Cruz on Tucker (Iran)

57,461 Views | 600 Replies | Last: 2 days ago by No Spin Ag
BenFiasco14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:05p, 6/18/25
AG
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Reply Quote
8
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 1:07p, 6/18/25
AG
So you also believe Iran is highly enriching uranium in order to make turn of the century porcelain glazes?
Reply Quote
4
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 1:08p, 6/18/25
that he thinks carlson "manhandled" Cruz tells you all you need to know about where his nose is.





Reply Quote
3
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 1:11p, 6/18/25
I am STUNNED that the "world's most important historian" who thinks Israel is the Devil for launching attacks to protect itself took Carlson's side here. STUNNED I tell you!


I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
1
BenFiasco14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:13p, 6/18/25
AG
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Reply Quote
8
BenFiasco14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:13p, 6/18/25
AG
CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Reply Quote
11
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 1:14p, 6/18/25
Which poll is Massie relying on?

Here is one saying a huge majority support US involvement.




Let me guess, CNN faking polls now to help Trump?

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
11
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 1:16p, 6/18/25
BenFiasco14 said:
Stupid, but what I'd expect from Poso.

Disagreeing with Tucker Qatarson does not make one a NPC.

Agreeing with everything he says no matter how outlandish makes one a NPC.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
7
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 1:17p, 6/18/25
Im Gipper said:
Which poll is Massie relying on?
Massie doesn't care. He's been pro-Hamas/Iran for a long time. Couldn't even vote to on a resolution, which costs nothing, to condemn Hamas for Oct. 7th.

If Iran detonated a nuke in New York City harbor, he'd say we deserve it and blame Trump.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
3
Teslag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 1:18p, 6/18/25
AG
BenFiasco14 said:



"Hey guys stop being NPC's as I simply post a tweet with no context of my own"
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
RedHand
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 1:19p, 6/18/25
AG
Im Gipper said:
Which poll is Massie relying on?

Here is one saying a huge majority support US involvement.




Let me guess, CNN faking polls now to help Trump?
Opposing Iran having nuclear weapons and putting boots on the ground are completely different things. Let's at lease argue with some intellectual honesty here.
Reply Quote
6
Tramp96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RedHand • 1:23p, 6/18/25
RedHand said:
Im Gipper said:
Which poll is Massie relying on?

Here is one saying a huge majority support US involvement.




Let me guess, CNN faking polls now to help Trump?
Opposing Iran having nuclear weapons and putting boots on the ground are completely different things. Let's at lease argue with some intellectual honesty here.

Ok, let's.

The Tucker Carlsons and Thomas Massies and the like aren't just saying they are opposed to boots on the ground, they are opposed to ANY US action against Iran. Any.

Somehow at Texags, in multiple different threads (including your post above), the anti-US Action-in-Iran posters have tried to make the narrative be "boots on ground", and that all of us who are advocating for the US to intercede and make sure the job (destroying all of Iran's nuclear capabilities) is finished are somehow saying we should invade Iran with ground forces.

Can we just get rid of this "boots on the ground" inflammatory rhetoric nonsense and keep the discussion honest about what is being advocated?
Reply Quote
9
2 edits
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to RedHand • 1:23p, 6/18/25
Quote:
Opposing Iran having nuclear weapons and putting boots on the ground are completely different things.
Cool. Neither the CNN poll nor Massie mentioned "boots on the ground."

Claim:
Most Americans do not support U.S. involvement in Israel's war against Iran.

Poll:
Nearly 7 in 10 Americans support U.S. airstrikes to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.

US Airstrike are clearly "being involved" in the war.

So I ask again, what poll is Massie relying on?


Quote:
Let's at lease argue with some intellectual honesty here.
Perhaps take your own advice?

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
3
BenFiasco14
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 1:30p, 6/18/25
AG
Teslag said:
BenFiasco14 said:



"Hey guys stop being NPC's as I simply post a tweet with no context of my own"


CNN is an enemy of the state and should be treated as such.
Reply Quote
1
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Tramp96 • 1:36p, 6/18/25
AG
Tramp96 said:
RedHand said:
Im Gipper said:
Which poll is Massie relying on?

Here is one saying a huge majority support US involvement.




Let me guess, CNN faking polls now to help Trump?
Opposing Iran having nuclear weapons and putting boots on the ground are completely different things. Let's at lease argue with some intellectual honesty here.

Ok, let's.

The Tucker Carlsons and Thomas Massies and the like aren't just saying they are opposed to boots on the ground, they are opposed to ANY US action against Iran. Any.

Somehow at Texags, in multiple different threads (including your post above), the anti-US Action-in-Iran posters have tried to make the narrative be "boots on ground", and that all of us who are advocating for the US to intercede and make sure the job (destroying all of Iran's nuclear capabilities) is finished are somehow saying we should invade Iran with ground forces.

Can we just get rid of this "boots on the ground" inflammatory rhetoric nonsense and keep the discussion honest about what is being advocated?
I've tried that. They just devolve into using "slippery slope" type of arguments. Ultimately, these type of people are just isolationists and will do whatever it takes to convince people of their position through fear mongering.
Reply Quote
4
zoneag
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 1:41p, 6/18/25
Reply Quote
4
Deputy Travis Junior
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 1:44p, 6/18/25
BenFiasco14 said:


Tucker's allowed to ask questions but when he says things that he knows are 100% false like "Iran is part of the BRICS alliance so fighting with Iran risks a world War!" he deserves to be called out for acting like a lying propagandist.

Maybe 20 years ago, Christopher Hitchens said that he loved Tucker's writing so much that he hoped Tucker would never go into TV. In Hitchens' opinion, jumping to TV journalism changes you from a serious thinker who contributes to the national thought and dialog into a simple ratings chasing w00r, and it would be a shame to lose as great a thinker as Tucker.

I don't think a prediction has ever been more accurate.
Reply Quote
4
Im Gipper
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to zoneag • 1:45p, 6/18/25
Thank you!

I'm Gipper
Reply Quote
Quo Vadis?
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to javajaws • 1:54p, 6/18/25
javajaws said:
Tramp96 said:
RedHand said:
Im Gipper said:
Which poll is Massie relying on?

Here is one saying a huge majority support US involvement.




Let me guess, CNN faking polls now to help Trump?
Opposing Iran having nuclear weapons and putting boots on the ground are completely different things. Let's at lease argue with some intellectual honesty here.

Ok, let's.

The Tucker Carlsons and Thomas Massies and the like aren't just saying they are opposed to boots on the ground, they are opposed to ANY US action against Iran. Any.

Somehow at Texags, in multiple different threads (including your post above), the anti-US Action-in-Iran posters have tried to make the narrative be "boots on ground", and that all of us who are advocating for the US to intercede and make sure the job (destroying all of Iran's nuclear capabilities) is finished are somehow saying we should invade Iran with ground forces.

Can we just get rid of this "boots on the ground" inflammatory rhetoric nonsense and keep the discussion honest about what is being advocated?
I've tried that. They just devolve into using "slippery slope" type of arguments. Ultimately, these type of people are just isolationists and will do whatever it takes to convince people of their position through fear mongering.


Respectfully, if you're not jaded over our last 40 years of foreign policy and don't realize the slippery slope has been the rule and not the exception, I don't know what to tell you.

The only small hope I have that Trump could actually do an air strike and leave is what he did with Soleimani, but it would be out of character from the way we've always handled business
Reply Quote
7
Tramp96
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Quo Vadis? • 1:58p, 6/18/25
Quo Vadis? said:
javajaws said:
Tramp96 said:
RedHand said:
Im Gipper said:
Which poll is Massie relying on?

Here is one saying a huge majority support US involvement.




Let me guess, CNN faking polls now to help Trump?
Opposing Iran having nuclear weapons and putting boots on the ground are completely different things. Let's at lease argue with some intellectual honesty here.

Ok, let's.

The Tucker Carlsons and Thomas Massies and the like aren't just saying they are opposed to boots on the ground, they are opposed to ANY US action against Iran. Any.

Somehow at Texags, in multiple different threads (including your post above), the anti-US Action-in-Iran posters have tried to make the narrative be "boots on ground", and that all of us who are advocating for the US to intercede and make sure the job (destroying all of Iran's nuclear capabilities) is finished are somehow saying we should invade Iran with ground forces.

Can we just get rid of this "boots on the ground" inflammatory rhetoric nonsense and keep the discussion honest about what is being advocated?
I've tried that. They just devolve into using "slippery slope" type of arguments. Ultimately, these type of people are just isolationists and will do whatever it takes to convince people of their position through fear mongering.


Respectfully, if you're not jaded over our last 40 years of foreign policy and don't realize the slippery slope has been the rule and not the exception, I don't know what to tell you.

The only small hope I have that Trump could actually do an air strike and leave is what he did with Soleimani, but it would be out of character from the way we've always handled business

Yes, you make a great point, I would just correct it to the last 75 years of foreign policy, going back to Korea.

But we can't let the mistakes of the past cause us to fall off the horse on the other side.

We can't let Iran have a nuclear weapon.
Reply Quote
1
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BenFiasco14 • 2:08p, 6/18/25
BenFiasco14 said:


I am admittedly torn here. Putting a lot of faith in a backwards hardline Islamic nation to just trust that all of the "great Satan" and "death to the west" stuff they've spewed time and time again is just "feel good" hollow rhetoric to placate their base. And that they just wanted to develop nuclear energy for altruistic peaceful reasons.

I am more anti-war than I ever have been. But what if we are the novices with no detail here? Just because there were no WMD's in Iraq does not mean there can be no WMD's here.

It's ok to admit that we don't have much information and are flying blind and that the two options are basically blindly trust Iran forever or trust Israel/US.

None of us really have a clue what is happening imo. I think deep down that is what has a lot of people wiggin out.
Reply Quote
1 edit
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to El Gallo Blanco • 2:25p, 6/18/25
AG
El Gallo Blanco said:
BenFiasco14 said:


I am admittedly torn here. Putting a lot of faith in a backwards hardline Islamic nation to just trust that all of the "great Satan" and "death to the west" stuff they've spewed time and time again is just "feel good" hollow rhetoric to placate their base. And that they just wanted to develop nuclear energy for altruistic peaceful reasons.

I am more anti-war than I ever have been. But what if we are the novices with no detail here? Just because there were no WMD's in Iraq does not mean there can be no WMD's here.

It's ok to admit that we don't have much information and are flying blind and that the two options are basically blindly trust Iran forever or trust Israel/US.

None of us really have a clue what is happening imo. I think deep down that is what has a lot of people wiggin out.
We will never know all the known facts for ourselves - there's too much top secret intel at play here. So we're left with using our own judgement based on incomplete data and unfortunately what the media and pundits say here usually plays a large part in what people choose to think. An unreasonably large part. And that's because people (as a whole) just don't have the time and/or intellect to find and read what raw data is available for themselves and instead choose to put their belief in other's conclusions that they "trust". Its just the way it is...always has been, always will.
Reply Quote
1
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Im Gipper • 2:35p, 6/18/25
Im Gipper said:
Which poll is Massie relying on?

Here is one saying a huge majority support US involvement.




Let me guess, CNN faking polls now to help Trump?
We also have to be specific in how we define "war" in these conversations.

I bet a lot of the people that would love to see a few bunker busters put a final end to Iran's uranium enrichment capabilities absolutely DO NOT want to see us engage in a war with them. Especially another decades long drawn out one.

You CAN be for the former and against the latter. It's kind of crazy how black and white Tucker and the gang are trying to make this out to be. And i like Tucker and agree with him more often than not.

Remember, Tucker believes that angels and demons are coming down here in spaceships and waging a spiritual war on earth. He's generally pretty solid, but has quite a few "out there" takes from time to time.
Reply Quote
2
3 edits
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to javajaws • 2:40p, 6/18/25
javajaws said:
El Gallo Blanco said:
BenFiasco14 said:


I am admittedly torn here. Putting a lot of faith in a backwards hardline Islamic nation to just trust that all of the "great Satan" and "death to the west" stuff they've spewed time and time again is just "feel good" hollow rhetoric to placate their base. And that they just wanted to develop nuclear energy for altruistic peaceful reasons.

I am more anti-war than I ever have been. But what if we are the novices with no detail here? Just because there were no WMD's in Iraq does not mean there can be no WMD's here.

It's ok to admit that we don't have much information and are flying blind and that the two options are basically blindly trust Iran forever or trust Israel/US.

None of us really have a clue what is happening imo. I think deep down that is what has a lot of people wiggin out.
We will never know all the known facts for ourselves - there's too much top secret intel at play here. So we're left with using our own judgement based on incomplete data and unfortunately what the media and pundits say here usually plays a large part in what people choose to think. An unreasonably large part. And that's because people (as a whole) just don't have the time and/or intellect to find and read what raw data is available for themselves and instead choose to put their belief in other's conclusions that they "trust". Its just the way it is...always has been, always will.
Agreed...I just think it's quite the conspiracy theory to believe that Iran has never been developing nuclear weapons and that it was all lies from "The Jews" this whole time lol. Or that they have been doing so, but with noble humanistic intent lol. They were just joshing when they kept talking about death to Israel and the US/west.

I will be pissed if we enter into any type of war here...but if we need to lend a plane to the Israeli's to completely kill their underground nuclear program....meh.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
jrdaustin
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Yukon Cornelius • 3:04p, 6/18/25
AG
Yukon Cornelius said:
You've listed reason why to do it but you should know basic demographics to plan the outfall of overthrowing a government.
Yeah, but it's not Cruz's job to plan the overthrow. He needs to know the high points and whether they are correct: Does the regime in control of Iran have hostile intent against us and Israel? Do they have the means to act upon that intent? Is there something we can do to eliminate that threat that Israel cannot do, or must do at a significantly elevated risk because they do not have the means that we do to carry out the mission?

Knowing the exact population of Iran, or the percentage of Sunni to Shia, or the preferred national meals are not variables that figure into decision making of the above.

That's the out. If we act, we don't do so for the purposes of regime change. We do so to eliminate a specific threat... ie. offensive nuclear capability.
Reply Quote
2
javajaws
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to El Gallo Blanco • 3:06p, 6/18/25
AG
El Gallo Blanco said:
javajaws said:
El Gallo Blanco said:
BenFiasco14 said:


I am admittedly torn here. Putting a lot of faith in a backwards hardline Islamic nation to just trust that all of the "great Satan" and "death to the west" stuff they've spewed time and time again is just "feel good" hollow rhetoric to placate their base. And that they just wanted to develop nuclear energy for altruistic peaceful reasons.

I am more anti-war than I ever have been. But what if we are the novices with no detail here? Just because there were no WMD's in Iraq does not mean there can be no WMD's here.

It's ok to admit that we don't have much information and are flying blind and that the two options are basically blindly trust Iran forever or trust Israel/US.

None of us really have a clue what is happening imo. I think deep down that is what has a lot of people wiggin out.
We will never know all the known facts for ourselves - there's too much top secret intel at play here. So we're left with using our own judgement based on incomplete data and unfortunately what the media and pundits say here usually plays a large part in what people choose to think. An unreasonably large part. And that's because people (as a whole) just don't have the time and/or intellect to find and read what raw data is available for themselves and instead choose to put their belief in other's conclusions that they "trust". Its just the way it is...always has been, always will.
Agreed...I just think it's quite the conspiracy theory to believe that Iran has never been developing nuclear weapons and that it was all lies from "The Jews" this whole time lol. Or that they have been doing so, but with noble humanistic intent lol. They were just joshing when they kept talking about death to Israel and the US/west.

I will be pissed if we enter into any type of war here...but if we need to lend a plane to the Israeli's to completely kill their underground nuclear program....meh.
I'm certainly not gonna lose any sleep over some spent ordinance and fuel. I'm sure those boys could use some more realistic training time anyway.

To all the useful idiots saying that even that requires a declaration of war from Congress...we haven't declared war since WWII. Get real.
Reply Quote
4
esteban
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:20p, 6/18/25
Here is the full interview. I just finished it. Cruz tried to play the antisemitism card around the 40 minute mark, and it did not go well. He really needs to work on these talking points or stick to interviewers that will hold hands with him.

Reply Quote
5
nortex97
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:24p, 6/18/25
AG
Not sure if posted on this thread, but I LOL'ed.
Reply Quote
3
esteban
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:37p, 6/18/25
Everyone loves Tucker until he torches someone they voted for.
Reply Quote
9
BMX Bandit
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to esteban • 3:40p, 6/18/25
esteban said:
Everyone loves Tucker until he torches someone they voted for.
.

He didn't torch anyone.

It's an exciting time for you liberal Biden supporters having others irrationally go against Cruz.
Reply Quote
10
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to nortex97 • 3:44p, 6/18/25
nortex97 said:
Not sure if posted on this thread, but I LOL'ed.
Tucker didn't break anyone.

He just showed how much of an ass he is.

Put Cruz and Tucker on a debate stage and Tucket will be crying for his mommy in short order. Asking stupid gotcha questions not breaking anyone.

Add the Hodge Twins to the list of social media idiots.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
7
Rapier108
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to esteban • 3:44p, 6/18/25
esteban said:
Everyone loves Tucker until he torches someone they voted for.
Tucker has his worshipers like Alex Jones does.

Everyone else thinks they're kooks.
"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
Reply Quote
3
TexAgs91
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Teslag • 3:47p, 6/18/25
AG
Teslag said:
I used to love Tucker but the guy is nuttier than a fruitcake now. I think the Fox fallout completely wrecked him as a person. And I can't really blame him for that. He was ****ed over in that deal.


On this issue, Tucker has always been this way
No, I don't care what CNN or Miss NOW said this time
Ad Lunam
Reply Quote
El Gallo Blanco
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Rapier108 • 3:54p, 6/18/25
Rapier108 said:
nortex97 said:
Not sure if posted on this thread, but I LOL'ed.
Tucker didn't break anyone.

He just showed how much of an ass he is.

Put Cruz and Tucker on a debate stage and Tucket will be crying for his mommy in short order. Asking stupid gotcha questions not breaking anyone.

Add the Hodge Twins to the list of social media idiots.
Yep, unfollowed them when they had a filthy over-the-hill p0rn star on their podcast and were acting like perverts. Not that I was a huge fan, but I followed them on Instagram.

It's one thing to have a former p0rn star on to talk about changing her life or helping other women get out of the industry, but they were tal;king about genitalia and sexual acts with smiles on their faces from what I remember.

That's trashy in and of itself, but I would imagine they have a lot of teenage and younger followers who follow them for the politics.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Yukon Cornelius
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to IslanderAg04 • 3:57p, 6/18/25
AG
IslanderAg04 said:
Yukon Cornelius said:
That's kind of my point. What discussions have there been about what our role will be after the fact? We really don't know what the high level of government is thinking or planning. Are they going to take refugees? Are we going to send in Halliburton? Does it become Syria 2.0 with a decade of bombings?


There is no role after. Trump has stated, the goal is removing nuclear capabilities. If the Iranians want a regime change, the Persians need to rise up and do it.


How do we feel about boots on the ground post strikes to inspect the sites?
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.