Current Events > Do you believe Kamala would have also bombed Iran?

(+) Yeah! (+)

For all of Trumps issues, I think this is the one thing that any who happened to be president at the time would have done. The only consistent thing across all wings of both parties is never going against Israel. Ever. So this is less a fault with Trump specifically and more an issue with the fact that the American political establishment will obey Israels every whim. Trump is a populist and most of his own base did not want this. So Israel must have been pushing for it very heavily.

You see, it really doesnt matter because she didnt EARN my vote. I mean, what even were her policies???

Also CNN after these strikes, probably:
Heres how this is bad for Biden/Harris / Heres how the strikes are the fault of Biden/Harris

Yes since these were Biden's bombs. /s

No but severe sanctions on anyone breathing on Israel.
Had she won, it'd be the Biden watching Bibi genocide wrist slapping.

Hillary would've, just as Trump sold you so.

Thank God she laughed so we never got to find out.

/s

Probably not, I guess? Israel's doing fine on its own...

Not saying its her fault, or Bidens, obviously. This has been an issue with the entire American political establishment for decades. Even outsiders like Trump and Bernie still bow down to Israel.

Yeah she loved her most lethal military, although I doubt it would go down in quite the same clownish fashion.

Harris the Hawk
Donald the Dove
/s

Probably not but you can bet if she did that Donald Trump and the mainstream media would absolutely crucify her.

I think Netanyahu was forcing the US one way or another.

hivebent4life posted...

Not saying its her fault, or Bidens, obviously. This has been an issue with the entire American political establishment for decades. Even outsiders like Trump and Bernie still bow down to Israel.

The few rare heroes who call Israel out for being shit get flushed out of politics by the dozens of millions of dollars dropped on them by AIPAC.

No I don't think she would have.

But it doesn't matter, just like what I think Gore would have don't after 9/11 doesn't matter because we are stuck with what we have

Maybe, but Kamela wouldn't have made any money from doing it

No she wouldn't have

Honestly speaking yes, I do.

Because the reality is America is dropping those bombs because of what Israel/Netanyahu started and they would have started this hot war with Iran regardless of who won last year (they were very likely already drawing up plans before Biden even stepped down).

There is not a single president that would allow Iran to have nuclear weapons which, based on their prior history, would get used on another nation at some point (just look at their response to Operation Praying Mantis. Reagen's administration had to literally offer them an off-ramp, because Iran's response to having half their navy effortlessly sunk in eight hours was to cross a red line with America that would have begun a hot war with them directly. They couldn't win, knew they couldn't, had it clearly demonstrated to them, and chose to then pick the fight anyway. You cannot allow hotheaded morons nukes, simple as.

Not I am not saying Israel's government themselves aren't extremely loose canons themselves, they are, but when it comes to nuclear weapons they have proven they won't fire them unless actually genuinely forced to. Unlike Iran.)

Israel ensured by attacking Iran directly like this that if Iran's nuclear program and/or regime survives this current conflict they will pursue and get nuclear weapons within a few more years. They (likely intentionally) forced America's hand.

The fact the White House is currently babysitting a senile dementia-ridden convicted rapist moron honestly doesn't change the equation, only how it's sold to the American public.

Obama pursued diplomacy with Iran. Harris might have. Wish we had the chance to find out.

hivebent4life posted...

Not saying its her fault, or Bidens, obviously. This has been an issue with the entire American political establishment for decades. Even outsiders like Trump and Bernie still bow down to Israel.

Dude that's dumb. The entirety of US foreign policy going back decades is exclusively the fault of Biden and Harris. They're the only ones that need to be held accountable when something bad happens there.

A_Good_Boy posted...

. The entirety of US foreign policy going back decades is exclusively the fault of Biden and Harris.

?????

Evening_Dragon posted...

?????

They're the ones that gotta learn the lesson.

M1Astray posted...

The fact the White House is currently babysitting a senile dementia-ridden convicted rapist moron honestly doesn't change the equation, only how it's sold to the American public.

No, it does when that same senile, dementia-ridden, convicted rapist moron is the one who tore up the nuclear contract that was already agreed upon and signed by Obama that Iran was already abiding by in the first place.

Because that's what happened.

"Oh, Barack HUSSEIN Obama penned that deal!? Rip ripity rip rip rip! Obama bad! Me good! Art of the Deal, DUUUUUURRRRRRR."

The republican playbook has always been

Invent crisis>>>>>>create and pass "solution" that makes crisis worse (we are here)>>>>>do nothing when solution makes crisis worse>>>>>claim victory>>>>>>>blame dems

No, because we would've still had the deal that Trump destroyed.

Unfortunately, yes.

Edit: Given these circumstances of Israel attacking Iran and then asking for the US to bomb Fordo specifically.

No but she would've aided Israel in some way similar to Biden.

I'd like to think she wouldn't.

But whether she could refuse the call from Netanyahu, I'm not 100% sure.

I don't know. But she's also not in power and has not decided to bomb Iran

We just gotta both sides everything, huh

No

Apart from flights of fancy like tearing up the nuclear deal, foreign policy is often not responsive to public opinion and is driven by "US Interests" that are largely consistent between administrations. That goes triple for anything related to Israel.

So there's a good chance she would have if it got to this point. But she never would've ripped up the deal under any circumstances.

I'm not saying she wouldn't have ended up here, but I don't think she would have done the same as Donnie. By that I mean that Gabbard was not given the company line beforehand and it makes every one involved look even more like fools.

If Kamala joined in there would have been an Israel level of lead up about how Iran was seconds away from nuclear capability.

Whoever is President really doesn't matter when it comes to Israeli policy. The only difference is which side will be mad about it. Let's not pretend the established Democratic leadership are not rather hawkish when it comes to Middle Eastern policies.

I do not think she would have. I know the US would have continued to back Israel, but I think the decision to actually drop bombs is not one she would have made under the current circumstances.

There is no way to know for sure. Here is something I do know for sure. President Obama had a deal with Iran that was working and that Iran appeared to be honoring. it was to their benefit to do so. Trump tore it up because he is an ego driven, stupid toddler. If that agreement were still in place, no bombing would be happening at all.

It is amazing how Trump ruins everything he touches, and always gets a second and third and fourth chance to fuck everything up over and over again. It has been happening over and over again over decades of public life. I know the answer is cuz money, but it is still fascinating that associates and then voters watch this guy face plant over and over and keep giving him the keys to stuff.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Probably this yeah. I mean you see how many congress people are frothing at the mouth about bombing Iran right now

No. No I don't believe she would.

I dont believe shed have directly involved US forces, but I could absolutely believe shed assist Israel in carrying out a similar strike, including providing the necessary equipment.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Iran attack us because we attacked them first? I don't think Harris would bomb Iran unprovoked. If they fired the first shot then retaliation is a lot more reasonable, as opposed to the war hawkish insanity Trump is trying to pull.

Not the way Trump did. Kamala would be following the rules every president has followed. Trump has thrown away the rules.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

She would not have attacked them the way Trump did. No president Republican or Democrat would have.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Harris was being pressured to support a cease fire between Isreal and Palestine, if successful I don't see her attacking Iran for Isreal. Now yes there is the issue of us still having a government largely subservient to Isreal, but inherently I don't see Harris as anywhere near as bloodthirsty as Trump is.

Meanwhile Trump bends over backwards for Isreal's leader (He must have a lot practice with Putin), and has a desperate need to look tough. He's a lot easier to goad into horrible decisions.

Anyone who still thinks Harris would have done this are simply Trump supporters who need a pat on their back for voting a war hawk because they couldn't be bothered to pay attention to what he was saying.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


There are a lot of reasons I think this, but I dont have time to get into them all as I have to go back to work. So I will just give the most basic, self-serving one:The US being involved in an overt conflict in the Middle East is not going to be popular, especially with Democrats. Harris would have been in a much different position than Trump-a first term President without a brainwashed cult that will vote for her no matter what. She would have had a lot to lose doing this a few months into her first term.

I think she would have backed Israel in different, less overt ways. I also think there are less cynical reasons why we can assume Harris and Democrats would not follow this Trump course. But the first thing that comes to mind is that I cannot see Harris in her position taking such blatant action without a big, more urgent change in circumstances.