boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

I'll take "Freedom, But Must Pay for Damages to Public and Private Property" for $1000, Alex.

There is lots of space in between incarceration/death and laissez faire on soft crime.

---

I thought the most interesting part of the Cruz-Tucker debate was the bit about Iran trying to kill the president. I agree with Tucker's point. If Iran actually is trying to actively kill Donald Trump then absolutely I would support going to war with them and annihilating the…

— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 19, 2025

1/x @MattWalshBlog I agree that it was interesting. But it would have more so had Tucker not been utterly fact-free.

“I’ve never heard of Iran trying to kill Trump!” [high-pitched laughter]

It’s an objective fact. Here’s the DOJ indictment: https://t.co/vkFJDNb8S2 https://t.co/cX6nTbRI3m

— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 19, 2025

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

I'll take "Freedom, But Must Pay for Damages to Public and Private Property" for $1000, Alex.

There is lots of space in between incarceration/death and laissez faire on soft crime.

---

I'd like to get back to the 80ties and 90ties when American cities were the envy of the world... instead of today, where we are laughed at and no one wants to visit and experience 3rd world conditions.

I think we still had plenty of freedom in the 80ties and 90ties....

---

muddybrazos said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

I'll take "Freedom, But Must Pay for Damages to Public and Private Property" for $1000, Alex.

There is lots of space in between incarceration/death and laissez faire on soft crime.

---

I'd like to get back to the 80ties and 90ties when American cities were the envy of the world... instead of today, where we are laughed at and no one wants to visit and experience 3rd world conditions.

I think we still had plenty of freedom in the 80ties and 90ties....

---

Its not that bad today. Early 90s NYC was much worse crime wise due to the crack epidemic. LA is a much bigger s-hole now than it was in the 80s-90s, though. It depends on the city TBH. Chicago def has a terrible mayor but as long as you are on the north side its still pretty nice.

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I'm generally pretty strong anti-interventionist. But not totally isolationist. I was against going into Iraq. Not enough of a real credible threat, no real tie to 9/11. Saddam's ego got him because he wouldn't admit what he didn't have. There are parallels here. But there are also sharp contrasts. Mullah terrorists with a long track record of threatening and harming not just their Zionist foils but also US citizens, in Iran and around the Middle East and the US. Also, more reason to be worried about Iran's long-term desire to develop nukes. Also, some reason to think the Persians have a deeper bench of options behind this regime than Iraq had behind Saddam. Still, if the Mullahs would give up their nuclear chase and show their cards, fine, we are all good. We can keep sparing them the ass kicking they've been begging for the last few decades. But if they won't, you can only make that mistake in one direction. We can live with a false positive. Can't live with a false negative. That combined with Israel as your dog of war ... about as good a combo as you're going to get. Take out the Mullahs' nuclear assets (which also requires taking out most of the rest of their military assets). Whatever happens next happens. Hopefully the Iranian people step up. Plenty of other people around the ME silently rooting for the Zionists to get rid of the Mullahs and simplify their lives. Will be interesting.

---

Well said. Pretty much describes my thoughts.

---

Let's assume you're both right. At what point is it okay to attack deplorable "thoughts?"

Also, why do we ignore that "traditionally" being a nuclear country has in itself been a deterrent against aggression, especially atomic aggression?

To me, this looks and feels like Iraq, again.

---

When it's a nuclear weapon, and you have clear evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, that's amps the seriousness about a thousand fold.

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I'm generally pretty strong anti-interventionist. But not totally isolationist. I was against going into Iraq. Not enough of a real credible threat, no real tie to 9/11. Saddam's ego got him because he wouldn't admit what he didn't have. There are parallels here. But there are also sharp contrasts. Mullah terrorists with a long track record of threatening and harming not just their Zionist foils but also US citizens, in Iran and around the Middle East and the US. Also, more reason to be worried about Iran's long-term desire to develop nukes. Also, some reason to think the Persians have a deeper bench of options behind this regime than Iraq had behind Saddam. Still, if the Mullahs would give up their nuclear chase and show their cards, fine, we are all good. We can keep sparing them the ass kicking they've been begging for the last few decades. But if they won't, you can only make that mistake in one direction. We can live with a false positive. Can't live with a false negative. That combined with Israel as your dog of war ... about as good a combo as you're going to get. Take out the Mullahs' nuclear assets (which also requires taking out most of the rest of their military assets). Whatever happens next happens. Hopefully the Iranian people step up. Plenty of other people around the ME silently rooting for the Zionists to get rid of the Mullahs and simplify their lives. Will be interesting.

---

Israel is capable of dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities without US involvement.

If they have 100% air superiority over Iran that they brag about, they can drop IDF troops onto Fordo and blow it up from the inside.

The only thing the American military can do that the IDF can't at this point is a prolonged military occupation with the goal of regime change.... I haven't seen anyone psychotic enough even on this message board to endorse such a catastrophically stupid idea.

There should be ZERO US involvement. There is no need to risk Americans lives.

---

Israel doesn't have our bunker busting bombs, but I generally agree that Israel can do it without US involvement. Which is why it's so odd that anyone has a problem with this exercise, if the US stays out of it.

I think it's merely people such as yourself borrowing trouble.

---

As I said, Israel can put IDF troops on the ground and assault Fordo the old fashioned way and once they have operational control over the site they can dismantle it.

They would probably take casualties but what are they expecting? Americans to do all the dying fighting a war they started without our consent?

---

So, again, per my post, if the US stays out of it, and Israel takes out a nuclear threat, then I remain unclear why you have any issue with this operation.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I'm generally pretty strong anti-interventionist. But not totally isolationist. I was against going into Iraq. Not enough of a real credible threat, no real tie to 9/11. Saddam's ego got him because he wouldn't admit what he didn't have. There are parallels here. But there are also sharp contrasts. Mullah terrorists with a long track record of threatening and harming not just their Zionist foils but also US citizens, in Iran and around the Middle East and the US. Also, more reason to be worried about Iran's long-term desire to develop nukes. Also, some reason to think the Persians have a deeper bench of options behind this regime than Iraq had behind Saddam. Still, if the Mullahs would give up their nuclear chase and show their cards, fine, we are all good. We can keep sparing them the ass kicking they've been begging for the last few decades. But if they won't, you can only make that mistake in one direction. We can live with a false positive. Can't live with a false negative. That combined with Israel as your dog of war ... about as good a combo as you're going to get. Take out the Mullahs' nuclear assets (which also requires taking out most of the rest of their military assets). Whatever happens next happens. Hopefully the Iranian people step up. Plenty of other people around the ME silently rooting for the Zionists to get rid of the Mullahs and simplify their lives. Will be interesting.

---

Well said. Pretty much describes my thoughts.

---

Let's assume you're both right. At what point is it okay to attack deplorable "thoughts?"

Also, why do we ignore that "traditionally" being a nuclear country has in itself been a deterrent against aggression, especially atomic aggression?

To me, this looks and feels like Iraq, again.

---

When it's a nuclear weapon, and you have clear evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, that's amps the seriousness about a thousand fold.

---

Which we don't, not even close.

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

J.R. said:

---

I don't necessarily have a problem dropping the Bunker Busters to destroy their Nuclear program , however, if we help Izzy, I would insist a lasting FIX for Gaza (a Palestinian State) with no Netanyahu BS in return. I DO NOT trust Netanyahu and his govt in the least.

---

A Palestinian state controlled by Hamas or Iranian proxies from which Palestinians could continue to launch attacks? No thanks.

Nobody outside of Iran really wants a Palestinian state in that region. They know it would be a total ****show and a source for future conflicts.

---

The proof of that is how many Arab nations have offered the Palestinians land? I would say the Kurds are more welcome in Turkey than the Palestinians are anywhere else

---

Why aren't we offering Palestinians land? Nevada is sparsely populated.

Palestinians have land. They lived on it peacefully until 1948. Over the last 35 years, they've seen nothing but incursions onto their land by their neighbor in violation of international law.

Your solution cannot be that they now become a ward in another person's homeland?

---

Israel of course has a fast expanding population. (9.5 million now...heading out to 18 million by 2059)

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I'm generally pretty strong anti-interventionist. But not totally isolationist. I was against going into Iraq. Not enough of a real credible threat, no real tie to 9/11. Saddam's ego got him because he wouldn't admit what he didn't have. There are parallels here. But there are also sharp contrasts. Mullah terrorists with a long track record of threatening and harming not just their Zionist foils but also US citizens, in Iran and around the Middle East and the US. Also, more reason to be worried about Iran's long-term desire to develop nukes. Also, some reason to think the Persians have a deeper bench of options behind this regime than Iraq had behind Saddam. Still, if the Mullahs would give up their nuclear chase and show their cards, fine, we are all good. We can keep sparing them the ass kicking they've been begging for the last few decades. But if they won't, you can only make that mistake in one direction. We can live with a false positive. Can't live with a false negative. That combined with Israel as your dog of war ... about as good a combo as you're going to get. Take out the Mullahs' nuclear assets (which also requires taking out most of the rest of their military assets). Whatever happens next happens. Hopefully the Iranian people step up. Plenty of other people around the ME silently rooting for the Zionists to get rid of the Mullahs and simplify their lives. Will be interesting.

---

Israel is capable of dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities without US involvement.

If they have 100% air superiority over Iran that they brag about, they can drop IDF troops onto Fordo and blow it up from the inside.

The only thing the American military can do that the IDF can't at this point is a prolonged military occupation with the goal of regime change.... I haven't seen anyone psychotic enough even on this message board to endorse such a catastrophically stupid idea.

There should be ZERO US involvement. There is no need to risk Americans lives.

---

Israel doesn't have our bunker busting bombs, but I generally agree that Israel can do it without US involvement. Which is why it's so odd that anyone has a problem with this exercise, if the US stays out of it.

I think it's merely people such as yourself borrowing trouble.

---

As I said, Israel can put IDF troops on the ground and assault Fordo the old fashioned way and once they have operational control over the site they can dismantle it.

They would probably take casualties but what are they expecting? Americans to do all the dying fighting a war they started without our consent?

---

So, again, per my post, if the US stays out of it, and Israel takes out a nuclear threat, then I remain unclear why you have any issue with this operation.

Are you merely speculating that we are going to put troops in harm's way?

---

I had a problem with it because:

1) I do not believe Iran was developing nuclear weapons. I think it was just another false Israeli pretext for removing Iran as an obstacle to the eventual goal of Greater Israel. I believe Iran was leaving the possibility open as deterrence against precisely what just happened last week until they got an satisfactory deal with the US.

2) There would be massive damage to the global economy. Oil prices have gone up 10% but so far its been less damaging than when Joe Biden stole the 2020 election

3) China or Russia could step in. Russia had a mutual defense treaty with Iran which I guess they decided to piss on. And after Russia, China gets most of their oil and gas out of Iran so from a strategic perspective it would make some sense for them to make a move to protect their supply chains.

4) Another massive refugee crisis like what was caused by our never ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that destabilized the region and led to the "Arab Spring" and culminated with the 2016 Syrian civil war.

As long the current status quo remains and Israel puts boots on the ground to finish the war they started and the US doesnt get involved I would say crisis averted and Trump played this as well as could be expected.

---

If the Mullahs get replaced with a democratic govt., the Iranian people - who loathe their leaders - will be dancing in the streets.

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

If I named my son Jesus, would you worship him as God because he has the same name as the Jesus from the Bible?

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) June 18, 2025

---

But pretty difficult to argue the Jewish people living in Israel aren't actually Israel.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I'm generally pretty strong anti-interventionist. But not totally isolationist. I was against going into Iraq. Not enough of a real credible threat, no real tie to 9/11. Saddam's ego got him because he wouldn't admit what he didn't have. There are parallels here. But there are also sharp contrasts. Mullah terrorists with a long track record of threatening and harming not just their Zionist foils but also US citizens, in Iran and around the Middle East and the US. Also, more reason to be worried about Iran's long-term desire to develop nukes. Also, some reason to think the Persians have a deeper bench of options behind this regime than Iraq had behind Saddam. Still, if the Mullahs would give up their nuclear chase and show their cards, fine, we are all good. We can keep sparing them the ass kicking they've been begging for the last few decades. But if they won't, you can only make that mistake in one direction. We can live with a false positive. Can't live with a false negative. That combined with Israel as your dog of war ... about as good a combo as you're going to get. Take out the Mullahs' nuclear assets (which also requires taking out most of the rest of their military assets). Whatever happens next happens. Hopefully the Iranian people step up. Plenty of other people around the ME silently rooting for the Zionists to get rid of the Mullahs and simplify their lives. Will be interesting.

---

Israel is capable of dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities without US involvement.

If they have 100% air superiority over Iran that they brag about, they can drop IDF troops onto Fordo and blow it up from the inside.

The only thing the American military can do that the IDF can't at this point is a prolonged military occupation with the goal of regime change.... I haven't seen anyone psychotic enough even on this message board to endorse such a catastrophically stupid idea.

There should be ZERO US involvement. There is no need to risk Americans lives.

---

Israel doesn't have our bunker busting bombs, but I generally agree that Israel can do it without US involvement. Which is why it's so odd that anyone has a problem with this exercise, if the US stays out of it.

I think it's merely people such as yourself borrowing trouble.

---

As I said, Israel can put IDF troops on the ground and assault Fordo the old fashioned way and once they have operational control over the site they can dismantle it.

They would probably take casualties but what are they expecting? Americans to do all the dying fighting a war they started without our consent?

---

So, again, per my post, if the US stays out of it, and Israel takes out a nuclear threat, then I remain unclear why you have any issue with this operation.

---

Just the fact that it's completely delusional.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I'm generally pretty strong anti-interventionist. But not totally isolationist. I was against going into Iraq. Not enough of a real credible threat, no real tie to 9/11. Saddam's ego got him because he wouldn't admit what he didn't have. There are parallels here. But there are also sharp contrasts. Mullah terrorists with a long track record of threatening and harming not just their Zionist foils but also US citizens, in Iran and around the Middle East and the US. Also, more reason to be worried about Iran's long-term desire to develop nukes. Also, some reason to think the Persians have a deeper bench of options behind this regime than Iraq had behind Saddam. Still, if the Mullahs would give up their nuclear chase and show their cards, fine, we are all good. We can keep sparing them the ass kicking they've been begging for the last few decades. But if they won't, you can only make that mistake in one direction. We can live with a false positive. Can't live with a false negative. That combined with Israel as your dog of war ... about as good a combo as you're going to get. Take out the Mullahs' nuclear assets (which also requires taking out most of the rest of their military assets). Whatever happens next happens. Hopefully the Iranian people step up. Plenty of other people around the ME silently rooting for the Zionists to get rid of the Mullahs and simplify their lives. Will be interesting.

---

Israel is capable of dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities without US involvement.

If they have 100% air superiority over Iran that they brag about, they can drop IDF troops onto Fordo and blow it up from the inside.

The only thing the American military can do that the IDF can't at this point is a prolonged military occupation with the goal of regime change.... I haven't seen anyone psychotic enough even on this message board to endorse such a catastrophically stupid idea.

There should be ZERO US involvement. There is no need to risk Americans lives.

---

Israel doesn't have our bunker busting bombs, but I generally agree that Israel can do it without US involvement. Which is why it's so odd that anyone has a problem with this exercise, if the US stays out of it.

I think it's merely people such as yourself borrowing trouble.

---

As I said, Israel can put IDF troops on the ground and assault Fordo the old fashioned way and once they have operational control over the site they can dismantle it.

They would probably take casualties but what are they expecting? Americans to do all the dying fighting a war they started without our consent?

---

So, again, per my post, if the US stays out of it, and Israel takes out a nuclear threat, then I remain unclear why you have any issue with this operation.

Are you merely speculating that we are going to put troops in harm's way?

---

I had a problem with it because:

1) I do not believe Iran was developing nuclear weapons. I think it was just another false Israeli pretext for removing Iran as an obstacle to the eventual goal of Greater Israel. I believe Iran was leaving the possibility open as deterrence against precisely what just happened last week until they got an satisfactory deal with the US.

2) There would be massive damage to the global economy. Oil prices have gone up 10% but so far its been less damaging than when Joe Biden stole the 2020 election

3) China or Russia could step in. Russia had a mutual defense treaty with Iran which I guess they decided to piss on. And after Russia, China gets most of their oil and gas out of Iran so from a strategic perspective it would make some sense for them to make a move to protect their supply chains.

4) Another massive refugee crisis like what was caused by our never ending wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that destabilized the region and led to the "Arab Spring" and culminated with the 2016 Syrian civil war.

As long the current status quo remains and Israel puts boots on the ground to finish the war they started and the US doesnt get involved I would say crisis averted and Trump played this as well as could be expected.

---

If the Mullahs get replaced with a democratic govt., the Iranian people - who loathe their leaders - will be dancing in the streets.

---

Gaza civilian deaths lowest in history.

Russian persecution worst in the world.

Iranians dancing in the streets.

You're on a roll, man!

---

"Why are you obsessed with israel?"

- @tedcruz pic.twitter.com/x06vBeBkLA

— Ken O'Keefe (@RealKenOKeefe) June 18, 2025

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I'm generally pretty strong anti-interventionist. But not totally isolationist. I was against going into Iraq. Not enough of a real credible threat, no real tie to 9/11. Saddam's ego got him because he wouldn't admit what he didn't have. There are parallels here. But there are also sharp contrasts. Mullah terrorists with a long track record of threatening and harming not just their Zionist foils but also US citizens, in Iran and around the Middle East and the US. Also, more reason to be worried about Iran's long-term desire to develop nukes. Also, some reason to think the Persians have a deeper bench of options behind this regime than Iraq had behind Saddam. Still, if the Mullahs would give up their nuclear chase and show their cards, fine, we are all good. We can keep sparing them the ass kicking they've been begging for the last few decades. But if they won't, you can only make that mistake in one direction. We can live with a false positive. Can't live with a false negative. That combined with Israel as your dog of war ... about as good a combo as you're going to get. Take out the Mullahs' nuclear assets (which also requires taking out most of the rest of their military assets). Whatever happens next happens. Hopefully the Iranian people step up. Plenty of other people around the ME silently rooting for the Zionists to get rid of the Mullahs and simplify their lives. Will be interesting.

---

Well said. Pretty much describes my thoughts.

---

Let's assume you're both right. At what point is it okay to attack deplorable "thoughts?"

Also, why do we ignore that "traditionally" being a nuclear country has in itself been a deterrent against aggression, especially atomic aggression?

To me, this looks and feels like Iraq, again.

---

When it's a nuclear weapon, and you have clear evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, that's amps the seriousness about a thousand fold.

---

Which we don't, not even close.

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

So you prefer Moscow to an American city.

Of course you do. This is the least surprising thing I've read all day.

---

JUST IN: 🇮🇷🇮🇱 Iran issues immediate evacuation notice to Israel's Dimona nuclear facility. pic.twitter.com/Ttr6E33Uc0

— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) June 19, 2025

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

"There has only been one single piece of footage I've personally seen that could indicate Israeli jets just barely skirted Iranian territory, wherein it looked like possible JDAMS were dropped on Kermanshah, which is just barely over 100km+ from the Iranian border:

JDAMS typically have a range of 25-50km, though the JDAM-ER can do 75km+ but it's uncertain if Israel possesses it. This strike could have represented Israeli jets getting a few miles over the border, but that's about as far as they're willing to go.

The big question is: why?

Because Israel has not yet degraded Iranian long range air defense whatsoever. The only videos of strikes Israel has shown were on a small handful of ancient Mim-23 Hawks, short-range Karmin-2, and the short-medium range Khordad systems. Nothing like the S-300-equivalent Bavar-373 has been attritioned at all, though Israel "claims" they have wiped out some made-up percentage of Iranian AD with zero substantiation.

It appears likely that Iran has withdrawn much of its longer, serious AD systems further east toward Isfahan and beyond in anticipation of large-scale US bombing strikes. This would be in accordance with an actual report of the withdrawal of heavy missile launchers to the same region, which are likewise being targeted by Israeli strikes.

Recall that Israel was never capable of even overflying Syrian territory, which had far weaker AD than IranIsrael bombed Syria from behind Mount Lebanon. Only after Jolani took over was Israel finally able to destroy the unmanned and abandoned Syrian AD network. Further, recall Israel had to fly its F-35s mere meters above the ground in Jordan during previous strikes against Iran, with reports claiming:

"The moment Israeli F-35I Adir fighter jets fly at extremely low altitude over Jordanian territory to avoid radar before striking Tehran."

Similarly, the US is incapable of overflying Yemen, and must launch stand off strikes lest the F-35s get "almost shot down" again when they approach too close to the border. Thus, Israel certainly is not at the moment capable of overflying Iran beyond, possibly, some small incursions just past the border."

Thoughrs from a knowledgeable observer.

---

LOL!!!! No.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Bear8084 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

"There has only been one single piece of footage I've personally seen that could indicate Israeli jets just barely skirted Iranian territory, wherein it looked like possible JDAMS were dropped on Kermanshah, which is just barely over 100km+ from the Iranian border:

JDAMS typically have a range of 25-50km, though the JDAM-ER can do 75km+ but it's uncertain if Israel possesses it. This strike could have represented Israeli jets getting a few miles over the border, but that's about as far as they're willing to go.

The big question is: why?

Because Israel has not yet degraded Iranian long range air defense whatsoever. The only videos of strikes Israel has shown were on a small handful of ancient Mim-23 Hawks, short-range Karmin-2, and the short-medium range Khordad systems. Nothing like the S-300-equivalent Bavar-373 has been attritioned at all, though Israel "claims" they have wiped out some made-up percentage of Iranian AD with zero substantiation.

It appears likely that Iran has withdrawn much of its longer, serious AD systems further east toward Isfahan and beyond in anticipation of large-scale US bombing strikes. This would be in accordance with an actual report of the withdrawal of heavy missile launchers to the same region, which are likewise being targeted by Israeli strikes.

Recall that Israel was never capable of even overflying Syrian territory, which had far weaker AD than IranIsrael bombed Syria from behind Mount Lebanon. Only after Jolani took over was Israel finally able to destroy the unmanned and abandoned Syrian AD network. Further, recall Israel had to fly its F-35s mere meters above the ground in Jordan during previous strikes against Iran, with reports claiming:

"The moment Israeli F-35I Adir fighter jets fly at extremely low altitude over Jordanian territory to avoid radar before striking Tehran."

Similarly, the US is incapable of overflying Yemen, and must launch stand off strikes lest the F-35s get "almost shot down" again when they approach too close to the border. Thus, Israel certainly is not at the moment capable of overflying Iran beyond, possibly, some small incursions just past the border."

Thoughrs from a knowledgeable observer.

---

LOL!!!! No.

---

Well, that confirms it.

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is pretty much a given that the assassination attempts against Trump were our IC + the Ukrainian IC, and not Iran.

Notice how quickly the war with Iran crowd grasps for a new reason for this war when their previous one is disproven.

---

Realitybites said:

---

It is pretty much a given that the assassination attempts against Trump were our IC + the Ukrainian IC, and not Iran.

Notice how quickly the war with Iran crowd grasps for a new reason for this war when their previous one is disproven.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Robert Wilson said:

---

I'm generally pretty strong anti-interventionist. But not totally isolationist. I was against going into Iraq. Not enough of a real credible threat, no real tie to 9/11. Saddam's ego got him because he wouldn't admit what he didn't have. There are parallels here. But there are also sharp contrasts. Mullah terrorists with a long track record of threatening and harming not just their Zionist foils but also US citizens, in Iran and around the Middle East and the US. Also, more reason to be worried about Iran's long-term desire to develop nukes. Also, some reason to think the Persians have a deeper bench of options behind this regime than Iraq had behind Saddam. Still, if the Mullahs would give up their nuclear chase and show their cards, fine, we are all good. We can keep sparing them the ass kicking they've been begging for the last few decades. But if they won't, you can only make that mistake in one direction. We can live with a false positive. Can't live with a false negative. That combined with Israel as your dog of war ... about as good a combo as you're going to get. Take out the Mullahs' nuclear assets (which also requires taking out most of the rest of their military assets). Whatever happens next happens. Hopefully the Iranian people step up. Plenty of other people around the ME silently rooting for the Zionists to get rid of the Mullahs and simplify their lives. Will be interesting.

---

Well said. Pretty much describes my thoughts.

---

Let's assume you're both right. At what point is it okay to attack deplorable "thoughts?"

Also, why do we ignore that "traditionally" being a nuclear country has in itself been a deterrent against aggression, especially atomic aggression?

To me, this looks and feels like Iraq, again.

---

When it's a nuclear weapon, and you have clear evidence of a clandestine nuclear weapons program, that's amps the seriousness about a thousand fold.

---

Which we don't, not even close.

---

if this were a legal matter, is there enough evidence for a search warrant?

It's a simple question. No need to muddy the water with whose law, whose court etc.

Is there enough evidence for a search warrant?

---

A Brief History of Israel and Iran pic.twitter.com/Ggb77deHXi

— Greg Reese (@gregreese) June 19, 2025

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

So you prefer Moscow to an American city.

Of course you do. This is the least surprising thing I've read all day.

---

There are many places around the world I would rather live in than LA, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Memphis.

Moscow is only one.

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

So you prefer Moscow to an American city.

Of course you do. This is the least surprising thing I've read all day.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

So you prefer Moscow to an American city.

Of course you do. This is the least surprising thing I've read all day.

---

So you prefer living in ruination and filth to a civilized society?

Of course you do. This is the least surprising thing I've read all day.

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Carlson: I recommend you going to Moscow. It's way nicer than Washington D.C.

Cruz: For some reason you’re really invested in defending Russia, I don’t get it 0/ pic.twitter.com/xQeT3jbbGR

— Tymofiy Mylovanov (@Mylovanov) June 19, 2025

---

No one wants to get caught spraying graffiti, defacing a public building, or dropping litter in Moscow. They might find themselves lost in Putin's many rustic campgrounds.

---

And no one wants to live in a city covered in graffiti, with defaced public buildings, and litter covering the streets and sidewalks. They might find themselves getting stabbed in the chest on their morning commute over $20 in their wallet.

I'll take the orderly, functional society where crimes are taken seriously over a disorderly, broken society where criminals have free reign.

---

So you prefer Moscow to an American city.

Of course you do. This is the least surprising thing I've read all day.

---

So you prefer living in ruination and filth to a civilized society?

Of course you do. This is the least surprising thing I've read all day.

---

And of course, we knew it wouldn't be long before the standard justification of authoritarians and dictators was spouted by the anti-Jew crowd.

Sure, I can't go where I want, say what I want, or practice the religion I want, but at least it's "civilized."

---

JXL said:

---

Weren't people on this very board talking about voting for Trump so he could keep us out of war?

---

https://t.co/D7dno8WXTJ pic.twitter.com/9OnUvG1X2l

— RAW EGG NATIONALIST (@Babygravy9) June 19, 2025