American Politics

[QUOTE=Canada;3067365]Ridding the world of terrorists is not a bad thing unless you are a terrorist.[/QUOTE]Who is an isn't a terrorist at any particular time in history depends upon which side of the issue you are on at the time. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a grey issue. A brief review of history and you see that.

[I]Revolutionary War

The definition of terrorism used in the question - "intentional attacks on civilians, with the goal of political change" is quite wide ranging, and could include a number of acts we might not usually think of as terrorism. However if we accept it, it is very clear that terrorist acts were committed during the Revolutionary War by both sides. Despite Hollywood's portrayal of the Revolutionary War as a fight between Yankee-accented farmers and British-accented overseers, the Revolutionary War was in essence a civil war; Loyalists and Patriots looked the same, spoke the same and often came from the same families. The same was true of the 'British' soldiers, who were often recruited in the Colonies, and might find themselves firing at - and being fired on by - their friends, neighbors and family. The only difference between a Loyalist and a Patriot was their politics.

Civilian attacks

It is absolutely certain that there were attacks on civilians by both sides of the conflict. Houses of Loyalists were frequently set on fire, and their property confiscated (see here, here, here, here and here, as well as many others). Tar-and-feathering of those who opposed your cause - or sometimes simply didn't support it enough - was also commonly used by both sides. The Boston Tea Party was certainly targeted at civilians with the goal of political change. Loyalists in return burned and looted the houses of Patriots where they were in the majority.[/I]

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3067373]Hey Canada, the inspectors said for the most part Iran was allowing access to the sites. There was some suspicion that they could have been playing shell games though as Iran more than once drug its feet in allowing access to facilities. The better indicator is the amount of nuclear material shipped out of the country to Russia, as required by the JPCOA. Iran reduced its stockpile by 98% in 2015. Now could Russia have shipped the material right back to Iran, maybe after further enriching it? Possible but highly unlikely. Recall that Russia's had its problems with Islamic extremists. And Russia's a lot closer to Iran than Europe or the USA. It shouldn't want Iran to have the bomb.

If you're right, it made absolutely no sense for Trump to withdraw from the agreement and then do nothing in his first term. He gave them the excuse to accelerate development of nuclear weapons. If the USA had gone into Iran in 2017, like it earlier went into Iraq using WMD's as an excuse, the result probably would have been the same, that is to say, the USA wouldn't have found nuclear weapons. Thankfully though Trump, unlike Bush and LBJ, isn't likely to get America into a long, drawn out war.[/QUOTE]Then other presidents you mentioned were not as reckless as Trump. This would be George W Bush too but to a lesser extent. Trump thought that strikes alone would bring down the Iranian leadership. It did but they were replaced by younger more hard line radicals.

Congress is not going to approve a full scale military project in Iran. The people including Hegseth have not been able to articulate the necessity for ground troops. Nor do they have an adequate explanation for the strikes that were made.

Trump is all over the place with the ballroom and UFC event scheduled at the Whitehouse and this 1. 8 billion slush fund for rioters who ransacked the capital. , Moreover, he endorsed the opponents of two well like Senators Cassidy and Cornyn.

They left town without funding the ballroom that Trump initially said would not cost taxpayers any money.

[QUOTE=Canada;3067364]Obama deal with Iran was a payoff for an agreement that Iran knew they would never agree to. As soon as it was signed and Obama released billions to Iran the money received fast tracked Iran nuclear ambitions. Iran never let the inspectors to check and Iran never stopped their nuclear ambitions. Trump should have stopped them in his first term. Better later than never though after Obama and Biden kept funding Irans nuclear enrichment. Hopefully now we can eliminate this threat and hopefully free the Iranian people from this horrible terrorist regime.[/QUOTE]Trump defunded and removed the agreement he himself confirmed was working. Twice.

And then he immediately defunded and removed the inspectors, allowing Iran to do anything it wanted for the past 9 years, unmonitored, including all three years remaining in Trump's first disastrous term where he was busy defunding and removing other programs that far better presidents had created in order to protect Americans. See below.

[B]President Trump Could Decertify the Iran Nuclear Deal. That Could Massively Backfire.
Oct. 13, 2017[/B]

[URL]https://time.com/4978954/president-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-sanctions/[/URL]

[QUOTE]The President faces an October 15 deadline to certify whether Iran is complying with the nuclear agreement, which was negotiated in 2015 under former President Barack Obama. [B]Trump twice confirmed Irans cooperation with the deal earlier in his presidency,[/b] but he now appears determined to withdraw his endorsement.[/QUOTE]Trump's own Pentagon confirms there was no eminent threat from Iran that would justify him plunging America into still another quagmire, counterproductive Repub War of Choice.

[B]Pentagon tells Congress no intelligence showed Iran was preparing to strike before US attack.
Closed-door briefings acknowledge no evidence that Tehran intended to hit US forces first, as Democrats accuse Trump of launching a war of choice..
March 2, 2026[/B]

[URL]https://www.trtworld.com/article/50386a301b64[/URL]

And just as Trump defunded and removed the above programs that were working to protect Americans from nuclear war with Iran, he also defunded and removed the means to keep Americans safe from other terrorist attacks:

[B]Trump administration cuts to terrorism prevention departments could leave Americans exposed.
Aug. 10, 2025[/B]

[URL]https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-cuts-to-terrorism-prevention-departments-could-leave-americans-exposed-261630[/URL]

As he defunded and removed the programs to prevent another Trump's Pandemic:

[B]Trump cuts damage global efforts to track diseases, prevent outbreaks.
Disease surveillance programs worldwide are suddenly in limbo.
March 25, 2025[/B]

[URL]https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-cuts-damage-global-efforts-track-diseases-prevent-outbreaks[/URL]

As he defunded and removed the program that would have prevented his first Trump's Pandemic:

[B]Trump administration cut pandemic early warning program in September.
Predict project wound down three months before outbreak.
Project had identified 160 potentially dangerous coronaviruses.
April 3, 2020[/B]

[URL]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/03/trump-scrapped-pandemic-early-warning-program-system-before-coronavirus[/URL]

Which he soon thereafter admitted was the reason Trump's Pandemic developed in the first place and could have been averted and stopped "easily" had the agency he defunded and removed not been defunded and removed.

[B]Bob Woodward Was Stunned By What Trump Told Young Son Barron About Coronavirus.
Oct. 25, 2022[/B]

[URL]https://www.yahoo.com/news/bob-woodward-stunned-trump-told-091902598.html[/URL]

[QUOTE]"It came out of China. And it shouldve been stopped. And to be honest with you, Barron, [b]they[/b] shouldve let it be known it was a problem two months earlier ... the world wouldnt have a problem. We could have stopped it easily."[/QUOTE]The [B]"they"[/B] I highlighted there would have been the very agents that had been stationed in those Chinese labs to alert the world to any early potential deadly virus spread, knowing full well Xi and his Chinese subjects could not be trusted to do so. As happened. They were the agents Trump and only Trump decided to defund and remove, contrary to all expert warnings for him not to do something so dangerous and stupid, months before Trump's Pandemic developed thanks solely to Trump's 2019 decisions, which then produced the millions of deaths, worldwide economic and supply-chain collapse, business and school closures and the global hyper-inflation that followed.

Why do you love quagmire, counterproductive Repub Wars of Choice based on Repub lies and millions of worldwide deaths, historic economic destruction and global hyper-inflation so much?

Senile of USA claiming white in morning and black in evening about peace for war he made, blocking Ormuz pass and making inflation for the world and Americans of course.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3067391]Who is an isn't a terrorist at any particular time in history depends upon which side of the issue you are on at the time. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a grey issue. A brief review of history and you see that. ... [/QUOTE]Yes and I'm sure the people in the around the world and the global south, especially in Kenya and the Manila, Philippines, protesting over higher fuel prices as they burn [B]Trump, Netanyahu, and Marcos as a "Three-Headed Demon" in effigy,[/B] is no doubt their version of who they see as terrorist and the ones terrorizing their lives and livelihoods. [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLJZhBSRN18[/URL]

Evening peak energy demand, once the domain and strong-hold of gas-peaker plants, are now being dominated and supplanted by reliable, flexible electrotech, solar and wind excess energy, soaked up by utility scale BESS and residential batteries, displacing the old school guard as the new kings of peak evening power.

[B]Big batteries hit world-leading 40 pct share of evening demand in stunning new record for South Australia[/B], May 26th, 2026. [URL]https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteries-hit-world-leading-40-pct-share-of-evening-demand-in-stunning-new-record-for-south-australia/[/URL] AND [B]Californias home batteries are replacing gas plants and saving hundreds of millions,[/B] September 17,2025 [URL]https://reneweconomy.com.au/big-batteries-hit-world-leading-40-pct-share-of-evening-demand-in-stunning-new-record-for-south-australia/[/URL].

It's not just California and South Australia, anymore, showing the world that renewable energy and electrotech are predominately becoming the primary economical and power management tools, for managing evening peak demand, and phasing out fossil fuel supply unreliability, even as demand increases.

[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3067391]Who is an isn't a terrorist at any particular time in history depends upon which side of the issue you are on at the time. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's a grey issue. A brief review of history and you see that.

[I]Revolutionary War

The definition of terrorism used in the question - "intentional attacks on civilians, with the goal of political change" is quite wide ranging, and could include a number of acts we might not usually think of as terrorism. However if we accept it, it is very clear that terrorist acts were committed during the Revolutionary War by both sides. Despite Hollywood's portrayal of the Revolutionary War as a fight between Yankee-accented farmers and British-accented overseers, the Revolutionary War was in essence a civil war; Loyalists and Patriots looked the same, spoke the same and often came from the same families. The same was true of the 'British' soldiers, who were often recruited in the Colonies, and might find themselves firing at - and being fired on by - their friends, neighbors and family. The only difference between a Loyalist and a Patriot was their politics.

Civilian attacks

It is absolutely certain that there were attacks on civilians by both sides of the conflict. Houses of Loyalists were frequently set on fire, and their property confiscated (see here, here, here, here and here, as well as many others). Tar-and-feathering of those who opposed your cause - or sometimes simply didn't support it enough - was also commonly used by both sides. The Boston Tea Party was certainly targeted at civilians with the goal of political change. Loyalists in return burned and looted the houses of Patriots where they were in the majority.[/I][/QUOTE]Absolutely. If not for the American revolutionaries, most likely slavery would have been outlawed in North America in the 1830's. The country might not have suffered a civil war with 700,000 deaths.

Glad you're still alive. I took a vacation from posting and you weren't here when I got back.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3067320]Somebody suggested I ask A. I. Pertinent questions about whose War was the Vietnam War.

So I did.

The A. I. Overview:

The A. I. Overview:

No credible historian will ever assert that President JFK or LBJ or Nixon "started" the Vietnam War. Because they didn't. They could only "escalate", surge and try to finish what Repub Dwight the. Eisenhower had spent almost every year of his two presidential terms fully committing the USA to militarily by word, deed and treaty.[/QUOTE]By your logic Truman started the war. His administration established the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in 1950 which had about 800 military personnel in Southeast Asia, principally Vietnam, when he left office. MAAG continued operating and there were about 900 American military personnel, primarily advisors, in Vietnam at the end of the Eisenhower administration.

JFK ramped that up to 16,000 "advisors" and later Bloodthirsty Democrat LBJ had 543,000 troops in Vietnam at the peak. Many young American men died needless deaths, 58,220 to be exact, not counting MIA.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3067312]You characterized WWII as a Dem War, apparently because it started in Europe by Europeans while FDR was president. So what in the world IS your point? Wars that started somewhere on the planet while a Dem is president is a Dem War and wars that started somewhere on the planet when a Repub is president is a Repub War?

If so then The American Civil War was Repub Lincoln's War.

Oh, but you're a MAGA. Which means you want to hop around the playing field moving the goal posts like they were checkers on a checker board.

So now it is whether a War that started somewhere on the planet that a president finds impossible to avoid getting involved in counts if you deem it to be for a righteous cause. Which is exactly the way I would have described the American Civil War and in fact qualified my description of some Wars on your list being waged for honorable reasons.

However, YOU didn't qualify your claim that FDR's WWII was ok and gets a pass on the premise that the USA military was not only attacked first and the country declared war against first under FDR but that it was worth waging in no small part in order to liberate European Allies whose countries were being bombed and invaded and by Jews, Catholics and other groups who were being rounded up, herded into concentration camps and disappearing. Don't you care about our European Allies, News and Catholics?

Oh no. But you did find a way to play the typical Repub MAGA Race Card and bring up slavery regarding Repub Lincoln's American Civil War.

Lolol. Pathetic. We need to make those goal posts heavier so MAGAs can't just pick them up with one hand and dance around the playing field with them like they're made of Styrofoam.

Oh and let me guess; FDR and the Dems pulling us out of The Great Repub Depression of massive job and business losses, bread lines and Hoover Villes in every city was also "evil" since it it took away some of that colossal windfall hot money Coolidge and Hoover put into the pockets of the already wealthiest people on Earth, a move that contributed mightily to creating The Great Repub Depression in the first place, as every idiotic Repub Supply-Side / Trickle-Down tax and policy agenda crashes the USA economy and wipes out jobs. Boo-hoo. That is so sad.[/QUOTE]Without Democratic presidents, there would have been no slavery, no Civil War, no persecution of blacks in the South, no American involvement or American deaths in World War I, World War II, the Korean War or the Vietnam War, no nuclear bomb dropped on Japan, no internment of Japanese Americans in prison camps, no American hostages in Iran, no recessions in 1833,1836, 1839,1845, 1847,1853, 1857,1860, 1887,1893, 1896,1913, 1937,1945, 1949, or 1980, and no record setting inflation in 1980. And most important, our country would never have been humiliated by our president, the leader of the free world, getting blow jobs from a chubby intern.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3067553]By your logic Truman started the war. His administration established the Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) in 1950 which had about 800 military personnel in Southeast Asia, principally Vietnam, when he left office. MAAG continued operating and there were about 900 American military personnel, primarily advisors, in Vietnam at the end of the Eisenhower administration.

JFK ramped that up to 16,000 "advisors" and later Bloodthirsty Democrat LBJ had 543,000 troops in Vietnam at the peak. Many young American men died needless deaths, 58,220 to be exact, not counting MIA.[/QUOTE]By your logic every president who sent or authorized aid to an ally during any war anywhere on the planet "started" that war.

Truman didn't literally replace the retreating French military with USA military to take over their position in their War.

Eisenhower did.

The "escalation" of Eisenhower's Vietnam War that was done by JFK and LBJ was that they finally authorized the USA military to shoot back. Eisenhower stationed them there like midway carnival targets with no authorization to shoot back. Yes, as long as nobody was shooting back, the USA military midway carnival targets Eisenhower was supplying them with were not generating as much firepower response from the North Vietnamese. As soon as the USA military were allowed to shoot back and there were several, not just one, signs that the North Vietnamese were "escalating" their side of it, the numbers increased on both sides.

That's a given in these quagmire, counterproductive Repub Wars of Choice Repubs like to plunge America into as often as possible.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3067554]Without Democratic presidents, there would have been no slavery, no Civil War, no persecution of blacks in the South, no American involvement or American deaths in World War I, World War II, the Korean War or the Vietnam War, no nuclear bomb dropped on Japan, no internment of Japanese Americans in prison camps, no American hostages in Iran, no recessions in 1833,1836, 1839,1845, 1847,1853, 1857,1860, 1887,1893, 1896,1913, 1937,1945, 1949, or 1980, and no record setting inflation in 1980. And most important, our country would never have been humiliated by our president, the leader of the free world, getting blow jobs from a chubby intern.[/QUOTE]You nailed it. Facts are facts.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3067554]Without Democratic presidents, there would have been no slavery, no Civil War, no persecution of blacks in the South, no American involvement or American deaths in World War I, World War II, the Korean War or the Vietnam War, no nuclear bomb dropped on Japan, no internment of Japanese Americans in prison camps, no American hostages in Iran, no recessions in 1833,1836, 1839,1845, 1847,1853, 1857,1860, 1887,1893, 1896,1913, 1937,1945, 1949, or 1980, and no record setting inflation in 1980. And most important, our country would never have been humiliated by our president, the leader of the free world, getting blow jobs from a chubby intern.[/QUOTE]Oh, so now Repub Lincoln's American Civil War was no longer started by the USA President and Commander-in-Chief at the time but by whoever was on the other side of the USA military artillery. I don't think the Dem side of Repub Lincoln's American Civil War even had a cannon factory at the time.

The Recession of 1833,1836, blah, blah, blah? Yeah, those were back when Tariffs that today's icon of all Iconic Repubs Donald Trump loves so much he continually claims its his favorite word were the primary source of federal revenue, precisely what the greatest Repub president of all time wants to return to. Back when Repubs were calling themselves different Party names.

That list is at least 80% of the things your fellow current Repubs would happily vote for again since they happened back before the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were proposed, fought for for and passed by Dems, a couple of things we all noticed you didn't include in that list of "evil" Dem accomplishments, which immediately drove your fellow current Repub-supporters insane and far away from supporting the Dem Party again. They became almost 100% Repub since then.

And, aside from the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act, here are a few other things that your fellow current Repub MAGA voters hate that would never have happened without a Dem President:

The recovery from the Great Repub Depression.

The New Deal.

The recovery from the THREE Repub Eisenhower Recessions.

The recovery from the Repub Nixon / Ford Recession and Arab Oil Embargo.

The recovery from the Great Repub Reagan / Bush1 Recessions.

The recovery from the Great Repub Bush2 Recession and Colossal Economic Disaster.

The recovery from the Repub Trump's Deep Recession and Colossal Economic Disaster.

Social Security.

Unemployment Insurance.

Medicare.

Medicaid.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The Affordable Care Act.

The American Rescue Plan Act.

The Inflation Reduction Act.

The Chips and Science Act.

The Infrastructure Legislation.

Etc.

Still waiting for somebody somewhere at some time to finally come up with at least one program or legislation proposed by, fought for and passed by Repubs when they were in the White House and held the Majorities in the House and the Senate equal to the least of those on that Dem list. Ever.

[QUOTE=Sirioja;3067503]Senile of USA claiming white in morning and black in evening about peace for war he made, blocking Ormuz pass and making inflation for the world and Americans of course.[/QUOTE]Claiming peace after war he made following his criminal friend Netanyahou, but bombs on Iran whole night. How can we trust such crazy? Only blind dumb do. Really wish miracle on mid terms, when so bored of daily master of bullshits putting messe in our world where USA are only a small country.

[QUOTE=EihTooms;3067441]Trump defunded and removed the agreement he himself confirmed was working. Twice.

And then he immediately defunded and removed the inspectors, allowing Iran to do anything it wanted for the past 9 years, unmonitored, including all three years remaining in Trump's first disastrous term where he was busy defunding and removing other programs that far better presidents had created in order to protect Americans. See below.

[B]President Trump Could Decertify the Iran Nuclear Deal. That Could Massively Backfire.
Oct. 13, 2017[/B]

[URL]https://time.com/4978954/president-trump-iran-nuclear-deal-sanctions/[/URL]

Trump's own Pentagon confirms there was no eminent threat from Iran that would justify him plunging America into still another quagmire, counterproductive Repub War of Choice.

[B]Pentagon tells Congress no intelligence showed Iran was preparing to strike before US attack.
Closed-door briefings acknowledge no evidence that Tehran intended to hit US forces first, as Democrats accuse Trump of launching a war of choice..
March 2, 2026[/B]

[URL]https://www.trtworld.com/article/50386a301b64[/URL]

And just as Trump defunded and removed the above programs that were working to protect Americans from nuclear war with Iran, he also defunded and removed the means to keep Americans safe from other terrorist attacks:.[/QUOTE]Trump doesn't remember what he told 1 hour ago. Like for Crimea robbed by Putin. He is too senile and schizophrene turning crazy. A danger for our world and he fuck deep Americans.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3067550]Absolutely. If not for the American revolutionaries, most likely slavery would have been outlawed in North America in the 1830's. The country might not have suffered a civil war with 700,000 deaths.[/QUOTE]That or people could have just run cotton plantations like any other business and paid people to pick cotton instead of supporting the international slave trade. It was a economic thing (read: GREED) and had nothing to do with human rights.

[QUOTE=Tiny12;3067550]Glad you're still alive. I took a vacation from posting and you weren't here when I got back.[/QUOTE]Yes, I am still hanging tough. All the back and forth gets old so sometimes I just watch like a interesting tennis match. Most of the stuff discussed is above my pay grade and I have no dog in the fight. But I understand completely the passions of those who are stuck in the Dis-United States of America. I certainly wish the POTUS would wrap the current headline conflict up. The ripple effects are being felt even in the part of the world where I am posted up.

[B]As they say, all politics is local![/B]