21 hours ago, Social Media said:

the smarter path is clear — outlast, outmanoeuvre, and undermine.

I am not sure that playing the long game will work as it will end this November when the Republicans lose the house.

It is true that Americans want quick results, but the war is still going on so unless the administration throws up it hands and gives up, the vote is likely to go against them and the next administration will have to follow the will of the people and get out of the muck.

28 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

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

As i said, your reasoning contradicts your stated position.

6 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

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.

Constantly living in hope, aren't you? Giving the benefit of the doubt to Trump, but not the Iranians.

Who are the maniacs in this story? It's like you are completely blind to one side of the equation.

You are believer in God, are you not? Why do you think Trump removed the General who was the head of army chaplains?

Do you actually believe that Trump and Netanyahu are right and everyone else is wrong?

"Take the oil!" he cried. Still giving him the benefit of the doubt?

I know sometimes it's hard to admit you are wrong, even when all of the evidence is there, right in front of your face.

Do you believe him when he said that no one told him that they would close the Strait of Hormuz?

Wake up, @fredwiggy . You have a criminally stupid, vain and egotistical leader. He treats your country like a casino. The people be damned. Everything that he does is purely manipulative. He'll pick up the Bible if it gets him votes, but ask him to recite any part of it and you'll be met with deflections.

I know you want to believe in your country, but you really need learn to talk less and listen more.

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

Constantly living in hope, aren't you? Giving the benefit of the doubt to Trump, but not the Iranians.

Who are the maniacs in this story? It's like you are completely blind to one side of the equation.

Your are believer in God, are you not? Why do you think Trump removed the General who was the head of army chaplains?

Do you actually believe that Trump and Netanyahu are right and everyone else is wrong?

"Take the oil!" he cried. Still giving him the benefit of the doubt?

I know something it's hard to admit you are wrong, even when all of the evidence is there, right in front of your face.

Do you believe him when he said that no one told him that they would close the Strait of Hormuz?

Wake up, @fredwiggy . You have a criminally, stupid, vain and egotistical leader. He treats your country like a casino. The people be damned. Everything that he does is purely manipulative. He'll pick up the Bible if it gets him votes, but ask him to recite any part of it and you'll be met with deflections.

I know you want to believe in your country, but you really need learn to talk less and listen more.

Again this is why skimming never works, because if you read all of what I wrote, which seems to be a failure of yours, you would see what I've said about Trump since day one. Anyone thinking I'm on his side in all things isn't comprehending what I've written. This is also why you don't make up your mind hearing one side, or take one's opinion and run with it. This is why I wait for the end result.

Do you actually think i don't know all about Trump, long before he became president, and pointed out that he was (is) a narcissistical, misogynistic, racist miscreant that likely has done more than anyone knows as far as evil acts, both here and to my family and friends, some of whom voted for him and after his second win, who are starting to see what I've said all along is coming true?

Who is everyone else? Seems like the US and Israel have millions of supporters, many of them Iranians themselves. Of course there are those who oppose wars, Trump, Bibi, going after terrorists, using weapons to kill, and this war is wrong on all levels for them, but targeting terrorists such as Iran has wasn't a mistake, as it can leave the door open for possible change, which is mainly up to the Iranians themselves. If they don't follow through, that's on them.

Remember I get the same news everyone else gets, along with talking to actual soldiers and living in America for 62 years and not seeing things from the outside and going by other's opinions. Giving the benefit of the doubt to what's the right choices, not Trump, but to this plan, which likely would work, without the stopping of oil trade.

I know you hate Trump and only know a limited amount about the US besides some podcasts and news, which is biased many times, but you really need to learn to talk less and listen more.

14 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Again I ask the question which you continually deflect away from which is is the enriched uranium and ICBM production a lie?

Are they not allowed to do so?

Now the dumbsters are in a worse position than when they started the war. It's now more likely that Iran will acquire those weapons.

The real issue here is Trump's obvious narcissism. He cannot be seen to back down, but understands that he is royally fugged.

The longer that Strait is closed, the worse the situation. That's why he is becoming increasingly unhinged.

Russia and China can just watch Trump continue to shoot himself in the foot, locked in a dance of death with Netanyahu.

I don't see him bombing the settlers on the West Bank for targeting Christians, trying force them off their land or to simply surround them, making their lives unbearable. The same MO with the Muslims. Nor threatening to attack North Korea. It's just those 'evil terrorists'. No mention of the terrorism perpetrated by the USA and Israel under various guises.

5 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Again this is why skimming never works, because if you read all of what I wrote, which seems to be a failure of yours, you would see what I've said about Trump since day one. Anyone thinking I'm on his side in all things isn't comprehending what I've written. This is also why you don't make up your mind hearing one side, or take one's opinion and run with it. This is why I wait for the end result.

Do you actually think i don't know all about Trump, long before he became president, and pointed out that he was (is) a narcissistical, misogynistic, racist miscreant that likely has done more than anyone knows as far as evil acts, both here and to my family and friends, some of whom voted for him and after his second win, who are starting to see what I've said all along is coming true?

Who is everyone else? Seems like the US and Israel have millions of supporters, many of them Iranians themselves. Of course there are those who oppose wars, Trump, Bibi, going after terrorists, using weapons to kill, and this war is wrong on all levels for them, but targeting terrorists such as Iran has wasn't a mistake, as it can leave the door open for possible change, which is mainly up to the Iranians themselves. if they don't follow through, that's on them.

Remember I get the same news everyone else gets, along with talking to actual soldiers and living in America for 62 years and not seeing things from the outside and going by other's opinions.

I know you hate Trump and only know a limited amount about the US besides some podcasts and news, which is biased many times, but you really need to learn to talk less and listen more.

So again, everyone else is wrong and you are right @fredwiggy ? None of us are able to interpret your writings? We are all 'skimmers'?

We read and see clearly that you have a dual personality. On the one hand you are stating Trump is this terrible person, but on the other you are suggesting that he was right to attack Iran, bringing further suffering to it's people....and furthermore, trying to coerce others into grabbing Iran's resources.

We have you, after all this, coming up with the nonsense of 'what if they had a nuclear weapon?' It's like you are just wishing up excuses for the abominable behaviour of the totally deranged president of yours.

USA and Israel can label anyone a terrorist for their intents and purposes. Why are they not soldiers or freedom fighters?

You didn't answer the question that I posed to you? Why do you think Trump removed the General who was the head of army chaplains?

The simple point that I am making is that principled people aren't agreeing with him and so he's getting rid of them. Who is left, Pete Hegseth? Wake up @fredwiggy

Iran is not the head of the snake.

15 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

How many civilian targets have they hit? How many military targets have they hit? Bad intel accounted for the school disaster, but it wasn't intentional. The US is a lot smarter and capable than you'll ever imagine, seeing their success in taking out almost a whole military in a few days, and only with a few lost planes. You also don't realize how many Iranians are against the regime and are on the US side. This isn't a clean war, whatever that might be, but many are underestimating what the US can do.

Well that must make the parents feel much better. No doubt those 168 elementary schoolgirls are less dead because it was unintentional.

This was a war of choice. THAT is why those schoolgirls are dead.

Had Trump not tossed the JCPOA, Iran would not have MEU today. Had Trump allowed additional time for negotiations, which reportedly were going okay, he might have achieved his primary goal (putting his own name on what Obama did and Trump tossed) without killing people and spending $ tens of billions.

Now Trump says he will hit infrastructure, which is unlikely to win any Iranian "hearts and minds". It's barbaric as well as racist, as it thrusts guilt---plus pain and suffering---on all 93,000,000 Iranians simply because they are Iranian. It's also a war crime. It is the very definition of racism: guilt by ethnicity.

Sadly, the US has become a force for evil in this world. I say that as someone who served. To purposely try to send 93 million human beings "back to the Stone Age", as Trump has Tweeted, is 100% evil.

He says he'll "reign (sic) Hell" down on Iranians. If there is a Hell, Trump will burn there for all eternity. Satan is waiting for the psychopath. It's a shame to keep Satan waiting.

15 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

IThe US acts as the world's police force because the US is all countries in one place, and it's in their best interest to help anyone that needs it, as it helps trade and relations. Countries that don't get along with the US suffer in trade, and the same goes for the US. It's not the US's business to change the regime but to give the citizens the chance to do that themselves.

I think in the past that concept applied but it's antiquated at this point. Trump destroyed any possibility of America having any real influence around the world in the past 14 months. His incredibly nasty manner in which he has consistently insulted our allies, demeaned them, and treated them with a great deal of disrespect has set American influence back decades. Only a Democratic president with a great deal of skill could start to repair these fractures. Republicans are totally incapable at this point, they've lost the plot.

15 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? I'm also critical of any wars, as people who are innocent die. Iran's people have been trying to get a regime change for years and thousands have already died because of the protesting. When do you stop protesting and let them stay the same ways? Some leaders and followers have to be controlled for the good of all. Especially when they think like they did.

Incorrect. Unless he was being led by a bunch of neocons or a Deep State that wanted economic chaos, and was willing to lie to him about what was really going on. The Ayatollah was a against a nuclear weapons program. The substitute regime leader that the US and Israel was responsible for is far more hardline, and he supports a nuclear weapons program.

There's a lot of very poor quality information out there.

1 hour ago, tomazbodner said:

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

I agree and hopefully once the Democrats whomp the Republicans in November the criminal trials can begin. Billions of people around the world would like to see Tiny Pete tried, convicted and locked up for life, for the slaughter of innocent women and children and his conduct during a very unnecessary and illegal war.

5 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

So again, everyone else is wrong and you are right @fredwiggy ? None of us are able to interpret your writings? We are all 'skimmers'?

We read and see clearly that you have a dual personality. On the one hand you are stating Trump is this terrible person, but on the other you are suggesting that he was right to attack Iran, bringing further suffering to it's people....and furthermore, trying to coerce others into grabbing Iran's resources.

We have you, after all this, coming up with the nonsense of 'what if they had a nuclear weapon?' It's like you are just wishing up excuses for the abominable behaviour of the totally deranged president of yours.

USA and Israel can label anyone a terrorist for their intents and purposes. Why are they not soldiers or freedom fighters?

You didn't answer the question that I posed to you? Why do you think Trump removed the General who was the head of army chaplains?

The simple point that I am making is that principled people aren't agreeing with him and so he's getting rid of them. Who is left, Pete Hegseth? Wake up @fredwiggy

Iran is not the head of the snake.

5 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

Iran is not the head of the snake.

Who is everyone? Take away those who hate Trump, and Americans because of this, and those opposed to war and you have both sides.

It's quite obvious who has the multiple personalities here, with you changing usernames a dozen times and thinking people don't know it's you all along. My not liking Trump in general doesn't mean I'm against all his policies, or have a dual personality, which is not one of your usual childish statements but one that shows just how stupid you can be. There is no we here but just you that thinks that way, which you have shown all along here.

Try commenting without one of your usual false assumptions and petulant cutdowns because of jealousy. You've been called out here numerous times as a cheapskate, cheat, liar, troll and disturbed individual, and not just by me but many others, including the mods many times. Others who disagree with me about this topic or others don't act like you do but are respectful, with a few exceptions that do act just like you. Even they argue with you, which is amusing, seeing two or more trolls going at it.

Trump isn't bombing Iran but it's regime's military. That civilians are caught up in this is because Iran's regime has bases of operation next to civilians, and bad intel had them hit a school, along with thousands of rightful targets. It happens in all conflicts, especially ones where the enemy doesn't care about their people but persecutes them for speaking. Soldiers or freedom fighters aren't those who kill innocent people wanting a regime's change. Soldiers do what's asked of them, and it's not to kill civilians

Nonsense of having a nuclear weapon? I didn't say they had a nuclear weapon but enriched uranium, which is used for what, meaning what was Iran's intentions for it? The endgame is what everyone will see after all of this conflict ends, with opinions meaning nothing until then.

18 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

I think in the past that concept applied but it's antiquated at this point. Trump destroyed any possibility of America having any real influence around the world in the past 14 months. His incredibly nasty manner in which he has consistently insulted our allies, demeaned them, and treated them with a great deal of disrespect has set American influence back decades. Only a Democratic president with a great deal of skill could start to repair these fractures. Republicans are totally incapable at this point, they've lost the plot.

I've seen what he's been doing and I'm seeing it as sometimes more his ego than trying to help others, although i believe it's both. Being pro American first isn't a bad thing, not allowing other countries to take advantage of us, the tariffs being just one point, but it will alienate others against him (us), and in the long run might do more harm than good.

People have to look at what other countries relations have been as far as trade practices, and who is taking advantage of who. They see him do something they think is far fetched, and aren't up to speed enough to see what the end result is, as people want immediate positives.

Is he really out there in everything, but just being his usual weird self with some ideas that might help later and acting the way he does because it is him, and he knows no other way? Or does he have that backing no one really hears about, who give him a lot of ideas, some of which are thought about by intelligent people who can see the future endgame, and when Trump does something, automatically many people think it's wrong because it's him signing off on them?

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Trump isn't bombing Iran but it's regime's military. That civilians are caught up in this is because Iran's regime has bases of operation next to civilians, and bad intel had them hit a school, along with thousands of rightful targets. It happens in all conflicts, especially ones where the enemy doesn't care about their people but persecutes them for speaking. Soldiers or freedom fighters aren't those who kill innocent people wanting a regime's change. Soldiers do what's asked of them, and it's not to kill civilians

Nonsense of having a nuclear weapon? I didn't say they had a nuclear weapon but enriched uranium, which is used for what, meaning what was Iran's intentions for it? The endgame is what everyone will see after all of this conflict ends, with opinions meaning nothing until then.

I skipped your three paragraph mad rant and cut to the part where we are discussing the subject.

I noticed that you skipped my question again.

Why do you think Trump removed the General who was the head of army chaplains?

Do you not see the question or are you trying to avoid giving a thoughtful reply to anything?

Trump persecutes people for speaking, does he not? Who says Iran doesn't care about it's people? Brainwashed you?

Do you imagine that Trump cares even one iota about you and yours? Do you give even a jot about Iranians? I doubt that you know a single one.

Israel and the USA incited the people to revolt and then left them to their fate.

Only to scream about grabbing their oil. What kind of madness...

To me @fredwiggy you are one of those Americans that has hardly travelled outside your own country, but assumes you know it all because you think that the USA is one big melting pot...

I see you espouse such nonsense regularly. That you don't need to go to Italy because Italians are there in the USA 🤦‍♂️😊

You don't seem to know nor understand much, but that doesn't stop you from asserting that you know it best.

Now, to my question again.... Why do you think Trump removed the General who was the head of army chaplains?

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

1 minute ago, IsmeUno said:

I skipped you three paragraph mad rant and cut to the part where we are discussing the subject.

I noticed that you skipped my question again.

Why do you think Trump removed the General who was the head of army chaplains?

Do you not see the question or are you trying to avoid giving a thoughtful reply to anything?

Trump persecutes people for speaking, does he not? Who says Iran doesn't care about it's people? Brainwashed you?

Do you imagine that Trump cares even one iota about you and yours? Do you give a jot about Iranians? I don't that you've even met one.

Israel and the USA incited the people to revolt and then left them to their fate.

Only to scream about grabbing their oil. What kind of madness...

To me @fredwiggy you are one of those Americans that has hardly travelled outside your own country, but assumes you know it all because you think that the USA is one big melting pot...

I see you espouse such nonsense regularly. That you don't need to go to Italy because Italians are there in the USA 🤦‍♂️😊

You don't seem to know nor understand much, but that doesn't stop you from asserting that you know it best.

Now, to my question again.... Why do you think Trump removed the General who was the head of army chaplains?

Let me fix that for you. You usually skip a lot, skim over the truth's I say, calling your troll behavior out, pointing out why you do what you do, because you know it's all true.

Why Trump removed Green has been explained in detail, Policy Shift: Hegseth indicated a desire for chaplains to focus on theological, "pastoral" roles rather than relying on "therapeutic" self-care methods.

1. Wider Purge: Green’s removal occurred simultaneously with the firing of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and Gen. David Hodne, suggesting a strategic effort to replace top officials who did not align with the new, more aggressive leadership agenda.

2. Unusual Removal: The move was highlighted as a rare, and perhaps unprecedented, firing of the top Army chaplain.

3. Political Context: The removals were part of a rapid transformation of military leadership under the Trump administration, designed to enforce loyalty and implement specific cultural changes in the military. 

   And some will disagree, thinking he wasn't on the same page as them, so he was removed, which also can be true. Actually anyone's guess, as opinions are always made when things like this happens, especially one that seems radical.

4. If you kept up with what the regime has been doing these last decades, you might notice it's been killing people who speak, which has happened in many countries, including this one, for the same reasons, want of change. I didn't say Iran didn't care about it's people but the military minds there, placing military bases right next to schools and homes.

   What has my traveling have to do with actually living in the US for 62 years, and knowing how we think and what's gone on in 69 years? You do know there is research right? And do you think visiting a country and ordering pizza, staying a week or two gives you any idea of what goes on there? You are on the outside as many are, and can only go by what you see online and on newscasts, which can be biased. Taking anyone's word for things , especially if they're media and possibly biased, doesn't necessarily give you the facts, and likely doesn't.

   That you think I don't seem to know much is another of your assumptions, which have always been wrong. Funny thing, being wrong 100% of the time never stops you from continuing on with your behavior. Most teens eventually learn, but certain personality types never grow beyond that thinking. Now go and troll another, as I'm done with your nonsense today, seeing it's always the same old drivel. And don't ask me any more questions, as you'll only turn them around, thinking you're right, and never answer any of mine, obviously hiding who you really are, which is very obvious in part.

1 hour ago, IsmeUno said:

Are they not allowed to do so?

Sure. If you think it's a good idea for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to have ICBM's and nukes who call for global jihad and the complete destruction of the US and Israel. Do you think they should be allowed to have nukes and ICBM's to put them on?

48 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Again this is why skimming never works, because if you read all of what I wrote, which seems to be a failure of yours, you would see what I've said about Trump since day one. Anyone thinking I'm on his side in all things isn't comprehending what I've written. This is also why you don't make up your mind hearing one side, or take one's opinion and run with it. This is why I wait for the end result.

Do you actually think i don't know all about Trump, long before he became president, and pointed out that he was (is) a narcissistical, misogynistic, racist miscreant that likely has done more than anyone knows as far as evil acts, both here and to my family and friends, some of whom voted for him and after his second win, who are starting to see what I've said all along is coming true?

Who is everyone else? Seems like the US and Israel have millions of supporters, many of them Iranians themselves. Of course there are those who oppose wars, Trump, Bibi, going after terrorists, using weapons to kill, and this war is wrong on all levels for them, but targeting terrorists such as Iran has wasn't a mistake, as it can leave the door open for possible change, which is mainly up to the Iranians themselves. If they don't follow through, that's on them.

Remember I get the same news everyone else gets, along with talking to actual soldiers and living in America for 62 years and not seeing things from the outside and going by other's opinions. Giving the benefit of the doubt to what's the right choices, not Trump, but to this plan, which likely would work, without the st

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

I agree and hopefully once the Democrats whomp the Republicans in November the criminal trials can begin. Billions of people around the world would like to see Tiny Pete tried, convicted and locked up for life, for the slaughter of innocent women and children and his conduct during a very unnecessary and illegal war.

Missing someone in this picture,did Peter make bail for the pretty boy?

5 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Sure. If you think it's a good idea for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to have ICBM's and nukes who call for global jihad and the complete destruction of the US and Israel. Do you think they should be allowed to have nukes and ICBM's to put them on?

Just as good an idea as having a demented President and a drunken fundamentalist as a Secretary of War.

The way the USA and Israel are going, they are creating the conditions for their own destruction.

Who is on their side currently? Saudi Arabia? Remember 9/11 and the guy at the embassy? Gulf states? Perhaps take a look at their human rights records outside of the glitz and glamour.

7 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Sure. If you think it's a good idea for fundamentalist Islamic terrorists to have ICBM's and nukes who call for global jihad and the complete destruction of the US and Israel. Do you think they should be allowed to have nukes and ICBM's to put them on?

I'm certainly agreeing with you, but I also wanted to ask whether you think US should have them under its current leadership? Read Trump's posts on TruthSocial for a moment before answering.

31 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Why Trump removed Green has been explained in detail, Policy Shift: Hegseth indicated a desire for chaplains to focus on theological, "pastoral" roles rather than relying on "therapeutic" self-care methods.

My question is why do you think he did it? Rather than you usual cut and paste paraded as knowledge. Anyone can just go to Google and reprint something. You don't even understand what you have posted.

Do you think you have explained why they removed their top army General, together with the head of army chaplains in the middle of a war? Wake up @fredwiggy They want to send your sons and daughters off to die under false pretences. Principled people, together with those who respect the Constitution refuse to go along with it. Look at the calibre of the people involved. Pete Hegseth? Really? Todd Blanche? Jared Kushner?

Wake up @fredwiggy

21 minutes ago, IsmeUno said:

Just as good an idea as having a demented President and a drunken fundamentalist as a Secretary of War.

The way the USA and Israel are going, they are creating the conditions for their own destruction.

Who is on their side currently? Saudi Arabia? Remember 9/11 and the guy at the embassy? Gulf states? Perhaps take a look at their human rights records outside of the glitz and glamour.

Hegseth would be under qualified for a job as a Kmart manager, much less the Department of Defense. Miley Cyrus would beat him at a game of checkers. He is a dunce, an imbecile and a chest thumping fraudster. He is the very definition of both an empty suit and a fake patriot. And he is a CINO.

5 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

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 agree that following a plan is best. The favourite mantra of a project manager I worked with was, "You have to have a plan, otherwise you can't change it." The way I see it right now, the world is still waiting for the plan that you claim to be already looking at. For example, "regime change", then "no regime change" and then back again.

Talking about buttons and maniacs in charge, to me there are three buttons in play, so who is keeping Netanyahu's finger off his button now that he's been let off the leash?

3 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

I agree that following a plan is best. The favourite mantra of a project manager I worked with was, "You have to have a plan, otherwise you can't change it." The way I see it right now, the world is still waiting for the plan that you claim to be already looking at. For example, "regime change", then "no regime change" and then back again.

Talking about buttons and maniacs in charge, to me there are three buttons in play, so who is keeping Netanyahu's finger off his button now that he's been let off the leash?

I'm referring to most of the rhetoric listed in this topic, besides stopping China's access to oil, as you don't need any more enemies. Trump's last words were following his own downfall mentally, so it's up to Congress to use it's intelligence and not let Trump go out of control as far as what to target in Iran. I saw this during the Covid fiasco, where Trump said, "I know everything about Covid," just after it arrived. That's his narcissist ego talking, and I knew it would be occurring all over his tenure.

I've always thought having one man in charge was a mistake, but it's how things are done. Too much power in one's hands has things go sideways, and more power should be in Congress' hands, for these such situations.

Nothing can be done about Bibi, as he has his own agenda, which is a lot harsher than the US. Also why I said the endgame here is unknown, and all we can do is wait, as there are many factors going into this conflict from many countries, as this article mentions........................https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/12/israel-us-iran-war-trump-netanyahu.

5 hours ago, dinsdale said:

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)?

If you believe the word of the mad mullahs over the word of the US intelligence services, the obvious answer is A).

Iraq having WMD came from the then POTUS, who was allegedly citing the US intelligence services, and he sold the lie to the world. You and I, and probably the majority of people, thought that was a lie, as it was subsequently proven to be.

Iran having enough fissile material and a viable delivery system for it within two weeks came from Israel while the US intelligence community said there was no evidence of such. Despite their undeniably impressive skills in knowing what their enemy is doing, in this instance, and fully acknowledging Iran's claims, I don't believe Israeli intelligence. Netanyahu is pulling a GW Bush.

6 hours ago, bunnydrops said:

12 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

This is why debates like this are worth having - when people bring informed, substantive points rather than recycled media soundbites. There’s still a lot for all of us to learn. The real issue is that many won’t engage with the material, instead rushing to repeat their existing biases. The WMD comparison is a good example of that - something I’ll come back to later to highlight both its irrelevance and the intellectual flaws in applying it to the Iran situation.

Both of those sites (linked above) are solid resources for understanding the background to the current situation, particularly the Iranian Revolution and the breakdown in relations that followed. But they don’t fully capture Iran’s longer-term pattern of positioning itself as a regional power - often acting as a disruptive force through proxies and asymmetric tactics.

But, the information also underplays how the current system of governance developed into what is, by design, an ideological and highly centralised theocracy. That “extreme” nature isn’t accidental - it’s a direct outcome of the post-1979 restructuring of the state under clerical authority, which fundamentally shaped Iran’s domestic and foreign policy behaviour.

The difficulty in responding properly to all this is that it’s incredibly complex. We’re dealing with decades of history - from the 1953 coup, through the revolution, to events like the Iran-Contra Affair - all feeding into today’s dynamics.

When that gets compressed into short-form commentary, it often turns into oversimplified claims - like Iran “holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage”. The reality is more nuanced. Iran doesn’t need to fully close the Strait to exert control over it - it just needs to make transit risky, unpredictable, and conditional.

What we’re seeing is an attempt to control and monetise the Strait rather than simply shut it. Iran has already demonstrated it can restrict access, selectively allow passage, and even impose conditions or costs on shipping - effectively turning a global trade route into leverage, and this is one of the key facets in play with this conflict - the underlying issue perhaps.

Militarily, this is enabled by geography and asymmetric capability. The Strait is narrow, and Iranian forces sit right on top of it. They don’t need blue-water naval dominance - they can use mines, drones, fast attack craft, and coastal missile systems to create a constant threat environment. Even limited use of those tools can deter shipping, spike insurance costs, and disrupt global supply chains without a full blockade.

So while they may not “close the Straits of Hormuz completely” - Iran has and does turn it into a controlled choke point where they can apply pressure, extract concessions, and influence global markets.

The comparison to Iraq’s WMDs is also extremely weak and intellectually flawed: That situation was driven by flawed intelligence assessments - Bush and Blair were not lying - they were provided with broken documentation thats different, but also, in contrast, Iran’s nuclear programme has been monitored and assessed by multiple international bodies over time - the existence of the programme and its progression isn’t seriously disputed. The real debate is about intent, timelines, and how much capability has been degraded.

There’s also the often-cited fatwa from Ali Khamenei stating that nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam. That’s real, and Iran uses it as part of its argument. But it’s not as definitive as it’s often presented - it’s not a clearly codified, universally binding ruling, and within Iran’s system such positions can be reinterpreted if circumstances change. So it’s context, not a guarantee and it completly contradicts their U235 enrichment program. There has never been a credible civilian justification for enrichment beyond roughly 5%. That point is uncontested, and it’s central to why the issue continues to drive regional and global tensions.

Trump is wrong, Trump is a Lunatic, Trump is starting world war III, Trump needs to be taken out of power.

(I'll elaborate on this point later).

6 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Incorrect. Unless he was being led by a bunch of neocons or a Deep State that wanted economic chaos, and was willing to lie to him about what was really going on. The Ayatollah was a against a nuclear weapons program. The substitute regime leader that the US and Israel was responsible for is far more hardline, and he supports a nuclear weapons program.

There's a lot of very poor quality information out there.

Since this is being reduced to a simple binary argument, it comes down to one clear question:

What legitimate civilian reason is there for Iran to enrich uranium-235 beyond roughly 5%?

For standard civilian nuclear energy, enrichment at that level is sufficient. Yet it is widely reported by international monitoring bodies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, that Iran has enriched uranium to around 60% and accumulated hundreds of kilograms of it. That level of enrichment has no credible civilian justification.

Infrastructure can be damaged or destroyed - but the knowledge, expertise, and access to raw materials remain.

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Trump is wrong, Trump is a Lunatic, Trump is starting world war III, Trump needs to be taken out of power.

(I'll elaborate on this point later).

Correct. Except hopefully you're incorrect about World War III, but you're certainly correct about everything else.

I hate to use the term lunatic or completely insane, because it is truly an insult to the insane people of the world. More like dumb as a rock.

7 hours ago, Purdey said:

I am not sure that playing the long game will work as it will end this November when the Republicans lose the house.

It is true that Americans want quick results, but the war is still going on so unless the administration throws up it hands and gives up, the vote is likely to go against them and the next administration will have to follow the will of the people and get out of the muck.

Even if the Republican Party lose the House, it doesn’t automatically change foreign policy or force a withdrawal - especially once commitments are already in motion. U.S. strategy tends to be more continuous than people expect, regardless of who’s in power.

There’s also the bigger risk - pulling out and leaving a weakened regime behind doesn’t stabilise anything. It can create a vacuum for something even more extreme, which can backfire badly.

Once the bear’s been poked, walking away is very dangerous - we can argue if 'this bear' ever should have been poked - it perhaps the bear should have been decapitated decades ago.

1 minute ago, spidermike007 said:

Correct. Except hopefully you're incorrect about World War III, but you're certainly correct about everything else.

I hate to use the term lunatic or completely insane, because it is truly an insult to the insane people of the world. More like dumb as a rock.

Thank you - this is exactly what I wanted to come back to.

Too often, anti-Trump voices default to rhetoric instead of engaging with the nuance and complexity of what’s actually being discussed. Simplified soundbites are easy - proper, contextual analysis isn’t.

What it ends up showing is a focus on the man rather than the events. And that’s a shame, because you’ve shown in plenty of other threads over the years that you’re more than capable of a more thoughtful, balanced take. But the strength of your dislike for Trump pushes your position into the kind of extreme bias, where the broader realities - the causes, the risks, the necessity, the alternatives, even the consequences of not acting - don’t really get a fair look.

At that point, discussions stop being about policy or outcomes. Even if there were a well-executed piece of statesmanship, it feels like you wouldn’t allow yourself to acknowledge it - the instinct would still be to diminish the man rather than assess the action.

Apologies for setting you up - but your argument has been so consistently wrapped in bias and buried in rhetoric that it was always going to lead you straight into it. You brushed past the deeper analysis, probably even ignored it, and went straight back to the anti-Trump angle proving yourself emotionally incapable of holding nuanced discussion on this subject.

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

If you believe the word of the mad mullahs over the word of the US intelligence services, the obvious answer is A).

Iraq having WMD came from the then POTUS, who was allegedly citing the US intelligence services, and he sold the lie to the world. You and I, and probably the majority of people, thought that was a lie, as it was subsequently proven to be.

Iran having enough fissile material and a viable delivery system for it within two weeks came from Israel while the US intelligence community said there was no evidence of such. Despite their undeniably impressive skills in knowing what their enemy is doing, in this instance, and fully acknowledging Iran's claims, I don't believe Israeli intelligence. Netanyahu is pulling a GW Bush.

The WMD issue in Iraq isn’t a useful comparison to Iran - its not even an intelligent debate point in this context.

Saddam Hussein had already used chemical weapons - most notably against Kurdish populations in the northeast during the late 1980s, including the Halabja attack. So there was a clear precedent for both possession and use. The intelligence failure wasn’t invented out of nothing - it was the incorrect assessment that those stockpiles still existed at the time of the invasion.

That distinction matters. The Iraq case was built on flawed intelligence about current capability, not the absence of any historical basis. It also doesn’t justify how events unfolded afterwards - particularly the failure to stabilise the country once the regime was removed, which created a vacuum and long-term consequences.

Iran is a different scenario. Its nuclear programme has been monitored over time by international bodies such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, and enrichment levels of up to around 60% have been documented. That’s not disputed intelligence in the same way - the debate is about intent and future capability, not whether the programme exists.