While what you said is true what he said is not exactly wrong. We pay Egypt, Jordan and other Israel neighbors foreign aid so they dont attack Israel. That is factual.ATL Bear said:You have a warped historical and current event understanding. The Arabs are filthy rich because they have fossil fuel resources which we and the world want and need.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
You cannot be serious....
Israel would already be a brief footnote in history is not for the massive financial welfare they have received from the American tax payer.
Hell we even made the Arabs filthy rich so they would be nice to Israel.
Netanyahu sucked us into the Iraq war when Israeli intelligence told the worst Republican President in history, Bush Jr, that Sadaam had WMDs.
They are currently ethnically cleansing Gaza and have killed over a hundred thousand while congress, who Israel has bought and paid with our own stolen tax dollars, is busy passing condemnations of anti-semitism.
Israel has never been restrained. Quite the opposite, they have been pampered and coddled despite their many insults and betrayals of the American people.
War with Iran?
140,208 Views |
2180 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by whiterock
It's not factual because first, neither Jordan or Eqyot are "filthy rich" Arab states. And second because our aid is for our own self interest and why it's mostly military related. We don't want Suez disruptions and we like bases in Jordan for ME forward deployments. Israel, Jordan and Egypt buried their hatchets decades ago.muddybrazos said:While what you said is true what he said is not exactly wrong. We pay Egypt, Jordan and other Israel neighbors foreign aid so they dont attack Israel. That is factual.ATL Bear said:You have a warped historical and current event understanding. The Arabs are filthy rich because they have fossil fuel resources which we and the world want and need.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
You cannot be serious....
Israel would already be a brief footnote in history is not for the massive financial welfare they have received from the American tax payer.
Hell we even made the Arabs filthy rich so they would be nice to Israel.
Netanyahu sucked us into the Iraq war when Israeli intelligence told the worst Republican President in history, Bush Jr, that Sadaam had WMDs.
They are currently ethnically cleansing Gaza and have killed over a hundred thousand while congress, who Israel has bought and paid with our own stolen tax dollars, is busy passing condemnations of anti-semitism.
Israel has never been restrained. Quite the opposite, they have been pampered and coddled despite their many insults and betrayals of the American people.
Well google AI said:ATL Bear said:It's not factual because first, neither Jordan or Eqyot are "filthy rich" Arab states. And second because our aid is for our own self interest and why it's mostly military related. We don't want Suez disruptions and we like bases in Jordan for ME forward deployments. Israel, Jordan and Egypt buried their hatchets decades ago.muddybrazos said:While what you said is true what he said is not exactly wrong. We pay Egypt, Jordan and other Israel neighbors foreign aid so they dont attack Israel. That is factual.ATL Bear said:You have a warped historical and current event understanding. The Arabs are filthy rich because they have fossil fuel resources which we and the world want and need.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
You cannot be serious....
Israel would already be a brief footnote in history is not for the massive financial welfare they have received from the American tax payer.
Hell we even made the Arabs filthy rich so they would be nice to Israel.
Netanyahu sucked us into the Iraq war when Israeli intelligence told the worst Republican President in history, Bush Jr, that Sadaam had WMDs.
They are currently ethnically cleansing Gaza and have killed over a hundred thousand while congress, who Israel has bought and paid with our own stolen tax dollars, is busy passing condemnations of anti-semitism.
Israel has never been restrained. Quite the opposite, they have been pampered and coddled despite their many insults and betrayals of the American people.
Yes, a significant portion of US foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan is aimed at fostering regional stability and discouraging potential attacks on Israel. The US provides substantial military and economic assistance to both countries, which has been seen as a way to ensure their cooperation and maintain peace in the region. This aid, particularly military aid, is intended to build their capabilities and deter potential aggression.
ATL Bear said:It's not factual because first, neither Jordan or Eqyot are "filthy rich" Arab states. And second because our aid is for our own self interest and why it's mostly military related. We don't want Suez disruptions and we like bases in Jordan for ME forward deployments. Israel, Jordan and Egypt buried their hatchets decades ago.muddybrazos said:While what you said is true what he said is not exactly wrong. We pay Egypt, Jordan and other Israel neighbors foreign aid so they dont attack Israel. That is factual.ATL Bear said:You have a warped historical and current event understanding. The Arabs are filthy rich because they have fossil fuel resources which we and the world want and need.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
You cannot be serious....
Israel would already be a brief footnote in history is not for the massive financial welfare they have received from the American tax payer.
Hell we even made the Arabs filthy rich so they would be nice to Israel.
Netanyahu sucked us into the Iraq war when Israeli intelligence told the worst Republican President in history, Bush Jr, that Sadaam had WMDs.
They are currently ethnically cleansing Gaza and have killed over a hundred thousand while congress, who Israel has bought and paid with our own stolen tax dollars, is busy passing condemnations of anti-semitism.
Israel has never been restrained. Quite the opposite, they have been pampered and coddled despite their many insults and betrayals of the American people.
The only thing holding back Egypt and Jordan are the dictators of those countries who are absolutely filthy rich because they receive billions from the US tax payer to pay for themselves and the loyalists in the military to suppress their populations.
The muslim brotherhood in Egypt wouldnt accept plata... so they got plomo and were ousted in a military coup.
The situation was already tenuous enough... but between the ethnic cleaning in Gaza and WW3 with Iran, it is very likely the leaders of Jordan and Egypt will have to get involved against Israel or receive the Gaddafi treatment.
I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Oh, this is fun, ChatGPT 4muddybrazos said:Well google AI said:ATL Bear said:It's not factual because first, neither Jordan or Eqyot are "filthy rich" Arab states. And second because our aid is for our own self interest and why it's mostly military related. We don't want Suez disruptions and we like bases in Jordan for ME forward deployments. Israel, Jordan and Egypt buried their hatchets decades ago.muddybrazos said:While what you said is true what he said is not exactly wrong. We pay Egypt, Jordan and other Israel neighbors foreign aid so they dont attack Israel. That is factual.ATL Bear said:You have a warped historical and current event understanding. The Arabs are filthy rich because they have fossil fuel resources which we and the world want and need.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
You cannot be serious....
Israel would already be a brief footnote in history is not for the massive financial welfare they have received from the American tax payer.
Hell we even made the Arabs filthy rich so they would be nice to Israel.
Netanyahu sucked us into the Iraq war when Israeli intelligence told the worst Republican President in history, Bush Jr, that Sadaam had WMDs.
They are currently ethnically cleansing Gaza and have killed over a hundred thousand while congress, who Israel has bought and paid with our own stolen tax dollars, is busy passing condemnations of anti-semitism.
Israel has never been restrained. Quite the opposite, they have been pampered and coddled despite their many insults and betrayals of the American people.
Yes, a significant portion of US foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan is aimed at fostering regional stability and discouraging potential attacks on Israel. The US provides substantial military and economic assistance to both countries, which has been seen as a way to ensure their cooperation and maintain peace in the region. This aid, particularly military aid, is intended to build their capabilities and deter potential aggression.
U.S. aid to Jordan and Egypt is rooted not in a simplistic attempt to prevent war with Israel, but in a multifaceted strategic framework that has evolved since both countries signed peace treaties with Israel Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. These landmark agreements fundamentally reshaped the region, and U.S. assistance followed as a means of reinforcing peace, stabilizing moderate Arab governments, and embedding them within a U.S.-aligned regional order. Far from being bribes to avert hostility, this aid has functioned as a post-conflict dividend, helping transform former adversaries into cooperative security partners.
Egypt's peace with Israel was brokered through the Camp David Accords, which set the stage for normalized relations and long-term U.S. backing. Since then, U.S. military aid to Egypt roughly $1.3 billion annually has supported not just deterrence, but interoperability with U.S. forces, counterterrorism operations in the Sinai, and secure control of the Suez Canal, a vital global trade and naval passageway. Egypt also grants the U.S. military overflight rights and preferential access through the canal, which enhances America's rapid-response capabilities in the Middle East and beyond. Meanwhile, Egypt and Israel have developed a pragmatic and growing security relationship, especially in combating jihadist groups in Sinai and coordinating around Hamas in Gaza. They also share a significant energy partnership, including cross-border natural gas flows and infrastructure investment.
Jordan's relationship with Israel has become increasingly institutionalized and cooperative, despite periodic political tensions. The 1994 Wadi Araba Peace Treaty normalized relations and opened channels for water-sharing agreements, economic integration, and security coordination. Today, Jordan and Israel jointly manage critical water and energy projects including a landmark plan for Israel to supply desalinated water to Jordan in exchange for solar-generated electricity. Jordan also plays a quiet but pivotal role in regional diplomacy, including managing religious sites in Jerusalem and mediating on Palestinian issues. U.S. aid to Jordan $1.45 billion annually under the current MOU supports not only its military modernization and border security, but also helps stabilize its economy, absorb millions of refugees from Syria and Iraq, and counter Iranian influence on its doorstep.
More broadly, the U.S. provides aid to Egypt and Jordan as part of its long-standing strategy to anchor a stable, pro-Western axis in the region. These countries serve as critical partners in intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, and deterring Iranian aggression. U.S. presence in Jordan, including forward operating bases, enhances its regional reach and ability to respond to crises. Aid also helps prevent state failure in fragile environments, which would create power vacuums exploitable by extremist groups. Thus, aid is not a transactional payoff to keep the peace with Israel, but a strategic investment in regional order, diplomatic leverage, and military alliances that benefit both U.S. interests and long-term Middle East stability.
Yes, in an overt conflict/war they wouldn't worry about missile or drone strikes on Iranian air defenses.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
your not only just a dumb-arse on foreign policy, you are exceedingly poorly aware of basic facts.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:no, here's the flawed premise right here:The_barBEARian said:OsoCoreyell said:
It's really a pretty simple bit of calculus - A world where a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies cannot be allowed to possess a usable "ultimate" weapon. The cost of preventing it will almost certainly be better than the alternative.
Your premise is flawed because that world already exists.
We have experienced "the cost" of not preventing North Korea from producing nuclear weapons capable of striking the US and its allies.
"Is there anyone here willing to explain your support for initiating a war with Iran when Iran has made no credible threats toward the US homeland? Please raise your Israeli flags high and explain why Americans being financial slaves to Israel isnt enough for you... we actually need to go fight their wars and die for them too."
I mean, you are just a complete loon on foreign policy, and a disingenuous one at that. You scream until you're purple in the face about Israel being our enemy because of a friendly-fire incident over 50 years ago that took the lives of 34 American sailors, yet say Iran has made no credible threats against us? I mean, what planet have you been living on? Iranian trained & armed & commanded proxies have killed thousands of Americans over the last 40 years. Their regime conducts orgiastic Tatbir demonstrations chanting "death to America" and you will happily let them have nuclear weapons?
I mean, you just shape the whole g-dam*ed world to fit your irrational anger.
Look what Ukraine did to Russia last week with simple conventional weapons launched from shipping containers mounted on trucks driven within close range of the targets. What could such tactics do in ship-borne containers with one or more Iranian nuclear weapons? You really think there's no chance they'd be prepared to do it? Why should we have to face such a threat?
How many shipping containers are there in our ports at any given time?
How do you propose to defend us against an asymmetrical nuclear attack launched from one or more of them?
Sheesh.....
I'm not a loon or disingenuous. You are. The fact that you call the USS Liberty attack a friendly fire incident and not a false flag attack WHICH THE ACTUAL LIVING AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO SURVIVED THE ATTACK CALL IT means you are either stupid, evil, or on the Israeli payroll.
Virtually all Islamic terrorism in the west has been committed by Sunni Islamists.
Saudi Arabia exports far more terrorism across the globe than Iran. Yet we make the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Arabs rich so they dont threaten Israel. Look up wahhabism.
Iranians trained and armed proxies who killed Americans in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East who had no business being there! Why arent any of the politicians who lied about weapons of mass destruction in jail? I feel bad for all the guys my age who died or were maimed fighting Israel's wars. They were lied to by Netanyahu and Boomer politicians.
Your last two paragraphs read like they came straight from the IDF ministry of propaganda. The Israelis like to project their own evil ideas onto Iran to create fear and anxiety in with the American public. Israel is more likely to strap nukes onto drones and launch them at American cities in a false flag attack to get the American public to go to war with Iran.
You can start with "1983 Beirut barracks bombing."
Then you can follow up with "operation preying mantis."
The Marine barracks bombing killed 8x as many US servicemen and was no accident.
Iranian sponsored terrorism has killed THOUSANDS of Americans.
Yet, you scream anti-semitic conspiracy theories about the US Liberty incident, a fog of war case of mistaken identity for which Israel apologized and paid restitution to USG and families of dead and survivors. It also offered assistance to the ship immediately after the incident (clearly realizing it had made a grievous error). The incident has been exhaustively examined. The ship was in a hot war zone in close proximity to an Israeli city being fired upon and the Liberty was presumed to have been an Egyptian Navy ship doing the shelling. The Liberty should not have been where it was. USG should have alerted the Israeli government of its presence in the area. And of course there were a number of Israeli errors as well. (Israel had a significant friendly fire incident of its own that same day in the same area.) And it all occurred in a era long before GPS, sophisticated IFF systems, and intergrated command protocols between allies, etc....
Your lack of balance here fatally undermines any credibility. You arguments desperately seek to destroy our most capable and reliable ally in the region while absolving any accountability for a regime which is by any reasonable measure our most implacable enemy in the post Cold War era.
ATL Bear said:Yes, in an overt conflict/war they wouldn't worry about missile or drone strikes on Iranian air defenses.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
He's also parroting Iranian propaganda and has no clue what really happened.
Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
LOL. No.
ATL Bear said:Oh, this is fun, ChatGPT 4muddybrazos said:Well google AI said:ATL Bear said:It's not factual because first, neither Jordan or Eqyot are "filthy rich" Arab states. And second because our aid is for our own self interest and why it's mostly military related. We don't want Suez disruptions and we like bases in Jordan for ME forward deployments. Israel, Jordan and Egypt buried their hatchets decades ago.muddybrazos said:While what you said is true what he said is not exactly wrong. We pay Egypt, Jordan and other Israel neighbors foreign aid so they dont attack Israel. That is factual.ATL Bear said:You have a warped historical and current event understanding. The Arabs are filthy rich because they have fossil fuel resources which we and the world want and need.The_barBEARian said:ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
You cannot be serious....
Israel would already be a brief footnote in history is not for the massive financial welfare they have received from the American tax payer.
Hell we even made the Arabs filthy rich so they would be nice to Israel.
Netanyahu sucked us into the Iraq war when Israeli intelligence told the worst Republican President in history, Bush Jr, that Sadaam had WMDs.
They are currently ethnically cleansing Gaza and have killed over a hundred thousand while congress, who Israel has bought and paid with our own stolen tax dollars, is busy passing condemnations of anti-semitism.
Israel has never been restrained. Quite the opposite, they have been pampered and coddled despite their many insults and betrayals of the American people.
Yes, a significant portion of US foreign aid to Egypt and Jordan is aimed at fostering regional stability and discouraging potential attacks on Israel. The US provides substantial military and economic assistance to both countries, which has been seen as a way to ensure their cooperation and maintain peace in the region. This aid, particularly military aid, is intended to build their capabilities and deter potential aggression.
U.S. aid to Jordan and Egypt is rooted not in a simplistic attempt to prevent war with Israel, but in a multifaceted strategic framework that has evolved since both countries signed peace treaties with Israel Egypt in 1979 and Jordan in 1994. These landmark agreements fundamentally reshaped the region, and U.S. assistance followed as a means of reinforcing peace, stabilizing moderate Arab governments, and embedding them within a U.S.-aligned regional order.
Definitely started as a "keep peace with Israel" form of bribery
Still at least part of the reason we always pay them.
For those unaware, US aid to Egypt is contingent on compliance with their peace treaty w Israel. In other words, while there are two countries on this list, there is only one country in mind. So the whole world got it's US aid cut except one. Mask off moment. https://t.co/9AjtfU5WU5
— Clint Russell (@LibertyLockPod) January 25, 2025
And that does create some discontent among at least a portion of the Egyptian population (on both the pro-democratic reform side and the Muslim brotherhood side)
There is no sugarcoating the fact that Egypt’s military-police state continues to exist largely because it is heavily funded by the United States. The American government has provided $51 billion in military aid to the Egyptian military since 1979.
— Nadeen نادين (@nadeenmdkr) November 8, 2022
whiterock said:your not only just a dumb-arse on foreign policy, you are exceedingly poorly aware of basic facts.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:no, here's the flawed premise right here:The_barBEARian said:OsoCoreyell said:
It's really a pretty simple bit of calculus - A world where a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies cannot be allowed to possess a usable "ultimate" weapon. The cost of preventing it will almost certainly be better than the alternative.
Your premise is flawed because that world already exists.
We have experienced "the cost" of not preventing North Korea from producing nuclear weapons capable of striking the US and its allies.
"Is there anyone here willing to explain your support for initiating a war with Iran when Iran has made no credible threats toward the US homeland? Please raise your Israeli flags high and explain why Americans being financial slaves to Israel isnt enough for you... we actually need to go fight their wars and die for them too."
I mean, you are just a complete loon on foreign policy, and a disingenuous one at that. You scream until you're purple in the face about Israel being our enemy because of a friendly-fire incident over 50 years ago that took the lives of 34 American sailors, yet say Iran has made no credible threats against us? I mean, what planet have you been living on? Iranian trained & armed & commanded proxies have killed thousands of Americans over the last 40 years. Their regime conducts orgiastic Tatbir demonstrations chanting "death to America" and you will happily let them have nuclear weapons?
I mean, you just shape the whole g-dam*ed world to fit your irrational anger.
Look what Ukraine did to Russia last week with simple conventional weapons launched from shipping containers mounted on trucks driven within close range of the targets. What could such tactics do in ship-borne containers with one or more Iranian nuclear weapons? You really think there's no chance they'd be prepared to do it? Why should we have to face such a threat?
How many shipping containers are there in our ports at any given time?
How do you propose to defend us against an asymmetrical nuclear attack launched from one or more of them?
Sheesh.....
I'm not a loon or disingenuous. You are. The fact that you call the USS Liberty attack a friendly fire incident and not a false flag attack WHICH THE ACTUAL LIVING AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO SURVIVED THE ATTACK CALL IT means you are either stupid, evil, or on the Israeli payroll.
Virtually all Islamic terrorism in the west has been committed by Sunni Islamists.
Saudi Arabia exports far more terrorism across the globe than Iran. Yet we make the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Arabs rich so they dont threaten Israel. Look up wahhabism.
Iranians trained and armed proxies who killed Americans in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East who had no business being there! Why arent any of the politicians who lied about weapons of mass destruction in jail? I feel bad for all the guys my age who died or were maimed fighting Israel's wars. They were lied to by Netanyahu and Boomer politicians.
Your last two paragraphs read like they came straight from the IDF ministry of propaganda. The Israelis like to project their own evil ideas onto Iran to create fear and anxiety in with the American public. Israel is more likely to strap nukes onto drones and launch them at American cities in a false flag attack to get the American public to go to war with Iran.
You can start with "1983 Beirut barracks bombing."
Then you can follow up with "operation preying mantis."
The Marine barracks bombing killed 8x as many US servicemen and was no accident.
Iranian sponsored terrorism has killed THOUSANDS of Americans.
Yet, you scream anti-semitic conspiracy theories about the US Liberty incident, a fog of war case of mistaken identity for which Israel apologized and paid restitution to USG and families of dead and survivors. It also offered assistance to the ship immediately after the incident (clearly realizing it had made a grievous error). The incident has been exhaustively examined. The ship was in a hot war zone in close proximity to an Israeli city being fired upon and the Liberty was presumed to have been an Egyptian Navy ship doing the shelling. The Liberty should not have been where it was. USG should have alerted the Israeli government of its presence in the area. And of course there were a number of Israeli errors as well. (Israel had a significant friendly fire incident of its own that same day in the same area.) And it all occurred in a era long before GPS, sophisticated IFF systems, and intergrated command protocols between allies, etc....
Your lack of balance here fatally undermines any credibility. You arguments desperately seek to destroy our most capable and reliable ally in the region while absolving any accountability for a regime which is by any reasonable measure our most implacable enemy in the post Cold War era.
You ****ing liar!
I can literally go on youtube and watch interviews with multiple survivors of the USS Liberty attack give first hand testimony that completely disputes everything you just wrote.
So am I suppose to take the word of the IDF regurgitate from your dementia addled mouth or the first hand account of the surviving USS Liberty American servicemen?
As for Lebanon... why did it go from a predominately Christian country to a predominately Muslim country? Because Israel kept expanding its territory and sending Palestinians into Lebanon.
Rather than backing Israel, who steals our military secrets and technology and sells it to the Chinese and commits false flag attacks our servicemen and operates pedophile rings with little American girls, we should have given the Lebanese Christians unconditional support and pushed all the Muslims back into Israel.
Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:your not only just a dumb-arse on foreign policy, you are exceedingly poorly aware of basic facts.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:no, here's the flawed premise right here:The_barBEARian said:OsoCoreyell said:
It's really a pretty simple bit of calculus - A world where a nation that is dedicated to the destruction of the US and its allies cannot be allowed to possess a usable "ultimate" weapon. The cost of preventing it will almost certainly be better than the alternative.
Your premise is flawed because that world already exists.
We have experienced "the cost" of not preventing North Korea from producing nuclear weapons capable of striking the US and its allies.
"Is there anyone here willing to explain your support for initiating a war with Iran when Iran has made no credible threats toward the US homeland? Please raise your Israeli flags high and explain why Americans being financial slaves to Israel isnt enough for you... we actually need to go fight their wars and die for them too."
I mean, you are just a complete loon on foreign policy, and a disingenuous one at that. You scream until you're purple in the face about Israel being our enemy because of a friendly-fire incident over 50 years ago that took the lives of 34 American sailors, yet say Iran has made no credible threats against us? I mean, what planet have you been living on? Iranian trained & armed & commanded proxies have killed thousands of Americans over the last 40 years. Their regime conducts orgiastic Tatbir demonstrations chanting "death to America" and you will happily let them have nuclear weapons?
I mean, you just shape the whole g-dam*ed world to fit your irrational anger.
Look what Ukraine did to Russia last week with simple conventional weapons launched from shipping containers mounted on trucks driven within close range of the targets. What could such tactics do in ship-borne containers with one or more Iranian nuclear weapons? You really think there's no chance they'd be prepared to do it? Why should we have to face such a threat?
How many shipping containers are there in our ports at any given time?
How do you propose to defend us against an asymmetrical nuclear attack launched from one or more of them?
Sheesh.....
I'm not a loon or disingenuous. You are. The fact that you call the USS Liberty attack a friendly fire incident and not a false flag attack WHICH THE ACTUAL LIVING AMERICAN SOLDIERS WHO SURVIVED THE ATTACK CALL IT means you are either stupid, evil, or on the Israeli payroll.
Virtually all Islamic terrorism in the west has been committed by Sunni Islamists.
Saudi Arabia exports far more terrorism across the globe than Iran. Yet we make the Saudis and the rest of the Gulf Arabs rich so they dont threaten Israel. Look up wahhabism.
Iranians trained and armed proxies who killed Americans in Iraq and other parts of the Middle East who had no business being there! Why arent any of the politicians who lied about weapons of mass destruction in jail? I feel bad for all the guys my age who died or were maimed fighting Israel's wars. They were lied to by Netanyahu and Boomer politicians.
Your last two paragraphs read like they came straight from the IDF ministry of propaganda. The Israelis like to project their own evil ideas onto Iran to create fear and anxiety in with the American public. Israel is more likely to strap nukes onto drones and launch them at American cities in a false flag attack to get the American public to go to war with Iran.
You can start with "1983 Beirut barracks bombing."
Then you can follow up with "operation preying mantis."
The Marine barracks bombing killed 8x as many US servicemen and was no accident.
Iranian sponsored terrorism has killed THOUSANDS of Americans.
Yet, you scream anti-semitic conspiracy theories about the US Liberty incident, a fog of war case of mistaken identity for which Israel apologized and paid restitution to USG and families of dead and survivors. It also offered assistance to the ship immediately after the incident (clearly realizing it had made a grievous error). The incident has been exhaustively examined. The ship was in a hot war zone in close proximity to an Israeli city being fired upon and the Liberty was presumed to have been an Egyptian Navy ship doing the shelling. The Liberty should not have been where it was. USG should have alerted the Israeli government of its presence in the area. And of course there were a number of Israeli errors as well. (Israel had a significant friendly fire incident of its own that same day in the same area.) And it all occurred in a era long before GPS, sophisticated IFF systems, and intergrated command protocols between allies, etc....
Your lack of balance here fatally undermines any credibility. You arguments desperately seek to destroy our most capable and reliable ally in the region while absolving any accountability for a regime which is by any reasonable measure our most implacable enemy in the post Cold War era.
You ****ing liar!
I can literally go on youtube and watch interviews with multiple survivors of the USS Liberty attack give first hand testimony that completely disputes everything you just wrote.
So am I suppose to take the word of the IDF regurgitate from your dementia addeled mouth or the first hand account of the surviving USS Liberty American servicemen?
As for Lebanon... why did it go from a predominately Christian country to a predominately Muslim country? Because Israel kept expanding its territory and sending Palestinians into Lebanon.
Rather than backing Israel, who steals our military secrets and technology and sells it to the Chinese and commits false flag attacks our servicemen and operates pedophile rings with little American girls, we should have given the Lebanese Christians unconditional support and pushed all the Muslims back into Israel.
During Israel's Six Day War in 1967, Israeli planes attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence-gathering ship in international waters. The ship was damaged, killing 34 sailors and injuring 131. Israel claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity but there's substantial reason to believe it was intentional.
In his book The US-Israeli Train Wreck, Jeff Gates wrote that Johnson ordered Navy fighters to return to their carrier rather than rescue the Liberty. He quotes Republican Congressman Robert Findley, who listened in on a phone conversation between Johnson and Admiral Giess, as hearing Johnson say, "Get those planes back on deck. I don't care if the ship sinks, I will not embarrass Israel."
LBJ conspired with Israel and the CIA to assasinate Kenndy as well as supply guns to Israel for the Nakba so of course he didnt care about the sailors on the USS LIberty.
In his book The US-Israeli Train Wreck, Jeff Gates wrote that Johnson ordered Navy fighters to return to their carrier rather than rescue the Liberty. He quotes Republican Congressman Robert Findley, who listened in on a phone conversation between Johnson and Admiral Giess, as hearing Johnson say, "Get those planes back on deck. I don't care if the ship sinks, I will not embarrass Israel."
LBJ conspired with Israel and the CIA to assasinate Kenndy as well as supply guns to Israel for the Nakba so of course he didnt care about the sailors on the USS LIberty.
The sources were in Israeli intelligence.Mothra said:Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Oh Lord have mercy. Come on, dude. Not you as well.muddybrazos said:
During Israel's Six Day War in 1967, Israeli planes attacked the USS Liberty, an intelligence-gathering ship in international waters. The ship was damaged, killing 34 sailors and injuring 131. Israel claimed the attack was a case of mistaken identity but there's substantial reason to believe it was intentional.
In his book The US-Israeli Train Wreck, Jeff Gates wrote that Johnson ordered Navy fighters to return to their carrier rather than rescue the Liberty. He quotes Republican Congressman Robert Findley, who listened in on a phone conversation between Johnson and Admiral Giess, as hearing Johnson say, "Get those planes back on deck. I don't care if the ship sinks, I will not embarrass Israel."
LBJ conspired with Israel and the CIA to assasinate Kenndy as well as supply guns to Israel for the Nakba so of course he didnt care about the sailors on the USS LIberty.
First, none of what you just posted provides even a shred of evidence that Israel knew it was attacking a U.S. ship. Even if the US didn't want to embarrass Israel, that does not mean that what Israel did wasn't a massive mistake.
Second, there simply is no credible evidence that LBJ conspired with anyone to assassinate Kennedy. These conspiracy theories have been out there for years, and have been repeatedly debunked.
Fellow conservatives, get off the crazy conspiracy wagon!
It was an Arab news outlet - friendly with Iran - that reported that.Sam Lowry said:The sources were in Israeli intelligence.Mothra said:Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Nope.Mothra said:It was an Arab news outlet - friendly with Iran - that reported that.Sam Lowry said:The sources were in Israeli intelligence.Mothra said:Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
https://theasialive.com/israeli-airstrikes-compromised-by-iranian-defense-radar-lock-october-offensive-fails-to-break-through/2024/11/13/
Mothra said:It was an Arab news outlet - friendly with Iran - that reported that.Sam Lowry said:The sources were in Israeli intelligence.Mothra said:Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Yup.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/26/israel-strike-iran-missile-production
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/assessment-of-israeli-strike-on-iran-near-esfahan/
Churchill was deeply in debt for most of his life, with an extravagant lifestyle and horrendous investment history, he was helped by friends, some of whom happened to be Jewish. What your argument fails to take into account was that the war began without Churchill, who did not become Prime MInister until May 1940. WW2 began because Hitler invaded Poland, which was more than even Neville Chamberlain could appease. If you read history (the real thing, Not David Irving) you will note bankers tend to like helping countries with their military development, but would urge the avoidance of total war, as they understood that only bankers on the winning side survive.muddybrazos said:I think there is sufficient evidence that Churchill was having his personal debts settled by bankers who wanted the war. Also, Roosevelt wanted the war to get us out of the great depression. There is no doubt in my mind that WW1 and 2 were bankers wars and the bankers funded both sides. JP Morgan bankrolled the nazis too.Mothra said:I like Pat, but that book was hot garbage. Roundly criticized by those across the political spectrum - including many conservatives - for failing to cite sources for his positions, and engaging in a lot of half-truths.muddybrazos said:Mothra said:I realize that for anti-semites such as yourself, it always about the Jews. But my respect for Carlson began to plumet when his defense team admitted under oath that much of what he says is mere fiction, designed to garner ratings. He became a purveyor of fringe conspiracy theories, and of course has repeated Russian propaganda continuously on his show for the last 3 years. I think the disgraceful interview with Putin, where he was essentially sucking Putin's dick on live TV, is what finally did it for me. And of course, having the "historian" who essentially defended Nazi Germany several months ago was also not a good look.The_barBEARian said:Mothra said:
B. Tucker Carlson believes that influential people are lobbying Trump for regime change in Iran as we speak. We now have reports out of Israel that Netanyahu is agitating for action against Iran while Trump is trying to cool things down. Are you not worried in the least about what is going on here?
I used to like Carlson, but I now consider him an absolute nutjob and pariah, and don't trust a thing he says, as the man is an admitted liar and agitator who stirs up condescension for clicks. However, if what Carlson is saying is true (and I say that with the caveat that there is zero evidence of his statements), then yes, I would be concerned. But I trust that Trump, given his past conduct, is smart enough not to involve us in another extended ground war and nation building exercise.
Translation: I used to like Tucker, but then he started telling to truth about Israel and I couldnt stand the idea of the gentiles being informed about how they are being royally ****ed over by their "greatest ally"
I am admittedly unfamiliar with much of what he's said since he left Fox, so you're going to be a lot more familiar with his statements about Israel than I am. I am sure you hang on every word."Hitler never wanted war with Britain.
— History Uncensored (@PastUncensored) April 20, 2025
He never wanted a World War."
— Pat Buchanan (Senior Advisor to President Ronald Reagan) pic.twitter.com/Zk4KYcHyJx
I watched that episode with "Martyr Made" and the guy was right on all his points. It seems like Pat Buchanan, who I consider one of the smartest men alive agrees with him as well
Pat shouldve been our president and our country wouldve been much better off today had he been.
There was no black or white, right or wrong here. There usually never is in history. But the idea that Churchill was responsible for WWII is debunked hogwash.
“No eye has seen, no ear has heard, and no mind has imagined what God has prepared for those who love Him.” 1 Corinthians 2:9
Both of those outlets are American, and neither one even mentions the issue at hand. One of them is from six months earlier.Bear8084 said:Mothra said:It was an Arab news outlet - friendly with Iran - that reported that.Sam Lowry said:The sources were in Israeli intelligence.Mothra said:Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Yup.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/26/israel-strike-iran-missile-production
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/assessment-of-israeli-strike-on-iran-near-esfahan/
You're not doing great here, even for a bot.
Sam Lowry said:Both of those outlets are American, and neither of them even mentions the issue at hand.Bear8084 said:Mothra said:It was an Arab news outlet - friendly with Iran - that reported that.Sam Lowry said:The sources were in Israeli intelligence.Mothra said:Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Yup.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/26/israel-strike-iran-missile-production
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/assessment-of-israeli-strike-on-iran-near-esfahan/
You're not doing great here, even for a bot.
LOL "The Asia Live" You were caught lying again with a propaganda rag.
Where can I find a Thai restaurant in Plano?Bear8084 said:Sam Lowry said:Both of those outlets are American, and neither of them even mentions the issue at hand.Bear8084 said:Mothra said:It was an Arab news outlet - friendly with Iran - that reported that.Sam Lowry said:The sources were in Israeli intelligence.Mothra said:Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Yup.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/26/israel-strike-iran-missile-production
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/assessment-of-israeli-strike-on-iran-near-esfahan/
You're not doing great here, even for a bot.
LOL "The Asia Live" You were caught lying again with a propaganda rag.
Sam Lowry said:Where can I find a Thai restaurant in Plano?Bear8084 said:Sam Lowry said:Both of those outlets are American, and neither of them even mentions the issue at hand.Bear8084 said:Mothra said:It was an Arab news outlet - friendly with Iran - that reported that.Sam Lowry said:The sources were in Israeli intelligence.Mothra said:Correction: that is what Iranian sources claim happened. There is no credible evidence that it actually happened.Sam Lowry said:Well, that's not what happened last fall. The Iranians were able to lock on to the stealth fighters and forced them to retreat before they could get close.ATL Bear said:I'm not going to war game, but scrambling and other air defense systems would be taken out by missile attacks well before any fighters were even close to Iran.Sam Lowry said:Air superiority is indeed questionable after last year's developments, especially the aborted stealth fighter mission in October. The cost to Israel would be devastating if not existential. And in any case, while they might set Iran's nuclear program back, there's no way to eliminate it from the air.ATL Bear said:They don't need to conquer and invade Iran in a traditional land war for the intended objectives. They've been restrained from escalated responses for decades by the U.S.. Their ability to establish air superiority over Iran would be unquestioned.Sam Lowry said:
Israel knows it can't take on Iran by itself. The only way it happens is if an American president is weak enough to follow their lead, or an Israeli PM is desperate enough not to care. Unfortunately both factors may well be in play.
And I've never heard you call Putin weak, while Iran and their backers have been a much greater threat to Israel than Ukraine ever was or is to Russia.
Putin's analogue in your comparison would be Netanyahu, not Trump, so I don't know what that is supposed to mean.
And I thought "weak" Putin started this by supporting Crimean and Eastern Ukraine allies?
Yup.
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/26/israel-strike-iran-missile-production
https://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/assessment-of-israeli-strike-on-iran-near-esfahan/
You're not doing great here, even for a bot.
LOL "The Asia Live" You were caught lying again with a propaganda rag.
Funny. But nah.
Oops.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-israel-attack-shahroud-guard-base-satellite-photos-b9cdb18b252d6dd9014dc4dcb3dd4b2f
Oops.
Oops.
Those planes sure turned back.
I'm sure someone will try to share another propaganda piece from IloveIrannewslive or Russiaisgreatworldreports shady "news" sites.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-israel-attack-shahroud-guard-base-satellite-photos-b9cdb18b252d6dd9014dc4dcb3dd4b2f
Oops.
@planet Planetscope satellites are on defined orbits with predictable imaging windows. They imaged the Ghadir radar site 22 times this month, always at the same time give or take 10 minutes. The imagery after Oct 25 shows discoloration that cannot be shadows. The radar was likely… https://t.co/JXHekLqKdR pic.twitter.com/jxcFkmHtvk
— Decker Eveleth (@dex_eve) October 28, 2024
Oops.
שרשור עדכונים על התקיפה באיראן והערה לשונית:
— Ben Tzion Macales (@BenTzionMacales) October 28, 2024
מתקן מכ"מ קדיר לא רחוק מהעיר אילאם, במערב איראן, היה אחד מיעדי התקיפה.
מכ"ם חדש שנבנה במהלך 2023.
אותר על ידי @AuroraIntel
📍 33.5244900, 46.3259060https://t.co/VT78dd4yJF
>> pic.twitter.com/DGFkG114qJ
Those planes sure turned back.
I'm sure someone will try to share another propaganda piece from IloveIrannewslive or Russiaisgreatworldreports shady "news" sites.
Which planes? I don't remember anyone saying there were no hits at all. The point is that the defenses were stronger than expected.Bear8084 said:
Those planes sure turned back.
1. We won't agree on the UK. I suppose I could reject your premise based on an arbitrary cutoff date, but that is the card you play....Mothra said:
1) UK terrorism - agree many of the events you listed are terrible, and also agree with you that some might fit within the textbook definition of terrorism (though I am not sure Dresden or the murder triangle fall within that definition). But I also note that all but 3 of these events happened more than 100 years ago. Bloody Sunday was the most recent at more than 50 years ago. Dresden was 1945, and occurred during WWII as the Allies were trying to bomb Germany into submission (which, for the record, Germany had of course also done to the UK).
Quote:
3) Reasonable/rational - Ah, so your plan for dealing with Iran is to let "the UN, EU and KSA take the lead on Iran with passive support from us," despite the fact that you have no idea what that means, think negotiations are a complete waste of time and are cool with them going to war with Iran. And you're not saying that means negotiations, despite the fact that is all the UN and EU are doing with Iran.
LOL. Man, that sounds like a well-thought out, clearly-defined plan.
3. My plan is Fortress America. You seem to be poorly informed about the logistical and operational challenges in preventing Iran from getting nukes, especially if your commitment is only to do it from the air. Serious question: Do you even try to read up on and study this stuff? You realize that your plan has already failed, right? Negotiations and containment have failed. In April of 2025 the NYT did extensive reporting on Bibi's April White House trip and what was really going on (officially, the trip was about trade). Key points:
- Israel's grand plan for the next phase of prevention is a small ground engagement. Bibi had a plan for Israeli commandos to go underground and destroy Iran's facilities and Iran's nuclear material. I am told that in Israeli circles it was reported this would amount to a suicide mission for said commandos (I don't read Hebrew, so I haven't read it for myself). In other words, Israel is already convinced that Iran has moved beyond the phase in which this can be contained from a distance and we are now in the face-to-face combat phase of this issue.
- More worrying, Israel apparently told our intelligence officials that their modern-day Doolittle Raid would only set back Iran by a year.
- Israel was pushing for American bombing runs to clear the path of Iranian defenses as much as possible, for an American carrier group to support the raid, and for American helicopters to get what few Israeli soldiers survived out of Iran. They also wanted American commitment to defend Israel from Iran in the ensuing counterattack.
- Trump turned Bibi down in part because American intelligence believes that Iran's fissile material is already hidden and spread out throughout the Iranian country and the proposed strike would not achieve the intended goals.
Takeaways: First, Iran is going to get nukes if Israel already believes that it cannot stop Iran solely with airstrikes. Second, if Israel's best plan only sets back Iran one year, Iran is going to get nukes. Third, breaching a secure underground facility with minimal entrance/exit routes is far from guaranteed success, even with the superiority of the American military logistically backing the effort. It seems obvious to me that our country will soon be making a decision between ground war to remove WMDs or letting Iran have the WMDs. Reject premises all you want. Negotiate to your heart's content. But that is what coming and I am telling you not to be surprised when "Iran must not get nukes" gets transformed into "our boys and girls need to go over to Iran to take their nukes."
Quote:
5) Did ATL - you know the poster you greatly respect - wish to make a point as well, or did perhaps you not clearly convey what you meant (or, perhaps, more accurately, move the goalposts)?
5. I do not know about ATL. I do believe that you are an ideologue who reads more into words than is actually said. Your behavior here establishes as much.
Quote:
1) There is an objection that has long been used at trial by lawyers called "assuming facts not in evidence." It is used to challenge questions that rely on facts that haven't been properly presented or accepted as true. That is what your question was, as it assumed a false dilemma - that a ground war would be necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. You've failed to make the case for that position, and that is why I object your premise.
While there may be some committed to a ground war with Iran, I certainly don't believe Trump falls within that category. I also don't believe most of Europe's leaders falls within that category.
Why didn't you say so? Had I understood that your thinking is bound by the parameters of civ and crim pro I would have known you are incapable of abstract thought. We wasted a lot of time establishing that. Look, abstract thought is for the appellate level. You should come back when you are ready for the big leagues.
Game on?
Breaking: Israel has carried out a strike against Iran, Israel's defense minister said https://t.co/GMc4wzWdCg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 13, 2025
Remember Iran is the terrorist.
ATL Bear said:
Game on?Breaking: Israel has carried out a strike against Iran, Israel's defense minister said https://t.co/GMc4wzWdCg
— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) June 13, 2025
DO NOT DIE FIGHTING ISRAEL'S WARS!!!!
NOT OUR WAR!!!
DallasBear9902 said:1. We won't agree on the UK. I suppose I could reject your premise based on an arbitrary cutoff date, but that is the card you play....Mothra said:
1) UK terrorism - agree many of the events you listed are terrible, and also agree with you that some might fit within the textbook definition of terrorism (though I am not sure Dresden or the murder triangle fall within that definition). But I also note that all but 3 of these events happened more than 100 years ago. Bloody Sunday was the most recent at more than 50 years ago. Dresden was 1945, and occurred during WWII as the Allies were trying to bomb Germany into submission (which, for the record, Germany had of course also done to the UK).Quote:
3) Reasonable/rational - Ah, so your plan for dealing with Iran is to let "the UN, EU and KSA take the lead on Iran with passive support from us," despite the fact that you have no idea what that means, think negotiations are a complete waste of time and are cool with them going to war with Iran. And you're not saying that means negotiations, despite the fact that is all the UN and EU are doing with Iran.
LOL. Man, that sounds like a well-thought out, clearly-defined plan.
3. My plan is Fortress America. You seem to be poorly informed about the logistical and operational challenges in preventing Iran from getting nukes, especially if your commitment is only to do it from the air. Serious question: Do you even try to read up on and study this stuff? You realize that your plan has already failed, right? Negotiations and containment have failed. In April of 2025 the NYT did extensive reporting on Bibi's April White House trip and what was really going on (officially, the trip was about trade). Key points:
- Israel's grand plan for the next phase of prevention is a small ground engagement. Bibi had a plan for Israeli commandos to go underground and destroy Iran's facilities and Iran's nuclear material. I am told that in Israeli circles it was reported this would amount to a suicide mission for said commandos (I don't read Hebrew, so I haven't read it for myself). In other words, Israel is already convinced that Iran has moved beyond the phase in which this can be contained from a distance and we are now in the face-to-face combat phase of this issue.
- More worrying, Israel apparently told our intelligence officials that their modern-day Doolittle Raid would only set back Iran by a year.
- Israel was pushing for American bombing runs to clear the path of Iranian defenses as much as possible, for an American carrier group to support the raid, and for American helicopters to get what few Israeli soldiers survived out of Iran. They also wanted American commitment to defend Israel from Iran in the ensuing counterattack.
- Trump turned Bibi down in part because American intelligence believes that Iran's fissile material is already hidden and spread out throughout the Iranian country and the proposed strike would not achieve the intended goals.
Takeaways: First, Iran is going to get nukes if Israel already believes that it cannot stop Iran solely with airstrikes. Second, if Israel's best plan only sets back Iran one year, Iran is going to get nukes. Third, breaching a secure underground facility with minimal entrance/exit routes is far from guaranteed success, even with the superiority of the American military logistically backing the effort. It seems obvious to me that our country will soon be making a decision between ground war to remove WMDs or letting Iran have the WMDs. Reject premises all you want. Negotiate to your heart's content. But that is what coming and I am telling you not to be surprised when "Iran must not get nukes" gets transformed into "our boys and girls need to go over to Iran to take their nukes."Quote:
5) Did ATL - you know the poster you greatly respect - wish to make a point as well, or did perhaps you not clearly convey what you meant (or, perhaps, more accurately, move the goalposts)?
5. I do not know about ATL. I do believe that you are an ideologue who reads more into words than is actually said. Your behavior here establishes as much.Quote:
1) There is an objection that has long been used at trial by lawyers called "assuming facts not in evidence." It is used to challenge questions that rely on facts that haven't been properly presented or accepted as true. That is what your question was, as it assumed a false dilemma - that a ground war would be necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes. You've failed to make the case for that position, and that is why I object your premise.
While there may be some committed to a ground war with Iran, I certainly don't believe Trump falls within that category. I also don't believe most of Europe's leaders falls within that category.
Why didn't you say so? Had I understood that your thinking is bound by the parameters of civ and crim pro I would have known you are incapable of abstract thought. We wasted a lot of time establishing that. Look, abstract thought is for the appellate level. You should come back when you are ready for the big leagues.
You're good at word salads, but your problem is you're an amateur who fancies himself an intellectual, and suck at making consistent, cogent and logically consistent arguments. It's not an appellate lawyer I'm dealing with but a small claims court attorney (btw hilarious you think appellate attorneys reason on a different plain than litigators - you obviously know nothing about lawyering).
Good. Iran can't have nuclear weapons. We approved and probly Saudi's were informed too, I would guess