The beauty of these two posts juxtaposed by fate...

flown-the-coop said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

So exactly what I said. Maybe you should read it and identify the actually stated aims of the war, not the rhetoric, which were further identified by Hegseth. It's the four aims I spelled out for you above.

No terms.

---

And the "you will never have a nuke" which translates to stop enriching, handover the enriched uranium and make no further attempts to pursue a nuclear weapon or you will be killed.

Is that not a term? Do this or else?

It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again. They can never have a nuclear weapon.

---

That was not a term laid out for the war, but for the failed negotiations prior to the war (much of which seem to be at least partly pretext on our part given the timing). We said we were going to destroy their nuclear capabilities as one of the four aims of the war. And then we'd be out.

So if there's any gaslighting going on it's by you or been done to you. There was no statement of "we're going to keep bombing until you hand over the uranium and agree to stop pursuing nukes."

Gordo14 said:

---

It's probably not good that we as a society are normalizing language from our president like "a civilization will die tonight."

---

Its possible he is not talking to you or the American left. He is talking to Iran, particularly to a Shia population that does understand this type of language. Why does the left always assume things are always about them ?

Thing is if he can get a deal no more people die. What would the left be doing right now ? oh history answers that question, pulling dead Americans from crashed helicopters in the Iran desert as we did in 1979. Talk about incompetence ????

Its what the dems do especially in matters of FP.

DTP02 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The Iranians themselves have often stated that to them "Death to America" more means "GTFO of the Middle East" and that it's our backing of Israel that draws their ire.

---

Do you have a link to this?


Its seems to me that they could just say "GTFO of the Middle East" rather than using code.

---

You're on the internet, so surely you can do a google search. Here are a couple of quick links. There was a fairly well known interview with the leader of their parliament where he said this exact thing as well, not too long ago:

https://americ.info/america/whats-with-irans-death-to-america-chant-al-jazeera/?amp=1

https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-defends-death-to-america-slogan-says-not-against-us-citizens-but-its-leadership-13907589.html#goog_rewarded

The idea that Iran has ever posed a threat to the homeland is a nonstarter. Not only has it never happened, there's no indication it ever would.

---

Holy head in the sand, Batman!
The world's leading sponsor of terror. Significant funder, trainer, provider of weapons, etc. to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis doesn't pose a threat to the homeland? How many of them do you think walked across the border under Biden's watch?
How naive can you get?

---

Hamas and Hezbollah pose a threat to Israel. The Houthis a threat to Israel, SA, and shipping.

They don't pose a threat to the USA, but to US interests and presence in the ME.

---

So as long as we stay completely out of the Middle East, then we should not worry about Iran?

What sort of strategy it that? Makes sense that you would think pallets of Obama-bucks and totally since fatwas from evil dictators are better strategy than taking any action. So brave, so bold.

---

If we stayed out of the ME, we would not have to worry about Iran. Yes, that was the point of the discussion you seem to be having trouble following. Our involvement in the ME is what drew Iran's ire, not our mere existence or lifestyle or beliefs. And the threat to us is not to the USA but to our interests in the ME. That was the discussion.

---

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he hops. The Middle East is most certainly a part of the strategic and economic interests of the United Stares. To think otherwise is simply short sighted at the least, and ignorant at best.

DTP02 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

If we stayed out of the ME, we would not have to worry about Iran. Yes, that was the point of the discussion you seem to be having trouble following. Our involvement in the ME is what drew Iran's ire, not our mere existence or lifestyle or beliefs. And the threat to us is not to the USA but to our interests in the ME. That was the discussion.

---

I guess I was having trouble following the "discussion" because its asinine, baseless and defies all common sense. I had trouble following the libs rationaly on trans treatment for minors, so makes sense.

You think the Islamic Republic of Iran was content to eek out a mostly peaceful existence? If so, you are woefully uninformed about Iran, the beliefs of the mullahs and ayatollahs, and lots and lots of history along the the geopolitical complexities in play.

B-1 83 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The Iranians themselves have often stated that to them "Death to America" more means "GTFO of the Middle East" and that it's our backing of Israel that draws their ire.

---

Do you have a link to this?


Its seems to me that they could just say "GTFO of the Middle East" rather than using code.

---

You're on the internet, so surely you can do a google search. Here are a couple of quick links. There was a fairly well known interview with the leader of their parliament where he said this exact thing as well, not too long ago:

https://americ.info/america/whats-with-irans-death-to-america-chant-al-jazeera/?amp=1

https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-defends-death-to-america-slogan-says-not-against-us-citizens-but-its-leadership-13907589.html#goog_rewarded

The idea that Iran has ever posed a threat to the homeland is a nonstarter. Not only has it never happened, there's no indication it ever would.

---

Holy head in the sand, Batman!
The world's leading sponsor of terror. Significant funder, trainer, provider of weapons, etc. to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis doesn't pose a threat to the homeland? How many of them do you think walked across the border under Biden's watch?
How naive can you get?

---

Hamas and Hezbollah pose a threat to Israel. The Houthis a threat to Israel, SA, and shipping.

They don't pose a threat to the USA, but to US interests and presence in the ME.

---

So as long as we stay completely out of the Middle East, then we should not worry about Iran?

What sort of strategy it that? Makes sense that you would think pallets of Obama-bucks and totally since fatwas from evil dictators are better strategy than taking any action. So brave, so bold.

---

If we stayed out of the ME, we would not have to worry about Iran. Yes, that was the point of the discussion you seem to be having trouble following. Our involvement in the ME is what drew Iran's ire, not our mere existence or lifestyle or beliefs. And the threat to us is not to the USA but to our interests in the ME. That was the discussion.

---

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his butt when he hops. The Middle East is most certainly a part of the strategic and economic interests of the United Stares. To think otherwise is simply short sighted at the least, and ignorant at best.

---

Sure, but that's a different discussion. Now it's about whether our interference in the affairs of the ME is worth the total cost to us. It certainly puts things in a different light than "they're out to get us just because we exist so we have to go get them first."

DTP02 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

So exactly what I said. Maybe you should read it and identify the actually stated aims of the war, not the rhetoric, which were further identified by Hegseth. It's the four aims I spelled out for you above.

No terms.

---

And the "you will never have a nuke" which translates to stop enriching, handover the enriched uranium and make no further attempts to pursue a nuclear weapon or you will be killed.

Is that not a term? Do this or else?

It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. I'll say it again. They can never have a nuclear weapon.

---

That was not a term laid out for the war, but for the failed negotiations prior to the war (much of which seem to be at least partly pretext on our part given the timing). We said we were going to destroy their nuclear capabilities as one of the four aims of the war. And then we'd be out.

So if there's any gaslighting going on it's by you or been done to you. There was no statement of "we're going to keep bombing until you hand over the uranium and agree to stop pursuing nukes."

---

Sorry, but if you listened to the speech (or read as I provided the complete text) and you came away with the idea we were not going to bomb until they comply, then you may be lost.

Did you think Trump was just going to strongly say "Don't" over and over again with no action?

Sorry Trump's winning has you all twisted into a logic pretzel.

So... I should mock you? No. Being ignorant is forgivable. Choosing to remain ignorant is just plain stupid.

bmc13 said:

---

yep. take out the substations.

---

Reminds me of when La Raza Unida "took over" the gas substation outside Crystal City after the city wouldn't pay its bill and the gas company was going to shut them off. Gas company cut them off from a few miles away.

flown-the-coop said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Hank the Grifter said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

.

---

---

---

---

---

---

If we stayed out of the ME, we would not have to worry about Iran. Yes, that was the point of the discussion you seem to be having trouble following. Our involvement in the ME is what drew Iran's ire, not our mere existence or lifestyle or beliefs. And the threat to us is not to the USA but to our interests in the ME. That was the discussion.

---

I guess I was having trouble following the "discussion" because its asinine, baseless and defies all common sense. I had trouble following the libs rationaly on trans treatment for minors, so makes sense.

You think the Islamic Republic of Iran was content to eek out a mostly peaceful existence? If so, you are woefully uninformed about Iran, the beliefs of the mullahs and ayatollahs, and lots and lots of history along the the geopolitical complexities in play.

---

Yes, clearly you are having trouble following, because you repeatedly say things I haven't said and ignore things I have said, much like you invent words that Trump said in your perpetual kneejerk defense of him (I voted for him three times, FWIW).

Iran wants to be the regional power in the ME, as I stated previously.

I think I will have to be done with responding to you as you are either incapable of exchange in good faith or perhaps just not capable. Your clear invention of Trump's "terms" is the perfect example.

DTP02 said:

---

Yes, clearly you are having trouble following, because you repeatedly say things I haven't said and ignore things I have said, much like you invent words that Trump said in your perpetual kneejerk defense of him (I voted for him three times, FWIW).

Iran wants to be the regional power in the ME, as I stated previously.

I think I will have to be done with responding to you as you are either incapable of exchange in good faith or perhaps just not capable.

---

You can state all you want. But its simply not true. Not in any remotest concept is it true.

Provided you complete context, you ignore it. A perpetual kneejerk defense one does when they know the facts are not on their side and their lies / gaslights have been exposed.

I am indeed incapable of letting people post absolute falsehoods to try and support a lib narrative.

DTP02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The Iranians themselves have often stated that to them "Death to America" more means "GTFO of the Middle East" and that it's our backing of Israel that draws their ire.

---

Do you have a link to this?


Its seems to me that they could just say "GTFO of the Middle East" rather than using code.

---

You're on the internet, so surely you can do a google search. Here are a couple of quick links. There was a fairly well known interview with the leader of their parliament where he said this exact thing as well, not too long ago:

https://americ.info/america/whats-with-irans-death-to-america-chant-al-jazeera/?amp=1

https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-defends-death-to-america-slogan-says-not-against-us-citizens-but-its-leadership-13907589.html#goog_rewarded

The idea that Iran has ever posed a threat to the homeland is a nonstarter. Not only has it never happened, there's no indication it ever would.

---

My bad! I assumed since you made a claim, you could support it!

YOU CANNOT!!

Neither link supports your lie that "Death to America" means anything other than what is plainly and clearly means!

Stop carrying water for terrorists!!!

Damn even Alex Jones is calling out Trump for his unhinged rant.

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Damn even Alex Jones is calling out Trump for his unhinged rant.

---

You havent been paying much attention for a good long while huh?

Next you'll be telling us about Tucker! Ha

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Damn even Alex Jones is calling out Trump for his unhinged rant.

---

Good. You Dems can have him!

Im Gipper said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The Iranians themselves have often stated that to them "Death to America" more means "GTFO of the Middle East" and that it's our backing of Israel that draws their ire.

---

Do you have a link to this?


Its seems to me that they could just say "GTFO of the Middle East" rather than using code.

---

You're on the internet, so surely you can do a google search. Here are a couple of quick links. There was a fairly well known interview with the leader of their parliament where he said this exact thing as well, not too long ago:

https://americ.info/america/whats-with-irans-death-to-america-chant-al-jazeera/?amp=1

https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-defends-death-to-america-slogan-says-not-against-us-citizens-but-its-leadership-13907589.html#goog_rewarded

The idea that Iran has ever posed a threat to the homeland is a nonstarter. Not only has it never happened, there's no indication it ever would.

---

My bad! I assumed since you made a claim, you could support it!

YOU CANNOT!!

Neither link supports your lie that "Death to America" means anything other than what is plainly and clearly means!

Stop carrying water for terrorists!!!

---

Much like that f-t-c character, I can't actually read it for you, that part is up to you.

Quote:

---

Iran's parliament clarified on Wednesday (July 16) that the chant "Death to America" is a rejection of US leadership and its history of global dominance, not a call for harm against American citizens.

---

But you'll no doubt explain away Trump's "end their civilization" rhetoric without Trump himself even offering such an explanation.

There you have it Gipper, straight from the Iranian parliament. They are super serious when they say "eath to America" translates into "we want peace and will be the arbiters of peace in the ME as long as Big Satan leaves us alone and lets us do whatever we want, including nuking Israel and anybody else they decide to not like".

Next we will hear about they are a mostly peaceful people who write poetry.

The same Leftists in the US and Europe who are screaming about this also can't wait to cut deals with the Iranians who are happy to kill their own children. They certainly don't want to bring Iranians to account, they want to reward them. This is why the UN, NATO, and every other post WWII globalist order institution is now obsolete, it doesn't work if people don't play by the rules. The pre WWI era of hard power is back and most people simply have no understanding of how the last 75 years have been the exception and not the rule.

I also doubt Trump will bomb facilities filled with children but I also have no doubt he has multiple backup plans and that this was a chess move. Typically with Trump what he screams about is for theater and the actions tend to be sudden and unexpected. He understands the value of unpredictability in tactics as a strategy. Unfortunately even after a decade of watching how Trump operates people still take him literally.

DTP02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The Iranians themselves have often stated that to them "Death to America" more means "GTFO of the Middle East" and that it's our backing of Israel that draws their ire.

---

Do you have a link to this?


Its seems to me that they could just say "GTFO of the Middle East" rather than using code.

---

You're on the internet, so surely you can do a google search. Here are a couple of quick links. There was a fairly well known interview with the leader of their parliament where he said this exact thing as well, not too long ago:

https://americ.info/america/whats-with-irans-death-to-america-chant-al-jazeera/?amp=1

https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-defends-death-to-america-slogan-says-not-against-us-citizens-but-its-leadership-13907589.html#goog_rewarded

The idea that Iran has ever posed a threat to the homeland is a nonstarter. Not only has it never happened, there's no indication it ever would.

---

LOL

I'm pro "bomb the power plants" - flatten them even.

But Trump really does like to make life hard on himself. He talks way too much, and his use of bluster and hyperbole is only useful to his ego, his enemies, and leftists. He needs to learn to stfu and let the bombs do the talking.

Take out ALL bridges to limit the mobility of weapon systems and the IRGC. Take out ALL of the fuel supply to the power plants and the production sites of such fuel. Kill ALL of the leaders to the extent possible, and ALL of their replacements.

Just identify and kill those who engineer, operate and maintain the infrastructure.

• Graphite Bombs (Soft Bombs): These non-lethal weapons, such as the BLU-114/B, are designed specifically to disable electrical grids. They release a cloud of chemically treated carbon filaments that cause short-circuits in high-voltage installations like transformers and power lines with minimal collateral damage.

Quote:

---

Iran's parliament clarified on Wednesday (July 16) that the chant "Death to America" is a rejection of US leadership and its history of global dominance, not a call for harm against American citizens.

---

This is different than what you claimed above.

Death to America does IN FACT mean what it says. Death to America.

Quote:

---

The idea that Iran has ever posed a threat to the homeland is a nonstarter. Not only has it never happened, there's no indication it ever would.

---

Clown status confirmed.

They LITERALLY just recently tried to assassinate Trump!

Predicting your next post:

Quote:

---

"Not a threat! Its Isreeeeeeeeeeall"

---

DTP02 said:

---

Gradin said:

---

I can't believe how many people are here cheering on this destruction. Trump is insane and needs to be removed from power ASAP.

---

I don't think Trump is insane. His lack of self-discipline in communication and lack of consistency in messaging, and his overall frustration, are definitely evident though.

---

Trump's undisciplined communication style drives me crazy.

But, it makes it hard for people to predict what he is going to do.

DTP02 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Iran doesn't just hate America for reasons of history. If that were true, their real conflict would've have arguably been more with the UK. No, early on their Shia Islamist movement zeroed in on the USA as the great enemy against whom they could go to an apocalyptic war, for deeply religious reasons that we were the greatest power for the movement to be pitted against to conform with the 12th imam return narrative. It surely also has to do with some geopolitical manipulations we had a hand in from after WW2 to 1979 but the movement had identified the USA as the enemy before that. The issue with the Shah simply provided pretext and opportunity. Israel is a subplot to it because they are the regional Jewish dominated state and the closest American ally or alleged proxy in the region and are reachable.

We could ignore Iran, but they won't ignore us. The Islamic Revolution was never going to leave us alone.

---

That's certainly one way to look at it. The Iranians themselves have often stated that to them "Death to America" more means "GTFO of the Middle East" and that it's our backing of Israel that draws their ire.

The imminent threat, such that it was, was to Israel, not the US.

---

If Muslims were so concerned with the ME, why have they all invaded Europe?

Iran hates the US because they hate the West. And, when it comes to military power, we ARE the West.

nai06 said:

---

That's not a good quality of leadership.


I don't think any world leader should be threatening to kill and an entire country, hyperbole or not. That's the sort of **** Iranians who use children as human shields say (which is a war crime).

The world looks towards the U.S. as a guide in geopolitics, military strategy, culture, basically everything. We have rapidly changed what is considered acceptable for a world leader to say and do (especially militarily).

I'm not saying everything is unjustified, but we have to be aware that what we do and say sets the standard for future wars and conflicts. Do we want to open the door for other countries to do the same? To treat us or our allies similarly?


Boasting about how good a golfer you are or telling a fishing story about the one that got away is fine for hyperbole. It's not acceptable when you are talking about large scale bombing campaigns or the implied use of nuclear weapons.

Someone who does that is not mentally or (more importantly) emotionally stable enough to make those kinds of decisions.

---

You are pretending that the Europe in 2026 is the same Europe from 1948. They are not.

I wish that the world would look to US when it came to individual rights, instead of locking up their citizens for being critical of their Muslim politicians and rape gangs.

Europe has changed way more than the US has, and, not for the better.

As for how to fight war? I would agree that Obama and then Trump fight wars very differently after the Iraq / Afghan debacle. Once upon a time it was considered bad form to target enemy officers in a battle, where each side lined up in rows and took turns shooting at each other. That sentiment kind of carried over all the way to Iraq, where it was abandoned. Now, the way to win the war is to cut the head off the snake. That is definitely different. I'm OK with that.

DTP02 said:

---

Im Gipper said:

---

Quote:

---

The Iranians themselves have often stated that to them "Death to America" more means "GTFO of the Middle East" and that it's our backing of Israel that draws their ire.

---

Do you have a link to this?


Its seems to me that they could just say "GTFO of the Middle East" rather than using code.

---

You're on the internet, so surely you can do a google search. Here are a couple of quick links. There was a fairly well known interview with the leader of their parliament where he said this exact thing as well, not too long ago:

https://americ.info/america/whats-with-irans-death-to-america-chant-al-jazeera/?amp=1

https://www.firstpost.com/world/iran-defends-death-to-america-slogan-says-not-against-us-citizens-but-its-leadership-13907589.html#goog_rewarded

The idea that Iran has ever posed a threat to the homeland is a nonstarter. Not only has it never happened, there's no indication it ever would.

---

Why were so many Iranian leaders and civilians celebrating on 9/11?

Courtesy Flush said:

---

Is it possible that the plan is to shut down power plants via cyber attack that can then be turned back on when the Americans/Israelis want it back on?

---

Maybe, but only if Mossad is involved.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

I can already see it.

Trump: Doesn't attack because the children.

Dems & TDS Clowns: "LUUULZ, TACO Trump"

---

1) Trump attacks

2) Iran calls his bluff and he doesn't attack


Which of these two outcomes is good for the U.S.?

---

Trump conducting "diplomacy" via Truth Social is contributing to a no win situation for the US. Either we knowingly bomb innocent civilians or Trump's threats become feckless. All because he has the maturity and temperament of a 14 yr old.

---

Weren't you one of the ones that was complaining that Trump didn't consult Congress before the attacks on Iran?

BusterAg said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

I can already see it.

Trump: Doesn't attack because the children.

Dems & TDS Clowns: "LUUULZ, TACO Trump"

---

1) Trump attacks

2) Iran calls his bluff and he doesn't attack


Which of these two outcomes is good for the U.S.?

---

Trump conducting "diplomacy" via Truth Social is contributing to a no win situation for the US. Either we knowingly bomb innocent civilians or Trump's threats become feckless. All because he has the maturity and temperament of a 14 yr old.

---

Weren't you one of the ones that was complaining that Trump didn't consult Congress before the attacks on Iran?

---

I can nearly guarantee if there was something to complain about with Trump that the lunatic did

DeschutesAg said:

---

-- If (jmho this was not one of our objectives, so the word "If" matters here) another top objective was to install a new regime that is not like the old regime, we knew we could not achieve that via air power alone. It would require ground troops. A lot of them.

---

It's super obvious to me that there was some hope, but not any reliance on, the possibility that if we killed enough Mullah's, the Iranian citizenry would revolt. Things like that have happened before.

BusterAg said:

---

DeschutesAg said:

---

-- If (jmho this was not one of our objectives, so the word "If" matters here) another top objective was to install a new regime that is not like the old regime, we knew we could not achieve that via air power alone. It would require ground troops. A lot of them.

---

It's super obvious to me that there was some hope, but not any reliance on, the possibility that if we killed enough Mullah's, the Iranian citizenry would revolt. Things like that have happened before.

---

Theyve been instructed to stay out of the way and unless I've missed something, that directive has been maintained.

With the internet being nearly 100 percent locked down still, I'd guess that the revolt has not yet received a greenlight. However, the destruction of rail systems, bridges and power systems would certainly assist local rebellions against the Islamic Republic while also greatly reducing their abilities to easily relocate and reinforce areas of unrest as they have become accustomed to previously

BusterAg said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Iran doesn't just hate America for reasons of history. If that were true, their real conflict would've have arguably been more with the UK. No, early on their Shia Islamist movement zeroed in on the USA as the great enemy against whom they could go to an apocalyptic war, for deeply religious reasons that we were the greatest power for the movement to be pitted against to conform with the 12th imam return narrative. It surely also has to do with some geopolitical manipulations we had a hand in from after WW2 to 1979 but the movement had identified the USA as the enemy before that. The issue with the Shah simply provided pretext and opportunity. Israel is a subplot to it because they are the regional Jewish dominated state and the closest American ally or alleged proxy in the region and are reachable.

We could ignore Iran, but they won't ignore us. The Islamic Revolution was never going to leave us alone.

---

That's certainly one way to look at it. The Iranians themselves have often stated that to them "Death to America" more means "GTFO of the Middle East" and that it's our backing of Israel that draws their ire.

The imminent threat, such that it was, was to Israel, not the US.

---

If Muslims were so concerned with the ME, why have they all invaded Europe?

Iran hates the US because they hate the West. And, when it comes to military power, we ARE the West.

---

The vast majority of the numbers for the "invasion" of Europe (and the US, to a lesser extent) were caused by refugees crises which we had a significant hand in causing. Which is why we should be very concerned about starting another one in Iran and sending millions more Muslims heading to the west with grievances and no goal of assimilating.

Our short-sighted ME policies have constantly caused longterm unforeseen negative consequences, often greater than the problems we were trying to solve.

We've gone from four enunciated goals for this conflict, all of them military, and no boots on the ground, to talks of boots on the ground and causing massive economic and societal disruption.

And Trump is engaging in Twitter diplomacy with increasingly unhinged rhetoric and smelling of desperation. We all hope it's just rhetoric anyway.

I actually supported the initial bombing last year (remember when Trump said we obliterated their nuclear program and set them back years?) and begrudgingly supported the initial campaign this year.

But we are on the verge of taking things too far, if we haven't already. And it's likely to cost us in the long term as well as the short term politically. Those who get their politics only on TexAgs or their own social media bubble would be surprised at how unpopular this war is becoming among people the right is counting on for political support. And the economic pains from this hasn't even really started to hit yet, and those pains could be quite devastating if things don't stabilize quickly.