arabia is actually prioritizing engagement and de-escalation with Iran, not confrontation. Saudi officials have held high-level talks in Tehran and signaled they don't want their territory used for military operations against Iran. (see here). Riyadh's approach is currently focused on dialogue and avoiding escalation, not regime change or military solutions.

While some Israeli and U.S. officials hope that weakening Iran will open the door to normalization, most experts agree that Saudi Arabia's willingness to normalize with Israel depends on a broader set of issues - including progress on the Palestinian question and regional stability - not just Iran's nuclear status or leadership. In fact, ongoing conflict and instability make normalization harder, not easier.

So while military action may shift some calculations, long-term peace and expanded normalization are more likely to come from diplomacy, regional engagement, and addressing core disputes not just strikes or regime change.

---

Agree it is very complex and that has been factored in to my assessment that the strikes and likely subsequent actions including regime change will lead to expanded Abraham Accords. In fact, it is part of the rationale for the strikes.

Israel rendered the Palestinian situation moot. Well, Hamas rendered it moot with the October 7th action. Long-term peace more often results from decisive military action than from diplomacy.

Can you help me with what "core disputes" were left to address with Iran? They want a nuclear weapon to kill us and Israel and we said no? They want to sponsor terrorist groups to attack us and our allies in the region and we said no?

What about the last 45 years of the regime in Iran has suggested that we just need to understand them better and it will be good.

You do realize they planned, funded and executed assassination attempts on Trump?

---

I appreciate your willingness to engage on the details. But recent developments show that normalization and long-term peace are not simply a matter of military strikes or regime change in Iran.

Saudi Arabia, for example, has consistently prioritized engagement and de-escalation with Iran, even warning Tehran to pursue diplomacy to avoid war with Israel. Saudi officials have held high-level talks with Iran and signaled they don't want further escalation, or their territory used for attacks. Riyadh's approach is focused on dialogue, not confrontation or forced regime change.

While some in Israel and the U.S. hope that weakening Iran will open the door to expanded Abraham Accords, most regional experts agree that Saudi normalization with Israel depends on a broader set of issues - including progress on the Palestinian question and regional stability - not just Iran's nuclear ambitions or leadership. Ongoing conflict and instability actually make normalization harder, not easier.

As for "core disputes," they go beyond just Iran's nuclear program. They include proxy conflicts, regional influence, and unresolved issues with groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. That's why both sides have held multiple rounds of direct talks in recent years, trying to find a framework for coexistence - even if progress has been slow.

Military action may shift calculations in the short term, but sustainable peace and expanded normalization are far more likely to come from diplomacy, regional engagement, and addressing these core disputes - not just strikes or regime change.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Millions upon millions of deaths that didn't happen is justification to literally incinerate an entire population. Yes that is insane logic.

It's fear porn disguised as patriotism.

---

You think the war with Japan would have ended how then? here is some background on the decisioning and there are countless history books and programs for you to learn more about this particular subject.

https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/decision-drop-atomic-bomb

Quote:

---

Years of fighting brought the US armed forces closer and closer to Japan as they "hopped" from one island to another. The Japanese were vicious fighters, however, and every victory cost more time, material, and, sadly, lives. The last major battle, the fight for Okinawa, lasted almost three months and took more than 100,000 Japanese and American lives.


After President Roosevelt died on April 12th, 1945, it became Harry Truman's job to decide how to end the war. The thought of invading Japan gave Truman and his advisors pause. The war had shown that the Japanese were fighting for the Emperor who convinced them that it was better to die than surrender. Women and children had been taught how to kill with basic weapons. Japanese kamikaze pilots could turn planes into guided missiles. The cost of invasion, they knew, would be high.

Upon becoming president, Harry Truman learned of the Manhattan Project, a secret scientific effort to create an atomic bomb. After a successful test of the weapon, Truman issued the Potsdam Declaration demanding the unconditional surrender of the Japanese government, warning of "prompt and utter destruction." Eleven days later, on August 6, 1945, having received no reply, an American bomber called the Enola Gay left the Tinian Island in route toward Japan. In the belly of the bomber was "Little Boy," an atomic bomb. At 8:15 am Hiroshima time, "Little Boy" was dropped. The result was approximately 80,000 deaths in just the first few minutes. Thousands died later from radiation sickness. On August 9, 1945, another bomber was in route to Japan, only this time they were heading for Nagasaki with "Fat Man," another atomic bomb. After the first minute of dropping "Fat Man," 39,000 men, women and children were killed. 25,000 more were injured. Both cities were leveled from the bombs and this, in turn, forced Japan to surrender to the United States. The war was finally over.

---

Even though Japan attacked us without warning on December 7, 1941, Truman gave Japan the opportunity to end the conflict peacefully, diplomatically. And like Iran, Japan refused.

KillerAg21 said:

---

Millions upon millions of deaths that didn't happen is justification to literally incinerate an entire population. Yes that is insane logic.

It's fear porn disguised as patriotism.

---

250,000 =/ entire population. You can't even keep up with your BS posts!

KillerAg21 said:

---

Millions upon millions of deaths that didn't happen is justification to literally incinerate an entire population. Yes that is insane logic.

It's fear porn disguised as patriotism.

---

There are no good outcomes in war. Only bad and worse. We chose the bad to stave off the worst.

Do you think Paul Tibbets was a war criminal?

None of these things are valid defenses. They are finding reasons to justify what is a mass casualty event on a civilian population. Just like slavery, just like the Native American genocide.

The fact is America created this reality after 1945 and the Cold War. It showed that the only way a sovereign nation can defend itself from invasion is MAD. So it became an arms race to the top. Then the 70's and various funding of paramilitary forces by the U.S. threw the region into a series of unforeseen consequences that still exist and permeate today. China, Iran, North Korea, Al Queda, Hussein etc… were all problems created by us.

So yes I am EXTREMELY against the escalation of military force by the country that has what is now a 100 year track record of creating its own problems, which it then uses to justify killing droves and droves of civilian populations.

Please tell me you know what the word population means. It's important to me that you know this.

As my uncle was slated to be part of the invasion of Japan, I fully support dropping the bombs on them.

jaborch99 said:

---

I appreciate your willingness to engage on the details. But recent developments show that normalization and long-term peace are not simply a matter of military strikes or regime change in Iran.

Saudi Arabia, for example, has consistently prioritized engagement and de-escalation with Iran, even warning Tehran to pursue diplomacy to avoid war with Israel. Saudi officials have held high-level talks with Iran and signaled they don't want further escalation, or their territory used for attacks. Riyadh's approach is focused on dialogue, not confrontation or forced regime change.

While some in Israel and the U.S. hope that weakening Iran will open the door to expanded Abraham Accords, most regional experts agree that Saudi normalization with Israel depends on a broader set of issues - including progress on the Palestinian question and regional stability - not just Iran's nuclear ambitions or leadership. Ongoing conflict and instability actually make normalization harder, not easier.

As for "core disputes," they go beyond just Iran's nuclear program. They include proxy conflicts, regional influence, and unresolved issues with groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. That's why both sides have held multiple rounds of direct talks in recent years, trying to find a framework for coexistence - even if progress has been slow.

Military action may shift calculations in the short term, but sustainable peace and expanded normalization are far more likely to come from diplomacy, regional engagement, and addressing these core disputes - not just strikes or regime change.

---

Seems like Trump and Saudi were on the same page with trying diplomacy first. Iran refused our offers and evidently disregarded Saudi's engagement on this matter.

Our efforts were focused on dialogue and not regime change. The current Iranian regime has refused any sort of negotiated peace that prohibits them from having a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel and the US with. So folks, including Trump, have suggested maybe its time for a new regime.

Big Stick diplomacy is still diplomacy.

Do you have any suggestions on how the core dispute of the ayatollahs, who control Iran currently, wanting to destroy Israel and the US was going to be resolved through discussions?

Do you think if Jeffrey Dahmers victims would have been better at pleading their case and they would live? The current regime in Iran wants to KILL YOU. Not sure how you resolve disputes like that with diplomacy.

In fact, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows EXACTLY that you cannot have diplomatic relations with terrorist led jihadi regimes. Its very Neville Chamberlain to think otherwise.

Quote:

---

The fact is America created this reality after 1945 and the Cold War.

---

Islam created this.

flown-the-coop said:

---

jaborch99 said:

---

I appreciate your willingness to engage on the details. But recent developments show that normalization and long-term peace are not simply a matter of military strikes or regime change in Iran.

Saudi Arabia, for example, has consistently prioritized engagement and de-escalation with Iran, even warning Tehran to pursue diplomacy to avoid war with Israel. Saudi officials have held high-level talks with Iran and signaled they don't want further escalation, or their territory used for attacks. Riyadh's approach is focused on dialogue, not confrontation or forced regime change.

While some in Israel and the U.S. hope that weakening Iran will open the door to expanded Abraham Accords, most regional experts agree that Saudi normalization with Israel depends on a broader set of issues - including progress on the Palestinian question and regional stability - not just Iran's nuclear ambitions or leadership. Ongoing conflict and instability actually make normalization harder, not easier.

As for "core disputes," they go beyond just Iran's nuclear program. They include proxy conflicts, regional influence, and unresolved issues with groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. That's why both sides have held multiple rounds of direct talks in recent years, trying to find a framework for coexistence - even if progress has been slow.

Military action may shift calculations in the short term, but sustainable peace and expanded normalization are far more likely to come from diplomacy, regional engagement, and addressing these core disputes - not just strikes or regime change.

---

Seems like Trump and Saudi were on the same page with trying diplomacy first. Iran refused our offers and evidently disregarded Saudi's engagement on this matter.

Our efforts were focused on dialogue and not regime change. The current Iranian regime has refused any sort of negotiated peace that prohibits them from having a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel and the US with. So folks, including Trump, have suggested maybe its time for a new regime.

Big Stick diplomacy is still diplomacy.

Do you have any suggestions on how the core dispute of the ayatollahs, who control Iran currently, wanting to destroy Israel and the US was going to be resolved through discussions?

Do you think if Jeffrey Dahmers victims would have been better at pleading their case and they would live? The current regime in Iran wants to KILL YOU. Not sure how you resolve disputes like that with diplomacy.

In fact, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict shows EXACTLY that you cannot have diplomatic relations with terrorist led jihadi regimes. Its very Neville Chamberlain to think otherwise.

---

It's true that both the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia tried to pursue diplomacy with Iran, including direct offers for talks and warnings about the risks of escalation. Saudi officials have repeatedly engaged in high-level meetings with Iran, emphasizing dialogue and even warning Tehran to reach a deal to avoid war with Israel. Despite deep mistrust, both sides have participated in multiple rounds of direct talks in recent years, aiming to reduce tensions and address core disputes.

The reality is, neither side has found an easy breakthrough - progress has been slow, and Iran's regime has often refused terms that would fully satisfy U.S. or Saudi demands. But the fact that both sides keep coming back to the table shows that even adversaries recognize the limits of force and the need for engagement.

Military action might sometimes buy time or shift leverage, but it rarely resolves the underlying issues. Sustainable peace, regional stability, and expanded normalization are more likely when diplomacy, however difficult, is given a real chance. History shows that even regimes once considered implacable enemies - like the USSR or China - have changed course through a mix of pressure and persistent negotiation.

The Middle East's core disputes - proxy conflicts, regional influence, nuclear ambitions, and unresolved grievances - are complex and deeply rooted. Lasting solutions require more than just "big stick" diplomacy; they demand patient, realistic engagement alongside clear-eyed deterrence.

jaborch99 said:

---

It's true that both the Trump administration and Saudi Arabia tried to pursue diplomacy with Iran, including direct offers for talks and warnings about the risks of escalation. Saudi officials have repeatedly engaged in high-level meetings with Iran, emphasizing dialogue and even warning Tehran to reach a deal to avoid war with Israel. Despite deep mistrust, both sides have participated in multiple rounds of direct talks in recent years, aiming to reduce tensions and address core disputes.

The reality is, neither side has found an easy breakthrough - progress has been slow, and Iran's regime has often refused terms that would fully satisfy U.S. or Saudi demands. But the fact that both sides keep coming back to the table shows that even adversaries recognize the limits of force and the need for engagement.

Military action might sometimes buy time or shift leverage, but it rarely resolves the underlying issues. Sustainable peace, regional stability, and expanded normalization are more likely when diplomacy, however difficult, is given a real chance. History shows that even regimes once considered implacable enemies - like the USSR or China - have changed course through a mix of pressure and persistent negotiation.

The Middle East's core disputes - proxy conflicts, regional influence, nuclear ambitions, and unresolved grievances - are complex and deeply rooted. Lasting solutions require more than just "big stick" diplomacy; they demand patient, realistic engagement alongside clear-eyed deterrence.

---

This is what Trump delivered on Saturday and why he should be lauded by all Americans for having the courage to take the action necessary to provide "clear-eyed deterrence".

With respect, this isn't "clear-eyed deterrence" - it's the same old cycle of escalation that's kept America bogged down in the Middle East for decades. Dropping bombs doesn't solve the underlying problems; it just risks blowing up into a bigger war, dragging us in even deeper, and making the world more dangerous for Americans and everyone else.

Let's be honest: Iran's regime is awful, but they're not suicidal. U.S. and Israeli intelligence have both said for years that Iran hasn't made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Every time we strike, we give the regime more incentive to double down, crack down on dissent, and justify their own aggression. That's not deterrence - it's provocation.

Remember, "deterrence" was the excuse for Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan. How'd that work out? Trillions spent, thousands of Americans dead, and the region is more chaotic than ever. Meanwhile, the only people who win are the defense contractors and the politicians who get to play tough guy on TV.

Real courage isn't launching another round of airstrikes and hoping for the best. Real courage is breaking the cycle - ending endless wars, bringing our troops home, and pursuing real diplomacy. That's what actually keeps Americans safe and free.

Rapier108 said:

---

jamey said:

---

I dont understand how the anti war crowd can think allowing a nuclear armed Iran is anti war?


A nuclear armed Iran drags us into a much bigger, far more serious war

What's the thinking here?

---

The "anti-war" crowd isn't a monolithic thing.

Some are only against it because they hate Israel. Some in that group go so far as to actually supporting Iran and wanting them to have a nuclear bomb.

Then of course there are those who just hate Jews and support Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.

And then there are those who want to go back to complete isolationism and they thought Trump would do that.

---

And then there are those that are war fatigued from the last 25 years of war and have no desire to see the US get into yet another middle east conflict where our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines fight with restrictions and no end in site for no gain and no benefit to the US against a group of savages that don't have the rules we do and whom we will never actually win against because of our ROE's.

We dropped a few bombs on Iran - great. But this isn't our fight anymore. Iran had zero capability to inflict damage against us, even if they had a nuke. If Israel wants to clean house, let Israel clean house. They have skin in the game, we do not. Take the leash of the IDF and Mossad and whatever happens, happens.

Amazing how we can spend billions/trillions (that we don't have) on intel, bases, hardware, ordinance, etc. for a desert literally halfway across the world but cannot wage even 1/100th the war on our own border against enemies that have actively and openly invaded our country and whom continue to attack us every single day.

KillerAg21 said:

---

250,000 civilians died and two cities wiped away in the single largest mass casualty event in world history. To say America was completely justified to kill civilians and it is not an atrocity is frankly insane. Based on your posting history I am truly not surprised though.

---

Ahh yes, the "Truman was a war criminal" bit.

You show no understanding of war nor history, nor that of what the job of the President entails.

Yes, and what you describe is primarily what Trump is doing.

And sometimes you have to fight when you're a man.

We cannot always be the the Coward of the County. Your words mean nothing if you don't back it with action every now and again.

And the Iranian regime is absolutely suicidal. How is that not obvious? It only has gained strength by Americans and others thinking the regime can be reasoned with.

Midnight Hammer was a last resort option at the end of diplomatic efforts.

Do you really believe the ayatollahs can be reasoned with? Do you understand anything about them and what they believe?

Quote:

---

Then the 70's and various funding of paramilitary forces by the U.S. threw the region into a series of unforeseen consequences that still exist and permeate today. China, Iran, North Korea, Al Queda, Hussein etc… were all problems created by us.

---

Yes, the middle east was a bastion of peace and harmony prior to 1970.

Quote:

---

So yes I am EXTREMELY against the escalation of military force by the country that has what is now a 100 year track record of creating its own problems, which it then uses to justify killing droves and droves of civilian populations.

---

So your solution is for Iran to continue having a viable nuclear weapons program?

flown-the-coop said:

---

Yes, and what you describe is primarily what Trump is doing.

And sometimes you have to fight when you're a man.

We cannot always be the the Coward of the County. Your words mean nothing if you don't back it with action every now and again.

And the Iranian regime is absolutely suicidal. How is that not obvious? It only has gained strength by Americans and others thinking the regime can be reasoned with.

Midnight Hammer was a last resort option at the end of diplomatic efforts.

Do you really believe the ayatollahs can be reasoned with? Do you understand anything about them and what they believe?

---

With respect, this idea that "sometimes you have to fight" or that Iran is "absolutely suicidal" just doesn't line up with the facts or with what's actually in America's best interest.

First, let's be honest about the record:
Every time we're told a Middle Eastern regime is irrational and can't be deterredwhether it was Saddam, Gaddafi, or now the ayatollahsit's used as a blank check for war. But history shows that even brutal regimes act in their own self-interest. Iran's leaders are repressive, but they're not suicidal. If they were, they'd have picked a fight with the world's superpower long ago. Instead, they've consistently avoided direct war with the U.S. and Israel, even after being attacked.

Second, "Midnight Hammer" wasn't a last resortit was another round of escalation in a cycle that's gone on for decades. We've tried sanctions, assassinations, sabotage, and airstrikes. What have we gotten? More instability, more suffering for ordinary Iranians, and a regime that's still in power and arguably more hardline than ever. If bombing countries into regime change worked, Iraq and Libya would be peaceful democracies today. Instead, we got endless war, trillions in debt, and more chaos.

And let's not forget:
- U.S. and Israeli intelligence have repeatedly said Iran hasn't made the decision to build a bomb.
- The "suicidal fanatic" narrative is the same one used to justify every failed war of the last 20 years.
- Real deterrence works. North Korea and Pakistan are both nuclear states with unstable regimes, yet we manage to avoid war with them. Why? Because they know, as Iran's leaders know, that using a nuke would mean the end of their regime.

Finally, as a Christian, I believe in peace and honest diplomacy. War should always be the last resort, not the first impulse. If you care about American security, prosperity, and liberty, endless war in the Middle East is the surest way to lose all three.

You don't have to be the "Coward of the County" to say enough is enough. Sometimes the bravest thing is to break the cycle, reject the war propaganda, and demand a foreign policy that actually serves the American peoplenot the interests of defense contractors or foreign governments.

You will be happy to know Trump has announced a ceasefire to commence in 6 hours. With a 12 hour cooling off before an official end of war declaration.

Wants it to be called The 12 Day War.

Is it okay to congratulate Trump on that?

The attack was needed.

I want regime change but that it up to the Iranian people. But there will be no lasting peace without the elimination of the ayatollahs.

Trump has had one of if not the best foreign policy records ever as a President. Dude is just nails

And he is only 6 months in his second term AND he had a bunch of traitors in his first term, still did great.

From trade deals, tariffs and war, nothing but winning. He has played everything great

flown-the-coop said:

---

You will be happy to know Trump has announced a ceasefire to commence in 6 hours. With a 12 hour cooling off before an official end of war declaration.

Wants it to be called The 12 Day War.

Is it okay to congratulate Trump on that?

The attack was needed.

I want regime change but that it up to the Iranian people. But there will be no lasting peace without the elimination of the ayatollahs.

---

It's good news if there's a ceasefire and a chance to de-escalate. I'll always support steps that move us away from war and toward peace.

But I can't agree that the attack was "needed," or that regime change - by force or by proxy - is the answer. History shows that U.S. and Israeli interventions, even when aimed at "bad guys," often produce more chaos and suffering, not less. Iraq and Libya were supposed to be quick fixes; instead, they turned into endless wars, humanitarian disasters, and breeding grounds for extremism. The people who paid the highest price weren't the dictators, but ordinary families and future generations.

If we really want lasting peace, it has to come from the Iranian people themselves, not from foreign bombs or engineered coups. Outside intervention almost always backfires, strengthening hardliners and fueling anti-American resentment. Real change comes from within - when people are free to choose their own path without outside coercion.

Diplomacy, honest engagement, and leading by example are the best ways to encourage positive change. As Christians, we're called to be peacemakers, not perpetual warriors. And as libertarians, we know that endless war is the enemy of liberty, prosperity, and the Constitution.

So yes, credit to anyone who chooses peace over escalation. But let's not forget the lessons of the past: regime change by force is a recipe for disaster, not a foundation for real, lasting peace.

You cannot have honest discussions with a regime whose religion and in particular their ultra strict interpretation makes it a SIN worthy of death to agree to anything with an infidel. So whilst your wishes and aspirations may seem virtuous, they belie reality.

Diplomacy with Iran was offered repeatedly and rejected. God calls on us to defend the weaker against evildoers. Again, sometimes you have to fight when you're a man, when you are a Christian.

The reason libertarians are not a viable political alternative is that its ideals are not practical for governing a large populace.

I respect your position but we see things very differently.

And true colors are shown then you still cannot show genuine appreciation for Trumps leadership in a quick call to peace.

flown-the-coop said:

---

You cannot have honest discussions with a regime whose religion and in particular their ultra strict interpretation makes it a SIN worthy of death to agree to anything with an infidel. So whilst your wishes and aspirations may seem virtuous, they belie reality.

Diplomacy with Iran was offered repeatedly and rejected. God calls on us to defend the weaker against evildoers. Again, sometimes you have to fight when you're a man, when you are a Christian.

The reason libertarians are not a viable political alternative is that its ideals are not practical for governing a large populace.

I respect your position but we see things very differently.

And true colors are shown then you still cannot show genuine appreciation for Trumps leadership in a quick call to peace.

---

I appreciate your thoughtful response and respectful disagreement. But I'd caution against the idea that the only options are war or nave appeasement. History shows that even regimes with extreme ideologies - like the USSR, Mao's China, or North Korea - could be deterred and negotiated with, despite decades of hostile rhetoric and real atrocities. The Iranian regime is brutal, but it is not suicidal; its top priority has always been regime survival.

Diplomacy with Iran has actually produced results before: the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) dramatically reduced Iran's stockpile and enrichment, and it was only after the U.S. pulled out and ramped up "maximum pressure" that Iran resumed its nuclear advances. Rejecting all diplomacy as hopeless just guarantees a cycle of escalation and war, which history shows rarely produces the outcome we want and often makes things worse for everyone - especially Christians and minorities in the region.

As a Christian, I'm called to be a peacemaker (Matthew 5:9) and to love my enemies, not just my friends. Defending the weak doesn't always mean war; sometimes it means refusing to let the powerful drag us into conflicts that end up harming the very people we're trying to protect. And as we know, endless war is the health of the state - it grows government, destroys liberty, and piles up debt for our children.

Finally, I do appreciate any leader who chooses de-escalation over escalation. But real leadership means breaking the cycle of violence, not just "showing strength" for its own sake. Regime change by force has failed everywhere we've tried it. If there's to be change in Iran, it should come from the Iranian people themselves, not from more bombs and foreign intervention. That's the only path to lasting peace and real freedom.

You have a very myopic view of history, geopolitics, current affairs and being a Christian.

Typing more words saying the same things doesn't make you any more correct nor righteous.

Whilst your ideals may be noble, they are not based in reality and such concepts have never been achieved.

What has happened is that America, when weak, invites global chaos and danger. When strong, there is lasting peace.

The agreement by Obama resulted in Iran being funneled cash to fund their proxies and to drive their nuclear program deeper underground.

If diplomacy worked always, there would be no wars and no conflicts. Unfortunately, there are leaders in the world who do not deal in morality, honesty, virtue, mutual respect, etc.

Your approach has no solution for that other than to be nicer to the person shooting you in the gut over and over again.

That's fairly naive and not workable.

KillerAg21 said:

---

250,000 civilians died and two cities wiped away in the single largest mass casualty event in world history. To say America was completely justified to kill civilians and it is not an atrocity is frankly insane. Based on your posting history I am truly not surprised though.

---

The question might be better asked of the million or so who would have died had we gone on to attack Japan and who had been through so much already. Take a vote, see what they decided. After the atrocities committed by Japan against us (and China) they are lucky we stopped with only two cities.

Haven't heard a peep out of Japan since. There is a lesson there.

flown-the-coop said:

---

You have a very myopic view of history, geopolitics, current affairs and being a Christian.

Typing more words saying the same things doesn't make you any more correct nor righteous.

Whilst your ideals may be noble, they are not based in reality and such concepts have never been achieved.

What has happened is that America, when weak, invites global chaos and danger. When strong, there is lasting peace.

The agreement by Obama resulted in Iran being funneled cash to fund their proxies and to drive their nuclear program deeper underground.

If diplomacy worked always, there would be no wars and no conflicts. Unfortunately, there are leaders in the world who do not deal in morality, honesty, virtue, mutual respect, etc.

Your approach has no solution for that other than to be nicer to the person shooting you in the gut over and over again.

That's fairly naive and not workable.

---

I get why people are worried about a nuclear Iran - no one wants to see more nukes in the hands of bad actors. But the idea that endless war or regime change is the only solution just doesn't hold up to history or Christian principles.

First, let's be honest: we've heard for decades that Iran is always "just a year away" from a bomb. Yet both U.S. and Israeli intelligence have consistently said Iran hasn't made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Their leaders are brutal, but not suicidal - they know using a nuke would mean the end of their regime. That's why deterrence works, just like it has with North Korea, Pakistan, and even the Soviets and Mao's China - regimes with plenty of dangerous rhetoric, but who could still be deterred.

Second, every time we intervene for "regime change" - Iraq, Libya, Syria - we end up with more chaos, more terrorism, and more suffering for ordinary people. The region is less stable, not more. And as a Christian, I can't ignore the innocent lives lost or the way these wars have devastated Christian and minority communities in the Middle East.

The 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) actually worked: Iran's nuclear program was rolled back and verified by inspectors. It was only after the U.S. pulled out and ramped up "maximum pressure" that Iran started ramping up enrichment again. Diplomacy isn't nave - it's practical, and it's worked better than bombs and sanctions.

America isn't "weak" for avoiding endless war. Real strength is knowing when to use restraint, to put our own people first, and to avoid the trap of being the world's policeman. As a Christian, I'm called to be a peacemaker, not to cheer for more war that history shows only leads to more pain and less security.

If there's going to be change in Iran, it should come from the Iranian people themselves - not from U.S. bombs or another disastrous nation-building project. That's not isolationism, it's realism and it's the only approach that respects both American interests and Christian values.

So no, opposing another war with Iran isn't "naive" or "anti-American" - it's the hard-learned lesson of the last 25 years, and it's the most practical, moral path forward

That was a lot of words to describe rainbows and unicorns approach to geopolitics.

You make a false assumption that the other side of the table respects your Christian values. They do not. You ignore this and that costs lives in the end.

Again, I almost admire the naivety about the world works. Would be great if that was the case. But it's not. There is evil in the world. And there are a whole lot of people that think you, me and America are even more evil.

The action by Trump in Iran was just. That is not open for debate. It was just. It saved lives. It made the world a safer place. Again, it's no open to debate.

Just like dropping the bomb on Japan is not open for debate. It was the right decision at the right time to help save humanity in the long term.

No peace treaty or agreement has ever lasted in perpetuity. Hell, you like to point to Christianity. One could argue even God got it wrong in the Old Testament and had to redo it and create a peace treaty through Jesus in the New Testament.

I would encourage you to keep your optimism, but advise take in some doses of reality every now and again.

flown-the-coop said:

---

That was a lot of words to describe rainbows and unicorns approach to geopolitics.

You make a false assumption that the other side of the table respects your Christian values. They do not. You ignore this and that costs lives in the end.

Again, I almost admire the naivety about the world works. Would be great if that was the case. But it's not. There is evil in the world. And there are a whole lot of people that think you, me and America are even more evil.

The action by Trump in Iran was just. That is not open for debate. It was just. It saved lives. It made the world a safer place. Again, it's no open to debate.

Just like dropping the bomb on Japan is not open for debate. It was the right decision at the right time to help save humanity in the long term.

No peace treaty or agreement has ever lasted in perpetuity. Hell, you like to point to Christianity. One could argue even God got it wrong in the Old Testament and had to redo it and create a peace treaty through Jesus in the New Testament.

I would encourage you to keep your optimism, but advise take in some doses of reality every now and again.

---

I get that my position sounds optimistic to some, but it's not about rainbows and unicorns - it's about learning from hard reality. The last 25 years have shown us that every time we're told "this is good vs. evil" or "force is the only answer," we end up with more chaos, more debt, and less security. Iraq was supposed to be a "just war" too. Libya was supposed to be a humanitarian intervention. Both turned into disasters, not just for those countries but for the whole region - and for us.

You say Trump's strike was "just" and "not open for debate." But history is full of leaders who claimed moral certainty to justify war, only for the facts to come out later and show how mistaken or manipulated that certainty was. As a Christian, I'm called to love truth and humility, not just power. "Just war" isn't about being the biggest kid on the playground; it's about exhausting every peaceful alternative and weighing the cost to innocent life - something our recent wars have failed at, time and again.

Iran's regime is brutal, but they're not irrational or suicidal. U.S. and Israeli intelligence have repeatedly said Iran hasn't decided to build a bomb. Their leadership's number one goal is survival, not martyrdom. We deterred Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jong-Un - regimes every bit as hostile and fanatical as Tehran - without preemptive war. Why is Iran uniquely immune to deterrence?

You say "America, when weak, invites chaos." But it's been endless intervention, not restraint, that's drained our treasury, stretched our military thin, and made new enemies. Real strength is knowing when to say no to another forever war, not just flexing for the sake of it.

As for the JCPOA, the facts are clear: Iran's nuclear program was rolled back and heavily inspected until the U.S. walked away. The "pallets of cash" were Iran's own frozen assets, released in exchange for compliance. Since then, Iran has ramped up enrichment - so if you're worried about a nuclear Iran, tearing up the deal made things worse, not better.

No, diplomacy doesn't always work. But war almost never delivers the "final solution" people hope for. If regime change is the answer, let it come from within Iran, not from bombs or outside coups. That's not nave - that's the only approach that's ever produced lasting change.

And as a Christian, I'll take the risk of being called nave if it means standing for peace and truth, rather than repeating the mistakes that have cost so many lives and so much treasure for so little gain.