aTmAg said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

You keep ratcheting up your rhetoric as the risk of nuclear strike reduces. Regardless how optimal the opportunity to take Iran out may seem: this recent war drum beating doesn't make for healthy discourse.

---

You do realize that the entire reason we're even having a discussion on "taking out" iran is directly because of the risk of a nuclear explosion causing the death of Americans, right?

---

A risk that (thanks to Israel) is significantly less today than it was last week. Why weren't we banging the war drums even louder last week?

My issue is with the framing. Us joining the fight at this juncture would be about the OPPORTUNITY, not the RISK.

We haven't launched preemptive strikes when we were LESS safe, so attacking now wouldnt be about Iran crossing some defensive red line: it'd be about this being a great opportunity to neuter a perpetual threat while they're diminished.

Let's drop the notion that this is about Navasota getting nuked. We'd be engaged in offensive killing against a weakened adversary in order to impede their ability to develop the ability to launch a limited attack. Let's frame it honestly and have THAT discussion.

---

Ridiculous argument. Germany was significantly weaker in the Fall if 1944 than they were in 1939. Should we have just packed up and gone home?

---

oof. I didn't think your position was THIS weak.

Continuation of total war hostilities as part of a congressionally declared war that we entered following physical attack & request by those adversaries… not in the least analogous to the novel executive offensive operation you're advocating.

It's the same few posters parroting the same crap, and god forbid you don't want our involvement, otherwise you're a "Jew hater" or whatever MFB said in his post above. Y'all are completely irrational…

I'm all for Israel doing this to Iran and support them fully but hell no do we need to get involved at this moment. No more ME wars unless it's absolutely necessary.

LMCane said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Rollcall:
Sign in here if you are willing for your city to get nuked:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

---

You keep ratcheting up your rhetoric as the risk of nuclear strike reduces. Regardless how optimal the opportunity to take Iran out may seem: this recent war drum beating doesn't make for healthy discourse.

---

Are some people so cluelessly ignorant and divorced from reality that they believe bombing a few nuclear sites to STOP A NUCLEAR WAR

is actually worse than having a nuclear war.

were these whiners crying so much LAST MONTH when the United States was bombing Yemen mercilessly for 34 straight days?!

at this point it's only the Jew haters and those who dislike MAGA, and those who staked their reputations on "OH MY GOD THIS IS WORLD WAR THREE!!"

---

A. Check my posting history. You're making a strawman of what I'm saying and who I am.

B. Asking for congress to perform their assigned duty isn't some wild untenable request. If bipartisan support exists and this is a no-brainer, then this should present little more than a formality!

C. There's a clear difference between supporting Israel's continued attacks (via intel, arms sales, sanctions, etc) and conducting strikes of our own. Most of the voices you may see as "anti"whatever are just advocating for a sober review and if action is directed by congress: clear definition of achievable goals.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

If Israel doesn't finish the job and changes regimes in Iran, then the probability of a nuke strike INCREAESES. Iran will have every incentive to retaliate and will claim that Israel (and we) started everything.

---

Agreed that the risk to Israel may roar back even worse if they stop short. Disagree that corresponds clearly as risk to US.

---

Good gawd. How can you be this delusional? You seriously think that Iran would nuke Israel then suddenly became peaceful?

The saying in terror circles is "Saturday comes before Sunday". Meaning that the Jewish sabbath is before the Christian one. Meaning that after they destroy Israel, we are next. We are the great Satan, and Israel is the little Satan. They don't dislike us, they hate us with a passion.

---

I think Iran would nuke Israel and then cease to exist. They enrich enough and build their first bomb. They use it against Israel. We MIRV their cities and military assets to glass under the obvious justification that a nation's offensive use of nukes forfeits their right to exist.

Same as if they somehow chose to and managed to get DC.

Pee-wee Herman may get the inaugural shot against Brock Lesnar, but we all know how that fight goes.

---

You are being short sighted.

They would use nukes as their immunity card to enable them to openly spread terrorism even more than they do now. It wouldn't be until we finally had enough and tried to enact regime change covertly, that they would set off nukes across the west during their death throws. At that point, they just want their 70 virgins each and don't care about their people.

Being able to nuke the Iranian people would be very little consolation to the millions of Americans who have died because we were too stupid to regime change Iran when we had the easy chance.

it's always so interesting with POTUS that he will say one thing very hard.. then the next sentence back away from it.

so who the hell knows what will happen but it sounds like he is bluffing iran into some kind of acceptance of our last Witkoff offer.

NOW from @POTUS on Iran:

“Two very simple words. Unconditional surrender…for 40 years they’ve been saying, ‘Death to America, death to Israel’…We’ve been threatened by Iran for many years. If you go back and look at my history, and go back 15 years, I was saying we cannot let… pic.twitter.com/AhhfhwpHWV

— RJC (@RJC) June 18, 2025

Stolen from the roll call thread....for all of you who say Iran wouldn't actually attack the US with a nuclear weapon (you know who you are, so I won't call you out by name).

This is their parliament. Not sure how you can dismiss this so casually. If they were allowed to acquire a nuke, they would use it.

In Iranian Parliament, MPs burn the American flag while chanting “Death to America,” and threaten to use a nuclear bomb against the American homeland.

I think Iran actually is an American problem. pic.twitter.com/wcwAWUqxuU

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) June 18, 2025

Are we supposed to bomb every country that burns our flags? We would never be in peace if so.

Try harder…

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Are we supposed to bomb every country that burns our flags? We would never be in peace if so.

Try harder…

---

Did you miss where the Parliament said they would use a nuke on America? That's kind of the key piece of information.

This is their Parliament, their governing body, advocating use of a nuke against America, and you want to say it means nothing and we have no business taking out their nukes?

Insane.

Nope, I saw that too. It's hard to take you seriously that Iran is such an imminent threat to the world when Israel single handedly wiped their military off the map in about a week.

The fear mongering is just way over the top

It's no use Tramp. You, me, or anybody else isn't going to be able to make him understand it.

Go ahead: name me 1 poster who thinks the world would be better with a nuclear Iran.

No sane person wants a nuclear Iran. And I've seen very few posters who even oppose Israel's continued actions.

Almost all would agree that Iran's acquisition of the bomb should be impeded.

But it chafes me to see posters pushing for another "Leroy Jenkins" into the ME. The constitutional process matters. Defined objectives matter. Achievable end states matter. Realistic threat analysis matters. A multi-decade (or better yet, generational)-perspective matters.

Don't infer "us" to be apologists or historically illiterate because we challenge you to provide some sober analysis before signing up our fellow Marines to die.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

Nope, I saw that too. It's hard to take you seriously that Iran is such an imminent threat to the world when Israel single handedly wiped their military off the map in about a week.

The fear mongering is just way over the top

---

You conveniently left out the nuke part of the equation. Iran WITH A NUKE is an imminent threat to the world. That's why Israel attacked BEFORE they finished their nukes.

Obviously the defined objective is: Stop Islamists in Iran from ever getting nukes

What is so hard to understand about that?

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Go ahead: name me 1 poster who thinks the world would be better with a nuclear Iran.

No sane person wants a nuclear Iran. And I've seen very few posters who even oppose Israel's continued actions.

Almost all would agree that Iran's acquisition of the bomb should be impeded.

But it chafes me to see posters pushing for another "Leroy Jenkins" into the ME. The constitutional process matters. Defined objectives matter. Achievable end states matter. Realistic threat analysis matters. A multi-decade (or better yet, generational)-perspective matters.

Don't infer "us" to be apologists or historically illiterate because we challenge you to provide some sober analysis before signing up our fellow Marines to die.

---

I keep hoping someone will actually realize this on this thread but the same couple of folks fail to do so.

To them, you're either pro US involvement with this war or some sort of anti-Israel puppet/incel

yet 9/11 was orchestrated and carried out by men who lived in the caves of Afghanistan. But of course everything has to be viewed in the lens of the Iraqi War. Y'know, because every situation is similar and identical to Iraq. But yes, let's ignore Iran getting a nuke because it has nothing to do with us.

aTmAg said:

---

Obviously the defined objective is: Stop Islamists in Iran from ever getting nukes

What is so hard to understand about that?

---

The Israeli military is literally doing that right now! What is so hard to understand about why we don't need to be involved yet if they're literally disarming them as we speak?

Good lord you're obtuse

The histrionics about this turning into an Iraq-like war is baseless. Literally no one here or on record has stated mobilizing 250,000 troops to invade Iran. What's so hard to understand about that?

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Obviously the defined objective is: Stop Islamists in Iran from ever getting nukes

What is so hard to understand about that?

---

The Israeli military is literally doing that right now! What is so hard to understand about why we don't need to be involved yet if they're literally disarming them as we speak?

Good lord you're obtuse

---

What part of they can't destroy Fordow without American assistance do YOU not understand

Their reports that they can are likely scare tactics.

Quote:

---

Good lord you're obtuse

---

Irony...

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Obviously the defined objective is: Stop Islamists in Iran from ever getting nukes

What is so hard to understand about that?

---

The Israeli military is literally doing that right now! What is so hard to understand about why we don't need to be involved yet if they're literally disarming them as we speak?

Good lord you're obtuse

---

What is so hard to understand about the concept of:

Hopefully Israel can pull it off. But we should help if needed.



That has only been said a million times.

ReturnOfTheAg said:

---

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Obviously the defined objective is: Stop Islamists in Iran from ever getting nukes

What is so hard to understand about that?

---

The Israeli military is literally doing that right now! What is so hard to understand about why we don't need to be involved yet if they're literally disarming them as we speak?

Good lord you're obtuse

---

What part of they can't destroy Fordow without American assistance do YOU not understand

Their reports that they can are likely scare tactics.

---

Make up your mind

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Go ahead: name me 1 poster who thinks the world would be better with a nuclear Iran.

No sane person wants a nuclear Iran. And I've seen very few posters who even oppose Israel's continued actions.

Almost all would agree that Iran's acquisition of the bomb should be impeded.

But it chafes me to see posters pushing for another "Leroy Jenkins" into the ME. The constitutional process matters. Defined objectives matter. Achievable end states matter. Realistic threat analysis matters. A multi-decade (or better yet, generational)-perspective matters.

Don't infer "us" to be apologists or historically illiterate because we challenge you to provide some sober analysis before signing up our fellow Marines to die.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3546544

Apparently Quo Vadis and 40 other poster who liked his OP.


And no one is pushing for a Leroy Jenkins. What we are pushing for is for America to ensure the job is done. That does not mean sending in troops on the ground, but it does mean using every resource available to take out ALL of their uranium enrichment capabilities and ballistic missile capabilities.

I think 99% of people on this thread are all for Israel doing what they're doing. It's you and handful of folks attacking anyone that isn't pro US involvement right now.

If we have to enter this thing due to some sort of imminent threat, sure let's do it. Until the , thank you Israel for kicking ass and saving us billions if not trillions of dollars.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

I think 99% of people on this thread are all for Israel doing what they're doing. It's you and handful of folks attacking anyone that isn't pro US involvement right now.

If we have to enter this thing due to some sort of imminent threat, sure let's do it. Until the , thank you Israel for kicking ass and saving us billions if not trillions of dollars.

---

Dropping a few bunker busters won't cost that much

I know there are many Christians on here who are believers:

Arise, O Lord, with Your wrath; exalt Yourself with anger upon my adversaries, and awaken for me the judgment that You commanded. | :

And [if] a congregation of kingdoms surrounds You, return on high over them. :

My shield is upon God, Who saves the upright in heart. :

If he does not repent, He will whet His sword; He has trodden His bow and made it ready. :

And He has prepared deadly weapons for him; He will make arrows for pursuers. :

Behold, he travails with iniquity; he conceives mischief, and gives birth to lies. :

He dug a pit and deepened it, and he fell into the pit that he made. :

His mischief will return upon his head, and his violence will descend upon his crown. :

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

Obviously the defined objective is: Stop Islamists in Iran from ever getting nukes

What is so hard to understand about that?

---

The Israeli military is literally doing that right now! What is so hard to understand about why we don't need to be involved yet if they're literally disarming them as we speak?

Good lord you're obtuse

---

Why are you so concerned then? The only thing that has been talked about is helping bomb those deep bunkers that Israel lacks the equipment for.

Good lord you're obtuse.

samurai_science said:

---

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

I think 99% of people on this thread are all for Israel doing what they're doing. It's you and handful of folks attacking anyone that isn't pro US involvement right now.

If we have to enter this thing due to some sort of imminent threat, sure let's do it. Until the , thank you Israel for kicking ass and saving us billions if not trillions of dollars.

---

Dropping a few bunker busters won't cost that much

---

This is what I'm not following in this argument. We have people one side of this argument asking for takers on who wants to send their sons to Iran... ie. Boots on the ground; and the other side promoting "US involvement"... which could mean so many thngs short of sending ground troops.

For me, I see a whole lot of grey area in "sending our boys over there to wage war".

There's a ton of difference between sending our troops to enter a war, and using a handful of pilots over airspace already controlled by allies to finish a job using equipment that only we have access to and personnel to deliver.

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

I think 99% of people on this thread are all for Israel doing what they're doing. It's you and handful of folks attacking anyone that isn't pro US involvement right now.

If we have to enter this thing due to some sort of imminent threat, sure let's do it. Until the , thank you Israel for kicking ass and saving us billions if not trillions of dollars.

---

So you are willing to leave the regime in power to try to build nukes again with better secrecy and enact revenge later?

This is why your side is not smart.

That is not the only thing that has been talked about. A couple of folks are totally okay sending their kids on the ground for this thing. Not to mention attack literally anyone that objects to current military involvement…

What side am I on? I'd really love to hear your opinion on that.

And regarding leaving the regime in power - do you really think they're even still in power now? The writing is on the wall that they're done for and Israel has clearly made that their entire mission. That is a good thing and I have zero objections to it.

Is that too hard to understand?

Quote:

---

A couple of folks are totally okay sending their kids on the ground for this thing.

---

Who are these people? I haven't seen these posts

ETA - it hasn't been clear that "these people" are what you're railing against, either. Strawman arguments are tough enough when the strawman has actually been declared

AtmAg this morning was one

ttha_aggie_09 said:

---

That is not the only thing that has been talked about. A couple of folks are totally okay sending their kids on the ground for this thing. Not to mention attack literally anyone that objects to current military involvement…

---

Well I'll be as clear as possible here on MY stand - no boots on the ground other than maybe isolated spec-ops teams to secure/confirm/eliminate high-value military targets (not assassinations). No invasion. Use all the bomber sorties we want to though to finish off those bunkers. If Iran takes further action in the strait though then taking out all remaining naval assets and coastal defenses may be necessary as well. That's it. Let their government be chaos for all I care - its for their people to sort out their own mess.

aTmAg said:

---

Rollcall:
Sign in here if you are willing for your city to get nuked:

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.

---

Bump for reference. Go to post and scroll up to see who he was responding to and the context