|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland27266 Posts
On June 18 2025 08:56 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 08:10 KwarK wrote:
Consider how Netanyahu treated Trump last time when he simply dictated US policy to him and Trump emerged from the private meeting with the announcement that they’d annexed Gaza. And then Trump did nothing. If Netanyahu has zero respect for Trump then that’s likely still too generous. The man has zero convictions, zero beliefs of his own, and zero follow through. You can just do whatever the fuck you want and he’ll go along with it. The only reason you can’t get him to do whatever the fuck you want is that he’s so weak that the moment you leave the room the next guy in line has taken over dominating him.
Netanyahu wouldn’t have asked for or needed Trump’s approval. If he wants anything from Trump later he’ll just take it. We shall see how much pull he has shortly as he has openly asked for US to bomb the underground facilities and for the US to join the war, which goes completely against Trumps campaigning. For the record I'm betting you are right and he does. In more important news though, I want my internet points back plus interest. Yeehaw!! free rein: The freedom to do say or feel what you want. And AI says: "Free rein" and "free rein" are often confused, but "free rein" is the correct term. It means unrestricted liberty of action or decision, originating from the practice of loosely holding a horse's reins to allow it freedom of movement. "Free rein," while sometimes used, is a misinterpretation stemming from the misunderstanding that "rein" is related to royal "reign".
Just used the search tools
Mossad has shown they have free reign inside of Iran
It is like they have free reign inside Iran.
Kwark may be a pedant at times, but he’s not an incorrect one.
|
On June 18 2025 09:14 KwarK wrote:Yes, free rein is the correct term. That’s what I told you when you used free reign. Show nested quote +On June 16 2025 08:16 Billyboy wrote:
Mossad has shown they have free reign inside of Iran Show nested quote +On June 14 2025 22:43 Billyboy wrote:
It is like they have free reign inside Iran. But then I think maybe I corrected it in the post that I quoted to correct because in my quote of your post it's spelled rein but in the original, which doesn't appear to be edited, it's reign? I don't know what is going on.
Well shit, I don't know how to score it, for sure I am back down more, but I think you need some sort of penalty for the extra trickery. I'm kind of glad I was right in my head, but then it is strange that I typed it multiple times wrong. Maybe it was autocorrect because I'm such a poor typer and speeler. But I probably just fucked up.
|
On June 18 2025 09:14 KwarK wrote:Yes, free rein is the correct term. That’s what I told you when you used free reign. Show nested quote +On June 16 2025 08:16 Billyboy wrote:
Mossad has shown they have free reign inside of Iran Show nested quote +On June 14 2025 22:43 Billyboy wrote:
It is like they have free reign inside Iran. But then I think maybe I corrected it in the post that I quoted to correct because in my quote of your post it's spelled rein but in the original, which doesn't appear to be edited, it's reign? I don't know what is going on.
Must have edited his quote for him because I remember reading your post and thinking why is he correcting him when the quoted post also says “free rein”
|
On June 17 2025 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 21:20 Simberto wrote:On June 17 2025 20:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 20:08 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2025 17:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Thank goodness it was voluntary. I'm curious about this part: "A brochure titled “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service” featured the seal of the Department of Defense, suggesting that Hegseth and the government sponsored it, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, now a law professor, told CNN. That could be a breach of the First Amendment’s ban on the government promoting a religion." Christian prayer groups are generally fine legally, but they probably shouldn't be using government seals to imply the government is sponsoring and promoting Christianity in particular, right? Hegseth’s response is pretty illuminating. Head to Twitter and claim people are against God. As you do! I’m perfectly fine with provisions for worship, especially for religions with specific rituals. Just don’t make it an official thing. It’s a nothingburger for me if the response was ‘hey I’ll keep doing the prayer thing but point taken on certain criticisms, I’ll tweak a few things.’ That’s almost never the response. (Also lmao my phone genuinely autocorrected a typo to ‘case sober’ there, feels apt) Certain conservatives, and seemingly a growing amount in prominence appear to want a state religion, while basing a lot of their other arguments in ye olde sacred Constitution. You cannae do both. Agreed. It's not like the 1st Amendment makes a special exception for Christianity, and we know that Republicans would suddenly lose their shit if Islam or Buddhism or Pastafarianism was suddenly backed by the federal government. In fact, they did that maybe a week ago with the Sikh guy who lead prayer in congress. Because they thought he was a muslim. Edit: But, of course, we have seen this again, and we can once again post the Sartre quote about antisemites and using words. The fascists don't care about consistency or principles, they care only about winning. I prefer Zam's Show nested quote +On June 09 2025 14:51 Zambrah wrote:
I’m gonna make this my last comment on the arguing with the completely disingenuous right wingers thing, but if you see someone arguing with a squirrel at the park, the only one who looks crazy is the person arguing with a squirrel It's not just embarrassing for those indulging the fascists though, it's quite counterproductive. Show nested quote +On March 26 2025 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2025 06:06 Laurens wrote:
Vance also visiting Greenland now.
They’re not really going to annex it right, right? I'm leaning towards No - I think Trump is mostly just posturing and trying to show off how he can threaten everyone and still be untouchable - but who knows? If someone was going to arbitrarily decide to invade allied countries and destroy our relationships with the rest of the world, it would obviously be Trump. On March 26 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 20:33 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2025 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2025 07:30 Luolis wrote:
Imagine being Hillary right now :D Obama and Clinton and Biden and Harris were right about everything Trump-related. Always have been, always will be. LibHorizons: Except for the most important things; being the right people/having the correct politics to beat him. Also Clinton's Pied Piper thing is a pretty big exception that also helped make Trump president. What is the charge of this Pied Piper thing? It seems to read much like the various campaigns were somewhat blindsided by Trump at every new hurdle he cleared, and thought he’d be a lock to beat in a Presidential. Which, to be fair, most of us were thinking at the time. “I admit to being suckered into every narrative that predicted Trump’s demise over and over,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Clinton ally. “I admittedly was a pretty consistent skeptic that they were ultimately going to nominate this buffoon, so I probably came to the realization that he was the nominee as late as anybody."
“I was in denial for a very long time,” added former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the one-time presidential candidate and DNC chair. “I tell people I was wrong for 52 weeks in a row starting in June.”
That aside it seems a bit rich to simultaneously be digging up the failings of the 2016 campaign, and sidestepping awkward questions on 2024 with a ‘we have to move on folks, what are we doing now?’ I’ve no issues with either but be consistent on this at least. + Show Spoiler +LibHorizons: Hillary literally intentionally helped Trump become the nominee, and therefore, president. So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up.
“... can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. ...we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” Republicans moving right under Trump's leadership was deliberately encouraged by Clinton and her campaign. Instead of making them easier to beat and Hillary Clinton president like she thought it would, it made Republicans more effective at stripping people of their rights with Democrats help. Hillary made possibly the biggest political mistake of our lives and it's quite the exception to always being right about Trump. It came up because of DPB's ahistorical Third Way bootlicking. It only emboldens Third Way dead enders in the fight for the future of the party that my fellow libs/Dems/ilk seem largely unwilling/incapable of engaging with at any length. LibHorizons: Case in point. You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it. That's not an opinion, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. That's a choice you all make, and that's your prerogative. However, a major reason it matters is that those choices and the people that make them are among the top reasons (mostly Third Way) Democrats will continue to enable Trump until they are powerless to stop him, if that hasn't already happened. I'm desperately trying to see a way forward with/as Democrats, because it seems that making a viable run with a 3rd/workers' party is all but impossible in the US under these conditions. Unfortunately, all the libs/Dems/ilk that could be discussing how to do that, instead just mock and gawk right winger nonsense/rising fascism like political mean girls. You all are but a tiny offbeat sampling of the people that potentially stand between us and a fascist future, but even us here, in this moment have to get much more serious about how we're going to stop what is happening or we're all actually screwed. As we all know by now though, they can't help themselves.
At this point I just think it's cute the forums have their own cat, who mewls at the doorway for attention, bangs its tail at your legs if it has to, but turns icy if you actually try to give it what it ostensibly wants. All part of a kitty's charm!
|
On June 18 2025 09:45 Turbovolver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 17 2025 22:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 17 2025 21:20 Simberto wrote:On June 17 2025 20:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 17 2025 20:08 WombaT wrote:On June 17 2025 17:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Thank goodness it was voluntary. I'm curious about this part: "A brochure titled “Secretary of Defense Christian Prayer & Worship Service” featured the seal of the Department of Defense, suggesting that Hegseth and the government sponsored it, retired Air Force Lt. Col. Rachel VanLandingham, now a law professor, told CNN. That could be a breach of the First Amendment’s ban on the government promoting a religion." Christian prayer groups are generally fine legally, but they probably shouldn't be using government seals to imply the government is sponsoring and promoting Christianity in particular, right? Hegseth’s response is pretty illuminating. Head to Twitter and claim people are against God. As you do! I’m perfectly fine with provisions for worship, especially for religions with specific rituals. Just don’t make it an official thing. It’s a nothingburger for me if the response was ‘hey I’ll keep doing the prayer thing but point taken on certain criticisms, I’ll tweak a few things.’ That’s almost never the response. (Also lmao my phone genuinely autocorrected a typo to ‘case sober’ there, feels apt) Certain conservatives, and seemingly a growing amount in prominence appear to want a state religion, while basing a lot of their other arguments in ye olde sacred Constitution. You cannae do both. Agreed. It's not like the 1st Amendment makes a special exception for Christianity, and we know that Republicans would suddenly lose their shit if Islam or Buddhism or Pastafarianism was suddenly backed by the federal government. In fact, they did that maybe a week ago with the Sikh guy who lead prayer in congress. Because they thought he was a muslim. Edit: But, of course, we have seen this again, and we can once again post the Sartre quote about antisemites and using words. The fascists don't care about consistency or principles, they care only about winning. I prefer Zam's On June 09 2025 14:51 Zambrah wrote:
I’m gonna make this my last comment on the arguing with the completely disingenuous right wingers thing, but if you see someone arguing with a squirrel at the park, the only one who looks crazy is the person arguing with a squirrel It's not just embarrassing for those indulging the fascists though, it's quite counterproductive. On March 26 2025 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 26 2025 06:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 26 2025 06:06 Laurens wrote:
Vance also visiting Greenland now.
They’re not really going to annex it right, right? I'm leaning towards No - I think Trump is mostly just posturing and trying to show off how he can threaten everyone and still be untouchable - but who knows? If someone was going to arbitrarily decide to invade allied countries and destroy our relationships with the rest of the world, it would obviously be Trump. On March 26 2025 00:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 20:33 WombaT wrote:On March 25 2025 08:30 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 25 2025 07:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 25 2025 07:30 Luolis wrote:
Imagine being Hillary right now :D Obama and Clinton and Biden and Harris were right about everything Trump-related. Always have been, always will be. LibHorizons: Except for the most important things; being the right people/having the correct politics to beat him. Also Clinton's Pied Piper thing is a pretty big exception that also helped make Trump president. What is the charge of this Pied Piper thing? It seems to read much like the various campaigns were somewhat blindsided by Trump at every new hurdle he cleared, and thought he’d be a lock to beat in a Presidential. Which, to be fair, most of us were thinking at the time. “I admit to being suckered into every narrative that predicted Trump’s demise over and over,” said Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy, a Clinton ally. “I admittedly was a pretty consistent skeptic that they were ultimately going to nominate this buffoon, so I probably came to the realization that he was the nominee as late as anybody."
“I was in denial for a very long time,” added former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, the one-time presidential candidate and DNC chair. “I tell people I was wrong for 52 weeks in a row starting in June.”
That aside it seems a bit rich to simultaneously be digging up the failings of the 2016 campaign, and sidestepping awkward questions on 2024 with a ‘we have to move on folks, what are we doing now?’ I’ve no issues with either but be consistent on this at least. + Show Spoiler +LibHorizons: Hillary literally intentionally helped Trump become the nominee, and therefore, president. So to take Bush down, Clinton’s team drew up a plan to pump Trump up.
“... can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. ...we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more ‘Pied Piper’ candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party,” Republicans moving right under Trump's leadership was deliberately encouraged by Clinton and her campaign. Instead of making them easier to beat and Hillary Clinton president like she thought it would, it made Republicans more effective at stripping people of their rights with Democrats help. Hillary made possibly the biggest political mistake of our lives and it's quite the exception to always being right about Trump. It came up because of DPB's ahistorical Third Way bootlicking. It only emboldens Third Way dead enders in the fight for the future of the party that my fellow libs/Dems/ilk seem largely unwilling/incapable of engaging with at any length. LibHorizons: Case in point. You're all demonstrably far more interested in pointing/gawking at, and mocking the latest stupid things right wingers say/do, along with the rise of fascism, than discussing/doing anything meaningful about any of it. That's not an opinion, that's an observable/demonstrable fact. That's a choice you all make, and that's your prerogative. However, a major reason it matters is that those choices and the people that make them are among the top reasons (mostly Third Way) Democrats will continue to enable Trump until they are powerless to stop him, if that hasn't already happened. I'm desperately trying to see a way forward with/as Democrats, because it seems that making a viable run with a 3rd/workers' party is all but impossible in the US under these conditions. Unfortunately, all the libs/Dems/ilk that could be discussing how to do that, instead just mock and gawk right winger nonsense/rising fascism like political mean girls. You all are but a tiny offbeat sampling of the people that potentially stand between us and a fascist future, but even us here, in this moment have to get much more serious about how we're going to stop what is happening or we're all actually screwed. As we all know by now though, they can't help themselves. At this point I just think it's cute the forums have their own cat, who mewls at the doorway for attention, bangs its tail at your legs if it has to, but turns icy if you actually try to give it what it ostensibly wants. All part of a kitty's charm!
Is this your way of asking for my attention or did you quote the wrong person?
EDIT:
On June 18 2025 10:09 Turbovolver wrote:
Adorable <3
Oh, just petulant trolling. Cool.
|
|
|
I genuinely believe that Trump's idea of stopping wars is
"Why doesn't the weak/attacked one just roll over?"
And then he is told that people really don't do that.
And then he realizes "Oh fuck that's hard"
And then it's off to golfing again and some lies and made up problems.
|
On June 18 2025 18:30 KT_Elwood wrote:
I genuinely believe that Trump's idea of stopping wars is
"Why doesn't the weak/attacked one just roll over?"
And then he is told that people really don't do that.
And then he realizes "Oh fuck that's hard"
And then it's off to golfing again and some lies and made up problems.
I still remember when he said that Jared Kushner was going to solve the middle east. These are not serious people.
|
On June 18 2025 18:47 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 18:30 KT_Elwood wrote:
I genuinely believe that Trump's idea of stopping wars is
"Why doesn't the weak/attacked one just roll over?"
And then he is told that people really don't do that.
And then he realizes "Oh fuck that's hard"
And then it's off to golfing again and some lies and made up problems.
I still remember when he said that Jared Kushner was going to solve the middle east. These are not serious people.
no they are not. and still they get elected. goes to show the quality and maturity of US democracy.
and social media delivering the US brain rot in light speed to a global audience in possession of "smart" devices... good times ahead everywhere. first the idiotic ideas are flying in the cloud, now it's missiles and interceptor missiles.
good stuff really.
|
On June 18 2025 21:09 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 18:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 18 2025 18:30 KT_Elwood wrote:
I genuinely believe that Trump's idea of stopping wars is
"Why doesn't the weak/attacked one just roll over?"
And then he is told that people really don't do that.
And then he realizes "Oh fuck that's hard"
And then it's off to golfing again and some lies and made up problems.
I still remember when he said that Jared Kushner was going to solve the middle east. These are not serious people. no they are not. and still they get elected. goes to show the quality and maturity of US democracy.
Though, yes, I agree, The elections of Trump makes one wonder about "quality and maturity of US democracy". However, I believe that similar worrying developments can be found in virtually every “western” country. Be it Austria, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Poland, ... and the list goes on. And it doesn't stop in the "west".
As an example, assuming you are actually from austria:
please refresh my memory. What party won the last Nationalratswahl again? FPÖ? Who was their candidate? Herbert "Volkskanzler" Kickl. A guy who's publicly stating he's no democrat.
Edit: On 2nd thought, what I did seems a bit like whataboutism. I just had the impression your comment singled out the US. Whereas I have a feeling that it's not just a US phenomenon, but more or less a global one.
|
I would like to remind You that, as shitty as Nawrocki is as a candidate/president-elect, he is still a PiS candidate. Not Konfederacja one, and Konfederacja is our equivalent of FPÖ, AfD, MAGA and the like.
|
On June 18 2025 21:45 jodljodl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 21:09 Doublemint wrote:On June 18 2025 18:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 18 2025 18:30 KT_Elwood wrote:
I genuinely believe that Trump's idea of stopping wars is
"Why doesn't the weak/attacked one just roll over?"
And then he is told that people really don't do that.
And then he realizes "Oh fuck that's hard"
And then it's off to golfing again and some lies and made up problems.
I still remember when he said that Jared Kushner was going to solve the middle east. These are not serious people. no they are not. and still they get elected. goes to show the quality and maturity of US democracy. Though, yes, I agree, The elections of Trump makes one wonder about "quality and maturity of US democracy". However, I believe that similar worrying developments can be found in virtually every “western” country. Be it Austria, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Poland, ... and the list goes on. And it doesn't stop in the "west". As an example, assuming you are actually from austria: please refresh my memory. What party won the last Nationalratswahl again? FPÖ? Who was their candidate? Herbert "Volkskanzler" Kickl. A guy who's publicly stating he's no democrat. Edit: On 2nd thought, what I did seems a bit like whataboutism. I just had the impression your comment singled out the US. Whereas I have a feeling that it's not just a US phenomenon, but more or less a global one.
I don't consider this a whataboutism, more as a warning that this fire isn't contained to the US. We have to deal with our own Neo-Nazis in Austria, the US has to deal with theirs. It's an international game of whack-a-mole.
And their tactics aren't new, the FPÖ for example has been doing the mask on mask off routine since their inception. All Neo-Nazi groups cover their asses with plausible deniability (whoopsies, yet another Nazi in our midst. How could that possibly have happened? Tee-hee).
That's how they're allowed to stick around in serious politics, otherwise they'd get banned. They're Neo-Nazis and every reasonable person knows it, but the party doesn't admit it. Soooo legally we have to treat each Nazi-moment as an isolated case, and the party keeps chugging along.
|
On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (12) 57% Yes (9) 43% 21 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Honestly hard to answer question.
The damn nukes are already owned by too many nations for anyones own good.
Would it make any difference in the long-term if Iran were one of those who didn‘t ? I can see the reason for them not being allowed to, but it‘s also not sure if that reason is going to be relevant unless the wars keep escalating.
Would be nice if the nation went back to having a more secular leadership…
|
Northern Ireland27266 Posts
On June 18 2025 21:45 jodljodl wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 21:09 Doublemint wrote:On June 18 2025 18:47 EnDeR_ wrote:On June 18 2025 18:30 KT_Elwood wrote:
I genuinely believe that Trump's idea of stopping wars is
"Why doesn't the weak/attacked one just roll over?"
And then he is told that people really don't do that.
And then he realizes "Oh fuck that's hard"
And then it's off to golfing again and some lies and made up problems.
I still remember when he said that Jared Kushner was going to solve the middle east. These are not serious people. no they are not. and still they get elected. goes to show the quality and maturity of US democracy. Though, yes, I agree, The elections of Trump makes one wonder about "quality and maturity of US democracy". However, I believe that similar worrying developments can be found in virtually every “western” country. Be it Austria, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Poland, ... and the list goes on. And it doesn't stop in the "west". As an example, assuming you are actually from austria: please refresh my memory. What party won the last Nationalratswahl again? FPÖ? Who was their candidate? Herbert "Volkskanzler" Kickl. A guy who's publicly stating he's no democrat. Edit: On 2nd thought, what I did seems a bit like whataboutism. I just had the impression your comment singled out the US. Whereas I have a feeling that it's not just a US phenomenon, but more or less a global one.
Absolutely, important to be vigilant across the board, and mind one’s own house isn’t made of glass before throwing stones.
On the flipside, I think what differentiates this modern form of far right politics, in the West at least is, somewhat ironically quite how internationalised it is. While it doesn’t supplant straight nationalism, this rather nebulously defined idea of the ‘West’ is a glue that binds the far right across borders.
It’s not quite the case that ‘where the US leads, others follow’, but it’s more of a boost to morale if you start making inroads in a superpower like the US, but elsewhere. And the US has much more ability politically to weaken international institutions that can stem the tide, than say an Austria.
That said I think by far the US’ biggest role is in the ‘culture war’ that has seen a resurgence of far right politics globally. In some ways, very deliberately, by people who actively want that, who’ll advocate, who’ll platform, who’ll signal boost, who’ll fund. And Americans do a ton of heavy lifting there.
Secondly I suppose is something less intentional, but by far the biggest spreader of information that’s turning people in this direction, is a relative handful of social media concerns, basically all American.
I don’t really believe most folks involved want this to be the case, but be the case it is. Some probably want to fix it, but struggle to balance with other principles like free speech. Some probably want to fix it, but don’t think it can be fixed, it’s just the nature of the beast. Some probably don’t want to spread misinformation the world over, but like making money more than they have misgivings.
You’ve a slim chance of fixing these things the best of times, that starts to shift in snowman’s chance in hell territory if you’ve a Trump sitting atop the throne. In my opinion anyway.
Given the US forms a lot of the structural connective tissue that binds this behemoth together, and it’s where the information pipelines that fuel it mostly reside, I think it’s natural to focus a bit more there.
But yeah, 100% agreed it shouldn’t be to the detriment of looking at it elsewhere .
|
On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (12) 57% Yes (9) 43% 21 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message.
I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about.
Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody.
What is the downside?
|
On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (12) 57% Yes (9) 43% 21 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside?
For whom?
Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though.
|
The downside is US has bases much closer to Iran than Israel is. And Iran has A LOT of short range drones and missiles which they could aim at them. Also, they have local sympathetic militias at their disposal. US directly striking Iran might provoke a response which could claim the lives of US soldiers.
I guess Israelis are fine with that risk. Probably some US citizens also, but families of soldiers stationed in those bases might not be thrilled by the idea.
|
On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (12) 57% Yes (9) 43% 21 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? When was the last time a bomb induced regime changed ended with a more moderate and stable government?
another generation of people with a burning hatred for the US, potentially leading to another 9/11 down the road?
|
On June 19 2025 02:40 Silvanel wrote:
The downside is US has bases much closer to Iran than Israel is. And Iran has A LOT of short range drones and missiles which they could aim at them. Also, they have local sympathetic militias at their disposal. US directly striking Iran might provoke a response which could claim the lives of US soldiers.
I guess Israelis are fine with that risk. Probably some US citizens also, but families of soldiers stationed in those bases might not be thrilled by the idea.
This situation is not made any better by leaving Khameini's jihad rednecks in their positions. The whole point is Iran is an issue that never seems to quite go away. There is no better time to prevent what you are describing than right now.
|
On June 19 2025 02:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2025 02:24 Mohdoo wrote:On June 18 2025 05:27 GreenHorizons wrote:With Trump's "Unconditional Surrender" bit seems reasonable to ask: Poll: Should the US use the B2+Bunker Buster to bomb Iran's nuke programNo (12) 57% Yes (9) 43% 21 total votes You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ No
Forgive me for copy pasting a part of my reply here, but I figure there's no reason for me to try to re-type the same general message. I genuinely don't understand what all the anti-war dweebs are whining about. Trump authorizing a big ole dump truck of bombs on the underground stuff could be argued as a net positive for peace. Iran is toast anyway. I think everyone here agrees its not like they are crawling back from this. Khameini and his yeehaw jihad redneck council of dweebs are done and something else will come after that. The US moving things along to make this a more conclusive and direct victory prevents all the usual loose ends that end up being the most bloody. What is the downside? For whom? Seeing "anti-war dweebs" coming from someone whose plan to fight fascism in their own country is to run and hide is pretty laughable though.
I am anti-war, but not a dweeb. The dweebs are the ones who don't understand every situation that involves the middle east needs to be immediately labeled as Iraq 2.0 or Afghanistan 2.0. The key issue with Iran is preventing them from being at the negotiating table and a jihad version of NK. We can't have actual jihad dipshits at a negotiating table. That's why its ok to just throw their military in the trash and leave a failed state to figure it out. Both Afghanistan and Iraq involved the cringey nation building stuff. We don't need that.
Right now it looks like Khameini is genuinely a jihad dipshit and its not just an act. I had assumed until now it was just the usual religion power bs. But he seems to actually think 72 virgins are waiting for him in jihad heaven. So I find myself in a rare situation where I side with the oligarchs in wanting IRGC fully removed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
