JFABNRGR said:

---

Perfect analogy: Trump's ball is always in play! pic.twitter.com/RoXAH4LOKE

— 🇺🇸Steve2A🇺🇸God🇺🇸Family🇺🇸Country🇺🇸 (@lakemonstercl1) March 2, 2026

---

Outstanding. Sadly, the TDS crowd will never get it.

BuddysBud said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

The US should withdraw from Nato this afternoon. It's a liability, more than anything else to the American people.

WOW. I’m speechless.

Spain, France, and Italy have BLOCKED the declaration of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.

Dutch Member of the European Parliament Bart Groothuis from the right-center party bloc "Renew Europe" opposes the blocks set by Spain,… pic.twitter.com/LDAbCOwbeF

— Chaya’s Clan (@ChayasClan) January 21, 2026

🇪🇸 Spain blocks U.S. use of bases for Iran strikes

Fifteen U.S. aircraft have departed from the Rota and Morón military bases in southern Spain after Madrid refused to allow the facilities to be used for attacks on Iran.

Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares stated that while… pic.twitter.com/McFaPvRjLa

— Gandalv (@Microinteracti1) March 2, 2026

Quote:

---

Spain blocks U.S. use of bases for Iran strikes

Fifteen U.S. aircraft have departed from the Rota and Morn military bases in southern Spain after Madrid refused to allow the facilities to be used for attacks on Iran.

Foreign Minister Jos Manuel Albares stated that while the bases are jointly operated with the United States, they remain under Spanish sovereignty. Spain has condemned the strikes on Iran and made clear that its territory would not be used to support offensive operations.

The move underscores growing fractures inside NATO over the escalation in the Middle East. Spain's government signaled that alliance cooperation does not equate to automatic participation in every U.S. military decision, especially in conflicts it views as destabilising.

Does this reflect principled sovereignty in action, or the beginning of deeper strategic divergence within the alliance? And if more European governments draw similar red lines, how sustainable is Washington's current approach?

---

Nato represents a political hindrance, rather than a strength or ally in our fight to free the Iranian people.

---

The question at the end should be, " how sustainable is the E.U's current approach?

The US can easily survive without its NATO "allies".
Can a free Europe survive without the economic and military support from the U.S.?

---

No, they can't and Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, flat out said as much just a few weeks ago going so far as to essentially laugh at his EU colleagues who said they could go it alone.

Dungeon Crawler Carl said:

---

BREAKING: China demands immediate halt to U.S. / Israeli attacks in Iran.

— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) March 2, 2026

Looks like China woke up grumpy.

Next stop on their escalation ladder......Blockade Taiwan and (edit) sell US treasuries.

China is dumping US Treasuries

— Nostra, House of Gold (@Nostre_damus) March 2, 2026

---

China's paper tiger threats are comical. China is slowly committing hara-kiri and the sand is running out f the hourglass unless the left throws them a lifeline if the GOP gets lazy and lets them back in power

🚨 BREAKING: NATO SecGen Mark Rutte just STUNNED the Democrats, coming out in 100% support of President Trump's Iran triumph

"The Commander-in-Chief, the leader of the free world, President Donald J. Trump, I REALLY commend what is happening here! Taking out Khamenei, taking out… pic.twitter.com/IZYqk9mh5j

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 2, 2026

They clearly don't understand Hullabalunatic's concerns.

Words are great, but actions say otherwise.

Refusing to allow U.S. aircraft from using European bases doesn't show much support.

Or perhaps the European leaders quietly support the campaign but are afraid to speak out loud because they fear the radical Islamists that they have imported over the last decade.

So far we’ve heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might…

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 2, 2026

Who?mikejones! said:

---

aggiedata said:

---

This week just keeps getting better https://t.co/nQyu5WR5fR

— shevereshtus (@shevereshtus) March 2, 2026

---

On no, anyway,/ gif

---

Let it die

Rapier108 said:

---

Dungeon Crawler Carl said:

---

China is dumping US Treasuries

— Nostra, House of Gold (@Nostre_damus) March 2, 2026

---

Yeah, we've seen you post tweets making the same claim more than once. None turned out to be true.

---

China has reduced their Treasury holdings by about 50%. It has been over the last decade with an acceleration since 2022. That said, I wouldn't say they are dumping them. I believe it is mostly they are not reinvesting treasuries that mature.

ETA. This is a good thing for the USA because it greatly reduces the risk they could throw our economy into turmoil by dumping bonds into the market in case of further hostilities.
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/foreign-treasury-holdings-china#:~:text=Foreign%20Treasury%20Holdings%20China%20in%20the%20United,news%20%2D%20updated%20on%20February%20of%202026.

I stand with Israeli Muslim Arabs against the Islamic Republic.

while leftists, communists, anarchists, dummies and the anti-semites all support Teheran.

#إيران هي العدو الحقيقي للشرق الأوسط pic.twitter.com/Js1XCiPzeE

— Lieutenant Colonel Ella Waweya | إيلا واوية (@CaptainElla1) March 2, 2026

The Democrats and TDS folks are going to look really foolish when this is over. Nobody in their right mind should be against taking out the radical Islamic leadership, making the MidEast safer, strengthening our allies, and giving Iranians another shot at freedom.

Zachary Klement said:

---

So far we’ve heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might…

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 2, 2026

---

lol

Heard the exact same thing in Iraq lol

Zachary Klement said:

---

So far we’ve heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might…

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 2, 2026

---

Iran's proxies are on their heels (after decades of killing Americans and other friendlies): Good
The Islamic state remains without nukes and prospects of getting them are as dim as ever: Good
Trump's doing a solid for #1 ally Israel: Good
Golden opportunity for Iran to join in the prosperity of the ME, thus supporting our own: Good
Part of the Trump Doctrine to (along with Venezuela opportunity) deny China and Russia ability to harass America and the West: Good

It's insincere or stupid or both to refuse to even acknowledge the Trump admin's assertion that the game of flawless, precise decapitation of a regime is hitting a new golden age - and things are really different this time. He can push that button again and again until Iran gets it. It is different this time.

Judge a man by his actions, not his words......

🚨BREAKING: A clip of Donald Trump from 2024 is going mega viral: “I can tell you you’re not going to have a war with Iran with me as president.”

Truly curious if any MAGA voters are willing to admit they were played. pic.twitter.com/rR2FIRYqqz

— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) March 1, 2026

Quote:

---

Truly curious if any MAGA voters are willing to admit they were played.

---

There are numerous MAGA voters that are not supporting Trump on this and claiming he lied.

the issue is you are just not used to dissent in the ranks. your side just follows what the leader tells you.

Thats a 6 second clip and the quote in the tweet is not in it..

Ag87H2O said:

---

Colonel Kurtz said:

---

Heard the exact same thing in Iraq lol

---

So what, lol? Entirely different circumstances.

Amazing how much the left hates America winning.

---

And the extremists on the right.

Of course, they're opposed to this because of "the Jews."

Ag87H2O said:

---

The Democrats and TDS folks are going to look really foolish when this is over. Nobody in their right mind should be against taking out the radical Islamic leadership, making the MidEast safer, strengthening our allies, and giving Iranians another shot at freedom.

---

Well, there are plenty of Trump voters who aren't happy about the situation in Iran. It isn't just Democrats and TDS folks.

Quote:

---

Truly curious if any MAGA voters are willing to admit they were played.

---

What war? I don't see a war. I see repeatable remote-controlled destabilization of an enemy. We've lost less than a half dozen soldiers...to friendly fire.

Some people are blinded by hate.

Dungeon Crawler Carl said:

---

Judge a man by his actions, not his words......

🚨BREAKING: A clip of Donald Trump from 2024 is going mega viral: “I can tell you you’re not going to have a war with Iran with me as president.”

Truly curious if any MAGA voters are willing to admit they were played. pic.twitter.com/rR2FIRYqqz

— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) March 1, 2026

---

Remains to be seen if there will be a prolonged "war", but technicalities aside, yeah, he looks like a hypocrite.

Now what? I don't think I was played. I support the action so far, but it remains to be seen long term. But sure, enjoy the political win I guess? I'm more interested in reality, not scoring gotcha points.

notice how one of the biggest idiots is that Douglas Macgregor, a huge anti-semite and guest on Tucker Carlsen

this is now the SECOND time that moron claimed if the USA acted for the "Jews" that there would be a Third World War and tens of thousands of American dead.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

Dungeon Crawler Carl said:

---

Judge a man by his actions, not his words......

🚨BREAKING: A clip of Donald Trump from 2024 is going mega viral: “I can tell you you’re not going to have a war with Iran with me as president.”

Truly curious if any MAGA voters are willing to admit they were played. pic.twitter.com/rR2FIRYqqz

— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) March 1, 2026

---

Remains to be seen if there will be a prolonged "war", but technicalities aside, yeah, he looks like a hypocrite.

Now what? I don't think I was played. I support the action so far, but it remains to be seen long term. But sure, enjoy the political win I guess? I'm more interested in reality, not scoring gotcha points.

---

Except there is a big difference in a candidate and a President.

Sometimes a candidate says he will or won't do something, but once in office, he see that the reality forces him to do the opposite.

LMCane said:

---

notice how one of the biggest idiots is that Douglas Macgregor, a huge anti-semite and guest on Tucker Carlsen

this is now the SECOND time that moron claimed if the USA acted for the "Jews" that there would be a Third World War and tens of thousands of American dead.

---

Macgregor is also a massive shrill for Russia, which along with his antisemitism, is why the lunatics on the far right love him.

MacGregor complaining about "tha joos" again. Must be a day that ends with Y. Zzzzz.

His 15 minutes are about up.

Sid Farkas said:

---

Zachary Klement said:

---

So far we’ve heard that although we killed the whole Iranian regime, this was not a regime change war. And although we obliterated their nuclear program, we had to do this because of their nuclear program. And although Iran was not planning any attacks on the US, they also might…

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 2, 2026

---

Iran's proxies are on their heels (after decades of killing Americans and other friendlies): Good
The Islamic state remains without nukes and prospects of getting them are as dim as ever: Good
Trump's doing a solid for #1 ally Israel: Good
Golden opportunity for Iran to join in the prosperity of the ME, thus supporting our own: Good
Part of the Trump Doctrine to (along with Venezuela opportunity) deny China and Russia ability to harass America and the West: Good

It's insincere or stupid or both to refuse to even acknowledge the Trump admin's assertion that the game of flawless, precise decapitation of a regime is hitting a new golden age - and things are really different this time. He can push that button again and again until Iran gets it. It is different this time.

---

Supporting an ally isn't just about backing them, it's about reducing the chance they're pulled into wider war. Destabilizing Iran without a diplomatic framework increases the risk of regional war involving Israel, which is not necessarily in Israel's long-term security interest.

"Decapitation" doesn't end regimes cleanly; it often creates instability, power vacuums, and escalation (see Iraq, Libya for historical parallels). You assume there's a straight line between intent and outcome. But in practice:

• Withdrawing from agreements --> reduced U.S. leverage
• Maximum pressure --> more Iranian hardline behavior
• Military escalation --> greater regional instability
• Isolation strategy --> closer Iran-China-Russia ties

So the critique isn't that the goals are inherently wrong, it's that many of Trump's actual policies worked against those goals, sometimes directly.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Because you said it was confirmed by them. It wasn't they were reporting what the Iranian state media said. No confirmation at all just spitting what Iran told them. Maybe be smarter about what you post

---

Al Jazeera found it credible enough to publish under their name. Where has it been confirmed as false?

---

Why are Iranians celebrating?

---

What point do you think you're making? That the 'cheering' is validation of Trump's actions? Maybe many people are cheering now. Maybe only a relatively few are. Either way, do you think they'll still be cheering in another day? another week? another month? Did our bombs sprinkle magic freedom powder over their communities that will immediately establish a just a moral government? No? So again, what point do you think you're making?

---

Why can't you just answer why think they are celebrating?

---

I would think they are glad an awful tyrannical group of people were toppled today and they're cheering because they don't know or haven't considered what comes next.

---

Have you considered the possibility that what comes next is much better for them?

---

Have you considered the probability that what comes next is much worse?

Since my words are falling on deaf ears, please listen to these words:

Charlie Kirk, in June of 2025, explaining why a massive US war against Iran, and an attempt to facilitate regime change, as pushed by people like Lindsey Graham, is "pathologically insane":pic.twitter.com/nusMqOWOUM

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 28, 2026

---

So you believe that living under the mulllahs was the best thing possible for the Iranians? And thst it couldn't possibly be better if they were gone?

That's your position?

---

My position is the US should stop engaging in the regime change business. Especially in the Middle East. And that opinion is a bi-partisan one that most Americans agree with.

---

You might want to take at a look of the polls on this. It is overwhelmingly positive

Have a good night you leftist lunatic supporter of a supreme shiite leader who had made his country's purpose to destroy you

---

? which polls are you looking at? Reuters ipsos poll from today shows only 1 in 4 Americans support the Iranian strike. Even amongst identified Republicans it's mixed.

---

There is basically NO WAY that any scientific or statistically accurate polling has been done between the attacks and now.

Anyone saying different is completely ignorant about how polling works...

---

I DIDNT EVEN BRING UP POLLS.



TAMUAllen said I should look at some that are 'overwhelmingly positive.' I asked which ones he's seeing because the one biggest one from a reputable source I found says otherwise. This is what drives me crazy with this site. One of you brings up a point. I counter it with a similar point and one of you jumps in to say "hey you cant use that point." SO WHICH IS IT? Why didn't you comment on TAMUAllen's post? Oh I know why, because you agree with his narrative.

---

You didn't even bring up polls?

I'm going to call bull**** on that since you most certainly wrote:

Quote:

---

Reuters ipsos poll from today shows only 1 in 4 Americans support the Iranian strike. Even amongst identified Republicans it's mixed.

---

Kinda looks exactly like the word POLL to me (and everyone else)...

And I responded to you and not him because I must have missed his post...but I stand by my point...because there is NO way that they had statistically accurate polling at that time...

BTW, that would also cover his post...so there you go.

There won't be a wider war. Witkoff and Kushner have been working the ME region on OT since last J20 (and longer in the case of Kushner).

Trump's gonna keep pushing the button as many times as he needs to. The only question is whether or not we can keep the weapons supply chain running long enough to outlast the Iranians. ez-pz.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Because you said it was confirmed by them. It wasn't they were reporting what the Iranian state media said. No confirmation at all just spitting what Iran told them. Maybe be smarter about what you post

---

Al Jazeera found it credible enough to publish under their name. Where has it been confirmed as false?

---

Why are Iranians celebrating?

---

What point do you think you're making? That the 'cheering' is validation of Trump's actions? Maybe many people are cheering now. Maybe only a relatively few are. Either way, do you think they'll still be cheering in another day? another week? another month? Did our bombs sprinkle magic freedom powder over their communities that will immediately establish a just a moral government? No? So again, what point do you think you're making?

---

Why can't you just answer why think they are celebrating?

---

I would think they are glad an awful tyrannical group of people were toppled today and they're cheering because they don't know or haven't considered what comes next.

---

Have you considered the possibility that what comes next is much better for them?

---

Have you considered the probability that what comes next is much worse?

Since my words are falling on deaf ears, please listen to these words:

Charlie Kirk, in June of 2025, explaining why a massive US war against Iran, and an attempt to facilitate regime change, as pushed by people like Lindsey Graham, is "pathologically insane":pic.twitter.com/nusMqOWOUM

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 28, 2026

---

So you believe that living under the mulllahs was the best thing possible for the Iranians? And thst it couldn't possibly be better if they were gone?

That's your position?

---

My position is the US should stop engaging in the regime change business. Especially in the Middle East. And that opinion is a bi-partisan one that most Americans agree with.

---

You might want to take at a look of the polls on this. It is overwhelmingly positive

Have a good night you leftist lunatic supporter of a supreme shiite leader who had made his country's purpose to destroy you

---

? which polls are you looking at? Reuters ipsos poll from today shows only 1 in 4 Americans support the Iranian strike. Even amongst identified Republicans it's mixed.

---

There is basically NO WAY that any scientific or statistically accurate polling has been done between the attacks and now.

Anyone saying different is completely ignorant about how polling works...

---

I DIDNT EVEN BRING UP POLLS.



TAMUAllen said I should look at some that are 'overwhelmingly positive.' I asked which ones he's seeing because the one biggest one from a reputable source I found says otherwise. This is what drives me crazy with this site. One of you brings up a point. I counter it with a similar point and one of you jumps in to say "hey you cant use that point." SO WHICH IS IT? Why didn't you comment on TAMUAllen's post? Oh I know why, because you agree with his narrative.

---

You didn't even bring up polls?

I'm going to call bull**** on that since you most certainly wrote:

Quote:

---

Reuters ipsos poll from today shows only 1 in 4 Americans support the Iranian strike. Even amongst identified Republicans it's mixed.

---

Kinda looks exactly like the word POLL to me (and everyone else)...

And I responded to you and not him because I must have missed his post...but I stand by my point...because there is NO way that they had statistically accurate polling at that time...

BTW, that would also cover his post...so there you go.

---

I know reading comprehension is hard to ask for on an internet forum, but I'm begging you; please look at the comment I replied to.

---

I did.

And then you responded by QUOTING A ****ING POLL...THE "REUTERS IPSOS POLL FROM TODAY"

I just pointed out that EVEN THAT ****ING POLL would not be accurate...

JFC, are you even reading the words I'm posting? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

TAMUallen said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Hullabaloonatic said:

---

backintexas2013 said:

---

Because you said it was confirmed by them. It wasn't they were reporting what the Iranian state media said. No confirmation at all just spitting what Iran told them. Maybe be smarter about what you post

---

Al Jazeera found it credible enough to publish under their name. Where has it been confirmed as false?

---

Why are Iranians celebrating?

---

What point do you think you're making? That the 'cheering' is validation of Trump's actions? Maybe many people are cheering now. Maybe only a relatively few are. Either way, do you think they'll still be cheering in another day? another week? another month? Did our bombs sprinkle magic freedom powder over their communities that will immediately establish a just a moral government? No? So again, what point do you think you're making?

---

Why can't you just answer why think they are celebrating?

---

I would think they are glad an awful tyrannical group of people were toppled today and they're cheering because they don't know or haven't considered what comes next.

---

Have you considered the possibility that what comes next is much better for them?

---

Have you considered the probability that what comes next is much worse?

Since my words are falling on deaf ears, please listen to these words:

Charlie Kirk, in June of 2025, explaining why a massive US war against Iran, and an attempt to facilitate regime change, as pushed by people like Lindsey Graham, is "pathologically insane":pic.twitter.com/nusMqOWOUM

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 28, 2026

---

So you believe that living under the mulllahs was the best thing possible for the Iranians? And thst it couldn't possibly be better if they were gone?

That's your position?

---

My position is the US should stop engaging in the regime change business. Especially in the Middle East. And that opinion is a bi-partisan one that most Americans agree with.

---

You might want to take at a look of the polls on this. It is overwhelmingly positive

Have a good night you leftist lunatic supporter of a supreme shiite leader who had made his country's purpose to destroy you

---

? which polls are you looking at? Reuters ipsos poll from today shows only 1 in 4 Americans support the Iranian strike. Even amongst identified Republicans it's mixed.

---

There is basically NO WAY that any scientific or statistically accurate polling has been done between the attacks and now.

Anyone saying different is completely ignorant about how polling works...

---

I DIDNT EVEN BRING UP POLLS.



TAMUAllen said I should look at some that are 'overwhelmingly positive.' I asked which ones he's seeing because the one biggest one from a reputable source I found says otherwise. This is what drives me crazy with this site. One of you brings up a point. I counter it with a similar point and one of you jumps in to say "hey you cant use that point." SO WHICH IS IT? Why didn't you comment on TAMUAllen's post? Oh I know why, because you agree with his narrative.

---

You didn't even bring up polls?

I'm going to call bull**** on that since you most certainly wrote:

Quote:

---

Reuters ipsos poll from today shows only 1 in 4 Americans support the Iranian strike. Even amongst identified Republicans it's mixed.

---

Kinda looks exactly like the word POLL to me (and everyone else)...

And I responded to you and not him because I must have missed his post...but I stand by my point...because there is NO way that they had statistically accurate polling at that time...

BTW, that would also cover his post...so there you go.

---

I know reading comprehension is hard to ask for on an internet forum, but I'm begging you; please look at the comment I replied to. I did not bring up polls in this conversation. I only asked what polls that user was looking at to support their assertion that response to bombing Iran has been "overwhelmingly positive."

---

And since you edited your post after I quoted it, I will respond to your new comment:

Quote:

---

I only asked what polls that user was looking at to support their assertion that response to bombing Iran has been "overwhelmingly positive."

---

You didn't "only ask what polls". You ALSO quoted the REUTER IPSOS POLL.

Old May Banker said:

---

I refuse to allow liberal democrat controlled media to define what "war" is. They damn sure weren't interested in doing the same when B Hussein Obama was in office.

---

Most people, myself included, would call this a war based on pure common sense and not based on what the media calls it. A very one sided war but a war none the less. Calling it anything else is a loss of credibility to me.

Now taking out Maduro like we did would not be considered a war by me or I think a sizable majority of Americans since it was very surgical, targeted an individual and was over in one night. Also, they essentially didn't shoot back.

Oxford Definition
"A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state."

By the definition of the word, I would love to hear how this isn't armed conflict between multiple nations.