Sunni, Shia, who gives a ***** They've killed Americans in the Middle East for decades now.

The collective ignorance around this is incredible. These people don't respond to appeasement. They respond to force. It's a cultural phenomena known across the Middle East. They won't stop until they're dead. Sometimes you gotta remind the world who's still in charge and keep these folks in check, lest you risk another catastrophe on the homeland

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?

---

Iran was supported by Russia and China and they have a ridiculous amount of high quality engineers. Iran cranks out a LOT of PhD's in Engineering. It's certainly plausible they could rebuild quickly.

Also, no we don't have lots of weapons systems sitting around for precise ordinance that we can fire realistically from the US to Iran. It's not about them having equal tech to us, it's about stopping them from inflicting massive damage to us. We have a much lower pain threshold for losses and violence than they do and they are perfectly willing to do anything and kill anyone. Women are basically cattle to them and Non Muslims are lower than that.

So wake up and deal with the real world.

If this military campaign goes longer than a couple months, it will destroy Trumps legacy and midterms. Trump needs to find an off ramp in next few weeks, chalk it up as a win, and blame any fallout in Ben Net. That's the most likely outcome.

F16 has a very short memory.

Donald Trump has spent ten years promising not to start new wars.

A short compilation 🤡💀 pic.twitter.com/tOxr6MszWV

— Parody Jeff (@BackupJeffx) March 3, 2026

Zachary Klement - keep carrying the water for the marxist democrat party.

NPH- said:

---

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

---

I notice ants in my yard; I "obliterate" ants. Somehow, they start rebuilding. But they are still ants….

HTH

---

Until you go to grab a box of cereal and find that they have not only gotten into your house (country), but have made their way into all of the food in your pantry (women).

Iran is inside our borders. And they are coming after your wife. Bet you wish you would have continued to crush them when you had the chance.

Trump didn't start this war. It started in 1979. Trump is trying to end it.

It's always surprising how younger people don't have enough historical context to make good judgements. I guess it will always be that way.

These guys want(ed) to essentially end the world. And they will do it if allowed. It will require a never ending vigilance by Presidents with balls to stop it from eventually happening.

As long as nukes exist, it will require constant attention. Is is essentially a never ending task - a never ending war if you like. Sorry, nobody likes it, but the survival of the world depends on it.

UntoldSpirit said:

---

Trump didn't start this war. It started in 1979. Trump is trying to end it.

It's always surprising how younger people don't have enough historical context to make good judgements. I guess it will always be that way.

These guys want(ed) to essentially end the world. And they will do it if allowed. It will require a never ending vigilance by Presidents with balls to stop it from eventually happening.

As long as nukes exist, it will require constant attention. Is is essentially a never ending task - a never ending war if you like. Sorry, nobody likes it, but the survival of the world depends on it.

---

When the history of our species is written, the most likely scenario will be that nuclear weapons saved exponentially more lives than they took.

mjschiller said:

---

Zachary Klement - keep carrying the water for the marxist democrat party.

---

Ah shoot. I'm a Marxist democrat despite voting Trump three times because I'm just not automatically buying the narrative Fox News and Donald Trump are telling me. Thank you for informing me!

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

UntoldSpirit said:

---

Trump didn't start this war. It started in 1979. Trump is trying to end it.

It's always surprising how younger people don't have enough historical context to make good judgements. I guess it will always be that way.

These guys want(ed) to essentially end the world. And they will do it if allowed. It will require a never ending vigilance by Presidents with balls to stop it from eventually happening.

As long as nukes exist, it will require constant attention. Is is essentially a never ending task - a never ending war if you like. Sorry, nobody likes it, but the survival of the world depends on it.

---

When the history of our species is written, the most likely scenario will be that nuclear weapons saved exponentially more lives than they took.

---

Only if we remain vigilant. It only takes once to turn the world into hell.

FobTies said:

---

If this military campaign goes longer than a couple months, it will destroy Trumps legacy and midterms. Trump needs to find an off ramp in next few weeks, chalk it up as a win, and blame any fallout in Ben Net. That's the most likely outcome.

F16 has a very short memory.

Donald Trump has spent ten years promising not to start new wars.

A short compilation 🤡💀 pic.twitter.com/tOxr6MszWV

— Parody Jeff (@BackupJeffx) March 3, 2026

---

Now do the videos of him talking about Iran over the last decade. Sometimes peace takes strength.

Logos Stick said:

---

NPH- said:

---

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

---

I notice ants in my yard; I "obliterate" ants. Somehow, they start rebuilding. But they are still ants….

HTH

---

LOL. Ants are a nuisance. Radical Muslims with nukes are a tad more than a nuisance.

---

Whatabout Radical, Muslim aunts with nukes!?

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Virtually every modern comfort, convenience and piece of technology enjoyed by American isolationists was made possible by American interventionism over the last 90 years. By far greatest run in the history of our species was driven by America imposing our will on the world even when it had little or no direct and immediate benefit to us.

The irony of people posting about how terrible it is that America plays world police from their iPhone is lost on most but I will never stop finding it funny.

---

While I think you make a good point in regard to the benefits enjoyed by the fruits of American Interventionism, it is also disingenuos to imply that that is the only way to progress technologically (as you pointed out), philosophically, etc... National Socialist Germany and post war Japan were about as isolationist as any country could strive to be today and we still rely on and reference innovations made during both periods.

There is a distinct cost benefit analysis that, in my opinion, is not applied to the US's current approach to globalism (anti-Isolationism). With the conveneince comes a cost that can far outweigh the benefit. I'm sure there is a significant portion of our population that would willingly swap an iphone in exchange for the unravelling of years of drip towards the globalism of today.

Quote:

---

National Socialist Germany and post war Japan were about as isolationist as any country could strive to be today and we still rely on and reference innovations made during both periods.

---

Wait, National Socialist Germany, the country that tried to take over the world, was isolationist? And they were isolationist post war by virtue of having their asses kicked in a bid for global domination. And, not coincidentally, they were able to stay isolationist because we were the ones providing security. Who is going to protect us and our interests if we opt for isolationism?

Sya that again? Nazi Germany and Japan were isolationist?

You mean, the nazi Germany that invaded around 25 countries, give or take?

Or japan, who also invaded about 20 or 25 countries?

Id suggest that the pre war and active war times for each of those countries far outproduced in "innovation" than the post war countries, at least for decades after.

War is a driver of innovation. Thats a commonly held fact

Quote:

---

post war Japan were about as isolationist

---

so lets take the japan route.

lets get rid of our miltiary and pick another country to agree to protect us and give us billions of dollars so that we can function.

who do you suggest serve us in the role we served for Japan?

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sya that again? Nazi Germany and Japan were isolationist?

You mean, the nazi Germany that invaded around 25 countries, give or take?

Or japan, who also invaded about 20 or 25 countries?

---

Absolutely they were. In today's terms, economically, they both had an isolationist approach. In particular they practiced economic sovreignty, self-reliance, prioritized domestic markets, etc...

Don't confuse millitary conquests with state policy. For the most part the military endeavors were the direct result of shortages due to their isolationist policies.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

post war Japan were about as isolationist

---

so lets take the japan route.

lets get rid of our miltiary and pick another country to agree to protect us and give us billions of dollars so that we can function.

who do you suggest serve us in the role we served for Japan?

---

I mean sure. We could be idiots and take it to as far an extreme as you did, but that's not the point, as you know. Balanced approach, not extremeism to either side. Think before you speak. Germany and Japan are examples of countries that had some good but not all good, some bad but not all bad in regard to innovation under isolationism.

MJ20/20 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sya that again? Nazi Germany and Japan were isolationist?

You mean, the nazi Germany that invaded around 25 countries, give or take?

Or japan, who also invaded about 20 or 25 countries?

---

Absolutely they were. In today's terms, economically, they both had an isolationist approach. In particular they practiced economic sovreignty, self-reliance, prioritized domestic markets, etc...

Don't confuse millitary conquests with state policy. For the most part the military endeavors were the direct result of shortages due to their isolationist policies.

---

Don't confuse isolationism with wanting to be the only country in the world.

Isolationism would focus on you own country and being self reliant. Germany could have done that without normal trade relations for anything they could not self produce, which would be very little under pure isolationism.

But Hitler wanted to control the entirety of the globe. That's sort of the opposite of isolationism.

Japan is much trickier as they really preferred isolationism and one could argue their "offensive" was really a preemptive defense.

I would agree with your simple take on Japan, but I think you're dead wrong on Germany.

you literally gave an example of Japan whose isolationism required being essentially a vassal state. the point is that what you chose as a example was easily shot down as not remotely feasible.

BMX Bandit said:

---

you literally gave an example of Japan whose isolationism required being essentially a vassal state. the point is that what you chose as a example was easily shot down as not remotely feasible.

---

This conversation is cruising about 50,000 feet over your head. Their isolationism, essentially neutered our domestic car industry. Innovation can occur with an isolationist approach. It has nothing to do with their being brought to their knees militarily in WWII.

MJ20/20 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sya that again? Nazi Germany and Japan were isolationist?

You mean, the nazi Germany that invaded around 25 countries, give or take?

Or japan, who also invaded about 20 or 25 countries?

---

Absolutely they were. In today's terms, economically, they both had an isolationist approach. In particular they practiced economic sovreignty, self-reliance, prioritized domestic markets, etc...

Don't confuse millitary conquests with state policy. For the most part the military endeavors were the direct result of shortages due to their isolationist policies.

---

They were trying to conquer territory in part because they lacked the resources. Instead of trying to be part of a global economy, they tried to take what they needed by force. Our foreign interventions might be bad, but it's a better strategy than that.

MJ20/20 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you literally gave an example of Japan whose isolationism required being essentially a vassal state. the point is that what you chose as a example was easily shot down as not remotely feasible.

---

This conversation is cruising about 50,000 feet over your head. Their isolationism, essentially neutered our domestic car industry. Innovation can occur with an isolationist approach. It has nothing to do with their being brought to their knees militarily in WWII.

---

keep moving those goal post. you said post war japan. they could not have survived but for the US propping them up financially and protecting them militarily. thats a fact. guess it cruised right over your head

Lets start over- I dont want to put words in your mouth, but id like to know how you define isolationist

Have fun over there with Netanyahu

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?

---

Nothing will help you understand. Nothing. So why bother?

flown-the-coop said:

---

MJ20/20 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sya that again? Nazi Germany and Japan were isolationist?

You mean, the nazi Germany that invaded around 25 countries, give or take?

Or japan, who also invaded about 20 or 25 countries?

---

Absolutely they were. In today's terms, economically, they both had an isolationist approach. In particular they practiced economic sovreignty, self-reliance, prioritized domestic markets, etc...

Don't confuse millitary conquests with state policy. For the most part the military endeavors were the direct result of shortages due to their isolationist policies.

---

Don't confuse isolationism with wanting to be the only country in the world.

Isolationism would focus on you own country and being self reliant. Germany could have done that without normal trade relations for anything they could not self produce, which would be very little under pure isolationism.

But Hitler wanted to control the entirety of the globe. That's sort of the opposite of isolationism.

Japan is much trickier as they really preferred isolationism and one could argue their "offensive" was really a preemptive defense.

I would agree with your simple take on Japan, but I think you're dead wrong on Germany.

---

I probably should have been more specific on the German time frame, but it doesn't really matter. From 1933 - 1939 Germany's only foreign trade partners were neighboring states that they swapped agricultural products for iron ore and minimal alloy components. They were so inward focused to offset the decimated economy as a result of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. They needed to breath life into an almost commatose economy thourgh domestic growth. Circumstances certainly played a part, but it doesn't change the fact that they over achieved the goal of reviving the German economy from within.

Once the war machine began to crank up, they needed more ore and later fuel and other inputs that they either conquered those countries (Czech republic was lagest iron ore supplier) or tried to deal with Axis allies. They ventured outside the soverign lines out of ambitious necessity not core economic policy.

THe point remains that their innovation in engineering, science, and technology out paced the world during this inward / isolationist approach during the '33 - '39 years.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Lets start over- I dont want to put words in your mouth, but id like to know how you define isolationist

---

Isolationist from a purely economic / innovative approach. Mindset of the state, so to speak, in that regard.

BMX Bandit said:

---

MJ20/20 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

you literally gave an example of Japan whose isolationism required being essentially a vassal state. the point is that what you chose as a example was easily shot down as not remotely feasible.

---

This conversation is cruising about 50,000 feet over your head. Their isolationism, essentially neutered our domestic car industry. Innovation can occur with an isolationist approach. It has nothing to do with their being brought to their knees militarily in WWII.

---

keep moving those goal post. you said post war japan. they could not have survived but for the US propping them up financially and protecting them militarily. thats a fact. guess it cruised right over your head

---

Take a deep breath. I'm not going to hurt you. No goal post was moved at all. Everything you said is true, the US invested a ton of resources in reviving Japan financially and militarily that's not up for depbate and is a tangible fact. In addition, the efforts in the 60's, 70's, 80's and beyond are still post war Japan.

Also, as a seperate discussion, one could argue the US has suffered from the generosity afforded the Japanese. They domintated the car, and other high end manufacturing with state of the art facilities financed by our parents and grand parents. We propped them up so they could eventually offload manufacturing from America to Japan.

That doesnt really describe what you mean by isolationist.

Must be a dan Cooper theory. I've never, in the hundreds of books ive read on this subject, seen either Germany or Japan described as isolationist or that isolationism is a driver of innovation

Im not trying to bash you or your theory, its just new to me and I dont think I understand your definition of isolationism

Why do the isolationists presume our interests reside only within our own borders? We exist in a globalized interconnected world. Other nations have agency also. They can and will do thing that are quite harmful to us if we allow it and do not take action to prevent it, sooner or later. Particularly with regards to future threats and economic threats.

Both Iran and North Korea have been actively working on an ICBM program and a nuclear warhead program. North Korea is getting close. Fortunately, they are generally a reclusive hermit if a nation that seeks to be left alone.
Iran, on the other hand, has been led by apocalyptic religious fanatics a that literally did believe their mission was to destroy the powers in the west and bring about a global jihad to bring back their 12th imam to lead them to ultimate victory. They actually really did want the power to threaten and eventually start an intercontinental war with the USA. It has been a fundamental part of their dogma since 1979.

The reason we went to war now is that we had a limited window of opportunity to stop this for a generation or maybe for many generations, between Iran being weaker by the 12 day war, and their resumption of both their missile and nuclear programs with no concessions in negotiations on either. Eventually they would build enough missiles and drones where a war against them would be far more damaging for us to undertake to stop their nuclear program, much like North Korea threatening Seoul with 20,000 artillery guns, so the clock was ticking.

Trump was right to act while the opportunity to establish generational security from a very real and growing threat was there, at least cost and with greatest possible opportunity for success.

The Iran and Venezuela operations are proxy wars with China. The quest for energy. Regional control of the amerias and Middle East. We are also attempting to hem China in near their coast. Building up Japan with offensive fire power for first time since WW2.

Nothing more and nothing less. It is in our interests. China has been dominating in the American hemisphere. And was getting Iran to build their missiles in hopes we would allow them to build Iran up uncontested.

Trump's brilliant. Hopefully it works. Hopefully conservatives figure this **** out.

To be sure, settling matters with Venezuela and Iran are absolutely a part of a larger strategy to weaken China, which is our largest long term threat. One that absolutely cannot be ignored while it is militarily and economically hostile to us.

Who?mikejones! said:

---

That doesnt really describe what you mean by isolationist.

Must be a dan Cooper theory. I've never, I. The hundreds of books ive read on this subject, seen either Germany or Japan described as isolationist or that isolationism is a driver of innovation

Im not trying to bash you or your theory, its just new to me and I dont think I understand your definition of isolationism

---

I apologize that was not a definition. Here's some characteristics I was referring to from an economic approach:

Protectionism - using tools necessary to promote domestic business - US Farm Bill would be a good example to encourage domestic agriculture.

Immigration restrictions - protect the domestic labor force

Self Reliance - doing what it takes to make as much as you need at home. Definitely growing pains here but it's been done. This includes a reduced trade dependence, over time.

Populism - America First, strengthen American families through employment and incentive. Eliminate drains on economy (fraud, welfare, social servies, by empowereing citizens to earn).

I read a great book covering American Isolationism but I can't remember the author. I'm pretty sure I know where it is and can send it to you if you'd like. I've read several books on Soviet Isolationism and it's important to not get that intertwined with what I am suggesting. Soviet anything had nothing to do with promoting Russians or Russian economic fitness. I'd emphasize enhancing the American middle class while Soviet isolationism intends to eliminate the Russian middle class.

MJ20/20 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

MJ20/20 said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Sya that again? Nazi Germany and Japan were isolationist?

You mean, the nazi Germany that invaded around 25 countries, give or take?

Or japan, who also invaded about 20 or 25 countries?

---

Absolutely they were. In today's terms, economically, they both had an isolationist approach. In particular they practiced economic sovreignty, self-reliance, prioritized domestic markets, etc...

Don't confuse millitary conquests with state policy. For the most part the military endeavors were the direct result of shortages due to their isolationist policies.

---

Don't confuse isolationism with wanting to be the only country in the world.

Isolationism would focus on you own country and being self reliant. Germany could have done that without normal trade relations for anything they could not self produce, which would be very little under pure isolationism.

But Hitler wanted to control the entirety of the globe. That's sort of the opposite of isolationism.

Japan is much trickier as they really preferred isolationism and one could argue their "offensive" was really a preemptive defense.

I would agree with your simple take on Japan, but I think you're dead wrong on Germany.

---

I probably should have been more specific on the German time frame, but it doesn't really matter. From 1933 - 1939 Germany's only foreign trade partners were neighboring states that they swapped agricultural products for iron ore and minimal alloy components. They were so inward focused to offset the decimated economy as a result of WWI and the Treaty of Versailles. They needed to breath life into an almost commatose economy thourgh domestic growth. Circumstances certainly played a part, but it doesn't change the fact that they over achieved the goal of reviving the German economy.

Once the war machine began to crank up, they needed more ore and later fuel and other inputs that they either conquered those countries (Czech republic was lagest iron ore supplier) or tried to deal with Axis allies. They ventured outside the soverign lines out of ambitious necessity not core economic policy.

THe point remains that their innovation in engineering, science, and technology out paced the world during this inward / isolationist approach during the '33 - '39 years.

---

I think this is a complete mischaracterization of Germany's "inward" approach. Sure, they were focused inwardly and weren't players on the international stage, but the Nazi government so leveraged the German economy building their war machine that by 1939 their economic bubble was ready to pop. They had no means to pay back the money borrowed internally through tricky financing bills and their only option at that point was to begin plundering. Which they did, very successfully at first.

Bottom line, this model isn't one we want to follow.