Who?mikejones! said:

---

Explains much

---

He's an isolationist like Tucker and thinks Israel and/or the Jews are pretty much the problem for most things...

AgFan1974 said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

We could nuke them from the U.S. if we wanted to. That's not our goal at all, though. Targeted precision strikes to minimize civilian casualties.

Iran would nuke the U.S. in a heartbeat if they had the ability to.

That's the difference between us and them.

---

I doubt it, but we won't have to worry about any of that either way.

---

What do you doubt? That Iran would if they could?

---

Yes lol if they threw a nuke at us, Iranians would go extinct.

What isolationists fail to understand is that we are the world's reserve currency. This puts us in a very powerful position with respect to world affairs.

To maintain this fact, we must intervene in and manipulate other countries' affairs to keep the status quo. Becoming fully isolationist would be DEVESTATING to our currency, which is what we need to avoid at all costs.

Ag with kids said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Explains much

---

He's an isolationist like Tucker and thinks Israel and/or the Jews are pretty much the problem for most things...

---

Still playing that card are we? So very tired.

Edit: imagine propping up your support for a war by accusing others of the very hatred one has in their heart.

Zachary Klement said:

---

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

We could nuke them from the U.S. if we wanted to. That's not our goal at all, though. Targeted precision strikes to minimize civilian casualties.

Iran would nuke the U.S. in a heartbeat if they had the ability to.

That's the difference between us and them.

---

I doubt it, but we won't have to worry about any of that either way.

---

We would have to worry about it if you were in charge. Just resign to the fact that you don't understand the situation, aren't privy to the intelligence that precipitated this attack, and can't get over your presuppositions to comprehend why we acted now.

Trump would not have done this if he didn't think the threat was real he is not a war hawk.

Yawn

Vepp said:

---

What isolationists fail to understand is that we are the world's reserve currency. This puts us in a very powerful position with respect to world affairs.

To maintain this fact, we must intervene in and manipulate other countries' affairs to keep the status quo. Becoming fully isolationist would be DEVESTATING to our currency, which is what we need to avoid at all costs.

---

It's the price to pay when you are the only true super power on earth. China could be, yet they rely on to much of the U.S. for their economy to be stable. Russia was "on paper" till the Iron Curtain fell. England lost that role after WW2. 55 countries once under British rule all declared independence or just told England to get F***ed from 1946 to1984.

As much as people hate us, they sure do rely on us for a lot. No one is banging on French doors begging for help, or Denmark or Sweden. When a country needs some freedom, they start chanting USA USA USA.

Zachary Klement said:

---

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

We could nuke them from the U.S. if we wanted to. That's not our goal at all, though. Targeted precision strikes to minimize civilian casualties.

Iran would nuke the U.S. in a heartbeat if they had the ability to.

That's the difference between us and them.

---

I doubt it, but we won't have to worry about any of that either way.

---

Wait, hold up... You doubt that Iran would nuke the US if given the opportunity?

Seriously?

Well, if we take Netanyahu for his word, they should have had nukes 30 years ago.

4 said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

We could nuke them from the U.S. if we wanted to. That's not our goal at all, though. Targeted precision strikes to minimize civilian casualties.

Iran would nuke the U.S. in a heartbeat if they had the ability to.

That's the difference between us and them.

---

I doubt it, but we won't have to worry about any of that either way.

---

Wait, hold up... You doubt that Iran would nuke the US if given the opportunity?

Seriously?

---

Yes. We would wipe them off the face of the map, I do not think they are that stupid.

Either way, they're no where near being capable of nuking us.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

---

After the June 2025 Israeli strikes the IAEA confirmed Iran's enrichment program was significantly set back. That's obliterated in the sense that it was severely degraded not erased from existence permanently.

Iran then spent eight months rebuilding. This is documented. US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee said in December 2025 that Iran appeared to be attempting to rebuild Fordow and said it suggested they "didn't get the full message" from the June strikes.

Iran moved approximately 408 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium to secret locations in deeply buried facilities at Isfahan before the February 2026 strikes.

Iran announced it would build new advanced centrifuges after the IAEA censure. Iran reduced IAEA cooperation to hide its rebuilding progress.

So the actual sequence is:

June 2025 program obliterated by Israeli strikes.

June 2025 through February 2026 Iran rebuilds in hardened underground facilities specifically designed to survive future strikes.

February 2026 program approaching immune status in those hardened facilities, requiring American B-2 bombers with bunker-buster MOPs that only the United States possesses to reach.

Hope that clears things up.

Matt Walsh is doing what he does best constructing a clever-sounding logical argument on a foundation he didn’t bother to research.

Here’s why it falls apart completely:

The argument he’s making:

If the program was obliterated in summer 2025, it cannot also be close to immune… https://t.co/wuf4ipUYei

— Insurrection Barbie (@DefiyantlyFree) March 3, 2026

---

Good luck convincing the ill informed lackeys.

Queso1 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Have fun over there with tucker and fuentes

---

I don't know about Fuentes, but Tucker is about the only sane voice in media. Sorry it causes so much butt hurt here.

---

Tucker is delusional.

Same as the Iranian leaders.

Queso1 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Explains much

---

He's an isolationist like Tucker and thinks Israel and/or the Jews are pretty much the problem for most things...

---

Still playing that card are we? So very tired.

Edit: imagine propping up your support for a war by accusing others of the very hatred one has in their heart.

---

I've seen your posting...

My description was accurate...

Zachary Klement said:

---

4 said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

We could nuke them from the U.S. if we wanted to. That's not our goal at all, though. Targeted precision strikes to minimize civilian casualties.

Iran would nuke the U.S. in a heartbeat if they had the ability to.

That's the difference between us and them.

---

I doubt it, but we won't have to worry about any of that either way.

---

Wait, hold up... You doubt that Iran would nuke the US if given the opportunity?

Seriously?

---

Yes. We would wipe them off the face of the map, I do not think they are that stupid.

Either way, they're no where near being capable of nuking us.

---

As I type this we are wiping them off the map because they refused something as simple as to quit building ballistic missiles and accept free nuclear fuel instead of enriching their own. They are that stupid.

Kvetch said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

We could nuke them from the U.S. if we wanted to. That's not our goal at all, though. Targeted precision strikes to minimize civilian casualties.

Iran would nuke the U.S. in a heartbeat if they had the ability to.

That's the difference between us and them.

---

I doubt it, but we won't have to worry about any of that either way.

---

We would have to worry about it if you were in charge. Just resign to the fact that you don't understand the situation, aren't privy to the intelligence that precipitated this attack, and can't get over your presuppositions to comprehend why we acted now.

Trump would not have done this if he didn't think the threat was real he is not a war hawk.

---

I'm not in charge, nor would I ever want to sell my soul to be in any sort of political office, so you won't have to worry about that!

You aren't privy to the intelligence that precipitated any of this either, you're just willing to accept what thy want to tell you at face value, which is fine.

These people have lied to us over and over and over, so I won't take them at their word, especially when things seem suspicious.

"MAGA" was always, fundamentally, about one guy. If, incidentally, America improved as a result of that guy, then cool but it was always about one guy. Fall in line behind him and don't criticize,or get labeled a CM/closet lib/RINO.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

"MAGA" was always, fundamentally, about one guy. If, incidentally, America improved as a result of that guy, then cool but it was always about one guy. Fall in line behind him and don't criticize,or get labeled a CM/closet lib/RINO.

---

Riveting commentary from a Kamala voter.

Ag with kids said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Explains much

---

He's an isolationist like Tucker and thinks Israel and/or the Jews are pretty much the problem for most things...

---

Still playing that card are we? So very tired.

Edit: imagine propping up your support for a war by accusing others of the very hatred one has in their heart.

---

I've seen your posting...

My description was accurate...

---

Instead of making accusations, post one of me blaming Jews "for most things". Or are we still incapable of distinguishing between a state actor and an ethic/religious group?

I'll agree that I'm an isolationist to some degree. I support the Monroe Doctrine andfor the most part supported the Venezuela incursion.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

I literally cannot believe how ignorant so many are about BASIC national security and defense matters.

You are too daft to understand how there is a difference between Iran launching a nuclear tipped InterContinental Ballistic Missile at Washington- and Washington firing an ICBM at Teheran?

Really? You really cannot understand how this works?

bobbranco said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

"MAGA" was always, fundamentally, about one guy. If, incidentally, America improved as a result of that guy, then cool but it was always about one guy. Fall in line behind him and don't criticize,or get labeled a CM/closet lib/RINO.

---

Riveting commentary from a Kamala voter.

---

Wrong. I would expect nothing less from any of Dear Leader's mightiest keyboard warriors.

LMCane said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

I literally cannot believe how ignorant so many are about BASIC national security and defense matters.

You are too daft to understand how there is a difference between Iran launching a nuclear tipped InterContinental Ballistic Missile at Washington- and Washington firing an ICBM at Teheran?

Really? You really cannot understand how this works?

---

Huh?

I am asking why it would be that Iran is allegedly close to having weapons that they could apparently strike the United States with from Iran, but we need to reallocate resources to the middle east to strike them.

I'm not a military expert, nor do I pretend to be, obviously.

The idea that Iran is somewhere close to having the ability to shoot a missile from Iran to the United States seems a bit ridiculous to me.

This has become comical in a sense. It's either we stick our head in the sand and ignore regimes who have it as their religious mission from God to wipe America and Israel off the face of the earth, or we obey our supposed Jewish overlords into another Middle East quagmire.

9/11 was only 25 years ago. The same Islamists flew jets into the towers. What makes you think they wouldn't do it again? Except instead of lobbing planes, it's a nuclear ICBM? Are we really this dense to risk that ?

NPH- said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

This

I get that we have kicked ass; but it was not entirely necessary.

We are not fighting *our* war.

---

BS!!! We are fighting a war that if not fought now while they are weak WILL be fought later when they are possibly stronger. Bury your head in the sand if you like, but the Iran problem is not going away with diplomacy or well wishes.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

HarryJ33tamu said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

We could nuke them from the U.S. if we wanted to. That's not our goal at all, though. Targeted precision strikes to minimize civilian casualties.

Iran would nuke the U.S. in a heartbeat if they had the ability to.

That's the difference between us and them.

---

I doubt it, but we won't have to worry about any of that either way.

---

We would have to worry about it if you were in charge. Just resign to the fact that you don't understand the situation, aren't privy to the intelligence that precipitated this attack, and can't get over your presuppositions to comprehend why we acted now.

Trump would not have done this if he didn't think the threat was real he is not a war hawk.

---

I'm not in charge, nor would I ever want to sell my soul to be in any sort of political office, so you won't have to worry about that!

You aren't privy to the intelligence that precipitated any of this either, you're just willing to accept what thy want to tell you at face value, which is fine.

These people have lied to us over and over and over, so I won't take them at their word, especially when things seem suspicious.

---

So suspicious. We've only been talking about the Iran problem for 40 years.

It's only suspicious if you choose to live in a fantasy world guided by conspiracy theories.

Queso1 said:

---

Well, if we take Netanyahu for his word, they should have had nukes 30 years ago.

---

Now talk about all the Israeli operations over the last 30 years that have prevented them from achieving their nuclear goals.

But you're right. It's probably just that Netanyahu loves a nice missile fight because he's one of those pesky Jews.

Allen Gamble said:

---

This has become comical in a sense. It's either we stick our head in the sand and ignore regimes who have it as their religious mission from God to wipe America and Israel off the face of the earth, or we obey our supposed Jewish overlords into another Middle East quagmire.

9/11 was only 25 years ago. The same Islamists flew jets into the towers. What makes you think they wouldn't do it again? Except instead of lobbing planes, it's a nuclear ICBM? Are we really this dense to risk that ?

---

Despite what certain war hawks clowns on here would have you believe, most of us who oppose this war do not support the Iranian regime. However maybe a history lesson is necessary for some - the Iranians and Shia Muslims were not involved in 9/11. Al Qaeda was a sunni Muslim group.

Those paying attention in the 80s and 90s will recall when we were told "Sunnis are the good rational Muslims and Shia (Shiite at the time) were the bad ones. Of course a lot of that was due to our support of the gulf nations and Iraq.

Zachary Klement said:

---

Help me understand.

The White House said we obliterated their nuclear facilities last summer, but now we are concerned with them having nukes that can hit the United States?

I'm also curious, if they're close to having weapons that can strike the U.S. from Iran, do we not have weapons that can strike Iran from the U.S.? Why did we need to move so much of our resources to the Middle East? Why can't we remotely strike them like they're supposedly going to be able to do to us? Are they on the verge of having more advanced tech than we have? Or what's the deal there?

---

Don't ask such reasonable questions or the Lindsay Grahams on this site will call you an antisemitic nutbag. All Muslims in the ME are terrorists and we need to defeat them before they attack America or our greatest ally. Freedom depends on it. Also, this will be nothing like the Iraq war, so you don't have to worry about wasting taxpayer dollars or losing American servicemen. This time is different.

Dang bro. You've got some real closeted hostility about Jewish people, or you're hanging around a lot of people that do. Seek help.

When radical Shiite Iranians chant "Death to America" and call us the Great Satan, do you think they are speaking metaphorically?

They want to kill us all and eliminate our culture from the face of the planet. It's pretty much straightforward…us or them!

They would nuke us in a second. No different than them throwing everything they have at their neighbors right now.

Queso1 said:

---

Dang bro. You've got some real closeted hostility about Jewish people, or you're hanging around a lot of people that do. Seek help.

---

I'm not the one that thinks the only Jewish state in the world is a nefarious actor that seeks to manipulate and undermine the U.S. That would be more in line with your posting history.

Lots of people on F16 didn't like the idea of tax dollars going to defend Israel....until Trump told them to like it. So now they like it. Lindsey Graham is the tough guy, Tucker Carlson is a wimp. Spend spend spend.

This cant go longer than a couple months. Eventually Trump will throw Ben Net under the bus. Then F16 will go back to telling Israel to fund their own war games.

Vepp said:

---

What isolationists fail to understand is that we are the world's reserve currency. This puts us in a very powerful position with respect to world affairs.

To maintain this fact, we must intervene in and manipulate other countries' affairs to keep the status quo. Becoming fully isolationist would be DEVESTATING to our currency, which is what we need to avoid at all costs.

---

What do you think is motivating BRICS and crypto? US flexing financial USD sanctions pushes other global powers towards other currencies.

Increasing our debt and printing USD to fund wars isn't good for global reserve status either.

Our relative financial stability, innovation/tech/military, and top tier capitalist market is what helps maintain USD global reserve status. Going around globe stepping on ant piles runs counter to all that.

Kvetch said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Dang bro. You've got some real closeted hostility about Jewish people, or you're hanging around a lot of people that do. Seek help.

---

I'm not the one that thinks the only Jewish state in the world is a nefarious actor that seeks to manipulate and undermine the U.S. That would be more in line with your posting history.

---

You apparently don't have the intellectual capacity to separate a religion/ethnic group from a political state, or you've run out of arguments and stoop to playing the race card. Either way, I'm blocking you. After this response I'm not going to waste further time on your toxicity and disturbing rhetoric.

Queso1 said:

---

Kvetch said:

---

Queso1 said:

---

Dang bro. You've got some real closeted hostility about Jewish people, or you're hanging around a lot of people that do. Seek help.

---

I'm not the one that thinks the only Jewish state in the world is a nefarious actor that seeks to manipulate and undermine the U.S. That would be more in line with your posting history.

---

You apparently don't have the intellectual capacity to separate a religion/ethnic group from a political state, or you've run out of arguments and stoop to playing the race card. Either way, I'm blocking you. After this response I'm not going to waste further time on your toxicity and disturbing rhetoric.

---

Go ahead. I only wish that stopped me from seeing the garbage you spout around here.

ETA it's a cute game this poster plays, much like Tucker "just asking questions," but everyone with a room temperature IQ can see what underlies his posts.