President Trump announces military strikes on Iran: Operation Epic Fury

84,055 Views | 1955 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by boognish_bear
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to D. C. Bear • 10:20a, 3/16/26
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?
Reply Quote
D. C. Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 10:23a, 3/16/26
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.
Reply Quote
2
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to D. C. Bear • 10:26a, 3/16/26
And many terror attacks since then, here and abroad, through their proxies. The antisemites have trouble understanding such nuances, apparently. Or they are willfully blind.
Reply Quote
1
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to D. C. Bear • 10:26a, 3/16/26
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.
Reply Quote
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 10:27a, 3/16/26
historian said:
And many terror attacks since then, here and abroad, through their proxies. The antisemites have trouble understanding such nuances, apparently. Or they are willfully blind.


The most Boomer comment ever made on this site.
Reply Quote
Realitybites
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:28a, 3/16/26
  • Trump declares 'victory' while simultaneously urging coalition help: President Trump claimed the US has "essentially defeated Iran" and vowed "we will finish the job," while pressing NATO allies and other countries to join a naval coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Iran rejects ceasefire and signals escalation: Iranian FM dismissed any truce, saying Tehran wants the war to end in a way that ensures enemies "never again think of repeating these attacks," adding Iran has "sent no messages and do not request a ceasefire."
  • US weighing major escalation at Kharg Island: The White House is considering seizing Iran's main oil export hub on Kharg Island, a move that would require US boots on the ground.
  • Europe reluctant to join Hormuz operation, Germany outright rejects it alongside Italy and Greece: Trump warned of a "very bad" future for NATO if allies don't help reopen the strait. UK also says it won't be 'NATO-led'.
  • Regional attacks and oil shock intensify: Iran continues missile and drone strikes on Gulf energy infrastructure and US-aligned states, while Israeli forces launched "wide-scale" strikes. Saudi Arabia, Dubai continue to get hit.
  • US allows Iranian oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, says Bessent
As Operation Epic Fury entered its third week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC earlier that the U.S. is allowing Iranian oil tankers to transit the waterway.

"The Iranian ships have been getting out already, and we've let that happen to supply the rest of the world," Bessent told CNBC's Brian Sullivan in a "Squawk Box" interview in Paris.

Bessent continued, "We think that there will be a natural opening that the Iranians are letting out, and for now we're fine with that. We want the world to be well supplied."

Reply Quote
1
KaiBear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to J.R. • 10:28a, 3/16/26
J.R. said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


If you want regime change……you have to force regime change.

Just like we removed the emperor of Japan as the pseudo leader of Japan.


one small difference....Hiroshima, ***ushima


For all the chatter about Hiroshima…..conventional fire bombing killed far more Japanese during WW2 .

The Tokyo fire bombing alone killed approximately 100,000 people.
Reply Quote
3
D. C. Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 11:27a, 3/16/26
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.
Reply Quote
6
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to D. C. Bear • 11:34a, 3/16/26
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.
Reply Quote
1
historian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:53a, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
2
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:09p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
1
D. C. Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 12:11p, 3/16/26
Sam Lowry said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.


What particular claim to you wish to contest?
Reply Quote
3
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:14p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:24p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
3
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:40p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
1
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:48p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
2
william
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:12p, 3/16/26


pro ecclesia, pro javelina
Reply Quote
4
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:38p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
1
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:22p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
1
Osodecentx
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 5:23p, 3/16/26
boognish_bear said:


Every member of Hamas is Palestinian
Reply Quote
2
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 5:30p, 3/16/26
boognish_bear said:

Well, as long as he is a wealthy, substantial person his opinion counts. Unlike all the unsubstantial schmucks who work for a living every day just trying to get by.

Reply Quote
4
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:35p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
1
boognish_bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:41p, 3/16/26
Reply Quote
1
FLBear5630
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 5:48p, 3/16/26
boognish_bear said:

Bailing out the Argentinian currency helped.
Reply Quote
2
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 5:50p, 3/16/26
Sam Lowry said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.
Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?
Reply Quote
1
Robert Wilson
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 5:54p, 3/16/26
Porteroso said:
Sam Lowry said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.

Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?

There's really only one way to know. Well, I suppose there are 2.
Reply Quote
1
D. C. Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to boognish_bear • 5:58p, 3/16/26
boognish_bear said:


Not every German was a Nazi.

Not every Japanese citizen raped Nanking or bombed Pearl Harbor.

Not every southerner was a slave holder.

Innocent people suffer and die in war. When used as human shields by their own "government," even more of them suffer and die.
Reply Quote
3
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 5:59p, 3/16/26
Porteroso said:
Sam Lowry said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.

Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?

UN inspectors and US intelligence agencies.
Reply Quote
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 6:09p, 3/16/26
Sam Lowry said:
Porteroso said:
Sam Lowry said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.

Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?

UN inspectors and US intelligence agencies.

I don't think that's unreasonable. But the people who know for sure are the Iraelis, right? Problem is you cannot trust what they say. Facts are not their mission, the survival of Israel is.
Reply Quote
Sam Lowry
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Porteroso • 6:29p, 3/16/26
Porteroso said:
Sam Lowry said:
Porteroso said:
Sam Lowry said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.

Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?

UN inspectors and US intelligence agencies.

I don't think that's unreasonable. But the people who know for sure are the Iraelis, right? Problem is you cannot trust what they say. Facts are not their mission, the survival of Israel is.

The expansion of Israel is their mission, though I suspect survival is a growing concern since the war started. I doubt they know any more about Iran's nuclear program than we do. They couldn't care less about it, in a sense. It's a pretext for action, and if they don't have proof, they're happy to lie.
Reply Quote
2
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:35p, 3/16/26
Once the Boomers are gone in another 10 years, Israelis arent going to get away with raping and murdering American citizens anymore!

Reply Quote
1 edit
DAC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to historian • 6:41p, 3/16/26
historian said:
The new Ayatollah might be homosexual:

https://notthebee.com/article/the-new-ayatollah-is-apparently-gay-see-how-the-trump-admin-responded-to-the-news

All of those dune coons are perverts
Reply Quote
1
DAC
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The_barBEARian • 6:43p, 3/16/26
The_barBEARian said:
Once the Boomers are gone in another 10 years, Israelis arent going to get away with raping and murdering American citizens anymore!


I think the lesson here is don't get in front of a moving dozer
Reply Quote
7
The_barBEARian
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to DAC • 6:45p, 3/16/26
DAC said:
historian said:
The new Ayatollah might be homosexual:

https://notthebee.com/article/the-new-ayatollah-is-apparently-gay-see-how-the-trump-admin-responded-to-the-news

All of those dune coons are perverts


How Tel Aviv Became the Queer Epicenter of the Middle East

Reply Quote
Porteroso
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Sam Lowry • 7:24p, 3/16/26
Sam Lowry said:
Porteroso said:
Sam Lowry said:
Porteroso said:
Sam Lowry said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
D. C. Bear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
The_barBEARian said:
KaiBear said:
Realitybites said:
The UK, France, and Australia have refused to send ships.


Strange since UK and Australia possess no oil productivity.

Oh well.


Destroy Iranian oil facilities.

Won't take much effort at all.


Why?


For the same reason we sank all of Japan's oil tankers during WW2

To cut off the life blood of their military and economy.

This is not remotely a tough decision.

I thought the purpose here was removing the nuclear threat... not slaughtering millions of people or raise the cost of oil to 100 a barrel.

Unlike Japan, Iran didnt attack America. America attacked Iran.


Iran has been attacking us for the better part of half a century.


That's news to me... I've lived in this country for the nearly 4 decades and never knew Iran had been attacking me this entire time. When did this happen? When did Iran attack American soil?


1979.


Pretty weak argument for Iran attacking us first if I'm being honest.... but you were unlikely to convince me just as I am unlikely to convince you.


I am not particularly worried about "who started it." You could go back to the 1950s when we helped to overthrow a government in Iran. I am more concerned about who will finish it.

Here are two statements:



1. The United States, as a matter of policy, will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. This has been US policy for decades.

2. The end of the current Iranian government is the only viable way for the second statement to be true because it is not acceptable to the current Iranian government to NOT have nuclear weapons.

I don't blame the government of Iran for wanting nuclear weapons. Once they have them, they get a significant immunity boost. We, and South Korea, will not attack North Korea, even if China decided to cut them off because they have nukes. Iran knows this and they know nukes would give them a significant power upgrade. Iran would also be freed up to continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars promoting terrorism without threat of serious consequences. It makes a lot of sense for them, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for others.

The solution to the problem of Iran and nuclear weapons is the same as it was last year and the year before that: an end to the Islamic government.

One can reasonably debate whether a big military campaign is the best way to accomplish that goal, and one can debate whether the United States should have adopted a no nukes policy to begin with, but it is pretty clear that you are either going to have a nuclear armed Islamic government in Iran or you are going to have no Islamic government in Iran.

The only slight problem is that you're flying in the face of all available evidence.

Other than that, great analysis.

Who is it that you trust to know the extent of the Iranian nuclear program?

UN inspectors and US intelligence agencies.

I don't think that's unreasonable. But the people who know for sure are the Iraelis, right? Problem is you cannot trust what they say. Facts are not their mission, the survival of Israel is.

The expansion of Israel is their mission, though I suspect survival is a growing concern since the war started. I doubt they know any more about Iran's nuclear program than we do. They couldn't care less about it, in a sense. It's a pretext for action, and if they don't have proof, they're happy to lie.

That's not fair or accurate though. You could say that about Bibi but not the whole country. Survival is the priority for all of them, and yes for some, they see expansion as survival.

They are the only ones who probably have operatives in Iran's nuclear research program even now. Iran arrested dozens yesterday, I think it was, trying to root Israeli spies out.

You can accurately say that many Israelis use the theoretical nuclear Iran as a way to get what they want, but none of us really know how close to reality their nuclear capability is. Certainly not the UN inspectors. The UN isn't even sure how much nuclear material they have, so obviously they never knew where all of it was.

I can buy that they largely put a pause on nuclear weapons development at some point, and that Trump was too hasty in doing away with the treaty. Otherwise they'd have a nuke today. But I cannot buy that the UN knows the entire extent of their nuclear research.
Reply Quote
2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.