ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

Despite the US-Iran ceasefire, Tehran is raining down missiles upon Tel Aviv and Israel remains at war with Iran.

Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/Q6gUTelow3

— AF Post (@AFpost) April 8, 2026

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

Well because YOU don't know what the plan is that means there must not have been one, right?

---

That's about as logical as saying because you don't know what the plan is, that means there definitely was one. Meanwhile we all can absorb the actions and words of everyone from the President, his cabinet, our allies and the multitude of conflicting messages, pivots, and coordinations.

---

No, I'm basing the opinion that they had a plan on the fact that they have the personnel and intel to come up with a plan that has been very successful so far. You're basing your opinion on the fact you hate Trump SO MUCH that you are willing to believe the absolute worst about him without hesitation. You're whining about how it appears to you, the last to need to know, after the fact. If what you believed continues to be challenged or what information you see out there changes it MIGHT just be because Trump doesn't play poker with his cards facing the other players. To you that means he had no plan.

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I've never subscribed to that theory, but the recommendation is right there in black and white: "If Israel intended to proceed regardless, the United States should do so as well."

This is a shocking abrogation of authority if true.

---

Lol, no it isn't. Israel making their move only gave us the opportunity to do what has needed to be done for decades. Of COURSE you would interpret that to mean the worst possible scenario.

---

That's completely off point.

---

How so?

---

The question isn't whether attacking Iran was a good idea. It's whether we were influenced by, or perhaps even deferred to, Israel's decision to attack at that particular time.

---

Rubio already said it's because Israel invited us along.

I was reading another person's rant about Trump nuking Iran, and I just realized he could do it. Like, it's possible. Trump is a big problem, but Congress shutting all responsibility off to the Lresiddnt is possibly an even bigger problem.

The founders thought wars like this should be declared by Congress, not 1 person. Imagine telling them 1 person would be able to glass an entire country before Congress weighed in.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

In the 70s it was a fairly popular destination for hippies who wanted to study Sufism and do drugs. That probably contributed to the Islamic revolution

— Rogue Scholar Press (@RogueScholarPr) April 8, 2026

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

Well because YOU don't know what the plan is that means there must not have been one, right?

---

That's about as logical as saying because you don't know what the plan is, that means there definitely was one. Meanwhile we all can absorb the actions and words of everyone from the President, his cabinet, our allies and the multitude of conflicting messages, pivots, and coordinations.

---

No, I'm basing the opinion that they had a plan on the fact that they have the personnel and intel to come up with a plan that has been very successful so far. You're basing your opinion on the fact you hate Trump SO MUCH that you are willing to believe the absolute worst about him without hesitation. You're whining about how it appears to you, the last to need to know, after the fact. If what you believed continues to be challenged or what information you see out there changes it MIGHT just be because Trump doesn't play poker with his cards facing the other players. To you that means he had no plan.

---

This has nothing to do with hating Trump, but I know that won't compute with you, including the fact I said the people advising him like Hegseth not having a plan, not Trump. So is Hegseth this incredible poker player you're referencing or Trump? Is this the same erratic shifts and pronouncements he always displays his poker? Or did he just not know the exact direction and was changing as kinetic conditions did? Do you ever go back and compare what he says is going to happen to what actually does?

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I've never subscribed to that theory, but the recommendation is right there in black and white: "If Israel intended to proceed regardless, the United States should do so as well."

This is a shocking abrogation of authority if true.

---

Lol, no it isn't. Israel making their move only gave us the opportunity to do what has needed to be done for decades. Of COURSE you would interpret that to mean the worst possible scenario.

---

That's completely off point.

---

How so?

---

The question isn't whether attacking Iran was a good idea. It's whether we were influenced by, or perhaps even deferred to, Israel's decision to attack at that particular time.

---

Rubio already said it's because Israel invited us along.

I was reading another person's rant about Trump nuking Iran, and I just realized he could do it. Like, it's possible. Trump is a big problem, but Congress shutting all responsibility off to the Lresiddnt is possibly an even bigger problem.

The founders thought wars like this should be declared by Congress, not 1 person. Imagine telling them 1 person would be able to glass an entire country before Congress weighed in.

---

Indeed, King George himself would never have contemplated such a thing.

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I've never subscribed to that theory, but the recommendation is right there in black and white: "If Israel intended to proceed regardless, the United States should do so as well."

This is a shocking abrogation of authority if true.

---

Lol, no it isn't. Israel making their move only gave us the opportunity to do what has needed to be done for decades. Of COURSE you would interpret that to mean the worst possible scenario.

---

That's completely off point.

---

How so?

---

The question isn't whether attacking Iran was a good idea. It's whether we were influenced by, or perhaps even deferred to, Israel's decision to attack at that particular time.

---

Rubio already said it's because Israel invited us along.

I was reading another person's rant about Trump nuking Iran, and I just realized he could do it. Like, it's possible. Trump is a big problem, but Congress shutting all responsibility off to the Lresiddnt is possibly an even bigger problem.

The founders thought wars like this should be declared by Congress, not 1 person. Imagine telling them 1 person would be able to glass an entire country before Congress weighed in.

---

Fuck it, I’ll be antisemitic. They dragged the US into war. pic.twitter.com/V1pJQvGyge

— Tony Montana (@9mmScorpion) April 6, 2026

Sam Lowry said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I've never subscribed to that theory, but the recommendation is right there in black and white: "If Israel intended to proceed regardless, the United States should do so as well."

This is a shocking abrogation of authority if true.

---

Lol, no it isn't. Israel making their move only gave us the opportunity to do what has needed to be done for decades. Of COURSE you would interpret that to mean the worst possible scenario.

---

That's completely off point.

---

How so?

---

The question isn't whether attacking Iran was a good idea. It's whether we were influenced by, or perhaps even deferred to, Israel's decision to attack at that particular time.

---

Rubio already said it's because Israel invited us along.

I was reading another person's rant about Trump nuking Iran, and I just realized he could do it. Like, it's possible. Trump is a big problem, but Congress shutting all responsibility off to the Lresiddnt is possibly an even bigger problem.

The founders thought wars like this should be declared by Congress, not 1 person. Imagine telling them 1 person would be able to glass an entire country before Congress weighed in.

---

Indeed, King George himself would never have contemplated such a thing.

---

Well he never contemplated such a thing because he was always a constitutional monarch with limited authority

(From a noble German princely family invited in by parliament to be the new royal family)

"King George III was a constitutional monarch, not an absolute ruler. While he was a hardworking and active participant in politics, his reign (1760-1820) operated within a system where Parliament held supreme power…

and he was constrained by British law. His portrayal as a tyrant in the US Declaration of Independence was largely a political strategy"

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

---

Not necessarily true, and patently false, respectively.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

---

Not necessarily true, and patently false, respectively.

---

Absolutely true. Please name me the peaceful nuclear program which needs 60%+ enriched uranium.

Seriously Sam, this is more than slightly obvious.

ATL Bear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The sloganeering went from “Free Iran,” to, “Bomb all civilian infrastructure and leave 90 million people without clean water or medical care.”

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 2, 2026

Trump, in a new post, confirms that the U.S. bombed Iran’s B-1 bridge in Karaj today, and threatens additional strikes on Iranian infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/BLzl4U5WpQ

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 2, 2026

---

Trump is so dumb. We are ensuring the next generation of terrorists truly hates America.

I cannot believe the cheerleaders here for mass murder and destruction.

---

How idiotic!
Has there ever been a generation of terrorists that did not hate America???
If you are not cheering on the US then you are a cheerleader for the Iranian regime, terrorists who have been bass murdering people for 47 years. In January of this year they slaughtered up to 45k of their own people for peacefully protesting against their tyranny.

People on the Left who try to take the moral high ground always end up looking like fools.

---

To answer the question, yes there have been many generation of Iranians that didn't hate America, and were not terrorists. With each new generation of Middle Easterners, we renew their hatred of America since the 70s. It doesn't have to be that way.

I think we are plenty willing to sacrifice Americans simply because it keeps the war machine going. Simple as that.

What is idiotic is your post which assumes there will always be terrorists in the Middle East that want to kill Americans.

---

If you knew anything about the history of Islam you would not demonstrate such ignorance. Ever since Muhammad, Muslims have hated "infidels" and wanted to kill them, meaning us. It's still true today, especially among the more fanatical. Are you aware that Iran has called the US "the Great Satan" since 1979? They hate us because we are not Muslims and as the most powerful country, the greatest obstacle to all their ambitions.

Blaming the US, Israel, or the west in general is merely blaming the victims.

---

Muslims consider pagans to be infidels, not Christians or Jews.

---

that is blatantly false, and you know it

---

He is, for once, correct. Islam claims the entire Judeo-Christian tradition as its own. Jesus is the most frequently mentioned person in the Koran. Moses is mentioned 136 times. Muhammad is merely the last in a long line of Jewish/Christian prophets. Muslims are instructed to consider Christians & Jews are "peoples of the book," to be treated better than the "polytheists," whose existence is is an outrage. Islam is irritably intolerant of "shirk."

The islamists typically justify their attacks on Christianity as a form of shirk (the "Trinity" being defined as polytheism). They typically justify their attacks on Jews by virtue of the existence of a Jewish state in islamic lands (denying sharia).

---

the book may explicitly say one thing, and the people can explicitly interpret differently. That's true of all religious books, but they are plenty of Muslims that extend "infidel" to include any non-Muslim or anyone who doesn't believe Mohammed was the "chosen profit of god".

---

The influence of Khomeinism in Shia and several Sunni Salafist/Wahhabist influencers like Sayyid Qutb...

---

Oh man one of my favorite Qutb stories

Guy goes to Colorado (small town 1940s Colorado in fact)

A place filled with Mormons, Protestant Christians and other conservative small town folks…and decides it's so "immoral" that the West must burn and billions must die

What a absolute nut

“The only reason we have jihadis is because of OUR WARS”

Reminder that a founder of modern radical Islamism was radicalized by seeing people dance to ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ in 1949 America pic.twitter.com/iWbGWWXBSF

— Lost Nomad (@lost_nomad__) April 8, 2026

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Is this the 10 point framework that Trump said was "workable" in his tweet? If so, this is closer to capitulation to avoid having to make good on an untenable promise (end of civilization) than a victory.

Does anyone who is not the Iranian government count this as a "win"?

---

Maybe let's get the facts, not just go by unsupported claims about what was agreed to by the US.

Anyone who thinks Iran tells the truth about anything but hating Americans and Jews is delusional.

---

My question is based on a literal quote from the President of the United States' truth social post if you're keeping up.

---

All Old understands is "Donald good". Anything Donald says or does is best ever. He has Trump Cult Syndrome, can't help himself. Take what he says on this subject with a grain of salt. On other subjects he is a good guy and makes good points.

Although, one point on Trump, no one has ever seen anything like this. That is true.

---

It's funny how FLBear and the other Mullahs keep insisting I am a Trump cheerleader. I have said ad nauseum how I dislike his personality and voted for DeSantis in the '24 primary .

But the Mullahs consider any support for the President or the official US position on an issue as 'bootlicking' or something as absurd,

I guess it helps them deny they need to consider the character of their behavior whenever Trump is involved in an issue.

On other issues they are good people and make good points.

---

it is ok. we are all impressionable to a certain degree, MAGA / Donald fans just more so.

---

Having just reminded you I am not a "Donald fan", not sure where you think I sit.

There's more than two seats on the spectrum.

---

Juse right of William Buckley and two seats left of Steven Miller... : )

You have defended ICE shooting protestors in the street, the military blowing up speed boats with Hellfire missiles because they fit a profile and taking Greenland because we want it , that is pretty far right.

To be fair, I think the Govt forgiving student debt in programs is a good thing, being in NATO is worth it and we need a type of Obamacare/ACA. So that puts me just right of Prisker and left of pretty much this Board.

i agree with Eisenhower, the Government should be fiscally responsible and help people's lives be better if it could. Defense should not come at the expense of people.

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The sloganeering went from “Free Iran,” to, “Bomb all civilian infrastructure and leave 90 million people without clean water or medical care.”

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 2, 2026

Trump, in a new post, confirms that the U.S. bombed Iran’s B-1 bridge in Karaj today, and threatens additional strikes on Iranian infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/BLzl4U5WpQ

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 2, 2026

---

Trump is so dumb. We are ensuring the next generation of terrorists truly hates America.

I cannot believe the cheerleaders here for mass murder and destruction.

---

How idiotic!
Has there ever been a generation of terrorists that did not hate America???
If you are not cheering on the US then you are a cheerleader for the Iranian regime, terrorists who have been bass murdering people for 47 years. In January of this year they slaughtered up to 45k of their own people for peacefully protesting against their tyranny.

People on the Left who try to take the moral high ground always end up looking like fools.

---

To answer the question, yes there have been many generation of Iranians that didn't hate America, and were not terrorists. With each new generation of Middle Easterners, we renew their hatred of America since the 70s. It doesn't have to be that way.

I think we are plenty willing to sacrifice Americans simply because it keeps the war machine going. Simple as that.

What is idiotic is your post which assumes there will always be terrorists in the Middle East that want to kill Americans.

---

If you knew anything about the history of Islam you would not demonstrate such ignorance. Ever since Muhammad, Muslims have hated "infidels" and wanted to kill them, meaning us. It's still true today, especially among the more fanatical. Are you aware that Iran has called the US "the Great Satan" since 1979? They hate us because we are not Muslims and as the most powerful country, the greatest obstacle to all their ambitions.

Blaming the US, Israel, or the west in general is merely blaming the victims.

---

Muslims consider pagans to be infidels, not Christians or Jews.

---

that is blatantly false, and you know it

---

He is, for once, correct. Islam claims the entire Judeo-Christian tradition as its own. Jesus is the most frequently mentioned person in the Koran. Moses is mentioned 136 times. Muhammad is merely the last in a long line of Jewish/Christian prophets. Muslims are instructed to consider Christians & Jews are "peoples of the book," to be treated better than the "polytheists," whose existence is is an outrage. Islam is irritably intolerant of "shirk."

The islamists typically justify their attacks on Christianity as a form of shirk (the "Trinity" being defined as polytheism). They typically justify their attacks on Jews by virtue of the existence of a Jewish state in islamic lands (denying sharia).

---

the book may explicitly say one thing, and the people can explicitly interpret differently. That's true of all religious books, but they are plenty of Muslims that extend "infidel" to include any non-Muslim or anyone who doesn't believe Mohammed was the "chosen profit of god".

---

The influence of Khomeinism in Shia and several Sunni Salafist/Wahhabist influencers like Sayyid Qutb...

---

Oh man one of my favorite Qutb stories

Guy goes to Colorado (small town 1940s Colorado in fact)

A place filled with Mormons, Protestant Christians and other conservative small town folks…and decides it's so "immoral" that the West must burn and billions must die

What a absolute nut

“The only reason we have jihadis is because of OUR WARS”

Reminder that a founder of modern radical Islamism was radicalized by seeing people dance to ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ in 1949 America pic.twitter.com/iWbGWWXBSF

— Lost Nomad (@lost_nomad__) April 8, 2026

---

If they only heard the slop that passed for Christmas Carols on the radio in 2025, Iran probably would have lifted the fatwa against building a nuke.

Maybe we can offer beheading any DJ that plays Baby It's Cold Outside, Santa Baby, or anything by Mariah Carey/Taylor Swift as part of the negotiations.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

303Bear said:

---

Is this the 10 point framework that Trump said was "workable" in his tweet? If so, this is closer to capitulation to avoid having to make good on an untenable promise (end of civilization) than a victory.

Does anyone who is not the Iranian government count this as a "win"?

---

Maybe let's get the facts, not just go by unsupported claims about what was agreed to by the US.

Anyone who thinks Iran tells the truth about anything but hating Americans and Jews is delusional.

---

My question is based on a literal quote from the President of the United States' truth social post if you're keeping up.

---

All Old understands is "Donald good". Anything Donald says or does is best ever. He has Trump Cult Syndrome, can't help himself. Take what he says on this subject with a grain of salt. On other subjects he is a good guy and makes good points.

Although, one point on Trump, no one has ever seen anything like this. That is true.

---

It's funny how FLBear and the other Mullahs keep insisting I am a Trump cheerleader. I have said ad nauseum how I dislike his personality and voted for DeSantis in the '24 primary .

But the Mullahs consider any support for the President or the official US position on an issue as 'bootlicking' or something as absurd,

I guess it helps them deny they need to consider the character of their behavior whenever Trump is involved in an issue.

On other issues they are good people and make good points.

---

it is ok. we are all impressionable to a certain degree, MAGA / Donald fans just more so.

---

Having just reminded you I am not a "Donald fan", not sure where you think I sit.

There's more than two seats on the spectrum.

---

Juse right of William Buckley and two seats left of Steven Miller... : )

You have defended ICE shooting protestors in the street, the military blowing up speed boats with Hellfire missiles because they fit a profile and taking Greenland because we want it , that is pretty far right.

To be fair, I think the Govt forgiving student debt in programs is a good thing, being in NATO is worth it and we need a type of Obamacare/ACA. So that puts me just right of Prisker and left of pretty much this Board.

i agree with Eisenhower, the Government should be fiscally responsible and help people's lives be better if it could. Defense should not come at the expense of people.

---

I am considerably to the right of FLBear, probably occupying the space Buchanan and Goldwater did, maybe even a little further to the right than that.

Yet we have largely the same views about the Iran war. I think we should be out of NATO because those countries are no longer what they once were. The geography is the same and the names are the same but they are undergoing rapid population replacement with hostile people. This has become enough of a problem that at some point we are going to have to reconsider allowing visa free travel from the EU in addition to a NATO exit.

Our foreign policy needs to acknowledge that. If you took Japan, removed all the Japanese, and replaced them with Somalis it wouldn't be Japan. It might be named that or shaped like it,,,but it would br a fundamentally different place.

I won't say that the only reason we have jihadis is our wars but certainly fighting them makes more. Particularly when we use the peace to try and export feminism and gay pride parades.

The other shoe.

" These Consumer Goods Could Be First To Vanish As "Supply Shock" Disrupts Asian Factories
Goldman analysts warned that the petrochemical supply shock sweeping across Asia is now morphing into a full-blown COGS shock, hitting a range of industries with factories across the region. The immediate consequence is that manufacturers - from sofa makers to apparel producers - are being forced to dial back production and, in some cases, idle plants altogether as soaring petrochemical-linked input costs drive up the price of plastics and other key materials.

In the note "Petrochemical Supply Shock Begins Idling Asian Factories", we laid out earlier on Tuesday how the shock is unfolding.

Now, we focus on industries where the COGS shock is already forcing "surging input costs," which are reducing manufacturing lines or idling plants and leading to possible shortages.

"With key raw materials and inputs such as PTA, Caprolactam, polyester, and polyamide up on average 29%, the implied COGS increase amounts to c. +17%," Goldman analyst Georgina Fraser wrote in a note.

Fraser warned, "For a textile manufacturer operating with margins of ~515%, it is reasonable to assume that a cost shock of this magnitude could render operations uneconomic, leading to production standstills."

Fraser outlined that the industries most affected by the COGS shock are:

Furniture & bedding costs up ~21%

Consumer goods 20%

Healthcare equipment ~19%

Textiles/apparel ~17%


"Even an imminent end to the conflict would not fully unwind the supply chain disruption already in motion," she warned.

The note cited new indications that India's textile production has "collectively moved to restrict operations to a single 12-hour shift per day."

Taken together, the message is clear: supply-chain snarls may soon erupt."

Hopefully this ceasefire holds and results in a lasting peace. Given Israel's desire to go full Amalek on Iran, I have my doubts but we can hope.

Even if it does, the economic consequences of this stupidity will be felt for a long time - through the summer and into the midterms.

The_barBEARian said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The sloganeering went from “Free Iran,” to, “Bomb all civilian infrastructure and leave 90 million people without clean water or medical care.”

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 2, 2026

Trump, in a new post, confirms that the U.S. bombed Iran’s B-1 bridge in Karaj today, and threatens additional strikes on Iranian infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/BLzl4U5WpQ

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 2, 2026

---

Trump is so dumb. We are ensuring the next generation of terrorists truly hates America.

I cannot believe the cheerleaders here for mass murder and destruction.

---

How idiotic!
Has there ever been a generation of terrorists that did not hate America???
If you are not cheering on the US then you are a cheerleader for the Iranian regime, terrorists who have been bass murdering people for 47 years. In January of this year they slaughtered up to 45k of their own people for peacefully protesting against their tyranny.

People on the Left who try to take the moral high ground always end up looking like fools.

---

To answer the question, yes there have been many generation of Iranians that didn't hate America, and were not terrorists. With each new generation of Middle Easterners, we renew their hatred of America since the 70s. It doesn't have to be that way.

I think we are plenty willing to sacrifice Americans simply because it keeps the war machine going. Simple as that.

What is idiotic is your post which assumes there will always be terrorists in the Middle East that want to kill Americans.

---

If you knew anything about the history of Islam you would not demonstrate such ignorance. Ever since Muhammad, Muslims have hated "infidels" and wanted to kill them, meaning us. It's still true today, especially among the more fanatical. Are you aware that Iran has called the US "the Great Satan" since 1979? They hate us because we are not Muslims and as the most powerful country, the greatest obstacle to all their ambitions.

Blaming the US, Israel, or the west in general is merely blaming the victims.

---

My god. Iranians did not particularly hate America until the 70s. We helped make it that way. It doesn't have to stay that way. Pick up a book.

---

The Iranian people mostly loved/love us. The Iranian islamists hated us all the way back to our beginning. Unfortunately, the Islamists have run the country for the last 47 years, so......

---

I am sure blowing up their schools, infrastructure and utilities will make them love us.

---

Don't care whether they love us or not. Want the damned enriched uranium and will burn down the whole country to get it (because they want the damned uranium to burn down our whole country).

---

That's what you think? It appears to me that lately, enriched uranium is survival. Ukraine gave up their Nukes. Libya? Iraq?

It's the only way to stop from being invaded.

---

you have it backwards. holding onto the enriched uranium is destroying the regime. They give it up, the pressure goes away. they survive. the longer they hold on to it, the more things they need get blown up....the more of their leadership gets blown up. That enriched uranium is the proximate cause of their current distress.

we don't need to care about Iran.
we only care about Iran because they chant "death to America" and try to build nuclear weapons.
we only care about Iran because they build long-range ballistic missiles to deliver those weapons far beyond their borders.

---

Even if a bunch of Americans die to get all the uranium... they can get more from Pakistan tomorrow if they really want it.

---

Does Pakistan really want a regional rival to have enriched uranium?
Does Pakistan really want to be a party to Iranian nukes being used in the Persian Gulf region?

Yes, they are two muslim countries, but one is Sunni and the other is Shia. And their state interests do not always coincide. The warmth of their relationship ebbs and flows.

How many Americans will die if Iran does get the uranium?

Redbrickbear said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

trey3216 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

historian said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The sloganeering went from “Free Iran,” to, “Bomb all civilian infrastructure and leave 90 million people without clean water or medical care.”

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 2, 2026

Trump, in a new post, confirms that the U.S. bombed Iran’s B-1 bridge in Karaj today, and threatens additional strikes on Iranian infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/BLzl4U5WpQ

— OSINTtechnical (@Osinttechnical) April 2, 2026

---

Trump is so dumb. We are ensuring the next generation of terrorists truly hates America.

I cannot believe the cheerleaders here for mass murder and destruction.

---

How idiotic!
Has there ever been a generation of terrorists that did not hate America???
If you are not cheering on the US then you are a cheerleader for the Iranian regime, terrorists who have been bass murdering people for 47 years. In January of this year they slaughtered up to 45k of their own people for peacefully protesting against their tyranny.

People on the Left who try to take the moral high ground always end up looking like fools.

---

To answer the question, yes there have been many generation of Iranians that didn't hate America, and were not terrorists. With each new generation of Middle Easterners, we renew their hatred of America since the 70s. It doesn't have to be that way.

I think we are plenty willing to sacrifice Americans simply because it keeps the war machine going. Simple as that.

What is idiotic is your post which assumes there will always be terrorists in the Middle East that want to kill Americans.

---

If you knew anything about the history of Islam you would not demonstrate such ignorance. Ever since Muhammad, Muslims have hated "infidels" and wanted to kill them, meaning us. It's still true today, especially among the more fanatical. Are you aware that Iran has called the US "the Great Satan" since 1979? They hate us because we are not Muslims and as the most powerful country, the greatest obstacle to all their ambitions.

Blaming the US, Israel, or the west in general is merely blaming the victims.

---

Muslims consider pagans to be infidels, not Christians or Jews.

---

that is blatantly false, and you know it

---

He is, for once, correct. Islam claims the entire Judeo-Christian tradition as its own. Jesus is the most frequently mentioned person in the Koran. Moses is mentioned 136 times. Muhammad is merely the last in a long line of Jewish/Christian prophets. Muslims are instructed to consider Christians & Jews are "peoples of the book," to be treated better than the "polytheists," whose existence is is an outrage. Islam is irritably intolerant of "shirk."

The islamists typically justify their attacks on Christianity as a form of shirk (the "Trinity" being defined as polytheism). They typically justify their attacks on Jews by virtue of the existence of a Jewish state in islamic lands (denying sharia).

---

the book may explicitly say one thing, and the people can explicitly interpret differently. That's true of all religious books, but they are plenty of Muslims that extend "infidel" to include any non-Muslim or anyone who doesn't believe Mohammed was the "chosen profit of god".

---

The influence of Khomeinism in Shia and several Sunni Salafist/Wahhabist influencers like Sayyid Qutb...

---

Oh man one of my favorite Qutb stories

Guy goes to Colorado (small town 1940s Colorado in fact)

A place filled with Mormons, Protestant Christians and other conservative small town folks…and decides it's so "immoral" that the West must burn and billions must die

What a absolute nut

“The only reason we have jihadis is because of OUR WARS”

Reminder that a founder of modern radical Islamism was radicalized by seeing people dance to ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ in 1949 America pic.twitter.com/iWbGWWXBSF

— Lost Nomad (@lost_nomad__) April 8, 2026

---

Qutb's "Milestones" is a short read. Perhaps the best single work one could read to get a bearing on islamism.

He was more influential by far on the Muslim Brotherhood than Hassan Al Banna. When I was in Khartoum, not once did I ever hear Al Banna's name mentioned. I heard Qutb quoted frequently. Qutb's brother, Muhammad, taught Bin Ladin and Safar al-Hawali at university.

boognish_bear said:

---

BREAKING: The CIA used a secret new tool, “Ghost Murmur,” to locate a downed U.S. airman in Iran, its first real-world use, per NYP.

It can detect a human heartbeat from miles away using AI and advanced sensors:

“If your heart is beating, we will find you.”

— Leading Report (@LeadingReport) April 7, 2026

---

Oh, the gravely wounded soldier who covered 110 miles in less than 48 hours traversing 7,000 high mountains....

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

Well because YOU don't know what the plan is that means there must not have been one, right?

---

That's about as logical as saying because you don't know what the plan is, that means there definitely was one. Meanwhile we all can absorb the actions and words of everyone from the President, his cabinet, our allies and the multitude of conflicting messages, pivots, and coordinations.

---

No, I'm basing the opinion that they had a plan on the fact that they have the personnel and intel to come up with a plan that has been very successful so far. You're basing your opinion on the fact you hate Trump SO MUCH that you are willing to believe the absolute worst about him without hesitation. You're whining about how it appears to you, the last to need to know, after the fact. If what you believed continues to be challenged or what information you see out there changes it MIGHT just be because Trump doesn't play poker with his cards facing the other players. To you that means he had no plan.

---

This has nothing to do with hating Trump, but I know that won't compute with you, including the fact I said the people advising him like Hegseth not having a plan, not Trump. So is Hegseth this incredible poker player you're referencing or Trump? Is this the same erratic shifts and pronouncements he always displays his poker? Or did he just not know the exact direction and was changing as kinetic conditions did? Do you ever go back and compare what he says is going to happen to what actually does?

---

Ah yes, it's Pete who had no plan. The U.S. military has definitely not been making Iran war scenarios for decades. No, that's not what military strategists do, according to you. According to you they just say l, "bombs away!" and hope for the best, and when US leaders say one thing to our enemies but do another it's not strategy, no, according to you it's just ineptitude and cowardice. But you don't make those claims because you hate Trump. You're impartial. Lol

boognish_bear said:

---

An Israeli military official says the country is still attacking Iran, after the White House said Israel agreed to the two-week U.S.-Iran ceasefire agreement. https://t.co/MxeA4RkVYl

— The Associated Press (@AP) April 8, 2026

---

The attack card two way: iran is attacking Israel & US assets. I don't know who broke the ceasefire first.

How do you build a constructive relationship with someone who wants to kill you and everyone you know? It's impossible.

What reason do we have to believe iran would agree to such terms? Or honor them?

Redbrickbear said:

---

When Democrats say they’re a “Big Tent Party” they mean a BIG tent pic.twitter.com/AYEAPDJHzz

— Enguerrand VII de Coucy (@ingelramdecoucy) April 8, 2026

---

Translation;

When the Dems say they are a big tent party, they mean they will welcome anyone who agrees with them. The worse the case of TDS the better, as far as they are concerned. But don't expect them to be flexible on anything. They still want infanticide, mutilation of children (& pedophilia legitimized), open borders, socialism regardless how much it destroys, and so on.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

---

Not necessarily true, and patently false, respectively.

---

Absolutely true. Please name me the peaceful nuclear program which needs 60%+ enriched uranium.

Seriously Sam, this is more than slightly obvious.

---

Baghdad Ma'am...........

- el UF

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

D!

Go Bears!!

Viva il Donaldo!!!

Suelten los perros economicas, amigos!!!!

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

---

Not necessarily true, and patently false, respectively.

---

Absolutely true. Please name me the peaceful nuclear program which needs 60%+ enriched uranium.

Seriously Sam, this is more than slightly obvious.

---

BTDT

william said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

---

Not necessarily true, and patently false, respectively.

---

Absolutely true. Please name me the peaceful nuclear program which needs 60%+ enriched uranium.

Seriously Sam, this is more than slightly obvious.

---

Baghdad Ma'am...........

- el UF

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

D!

Go Bears!!

Viva il Donaldo!!!

Suelten los perros economicas, amigos!!!!

---

Serious question, since 1945 when we saw what nukes could do. Has ANY Nation used a nuclear bomb for anything but deterrence? Even North Korea who is bat **** crazy hasn't been that stupid. Pakistan hasn't even nuked India. The Soviet Union when they fell apart, didn't use nukes. Israel when attacked, didn't use nukes.

Don't go all indignant and say you love Mullahs or some other wild ass comment. Or that we even think Iran should have it. You opened the door, you said name one. Obviously they don't, but then the next question what is the actual risk of use? If you want to have a real discussion, let's have one.

FLBear5630 said:

---

william said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Frank Galvin said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

---

This can't be true, I have it on good authority from the nevertrumpers in here that Trump just went into this with zero planning while ignoring all advice except Israel's commands!

---

I'm more concerned the people advising him didn't really have a plan, particularly Hegseth.

---

BINGO! This is a strategic and policy disaster, thank god our military is tactically sound.

---

I wouldn't label this a disaster. At least not yet. There is truth and necessity that Iran needed to be dealt with harshly. The first bombing was sound. This second escalation may have been necessary, maybe not. I do think resetting the deterrence measure with Iran will pay dividends against terrorism against the U.S. and nuclear weapon pursuits. Leave the regime change on the side of the road and try to build a more constructive relationship with another Islamist "bad guy".

---

Maybe we should negotiate a deal with the regime that would allow us to verify what they are doing either their uranium.

---

It didn't matter for 30 years. Maybe they'll play along this time.

---

So what stopped them from building a bomb for 30 years? Considering that they were determined to do so and the agreements were so ineffective?

---

Stuxnet, Israeli execution of scientists, and a whole host of intel ops. Oh yes, and several strategic bombings and explosions along the way. The agreements definitely didn't stop them from building facilities and enriching uranium.

---

Those were relatively minor setbacks in a 30-year time frame. And the NPT was supposed to support a peaceful nuclear program, not put a stop to it. That misapprehension has plagued our discourse from the beginning.

---

A peaceful nuclear program needs no enrichment beyond 5%, tops.

It was never a 'peaceful' nuclear program, it was always a nuclear weapons program.

---

Not necessarily true, and patently false, respectively.

---

Absolutely true. Please name me the peaceful nuclear program which needs 60%+ enriched uranium.

Seriously Sam, this is more than slightly obvious.

---

Baghdad Ma'am...........

- el UF

{ sipping coffee }

{ eating donut }

D!

Go Bears!!

Viva il Donaldo!!!

Suelten los perros economicas, amigos!!!!

---

Serious question, since 1945 when we saw what nukes could do. Has ANY Nation used a nuclear bomb for anything but deterrence? Even North Korea who is bat **** crazy hasn't been that stupid. Pakistan hasn't even nuked India. The Soviet Union when they fell apart, didn't use nukes. Israel when attacked, didn't use nukes.

Don't go all indignant and say you love Mullahs or some other wild ass comment. Or that we even think Iran should have it. You opened the door, you said name one. Obviously they don't, but then the next question what is the actual risk of use? If you want to have a real discussion, let's have one.

---

keep it up and Imma gonna shallenge you to a duel......



- el UF

Andale Donaldo!!

Hey Pete, Let's get back to Boom Boom in the Gulf!!!!

historian said:

---

What reason do we have to believe iran would agree to such terms? Or honor them?

---

Because they agreed to them before and they were honoring them before. They might not now that we bombed them twice.

If the point is that you can't trust them, I agree. Our recent actions can have two results. It can deter or motivate them. We don't know which it is. That is why continuing verification is important. Let me know when Trump achieves that.

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

NY Times trying to compete with Babylon Bee:

https://notthebee.com/article/the-new-york-times-just-beat-the-onion-at-their-own-job

historian said:

---

I don't think Iran had honored any agreement in 47 years unless they thought it would advance their apocalyptic fantasies of global cataclysm.

---

Then you think verification is important.