|
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 |
On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in.
I have to assume you're saying this sarcastically because I don't think you realize that's exactly what's happening.
Probably not before Trump gets a few thousand american soldiers killed. But it's the only outcome atp.
|
On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:Trump has most of 3 years left. Lame duck period is after November 2028 if he doesn't win a third term. already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:Trump has most of 3 years left. Lame duck period is after November 2028 if he doesn't win a third term. already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in.
Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade.
Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this.
|
United States43808 Posts
On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in.
nonono, your position is that the US has already won.
|
On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:Trump has most of 3 years left. Lame duck period is after November 2028 if he doesn't win a third term. already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:Trump has most of 3 years left. Lame duck period is after November 2028 if he doesn't win a third term. already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this.
The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium.
On April 01 2026 00:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. nonono, your position is that the US has already won.
Right now it's like chess. The US has won but Iran hasn't resigned yet. Sort of like you in this thread.
|
On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium.
What's stopping them from getting nukes directly supplied by Russia?
If they have that uranium they'll hand it out shortly, anyways.
|
United States43808 Posts
On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:59 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. nonono, your position is that the US has already won. Right now it's like chess. The US has won but Iran hasn't resigned yet. Sort of like you in this thread.
In a chess game that has been won the game is over. This is the kind of chess game where the Pentagon says it urgently needs another $200,000,000,000.
|
The Strait is still closed, gas is hitting $4, Iran isn't any further from getting nukes than they were before the war, American allies like Qatar are surrendering. Haven't seen an American victory this decisive since Vietnam.
|
On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 00:59 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. nonono, your position is that the US has already won. Right now it's like chess. The US has won but Iran hasn't resigned yet. Sort of like you in this thread.
Can you define what Iran resigning looks like?
If Iran has the same regime after? Is that a loss or win for the Iran?
What if they still control the strait? Or worse are now charging for using it?
|
On April 01 2026 01:05 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. What's stopping them from getting nukes directly supplied by Russia? If they have that uranium they'll hand it out shortly, anyways.
Russia has never given a nuke to anyone, why would they give them to Iran?
They're not just NNPT signatories because it looks good on paper, countries like China and Russia don't actually want tiny apeshit neighbors with something to prove and nuclear weapons.
|
Iran didn't want a nuke until Iraq showed that you need one to defend against the US, and Bush's 'Axis of evil' certainly made Iran feel like they were next.
Then Obama managed to defuse the situation, explain to Iran that Bush was an abnormality and that they really were not looking to invade Iran, so lets not build a nuke.
Then Trump tore up that deal, once again opening the notion that Iran would need a nuke.
And to put an exclamation on the point Trump then attacks Iran, proving once and for all that Iran (and lots of other nations in the world) actually does need a nuke.
But sure we, the rest of the world, should be afraid because Iran is trying to get a nuke...
This is as ridiculous history re-writing as you trying to claim that the US saved the world from Iranian missiles that they were not launching at us prior to your attack.
|
So are people hoping for Rubio, Vance, or Trump as the Republican nominee in 2028?
Rubio being the most "reasonable" of the three also pointing out that military spending being devoted to helping the citizens could result in a much different country.
|
|
|
at this point they might as well skip 2028. this war sealed their 2026 fate and beyond.
interestingly they still communicate like it's all theoretical and a never ending campaign trail instead of them shitting the bed while in power.
|
On April 01 2026 01:07 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. On April 01 2026 00:59 KwarK wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. nonono, your position is that the US has already won. Right now it's like chess. The US has won but Iran hasn't resigned yet. Sort of like you in this thread. Can you define what Iran resigning looks like? If Iran has the same regime after? Is that a loss or win for the Iran? What if they still control the strait? Or worse are now charging for using it?
Basically it's acceding to the 15 points they refused last year before they had their military capabilities bombed to shit.
Right now they have no missile factories. They are done. It just takes more moves to blow up remaining launchers and sites, possibly collect the uranium, blow up the power grid if they're too stubborn. Blow up any remaining Supremes-Leader. The Strait may not exactly be a US goal. Allies might not be happy but if the US literally just left, they would have to guarantee it themselves, but I think also marines and paratroopers can handle it. But there is a strategic issue of using all the rapid response forces because then you need other rapid response forces in the queue in case there is another issue somewhere.
They already don't have the same "regime" I mean they have the same rough structure of system on paper. But for example Khrushchev to Brezhnev wasn't the same "regime" despite being the same system. Spontaneous un-revolution or re-democratization of Iran doesn't look exactly in the cards right now and would need some kind of coup to civil war.
On April 01 2026 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Iran didn't want a nuke until Iraq showed that you need one to defend against the US, and Bush's 'Axis of evil' certainly made Iran feel like they were next.
Iran's nuclear ambitions date to at least the 1990s, called the AMAD plan, after Pakistan got functional nukes first.
On April 01 2026 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Then Obama managed to defuse the situation, explain to Iran that Bush was an abnormality and that they really were not looking to invade Iran, so lets not build a nuke.
Good of Obama to defuse the situation with the remaining Axis of Beautiful Innocent Rainbow countries that somehow all manage to bomb the Kurds.
On April 01 2026 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Then Trump tore up that deal, once again opening the notion that Iran would need a nuke.
And to put an exclamation on the point Trump then attacks Iran, proving once and for all that Iran (and lots of other nations in the world) actually does need a nuke.
Someone has possibly led you to believe that the Iran nuclear deal contained something to the effect of
AND THEREUPON NEVER SHALL THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (nor Israel) ATTACK IRAN, IT IS SO ORDAINED, IRAN'S IMMUTABLE SOVEREIGNTY TO STAND IN PERPETUITY
which it didn't. I hate to put my words in your mouth but this is the only situation where your post makes sense. The Iran deal was not "We won't invade if you give up the nuke." I'm open if you find that in one of the stipulations as I haven't read the entire thing. But to the best of my sincere knowledge, you're operating from a misunderstanding of the deal's conditions.
On April 01 2026 01:15 Gorsameth wrote:
But sure we, the rest of the world, should be afraid because Iran is trying to get a nuke...
This is as ridiculous history re-writing as you trying to claim that the US saved the world from Iranian missiles that they were not launching at us prior to your attack.
You don't need to be afraid. People of action and courage are on it.
|
Any person living in a first world country can not blame FOX News for becoming radical. It is 100% on them. It is up to each person to put in the work to consider a multitude of perspectives. If some guy just passively consumes the info spewed by 1 compromised source... that is on them. All this said, everyone is calling everyone else 'radical' these days.
This above trend makes me fond of a term coined by former Canadian PM Jean Chretien. "Radical centre"
Source: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/former-pm-chretien-says-liberal-party-must-move-back-to-radical-centre/
Someone in the 'radical centre' gets called radical for his right wing positions and policy ideas by the left. Likewise, that same person gets labelled radical for his left wing positions and policies by the right wingers.
The USA needs more leaders in the 'radical centre'.
|
oBlade seemingly applying for local cult leader.
|
United States43808 Posts
I'm enjoying this "actually regime change is already done" as if Trump didn't specify that "I have to be involved in the appointment of Iran's new leader, like with Delcy in Venezuela".
|
On April 01 2026 01:44 KwarK wrote:
I'm enjoying this "actually regime change is already done" as if Trump didn't specify that "I have to be involved in the appointment of Iran's new leader, like with Delcy in Venezuela".
Today you learned regimes can change more than once.
|
On April 01 2026 01:10 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2026 01:05 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 01:01 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:57 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:40 oBlade wrote:On April 01 2026 00:22 Vivax wrote:On April 01 2026 00:06 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:42 Vivax wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. He's threatening to leave NATO because Spain refused to provide air bases, even though NATO is a defensive alliance. Whether Europeans like it or not, they are forced to have him living in their heads rent-free because he's behaving like a threat to international security. Whether he does it cause he's being blackmailed is another debate. Not like he's going to tell you. When NATO members attacked Lybia and Iraq it worked out because diplomacy wasn't this ass. "Even though" is an interesting phrasing. Alliances are almost inherently defensive when made in peacetime. The US is not in Iran to annex it, it's to protect the whole world from linked terror attacks and missile strikes. Which the UK has admitted breaking up Iranian terror plots, and we know NOW Iranian missiles range European capitals. Almost nothing NATO has done in its history is at the Article 5 level "it's just defense." It's not just defensive, it's an alliance. It shouldn't be harder to get basic cooperation from someone you are in a literal treaty with than with Saudi Arabia where you have bases. That is Spain's problem and obviously the US isn't leaving NATO but possibly Spain should consider it, but then the US and Spain have never been as close as the US and France or UK, the other actual nuclear members. Intervention in Libya was a success because Gaddafi had already given up all his WMD programs, leaving just the army of Libya which was a paltry nothing. Saying that Iraq worked out is not common but I'm glad you agree, but the scope and requirements to do what the US is doing in Iran now don't seem to be near what it took to occupy Iraq. Iran would be somewhere between those. I doubt the US needs much help but "no you can't land here" is just petty, which is the same as saying "waa I'm going to leave NATO" but the former actually happened and the latter is just shittalking. On March 31 2026 23:58 misirlou wrote:On March 31 2026 23:33 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:
[quote]
Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug What troll you? The post was not to you, your gullibility caused you to become tricked by a joke unrelated to you. You live in Portugal, aren't a US citizen, and spend a nonzero portion of your day in the headspace worried that Donald Trump is so fascist he will trample the Constitution in order to... leave it up to the people's vote by running for election he's not eligible for? But not fascist enough to just stay in power. That makes no sense whatsoever and I feel nothing but sorry for you. Except I didn't say they'd vote for him, I said they'd follow him. I didn't say you said they would vote for him. It's implied someone has to vote for him in order for him to win the third term which was the crux of the joke. Because elections are decided by voting. If he runs in an election he's not eligible for and loses then what was the fucking point. I didn't see news about any negotiations or proof that Iran was building nukes, did you? If it were there, a democracy wouldn't have to hide it. Wantonly slapping tariffs on NATO members doesn't really pave the way for negotiations to be taken seriously either. I'm not aware of Iranian terrorism in recent times either. And they had a lot of opportunities to target ships in the area. Maybe because they weren't in the vicinity of so called Venezuelan narcoterrorists ? Where's the process of sharing evidence of a threat, planning action and coordinating it ? They fund terror by proxies. The only direct terrorism they do is against their own people and the Kurds. Ali Motahari is on video saying the entire goal is a nuclear bomb. There wouldn't have been a need for a nuclear deal if they weren't trying to make a bomb. Trump wouldn't have left the deal on the argument that it wasn't effective at stopping them from making a bomb if they weren't going to make a bomb anyway. You need to set a fixed goalpost of what you think proof is that's reasonable first. Because if everything short of a finished and tested nuclear bomb is to be twisted as evidence against a program with the goal of making a nuclear bomb, on the argument they haven't finished it yet, there's no point. For example, imagine a nuclear bomb with only enough material for half a core. Everything else finished. Imagine a nuclear bomb with everything except one krytron missing in the trigger. How do we know they'd really add the last krytron to make it functional? Draw a line for yourself and see if you're being reasonable or just think every claim to WMD aspirations is a Western conspiracy and no totalitarian government would ever actually go for it.On April 01 2026 00:39 KwarK wrote:
All of you are forgetting that it is the stated and not retracted absolute position of oblade that Iran was already defeated a month ago. There is no Iran. He saw it on Fox News. My mistake they're definitely winning. Blumpf will surrender anytime now. The walls are closing in. Enriched uranium stored would be proof, or a facility to do that. Like, I'm not opposed to stopping certain countries from having nukes, and Iran would be among them. But from where I'm at it doesn't look like that's what the operation aims at so far. It's more of a blockade. Israel alone was enough in 2025 to destroy an enrichment facility. It's unclear what Trump is after with this. The IAEA said before the Fordow strikes they were sitting on 400kg of 60% enriched uranium. What's stopping them from getting nukes directly supplied by Russia? If they have that uranium they'll hand it out shortly, anyways. Russia has never given a nuke to anyone, why would they give them to Iran? They're not just NNPT signatories because it looks good on paper, countries like China and Russia don't actually want tiny apeshit neighbors with something to prove and nuclear weapons. I'd classify Chinese assistance to North Korea's nuclear arsenal, though mostly indirect, means that they wanted a tiny apeshit neighbor with something to prove and nuclear weapons. Trucks to serve as launchers (prompting sanctions against that firm), assistance with sanctions evasions, Chinese banks helping North Korea finance its nuclear program. All things that China could've tightened or stopped if they were really against it.
On March 31 2026 23:24 misirlou wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2026 23:20 oBlade wrote:On March 31 2026 22:56 misirlou wrote:Trump has most of 3 years left. Lame duck period is after November 2028 if he doesn't win a third term. already normalizing this absolute aberration by posing a "if" . not brainwashed btw You got filtered by the most obvious joke imaginable. Maybe it's a joke to you, but not to millions of americans who will willingly follow him to a third term. You know this. but instead you decide to try to troll me. /shrug also saying that after you completely misread what the situation was about, in a great display of intelligence, here you are trying to sound smart We're well past policing third term jokes when we already have ones on airstrikes and hoping the next assassin has better aim.
On March 31 2026 15:43 Acrofales wrote:
If anything is going to get people using the 25th amendment to chuck him out, it's surrendering the Hormuz strait to Iran. But Vance is a fucking lunatic, so is that truly an improvement? Honestly, geography surrendered the Hormuz strait to Iran. It's been the center point of any tactical planning for a war against Iran for I don't know how long. They possess it until somebody's willing to spend the money and military losses to wrest it away from them.
|
On April 01 2026 01:39 oBlade wrote:
You don't need to be afraid. People of action and courage are on it.
An alcoholic rapist in a draft dodger rapist's cabinet blew up a girl's school and a cancer medicine manufacturer.
"Courage."
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](https://i.redd.it/fn6ikq5baesg1.png)
EPT
