- 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
Tucker Carlson doesn’t want unconditional surrender in Iran because we will rape women
Posted on 3/16/26 at 1:59 pm
Posted on 3/16/26 at 1:59 pm
Oh, and will will also nuke Iran
Tucker has flat out lost his ever loving mind.
Tucker has flat out lost his ever loving mind.
5
Posted on 3/16/26 at 2:01 pm to Mike da Tigah
The whole interview looks fake as hell.
Posted on 3/16/26 at 2:03 pm to Mike da Tigah
We’ve been over this
And IDF rapes dudes
And IDF rapes dudes
Posted on 3/16/26 at 2:05 pm to Mike da Tigah
And he said we should have warned Iran before we did anything.
He is making Candace look less nuttier than a squirrels turd.
He is making Candace look less nuttier than a squirrels turd.
Posted on 3/16/26 at 2:07 pm to cajunangelle
We did warn Iran. They were told what would happen and in their arrogance refused to negotiate.
Posted on 3/16/26 at 5:14 pm to Mike da Tigah
If anybody actually watched the episode with Tucker and Saagar Enjeti that the clip was pulled from, they were discussing the historical context of "unconditional surrender".
Tucker was basically making a hyperbolic point that nations instinctively refuse unconditional surrender to avoid being raped and pillaged, which then escalates a conflict. He argued that Americans don't have the appetite for boots on the ground, so the next step would potentially be the threat of nukes to force Iran's surrender.
I think Tucker and Saagar's assessment was a clumsily made worst-case scenario, but Shapiro's framing of what they were trying to say is pretty dishonest.
Tucker was basically making a hyperbolic point that nations instinctively refuse unconditional surrender to avoid being raped and pillaged, which then escalates a conflict. He argued that Americans don't have the appetite for boots on the ground, so the next step would potentially be the threat of nukes to force Iran's surrender.
I think Tucker and Saagar's assessment was a clumsily made worst-case scenario, but Shapiro's framing of what they were trying to say is pretty dishonest.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:06 pm to nvasil1
Listened to the recent podcast with Tucker and Bret Weinstein.
Both concluded that all efforts to ‘get’ Trump failed and this was TPTB’s (Isreal’s) nuclear option.
Both agreed that ‘Trump had no choice’ but to kick off this attack on Iran, and that Trump was backed into a corner by some means.
Nothing was floated as to the means in which Trump was backed into a corner.
Probably safe to conclude that Israel assured the use of nuclear weapons if the US didn't assist. In other words mutually assured destruction.
Both concluded that all efforts to ‘get’ Trump failed and this was TPTB’s (Isreal’s) nuclear option.
Both agreed that ‘Trump had no choice’ but to kick off this attack on Iran, and that Trump was backed into a corner by some means.
Nothing was floated as to the means in which Trump was backed into a corner.
Probably safe to conclude that Israel assured the use of nuclear weapons if the US didn't assist. In other words mutually assured destruction.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:11 pm to Mike da Tigah
I think we've gone over this one before.
Posted on 3/18/26 at 1:12 pm to theballguy
This is a least the third thread. At least it wasn't the British chick this time.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News