President Trump announces military strikes on Iran: Operation Epic Fury

507,439 Views | 7230 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by J.R.
J.R.
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

Porteroso said:

J.R. said:

just wanted to check in how the 4 day war is doing while we are in month 6? Total destruction of enriched Uranium/Nukes? Regime Change? Total destruction of missiles and drones? Gasoline prices? Oh, there is that pesky Strait of Hormuz being shut which was totally open before Piggy's lone war! Forever Wars?

Not only is the answer yes, but we've accomplished all of that several times.

that's good. I'm just glad that Strait of Hormuz is 100% under OUR control. So much winning! This is a serious question that I just can't understand. Does Trump really believe that we are that dumb to believe his daily lies or is he just bat **** crazy ? Regardless. Glad the strait is under our control now. Piggy said so, so I'm going to believe him. lol

Now he's going to make the Straight a US territory. You can't make this **** up.
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Plant the Flag, Sweet Donny Baby ....

- UF

... and dye the Ocean Orange!!

D!
Go Bears!
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


The reason sailors have no fresh food is that Iran blew up the Navy's supply hub on day one of the war...

-Iranian missiles and drones destroyed much of the Navy base in Bahrain at the war's outset, taking out a logistics hub the service had relied on for decades

-The Pentagon shifted resupply to Diego Garcia, a British commanded island south of the Maldives sitting roughly 2,200 MILES from where the carrier strike groups operate in the Gulf of Oman

-That distance is why produce arrives spoiled and why nothing fresh reaches the ship except frozen meat

-Starmer initially denied the Pentagon access to Diego Garcia, drawing Trump's anger, before relenting on March 1 for what he called a specific and limited defensive purpose

-Iran fired two medium range ballistic missiles at the island on March 20, with one falling short into the Indian Ocean and a Navy warship downing the other

-Bahrain and the Emirati port of Fujairah are the two places carriers normally moor for crew downtime, and Fujairah sits well within range of Iranian missiles

-Navy regulation lets a commanding officer request a beer day after 45 straight days at sea, meaning the Lincoln's crew has earned FIVE already, and the Fifth Fleet did not respond to questions about whether any were requested

-Hegseth said yesterday the U.S. can hold the Hormuz blockade "as long as we need to, indefinitely"

-Trump today said the deployments are "not nearly long enough," with the George Washington now transiting the Strait of Malacca to relieve the Lincoln

Representative Mike Levin, whose constituents serve on that ship, asked the question their families keep asking: what exactly is the mission here?

The answer running underneath all of it is that Iran took out the one place that made sustaining a carrier in these waters practical, and the Navy has been improvising across 2,200 miles of ocean ever since.

Source: The New York Times / Writer: Daniel
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
J.R. said:

I say let go ahead and take possession of the Atlantic Ocean!

Why stop there? The Pacific is bigger, and we'll need the Arctic when we take back Greenland.

In fact, why don't we rename the planet "Donald Trump"?
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.


This fascination with AIPAC that I have seen in a lot of different places is just kind of weird.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.


Amen!!!
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.


This fascination with AIPAC that I have seen in a lot of different places is just kind of weird.


the fascination stems from the double standard that applies to AIPAC and how they dont need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you werent a Boomer you would understand.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.


This fascination with AIPAC that I have seen in a lot of different places is just kind of weird.


the fascination stems from the double standard that applies to AIPAC and how they dont need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you werent a Boomer you would understand.


My parents aren't even boomers, never mind me. You seem to attach a high level of vitriol to "boomer." You need to get over that.

AIPAC plays by the same rules as other domestic political organizations. No one is stopping you from raising a bunch of money to advocate for rehabilitating your Nazi German relatives or whatever cause it is that you want to promote. Knock yourself out.
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

The_barBEARian said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.


This fascination with AIPAC that I have seen in a lot of different places is just kind of weird.


the fascination stems from the double standard that applies to AIPAC and how they dont need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you werent a Boomer you would understand.


My parents aren't even boomers, never mind me. You seem to attach a high level of vitriol to "boomer." You need to get over that.

AIPAC plays by the same rules as other domestic political organizations. No one is stopping you from raising a bunch of money to advocate for rehabilitating your Nazi German relatives or whatever cause it is that you want to promote. Knock yourself out.


The use of anti-white nazi tropes while simultaneously supporting AIPAC and the Iran war is something I have only seen from Boomers. So imagine my surprise to discover you are a 20 year old Zoomer!

I also recognize your username from Baylorfans... which means there is just about zero chance you are under 50.
fubar
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

D. C. Bear said:

The_barBEARian said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.


This fascination with AIPAC that I have seen in a lot of different places is just kind of weird.


the fascination stems from the double standard that applies to AIPAC and how they dont need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you werent a Boomer you would understand.


My parents aren't even boomers, never mind me. You seem to attach a high level of vitriol to "boomer." You need to get over that.

AIPAC plays by the same rules as other domestic political organizations. No one is stopping you from raising a bunch of money to advocate for rehabilitating your Nazi German relatives or whatever cause it is that you want to promote. Knock yourself out.


The use of anti-white nazi tropes while simultaneously supporting AIPAC and the Iran war is something I have only seen from Boomers. So imagine my surprise to discover you are a 20 year old Zoomer!

I also recognize your username from Baylorfans... which means there is just about zero chance you are under 50.

I don't know D.C. Bear. He's a really good poster and seems a decent dude.

But if you're right in your analysis, doesn't that mean there is also about zero chance that you're under 50 ... and therefore (long Monty Python pause while you try to figure it out) ... a BOOMER!

It must suck to hate yourself so much.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

D. C. Bear said:

The_barBEARian said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.


This fascination with AIPAC that I have seen in a lot of different places is just kind of weird.


the fascination stems from the double standard that applies to AIPAC and how they dont need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you werent a Boomer you would understand.


My parents aren't even boomers, never mind me. You seem to attach a high level of vitriol to "boomer." You need to get over that.

AIPAC plays by the same rules as other domestic political organizations. No one is stopping you from raising a bunch of money to advocate for rehabilitating your Nazi German relatives or whatever cause it is that you want to promote. Knock yourself out.


The use of anti-white nazi tropes while simultaneously supporting AIPAC and the Iran war is something I have only seen from Boomers. So imagine my surprise to discover you are a 20 year old Zoomer!

I also recognize your username from Baylorfans... which means there is just about zero chance you are under 50.


"Boomers" are between 62 and 80.

AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:


AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.


Is it a positive or a negative for the citizens of the United States to be placed in a position where donations to representatives are made on the behalf or or by foreign governments? Do you think this is something the founders of this nation envisioned? Do you think this is something any nation should accept?
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If I were a p*Suidae...........

- p*Tevye



Go Bears!
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

The_barBEARian said:

D. C. Bear said:

The_barBEARian said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

At this point, I don't care what the party affiliation is. I'm not voting for any candidate that has taken money from AIPAC or is over 70 years old.


This fascination with AIPAC that I have seen in a lot of different places is just kind of weird.


the fascination stems from the double standard that applies to AIPAC and how they dont need to play by the same rules as everyone else.

If you werent a Boomer you would understand.


My parents aren't even boomers, never mind me. You seem to attach a high level of vitriol to "boomer." You need to get over that.

AIPAC plays by the same rules as other domestic political organizations. No one is stopping you from raising a bunch of money to advocate for rehabilitating your Nazi German relatives or whatever cause it is that you want to promote. Knock yourself out.


The use of anti-white nazi tropes while simultaneously supporting AIPAC and the Iran war is something I have only seen from Boomers. So imagine my surprise to discover you are a 20 year old Zoomer!

I also recognize your username from Baylorfans... which means there is just about zero chance you are under 50.


"Boomers" are between 62 and 80.

AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.

>>
Top PACs By Total Amount Disbursed in the 2025 - 2026 Election Cycle

Rank

PAC

Amount Disbursed ($)
1
ACTBLUE
1,947,040,090.97
2
WINRED
749,805,727.68
3
DNC SERVICES CORP / DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
213,228,720.57
4
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
188,080,652.36
5
DCCC
143,314,245.47
6
NRCC
118,342,333.08
7
DSCC
110,477,989.94
8
TRUMP NATIONAL COMMITTEE JFC, INC.
102,973,468.35
9
NRSC
101,567,221.83
10
GROW THE MAJORITY
90,250,268.97
11
FAIRSHAKE
74,251,384.54
12
WIN FOR AMERICA
69,865,691.13
13
SMP
56,905,405.88
14
RESTORATION OF AMERICA PAC
53,049,027.01
15
UNITED DEMOCRACY PROJECT ('UDP')
52,535,827.45
16
AMERICA PAC
52,277,776.11
17
AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE FUND
50,290,157.54
18
AMERICAN ISRAEL PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
46,330,183.47

19
LEADING THE FUTURE
44,755,780.65
20
DEMOCRACY PAC
41,805,161.81
21
EMILYS LIST
39,714,235.45
22
HMP
38,779,972.67
23
TEXANS FOR A CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY
38,578,232.15
24
NEVER SURRENDER, INC.
36,504,916.7
25
AB PAC
31,640,975.23
<<

- el UF

{ sipping OPPORTUNITY }

D!

Go Bears!!
Go Bears!
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:


AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.


Is it a positive or a negative for the citizens of the United States to be placed in a position where donations to representatives are made on the behalf or or by foreign governments? Do you think this is something the founders of this nation envisioned? Do you think this is something any nation should accept?


1. Campaign donations by foreign governments are not legal. Americans, however, have Constitutional rights. If I had the money and wanted to spend it supporting candidates who would vote for free trade with Brazil, that would be my right. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. The Israeli government isn't even in the top 10 of spending by foreign lobbyists.
3. The founders hardly envisioned political parties, so they probably didn't envision the network of campaign and lobbying laws we currently have.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:


AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.


Is it a positive or a negative for the citizens of the United States to be placed in a position where donations to representatives are made on the behalf or or by foreign governments? Do you think this is something the founders of this nation envisioned? Do you think this is something any nation should accept?


1. Campaign donations by foreign governments are not legal. Americans, however, have Constitutional rights. If I had the money and wanted to spend it supporting candidates who would vote for free trade with Brazil, that would be my right. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. The Israeli government isn't even in the top 10 of spending by foreign lobbyists.
3. The founders hardly envisioned political parties, so they probably didn't envision the network of campaign and lobbying laws we currently have.

Elon gave the Trump campaign more than 5 years of AIPAC contributions. It's really funny how AIPAC - which is 100% Americans - has become the bogeyman of the woke right and the excuse of losing politicians.
Realitybites
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:


AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.


Is it a positive or a negative for the citizens of the United States to be placed in a position where donations to representatives are made on the behalf or or by foreign governments? Do you think this is something the founders of this nation envisioned? Do you think this is something any nation should accept?


1. Campaign donations by foreign governments are not legal. Americans, however, have Constitutional rights. If I had the money and wanted to spend it supporting candidates who would vote for free trade with Brazil, that would be my right. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. The Israeli government isn't even in the top 10 of spending by foreign lobbyists.
3. The founders hardly envisioned political parties, so they probably didn't envision the network of campaign and lobbying laws we currently have.


You didn't answer my question. I didn't mention Israel specifically. It is interesting that you did.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jdub_316
How long do you want to ignore this user?
boognish_bear said:



By posting this - what is your intent? That Iranian would shoot our president with out prejudice - regardless if they were a democrat or republican. This Iranian needs to be executed, and it seems you are supportive of this position - are you really that obtuse, or just an *******?
A proud Baylor alum and US Air Force Veteran.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
jdub_316 said:

boognish_bear said:



By posting this - what is your intent? That Iranian would shoot our president with out prejudice - regardless if they were a democrat or republican. This Iranian needs to be executed, and it seems you are supportive of this position - are you really that obtuse, or just an *******?

It seems these days that certain folk support radical Iranians trying to kill Americans, more than - as Americans - supporting a war that has not been easy and clean enough for them.

That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sombear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:


AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.


Is it a positive or a negative for the citizens of the United States to be placed in a position where donations to representatives are made on the behalf or or by foreign governments? Do you think this is something the founders of this nation envisioned? Do you think this is something any nation should accept?


1. Campaign donations by foreign governments are not legal. Americans, however, have Constitutional rights. If I had the money and wanted to spend it supporting candidates who would vote for free trade with Brazil, that would be my right. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. The Israeli government isn't even in the top 10 of spending by foreign lobbyists.
3. The founders hardly envisioned political parties, so they probably didn't envision the network of campaign and lobbying laws we currently have.

Elon gave the Trump campaign more than 5 years of AIPAC contributions. It's really funny how AIPAC - which is 100% Americans - has become the bogeyman of the woke right and the excuse of losing politicians.


I am 100% American. I have one passport and I can trace my ancestors on both sides to the revolutionary war.

If you just got here less than 100 years ago and run around with dual citizenship (which is unconstitutional and a violation of the sovereignty of ACTUAL Americans) i don't know what percentage of American you are but it certainly isnt 100%.

And save the nation of immigrants foolishness for your Fake Right friends. You people may have stolen my country but please spare me the platitudes of diversity is our strength, AlPAC is as American as apple pie, and Israel is our greatest ally.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
barB: " I am 100% American."

As American as Aldritch Ames, Axis Sally, or Robert Hanssen.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Danielsjackson114
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah boogerish has gone off the deep end. I feel like 95% of what he posts is probably not even accurate or true
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

barB: " I am 100% American."

As American as Aldritch Ames, Axis Sally, or Robert Hanssen.


Zero self awareness from the Jonathan Pollard fanboy.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

Oldbear83 said:

barB: " I am 100% American."

As American as Aldritch Ames, Axis Sally, or Robert Hanssen.


Zero self awareness from the Jonathan Pollard fanboy me.

Corrected, Adolf.

Stop hating people.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

The_barBEARian said:

Oldbear83 said:

barB: " I am 100% American."

As American as Aldritch Ames, Axis Sally, or Robert Hanssen.


Zero self awareness from the Jonathan Pollard fanboy me.

Corrected, Adolf.

Stop hating people.


Ok Boomer.
sombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

sombear said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:


AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.


Is it a positive or a negative for the citizens of the United States to be placed in a position where donations to representatives are made on the behalf or or by foreign governments? Do you think this is something the founders of this nation envisioned? Do you think this is something any nation should accept?


1. Campaign donations by foreign governments are not legal. Americans, however, have Constitutional rights. If I had the money and wanted to spend it supporting candidates who would vote for free trade with Brazil, that would be my right. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. The Israeli government isn't even in the top 10 of spending by foreign lobbyists.
3. The founders hardly envisioned political parties, so they probably didn't envision the network of campaign and lobbying laws we currently have.

Elon gave the Trump campaign more than 5 years of AIPAC contributions. It's really funny how AIPAC - which is 100% Americans - has become the bogeyman of the woke right and the excuse of losing politicians.


I am 100% American. I have one passport and I can trace my ancestors on both sides to the revolutionary war.

If you just got here less than 100 years ago and run around with dual citizenship (which is unconstitutional and a violation of the sovereignty of ACTUAL Americans) i don't know what percentage of American you are but it certainly isnt 100%.

And save the nation of immigrants foolishness for your Fake Right friends. You people may have stolen my country but please spare me the platitudes of diversity is our strength, AlPAC is as American as apple pie, and Israel is our greatest ally.



Looney post but still better than your usual: AIPAc!!!!
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:


AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.


Is it a positive or a negative for the citizens of the United States to be placed in a position where donations to representatives are made on the behalf or or by foreign governments? Do you think this is something the founders of this nation envisioned? Do you think this is something any nation should accept?


1. Campaign donations by foreign governments are not legal. Americans, however, have Constitutional rights. If I had the money and wanted to spend it supporting candidates who would vote for free trade with Brazil, that would be my right. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. The Israeli government isn't even in the top 10 of spending by foreign lobbyists.
3. The founders hardly envisioned political parties, so they probably didn't envision the network of campaign and lobbying laws we currently have.


You didn't answer my question. I didn't mention Israel specifically. It is interesting that you did.


I think I did answer your question.

1. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. I don't think the founders would have envisioned anything quite like what we have today.

In a discussion ongoing of AIPAC ,it is hardly "interesting" that anyone would mention Israel.

What part of your question did I miss?
The_barBEARian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:

Realitybites said:

D. C. Bear said:


AIPAC just does not have the outsized importance to me that it seems to have to some. Probably because I don't view the state of Israel as the embodiment of evil on earth or think of the protocols of the elders of Zion as holy writ.


Is it a positive or a negative for the citizens of the United States to be placed in a position where donations to representatives are made on the behalf or or by foreign governments? Do you think this is something the founders of this nation envisioned? Do you think this is something any nation should accept?


1. Campaign donations by foreign governments are not legal. Americans, however, have Constitutional rights. If I had the money and wanted to spend it supporting candidates who would vote for free trade with Brazil, that would be my right. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. The Israeli government isn't even in the top 10 of spending by foreign lobbyists.
3. The founders hardly envisioned political parties, so they probably didn't envision the network of campaign and lobbying laws we currently have.


You didn't answer my question. I didn't mention Israel specifically. It is interesting that you did.


I think I did answer your question.

1. Constitutional rights are positive.
2. I don't think the founders would have envisioned anything quite like what we have today.

In a discussion ongoing of AIPAC ,it is hardly "interesting" that anyone would mention Israel.

What part of your question did I miss?


The founders would be horrified... like most Legacy Americans are today.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The_barBEARian said:

Oldbear83 said:

The_barBEARian said:

Oldbear83 said:

barB: " I am 100% American."

As American as Aldritch Ames, Axis Sally, or Robert Hanssen.


Zero self awareness from the Jonathan Pollard fanboy me.

Corrected, Adolf.

Stop hating people.


Ok Boomer.

You can always tell the point where barB abandons the debate again. He defaults to a mindless blurb or a stale, irrelevant meme.

As he did just there.
That which does not kill me, will try again and get nastier
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

The_barBEARian said:

Oldbear83 said:

The_barBEARian said:

Oldbear83 said:

barB: " I am 100% American."

As American as Aldritch Ames, Axis Sally, or Robert Hanssen.


Zero self awareness from the Jonathan Pollard fanboy me.

Corrected, Adolf.

Stop hating people.


Ok Boomer.

You can always tell the point where barB abandons the debate again. He defaults to a mindless blurb or a stale, irrelevant meme.

As he did just there.

You would know, being the poster child for abandoning a debate.
First Page Last Page
Page 205 of 207
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.