- 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: “Comic” Dave Smith: “US is arguably the worst terrorist organization in the world”
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:02 pm to StrongOffer
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:02 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
Because I think the US should act in our own self-interests, I’m a communist?
You're closer to one than what a traditional Republican looked like until the 1970's. Republicans opposed the League of Nations. Republicans largely opposed Lend-Lease prior to WW2. Robert Taft, aka Mr. Republican, opposed the Nuremberg Trials and our entry into NATO. Foreign policy interventionism was not a conservative position until the neocons took over the party in the 1970's and 1980's. Do a cursory bit of research on who they are where they came from and you'll find out that their motivations and ideologies have zero in common with putting America first in anything. Being the world's police is not a conservative position.
This post was edited on 3/4/26 at 2:03 pm
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:04 pm to Fun Bunch
I'm surprised that Ben Ferguson is still on the air. Even as MAGA goes, he's "C" list.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:05 pm to SCLibertarian
The democrats were pro slavery and the party of the KKK
Party’s change over time. Libertarianism is a fantasy utopian cuckold childish philosophy.
Party’s change over time. Libertarianism is a fantasy utopian cuckold childish philosophy.
This post was edited on 3/4/26 at 2:09 pm
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:05 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
I’m not for endless wars.
Your policy proposal ITT is to continue killing people who take a leadership role until they elect a puppet government
In your words
quote:
whoever takes over will comply with the US or die.
How long do you think that will take to work?
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:06 pm to td01241
quote:
Party’s chance over time.
We are seeing MAGA changing into neocons who defend the "Deep State" before our very eyes
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:07 pm to td01241
quote:
fantasy utopian
This is hilariously ironic coming from someone spouting an ideology whose ideas are rooted in the political philosophy of Leon Trotsky.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:09 pm to SCLibertarian
Yup we are all communist bro.
Keep saying saying it and it might just become true
Keep saying saying it and it might just become true
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:16 pm to SCLibertarian
quote:You and SlowFloPro are like talking to a wall. I didn’t say I want to be the world’s police. I said I want to act in our own interests. If you think Taft or early Republicans didn’t make decisions to bolster our own interests, I can’t help you. You’re wrong.
Being the world's police is not a conservative position.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not long. How long it take with Venezuela? Not saying it’ll be as easy as Venezuela, but it won’t be a full fledged boots-on-the-ground regime charge endless war. Everything the Trump admin has said and done has been consistent. They aren’t looking for a drawn-out war and they aren’t trying to implement an American-style democracy. The want the Iranian people to take back their country. You’re welcome to not believe them but we have nothing more to discuss if we can’t even agree on the admins stated objective.
How long do you think that will take to work?
This post was edited on 3/4/26 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:27 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
The want the Iranian people to take back their country.
What does this even mean?
Take it back into another religious authoritarian state? Because a huge chunk of the population wants that.
quote:
if we can’t even agree on the admins stated objective.
There is no concrete stated objective
That's one of the biggest problems with this op, and why people like you will claim victory post hoc no matter what. Since the goal isn't stated, you can create whatever that goal is, down the line, to conform to how this unfolds.
Remember the bombing last year? People preemptively spiked the football on that operation, and this week it was proven to be a failure.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
A failure?
SlowAyatollahPro the sudden military expert.
SlowAyatollahPro the sudden military expert.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
wtf are you talking about
Rubio and Hegseth and Trump have all stated our objectives, multiple times
Rubio and Hegseth and Trump have all stated our objectives, multiple times
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:yes that’s clearly fine with the admin and I’ve stated that like 3 times now. We’re clearly fine with another Muslim regime. Just one that isn’t trying to attack us.
Take it back into another religious authoritarian state? Because a huge chunk of the population wants that.
quote:the goal was to cripple their nuclear capabilities, which we did. That makes it a complete success. The goal of this was to take out the current regime, which we did. You saying there are millions of people to take over is an incredibly stupid argument. The entire country doesn’t share the view of the Ayatollah. The next person to take over will be someone who knows we can take them out easily if they continue the same route of last Ayatollah.
Remember the bombing last year? People preemptively spiked the football on that operation, and this week it was proven to be a failure.
This post was edited on 3/4/26 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:34 pm to Jbird
quote:
A failure?
SlowAyatollahPro the sudden military expert.
"I Never claimed the Iranian skirmish would be a failure"
~ SFP in about 1 month
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:35 pm to td01241
These people don’t want to argue in good faith. They see the world through a lens of everything Trump does must be bad. Trump and the admin have said they aren’t interested in a drawn-out regime change war but theses guys keep going to that because it would be bad if that happened. But arguing Trump wants to do that when his actions and words say otherwise is just a non-starter.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:36 pm to hogcard1964
Or something something irrelevant.
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:51 pm to td01241
quote:
Rubio and Hegseth and Trump have all stated our objectives, multiple times
What are they?
LINK
quote:
President Donald Trump says combat will continue in Iran until U.S. “objectives” are complete. Those objectives and the justification for the war have remained fluid more than 48 hours into the conflict.
Trump and his proxies have not been aligned on their narrative, leading to confusion about how Trump and his advisors are defining the endgame for the escalating conflict.
quote:
Trump said in a video message when the invasion began on Saturday that his objective was to “defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people.”
The president said the U.S. military would raze the country’s missile silos, prevent it from ever obtaining a nuclear weapon, destroy its terrorist proxy network and sink its navy. He also urged the Iranian people to topple the leadership that has ruled the country since 1979 — an explicit call for regime change that raised eyebrows even among some of his allies.
After the killing of Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was confirmed, unnamed U.S. officials briefed the media on the operation Saturday after Trump’s Truth Social video. They said something different: That the U.S. launched a preemptive strike to stave off the imminent threat of an Iranian offensive.
Then on Sunday, Trump spoke with myriad media outlets, including CNBC. He told The Atlantic that Iran waited too long in negotiations over its nuclear program and could have struck a deal and told CNBC that the U.S. attacks were “ahead of schedule” without saying what schedule. He later told the Daily Mail the war could grind on for more than four weeks.
Later Sunday, Trump said in a second video address that combat would continue “until all of our objectives are achieved, and we have very strong objectives.” He said he was doing it to ensure security “for our children and their children,” while reiterating his call for regime change. He warned more U.S. casualties were likely.
And Rubio focused only on the missiles, while dodging any goals related to the regime that was taken out (per the supporters ITT).
So what is it, exactly?
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:53 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
. You saying there are millions of people to take over is an incredibly stupid argument. The entire country doesn’t share the view of the Ayatollah. The next person to take over will be someone who knows we can take them out easily if they continue the same route of last Ayatollah.
There are tens of millions of Iranians who do support the last Ayatollah and will revolt against a government put in place by the US/Israel.
The literal regime we are in current combat with did just that to oust our puppet that the Deep State installed in 1953. Why do you think this time will end differently if we do the same thing?
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:57 pm to StrongOffer
quote:
They see the world through a lens of everything Trump does must be bad.
I don't think anybody has made that argument.
The policy Trump is engaging with is opposed to one he previously promoted, which I did support. So that knife cuts both ways and makes your argument above quite absurd.
quote:
Trump and the admin have said they aren’t interested in a drawn-out regime change war
Sure, but they have already 180'd on this policy and are creating a scenario where not doing that creates its own issues. Hence the term "quagmire" being used.
Leaving Iran as a state without institutions or government is going to lead to sectarian violence.
Enforcing an American-Israeli puppet government over the people isn't likely to lead to much better results long-term.
Or another regime that's basically the same thing emerges and we get back to square one-ish (they still have to rebuild infrastructure, so square -3 on their way to square one)
Posted on 3/4/26 at 2:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Not according to any reports from the last few years, including Iran International newspaper. Only about 10-20% of the Iranian people supported the Ayatollah. So you’re wrong, as usual.
There are tens of millions of Iranians who do support the last Ayatollah and will revolt against a government put in place by the US/Israel.
Popular
Back to top



2



