Because the name of the country is The Islamic Republic of Pakistan. They ain't real tolerant of other faiths.Oldbear83 said:
"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?
War with Iran?
139,294 Views |
2180 Replies |
Last: 4 mo ago by whiterock
The use of our B-2's makes far more sense than flying those old B-52"s.boognish_bear said:🚨BREAKING: 6 U.S. B2 stealth bombers appear headed towards Guam
— Fox News (@FoxNews) June 21, 2025
whiterock said:Mothra said:Yup.TexasScientist said: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.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.
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.
So Iraq 2.0.... but this time we might drop a couple nukes.... when we end up with another 2008 style financial crisis what are we going to do? We can't print our way out of a depression anymore.... Boomers already used that get out of jail card for themselves.
Nonsense. Netanyahu has made it clear from the beginning that Israel would not allow Iran to have a nuke, and that is the purpose and goal for their preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure.Realitybites said:
" 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
Iran was already on a breakout path toward a nuclear weapon, i.e. enrichment.
I don't think Israel took action on a whim, knowing the consequences.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
TexasScientist said:Nonsense. Netanyahu has made it clear from the beginning that Israel would not allow Iran to have a nuke, and that is the purpose and goal for their preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure.Realitybites said:
" 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
Iran was already on a breakout path toward a nuclear weapon, i.e. enrichment.
I don't think Israel took action on a whim, knowing the consequences.
Sure they did. They've been wrong too many times.
Billions of revolutionaries and peasants say hold my beer.KaiBear said:History has proven that old wealthy guys start wars......and poor guys fight and die in them.TexasScientist said: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.The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:To me that's good spending. I'd rather spend saving lives, than creating wars, or joining wars.The_barBEARian said:BREAKING: Israel's missile defense systems could cost $200M+ per day according to WSJ.
— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) June 20, 2025
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: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."
- 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
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.
@RnoHach
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.
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.
You can't be that naive. There is no demarcation between a civilian nuclear energy program and an weaponization program. Otherwise they would scrap their enrichment program. In Russian and China, there is no difference in civilian and military nuclear programs. One interacts with the other. For example the Ukrainian power plants were also sites for military grade enrichment under the Soviet Union.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?
If there are terrorist operatives in this country, why would you want to allow Iran to get their hands on nukes, or highly enriched uranium. Setting off a dirty bomb in this country or Israel would be devastating. One thing boomers learned from WWII and the Cold War is that appeasement to tyrants does not end well. You should take a lesson from history. I can assure you, Iran has repeatedly stated their end goal and intentions toward the US, Israel and the West in general. It's part of their religious fervor and zeal. Take them at their word. You should believe it when they say they want to destroy Israel, the U S and western democracies. They haven't been about the business of standing up proxies in Gaza, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and enriching uranium just for grins.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Consider what they would do with the Iranian materials for a dirty bomb.Realitybites said:
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.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
It's a concern.J.R. said:Pakistan (The Islamic Republic of Pakistan) is the most Islamic country in the world and they have nukes.ShooterTX said:TexasScientist said: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.The_barBEARian said:Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He’s demanding that American troops do it. We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are…
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 5, 2025
Is there anyone here willing to explain your support for initiating a war with Iran when Iran has made no credible threats toward the US homeland? Please raise your Israeli flags high and explain why Americans being financial slaves to Israel isnt enough for you... we actually need to go fight their wars and die for them too.
I 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.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Mothra said:Yup.TexasScientist said: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.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.
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.
So Iraq 2.0.... but this time we might drop a couple nukes.... when we end up with another 2008 style financial crisis what are we going to do? We can't print our way out of a depression anymore.... Boomers already used that get out of jail card for themselves.
You're not dumb. You're dishonest. The scenario I laid out does not remotely approach what happened in Iraq.
At some point, you're going to have to deal with reality
Israel can't afford to ignore Iran's long stated objectives. We shouldn't either. They ignored the October 7th warnings, and look what happened.Mitch Blood Green said:TexasScientist said:Nonsense. Netanyahu has made it clear from the beginning that Israel would not allow Iran to have a nuke, and that is the purpose and goal for their preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure.Realitybites said:
" 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
Iran was already on a breakout path toward a nuclear weapon, i.e. enrichment.
I don't think Israel took action on a whim, knowing the consequences.
Sure they did. They've been wrong too many times.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
Regime change in Iran does not equate to Iraq 2.0. Apples and oranges. Actually, I'd argue Iraq 2.0 is better than Iraq 1.0 in terms of world stability.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Mothra said:Yup.TexasScientist said: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.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.
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.
So Iraq 2.0.... but this time we might drop a couple nukes.... when we end up with another 2008 style financial crisis what are we going to do? We can't print our way out of a depression anymore.... Boomers already used that get out of jail card for themselves.
“It is impossible to get a man to understand something if his livelihood depends on him not understanding.” ~ Upton Sinclair
sombear said:Billions of revolutionaries and peasants say hold my beer.KaiBear said:History has proven that old wealthy guys start wars......and poor guys fight and die in them.TexasScientist said: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.The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:To me that's good spending. I'd rather spend saving lives, than creating wars, or joining wars.The_barBEARian said:BREAKING: Israel's missile defense systems could cost $200M+ per day according to WSJ.
— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) June 20, 2025
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: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."
- 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
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.
@RnoHach
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.
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.
Isolationism got us into two world wars and several hundred thousand DEAD American soldiers. So we decided to enter an era of policy "engagement."
Now, I would certainly not contest the case that taking the concept of "engagement" all the way to nation building for over 2 decades in the Hindu Kush is an over-correction to the problem of isolationism. But swinging all they back to "head-up-barBEARian's arse" level isolationism is just as insane as continuing to nation build.
There is a happy median.
Use proxies.
Make allies pull their weight.
And if you have to engage……..
Move fast.
Break things.
Teach Pavlovian lessons about treading on the USA.
And come the 'eff home.
That includes removing tinpot dictators with delusions of WMDs. And the ones who kill thousands of Americans while scratching beyond their grasp to roll back or interests…….the are the ones who need to be made an example of. First.
And Trump is going to do it.
TexasScientist said:Regime change in Iran does not equate to Iraq 2.0. Apples and oranges. Actually, I'd argue Iraq 2.0 is better than Iraq 1.0 in terms of world stability.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Mothra said:Yup.TexasScientist said: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.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.
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.
So Iraq 2.0.... but this time we might drop a couple nukes.... when we end up with another 2008 style financial crisis what are we going to do? We can't print our way out of a depression anymore.... Boomers already used that get out of jail card for themselves.
Well America post-Iraq war is definitely NOT better than America pre-Iraq war... and that is all I really care about.
TexasScientist said:Regime change in Iran does not equate to Iraq 2.0. Apples and oranges. Actually, I'd argue Iraq 2.0 is better than Iraq 1.0 in terms of world stabilityThe_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Mothra said:Yup.TexasScientist said: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.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.
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.
So Iraq 2.0.... but this time we might drop a couple nukes.... when we end up with another 2008 style financial crisis what are we going to do? We can't print our way out of a depression anymore.... Boomers already used that get out of jail card for themselves.
Bingo. Iraq is a mess, but it isn't pursuing WMDs at all, much less to specifically poke at us. And without Iranian mullah support to Iraqi Shia groups, Iraq is going to get quite a bit more pliable.
The_barBEARian said:TexasScientist said:Regime change in Iran does not equate to Iraq 2.0. Apples and oranges. Actually, I'd argue Iraq 2.0 is better than Iraq 1.0 in terms of world stability.The_barBEARian said:whiterock said:Mothra said:Yup.TexasScientist said: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.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.
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.
So Iraq 2.0.... but this time we might drop a couple nukes.... when we end up with another 2008 style financial crisis what are we going to do? We can't print our way out of a depression anymore.... Boomers already used that get out of jail card for themselves.
Well America post-Iraq war is definitely NOT better than America pre-Iraq war... and that is all I really care about.
So you like Obama better than Trump.
I knew you'd show your true colors eventually.
boognish_bear said:🇺🇸🇮🇱 Former US President Bill Clinton says Israeli PM Netanyahu wants a war with Iran so he can stay in office.
— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) June 21, 2025
"Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office." pic.twitter.com/MaFOy6Jrqt
Says the guy who made "wag the dog" into reality.
“Incline my heart to your testimonies, and not to selfish gain!”
Psalm 119:36
Psalm 119:36
sombear said:Billions of revolutionaries and peasants say hold my beer.KaiBear said:History has proven that old wealthy guys start wars......and poor guys fight and die in them.TexasScientist said: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.The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:To me that's good spending. I'd rather spend saving lives, than creating wars, or joining wars.The_barBEARian said:BREAKING: Israel's missile defense systems could cost $200M+ per day according to WSJ.
— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) June 20, 2025
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: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."
- 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
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.
@RnoHach
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.
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.
When was the last time the president / dictator / king fought in the front lines ?
KaiBear said:sombear said:Billions of revolutionaries and peasants say hold my beer.KaiBear said:History has proven that old wealthy guys start wars......and poor guys fight and die in them.TexasScientist said: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.The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:To me that's good spending. I'd rather spend saving lives, than creating wars, or joining wars.The_barBEARian said:BREAKING: Israel's missile defense systems could cost $200M+ per day according to WSJ.
— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) June 20, 2025
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: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."
- 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
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.
@RnoHach
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.
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.
When was the last time the president / dictator / king fought in the front lines ?
George Washington.
The_barBEARian said:KaiBear said:sombear said:Billions of revolutionaries and peasants say hold my beer.KaiBear said:History has proven that old wealthy guys start wars......and poor guys fight and die in them.TexasScientist said: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.The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:The_barBEARian said:Porteroso said:To me that's good spending. I'd rather spend saving lives, than creating wars, or joining wars.The_barBEARian said:BREAKING: Israel's missile defense systems could cost $200M+ per day according to WSJ.
— Dominic Michael Tripi (@DMichaelTripi) June 20, 2025
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: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."
- 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
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.
@RnoHach
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.
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.
When was the last time the president / dictator / king fought in the front lines ?
George Washington.
LOL
Almost three hundred years ago and still Washington was rarely within cannon or musket range.
Maybe 20 minutes total.
He should know then.historian said:boognish_bear said:🇺🇸🇮🇱 Former US President Bill Clinton says Israeli PM Netanyahu wants a war with Iran so he can stay in office.
— BRICS News (@BRICSinfo) June 21, 2025
"Mr. Netanyahu has long wanted to fight Iran because that way he can stay in office." pic.twitter.com/MaFOy6Jrqt
Says the guy who made "wag the dog" into reality.
UPDATE: U.S. Officials Confirm Bunker Buster-Capable B-2 Stealth Bombers En Route to Guam as President Trump Weighs Iran Strike Decision
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/update-u-s-officials-confirm-b-2-stealth/
Well, AIPAC paid for a war, and it looks like they are going to get it.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/06/update-u-s-officials-confirm-b-2-stealth/
Well, AIPAC paid for a war, and it looks like they are going to get it.
The government is more likely to collapse in Israel as a result of this than Iran.whiterock said:Mothra said:Yup.TexasScientist said: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.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.
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.
That's what we say when we know we're violating it. Otherwise we invoke it constantly.Robert Wilson said:TexasScientist said: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.Sam Lowry said:But we're not a xenophobic rogue nation acting with complete disregard for international law or anything...no, not us.ShooterTX said:TexasScientist said: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.The_barBEARian said:Mark Levin was at the White House today, lobbying for war with Iran. To be clear, Levin has no plans to fight in this or any other war. He’s demanding that American troops do it. We need to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, he and likeminded ideologues in Washington are…
— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) June 5, 2025
Is there anyone here willing to explain your support for initiating a war with Iran when Iran has made no credible threats toward the US homeland? Please raise your Israeli flags high and explain why Americans being financial slaves to Israel isnt enough for you... we actually need to go fight their wars and die for them too.
I 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.
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.
BREAKING: Iranian forces reporting a possible ground attack on Fordow Nuclear plant.
— Douglas Macgregor (@DougAMacgregor) June 21, 2025
No, your last post is either absurdly ignorant or intellectually dishonest.
We have a range of options, and I have not heard any credible source suggest that using US troops is on the table.
But of course strawmen are so much easier to attack than the real details.
We have a range of options, and I have not heard any credible source suggest that using US troops is on the table.
But of course strawmen are so much easier to attack than the real details.
Has anyone done a welfare check on barbARYAN now that we've bombed Iran?
DioNoZeus said:
Has anyone done a welfare check on barbARYAN now that we've bombed Iran?
Congratulations GoyoProZios... you're a good goy! Some say, one of the best goys!
I hope you get to die fighting Israel's war... in fact I will pray for it!
Various reports say Fordow is destroyed, but no video confirmations as of yet.
— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 22, 2025
TexasScientist said:Israel can't afford to ignore Iran's long stated objectives. We shouldn't either. They ignored the October 7th warnings, and look what happened.Mitch Blood Green said:TexasScientist said:Nonsense. Netanyahu has made it clear from the beginning that Israel would not allow Iran to have a nuke, and that is the purpose and goal for their preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure.Realitybites said:
" 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
Iran was already on a breakout path toward a nuclear weapon, i.e. enrichment.
I don't think Israel took action on a whim, knowing the consequences.
Sure they did. They've been wrong too many times.
Did they?
Netanyahu's *****
?w=1600&h=1600&q=88&f=85c6a966b802d1c3f7d36f9f4eb22a7c
?w=1600&h=1600&q=88&f=85c6a966b802d1c3f7d36f9f4eb22a7c This is not Constitutional. https://t.co/EU3fS5jcwb
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 21, 2025
Mitch Blood Green said:
Netanyahu's *****
