• 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

My issue is the cost of those $30000 missions and what did we accomplish exactly. After all these missions Iran is still launching missiles, drones, and still has an air defense system. The regime is still the same just younger, Iran still has the uranium, control of the oil, and the people are still not free. Trump is acting like we have won, but we have barely accomplished anything. After 30000 missions you would think there would be no drones, missile launch sites, or IRGC left. I am just worried we have no end game or the end game will fall short of any real resolutions and we will be revisiting this in a couple years
If you're afraid of failure, you don't deserve to be successful - anonymous
 
Nobody was discussing a hypothetical invasion of the U.S. prove me wrong.
so either you're saying one or the other:

1) any invasion by a foreign country would be damn near impossible geographically speaking
2) the only fear the American citizenry should have has is its own government
3) both 1 and 2

if 1, then no, the USA does not need NATO
if 2, then you're supporting 2A
if 3, you're finally seeing the light of day

if, somehow, you find a loophole in any of those three options, you're not smarter than a single digit Somalian retard.

psst... this was brought up in post 1,345
 
No, you weren't guessing, you stated it as fact.
At the time, yesterday, when you made this statement, you were guessing.
You work yourself into an argumentative frenzy and don’t even remember what you’re arguing and what you’ve said and then accuse me of not being able to follow the argument. It just stupid with you.
 
so either you're saying one or the other:

1) any invasion by a foreign country would be damn near impossible geographically speaking
2) the only fear the American citizenry should have has is its own government
3) both 1 and 2

if 1, then no, the USA does not need NATO
if 2, then you're supporting 2A
if 3, you're finally seeing the light of day

if, somehow, you find a loophole in any of those three options, you're not smarter than a single digit Somalian retard.

psst... this was brought up in post 1,345
No. Tim implied that U.S. citizens could rise up against the U.S. government and defeat its military. That’s ridiculous, juvenile fantasy. Then he really went off the rails. That’s all.
 
You work yourself into an argumentative frenzy and don’t even remember what you’re arguing and what you’ve said and then accuse me of not being able to follow the argument. It just stupid with you.

You simply are unable to comprehend, aren't you?

I called you out for making it a "statement of fact" when (at the time) no one knew the facts and told you you were guessing.

You'd do well writing for HuffPo or ABC.
 
No. Tim implied that U.S. citizens could rise up against the U.S. government and defeat its military. That’s ridiculous, juvenile fantasy. Then he really went off the rails. That’s all.

You have this uncanny ability to twist others' words wildly.

I said the 2A gives us a fighting chance and it's a shame the Iranians don't have it after you unconsciously threw out undeniable support for the 2A. That was the gem of this discussion.

Ever since, you've been trying to walk it back.
 
You have this uncanny ability to twist others' words wildly.

I said the 2A gives us a fighting chance and it's a shame the Iranians don't have it after you unconsciously threw out undeniable support for the 2A. That was the gem of this discussion.

Ever since, you've been trying to walk it back.
He just spouts **** out to get people of topic. It is thst simple.
 
so either you're saying one or the other:

1) any invasion by a foreign country would be damn near impossible geographically speaking
2) the only fear the American citizenry should have has is its own government
3) both 1 and 2

if 1, then no, the USA does not need NATO
if 2, then you're supporting 2A
if 3, you're finally seeing the light of day

if, somehow, you find a loophole in any of those three options, you're not smarter than a single digit Somalian retard.

psst... this was brought up in post 1,345
I believe our European dependents allies have benefited far more from NATO than we have.
 
No. Tim implied that U.S. citizens could rise up against the U.S. government and defeat its military. That’s ridiculous, juvenile fantasy. Then he really went off the rails. That’s all.
Right, because nowhere in history do we ever see any citizens rising up against their government, at least in our nation's history.
 
Art imitates life with the dramatic rescue of the Airman it's almost like it borrows from "Behind Enemy Lines," "Black Hawk Down" with the local mob closing in, and yes "Top Gun: Maverick" with the Aviator having rank as Colonel and maybe the Maverick of the USAF teaching the young guns a thing or two about survival.

The only thing that would have made the story bigger and more incredible would have been for him to elude capture on foot, befriend the locals for care and sustenance as in "Lone Survivor," and make the trek to Teheran to steal the F-14 and fly it to Kuwait like Mav did.

The Iranians got owned like the Washington Generals or Roscoe P. Coltraine in hot pursuit!
 
You have this uncanny ability to twist others' words wildly.

I said the 2A gives us a fighting chance and it's a shame the Iranians don't have it after you unconsciously threw out undeniable support for the 2A. That was the gem of this discussion.

Ever since, you've been trying to walk it back.
Not walking anything back. You’re wrong about having a fighting chance against the military with, or without, the 2A.
 
Not walking anything back. You’re wrong about having a fighting chance against the military with, or without, the 2A.
try dragging that dead dog back
MY forefathers would fight a tyrannical government. Apparently its in your DNA to bend over.
 
Top