Started By
Message

re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread

Posted on 6/16/26 at 6:59 pm to
Posted by hawgfaninc
https://youtu.be/torc9P4-k5A
Member since Nov 2011
63926 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 6:59 pm to
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

VP Vance is right: President Trump did not say he wanted to install Prince Reza Pahlavi and that is a good thing. Iranians can choose their leader, they don’t need a US-installed puppet, and millions of them have called Pahlavi’s name.

The United States should not be in the business of installing leaders in other countries for a variety of reasons, specially because Washington has a poor track record. From Iraq and Afghanistan to Venezuela, US-installed leaders have often been corrupt, incompetent, and unpopular.

That is why any US effort to install the IRGC veteran Bagher Ghalibaf or anyone else as Iran’s new dictator would be reckless and harmful.

What Iranians are asking is not for Washington to choose their leader. They are asking the United States not to enrich their murderers.
Posted by LSUbest
Coastal Plain
Member since Aug 2007
16785 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 7:04 pm to
quote:

There is no contradiction, direct or otherwise, of Trump's statement that the US would not contribute to the $300 billion fund. The Reuters article doesn't say or imply that. Did I miss the big gotcha somewhere?


No, you're exactly right.

He's just an insufferable and miserable liar.
Posted by northshorebamaman
Mackinac Island
Member since Jul 2009
38393 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 7:08 pm to
quote:

Trump knows Iran will not abide by the deal.
If what has been put out there so far is close to accurate, I legitimately hope they don't so we can blow it up and get another one.
Posted by wfallstiger
Wichita Falls, Texas
Member since Jun 2006
15915 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 7:26 pm to
Works for me
Posted by TigersSEC2010
Warren, Michigan
Member since Jan 2010
38493 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 7:38 pm to
quote:

It's been the pattern of the Trump administrations:

Obamacare repeal
Infrastructure
North Korea
Covid
Doge
Tariffs
ICE in Minnesota

and now Iran. It's all been half-assed. He commits then when it gets hard he either loses attention or capitulates.


Never seen it laid out that way but you’re absolutely right. He really pissed me off when he threw ICE into absolutely shite situations then just let them fend for themselves.
Posted by bayouvette
Raceland
Member since Oct 2005
5913 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:19 pm to
They hate everything he does right or wrong. They will fight him to the death. That's why. It's been like that since day 1. On everything.
Posted by wdhalgren
Member since May 2013
5486 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:26 pm to
quote:

This is mostly excuse-making dressed up as counterargument. You’re answering a criticism of execution by pretending the only alternative was lawless maximalism.


This is excuse making dressed up as a counterargument. You're answering the fact of radical leftist lawlessness by pretending that Trump could somehow cure their violent obstructionism without looking like the dictator you claim he is.

quote:

There is massive space between “blindly follow every entrenched public health official” and “let millions die.” Trump chose the people around him. He chose the messaging. He chose the posture. He elevated Fauci and Birx, held the briefings, endorsed the shutdown logic, then later tried to act like the whole thing just happened to poor little him. Your defense is that Trump was just helpless in his own administration?


The people you cite were leaders of the medical bureaucracy. They were the "experts" and they were supported by the other leaders of the medical establishment. They had the degrees and the bureaucratic experience. Every president has to trust the "experts" on such subjects, and there was nobody outside the medical establishment with enough clout to convincingly overrule the establishment. I guess Trump could've fired them all and brought in a Yes-man, and then you and the media would've blamed him for every death. He would've been impeached and removed from office before the election. Those were his choices, and there was really only one choice because his non-medical opinion was so uninformed as to be irrelevant.

You want Trump to be a martyr, to reject the medical estalishment and fight a war over something he doesn't understand, because no president ever could have enough understanding in that situation. That's a leftist fantasy just waiting to pounce and you're quite disingenous to suggest it was an option. Trump wasn't helpless, he was dependent on experts to give him advice on how to handle a complex medical situation. He followed their advice. If you expect any president or rational person would've done differently in that circumstance, you're naive, at best.

quote:

Same dodge. If the answer is “judges blocked him,” then the obvious question is whether he had a serious legal strategy before announcing the policy. If every major promise depends on courts, Congress, agencies, staffing, and execution, then competence means anticipating and compensating for those obstacles. “He would have done it but the system resisted” is not a defense. Especially when that was actually the criticism.


Ah, now I understand. Trump should've prepared better for a legion of leftist judges that rule against him on every issue, bogging down implementation of even trivial matters like painting a pool bottom. He should've been prepared for them to repeatedly attack every facet of one of the most thorough, concise, clear bodies of legislation ever assembled, constitutional and statutory, which was executive branch authority over matters of border control and immigration enforcement. He should've known that they would ignore the fact presidents had control of tariffs since 1932, as granted by the Congress and embodied several times later. I understand your entertainment. Your judges play politics and you say the president should somehow beat them at their own game; but if he does, he's a dictator.

quote:

Nobody but you suggested the only alternative was sending in the National Guard and creating a bloodbath. That’s a fake binary of your singular creation. The point is that he talks like he controls the executive branch, then when enforcement gets complicated, suddenly he’s essentially a spectator blaming Democrats, judges, funding, mayors, media, or whoever else is convenient. So which is it?


ICE was facing organized violent resistance in the streets (you may have noticed that very serious charges are now forthcoming). Local law enforcement were not doing their job. There were two choices; fight back with agents who were outnumbered and never intended to be street warriors, or redirect elsewhere. Nobody has suggested any other alternative because there was none. Your thugs weren't going to withdraw and local govt was hostile to the very presence of ICE. The president wasn't a spectator, he made an executive decision to move ICE elsewhere. You blame Trump for making a decision, which you would've criticized no matter what he did.

Talk about convenient. Being the party of violent obstructionism is convenient. You initiate the violence. President faces your violence with violence he's a dictator. He moves on to get the job done elsewhere, he's a spectator. Meanwhile, your violent followers try repeatedly to assassinate him and shortcut the process, even before he's elected. You indicted him before he ever started, which leads to strained arguments like this one where you pretend he had choices which would've satisfied your demands and obviated this debate. The problem is that your firmly stated "opinions" aren't opinions at all, they're left wing anti-Trump dogma. It's a cliche at this point, but you can save yourself a lot of time by just typing OMB.
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 9:21 pm
Posted by Bunk Moreland
Member since Dec 2010
69098 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:43 pm to
Posted by SemperFiDawg
Member since Sep 2014
4360 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:45 pm to
Bloomberg just published draft of MOU.
MOU Draft

IMHO it's an abject failure. I'm sure the Trump camp will hail it a historic victory. It is what it is.
Posted by Free888
Member since Oct 2019
3351 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:51 pm to
If it’s no nukes ever and ceasing of all hostilities in the Middle East it’s a win. We won’t know until the final agreement is signed.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
478418 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:54 pm to
quote:

So Reuters says that half the $300B Trump announced yesterday has been committed. Trump also said yesterday that disbursement of the funds would be dependent on Iran meeting guidelines. There is no contradiction, direct or otherwise, of Trump's statement that the US would not contribute to the $300 billion fund. The Reuters article doesn't say or imply that. Did I miss the big gotcha somewhere?


The $300B/$100B numbers were the important part. When rumblings of the deal first broke, people who speculated those claims (made by the Iranian government) might be true were called Iran supporters. Now it's basically confirmed.

Obama's "pallets of cash" was $1.7B. Iran gets 58.8x that amount with only the initial payment in this deal
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
478418 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:56 pm to
quote:

-Iran reiterates it will NEVER produce nuclear weapons, with the fate of enriched material deferred to the final deal.

-Both maintain the status quo until then: Iran keeps its current nuclear program, the U.S. adds no sanctions or forces.

-Washington exempts Iranian oil and related banking from sanctions.

-Washington releases frozen Iranian funds, with final negotiations beginning once implementation guarantees are met.


Posted by GeorgeTheGreek
Sparta, Greece
Member since Mar 2008
69325 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:56 pm to
quote:

IMHO it's an abject failure. I'm sure the Trump camp will hail it a historic victory. It is what it is.


It’s U.S. capitulation. Iran won.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
478418 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:57 pm to
quote:

If it’s no nukes ever


How many different American administrations has Iran made this deal with?
Posted by Bunk Moreland
Member since Dec 2010
69098 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 8:58 pm to
I watched a few minutes of prof pape on a pod from earlier today and he was saying just $12 billion up front and $12 billion at the end is a massive win for them. I didn’t know it gets to 300 and the Obama deal was only 1.7.
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 8:59 pm
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
478418 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:01 pm to
I need more clarification on the wording, but it may be $400B total

*ETA: the lifted sanctions can't be ignored. They're about to start printing money for the fanatical regime.
This post was edited on 6/16/26 at 9:02 pm
Posted by theunknownknight
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2005
61063 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:10 pm to
I’m hearing Trump cut Israel out of the deal and is not allowing them to see the MOU. Is that true?
Posted by OldManRiver
Prairieville, LA
Member since Jan 2005
7637 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:13 pm to
quote:

I’m hearing Trump cut Israel out of the deal and is not allowing them to see the MOU

Do they not have the internet in Tel Aviv?
Posted by theunknownknight
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2005
61063 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:16 pm to
You think they put the actual MOU on the internet?
Posted by TigersSEC2010
Warren, Michigan
Member since Jan 2010
38493 posts
Posted on 6/16/26 at 9:17 pm to
Yeah this deal is absolute dogshit. Trump should be fricking embarrassed.
first pageprev pagePage 1111 of 1112Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram