TxAG#2011 said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

whytho987654 said:

---

So weve lost american lives, spent billions, have no regime change, and the straight is locked up

---

Taking proper action comes at a cost. Enjoy your freedom provided by honorable actions.

---

We had freedom before the conflict started though? Not sure I understand this.

---

With the biggest state sponsor of terrorism getting a nuclear weapon, no, we didn't have our freedom before this conflict started.

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

pic.twitter.com/O58qe5QmXF

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 12, 2026

---

Seems like a whole lot of work and taxpayer money to fix a problem that he created himself. Incredible dealmaking.

---

He created this problem? Are you saying this because he attacked Iran? Would really like to understand your position.

My position is the problem already existed. Forget Israel for a moment. Over the last 5 decades Iran has been responsible for thousands of American deaths. Kill a few here…kill a few there. It added up.
Was Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons? They, themselves, said they could build 11 soon, but for arguments sake let's say, "no". Ask yourself this…Was that their goal? Consider the continued enrichment, their insistence they have a right to do so, and the deep underground bunkers to protect their nuclear work and ballistic missiles. What does that tell you? For me, it says it was only a matter of time. I consider that a problem not of Trumps making. What say you?

---

According to a white house press statement in July 2025 Iran's nuclear capabilities were "completely obliterated."

Unless you are saying the white house was previously lying then your entire thesis behind attacking Iran is nonexistent.

---

I said, "For arguments sake, let's say "no". But, alas, Iran said enough survived to put them on the threshold of having 11 nukes.

My thesis, which you mischaracterized, was that it was only a matter of time for them to acquire nukes based on their insistence to continue their enrichment program.
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying the July 2025 bombing ended their nuke quest forever. Is that what you believe?

---

I was told their nuke quest was obliterated. Since then, no evidence has been provided they are close to getting a nuke. Nothing at all. It would have been prudent for the government to share this information with the public.

This is all on top of Trumps cornerstone campaign promise to not start new wars. Not only is he a liar, but he is a gullible idiot. The only US president to be dumb enough to fall for Benny's decades long spiel about Iran nearly having a nuke.

---

Their nuclear FACITIES were obliterated. Not the future development. He didn't lie. You just don't understand him. The term "quest" that you used was never used by Trump.

Quote:

---

Their nuclear FACITIES were obliterated. Not the future development. He didn't lie. You just don't understand him

---

You're cherry-picking words here. This quote is from the Whitehouse's own website:

Quote:

---

We assess that the American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran's military nuclear program, has set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years

---

I guess they meant months, not years, or they're just making up stuff, which is probably what really happened. Maybe that's why he is misunderstood.

FIDO_Ags said:

---

Quote:

---

Their nuclear FACITIES were obliterated. Not the future development. He didn't lie. You just don't understand him

---

You're cherry-picking words here. This quote is from the Whitehouse's own website:

Quote:

---

We assess that the American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, combined with Israeli strikes on other elements of Iran's military nuclear program, has set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years

---

I guess they meant months, not years, or they're just making up stuff, which is probably what really happened. Maybe that's why he is misunderstood.

---

No he meant years. See the term set back? We set them back years.

But they restarted their quest within hours.

While you may not understand, there is a difference in setting them back years and they are still trying to develop.

Seems like we couldn't ignore the fact that the Iranians told us to our face that they still had the means and intent to get nukes after we blew up their facilities.

So if we set them back years, how were they an immediate threat?

This is the problem with his hyperbole. Tell me you had a successful mission, and you're still assessing it's impact on their capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon. Instead he rushes to claim absolute victory, because it's all he knows to do, bashing even the people that could admit it was successful operation, but maybe not complete obliteration. And then has to come back less than a year later to tell us how they're an immediate threat and we have to attack. It can't be both.

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

Texas12&0 said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

pic.twitter.com/O58qe5QmXF

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 12, 2026

---

Seems like a whole lot of work and taxpayer money to fix a problem that he created himself. Incredible dealmaking.

---

He created this problem? Are you saying this because he attacked Iran? Would really like to understand your position.

My position is the problem already existed. Forget Israel for a moment. Over the last 5 decades Iran has been responsible for thousands of American deaths. Kill a few here…kill a few there. It added up.
Was Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons? They, themselves, said they could build 11 soon, but for arguments sake let's say, "no". Ask yourself this…Was that their goal? Consider the continued enrichment, their insistence they have a right to do so, and the deep underground bunkers to protect their nuclear work and ballistic missiles. What does that tell you? For me, it says it was only a matter of time. I consider that a problem not of Trumps making. What say you?

---

According to a white house press statement in July 2025 Iran's nuclear capabilities were "completely obliterated."

Unless you are saying the white house was previously lying then your entire thesis behind attacking Iran is nonexistent.

---

I said, "For arguments sake, let's say "no". But, alas, Iran said enough survived to put them on the threshold of having 11 nukes.

My thesis, which you mischaracterized, was that it was only a matter of time for them to acquire nukes based on their insistence to continue their enrichment program.
Correct me, if I'm wrong, but it seems you are saying the July 2025 bombing ended their nuke quest forever. Is that what you believe?

---

I was told their nuke quest was obliterated. Since then, no evidence has been provided they are close to getting a nuke. Nothing at all. It would have been prudent for the government to share this information with the public.

This is all on top of Trumps cornerstone campaign promise to not start new wars. Not only is he a liar, but he is a gullible idiot. The only US president to be dumb enough to fall for Benny's decades long spiel about Iran nearly having a nuke.

---

"Benny's decades long spiel about Iran nearly having a nuke". - uh, the Iranian regime stated recently they have enough for 11 nukes.

---

But I was told they are all liars and can't be trusted at all. Or are we just selectively choosing what to believe?

---

They are liars.

But, with something like that, you have to assume they aren't. Because if you just assume they're lying and have none (but they do), then when the bomb appears, you're ****ed.

It's kind of like the mines in the SoH. Are there really mines there? Who knows - maybe they're full of **** and didn't put any there. But, do you want to go driving through there under that assumption?

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

So if we set them back years, how were they an immediate threat?

This is the problem with his hyperbole. Tell me you had a successful mission, and you're still assessing it's impact on their capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon. Instead he rushes to claim absolute victory, because it's all he knows to do, bashing even the people that could admit it was successful operation, but maybe not complete obliteration. And then has to come back less than a year later to tell us how they're an immediate threat and we have to attack. It can't be both.

---

The immediate threat was to Israel because of Iran's conventional missiles and drones. The nuclear threat was, I wouldn't go as far as calling it a pretext because it does factor in, but not the primary threat and certainty not the imminent threat.

Isn't the most likely explanation the one the Rubio offered? That it's not that Iran was on the verge of having a nuclear weapon, but they were on a pathway to build up their conventional ordinance to such a degree that a future strike to take out whatever nuclear weapon they develop wouldn't be feasible for all the destruction they could rain down on Israel, KSA, etc. Just like North Korea became untouchable well before they had a nuclear weapon because they would have cratered Seoul if the US had tried to take any action to damage their nuclear program.

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

So if we set them back years, how were they an immediate threat?

This is the problem with his hyperbole. Tell me you had a successful mission, and you're still assessing it's impact on their capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon. Instead he rushes to claim absolute victory, because it's all he knows to do, bashing even the people that could admit it was successful operation, but maybe not complete obliteration. And then has to come back less than a year later to tell us how they're an immediate threat and we have to attack. It can't be both.

---

Whether it was not stated clearly or if there is intentional "misunderstanding", it wasn't an "immediate threat", it was an immediate opportunity to deal with the obvious threat that we would soon not have the ability to deal with based on their intentions. We took out there facilities, but not their desire to rebuild the facilities or their intention to make sure we couldn't take it out a second time.

So no, they were not an immediate threat, but they were 100% a future threat with the ability to keep us from eliminating that threat in the very near future.

Phatbob said:

---

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

So if we set them back years, how were they an immediate threat?

This is the problem with his hyperbole. Tell me you had a successful mission, and you're still assessing it's impact on their capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon. Instead he rushes to claim absolute victory, because it's all he knows to do, bashing even the people that could admit it was successful operation, but maybe not complete obliteration. And then has to come back less than a year later to tell us how they're an immediate threat and we have to attack. It can't be both.

---

Whether it was not stated clearly or if there is intentional "misunderstanding", it wasn't an "immediate threat", it was an immediate opportunity to deal with the obvious threat that we would soon not have the ability to deal with based on their intentions. We took out there facilities, but not their desire to rebuild the facilities or their intention to make sure we couldn't take it out a second time.

So no, they were not an immediate threat, but they were 100% a future threat with the ability to keep us from eliminating that threat in the very near future.

---

Some people would prefer to continue kicking the can down the road until it becomes too late to fix the issue.

Trump apparently is not one of those people.

YouBet said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

5Amp said:

---

TxAG#2011 said:

---

5Amp said:

---

Europe was getting all its LNG from Qatar, unfortunately for Europe, Iran blew up the Qatar plant and Europe will need a new supplier. That supply will mostly come from the Houston Ship channel with a long term contract.

Remember that pipeline Nostrum that got blew up early during the Iranian Ukraine war? That was another lifeline for Europe but it's still out of service.

WTI replacing Middle East oil shipped at 100/barrel mostly coming out of Texas ports. Heavy crudes from Venezuela refined in the good ol USA.

Trump is indeed way ahead of everyone on the world stage.

He will control all oil movement out of SOH, Venezuela oil, and as a possible bonus, if Alberta succeeds from Canada and brings 80% of their crude oil as the 51st state.

The final caveat, I think he ends up with Greenland before his term is over, the only deal he accepts from NATO as they are at the mercy of Russia and China Nukes.

---

Incredible delusion. All this for oil, which was already very affordable for the world before this master plan was put into action?

---

Its a bout real estate and control of the world oil supply which brings absolute power. If you were to replace USA with anyone else holding all the hydrocarbon cards, we would be very very concerned.

It will come to light once everything falls in place but let's take a closer look at what is happening.

Venezuela was the first move, and that was huge, all its oil is controlled by the USA (Trump). His plan, his win. We are one of the few countries that has mucho refinery capacity for that heavy stuff. I am very familiar with their crude as I have worked with PDVSA for years. They have the largest proven reserves known to modern man.

We get next to nothing from the SOH yet Trump is going to control all shipping movement thru the straight! We all know how that little passage controls world prices. China has got to be concerned but nothing they can do about it but whine. This is just a move out of reality but here we are.

Alberta votes in Oct on its future and that is going to be a real hot potato for Canada. Vast oil reserves, about 80% of all Canada oil wealth and there is a good chance Trump that movement springs forth a new territory or state of the USA. Nothing Canada can do about it.

Greenland Is the bounty for NATO not backing Trump in my opinion and most on military experts agree, Greenland is needed for our USA security.

Trump and his team are 4 moves ahead of everyone on the world stage.

---

You've literally just pulled all this out of your ass. There is no factual basis or evidence for anything you are saying. Not even anyone in our government is saying it. When none of it happens, you will just concoct some new fantasy for why trump was doing 4d chess.

---

I won't say all of this was calculated but everything happening right now is a mix of calculation, fortuitous outcome, and/or taking advantage of a situation put in front of us. Many strategic minded folks who follow such matters agree on this assessment.

The one item on here that I don't think will actually happen is Alberta leaving Canada. I think that's mostly wishful thinking.

---

Alberta situation ~ World seems to be changing daily, China and Canada teaming up, Spain and China as well. Nothing would surprise with Alberta in 2026.

Mix calculations…LOL

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

So if we set them back years, how were they an immediate threat?

This is the problem with his hyperbole. Tell me you had a successful mission, and you're still assessing it's impact on their capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon. Instead he rushes to claim absolute victory, because it's all he knows to do, bashing even the people that could admit it was successful operation, but maybe not complete obliteration. And then has to come back less than a year later to tell us how they're an immediate threat and we have to attack. It can't be both.

---

They already had the 60% Uranium before we bombed their facilities, when we bombed them it buried it but did not destroy it.

We set them back by bombing their facilities but when they said they had 60% and planned to enrich it further, you do not take the chance of them doing it.

American stock market is green and the SOH is closed under the control of the USN….is that right?

All those foreign crude tankers heading for the Texas coast picking up some Texas tea.

Trump tells China they can pick up oil directly from Venezuela, he gave them permission, without it, no oil for you!

By chance and Mixed calculations….LOL

It's only going to get better for America and partners in the western hemisphere.

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

So if we set them back years, how were they an immediate threat?

This is the problem with his hyperbole. Tell me you had a successful mission, and you're still assessing it's impact on their capabilities to develop a nuclear weapon. Instead he rushes to claim absolute victory, because it's all he knows to do, bashing even the people that could admit it was successful operation, but maybe not complete obliteration. And then has to come back less than a year later to tell us how they're an immediate threat and we have to attack. It can't be both.

---

Immediate threat? We are going to take out their "dust" while we can. We are going to get them to where they NEVER CAN HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON.

Not sure what/when "immediate threat" was ever stated as it relates to nuclear weapons. They were stockpiling missiles, and those were an immediate threat to peace. But when we bombed their nuclear facility, that ended the immediate threat, but their nuclear weapon capabilities were still a threat.

nhamp07 said:

---

Obama's $1.7B payment to Iran is looking pretty cheap right now compared to this war.

---

So after they told us they have 60% and planned to enrich it further, you solution is to give them money????? That is your stance? lmfao

Biden administration negotiated with these people for 4 years and got no where. Trump administration over a year and got no where.

But your bright idea is we should have offered them money to move the needle

Some of yall are ridiculous

Quote:

---

No he meant years. See the term set back? We set them back years.

But they restarted their quest within hours.

While you may not understand, there is a difference in setting them back years and they are still trying to develop

---

I understand clearly and that is some serious spin.

Like another poster stated, that's the problem with hyperbole if that's what it is. If it's not, I guess that's why we need MAGA translators to interpret Trumpspeak to English.

And Pissing all over Canada also makes fertilizer more expensive

FIDO_Ags said:

---

Quote:

---

No he meant years. See the term set back? We set them back years.

But they restarted their quest within hours.

While you may not understand, there is a difference in setting them back years and they are still trying to develop

---

I understand clearly and that is some serious spin.

Like another poster stated, that's the problem with hyperbole if that's what it is. If it's not, I guess that's why we need MAGA translators to interpret Trumpspeak to English.

---

No, you don't understand.

He never said Iran having a nuclear weapon was immanent after the first bomb took out the imminent threat.

We are not at war with Iran because their nuclear weapon was imminent.

Quote:

---

They've rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing the long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had, and actually were armed with nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message.
For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.

---

aggiegolfer2012 said:

---

Quote:

---

They've rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing the long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe, our troops stationed overseas, and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had, and actually were armed with nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message.
For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked, radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests.

---

---

Do you not know the difference between developing a long range missile and a nuclear weapon? Those are two distinct things and only one of them has the word soon associated.

This is just dumb.

Yeah I do understand the difference. Take the goalie mask off and you'd understand what the rest of us do.

You also spelled imminent wrong so I'm doubting your understanding of anything.

You should also dig up the thread from the June attack. Trump supporters were talking that the nukes were done. There was absolutely no talk of follow on strikes back then.

5Amp said:

---

American stock market is green and the SOH is closed under the control of the USN….is that right?

All those foreign crude tankers heading for the Texas coast picking up some Texas tea.

Trump tells China they can pick up oil directly from Venezuela, he gave them permission, without it, no oil for you!

By chance and Mixed calculations….LOL

It's only going to get better for America and partners in the western hemisphere.

---

I think you've misunderstood what I posted. I said all of the events in the past few months are a mix of calculated strategy, chance / luck, and being opportunistic given what's happened.

If you think everything has been planned out to the nth degree and everything has run according to plan then we can agree to disagree.

YouBet said:

---

Seems like we couldn't ignore the fact that the Iranians told us to our face that they still had the means and intent to get nukes after we blew up their facilities.

---

That's was reported. But I don't understand if that was really true why would the Iranians disclose this in the initial negotiations? They finally achieved their decades old dream and then they disclose it in negotiations. Why?

AGHouston11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Seems like we couldn't ignore the fact that the Iranians told us to our face that they still had the means and intent to get nukes after we blew up their facilities.

---

That's was reported. But I don't understand if that was really true why would the Iranians disclose this in the initial negotiations? They finally achieved their decades old dream and then they disclose it in negotiations. Why?

---

Hubris. Has anyone talked more **** than those guys? (aside from Trump lol).

Also, I don't think they've denied it either.

FIDO_Ags said:

---

You should also dig up the thread from the June attack. Trump supporters were talking that the nukes were done. There was absolutely no talk of follow on strikes back then.

---

You seem frustrated, like others on this thread, that Trump led America kicked arse and is having our way. Now we are blockading Iran in the strait. Yes, they have been neutralized. On top of that, the world is coming to us to fill up their tankers. MAGA, baby! That's my President!

AGHouston11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Seems like we couldn't ignore the fact that the Iranians told us to our face that they still had the means and intent to get nukes after we blew up their facilities.

---

That's was reported. But I don't understand if that was really true why would the Iranians disclose this in the initial negotiations? They finally achieved their decades old dream and then they disclose it in negotiations. Why?

---

Iran has never claimed the intent to build a bomb

Good point. Their intent with 460 kilotons of 60% enriched uranium was to display it in the peace museum.

Keyno said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Seems like we couldn't ignore the fact that the Iranians told us to our face that they still had the means and intent to get nukes after we blew up their facilities.

---

That's was reported. But I don't understand if that was really true why would the Iranians disclose this in the initial negotiations? They finally achieved their decades old dream and then they disclose it in negotiations. Why?

---

Iran has never claimed the intent to build a bomb

---

Wow.

This is a nation that has been the driving force behind much of the world-wide terrorist events since 1979. This is a nation that is known for wanting death for its primary enemies, the US and Israel.

Are you trying to say that because they may or may not have made a claim regarding their intentions with all that uranium, that they really didn't want a bomb?

Of course these psychos want a bomb. And like the Germans and Japanese in WWII, they will use it if they get it.

Keyno said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

Seems like we couldn't ignore the fact that the Iranians told us to our face that they still had the means and intent to get nukes after we blew up their facilities.

---

That's was reported. But I don't understand if that was really true why would the Iranians disclose this in the initial negotiations? They finally achieved their decades old dream and then they disclose it in negotiations. Why?

---

Iran has never claimed the intent to build a bomb

---

Come on, man! Obtuse POTD. It's early though.

Nevermind that they bragged to witkoff having enough at 90 percent for four weapons already, and buried their centrifuges etc in a mountain, while nuclear power plants only need less than a tenth of that level of enrichment.

But why would they disclose it when they were so close to finally achieving the goal?

Also Vance said on Fox yesterday that the uranium was buried in operation midnight hammer.

AGHouston11 said:

---

But why would they disclose it when they were so close to finally achieving the goal?

Also Vance said on Fox yesterday that the uranium was buried in operation midnight hammer.

---

That was their opening position in negotiations before the war started: too late.

AGHouston11 said:

---

But why would they disclose it when they were so close to finally achieving the goal?

Also Vance said on Fox yesterday that the uranium was buried in operation midnight hammer.

---

Again, hubris, stupidity, and the Islamic term for "machismo".

These aren't rational people in the way we are. They told us what they intended so we believed them because the ME operates on strength and acting on it.