- 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: Can the MAGA/America First Movement Survive American military operations in Iran?
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:05 am to Knight of Old
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:05 am to Knight of Old
quote:
What if you tried being an honest human for once in your life?
What is dishonest about my OP, exactly?
What if you tried answering the question for once instead of running away because it was uncomfortable and devolving to attempted ad homs?
This post was edited on 6/18/25 at 6:05 am
0
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"WMDs in Iraq" is the same as "Nukes in Iran". Literally.
Every assessment we’re seeing says they’re enriching uranium at a level only explained by a nuclear weapons program.
You want them to use one before we decide hey maybe these fools shouldn’t be doing this?
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:07 am to Warrior Court
quote:
Oh shite! I didn’t realize I was dealing with the Internet tough guy wearing gold Trump shoes! I take it all back! Please don’t break your keyboard lol fricking loser.
Wow, another pathetic comeback. Did your mommy teach you that?
Projection shows your insecurity.
Have a nice day
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:08 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
Every assessment we’re seeing says they’re enriching uranium at a level only explained by a nuclear weapons program.
You want them to use one before we decide hey maybe these fools shouldn’t be doing this?
Same arguments as "WMDs in Iraq", too.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:09 am to SlowFlowPro
I see you didn’t bother to answer the question.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:12 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
I see you didn’t bother to answer the question.
It's a bad question.
I don't want them to use nukes, clearly, but that discussion isn't even appropriate because they don't have nukes, let alone a way to dispense them to be a threat to the US.
Just because they have nukes doesn't mean they'd use them, either. We have plenty of extremist regimes who have nukes but haven't used them, even with military conflict. (see: North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Israel).
At this point, that question has no relevance. Now please stop derailing my thread trying to create diversions.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We have plenty of extremist regimes who have nukes but haven't used them, even with military conflict.
quote:
Israel
That, my friend, is some awfully shiny bait.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:21 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
please stop derailing my thread
Your threads are inherently detailed at OP.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:25 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
Your threads are inherently detailed at OP.
yes my OP was quite detailed, giving multiple options to discuss instead of the popular binary format we see on here. Thanks.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:not quite.
Same arguments as "WMDs in Iraq", too.
The arguments for WMD in Iraq were based on the components of primarily delivery systems such as guidance, rocket casings (remember the pipeline?), boosters, etc.
It was not based on any enrichment because we knew it was shut down because they were converting U-238 to Plutonium in a reactor (like the Indians) which requires much less centrifuging and mass of P-239.
Iran is based solely on enrichment of U-235 using centrifuges. Because the one thing you can not do without for a nuclear bomb is fissible AND U-235 beyond 5% has only one purpose and it isn't peaceful.
These are apples and oranges. If anything I'd say it is a lesson learned from Iraq WMD and that is to focus on the one metric/component that matters.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:30 am to I20goon
The issue is more focused on the weight of the evidence of allegations and not the details differentiating the potential weapons.
We even have the same source of intel in both examples. Clearly Israel already created a boogeyman that didn't exist once this century to drag us into war with a ME country. The question is if they're doing it again. There has been no definitive evidence t show they're not doing it again.
We even have the same source of intel in both examples. Clearly Israel already created a boogeyman that didn't exist once this century to drag us into war with a ME country. The question is if they're doing it again. There has been no definitive evidence t show they're not doing it again.
This post was edited on 6/18/25 at 6:31 am
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:34 am to AmosMosesAndTwins
quote:
Every assessment we’re seeing says they’re enriching uranium at a level only explained by a nuclear weapons program.
You want them to use one before we decide hey maybe these fools shouldn’t be doing this?
Where have I heard that before? Can’t seem to put my finger on it.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:IF Israel wanted to drag us into it would they have struck first with a wildly successful campaign with everything they had in the first 3 days?
We even have the same source of intel in both examples. Clearly Israel already created a boogeyman that didn't exist once this century to drag us into war with a ME country. The question is if they're doing it again. There has been no definitive evidence t show they're not doing it again.
Empirical evidence says that was not Israel's goal, this time.
They would have run a limited campaign with limited results and let Iran deliver much larger and longer in duration retaliatory strikes.
And the fact remains, we're not in it. Still. Today. You are basing your evidence on the fact a future crime will be committed.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:38 am to I20goon
quote:
IF Israel wanted to drag us into it would they have struck first with a wildly successful campaign with everything they had in the first 3 days?
Empirical evidence says that was not Israel's goal, this time.
They would have run a limited campaign with limited results and let Iran deliver much larger and longer in duration retaliatory strikes.
Then why are we needed at all?
Why has the saber-rattling by the admin only increased after this huge effort?
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:39 am to I20goon
quote:
You are basing your evidence on the fact a future crime will be committed.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 6:39 am to SlowFlowPro
Iran is different. Iran is a pain in the arse for all of the Middle East countries. Iran used cash from Obama to take over Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, etc, and are the bully in the region.
If we can take them down using Israel, we should do it
If we can take them down using Israel, we should do it
Posted on 6/18/25 at 7:05 am to SlowFlowPro
After reading a lot of this thread, I realized it was a huge waste of time.
Just a bunch of useless opinions.
Just a bunch of useless opinions.
This post was edited on 6/18/25 at 11:34 am
Posted on 6/18/25 at 7:07 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Absolute horseshite from you there.
You're projecting here.
quote:I believe you will find that this is the case. I think you, power, and those like you will come off as complete asses as we prove y’all wrong.
Some believe that while Trump did start this movement, it's principles are bigger than the man and can survive past him or if he becomes a hypocrite.
Posted on 6/18/25 at 7:10 am to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Absolute horseshite from you there.
I'm not "shitting" on anyone. Plenty of MAGA people stated ITT (and others) this is a red line. How is making a thread discussing that in nuance "shitting" on them?
quote:
I believe you will find that this is the case.
There will be 20-50 "MAGAs" in that case, with their own version of purity. It will be like libertarians or socialists with their specifically-curated sects.
Trump is the cult of personality and strong man that keeps all the various sects believing they're ethe "real" MAGA together. That's his gift (and shite-talking in debates)
Posted on 6/18/25 at 7:17 am to 14&Counting
quote:
For all the crap that some these MAGA types have talked they really have no idea who or what they voted for. Trump is not now and never has been a non-interventionist. He has been entirely consistent on this issue from the very beginning. So these guys who threaten to quit MAGA over this never really understood what Trump was about.
I don't necessarily disagree with you here, BUT, this is a classic example of where Trump takes positions all over the place and so his bases are then covered. Everyone knows he has made a living bashing neocons and dumb wars. Junior shiteposts these things, too. Vance purports to be non-interventionist. But, if you study the words closely, Trump has pretty much said he was going to support Ukraine and Israel until the end. I post Michael Tracey here so much because he is the one journalist who has consistently said Trump is a fraud as opposition to the neocons.
Nobody should be surprised by this when you propose Rubio, Stefanik, Waltz, Hook, and Gorka for your cabinet. They are Israel fanatic neocons.
This post was edited on 6/18/25 at 7:20 am
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News