25 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

You fail to distinguish between a battle and a war which ends.

the war was over three months ago. war results in control, either by taking territory on the ground, or by total devastation, or by our modern means.

nothing moves in iran without our knowledge.

we can kill or destroy anything we want there, any time, and they cant stop us

their civilization exists at our pleasure.

since they dont want to play nice after their beating. we need to choke them out until they behave.

their only real weapons are their trump insane fifth columns in the west.

3 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

the war was over three months ago. war results in control, either by taking territory on the ground, or by total devastation, or by our modern means.

nothing moves in iran without our knowledge.

we can kill or destroy anything we want there, any time, and they cant stop us

their civilization exists at our pleasure.

since they dont want to play nice after their beating. we need to choke them out until they behave.

Advertisement

their only real weapons are their trump insane fifth columns in the west.

I see so the drone factories playing havoc in the UAE

and Ukraine must be àll bombed out

I think not

22 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

the war was over three months ago. war results in control, either by taking territory on the ground, or by total devastation, or by our modern means.

nothing moves in iran without our knowledge.

we can kill or destroy anything we want there, any time, and they cant stop us

their civilization exists at our pleasure.

since they dont want to play nice after their beating. we need to choke them out until they behave.

their only real weapons are their trump insane fifth columns in the west.

Looks like you're trying to get a job as the white house press secretary. Keep up all the nonsense lies and maybe you have a chance.

3 minutes ago, Jim Blue said:

I see so the drone factories playing havoc in the UAE

and Ukraine must be àll bombed out

I think not

got damage assessments do you?

37 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Looks like you're trying to get a job as the white house press secretary. Keep up all the nonsense lies and maybe you have a chance.

tell me which assertion is a lie. angry because you are losing?

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

tell me which assertion is a lie. angry because you are losing?

No one biting? Must be frustrating for you, stuck in NC.

Why so angry? Things not going as you hoped?

The author tries to blame "Mad Mullahs" because he doesn't want to admit he's wrong for supporting a snake.

He even has an avatar of a warning "don't step on snakes"

So, Trump and MAGA are snakes in the grass.

And we shouldn't step on them.

Profound! 😄

And when their Big Snake screws things up, we're supposed to blame others for being "insane".

Sad, ain't it?

Edited September 5Sep 5 by SiSePuede419
You mad bro

41 minutes ago, G-String said:

No one biting? Must be frustrating for you, stuck in NC.

Why so angry? Things not going as you hoped?

Conversing with him is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man,

13 hours ago, Yagoda said:

why not launch at israel.

so you say that the mullahs are counting on their useful idiots and democrat national socialist allies to act against us interests. got it.

tell us how much damgae we have suffered compared to them.

i wish trump would have listened to bibi. iran would be a smoking hole and i could go shopping in tabriz next month.

they can reach israel, but they are scared.

interesting that muslim terrorists have been quiet too.

Maybe they will launch at Israel. Maybe they won't. Time will tell. They did indeed launch at US warships yesterday and got three of their oil tankers blown up for doing it.

As for damage to them. No doubt a lot. As Trump is always telling us, they have no air force or navy, lost quite a few bridges and radar stations. Also a lot of young schoolgirls by all accounts.

In return the US has lost most of its bases in the Middle East, several very expensive aircraft, some US lives, a whole lot of munitions, money, its emergency oil reserves, and it's air of invincibility. Also caused the creation of a Mecca military alliance, and likely lost a lot of influence in the region.

No matter how you weigh it up, it's a whole lot of waste on both sides, which likely could have been negotiated to a successful outcome for both sides.

It made me laugh to see JD Vance on the tv the other day talking about how the Iranians word couldn't be trusted in earlier negotiations. Didn't the US and their Israeli friends start this whole thing in the middle of negotiations?

3 hours ago, gargamon said:

Conversing with him is like having a battle of wits with an unarmed man,

Ironically, he does admit to having some problems with his arms. Have you seen how poor his writing? No capital letters, no punctuation. That's a bitterly frustrated person, trying to stir up trouble.

11 hours ago, Yagoda said:

tell us what a small war is then

55555555. tell us how we lost lol

I could, but even though you know it's true your reaction would be something very close to:

"lol, got it. [insert some lame jibber-jabber], lol."

Edited September 6Sep 6 by BLMFem

Those pathetic missiles are forcing the US to vacate the gulf bases so maybe not so pathetic or are the Americans pathetic.

1 hour ago, trainee wombat said:

Those pathetic missiles are forcing the US to vacate the gulf bases so maybe not so pathetic or are the Americans pathetic.

Why does this spring to mind?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FPELc1wEvk

14 hours ago, G-String said:

No one biting? Must be frustrating for you, stuck in NC.

Why so angry? Things not going as you hoped?

welcome back. you cant answer the question either i see

11 hours ago, phetphet said:

In return the US has lost most of its bases in the Middle East,

which ones

12 hours ago, phetphet said:

As Trump is always telling us, they have no air force or navy, lost quite a few bridges and radar station

do you deny that

12 hours ago, phetphet said:

n return the US has lost most of its bases in the Middle East, several very expensive aircraft, some US lives, a whole lot of munitions, money, its emergency oil reserves, and it's air of invincibility

emergency oil reserves? you mean the one biden drained for political purposes?

12 hours ago, phetphet said:

No matter how you weigh it up, it's a whole lot of waste on both sides, which likely could have been negotiated to a successful outcome for both sides

so you trust the iranians. got it.

17 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

welcome back. you cant answer the question either i see

Just like you always don't answer anyone's question(s) unless it is with a totally unconnected question of your's

6 hours ago, BLMFem said:

I could, but even though you know it's true your reaction would be something very close to:

"lol, got it. [insert some lame jibber-jabber], lol."

got it. you are again just spewing your rhetoric without facts to support same. you lack any credibility, like the organization you name yourself after.

17 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Just like you always don't answer anyone's question(s) unless it is with a totally unconnected question of your's

got it lol. blame the ignorance of you and your ilk on me lol

33 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

emergency oil reserves? you mean the one biden drained for political purposes?

Got it, you have nothing, but but Biden

Around January 21, 2025, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) held approximately 394 million to 395 million barrels of crude oil. [1, 2]

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) holds 286.60 million barrels of crude oil as of the latest data from late August 2026. [1]

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/depleted-us-oil-stash-loses-potency-iran-war-grinds-2026-08-31/

the reserve is at its lowest level since 1982, holding just 289.7 million barrels.

US law bars routine drawdowns below 252.4 million barrels

The level will drop to about 243 million if Trump releases a final batch of 39 million barrels from a March agreement with the International Energy Agency. More than 30 countries agreed then to release a record 400 million barrels, with the U.S. contributing 172 million, in an effort to calm markets after the U.S. and Israel launched the war on Iran on February 28.

Edited September 6Sep 6 by CallumWK

14 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Got it, you have nothing, but but Biden

Around January 21, 2025, the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) held approximately 394 million to 395 million barrels of crude oil. [1, 2]

The U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) holds 286.60 million barrels of crude oil as of the latest data from late August 2026. [1]

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/depleted-us-oil-stash-loses-potency-iran-war-grinds-2026-08-31/

the reserve is at its lowest level since 1982, holding just 289.7 million barrels.

Got it. Biden drains half of it out for political purposes but Trump is to blame for making it the lowest.

Then again, our strategic petroleum reserve doesn't include Venezuela does it LOL

Just now, Yagoda said:

Got it. Biden drains half of it out for political purposes but Trump is to blame for making it the lowest.

Then again, our strategic petroleum reserve doesn't include Venezuela does it LOL

As always, you don't get it, and will never get it because you have the IQ from a MAGA

Correct, the strategic oil reserves have nothing to do with Venezuela, where Trump is still trying to find companies who want to extract it.

Try Google

Current Outlook and Limitations

• Infrastructure Challenges: Energy experts note that Venezuela's dilapidated oil infrastructure requires billions of dollars in investments and years of development before production can scale up significantly. [1, 2]

• Impact on Reserves: While the deal ties future Venezuelan heavy crude production to U.S. strategic stockpiles on paper, analysts emphasize it will not provide an immediate fix or short-term relief to current U.S. reserve levels.

Edited September 6Sep 6 by CallumWK

37 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

As always, you don't get it, and will never get it because you have the IQ from a MAGA

Correct, the strategic oil reserves have nothing to do with Venezuela, where Trump is still trying to find companies who want to extract it.

Try Google

Current Outlook and Limitations

• Infrastructure Challenges: Energy experts note that Venezuela's dilapidated oil infrastructure requires billions of dollars in investments and years of development before production can scale up significantly. [1, 2]

• Impact on Reserves: While the deal ties future Venezuelan heavy crude production to U.S. strategic stockpiles on paper, analysts emphasize it will not provide an immediate fix or short-term relief to current U.S. reserve levels.

try reading more than google lol

remember boys and girls, ai doesnt make an idiot smart. bet dude here never checked sources....

4 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

try reading more than google lol

remember boys and girls, ai doesnt make an idiot smart. bet dude here never checked sources....

Good enough for someone with the IQ of a MAGA? Now what will be your next "medicine" induced reply?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmontgomery/2026/09/04/claims-and-facts-about-venezuela-oil-dealit-wont-save-the-spr/

Claims And Facts About Venezuela Oil Deal—It Won’t Save The SPR

Washington's new oil deal with Venezuela presents an irony: the US seeks future Venezuelan production while its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is at a 45-year low. The agreement grants North American Blue Energy Partners 100-year concessions for 17 fields, with the US government taking a stake and purchase rights. However, boosting Venezuela's output significantly will require $100 billion in investment and take 3-5 years, potentially over a decade to reach past levels. Despite claims, this deal won't immediately lower gas prices, double US reserves, or shift global energy geopolitics. Crucially, Venezuela's heavy, sulfur-rich crude is unsuitable for direct injection into the aging SPR, which itself needs urgent repair and refilling after recent drawdowns exposed infrastructure deficiencies. The deal underscores the SPR's critical state but offers no quick solution for its replenishment or immediate energy security.

4 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Good enough for someone with the IQ of a MAGA? Now what will be your next "medicine" induced reply?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmontgomery/2026/09/04/claims-and-facts-about-venezuela-oil-dealit-wont-save-the-spr/

Claims And Facts About Venezuela Oil Deal—It Won’t Save The SPR

Washington's new oil deal with Venezuela presents an irony: the US seeks future Venezuelan production while its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is at a 45-year low. The agreement grants North American Blue Energy Partners 100-year concessions for 17 fields, with the US government taking a stake and purchase rights. However, boosting Venezuela's output significantly will require $100 billion in investment and take 3-5 years, potentially over a decade to reach past levels. Despite claims, this deal won't immediately lower gas prices, double US reserves, or shift global energy geopolitics. Crucially, Venezuela's heavy, sulfur-rich crude is unsuitable for direct injection into the aging SPR, which itself needs urgent repair and refilling after recent drawdowns exposed infrastructure deficiencies. The deal underscores the SPR's critical state but offers no quick solution for its replenishment or immediate energy security.

wow. you found a source that fits your position. good for you. did you check his sources. probably not.

12 hours ago, G-String said:

Ironically, he does admit to having some problems with his arms. Have you seen how poor his writing? No capital letters, no punctuation. That's a bitterly frustrated person, trying to stir up trouble.

You must be referring to Tug. Perfect description.

9 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

wow. you found a source that fits your position. good for you. did you check his sources. probably not.

Why don't you find us one that proves the opposite?

21 hours ago, Yagoda said:

got damage assessments do you?

SO you think the reports were made up. Your refutation sets an absurdly high evidential bar. You don't need a declassified battle-assessment report to establish that an attack occurred. In recent days there have been multiple independent reports that Iran attacked US allies in the Gulf with drones: AP reported Iranian drones being fired at Kuwait and Bahrain, while Reuters reported Iranian missile and drone attacks on US installations in Jordan, Bahrain and Iraq.

More importantly, “show me the battle assessment report” doesn't actually refute the original claim. A battle-damage assessment is an internal military product designed to establish things such as what was hit, how much damage resulted, and whether the target was neutralised. It is not normally the document on which the public record of an attack depends. If the claim was merely “Iranian drones recently attacked US allies”, contemporary reporting from multiple independent sources, statements from the governments concerned, and evidence of interceptions or impacts are perfectly legitimate evidence. Indeed, AP specifically reports drones being fired at Kuwait and Bahrain, with the attacks occurring after US strikes on Iran.

So the appropriate challenge is: “What exactly are you disputing?” If you're claiming no Iranian drones were launched, that's a factual claim which needs evidence. If you're claiming no Iranian drone actually hit its intended target, that's a different and much narrower claim. And if you're demanding a classified military assessment before accepting that an attack happened, you're essentially saying “I will only accept evidence that the public is not normally allowed to see.”

1 hour ago, Roadsternut said:

SO you think the reports were made up

nope, never said that lol

11 hours ago, Yagoda said:

got it. you are again just spewing your rhetoric without facts to support same. you lack any credibility, like the organization you name yourself after.

You started this entire thread on that basis -

'so every time the mad mullahs decide to show they are tough, they launch one of their pathetic missles at kuwait, or jordan or the uae.

wonder why they dont launch at us, or even better, israel.

bet they are scared.'

On 9/6/2026 at 5:09 AM, Yagoda said:

tell me which assertion is a lie. angry because you are losing?

Quite Freudian the way you use 'assertion' to describe your statements.

ASSERTION | English meaning - Cambridge Dictionary

Above is the reference to help you.

Note it defines an assertion as something that YOU strongly believe is true. It does not mean your assertions are true