Political fallout and arguments regarding the US-Israeli action against Iran 022824

749,962 Views | 7207 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by Sq 17
MemphisAg1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 11:04a, 9/1/26
AG
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

I would say those objectives have been partially fulfilled.

The nuclear issue is still an open item. We degraded it with the bombing a year ago, but Iran still hasn't expressly given up their pursuit of a N bomb.

For minimizing harm to neighbors, we absolutely degraded their traditional military capability in terms of naval, air, and missile assets, but this conflict also opened a pandora's box of asymmetrical warfare from Iran where they occasionally attack economic infrastructure in the region and also try to restrict shipping. We haven't solved that issue yet. The hope is that the naval blockade and harsh sanctions will cause them to relent. The jury is still out on that... time will tell.

So no, the objectives have not been completely fulfilled. That is why we are still there.
Reply Quote
2
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MemphisAg1 • 1:22p, 9/1/26
AG
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

I would say those objectives have been partially fulfilled.

The nuclear issue is still an open item. We degraded it with the bombing a year ago, but Iran still hasn't expressly given up their pursuit of a N bomb.

For minimizing harm to neighbors, we absolutely degraded their traditional military capability in terms of naval, air, and missile assets, but this conflict also opened a pandora's box of asymmetrical warfare from Iran where they occasionally attack economic infrastructure in the region and also try to restrict shipping. We haven't solved that issue yet. The hope is that the naval blockade and harsh sanctions will cause them to relent. The jury is still out on that... time will tell.

So no, the objectives have not been completely fulfilled. That is why we are still there.


So when Trump said their nuclear capabilities were completely destroyed he was just saying that? When he said it would take a very long time for them not even begin to recover etc he was just saying that?

You can't get a straight fact from anyone on what this means in the administration ?

Is it over when we pick up the dust? That's buried and we were told not accessible.

At this point it's a never ending moving objective. That has been moved over and over by the president himself!

No it's not clear as it comes from the actual administration not posters.
Reply Quote
9
Phatbob
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 1:46p, 9/1/26
AG
This seems like a fruitless discussion because you want something that no one can ever produce.

If your neighbor has weapons pointed at everyone and you go in and disarm them, that is something necessary. But they are willing to take their cutlery and threaten you with it, so did you disarm them? Yes, but they are persistent and still threatening. Take away their cutlery but they use the pipes in their home to create some bombs and sharpen their toothbrushes into shivs... did you disarm them? Yes, but they are still threatening because they have goals that involve harming those around them, including you.

The individual goals have been met. That does not necessarily follow that we get what we want, because Iran still wants the opposite and are willing to go to extremes to do so. So unless you are willing to go full swat team invasion, which you obviously aren't, you will have to put up with some ambiguity because not everything that happens can be anticipated in order to get exactly what we want out of the situation.
Reply Quote
5
MemphisAg1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 1:51p, 9/1/26
AG
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

I would say those objectives have been partially fulfilled.

The nuclear issue is still an open item. We degraded it with the bombing a year ago, but Iran still hasn't expressly given up their pursuit of a N bomb.

For minimizing harm to neighbors, we absolutely degraded their traditional military capability in terms of naval, air, and missile assets, but this conflict also opened a pandora's box of asymmetrical warfare from Iran where they occasionally attack economic infrastructure in the region and also try to restrict shipping. We haven't solved that issue yet. The hope is that the naval blockade and harsh sanctions will cause them to relent. The jury is still out on that... time will tell.

So no, the objectives have not been completely fulfilled. That is why we are still there.


So when Trump said their nuclear capabilities were completely destroyed he was just saying that? When he said it would take a very long time for them not even begin to recover etc he was just saying that?

You can't get a straight fact from anyone on what this means in the administration ?

Is it over when we pick up the dust? That's buried and we were told not accessible.

At this point it's a never ending moving objective. That has been moved over and over by the president himself!

No it's not clear as it comes from the actual administration not posters.

It's actually very clear, as I laid out in my posts. If you've got an anti-Trump political agenda that's driving your point of view, then nothing will satisfy you in this discussion.
Reply Quote
5
Featured Video Previews
Prosperdick
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:53p, 9/1/26
AG
Reply Quote
4
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:52p, 9/1/26
AG

Reply Quote
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MemphisAg1 • 4:02p, 9/1/26
AG
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

I would say those objectives have been partially fulfilled.

The nuclear issue is still an open item. We degraded it with the bombing a year ago, but Iran still hasn't expressly given up their pursuit of a N bomb.

For minimizing harm to neighbors, we absolutely degraded their traditional military capability in terms of naval, air, and missile assets, but this conflict also opened a pandora's box of asymmetrical warfare from Iran where they occasionally attack economic infrastructure in the region and also try to restrict shipping. We haven't solved that issue yet. The hope is that the naval blockade and harsh sanctions will cause them to relent. The jury is still out on that... time will tell.

So no, the objectives have not been completely fulfilled. That is why we are still there.


So when Trump said their nuclear capabilities were completely destroyed he was just saying that? When he said it would take a very long time for them not even begin to recover etc he was just saying that?

You can't get a straight fact from anyone on what this means in the administration ?

Is it over when we pick up the dust? That's buried and we were told not accessible.

At this point it's a never ending moving objective. That has been moved over and over by the president himself!

No it's not clear as it comes from the actual administration not posters.

It's actually very clear, as I laid out in my posts. If you've got an anti-Trump political agenda that's driving your point of view, then nothing will satisfy you in this discussion.


So this is over when they are no longer a nuclear threat which the president has previously already said they were not. Even the president himself can't find any consistency on the issue.

Spare me the anti Trump agenda. That's the go to.

So nobody can define when "they" are no longer a "nuclear threat"?

Trump had a plan until he didn't have a plan. Now it's just the new plan of the week with new operation names. When you run your mouth like Trump you better deliver and in this case it's been a total disaster! The original Trump would agree with that.

The same Trump that ripped Carter, Bush, Obama, and Biden and rightfully so! He's already made Obama's ridiculous red line look better. He's starting to make Bush look good. Something else he'd previously agree with.

What Trump has carried out is the same thing he's criticized. It's ok to use his own past measured judgement to be critical.

So what is the exit ramp for this? End of civilization. Complete capitulation? Anything in between? So the answer is when they are no longer a threat ……. Clear as mud.
Reply Quote
12
MemphisAg1
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 4:06p, 9/1/26
AG
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

I would say those objectives have been partially fulfilled.

The nuclear issue is still an open item. We degraded it with the bombing a year ago, but Iran still hasn't expressly given up their pursuit of a N bomb.

For minimizing harm to neighbors, we absolutely degraded their traditional military capability in terms of naval, air, and missile assets, but this conflict also opened a pandora's box of asymmetrical warfare from Iran where they occasionally attack economic infrastructure in the region and also try to restrict shipping. We haven't solved that issue yet. The hope is that the naval blockade and harsh sanctions will cause them to relent. The jury is still out on that... time will tell.

So no, the objectives have not been completely fulfilled. That is why we are still there.


So when Trump said their nuclear capabilities were completely destroyed he was just saying that? When he said it would take a very long time for them not even begin to recover etc he was just saying that?

You can't get a straight fact from anyone on what this means in the administration ?

Is it over when we pick up the dust? That's buried and we were told not accessible.

At this point it's a never ending moving objective. That has been moved over and over by the president himself!

No it's not clear as it comes from the actual administration not posters.

It's actually very clear, as I laid out in my posts. If you've got an anti-Trump political agenda that's driving your point of view, then nothing will satisfy you in this discussion.


So this is over when they are no longer a nuclear threat which the president has previously already said they were not. Even the president himself can't find any consistency on the issue.

Spare me the anti Trump agenda. That's the go to.

So nobody can define when "they" are no longer a "nuclear threat"?

Trump had a plan until he didn't have a plan. Now it's just the new plan of the week with new operation names. When you run your mouth like Trump you better deliver and in this case it's been a total disaster! The original Trump would agree with that.

The same Trump that ripped Carter, Bush, Obama, and Biden and rightfully so! He's already made Obama's ridiculous red line look better. He's starting to make Bush look good. Something else he'd previously agree with.

What Trump has carried out is the same thing he's criticized. It's ok to use his own past measured judgement to be critical.

So what is the exit ramp for this? End of civilization. Complete capitulation? Anything in between? So the answer is when they are no longer a threat ……. Clear as mud.

The exit occurs when we fulfill our objectives as plainly stated in my posts above. You're making this more complicated than it is, but you certainly have the right to do that. Have fun with it, because I'm done trying to answer your endless questions when it's obvious you don't really want an answer not aligned with Hate Trump.
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
BQ78
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TRM • 6:48p, 9/1/26
AG
That is an ignorant tweet, if they are supersonic they are de facto not cruise missiles.
Reply Quote
2
TxAG#2011
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Prosperdick • 6:52p, 9/1/26
Prosperdick said:

7 months in and they are just now getting around to this?

It's almost like they didn't have a plan at all and just said oh look let's just start a war they will surrender in 48 hours.
Reply Quote
13
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BQ78 • 7:07p, 9/1/26
AG
Take it up with the authors
https://www.ft.com/content/6cf367bc-95b0-4f1f-b149-a25684adefc3
Reply Quote
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TxAG#2011 • 8:09p, 9/1/26
AG
TxAG#2011 said:
Prosperdick said:

7 months in and they are just now getting around to this?

It's almost like they didn't have a plan at all and just said oh look let's just start a war they will surrender in 48 hours.


It's just ridiculous at this point. Operation we really mean it this time.

But to answer your question. The plan was apparently once they have no Navy and no Air Force there will be complete and total surrender. Oh and we bomb more targets after the previous midnight hammer. Oh and we will send some weapons to arm a resistance force but didn't think the people trusted with the transfer of weapons would just keep them.

Reply Quote
7
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 12:17p, 9/2/26
AG
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

Just because you either didn't listen/pay attention, or flat out ignored what was stated doesn't mean the information wasn't presented to you.

We're still involved, because Iran still has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, even though the capability been severely degraded...
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
4
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 4:57p, 9/2/26
AG
Ag with kids said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

Just because you either didn't listen/pay attention, or flat out ignored what was stated doesn't mean the information wasn't presented to you.

We're still involved, because Iran still has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, even though the capability been severely degraded...


Lol yes it's because I didn't listen to what the president and administration put out! They have been a complete communication disaster led by the president himself on this war!

The funny thing is most posters on here can state what they "think" the president /administration meant better than what they actually have said!
Reply Quote
13
2 edits
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 6:30p, 9/2/26
AG
AGHouston11 said:
Ag with kids said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

Just because you either didn't listen/pay attention, or flat out ignored what was stated doesn't mean the information wasn't presented to you.

We're still involved, because Iran still has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, even though the capability been severely degraded...


Lol yes it's because I didn't listen to what the president and administration put out! They have been a complete communication disaster led by the president himself on this war!

The funny thing is most posters on here can state what they "think" the president /administration meant better than what they actually have said!

Well, the ****ing objectives haven't changed since March.

And yet you've probably asked what they were 20 times since then and were given the correct answer hundreds of times.

Apparently, you don't LIKE the answer you keep getting.

That's your problem, not ours.

It appears you're never going to accept the answer, so further discussion on this issue is as useless as talking to a potted plant.

You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
6
Science Denier
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Prosperdick • 6:35p, 9/2/26
AG
Prosperdick said:


Well, if they know where the money is, THEN ****ING TAKE IT!!!

DAMN!!
LOL OLD
Reply Quote
5
DeschutesAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:09p, 9/2/26
Presumably it has been heavily laundered through many money laundering conduits and operations. That could make it a challenge to take.

Putin and his oligarches for example reportedly have trillions of laundered money stored around the globe.

Did Bessent say why the Administration hasn't gone after it and taken it yet? If our Administration isn't lying, this is an very interesting announcement and potentially a devastating blow to Iran's regime.

Fingers crossed.
Reply Quote
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 7:24p, 9/2/26
AG
Ag with kids said:
AGHouston11 said:
Ag with kids said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

Just because you either didn't listen/pay attention, or flat out ignored what was stated doesn't mean the information wasn't presented to you.

We're still involved, because Iran still has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, even though the capability been severely degraded...


Lol yes it's because I didn't listen to what the president and administration put out! They have been a complete communication disaster led by the president himself on this war!

The funny thing is most posters on here can state what they "think" the president /administration meant better than what they actually have said!

Well, the ****ing objectives haven't changed since March.

And yet you've probably asked what they were 20 times since then and were given the correct answer hundreds of times.

Apparently, you don't LIKE the answer you keep getting.

That's your problem, not ours.

It appears you're never going to accept the answer, so further discussion on this issue is as useless as talking to a potted plant.



Yep I am the l only one that can't make sense of this The goal tenders for some reason get mad when they have to explain what they think the president and administration said. I can see how that would be frustrating. It's frustrating for me too that I had such great hope for Trump's second term and here we are going into the midterms after control of both houses and the presidency.

So Trump today says we have complete control of the strait and he has said they are not a nuclear threat any longer (which still has never been coherently explained). So the war should be over since those were the "objectives". Minus the strait because he was surprised when they shut that down! So that was not an original objective.

Bad plan to no plan to no exit ramp. By his own original standards this is a total disaster.
Reply Quote
15
AGHouston11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Science Denier • 7:27p, 9/2/26
AG
Science Denier said:
Prosperdick said:


Well, if they know where the money is, THEN ****ING TAKE IT!!!

DAMN!!


It's just more fun to talk tough and cause "shivers down their spine". When you didn't scare them with ending their civilization threats your talk really means nothing after that.
Reply Quote
8
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:35p, 9/2/26
This is now 6 months old
Definitely a 5D chess master
Reply Quote
18
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 10:25p, 9/2/26
AG
AGHouston11 said:
Ag with kids said:
AGHouston11 said:
Ag with kids said:
AGHouston11 said:
MemphisAg1 said:
AGHouston11 said:
Nothing but more operational names

Now going into September does anyone actually know what the actual clear objectives are for Trump's war?

The objectives have been very clear from the beginning... diminish Iran's ability to harm their neighbors and US interests and keep them from getting a nuclear weapon. Pretty simple, really.

What has complicated the effort is Iran's willingness to destroy economic assets in the region and our inability to defend against those attacks. We can -- but do not want -- to pull the ultimate trigger of destroying their economics assets because of the global economic fallout (much higher oil prices, inflation, etc.)

So we've adapted our tactics to strangle them economically with a naval blockade and harsh sanctions, while engaging selectively on a military basis to limit their ability to attack shipping. That approach appears to be successfully increasing pressure on Iran to come to the table and negotiate an acceptable outcome.

How long that takes, or if it's even successful ultimately, is still anybody's guess. It does create pressure on Republicans because higher gas prices contribute to the overall affordability topic in the US, but Trump has got two more years after the midterms to see this through if he in fact has the gumption to do it.

I'm not making any predictions. We'll have to see how it goes. But this complex situation doesn't take away from the fact that the objectives are clear. The question is whether we'll achieve them.


Pretty simple and clear from the beginning?
There has been very little clear on this from the beginning.

Based on what you said all objectives have been accomplished.

So why are we still involved?

This is everything Trump campaigned against.

Just because you either didn't listen/pay attention, or flat out ignored what was stated doesn't mean the information wasn't presented to you.

We're still involved, because Iran still has the capability to develop a nuclear weapon, even though the capability been severely degraded...


Lol yes it's because I didn't listen to what the president and administration put out! They have been a complete communication disaster led by the president himself on this war!

The funny thing is most posters on here can state what they "think" the president /administration meant better than what they actually have said!

Well, the ****ing objectives haven't changed since March.

And yet you've probably asked what they were 20 times since then and were given the correct answer hundreds of times.

Apparently, you don't LIKE the answer you keep getting.

That's your problem, not ours.

It appears you're never going to accept the answer, so further discussion on this issue is as useless as talking to a potted plant.



Yep I am the l only one that can't make sense of this The goal tenders for some reason get mad when they have to explain what they think the president and administration said. I can see how that would be frustrating. It's frustrating for me too that I had such great hope for Trump's second term and here we are going into the midterms after control of both houses and the presidency.

So Trump today says we have complete control of the strait and he has said they are not a nuclear threat any longer (which still has never been coherently explained). So the war should be over since those were the "objectives". Minus the strait because he was surprised when they shut that down! So that was not an original objective.

Bad plan to no plan to no exit ramp. By his own original standards this is a total disaster.



I didn't say that.

I said you appear to not want to accept the answer that has been put out by the administration since the beginning of this nor do you want to accept the answer when posters on here give you that same answer that YOU EXPLICITLY ASK FOR.

So...there you are...
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
5
Serious Lee
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AGHouston11 • 10:54p, 9/2/26
Quote:
So what is the exit ramp for this? End of civilization. Complete capitulation? Anything in between?

to purge the ranks of every dissenting voice in the administration




and fill them with ones who are more sympathetic to the cause

Reply Quote
11
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:09p, 9/2/26
AG
And when that didn't happen, he'll devote 5 Xeets to deny he claimed it and then blame everyone else for bad info...
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
DeschutesAg
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:32a, 9/3/26
Who else besides Brian Mast is being considered to be the new head of the Army by Trump and Hegseth?

I've seen the names of Kurt Schlichter and Mike Flynn mentioned as "good options" by far-right podcast commenters. And an ex-General whose name I can't recall.

Most of the Rs who are running for Congress would not be happy with Flynn or Schlichter, at least not right now with the midterm elections just 60 days away. After the midterms are over, of course, Trump and Hegseth can choose almost anyone and the Congressional Rs will support it.
Reply Quote
3
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DeschutesAg • 11:48a, 9/3/26
Is it even a confirmation required position
Of course Flynn is a choice that will make people squeal but most of the people who know who Mike Flynn is won't change their vote based on his selection
Reply Quote
TRM
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sq 17 • 11:55a, 9/3/26
AG
The position needs Senate confirmation.
Reply Quote
1
Ag with kids
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sq 17 • 11:56a, 9/3/26
AG
Sq 17 said:
Is it even a confirmation required position
Of course Flynn is a choice that will make people squeal but most of the people who know who Mike Flynn is won't change their vote based on his selection

I believe it is...
You can turn off signatures, btw
Reply Quote
Sq 17
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag with kids • 12:20p, 9/3/26
You are correct
Learn something new everyday

Of course things like Sec of the Army is usually a non-controversial 2* General or head of a very large agency and confirmation is a non-event
Reply Quote
3
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sq 17 • 12:52p, 9/3/26
AG
Sq 17 said:
You are correct
Learn something new everyday

Of course things like Sec of the Army is usually a non-controversial 2* General or head of a very large agency and confirmation is a non-event

Dems would challenge Trump's nomination for Head Lawnmower of the South Lawn.
Reply Quote
6
txwxman
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DeschutesAg • 5:11p, 9/3/26
I don't think Hegseth will be sticking around long enough to have a say in the next Army Secretary.
Reply Quote
4
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txwxman • 5:23p, 9/3/26
AG
txwxman said:
I don't think Hegseth will be sticking around long enough to have a say in the next Army Secretary.
based on? Vance said today it's a matter of Pete doing things his way and you are either onboard or not.

This is way, way , way better than the purge(s) done under 8 years of Obama that are now being corrected. Not too mention any disasters in leadership under Lloyd Austin, who surpasses Noem in incompetence.
Reply Quote
1
Silent For Too Long
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to txwxman • 6:59p, 9/3/26
txwxman said:
I don't think Hegseth will be sticking around long enough to have a say in the next Army Secretary.


Poop slap bet?
Reply Quote
2
YouBet
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Serious Lee • 7:34p, 9/3/26
AG
The first X post is a nothing burger. It's Trump administration. Those folks serve at his leisure. Every POTUS does this.
Reply Quote
1
oh no
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Serious Lee • 7:37p, 9/3/26
AG
Serious Lee said:

to purge the ranks of every dissenting voice in the administration


how many dissenting ranks in your military is the right amount for you, if you were their commander in chief?
Reply Quote
1
flown-the-coop
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to oh no • 7:52p, 9/3/26
AG
Being commander in chief of my small business, being dissenting gets you fired. You can say your piece and should, but if you keep it up cant tolerate it not going your way then the door is right there.

This guy could not tolerate the new rules and took his ball to the private sector to cash out. Good riddance. All of them.
Reply Quote
First Page Last Page
Page 200 of 207 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.