Political fallout and arguments regarding the US-Israeli action against Iran 022824

592,012 Views | 6077 Replies | Last: 13 min ago by flown-the-coop
Ag83
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Phatbob • 6:57p, 6/29/26
AG
Phatbob said:
AGHouston11 said:
If it hasn't moved since Midnight Hammer then what was the imminent threat? It's a rhetorical question.

No matter how many times you try to force "imminent threat", that was never part of the initial discussion. It was always opportunity and capacity of Iran to stave off our ability to remove any imminent threat if they continued down their stated path. As much as you really, really want to produce some sort of misleading into war or lies or failure, you have nothing to go on here, as per usual, without reframing the entire circumstances to begin with.

"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

-Donald J. Trump; remarks of 2/28/26

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-full-statement-on-us-iran-attack-major-combat-operations/
Reply Quote
19
1 edit
mjschiller
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:47p, 6/29/26
AG
We have been threatening Iran since March. Keep saying, things look good. Nothing will be good until ALL the NRGC leadership are eliminated.
Marvin J. Schiller
Reply Quote
1
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag83 • 11:50p, 6/29/26
AG
Ag83 said:
Phatbob said:
AGHouston11 said:
If it hasn't moved since Midnight Hammer then what was the imminent threat? It's a rhetorical question.

No matter how many times you try to force "imminent threat", that was never part of the initial discussion. It was always opportunity and capacity of Iran to stave off our ability to remove any imminent threat if they continued down their stated path. As much as you really, really want to produce some sort of misleading into war or lies or failure, you have nothing to go on here, as per usual, without reframing the entire circumstances to begin with.

"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

-Donald J. Trump; remarks of 2/28/26

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-full-statement-on-us-iran-attack-major-combat-operations/


From dust that we now no longer care about because it's been safely buried since Midnight Hammer.

The messaging on this war by Trump has never made sense. And each time he moves the goal post he has his goal tenders defending the move to no end.
Reply Quote
13
nortex97
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 mjschiller • 5:16a, 6/30/26
AG
mjschiller said:
We have been threatening Iran since March. Keep saying, things look good. Nothing will be good until ALL the NRGC leadership are eliminated.

Yes, though a lot of the IRGC underpinnings in the region are getting decimated imho.
Reply Quote
AggieCVQ
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag83 • 6:50a, 6/30/26
That's not fair you can't use Trump's words it's IRGC propaganda.
Reply Quote
15
1 edit
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 7:30a, 6/30/26
The reason that the messaging it doesn't make sense is because the second offensive campaign ( Epic Fury) in this conflict was always about regime change

The international community believes Starting a war because you don't like somebody else's government is not a legitimate reason to start a war.

When the truth is not an acceptable answer the rationale tends to shift on what the goals are

Reply Quote
4
1 edit
flown-the-coop
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 Sq 17 • 7:34a, 6/30/26
AG
Sq 17 said:
The reason that the messaging it doesn't make sense is because the second offensive campaign ( Epic Fury) in this conflict was always about regime change

The international community believes Starting a war because you don't like somebody else's government is not a legitimate reason to start a war.

When the truth is not an acceptable answer the rationale tends to shift on what the goals are


Can you list the "legit" reasons for starting a war? According to the "international community" of course.

That's Kamala level word salad.

The reasons for starting this conflict have been well described. Orange Man Bad disrupts the low level logic fields in some and its drives their misunderstanding.

Nothing more than that.
Reply Quote
2
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:48a, 6/30/26
Well 41 started Operation Shield to take back land the international community was good with that

W started the GWOT war in Afghanistan because their were forces there that actually attacked America

W brought that war to Iraq because they HAD WMD and were harboring terrorists and they had recently invaded Kuwait showing that they were a country not to be trusted
That war has some international support

Jumping forward to Midnight Hammer & Epic Fury
The Iranians might be building a nuke and that can't be allowed and Midnight hammer was generally accepted as a reasonable projection of power against a foreign country

Epic Fury is straight up regime change which the international community considers to be not an acceptable reason to project power against a sovereign foreign country
I appreciate the word salad insult given the current administration inability to articulate the goals and how this conflict will eventually be resolved
Reply Quote
6
flown-the-coop
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 Sq 17 • 7:53a, 6/30/26
AG
Even though the goals have been articulated and have remained the same. Awesome.
Reply Quote
4
Phatbob
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag83 • 8:35a, 6/30/26
AG
Ag83 said:
Phatbob said:
AGHouston11 said:
If it hasn't moved since Midnight Hammer then what was the imminent threat? It's a rhetorical question.

No matter how many times you try to force "imminent threat", that was never part of the initial discussion. It was always opportunity and capacity of Iran to stave off our ability to remove any imminent threat if they continued down their stated path. As much as you really, really want to produce some sort of misleading into war or lies or failure, you have nothing to go on here, as per usual, without reframing the entire circumstances to begin with.

"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

-Donald J. Trump; remarks of 2/28/26

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-full-statement-on-us-iran-attack-major-combat-operations/

The Trump statement is vague, which coming from Trump should not surprise anyone. Bad Trump, I've never been a fan. When the articulation of what "imminent threats" actually mean and when by anyone else in the administration like Rubio who doesn't shoot his mouth off randomly, they have been consistent from the beginning. It has always been about addressing when the obviously coming imminent threat actually emerged, we would not be able to stop them unless we did something now. This has been discussed FROM THE BEGINNING and all you have to do is look at this thread with timestamps to prove it.

I'm not ever going to defend Trumps ramblings or say they are accurate because they aren't and honestly I don't think that is why he puts them out. Don't agree with it, never have. It is what it is.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to flown-the-coop • 8:59a, 6/30/26
The goal of unconditional surrender was clearly stated and is not the current goal so yes I agree the goals have beeen clearly stated it is just the goals keep changing
Reply Quote
25
Texaguser17
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:39a, 6/30/26
The political fallout will be Trump burning through his political capital before midterms. Clarity act on hold, save America act on hold, now he has to fight the birthright citizenship in Congress which likely will be like everything else on hold. The only thing he's gotten through really was the spending bill. Which continued entitlements which continues the bankruptcy of America. Want to end illegal immigration and speed up emigration? Cutoff the welfare. Did we? No we continued it.

And this war non war was done at the behest of a foreign nation over the immediate threat of nuclear weapons of which our own intel agencies didn't corroborate. And even if they were remotely close they don't have ballistic missiles capable of reaching anywhere near CONUS. And we destroyed whatever they did have 12 months ago.

All for what? Nothing is demonstrably better. And the ultimate risk is losing Congress and the save America Act never seeing the light of day again.

Maybe we will be graced with bibi's presences in the WH for the upteenth time
Reply Quote
15
samurai_science
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaguser17 • 10:52a, 6/30/26
Texaguser17 said:
The political fallout will be Trump burning through his political capital before midterms. Clarity act on hold, save America act on hold, now he has to fight the birthright citizenship in Congress which likely will be like everything else on hold. The only thing he's gotten through really was the spending bill. Which continued entitlements which continues the bankruptcy of America. Want to end illegal immigration and speed up emigration? Cutoff the welfare. Did we? No we continued it.

And this war non war was done at the behest of a foreign nation over the immediate threat of nuclear weapons of which our own intel agencies didn't corroborate. And even if they were remotely close they don't have ballistic missiles capable of reaching anywhere near CONUS. And we destroyed whatever they did have 12 months ago.

All for what? Nothing is demonstrably better. And the ultimate risk is losing Congress and the save America Act never seeing the light of day again.

Maybe we will be graced with bibi's presences in the WH for the upteenth time


Not a student of election history I guess. Rs rarely turn out for midterms and with the filibuster nothing is getting passed through the senate anyway.

But at least you have an imagination
Reply Quote
1
Phatbob
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Texaguser17 • 10:54a, 6/30/26
AG
Yay! More hot takes
Reply Quote
AgDev01
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 Phatbob • 12:26p, 6/30/26
AG
Phatbob said:
The Trump statement is vague, which coming from Trump should not surprise anyone. Bad Trump, I've never been a fan. When the articulation of what "imminent threats" actually mean and when by anyone else in the administration like Rubio who doesn't shoot his mouth off randomly, they have been consistent from the beginning. It has always been about addressing when the obviously coming imminent threat actually emerged, we would not be able to stop them unless we did something now. This has been discussed FROM THE BEGINNING and all you have to do is look at this thread with timestamps to prove it.

I'm not ever going to defend Trumps ramblings or say they are accurate because they aren't and honestly I don't think that is why he puts them out. Don't agree with it, never have. It is what it is.


It must be pretty convenient to be able to pick and choose which of the number of reasons this administration has stated for the war to be the *actual* reason, and then be able switch between them to suit your argument.

Trumps statement was pretty unambiguous. Your argument is tantamount to asking what the definition of is, is. He is the President. What he says should matter and not just be handwaved like MAGA seemingly always does. Do you give that much latitude to any other politician?
Reply Quote
13
Phatbob
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgDev01 • 12:43p, 6/30/26
AG
AgDev01 said:
Phatbob said:
The Trump statement is vague, which coming from Trump should not surprise anyone. Bad Trump, I've never been a fan. When the articulation of what "imminent threats" actually mean and when by anyone else in the administration like Rubio who doesn't shoot his mouth off randomly, they have been consistent from the beginning. It has always been about addressing when the obviously coming imminent threat actually emerged, we would not be able to stop them unless we did something now. This has been discussed FROM THE BEGINNING and all you have to do is look at this thread with timestamps to prove it.

I'm not ever going to defend Trumps ramblings or say they are accurate because they aren't and honestly I don't think that is why he puts them out. Don't agree with it, never have. It is what it is.


It must be pretty convenient to be able to pick and choose which of the number of reasons this administration has stated for the war to be the *actual* reason, and then be able switch between them to suit your argument.

Trumps statement was pretty unambiguous. Your argument is tantamount to asking what the definition of is, is. He is the President. What he says should matter and not just be handwaved like MAGA seemingly always does. Do you give that much latitude to any other politician?

Again, I invite you to read this entire thread and you will find the argument has never changed on Iran, except for the arguments against it, which has to constantly shift based on the Iran propaganda of the day.

If you feel the need to analyze Trump's statements throughout his political career as concrete policy stances, I do not envy your wasting of time. His posts are more like a mood ring than anything else. Like I said, not my preference, there were more than 1 better options available in the primaries.
Reply Quote
1 edit
DeschutesAg
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:47p, 6/30/26
There should be a substantial political backlash and anger by the GOP base at this Administration's incompetence, failure, lying, weakness, and strategic stupidity in this war.

But there won't be.

The GOP base of 2026 is not the GOP base of 2006.

The 2006 GOP base was "our country's best interests come first, our party comes second".

The 2026 GOP base is the opposite.

In 2006, many Rs were angry and disgusted at the unnecessary Iraq disaster and the many lies and false promises told and sold to them by President GWB, V.P. Dick Cheney, SecDef Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, and CIA Director George Tenet.

Consequently, the political fallout for the GWB Administration and GOP-controlled House in the November 2006 midterm election was enormous.

Today's GOP base is different. It will make up any excuse and accept any lie from Trump and the GOP.

Even for this weak ceasefire and the ongoing incompetent strategic failure.

Think about it:

The Trump Administration's #1 objective at the moment is to reopen the SoH to a 100% level with no tolls and no attacks on ships by any Iran group, and get commercial shipping through the SoH back to pre-war levels.

Their #2 objective is to get the Iranians to meet and negotiate in good faith.

That's all the Trump Administration is hoping and pleading with Iran to do right now. Those two piddling things.

Thus far, they're failing at both.

The Trump Administration's other stated objectives of:

-- regime change, the Trump-guaranteed unconditional surrender, the 100% full-access IAEA surprise snap inspections of any known or suspected nuclear material site, the taking away of all the Iranian centrifuges and all their nuclear material, and the other war objectives like ending all their current and future ballistic missile capability and ending their arming, funding, and use of proxies for terrorism and attacks on U.S. military facilities that some Trump supporters believed Trump would get -- are a pipe dream right now.

The 60-day negotiation period that Trump begged for and got (after 80 days of Iranian stalling) is unlikely to result in nothing much for our side. Every passing day of stalling by Iran is another win for the bad guys.

Yet the GOP and Trump are sitting on their hands, still hoping the mullahs and IRGC will go through a miraculous transformation.

Imo, it won't happen.

Scorpions almost never change their nature.

I hope JD Vance, Jared, and Witkoff prove me wrong.

But betting on hope and a miracle transformation of an enemy regime of religious fanatics and terrorists, and believing it will get us anything substantive is a likely-to-fail strategy.
Reply Quote
13
4 edits
OPAG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:40p, 6/30/26
AG



5 IRGC leaders taken out.

Reply Quote
OPAG
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:41p, 6/30/26
AG
An update on US deployment in the area.

Reply Quote
Keyno
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 7/1/26
Sorry been away for a week. So yea, nothing has been resolved. MOU is dead. Strait closed. The problem is when do we run out of "strategic reserves"? Are we all willing to eat an energy shock for this adventure?
Reply Quote
3
Reginald Cousins
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 Keyno • 1:59p, 7/1/26
Science Denier
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 Ag83 • 2:28p, 7/1/26
AG
Ag83 said:
Phatbob said:
AGHouston11 said:
If it hasn't moved since Midnight Hammer then what was the imminent threat? It's a rhetorical question.

No matter how many times you try to force "imminent threat", that was never part of the initial discussion. It was always opportunity and capacity of Iran to stave off our ability to remove any imminent threat if they continued down their stated path. As much as you really, really want to produce some sort of misleading into war or lies or failure, you have nothing to go on here, as per usual, without reframing the entire circumstances to begin with.

"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

-Donald J. Trump; remarks of 2/28/26

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-full-statement-on-us-iran-attack-major-combat-operations/


1. We destroyed thousands of Iran's missiles that were fired on several countries
2. We destroyed almost all of the factories Iran used to build this massive stockpile.

One without TDS would say that was an imminent threat that was eliminated.
LOL OLD
Reply Quote
4
Phatbob
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keyno • 2:29p, 7/1/26
AG
Keyno said:
Sorry been away for a week. So yea, nothing has been resolved. MOU is dead. Strait closed. The problem is when do we run out of "strategic reserves"? Are we all willing to eat an energy shock for this adventure?

Today, we run out today. You should shut everything down and hole up in your bunker before Israel comes to steal all the gas out of your cars.
Reply Quote
3
Keyno
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 Phatbob • 2:33p, 7/1/26
Phatbob said:
Keyno said:
Sorry been away for a week. So yea, nothing has been resolved. MOU is dead. Strait closed. The problem is when do we run out of "strategic reserves"? Are we all willing to eat an energy shock for this adventure?

Today, we run out today. You should shut everything down and hole up in your bunker before Israel comes to steal all the gas out of your cars.

Good joke. But back to what I was saying- are Americans ready to eat the energy shock for this adventure?
Reply Quote
7
sts7049
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:36p, 7/1/26
AG
Straits open for Iran

Reply Quote
2
sts7049
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:39p, 7/1/26
AG
ships are moving somewhat, but still a long way to go

Reply Quote
sts7049
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:20a, 7/2/26
AG
Reply Quote
AlaskanAg99
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 Keyno • 7:32a, 7/2/26
AG
Keyno said:
Phatbob said:
Keyno said:
Sorry been away for a week. So yea, nothing has been resolved. MOU is dead. Strait closed. The problem is when do we run out of "strategic reserves"? Are we all willing to eat an energy shock for this adventure?

Today, we run out today. You should shut everything down and hole up in your bunker before Israel comes to steal all the gas out of your cars.

Good joke. But back to what I was saying- are Americans ready to eat the energy shock for this adventure?


This is your ultimate pipe dream.

The answer is the US will reduce exports of crude and/or refined product in order shelter the US citizens from the worst of it. Other nations will pay the price for their indifference in not forming a coalition to reign in Iran.

All of these 2nd world nations (this is quickly what Europe is becoming) have demanded the US be the World Police, so dont get upset when we do world police things. Keeping a fundamental national sponsor of terror from achieving a nuclear weapon is the only goal.
aTm '99
Reply Quote
3
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Keyno • 7:41a, 7/2/26
AG
Keyno said:
Sorry been away for a week. So yea, nothing has been resolved. MOU is dead. Strait closed. The problem is when do we run out of "strategic reserves"? Are we all willing to eat an energy shock for this adventure?


No. Iran has completely capitulated, the war is won, it has been complete and total surrender. All the very clear objectives have been achieved.
Reply Quote
4
Haleyscomet50
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AlaskanAg99 • 7:51a, 7/2/26
AlaskanAg99 said:
Keyno said:
Phatbob said:
Keyno said:
Sorry been away for a week. So yea, nothing has been resolved. MOU is dead. Strait closed. The problem is when do we run out of "strategic reserves"? Are we all willing to eat an energy shock for this adventure?

Today, we run out today. You should shut everything down and hole up in your bunker before Israel comes to steal all the gas out of your cars.

Good joke. But back to what I was saying- are Americans ready to eat the energy shock for this adventure?


This is your ultimate pipe dream.

The answer is the US will reduce exports of crude and/or refined product in order shelter the US citizens from the worst of it. Other nations will pay the price for their indifference in not forming a coalition to reign in Iran.

All of these 2nd world nations (this is quickly what Europe is becoming) have demanded the US be the World Police, so dont get upset when we do world police things. Keeping a fundamental national sponsor of terror from achieving a nuclear weapon is the only goal.

Only one nation demanded we attack Iran and it was nobody in Europe. We weren't acting acting as world police with this action we were acting as we always do as Israel's police.

Don't change the narrative it had nothing to do with the world that's why no one else joined. Trumps a deal guy and if he couldn't get anyone else even threatening other countries to get them to join it was never about a world police action.
Reply Quote
7
Haleyscomet50
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 8:04a, 7/2/26
AGHouston11 said:
Ag83 said:
Phatbob said:
AGHouston11 said:
If it hasn't moved since Midnight Hammer then what was the imminent threat? It's a rhetorical question.

No matter how many times you try to force "imminent threat", that was never part of the initial discussion. It was always opportunity and capacity of Iran to stave off our ability to remove any imminent threat if they continued down their stated path. As much as you really, really want to produce some sort of misleading into war or lies or failure, you have nothing to go on here, as per usual, without reframing the entire circumstances to begin with.

"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

-Donald J. Trump; remarks of 2/28/26

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-full-statement-on-us-iran-attack-major-combat-operations/


From dust that we now no longer care about because it's been safely buried since Midnight Hammer.

The messaging on this war by Trump has never made sense. And each time he moves the goal post he has his goal tenders defending the move to no end.

Was never about Iran if Iran was that big of a threat Israel would have committed to stopping them first with everything and not attacked Lebanon in the middle of the Iran war. We were a cover a buffer while Israel slaughter innocents in Lebanon.

When you believe everyone wants to send you to the gas chambers you will do anything to anybody. Could be getting Trump to attack Iran or letting your spy sexually assault 13 year old girls it's all for the greater good of the movement.
Reply Quote
4
No Spin Ag
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 8:38a, 7/2/26
AGHouston11 said:
Keyno said:
Sorry been away for a week. So yea, nothing has been resolved. MOU is dead. Strait closed. The problem is when do we run out of "strategic reserves"? Are we all willing to eat an energy shock for this adventure?


No. Iran has completely capitulated, the war is won, it has been complete and total surrender. All the very clear objectives have been achieved.


I've got the interwebs on line one.

Quote:

Yes, Iran still possesses significant stockpiles of enriched uranium. While previous international tensions and strikes impacted some facilities, Iran maintains quantities of uranium enriched to 60% purityjust a short technical step away from the 90% weapons-grade purity required for a nuclear weapon.


Now, once Trump had done that, as well as gotten "complete and utter surrender" then all of the goals will have been achieved.

Until then, Iran is at the same level of having a nuke as they were before Trump took office the second time.

Yes, Trump is on the way to reaching that goal, but as we've seen over and over in history, winning battles doesn't ever guarantee winning the war.
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the later ignorance. Hippocrates
Reply Quote
3
YouBet
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 Haleyscomet50 • 8:46a, 7/2/26
AG
Haleyscomet50 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Ag83 said:
Phatbob said:
AGHouston11 said:
If it hasn't moved since Midnight Hammer then what was the imminent threat? It's a rhetorical question.

No matter how many times you try to force "imminent threat", that was never part of the initial discussion. It was always opportunity and capacity of Iran to stave off our ability to remove any imminent threat if they continued down their stated path. As much as you really, really want to produce some sort of misleading into war or lies or failure, you have nothing to go on here, as per usual, without reframing the entire circumstances to begin with.

"A short time ago, the United States military began major combat operations in Iran. Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people."

-Donald J. Trump; remarks of 2/28/26

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-full-statement-on-us-iran-attack-major-combat-operations/


From dust that we now no longer care about because it's been safely buried since Midnight Hammer.

The messaging on this war by Trump has never made sense. And each time he moves the goal post he has his goal tenders defending the move to no end.

Was never about Iran if Iran was that big of a threat Israel would have committed to stopping them first with everything and not attacked Lebanon in the middle of the Iran war. We were a cover a buffer while Israel slaughter innocents in Lebanon.

When you believe everyone wants to send you to the gas chambers you will do anything to anybody. Could be getting Trump to attack Iran or letting your spy sexually assault 13 year old girls it's all for the greater good of the movement.


You forgot to mention that Hez attacked Israel first and kept doing so. Feel free to keep lying about it though.
Reply Quote
3
Phatbob
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Haleyscomet50 • 8:51a, 7/2/26
AG
Quote:
Was never about Iran if Iran was that big of a threat Israel would have committed to stopping them first with everything and not attacked Lebanon in the middle of the Iran war. We were a cover a buffer while Israel slaughter innocents in Lebanon.

Everyone, including Iran in every negotiation and reaction this whole time, includes Hezbollah in Lebanon as part of Greater Iran. Everyone... well, except random people trying to blame random things on Israel that make no sense.
Reply Quote
sts7049
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 AlaskanAg99 • 8:57a, 7/2/26
AG
AlaskanAg99 said:
Keyno said:
Phatbob said:
Keyno said:
Sorry been away for a week. So yea, nothing has been resolved. MOU is dead. Strait closed. The problem is when do we run out of "strategic reserves"? Are we all willing to eat an energy shock for this adventure?

Today, we run out today. You should shut everything down and hole up in your bunker before Israel comes to steal all the gas out of your cars.

Good joke. But back to what I was saying- are Americans ready to eat the energy shock for this adventure?


This is your ultimate pipe dream.

The answer is the US will reduce exports of crude and/or refined product in order shelter the US citizens from the worst of it. Other nations will pay the price for their indifference in not forming a coalition to reign in Iran.

All of these 2nd world nations (this is quickly what Europe is becoming) have demanded the US be the World Police, so dont get upset when we do world police things. Keeping a fundamental national sponsor of terror from achieving a nuclear weapon is the only goal.


we've done exactly the opposite so far. remember all those big beautiful ships?
Reply Quote
2
First Page Last Page
Page 172 of 174 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.