- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Approval of Trump's Iran war actions ahead by double digit margin
Posted on 3/25/26 at 10:03 pm to DeathByTossDive225
Posted on 3/25/26 at 10:03 pm to DeathByTossDive225
You’re too naive to debate with. You think you can engage Iran with diplomacy and passivity.
You are a child of Obama. You are a true believer.
America is not exceptional. And does not possess the moral high ground.
Iran is our moral equivalent and if we negotiate with them through diplomacy we can trust them to do what they said they will in these talks
You and I are fundamentally opposed here
You would have supported negotiating with Hitler and believed when someone came back with a document full of his promises. It’s as simple as that.
Edit. Yes I absolutely believe that the Iranian regime is the moral equivalent of nazi Germany. They just didn’t have the firepower yet. But you would sit back and negotiate with them until they did
You are a child of Obama. You are a true believer.
America is not exceptional. And does not possess the moral high ground.
Iran is our moral equivalent and if we negotiate with them through diplomacy we can trust them to do what they said they will in these talks
You and I are fundamentally opposed here
You would have supported negotiating with Hitler and believed when someone came back with a document full of his promises. It’s as simple as that.
Edit. Yes I absolutely believe that the Iranian regime is the moral equivalent of nazi Germany. They just didn’t have the firepower yet. But you would sit back and negotiate with them until they did
This post was edited on 3/25/26 at 10:05 pm
2
Posted on 3/25/26 at 10:05 pm to jammajin
quote:
You’re too naive to debate with. You think you can engage Iran with diplomacy
You just emphatically said that regime change isn’t the goal. What else do you think is there besides diplomacy then? And they’re “literally Nazi germany”, but regime change isn’t the goal?
You’re all over the place.
This post was edited on 3/25/26 at 10:09 pm
Posted on 3/25/26 at 10:07 pm to loogaroo
I’m so grateful Trump won.
Posted on 3/25/26 at 10:09 pm to oldskule
quote:
We are doing the right thing!
Yes we are. Just as we have done before. But it’s harder this time because too large a percentage of obamaites believe we are on a moral equivalent plane with evil.
Posted on 3/25/26 at 10:23 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Do we believe polls now or do we not?
You know the answer to that. The cult especially believes the ones Donald makes up when he says he’s the most popular president ever.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 4:22 am to loogaroo
So now war is good.
I remember when we wanted to stop the Ukraine Russia war, not invade another Middle East country and we're America first.
Now we're trying regime change again in a radical Islamic country on the other side of the world. I'm sure it'll work this time though...
I remember when we wanted to stop the Ukraine Russia war, not invade another Middle East country and we're America first.
Now we're trying regime change again in a radical Islamic country on the other side of the world. I'm sure it'll work this time though...
Posted on 3/26/26 at 6:22 am to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
Is regime change the goal or isn’t it?
Trump has made it clear from the beginning that it is a “nice to have” goal, but not a “necessary” goal. I wish he would commit to regime change, but I have to admit that it isn’t the will of the American people, broadly speaking.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 6:28 am to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
Okay so regime change isn’t the goal… so then the goal is a diplomatic agreement with the regime, like we had before.
But now you think it’s realistic they’d give up their ballistic missile program & the strait + you trust them more after all that has transpired since 2018… than you did in 2017.
Well, yeah, “a deal like we had before”, except this time they have to spend trillions rebuilding what they had before. And we’re not going to make a shite deal that’s unenforceable like “we” did before. And now they know that if they spend the trillions rebuilding for conquest, and deprive their people of fulfilling lives, we will just destroy it again.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 6:30 am to aubie101
quote:
So now we like polls? Pick a lane
It's pretty simple. Whatever the polls say, it is highly likely underselling the truth. So if he has a 43% approval rating, even though his rating appears as a positive, it's usually a pretty safe bet that the percentage of those who approve is actually higher.
We don't have to change lanes. Trump has had positive approval ratings many times before, and I have never personally changed my opinions on polls. I always think they're underselling it. You don't have to be a polling data scientist. Just look and listen to what's going on around you, and you know the polls aren't accurate. Both times he was elected are proof that the polls don't tell the truth.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 6:35 am to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
You just emphatically said that regime change isn’t the goal. What else do you think is there besides diplomacy then?
Have you been following the news? The alternative to diplomacy from the status quo is to change the status quo through warfare. That is being done. Of course diplomacy is the end goal, as it is in almost every war. The days of enslaving a defeated population are over (at least for western victors).
Posted on 3/26/26 at 7:19 am to DeathByTossDive225
I think you’ll bitch regardless
Posted on 3/26/26 at 7:34 am to Penrod
This is how disingenuous he is.
Pretending
1) the Obama “deal” was worth the paper it was printed on
2) we are back to “a deal like we had before” where we were handing them cash and believing they were good
Pretending
1) the Obama “deal” was worth the paper it was printed on
2) we are back to “a deal like we had before” where we were handing them cash and believing they were good
Posted on 3/26/26 at 8:19 am to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
So, like JCPOA?
You continue to say this like Iran was abiding by the rules of JCPOA.
Why do you lie?
Posted on 3/26/26 at 10:04 am to DMAN1968
Because he’s an anti American pos
Posted on 3/26/26 at 12:38 pm to DMAN1968
quote:
You continue to say this like Iran was abiding by the rules of JCPOA.
Why do you lie?
If it’s a lie, prove it.
Doesn’t count if you cite a violation that occurred after we left the agreement btw.
This post was edited on 3/26/26 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 3/26/26 at 12:50 pm to loogaroo
Riding the world of a scourge is ALWAYS the right thing to do.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 1:58 pm to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
If it’s a lie, prove it.
Doesn’t count if you cite a violation that occurred after we left the agreement btw.
quote:
In 2017, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had limited access to military sites in Iran, which was crucial for verifying compliance with the nuclear deal's Section T. However, the IAEA's reports indicated challenges in monitoring and verifying Iran's nuclear-related commitments effectively.
I wonder what those challenges were...Nah...just shitting you...it was Iran not allowing access.
The year, 2017, JCPOA took effect in 2016 and was ended in 2018.
Posted on 3/26/26 at 2:12 pm to DMAN1968
quote:
However, the IAEA's reports indicated challenges in monitoring and verifying Iran's nuclear-related commitments effectively.
What’s your source for this quote? The IAEA never said that.
“Limited access” just means that certain types of sites required formal scheduling (not random) for visits… which is reasonable & why that “limited access” was described as necessary and beneficial in the sentence preceding the editorialized quote.
This post was edited on 3/26/26 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 3/26/26 at 4:38 pm to DeathByTossDive225
quote:
What’s your source for this quote?
This one was from Grok when specifically asked about it for 2017.
quote:
Key Challenges Noted in 2017
Critics (e.g., from the Institute for Science and International Security) pointed out that the IAEA reports were often minimalist, providing less technical detail than pre-JCPOA reports. They omitted or downplayed certain compliance controversies, such as minor issues with centrifuge R&D.
A major concern was access to military sites. IAEA officials publicly stated (around the August 2017 report) that inspectors had not visited any Iranian military facilities since Implementation Day (January 2016), citing "no reason to ask." This raised questions about verifying Section T of the JCPOA Annex I, which prohibits certain nuclear weaponization activities and controls dual-use equipment. Without routine or requested access to potentially relevant military sites, full verification of possible undeclared activities or misuse of equipment was inherently limited.
The IAEA did not explicitly claim in its reports that it could provide broad assurance of the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran (evaluations on that were "ongoing"). It also relied heavily on Iran's declarations and cooperation for areas like centrifuge production monitoring, heavy water, and uranium ore concentrate.
When asked what year did Iran block inspections of military bases it replied:
quote:
the IAEA's reports indicated challenges in monitoring and verifying Iran's nuclear-related commitments effectively in 2017
Posted on 3/26/26 at 4:40 pm to jbdawgs03
quote:
Because he’s an anti American pos
OOHHH We've got a bingo!!!!!!!
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News