@AverageJoe1 saidBut sir, irans nuclear capabilities were obliterated just a few months ago, according to you.
??! The GOALS are stopping Iran efforts with uranium, thus nuclear devastation, together with no ballistic missles. That’s it. Sorry we don’t get hourly briefings to keep us in the war room, but you know why, don’t you. Don’t you??
And right, podcasters are not in the know!!! Fun.
And it is NOT a problem that we are not told all of trumps thinking. No prob at all. Why would you be so naive??
[jeopardy theme song]
Hegseth: we want their oil.
@wildgrass saidRhetoric is acceptable, politically speaking. Why don’t we do a thread on that? I can’t think of a more interesting thread to write.
But sir, irans nuclear capabilities were obliterated just a few months ago, according to you.
[jeopardy theme song]
Hegseth: we want their oil.
The whataboutism is about Obama and Biden and Clinton would Flow!!!
@AverageJoe1 saidWe have ballistic missiles and nukes. Who is going to claim to help us by killing Trump and rid us of those nasty WMDs?
IAll double talk, to confuse this situation. You even include a bunch of Sunhouse interpretations of Trump. But what you do not do is tell the fact that we want to stop the building of ballistic missiles and the enrichment of uranium.
Do you think we should stop the building of ballistic missiles and enrichment of uranium, or do you think that we should LET them enri ...[text shortened]... rather predict Trump like sonhouse does..
I predict that all armadillos will die in 2027.
We have WMDs but don't want Iran to have them. Why the hypocrisy?
@Metal-Brain saidThen write a thread about the pros and cons of the USA having nuclear capabilities.
We have ballistic missiles and nukes. Who is going to claim to help us by killing Trump and rid us of those nasty WMDs?
We have WMDs but don't want Iran to have them. Why the hypocrisy?
That is not what this thread is about.
It’s about Iran having them.
@AverageJoe1 saidI think we should all have a vote, and if you win, you should be inaugurated as a debates thread monitor.
Then write a thread about the pros and cons of the USA having nuclear capabilities.
That is not what this thread is about.
It’s about Iran having them.
@AverageJoe1 saidIt is very unlikely Iran or any nation will use nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon. Only when the USA had a monopoly on nukes were they used. nobody uses nukes anymore.
Then write a thread about the pros and cons of the USA having nuclear capabilities.
That is not what this thread is about.
It’s about Iran having them.
Nukes are defensive weapons. Nobody is foolish enough to nuke unless they are nuked first. It has been that way ever since the USSR got them. The fact is that nukes prevent wars. They do not cause them. Notice how North Korea is being left alone except for Trump threatening to nuke them now and then. He talks tough, but leaves them alone.
History contradicts the propaganda. That is why you are told the Iran government are super crazy. The propaganda is dependent on you thinking they are as irrational as the mentally ill. They are suicidal you say. The school girls too? oh...no, just the crazy regime.
Do all of those clever politicians in Iran have rabies?
You are defending stupid propaganda. As if crazy people are encouraged to be in high levels of government. Darn it, I am not allowed to run because the supreme leader says I am not crazy enough. If you believe that is how Iran government works you are the crazy lunatic.
@Metal-Brain saidDo you recall how close we came during the Cuban missile crisis. You could have somewhat of a point if you were dealing with rational countries, not mad men countries.
It is very unlikely Iran or any nation will use nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon. Only when the USA had a monopoly on nukes were they used. nobody uses nukes anymore.
Nukes are defensive weapons. Nobody is foolish enough to nuke unless they are nuked first. It has been that way ever since the USSR got them. The fact is that nukes prevent wars. They do not cause ...[text shortened]... s I am not crazy enough. If you believe that is how Iran government works you are the crazy lunatic.
The concern about countries like Iran isn’t that they will casually launch nukes tomorrow. It’s that once a regime has them, deterrence becomes unpredictable and they gain the ability to shield aggression behind a nuclear threat. That’s why every U.S. administration—Democrat and Republican—has tried to prevent nuclear
This is widely known common sense, but you fellers never do exhibit common sense. In the back of my mind, I think why not take nuclear weapons away from them anyway why not? While they have them?
You are in fact, saying that if iran has nuclear capabilities, that they will never use them. You are the madman.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou are in denial of reality. Nobody uses nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon anymore. They are strictly defensive weapons. Using them against other nuclear weapons states is suicidal. They are useless as offensive weapons.
Do you recall how close we came during the Cuban missile crisis. You could have somewhat of a point if you were dealing with rational countries, not mad men countries.
The concern about countries like Iran isn’t that they will casually launch nukes tomorrow. It’s that once a regime has them, deterrence becomes unpredictable and they gain the ability to shield aggressio ...[text shortened]... ct, saying that if iran has nuclear capabilities, that they will never use them. You are the madman.
Useless!
@Metal-Brain saidSo how were they Iranians going to complete their mission death to America and death to infidels. Just shoot one at a time but I would think the nuclear solution would be on their mind.
You are in denial of reality. Nobody uses nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon anymore. They are strictly defensive weapons. Using them against other nuclear weapons states is suicidal. They are useless as offensive weapons.
Useless!
But you have made us aware that you have a good deal of military strategy, and global philosophies, and how mad men think. I don’t know how mad men think.
@AverageJoe1 saidTrump tore up the treaty that you are describing and never replaced it.
Do you recall how close we came during the Cuban missile crisis. You could have somewhat of a point if you were dealing with rational countries, not mad men countries.
The concern about countries like Iran isn’t that they will casually launch nukes tomorrow. It’s that once a regime has them, deterrence becomes unpredictable and they gain the ability to shield aggressio ...[text shortened]... ct, saying that if iran has nuclear capabilities, that they will never use them. You are the madman.
@moonbus saidBut.....according to the current US administration, bombing the whatsits out of Iran isn't about bringing about regime change, then it is, then it isn't, which leads one to the conclusion that they don't really know WTF they're trying to achieve. Bombing the average Iranian in the street or destroying 'infrastructure', which makes life harder for said average Iranian, isn't going to reduce Iran's nuclear capability, (which anyway has already been 'obliterated' ) nor is it going to shift the Ayatollahs from their lofty position; get rid of one Ayatollah and another one gets to be the big cheese, there are plenty of Ayatollahs where the last one came from. It's a regime which belongs in the dark ages, but dropping bombs which America can't afford to drop (I refer everyone to the current US national debt) isn't going to achieve anything except wanton destruction, death and injury, but such things pale into insignificance in the face of such laser - focussed ambition. For an end to justify a means, there has to be a clear end to justify.
Trump is now claiming that he should have a role in deciding who replaces the assassinated Supreme Leader of Iran.
https://apnews.com/article/iran-israel-us-march-6-2026-6108249f19c4bc162eacd7847976c174
What a dipstick !
@wildgrass saidNo I saw where no one actually said nuclear capabilities. But we destroyed their nuclear facility with that B2 is that what you’re talking about.? we could hardly know that we should destroy their nuclear capabilities as we don’t know what they’re capabilities are, and the point being that we are destroying the capabilities if they have any. I think I said that, right. You should be glad. Are you not glad. Do you want Iran terrorist factions to have a bomb,, to have a nuclear bomb?
But sir, irans nuclear capabilities were obliterated just a few months ago, according to you.
[jeopardy theme song]
Hegseth: we want their oil.
Don’t worry, you know that we know that you do not really want to have a bomb, but what is curious is none of you actually ever said that you do not want Iran to have uranium enrichment .None of you’ve actually said that. weird.
@Indonesia-Phil said"Busy giddy minds in foreign wars." Shakespeare.
But.....according to the current US administration, bombing the whatsits out of Iran isn't about bringing about regime change, then it is, then it isn't, which leads one to the conclusion that they don't really know WTF they're trying to achieve. Bombing the average Iranian in the street or destroying 'infrastructure', which makes life harder for said average Iranian, ...[text shortened]... ch laser - focussed ambition. For an end to justify a means, there has to be a clear end to justify.
Anything to get people's minds off the fact that he still has not complied with the law to release the Epstein Files. He's a psychopath, fully prepared to burn down democracy, plunge the world's economies into chaos, and instigate war in the ME (up to 12 countries are so far involved), to dodge the consequences of his pre-presidential crimes.