Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You seem to be convinced of that. I am not.

What are you not understanding?

---

Do you understand the concept of grand strategy? Do you understand that Israel has wanted Iran neutralized for decades? Because they have regional ambitions and Iran is in the way of that. What happens if Iran agrees to all our terms (unconditional surrender is what Trump called it once)? Iran is disarmed and their air space opens. Then Israel just bombs them at will (see Syria).

---

Sorry, forgot it was all bout The Jews. I think I see the misconnect.

No I don't think BiBi is assembling the 12 tribes for great Armageddon between the children of Abraham.

Can we consolidate all the Jewish conspiracy theories into one thread so as not to derail all others on the "it's The Jews" narrative being pushed daily by a select few?

---

Bro- Netanyahu has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades. Are you not aware of that? You just got done writing a screed about how well informed you are.

---

Bro, I am supposed to get excited about BiBi wanting leadership in Iran to be something other than the one who has called the world to eliminate every last Jew and the state of Israel?

---

Yeah, I know it excites you. And that is fine. But don't come at me saying it's some "Jewish conspiracy" when Netanyahu has been calling for it for decades. I don't appreciate that and I have tried to be respectful with you.

---

You are making zero sense. Israel wants regime change in Iran is a grand revelation? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together between their ears understands regime change is the only lasting outcome for peace with Iran. It's why the JCPOA was monumentally naive and poorly conceived.

It's why Trumps objectives are very clearly. No nukes, ever. No enrichment, ever. Give us every speck of nuclear test.

If not, bombings will continue until morale improves.

Why folks need to work in Israel wanting regime change as anything other than an obvious outcome is just bizarre
To me.

---

No its not a grand revelation. It is the reason Iran is not going to unconditional surrender to us. It would leave them totally defenseless. Remember when you asked me how I know what Iran will or will not agree to (and asked for evidence)? I have been trying to explain it to you (clearly unsuccessfully).

---

I don't think you understand the concept of "unconditional surrender". Perhaps that's the issue.

You are not explaining anything. You are saying that you believe that Iran is bargaining from some sort of position of leverage. It's fine you think that and it's fine you think that means boots on the ground or we fail to achieve objectives you claim to understand.

What is being explained to you is that unconditional surrender means just that. They get to set none of their own conditions. Period.

---

Well, that's not exactly completely true. For Iran it would mean they stop fighting with no guarantees or concessions. But is also means the United States sets all of the conditions- including how they are punished, whether they remain occupied by us, everything they must give up, etc.

The position of leverage Iran has is their missile and drone stockpile. Also their army, and huge fortress-like landmass. Presumably their enriched uranium is also leverage if they decided to turn it into a weapon.

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You seem to be convinced of that. I am not.

What are you not understanding?

---

Do you understand the concept of grand strategy? Do you understand that Israel has wanted Iran neutralized for decades? Because they have regional ambitions and Iran is in the way of that. What happens if Iran agrees to all our terms (unconditional surrender is what Trump called it once)? Iran is disarmed and their air space opens. Then Israel just bombs them at will (see Syria).

---

Sorry, forgot it was all bout The Jews. I think I see the misconnect.

No I don't think BiBi is assembling the 12 tribes for great Armageddon between the children of Abraham.

Can we consolidate all the Jewish conspiracy theories into one thread so as not to derail all others on the "it's The Jews" narrative being pushed daily by a select few?

---

Bro- Netanyahu has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades. Are you not aware of that? You just got done writing a screed about how well informed you are.

---

Bro, I am supposed to get excited about BiBi wanting leadership in Iran to be something other than the one who has called the world to eliminate every last Jew and the state of Israel?

---

Yeah, I know it excites you. And that is fine. But don't come at me saying it's some "Jewish conspiracy" when Netanyahu has been calling for it for decades. I don't appreciate that and I have tried to be respectful with you.

---

You are making zero sense. Israel wants regime change in Iran is a grand revelation? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together between their ears understands regime change is the only lasting outcome for peace with Iran. It's why the JCPOA was monumentally naive and poorly conceived.

It's why Trumps objectives are very clearly. No nukes, ever. No enrichment, ever. Give us every speck of nuclear test.

If not, bombings will continue until morale improves.

Why folks need to work in Israel wanting regime change as anything other than an obvious outcome is just bizarre
To me.

---

No its not a grand revelation. It is the reason Iran is not going to unconditional surrender to us. It would leave them totally defenseless. Remember when you asked me how I know what Iran will or will not agree to (and asked for evidence)? I have been trying to explain it to you (clearly unsuccessfully).

---

I don't think you understand the concept of "unconditional surrender". Perhaps that's the issue.

You are not explaining anything. You are saying that you believe that Iran is bargaining from some sort of position of leverage. It's fine you think that and it's fine you think that means boots on the ground or we fail to achieve objectives you claim to understand.

What is being explained to you is that unconditional surrender means just that. They get to set none of their own conditions. Period.

---

Well, that's not exactly completely true. For Iran it would mean they stop fighting with no guarantees or concessions. But is also means the United States sets all of the conditions- including how they are punished, whether they remain occupied by us, everything they must give up, etc.

The position of leverage Iran has is their missile and drone stockpile. Also their army, and huge fortress-like landmass. Presumably their enriched uranium is also leverage if they decided to turn it into a weapon.

---

That's why the goals of the war include destroying their missile and drone stockpile and any type of nuclear program - which includes that enriched uranium.

---

Phatbob said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Given a legit casus belli, Americans will absolutely support war. We do not have that in this case.

---

A regime that shouts "Death to America", funds terror cells, and is seeking to become a nuclear power seems like a pretty good case.

---

The "Death to America" chant is not a casus belli and if you understood the history and meaning of the phrase, that much is clear. The funding of "terror cells" (Hezbollah and Hamas) is certainly a threat to Israel. They have a legit casus belli absolutely. The "seeking to become a nuclear power", was not occurring according to IAEA inspectors. These claims come entirely from foreign intelligence. Much like the "Saddam has WMDs" thing.

---

Yes, yes, it all goes back to Israel, we know... all the red yarn leads there. Iran has just been minding their own business.

---

Keyno said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

You seem to be convinced of that. I am not.

What are you not understanding?

---

Do you understand the concept of grand strategy? Do you understand that Israel has wanted Iran neutralized for decades? Because they have regional ambitions and Iran is in the way of that. What happens if Iran agrees to all our terms (unconditional surrender is what Trump called it once)? Iran is disarmed and their air space opens. Then Israel just bombs them at will (see Syria).

---

Sorry, forgot it was all bout The Jews. I think I see the misconnect.

No I don't think BiBi is assembling the 12 tribes for great Armageddon between the children of Abraham.

Can we consolidate all the Jewish conspiracy theories into one thread so as not to derail all others on the "it's The Jews" narrative being pushed daily by a select few?

---

Bro- Netanyahu has been calling for regime change in Iran for decades. Are you not aware of that? You just got done writing a screed about how well informed you are.

---

Bro, I am supposed to get excited about BiBi wanting leadership in Iran to be something other than the one who has called the world to eliminate every last Jew and the state of Israel?

---

Yeah, I know it excites you. And that is fine. But don't come at me saying it's some "Jewish conspiracy" when Netanyahu has been calling for it for decades. I don't appreciate that and I have tried to be respectful with you.

---

You are making zero sense. Israel wants regime change in Iran is a grand revelation? Anyone with two brain cells to rub together between their ears understands regime change is the only lasting outcome for peace with Iran. It's why the JCPOA was monumentally naive and poorly conceived.

It's why Trumps objectives are very clearly. No nukes, ever. No enrichment, ever. Give us every speck of nuclear test.

If not, bombings will continue until morale improves.

Why folks need to work in Israel wanting regime change as anything other than an obvious outcome is just bizarre
To me.

---

No its not a grand revelation. It is the reason Iran is not going to unconditional surrender to us. It would leave them totally defenseless. Remember when you asked me how I know what Iran will or will not agree to (and asked for evidence)? I have been trying to explain it to you (clearly unsuccessfully).

---

I don't think you understand the concept of "unconditional surrender". Perhaps that's the issue.

You are not explaining anything. You are saying that you believe that Iran is bargaining from some sort of position of leverage. It's fine you think that and it's fine you think that means boots on the ground or we fail to achieve objectives you claim to understand.

What is being explained to you is that unconditional surrender means just that. They get to set none of their own conditions. Period.

---

Well, that's not exactly completely true. For Iran it would mean they stop fighting with no guarantees or concessions. But is also means the United States sets all of the conditions- including how they are punished, whether they remain occupied by us, everything they must give up, etc.

The position of leverage Iran has is their missile and drone stockpile. Also their army, and huge fortress-like landmass. Presumably their enriched uranium is also leverage if they decided to turn it into a weapon.

---

That's why the goals of the war include destroying their missile and drone stockpile and any type of nuclear program - which includes that enriched uranium.

---

Yes, that is correct

---

Keyno said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Given a legit casus belli, Americans will absolutely support war. We do not have that in this case.

---

A regime that shouts "Death to America", funds terror cells, and is seeking to become a nuclear power seems like a pretty good case.

---

The "Death to America" chant is not a casus belli and if you understood the history and meaning of the phrase, that much is clear. The funding of "terror cells" (Hezbollah and Hamas) is certainly a threat to Israel. They have a legit casus belli absolutely. The "seeking to become a nuclear power", was not occurring according to IAEA inspectors. These claims come entirely from foreign intelligence. Much like the "Saddam has WMDs" thing.

---

Quote:

---

I would also point out to the always pearl clutching boots on the ground crowd, the forces being sent to the ME are not capable of sustained operations.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Slicer97 said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Given a legit casus belli, Americans will absolutely support war. We do not have that in this case.

---

A regime that shouts "Death to America", funds terror cells, and is seeking to become a nuclear power seems like a pretty good case.

---

The "Death to America" chant is not a casus belli and if you understood the history and meaning of the phrase, that much is clear. The funding of "terror cells" (Hezbollah and Hamas) is certainly a threat to Israel. They have a legit casus belli absolutely. The "seeking to become a nuclear power", was not occurring according to IAEA inspectors. These claims come entirely from foreign intelligence. Much like the "Saddam has WMDs" thing.

---

Using latin provides no validation to a poorly based position.

Iran informed Witkoff they had enough enriched Uranium at the ready or near ready for 11 warheads.

IRAN INFORMED WITKOFF.

Witkoff is an American and directly represents the President of the United States of America.

IRAN INFORMED TRUMP DIRECTLY that it had uranium for warheads, that it had an existential, inalienable right to possess a nuclear weapon, and the US did not possess the capability to deter them.

Let me know where you want to Its the Israelis! Its the Jews! into that direct line of communication.

Scooby Jew is watching you and the false information that Iran was not actively pursuing a nuclear weapon and has been for 47 years.

Oh and IBT you tell us to believe Iran and the IAEA but should not believe Witkoff.

---

Keyno said:

---

Well you are misquoting or misremembering here. Iran claims the right to enrich uranium. NOT possess a nuke. In fact, the Ayatollah which Israel assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Yes, Iran has enriched uranium. That is not in dispute. The question is whether they were actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program (become a nuclear power). There is no evidence for that according to the IAEA and intelligence source (like Joe Kent)

---

Quote:

---

"We discussed with them 10 years of no enrichment whatsoever, and we would pay for the fuel, and it was flatly rejected, and the President seemed to have a good faith negotiation," Witkoff said. "And they rejected that, which told us at that very moment that they had no notion of doing anything other than retaining enrichment for the purpose of weaponizing."

"They have 10,000 roughly kilograms of fissionable material that's broken up into roughly 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium, another 1000 kilograms of 20% enriched uranium, and the balance is at 3.67 they manufacture their own centrifuges to enrich this material. So there's almost no stopping them," Witkoff added.

"And let me say this because I forgot this small little detail in that first meeting the both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly with you know with no shame that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60% and they're aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs. And that was the beginning of their negotiating stance. So that's, that's they were. They were proud of it. They were proud that they had evaded all sorts of oversight protocols to get to a place where they could deliver 11 nuclear bombs," he said.

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea etal only matter so much as the lessons we learned in the execution of those conflicts.

So, if trump were to follow the same paths and yiu actuslly see massive build up of group troops intent on taking over iran, then sure, feel free to make that comparison.

If these troops are being sent to simply exist in case if need, or, to perform limited roles such as taking some coastlines/seek and destroy shipping dedicated missile sites, then your warning rings hollow.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Well you are misquoting or misremembering here. Iran claims the right to enrich uranium. NOT possess a nuke. In fact, the Ayatollah which Israel assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Yes, Iran has enriched uranium. That is not in dispute. The question is whether they were actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program (become a nuclear power). There is no evidence for that according to the IAEA and intelligence source (like Joe Kent)

---

Believe Joe Kent and not Trump, his Cabinet and the man on the phone talking to the Iranians, Steve Witkoff.

Got it.

Wait, were you being serious?

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Lolz. Libertarians

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Well you are misquoting or misremembering here. Iran claims the right to enrich uranium. NOT possess a nuke. In fact, the Ayatollah which Israel assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Yes, Iran has enriched uranium. That is not in dispute. The question is whether they were actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program (become a nuclear power). There is no evidence for that according to the IAEA and intelligence source (like Joe Kent)

---

Believe Joe Kent and not Trump, his Cabinet and the man on the phone talking to the Iranians, Steve Witkoff.

Got it.

Wait, were you being serious?

---

Uh no I never said don't believe Trump or Witkoff. I absolutely believe Iran told Witkoff they had enriched uranium to make a warhead. That sounds like a plausible deterrence tactic. I do not believe Iran claimed the right to a nuke to Trump. I have not seen that anywhere but it's possible you misread it. They claim the right to enrichment. I also believe the IAEA inspectors.

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Lolz. Libertarians

---

Fake conservative.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Well you are misquoting or misremembering here. Iran claims the right to enrich uranium. NOT possess a nuke. In fact, the Ayatollah which Israel assassinated had a fatwa against nuclear weapons.

Yes, Iran has enriched uranium. That is not in dispute. The question is whether they were actively pursuing a nuclear weapons program (become a nuclear power). There is no evidence for that according to the IAEA and intelligence source (like Joe Kent)

---

Believe Joe Kent and not Trump, his Cabinet and the man on the phone talking to the Iranians, Steve Witkoff.

Got it.

Wait, were you being serious?

---

Uh no I never said don't believe Trump or Witkoff. I absolutely believe Iran told Witkoff they had enriched uranium to make a warhead. That sounds like a plausible deterrence tactic. I do not believe Iran claimed the right to a nuke to Trump. I have not seen that anywhere but it's possible you misread it. They claim the right to enrichment. I also believe the IAEA inspectors.

---

Trust the Iranians, Jake Tapper, Joe Kent and the IAEA. Distrust Trump, Witkoff, Hegseth, BiBi, IDF, etc.

Get your weather from Willard Scott and Al Gore and distrust folks like Dr Neil Frank.

Makes total sense.

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

If you believe the IAEA inspectors were able to conduct unfettered inspections or Iran's nuclear facilities and if you believe they were enriching uranium beyond agreed levels only as a deterrence against the Jews, then I do not believe there is any common ground to be had.

If you believe the Iranians did not tell Witkoff about having enough enrichment for warheads, then that's just denying facts presented. If you are trying to get cute with words that the recently departed ayatollah and his recently fragment successor had no intention of developing and using a nuclear weapon against the Great Satan and Little Satan, then there is not much we agree on there either.

I fully understand your point of view. And as bewildering as it is to me, it is your view, your truth and I won't deny you from it.

No back to discussions on real things happening and the political ramifications.

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

japantiger said:

---

The more this guy talks, the less credible. This was months in the planning. No one was rushed. No one interviewing him is looking at what he says for consistency with the facts. And they certainly aren't trying to vet his real involvement in the details or planning on this.

The basic argument for this guy is "11 deployments, green beret". Every form of critical thinking is suspended at that point.

I would also point out to the always pearl clutching boots on the ground crowd, the forces being sent to the ME are not capable of sustained operations. The 82nd Airborne IRF has maybe 4 days before requiring relief by heavier forces. We haven't mobilized heavier forces. There are no ships with armor on the way to the ME.

The MEU gets 2 weeks before requiring heavier sustainment support which, also, has not been activated. All these are doctrine.

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

Won't change much. Either party is so locked into their groupthink at this point that literally nothing in the world matters.

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

Keyno said:

---

Because they have regional ambitions and Iran is in the way of that.

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Assuming it fails, of course

---

Eliminatus said:

---

FWTXAg said:

---

Eliminatus said:

---

Seems more likely than not that ground forces will be in play shortly to me. If so, this topic is going to be VERY loud in the coming days. Especially if casualties come from it and the manner in which they do. America is not ready for their sons and daughters to be on the wrong end of an FPV feed.

---

Won't change much. Either party is so locked into their groupthink at this point that literally nothing in the world matters.

---

I beg to differ. "Boots on the ground" is a special status, even to your average joe on the street. I can even tell you most people don't even directly care about the war as is, right now. They may have an opinion but they won't expound on it endlessly or think about it as they fall asleep. Ground troops will force that extremely frustrating phrase back into a LOT of people's minds though. "Back in another ME ground war..."

I think it would be a political mess unseen yet in this term.

---

Keyno said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Assuming it fails, of course

---

It happening at all is a failure from the start. We have not had any successful ME wars. All we have done is further destabilize the region (while taking out Israel's regional enemies). George Bush captured Saddam and declared Iraq War victory in 2003. WE ARE STILL THERE. We are also still in Syria. Trump explicitly ran on how bad these wars were in 2015. He made his bones running on that. Thousands of American lives lost. Trillions of American dollars spent. And what have we gained? Well nothing really. But Israel is much safer.

---

Hogties said:

---

Which is exactly why it won't happen.

US troops patrolling the streets of Teheran is a liberal fantasy. Will never happen.

---

Hogties said:

---

Which is exactly why it won't happen.

US troops patrolling the streets of Teheran is a liberal fantasy. Will never happen.

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Keyno said:

---

Who?mikejones! said:

---

Assuming it fails, of course

---

It happening at all is a failure from the start. We have not had any successful ME wars. All we have done is further destabilize the region (while taking out Israel's regional enemies). George Bush captured Saddam and declared Iraq War victory in 2003. WE ARE STILL THERE. We are also still in Syria. Trump explicitly ran on how bad these wars were in 2015. He made his bones running on that. Thousands of American lives lost. Trillions of American dollars spent. And what have we gained? Well nothing really. But Israel is much safer.

---

Spare me bro. You dont know what the outcome will be. Its rare that we have essentially every power in the ME working together with us. There no signs of the intention of nation building post conflict.

Your metrics are dated. You opinions are tainted by your extreme bias over a single country for which you give too much credit.

The logical fallacy of antecedent is the basis of your argument. Theres no previous conflict of this sort to compare to. The inputs are vastly different.

---