
- 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
Can We Stop With Being Simple Minded About Iran?
Posted on 9/23/26 at 9:41 am
Posted on 9/23/26 at 9:41 am
(Speaking about being simple minded, if you’re not willing to read a little, just frick off this thread, please. Stop now, and click back out to the main board. Thanks for your cooperation.)
PART I
Can we please stop with these simple minded threads about the Iran war?
Talking about it as though it's some random policy decision that Trump made for some insignificant reason, and that he should just press a button and stop it because gas prices are going up and you don’t like it?
Let's talk about the reason for the action in the first place.
We don't know with 100% certainty what the motivation was. The official narrative is that it was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Now, before we even get into whether that's the most likely explanation or not, let's talk about this. I ask people over and over on this website what their understanding of the global effects of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would be, and no one answers that question. The reason is obvious. I'm asking that of someone who is treating the war stupidly and simple mindedly, and they either don't want to answer that question because they suspect it might move the situation from the level upon which they are discussing it to another level, or they're just too fricking lazy to look it up.
So let's put that down here for everyone to see. The sources that I have consulted predict that a nuclear exchange between those two countries could result in as many as 30 million deaths, so we're talking about a Stalin/Mao type event. Those sources also say that it would cause a regional famine, destroy the world economy, cause the American stock exchange to completely tank, raise the price of oil to an unprecedented level, and could even float ionization and a limited nuclear winter as far as the US.
So anybody who is out there saying, "I don't care what those countries do to each other, it won't affect me,” you're a moron. You think $6 or $8 or $10 diesel is a problem? Wait until those two countries go at it with nuclear weapons. You'll be begging for the biggest problem we have to be $6 diesel.
There's another simple minded assumption out there on the board that denies that there's any reasonable possibility that those two countries would, in fact, bomb each other.
That's another thing we don't know for sure, and can't know for sure, but let's consider a couple of things. First, every United States president since 1979 – when Iran became a radical theocracy – has emphatically stated that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Every one. Reagan, Bush one, Clinton, Bush two, Obama, Trump, Biden, and now Trump again.
Name one other policy – including foreign policy – that all of those presents have agreed upon over a 45 year stretch of time.
I can’t.
This seems to be the one and only issue that they all agree on. Even Obama, who is accused of being a Muslim his entire presidency.
That's a compelling argument to me that there really is a reasonable possibility that Iran would use the weapon if they had it. Remember, US presidents know things that you don't know. They have access to classified information that you will never have access to.
In that 45 year period, they haven't agreed on how to approach Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo (Republic of the Congo), Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, North Macedonia, North Yemen, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, South Sudan, South Yemen, Soviet Union, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican City (Holy See), Venezuela, Vietnam, West Germany, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, or Zimbabwe.
But they’ve all agreed that Iran never needs to get nuclear weapons.
Also, the people who point out that as soon as we leave, Iran will go right back to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. That's true. That's the point. Why do they want one so badly that they will knee walk over broken glass to get one if they don't plan on using it? Not for defensive reasons. Israel has had nuclear weapons for several decades. If they had wanted to bomb a defenseless Iran with them, they would've done it a long time ago.
They are a radical theocracy who has pledged many times to erase Israel from the face of the Earth. The same type of radical theology that led to dozens, if not hundreds of acts of terrorism across the globe, including 9/11.
PART I
Can we please stop with these simple minded threads about the Iran war?
Talking about it as though it's some random policy decision that Trump made for some insignificant reason, and that he should just press a button and stop it because gas prices are going up and you don’t like it?
Let's talk about the reason for the action in the first place.
We don't know with 100% certainty what the motivation was. The official narrative is that it was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Now, before we even get into whether that's the most likely explanation or not, let's talk about this. I ask people over and over on this website what their understanding of the global effects of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel would be, and no one answers that question. The reason is obvious. I'm asking that of someone who is treating the war stupidly and simple mindedly, and they either don't want to answer that question because they suspect it might move the situation from the level upon which they are discussing it to another level, or they're just too fricking lazy to look it up.
So let's put that down here for everyone to see. The sources that I have consulted predict that a nuclear exchange between those two countries could result in as many as 30 million deaths, so we're talking about a Stalin/Mao type event. Those sources also say that it would cause a regional famine, destroy the world economy, cause the American stock exchange to completely tank, raise the price of oil to an unprecedented level, and could even float ionization and a limited nuclear winter as far as the US.
So anybody who is out there saying, "I don't care what those countries do to each other, it won't affect me,” you're a moron. You think $6 or $8 or $10 diesel is a problem? Wait until those two countries go at it with nuclear weapons. You'll be begging for the biggest problem we have to be $6 diesel.
There's another simple minded assumption out there on the board that denies that there's any reasonable possibility that those two countries would, in fact, bomb each other.
That's another thing we don't know for sure, and can't know for sure, but let's consider a couple of things. First, every United States president since 1979 – when Iran became a radical theocracy – has emphatically stated that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Every one. Reagan, Bush one, Clinton, Bush two, Obama, Trump, Biden, and now Trump again.
Name one other policy – including foreign policy – that all of those presents have agreed upon over a 45 year stretch of time.
I can’t.
This seems to be the one and only issue that they all agree on. Even Obama, who is accused of being a Muslim his entire presidency.
That's a compelling argument to me that there really is a reasonable possibility that Iran would use the weapon if they had it. Remember, US presidents know things that you don't know. They have access to classified information that you will never have access to.
In that 45 year period, they haven't agreed on how to approach Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Congo (Republic of the Congo), Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechia, Czechoslovakia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Estonia, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kiribati, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, North Macedonia, North Yemen, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, San Marino, São Tomé and Príncipe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Korea, South Sudan, South Yemen, Soviet Union, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Türkiye, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Vatican City (Holy See), Venezuela, Vietnam, West Germany, Yemen, Yugoslavia, Zambia, or Zimbabwe.
But they’ve all agreed that Iran never needs to get nuclear weapons.
Also, the people who point out that as soon as we leave, Iran will go right back to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. That's true. That's the point. Why do they want one so badly that they will knee walk over broken glass to get one if they don't plan on using it? Not for defensive reasons. Israel has had nuclear weapons for several decades. If they had wanted to bomb a defenseless Iran with them, they would've done it a long time ago.
They are a radical theocracy who has pledged many times to erase Israel from the face of the Earth. The same type of radical theology that led to dozens, if not hundreds of acts of terrorism across the globe, including 9/11.
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 9:45 am
Posted on 9/23/26 at 9:41 am to wackatimesthree
Now let's say that you are not convinced that we actually went in there because Iran announced to US officials that they were about to have weapons grade uranium.
The first thing you need to do is stop with the idiot, "Iran's been two weeks away from nuclear weapons for 40 years,“ stupidity. Yes, other people have claimed that for decades. This is the first time that Iran itself has claimed that.
If you can't see the difference in those two scenarios, I can't help you.
But let's consider what we are risking by discounting their own admission of that.
Remember the likely effects that I posted above?
So now what we're talking about is a risk-reward scenario. And the risk part matters. If I had a chance to gamble on a game of chance and it cost me $1000 to play, but I had a 40% chance of winning, and the prize was $100,000, I'd play. Because what I had to lose relative to what I stood to win, and four in ten odds, yeah, I’d play until I won.
However, if I had the same opportunity, same chances of winning, same prize, but instead of losing $1000 if I lost, I would be fed into a wood chipper, feet first, no way would I play those odds.
If you are intellectually honest at all, you will admit that the likelihood that the entire narrative is a complete scam (which is what most of you act like you think) is not 100%.
If it is a complete scam, then we have another problem, but we'll talk about that a little later.
The consequences of being wrong on this are sufficiently dire that in my opinion we would be foolish to disregard Iran's own admission of almost possessing weapons grade uranium. Given the context, the history, the consequences of being wrong, etc., a reasonable person has to play the odds that Iran was telling the truth.
On to Part II, what if the entire narrative is completely made up?
The first thing you need to do is stop with the idiot, "Iran's been two weeks away from nuclear weapons for 40 years,“ stupidity. Yes, other people have claimed that for decades. This is the first time that Iran itself has claimed that.
If you can't see the difference in those two scenarios, I can't help you.
But let's consider what we are risking by discounting their own admission of that.
Remember the likely effects that I posted above?
So now what we're talking about is a risk-reward scenario. And the risk part matters. If I had a chance to gamble on a game of chance and it cost me $1000 to play, but I had a 40% chance of winning, and the prize was $100,000, I'd play. Because what I had to lose relative to what I stood to win, and four in ten odds, yeah, I’d play until I won.
However, if I had the same opportunity, same chances of winning, same prize, but instead of losing $1000 if I lost, I would be fed into a wood chipper, feet first, no way would I play those odds.
If you are intellectually honest at all, you will admit that the likelihood that the entire narrative is a complete scam (which is what most of you act like you think) is not 100%.
If it is a complete scam, then we have another problem, but we'll talk about that a little later.
The consequences of being wrong on this are sufficiently dire that in my opinion we would be foolish to disregard Iran's own admission of almost possessing weapons grade uranium. Given the context, the history, the consequences of being wrong, etc., a reasonable person has to play the odds that Iran was telling the truth.
On to Part II, what if the entire narrative is completely made up?
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 9:45 am
Posted on 9/23/26 at 9:42 am to wackatimesthree
PART II
If the Trump administration is lying about Iran's admission of possessing near weapons grade nuclear material, and nuclear weapons were not the motivation for the strikes, then you have to ask yourself what is the actual motivation for this military action?
I can only come up with two possible alternative explanations: number one, Trump engaged Iran in a skirmish designed to cause economic pain to Iran such that they would have to stop funding Hamas, and allow Israel to win the war that Hamas started with them.
I can buy that.
If true, however, that means that the protracted nature of the conflict is what was actually desired from the outset. It wasn't about getting in, bombing, and leaving, it was about exactly what's going on right now. Slowly hurting Iran economically, day by day, week by week, month by month until the Hamas – Israel conflict is over.
We will know if that's the case. Because as soon as the Israel conflict is resolved, that's when we will pack up and leave the region again.
The only other possibility I can think of is that Trump did this as an egomaniacal legacy builder. He thought he was going to go in there and cause a regime change, and that would play well on his résumé, and he thought it would be easy and quick like the Venezuelan extraction.
If that's the case, then Trump really does need to be impeached. At that point, we're no longer talking about putting his name on the Kennedy Center. We're talking about putting American lives in jeopardy and killing innocent Iranian citizens.
That's worth doing if we are preventing the consequences of a nuclear exchange. I'm not sure whether I think it's worth doing to starve out Hamas, because at best that will be a temporary reprieve from their mindless, relentless, blood lust.
But it's definitely, absolutely, positively, not justified just so that Trump can say he did it. If you are a person who thinks that this third possibility is the most likely, I don't see how you can have any trust in or continue to support Trump at all.
If the Trump administration is lying about Iran's admission of possessing near weapons grade nuclear material, and nuclear weapons were not the motivation for the strikes, then you have to ask yourself what is the actual motivation for this military action?
I can only come up with two possible alternative explanations: number one, Trump engaged Iran in a skirmish designed to cause economic pain to Iran such that they would have to stop funding Hamas, and allow Israel to win the war that Hamas started with them.
I can buy that.
If true, however, that means that the protracted nature of the conflict is what was actually desired from the outset. It wasn't about getting in, bombing, and leaving, it was about exactly what's going on right now. Slowly hurting Iran economically, day by day, week by week, month by month until the Hamas – Israel conflict is over.
We will know if that's the case. Because as soon as the Israel conflict is resolved, that's when we will pack up and leave the region again.
The only other possibility I can think of is that Trump did this as an egomaniacal legacy builder. He thought he was going to go in there and cause a regime change, and that would play well on his résumé, and he thought it would be easy and quick like the Venezuelan extraction.
If that's the case, then Trump really does need to be impeached. At that point, we're no longer talking about putting his name on the Kennedy Center. We're talking about putting American lives in jeopardy and killing innocent Iranian citizens.
That's worth doing if we are preventing the consequences of a nuclear exchange. I'm not sure whether I think it's worth doing to starve out Hamas, because at best that will be a temporary reprieve from their mindless, relentless, blood lust.
But it's definitely, absolutely, positively, not justified just so that Trump can say he did it. If you are a person who thinks that this third possibility is the most likely, I don't see how you can have any trust in or continue to support Trump at all.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 10:15 am to wackatimesthree
Logorhetic with a verbose style.
You should learn to be concise.
You should learn to be concise.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 10:31 am to wackatimesthree
One problem I have is that a President can wage a war of this scale on a country without Congressional approval. If Trump can do it, then that means a melon head like Biden can do it.
Second is it was another miscalculation. Iran hasn't rolled over like Trump thought they would.
Second is it was another miscalculation. Iran hasn't rolled over like Trump thought they would.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 10:41 am to mauser
quote:
a war of this scale
There were bigger wars than this 1,000 years ago. And they didn't have machines.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 10:43 am to wackatimesthree
I appreciate your thoroughness.
For me, it comes down to WHY the Iranians are opposed to the US and Israel. It's not because of some visceral hatred of Jews. The problem the Iranians have with the US and Israel is the occupation.
Based on my conversation with Iranian-Americans I know, they agree with the sentiments in the video below:
For me, it comes down to WHY the Iranians are opposed to the US and Israel. It's not because of some visceral hatred of Jews. The problem the Iranians have with the US and Israel is the occupation.
Based on my conversation with Iranian-Americans I know, they agree with the sentiments in the video below:
Posted on 9/23/26 at 11:01 am to wackatimesthree
Everyone with a brain pan agrees with you on stopping their nuclear plans.
Why not simply work on destroying their nuclear capability, without the regime change goal? I ask, because that's easy to do, and doesn't require monumental debt. It seems that what is simple-minded is the assumption that we can afford to change regimes around the world without continuing toward our own destruction.
Why not simply work on destroying their nuclear capability, without the regime change goal? I ask, because that's easy to do, and doesn't require monumental debt. It seems that what is simple-minded is the assumption that we can afford to change regimes around the world without continuing toward our own destruction.
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 11:04 am
Posted on 9/23/26 at 11:09 am to Zach
quote:
There were bigger wars than this 1,000 years ago. And they didn't have machines
They also didn't have a Congress
Posted on 9/23/26 at 11:14 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
We don't know with 100% certainty what the motivation was. The official narrative is that it was to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
We were told in June 2025 that we obliterated their nuclear capacity.
Then we were told that this war would be over quickly and that it wasn’t a war…
So unless you have some super secret info source that gives you inside special info that makes all this make sense, have fun believing the truth social posts.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 11:15 am to wackatimesthree
The Iranians oppose Israel and the US because they think the people of ALL of Israel/Palestine should have an equal vote on the government of Israel/Palestine. They think it's unfair that Palestinians were displaced from their lands by (mostly) Europeans. THAT issue has to be addressed before some meaningful settlement can be reached.
As an American and the grandson of an actual Zionist (my New York-born father was moved to Haifa when he was 10), I think Israel should be maintained as a Jewish state. So, the one-state, referendum idea is a non-starter.
I also think the displaced Palestinians should be compensated and treated fairly.
While in a position of power, I would like to see the US declare:
"The best we can do is ensure a two-state solution along the pre-1967 borders. This includes Israeli respect for the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria. Also, the international community will contribute $30 billion to rehabilitate Gaza.
In exchange, Iran has to:
-turn over any enriched uranium and agree to unfettered inspections
-agree to never develop or acquire nuclear weapons...with the understanding that any attempts would be dealt with militarily
-stop support of any terrorist groups
-allow free passage through the Strait
Once that all that is done, we will drop all sanctions. For each year of compliance by the Iranians, the international community will return 10% of frozen Iranian assets."
As an American and the grandson of an actual Zionist (my New York-born father was moved to Haifa when he was 10), I think Israel should be maintained as a Jewish state. So, the one-state, referendum idea is a non-starter.
I also think the displaced Palestinians should be compensated and treated fairly.
While in a position of power, I would like to see the US declare:
"The best we can do is ensure a two-state solution along the pre-1967 borders. This includes Israeli respect for the territorial sovereignty of Lebanon and Syria. Also, the international community will contribute $30 billion to rehabilitate Gaza.
In exchange, Iran has to:
-turn over any enriched uranium and agree to unfettered inspections
-agree to never develop or acquire nuclear weapons...with the understanding that any attempts would be dealt with militarily
-stop support of any terrorist groups
-allow free passage through the Strait
Once that all that is done, we will drop all sanctions. For each year of compliance by the Iranians, the international community will return 10% of frozen Iranian assets."
Posted on 9/23/26 at 11:19 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
There's another simple minded assumption out there on the board that denies that there's any reasonable possibility that those two countries would, in fact, bomb each other.
Pakistan and India have nukes, have constant conflict, yet haven't nuked each other
N Korea has them and haven't nuked anyone
What if the only way to keep Iran from pursuing Nukes was for Israel to give up theirs?
Posted on 9/23/26 at 11:25 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Speaking about being simple minded, if you’re not willing to read a little, just frick off this thread, please. Stop now, and click back out to the main board. Thanks for your cooperation.
quote:
PART I
Of a wall of text.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 11:27 am to UtahCajun
quote:
They also didn't have a Congress
The Romans did. And Cicero was a lot smarter than anyone in our Congress.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 11:40 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
So anybody who is out there saying, "I don't care what those countries do to each other, it won't affect me,” you're a moron. You think $6 or $8 or $10 diesel is a problem? Wait until those two countries go at it with nuclear weapons. You'll be begging for the biggest problem we have to be $6 diesel.
My man.
I can't believe how short sighted so many people have become today. Admittedly, it doesn't help when we have Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan to look back at as recent, prior examples.
But Iran is (and has been) very different. Even when they are quiet, they're looking for a way to slit everyone's throat. We've had them to worry about almost all of my life.
My father was having major surgery in the weeks leading up to the conflict. You ask him what he thinks... He'll echo the 'Finally, someone with the balls take on a country which has slowly bled us (and others). Get on with it; Make it count because we may never get a second chance.'
He still feels this way, as many do. Use whatever tools help. Bleed Iran fast or slow, it doesn't matter -- Just do it.
Does it bother me watching my investments/ retirement, stagnate? Of course. But it did that for 2 years with Biden, for no reason. Do I want there to be relief at the fuel pump, absolutely. Not so much for myself, but for others impacted. Personally, I would pay $10/ gal if it helps the men & women fighting or helps impact the effort. In the global environment we find ourselves in today, it's more difficult though.
I'm proud of our President, his staff & his administration though. Almost everything he proposes/ works toward, or implements is to make our country less dependent on others. Which is the way I feel.
I'm America first / America always.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:13 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
The first thing you need to do is stop with the idiot, "Iran's been two weeks away from nuclear weapons for 40 years,“ stupidity. Yes, other people have claimed that for decades. This is the first time that Iran itself has claimed that.
I think you are overstating it.
According to one US official, an Iranian diplomat allegedly claimed they were 7-10 days from being able to enrich weapons grade uranium.
Posted on 9/23/26 at 4:55 pm to wackatimesthree
I truly appreciate your effort. I do.
But NOTHING short of seeing a mushroom cloud over a major American or Israeli city will convince the progressive/Marxist idiots.
Such is the divide between "us and them".
But NOTHING short of seeing a mushroom cloud over a major American or Israeli city will convince the progressive/Marxist idiots.
Such is the divide between "us and them".
Posted on 9/23/26 at 5:29 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
So anybody who is out there saying, "I don't care what those countries do to each other, it won't affect me,” you're a moron. You think $6 or $8 or $10 diesel is a problem? Wait until those two countries go at it with nuclear weapons.
The same retards back in 2003 got played by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfled back in 2003 about WMD's. You learned nothing.
We know 100% certainly Israelis wanted to bomb and destabilise Iran for their own benefit, regardless of the economic pain it would bring to global economy. Trump cucked out, sold out, and that's that.
This post was edited on 9/23/26 at 5:31 pm
Posted on 9/23/26 at 6:14 pm to IvoryBillMatt
Israel gave them Gaza and the Jews left Gaza. Hamas has been in control of Gaza since and has not ruled in Gaza for a long time. Hamas has ruled and oppressed the Palestinian people.
Hamas literally states in their charter their main objective is to erase Israel “from the river to the sea.” Look it up.
There is no hope for peace when one side absolutely does not want peace. Everyone gets so caught up in issues far downstream from that. There has been many offers for a two stage solution. Israel has offered it or agreed to it(offered solution by others) at least 5 times on the public record. The main sticking point is that the Palestinians have to recognize Israel as a state and that it has a right to exist. They refuse because of that. They have no interest in peace, unless that peace is the result of Israel falling and all Jews perishing. It won’t stop there, though. America is next on their list to perish. How does one move forward with any hope when that is the starting point of Hamas and most of the brainwashed Palestinian people?
It’s incredibly sad. It’s also very sad that the world is losing sight of these realities. Look up the actual history. That land was inhabited by the Jewish people (ethnically/genetically supported)for thousands of years. LONG before any Arabs showed up. The first evidence of Palestinians showing up on that land was in the 600s AD. And Jews never fully left the land. This is all history supported by facts. And don’t get confused by Phillistines when you do your research. Phillistines were Greek. Zero relation to modern day Palestinians, and this has been proven genetically many many times.
We are in an upside down world today. Somehow the Jews are being accused of the crimes committed against them.
Hamas literally states in their charter their main objective is to erase Israel “from the river to the sea.” Look it up.
There is no hope for peace when one side absolutely does not want peace. Everyone gets so caught up in issues far downstream from that. There has been many offers for a two stage solution. Israel has offered it or agreed to it(offered solution by others) at least 5 times on the public record. The main sticking point is that the Palestinians have to recognize Israel as a state and that it has a right to exist. They refuse because of that. They have no interest in peace, unless that peace is the result of Israel falling and all Jews perishing. It won’t stop there, though. America is next on their list to perish. How does one move forward with any hope when that is the starting point of Hamas and most of the brainwashed Palestinian people?
It’s incredibly sad. It’s also very sad that the world is losing sight of these realities. Look up the actual history. That land was inhabited by the Jewish people (ethnically/genetically supported)for thousands of years. LONG before any Arabs showed up. The first evidence of Palestinians showing up on that land was in the 600s AD. And Jews never fully left the land. This is all history supported by facts. And don’t get confused by Phillistines when you do your research. Phillistines were Greek. Zero relation to modern day Palestinians, and this has been proven genetically many many times.
We are in an upside down world today. Somehow the Jews are being accused of the crimes committed against them.

Popular
Back to top

12













