26 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

We are unlikely to get the full truth about the tragic deaths of those school children in Iran. In today’s political climate, a lot of people don't wait for facts before reaching conclusions. For those firmly anti-Trump, the narrative is decided in advance, and the details become secondary.

The problem is that Donald Trump himself is a grade A1 tit - he's such a divisive figure that many people have lost the ability to approach events with balance and perspective - I can understand exactly why. Everything becomes filtered through political allegiance rather than balanced observation / interpretation - IMO thats a failure of the individual making the observations.

The tragedy and loss of 160 school children is frequently being used to criticise Trump - but, that tragedy could realistically be the result of several different scenarios.

1) US targeting error:

This could occur in several ways:

- Faulty intelligence about what was at the location.

- Misidentification of a building (common in dense urban environments).

- GPS coordinate error or outdated target data.

- Human error in the targeting chain.

Even with precision-guided munitions, precision only means the weapon hits the coordinates it was given - not that the coordinates themselves were correct.

2) Electronic warfare interference:

Iran has invested heavily in GPS jamming and spoofing. If a guidance system relies on GPS signals and those signals are degraded or manipulated, the weapon can:

- Drift off course.

- Revert to inertial navigation (less accurate).

- Lose terminal guidance.

That could lead to an unintended impact point.

3) Interception deflection:

Modern missile defence systems - whether Patriot, or other interceptors - do not always destroy the incoming missile cleanly. Possible outcomes include:

- Partial destruction where debris continues on ballistic trajectory.

- Warhead separation after interception.

- Deflection into another structure.

This has happened in several conflicts where intercepted missiles still caused casualties.

4) Local missile malfunction:

If Iranian forces launched a missile from near populated areas, failure modes can include:

- Booster failure.

- Guidance failure.

- Self-destruct malfunction.

- Mid-flight breakup.

All of these possibilities fall well within the realities of modern warfare.

War is not the clean, clinical exercise that the media often portrays. The idea of perfectly precise “surgical strikes” exists more in theory than in practice. In reality, war is dirty, murky and imperfect. Intelligence can be flawed. Systems fail. Interceptions can redirect weapons in unpredictable ways. Errors occur.

We have already seen examples of this:

1) The Crowne Plaza Hotel in Bahrain was struck despite never being an intended target.

2) The Burj Al Arab in Dubai was also hit under circumstances where it was clearly not the objective.

Those incidents were almost certainly the result of Iranian drones or missiles being knocked off their intended path by defensive interception systems - yet I see many courses reporting this as 'Iran targeted hotels', which I'm is also painting a false narrative.

This is the uncomfortable reality of modern conflict. When missiles, interceptors, drones and electronic warfare systems are operating simultaneously, outcomes are not always controllable or predictable.

Which is precisely why rushing to political conclusions before the facts are known rarely brings us any closer to the truth.

Of course, there is another reality that many people refuse to acknowledge. For those determined to oppose Donald Trump, the conclusion is already written regardless of what actually happens.

If Trump authorises military action against Iran, he is blamed for escalation, civilian casualties, and reckless aggression.

But if he had chosen not to act, and Iran later succeeded in enriching uranium-235 to around 90% (the level required for nuclear weapons) those same voices would almost certainly accuse him of weakness and of failing in nuclear negotiations.

- He would be blamed for allowing Iran to cross the nuclear threshold.

- He would be blamed for trusting negotiations that ultimately failed.

- He would be blamed for ignoring warnings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In other words, he would still be blamed - damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

This is the political trap that often surrounds highly polarising leaders. Whatever decision is made becomes the wrong decision for those who have already chosen their position. This was particularly evident during Trump’s State of the Union address, when he challenged Congress to stand if they supported action against illegal immigration. Republicans stood, Democrats remained seated, which created the impression that they were unwilling to support enforcing immigration laws. In reality, they remained seated simply because the challenge came from Trump, not because they opposed the policy itself. It was a clever political trap - and it worked perfectly, highlighting how often positions are driven by predetermined opinion rather than by the substance of what is actually being said.

The uncomfortable truth is that leadership decisions in matters of war, nuclear proliferation and regional stability are rarely clear-cut. Every option carries risk, and every outcome can be judged harshly with the benefit of hindsight.

Yet in a deeply polarised political environment, the discussion is rarely about weighing those risks honestly. It becomes about confirming existing political beliefs.

Which means that, for some critics, and I see very strong examples of that in this forum - there is effectively no scenario in which Trump could be seen as having made the right decision.

Nothing to do with Trump. Trump hatred is mental weakness. Part of war for missiles to hit the wrong areas.

3 hours ago, khaosokman said:

Western schools are located miles away. Iran is a terrorist state. All deaths are to be blamed on the islamic fascists.

There are 161 schools within US military installations, from kindergarten upwards. So yet again you have no idea what you are talking about.

https://www.militaryonesource.mil/education-employment/for-children-youth/what-schools-are-available-to-children-on-military-installations/

17 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Because you are a troll and have shown yourself to have no integrity.

He posts facts. You post opinions that are far left.

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

We are unlikely to get the full truth about the tragic deaths of those school children in Iran. In today’s political climate, a lot of people don't wait for facts before reaching conclusions. For those firmly anti-Trump, the narrative is decided in advance, and the details become secondary.

The problem is that Donald Trump himself is a grade A1 tit - he's such a divisive figure that many people have lost the ability to approach events with balance and perspective - I can understand exactly why. Everything becomes filtered through political allegiance rather than balanced observation / interpretation - IMO thats a failure of the individual making the observations.

The tragedy and loss of 160 school children is frequently being used to criticise Trump - but, that tragedy could realistically be the result of several different scenarios.

1) US targeting error:

This could occur in several ways:

- Faulty intelligence about what was at the location.

- Misidentification of a building (common in dense urban environments).

- GPS coordinate error or outdated target data.

- Human error in the targeting chain.

Even with precision-guided munitions, precision only means the weapon hits the coordinates it was given - not that the coordinates themselves were correct.

2) Electronic warfare interference:

Iran has invested heavily in GPS jamming and spoofing. If a guidance system relies on GPS signals and those signals are degraded or manipulated, the weapon can:

- Drift off course.

- Revert to inertial navigation (less accurate).

- Lose terminal guidance.

That could lead to an unintended impact point.

3) Interception deflection:

Modern missile defence systems - whether Patriot, or other interceptors - do not always destroy the incoming missile cleanly. Possible outcomes include:

- Partial destruction where debris continues on ballistic trajectory.

- Warhead separation after interception.

- Deflection into another structure.

This has happened in several conflicts where intercepted missiles still caused casualties.

4) Local missile malfunction:

If Iranian forces launched a missile from near populated areas, failure modes can include:

- Booster failure.

- Guidance failure.

- Self-destruct malfunction.

- Mid-flight breakup.

All of these possibilities fall well within the realities of modern warfare.

War is not the clean, clinical exercise that the media often portrays. The idea of perfectly precise “surgical strikes” exists more in theory than in practice. In reality, war is dirty, murky and imperfect. Intelligence can be flawed. Systems fail. Interceptions can redirect weapons in unpredictable ways. Errors occur.

We have already seen examples of this:

1) The Crowne Plaza Hotel in Bahrain was struck despite never being an intended target.

2) The Burj Al Arab in Dubai was also hit under circumstances where it was clearly not the objective.

Those incidents were almost certainly the result of Iranian drones or missiles being knocked off their intended path by defensive interception systems - yet I see many courses reporting this as 'Iran targeted hotels', which I'm is also painting a false narrative.

This is the uncomfortable reality of modern conflict. When missiles, interceptors, drones and electronic warfare systems are operating simultaneously, outcomes are not always controllable or predictable.

Which is precisely why rushing to political conclusions before the facts are known rarely brings us any closer to the truth.

Of course, there is another reality that many people refuse to acknowledge. For those determined to oppose Donald Trump, the conclusion is already written regardless of what actually happens.

If Trump authorises military action against Iran, he is blamed for escalation, civilian casualties, and reckless aggression.

But if he had chosen not to act, and Iran later succeeded in enriching uranium-235 to around 90% (the level required for nuclear weapons) those same voices would almost certainly accuse him of weakness and of failing in nuclear negotiations.

- He would be blamed for allowing Iran to cross the nuclear threshold.

- He would be blamed for trusting negotiations that ultimately failed.

- He would be blamed for ignoring warnings about Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

In other words, he would still be blamed - damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

This is the political trap that often surrounds highly polarising leaders. Whatever decision is made becomes the wrong decision for those who have already chosen their position. This was particularly evident during Trump’s State of the Union address, when he challenged Congress to stand if they supported action against illegal immigration. Republicans stood, Democrats remained seated, which created the impression that they were unwilling to support enforcing immigration laws. In reality, they remained seated simply because the challenge came from Trump, not because they opposed the policy itself. It was a clever political trap - and it worked perfectly, highlighting how often positions are driven by predetermined opinion rather than by the substance of what is actually being said.

The uncomfortable truth is that leadership decisions in matters of war, nuclear proliferation and regional stability are rarely clear-cut. Every option carries risk, and every outcome can be judged harshly with the benefit of hindsight.

Yet in a deeply polarised political environment, the discussion is rarely about weighing those risks honestly. It becomes about confirming existing political beliefs.

Which means that, for some critics, and I see very strong examples of that in this forum - there is effectively no scenario in which Trump could be seen as having made the right decision.

There are no credible sources confirming/saying that Iran was anywhere near being able to produce a nuclear device, so that is not an excuse they can use for starting this war.

Neither is it about a regime change, although the flip-flopping from the Trump administration on this has been dizzying.

The Iranian regime has largely been the same evil one since 1979, so what prompted Trump to decide to go to war at this point in time? IMO it's Israel, and more specifically, Netanyahu.

The Israelis are seeing how support for Israel has dropped like a rock since their obliteration of Gaza, so this will probably be the last time they will get the chance to have the Americans, led by a demented idiot, join them in attacking Iran on such a massive scale.

"The tragedy and loss of 160 school children is frequently being used to criticise Trump - but, that tragedy could realistically be the result of several different scenarios."

Correct, but irrelevant, as there is one scenario in which those girls would have been alive today, and that's if there had been no war.

10 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

Nothing to do with Trump. Trump hatred is mental weakness. Part of war for missiles to hit the wrong areas.

I just love how thoughtful, factually correct and mentally astute your replies are.

Well done!👍

5 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

There are no credible sources confirming/saying that Iran was anywhere near being able to produce a nuclear device, so that is not an excuse they can use for starting this war.

Neither is it about a regime change, although the flip-flopping from the Trump administration on this has been dizzying.

The Iranian regime has largely been the same evil one since 1979, so what prompted Trump to decide to go to war at this point in time? IMO it's Israel, and more specifically, Netanyahu.

The Israelis are seeing how support for Israel has dropped like a rock since their obliteration of Gaza, so this will probably be the last time they will get the chance to have the Americans, led by a demented idiot, join them in attacking Iran on such a massive scale.

"The tragedy and loss of 160 school children is frequently being used to criticise Trump - but, that tragedy could realistically be the result of several different scenarios."

Correct, but irrelevant, as there is one scenario in which those girls would have been alive today, and that's if there had been no war.

Why do you care about 160 strangers but not 36,500 strangers? You are just a far left wing person who hates Trump. No logic at all behind your comments.

3 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

I just love how thoughtful, factually correct and mentally astute your replies are.

Well done!👍

I love how you link Trump with innocents dying. Israel was going to attack anyway.

2 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

There are no credible sources confirming/saying that Iran was anywhere near being able to produce a nuclear device, so that is not an excuse they can use for starting this war.

Neither is it about a regime change, although the flip-flopping from the Trump administration on this has been dizzying.

The Iranian regime has largely been the same evil one since 1979, so what prompted Trump to decide to go to war at this point in time? IMO it's Israel, and more specifically, Netanyahu.

The Israelis are seeing how support for Israel has dropped like a rock since their obliteration of Gaza, so this will probably be the last time they will get the chance to have the Americans, led by a demented idiot, join them in attacking Iran on such a massive scale.

"The tragedy and loss of 160 school children is frequently being used to criticise Trump - but, that tragedy could realistically be the result of several different scenarios."

Correct, but irrelevant, as there is one scenario in which those girls would have been alive today, and that's if there had been no war.

Not so. The claim that “there are no credible sources suggesting Iran was anywhere near producing a nuclear weapon” simply isn’t correct.

Multiple international monitoring bodies have confirmed that Iran enriched uranium to levels far beyond what is required for civilian nuclear energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency has verified enrichment approaching 60% U-235. Civilian nuclear fuel typically sits around 3–5% - for example many reactors in France operate with fuel enriched to roughly 4–4.5%.

The 2015 nuclear deal capped Iran at 3.67% enrichment. Once enrichment reaches around 60%, the remaining technical step to roughly 90% weapons-grade becomes much shorter and easier.

The real debate among analysts has never been whether Iran could reach weapons-grade enrichment - it has been how quickly it could do so if it chose to. And when inspections are restricted or monitoring equipment removed, international observers are effectively blind.

This raises the question - if everything is peaceful, why reduce transparency? And why enrich to 60% in the first place, when there is no civilian use for uranium enriched to that level?

The suggestion that this conflict must therefore be about Israel or Benjamin Netanyahu is also speculative. Concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions long predate Trump, Netanyahu, or the Gaza war. The issue has been debated across multiple US administrations for more than two decades, including under George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Saying the Iranian regime has been the same since 1979 also misses the central point: a hostile regime without nuclear weapons represents one level of threat - a hostile regime approaching nuclear breakout capability represents something very different.

As for the tragic loss of those schoolchildren, saying they would still be alive if there had been no war is emotionally understandable - but logically incomplete. It assumes inaction carries no risk, which history repeatedly shows is not the case.

Strategic decisions are often made because leaders believe delaying action could lead to far greater dangers later.

Your argument seems to rest on the idea that wars could always be avoided. It’s an appealing position - But is clearly influenced because you dislike the people making the decisions - it’s also a rather naïve view of how the world actually works.

28 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

There are 161 schools within US military installations, from kindergarten upwards. So yet again you have no idea what you are talking about.

https://www.militaryonesource.mil/education-employment/for-children-youth/what-schools-are-available-to-children-on-military-installations/

Three schools sit within close proximity to the US Fifth Fleet headquarters in Bahrain - none of them were hit.

But had a defensive system taken an incoming missile off course - whether through electronic jamming or interception by a Patriot missile - the story could have been very different.

And if that had happened, would we argue that Iran deliberately targeted a school? Some certainly would. The media likely would as well. Yet the more responsible approach is to look at these events with balance and understand how easily things can go wrong in a highly complex battlefield environment.

Iran is not targeting schools. The United States has never intentionally targeted a school. What we are most likely looking at here is a tragic error.

At this stage, neither Iran nor the United States appears to be deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure.

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Not so. The claim that “there are no credible sources suggesting Iran was anywhere near producing a nuclear weapon” simply isn’t correct.

Multiple international monitoring bodies have confirmed that Iran enriched uranium to levels far beyond what is required for civilian nuclear energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency has verified enrichment approaching 60% U-235. Civilian nuclear fuel typically sits around 3–5% - for example many reactors in France operate with fuel enriched to roughly 4–4.5%.

The 2015 nuclear deal capped Iran at 3.67% enrichment. Once enrichment reaches around 60%, the remaining technical step to roughly 90% weapons-grade becomes much shorter and easier.

The real debate among analysts has never been whether Iran could reach weapons-grade enrichment - it has been how quickly it could do so if it chose to. And when inspections are restricted or monitoring equipment removed, international observers are effectively blind.

This raises the question - if everything is peaceful, why reduce transparency? And why enrich to 60% in the first place, when there is no civilian use for uranium enriched to that level?

The suggestion that this conflict must therefore be about Israel or Benjamin Netanyahu is also speculative. Concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions long predate Trump, Netanyahu, or the Gaza war. The issue has been debated across multiple US administrations for more than two decades, including under George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

Saying the Iranian regime has been the same since 1979 also misses the central point: a hostile regime without nuclear weapons represents one level of threat - a hostile regime approaching nuclear breakout capability represents something very different.

As for the tragic loss of those schoolchildren, saying they would still be alive if there had been no war is emotionally understandable - but logically incomplete. It assumes inaction carries no risk, which history repeatedly shows is not the case.

Strategic decisions are often made because leaders believe delaying action could lead to far greater dangers later.

Your argument seems to rest on the idea that wars could always be avoided. It’s an appealing position - But is clearly influenced because you dislike the people making the decisions - it’s also a rather naïve view of how the world actually works.

"Not so. The claim that “there are no credible sources suggesting Iran was anywhere near producing a nuclear weapon” simply isn’t correct.

Multiple international monitoring bodies have confirmed that Iran enriched uranium to levels far beyond what is required for civilian nuclear energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency has verified enrichment approaching 60% U-235. Civilian nuclear fuel typically sits around 3–5% - for example many reactors in France operate with fuel enriched to roughly 4–4.5%."

You're talking about what happened in the past. I'm talkin about what the situation was just before the war started. If you have credible info that Iran was anywhere near to making a bomb then please post links.

"This raises the question - if everything is peaceful, why reduce transparency? And why enrich to 60% in the first place, when there is no civilian use for uranium enriched to that level?"

A deal was in place that allowed practically unlimited inspections by the IAEA. Trump tore the deal up.

"As for the tragic loss of those schoolchildren, saying they would still be alive if there had been no war is emotionally understandable - but logically incomplete. It assumes inaction carries no risk, which history repeatedly shows is not the case."

This is a typical AI non-argument/diversion. No one suggests "inaction carries no risk".

"Your argument seems to rest on the idea that wars could always be avoided. It’s an appealing position - But is clearly influenced because you dislike the people making the decisions - it’s also a rather naïve view of how the world actually works."

My argument does not "rest on the idea that wars could always be avoided", and is kind of funny given how many times I've been called a "warmonger" due to my stance in the war between Ukraine and the Russian attackers. Sometimes war is necessary, but that is certainly not the case in this war.

PS. I smell a lot of AI in that post.

15 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

PS. I smell a lot of AI in that post.

AI only makes sense if you know what was the query.

This is significant. If Iran hits the desalination plants of the GCC countries they're effectively out of the war and in grave danger.

17 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

"Not so. The claim that “there are no credible sources suggesting Iran was anywhere near producing a nuclear weapon” simply isn’t correct.

Multiple international monitoring bodies have confirmed that Iran enriched uranium to levels far beyond what is required for civilian nuclear energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency has verified enrichment approaching 60% U-235. Civilian nuclear fuel typically sits around 3–5% - for example many reactors in France operate with fuel enriched to roughly 4–4.5%."

You're talking about what happened in the past. I'm talkin about what the situation was just before the war started. If you have credible info that Iran was anywhere near to making a bomb then please post links.

It feels like you’re trying to dismiss that context by ignoring the lead-up and focusing only on a narrow moment in time - but the history matters, because that’s exactly what explains why those concerns existed in the first place.

Just before the war, reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed Iran had stockpiled uranium enriched to around 60% U-235 - far beyond civilian levels and technically close to weapons-grade - meaning experts were warning that Iran could reach nuclear “breakout” capability within weeks if it chose to.

17 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

"This raises the question - if everything is peaceful, why reduce transparency? And why enrich to 60% in the first place, when there is no civilian use for uranium enriched to that level?"

A deal was in place that allowed practically unlimited inspections by the IAEA. Trump tore the deal up.

Not quite. The deal did allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but they were not “practically unlimited”. Inspectors had to give advance notice, access to some military sites was restricted, and there were ongoing disputes about undeclared facilities.

More importantly, access deteriorated over time. Iran later limited inspector access, removed monitoring cameras and restricted data sharing, meaning the inspection regime became far weaker than it was when the deal was first signed.

So while the agreement did expand inspections initially, the reality in the years that followed was far from the “unlimited inspections” you’re describing.

You’ve conveniently reduced all of that complexity to “inspections were allowed”, which is either naïve or disingenuous if the goal is to make a serious point.

17 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

"As for the tragic loss of those schoolchildren, saying they would still be alive if there had been no war is emotionally understandable - but logically incomplete. It assumes inaction carries no risk, which history repeatedly shows is not the case."

This is a typical AI non-argument/diversion. No one suggests "inaction carries no risk".

Yet you said “those girls would have been alive today if there had been no war”. That frames the issue in very simplistic terms - essentially reducing it to Trump chose war, and therefore caused the deaths of 160 schoolchildren, versus Trump could have avoided the war and those children would still be alive.

That kind of framing ignores the wider strategic context and turns a complex situation into a single-cause argument - intellectually dishonesty - you're either smarter than that, or being deliberately obtuse in an attempt point score rather than discuss the issue honestly.

As for the “AI” comment - it’s a bit petty and doesn’t address the substance of the point. The argument wasn’t that “inaction carries no risk” - it was simply pointing out that decisions around conflict are rarely as binary as 'war versus no consequences'.

17 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

"Your argument seems to rest on the idea that wars could always be avoided. It’s an appealing position - But is clearly influenced because you dislike the people making the decisions - it’s also a rather naïve view of how the world actually works."

My argument does not "rest on the idea that wars could always be avoided", and is kind of funny given how many times I've been called a "warmonger" due to my stance in the war between Ukraine and the Russian attackers. Sometimes war is necessary, but that is certainly not the case in this war.

You say your argument doesn’t rest on the idea that wars can always be avoided, yet your earlier point - “those girls would be alive today if there had been no war” - does exactly that. It reduces a complex strategic situation to a single outcome: no war equals no tragedy.

Pointing to your stance on Ukraine doesn’t really change that. Supporting Ukraine resisting a clear invasion is a different scenario entirely. The question here isn’t whether war is sometimes necessary - most people would agree it can be - but whether the risks being weighed in this situation were credible enough to justify action.

Simply stating that this war was unnecessary doesn’t address the concerns that were being raised about Iran’s nuclear trajectory or regional security. Those concerns existed long before this conflict, and dismissing them doesn’t make them disappear.

17 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

PS. I smell a lot of AI in that post.

Ignored - it’s a childish attempt to dismiss the argument by throwing out a petty accusation rather than addressing the point itself.

If you think AI wrote it, I’ll take that as a compliment.

That said, I do use search engines and AI tools as research aids when gathering information - it would be silly to argue without that resource - the arguments and conclusions presented are my own.

25 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

This is significant. If Iran hits the desalination plants of the GCC countries they're effectively out of the war and in grave danger.

The desalination plant in Qeshm, Iran was hit Yesterday afternoon.

Shortly before hand - Precision strike missiles were launched from HIMARS - spotted at Bahrains north shore (in Manama).

The distances are questionable (570 kms) - but the timing between launch and strike tally.

Thus: this is a like for like reaction.

Bahrain has 6 desalination plants - one of them was hit.

Targeting Iran’s desalination was an extraordinarily unwise move for the United States or any Gulf Cooperation Council nation. It was questionable the first time, and repeating it would suggest a troubling level of tactical short-sightedness. Given how predictable a reciprocal response would be, it’s difficult to understand why such a decision would be allowed in the first place.

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

it’s difficult to understand why such a decision would be allowed in the first place.

Yes. To get to the truth it will take balance and understanding.

1 hour ago, BLMFem said:

"Not so. The claim that “there are no credible sources suggesting Iran was anywhere near producing a nuclear weapon” simply isn’t correct.

Multiple international monitoring bodies have confirmed that Iran enriched uranium to levels far beyond what is required for civilian nuclear energy. The International Atomic Energy Agency has verified enrichment approaching 60% U-235. Civilian nuclear fuel typically sits around 3–5% - for example many reactors in France operate with fuel enriched to roughly 4–4.5%."

You're talking about what happened in the past. I'm talkin about what the situation was just before the war started. If you have credible info that Iran was anywhere near to making a bomb then please post links.

"This raises the question - if everything is peaceful, why reduce transparency? And why enrich to 60% in the first place, when there is no civilian use for uranium enriched to that level?"

A deal was in place that allowed practically unlimited inspections by the IAEA. Trump tore the deal up.

"As for the tragic loss of those schoolchildren, saying they would still be alive if there had been no war is emotionally understandable - but logically incomplete. It assumes inaction carries no risk, which history repeatedly shows is not the case."

This is a typical AI non-argument/diversion. No one suggests "inaction carries no risk".

"Your argument seems to rest on the idea that wars could always be avoided. It’s an appealing position - But is clearly influenced because you dislike the people making the decisions - it’s also a rather naïve view of how the world actually works."

My argument does not "rest on the idea that wars could always be avoided", and is kind of funny given how many times I've been called a "warmonger" due to my stance in the war between Ukraine and the Russian attackers. Sometimes war is necessary, but that is certainly not the case in this war.

PS. I smell a lot of AI in that post.

The war started cause intel found the top bad guys were having a meeting. Perfect chance to take them out.

A correct decision as Iran was getting worse and showing no signs of improving.

The irony you miss.

34 minutes ago, JerryM said:

40 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

it’s difficult to understand why such a decision would be allowed in the first place.

Yes. To get to the truth it will take balance and understanding.

Nice try - any intellectual input ?

Have you any idea why the US would strike a desalination plant in Iran, knowing full well that Iran would almost certainly respond in kind? (if you are prepared to think with 'balance and understanding' that is !).

From a strategic standpoint it seems like opening a door that probably should have remained closed.

Desalination infrastructure is far more critical to the GCC states than it is to Iran. Countries like Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar rely on desalination for the vast majority of their potable water. Iran, by contrast, only depends heavily on desalination along parts of its southern coast - and those areas are far less densely populated than places like Manama, Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Doha - the vulnerability is not symmetrical.

That said, the plant reportedly struck on Qeshm serves a relatively small population, and the retaliatory drone strike against a desalination facility in Bahrain have reportedly caused only limited damage that can be repaired quickly.

Which, makes me think these strikes were more symbolic than strategic. The US signalling that it is willing and able to hit that kind of infrastructure, and Iran responding by showing it can do the same - directly touching infrastructure that affects civilian life within the GCC. A message exchange more than an attempt to cause real disruption, at least for now.

23 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

I find it amazing how far Trump supporters will go to justify his actions. The most violent president in United States history, and yet somehow you claim its peace.

What the hell have you been smoking?

There you have it!

Authentic progressive slander and drivel.

The newest progressive talking point 🤪 has been received and it is trending!

I'm amazed at how far progressives will go to ignore reality and convince themselves of things that aren’t true.

If only you took that extra minute to research.

Your claim that Donald Trump is “the most violent president in U.S. history” is not supported by historical evidence. Your new progressive talking point is just the same old same old Marxist useful idiot rhetoric, not a factual ranking.

Calling Trump the most violent president in U.S. history is historically illiterate (like so many anti-conservative posts).

Let's see how trustworthy your post is.

Franklin D. Roosevelt World War II

70–85 million dead

Woodrow Wilson World War I

16–20 million dead

Abraham Lincoln American Civil War

620,000–750,000 dead

Harry S. Truman Korean War

2–3 million dead

Lyndon B. Johnson / Richard Nixon

Vietnam War

2–3 million dead

James K. Polk Mexican–American War

25,000–50,000 dead

George W. Bush

Iraq War & War in Afghanistan

400,000+ to over 900,000 dead depending on estimates

Donald Trump

200,000 to 300,000 total deaths globally during the Trump years.

The deaths listed include all combatants and civilians, not just those caused by U.S. forces under Trump.

⚠️ Important context:

Including: Most of these wars began before Trump (Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Syria 2011, Yemen 2014).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

No verified evidence that Trump has personally committed acts of physical violence against people in the way.

Accused of aggressive rhetoric while progressive, leftist Presidents speak only in "cordial political hyperbole or jokes".

You are alowed to hear, “fight like hell” but not allowed to hear, "protest peacefully and patriotically.”

President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020.

U.S. military operations continued in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

But every modern U.S. president has authorized military force, including:

Barack Obama (extensive drone strikes!)

Drone strikes ordered during Obama’s presidency (2009–2017)

U.S. government estimate:

A U.S. intelligence report said that strikes outside major war zones:

2,372–2,581 militants/combatants killed

64–116 civilians killed

https://www.cfr.org/articles/questioning-obamas-drone-deaths-data

578 strikes—50 under George W. Bush, 528 under Obama, which have cumulatively killed an estimated 4,189 militants and 474 civilians

George W. Bush (Iraq and Afghanistan wars)

And Now for Something Completely Different.

President of peace...

Would you call someone a President of peace if he invaded Germany and killed Hitler (15–20+ million dead)?

How about Mao Zedong (30–45 million dead)?

How about Stalin (6–20 million dead)?

How about Pol Pot (1.5–2 million dead)?

How about Kim Il Sung (millions dead)?

How about Mengistu Haile Mariam (hundreds of thousands to over a million dead in the Etheopian Red Terror)?

How about Leopold II of Belgium (10 million deaths in the Congo Free State atrocities)?

Yeah, I'd say Trump has been a president of peace so far.

During Trump’s term, the U.S. did not begin a large-scale war.

His administration brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan). Amazing!

Trump held unprecedented summits with Kim Jong Un, the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader.

I would call someone a President of peace if he successfully used pre-emptive or preventative war to protect the citizens of my country and spare the world from an inevitable world-wide conflict. Wait and see.

Ever heard of pre-emptive and preventative war? Do you know how they're defined; their distinctions? Plenty of examples of and discussions about why they were successes or failures.

Is it even infinitesimally possible, in your mind, that Trump, having info you and I don't have, has determined it best to fight now, changing the course of events in effort to prevent horrific loss of life in the future or country collapse? Hmmm? 🧐

Maybe you could do your homework on pre-emptive and preventative war and do an interesting post on this idea. Betcha' get a lot of replies.

By the way, the progressive's expensive and extensive coordinated attempt to control the narrative and shame MAGA supporters into compliance has succeeded... in their own mind. 🥴

In reality all their work is what you call FAIL. 😁 But I just don't have the heart to tell them and spoil their bliss. 🤭

If you want to take care of your family and home and country first, then you're MAGA.

A picture is emerging of how the US got dragged into this Israeli war, and it seems a certain "morally flexible" senator was instrumental.

'Lindsey Graham’s Quest to Sell Trump on Striking Iran'

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/lindsey-graham-trump-iran-fa5f54f0

https://archive.ph/IejaR

"To help make the case on Iran, Graham traveled several times to Israel in recent weeks, meeting with members of the country’s intelligence agency. “They’ll tell me things our own government won’t tell me,” he said. He spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, coaching him on how to lobby the president for action. Netanyahu showed the president intelligence that persuaded Trump to go ahead, Graham said."

46 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Desalination infrastructure is far more critical to the GCC states than it is to Iran. Countries like Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar rely on desalination for the vast majority of their potable water. Iran, by contrast, only depends heavily on desalination along parts of its southern coast - and those areas are far less densely populated than places like Manama, Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Doha - the vulnerability is not symmetrical.

My input:

5. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source.

https://aseannow.com/forum_rules/

Takeaways from the Iran War.

When the dead are being sent home park the demented POTUS someplace out of sight so he doesn't dishonour the fallen.

45 minutes ago, mymonkeyhusb said:

There you have it!

Authentic progressive slander and drivel.

The newest progressive talking point 🤪 has been received and it is trending!

I'm amazed at how far progressives will go to ignore reality and convince themselves of things that aren’t true.

If only you took that extra minute to research.

Your claim that Donald Trump is “the most violent president in U.S. history” is not supported by historical evidence. Your new progressive talking point is just the same old same old Marxist useful idiot rhetoric, not a factual ranking.

Calling Trump the most violent president in U.S. history is historically illiterate (like so many anti-conservative posts).

Let's see how trustworthy your post is.

Franklin D. Roosevelt World War II

70–85 million dead

Woodrow Wilson World War I

16–20 million dead

Abraham Lincoln American Civil War

620,000–750,000 dead

Harry S. Truman Korean War

2–3 million dead

Lyndon B. Johnson / Richard Nixon

Vietnam War

2–3 million dead

James K. Polk Mexican–American War

25,000–50,000 dead

George W. Bush

Iraq War & War in Afghanistan

400,000+ to over 900,000 dead depending on estimates

Donald Trump

200,000 to 300,000 total deaths globally during the Trump years.

The deaths listed include all combatants and civilians, not just those caused by U.S. forces under Trump.

⚠️ Important context:

Including: Most of these wars began before Trump (Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Syria 2011, Yemen 2014).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

No verified evidence that Trump has personally committed acts of physical violence against people in the way.

Accused of aggressive rhetoric while progressive, leftist Presidents speak only in "cordial political hyperbole or jokes".

You are alowed to hear, “fight like hell” but not allowed to hear, "protest peacefully and patriotically.”

President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020.

U.S. military operations continued in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

But every modern U.S. president has authorized military force, including:

Barack Obama (extensive drone strikes!)

Drone strikes ordered during Obama’s presidency (2009–2017)

U.S. government estimate:

A U.S. intelligence report said that strikes outside major war zones:

2,372–2,581 militants/combatants killed

64–116 civilians killed

https://www.cfr.org/articles/questioning-obamas-drone-deaths-data

578 strikes—50 under George W. Bush, 528 under Obama, which have cumulatively killed an estimated 4,189 militants and 474 civilians

George W. Bush (Iraq and Afghanistan wars)

And Now for Something Completely Different.

President of peace...

Would you call someone a President of peace if he invaded Germany and killed Hitler (15–20+ million dead)?

How about Mao Zedong (30–45 million dead)?

How about Stalin (6–20 million dead)?

How about Pol Pot (1.5–2 million dead)?

How about Kim Il Sung (millions dead)?

How about Mengistu Haile Mariam (hundreds of thousands to over a million dead in the Etheopian Red Terror)?

How about Leopold II of Belgium (10 million deaths in the Congo Free State atrocities)?

Yeah, I'd say Trump has been a president of peace so far.

During Trump’s term, the U.S. did not begin a large-scale war.

His administration brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan). Amazing!

Trump held unprecedented summits with Kim Jong Un, the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader.

I would call someone a President of peace if he successfully used pre-emptive or preventative war to protect the citizens of my country and spare the world from an inevitable world-wide conflict. Wait and see.

Ever heard of pre-emptive and preventative war? Do you know how they're defined; their distinctions? Plenty of examples of and discussions about why they were successes or failures.

Is it even infinitesimally possible, in your mind, that Trump, having info you and I don't have, has determined it best to fight now, changing the course of events in effort to prevent horrific loss of life in the future or country collapse? Hmmm? 🧐

Maybe you could do your homework on pre-emptive and preventative war and do an interesting post on this idea. Betcha' get a lot of replies.

By the way, the progressive's expensive and extensive coordinated attempt to control the narrative and shame MAGA supporters into compliance has succeeded... in their own mind. 🥴

In reality all their work is what you call FAIL. 😁 But I just don't have the heart to tell them and spoil their bliss. 🤭

If you want to take care of your family and home and country first, then you're MAGA.

Did I say deaths?

Try reading my post properly.

The US of A has developed an uncanny ability!😂

15 minutes ago, JerryM said:

41 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Desalination infrastructure is far more critical to the GCC states than it is to Iran. Countries like Bahrain, the UAE and Qatar rely on desalination for the vast majority of their potable water. Iran, by contrast, only depends heavily on desalination along parts of its southern coast - and those areas are far less densely populated than places like Manama, Abu Dhabi, Dubai or Doha - the vulnerability is not symmetrical.

My input:

5. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source.

https://aseannow.com/forum_rules/

Are you seriously suggesting that the comment above is fiction?

If I had also mentioned that GCC countries depend heavily on food imports, would you demand a citation for that as well?

At some point you have to draw a line. If every widely understood, well-established fact requires a footnote and a hyperlink, the conversation quickly becomes absurd.

So let’s be clear - which part are you actually disputing?

• That GCC countries rely heavily on desalination for their potable water?

• That Iran only relies on desalination in parts of its southern coastal regions?

• Or do we now also need to provide a source confirming that Iran, in fact, has a southern coastline?

Let’s try to avoid descending into this kind of pointless pedantry. Attempts to score trivial procedural points like this don’t strengthen your argument - they simply derail what could otherwise be a sensible discussion.

24 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Did I say deaths?

Try reading my post properly.

You posted Marxist propaganda.

2 minutes ago, khaosokman said:

You posted Marxist propaganda.

And 2 + 2 = 5

Go troll someplace else, I’m all stocked up he

1 hour ago, mymonkeyhusb said:

There you have it!

Authentic progressive slander and drivel.

The newest progressive talking point 🤪 has been received and it is trending!

I'm amazed at how far progressives will go to ignore reality and convince themselves of things that aren’t true.

If only you took that extra minute to research.

Your claim that Donald Trump is “the most violent president in U.S. history” is not supported by historical evidence. Your new progressive talking point is just the same old same old Marxist useful idiot rhetoric, not a factual ranking.

Calling Trump the most violent president in U.S. history is historically illiterate (like so many anti-conservative posts).

Let's see how trustworthy your post is.

Franklin D. Roosevelt World War II

70–85 million dead

Woodrow Wilson World War I

16–20 million dead

Abraham Lincoln American Civil War

620,000–750,000 dead

Harry S. Truman Korean War

2–3 million dead

Lyndon B. Johnson / Richard Nixon

Vietnam War

2–3 million dead

James K. Polk Mexican–American War

25,000–50,000 dead

George W. Bush

Iraq War & War in Afghanistan

400,000+ to over 900,000 dead depending on estimates

Donald Trump

200,000 to 300,000 total deaths globally during the Trump years.

The deaths listed include all combatants and civilians, not just those caused by U.S. forces under Trump.

⚠️ Important context:

Including: Most of these wars began before Trump (Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Syria 2011, Yemen 2014).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

No verified evidence that Trump has personally committed acts of physical violence against people in the way.

Accused of aggressive rhetoric while progressive, leftist Presidents speak only in "cordial political hyperbole or jokes".

You are alowed to hear, “fight like hell” but not allowed to hear, "protest peacefully and patriotically.”

President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020.

U.S. military operations continued in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

But every modern U.S. president has authorized military force, including:

Barack Obama (extensive drone strikes!)

Drone strikes ordered during Obama’s presidency (2009–2017)

U.S. government estimate:

A U.S. intelligence report said that strikes outside major war zones:

2,372–2,581 militants/combatants killed

64–116 civilians killed

https://www.cfr.org/articles/questioning-obamas-drone-deaths-data

578 strikes—50 under George W. Bush, 528 under Obama, which have cumulatively killed an estimated 4,189 militants and 474 civilians

George W. Bush (Iraq and Afghanistan wars)

And Now for Something Completely Different.

President of peace...

Would you call someone a President of peace if he invaded Germany and killed Hitler (15–20+ million dead)?

How about Mao Zedong (30–45 million dead)?

How about Stalin (6–20 million dead)?

How about Pol Pot (1.5–2 million dead)?

How about Kim Il Sung (millions dead)?

How about Mengistu Haile Mariam (hundreds of thousands to over a million dead in the Etheopian Red Terror)?

How about Leopold II of Belgium (10 million deaths in the Congo Free State atrocities)?

Yeah, I'd say Trump has been a president of peace so far.

During Trump’s term, the U.S. did not begin a large-scale war.

His administration brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan). Amazing!

Trump held unprecedented summits with Kim Jong Un, the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader.

I would call someone a President of peace if he successfully used pre-emptive or preventative war to protect the citizens of my country and spare the world from an inevitable world-wide conflict. Wait and see.

Ever heard of pre-emptive and preventative war? Do you know how they're defined; their distinctions? Plenty of examples of and discussions about why they were successes or failures.

Is it even infinitesimally possible, in your mind, that Trump, having info you and I don't have, has determined it best to fight now, changing the course of events in effort to prevent horrific loss of life in the future or country collapse? Hmmm? 🧐

Maybe you could do your homework on pre-emptive and preventative war and do an interesting post on this idea. Betcha' get a lot of replies.

By the way, the progressive's expensive and extensive coordinated attempt to control the narrative and shame MAGA supporters into compliance has succeeded... in their own mind. 🥴

In reality all their work is what you call FAIL. 😁 But I just don't have the heart to tell them and spoil their bliss. 🤭

If you want to take care of your family and home and country first, then you're MAGA.

Credit to BLM Fem, the original poster

'‘Peace President’ Breaks Record for Attacking the Most Countries'

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/peace-president-breaks-record-attacking-141532969.html

"Wannabe Nobel Laureate Donald Trump has now ordered more attacks against a greater number of countries than any other president in modern U.S. history."

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

So let’s be clear - which part are you actually disputing?

• That GCC countries rely heavily on desalination for their potable water?

How do you know that -- based on your last tour of water desalination facilities in the Mideast?

Unsourced post, which is mostly just AI removed.

Rule 39a. Posts should be original, on-topic, and written in your own voice. This is a discussion forum—not an AI content dump—so keep contributions natural and personal. AI tools can be used for reference or to support facts, but your writing should reflect your own understanding and perspective. This is especially important for opening posts, which should clearly come from a human point of view and invite genuine discussion.

2 hours ago, mymonkeyhusb said:

There you have it!

Authentic progressive slander and drivel.

The newest progressive talking point 🤪 has been received and it is trending!

I'm amazed at how far progressives will go to ignore reality and convince themselves of things that aren’t true.

If only you took that extra minute to research.

Your claim that Donald Trump is “the most violent president in U.S. history” is not supported by historical evidence. Your new progressive talking point is just the same old same old Marxist useful idiot rhetoric, not a factual ranking.

Calling Trump the most violent president in U.S. history is historically illiterate (like so many anti-conservative posts).

Let's see how trustworthy your post is.

Franklin D. Roosevelt World War II

70–85 million dead

Woodrow Wilson World War I

16–20 million dead

Abraham Lincoln American Civil War

620,000–750,000 dead

Harry S. Truman Korean War

2–3 million dead

Lyndon B. Johnson / Richard Nixon

Vietnam War

2–3 million dead

James K. Polk Mexican–American War

25,000–50,000 dead

George W. Bush

Iraq War & War in Afghanistan

400,000+ to over 900,000 dead depending on estimates

Donald Trump

200,000 to 300,000 total deaths globally during the Trump years.

The deaths listed include all combatants and civilians, not just those caused by U.S. forces under Trump.

⚠️ Important context:

Including: Most of these wars began before Trump (Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003, Syria 2011, Yemen 2014).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualties_of_war

No verified evidence that Trump has personally committed acts of physical violence against people in the way.

Accused of aggressive rhetoric while progressive, leftist Presidents speak only in "cordial political hyperbole or jokes".

You are alowed to hear, “fight like hell” but not allowed to hear, "protest peacefully and patriotically.”

President Trump ordered a drone strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in 2020.

U.S. military operations continued in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

But every modern U.S. president has authorized military force, including:

Barack Obama (extensive drone strikes!)

Drone strikes ordered during Obama’s presidency (2009–2017)

U.S. government estimate:

A U.S. intelligence report said that strikes outside major war zones:

2,372–2,581 militants/combatants killed

64–116 civilians killed

https://www.cfr.org/articles/questioning-obamas-drone-deaths-data

578 strikes—50 under George W. Bush, 528 under Obama, which have cumulatively killed an estimated 4,189 militants and 474 civilians

George W. Bush (Iraq and Afghanistan wars)

And Now for Something Completely Different.

President of peace...

Would you call someone a President of peace if he invaded Germany and killed Hitler (15–20+ million dead)?

How about Mao Zedong (30–45 million dead)?

How about Stalin (6–20 million dead)?

How about Pol Pot (1.5–2 million dead)?

How about Kim Il Sung (millions dead)?

How about Mengistu Haile Mariam (hundreds of thousands to over a million dead in the Etheopian Red Terror)?

How about Leopold II of Belgium (10 million deaths in the Congo Free State atrocities)?

Yeah, I'd say Trump has been a president of peace so far.

During Trump’s term, the U.S. did not begin a large-scale war.

His administration brokered the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries (UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan). Amazing!

Trump held unprecedented summits with Kim Jong Un, the first sitting U.S. president to meet a North Korean leader.

I would call someone a President of peace if he successfully used pre-emptive or preventative war to protect the citizens of my country and spare the world from an inevitable world-wide conflict. Wait and see.

Ever heard of pre-emptive and preventative war? Do you know how they're defined; their distinctions? Plenty of examples of and discussions about why they were successes or failures.

Is it even infinitesimally possible, in your mind, that Trump, having info you and I don't have, has determined it best to fight now, changing the course of events in effort to prevent horrific loss of life in the future or country collapse? Hmmm? 🧐

Maybe you could do your homework on pre-emptive and preventative war and do an interesting post on this idea. Betcha' get a lot of replies.

By the way, the progressive's expensive and extensive coordinated attempt to control the narrative and shame MAGA supporters into compliance has succeeded... in their own mind. 🥴

In reality all their work is what you call FAIL. 😁 But I just don't have the heart to tell them and spoil their bliss. 🤭

If you want to take care of your family and home and country first, then you're MAGA.

Takeaway from the strikes on the Iran regime that supports terror, and it wasnt the first time!

The international left is so disingenuous and seems so so supportive of it, don’t they?

Pakistani man found guilty in Iran-backed plot to kill US politicians

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8egjnp4j7jo