Exclusive War with Iran starting this week? (8 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Sheldon Shape said:
It's time Americans stop making this about Trump or political parties and wakeup to the fact that we are occupied by Israel and all parties are compromised.

We are being USED for Israel's benefit.
Click to expand...
Saying America is 'occupied by Israel' isn't waking up — it's falling asleep into a different kind of propaganda. You swapped one oversimplification for another. If you actually want to critique U.S. foreign policy, there's plenty of real, documented material to work with. You don't need to sound like a 1930s pamphlet to do it.
 
riverman said:
Iran needs a regime change but I'd prefer it happened from within their own country. The US, Iran and Israel could all benefit from regime changes across the board.
Click to expand...
This.

We've heard this song before about how we were doing foreign countries a favor by removing their leaders and replacing it with what we would do and we've made it worse for ourselves ... and that was when we at least had halfway competent leadership. Heck, we engineered the changes in Iran and Cuba that led to the revolutions that put the oppressive regimes into those countries we have today. The way we treated the nationals in Vietnam made the Vietnamese think the communists were the good guys. We left messes in Lebanon and Somalia last century, destabilized Central America under Reagan and Bush I, gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban (after creating what would become al Qaeda), left a mess in Iraq that opened the door for ISIS and increasing Iranian power.

Our current administration doesn't even care about Americans. I don't see how this plays out in a way that doesn't create even more terrorists out to kill us. Most of these other countries welcomed us as liberators and quickly came to hate us. Americans have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rest of the world because of our hubris, and it shows. And Iran has less of an organized opposition than many of these other situations.
 
PCmor7 said:
This.

We've heard this song before about how we were doing foreign countries a favor by removing their leaders and replacing it with what we would do and we've made it worse for ourselves ... and that was when we at least had halfway competent leadership. Heck, we engineered the changes in Iran and Cuba that led to the revolutions that put the oppressive regimes into those countries we have today. The way we treated the nationals in Vietnam made the Vietnamese think the communists were the good guys. We left messes in Lebanon and Somalia last century, destabilized Central America under Reagan and Bush I, gave Afghanistan back to the Taliban (after creating what would become al Qaeda), left a mess in Iraq that opened the door for ISIS and increasing Iranian power.

Our current administration doesn't even care about Americans. I don't see how this plays out in a way that doesn't create even more terrorists out to kill us. Most of these other countries welcomed us as liberators and quickly came to hate us. Americans have a fundamental misunderstanding of the rest of the world because of our hubris, and it shows. And Iran has less of an organized opposition than many of these other situations.
Click to expand...
You're conflating decades of failed nation-building with a fundamentally different situation. No one is talking about occupying Iran, installing a puppet government, or repeating the Iraq playbook. The conversation is about whether the world can tolerate a regime that has directly funded Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and repeated attacks on American forces and Israeli civilians — while actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

Your historical examples are worth taking seriously, but they actually cut both ways. Many of those failures stemmed from unclear objectives, poor post-conflict planning, and half-measures that created power vacuums. The argument isn't to repeat those mistakes — it's to not pretend that inaction is automatically the safer choice. Iran is not a stable status quo. It is an actively destabilizing force across the entire region.

It's also worth noting that the Iranian people themselves are not the regime. They've risen up repeatedly — in 2009, 2019, 2022 — and been met with brutal crackdowns. The mullahs do not represent the Iranian population any more than the Taliban represents Afghans.

The concern about blowback is legitimate and shouldn't be dismissed. But the alternative — a nuclear-threshold Iran with an unbroken funding pipeline to terror proxies — carries its own catastrophic risks. The question isn't whether there's risk. It's which risks are more manageable.
 
If problem was unclear objectives, what are Trump's? Nuclear deal? They had one, he tore it up. Regime change? How and to what and by whom? Impose US military occupation indefinitely?
Distract from Epstein files and people hating his economic policies and immigration raids? Maybe.
 
 
2Fluffy4U said:
You're conflating decades of failed nation-building with a fundamentally different situation. No one is talking about occupying Iran, installing a puppet government, or repeating the Iraq playbook. The conversation is about whether the world can tolerate a regime that has directly funded Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and repeated attacks on American forces and Israeli civilians — while actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

Your historical examples are worth taking seriously, but they actually cut both ways. Many of those failures stemmed from unclear objectives, poor post-conflict planning, and half-measures that created power vacuums. The argument isn't to repeat those mistakes — it's to not pretend that inaction is automatically the safer choice. Iran is not a stable status quo. It is an actively destabilizing force across the entire region.

It's also worth noting that the Iranian people themselves are not the regime. They've risen up repeatedly — in 2009, 2019, 2022 — and been met with brutal crackdowns. The mullahs do not represent the Iranian population any more than the Taliban represents Afghans.

The concern about blowback is legitimate and shouldn't be dismissed. But the alternative — a nuclear-threshold Iran with an unbroken funding pipeline to terror proxies — carries its own catastrophic risks. The question isn't whether there's risk. It's which risks are more manageable.
Click to expand...
You're rationalizing.

Tell me, Fluff, who exactly do you think is going to take control in Iran if someone isn't there to try to stabilize things?
 
South America, Central America, Mexico....all in a mess over our invasion and threats. Ukraine a mess, Gaza, a mess, Iran a mess, Pacific Rim, a mess. Our president is essentially holding the Nobel Peace Prize hostage. I don't see bombing the fuck out of countries as progress regardless of your ideology. Vietnam is actually not a mess and an ally of the US similar to Japan these days. We were propping up the wrong side in that war to begin with. South Viet Nam had a very corrupt govt. at the time. Ho Chi Minh is looked at like Gandhi there today.
 
Phatguysrule said:
When was the last time the US intervened in a war and improved the lives of the civilians in that country?
Click to expand...

Kosovo
Panama
Wev'e had Taiwan's back for years and would be there in a minute help them against China.
Europe (our intervention cant discounted at all.imo
South Korea and continue to be there in support

I cant imagine anyone being opposed to helping the Iranian people, who have been defenseless for years against this murderous theo regime.
 
PCmor7 said:
You're rationalizing.

Tell me, Fluff, who exactly do you think is going to take control in Iran if someone isn't there to try to stabilize things?
Click to expand...
The young people of Iran want reform, they should decide this, not our government or Israel's. 32,000 died for freedom protests. That should not be in vain. I have no problem with war criminals being tried in the Hague but that's not what's happening here.
 
2Fluffy4U said:


This is a confirmed IRGC rocket fail. But none-the-less excellent chance to smear and keep propagande high
Click to expand...

And how do we know your source is telling the truth? You seem to just believe anything that comes out that isn't 100% pro-Israel.

The BBC and Reuters said they confirmed it was a U.S. or Israeli missile. They have no stake in this one way or the other. Have they changed their story?
 
Hoopguru said:
Kosovo
Panama
Wev'e had Taiwan's back for years and would be there in a minute help them against China.
Europe (our intervention cant discounted at all.imo
South Korea and continue to be there in support

I cant imagine anyone being opposed to helping the Iranian people, who have been defenseless for years against this murderous theo regime.
Click to expand...

We put the Shah in power which led to this whole mess.
 
riverman said:
The young people of Iran want reform, they should decide this, not our government or Israel's. 32,000 died for freedom protests. That should not be in vain.
Click to expand...
ALL people of Iran should. But how does that happen?

I get talking about what we think SHOULD happen but there actually has to be a way to make that possible.
 
Hoopguru said:
Kosovo
Panama
Wev'e had Taiwan's back for years and would be there in a minute help them against China.
Europe (our intervention cant discounted at all.imo
South Korea and continue to be there in support

I cant imagine anyone being opposed to helping the Iranian people, who have been defenseless for years against this murderous theo regime.
Click to expand...
Thank you, those are actually really good examples.

I'm not opposed to helping the Iranian people. I just don't want another Iraq. Afghanistan.

I don't believe the current president or his staff are as capable as those who oversaw the Panama or Kosovo actions.
 
PCmor7 said:
ALL people of Iran should. But how does that happen?

I get talking about what we think SHOULD happen but there actually has to be a way to make that possible.
Click to expand...
They were just at the negotiating table but our Tantrum in Chief couldn't get past one meeting without throwing them out of the room. He's a bully, not a negotiator.
 
Small point in overall context but of interest to us. Saw Israel called up 100,000 reservists. Is Deni a reservist? He's 25, obviously able bodied, did his military service.
 
crandc said:
Small point in overall context but of interest to us. Saw Israel called up 100,000 reservists. Is Deni a reservist? He's 25, obviously able bodied, did his military service.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he qualifies for a medical exemption right now.
 
crandc said:
Small point in overall context but of interest to us. Saw Israel called up 100,000 reservists. Is Deni a reservist? He's 25, obviously able bodied, did his military service.
Click to expand...
To answer you seriuosly - he will not ever be called for service. He was not a combat soldier.
My reserve platoon was called 10 hours ago (I no longer serve as I have T9 and T11 back fractures).
There is chance Israeli borders will be raided from Syria/Lebanon/Jordan by militias so all borders are being fortified.
 
riverman said:
They were just at the negotiating table but our Tantrum in Chief couldn't get past one meeting without throwing them out of the room. He's a bully, not a negotiator.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that was this Iranian regime. I'm asking you (and anyone who thinks this is practical) how you decide who runs the country without a presence there?

They have to determine some kind of provisional government. Who's in that? Yes, the younger people want reform, but I haven't heard of any names from that younger generation that qualifies as a leader even to be part of a transitional government. They need a constitution, presumably elections. I doubt their idea of reform is bringing the Shah's family back. That needs organized.

I'm not seeing a way that happens without some kind of U.S. presence there (because NO ONE in Iran is letting Israel oversee it).

Or, I guess you could do what just happened in Venezuela -- take out the leader but then just let the second in command take over, which changes nothing.

I get Fluff wants to be all sunshine and Stars of David about this, but this just seems like another opportunity to create more terrorist organizations, or warlords or factions. We were present in Iraq and Afghanistan and that still happened there anyway.
 
Phatguysrule said:
Thank you, those are actually really good examples.

I'm not opposed to helping the Iranian people. I just don't want another Iraq. Afghanistan.

I don't believe the current president or his staff are as capable as those who oversaw the Panama or Kosovo actions.
Click to expand...
Im not in favor of any war, but I am in favor of helping the Iranian people in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
OT How three pizza restaurants predicted Israel’s attack on Iran
Replies
8
Views
391
PDXFonz
PDXFonz
Road Ratt
OT Losing the battle
Replies
5
Views
122
Strenuus
Strenuus
SlyPokerDog
Politics Trump wants to start his own UN, only $1 billion to join
Replies
20
Views
297
riverman
riverman
SlyPokerDog
Politics Greenland
2 3 4
Replies
113
Views
1K
Rastapopoulos
Rastapopoulos
THE HCP
OT Type 2 Diabetes
8 9 10
Replies
270
Views
4K
crandc
crandc

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 5 more.
    • Total: 9 (members: 8, guests: 1)
    Back
    Top