I'm not convinced that the Iranian people hate their government as much as you think they do. Remember how the current government came to power:Philip wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 9:39 amThere's nothing wrong with desiring regime change in Iran AS LONG AS it doesn't involved attempting to destabilize it by creating either civil war or attacking and occupying it. Severe sanctions are good, etc. Discouraging other countries - even penalizing them - for doing business with Iran - fine. But creating a power vacuum or civil war - VERY bad!!! The people of Iran need to bring the old Mullahs' rule to an end - and we should be supportive of that. But even so, it is unlikely to occur without massive bloodshed. Believe me, the people absolutely hate their rulers - particularly the young!
1- Iran had a corrupt, authoritarian government under the Shahs.
2 - That government was overthrown and a Muslim government was voted into power. That government tried to nationalize Iranian oil reserves and invalidate terrible deals made by the previous government.
3 - The US responded by using the CIA to destabilize Iran, overthrow the democratically elected government, and put the corrupt, repressive Shahs back in charge.
4 - The Iranians responded with a revolution against the Shahs, which brought the current government into power.
Even if the people do hate the current regime as much as our propaganda would have us believe, I can't imagine that they trust us much either. After all, they have cause to question the sincerity of our desire to see them free from tyranny. There were strings attached last time, and "free to be an American proxy state" isn't quite the same as "free."
In any case, here are John Bolton's thoughts on Iran. I don't get the sense that he favors a cautious, measured approach using sanctions and international pressure.
The other thing that I think needs to be considered is that there's just no possible way to take down a totalitarian regime in the middle of an unstable region without increasing the amount if instability. Civil war, chaos, and massive bloodshed would be virtually guaranteed.
This is what I'm talking about.
In your mind we desperately need a huge wall to protect the American people because Trump says it's true, Trump says he knows more than anybody, and Trump says he would never tell a lie. You're a big fan of loudmouthed blowhards using circular reasoning to support unsubstantiated claims so you believe it.
Foreign aid versus building a wall isn't an either/or question. We could do both. The question is whether or not we should.
Foreign aid is useful to us. It gives us international prestige and goodwill, which makes American citizens safer when they go abroad and gets us more cooperation from foreign governments when we need it. Foreign aid is what we use to show that we're the good guys. Beyond that, once a country is dependent on our aid we have them over a barrel and we can use the promise of increasing, decreasing, or suspending that aid to nudge them to behave the way we think they should. And we do that, because frankly Uncle Sam and Don Corleone have a lot in common. International relations is chess, Abe, not tic-tac-toe.
The Wall is a different matter. If Trump wants his wall he needs to stop BS-ing and give us a clear, rational explanation for why a wall is needed, and he needs to support it with data. He needs to provide a plan for how the Wall will be built and precisely how much it will cost to build it, staff it, and maintain it. In other words, he needs to act like a [love] grownup acts when he wants people to entrust him with a buttload of money. All Trump has done so far is make threats and emotional appeals. It's almost as if the Wall was a thoughtless, throw-away line that just caught fire. Now Trump knows that he needs it, but he still hasn't taken the time to prove that the rest of us need it, too.
For you to claim that paying foreign aid while declining to fund a new border wall is treasonous shows that your mind has the depth of a mud puddle on a sunny afternoon. There is plenty of evidence that giving foreign aid benefits our country and very little evidence that the Mexican border is a threat to our national security. One of Congress's duties - as spelled out in the Constitution you're always harping about but have clearly never read - is to act as a check on the President. One of the ways that Congress can fulfill that duty - also explicitly stated in the Constitution - is by declining to fund Presidential plans that are stupid or incomplete.
Oh, and it's the Democratic Party, Dunce Cap. You fixed the spelling on FIZA, so I live in hope. Maybe you're an adult after all.