Iran

volfanhill · 2026-05-17T16:26:24-0400

It's amazing to me that all the people who support this action and discuss the danger that is Iran can't show me one post of them being critical of Trump for not doing more in his first term. It's like they are beholden to one guy and not actually policy

Orange_Crush · 2026-05-17T16:28:12-0400

volfanhill said:
It's amazing to me that all the people who support this action and discuss the danger that is Iran can't show me one post of them being critical of Trump for not doing more in his first term. It's like they are beholden to one guy and not actually policy

I suspect a lot of people give him some credit for having to put so much energy into defending against a seditious coup in his first term.

volfanhill · 2026-05-17T16:29:23-0400

Orange_Crush said:
I suspect a lot of people give him some credit for having to put so much energy into defending against a seditious coup in his first term.

lol. So lazy. You are worse than an Obama fan boy at this point.

Orange_Crush · 2026-05-17T16:31:12-0400

volfanhill said:
lol. So lazy. You are worse than an Obama fan boy at this point.

I'm gutted, I tell you. Absolutely gutted.

Anyway. It's amazing to me that the people who would call this conflict illegal without congressional approval seem to think Trump should have done more in his first term with a congress who was trying to impeach him.

But, you know... Lazy... Obama... Insults... Fan boyz.... Blah, blah, blah...

ETV · 2026-05-17T16:35:26-0400

MontyPython said:
Hmmmm...

Question: "They’ve been responsible for financing terror operations throughout the ME, Europe and other areas of the world. They’ve provided money or weapons to anyone who falls in line with their belief that Iran is evil, etc."

Answer: USA.

One man's "freedom fighter" is another man's "terrorist".

What are we doing in Iran?

Technically, we are not IN Iran.

Our democratic republic projects have been disastrous over the years, but which way of life would you rather have? The one the US has provided you or some radical theological government that executes you or your family for the simple idea of disagreement.

BernardKingGOAT · 2026-05-17T16:44:28-0400

ETV said:
Technically, we are not IN Iran.

Our democratic republic projects have been disastrous over the years, but which way of life would you rather have? The one the US has provided you or some radical theological government that executes you or your family for the simple idea of disagreement.

We haven't been in any danger of adopting a radical theological government.

ETV · 2026-05-17T16:45:20-0400

BernardKingGOAT said:
So we just needed to attack them, huh? Wow. Just attack with no exit strategy and figure it out as we go? You're on par with this administration, that's for sure

If you want to assume that I agree with everything this administration does, then you’re not being honest.

Orange_Crush · 2026-05-17T16:47:51-0400

ETV said:
If you want to assume that I agree with everything this administration does, then you’re not being honest.

That seems to be some common lazy broad-brush thinking.

BernardKingGOAT · 2026-05-17T16:53:49-0400

ETV said:
If you want to assume that I agree with everything this administration does, then you’re not being honest.

I don't read that many of your posts to know where you stand on all issues. This one (Iran conflict) you're offering an alternative reason to "nuclear" threat as why we needed to attack Iran.

EasternVol · 2026-05-17T16:55:58-0400

ETV said:
Same can be said when you post links from the guardian to support your position.

The Guardian's a lot more credible than Lakepoint.

EasternVol · 2026-05-17T17:00:57-0400

Orange_Crush said:
I suspect a lot of people give him some credit for having to put so much energy into defending against a seditious coup in his first term.

Wut? In whose imagination, and when? Or do you mean plotting a seditious coup?

ETV · 2026-05-17T17:02:52-0400

BernardKingGOAT said:
I don't read that many of your posts to know where you stand on all issues. This one (Iran conflict) you're offering an alternative reason to "nuclear" threat as why we needed to attack Iran.

Honestly speaking, administrations have been kicking the can down the road for decades.

Reagan should have authorized military action against them in the spring or summer of ‘81. Lord knows he would have had public support across the board.

Instead, each administration afterward placed Iran on the back burner.

They’ve been a threat to our allies in the region and as I said previously, a decision was made. Now, there have missteps along the way (pausing for one) and the continued “we’re winning” is almost as bad as “mission accomplished” under W.

ETV · 2026-05-17T17:10:50-0400

EasternVol said:
The Guardian's a lot more credible than Lakepoint.

From a certain point of view. Sure.

BernardKingGOAT · 2026-05-17T17:15:15-0400

ETV said:
Honestly speaking, administrations have been kicking the can down the road for decades.

Reagan should have authorized military action against them in the spring or summer of ‘81. Lord knows he would have had public support across the board.

Instead, each administration afterward placed Iran on the back burner.

They’ve been a threat to our allies in the region and as I said previously, a decision was made. Now, there have missteps along the way (pausing for one) and the continued “we’re winning” is almost as bad as “mission accomplished” under W.

Reagan? Hell, he sold arms to them. He wasn't going to attack them anyway after the hostage release agreement

ETV · 2026-05-17T17:30:03-0400

BernardKingGOAT said:
Reagan? Hell, he sold arms to them. He wasn't going to attack them anyway after the hostage release agreement

That occurred in 1985-86. I said in the spring or summer of ‘81.

His administration could have found them in violation of something to dissolve the agreement.

MontyPython · 2026-05-17T17:31:24-0400

ETV said:
Technically, we are not IN Iran.

Our democratic republic projects have been disastrous over the years, but which way of life would you rather have? The one the US has provided you or some radical theological government that executes you or your family for the simple idea of disagreement.

Are you suggesting that Iran’s gonna take our country over?

Our country is not in danger of being taken over by a theocracy. Our countries in danger of being taken over by an autocrat.

BernardKingGOAT · 2026-05-17T17:32:16-0400

ETV said:
That occurred in 1985-86. I said in the spring or summer of ‘81.

His administration could have found them in violation of something to dissolve the agreement.

Getting elected was a priority. Yeah, the arms sale was later and the revenue was used illegally.

Orange_Crush · 2026-05-17T17:36:28-0400

EasternVol said:
Wut? In whose imagination, and when? Or do you mean plotting a seditious coup?

I meant defending against an attempted coup... In the minds of many of the people who didn't expect him to invade Iran while fighting against the use of fake intel to impeach him, while other politicians ran on finding crimes to prosecute him for-- which were the minds in question per the post I responded to.

#HookerPissBaby!

NashVol11 · 2026-05-17T17:40:02-0400

Orange_Crush said:
That seems to be some common lazy broad-brush thinking.

Hey, if people disagree, they are more than welcome to say so rather than reflexively defending everything. Based on the amount of people that claim to, there shouldn't be much argument in this thread

ETV · 2026-05-17T17:43:01-0400

MontyPython said:
Are you suggesting that Iran’s gonna take our country over?

Our country is not in danger of being taken over by a theocracy. Our countries in danger of being taken over by an autocrat.

No. I'm asking a question. We have it well over here compared to other parts of the world. I'm not suggesting they're going to invade and takeover, but their influence will continue to expand if not held in check or removed completely.

Monty, stop believing what you hear at the no kings rallies.

Orange_Crush · 2026-05-17T17:46:47-0400

NashVol11 said:
Hey, if people disagree, they are more than welcome to say so rather than reflexively defending everything. Based on the amount of people that claim to, there shouldn't be much argument in this thread

I can't speak for everyone on the board, but I've criticized Trump and the admin plenty.

That is beside the point that it's idiotic to expect anyone to have expected him to invade Iran in his first term with every political lie imaginable being levied against him, claims that he was a Russian asset, accusations of treason, 1/2 of Congress trying to impeach him, and several AGs targeting him personally trying to bankrupt him and send him to prison.

People in here ignore the reality of his first term and mock those who didn't. It's genuinely absurd.

volfanhill · 2026-05-17T17:51:44-0400

Orange_Crush said:
I'm gutted, I tell you. Absolutely gutted.

Anyway. It's amazing to me that the people who would call this conflict illegal without congressional approval seem to think Trump should have done more in his first term with a congress who was trying to impeach him.

But, you know... Lazy... Obama... Insults... Fan boyz.... Blah, blah, blah...

I don't think he should have done more so I don't know what the heck you are talking about. And I don't see anyone making that argument. You are just making things up. My point is I see many on here says this should have been done long ago . Previous administrations kicking the can etc etc. Well if you feel that way then surely you can show the class where you claimed Trump was soft on Iran, perhaps advocated for new wars during his campaign, or asked for immediate intervention. Otherwise you are FOS about the other admins. You could claim events on the ground changed urgently and Trump had to act. I'd disagree but that's not relevant. Bc it's not the route you went

lawgator1 · 2026-05-17T17:53:22-0400

I swear, if Trump.has to warn Iran 10 or 11 more times, he's gonna be pissed.

NashVol11 · 2026-05-17T17:56:18-0400

Orange_Crush said:
I can't speak for everyone on the board, but I've criticized Trump and the admin plenty.

That is beside the point that it's idiotic to expect anyone to have expected him to invade Iran in his first term with every political lie imaginable being levied against him, claims that he was a Russian asset, accusations of treason, 1/2 of Congress trying to impeach him, and several AGs targeting him personally trying to bankrupt him and send him to prison.

People in here ignore the reality of his first term and mock those who didn't. It's genuinely absurd.

He had too much on his plate to deal with Iran perpetually being "two weeks away" from nukes? Hmm, seems like it wasn't a high priority and we're approaching the point

volfanhill · 2026-05-17T17:59:28-0400

NashVol11 said:
He had too much on his plate to deal with Iran perpetually being "two weeks away" from nukes? Hmm, seems like it wasn't a high priority and we're approaching the point

That's the hill he's dying on. We were two weeks away from Iran getting nuked by Iran and maybe us too bc he was fighting political fights. Sure sounds like an America first agenda

Iran

Well-Known Member

Resident windbag genius

Well-Known Member

Resident windbag genius

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Resident windbag genius

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?

Well-Known Member

Resident windbag genius

Gloomed to Fail

Well-Known Member

Resident windbag genius

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Gloomed to Fail

Well-Known Member