They're different questions. One is whether they support the way Trump is doing it. The other is whether they support a war overall.

Their reason for supporting a war but not the way Trump is doing it could range from it being too extreme to not being extreme enough. Some people unironically want nuclear weapons to be dropped and will settle for nothing less.

Pray? Is this the new federalized form of voting for November and onward?

My gut feeling is that next person after him (if he actually gives up office which is in land of wishful thinking at this point) may be worse, and even visibly worse and US folks will still vote for him/her.

I sure hope my gut is wildly incorrect this time, for me, you, and mankind overall.

Trump's approval rating among his base is still overwhelmingly high. They know what they were voting for, and they still support him. They know that Trump lies like he breathes, and they are perfectly fine with that. Trump supporters themselves are largely liars. They do not openly state the positions they actually hold. That Trump says X and does Y is fine because his supporters say X and believe Y. Words are a game to them, a means to accomplish a goal rather than something to communicate honestly with.

The most important thing to understand about Trump and conservatism in general, by far, is that there is one central principle that underpines the entire ideology: hierarchy. Going back to the time of kings and nobility and clergy, through to the present day.

"Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

One set of laws for the people higher in the hierarchy, and one set of laws for the people lower in the hierarchy. Things that are okay for them to do are not okay for you to do. Wars started by Democrats are bad. Wars started by Republicans are good. They know this is not convincing rhetoric to anyone who is not part of the in-group, so they lie about their reasons and play games with words. This, however, is what they truly believe.

It is why every action they take appears hypocritical to their opponents, but in actuality, it is perfectly consistent with their values - it is good when they do it, because everything is good when they do it, and it is bad when somebody else does it, because everything is bad when somebody else does it. It is why "the only moral abortion is my abortion". It is why the exact same policies executed by different presidents will have the same approval rating by democrats, but a completely inverse approval rating by republicans (eg 40% of Democrats approve of either Obama or Trump striking Syria, while 20% of Republicans approve if Obama does it and 80% approve if Trump does it). It is the single consistent trend through all of their policies. They know exactly what they were voting for, and that is for the man who represents their hierarchy. The games he plays with words are part of the platform.

Edit: I have rewrote the message quite a bit, apologies if anything doesn't make sense.

Well yeah but he is a pathological liar, fraudster and a criminal. This was well known during 2nd election campaign.

Expecting to hold any promises just because they were said and got him where he wanted is a bit naive, don't you think? Or does the idea of 'but now he will act completely differently to his entire prior life!' makes any sense to you?

And that borrow/print in the end is either future tax dollars/inflation/US pays, stealing from other nations, or default on debt.

Nothing stops you, but I suppose murdering tens of thousands of your own people is a fairly clear delineation that you are not a singular entity?

After they killed 40k+ in Jan? Perhaps.

Varies. Not all of them are equal. At least not in the same way. Distinctions are important. NYT, for example, employs Farnaz Fassihi who's a known regime shill. CNN recently sent a reporter live to the region who has to operate under the regime's restrictions to be let in and cannot accurately report everything even if they wanted to. Same with Reuters who has an office inside. They basically had a choice to bite the bullet and agree to the terms and be one of the few foreign reporters with access, or not have access at all and freely report.

That said, PressTV is different from the above a it's an officially a state-operated entity, so it is not a question of mere bias.

I fear that the push for increasing defense spending in Europe was in preparation for a new NATO alliance case. They are certainly going to try it.

UK is bossed around by the US, ever since WW2. We don't have many choices that don't involve the USA inflicting revenge. They're bullies

It's like criticising an abused wife with no job no money and not many friends for not just leaving immediately, and the husband is rich, powerful and knows everyone

The USSR acquiring nuclear weapons was the closest humanity has come to complete annihilation. We were one bad day away from extinction during the Cold War. I'm not sure I would point to that as something we should do more of. Not to mention the potential for accidents and mistakes.

I don't think bombing a country should be the first course of action. Diplomatic action should leave no stone unturned. But if all of that fails, it is strategically advantageous and safer for the world to prevent countries from acquiring nukes by any means necessary.

If you set the example that the cost of pursuing nuclear weapons is unbearable, countries will find better things to do, like enriching themselves in more productive ways.

I think most people in the middle east will tell you that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is bad. As I'm sure you're aware, they are a major supporter of terrorist organizations.

As far as I know, most countries don't require such an agreement because they don't develop nuclear weapons. Are we forgetting that Iran has autonomy?

North Korea has the backing of the US' two most powerful adversaries, it was not a free pass.

The US can deploy a carrier strike group faster than any nation can build a nuclear weapon. And after seeing the hellfire unleashed on Iran, it is clear that pursuing nuclear weapons may not be the answer it once appeared to be.

Meanwhile, the so-called vassal states of the US - some of the richest countries on Earth mind you - haven't bothered to deploy nuclear weapons because we have no use for them.

Iran has zero leverage. Any leverage given is an olive branch. Obama era diplomacy was the right path, Trump is a moron. But the bigger issue here is Iran's free-will pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is a choice they're making. They choose to pursue nuclear weapons, forcing the US to either take a diplomatic path to stop them, or intervene.

They don't have to build nuclear weapons! They're just doing that shit.

I'm not American. There is a host of publicly available proof of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is not, and has never been, a well kept secret of the regime.