War with Iran?

140,082 Views | 2180 Replies | Last: 4 mo ago by whiterock
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:43a, 6/21/25
Quote:

I don't really care if it's weeks away, months away or years away.... no Islamic nation should ever be allowed to have any kind of nuclear program.
Muslims cannot be trusted with such technology.
They have always been violent, rapists & aggressors. They must be kept in check


First, an Islamic nation already has the bomb. It is called Pakistan, and both it and North Korean present the two largest proliferation threats on the planet.

You do raise a good point though. Historically, mutually assured destruction has been how the great powers avoided starting a nuclear war. How does such a doctrine fare when applied to a religion that teaches "if you die while blowing up the Infidel it is instant heaven and 72 virgins?"

The answer is what I said earlier. The people who run these countries are primarily interested in self enrichment. They already have their 72 virgins and aren't particularly interested in testing Islamic theology to see if they get 72 better ones. That doctrine is a motivational speech for incel Mohammed the goat herder who has no earthly hope of finding one in a polygamous society let alone 72.

The threat isn't Iran having a bomb. It is proliferation and a rogue actor like ISIS, the Ugurs, or the Chechens getting one. Which is why it is better in sane world if we work together with the Russians and Chinese to prevent proliferation instead of being Netanyahu's personal Air Force.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 6:51a, 6/21/25
Realitybites said:
Quote:

I don't really care if it's weeks away, months away or years away.... no Islamic nation should ever be allowed to have any kind of nuclear program.
Muslims cannot be trusted with such technology.
They have always been violent, rapists & aggressors. They must be kept in check


First, an Islamic nation already has the bomb. It is called Pakistan, and both it and North Korean present the two largest proliferation threats on the planet.

You do raise a good point though. Historically, mutually assured destruction has been how the great powers avoided starting a nuclear war. How does such a doctrine fare when applied to a religion that teaches "if you die while blowing up the Infidel it is instant heaven and 72 virgins?"

The answer is what I said earlier. The people who run these countries are primarily interested in self enrichment. They already have their 72 virgins and aren't particularly interested in testing Islamic theology to see if they get 72 better ones.

The threat isn't Iran having a bomb. It is proliferation and a rogue actor like ISIS, the Ugurs, or the Chechens getting one. Which is why it is better in sane world if we work together with the Russians and Chinese to prevent proliferation instead of being Netanyahu's personal Air Force.


The threat is Iran using a proxy to use a bomb, which is of course why any reasonable person knows they shouldn't have one. All about plausible deniability.

We've worked with the Russians and Chinese for years to prevent proliferation and guess what happened - other countries have gone nuclear. So what you suggest isn't novel - it has been tried and failed unfortunately.
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 6:52a, 6/21/25
I am curious how you would handle Iran. Lift sanctions? Allow then to acquire a weapon and hope for the best?
Reply Quote
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 6:55a, 6/21/25
Mothra said:
I am curious how you would handle Iran. Lift sanctions? Allow then to acquire a weapon and hope for the best?
If Iran had the bomb, they would use it against Israel no doubt. They have said so numerous times. When someone tells you who they are, listen...
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 7:03a, 6/21/25
Mothra said:
I am curious how you would handle Iran. Lift sanctions? Allow then to acquire a weapon and hope for the best?


The way I would have handled Iran is not invade Iraq. We had a perfectly functioning Baathist dictatorship next door to serve as a counterbalance to Tehran. But Baby Bush just had to try to bring 'mockracy to Baghdad.

But the same crowd that was demanding war then is demanding war now.

The GOP is the only entity that promotes its failures. At least the democrats take them behind the chicken coop and put them down.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 7:17a, 6/21/25
Realitybites said:
Mothra said:
I am curious how you would handle Iran. Lift sanctions? Allow then to acquire a weapon and hope for the best?


The way I would have handled Iran is not invade Iraq. We had a perfectly functioning Baathist dictatorship next door to serve as a counterbalance to Tehran. But Baby Bush just had to try to bring 'mockracy to Baghdad.

But the same crowd that was demanding war then is demanding war now.

The GOP is the only entity that promotes its failures. At least the democrats take them behind the chicken coop and put them down.
We agree that Iraq was a colossal mistake. But it's happened, and so we now deal with this reality. So again I ask, what's your plan? Throw up our hands and hope for the best?

This is what's so funny about those decrying our support of Israel's strike. You don't have any cogent plan for dealing with a nuclear Iran, and are utterly clueless about what to do. But you boys love to ***** and moan.

As for there being a crowd demanding war, I guess I am unaware of it. Everyone that has any position of power is saying war isn't wanted, and certainly anything that requires boots on the ground. Can you please point us to the evidence supporting your position that some unnamed crowd want war?
Reply Quote
2 edits
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to FLBear5630 • 7:21a, 6/21/25
FLBear5630 said:
Mothra said:
I am curious how you would handle Iran. Lift sanctions? Allow then to acquire a weapon and hope for the best?
If Iran had the bomb, they would use it against Israel no doubt. They have said so numerous times. When someone tells you who they are, listen...
Of course they would. But unfortunately, I think we have a large contingent of people who loathe Israel so badly that they could care less whether Iran finds a way to detonate a nuclear bomb in Jerusalem.
Reply Quote
TexasScientist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Waco1947 • 7:31a, 6/21/25
Waco1947 said:
TexasScientist said:
Mothra said:
historian said:
In general wars are bad ideas and should be avoided whenever possible. However, some wars are necessary such as WWII. Germany & Japan represented a threat to everyone. Israel is currently fighting a war of necessity. Literally every war in their modern history fits this description and it's obvious when one looks at the map and understands anything about their neighbors & history.

All that said, the problems of the Middle East do not necessitate direct US involvement. They are our ally, we share a common adversary, and we want them to succeed (well, not the antisemites but who cares what bigots think?). We certainly don't need boots on the ground to help Israel out & we don't want to get bogged down in another land war in Asia. OTOH, it definitely is in our interest for Iran to be defanged: they must never be allowed to get nukes. Again, that should be obvious.

The ideal solution is for us to provide israel with just enough aid to accomplish their goal: preventing Iran from getting nukes. To repeat, it's in everyone's interests even those who are too stupid to realize it. Iran's Persian Gulf neighbors certainly do.

While we can hope that this latest example of crazy Iranian adventurism will result in the downfall of the regime, we cannot make it happen and should not try. Ideally, the Iranian people will rise up and create a stable and responsible govt to replace the mullahs. History suggests that that would be exceedingly difficult and is unlikely. Those in power rarely give it up voluntarily, especially ruthless dictators. Outside forces cannot do it unless they conquer and intend to remain in place permanently. It rarely ends well.
Well said. And all those throwing conniptions that Trump is going to get us into another ground war in the ME are ignoring both his words and his foreign policy history. It's just wild speculation, at this point, by the pro-Iran, pro-Putin, Woke Right crowd. They're chicken littles and drama queens getting worked up over an event that isn't going to happen.

The positives to come out of this is we now get to see who all the crazies are in the party. And we have a number of kooks, unfortunately, that support Islamic terrorist states and Russian dictators. I thought the Sam Lowry's of the world were the morally-bankrupt, outlier nutjobs, but it appears many inside MAGA share the fruitcakes' beliefs.
Quote:
While we can hope that this latest example of crazy Iranian adventurism will result in the downfall of the regime, we cannot make it happen and should not try. Ideally, the Iranian people will rise up and create a stable and responsible govt to replace the mullahs. History suggests that that would be exceedingly difficult and is unlikely. Those in power rarely give it up voluntarily, especially ruthless dictators. Outside forces cannot do it unless they conquer and intend to remain in place permanently. It rarely ends well.
Why not fund and assist those who are already rallying around the Crown Prince? He's already said he would serve as a transitional focal point to take Iran down the path to democracy. This is what black ops are for. Something/someone has to provide a catalyst and entity for the Iranian people rally around, in order to rise up effectively. It's not likely to happen without some outside support. The Iraq/Syrian border would make a good staging ground.
A crown prince for democracy? Sounds dicey
Yes, but they have to have someone to rally behind as a focal point, and he seems to be the only game in town. He says he would only serve as a transition, and wants to establish a democracy. He's better than the alternative of leaving the mullahs in charge.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:32a, 6/21/25
I don't loathe Israel. I am America first, which means not blundering into foreign misadventures. We are 130 trillion in debt. If the straits of Hormuz are closed as the result of a protracted war, you are looking at 7 dollar a gallon gas, 8 dollar a gallon diesel. That is going to destroy Trump's "economic miracle".

Netanyahu has been lying to us about Iran almost having the bomb for 3 decades. Israel started this with a unilateral attack on Iran. It isn't our job to play janitor for them.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 7:37a, 6/21/25
Realitybites said:
I don't loathe Israel. I am America first, which means not blundering into foreign misadventures. We are 130 trillion in debt. If the straits of Hormuz are closed as the result of a protracted war, you are looking at 7 dollar a gallon gas, 8 dollar a gallon diesel. That is going to destroy Trump's "economic miracle".

Netanyahu has been lying to us about Iran almost having the bomb for 3 decades. Israel started this with a unilateral attack on Iran. It isn't our job to play janitor for them.
For the third time, what's your plan?

And I am curious how it is America first to not care (or at least not care enough to do anything about it) that a country responsible for more American deaths than any country in the last 20 years is acquiring nuclear weapons?

Your position seems incredibly myopic and short sighted.
Reply Quote
TexasScientist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 7:42a, 6/21/25
The_barBEARian said:
Porteroso said:
The_barBEARian said:
Porteroso said:
The_barBEARian said:


Per Grok:

Yes, the United States does fund a significant portion of Israel's missile defense systems, including those that could contribute to the reported $200 million+ daily operational costs mentioned in the post by Dominic Michael Tripi. Here's a breakdown based on the available data and recent context:

  • Historical Funding: Since FY 2009, the U.S. has provided Israel with $3.4 billion for missile defense programs, including $1.3 billion specifically for the Iron Dome system starting in FY 2011, according to the U.S. Department of State. Additionally, from 2011 to 2022, the U.S. contributed $2.6 billion to the Iron Dome, as noted on Wikipedia, and has co-funded the Arrow missile program with investments ranging from $2.4 to $3.6 billion, covering 50-80% of the costs.
  • Current Commitments: Under a 2019-2028 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the U.S. allocates $500 million annually for Israel's missile defense funding, alongside $3.3 billion for other military aid, per USAFacts. This funding supports systems like Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow, which are likely part of the high daily costs during active conflicts, such as the recent Iranian missile attacks reported last week.
  • Recent Context: Given the intensified operations against Iran, as noted by Brig. Gen. (res.) Re'em Aminach's estimate of $1.45 billion spent in the first 48 hours (approximately $725 million daily), the U.S. likely continues to shoulder a substantial share. While exact daily contributions aren't specified, the U.S. has historically replenished Israel's missile stockse.g., a $3.5 billion deal for interceptors in 2023and emergency aid, like the $26.4 billion package approved in April 2024, suggests ongoing support during crises.
  • Public Perception and Debate: The X thread reflects varied opinions, with users like
    @RnoHach
    • suggesting the U.S. pays "for it all," while others question the cost allocation (@DavidJamesMusic's "Cost who"). The web data confirms the U.S. as the primary financial backer, though Israel contributes annually (e.g., $65 million for Arrow) and uses its own budget for operations.
In summary, yes, the U.S. funds a significant portion of Israel's missile defense, likely covering a substantial fraction of the $200 million+ daily cost during active engagements, though the exact proportion varies with each conflict and depends on emergency appropriations. Given the current escalation, additional U.S. support is probable, aligning with longstanding policy to maintain Israel's "qualitative military edge."
To me that's good spending. I'd rather spend saving lives, than creating wars, or joining wars.

I hope negotiators are just saying out loud what Trump seems to be thinking. You can dismantle your nuclear program, or we will bomb it. It needs to be crystal clear that it's not just rhetoric. Even fanatical zealots can sometimes understand reality.

And for the record, I don't think we should get involved, except to defend Israel, and restrain Israel to a reasonable campaign against the nuclear program; basically don't support Israel if it tries for regime change.

My issue is that is an astronomical amount of money that could be spent here on Americans who are struggling to survive and falling into dangerous addictions or suicide.

How many American lives here at home could that $200 million a day save if put to good use?

Nobody will disagree, but you could say the same thing about the entire defense budget. Why not nix it all, feed the impoverished, pay for everyone's college, and have medicare/aid cover everyone?

Military spending is done for a reason. We want to be so scary that nobody would ever mess with us. That saves all our lives.

We should cut the defense budget in half and start getting serious about paying down the debt.

It will bring back the value of the dollar and bring back prosperity for ALL Americans.

I dont buy the argument we are saving American lives by wasting trillions on foreign proxy wars.

Why is America spending more money hunting down Hamas than the Mexican cartels?

If you watch the riots in LA... they arent holding up Palestinian flags... they are holding up Mexican flags.
History has proven isolation and weak defense does not provide protection. It invites aggression. A nuclear Islam is a self proclaimed existential threat to America. Flag waiving non nuclear migrants who are looking for a better life are not equivocal and different in purpose.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 7:47a, 6/21/25
Sunni Islam has been responsible for more US deaths over the past 20 years than Iran, starting with the 3000+ killed by Saudi Arabians on 9/11.

What my plan is? Tell the world unequivocally that we will not be attacking Iran at this time and get both parties back to the negotiating table along with Russian, Chinese, and Arab league negotiators to see what can be done. Sort of like what was going on before Israel unilaterally pearl harbored them.

Netanyahu's appetite for war will diminish dramatically should he realize that in ten days when Israel runs out of interceptors that we aren't giving him our credit card for that 200 million a day bill.

You start from the rational premise that no country's leadership want the gravy train to end, and you quickly realize that regime change operations run the greatest risk of sparking irrational action by any country.
Reply Quote
3 edits
TexasScientist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:51a, 6/21/25
Sam Lowry said:
ShooterTX said:
TexasScientist said:
The_barBEARian said:


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.
Let's see, the last time I heard a country was weeks, days away from a nuclear weapon was in the first Trump term. I guess they're still weeks away aren't they? Iran is going to develop a nuke, plain and simple, if allowed. Just like NK. Iran hates the US every bit as much as Israel. We haven't seen terrorism in this country like what can be dished out from a nuclear Iran with proxies. A simple dirty bomb would be devastating.


I don't really care if it's weeks away, months away or years away.... no Islamic nation should ever be allowed to have any kind of nuclear program.
Muslims cannot be trusted with such technology.
They have always been violent, rapists & aggressors. They must be kept in check.
If there is even the possibility of a nuclear program, it's justification to start bombing them into oblivion.
But we're not a xenophobic rogue nation acting with complete disregard for international law or anything...no, not us.
Right, but sometimes international law is irrelevant. Iran doesn't consider or adhere to international law, and international law has no effective recourse or remedy against a xenophobic rogue nation acting with complete disregard for international law. There is a time and place for preemption. The problem is there is no adequate way to enforce international law, and consequently there is no real deterrence to a rogue nation with no regard.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Reply Quote
TexasScientist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 7:57a, 6/21/25
Realitybites said:
Sunni Islam has been responsible for more US deaths over the past 20 years than Iran, starting with the 3000+ killed by Saudi Arabians on 9/11.

What my plan is? Tell the world unequivocally that we will not be attacking Iran at this time and get both parties back to the negotiating table along with Russian, Chinese, and Arab league negotiators to see what can be done. Sort of like what was going on before Israel unilaterally pearl harbored them.

Netanyahu's appetite for war will diminish dramatically should he realize that in ten days when Israel runs out of interceptors that we aren't giving him our credit card for that 200 million a day bill.

You start from the rational premise that no country's leadership want the gravy train to end, and you quickly realize that regime change operations run the greatest risk of sparking irrational action by any country.
The problem is Russia, China, and Iran, aren't interested is seriously negotiating a nuclear deal. Their goal is for a nuclear armed Iran, full stop. That's why we're where we are today. Iran has never abandoned its goal for a nuclear weapon. Continued negotiations guarantees they'll reach there goal.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Reply Quote
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 8:01a, 6/21/25
Realitybites said:
Sunni Islam has been responsible for more US deaths over the past 20 years than Iran, starting with the 3000+ killed by Saudi Arabians on 9/11.

What my plan is? Tell the world unequivocally that we will not be attacking Iran at this time and get both parties back to the negotiating table along with Russian, Chinese, and Arab league negotiators to see what can be done. Sort of like what was going on before Israel unilaterally pearl harbored them.

Netanyahu's appetite for war will diminish dramatically should he realize that in ten days when Israel runs out of interceptors that we aren't giving him our credit card for that 200 million a day bill.

You start from the rational premise that no country's leadership want the gravy train to end, and you quickly realize that regime change operations run the greatest risk of sparking irrational action by any country.
So your solution is to do the exact same thing we've been doing for decades with no results? How's that worked for us?

With all due respect, your plan is idiotic. This is once again you boys *****ing and moaning but having no cogent or workable plan of your own.

As for regime change, I agree that shouldn't be the goal and indeed isn't the goal. It never was. So you're arguing an irrelevant point.
Reply Quote
2 edits
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexasScientist • 8:03a, 6/21/25
TexasScientist said:
Realitybites said:
Sunni Islam has been responsible for more US deaths over the past 20 years than Iran, starting with the 3000+ killed by Saudi Arabians on 9/11.

What my plan is? Tell the world unequivocally that we will not be attacking Iran at this time and get both parties back to the negotiating table along with Russian, Chinese, and Arab league negotiators to see what can be done. Sort of like what was going on before Israel unilaterally pearl harbored them.

Netanyahu's appetite for war will diminish dramatically should he realize that in ten days when Israel runs out of interceptors that we aren't giving him our credit card for that 200 million a day bill.

You start from the rational premise that no country's leadership want the gravy train to end, and you quickly realize that regime change operations run the greatest risk of sparking irrational action by any country.
The problem is Russia, China, and Iran, aren't interested is seriously negotiating a nuclear deal. Their goal is for a nuclear armed Iran, full stop. That's why we're where we are today. Iran has never abandoned its goal for a nuclear weapon. Continued negotiations guarantees they'll reach there goal.
Yup.
Reply Quote
TexasScientist
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 8:06a, 6/21/25
Realitybites said:
Quote:

I don't really care if it's weeks away, months away or years away.... no Islamic nation should ever be allowed to have any kind of nuclear program.
Muslims cannot be trusted with such technology.
They have always been violent, rapists & aggressors. They must be kept in check


First, an Islamic nation already has the bomb. It is called Pakistan, and both it and North Korean present the two largest proliferation threats on the planet.

You do raise a good point though. Historically, mutually assured destruction has been how the great powers avoided starting a nuclear war. How does such a doctrine fare when applied to a religion that teaches "if you die while blowing up the Infidel it is instant heaven and 72 virgins?"

The answer is what I said earlier. The people who run these countries are primarily interested in self enrichment. They already have their 72 virgins and aren't particularly interested in testing Islamic theology to see if they get 72 better ones. That doctrine is a motivational speech for incel Mohammed the goat herder who has no earthly hope of finding one in a polygamous society let alone 72.

The threat isn't Iran having a bomb. It is proliferation and a rogue actor like ISIS, the Ugurs, or the Chechens getting one. Which is why it is better in sane world if we work together with the Russians and Chinese to prevent proliferation instead of being Netanyahu's personal Air Force.
You're essentially correct up to a point. That point is the false assumption that Russia and China are interested in preventing nuclear proliferation. When it suits their purpose, they're all for it. Who do you think has been giving Iran the technology and materials to go nuclear? A nuclear Iran serves their purposes.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:09a, 6/21/25
" First, the Israeli operation's objective was not defined as a complete destruction of Iran's nuclear program. Even before its Friday attack, it was clear that Israel has a relatively limited ability to destroy nuclear capabilities without active participation from the United States...

…As for Iran's willingness to move forward with its nuclear program, the attack may, paradoxically, encourage Iran to break out toward a nuclear weapon."

Danny Citrinowicz is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council's Middle East Programs. He previously served for twenty-five years in a variety of command positions units in Israel Defense Intelligence, including as the head of the Iran branch in the Research and Analysis Division

Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
8:11a, 6/21/25
Russia and China have been consistent in supporting an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program while not supporting Iran having nuclear weapons.

Anyway as you potificate from your rooms in the nursing home maybe you Boomercons should consider this: just how many terrorist operatives do you think have entered the US among the 8 million illegal aliens Biden let in over the last four years? 100? 1000? 5000? What do you think they are going to do if we role play the Israeli Air Force?
Reply Quote
3 edits
Mothra
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 8:35a, 6/21/25
Realitybites said:
Russia and China have been consistent in supporting an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program while not supporting Iran having nuclear weapons.

Anyway as you potificate from your rooms in the nursing home maybe you Boomercons should consider this: just how many terrorist operatives do you think have entered the US among the 8 million illegal aliens Biden let in over the last four years? 100? 1000? 5000? What do you think they are going to do if we role play the Israeli Air Force?


Ah, so you believe Iran has sent terrorist sleeper cells into the United Stated which are currently operating covertly. Yet you think it's perfectly fine for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

Lol. Millenials. God help us.
Reply Quote
1 edit
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 8:41a, 6/21/25
You are the one who said Iran sent them. I am actually more concerned about what Sunni sleeper cells like ISIS and Al Qaeda would do if we role play as the Israel Air Force.
Reply Quote
ShooterTX
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 9:06a, 6/21/25
boognish_bear said:


Why would anyone believe Bill Clinton? The liar who also passed on killing Bin Laden when given the opportunity.
Bill Clinton encouraged the rise of Al Queda with his disaster in Somalia and his impotence after multiple terrorist attacks through out the 90s.

Bill Clinton is a dirty old pedophile with no credibility, especially when it comes to foreign relations.
Reply Quote
J.R.
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ShooterTX • 10:09a, 6/21/25
ShooterTX said:
TexasScientist said:
The_barBEARian said:


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.
Let's see, the last time I heard a country was weeks, days away from a nuclear weapon was in the first Trump term. I guess they're still weeks away aren't they? Iran is going to develop a nuke, plain and simple, if allowed. Just like NK. Iran hates the US every bit as much as Israel. We haven't seen terrorism in this country like what can be dished out from a nuclear Iran with proxies. A simple dirty bomb would be devastating.


I don't really care if it's weeks away, months away or years away.... no Islamic nation should ever be allowed to have any kind of nuclear program.
Muslims cannot be trusted with such technology.
They have always been violent, rapists & aggressors. They must be kept in check.
If there is even the possibility of a nuclear program, it's justification to start bombing them into oblivion.
Pakistan (The Islamic Republic of Pakistan) is the most Islamic country in the world and they have nukes.
Reply Quote
1 edit
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 10:12a, 6/21/25
J.R. said:
ShooterTX said:
TexasScientist said:
The_barBEARian said:


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.
Let's see, the last time I heard a country was weeks, days away from a nuclear weapon was in the first Trump term. I guess they're still weeks away aren't they? Iran is going to develop a nuke, plain and simple, if allowed. Just like NK. Iran hates the US every bit as much as Israel. We haven't seen terrorism in this country like what can be dished out from a nuclear Iran with proxies. A simple dirty bomb would be devastating.


I don't really care if it's weeks away, months away or years away.... no Islamic nation should ever be allowed to have any kind of nuclear program.
Muslims cannot be trusted with such technology.
They have always been violent, rapists & aggressors. They must be kept in check.
If there is even the possibility of a nuclear program, it's justification to start bombing them into oblivion.
Pakistan (The Islamic Republic of Pakistan) is the most Islamic country in the world and they have nukes.
They also have a nuclear powered India keeping most of their attention. If the spin up a nuke, India will do the same. Pakistan has enough trouble with India...
Reply Quote
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexasScientist • 10:12a, 6/21/25
TexasScientist said:
The_barBEARian said:
Porteroso said:
The_barBEARian said:
Porteroso said:
The_barBEARian said:


Per Grok:

Yes, the United States does fund a significant portion of Israel's missile defense systems, including those that could contribute to the reported $200 million+ daily operational costs mentioned in the post by Dominic Michael Tripi. Here's a breakdown based on the available data and recent context:

  • Historical Funding: Since FY 2009, the U.S. has provided Israel with $3.4 billion for missile defense programs, including $1.3 billion specifically for the Iron Dome system starting in FY 2011, according to the U.S. Department of State. Additionally, from 2011 to 2022, the U.S. contributed $2.6 billion to the Iron Dome, as noted on Wikipedia, and has co-funded the Arrow missile program with investments ranging from $2.4 to $3.6 billion, covering 50-80% of the costs.
  • Current Commitments: Under a 2019-2028 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), the U.S. allocates $500 million annually for Israel's missile defense funding, alongside $3.3 billion for other military aid, per USAFacts. This funding supports systems like Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow, which are likely part of the high daily costs during active conflicts, such as the recent Iranian missile attacks reported last week.
  • Recent Context: Given the intensified operations against Iran, as noted by Brig. Gen. (res.) Re'em Aminach's estimate of $1.45 billion spent in the first 48 hours (approximately $725 million daily), the U.S. likely continues to shoulder a substantial share. While exact daily contributions aren't specified, the U.S. has historically replenished Israel's missile stockse.g., a $3.5 billion deal for interceptors in 2023and emergency aid, like the $26.4 billion package approved in April 2024, suggests ongoing support during crises.
  • Public Perception and Debate: The X thread reflects varied opinions, with users like
    @RnoHach
    • suggesting the U.S. pays "for it all," while others question the cost allocation (@DavidJamesMusic's "Cost who"). The web data confirms the U.S. as the primary financial backer, though Israel contributes annually (e.g., $65 million for Arrow) and uses its own budget for operations.
In summary, yes, the U.S. funds a significant portion of Israel's missile defense, likely covering a substantial fraction of the $200 million+ daily cost during active engagements, though the exact proportion varies with each conflict and depends on emergency appropriations. Given the current escalation, additional U.S. support is probable, aligning with longstanding policy to maintain Israel's "qualitative military edge."
To me that's good spending. I'd rather spend saving lives, than creating wars, or joining wars.

I hope negotiators are just saying out loud what Trump seems to be thinking. You can dismantle your nuclear program, or we will bomb it. It needs to be crystal clear that it's not just rhetoric. Even fanatical zealots can sometimes understand reality.

And for the record, I don't think we should get involved, except to defend Israel, and restrain Israel to a reasonable campaign against the nuclear program; basically don't support Israel if it tries for regime change.

My issue is that is an astronomical amount of money that could be spent here on Americans who are struggling to survive and falling into dangerous addictions or suicide.

How many American lives here at home could that $200 million a day save if put to good use?

Nobody will disagree, but you could say the same thing about the entire defense budget. Why not nix it all, feed the impoverished, pay for everyone's college, and have medicare/aid cover everyone?

Military spending is done for a reason. We want to be so scary that nobody would ever mess with us. That saves all our lives.

We should cut the defense budget in half and start getting serious about paying down the debt.

It will bring back the value of the dollar and bring back prosperity for ALL Americans.

I dont buy the argument we are saving American lives by wasting trillions on foreign proxy wars.

Why is America spending more money hunting down Hamas than the Mexican cartels?

If you watch the riots in LA... they arent holding up Palestinian flags... they are holding up Mexican flags.
History has proven isolation and weak defense does not provide protection. It invites aggression. A nuclear Islam is a self proclaimed existential threat to America. Flag waiving non nuclear migrants who are looking for a better life are not equivocal and different in purpose.
History has proven that old wealthy guys start wars......and poor guys fight and die in them.

Peace treaties usually so bungled they result in even more wars.

Isolationism worked for the US for many years. It works for the majority of countries on this planet even today.
Reply Quote
Oldbear83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 10:23a, 6/21/25
"Pakistan (The Islamic Republic of Pakistan) is the most Islamic country in the world and they have nukes."



Most Islamic? What makes Pakistan more Islamic than, say, Saudi Arabia or Maylasia?
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 10:47a, 6/21/25
Mothra said:
Realitybites said:
Sunni Islam has been responsible for more US deaths over the past 20 years than Iran, starting with the 3000+ killed by Saudi Arabians on 9/11.

What my plan is? Tell the world unequivocally that we will not be attacking Iran at this time and get both parties back to the negotiating table along with Russian, Chinese, and Arab league negotiators to see what can be done. Sort of like what was going on before Israel unilaterally pearl harbored them.

Netanyahu's appetite for war will diminish dramatically should he realize that in ten days when Israel runs out of interceptors that we aren't giving him our credit card for that 200 million a day bill.

You start from the rational premise that no country's leadership want the gravy train to end, and you quickly realize that regime change operations run the greatest risk of sparking irrational action by any country.
So your solution is to do the exact same thing we've been doing for decades with no results? How's that worked for us?
It's worked very well. The result is that no nation has developed a nuclear weapon while subject to safeguards and inspections.

You say you agree that Iraq was a mistake, but you don't seem to understand why it was a mistake or how it happened. We succeeded in shutting down Saddam's WMD program. Yet the Bush administration decided to pursue regime change (while denying that was the goal). It ignored intelligence saying there were no WMD and relied instead on faulty intelligence, some of it provided by Israel. It frightened the public with nonsensical nightmare scenarios (plausible deniability and proxies make no sense in this context). Finally, it attacked without any provocation, much less legal justification.

All of these things are repeating themselves in the most predictable and obvious way, and here you are beating the war drums louder than ever. So I have to ask--what exactly is it about the Iraq war that you don't agree with?
Reply Quote
3 edits
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:10a, 6/21/25
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 11:41a, 6/21/25
Porteroso said:
whiterock said:
Porteroso said:
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.
Again, that is incorrect. There is no evidence that North Korea has a missile platform capable of launching nukes as far as the United States. As far as South Korea, maybe.
wrong. Hawaii and parts of the US west coast are under the umbrella of known NK systems.

Nope.

You are spectacularly poorly informed.
Learn more.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 11:45a, 6/21/25
Mothra said:
Realitybites said:
I don't loathe Israel. I am America first, which means not blundering into foreign misadventures. We are 130 trillion in debt. If the straits of Hormuz are closed as the result of a protracted war, you are looking at 7 dollar a gallon gas, 8 dollar a gallon diesel. That is going to destroy Trump's "economic miracle".

Netanyahu has been lying to us about Iran almost having the bomb for 3 decades. Israel started this with a unilateral attack on Iran. It isn't our job to play janitor for them.
For the third time, what's your plan?

And I am curious how it is America first to not care (or at least not care enough to do anything about it) that a country responsible for more American deaths than any country in the last 20 years is acquiring nuclear weapons?

Your position seems incredibly myopic and short sighted.

His plan is not complicated = let Iran have the bomb and blame Republicans for it.
Reply Quote
drahthaar
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Realitybites • 11:51a, 6/21/25
Realitybites said:
Mothra said:
I am curious how you would handle Iran. Lift sanctions? Allow then to acquire a weapon and hope for the best?


The way I would have handled Iran is not invade Iraq. We had a perfectly functioning Baathist dictatorship next door to serve as a counterbalance to Tehran. But Baby Bush just had to try to bring 'mockracy to Baghdad.

But the same crowd that was demanding war then is demanding war now.

The GOP is the only entity that promotes its failures. At least the democrats take them behind the chicken coop and put them down.
That's not true of the Dems the past decade or so, and they don't seem to be changing course.
Reply Quote
whiterock
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 12:00p, 6/21/25
Mothra said:
TexasScientist said:
Realitybites said:
Sunni Islam has been responsible for more US deaths over the past 20 years than Iran, starting with the 3000+ killed by Saudi Arabians on 9/11.

What my plan is? Tell the world unequivocally that we will not be attacking Iran at this time and get both parties back to the negotiating table along with Russian, Chinese, and Arab league negotiators to see what can be done. Sort of like what was going on before Israel unilaterally pearl harbored them.

Netanyahu's appetite for war will diminish dramatically should he realize that in ten days when Israel runs out of interceptors that we aren't giving him our credit card for that 200 million a day bill.

You start from the rational premise that no country's leadership want the gravy train to end, and you quickly realize that regime change operations run the greatest risk of sparking irrational action by any country.
The problem is Russia, China, and Iran, aren't interested is seriously negotiating a nuclear deal. Their goal is for a nuclear armed Iran, full stop. That's why we're where we are today. Iran has never abandoned its goal for a nuclear weapon. Continued negotiations guarantees they'll reach there goal.
Yup.

Which is why regime change is the only practical option. There is no practical solution that does not involve a new regime willing to adopt a policy of abandoning nukes and seeking more constructive foreign policy toward western interests.

Iran has always been the most vulnerable of the 4 Axis powers. Keep up the pressure. Then escalate.

Trying to eliminate 28k ballistic missiles is not practical. Eliminate the leadership that controls them. Then deal with the new regime. Nato is more than tacitly on board for much a policy. THEY are actually under the umbrella of Iranian missiles. Nato aircraft (more than just ours) have been supporting Israel directly (not over Iranian airspace). Turkey has a border with Iran. Azerbaijan has a border with Iran (as well as a close relationship with both Israel and Turkey). And we have assets on the ground in Iraqi Kurdistan. There are substantial Azeri, Turk, and Kurds (and several more) minorities in Northern Iran. So you can take it to the bank that money, arms, ammo, trainers, etc….are on the ground
Right now (and have been for weeks) to destabilize and foment mischief inside Iran.

No invasion required. Make Iran ungovernable. Deal with a new government.

Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:15p, 6/21/25
Reply Quote
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to TexasScientist • 1:14p, 6/21/25
TexasScientist said:
Sam Lowry said:
ShooterTX said:
TexasScientist said:
The_barBEARian said:


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.
Let's see, the last time I heard a country was weeks, days away from a nuclear weapon was in the first Trump term. I guess they're still weeks away aren't they? Iran is going to develop a nuke, plain and simple, if allowed. Just like NK. Iran hates the US every bit as much as Israel. We haven't seen terrorism in this country like what can be dished out from a nuclear Iran with proxies. A simple dirty bomb would be devastating.


I don't really care if it's weeks away, months away or years away.... no Islamic nation should ever be allowed to have any kind of nuclear program.
Muslims cannot be trusted with such technology.
They have always been violent, rapists & aggressors. They must be kept in check.
If there is even the possibility of a nuclear program, it's justification to start bombing them into oblivion.
But we're not a xenophobic rogue nation acting with complete disregard for international law or anything...no, not us.
Right, but sometimes international law is irrelevant. Iran doesn't consider or adhere to international law, and international law has no effective recourse or remedy against a xenophobic rogue nation acting with complete disregard for international law. There is a time and place for preemption. The problem is there is no adequate way to enforce international law, and consequently there is no real deterrence to a rogue nation with no regard.


Yes. One problem with international law is that it is not really law. Once someone begins to invoke it to leverage their policy positions, it tells you about all you need to know. They are either naive or disingenuous.
Reply Quote
1 edit
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Mothra • 1:15p, 6/21/25
Mothra said:
Realitybites said:
Sunni Islam has been responsible for more US deaths over the past 20 years than Iran, starting with the 3000+ killed by Saudi Arabians on 9/11.

What my plan is? Tell the world unequivocally that we will not be attacking Iran at this time and get both parties back to the negotiating table along with Russian, Chinese, and Arab league negotiators to see what can be done. Sort of like what was going on before Israel unilaterally pearl harbored them.

Netanyahu's appetite for war will diminish dramatically should he realize that in ten days when Israel runs out of interceptors that we aren't giving him our credit card for that 200 million a day bill.

You start from the rational premise that no country's leadership want the gravy train to end, and you quickly realize that regime change operations run the greatest risk of sparking irrational action by any country.
So your solution is to do the exact same thing we've been doing for decades with no results? How's that worked for us?

With all due respect, your plan is idiotic. This is once again you boys *****ing and moaning but having no cogent or workable plan of your own.

As for regime change, I agree that shouldn't be the goal and indeed isn't the goal. It never was. So you're arguing an irrelevant point.


How is his plan any less cogent than anything you've given?

There is almost zero chance the US can go to war with Iran without boots on the ground.

We have US soldiers who are sitting ducks in Iraq bcs their entire purpose for being there is to serve as bait... so that when they are killed by Iranian backed Shia militias in Iraq, the US will have to avenge them via regime change which will never happen without ground invasion of Iran.

Your plan is Iraq 2.0

No thanks!

Let's try diplomacy.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.