8 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Where were you on the stated reasons for the Iraq War, and the 40 minutes from being nuked/bioattacked by Iraq. Did you get yourself a gasmask and atropine shots just in case? And if you didn't , why not? Jesus wil take care of you I suppose.

Trumps stated reason is just bull faeces. He's been a con man all his adult life and knows how to lie. Or would you rather believe him than George W Bush?

What do you do with that information, if it actually existed? You share all the information you have with your closest allies, the same allies who backed you in 2001, and in 2003, incliding those allies you had been praising in January 2026 as "among the greatest warriors of all. We love you all and always will" . You use 5 Eyes to share data, and for them to share their data. You explain why your data conflicts with theirs (besides GCHQ and Akritori, the UK maintains an unmatched listening post in Oman, something the Americans don't have in the region). You do your best to cross reference each others sources, to make sure you haven't been mislead by a bunch of lying bastards who don't have the best wishes for the USA. You do your best (even if it ultimately fails) to bring the world to your side through the United Nations. It worked for you in 2003. You come up with a better plan that the piss poor <deleted> half arsed effort they have now, where they forgot to deploy any troops in time, where they didn't realise Iran would shoot back, where they scrapped all their minesweepers just before Iran closed the straits.

Again, a few are missing what I've been saying all along, from skimming perhaps? There are many sources of information daily from around the world, and some take them as gospel, while any can be biased and false. That's why I stay in the middle and wait for the truth to eventually come out. I know Trump as well as anyone, as I've been listening to his crapola for many years before he became president. My main point is terrorism, not only based out of Iran but worldwide, needs to be erased, and they have a proven record, Was this the right time to attack? Probably not, but no one here knows what Iran's leaders were planning and what they've been doing to their own citizens along with other country's people, needed to be brought to a halt, and what other way is there? Did eliminating those leaders on day one do some good? I think so, but yes, they could put into power more of the same, or maybe someone more civilized.

14 hours ago, Enoon said:

Too slow for Americans.

They want it all, they want it now...........like Freddie Mercury did.

Freddie was from a family of Zoroastrians......a religion that originated in Iran.

So was he a Persian Jewish queer?

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

Nonsense, ask Tulsi. I don't trust her agency, but when they're openly contradicting the president, it seems very likely they're telling the truth. The truth is out there already.

Yes, the truth is out there, but there are also lies, exaggerations and biased opinions mixed in, and some take some as gospel while they might be the false ones. There are people on both sides contradicting the president. Does anyone know the endgame of this war? No, and can only guess. Past history can be an indication or completely opposite of what will happen.

There are a few here who have been disagreeing with me, and giving me quite a few thumbs downs, all because of their hatred of Trump, and of America's strong handed approaches to war, with a few bad mistakes thrown in, all the while dismissing all the freedom the world has because of America's help.

Most aren't American citizens, yet think they understand what it's like to be one, where many of us are embarrassed with our choices, all because we trusted someone to bring their promises to fruition. Much the same as everyone who can vote does.

No one wants wars besides those who profit by them, but terrorism of this sort needs to go. I think some aren't thinking of what Iran's citizens have been going through, and want the US and Israel to lose because of that hatred, which is going to make what happen? No one here knows what those leaders were planning, no matter the intel, and it might have been a lot worse than some think, as their history has already shown.

This is why I sit back and hope for the best for everyone, as all countries can benefit from one another, and leaders such as these, including Putin and Kim, all need to go.

19 hours ago, Social Media said:

The regime’s greatest weakness? Its own people

Iran’s leadership is deeply entrenched, backed by the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and a brutal repression machine.

But beneath that surface lies a fragile state.

Millions of Iranians — across ethnic groups and social classes — have repeatedly risen up against the regime. Protests have swept the country, exposing deep dissatisfaction with clerical rule, economic hardship, and corruption.

This is where the fight can be won.

Not by imposing change from outside — but by empowering it from within.

Sorry, but by relentlessly bombing the cities where the majority of free-thinking, freedom loving and progressive Iranians reside, any idea that the people most likely to rise up against the regime or still believe that Trump has their back, has been "obliterated." Despite the blockage of the Straits of Hormuz, that ship has truly sailed. Right now, they are more aligned with the hard line, less educated, less-urbanised, more radicalised hoardes that love the Ayatollahs. They may not be big on terrorism or Islamisation, but like most decent people, they don't like being lied to.

Maybe some sort of "regime change" in the USA will bring them back onside?

11 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Again, a few are missing what I've been saying all along, from skimming perhaps? There are many sources of information daily from around the world, and some take them as gospel, while any can be biased and false. That's why I stay in the middle and wait for the truth to eventually come out. I know Trump as well as anyone, as I've been listening to his crapola for many years before he became president. My main point is terrorism, not only based out of Iran but worldwide, needs to be erased, and they have a proven record, Was this the right time to attack? Probably not, but no one here knows what Iran's leaders were planning and what they've been doing to their own citizens along with other country's people, needed to be brought to a halt, and what other way is there? Did eliminating those leaders on day one do some good? I think so, but yes, they could put into power more of the same, or maybe someone more civilized.

As usual, you avoid the question, and accuse others of not reading what you have written. I read all your replies, and you pointedly avoid the questions.

1. You have nothing to say about the eample of Irish terrorism being defeated over a table (talks). My charge, that I put to you, because you are of Irish extraction, is that you do not regard the IRA as terrorists, ergo you believe the murder of British soldiers and civilians was legitimate.

2. I asked you, since you believe Trump's claims about Iran's nuclear weapons capabilties, whether you believed President Bush's and General Powells statements about Iraq's WMD capabilities. I asked you, if you did believe them, what precautions did you take to protect your self from a 40 minute attack by Iraq.

I am sick to the back teeth of your repetititve "I don't support Trump but....". You fall back on the same old crap that you are old, and are therefore experienced, and no one else is. I know plenty of stupid old people who get suckered by the hucksters every time. Age didn't bring them wisdom.

You claim you take a middle ground, but everything you have stated shows you take an extreme position. with extreme solutions that involve murder and death. Every time, your solutions involve killing people you don't like. And then you retreat into a lot of hot air about how no one has read your responses.

Again, a few are missing what I've been saying all along, from skimming perhaps?

Answer the question please. You've made a false assumption. Accept it, rather than deflect.

There are many sources of information daily from around the world, and some take them as gospel, while any can be biased and false.

Deflection. Or course I know there are many sources. Don't take me for a fool

That's why I stay in the middle and wait for the truth to eventually come out.

You are taking as Gospel what Trump is saying about Iran/ You post a lot about your views and opinions, so obviously you are not "waiting for the truth to come out"

I know Trump as well as anyone, as I've been listening to his crapola for many years before he became president.

I don't believe you.

My main point is terrorism, not only based out of Iran but worldwide, needs to be erased, and they have a proven record,

I have asked you repeatedly to comment on the numerous cases where terrorism was ended by negotiation. You don't want to engage or react to something that doesn't fit with your bias. So much for your "open mind".

Was this the right time to attack? Probably not, but no one here knows what Iran's leaders were planning

So basically you believe the nuclear claims. Hence you are full of it when you claim Trump speaks "crapola". You've accepted without question his claims. That's why I asked you about Iraq WMDs, what you thought at the time about the claims, and what you thought when no WMDs were located.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c5819ed915d338141e317/5972.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry

https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/109th-congress/house-report/224/1

And then, if you accept that the government was wrong/lying, what make you think the same isn't true now, given that by your admission, you look at multiple sources. There are multiple sources that state Iran was either no where near developing a viable weapon or were not actually developing a weapon but looking to just enrich uranium as their guarantor.

The alternative views are:

1. Iran's technical advance wasn't sufficient to produce a weapon

2. There was a Fatwa on producing a nuclear weapon

My belief is a mix of 1 and 2. I believe, for the same reasons that Germany was unable to produce a nuclear weapon, the Iranian system of government encourages exaggeration lying, because of the patronage system (you don't tell the boss the bad new), and the patronage system leads to promotion of people not based on capability, but based on loyalty. And a bit of the religious ban is true. What Iran has experience of that no Western country has, is the effects of mass attacks on civilians by chemical weapons. Iran suffered through Iraqi missile attacks. That experience means that there are some who have developed an enthusiasm, and those who have a genuine abhorrance of neclear weapons.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/08/iranian-generals-tell-ayatollah-we-need-nuclear-weapons/

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250401-iran-will-have-no-choice-but-to-get-nukes-if-attacked-khamenei-adviser-usa-trump-nuclear-weapons-deal-bombing-threats

https://web.archive.org/web/20150708040618/http://farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=228#2790

and what they've been doing to their own citizens along with other country's people, needed to be brought to a halt, and what other way is there?

Plenty of other ways. Talks. The British delegation, decades of experience, thought they were going well. The Americans had a different view, but refused to share with their allies why they felt differently.

Did eliminating those leaders on day one do some good? I think so,

Provide your reasoning, because immediately you contradict yourself

but yes, they could put into power more of the same, or maybe someone more civilized.

Despite your claimed decades of experience and wisdom, you miss a rather obvious third outcome. You put into power someone worse. Your country deposed Saddam Hussein, but through your actions you managed to elevate a small time drug dealer, Al Zarqawi, into the head of a truely terrifying organisation that had no bounds of common decency.

The reason people like Al Zarqawi emerged is the same as whats happening in Iran right now. The Iraq enquiry revealed seriously poor planning by the Allies, and frankly gullibilty. The Americans believed self appointed Iraqi opposition, not understanding that they didn't represent anyone (similar vibes from the current wannabe Shah). Like in Iraq, there is no organised opposition. The Americans and British both learned the wrong lessons from history. The Americans thought the Baathist Party was like the Nazi Party, and like in 1945 Germany they could deNazify Iraq by acking the Army, and it would be fine like Germany. The Republican Guard literally became the Insurgency overnight. They literally didn't understand the basis of Party membership in Iraq. The British, with much hubris, thought they knew the place, because they ran it until the 50s. They were wrong. Ironically it was a then young Rory Stewart who trained American officers on the realities of Iraqi society, and he can be attributed to the turnaround post surge.

The Americans had no plan for a postwar Iraq. They had no idea who would succeed Saddam Hussein. In 1945, the Americans knew who was going to succeed Adolf Hitler. Simily, in Iran, you lot have cocked up again, confirmed by your own words, in that piss poor planning means you have no idea who will succeed the leadership. There has been zero cultivation of opposition inside Iran. You could have used all your planes to swamp Iran with free Starlinks, giving every Iranian access to the outside world. Your idea of hearts and minds is to bomb them "back to the stone age" and your President to mock their religion.

8 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Try a reply with a point.

No point trying to do that with you since all you seem capable of doing is posting insults!

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Yes, the truth is out there, but there are also lies, exaggerations and biased opinions mixed in, and some take some as gospel while they might be the false ones. There are people on both sides contradicting the president. Does anyone know the endgame of this war? No, and can only guess. Past history can be an indication or completely opposite of what will happen.

There are a few here who have been disagreeing with me, and giving me quite a few thumbs downs, all because of their hatred of Trump, and of America's strong handed approaches to war, with a few bad mistakes thrown in, all the while dismissing all the freedom the world has because of America's help.

Most aren't American citizens, yet think they understand what it's like to be one, where many of us are embarrassed with our choices, all because we trusted someone to bring their promises to fruition. Much the same as everyone who can vote does.

No one wants wars besides those who profit by them, but terrorism of this sort needs to go. I think some aren't thinking of what Iran's citizens have been going through, and want the US and Israel to lose because of that hatred, which is going to make what happen? No one here knows what those leaders were planning, no matter the intel, and it might have been a lot worse than some think, as their history has already shown.

This is why I sit back and hope for the best for everyone, as all countries can benefit from one another, and leaders such as these, including Putin and Kim, all need to go.

You're glossing over the established facts.

13 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

There are only two I can think of. Whoever backs Iran's terror regime and the rest of the free world that doesn't want terrorism.

Ah yes, the famous and honourable "You're either with us, or against us" ultimatum of George "Dubya" Bush that's been corrupted and reverse-engineered into "You're either with us, or you're with them" by the dullness of the MAGA hive mind.

2 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

As usual, you avoid the question, and accuse others of not reading what you have written. I read all your replies, and you pointedly avoid the questions.

1. You have nothing to say about the eample of Irish terrorism being defeated over a table (talks). My charge, that I put to you, because you are of Irish extraction, is that you do not regard the IRA as terrorists, ergo you believe the murder of British soldiers and civilians was legitimate.

2. I asked you, since you believe Trump's claims about Iran's nuclear weapons capabilties, whether you believed President Bush's and General Powells statements about Iraq's WMD capabilities. I asked you, if you did believe them, what precautions did you take to protect your self from a 40 minute attack by Iraq.

I am sick to the back teeth of your repetititve "I don't support Trump but....". You fall back on the same old crap that you are old, and are therefore experienced, and no one else is. I know plenty of stupid old people who get suckered by the hucksters every time. Age didn't bring them wisdom.

You claim you take a middle ground, but everything you have stated shows you take an extreme position. with extreme solutions that involve murder and death. Every time, your solutions involve killing people you don't like. And then you retreat into a lot of hot air about how no one has read your responses.

Answer the question please. You've made a false assumption. Accept it, rather than deflect.

Deflection. Or course I know there are many sources. Don't take me for a fool

You are taking as Gospel what Trump is saying about Iran/ You post a lot about your views and opinions, so obviously you are not "waiting for the truth to come out"

I don't believe you.

I have asked you repeatedly to comment on the numerous cases where terrorism was ended by negotiation. You don't want to engage or react to something that doesn't fit with your bias. So much for your "open mind".

So basically you believe the nuclear claims. Hence you are full of it when you claim Trump speaks "crapola". You've accepted without question his claims. That's why I asked you about Iraq WMDs, what you thought at the time about the claims, and what you thought when no WMDs were located.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c5819ed915d338141e317/5972.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry

https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/109th-congress/house-report/224/1

And then, if you accept that the government was wrong/lying, what make you think the same isn't true now, given that by your admission, you look at multiple sources. There are multiple sources that state Iran was either no where near developing a viable weapon or were not actually developing a weapon but looking to just enrich uranium as their guarantor.

The alternative views are:

1. Iran's technical advance wasn't sufficient to produce a weapon

2. There was a Fatwa on producing a nuclear weapon

My belief is a mix of 1 and 2. I believe, for the same reasons that Germany was unable to produce a nuclear weapon, the Iranian system of government encourages exaggeration lying, because of the patronage system (you don't tell the boss the bad new), and the patronage system leads to promotion of people not based on capability, but based on loyalty. And a bit of the religious ban is true. What Iran has experience of that no Western country has, is the effects of mass attacks on civilians by chemical weapons. Iran suffered through Iraqi missile attacks. That experience means that there are some who have developed an enthusiasm, and those who have a genuine abhorrance of neclear weapons.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/08/iranian-generals-tell-ayatollah-we-need-nuclear-weapons/

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250401-iran-will-have-no-choice-but-to-get-nukes-if-attacked-khamenei-adviser-usa-trump-nuclear-weapons-deal-bombing-threats

https://web.archive.org/web/20150708040618/http://farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=228#2790

Plenty of other ways. Talks. The British delegation, decades of experience, thought they were going well. The Americans had a different view, but refused to share with their allies why they felt differently.

Provide your reasoning, because immediately you contradict yourself

Despite your claimed decades of experience and wisdom, you miss a rather obvious third outcome. You put into power someone worse. Your country deposed Saddam Hussein, but through your actions you managed to elevate a small time drug dealer, Al Zarqawi, into the head of a truely terrifying organisation that had no bounds of common decency.

The reason people like Al Zarqawi emerged is the same as whats happening in Iran right now. The Iraq enquiry revealed seriously poor planning by the Allies, and frankly gullibilty. The Americans believed self appointed Iraqi opposition, not understanding that they didn't represent anyone (similar vibes from the current wannabe Shah). Like in Iraq, there is no organised opposition. The Americans and British both learned the wrong lessons from history. The Americans thought the Baathist Party was like the Nazi Party, and like in 1945 Germany they could deNazify Iraq by acking the Army, and it would be fine like Germany. The Republican Guard literally became the Insurgency overnight. They literally didn't understand the basis of Party membership in Iraq. The British, with much hubris, thought they knew the place, because they ran it until the 50s. They were wrong. Ironically it was a then young Rory Stewart who trained American officers on the realities of Iraqi society, and he can be attributed to the turnaround post surge.

The Americans had no plan for a postwar Iraq. They had no idea who would succeed Saddam Hussein. In 1945, the Americans knew who was going to succeed Adolf Hitler. Simily, in Iran, you lot have cocked up again, confirmed by your own words, in that piss poor planning means you have no idea who will succeed the leadership. There has been zero cultivation of opposition inside Iran. You could have used all your planes to swamp Iran with free Starlinks, giving every Iranian access to the outside world. Your idea of hearts and minds is to bomb them "back to the stone age" and your President to mock their religion.

2 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

As usual, you avoid the question, and accuse others of not reading what you have written. I read all your replies, and you pointedly avoid the questions.

4 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

4 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

As usual, you avoid the question, and accuse others of not reading what you have written. I read all your replies, and you pointedly avoid the questions.

1. You have nothing to say about the eample of Irish terrorism being defeated over a table (talks). My charge, that I put to you, because you are of Irish extraction, is that you do not regard the IRA as terrorists, ergo you believe the murder of British soldiers and civilians was legitimate.

2. I asked you, since you believe Trump's claims about Iran's nuclear weapons capabilties, whether you believed President Bush's and General Powells statements about Iraq's WMD capabilities. I asked you, if you did believe them, what precautions did you take to protect your self from a 40 minute attack by Iraq.

I am sick to the back teeth of your repetititve "I don't support Trump but....". You fall back on the same old crap that you are old, and are therefore experienced, and no one else is. I know plenty of stupid old people who get suckered by the hucksters every time. Age didn't bring them wisdom.

You claim you take a middle ground, but everything you have stated shows you take an extreme position. with extreme solutions that involve murder and death. Every time, your solutions involve killing people you don't like. And then you retreat into a lot of hot air about how no one has read your responses.

Answer the question please. You've made a false assumption. Accept it, rather than deflect.

Deflection. Or course I know there are many sources. Don't take me for a fool

You are taking as Gospel what Trump is saying about Iran/ You post a lot about your views and opinions, so obviously you are not "waiting for the truth to come out"

I don't believe you.

I have asked you repeatedly to comment on the numerous cases where terrorism was ended by negotiation. You don't want to engage or react to something that doesn't fit with your bias. So much for your "open mind".

So basically you believe the nuclear claims. Hence you are full of it when you claim Trump speaks "crapola". You've accepted without question his claims. That's why I asked you about Iraq WMDs, what you thought at the time about the claims, and what you thought when no WMDs were located.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c5819ed915d338141e317/5972.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-report-of-the-iraq-inquiry

https://www.congress.gov/committee-report/109th-congress/house-report/224/1

And then, if you accept that the government was wrong/lying, what make you think the same isn't true now, given that by your admission, you look at multiple sources. There are multiple sources that state Iran was either no where near developing a viable weapon or were not actually developing a weapon but looking to just enrich uranium as their guarantor.

The alternative views are:

1. Iran's technical advance wasn't sufficient to produce a weapon

2. There was a Fatwa on producing a nuclear weapon

My belief is a mix of 1 and 2. I believe, for the same reasons that Germany was unable to produce a nuclear weapon, the Iranian system of government encourages exaggeration lying, because of the patronage system (you don't tell the boss the bad new), and the patronage system leads to promotion of people not based on capability, but based on loyalty. And a bit of the religious ban is true. What Iran has experience of that no Western country has, is the effects of mass attacks on civilians by chemical weapons. Iran suffered through Iraqi missile attacks. That experience means that there are some who have developed an enthusiasm, and those who have a genuine abhorrance of neclear weapons.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/02/08/iranian-generals-tell-ayatollah-we-need-nuclear-weapons/

https://www.france24.com/en/asia-pacific/20250401-iran-will-have-no-choice-but-to-get-nukes-if-attacked-khamenei-adviser-usa-trump-nuclear-weapons-deal-bombing-threats

https://web.archive.org/web/20150708040618/http://farsi.khamenei.ir/treatise-content?id=228#2790

Plenty of other ways. Talks. The British delegation, decades of experience, thought they were going well. The Americans had a different view, but refused to share with their allies why they felt differently.

Provide your reasoning, because immediately you contradict yourself

Despite your claimed decades of experience and wisdom, you miss a rather obvious third outcome. You put into power someone worse. Your country deposed Saddam Hussein, but through your actions you managed to elevate a small time drug dealer, Al Zarqawi, into the head of a truely terrifying organisation that had no bounds of common decency.

The reason people like Al Zarqawi emerged is the same as whats happening in Iran right now. The Iraq enquiry revealed seriously poor planning by the Allies, and frankly gullibilty. The Americans believed self appointed Iraqi opposition, not understanding that they didn't represent anyone (similar vibes from the current wannabe Shah). Like in Iraq, there is no organised opposition. The Americans and British both learned the wrong lessons from history. The Americans thought the Baathist Party was like the Nazi Party, and like in 1945 Germany they could deNazify Iraq by acking the Army, and it would be fine like Germany. The Republican Guard literally became the Insurgency overnight. They literally didn't understand the basis of Party membership in Iraq. The British, with much hubris, thought they knew the place, because they ran it until the 50s. They were wrong. Ironically it was a then young Rory Stewart who trained American officers on the realities of Iraqi society, and he can be attributed to the turnaround post surge.

The Americans had no plan for a postwar Iraq. They had no idea who would succeed Saddam Hussein. In 1945, the Americans knew who was going to succeed Adolf Hitler. Simily, in Iran, you lot have cocked up again, confirmed by your own words, in that piss poor planning means you have no idea who will succeed the leadership. There has been zero cultivation of opposition inside Iran. You could have used all your planes to swamp Iran with free Starlinks, giving every Iranian access to the outside world. Your idea of hearts and minds is to bomb them "back to the stone age" and your President to mock their religion.

Try not to assume and put words in other's mouths. I posted what happened, so you might know, regarding the Irish IRA. That explains what happened, and i agree with his words. I never said killing anyone was right, unless they are trying to kill innocents intentionally, which terrorism is by definition.

Saying I'm old and know more is your words. I have experience living in the US and know what's gone on all my years.

I don't care what you're sick of as that's your problem.

Do you not understand when I said I'm in the middle, not sides, and wait for the eventual outcome instead of believing opinions? That means I don't believe BS and only the facts.

Thinking I take an extreme position is also your failure to comprehend what I've been saying ALL ALONG.

Now go back and take some time, and try to understand what my position is, before you comment. Or not, as I don't care about those who are radical in their approach to another's position, and only go by their own feelings, which are opinions and mean nothing.

I don't make false assumptions, but you surely do, and many times.

Who is taking as gospel what Trump is saying about Iran? I've seen what Iran has been doing long before Trump came around, so that's another of your assumptions.

When someone makes an opinion, quote them, and don't assume what they mean by your own way of understanding. It not only might not be an opinion, but only your thinking it is because you can't understand what his words mean.

Try asking one question at a time, so you don't forget what was written previously and turn what someone said around. You asked me about the IRA, and I sent a link to show you what happened, and that I know what went on from the beginning of the IRA until it changed radically. I don't support any terrorism so asking that shows you aren't comprehending what I've been saying again, ALL ALONG.

It doesn't matter if you believe me or not, as your opinion means again nothing.

What you believe is your opinion, as you and no one else here knows exactly what's going on behind closed doors in Iran, or in the US government, nor what they have available, besides what's been posted on the internet all along, which again, seeing you keep missing what I've been saying, can be truths, bias, lies and exaggerations . The same as it's always been until that truth finally comes out. I didn't put anyone in power as I didn't vote. Both sides were weak and suspicious. That's why I stay in the middle, so don't blame Americans for being hopeful about their leader. I'm sure yours has made quite a few mistakes.

You don't need to give anyone here a history lesson, as it's wasted words . We all have access to the same information you have, and assuming anyone doesn't know what you do is arrogant and ignorance.

Go talk to someone else, as you're boring quite a few people with the way you interact with members here, as can be seen in this topic alone. Take a look at richard's comment, and respond to him. And I'm sure I'm not the only one who's wondering what your other usernames have been, as you act quite like another of the usual suspects here. I'm done with your nonsense.

19 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Ah yes, the famous and honourable "You're either with us, or against us" ultimatum of George "Dubya" Bush that's been corrupted and reverse-engineered into "You're either with us, or you're with them" by the dullness of the MAGA hive mind.

Tell us what side you're on. I actually want peace for everyone, whatever that takes. A few "experts" here are armchair quarterbacks without any legitimate ways to settle what's been happening. What works with another country or leader doesn't mean it will work with this one, especially when this one's thinking is radical and history has shown what they're capable of.

12 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

Trump thought Khomeini was nearing nuclear weapon capability. What do you do with that information, which might have come from intel like the one that put all those leaders in one place, seeing it would mean a terrorist thinking leader had his finger on the trigger of a weapon that can kill thousands?

Trump thought?

Despite the obvious oxymoron, he was sold a midnight lie by Netanyahu, a carbon copy of Saddam's WMD. The only truth may have been the imminent meeting of the regime's leadership, but Netanyahu has heen saying Teheran will have a bomb in two weeks since forever already. The smarter US president would have let the intelligence agencies vet the nuclear threat claim (again), but right now the US doesn't have such.

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You're glossing over the established facts.

Which are?

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

Trump thought?

Despite the obvious oxymoron, he was sold a midnight lie by Netanyahu, a carbon copy of Saddam's WMD. The only truth may have been the imminent meeting of the regime's leadership, but Netanyahu has heen saying Teheran will have a bomb in two weeks since forever already. The smarter US president would have let the intelligence agencies vet the nuclear threat claim (again), but right now the US doesn't have such.

I'm wondering if you or anyone else has been sitting down with them while they were talking about what needs to be done, or are just going by what everyone here has also seen on TV. They sure knew where those leaders were going to be meeting from intel. Maybe there is more than what the media is telling us. Maybe there wasn't an immediate threat. Not being there all we can go on is what's been said. Jumping to conclusions is exactly what was said about Kirk's assassination, but it wasn't so cut and dried then either.

20 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Despite the obvious oxymoron, he was sold a midnight lie by Netanyahu, a carbon copy of Saddam's WMD.

Are you saying that the Republic of Iran building ICBM's and having 460kg of 60% enriched uranium (one step away from weapons grade) is not true?

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

Are you saying that the Republic of Iran building ICBM's and having 460kg of 60% enriched uranium (one step away from weapons grade) is not true?

Be wary of media outlets influenced by the Jewish agendas.

17 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Are you saying that the Republic of Iran building ICBM's and having 460kg of 60% enriched uranium (one step away from weapons grade) is not true?

Are you saying the US government's own intelligence services are all lying?

47 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Which are?

Not doing that again.

I will add, that you say something, but your reasoning doesn't match your conclusions.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Not doing that again.

I will add, that you say something, but your reasoning doesn't match your conclusions.

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

.

Which again, is exactly why you need to read everything a person writes in a certain topic, without skimming, as it makes one pass judgement without all the facts.

41 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Tell us what side you're on. I actually want peace for everyone, whatever that takes. A few "experts" here are armchair quarterbacks without any legitimate ways to settle what's been happening. What works with another country or leader doesn't mean it will work with this one, especially when this one's thinking is radical and history has shown what they're capable of.

I'm not an Islamic terrorist who wishes death to all kafir, the extermination of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. So, now that I've answered your question, what side do you think I'm on?

Why do you think your armchair quarterbacking is more credible than anyone else's. As for a leader with a history of radical thought and actions, since Iran doesn't have a leader any more, are you talking about Trump?

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Which again, is exactly why you need to read everything a person writes in a certain topic, without skimming, as it makes one pass judgement without all the facts.

Agreed, hence my learned conclusion of your opinion.

51 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

I'm wondering if you or anyone else has been sitting down with them while they were talking about what needs to be done, or are just going by what everyone here has also seen on TV. They sure knew where those leaders were going to be meeting from intel. Maybe there is more than what the media is telling us. Maybe there wasn't an immediate threat. Not being there all we can go on is what's been said. Jumping to conclusions is exactly what was said about Kirk's assassination, but it wasn't so cut and dried then either.

I've already stated that the Israeli intelligence alerting the US of an imminent "target rich environment" in Teheran was credible, and subsequently proved correct. But there's no confirmation one way or another that they were meeting to finalize the nuclear launch plans that were just two weeks away.

7 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Agreed, hence my learned conclusion of your opinion.

Was it an opinion?. Now go back and read ALL of my replies, and see what my position is.

21 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Are you saying the US government's own intelligence services are all lying?

The Islamic Republic of Iran have said they have the 60% enriched uranium. The horse's mouth. They were also building ICBM's. The weapons of mass destruction was a fabrication which is what I thought at the time.

15 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

None of this is realistic, had there been some sincere and intelligent dialogue with some of the opposition groups, and had the US been smart enough to avoid bombing civilian targets and Iranian infrastructure, this might have been possible.

But they have created so much hatred, and so much ill will with their aggression, and fed right into the hands of the enemy. And by teaming up with genocidal Israel, they made a huge miscalculation. Now the Iranians are fighting not one despised enemy but two. I would not doubt if hundreds of thousands of Iranians have volunteered to fight, and we could be looking at an army of a million men.

The degree to which Trump and his idiots have miscalculated is nothing short of astonishing. The mistakes that have been made in this war are truly embarrassing, especially for the largest and most expensive military on the planet. This truly proves biggest is not always the best.

Trump is simply too old, too senile, too ignorant, too moronic, and the level of insanity that he possesses is not helping anything. Disaster Don is not up for this task, it's obvious that this thing is wearing him out, he is fading, and I am expecting his resignation next year after he gets his butt whomped in the midterms. See ya Don. You won't be missed, and billions of people will be dancing in the street for weeks.

I prefer him sleeping and dreaming of victory to him posting on social media...

https://x.com/Starworld00707/status/2040815765972984165

Just as a side note: If US really starts bombing civilian targets like power plants and bridges - that's a war crime (article 8 of Geneva convention):

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/icc-statute-amendment-art8-2010/article-8

1 minute ago, dinsdale said:

The Islamic Republic of Iran have said they have the 60% enriched uranium. The horse's mouth. They were also building ICBM's. The weapons of mass destruction was a fabrication which is what I thought at the time.

So the treasonous US intelligence collective were lying. Gotcha.

1 minute ago, NanLaew said:

I've already stated that the Israeli intelligence alerting the US of an imminent "target rich environment" in Teheran was credible, and subsequently proved correct. But there's no confirmation one way or another that they were meeting to finalize the nuclear launch plans that were just two weeks away.

And I replied that it might have been the wrong time to attack, but like another mentioned, no one knows what their intentions were, and better to be safe than sorry is many times the best option. Sadly some innocents have been killed because of this, but I'm thinking if a nuclear weapon is used, how many would die if it wasn't intercepted?

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Before 1979, Iran and Israel were aligned. That ended with the Iranian Revolution,

But things didn't have to go the way they did. I just want to refresh the memories of those who may have forgotten.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Iranian-Revolution

https://www.britannica.com/topic/US-Iran-Relations-A-Timeline

13 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I'm not an Islamic terrorist who wishes death to all kafir, the extermination of all Jews and the destruction of Israel. So, now that I've answered your question, what side do you think I'm on?

Why do you think your armchair quarterbacking is more credible than anyone else's. As for a leader with a history of radical thought and actions, since Iran doesn't have a leader any more, are you talking about Trump?

Because the only thing I'm now looking at is this plan. Benefit of the doubt and not taking chances where thousands could die from a pushed button by a maniac in charge. Control before things get out of hand. For the good of all including Iran's citizens.

I nor most anyone else don't know their intentions nor what would be the best action, but eliminating some who have already done damage and were talking death to the US doesn't leave much choice beyond what was done on day one. What follows this is them firing back, which follows with more back and forth and bad intel had a school get hit, one of the things war brings.

The plan here would likely be a good choice, seeing they have already proven their own history, without cutting off oil trade, which will affect citizens all over.

13 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

And I replied that it might have been the wrong time to attack, but like another mentioned, no one knows what their intentions were, and better to be safe than sorry is many times the best option. Sadly some innocents have been killed because of this, but I'm thinking if a nuclear weapon is used, how many would die if it wasn't intercepted?

So now we start killing people, including civilians, just in case? Not due to any US intelligence, but Netanyahu convincing Trump to take the bait.

So from that you extrapolate your 'what ifs'.

Literal madness.

15 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

So the treasonous US intelligence collective were lying. Gotcha.

Was the WOMD a lie? Yes it was. Again I ask the question which you continually deflect away from which is is the enriched uranium and ICBM production a lie? Simple question. Here are two options for an answer. A) Yes, it is. B) No, it isn't. So which one A) or B)?