Exclusive War with Iran starting this week? (9 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!


I just don't get how anyone can listen to him and think he gives an ounce of shit about them. He's talking about men and women who are going to die for an incredibly stupid reason, which didn't need to be done.

Especially if this absolute fuck stain didn't tear up the original agreement that Iran had agreed to.

We're literally the bad guy in the world now.
 
Has Trump ever in his entire miserable privileged life ever cared about anyone? He talked last week to families of murdered children and talked about his suffering having 2020 election stolen from him.
 
There definitely are more than a few questions that are going to come out of this in regards to how the rest of the world views the United States.

Without declaring war, we've engaged in a war. We struck first without provocation, and we've targeted civilians.

It's going to make it awfully hard from here on out for the United States to cite international law when foreign actors mistreat Americans. This, of course, coming after what the Trump administration did to Venezuelan fishermen in an effort to incite action from Maduro.

This also brings up a bigger question for the U.S. domestically. I've watched MAGA people this weekend excusing this as Iran being a rogue nation and Khamenei a bad guy, which is true.

So that means we don't have to follow our own laws? What makes us any different than Iran or North Korea or Russia?

It's kind of a rhetorical question. After years of watching guys like Tucker Carlson and Scott Jennings use "the rule of law" to rationalize right-wing American lawmakers abusing their own citizens for no reason other than they could stretch the letter of the law to obscene degrees, we've in five years just decided to ignore laws when it came to Donald Trump simply because he had millions of rabid supporters. Then SCOTUS gave the chief executive almost limitless immunity, which is so opposed to common sense it's grotesque.

Congress has the power to check him, but doesn't.

Law is only worth something if the people that enforce them choose to enforce them and do so dispassionately.

We'll put a guy living in poverty in jail for having marijuana, but we won't rein in a president for breaking laws that have been on the books for centuries when his actions could destroy thousands of lives or more.

There are going to have to be some hard decisions made in a few months in regards to our law. They won't be popular with a lot of people, but Americans need to start thinking about whether the rules matter or not, and, if they don't, they need to accept that they are living in an anarchy.
 
@Sheldon Shape — I want to engage with your arguments seriously, because some of them touch on real debates worth having. But the way you've constructed them does serious damage to your own credibility, and I think other readers deserve to see why.

Erdogan's stance on Israel is one of the most openly hostile of any world leader, and has intensified dramatically since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and the subsequent Gaza war. Here's a clear picture of where he stands and what he seeks:
Rhetoric and Ideology
Erdogan's language has become extreme. At Eid al-Fitr prayers in March 2025, he called out "May Allah damn Zionist Israel" and asked Allah to "destroy and devastate Zionist Israel," The Jerusalem Post while also comparing Netanyahu to Hitler, saying he "has long surpassed the tyrant Hitler in the crime of genocide." AA.com.t
Support for Hamas and Iran
Erdogan has provided unflinching financial and political support for Hamas since October 7, and has openly met with Hamas leaders. Fox News More recently, with the Israel-Iran conflict erupting in June 2025, he declared it "entirely natural, legitimate, and lawful for Iran to defend itself against Israel's banditry and state terrorism." AA.com.tr
Rallying the Muslim World
Erdogan seeks to position himself as Israel's most vocal critic in the region, vying to replace a weakened Iran as the leading anti-Israel voice. FDD Following Israel's strikes on Iran, he launched a wave of telephone diplomacy with regional heads of state — including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt, and Jordan — urging them to denounce Israel. FDD At the OIC summit in June 2025, he called on Muslim countries to impose punitive measures against Israel based on international law and UN resolutions. The Times of Israel
Syria and Regional Ambitions
Critics accuse Erdogan of projection — condemning Israeli influence in Syria while Turkey itself seeks to dominate it, and warning of Israeli aggression while nursing ambitions to rebuild Ottoman-era influence and "liberate" Jerusalem. FDD He has declared Turkey will not allow Middle East borders to be redrawn "in blood" and calls Israel the source of regional instability. Al Jazeera
Diplomatic Goals
Despite the fiery rhetoric, Erdogan also pursues diplomatic angles. He has offered Turkey as a facilitator to resume Iran-US nuclear talks and urged steps toward diplomacy at the technical and leadership level. The Times of Israel He advocates for a two-state solution and has stated Ankara will continue its struggle until an independent Palestinian state is established on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital. AA.com.tr

Military Posture
In June 2025, Erdogan announced plans to boost Turkey's production of medium- and long-range missiles, sparking concerns about a regional arms race, The Times of Israel framing it as deterrence but alarming analysts given the broader context.

In short, Erdogan's goals toward Israel are: isolate it diplomatically in the Muslim world, support its adversaries (Hamas, Iran), undermine its regional influence (especially in Syria), and position Turkey — and himself — as the champion of the Palestinian cause. Whether this is driven by genuine ideology, domestic political calculation (deflecting from internal crises like the Imamoglu arrest), or Ottoman-style regional ambition is debated — likely all three.
On Israel being the aggressor: Israel has fought wars, yes. It has conducted military operations in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen — primarily targeting Iranian proxy forces that have been attacking Israeli territory with rockets, drones, and missiles for years. You can disagree with how Israel responds to those threats, but describing it as simply "bullying the region" while erasing the Hamas attacks, the Hezbollah rocket campaigns, and the Houthi missile strikes on Israeli civilians isn't analysis — it's a cartoon. It selectively edits reality to reach a predetermined conclusion.

On U.S. wars being fought "for Israel": This flattens decades of complex U.S. foreign policy into a conspiracy. The Iraq War was driven by post-9/11 intelligence failures, neoconservative ideology, oil interests, and geopolitical ambition. Afghanistan was a direct response to the Taliban harboring Al-Qaeda after 3,000 Americans were killed on U.S. soil. Reducing all of this to "Israel made them do it" isn't a serious geopolitical argument — it's a scapegoating shortcut that ignores mountains of documented history.

On Epstein: Investigators, prosecutors, journalists, and congressional inquiries have not established that Epstein was an Israeli intelligence operative. Saying "anyone who reads the emails can see it" isn't evidence — it's an assertion. The crimes Epstein committed were real and horrific, and the failures of American law enforcement and elites who protected him deserve serious scrutiny. But fusing that legitimate outrage to a claim about Israeli intelligence — without verified evidence — is how conspiracy thinking works: it takes real grievances and channels them toward predetermined targets.

On the "goyim" framing: This is where you cross a clear line. The idea that Israelis secretly view Americans as stupid cattle to be exploited is a centuries-old antisemitic trope — not a political position. Dressing it up in policy language doesn't change what it is.

Here's the broader problem: you have real arguments buried in there — skepticism about U.S. military interventionism, questions about foreign aid priorities, concern about American lives being risked in foreign conflicts. Those are legitimate debates that serious people across the political spectrum engage with. But by fusing them with conspiracy claims and ethnic tropes, you make it impossible for anyone to take the legitimate parts seriously.
 
I figured this was going to happen but not until after the war with Iran was over.

 
Three American F-15s have been shot down by mistake in Kuwait, the US Central Command has said.

The fighter jets were gunned down by Kuwaiti air defences at around 4am GMT during active combat with Iranian aircraft.

Unverified footage appears to show a twin-engine fighter jet, spiralling to Earth as smoke billowed from its back end.

Another clip appeared to show the pilot falling in a parachute after ejecting on the outskirts of Al Jahra, west of Kuwait City, according to CNN Arabic.

 
We're at a point where we need to be more specific about who is making our leaders start wars in the Middle East. This has nothing to do with party. This has to do with a foreign nation holding blackmail on our leaders and putting money in their pockets to make these atrocities happen. We are absolutely occupied. Making this about Trump or a party is absolutely missing the bigger picture.

We can't have affordable healthcare and living in this country because we are supposed to subsidize another far far away.
We can have affordable Healthcare regardless of anything else. It would save us money, not cost us more.

Medicare For All would be the best healthcare in the world with no out of pocket costs for any medically necessary care and the CBO estimates it would save us hundreds of billions per year.

I'm with you on making sure we don't have politicians being manipulated by other countries, but I don't see how Israel has anything to do with healthcare.
 
There definitely are more than a few questions that are going to come out of this in regards to how the rest of the world views the United States.

Without declaring war, we've engaged in a war. We struck first without provocation, and we've targeted civilians.

It's going to make it awfully hard from here on out for the United States to cite international law when foreign actors mistreat Americans. This, of course, coming after what the Trump administration did to Venezuelan fishermen in an effort to incite action from Maduro.

This also brings up a bigger question for the U.S. domestically. I've watched MAGA people this weekend excusing this as Iran being a rogue nation and Khamenei a bad guy, which is true.

So that means we don't have to follow our own laws? What makes us any different than Iran or North Korea or Russia?

It's kind of a rhetorical question. After years of watching guys like Tucker Carlson and Scott Jennings use "the rule of law" to rationalize right-wing American lawmakers abusing their own citizens for no reason other than they could stretch the letter of the law to obscene degrees, we've in five years just decided to ignore laws when it came to Donald Trump simply because he had millions of rabid supporters. Then SCOTUS gave the chief executive almost limitless immunity, which is so opposed to common sense it's grotesque.

Congress has the power to check him, but doesn't.

Law is only worth something if the people that enforce them choose to enforce them and do so dispassionately.

We'll put a guy living in poverty in jail for having marijuana, but we won't rein in a president for breaking laws that have been on the books for centuries when his actions could destroy thousands of lives or more.

There are going to have to be some hard decisions made in a few months in regards to our law. They won't be popular with a lot of people, but Americans need to start thinking about whether the rules matter or not, and, if they don't, they need to accept that they are living in an anarchy.
All true. Except I don't think its anarchy, though, is it? Wouldn't it be closer to authoritarianism?

Just nitpicking I guess. But it seems kind of important too...

Theoretically Congress could still control Trump if it wanted... But they are controlled by corporations, right? Is it just fascism?
 
All true. Except I don't think its anarchy, though, is it? Wouldn't it be closer to authoritarianism?

Just nitpicking I guess. But it seems kind of important too...

Theoretically Congress could still control Trump if it wanted... But they are controlled by corporations, right? Is it just fascism?
It's a good point. It is authoritarianism, but anarchy is a feature of it.

I used to be a big fan of "Survivor." In one of the earlier seasons, there was a contestant named Russell Hantz. Russell would make his tribe miserable. He'd put out the fire at night when no one else was awake. He'd spill the rice. And then, while everyone else was trying to repair the messes he made, Russell was out of the camp looking for immunity idols.

Then he'd come back to camp, listen to his disgruntled tribemates, pretend to empathize with them and tell them to stick with him and everything would be all right. He had alliances with everyone and all the idols. He had most of the cards.

Everyone else was so busy putting out all the fires Russell set that they didn't have time to deal with him.

The camp was in chaos. Russell didn't care. He was focused on just getting what he wanted.

And that's Trump and MAGA leadership. They want absolute control, but they don't want to take the effort to impose it. Hussein and Iran (first the ayatollahs and in the last year more the military has been in control), Stalin, Hitler, they were authoritarians because they sought to control all thought through fiat. Trump doesn't care about stabilizing things. He just cares about money, power and women he can grab. Let the chaos at the lower levels that can't touch him go on. He can let it happen and tell his followers this is what the other side is doing and "I'm the only one that can protect you. I'm the only one that can save you."

The chaos is a feature that enables the authoritarianism. It's an authoritarianism in which he controls everything he wants, not everything there is.

There is no rule of law anymore in America under Trump. It's whatever his whims make it from hour to hour, day to day. Without structure, there is chaos, there is anarchy. And Trump reigns over all of it.

Bringing it back to Russell Hantz ... he never won Survivor. He got close a couple of times. By the end, though, he never could get the votes because each of the people voted out had figured out what he was doing and voted against him. Eventually, Hantz quit playing. He stormed off in a huff saying the game was a joke because he was the best player and didn't win ... the game was rigged against him, because he couldn't win the game.
 
We can have affordable Healthcare regardless of anything else. It would save us money, not cost us more.

Medicare For All would be the best healthcare in the world with no out of pocket costs for any medically necessary care and the CBO estimates it would save us hundreds of billions per year.

I'm with you on making sure we don't have politicians being manipulated by other countries, but I don't see how Israel has anything to do with healthcare.
Israel-firsters by in large control our healthcare system. It's not about saving money for the people who use it, it's about allocating a chunk of our money for Israel. Same with our university system.
 
Israel-firsters by in large control our healthcare system. It's not about saving money for the people who use it, it's about allocating a chunk of our money for Israel. Same with our university system.

Lets play a game. Every time you post conspiracy theories about Israel I will provide facts to debunk it. Feel welcome to counter my facts, or continue chanting your silly hatful comments. I will let other readers here some factual information for them to decide. But man, you sure like to blame Israel for everything in the world. we get it. one trick pony. no need to turn it into a dead horse.

This is why your claims don't hold up to scrutiny:

The "Israel-firsters control healthcare" claim

The U.S. healthcare system's dysfunctions — high costs, insurance complexity, administrative waste — have well-documented, mundane explanations: lobbying by pharmaceutical companies, hospital networks, and insurance conglomerates (most with no particular connection to Israel or Jewish ownership); fee-for-service payment models; lack of price transparency; employer-tied insurance rooted in 1940s tax law; and fragmented regulation across 50 states. Healthcare economists across the political spectrum have studied this exhaustively, and none of the serious literature points to anything resembling this claim.

The "university system funds Israel" claim

U.S. university finances are publicly auditable. Tuition and endowments fund faculty salaries, campus operations, financial aid, research, and debt service on construction. Some universities have research partnerships or exchange programs with Israeli institutions — as they do with dozens of countries. That is categorically different from "allocating money for Israel."

The deeper problem: the antisemitic trope

The phrase "Israel-firsters" is a well-recognized antisemitic dog whistle implying that Jewish Americans have dual or primary loyalty to a foreign country over the U.S. This is a recycled version of the historic "dual loyalty" canard used to scapegoat Jewish people for centuries. Applying it to healthcare and universities — two systems with complex, documented problems — substitutes a conspiratorial ethnic villain for the actual, boring, structural causes.

Why this kind of thinking is harmful

Beyond being factually wrong, it's practically counterproductive: if you misidentify the cause of a problem, you can't fix it. The real drivers of expensive healthcare and troubled universities involve lobbying, policy choices, and economic incentives that can actually be analyzed and addressed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top