Randahl FinkMar 17

Trump’s illegal war in Iran is supported by just 41 percent of Americans, even before the first marines have landed on the shores of south Iran.

Good morning Vietnam.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/10/us/politics/polls-wars-us-support.html

Unlike Past U.S. Conflicts, Iran Attack Is Opposed by Most Americans

While the public has historically backed military intervention initially in international conflicts, deep polarization has left the latest strikes against Iran with record-low support.

The New York Times
Show threadGhostOnTheHalfShellMar 17

@randahl

The rationale for the war is weapons of mass destruction 2.0

America and America’s media system fell forward all over again

Show threadLeelooMar 17

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @randahl
That doesn't even make sense. With Iraq there was an agreement (forced, but still, it existed) that Iraq was not allowed WMD after the first Iraq war.

There is no such agreement with Iran. Iran has just as much right to have weapons of mass destruction as the US or Israel. If they were honest about WMDs being the reason, they would be going after those two countries.

There used to be one for nuclear weapons specifically, but I seem to recall a certain president tore that one up.

Show threadGhostOnTheHalfShell

@leeloo @randahl

The stated justification is nukes. US intelligence agencies are very clear about this. They don’t have them and they were not pursuing them or anywhere near to having them.

The person who ripped up the agreement was Donald Trump, who just happened to have started a war when they had agreed to full inspections again and other measures

Mar 17 at 2:38pmWeb
Show threadLeelooMar 17

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @randahl
Still bullshit. You can't tear up an agreement and expect the other side to abide by it. Iran has as much right to have nukes as Israel and the US.

And again, if that was the honest reason, they would be going after those two countries.

Show threadGhostOnTheHalfShellMar 17

@leeloo @randahl

Intelligence officers inside the United States and I think one of them is just quit over this topic says *Iran* does not have nukes and is not pursuing them.

This is why I’m saying weapons of mass destruction 2.0 because the rationale for invading Iraq was based on a false premise of threat

Show threadLeelooMar 17
@GhostOnTheHalfShell @randahl
That does not affect my argument, that it is not a valid reason even if it was true.
Show threadGhostOnTheHalfShellMar 17

@leeloo @randahl

Then what is under dispute? Unless you missed the sarcasm in my initial post.

The point of the sarcasm is to say it’s ridiculous because chiefly it’s a lie.

But you wanna tell me I’m wrong somehow I don’t understand the nature of this conversation

Show threadLeelooMar 17

@GhostOnTheHalfShell @randahl
Oh. I just re-read my first response, and my "that doesn't even make sense" can be read as your post not making sense. Sorry about that, I meant the WMD argument doesn't make sense.

We don't disagree, we just see them (US govt) being dishonest from two different angles.

Again, sorry for my post being ambiguous as to who is not making sense.

Show threadGhostOnTheHalfShellMar 17

@leeloo @randahl

Yeah, no worries. It’s a hazard of text.. we end up vigorously agreeing. :)

It’s just the nature of the beast