Gov. Josh Shapiro says the tracking of AIPAC's donors is "dangerous" and a way to "silence certain voices" (i.e., those of wealthy Zionist megadonors).

AIPAC's megadonors must be allowed to buy our elections from behind the scenes with zero public accountability, according to… https://t.co/BG8Gc5HnDM pic.twitter.com/Yk9WzJ56dO

— Chris Menahan 🇺🇸 (@infolibnews) May 26, 2026

Simple fix here: stop trying to hide your spending with shell PACs and passthroughs and we’ll stop needing to track them. https://t.co/2iX9mqJpFR

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) May 30, 2026

Israel Day Parade in NYC: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, far-right Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and other far-right Israeli lawmakers and American politicians march on Fifth Avenue

NYC mayor Zohran Mamdani decided to skip the event | @Etanetan23

Video:… pic.twitter.com/8lARnXk4yy

— Haaretz.com (@haaretzcom) May 31, 2026

https://t.co/jpUZ7e9xqy pic.twitter.com/ny4n0x60W3

— AIPAC Tracker (@TrackAIPAC) May 31, 2026

Joe Kent says Israel has no natural resources and that the only reason it is a regional power is because the U.S. backs it😳

“The Israelis do a good job of using people who sound like you and me because they’re usually dual citizens.” pic.twitter.com/cmYB703erF

— Charging… (@RedPillSayian) May 31, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Joe Kent says Israel has no natural resources and that the only reason it is a regional power is because the U.S. backs it😳

“The Israelis do a good job of using people who sound like you and me because they’re usually dual citizens.” pic.twitter.com/cmYB703erF

— Charging… (@RedPillSayian) May 31, 2026

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

wHy aRe YoU sO oBSeSsED wItH iSrAeL???

---

This man is mentioned in the Epstein files over 900 times.

His son in law, Kevin Warsh is the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. https://t.co/ug10MAlBa2

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 1, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Joe Kent says Israel has no natural resources and that the only reason it is a regional power is because the U.S. backs it😳

“The Israelis do a good job of using people who sound like you and me because they’re usually dual citizens.” pic.twitter.com/cmYB703erF

— Charging… (@RedPillSayian) May 31, 2026

---

Netanyahu’s comments further demonstrates two fundamental truths that the Trump administration is not addressing:

1. We have fundamentally different objectives in Iran & the region than Israel does. Israel is determined to take out all threats & rivals, from Iran to Lebanon.… https://t.co/oa2AJV8gX0

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) June 1, 2026

muddybrazos said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Joe Kent says Israel has no natural resources and that the only reason it is a regional power is because the U.S. backs it😳

“The Israelis do a good job of using people who sound like you and me because they’re usually dual citizens.” pic.twitter.com/cmYB703erF

— Charging… (@RedPillSayian) May 31, 2026

---

Netanyahu’s comments further demonstrates two fundamental truths that the Trump administration is not addressing:

1. We have fundamentally different objectives in Iran & the region than Israel does. Israel is determined to take out all threats & rivals, from Iran to Lebanon.… https://t.co/oa2AJV8gX0

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) June 1, 2026

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

The more Netanyahu prevents the war with Iran from ending, the more obvious it becomes that he convinced Trump to start it.

— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) June 2, 2026

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.

As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.

As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.

---

Taking out nuclear sites is whack-a-mole game that will eventually be lost. To win that game we have to get lucky every time. For our side to lose, they have to get lucky once....

Permanent nuclear prevention requires regime change. Which requires boots on the ground. Otherwise, it looks exactly like it looks right now.

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.

As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.

---

Taking out nuclear sites is whack-a-mole game that will eventually be lost. To win that game we have to get lucky every time. For our side to lose, they have to get lucky once....

Permanent nuclear prevention requires regime change. Which requires boots on the ground. Otherwise, it looks exactly like it looks right now.

---

While there are no good options, the option of doing nothing is a worse option, IMO. Relying on the good will of a regime that wants us destroyed is not a viable option.

What it looks like right now is a seriously weakened regime without much in the way of nuclear capabilities. I'll take that over what you propose - doing nothing.

---

Unless we put boots on the ground, Iran is going to come out of this in a stronger position for the short to medium term. They'll either get nukes (least likely option) or explicit control over the Strait of Hormuz.

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.

As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.

---

Taking out nuclear sites is whack-a-mole game that will eventually be lost. To win that game we have to get lucky every time. For our side to lose, they have to get lucky once....

Permanent nuclear prevention requires regime change. Which requires boots on the ground. Otherwise, it looks exactly like it looks right now.

---

While there are no good options, the option of doing nothing is a worse option, IMO. Relying on the good will of a regime that wants us destroyed is not a viable option.

What it looks like right now is a seriously weakened regime without much in the way of nuclear capabilities. I'll take that over what you propose - doing nothing.

---

Unless we put boots on the ground, Iran is going to come out of this in a stronger position for the short to medium term. They'll either get nukes (least likely option) or explicit control over the Strait of Hormuz.

---

Disagree, in part because there are things unknown to the public which drive the outcomes. Problem is, the truth of the matter depends on who you listen to.

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.

As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.

---

Taking out nuclear sites is whack-a-mole game that will eventually be lost. To win that game we have to get lucky every time. For our side to lose, they have to get lucky once....

Permanent nuclear prevention requires regime change. Which requires boots on the ground. Otherwise, it looks exactly like it looks right now.

---

While there are no good options, the option of doing nothing is a worse option, IMO. Relying on the good will of a regime that wants us destroyed is not a viable option.

What it looks like right now is a seriously weakened regime without much in the way of nuclear capabilities. I'll take that over what you propose - doing nothing.

---

Unless we put boots on the ground, Iran is going to come out of this in a stronger position for the short to medium term. They'll either get nukes (least likely option) or explicit control over the Strait of Hormuz.

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.

As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.

---

Taking out nuclear sites is whack-a-mole game that will eventually be lost. To win that game we have to get lucky every time. For our side to lose, they have to get lucky once....

Permanent nuclear prevention requires regime change. Which requires boots on the ground. Otherwise, it looks exactly like it looks right now.

---

While there are no good options, the option of doing nothing is a worse option, IMO. Relying on the good will of a regime that wants us destroyed is not a viable option.

What it looks like right now is a seriously weakened regime without much in the way of nuclear capabilities. I'll take that over what you propose - doing nothing.

---

Unless we put boots on the ground, Iran is going to come out of this in a stronger position for the short to medium term. They'll either get nukes (least likely option) or explicit control over the Strait of Hormuz.

---

Disagree, in part because there are things unknown to the public which drive the outcomes. Problem is, the truth of the matter depends on who you listen to.

---

I'm not arguing with you right now. Just for posterity, I want to go on the record:

There will be no internally driven regime change in Iran.

They are going to keep the Strait blockaded until they come out of this in a materially better position. It will look something like the following for Iran:

A. A regional defense bloc along the lines of NATO involving the Gulf states.

B. Right to procure or develop nukes (least likely).

C. Economic control over the Strait. It won't be a toll as that would be illegal under international law, but it'll be something like a navigation fee. This will be useful for the medium term, but new pipelines will be built to get around the Strait.

Unless we put boots on the ground, the above is how this will end.

To toot my own horn, I was on record that Israel was heading into Lebanon weeks before it happened. And I still believe Lebanon was what the most recent attacks on Iran were really about.

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.

As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.

---

Taking out nuclear sites is whack-a-mole game that will eventually be lost. To win that game we have to get lucky every time. For our side to lose, they have to get lucky once....

Permanent nuclear prevention requires regime change. Which requires boots on the ground. Otherwise, it looks exactly like it looks right now.

---

While there are no good options, the option of doing nothing is a worse option, IMO. Relying on the good will of a regime that wants us destroyed is not a viable option.

What it looks like right now is a seriously weakened regime without much in the way of nuclear capabilities. I'll take that over what you propose - doing nothing.

---

Unless we put boots on the ground, Iran is going to come out of this in a stronger position for the short to medium term. They'll either get nukes (least likely option) or explicit control over the Strait of Hormuz.

---

Disagree, in part because there are things unknown to the public which drive the outcomes. Problem is, the truth of the matter depends on who you listen to.

---

I'm not arguing with you right now. Just for posterity, I want to go on the record:

There will be no internally driven regime change in Iran.

They are going to keep the Strait blockaded until they come out of this in a materially better position. It will look something like the following for Iran:

A. A regional defense bloc along the lines of NATO involving the Gulf states.

B. Right to procure or develop nukes (least likely).

C. Economic control over the Strait. It won't be a toll as that would be illegal under international law, but it'll be something like a navigation fee. This will be useful for the medium term, but new pipelines will be built to get around the Strait.

Unless we put boots on the ground, the above is how this will end.

To toot my own horn, I was on record that Israel was heading into Lebanon weeks before it happened. And I still believe Lebanon was what the most recent attacks on Iran were really about.

---

Didn't you also predict that the US could not touch Iran's nuclear facilities?

---

Mike Huckabee, in his keynote address to the graduating class at Yeshiva University, says he's a Zionist because that's what the Bible commands him to be.

He says all of Israel belongs to the Chosen People, who were chosen by God to present the "law and the light" to the world.… pic.twitter.com/myXBl3BT2M

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 2, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Huckabee, in his keynote address to the graduating class at Yeshiva University, says he's a Zionist because that's what the Bible commands him to be.

He says all of Israel belongs to the Chosen People, who were chosen by God to present the "law and the light" to the world.… pic.twitter.com/myXBl3BT2M

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 2, 2026

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

.@RepThomasMassie is ratio-ing ALL of the FoxHeads today. Check your neck. pic.twitter.com/jy9QMN8GZ9

— Lance 'Doc' Pearson 🅙 (@DocLanceP) May 31, 2026

---

Always found the isolationist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe that the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

Always found the interventionist mindset fascinating in today's global world.

It's almost as if these guys believe the rest of the world has weapons incapable of hitting us.

---

This is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the isolationists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if left alone and that disengagement won't create power vacuums for other countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant, and the void WILL be filled, often times by bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to neocon policies, but isolationism also isn't the answer.

---

This interventionist mindset is what you would call a false binary. In reality there's a broad middle ground of strategic alliances, deterrence, and selective involvement that is somewhere in the middle of intervention and isolationism.

Of course, the interventionists seem to assume that hostile actors will behave peacefully if we constantly attack them and that interventionist engagement won't create power vacuums for other countries or different hostile actors within attacked countries to fill, both of which history suggests are risky assumptions. The truth is modern capabilities make distance largely irrelevant and we shouldn't go intervening around the world as if these guys won't ever be able to hit us, especially with the assistance, bad actors (see China).

The real question isn't whether to engage at all, but how to balance involvement and restraint in a world where threats and influence don't stay contained. Nobody's suggested a return to pure isolationism policies, but neocon America as world police style intervention also isn't the answer.

---

While I think you might need to check the definition of "false binary," I don't disagree with your strawman argument. As I said, I've never advocated for interventionism.

On the other hand, you have advocated for pretty strict isolationism on these boards. Glad to see your mindset has changed. Is providing military support or financial support for, say, a Taiwan or Ukraine, a good idea, or still beyond the pale for you? Still believe trying to check Iranian nuclear ambitions to be a bad idea?

---

Beyond the pale for me if it involves American troops (especially general infantry) in overseas battles.

Deterrence and (perhaps) arms sales to build up regional actors/alliances for things outside of the western hemisphere. Strong intervention in anything involving the western hemisphere.

I think the current stalemate in Iran demonstrates the folly there. You were adamant that I was wrong about Iran and that we could control Iran/prevent nuclear armament without boots on the ground. My position, that Iran would absolutely require boots on the ground to achieve our strategic objectives, and thus my opposition to involvement there, is becoming more right by the day. Unless Trump is willing to deploy troops, Iran is going to come out of this in a strategically stronger position.

---

We are in agreement on your first two paragraphs. What's interesting, is that has always been my position. And to think I thought I was talking to a strict isolationist and you thought you were talking with a neocon.

As for Iran, while I agreed with taking out nuclear sites through surgical strikes (and still do), I've never argued this current conflict was a good course of action.

---

Taking out nuclear sites is whack-a-mole game that will eventually be lost. To win that game we have to get lucky every time. For our side to lose, they have to get lucky once....

Permanent nuclear prevention requires regime change. Which requires boots on the ground. Otherwise, it looks exactly like it looks right now.

---

While there are no good options, the option of doing nothing is a worse option, IMO. Relying on the good will of a regime that wants us destroyed is not a viable option.

What it looks like right now is a seriously weakened regime without much in the way of nuclear capabilities. I'll take that over what you propose - doing nothing.

---

Unless we put boots on the ground, Iran is going to come out of this in a stronger position for the short to medium term. They'll either get nukes (least likely option) or explicit control over the Strait of Hormuz.

---

Disagree, in part because there are things unknown to the public which drive the outcomes. Problem is, the truth of the matter depends on who you listen to.

---

I'm not arguing with you right now. Just for posterity, I want to go on the record:

There will be no internally driven regime change in Iran.

They are going to keep the Strait blockaded until they come out of this in a materially better position. It will look something like the following for Iran:

A. A regional defense bloc along the lines of NATO involving the Gulf states.

B. Right to procure or develop nukes (least likely).

C. Economic control over the Strait. It won't be a toll as that would be illegal under international law, but it'll be something like a navigation fee. This will be useful for the medium term, but new pipelines will be built to get around the Strait.

Unless we put boots on the ground, the above is how this will end.

To toot my own horn, I was on record that Israel was heading into Lebanon weeks before it happened. And I still believe Lebanon was what the most recent attacks on Iran were really about.

---

Didn't you also predict that the US could not touch Iran's nuclear facilities?

---

Yes, and the best analysis I have seen said we spent upwards of $500 million plus to bury their facility entrances under rubble and it'll take them a few bulldozers and under $100k to open them back up.

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Huckabee, in his keynote address to the graduating class at Yeshiva University, says he's a Zionist because that's what the Bible commands him to be.

He says all of Israel belongs to the Chosen People, who were chosen by God to present the "law and the light" to the world.… pic.twitter.com/myXBl3BT2M

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 2, 2026

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

Mike Huckabee, in his keynote address to the graduating class at Yeshiva University, says he's a Zionist because that's what the Bible commands him to be.

He says all of Israel belongs to the Chosen People, who were chosen by God to present the "law and the light" to the world.… pic.twitter.com/myXBl3BT2M

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 2, 2026

---

The insane ramblings of a religious extremist... if we were living in a real country people like Mike Huckabee would never be near a position of authority or given any real responsibilities

---