- 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: Trump considering winding down military operations in Iran
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:13 pm to AlterEd
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:13 pm to AlterEd
quote:
He's already saying that he's leaving the strait to the countries that use it because we don't. He gave NATO a loyalty test that they all failed too. He's telling the world frick you right to their faces
There aren't very many intelligent people that think this is a good idea.
1
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:13 pm to Bunk Moreland
quote:
Claim the victory and go home. I’ll take it.
I want all Iranian regime perp walked to the gallows like S. Hussein.
This post was edited on 3/20/26 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:13 pm to wadewilson
No, not woof, you’re intentionally being ignorant and obtuse and acting as if you’ve never heard of the concept of contextual interpretation before. You have though, haven’t you??
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:14 pm to davyjones
quote:
"As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated," Gabbard said in prepared testimony to the Senate intelligence committee, referring to the June 2025 US attack.
That seems definitive.
quote:
"There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability," Gabbard wrote.
Oh boy
quote:
Trump said after the June 2025 bombing that the United States had completely destroyed Iran's nuclear sites, but since his latest war he has maintained that Tehran was nonetheless weeks away from a nuclear bomb and that he had to act.
Oh no
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:14 pm to theballguy
quote:
I want them all perp walked to the gallows like S. Hussein.
Might help if you define who you are referring to. Crazy concept.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:15 pm to GRTiger
quote:
Anyway, this aligns with the schedule the admin gave everyone right at the start.
Good to know we fight wars based off scheduling and not mission objectives.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:15 pm to davyjones
quote:
contextual interpretation
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:16 pm to wadewilson
Please please please, common sense, don’t apply today!!!
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:17 pm to GeorgeTheGreek
quote:
Good to know we fight wars based off scheduling and not mission objectives.
When you have clearly defined objectives such as "we are going to bomb these specific targets to cripple the regime and then leave the rest of it to the people to fix themselves" (which is exactly what they said) then putting on a timeline is rather easy. Sorry you don't like it, but the fact of the matter is that they were honest from the outset if this is the way it plays out. And I think it is how it will play out.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:17 pm to wadewilson
So you haven’t. I gotcha. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s fine, it’ll be fine.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:17 pm to Powerman
Because it's a horrible idea. NATO sans the US can't protect it.
Russia and China can, and they have an interest in picking up power in a vacuum that the US created.
Russia and China can, and they have an interest in picking up power in a vacuum that the US created.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:17 pm to davyjones
quote:
Please please please, common sense, don’t apply today!!!
Common sense is what people say when they don't have facts. It's another trust me bro card to play when you have no real cards.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:19 pm to Powerman
If you don’t see the use for common sense as a very prevalent factor in, well, basically living every aspect of life, then I literally don’t know what else to say. I can’t say that I’ve ever seen or heard someone make that argument, and so boldly and confidently so!
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:22 pm to davyjones
What's the context?
Be specific.
Be specific.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:25 pm to The Egg
The Epstein Coalition has lost this war. A miserable failure that the citizens of the world will pay dearly for.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:29 pm to davyjones
quote:
then I literally don’t know what else to say
That becomes more obvious with every post. You have nothing to say in the face of actual reality and facts. I don't think you're stupid by any stretch. But maybe the fact that all you can say is "use common sense" to support your position means that it's built on questionable foundations. I'd question everything if that's the only leg I had to stand on.
That said I'm going to enjoy the weekend and don't feel like getting into it with someone I'd probably like IRL on the internet. Hope you enjoy yours as well.
We'll resume bitching at each other eventually
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:35 pm to wadewilson
That’s not how you even approach it. It’s more a matter of what other context is present that sheds light on an otherwise vague or ambiguous notion. Is there inference that must sometimes be utilized and inferences made? If you’re doing it right, yes.
If I’m thinking of the same speech/presentation that you are here, then on memory alone I’d refer you to the subsequent language, and by subsequent I mean the very next line(s), she references uranium stockpiles being at extremely concerning levels, and perhaps something about ongoing enrichment or stockpiling efforts. Now, why would the discussion immediately go there? Perhaps to intimate that the desire and actual threat has not subsided. Common sense dictates this.
If I’m thinking of the same speech/presentation that you are here, then on memory alone I’d refer you to the subsequent language, and by subsequent I mean the very next line(s), she references uranium stockpiles being at extremely concerning levels, and perhaps something about ongoing enrichment or stockpiling efforts. Now, why would the discussion immediately go there? Perhaps to intimate that the desire and actual threat has not subsided. Common sense dictates this.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 8:55 pm to davyjones
Quotes from multiple sources that state that Iran's nuclear capabilities are totally destroyed and will take years to rebuild.
Please find the "context" in that white house release from 2025 that shows that none of those multiple people were actually making the definitive statements that they were making.
Please find the "context" in that white house release from 2025 that shows that none of those multiple people were actually making the definitive statements that they were making.
Posted on 3/20/26 at 9:01 pm to wadewilson
So let’s just cut to the chase, because this is getting very tiresome. Do you believe that the administration issued a final conclusion that Iran’s entire nuclear program had been destroyed as it existed when the bombs dropped, AND that their ability and/or capability and thus their desire to at least attempt to reconstitute the program had been permanently eliminated??
Posted on 3/20/26 at 9:15 pm to davyjones
When you asked me for proof that Trump and his administration had used words and phrases like elimination and totally obliterated in regards to the 2025 assault, I gave it to you.
When you stated that I clearly didn't understand the "contextual" implications and clues, I asked you for specific examples, which you have failed to provide.
Now, you shift to this:
My belief is that no matter what I reply with, you will continue to dodge questions, obfuscate a very clear black and white issue, and try to deflect.
The fact is that Trump and his administration very clearly and forcefully stated that Iran's nuclear program was destroyed and would take several years to rebuild after the 2025 attack, making his justification for this new attack and coming ground invasion suspect.
I'm sure a certain foreign leader visiting our congress recently had no impact.
When you stated that I clearly didn't understand the "contextual" implications and clues, I asked you for specific examples, which you have failed to provide.
Now, you shift to this:
quote:
Do you believe that the administration issued a final conclusion that Iran’s entire nuclear program had been destroyed as it existed when the bombs dropped, AND that their ability and/or capability and thus their desire to at least attempt to reconstitute the program had been permanently eliminated??
My belief is that no matter what I reply with, you will continue to dodge questions, obfuscate a very clear black and white issue, and try to deflect.
The fact is that Trump and his administration very clearly and forcefully stated that Iran's nuclear program was destroyed and would take several years to rebuild after the 2025 attack, making his justification for this new attack and coming ground invasion suspect.
I'm sure a certain foreign leader visiting our congress recently had no impact.
This post was edited on 3/20/26 at 9:16 pm
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News