Israel forcing Trump's hand

I've heard this now from numerous analysts.

The premise;

Israel warned the US it would attack Iran. And the warning came with a note that said "If our airforce can't acheive the goal then we will look at the nuclear option." Trump had to decide between a potential nuclear action in the ME and assisting Isreal to eliminate the threat to a pre-determined degree.

We've assumed a bunch of reasons for the US getting involved, so perhaps this one is worth discussing. Granted, there's every chance that it could be dribble.

What would our board members do if faced with such an option?

News has come out of the White House that Trump apparently had certiied credible evidence that Iran were planning a direct attack against the US, which is why Trump acted and did what he did.

We will never ever know the true extent or the veracity of this top secret information, but that is what is getting said.

Trump would have been advised well before hand just how much this could derail his presidency, and the damage it would do to him.....so maybe there is some truth to this... maybe not.

"News has come out of the White House . . ."

Why would anyone believe anything coming out of the White House?

Seriously.

It's just lie after lie. Would you like examples? Do you not see through all the bullshit?

You may as well start your post with the words "What follows is another lie . . ."

Why would anyone believe anything coming out of the White House?

Why would anyone believe what Iran says or has said for the last 40 years?

None of us know the true extent to which Iran wanted to attack anyone in the world recently, and also what weapons they had at hand to do so.

So, to answer your question, I would trust Trump over Iran on any given day of any year

Do you not see through all of Iran's bullshit?

So.... are you saying that you would trust Iran over Trump?

Well for starters, do you see me starting posts with "News coming out of Iran"?

No?

Just because I think Bozo is an incompetent fool doesn't mean I support the Iranian regime, just as it didn't make me a Biden supporter.

To answer your question, I am just as sceptical of anything Bozo says as I am of anything coming out of Iran. They're equally dishonest, neither one less so than the other.

So Trump is really a hero.... Ha, ha.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6391072838112

A senior Trump administration intelligence official, Joe Kent, has resigned in protest over President Trump’s war in Iran.

Who resigned and from what role?

1. Joe Kent was serving as the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, making him the top U.S. counterterrorism official.
2. He is a retired Army Green Beret and was a prominent pro-Trump, MAGA-aligned appointee.

His reasons for resigning

1. In his resignation letter, Kent said he “cannot in good conscience” support the ongoing U.S. war in Iran.
2. He argued that Iran did not pose an “imminent” or “immediate” threat to the United States.
3. He claimed the conflict was started due to pressure from Israel and what he called its powerful American lobby, likening it to how he believes the U.S. was drawn into the Iraq war.

Why this matters

1. Kent’s departure is the first major resignation of Trump’s second term specifically over a core policy issue, namely the Iran war.
2. His criticism adds to existing doubts among lawmakers and analysts about the intelligence and rationale the administration used to justify striking Iran.

Trump and allies’ response

1. Trump dismissed Kent’s concerns, calling him “weak on security” and saying it was “a good thing” he left because he did not see Iran as a threat.
2. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Kent’s claims were false and insisted the president, as commander in chief, decides what constitutes a threat.?
3. House Speaker Mike Johnson, citing classified briefings, insisted Iran posed an imminent threat, pointing to nuclear enrichment and missile development

Just because I think Bozo is an incompetent fool doesn't mean I support the Iranian regime, just as it didn't make me a Biden supporter.

Just because I support some of Trump's ideas and actions does not mean that I endorse him in many other ways.

To answer your question, I am just as sceptical of anything Bozo says as I am of anything coming out of Iran. They're equally dishonest, neither one less so than the other.

That seems to be more like sitting on the fence, especially if you needed to make a crucial decision

The White House is saying that they had credible intel on Iran and that they then acted upon it ... we may never know

Iran is saying that they have nothing to hide because they did nothing at all wrong... we may never know

If you now needed to act on this information..... who do you believe in this specific instance... Iran or Trump

"The White House is saying that they had credible intel on Iran and that they then acted upon it ... we may never know"

No, we do know that's not true . . . if you're able to see through the bullshit.

Tell me DA, if you had to name a single position in Bozo's administration who would be best placed to know if there was a threat from Iran, what position would that be?

Would the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center feature in your list . . . because that guy just told us the truth. He's been fired of course . . . but I believe him.

The intel you speak of is not credible. It's just another Bozo lie that you've swallowed.

Ok, so, you will believe Iran then ... got it

Anyone else willing to put their name in this same hat and rather believe what Iran is telling the world, and not what Trump and his administration are telling the world...... we may as well see who all belongs in which group.

I will state it here and now, that I will always believe the Trump administration over anything Iran says.

No, that does not mean I believe "everything" that Trump says..... because as with many politicians and presidents.....he lies and exaggerates.... but when it comes to Iran, I will gladly take the side of the US.

If that makes me a naive and gullible person, I'll take it on the chin..... but at least I can put my stake in the ground on who I support and believe and not just say that ....... well...errrr... they are both as bad as each other...

By the way S harkshit Joe Kent was a donor to Proud Boys and anto-semetic. Are you now a supporter of Proud Boys - in itself an anto-semetic organozation.

Although Trump suppoprted him in elecions in the past - he never won any. He is on he extreme side of the RP and not really on teh inmside track on issues,

Nobody yet willing to openly state who they believe in this whole Iran war.......interesting .... let's see

No, just because I don't believe all the lies coming out of the White House doesn't mean I automatically believe the lies coming out of Iran. I thought we'd been over this already.

We've assumed a bunch of reasons for the US getting involved, so perhaps this one is worth discussing. Granted, there's every chance that it could be dribble.

Does sound like dribble to be honest. I'm not fan of the state of Israel under it's present government, but I don't think Israel would be crazy enough to use a nuke. Israel conducting an unprovoked nuclear strike on Iran would render them international pariah's on the world stage, any sort of sympathy the world had for them over the holocaust would evaporate, you could expect a permanent hostile stance towards them from all their Gulf neighbours and probably the end of trade between Israel and the EU, Israel's largest trade partner and hey could possibly be heavily sanctioned as well. You could expect a significant shift of public opinion against Israel in the US as well, even the US possibly would have to turn its back on Israel. In addition you would get an extreme rise of antisemitism globally. It simply far too big a gamble for Israel to have ever taken, unless they had absolute proof of some sort of imminent major attack attack on them by Iran was forthcoming, something such a nuclear/biological/chemical attack, a more regular attack such as with missiles, drones or attacks by Iran's proxies would not have warranted a pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Israel warned the US it would attack Iran. And the warning came with a note that said "If our airforce can't acheive the goal then we will look at the nuclear option." Trump had to decide between a potential nuclear action in the ME and assisting Isreal to eliminate the threat to a pre-determined degree.

Even the phrasing of that doesn't make sense. Wouldn't that leave the door open for America to stay out of the initial Israel strikes against Iran and wait to see what the results where before deciding to join Israel or not. It's not like Israel would nuke Iran without giving the US prior warning. Secondly even with the US joining the campaign, there was no guarantee the US could actually destroyed Iran's nuclear program either, as from what I've seen most analysts seem to think without boots on the ground the US can only set the program back in time, that can't wipe it out completely and Israel knows that.

News has come out of the White House that Trump apparently had certiied credible evidence that Iran were planning a direct attack against the US, which is why Trump acted and did what he did.

Absolute tosh. Iran has never actually directly attacked the mainland United States before. Why would they do it now when they American's had a carrier task force off their coast, it would just bring hellfire down on them. American intelligence services indicated there was no imminent threat to the US from Iran. There was no intelligence from other allied countries that showed an imminent threat to the US either. Numerous American politicians who have partook in intelligence briefings since the operation began have stated no intelligence was presented that indicated there was any threat posed to the US by Iran. Then we have the fact that Trump is one of the worlds biggest liars, he lies and insane amount and just makes stuff up.

Just take for example what he said the other day when a journalist asked him about the bombing of the girls school in Iran, the journalist said it certainly seemed like the United States was responsible as the weapon that hit the school was identified via video footage as a Tomahawk cruise missile. Trump responded that Iran has some Tomahawk missiles. This is a f**king mental statement. The ramifications of that being true is either Iran or some other actor was able to steal Tomahawk cruise missiles form the US or one of it's three allies that use them (the UK, Netherlands and Australia) or that one of those allied countries gave Iran Tomahawk missiles or they gave them to someone else who subsequently gave them Iran. Scenario one is that a massive and unpresented security breach has occurred and scenario two is the US states has been betrayed by an Allied nation in the most serious manner. Now if either such scenario occurred, it would be major news, US intelligence services would be going hell for leather trying to discover what happened, politicians on both sides of the isle would be demanding to know what happened, when did it happen, how did it happen, under who's watch did it happen. But what do we actually get in response to his claims, absolutely zero, nothing, because the US intelligence services and all the politicians know it's complete bullshit. Everyone and their dog knows, its nonsense.

We will never ever know the true extent or the veracity of this top secret information, but that is what is getting said.

That is present without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You once again demonstrate your complete inability to do any sort of critical thinking and are just wedded to political ideology.

No, just because I don't believe all the lies coming out of the White House doesn't mean I automatically believe the lies coming out of Iran. I thought we'd been over this already.

No we haven't .....and I am repeating this again because it keeps getting brought up about who to believe.

I am asking you and our fellow posters for an answer to a potentially difficult scenario, regarding what decision you would make, pertaining to starting or even supporting a certain side in this war.

If you received information from the White House right now, and you also received information from Iran right now..... who would you choose to believe before you decided to start or support a side in this war...

It's a very simple question, and one that I have already expressed my stance on.

There is no middle ground here ..... it is not a 50 / 50 decision or answer ..... you either start and support a war with Iran, or you don't

So which side would you trust and believe....... Trump or Iran

Does sound like dribble to be honest. I'm not fan of the state of Israel under it's present government

We agree on something

Absolute tosh.

Your basic opinion, nothing more

American intelligence services indicated there was no imminent threat to the US from Iran. There was no intelligence from other allied countries that showed an imminent threat to the US either. Numerous American politicians who have partook in intelligence briefings since the operation began have stated no intelligence was presented that indicated there was any threat posed to the US by Iran. Then we have the fact that Trump is one of the worlds biggest liars, he lies and insane amount and just makes stuff up.

Correct, they also said all of this in the run up to 9/11 .... that helped them... didn't it.

Just take for example what he said the other day when a journalist asked him about the bombing of the girls school in Iran, the journalist said it certainly seemed like the United States was responsible as the weapon that hit the school was identified via video footage as a Tomahawk cruise missile. Trump responded that Iran has some Tomahawk missiles. This is a f**king mental statement. The ramifications of that being true is either Iran or some other actor was able to steal Tomahawk cruise missiles form the US or one of it's three allies that use them (the UK, Netherlands and Australia) or that one of those allied countries gave Iran Tomahawk missiles or they gave them to someone else who subsequently gave them Iran. Scenario one is that a massive and unpresented security breach has occurred and scenario two is the US states has been betrayed by an Allied nation in the most serious manner. Now if either such scenario occurred, it would be major news, US intelligence services would be going hell for leather trying to discover what happened, politicians on both sides of the isle would be demanding to know what happened, when did it happen, how did it happen, under who's watch did it happen. But what do we actually get in response to his claims, absolutely zero, nothing, because the US intelligence services and all the politicians know it's complete bullshit. Everyone and their dog knows, its nonsense.

I agree here, and I actually wish that there was some way that Trump could be held liable or responsible in some way, for this kind of bullshit rethoric... I really do.

You once again demonstrate your complete inability to do any sort of critical thinking and are just wedded to political ideology.

When I see what you have previously put forward on this forum, regarding various topics in the past......it is absolutely laughable that you even want to start mentioning critical thinking, it really is.

I don't trust or believe either side.

Your question is hypothetical. I'm not sure what this information is that I'd get to make this decision but in both cases, I'd believe the opposite of what they are saying or claiming.

When Trump gets impeached for an illegal war against Iran, this is a very credible witness to the court. (Even if the Trumpazee species refuse to accept reality).

1. Joe Kent (director of the National Counterterrorism Centre)- the top U.S. counterterrorism official.
2. He is a retired Army Green Beret

1. He argued that Iran did not pose an “imminent” or “immediate” threat to the United States.
2. He claimed the conflict was started due to pressure from Israel and what he called its powerful American lobby, likening it to how he believes the U.S. was drawn into the Iraq war.

This is a very damming testimony. The person who is actually in charge of counter terrorism. Ha, Ha.

Your basic opinion, nothing more

He's provided nothing, no evidence, nada, zip, zilch, zero. As I said that is which presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Correct, they also said all of this in the run up to 9/11 .... that helped them... didn't it.

Do you any idea of how mad a world you're suggesting. If that you can with no credible evidence of a threat you can just start bombing the shit out of a country. I mean why stop at just Iran, why not pre-emptively attack Russia, they got Nukes...what if Putin is overthrown and we get an ultranationalist leader hell bent on attacking the west, or some of their nuclear weapons are stolen by terrorists, why not attack North Korea or Pakistan on the same grounds? I mean sure those threats may not be likely, but can you 100% rule out? And you can apply the same logic to any country you want. Gotta strike now before its too late, can't take any risks, New York or London could go up in mushroom cloud any second now!

1. Joe Kent (director of the National Counterterrorism Centre)- the top U.S. counterterrorism official.
2. He is a retired Army Green Beret

1. He argued that Iran did not pose an “imminent” or “immediate” threat to the United States.
2. He claimed the conflict was started due to pressure from Israel and what he called its powerful American lobby, likening it to how he believes the U.S. was drawn into the Iraq war.

If this were ever proven to be absolutely true, I woud be the first person on here to say impeach Trump, and lock him and everyone else up, who were part of the decision to go to war with Iran

He's provided nothing, no evidence, nada, zip, zilch, zero. As I said that is which presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

It sure can ... but as I have said before, you are extremely naive when it comes to what you think you should know or even deserve to know... or expect to know.

There are so many variables going around Washington 24/7, with evidence being presented across that Oval desk, every single day of this war..... and you expect it to become public knowledge.....

Not everything needs to be justified, especially if it's within the best interests of the general public not to know, or if it could in anyway give away what information they do have on their enemy.

However, if there is anything untoward, regarding decisions that were made to go to war, I fully expect every single individual to face the consequences of the law.... including Trump.

Do you any idea of how mad a world you're suggesting

Gotta strike now before its too late, can't take any risks, New York or London could go up in mushroom cloud any second now!

Ok, well let me ask you the same questions I was posing to others, given what info the White House has recently released.

Firstly, if you received "confirmed" and "credible" intelligence that Iran was going to strike the US, would you do what Trump did.

Secondly who would you believe in this war, as an outsider, given all the bullshit flying around.... Iran or Trump.

DA, what ulterior motive do you think Kent would have to lie or make any of this up?

He gave up his job.. I think that alone entitles him to be taken seriously.

Of course it's true, it's the opposite of what Bozo is saying.

Firstly, if you received "confirmed" and "credible" intelligence that Iran was going to strike the US, would you do what Trump did.

Sure that would justify a military response. But if he confirmed and credible intelligence we would know about it by now and no I don't expect the exact details of such intelligence to be published but we would have at least confirmation now by the US intelligence community and politicians who would have access to the intelligences or are on intelligence committees that such intelligence existed. We don't they have stated the exact opposite. It doesn't exist.

Ok, well let me ask you the same questions I was posing to others, given what info the White House has recently released.

They've released nothing. Trump a compulsive liar making a statement that Iran was about to attack the US is not releasing something, it's just him saying something that should we treat with the upmost scepticism given his track record, a track record so bad that everyone's default position should be to assume he's lying unless we have concrete evidence to suggest otherwise.

Secondly who would you believe in this war, as an outsider, given all the bullshit flying around.... Iran or Trump.

I don't trust Trump, I don't trust Iran. but that's irrelevant, if you make an accusation or a claim it's up to the person/people making the claim or accusation to prove it not the other way around.

The biggest threat right now to international stability is America. They are a rogue state.

Central America is getting bullied, as are Greenland and Canada. Now it is Iran,

Sure, some of these countries are run by bad people, and they have a decent amount of bad supporters.

However, there are still decent people.

Trump can just make any accusation and send his army into war.

The very person in charge of the operation are saying that Israel Lobbyists got America into the Iran war.

There is so nothing in this thread. As usual, liberal disputes are demonstrations of vacuum running into circles.

The OP works on a false premise. Typical liberals; they shift the blame, deflect, dilute responsibility, avoid accountability.

Liberals have a long history of turning criminals into heroes. It gives many references. The US and liberal Israel work as partners in crime. They motivate each other to push their own boundaries, one initiates a course of action, the other follows, the other initiates, one follows etc Once caught, they charge each other.

Of course, both criminals want the same thing, they push for the same outcome. Crime is for them a sort of friendly competition.

Even the claim is correct, it only works because the US want the same as Israel The US want to get rid of Iran as Iran compromises the US as the global hegemon

Already stated it, liberals have designed many frameworks to measure rationality in decision making. Any entity in this situation will rationally dissociate from the other. This could go as to taunting the other with a 'if you want to do it, do,it.'

Same thing as criminals two liberal dudes want to commit a heist, one is tepid and reluctant, the other pushes him by claiming he is going to use dynamite and blow the whole bank. One joins because he wants to do the heist in the first place.

Israel does want nothing that the US want. Somaliland is another example, the US want it to happen and Israel does the job. Any opposition from the US is just posturing.

Intel on what? Enriched uranium? Stealing from Iran would require boots on the ground even if the US and liberal Israel achieve their goal of triggering a civil war in Iran.

If not that, intel on what? Obama being a national traitor based on irrefutable evidences? Obama leaking classified information on UFOs? When will the criminal Obama be arrested? It would have cost fewer innocent lives than bombing Iran.

https://publish.twitter.com/?query=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fjoekent16jan19%2Fstatus%2F2033897242986209689&widget=Tweet

DA, what ulterior motive do you think Kent would have to lie or make any of this up?

I honestly have no idea at at all ... but then again, I also have no idea at all why Trump continues to lie and exaggerate ... we will never fully know why people do what they do

but he's not batshit ?

We don't they have stated the exact opposite. It doesn't exist

Still to be determined

They've released nothing

I was referring to the released statement that I mentioned earlier, not proof

a track record so bad that everyone's default position should be to assume he's lying unless we have concrete evidence to suggest otherwise.

I can understand why people think this way

I don't trust Trump, I don't trust Iran. but that's irrelevant, if you make an accusation or a claim it's up to the person/people making the claim or accusation to prove it not the other way around.

It's not irrelevant at all... because if you keep banging on that Trump is a compulsive liar and that he is also outright lying about why this war was started..... does that mean that you rather trust what Iran are saying about this, and therefore support them instead of Trump...... it's a simple question.... whose side are you on here, because it can't be 50 / 50 when lives are being lost every day.

does that mean that you rather trust what Iran are saying about this, and therefore support them instead of Trump...... it's a simple question.... whose side are you on here, because it can't be 50 / 50 when lives are being lost every day.

Very funny... Factionalism, peeps, factionalism... And dehumanisation.

It is very funny. See how liberals work. People can not have principles or nothing. It matters a lot as liberals are en route to kill hundreds of millions people.

It is very old and dates back in fact to the very start of liberalism.

Remember, peeps, liberals came up with the claim that human beings have inalienable rights etc

It works on several layers, and for the fun of it, christianity is added to the mix. Christianity frowns on people throwing around false accusations.

A liberal throws dodgy accusations, it is pointed out, and liberals translate it immediately as siding not with the principle but siding with the guy who is accused. If even the accused dude has bad press, it is siding with scum.

If now the story of unalienable rights is thrown in, pointing out that even scum people are human beings, the recipe for dehumanisation is revealed.

Trump may have lied to his own constituents, it does not matter because Iranians are scum anyway, and liberals can skim them out no matter out.

That is how this board is so enjoyable, so funny.

Liberals trying simple questions, it is very funny.

Maybe a simple way for the Trump administration would be to reveal the evidence they have on this immediate danger. There is this liberal dude in charge of the intelligence service, the liberal woman who has irrefutable evidences against Obama the national traitor who reported she had no insight on the immediate threat caused by Iran. She works for the Trump administration and she has no clue about this imminent attack. It makes two people. And fire her by the way, she has still not convinced the DOJ to press charges against the liberal Obama.

Many liberals should be in prison right now and it has not happened yet. Nobody is above the law, liberals say.

"if you keep banging on that Trump is a compulsive liar and that he is also outright lying about why this war was started..... does that mean that you rather trust what Iran are saying about this"

For the third time, no. Just because we don't trust or believe Bozo's bullshit, we don't trust or believe Iran.

Not that Iran have lied that much about the war. I'm sure they have as well but all they've really said is that they will fight to the death and I kind of believe them.

Bozo lied about his reasons for starting this war. It was a barefaced lie that Iran was an "imminent" threat.

Seems to me that Bozo didn't really have any reasons other than doing what Bibi told him to do . . . and there are no plans or objectives . . . they're just winging it.

Be serious for a moment, Rooi.

Explain what form you think that coercion came in. Unless you are saying that Israel simply told the US to attack Iran and they agreed.

For me, I could argue that Israel forced Trump's hand, but I can't see it happening on a simple day so. There would need to be more too it.

I'm saying it wasn't just Israel telling Bozo to attack Iran, it was also the "Jewish lobby" - a euphemism for a large percentage of the world's wealth.

What sway do they have over him? Are you suggesting it's a pay-war?

In the situation you're suggesting, Trump would need to be incentivised somehow.

For the third time, no. Just because we don't trust or believe Bozo's bullshit, we don't trust or believe Iran.

So who are you supporting in this war then?

You keep on blaming Trump and his administration for this war.....fine.....and you also both don't agree with Trump for starting this war......we get it...... you have made that extremely clear to everyone on this forum.... multiple times

However, you also can't just sit on the fence here.....so..... does that mean that you and Stav are supporting Iran in this current war because of what Trump has done..... just like I assume that you are supporting Ukraine against Russia because of what Putin did...

Simple question......Iran or Trump.... who do you and Stav support?

A decent number of American politicians are guns for hire. Lynsey Lohan Graeme is a war monger who profits from conflict.

Why is America so friendly with Israel? There must be Israeli lobby groups paying the US government officials.

As for Trump, everything is a trade deal to him. Many of his tariffs were really just an attempt to

DA, I'm supporting an end to the war.

Plum, of course it's a pay war. Everything about Bozo is transactional. Why should this (the single greatest "Deal" he'll be remembered for) be any different?

Look at his nature.

Somebody is making a fortune from this war. Bozo's sons by the sound of it are among them.

DA, I'm supporting an end to the war.

I am sure that we are all supporting an end to this war, and the sooner the better.

A lot of people on this forum have already said which side they are on or supporting, and why ....

I just find it extremely interesting that some people don't want to express their opinion on who they support in this war, despite a few requests.

Here's why I find it very interesting, especially from the people that are continuously targeting Trump

According to yourself, Stav, and Bob, Trump started an unnecessary war, but so did Putin

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump is a narcisist.... but so is Putin

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump is a egotistical maniac.... but so is Putin

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump listens to nobody.... but neither does Putin

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump only has "Yes" people around him... but so does Putin

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump can never ever be trusted... but neither can Putin

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump is a compulsive and repetitive liar.... but so is Putin

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump is a responsible for many deaths in this war... but so is Putin

I could go on with many more comparisons that you have all brought up before about Trump or Putin..

So ....here's the thing.

Trump is apparently all the things that you either dislike, despise or hate about Putin, which is why yourself, Stav and Bob have always supported Ukraine in their fight against the bad man ...Putin.

However, when Trump does the exact same things to Iran, that Putin has been doing to Ukraine, there are apparently no sides to be taken in this war... just support that this war must end...... interesting.

Just like the Ukraine - Russia war, this war with Iran is not a hypothetical situation.... it is real and happening right now.... however, for some reason.... some people can't say what side they support with this Iran war, but they can very easily constantly voice their support for the Ukraine - Russia war.....yet both men who started these wars, are "apparently" guilty of doing the very same things.....

It's mind boggling how people are evading answering who they support here in this war.

According to yourself, Stav, and Bob, Trump started an unnecessary war, but so did Putin

Yes.

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump is a narcisist.... but so is Putin

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump is a egotistical maniac.... but so is Putin

Putin isn't known for plastering his name all over airports, buildings and stations. I don't see Putin whining like a pathetic baby about being given a Nobel Peace prize. I don't see Putin anywhere near Bozo's levels of narcissism or egomania . . . or incompetence for that matter.

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump listens to nobody.... but neither does Putin

Yes for Bozo but I'm not so sure about Putin. He hasn't eroded all his advisors into a tiny group of lickspittles as far as I know.

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump only has "Yes" people around him... but so does Putin

Yes

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump can never ever be trusted... but neither can Putin

Yes

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump is a compulsive and repetitive liar.... but so is Putin

Yes

According to yourself, Stav and Bob, Trump is a responsible for many deaths in this war... but so is Putin

Yes.

Trump is apparently all the things that you either dislike, despise or hate about Putin, which is why yourself, Stav and Bob have always supported Ukraine in their fight against the bad man ...Putin.

However, when Trump does the exact same things to Iran, that Putin has been doing to Ukraine, there are apparently no sides to be taken in this war... just support that this war must end...... interesting.

I don't think either the invasion of Ukraine or Iran was justified and I think the reality is that both campaigns are going very badly for Putin and for Bozo respectively.

I do feel more solidarity with Ukraine than I do for Iran for whatever reasons but my personal allegiances aside, both wars are unnecessary, have caused tragic loss of life, are expensive and unpopular back home.

When it comes to the Ukraine war I am more on the side of the defenders, Ukraine.

When it comes to the Iran war I'm less on the side of the defenders Iran but still not pro USA. I don't have a dog in the fight. Operation Epic Fail is a disaster for the whole world and the sooner Bozo packs it in the better.

I don't care who wins or loses, as long as all this hatred, religious intolerance and nuclear threats ends.

I just can't answer your question with any more than that. I'm not on the side of the USA or Iran.