|
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 June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong?
Not a conservative, kid.
Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon.
KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months)
Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon.
KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!!
It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere.
Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation.
|
On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this Show nested quote +On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong?
Fucking owned lol
|
LMAO, I read the full MoU and it's hilarious that every bullshit talking point "well, we akshualy don't know" of oBlade has been proven to be absolute bullshit.
It's also fun to read because of how utterly humiliating it is for the USA and Israel.
Lebanon being a part of it has been mentioned 3-4 times across the points, both that they have to stop there and that they have to give back the land they tried to occupy, just to drive the point home to USA to keep their lapdog under control.
I also have to admit I was wrong, I thought the billions would be coming from frozen assets accumulated from the years of sanctions, nope, wrong, those billions they will be getting anyway, this additional fund is extra, like a whole another cake on top of the existing one!
And to truly cap it all off and further demonstrate how ironic the title of Trump's book is, there is framework for allowing Iran to charge a toll on Hormuz and keep their civilian nuclear program.
Amazing, so to recap, Iran will come out of this with:
- a nuclear program (was previously obliterated)
- 70 % of their missile capabilities and stockpiles (pretty safe to say that at least 15 % of the 30 % that's gone was shoot at valuable targets, so US and Israel took out 15 % overall)
- ability to charge a toll on Hormuz
- removal of all sanctions (was one of the most sanctioned countries on earth before)
- a $300 billion fund (I doubt this will be realized but it's still sooo humiliating that US had to sign something stating they'll do it)
- the regime led by a younger and more radical son of the guy who led the previous one
- citizenry who were ready to lie down their lives in huge numbers to oust their oppressive goverment who are now much more in line and hate USA and Israel all the more
It's one of the clearest and most humiliating defeats in the history of the USA and our boy here is still "well, akshually nothing is signed yet", hahahaha.
|
United States44245 Posts
Iran was already close to collapsing if the US did nothing. There was no water, huge protests in the cities, hyperinflation, unemployment, and an out of touch regime insisting that this was all shit the population had to endure because they were in an existential war with a country halfway across the world.
If Trump did nothing Iran likely collapses within the year. They spent all their money on missiles and drones that are useless in peacetime.
He actually saved them. It’s nuts.
|
United States44245 Posts
On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation.
Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed.
|
On June 18 2026 23:40 Jankisa wrote:
LMAO, I read the full MoU and it's hilarious that every bullshit talking point "well, we akshualy don't know" of oBlade has been proven to be absolute bullshit.
It's also fun to read because of how utterly humiliating it is for the USA and Israel.
Lebanon being a part of it has been mentioned 3-4 times across the points, both that they have to stop there and that they have to give back the land they tried to occupy, just to drive the point home to USA to keep their lapdog under control.
I also have to admit I was wrong, I thought the billions would be coming from frozen assets accumulated from the years of sanctions, nope, wrong, those billions they will be getting anyway, this additional fund is extra, like a whole another cake on top of the existing one!
And to truly cap it all off and further demonstrate how ironic the title of Trump's book is, there is framework for allowing Iran to charge a toll on Hormuz and keep their civilian nuclear program.
Amazing, so to recap, Iran will come out of this with:
- a nuclear program (was previously obliterated)
- 70 % of their missile capabilities and stockpiles (pretty safe to say that at least 15 % of the 30 % that's gone was shoot at valuable targets, so US and Israel took out 15 % overall)
- ability to charge a toll on Hormuz
- removal of all sanctions (was one of the most sanctioned countries on earth before)
- a $300 billion fund (I doubt this will be realized but it's still sooo humiliating that US had to sign something stating they'll do it)
- the regime led by a younger and more radical son of the guy who led the previous one
- citizenry who were ready to lie down their lives in huge numbers to oust their oppressive goverment who are now much more in line and hate USA and Israel all the more
It's one of the clearest and most humiliating defeats in the history of the USA and our boy here is still "well, akshually nothing is signed yet", hahahaha. If Lebanon is part of the deal then there is about a 100% change Israel just ignores it and the deal is off tho.
|
On June 18 2026 23:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation. Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed.
When the gaslight machine is so nonstop you don't even remember the original lies you told.
|
It's an interesting hobby to read a document that says
#1 - Remove all sanctions
and say "This means sanctions are being removed, period.
Followed by
#2 - No nuclear program
and conclude "This doesn't count, they get to have a nuclear program"
"Ability to charge a toll" is pretty clearly made up. I mean insanely so.
Seems you extrapolated from this part:
5 — Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.
Hormuz is an international waterway. Nobody can toll an international waterway.
Iran could certainly toll its own ports, but that's normal. That's like how you can toll your own house if your friend visited it. You can't do that to international waters, it's called piracy.
Like if you sign a contract with your neighbor saying "we won't cherry bomb each other's mailboxes for 2 months" it doesn't suddenly become above board to cherry bomb a mailbox in 61 days. That's where the "applicable international law" thing comes in.
|
United States44245 Posts
Lol he’s making forecasts again.
|
On June 18 2026 23:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation. Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed.
Did I? My mistake. The regime is the EXACT same as it was. It's a Regime of Theseus. Thanks for your productive good-faith correction. You have once again proven yourself to be the smartest person in the entire General Forum.
Now how many mines hit how many ships, buddy?
|
On June 18 2026 23:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2026 23:40 Jankisa wrote:
LMAO, I read the full MoU and it's hilarious that every bullshit talking point "well, we akshualy don't know" of oBlade has been proven to be absolute bullshit.
It's also fun to read because of how utterly humiliating it is for the USA and Israel.
Lebanon being a part of it has been mentioned 3-4 times across the points, both that they have to stop there and that they have to give back the land they tried to occupy, just to drive the point home to USA to keep their lapdog under control.
I also have to admit I was wrong, I thought the billions would be coming from frozen assets accumulated from the years of sanctions, nope, wrong, those billions they will be getting anyway, this additional fund is extra, like a whole another cake on top of the existing one!
And to truly cap it all off and further demonstrate how ironic the title of Trump's book is, there is framework for allowing Iran to charge a toll on Hormuz and keep their civilian nuclear program.
Amazing, so to recap, Iran will come out of this with:
- a nuclear program (was previously obliterated)
- 70 % of their missile capabilities and stockpiles (pretty safe to say that at least 15 % of the 30 % that's gone was shoot at valuable targets, so US and Israel took out 15 % overall)
- ability to charge a toll on Hormuz
- removal of all sanctions (was one of the most sanctioned countries on earth before)
- a $300 billion fund (I doubt this will be realized but it's still sooo humiliating that US had to sign something stating they'll do it)
- the regime led by a younger and more radical son of the guy who led the previous one
- citizenry who were ready to lie down their lives in huge numbers to oust their oppressive goverment who are now much more in line and hate USA and Israel all the more
It's one of the clearest and most humiliating defeats in the history of the USA and our boy here is still "well, akshually nothing is signed yet", hahahaha. If Lebanon is part of the deal then there is about a 100% change Israel just ignores it and the deal is off tho.
Why would Israel agree to let Irans proxy army restock until their next attack.
If the US was competent and actually won this, they would demand both Iran and Israel out of Lebanon and let the Lebanese finally have their sovereignty back.
|
Northern Ireland27272 Posts
For someone who apparently isn’t a conservative Oblade sure as fuck carries a hell of a lot of water for the cause. Maybe if Adam Sandler decides to make the Waterboy 2 he might be best off not casting himself in this one.
I mean I find the folks who have shrines of Trump as Jesus deeply confusing individuals, but I do understand why they’ll go to bat.
|
On June 19 2026 00:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2026 23:45 KwarK wrote:On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation. Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed. Did I? My mistake. The regime is the EXACT same as it was. It's a Regime of Theseus. Thanks for your productive good-faith correction. You have once again proven yourself to be the smartest person in the entire General Forum. Now how many mines hit how many ships, buddy?
You do realize all of these include Iran demining right?
Also, you do realize that Iran saying no nuke is not a change , they have always said that. Just back when the US had competent leadership there was actual mechanisms in place to check on them.
|
On June 19 2026 00:04 WombaT wrote:
For someone who apparently isn’t a conservative Oblade sure as fuck carries a hell of a lot of water for the cause. Maybe if Adam Sandler decides to make the Waterboy 2 he might be best off not casting himself in this one.
I mean I find the folks who have shrines of Trump as Jesus deeply confusing individuals, but I do understand why they’ll go to bat.
Republicans are not conservatives anymore
|
United States44245 Posts
On June 19 2026 00:07 Billyboy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2026 00:00 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:45 KwarK wrote:On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation. Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed. Did I? My mistake. The regime is the EXACT same as it was. It's a Regime of Theseus. Thanks for your productive good-faith correction. You have once again proven yourself to be the smartest person in the entire General Forum. Now how many mines hit how many ships, buddy? You do realize all of these include Iran demining right? Also, you do realize that Iran saying no nuke is not a change , they have always said that. Just back when the US had competent leadership there was actual mechanisms in place to check on them.
In any case their nuclear program was completely obliterated in 2025.
|
On June 19 2026 00:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2026 00:07 Billyboy wrote:On June 19 2026 00:00 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:45 KwarK wrote:On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation. Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed. Did I? My mistake. The regime is the EXACT same as it was. It's a Regime of Theseus. Thanks for your productive good-faith correction. You have once again proven yourself to be the smartest person in the entire General Forum. Now how many mines hit how many ships, buddy? You do realize all of these include Iran demining right? Also, you do realize that Iran saying no nuke is not a change , they have always said that. Just back when the US had competent leadership there was actual mechanisms in place to check on them. In any case their nuclear program was completely obliterated in 2025.
An re obliterated this year.
|
Canada11594 Posts
On June 19 2026 00:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2026 23:45 KwarK wrote:On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation. Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed. Did I? My mistake. The regime is the EXACT same as it was. It's a Regime of Theseus. Thanks for your productive good-faith correction. You have once again proven yourself to be the smartest person in the entire General Forum.
When Hitler offed himself, did Germany experience two regime changes? Once when Dönitz, one of the highest ranking officers remaining from the Nazi regime, took control and a second time when he surrendered to the Allies?
When the son of the prophet replaced his father is that regime change (or Regime of Theseus) or a continuation of the same regime run by personnel drawn from the same elites from the same faction? (And indeed direct descendant, not even a disaffected or disowned nephew or something.)
When Muhammad died was it regime change when Abu Bakr became caliph?
|
On June 19 2026 00:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2026 00:07 Billyboy wrote:On June 19 2026 00:00 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:45 KwarK wrote:On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation. Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed. Did I? My mistake. The regime is the EXACT same as it was. It's a Regime of Theseus. Thanks for your productive good-faith correction. You have once again proven yourself to be the smartest person in the entire General Forum. Now how many mines hit how many ships, buddy? You do realize all of these include Iran demining right? Also, you do realize that Iran saying no nuke is not a change , they have always said that. Just back when the US had competent leadership there was actual mechanisms in place to check on them. In any case their nuclear program was completely obliterated in 2025.
The nuclear program that Trump is now saying they should have because it's "common sense".
And before anyone rolls out the gaslight express to make a distinction between nuclear energy vs. weapons, in February of this year the White House was saying "Zero is how much uranium President Trump says he would allow Iran to enrich under any deal". It was their "one very, very clear red line".
|
On June 18 2026 23:54 oBlade wrote:It's an interesting hobby to read a document that says and say "This means sanctions are being removed, period. Followed by and conclude "This doesn't count, they get to have a nuclear program" "Ability to charge a toll" is pretty clearly made up. I mean insanely so. Seems you extrapolated from this part: Show nested quote +5 — Upon the signing of this MOU, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements using its best efforts for the safe passage of commercial vessels with no charge, for 60 days only, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa. Hormuz is an international waterway. Nobody can toll an international waterway. Iran could certainly toll its own ports, but that's normal. That's like how you can toll your own house if your friend visited it. You can't do that to international waters, it's called piracy. Like if you sign a contract with your neighbor saying "we won't cherry bomb each other's mailboxes for 2 months" it doesn't suddenly become above board to cherry bomb a mailbox in 61 days. That's where the "applicable international law" thing comes in.
You can quote a ghost and then attack a strawman all you like buddy, the words of MOU show you for the brainwashed liar that you are:
7 — The United States of America undertakes to terminate all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the United Nations Security Council resolutions, IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral US sanctions, primary and secondary, in an agreed upon schedule as part of the final deal. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the critical importance of the sanctions termination issue above mentioned, and expressed their intentions to immediately address these issues in the negotiations in order to achieve mutual agreement on them.
Can you please remind the kind folks here which exact war that one side won had the other side getting cocessions like this?
Or maybe this is a different Iran, after all, you did say that there is no Iran anymore, so this regime change is so thorough that you are counting that this new regime that Trump is negotiating with is different and doesn't count as the old one, so the old one doesn't exist and new one is OK to give things to, is that it?
You really lost the plot since you decided to turn your back on your long time idol Tucker after he betrayed your daddy Trump, it's pretty sad to see.
|
On June 19 2026 01:04 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2026 00:14 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2026 00:07 Billyboy wrote:On June 19 2026 00:00 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:45 KwarK wrote:On June 18 2026 23:30 oBlade wrote:On June 18 2026 23:02 KwarK wrote:This is another really good moment for conservatives to stubbornly refuse any kind of reflection on the media that they consume and how it could have led them to draw such utterly false conclusions. In retrospect America's defeat in this war seems so obvious that it was basically inevitable. A regime change war where you refuse to change the regime. An occupation of the ground on the strait using air power alone. It was never going to work. And I guess it must have been obvious because somehow random commentators on team liquid like myself said as much from the start. So we have a situation in which people consuming conservative media were saying this On March 03 2026 03:37 oBlade wrote:
There is already no "Iran." Random missiles to Iraq and Oman and Kuwait is a product of central command and control collapse. at the same time as I was saying this On March 03 2026 03:14 KwarK wrote:
To win this all Iran needs to do is keep causing expense (delayed oil freighters, refinery shutdowns, incredibly expensive interceptor missile burn rates, infrastructure damage) without internal collapse.
That's not to say that all is going well in Iran, clearly it is not. But all is going according to plan. There was a plan for how to deal with this situation and they're not flying blind. If they don't collapse but do continue to disrupt then Trump is going to be the one declaring victory and going home without any of his stated objectives met. Trump needs Iran’s internal loyalist security forces to switch sides in order to win, Iran needs them to hold firm and be willing to massacre Iranians to win. We don’t know whether they will hold firm, I’m not going to predict an Iranian victory, but they certainly have a theory of victory here. We got to view how two brains of admittedly uneven quality were able to forecast the future after consuming information from two sources of uneven quality. In retrospect it is pretty clear that one forecast was substantially better than the other. So the question now is will the conservative ask himself why, when his information source was tested against reality, it was so thoroughly disproved? Will he change his information source to one that doesn't lead to such public humiliation? Will there be any introspection at all about how he got it so completely wrong? Not a conservative, kid. Trump: They can't have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You have to change the regime!!!!!! (spammed x3 months) Trump: Good news, it's over, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon. KwarK: You didn't change the regime!!!!!!!!!! It must have been heartbreaking when KwarK found out Operation Project Freedom had been continued at night. And in all that time a total of 0 Iranian mines blew up a total of 0 ships anywhere. Truly one of the wars of all time. If you think for sure the conflict is really over (interesting act of faith), you're admitting the regime changed from one pursuing nuclear weapons to one that isn't. Which was the goal. The actual goal by the actual commander-in-chief carried out by actual generals. Your own armchair hopes for the war as General... Forum, don't enter into the evaluation. Is this a public humiliation kink thing? I genuinely don’t understand. You’re acting like nobody here will remember that you insisted that the regime had already been changed. Did I? My mistake. The regime is the EXACT same as it was. It's a Regime of Theseus. Thanks for your productive good-faith correction. You have once again proven yourself to be the smartest person in the entire General Forum. Now how many mines hit how many ships, buddy? You do realize all of these include Iran demining right? Also, you do realize that Iran saying no nuke is not a change , they have always said that. Just back when the US had competent leadership there was actual mechanisms in place to check on them. In any case their nuclear program was completely obliterated in 2025. The nuclear program that Trump is now saying they should have because it's "common sense". And before anyone rolls out the gaslight express to make a distinction between nuclear energy vs. weapons, in February of this year the White House was saying "Zero is how much uranium President Trump says he would allow Iran to enrich under any deal". It was their "one very, very clear red line".
In B4 Trump says that really the reason the US declared war on Iran was because they didn't have enough of a nuclear program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
