ANyone here surprised that Iran has managed to keep fighting this long?
Political fallout and arguments regarding the US-Israeli action against Iran 022824
170,383 Views |
2087 Replies |
Last: 2 hrs ago by mjschiller
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Good points.
My question to you is what should be his exit? When should we (the US) leave the conflict?
AGHouston11 said:MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
It stops with eliminating their ability to harm others. Regime change would be a bonus but not absolute requirement.
It might require follow up action in coming years if the Iranians don't come around to economic and political incentives to live peacefully with regional neighbors, including Israel.
You simply can't let them get a nuclear bomb or build tens of thousands of missiles that they can rain down on the neighborhood. This conflict is confirming that they are crazy with how they've targeted non-combatants.
Have to finish the job and disarm them completely.
MemphisAg1 said:AGHouston11 said:MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
It stops with eliminating their ability to harm others. Regime change would be a bonus but not absolute requirement.
It might require follow up action in coming years if the Iranians don't come around to economic and political incentives to live peacefully with regional neighbors, including Israel.
You simply can't let them get a nuclear bomb or build tens of thousands of missiles that they can rain down on the neighborhood. This conflict is confirming that they are crazy with how they've targeted non-combatants.
Have to finish the job and disarm them completely.
But then how are we okay with Pakistan having a nuclear bomb and periodically threatening the world (mainly India) with it? Why won't we take out their nukes? We don't even have to bomb them, Trump can merely ask for it and they will fall to their knees and beg us for some money.
We are not being very principled here.
infinity ag said:
ANyone here surprised that Iran has managed to keep fighting this long?
It has been 3 weeks, no. They will fight until they run out of drones and Missiles
Plus there is no one to talk to negotiate, they are all dead
So you have a bunch of 2 star and 1 star generals firing off in all directions
It is a mess for Iran, I would say we have 2 to 4 weeks left of heavy bombing. Then we will likely stay in the area and do targeted strikes, and air support for any uprisings
2026NCAggies said:infinity ag said:
ANyone here surprised that Iran has managed to keep fighting this long?
It has been 3 weeks, no. They will fight until they run out of drones and Missiles
Plus there is no one to talk to negotiate, they are all dead
So you have a bunch of 2 star and 1 star generals firing off in all directions
It is a mess for Iran, I would say we have 2 to 4 weeks left of heavy bombing. Then we will likely stay in the area and do targeted strikes, and air support for any uprisings
Hmm good points.
I think Khamenai's kid is running the place now. I am sure US + ISR are looking to clean him up too.
The problem comes after that. Iranians seem more civilized than the Afghans. I don't think they will start fighting and killing in the streets. We need to have a succession plan.
infinity ag said:MemphisAg1 said:AGHouston11 said:MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
It stops with eliminating their ability to harm others. Regime change would be a bonus but not absolute requirement.
It might require follow up action in coming years if the Iranians don't come around to economic and political incentives to live peacefully with regional neighbors, including Israel.
You simply can't let them get a nuclear bomb or build tens of thousands of missiles that they can rain down on the neighborhood. This conflict is confirming that they are crazy with how they've targeted non-combatants.
Have to finish the job and disarm them completely.
But then how are we okay with Pakistan having a nuclear bomb and periodically threatening the world (mainly India) with it? Why won't we take out their nukes? We don't even have to bomb them, Trump can merely ask for it and they will fall to their knees and beg us for some money.
We are not being very principled here.
Big difference between Pakistan and Iran.
Pakistan isn't threatening us or directly sponsoring terrorism against us. If they and India want to nuke it out, that's on them. Obviously we don't want that and will attempt to prevent diplomatically, but not militarily.
Iran on the other hand, has a long track record of killing Americans and wanting to do more.
In a sudden turn of events, US 12-month inflation expectations have surged to 5.2%, the highest level since March 2023.
— Adam Kobeissi (@TKL_Adam) March 20, 2026
In just 3 weeks, markets have gone from pricing-in rate cuts to rate hikes. pic.twitter.com/jphiqMwniL
2026NCAggies said:infinity ag said:
ANyone here surprised that Iran has managed to keep fighting this long?
It has been 3 weeks, no. They will fight until they run out of drones and Missiles
Plus there is no one to talk to negotiate, they are all dead
So you have a bunch of 2 star and 1 star generals firing off in all directions
It is a mess for Iran, I would say we have 2 to 4 weeks left of heavy bombing. Then we will likely stay in the area and do targeted strikes, and air support for any uprisings
Apparently they have 1000s of missiles and drones and are making more all the time. If our goal is "regime change", which it seems to be now, then it's going to take a ground invasion. This was always the case and why beginning this campaign without a plan or stated objectives was always going to be a blunder.
Iran is not negotiating because they literally have no reason to. During our negotiations in 2025, Israel started bombing them. And then earlier this year with our negotiations still going on, the US AND Israel started bombing them.
Iran set up succession plans apparently like 10 guys deep in the case of targeted strikes.
It is a mess for Iran, but it is also a mess for Israel and the US. And increasingly a mess for the global economy as the Strait of Hormuz remains closed indefinitely.
MemphisAg1 said:infinity ag said:MemphisAg1 said:AGHouston11 said:MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
It stops with eliminating their ability to harm others. Regime change would be a bonus but not absolute requirement.
It might require follow up action in coming years if the Iranians don't come around to economic and political incentives to live peacefully with regional neighbors, including Israel.
You simply can't let them get a nuclear bomb or build tens of thousands of missiles that they can rain down on the neighborhood. This conflict is confirming that they are crazy with how they've targeted non-combatants.
Have to finish the job and disarm them completely.
But then how are we okay with Pakistan having a nuclear bomb and periodically threatening the world (mainly India) with it? Why won't we take out their nukes? We don't even have to bomb them, Trump can merely ask for it and they will fall to their knees and beg us for some money.
We are not being very principled here.
Big difference between Pakistan and Iran.
Pakistan isn't threatening us or directly sponsoring terrorism against us. If they and India want to nuke it out, that's on them. Obviously we don't want that and will attempt to prevent diplomatically, but not militarily.
Iran on the other hand, has a long track record of killing Americans and wanting to do more.
Somebody on another thread tried to make the same type of argument with North Korea and like you, I pointed out that they aren't the #1 state sponsor of terrorism and haven't killed over 1000 Americans since '79. It's not an apples to apples comparision.
Prosperdick said:MemphisAg1 said:infinity ag said:MemphisAg1 said:AGHouston11 said:MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
It stops with eliminating their ability to harm others. Regime change would be a bonus but not absolute requirement.
It might require follow up action in coming years if the Iranians don't come around to economic and political incentives to live peacefully with regional neighbors, including Israel.
You simply can't let them get a nuclear bomb or build tens of thousands of missiles that they can rain down on the neighborhood. This conflict is confirming that they are crazy with how they've targeted non-combatants.
Have to finish the job and disarm them completely.
But then how are we okay with Pakistan having a nuclear bomb and periodically threatening the world (mainly India) with it? Why won't we take out their nukes? We don't even have to bomb them, Trump can merely ask for it and they will fall to their knees and beg us for some money.
We are not being very principled here.
Big difference between Pakistan and Iran.
Pakistan isn't threatening us or directly sponsoring terrorism against us. If they and India want to nuke it out, that's on them. Obviously we don't want that and will attempt to prevent diplomatically, but not militarily.
Iran on the other hand, has a long track record of killing Americans and wanting to do more.
Somebody on another thread tried to make the same type of argument with North Korea and like you, I pointed out that they aren't the #1 state sponsor of terrorism and haven't killed over 1000 Americans since '79. It's not an apples to apples comparision.
That's right. Plus, NK is enough of a threat that we have troops permanently stationed in SK. Which of course has helped sustain the peace for almost 75 years.
infinity ag said:
ANyone here surprised that Iran has managed to keep fighting this long?
Not really.
In 2001 enemy forces looked like this:
- Al Qaeda had something like 75K
- The Taliban had about 45K
- Iraqi Military had roughly 375K troops
- Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-125K
- Police Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran-260K
- Islamic Republic of Iran Army-340K
- Police Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran-360K
- Basij (reserve corp)- about 500K-600K available for immediate call up
Iran is also massive. Iraq and Afghanistan combined is about 422,000 sq mi while Iran is 636,000 sq mi. We already know they have lots of caves and underground facilities spread throughout the country.
I don't know how you would think we could have this wrapped up in a couple of weeks given the sheer size and scope of the military forces and country.
Prosperdick said:MemphisAg1 said:infinity ag said:MemphisAg1 said:AGHouston11 said:MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
It stops with eliminating their ability to harm others. Regime change would be a bonus but not absolute requirement.
It might require follow up action in coming years if the Iranians don't come around to economic and political incentives to live peacefully with regional neighbors, including Israel.
You simply can't let them get a nuclear bomb or build tens of thousands of missiles that they can rain down on the neighborhood. This conflict is confirming that they are crazy with how they've targeted non-combatants.
Have to finish the job and disarm them completely.
But then how are we okay with Pakistan having a nuclear bomb and periodically threatening the world (mainly India) with it? Why won't we take out their nukes? We don't even have to bomb them, Trump can merely ask for it and they will fall to their knees and beg us for some money.
We are not being very principled here.
Big difference between Pakistan and Iran.
Pakistan isn't threatening us or directly sponsoring terrorism against us. If they and India want to nuke it out, that's on them. Obviously we don't want that and will attempt to prevent diplomatically, but not militarily.
Iran on the other hand, has a long track record of killing Americans and wanting to do more.
Somebody on another thread tried to make the same type of argument with North Korea and like you, I pointed out that they aren't the #1 state sponsor of terrorism and haven't killed over 1000 Americans since '79. It's not an apples to apples comparision.
Pakistan and North Korea also don't believe they have to usher in Armageddon to bring their prophet back from the void. The fundamentalist leaders of the Islamic Republic literally believe they have to usher in end of times and are working hard to create the tools to make that happen. To me that seems like a pretty big difference.
I wish there was more discussion such as this that involves actual understanding of the nuances that separate our war with Iran from say an Iraq/Afghanistan as well as why NK/China/Russia are inherently different than any of these. Foreign policy requires prudence and analyzing each with a new lens.
But instead we get slogans like "no more forever wars" and attempts to generalize every conflict into another Iraq, which is just so lazy.
I digress..
But instead we get slogans like "no more forever wars" and attempts to generalize every conflict into another Iraq, which is just so lazy.
I digress..
nai06 said:infinity ag said:
ANyone here surprised that Iran has managed to keep fighting this long?
Not really.
In 2001 enemy forces looked like this:In 2025 Iran has:
- Al Qaeda had something like 75K
- The Taliban had about 45K
- Iraqi Military had roughly 375K troops
That's something like 1.2 million active members not including the Basij who are more less "stationed" in their own home towns. The Iranian military was also designed to be "coup proof". Each of the main forces are in a way siloed and independent from the others. And since they all have similar functions and capabilities, its hard for just one branch to take over the country. You'd have to get 2-3 branches to agree to a coup/regime change.
- Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-125K
- Police Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran-260K
- Islamic Republic of Iran Army-340K
- Police Command of the Islamic Republic of Iran-360K
- Basij (reserve corp)- about 500K-600K available for immediate call up
Iran is also massive. Iraq and Afghanistan combined is about 422,000 sq mi while Iran is 636,000 sq mi. We already know they have lots of caves and underground facilities spread throughout the country.
I don't know how you would think we could have this wrapped up in a couple of weeks given the sheer size and scope of the military forces and country.
They also have a huge population center of civilians (many who want change) that I would assume at least our county is not ok with killing. So as opposed to a desert situation this seems much harder when it comes to air only. They also have much more elaborate underground facilities. Plus they have had this possibly planned out for a long time.
Trump saying the war is just about wrapped up is about as ridiculous as Bush landing on the carrier declaring mission accomplished.
So when B B says ground forces may be needed you think he just now realized this or of course that was his plan from the beginning. I'm fairly certain he's not saying they will be the ground forces.
Basij forces may list a large roster of names, akin to a school roster because they sign folks up far and wide, but in reality their power/forces are much more limited, and have to be directed/managed for suppression of the Iranian people.
It's functionally a militia roster, but their leadership has been decimated this month, and will continue to experience that.
And as with all militias, as George Washington faced, an ability to meet payroll matters.
It's functionally a militia roster, but their leadership has been decimated this month, and will continue to experience that.
🚨 ELIMINATED: BASIJ INTELLIGENCE CHIEF
— Mossad Commentary (@MOSSADil) March 20, 2026
Esmaeil Ahmadi, head of the Basij Force Intelligence Directorate, has been eliminated.
• Key figure in advancing Basij terror operations
• Enforced regime control on behalf of the IRGC
• Played a central role in suppressing Iranian… pic.twitter.com/YzDCRgYtwR
And as with all militias, as George Washington faced, an ability to meet payroll matters.
nortex97 said:
Basij forces may list a large roster of names, akin to a school roster because they sign folks up far and wide, but in reality their power/forces are much more limited, and have to be directed/managed for suppression of the Iranian people.
It's functionally a militia roster, but their leadership has been decimated this month, and will continue to experience that.🚨 ELIMINATED: BASIJ INTELLIGENCE CHIEF
— Mossad Commentary (@MOSSADil) March 20, 2026
Esmaeil Ahmadi, head of the Basij Force Intelligence Directorate, has been eliminated.
• Key figure in advancing Basij terror operations
• Enforced regime control on behalf of the IRGC
• Played a central role in suppressing Iranian… pic.twitter.com/YzDCRgYtwR
And as with all militias, as George Washington faced, an ability to meet payroll matters.
That's absolutely true. And some of the Basij is non-military in nature which is why I didn't include their total claimed number of 25M (also that number comes from Iran and is not very credible IMO). I think they have around 90K-100K of active members at any given time.
But even without the Basij, the Iranian Military forces are in excess of 1 million. I don't think that means there are 1 million die hards willing to pick up arms at a moments notice but if even half of them are committed, thats a big resistance to face.
I personally don't think we are going to be able to bomb Iran into regime change. I think it's pretty clear that many Iranians are tired of their current government and welcome the U.S. helping. But we have to be aware of the long term damage we do to Iran. People generally don't like getting bombs dropped on their houses, especially if they haven't done anything wrong. If we destroy so much infrastructure we send the country into the stone age, people won't be able to free themselves. We also don't want to create an entirely new generation of terrorists who have a vendetta against the U.S.
MemphisAg1 said:infinity ag said:MemphisAg1 said:AGHouston11 said:MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
It stops with eliminating their ability to harm others. Regime change would be a bonus but not absolute requirement.
It might require follow up action in coming years if the Iranians don't come around to economic and political incentives to live peacefully with regional neighbors, including Israel.
You simply can't let them get a nuclear bomb or build tens of thousands of missiles that they can rain down on the neighborhood. This conflict is confirming that they are crazy with how they've targeted non-combatants.
Have to finish the job and disarm them completely.
But then how are we okay with Pakistan having a nuclear bomb and periodically threatening the world (mainly India) with it? Why won't we take out their nukes? We don't even have to bomb them, Trump can merely ask for it and they will fall to their knees and beg us for some money.
We are not being very principled here.
Big difference between Pakistan and Iran.
Pakistan isn't threatening us or directly sponsoring terrorism against us. If they and India want to nuke it out, that's on them. Obviously we don't want that and will attempt to prevent diplomatically, but not militarily.
Iran on the other hand, has a long track record of killing Americans and wanting to do more.
"against us".
So all that matters is if they threaten the US? It's okay if Pakistan is constantly threatening countries other than the US? So what if Iran stops threatening the US but threatens Russia or China instead... we good?
I just want to know your stand. If your answer is "yes", then that is also okay. I consider it to be a non-principled stand though.
FYI, Pak threatens nukes all the time. Just like North Korea. India never has. So can't equate India and Pakistan.
Pakistan threatens India with nukes
By IFP Media Wire
April 28, 2025
infinity ag said:MemphisAg1 said:infinity ag said:MemphisAg1 said:AGHouston11 said:MemphisAg1 said:
War with Iran was always going to happen because of their fanatical obsession with harming others and their relentless pursuit of military capability to execute on that mission.
It was just a matter of when.
Politically, this will further sink Trump and the R's in the upcoming midterms because of the economic impacts.
But leadership requires you to do the right thing for the right reason at the right time. It's hard for me to argue this wasn't the time to kick it off, with the Iranian leaders all assembled together, Israel primed and ready to go, and neighboring militants in a low cycle position of weakness.
There will be unexpected setbacks for sure, and we'll just have to see where this goes. I hope like hell Trump doesn't TACO (chicken out) on this one. Stay the course and get the job done, regardless of the short term political consequences.
Where does stay the course stop?
It stops with eliminating their ability to harm others. Regime change would be a bonus but not absolute requirement.
It might require follow up action in coming years if the Iranians don't come around to economic and political incentives to live peacefully with regional neighbors, including Israel.
You simply can't let them get a nuclear bomb or build tens of thousands of missiles that they can rain down on the neighborhood. This conflict is confirming that they are crazy with how they've targeted non-combatants.
Have to finish the job and disarm them completely.
But then how are we okay with Pakistan having a nuclear bomb and periodically threatening the world (mainly India) with it? Why won't we take out their nukes? We don't even have to bomb them, Trump can merely ask for it and they will fall to their knees and beg us for some money.
We are not being very principled here.
Big difference between Pakistan and Iran.
Pakistan isn't threatening us or directly sponsoring terrorism against us. If they and India want to nuke it out, that's on them. Obviously we don't want that and will attempt to prevent diplomatically, but not militarily.
Iran on the other hand, has a long track record of killing Americans and wanting to do more.
"against us".
So all that matters is if they threaten the US? It's okay if Pakistan is constantly threatening countries other than the US? So what if Iran stops threatening the US but threatens Russia or China instead... we good?
I just want to know your stand. If your answer is "yes", then that is also okay. I consider it to be a non-principled stand though.
FYI, Pak threatens nukes all the time. Just like North Korea. India never has. So can't equate India and Pakistan.
Pakistan threatens India with nukes
By IFP Media Wire
April 28, 2025
I don't care how principled you think my stand is. My viewpoints aren't developed with your pleasure or values in mind. I care about American interests primarily and will never apologize for it. Anything outside that matters much less.
No. Very predictable. We are behind the drone warfare world.
infinity ag said:
ANyone here surprised that Iran has managed to keep fighting this long?
trump certainly is. iran's present regime has existed at our mercy for half a century, knowing that the moment we decided to we could wipe them out. that's a long time to make plans for how to dig in and wait us out.
AGHouston11 said:
Well that did not take long. B B now today saying ground forces may be needed.
Then of course the most famous neocon John Bolten making rounds today saying that Trump should not have taken any action if regime change is not achieved and ground forces may be needed.
I thought he was dead?
Natural gas prices have barely moved in the US compared to Europe and Asia, where they're hitting the stratosphere.
— Peter St Onge, Ph.D. (@profstonge) March 20, 2026
This is why we Drilled baby Drilled pic.twitter.com/KJHZW1WKfW
Good. I like that Europe is paying for their pathetic weakness/betrayal.
Joint statement from the leaders of 🇬🇧 🇫🇷 🇩🇪 🇮🇹 🇳🇱 🇯🇵 🇨🇦 🇰🇷 🇳🇿 🇩🇰 🇱🇻 🇸🇮 🇪🇪 🇳🇴 🇸🇪 🇫🇮 🇨🇿 🇷🇴 🇧🇭 🇱🇹 on the Strait of Hormuz:
— Mark Dubowitz (@mdubowitz) March 20, 2026
We condemn in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas…
Lol, that will show them!
The Europeans are nothing but toothless diplomats, long since removed from the fearless leaders of their ancestors.
Quote:
We condemn in the strongest terms...
Quote:
We express our deep concern...
Quote:
We express our readiness...
Quote:
We will also work... through the United Nations
Quote:
We call on all states to respect international law...
The Europeans are nothing but toothless diplomats, long since removed from the fearless leaders of their ancestors.
Thats so hilarious. "We're taking this to the UNITED NATIONS!!" Where everyone would turn to the US si ce their essentially inept at anything now.
aTm '99
TRM said:Joint statement from the leaders of 🇬🇧 🇫🇷 🇩🇪 🇮🇹 🇳🇱 🇯🇵 🇨🇦 🇰🇷 🇳🇿 🇩🇰 🇱🇻 🇸🇮 🇪🇪 🇳🇴 🇸🇪 🇫🇮 🇨🇿 🇷🇴 🇧🇭 🇱🇹 on the Strait of Hormuz:
— Mark Dubowitz (@mdubowitz) March 20, 2026
We condemn in the strongest terms recent attacks by Iran on unarmed commercial vessels in the Gulf, attacks on civilian infrastructure including oil and gas…
That will surely scare them into submission.
AlaskanAg99 said:
Thats so hilarious. "We're taking this to the UNITED NATIONS!!" Where everyone would turn to the US si ce their essentially inept at anything now.
We joined Israel's war because we were supposedly worried Iran might retaliate attack the US for Bibi's bombings. Now our gov is asking taxpayers for 100s of billions to pay for all the war done already, plus more war coming.
War with Iran was firmly off the "America First" agenda for both of Trumps terms. Now, the TDS libs want Trump to stop war, so MAGA has got to war harder!
1) "No foreign regime change wars"
2) "This isnt war"
3) "Its not regime change war"
4) "This is the golden opp to change regimes"
Crazy to watch the political winds. There is still hope. If anyone can buck the DC/MIC/AIPAC machine, its Trump.
War with Iran was firmly off the "America First" agenda for both of Trumps terms. Now, the TDS libs want Trump to stop war, so MAGA has got to war harder!
1) "No foreign regime change wars"
2) "This isnt war"
3) "Its not regime change war"
4) "This is the golden opp to change regimes"
Crazy to watch the political winds. There is still hope. If anyone can buck the DC/MIC/AIPAC machine, its Trump.
We entered the war because we wanted to do it, but timing was in question. We entered now because Israel was going to bomb Iran and earlier is better than later.
FIFY.
FIFY.
This is not about Israel. It is about putting American interest first under the guise that this is for Israel. Yes, Israel wants this, but if Trump pulls off what it now appears he will, we are about to crush oil prices and have NATO poney up to keep their part of the take (Hormuz Straight) open. We about to have an island.
It's folks trolling with the same poor talking points and takes every single day about how this is BiBis war, Charlie Kirk warned us, this will lead to the bluest of blue waves in November, the stock market will go below zero, millions of US soldiers will die in Iran, we will pay $100 gallon for the rest of our lives.
Their source… I have no idea. But the past few pages of this thread read like a CMs wettest of wet dreams.
The wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were all winnable. You just needed someone with balls to bring the hammer. Perhaps if FDR and the Nigel Chamberlain types had considered this, we would have more Jews to protect.
Letting dangerous regimes take hold and build an arsenal versus decapitating the bad dudes kills people. Madura was well on that path. Cuba was not because we left a military installation we control there.
I would think within a decade we will close European bases and move to collective defense of the Americas, from pole to pole. Others can join, or they can fend for themselves.
The British, Spaniard and French still see themselves as the owners of South America and our 51st hat. Those days… they gone.
My source. Lots of knowledge, sources and a fair amount of common senses.
Their source… I have no idea. But the past few pages of this thread read like a CMs wettest of wet dreams.
The wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan were all winnable. You just needed someone with balls to bring the hammer. Perhaps if FDR and the Nigel Chamberlain types had considered this, we would have more Jews to protect.
Letting dangerous regimes take hold and build an arsenal versus decapitating the bad dudes kills people. Madura was well on that path. Cuba was not because we left a military installation we control there.
I would think within a decade we will close European bases and move to collective defense of the Americas, from pole to pole. Others can join, or they can fend for themselves.
The British, Spaniard and French still see themselves as the owners of South America and our 51st hat. Those days… they gone.
My source. Lots of knowledge, sources and a fair amount of common senses.
Featured Stories
See All
13:47
9h ago
2.5k
13:22
2h ago
771
Earley's Aggies stay unbeaten in midweek action
by Richard Zane
Bethel-Roman found motivation through frustrations
by Olin Buchanan
Grading Bucky McMillan's debut campaign at A&M
by Luke Evangelist
TexAgs Internship Program
by TexAgs