Ellis Wyatt said:
Uh…
Mea culpa...
Political fallout and arguments regarding the US-Israeli action against Iran 022824
173,622 Views |
2123 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by Ag with kids
Mea culpa...
Beijing is urging peace talks in the Middle East. Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi held a phone call with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi on Tuesday, calling for an immediate start to negotiations and an end to hostilities https://t.co/5OvOdY6hEi
— Caixin Global (@caixin) March 24, 2026
Complete clown show.
Old McDonald said:relax guy, no one's putting words in your mouth. i'm poking fun at the ridiculous comment that started this chain about holy war against islam being the highest callingAg with kids said:Old McDonald said:Ag with kids said:cecil77 said:Quote:
We do not have a stated war goal of "rid the world of fundamentalist Islam once and for all".
It's ok to dream, isn't it?
Unfortunately, it''s been a dream for 1500 years...
2024: no more forever wars in the middle east
2026: there is no higher calling than the forever war in the middle east
Hey...
Zero people in these posts said anything about forever war.
So don't LIE and put words in my mouth.
I'm ****ing sick of the GASLIGHTING you're trying to do.
Head over to that burnt orange site...they'll LOVE you there...
the real gaslighting is coming from the trump admin and their pet sheep who sold themselves as the peace ticket only turn around and swear this war is differen(T)
"Peace ticket" is fiction
To be fair, it was a bunch of isolationists that were projecting onto Trump that pushed that idea during the campaign. I think most people knew from the beginning Trump was not that.
Phatbob said:
To be fair, it was a bunch of isolationists that were projecting onto Trump that pushed that idea during the campaign. I think most people knew from the beginning Trump was not that.
Nah, Trump made his bones in 2016 criticizing the Iraq War and the Forever War. You are trying to retcon
Keyno said:Phatbob said:
To be fair, it was a bunch of isolationists that were projecting onto Trump that pushed that idea during the campaign. I think most people knew from the beginning Trump was not that.
Nah, Trump made his bones in 2016 criticizing the Iraq War and the Forever War. You are trying to retcon
Please... get back to me after you've reviewed the all the Republican primary threads here and then tell me that.
Phatbob said:Keyno said:Phatbob said:
To be fair, it was a bunch of isolationists that were projecting onto Trump that pushed that idea during the campaign. I think most people knew from the beginning Trump was not that.
Nah, Trump made his bones in 2016 criticizing the Iraq War and the Forever War. You are trying to retcon
Please... get back to me after you've reviewed the all the Republican primary threads here and then tell me that.
Did you even vote for Trump in 2016 (in the primary)? Do you remember when he was asked if he would support the GOP nominee if it wasn't him and he declined? Do you remember when he dressed down Jeb because of GW's foreign wars? Do you remember when he said Marco Rubio was a puppet of the Adelsons? I'm sure you don't remember any of that, but I can link the videos/articles if you'd like.
I voted Cruz in 2016 Primary because I am no Trump fan. I got into plenty of arguments about this very subject. Trump did criticize how wars were conducted and claimed he would avoid war with specific caveats. Those caveats always included the most likely circumstances in confrontations we have already seen. You can call it obfuscation or purposefully misleading if you'd like, but that is how it has been.
As far as conducting the operations, he absolutely has been much more measured and exact than the "forever wars" he was criticizing.
As far as conducting the operations, he absolutely has been much more measured and exact than the "forever wars" he was criticizing.
Phatbob said:
I voted Cruz in 2016 Primary because I am no Trump fan. I got into plenty of arguments about this very subject. Trump did criticize how wars were conducted and claimed he would avoid war with specific caveats. Those caveats always included the most likely circumstances in confrontations we have already seen. You can call it obfuscation or purposefully misleading if you'd like, but that is how it has been.
As far as conducting the operations, he absolutely has been much more measured and exact than the "forever wars" he was criticizing.
Edit- removing for mischaracterizing
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
Woof.
You like to put words in other people's mouths. I still don't like Trump, but I am not an idiot. I can still judge individual events on their merits and acknowledge even people I don't like still have useful skills and abilities that can even outperform people I like.
If you liked him then because you didn't understand him, that is fine, but you are doing the exact same thing now as you did then, to Trump and to everyone here.
If you liked him then because you didn't understand him, that is fine, but you are doing the exact same thing now as you did then, to Trump and to everyone here.
YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
Phatbob said:
You like to put words in other people's mouths. I still don't like Trump, but I am not an idiot. I can still judge individual events on their merits and acknowledge even people I don't like still have useful skills and abilities that can even outperform people I like.
Well put. I wrongly labeled you and I am going to delete the post. Please accept my apology
Phatbob
Joined:
Aug 23, 2015
Posts:
6,629
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyno said:YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
They always said it would be weeks. Regardless, I'm out if we go in with ground troops at this point.
Maybe they are just talking Kharg Island, but still...
YouBet said:Keyno said:YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
They always said it would be weeks. Regardless, I'm out if we go in with ground troops at this point.
Maybe they are just talking Kharg Island, but still...
We are going in with ground troops. And not just to Kharg Island.
Keyno said:YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
Keep spreading lies.
These people can't even get what happened correct let alone project what will happen. Not sure why anyone takes an anticipation of the next steps seriously. Ground troops? Maybe. That kind of story originates from a question of "Will you send in ground troops?" and a response of "We haven't ruled anything out."
Lady in the video is such a see you next Tuesday. The U.S. just blinked? No, the U.S. doesn't want to be engaged in this conflict in perpetuity and if they can get what they want out of it then why not reach out? Iran is in a position where they have to remain iron willed to save face with their more radical supporters (the only kind), they can't be seen to go to the U.S. begging for the bombings to stop. Both sides demand everything, they end up with some level of compromise. If discussions are going to occur early it is absolutely going to come from the U.S. initiating them or at the very least being claimed that the U.S. initiated.
Lady in the video is such a see you next Tuesday. The U.S. just blinked? No, the U.S. doesn't want to be engaged in this conflict in perpetuity and if they can get what they want out of it then why not reach out? Iran is in a position where they have to remain iron willed to save face with their more radical supporters (the only kind), they can't be seen to go to the U.S. begging for the bombings to stop. Both sides demand everything, they end up with some level of compromise. If discussions are going to occur early it is absolutely going to come from the U.S. initiating them or at the very least being claimed that the U.S. initiated.
🚨 LMFAO! CNN just had to GO BACK on their claims President Trump lied about holding negotiations with Iran
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) March 24, 2026
"We're now learning from a senior Iranian source that there HAS been an outreach between the US and Iran."
Oh, so an "Iranian source" is what CNN needs to verify what the… pic.twitter.com/92zgNwVL7V
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg547ljepvzo
This kind of stuff has been happening every time trump announces something that affects the market.
Quote:
Traders bet hundreds of millions of dollars on oil contracts just minutes before US President Donald Trump announced on Monday that the US would postpone strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure.
Market data reviewed by the BBC shows the volume of trade spiked around fifteen minutes before a social media post by the president announcing the move.
The price of oil fell sharply after the announcement, dropping 14% in a matter of minutes. Traders who bet on the unexpected move would have made money.
Some market analysts say the unusual activity opens up the possibility that the bets may have been placed with prior knowledge of the decision.
This kind of stuff has been happening every time trump announces something that affects the market.
bobbranco said:Keyno said:YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
Keep spreading lies.
This is a bizarre comment. Everything I said happened. Why are you calling me a liar?
Keyno said:bobbranco said:Keyno said:YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
Keep spreading lies.
This is a bizarre comment. Everything I said happened. Why are you calling me a liar?
Where did Trump state the war would last 4 days?
When was the victory celebration?
And ground troops have landed?
LOL.
Keyno said:bobbranco said:Keyno said:YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
Keep spreading lies.
This is a bizarre comment. Everything I said happened. Why are you calling me a liar?
From the beginning they have been saying it will take 4 to 6 weeks, not 4 days
Hard to believe.
Keyno said:YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
I am not disparaging the military in anyway, and no disrespect to the people in harms way is meant by the following statement: Is this really a war? or are we using our military assets strategically to prevent a full on war with a group of crazed Islamic cretins?
AnScAggie said:Keyno said:YouBet said:
Lot of ground troops in Iran talk today from major media and supposedly sourced from the WH.
Woof.
I remember when Trump said this war would last 4 days and then a few weeks and then he said we won. I guess we are doing ground troops now though.
By the way, it was always going to end up this way. Adelson didnt give Trump 100MM for nothing
I am not disparaging the military in anyway, and no disrespect to the people in harms way is meant by the following statement: Is this really a war? or are we using our military assets strategically to prevent a full on war with a group of crazed Islamic cretins?
Uh you are framing in a way that suits what you want to believe. When a country bombs another country, and then sends in troops to invade, that is called a war. That has always been called a war for all of time. This is not Marvel Comic book movie about "the good guys vs the ultimate evil villian". It is called a war.
Quote:
Uh you are framing in a way that suits what you want to believe.
I think its reasonable to think Iran themselves are aware of the possible political fallout. Perhaps, they themselves want to call Trumps bluff and escalate this into a larger more drawn out conflict that financially weakens the US.
Perhaps the Iranian regime knows there are midterms and that they could have more negotiation leverage further down the road as much of America loses faith in a swift air strike victory.
Maybe the regime sees American news coverage of prominent pro Israli Trump lawyers like Alan Dershowitz, dividing the right into "Good Republicans" and "Neo Nazi Fascists". Maybe they want to play off these dynamics in the west.
Its possible that this conflict could be more nuanced than some may think. This post is not directed at any one poster or meant to belittle anyone.
Perhaps the Iranian regime knows there are midterms and that they could have more negotiation leverage further down the road as much of America loses faith in a swift air strike victory.
Maybe the regime sees American news coverage of prominent pro Israli Trump lawyers like Alan Dershowitz, dividing the right into "Good Republicans" and "Neo Nazi Fascists". Maybe they want to play off these dynamics in the west.
Its possible that this conflict could be more nuanced than some may think. This post is not directed at any one poster or meant to belittle anyone.
Keyno said:
This is a bizarre comment. Everything I said happened. Why are you calling me a liar?
Accurate predictions on fallout and shifting narratives seem to be offensive.
I personally think its great that "Regime Change" has shifted from a liberation campaign, to negotiating a nuke deal with a new leader in the existing regime. I dont think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that shift, or anyone's prediction it would happen.
I genuinely think that path is the best we Americans can hope for, with least poltical fallout for Trump. Unfortunately, I think Iran realizes that too.
FobTies said:Keyno said:
This is a bizarre comment. Everything I said happened. Why are you calling me a liar?
Accurate predictions on fallout and shifting narratives seem to be offensive.
I personally think its great that "Regime Change" has shifted from a liberation campaign, to negotiating a nuke deal with a new leader in the existing regime. I dont think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that shift, or anyone's prediction it would happen.
I genuinely think that path is the best we Americans can hope for, with least poltical fallout for Trump. Unfortunately, I think Iran realizes that too.
Yeah, that is very optimistic. I wish it were so. But Israel wants regime change. So that's what we are going to do
FobTies said:Keyno said:
This is a bizarre comment. Everything I said happened. Why are you calling me a liar?
Accurate predictions on fallout and shifting narratives seem to be offensive.
I personally think its great that "Regime Change" has shifted from a liberation campaign, to negotiating a nuke deal with a new leader in the existing regime. I dont think there is anything wrong with acknowledging that shift, or anyone's prediction it would happen.
I genuinely think that path is the best we Americans can hope for, with least poltical fallout for Trump. Unfortunately, I think Iran realizes that too.
I think the point of order is the 4 day claim. The original claims we saw were 4-6 weeks. That's always been the message. Could it extend beyond that? Certainly could.
Let me know when those ground troops roll into Iran and start shooting the bad guys, then like you I'll call it a war. As of today, according to AI, the news sources and TexAgs we troops amassing but yet to step foot on Iranian soil. I'm sure there is some SOG assets and spies on the ground in Iran, but no troops.
Also, how would it make sense to tell your enemy a ground invasion is strictly off limits? Maybe in some minds saying all options are on the table and using only a portion of those options means that we're in a full blown war. In my mind it's to further depress, scare and cause capitulation in the enemy because every time they name a new leader that leader gets blown up in short order. If we (and Israel) can do that from afar, imagine what we could do close up.
Also, how would it make sense to tell your enemy a ground invasion is strictly off limits? Maybe in some minds saying all options are on the table and using only a portion of those options means that we're in a full blown war. In my mind it's to further depress, scare and cause capitulation in the enemy because every time they name a new leader that leader gets blown up in short order. If we (and Israel) can do that from afar, imagine what we could do close up.
Phatbob said:
To be fair, it was a bunch of isolationists that were projecting onto Trump that pushed that idea during the campaign. I think most people knew from the beginning Trump was not that.
samurai_science said:
"Peace ticket" is fiction
uh huh
Vote the pro-peace ticket. Vote Trump-Vance 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/N1TwMxivnF
— GOP (@GOP) November 4, 2024
AnScAggie said:
Let me know when those ground troops roll into Iran and start shooting the bad guys, then like you I'll call it a war. As of today, according to AI, the news sources and TexAgs we troops amassing but yet to step foot on Iranian soil. I'm sure there is some SOG assets and spies on the ground in Iran, but no troops.
Also, how would it make sense to tell your enemy a ground invasion is strictly off limits? Maybe in some minds saying all options are on the table and using only a portion of those options means that we're in a full blown war. In my mind it's to further depress, scare and cause capitulation in the enemy because every time they name a new leader that leader gets blown up in short order. If we (and Israel) can do that from afar, imagine what we could do close up.
Look man I am speaking strictly from a strategic view. Israel, and by proxy the US, wants regime change. It's not going to happen unless someone drops a nuke or we invade. That's it. That is the state of things
Keyno said:
Yeah, that is very optimistic. I wish it were so. But Israel wants regime change. So that's what we are going to do
Agree its likely. Trump going back to his campaign promises on foreign wars, would require a fallout with Bibi...probably leading to Trump blaming Israel bombs/intel for forcing his hand in the first place. Thats a possible off ramp for Trump, if congress doesn't bail him out by rejecting funding.
This point on future fallout with Bibi for some bizarre reason induces a bunch of mocking, as if its an absurd and offensive prediction. So just want to clarify, this post isnt meant to troll or trigger anyone else here.
Featured Stories
See All