- 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: Scott Bessent With a Message for "Principled Conservatives" and Liberals
Posted on 6/4/26 at 3:59 pm to BurlesonCountyAg
Posted on 6/4/26 at 3:59 pm to BurlesonCountyAg
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:04 pm to Powerman
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:07 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:08 pm to 4cubbies
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:11 pm to AlterEd
Her makeup is fricking absurd
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:12 pm to tigeraddict
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.
- 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 on 6/4/26 at 4:12 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:14 pm to AlterEd
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:18 pm to Ping Pong
Do you not understand how the parallels are precisely the same? Maybe it's you that needs to brush up on the history.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:25 pm to AlterEd
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:27 pm to 4cubbies
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:27 pm to olgoi khorkhoi
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:30 pm to AlterEd
Trump says the nuclear dust doesn’t matter.
Bessent needs to get updated
Bessent needs to get updated
Posted on 6/4/26 at 4:45 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:46 pm to RazorBroncs
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 on 6/4/26 at 4:48 pm to AlterEd
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 on 6/4/26 at 5:25 pm to AlterEd
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 on 6/4/26 at 5:30 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
If you are offended by my interpretation of his answer,
I'm not offended. I found it both unsurprising and funny.
Posted on 6/4/26 at 5:33 pm to Powerman
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 on 6/4/26 at 5:38 pm to 4cubbies
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.
Popular
Back to top


0










