Started By
Message

re: Scott Bessent With a Message for "Principled Conservatives" and Liberals

Posted on 6/4/26 at 3:59 pm to
Posted by AlterEd
Cydonia, Mars
Member since Dec 2024
12794 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 3:59 pm to
quote:

Who’s the poster who lives in Alaska on SSI?


I think his main account has been banned again and he is posting under various alter accounts that also keep getting banned. Roger.
This post was edited on 6/4/26 at 4:00 pm
Posted by TenWheelsForJesus
Member since Jan 2018
11436 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:04 pm to
quote:

It's a terrible argument all together. Iran hasn't even invaded any of their neighbors. They weren't going to come attack the United States.


Iran's MO is to materially support terrorists and launch missiles and drones from afar. Saying they aren't a threat because they haven't invaded anyone means you are either dishonest or just plain dumb.

This whole conflict has been based around Iran launching missiles and drones, but you want to pretend the only way a country can be a threat is through a military invasion to avoid acknowledging reality.
Posted by AlterEd
Cydonia, Mars
Member since Dec 2024
12794 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:07 pm to
quote:

Saying they aren't a threat because they haven't invaded anyone means you are either dishonest or just plain dumb.


It's actually both though. He is dishonest and stupid.
Posted by tigeraddict
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2007
14849 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:08 pm to
quote:

So the argument is that we have to destabilize the global economy now to prevent Iran from potentially destabilizing it later?


short term pain for future stability vs no pain now but catastrophic pain down the road..
Posted by ManBearTiger
BRLA
Member since Jun 2007
22632 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:11 pm to
Her makeup is fricking absurd
Posted by Pettifogger
I don't really care, Margaret
Member since Feb 2012
87468 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:12 pm to
I've long thought the real case is:

- Iran despite the loss of their proxies has been a thorn in the side of us for decades, and a direct enemy much of the time, even if their ability to harm us was limited.

- Iran remained a post-Abraham Accords limiting factor for regional security that threatened the practical ability of the US to retract from the region.

- Israel was pushing us very hard to move with them prior to our entry, likely on the basis of "one last job before you go"

- There was a minimal near term threat of a weapon going online, but a meaningful near term threat of Iran continuing to bolster defenses such that the cost of setting the nuclear threat back (perhaps when it was more imminent) would be higher than we want

- A generalized "we're settling all the old scores before we go Fortress America" thing.

Which is all intellectually sound, defensible, so forth. You heard some of this at various points, you hear little of it now.
Posted by wdhalgren
Member since May 2013
5402 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:12 pm to
quote:

Saying they aren't a threat because they haven't invaded anyone means you are either dishonest or just plain dumb.


The far leftists on this board have been driven to fantasizing to support their claims. They make things up things up like, "Iran wasn't close to having a nuclear weapon", when there's an avalanche of evidence from every direction that proves them wrong. Even Iran doesn't agree with them.
Posted by Ping Pong
LSU and UVA alum
Member since Aug 2014
6260 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:14 pm to
quote:

And I promise you President WOODROW WILSON — who was president during WWI — the Germans did not attack us. He got into that, it was a war of principle, and President Wilson felt the same.


Did this dipshit pass his highschool history classes?

The Lusitania and Mr. Zimmerman say hello.
Posted by AlterEd
Cydonia, Mars
Member since Dec 2024
12794 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:18 pm to
Do you not understand how the parallels are precisely the same? Maybe it's you that needs to brush up on the history.
Posted by olgoi khorkhoi
priapism survivor
Member since May 2011
16808 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:25 pm to
quote:

Imagine being a congresswoman and not knowing who was POTUS during WW1.




I dropped out of high school and I knew it was the vile progressive Woodrow Wilson.
Posted by RazorBroncs
Possesses the largest
Member since Sep 2013
16263 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:27 pm to
quote:

So the argument is that we have to destabilize the global economy now to prevent Iran from potentially destabilizing it later?


That's a very small-brain takeaway from the quote and the situation as a whole.

It's more about who's got the power of control when the dust up ends and the music stops.

If allowed to be Iran, they certainly will attain a nuclear weapon in short order and then they can shut down the entire ME and the global economy on a whim. They can eliminate Israel or any one of their neighbors. They can shut down the Strait of Hormuz. They can threaten anyone within range directly or indirectly and make them bend to their will for as long as that nuclear threat exists.

Basically this option gives Iran complete control of the Middle East and the world economy for the foreseeable future. We cannot allow them to have that power.

Whereas if the US and a coalition of allied ME countries has that power, you can finally work towards a peaceful region and unlock the full economic boom that comes with it. For the US and allies to attain that power, yes there will have to be a little pain now in trade for later.

But the pain is much much worse if Iran is allowed to assume that power for decades.
Posted by AlterEd
Cydonia, Mars
Member since Dec 2024
12794 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:27 pm to
I don't even think it's a matter of your education level. Instead, it measures the actual interest a person takes in the history of our nation. If anyone should know these sorts of things it's the people who run for federal office. How can you call yourself a "statesman" and have no interest in the history of the state? It's amazing that liberals could tolerate that sort of shite.
Posted by Adam Banks
District 5
Member since Sep 2009
37883 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:30 pm to
Trump says the nuclear dust doesn’t matter.



Bessent needs to get updated
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
477737 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:45 pm to
quote:

Iran's MO is to materially support terrorists and launch missiles and drones from afar. Saying they aren't a threat because they haven't invaded anyone means you are either dishonest or just plain dumb.

This whole conflict has been based around Iran launching missiles and drones, but you want to pretend the only way a country can be a threat is through a military invasion to avoid acknowledging reality.


What potential, realistic resolution paths do we have to stop Iran from continuing this behavior in the future?
Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
61598 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:46 pm to
quote:

they certainly will attain a nuclear weapon in short order


So we’ll been attempting to colonize the Middle East forever in the name of saving the world from WMDs.


Posted by 4cubbies
Member since Sep 2008
61598 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:48 pm to
quote:

I'm not surprised you can't follow the nuance here. He isn't saying that is why we went to war. He is answering a question about the financial ramifications of doing so because he is the treasury secretary and it is his job to field questions such as this.


If you are offended by my interpretation of his answer, why don’t you provide your interpretation of his answer?

Or does it stop at “because the Treasury Secretary said so”?
Posted by deltaland
Member since Mar 2011
102972 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 5:25 pm to
quote:

Imagine being a congresswoman and not knowing who was POTUS during WW1.


Imagine comparing the current POTUS to Woodrow Wilson to justify the Iran war. It’s largely thought we had no business entering WW1 and if we hadn’t then maybe WW2 never happens
Posted by AlterEd
Cydonia, Mars
Member since Dec 2024
12794 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 5:30 pm to
quote:

If you are offended by my interpretation of his answer,


I'm not offended. I found it both unsurprising and funny.
Posted by Mid Iowa Tiger
Undisclosed Secure Location
Member since Feb 2008
24950 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 5:33 pm to
quote:

Iran hasn't even invaded any of their neighbors. They weren't going to come attack the United States.


Convenient to ignore the proxy war Iran has been fighting since the 70s after they did invade American territory.
Posted by VoxDawg
Glory, Glory
Member since Sep 2012
78062 posts
Posted on 6/4/26 at 5:38 pm to
quote:

So the argument is that we have to destabilize the global economy now to prevent Iran from potentially destabilizing it later?

Homeless dick has decayed your brain.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next 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