Where the fuck is this president? https://t.co/ChvbG1qKmn

— Darth Powell (@VladTheInflator) February 27, 2026

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ticktickticktickticktick

At 10:24 this morning, Friday February 27, the United States Ambassador to Israel emailed his own staff and told them to leave the country today.

Not next week. Not when convenient. Today.

Mike Huckabee, the man Donald Trump personally appointed to represent America in Israel,… pic.twitter.com/EJkr6CxNkP

— Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) February 27, 2026

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

ticktickticktickticktick

At 10:24 this morning, Friday February 27, the United States Ambassador to Israel emailed his own staff and told them to leave the country today.

Not next week. Not when convenient. Today.

Mike Huckabee, the man Donald Trump personally appointed to represent America in Israel,… pic.twitter.com/EJkr6CxNkP

— Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) February 27, 2026

---

You are a sick ****.

---

Americans shouldn’t die for Israel

— Jack Cocchiarella (@JDCocchiarella) February 28, 2026

So the Panicans were right about Iran?

— Drew Hernandez (@DrewHLive) February 28, 2026

‼️‼️ BREAKING: The Republicans have lost the House and Senate.

— Maine (@TheMaineWonk) February 28, 2026

#BREAKING: Israeli media is reporting the country’s military has launched pre-emptive strikes against Iran.https://t.co/NyWqcsFbad

— ABC News (@abcnews) February 28, 2026

Republicans have decided to sacrifice midterms for Israel 🥀🥀🥀 https://t.co/cgueVZ2h8m

— UBERSOY (@UBERSOY1) February 28, 2026

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Would be very surprised if Trump leads the US into a general war with Iran.

A. The American people would never support it.
B. Iran does not threaten the security of the United States.
C. Such a war would severely damage his rebuilding of the US economy via foreign investments.

---

Agreed and I think some of his top generals are telling him as much. I hope Rubio feels the same bc he will probably make the final call. Vance is trying to straddle the line bc he knows his potential future voters do not want a war.

---

Does not matter what line Vance atempts to straddle. He will not be the next POTUS.

But Rubio might.

He better keep Trump in line and the US out of war.

---

zero chance we go to war with Iran.

Now, we are for sure are about to bomb the hell out of them to force regime change.

---

That has a history of working. Air power has never forced regime change. Boots on the ground and staying is all that works, with the US as a Military Governor to start. It has to be complete or a waste of time.

---

You know better than that. Think harder. Ther are so, so many examples of US-fostered regime change occurring without invasion. Take, for example the USSR......

---

USSR? It took 50 years! No bombing and a lot of boots/sailors on the ground. So much so an era of our history is dominated by it.
Reagan policy was the proximate cause of the Soviet collapse: ramping up military spending to levels the USSR could not afford to match, using diplomacy to dry up sources of Western capital and drive down the cost of oil. It created a perfect storm that the USSR could not survive. We appear to be watching it happen in Venezuela. Same may be about to unfold in Cuba. Even today...Russia is reeling. It's eaten thru its cash reserves and is now burning thru its gold reserves, to finance a war it cannot win in the field. It does not have another 24 months. Putin knows it and is cranking up repression at home to prepare for the troubles that will occur when the war ends disappointingly for them.

Chile, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Congo, Iran, Viet Nam, Libya, Brazil... They usually dont turn out well.
Your examples do not support your argument. Most of those countries today are stable, and to varying degrees cooperative toward the USA. Only three of them have been occupied by US troops for any significant length of time, and even then only 1 of those actions occurred in the last 50 years.

Can you give me an example of one that didnt end up with a brutal dictator?
in the pantheon of Stalin-esque brutal dictators, at least four of the countries you cited would qualify. all but one of them are better off today than they were under the last dictator they had.

---

You're making a terrible ahistorical argument. Regimes collapse all the time without military invasion and occupation. Covert action often helps destabilize weak regimes. Raids and blockades and bombing campaigns are not nothing. They can greatly complicate a regime's ability to survive. We do not have to Desert Storm our way thru countries to force them to change their policies toward us (which is the goal of regime change).

We accomplish an awful lot with diplomacy. And when that doesn't work, we usually work around the problem, try to isolate it, put up bulwarks to minimize the risks it poses, and let time inflict its wounds on bad business models. Today's policies toward Iran would not have worked in 1986, or 1996. But today, they are incredibly weak across the board and having to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians to hold on to power. We start cratering state assets and key infrastructure.....regime change is more likely to happen, and happen sooner. May happen even if we don't.

And regime change has a value in and of itself. It gives a Pavlovian lesson to the next regime that it's bad business to make an enemy of the USA. Life is always easier when the 900lb gorilla sees you as an asset rather than a liability.

---

Once again, you are missing the point. It rarely, if ever, ends well or the way planned by the "covert world", especially for the people on the ground.
again, just childishly obtuse. The goal of regime change is not to make a country into a western democracy just like us. The point is to improve the relationship, regardless of what the resulting regime looks like. In Iraq, for example, the answer is "yes," by any reasonable standard.

Th only "Nation Building" I have seen work, was Germany and Japan. We gutted the entire system, replaced it with another system and STAYED for 40 years +.
And there you have you error. You are arguing about the quality "Nation Buildling," not regime change. The goal of regime change is to remove a regime which poses an unacceptable risk to your interests (like a stridently anti-American jihadi regime seeking nuclear weapons AND intercontinental ballistic missiles). What comes after is far, far less important, so long as they do not resume production of weapons which pose an existential threat to us.

Name one of your "covert" regime changes that were a success and didn't end up with another dictator in place. And these have boots on the ground, not just air power. If you look at air power alone, the list gets very short. Most of the problems in the world are because of your overthrows after WW1.
Again, a western democracy would be preferable, but a pro-west, or at least "not anti-west" dictator is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

You really think us bombing Iran is going to get rid of the existing regime and put a democratic one in place, without occupying? You are dreaming. Even with a population that many favor the west, I worked at an Iranian firm early in my career and have friends that came from Iran.
We're about to find out, aren't we? Decapitating leadership and security force command structures is a logical way to support a popular uprising, is it not? What do you know about Iranian opposition groups? What might we have already set in place?

By the way, many would say WE couldn't afford Reagan's buildup and have never paid that debt off. But, that is another discussion. By the way, how many troops and bases do we still have in Europe to protect them from what we destroyed? We didn't start pulling our heavy armor out until the 2010's... Does that cost count as part of the cost?

If you are going to do it, do it. These half steps create more problems. Invade, take it and occupy. Otherwise it is the same cycle. And no one wants that.

---

STxBear81 said:

---

Is Iran killing Christians by the thousands ?

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Would be very surprised if Trump leads the US into a general war with Iran.

A. The American people would never support it.
B. Iran does not threaten the security of the United States.
C. Such a war would severely damage his rebuilding of the US economy via foreign investments.

---

Agreed and I think some of his top generals are telling him as much. I hope Rubio feels the same bc he will probably make the final call. Vance is trying to straddle the line bc he knows his potential future voters do not want a war.

---

Does not matter what line Vance atempts to straddle. He will not be the next POTUS.

But Rubio might.

He better keep Trump in line and the US out of war.

---

zero chance we go to war with Iran.

Now, we are for sure are about to bomb the hell out of them to force regime change.

---

That has a history of working. Air power has never forced regime change. Boots on the ground and staying is all that works, with the US as a Military Governor to start. It has to be complete or a waste of time.

---

You know better than that. Think harder. Ther are so, so many examples of US-fostered regime change occurring without invasion. Take, for example the USSR......

---

USSR? It took 50 years! No bombing and a lot of boots/sailors on the ground. So much so an era of our history is dominated by it.
Reagan policy was the proximate cause of the Soviet collapse: ramping up military spending to levels the USSR could not afford to match, using diplomacy to dry up sources of Western capital and drive down the cost of oil. It created a perfect storm that the USSR could not survive. We appear to be watching it happen in Venezuela. Same may be about to unfold in Cuba. Even today...Russia is reeling. It's eaten thru its cash reserves and is now burning thru its gold reserves, to finance a war it cannot win in the field. It does not have another 24 months. Putin knows it and is cranking up repression at home to prepare for the troubles that will occur when the war ends disappointingly for them.

Chile, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Congo, Iran, Viet Nam, Libya, Brazil... They usually dont turn out well.
Your examples do not support your argument. Most of those countries today are stable, and to varying degrees cooperative toward the USA. Only three of them have been occupied by US troops for any significant length of time, and even then only 1 of those actions occurred in the last 50 years.

Can you give me an example of one that didnt end up with a brutal dictator?
in the pantheon of Stalin-esque brutal dictators, at least four of the countries you cited would qualify. all but one of them are better off today than they were under the last dictator they had.

---

You're making a terrible ahistorical argument. Regimes collapse all the time without military invasion and occupation. Covert action often helps destabilize weak regimes. Raids and blockades and bombing campaigns are not nothing. They can greatly complicate a regime's ability to survive. We do not have to Desert Storm our way thru countries to force them to change their policies toward us (which is the goal of regime change).

We accomplish an awful lot with diplomacy. And when that doesn't work, we usually work around the problem, try to isolate it, put up bulwarks to minimize the risks it poses, and let time inflict its wounds on bad business models. Today's policies toward Iran would not have worked in 1986, or 1996. But today, they are incredibly weak across the board and having to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians to hold on to power. We start cratering state assets and key infrastructure.....regime change is more likely to happen, and happen sooner. May happen even if we don't.

And regime change has a value in and of itself. It gives a Pavlovian lesson to the next regime that it's bad business to make an enemy of the USA. Life is always easier when the 900lb gorilla sees you as an asset rather than a liability.

---

Once again, you are missing the point. It rarely, if ever, ends well or the way planned by the "covert world", especially for the people on the ground.
again, just childishly obtuse. The goal of regime change is not to make a country into a western democracy just like us. The point is to improve the relationship, regardless of what the resulting regime looks like. In Iraq, for example, the answer is "yes," by any reasonable standard.

Th only "Nation Building" I have seen work, was Germany and Japan. We gutted the entire system, replaced it with another system and STAYED for 40 years +.
And there you have you error. You are arguing about the quality "Nation Buildling," not regime change. The goal of regime change is to remove a regime which poses an unacceptable risk to your interests (like a stridently anti-American jihadi regime seeking nuclear weapons AND intercontinental ballistic missiles). What comes after is far, far less important, so long as they do not resume production of weapons which pose an existential threat to us.

Name one of your "covert" regime changes that were a success and didn't end up with another dictator in place. And these have boots on the ground, not just air power. If you look at air power alone, the list gets very short. Most of the problems in the world are because of your overthrows after WW1.
Again, a western democracy would be preferable, but a pro-west, or at least "not anti-west" dictator is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

You really think us bombing Iran is going to get rid of the existing regime and put a democratic one in place, without occupying? You are dreaming. Even with a population that many favor the west, I worked at an Iranian firm early in my career and have friends that came from Iran.
We're about to find out, aren't we? Decapitating leadership and security force command structures is a logical way to support a popular uprising, is it not? What do you know about Iranian opposition groups? What might we have already set in place?

By the way, many would say WE couldn't afford Reagan's buildup and have never paid that debt off. But, that is another discussion. By the way, how many troops and bases do we still have in Europe to protect them from what we destroyed? We didn't start pulling our heavy armor out until the 2010's... Does that cost count as part of the cost?

If you are going to do it, do it. These half steps create more problems. Invade, take it and occupy. Otherwise it is the same cycle. And no one wants that.

---

Typically, your thinking is quite muddled on this. What Trump is doing here is textbook stuff. Air support for a popular uprising against a weak regime stridently hostile to our interests is an appropriate escalation. The USG has over decades ALWAYS maintained the position that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. We heavily sanctioned them. Then we bombed their nuclear sites, setting their program back for years, to demonstrate we were not going to change our position on Iranian nuclear weapons. No policies changed. Implacable hostility from Teheran. Then, in no small part because of the that bombing campaign, a popular uprising broke out. The regime has killed as many as 30k protestors, and weeks later is struggling to hold on. And also struggling to get their nuclear sites back on line. So we formed an armada against them and issued urgent diplomatic demands. To stop or else....."this time we will not be coming after your stuff....we'll be coming after YOU." And now, we are.

Long, long, overdue. And appropriately played by this admin.

---

They did not bomb Iran. They waited for Iran’s entire leadership to sit down in the same room and then they bombed Iran.

Months of intelligence. Thousands of hours of surveillance and signal intercepts. One variable: the moment the Supreme Leader, the President, and senior… https://t.co/I5l7iUI2HU pic.twitter.com/RXZSsSb12l

— Shanaka Anslem Perera ⚡ (@shanaka86) February 28, 2026

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Would be very surprised if Trump leads the US into a general war with Iran.

A. The American people would never support it.
B. Iran does not threaten the security of the United States.
C. Such a war would severely damage his rebuilding of the US economy via foreign investments.

---

Agreed and I think some of his top generals are telling him as much. I hope Rubio feels the same bc he will probably make the final call. Vance is trying to straddle the line bc he knows his potential future voters do not want a war.

---

Does not matter what line Vance atempts to straddle. He will not be the next POTUS.

But Rubio might.

He better keep Trump in line and the US out of war.

---

zero chance we go to war with Iran.

Now, we are for sure are about to bomb the hell out of them to force regime change.

---

That has a history of working. Air power has never forced regime change. Boots on the ground and staying is all that works, with the US as a Military Governor to start. It has to be complete or a waste of time.

---

You know better than that. Think harder. Ther are so, so many examples of US-fostered regime change occurring without invasion. Take, for example the USSR......

---

USSR? It took 50 years! No bombing and a lot of boots/sailors on the ground. So much so an era of our history is dominated by it.
Reagan policy was the proximate cause of the Soviet collapse: ramping up military spending to levels the USSR could not afford to match, using diplomacy to dry up sources of Western capital and drive down the cost of oil. It created a perfect storm that the USSR could not survive. We appear to be watching it happen in Venezuela. Same may be about to unfold in Cuba. Even today...Russia is reeling. It's eaten thru its cash reserves and is now burning thru its gold reserves, to finance a war it cannot win in the field. It does not have another 24 months. Putin knows it and is cranking up repression at home to prepare for the troubles that will occur when the war ends disappointingly for them.

Chile, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Congo, Iran, Viet Nam, Libya, Brazil... They usually dont turn out well.
Your examples do not support your argument. Most of those countries today are stable, and to varying degrees cooperative toward the USA. Only three of them have been occupied by US troops for any significant length of time, and even then only 1 of those actions occurred in the last 50 years.

Can you give me an example of one that didnt end up with a brutal dictator?
in the pantheon of Stalin-esque brutal dictators, at least four of the countries you cited would qualify. all but one of them are better off today than they were under the last dictator they had.

---

You're making a terrible ahistorical argument. Regimes collapse all the time without military invasion and occupation. Covert action often helps destabilize weak regimes. Raids and blockades and bombing campaigns are not nothing. They can greatly complicate a regime's ability to survive. We do not have to Desert Storm our way thru countries to force them to change their policies toward us (which is the goal of regime change).

We accomplish an awful lot with diplomacy. And when that doesn't work, we usually work around the problem, try to isolate it, put up bulwarks to minimize the risks it poses, and let time inflict its wounds on bad business models. Today's policies toward Iran would not have worked in 1986, or 1996. But today, they are incredibly weak across the board and having to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians to hold on to power. We start cratering state assets and key infrastructure.....regime change is more likely to happen, and happen sooner. May happen even if we don't.

And regime change has a value in and of itself. It gives a Pavlovian lesson to the next regime that it's bad business to make an enemy of the USA. Life is always easier when the 900lb gorilla sees you as an asset rather than a liability.

---

Once again, you are missing the point. It rarely, if ever, ends well or the way planned by the "covert world", especially for the people on the ground.
again, just childishly obtuse. The goal of regime change is not to make a country into a western democracy just like us. The point is to improve the relationship, regardless of what the resulting regime looks like. In Iraq, for example, the answer is "yes," by any reasonable standard.

Th only "Nation Building" I have seen work, was Germany and Japan. We gutted the entire system, replaced it with another system and STAYED for 40 years +.
And there you have you error. You are arguing about the quality "Nation Buildling," not regime change. The goal of regime change is to remove a regime which poses an unacceptable risk to your interests (like a stridently anti-American jihadi regime seeking nuclear weapons AND intercontinental ballistic missiles). What comes after is far, far less important, so long as they do not resume production of weapons which pose an existential threat to us.

Name one of your "covert" regime changes that were a success and didn't end up with another dictator in place. And these have boots on the ground, not just air power. If you look at air power alone, the list gets very short. Most of the problems in the world are because of your overthrows after WW1.
Again, a western democracy would be preferable, but a pro-west, or at least "not anti-west" dictator is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

You really think us bombing Iran is going to get rid of the existing regime and put a democratic one in place, without occupying? You are dreaming. Even with a population that many favor the west, I worked at an Iranian firm early in my career and have friends that came from Iran.
We're about to find out, aren't we? Decapitating leadership and security force command structures is a logical way to support a popular uprising, is it not? What do you know about Iranian opposition groups? What might we have already set in place?

By the way, many would say WE couldn't afford Reagan's buildup and have never paid that debt off. But, that is another discussion. By the way, how many troops and bases do we still have in Europe to protect them from what we destroyed? We didn't start pulling our heavy armor out until the 2010's... Does that cost count as part of the cost?

If you are going to do it, do it. These half steps create more problems. Invade, take it and occupy. Otherwise it is the same cycle. And no one wants that.

---

Typically, your thinking is quite muddled on this. What Trump is doing here is textbook stuff. Air support for a popular uprising against a weak regime stridently hostile to our interests is an appropriate escalation. The USG has over decades ALWAYS maintained the position that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. We heavily sanctioned them. Then we bombed their nuclear sites, setting their program back for years, to demonstrate we were not going to change our position on Iranian nuclear weapons. No policies changed. Implacable hostility from Teheran. Then, in no small part because of the that bombing campaign, a popular uprising broke out. The regime has killed as many as 30k protestors, and weeks later is struggling to hold on. And also struggling to get their nuclear sites back on line. So we formed an armada against them and issued urgent diplomatic demands. To stop or else....."this time we will not be coming after your stuff....we'll be coming after YOU." And now, we are.

Long, long, overdue. And appropriately played by this admin.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Would be very surprised if Trump leads the US into a general war with Iran.

A. The American people would never support it.
B. Iran does not threaten the security of the United States.
C. Such a war would severely damage his rebuilding of the US economy via foreign investments.

---

Agreed and I think some of his top generals are telling him as much. I hope Rubio feels the same bc he will probably make the final call. Vance is trying to straddle the line bc he knows his potential future voters do not want a war.

---

Does not matter what line Vance atempts to straddle. He will not be the next POTUS.

But Rubio might.

He better keep Trump in line and the US out of war.

---

zero chance we go to war with Iran.

Now, we are for sure are about to bomb the hell out of them to force regime change.

---

That has a history of working. Air power has never forced regime change. Boots on the ground and staying is all that works, with the US as a Military Governor to start. It has to be complete or a waste of time.

---

You know better than that. Think harder. Ther are so, so many examples of US-fostered regime change occurring without invasion. Take, for example the USSR......

---

USSR? It took 50 years! No bombing and a lot of boots/sailors on the ground. So much so an era of our history is dominated by it.
Reagan policy was the proximate cause of the Soviet collapse: ramping up military spending to levels the USSR could not afford to match, using diplomacy to dry up sources of Western capital and drive down the cost of oil. It created a perfect storm that the USSR could not survive. We appear to be watching it happen in Venezuela. Same may be about to unfold in Cuba. Even today...Russia is reeling. It's eaten thru its cash reserves and is now burning thru its gold reserves, to finance a war it cannot win in the field. It does not have another 24 months. Putin knows it and is cranking up repression at home to prepare for the troubles that will occur when the war ends disappointingly for them.

Chile, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Congo, Iran, Viet Nam, Libya, Brazil... They usually dont turn out well.
Your examples do not support your argument. Most of those countries today are stable, and to varying degrees cooperative toward the USA. Only three of them have been occupied by US troops for any significant length of time, and even then only 1 of those actions occurred in the last 50 years.

Can you give me an example of one that didnt end up with a brutal dictator?
in the pantheon of Stalin-esque brutal dictators, at least four of the countries you cited would qualify. all but one of them are better off today than they were under the last dictator they had.

---

You're making a terrible ahistorical argument. Regimes collapse all the time without military invasion and occupation. Covert action often helps destabilize weak regimes. Raids and blockades and bombing campaigns are not nothing. They can greatly complicate a regime's ability to survive. We do not have to Desert Storm our way thru countries to force them to change their policies toward us (which is the goal of regime change).

We accomplish an awful lot with diplomacy. And when that doesn't work, we usually work around the problem, try to isolate it, put up bulwarks to minimize the risks it poses, and let time inflict its wounds on bad business models. Today's policies toward Iran would not have worked in 1986, or 1996. But today, they are incredibly weak across the board and having to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians to hold on to power. We start cratering state assets and key infrastructure.....regime change is more likely to happen, and happen sooner. May happen even if we don't.

And regime change has a value in and of itself. It gives a Pavlovian lesson to the next regime that it's bad business to make an enemy of the USA. Life is always easier when the 900lb gorilla sees you as an asset rather than a liability.

---

Once again, you are missing the point. It rarely, if ever, ends well or the way planned by the "covert world", especially for the people on the ground.
again, just childishly obtuse. The goal of regime change is not to make a country into a western democracy just like us. The point is to improve the relationship, regardless of what the resulting regime looks like. In Iraq, for example, the answer is "yes," by any reasonable standard.

Th only "Nation Building" I have seen work, was Germany and Japan. We gutted the entire system, replaced it with another system and STAYED for 40 years +.
And there you have you error. You are arguing about the quality "Nation Buildling," not regime change. The goal of regime change is to remove a regime which poses an unacceptable risk to your interests (like a stridently anti-American jihadi regime seeking nuclear weapons AND intercontinental ballistic missiles). What comes after is far, far less important, so long as they do not resume production of weapons which pose an existential threat to us.

Name one of your "covert" regime changes that were a success and didn't end up with another dictator in place. And these have boots on the ground, not just air power. If you look at air power alone, the list gets very short. Most of the problems in the world are because of your overthrows after WW1.
Again, a western democracy would be preferable, but a pro-west, or at least "not anti-west" dictator is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

You really think us bombing Iran is going to get rid of the existing regime and put a democratic one in place, without occupying? You are dreaming. Even with a population that many favor the west, I worked at an Iranian firm early in my career and have friends that came from Iran.
We're about to find out, aren't we? Decapitating leadership and security force command structures is a logical way to support a popular uprising, is it not? What do you know about Iranian opposition groups? What might we have already set in place?

By the way, many would say WE couldn't afford Reagan's buildup and have never paid that debt off. But, that is another discussion. By the way, how many troops and bases do we still have in Europe to protect them from what we destroyed? We didn't start pulling our heavy armor out until the 2010's... Does that cost count as part of the cost?

If you are going to do it, do it. These half steps create more problems. Invade, take it and occupy. Otherwise it is the same cycle. And no one wants that.

---

Typically, your thinking is quite muddled on this. What Trump is doing here is textbook stuff. Air support for a popular uprising against a weak regime stridently hostile to our interests is an appropriate escalation. The USG has over decades ALWAYS maintained the position that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. We heavily sanctioned them. Then we bombed their nuclear sites, setting their program back for years, to demonstrate we were not going to change our position on Iranian nuclear weapons. No policies changed. Implacable hostility from Teheran. Then, in no small part because of the that bombing campaign, a popular uprising broke out. The regime has killed as many as 30k protestors, and weeks later is struggling to hold on. And also struggling to get their nuclear sites back on line. So we formed an armada against them and issued urgent diplomatic demands. To stop or else....."this time we will not be coming after your stuff....we'll be coming after YOU." And now, we are.

Long, long, overdue. And appropriately played by this admin.

---

Like they say, the first casualty is the truth.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Would be very surprised if Trump leads the US into a general war with Iran.

A. The American people would never support it.
B. Iran does not threaten the security of the United States.
C. Such a war would severely damage his rebuilding of the US economy via foreign investments.

---

Agreed and I think some of his top generals are telling him as much. I hope Rubio feels the same bc he will probably make the final call. Vance is trying to straddle the line bc he knows his potential future voters do not want a war.

---

Does not matter what line Vance atempts to straddle. He will not be the next POTUS.

But Rubio might.

He better keep Trump in line and the US out of war.

---

zero chance we go to war with Iran.

Now, we are for sure are about to bomb the hell out of them to force regime change.

---

That has a history of working. Air power has never forced regime change. Boots on the ground and staying is all that works, with the US as a Military Governor to start. It has to be complete or a waste of time.

---

You know better than that. Think harder. Ther are so, so many examples of US-fostered regime change occurring without invasion. Take, for example the USSR......

---

USSR? It took 50 years! No bombing and a lot of boots/sailors on the ground. So much so an era of our history is dominated by it.
Reagan policy was the proximate cause of the Soviet collapse: ramping up military spending to levels the USSR could not afford to match, using diplomacy to dry up sources of Western capital and drive down the cost of oil. It created a perfect storm that the USSR could not survive. We appear to be watching it happen in Venezuela. Same may be about to unfold in Cuba. Even today...Russia is reeling. It's eaten thru its cash reserves and is now burning thru its gold reserves, to finance a war it cannot win in the field. It does not have another 24 months. Putin knows it and is cranking up repression at home to prepare for the troubles that will occur when the war ends disappointingly for them.

Chile, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Congo, Iran, Viet Nam, Libya, Brazil... They usually dont turn out well.
Your examples do not support your argument. Most of those countries today are stable, and to varying degrees cooperative toward the USA. Only three of them have been occupied by US troops for any significant length of time, and even then only 1 of those actions occurred in the last 50 years.

Can you give me an example of one that didnt end up with a brutal dictator?
in the pantheon of Stalin-esque brutal dictators, at least four of the countries you cited would qualify. all but one of them are better off today than they were under the last dictator they had.

---

You're making a terrible ahistorical argument. Regimes collapse all the time without military invasion and occupation. Covert action often helps destabilize weak regimes. Raids and blockades and bombing campaigns are not nothing. They can greatly complicate a regime's ability to survive. We do not have to Desert Storm our way thru countries to force them to change their policies toward us (which is the goal of regime change).

We accomplish an awful lot with diplomacy. And when that doesn't work, we usually work around the problem, try to isolate it, put up bulwarks to minimize the risks it poses, and let time inflict its wounds on bad business models. Today's policies toward Iran would not have worked in 1986, or 1996. But today, they are incredibly weak across the board and having to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians to hold on to power. We start cratering state assets and key infrastructure.....regime change is more likely to happen, and happen sooner. May happen even if we don't.

And regime change has a value in and of itself. It gives a Pavlovian lesson to the next regime that it's bad business to make an enemy of the USA. Life is always easier when the 900lb gorilla sees you as an asset rather than a liability.

---

Once again, you are missing the point. It rarely, if ever, ends well or the way planned by the "covert world", especially for the people on the ground.
again, just childishly obtuse. The goal of regime change is not to make a country into a western democracy just like us. The point is to improve the relationship, regardless of what the resulting regime looks like. In Iraq, for example, the answer is "yes," by any reasonable standard.

Th only "Nation Building" I have seen work, was Germany and Japan. We gutted the entire system, replaced it with another system and STAYED for 40 years +.
And there you have you error. You are arguing about the quality "Nation Buildling," not regime change. The goal of regime change is to remove a regime which poses an unacceptable risk to your interests (like a stridently anti-American jihadi regime seeking nuclear weapons AND intercontinental ballistic missiles). What comes after is far, far less important, so long as they do not resume production of weapons which pose an existential threat to us.

Name one of your "covert" regime changes that were a success and didn't end up with another dictator in place. And these have boots on the ground, not just air power. If you look at air power alone, the list gets very short. Most of the problems in the world are because of your overthrows after WW1.
Again, a western democracy would be preferable, but a pro-west, or at least "not anti-west" dictator is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

You really think us bombing Iran is going to get rid of the existing regime and put a democratic one in place, without occupying? You are dreaming. Even with a population that many favor the west, I worked at an Iranian firm early in my career and have friends that came from Iran.
We're about to find out, aren't we? Decapitating leadership and security force command structures is a logical way to support a popular uprising, is it not? What do you know about Iranian opposition groups? What might we have already set in place?

By the way, many would say WE couldn't afford Reagan's buildup and have never paid that debt off. But, that is another discussion. By the way, how many troops and bases do we still have in Europe to protect them from what we destroyed? We didn't start pulling our heavy armor out until the 2010's... Does that cost count as part of the cost?

If you are going to do it, do it. These half steps create more problems. Invade, take it and occupy. Otherwise it is the same cycle. And no one wants that.

---

Typically, your thinking is quite muddled on this. What Trump is doing here is textbook stuff. Air support for a popular uprising against a weak regime stridently hostile to our interests is an appropriate escalation. The USG has over decades ALWAYS maintained the position that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. We heavily sanctioned them. Then we bombed their nuclear sites, setting their program back for years, to demonstrate we were not going to change our position on Iranian nuclear weapons. No policies changed. Implacable hostility from Teheran. Then, in no small part because of the that bombing campaign, a popular uprising broke out. The regime has killed as many as 30k protestors, and weeks later is struggling to hold on. And also struggling to get their nuclear sites back on line. So we formed an armada against them and issued urgent diplomatic demands. To stop or else....."this time we will not be coming after your stuff....we'll be coming after YOU." And now, we are.

Long, long, overdue. And appropriately played by this admin.

---

Like they say, the first casualty is the truth.

---

As my posts here unerringly demonstrate.

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Would be very surprised if Trump leads the US into a general war with Iran.

A. The American people would never support it.
B. Iran does not threaten the security of the United States.
C. Such a war would severely damage his rebuilding of the US economy via foreign investments.

---

Agreed and I think some of his top generals are telling him as much. I hope Rubio feels the same bc he will probably make the final call. Vance is trying to straddle the line bc he knows his potential future voters do not want a war.

---

Does not matter what line Vance atempts to straddle. He will not be the next POTUS.

But Rubio might.

He better keep Trump in line and the US out of war.

---

zero chance we go to war with Iran.

Now, we are for sure are about to bomb the hell out of them to force regime change.

---

That has a history of working. Air power has never forced regime change. Boots on the ground and staying is all that works, with the US as a Military Governor to start. It has to be complete or a waste of time.

---

You know better than that. Think harder. Ther are so, so many examples of US-fostered regime change occurring without invasion. Take, for example the USSR......

---

USSR? It took 50 years! No bombing and a lot of boots/sailors on the ground. So much so an era of our history is dominated by it.
Reagan policy was the proximate cause of the Soviet collapse: ramping up military spending to levels the USSR could not afford to match, using diplomacy to dry up sources of Western capital and drive down the cost of oil. It created a perfect storm that the USSR could not survive. We appear to be watching it happen in Venezuela. Same may be about to unfold in Cuba. Even today...Russia is reeling. It's eaten thru its cash reserves and is now burning thru its gold reserves, to finance a war it cannot win in the field. It does not have another 24 months. Putin knows it and is cranking up repression at home to prepare for the troubles that will occur when the war ends disappointingly for them.

Chile, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Congo, Iran, Viet Nam, Libya, Brazil... They usually dont turn out well.
Your examples do not support your argument. Most of those countries today are stable, and to varying degrees cooperative toward the USA. Only three of them have been occupied by US troops for any significant length of time, and even then only 1 of those actions occurred in the last 50 years.

Can you give me an example of one that didnt end up with a brutal dictator?
in the pantheon of Stalin-esque brutal dictators, at least four of the countries you cited would qualify. all but one of them are better off today than they were under the last dictator they had.

---

You're making a terrible ahistorical argument. Regimes collapse all the time without military invasion and occupation. Covert action often helps destabilize weak regimes. Raids and blockades and bombing campaigns are not nothing. They can greatly complicate a regime's ability to survive. We do not have to Desert Storm our way thru countries to force them to change their policies toward us (which is the goal of regime change).

We accomplish an awful lot with diplomacy. And when that doesn't work, we usually work around the problem, try to isolate it, put up bulwarks to minimize the risks it poses, and let time inflict its wounds on bad business models. Today's policies toward Iran would not have worked in 1986, or 1996. But today, they are incredibly weak across the board and having to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians to hold on to power. We start cratering state assets and key infrastructure.....regime change is more likely to happen, and happen sooner. May happen even if we don't.

And regime change has a value in and of itself. It gives a Pavlovian lesson to the next regime that it's bad business to make an enemy of the USA. Life is always easier when the 900lb gorilla sees you as an asset rather than a liability.

---

Once again, you are missing the point. It rarely, if ever, ends well or the way planned by the "covert world", especially for the people on the ground.
again, just childishly obtuse. The goal of regime change is not to make a country into a western democracy just like us. The point is to improve the relationship, regardless of what the resulting regime looks like. In Iraq, for example, the answer is "yes," by any reasonable standard.

Th only "Nation Building" I have seen work, was Germany and Japan. We gutted the entire system, replaced it with another system and STAYED for 40 years +.
And there you have you error. You are arguing about the quality "Nation Buildling," not regime change. The goal of regime change is to remove a regime which poses an unacceptable risk to your interests (like a stridently anti-American jihadi regime seeking nuclear weapons AND intercontinental ballistic missiles). What comes after is far, far less important, so long as they do not resume production of weapons which pose an existential threat to us.

Name one of your "covert" regime changes that were a success and didn't end up with another dictator in place. And these have boots on the ground, not just air power. If you look at air power alone, the list gets very short. Most of the problems in the world are because of your overthrows after WW1.
Again, a western democracy would be preferable, but a pro-west, or at least "not anti-west" dictator is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

You really think us bombing Iran is going to get rid of the existing regime and put a democratic one in place, without occupying? You are dreaming. Even with a population that many favor the west, I worked at an Iranian firm early in my career and have friends that came from Iran.
We're about to find out, aren't we? Decapitating leadership and security force command structures is a logical way to support a popular uprising, is it not? What do you know about Iranian opposition groups? What might we have already set in place?

By the way, many would say WE couldn't afford Reagan's buildup and have never paid that debt off. But, that is another discussion. By the way, how many troops and bases do we still have in Europe to protect them from what we destroyed? We didn't start pulling our heavy armor out until the 2010's... Does that cost count as part of the cost?

If you are going to do it, do it. These half steps create more problems. Invade, take it and occupy. Otherwise it is the same cycle. And no one wants that.

---

Typically, your thinking is quite muddled on this. What Trump is doing here is textbook stuff. Air support for a popular uprising against a weak regime stridently hostile to our interests is an appropriate escalation. The USG has over decades ALWAYS maintained the position that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. We heavily sanctioned them. Then we bombed their nuclear sites, setting their program back for years, to demonstrate we were not going to change our position on Iranian nuclear weapons. No policies changed. Implacable hostility from Teheran. Then, in no small part because of the that bombing campaign, a popular uprising broke out. The regime has killed as many as 30k protestors, and weeks later is struggling to hold on. And also struggling to get their nuclear sites back on line. So we formed an armada against them and issued urgent diplomatic demands. To stop or else....."this time we will not be coming after your stuff....we'll be coming after YOU." And now, we are.

Long, long, overdue. And appropriately played by this admin.

---

Like they say, the first casualty is the truth.

---

As my posts here unerringly demonstrate.

---

Indeed so.

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

Would be very surprised if Trump leads the US into a general war with Iran.

A. The American people would never support it.
B. Iran does not threaten the security of the United States.
C. Such a war would severely damage his rebuilding of the US economy via foreign investments.

---

Agreed and I think some of his top generals are telling him as much. I hope Rubio feels the same bc he will probably make the final call. Vance is trying to straddle the line bc he knows his potential future voters do not want a war.

---

Does not matter what line Vance atempts to straddle. He will not be the next POTUS.

But Rubio might.

He better keep Trump in line and the US out of war.

---

zero chance we go to war with Iran.

Now, we are for sure are about to bomb the hell out of them to force regime change.

---

That has a history of working. Air power has never forced regime change. Boots on the ground and staying is all that works, with the US as a Military Governor to start. It has to be complete or a waste of time.

---

You know better than that. Think harder. Ther are so, so many examples of US-fostered regime change occurring without invasion. Take, for example the USSR......

---

USSR? It took 50 years! No bombing and a lot of boots/sailors on the ground. So much so an era of our history is dominated by it.
Reagan policy was the proximate cause of the Soviet collapse: ramping up military spending to levels the USSR could not afford to match, using diplomacy to dry up sources of Western capital and drive down the cost of oil. It created a perfect storm that the USSR could not survive. We appear to be watching it happen in Venezuela. Same may be about to unfold in Cuba. Even today...Russia is reeling. It's eaten thru its cash reserves and is now burning thru its gold reserves, to finance a war it cannot win in the field. It does not have another 24 months. Putin knows it and is cranking up repression at home to prepare for the troubles that will occur when the war ends disappointingly for them.

Chile, Panama, Cuba, Guatemala, Congo, Iran, Viet Nam, Libya, Brazil... They usually dont turn out well.
Your examples do not support your argument. Most of those countries today are stable, and to varying degrees cooperative toward the USA. Only three of them have been occupied by US troops for any significant length of time, and even then only 1 of those actions occurred in the last 50 years.

Can you give me an example of one that didnt end up with a brutal dictator?
in the pantheon of Stalin-esque brutal dictators, at least four of the countries you cited would qualify. all but one of them are better off today than they were under the last dictator they had.

---

You're making a terrible ahistorical argument. Regimes collapse all the time without military invasion and occupation. Covert action often helps destabilize weak regimes. Raids and blockades and bombing campaigns are not nothing. They can greatly complicate a regime's ability to survive. We do not have to Desert Storm our way thru countries to force them to change their policies toward us (which is the goal of regime change).

We accomplish an awful lot with diplomacy. And when that doesn't work, we usually work around the problem, try to isolate it, put up bulwarks to minimize the risks it poses, and let time inflict its wounds on bad business models. Today's policies toward Iran would not have worked in 1986, or 1996. But today, they are incredibly weak across the board and having to fire into crowds of unarmed civilians to hold on to power. We start cratering state assets and key infrastructure.....regime change is more likely to happen, and happen sooner. May happen even if we don't.

And regime change has a value in and of itself. It gives a Pavlovian lesson to the next regime that it's bad business to make an enemy of the USA. Life is always easier when the 900lb gorilla sees you as an asset rather than a liability.

---

Once again, you are missing the point. It rarely, if ever, ends well or the way planned by the "covert world", especially for the people on the ground.
again, just childishly obtuse. The goal of regime change is not to make a country into a western democracy just like us. The point is to improve the relationship, regardless of what the resulting regime looks like. In Iraq, for example, the answer is "yes," by any reasonable standard.

Th only "Nation Building" I have seen work, was Germany and Japan. We gutted the entire system, replaced it with another system and STAYED for 40 years +.
And there you have you error. You are arguing about the quality "Nation Buildling," not regime change. The goal of regime change is to remove a regime which poses an unacceptable risk to your interests (like a stridently anti-American jihadi regime seeking nuclear weapons AND intercontinental ballistic missiles). What comes after is far, far less important, so long as they do not resume production of weapons which pose an existential threat to us.

Name one of your "covert" regime changes that were a success and didn't end up with another dictator in place. And these have boots on the ground, not just air power. If you look at air power alone, the list gets very short. Most of the problems in the world are because of your overthrows after WW1.
Again, a western democracy would be preferable, but a pro-west, or at least "not anti-west" dictator is a perfectly acceptable outcome.

You really think us bombing Iran is going to get rid of the existing regime and put a democratic one in place, without occupying? You are dreaming. Even with a population that many favor the west, I worked at an Iranian firm early in my career and have friends that came from Iran.
We're about to find out, aren't we? Decapitating leadership and security force command structures is a logical way to support a popular uprising, is it not? What do you know about Iranian opposition groups? What might we have already set in place?

By the way, many would say WE couldn't afford Reagan's buildup and have never paid that debt off. But, that is another discussion. By the way, how many troops and bases do we still have in Europe to protect them from what we destroyed? We didn't start pulling our heavy armor out until the 2010's... Does that cost count as part of the cost?

If you are going to do it, do it. These half steps create more problems. Invade, take it and occupy. Otherwise it is the same cycle. And no one wants that.

---

Typically, your thinking is quite muddled on this. What Trump is doing here is textbook stuff. Air support for a popular uprising against a weak regime stridently hostile to our interests is an appropriate escalation. The USG has over decades ALWAYS maintained the position that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. We heavily sanctioned them. Then we bombed their nuclear sites, setting their program back for years, to demonstrate we were not going to change our position on Iranian nuclear weapons. No policies changed. Implacable hostility from Teheran. Then, in no small part because of the that bombing campaign, a popular uprising broke out. The regime has killed as many as 30k protestors, and weeks later is struggling to hold on. And also struggling to get their nuclear sites back on line. So we formed an armada against them and issued urgent diplomatic demands. To stop or else....."this time we will not be coming after your stuff....we'll be coming after YOU." And now, we are.

Long, long, overdue. And appropriately played by this admin.

---

Like they say, the first casualty is the truth.

---

As my posts here unerringly demonstrate.

---

Indeed so.

---

Thanks for demonstrating how you make it up as you go along.

---

Iranian Rhapsody 😭🤣 pic.twitter.com/MeqB4yH6DH

— Denise 🤌🐾🇮🇹 (@NoDMsPerfavore) March 1, 2026

whiterock said:

---

LOL

Iranian Rhapsody 😭🤣 pic.twitter.com/MeqB4yH6DH

— Denise 🤌🐾🇮🇹 (@NoDMsPerfavore) March 1, 2026

---

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

whiterock said:

---

For those who think only boomers support this conflict….herewith numbers from one of the bluer polling units.

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

---

whiterock said:

---

LOL

Iranian Rhapsody 😭🤣 pic.twitter.com/MeqB4yH6DH

— Denise 🤌🐾🇮🇹 (@NoDMsPerfavore) March 1, 2026

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

For those who think only boomers support this conflict….herewith numbers from one of the bluer polling units.

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

---

I've never been more proud to be a Millenial!

We learned our lessons from the GWOT..... that you Boomer *******s are completely incompetent and incapable of leading wars and that the only beneficiaries will be O&G, defense contractors, politicians, and Israel.

Looks like the Zoomers are now going to have to learn that lesson unfortunately.....

---

💥🇮🇷🇺🇸
History buffs: the White House hosted a fascinating call yesterday with 3 administration officials who gave a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Iran talks & why Trump ordered strikes hours earlier

It’s a first draft of history, so follow 🧵 👇

Post 1/10

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) March 1, 2026

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

For those who think only boomers support this conflict….herewith numbers from one of the bluer polling units.

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

---

I've never been more proud to be a Millenial!

We learned our lessons from the GWOT..... that you Boomer *******s are completely incompetent and incapable of leading wars and that the only beneficiaries will be O&G, defense contractors, politicians, and Israel.

Looks like the Zoomers are now going to have to learn that lesson unfortunately.....

---

All you have learned is how to stick the beginning of the alimentary canal up the aperture of the end of it, and call it wisdom.

Here's a good window to reality. Interestingly, Israel has nothing to do with it.

💥🇮🇷🇺🇸
History buffs: the White House hosted a fascinating call yesterday with 3 administration officials who gave a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Iran talks & why Trump ordered strikes hours earlier

It’s a first draft of history, so follow 🧵 👇

Post 1/10

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) March 1, 2026

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

For those who think only boomers support this conflict….herewith numbers from one of the bluer polling units.

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

---

I've never been more proud to be a Millenial!

We learned our lessons from the GWOT..... that you Boomer *******s are completely incompetent and incapable of leading wars and that the only beneficiaries will be O&G, defense contractors, politicians, and Israel.

Looks like the Zoomers are now going to have to learn that lesson unfortunately.....

---

All you have learned is how to stick the beginning of the alimentary canal up the aperture of the end of it, and call it wisdom.

Here's a good window to reality. Interestingly, Israel has nothing to do with it.

💥🇮🇷🇺🇸
History buffs: the White House hosted a fascinating call yesterday with 3 administration officials who gave a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Iran talks & why Trump ordered strikes hours earlier

It’s a first draft of history, so follow 🧵 👇

Post 1/10

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) March 1, 2026

---

I read the first paragraph and stopped after they said the ballistic missiles that are incapable of hitting US soil were a threat.

What am I suppose to extract from this X thread that will suddenly turn me in favor of America becoming a pro-interventionist, global corporation beholden to international interests instead of an actual, real country that represents the culture, history, and people who have lived here for centuries?

We are getting near the point with inflation and government spending, where the only people who can make a living anymore in this country either work for the government or the defense contactors (which are really just government institutions masquerading as private industry).

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

For those who think only boomers support this conflict….herewith numbers from one of the bluer polling units.

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

---

I've never been more proud to be a Millenial!

We learned our lessons from the GWOT..... that you Boomer *******s are completely incompetent and incapable of leading wars and that the only beneficiaries will be O&G, defense contractors, politicians, and Israel.

Looks like the Zoomers are now going to have to learn that lesson unfortunately.....

---

All you have learned is how to stick the beginning of the alimentary canal up the aperture of the end of it, and call it wisdom.

Here's a good window to reality. Interestingly, Israel has nothing to do with it.

💥🇮🇷🇺🇸
History buffs: the White House hosted a fascinating call yesterday with 3 administration officials who gave a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Iran talks & why Trump ordered strikes hours earlier

It’s a first draft of history, so follow 🧵 👇

Post 1/10

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) March 1, 2026

---

I read the first paragraph and stopped after they said the ballistic missiles that are incapable of hitting US soil were a threat.

What am I suppose to extract from this X thread that will suddenly turn me in favor of America becoming a pro-interventionist, global corporation beholden to international interests instead of an actual, real country that represents the culture, history, and people who have lived here for centuries?

We are getting near the point with inflation and government spending, where the only people who can make a living anymore in this country either work for the government or the defense contactors (which are really just government institutions masquerading as private industry).

---

Like we've said. You only see what you want to see. They had no ballistic misses a decade ago. Now they can strike NATO (and other) allies. It's a matter of time until they have intercontinental ballistic capability. A same for nuclear weapons capability.

Will they be a threat then?
Do we have to actually wait for that threat to mature before responding?

How many more Americans have to die before it's enough to animate you as much as the USS Libert incident?

It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be stupid. The two together are toxic mix. But to be hidebound about it all is absolutely toxic. You are the effin' Ford Pinto = unsafe at any speed.

---

Blackwater founder Erik Prince weighs in on Trump's Iran attack: "Subjecting our foreign policy to Israeli foreign policy, I have real issue with that... this should not be the path forward."

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/p3lAIUfT1Q

— AF Post (@AFpost) March 1, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

For those who think only boomers support this conflict….herewith numbers from one of the bluer polling units.

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

---

I've never been more proud to be a Millenial!

We learned our lessons from the GWOT..... that you Boomer *******s are completely incompetent and incapable of leading wars and that the only beneficiaries will be O&G, defense contractors, politicians, and Israel.

Looks like the Zoomers are now going to have to learn that lesson unfortunately.....

---

All you have learned is how to stick the beginning of the alimentary canal up the aperture of the end of it, and call it wisdom.

Here's a good window to reality. Interestingly, Israel has nothing to do with it.

💥🇮🇷🇺🇸
History buffs: the White House hosted a fascinating call yesterday with 3 administration officials who gave a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Iran talks & why Trump ordered strikes hours earlier

It’s a first draft of history, so follow 🧵 👇

Post 1/10

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) March 1, 2026

---

I read the first paragraph and stopped after they said the ballistic missiles that are incapable of hitting US soil were a threat.

What am I suppose to extract from this X thread that will suddenly turn me in favor of America becoming a pro-interventionist, global corporation beholden to international interests instead of an actual, real country that represents the culture, history, and people who have lived here for centuries?

We are getting near the point with inflation and government spending, where the only people who can make a living anymore in this country either work for the government or the defense contactors (which are really just government institutions masquerading as private industry).

---

Like we've said. You only see what you want to see. They had no ballistic misses a decade ago. Now they can strike NATO (and other) allies. It's a matter of time until they have intercontinental ballistic capability. A same for nuclear weapons capability.

---

Pure horse **** from start to finish.

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

For those who think only boomers support this conflict….herewith numbers from one of the bluer polling units.

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

---

I've never been more proud to be a Millenial!

We learned our lessons from the GWOT..... that you Boomer *******s are completely incompetent and incapable of leading wars and that the only beneficiaries will be O&G, defense contractors, politicians, and Israel.

Looks like the Zoomers are now going to have to learn that lesson unfortunately.....

---

All you have learned is how to stick the beginning of the alimentary canal up the aperture of the end of it, and call it wisdom.

Here's a good window to reality. Interestingly, Israel has nothing to do with it.

💥🇮🇷🇺🇸
History buffs: the White House hosted a fascinating call yesterday with 3 administration officials who gave a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Iran talks & why Trump ordered strikes hours earlier

It’s a first draft of history, so follow 🧵 👇

Post 1/10

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) March 1, 2026

---

I read the first paragraph and stopped after they said the ballistic missiles that are incapable of hitting US soil were a threat.

What am I suppose to extract from this X thread that will suddenly turn me in favor of America becoming a pro-interventionist, global corporation beholden to international interests instead of an actual, real country that represents the culture, history, and people who have lived here for centuries?

We are getting near the point with inflation and government spending, where the only people who can make a living anymore in this country either work for the government or the defense contactors (which are really just government institutions masquerading as private industry).

---

Like we've said. You only see what you want to see. They had no ballistic misses a decade ago. Now they can strike NATO (and other) allies. It's a matter of time until they have intercontinental ballistic capability. A same for nuclear weapons capability.

Will they be a threat then?
Do we have to actually wait for that threat to mature before responding?

How many more Americans have to die before it's enough to animate you as much as the USS Libert incident?

It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be stupid. The two together are toxic mix. But to be hidebound about it all is absolutely toxic. You are the effin' Ford Pinto = unsafe at any speed.

---

My question is why dont you care about the servicemen killed onboard the USS Liberty. They were your peers. Guys your age. It could very easily have been you getting gunned down by Israeli fighter jets and blown apart by Israeli torpedos.

There should be a movie about the heroism and tenacity of those men.

There should be an annual day of remembrance in Israel with a huge ****ing memorial built for the servicemen who died. It should be treated with the same level of reverence and respect as Pearl Harbor.

But back to present day, I dont trust Satanyahu anymore more than the now deceased Grandpa Jihad.

Why dont you support Israel signing the nuclear non-proliferation agreement like the US, Russia, China?.... hell even Iran signed it!

I'm not even asking them to even give up their nukes (even though they stole the materials and technology from us... see Apollo Affair) Only to abide by the same rules we do.

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

For those who think only boomers support this conflict….herewith numbers from one of the bluer polling units.

🚨POLL — Approval of the U.S. killing Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei:

🟩 Approve: 40% (+9)
🟥 Disapprove: 31%

——
Net Approval By Age
Age 18-29 🟢+10
Age 30-44: 🔴-8
Age 45-64: 🟢+5
Age 65+: 🟢+20
——

YouGov poll | 2/28-3/1 | 2,671 US adults pic.twitter.com/CWcJP6qml6

— Election Wizard (@ElectionWiz) March 1, 2026

---

I've never been more proud to be a Millenial!

We learned our lessons from the GWOT..... that you Boomer *******s are completely incompetent and incapable of leading wars and that the only beneficiaries will be O&G, defense contractors, politicians, and Israel.

Looks like the Zoomers are now going to have to learn that lesson unfortunately.....

---

All you have learned is how to stick the beginning of the alimentary canal up the aperture of the end of it, and call it wisdom.

Here's a good window to reality. Interestingly, Israel has nothing to do with it.

💥🇮🇷🇺🇸
History buffs: the White House hosted a fascinating call yesterday with 3 administration officials who gave a rare behind-the-scenes glimpse into the Iran talks & why Trump ordered strikes hours earlier

It’s a first draft of history, so follow 🧵 👇

Post 1/10

— Marc Caputo (@MarcACaputo) March 1, 2026

---

I read the first paragraph and stopped after they said the ballistic missiles that are incapable of hitting US soil were a threat.

What am I suppose to extract from this X thread that will suddenly turn me in favor of America becoming a pro-interventionist, global corporation beholden to international interests instead of an actual, real country that represents the culture, history, and people who have lived here for centuries?

We are getting near the point with inflation and government spending, where the only people who can make a living anymore in this country either work for the government or the defense contactors (which are really just government institutions masquerading as private industry).

---

Like we've said. You only see what you want to see. They had no ballistic misses a decade ago. Now they can strike NATO (and other) allies. It's a matter of time until they have intercontinental ballistic capability. A same for nuclear weapons capability.

Will they be a threat then?
Do we have to actually wait for that threat to mature before responding?

How many more Americans have to die before it's enough to animate you as much as the USS Libert incident?

It's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to be stupid. The two together are toxic mix. But to be hidebound about it all is absolutely toxic. You are the effin' Ford Pinto = unsafe at any speed.

---

My question is why dont you care about the servicemen killed onboard the USS Liberty. They were your peers. Guys your age. It could very easily have been you getting gunned down by Israeli fighter jets and blown apart by Israeli torpedos.

There should be a movie about the heroism and tenacity of those men.

There should be an annual day of remembrance in Israel with a huge ****ing memorial built for the servicemen who died. It should be treated with the same level of reverence and respect as Pearl Harbor.

But back to present day, I dont trust Satanyahu anymore more than the now deceased Grandpa Jihad.

Why dont you support Israel signing the nuclear non-proliferation agreement like the US, Russia, China?.... hell even Iran signed it!

I'm not even asking them to even give up their nukes (even though they stole the materials and technology from us... see Apollo Affair) Only to abide by the same rules we do.

---

Regarding Israel and the nonproliferation agreement: ambiguity is part of a strategy. That's why they don't sign it.

---