• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Iran

Given his speech last night, it seems Trump is on the cusp of accepting a humiliating defeat in his disatrous war in Iran, ending in a geopolitical nightmare.

I simply cannot fathom the hell that would have broken loose on this board if Obama, or Biden, would have left Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz and failed to force Iran to give up its enriched uranium, ballistic missile program, or support for regional terrorism.

The server would have melted down, and SN would cease to exist.

But of course, the last thing that would happen is folks here being consistent, and consequential, with their political takes. I know, who am I kidding.
 
Last edited:
Tibs said:
Given his speech last night, it seems Trump is on the cusp of accepting a humiliating defeat in his disatrous war in Iran, ending in a geopolitical nightmare.

I simply cannot fathom the hell that would have broken loose on this board if Obama, or Biden, would have left Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz and failed to force Iran to give up its enriched uranium, ballistic missile program, or support for regional terrorism.

The server would have melted down, and SN would cease to exist.

But of course, the last thing that would happen is folks here being consistent, and consequential, with their political takes. I know, who am I kidding.
Click to expand...
you don't recall the absolutely pathetic and disgraceful exit under Biden's Autopen Administration?
oh, and we were never allowed to criticize Black Jesus lest we be called raysiss.
 
Tibs said:
Given his speech last night, it seems Trump is on the cusp of accepting a humiliating defeat in his disatrous war in Iran, ending in a geopolitical nightmare.

I simply cannot fathom the hell that would have broken loose on this board if Obama, or Biden, would have left Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz and failed to force Iran to give up its enriched uranium, ballistic missile program, or support for regional terrorism.

The server would have melted down, and SN would cease to exist.

But of course, the last thing that would happen is folks here being consistent, and consequential, with their political takes. I know, who am I kidding.
Click to expand...
That's what your warped, pea-sized TDS having excuse for a brain took from his epic speech? Pathetic. And retarded.
 
Tibs said:
Given his speech last night, it seems Trump is on the cusp of accepting a humiliating defeat in his disatrous war in Iran, ending in a geopolitical nightmare.
Click to expand...
You appear to be absolutely gleeful at the thought of this.
Will the people of Iran rise up and regain control of their country, who knows, but I continue to hold out hope that they can.
What we do know is that their military is crippled, possibly beyond repair, and their ability to threaten surrounding countries is greatly diminished.

If the strait can be open and successfully controlled, I'll call it a win, but I'm a glass half full type of guy.
 
Sarge said:
First, it's Iran, not Iraq. Second, there hasn't been regime change, you're correct. Same regime, same horrific ideas, different people. Ending operations and leaving things the way they are is dumb. You've been bombing for a month, you gotta finish the job. As much as I'm against it, you have to see it through. Sadly, we'll leave this thing half cocked and it will come back and bite us in the ***.
Click to expand...
Seems like he took bad advice from Graham and Cruz and shoulda listened to Charlie.
 
Tibs said:
Given his speech last night, it seems Trump is on the cusp of accepting a humiliating defeat in his disatrous war in Iran, ending in a geopolitical nightmare.

I simply cannot fathom the hell that would have broken loose on this board if Obama, or Biden, would have left Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz and failed to force Iran to give up its enriched uranium, ballistic missile program, or support for regional terrorism.

The server would have melted down, and SN would cease to exist.

But of course, the last thing that would happen is folks here being consistent, and consequential, with their political takes. I know, who am I kidding.
Click to expand...
If this is indeed the end game, and I didn't take that from his speech at all, I wouldn't be thrilled but the world is still far better off with a greatly diminished threat of nuclear war instigated by radical Islamists.

My take is not that he's giving up the Strait of Hormuz, but is pressuring NATO allies to get on board since some of them are way more affected by it than we are.
 
ZonaBurgh said:
Will the people of Iran rise up and regain control of their country, who knows, but I continue to hold out hope that they can.
What we do know is that their military is crippled, possibly beyond repair, and their ability to threaten surrounding countries is greatly diminished.
Click to expand...
The people of Iran are almost exclusively unarmed. There will be no uprising without occupation by another country.
 
oneforthebus said:
If this is indeed the end game...
Click to expand...

🔎📰

Yet behind the bluster has been a growing recognition within the West Wing that the situation may be slipping out of its control. Advisers say Trump is searching for an off-ramp, caught in the crosshairs of a war he had neither fully sold to the public nor secured a mandate to wage, but that now threatened the very promises on which he had campaigned.
Click to expand...

658190693_1315679213751408_4980708917939137397_n.jpg
 
Troglodyte said:
The people of Iran are almost exclusively unarmed. There will be no uprising without occupation by another country.
Click to expand...
And I have been hopeful that there is a plan for that… especially involving the IDF in conjunction with the UAE, with boots on the ground..
Once we gain control of the straight, we will provide support from offshore as the IDF and UAE special forces do what they need to do inside Iran..

That would be my best case scenario how this all ends and tied up in a neat little bow…
 
Ron Burgundy said:
My cousin posted on FB tonight that Trump wasn't really shot in Butler.
I just let that **** go anymore, I don't have time to deal with idiots.
Click to expand...
 
I feel like Trump is butt hurt they other countries did not help more. I get his point, but that probably should have been discussed before launching a campaign. Now Trump is like you guys deal with it peace out. He has a valid point, but Trump should have either had more support before launching the campaign or planned to do it alone. If we quit and leave things as they are, the people of Iran will not trust us. We technically changed regimes, but I don't think it's for the better. We replaced someone who probably wasn't going to live much longer with his son. We may have limited Iran's nuclear capabilities at the moment, but we supposedly did that once before. We also left all the uranium there. I thought the whole purpose was full regime change and to free the Iranian people. Trump himself said regime change wasn't a necessary goal so I really don't understand the point of the campaign.
 
Troglodyte said:
The people of Iran are almost exclusively unarmed. There will be no uprising without occupation by another country.
Click to expand...

So now you see the reason for the 2A and support it here in America. I'll call that a win.
 
Tibs said:
Given his speech last night, it seems Trump is on the cusp of accepting a humiliating defeat in his disatrous war in Iran, ending in a geopolitical nightmare.

I simply cannot fathom the hell that would have broken loose on this board if Obama, or Biden, would have left Iran in control of the Strait of Hormuz and failed to force Iran to give up its enriched uranium, ballistic missile program, or support for regional terrorism.

The server would have melted down, and SN would cease to exist.

But of course, the last thing that would happen is folks here being consistent, and consequential, with their political takes. I know, who am I kidding.
Click to expand...
So, now the EU has to gets it's own oils, huh?
Do you think Zelenesky and Trump conspired against you, lol?

Hopefully you can access more 'ludes as your sel-proclaimed TDS surges in springtime!
 
The uranium, if all removed, would complete the mission. It will be far too difficult, take too long, and cost many lives if you want to dig it out.

Unless they can blow it all up, causing a nuclear radioactive outbreak, and be happy with that. Iran wouldn't have any material to work with because it will have been spread all over the place. But on a positive note, many wolves are reported to be living healthy lives in the aftermath of Cherobyl.
 
Sarge said:
Trump cannot unilaterally pull us out of NATO.
Click to expand...

Thank God for that. Most sane Americans understand that NATO is a defensive alliance amongst allied nations, not a standing military force that some head of state can beckon on a whim when they feel like attacking some random country.

Ironically enough, NATO's cornerstone Article 5, which states an armed attack against ANY member state is considered an attack against ALL member states, has been invoked only once in the alliance's history. It was activated on September 12, 2001, in direct response to the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
 
Tim Steelersfan said:
So now you see the reason for the 2A and support it here in America. I'll call that a win.
Click to expand...
The American people would also need another country, or a faction of its own military, to decimate a significant part of the military before they could rise up against their government.
 
Tibs said:
Thank God for that. Most sane Americans understand that NATO is a defensive alliance amongst allied nations, not a standing military force that some head of state can beckon on a whim when they feel like attacking some random country.

Ironically enough, NATO's cornerstone Article 5, which states an armed attack against ANY member state is considered an attack against ALL member states, has been invoked only once in the alliance's history. It was activated on September 12, 2001, in direct response to the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States.
Click to expand...
those mfers don't do more than lift an eyebrow to help this country. we're fine without them.
the taxpayer money we're spending to keep the Euroweenies safe could pay back SS with a bonus, pay for student loans, cut taxes ridiculously low...

but "an armed attack against ANY member state..."

wtf is going to attack this country? rogue terorrist cells. no country is going to fly bombers over here or warplanes.

**** NATO. it's purpose has come and gone.
 
Troglodyte said:
The American people would also need another country, or a faction of its own military, to decimate a significant part of the military before they could rise up against their government.
Click to expand...
you incorrectly assume that the armed forces would turn their weaponry towards their countrymen.
 
Superman said:
those mfers don't do more than lift an eyebrow to help this country. we're fine without them.
the taxpayer money we're spending to keep the Euroweenies safe could pay back SS with a bonus, pay for student loans, cut taxes ridiculously low...
Click to expand...

Reading any amount of your posts, it's abundantly clear you have little interest in the facts, or having real discussions. Rather, you're perfectly content with spreading half-truths and ignorant takes, banging your chest triumphantly. But I'll humor you anyway.

Many strategic analysts contend that leaving the alliance would actually increase costs in the long run.
  • Loss of "Force Multipliers": NATO allows the U.S. to direct allied strength at a relatively low cost. Without this framework, the U.S. would have to manage security through more expensive, conditional bilateral agreements.
  • Higher Operational Costs: Outside the alliance, the U.S. would lose leverage for negotiating favorable deals on basing and mutual logistical support, likely increasing the cost of independent global operations.
  • Global Power Requirements: A significant portion of the $935 billion U.S. defense budget (3.21% of GDP) is tied to its role as a global superpower (e.g., operations in the Pacific or Middle East) rather than direct NATO activities. Unless the U.S. also abandoned its global posture, these costs would remain.
  • Economic Fallout: Breaking trust with allies could lead to European nations decoupling from the U.S. arms sector, potentially hurting the U.S. defense industrial base.
Click to expand...
 
Tibs said:
Reading any amount of your posts, it's abundantly clear you have little interest in the facts, or having real discussions. Rather, you're perfectly content with spreading half-truths and ignorant takes, banging your chest triumphantly. But I'll humor you anyway.
Click to expand...
right. it boils down to my country tis of thee having bases on foreign soil.

the same goddamned bases we were not being allowed to use during this "war" that has you twisted. i mean, you live almost next door to a fundamentally radical islamic regime hell bent on developing nukes, slaughtering their own citizens in the streets and calling for death to this country... so it is absolutely embarrassing when you cry for those who would decapitate you on sight when those people are getting their ***** handed to them WITHOUT us using our bases that we maintain to keep Europe safe.

I understand wanting to maintain neutrality, but historically the Muzzies have tried and failed repeatedly to conquer every known inch of soil. they'll never stop. we have to keep kicking their ***** as a result.

go cry for another mullah.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top