Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
11 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

It will be a big beautiful postwar development. Even better than Gaza. Iranians will all have beautiful jobs at the hotels and restaurants and amusement parks. They'll all wear replicas of Hammurabi's coat. 

Pimp Kramer GIFs | Tenor

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Yes it’s full of sound and fury, but what if it’s signifying nothing?  Meaning maybe they moved the material to safety prior to, and have lab setups elsewhere in which to continue their work, and still have or can obtain people capable of moving the program forward. 
 

the world already knows we can bomb the shit out of any dot on the world atlas. 

Oh, 100% agree.  I am very afraid that we've managed to set their nuclear program back zero days.  Maybe a year or two at best.

The GOP are high-fiving about how they just made the world safer.  But maybe it's the opposite.  Time will tell.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
16 hours ago, immamac said:

That would be pretty bad. 

Are we talking about acceptable deaths - like strikes on Athens, Georgia - or on other places that would make people sad?

  • Haha 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Iran says it has begun an operation against US base in Qatar, per CNN.

Did they thank us for our attention to this matter?  Rude!

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Except it almost always is?

Sure but through layers upon layers of laundering and conduits to avoid repercussions under international laws concerning direct acts of war committed by one sovereign internationally recognized nation against another.

Edited by 'stache
Posted
1 minute ago, 'stache said:

Sure but through layers upon layers of laundering and conduits to avoid repercussions under international law of direct acts of war by a sovereign internationally recognized nation against another.

So what repercussions can the USA expect under international law for bombing a sovereign internationally recognized state against whom we are not in a declared war?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

 

Holy fuck, he's a goddamn child. This is the leader of the free (for now) world.

 

15 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Are we talking about acceptable deaths - like strikes on Athens, Georgia - or on other places that would make people sad?

May I interest you in collie stashun?

Edited by C-Man
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So what repercussions can the USA expect under international law for bombing a sovereign internationally recognized state against whom we are not in a declared war?

None, the bullshit behind that is beside the point. The claim was that Iran signaled to the US that if we strike they would activate terrorists in the US. Less than zero chance that happened.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

The Russian asset running the country is a dishonest sociopath without a scintilla of concern about anyone but himself. Every breath he takes is one too many.

I am really trying to separate that loathsome person from my opinion of this decision to use this specialized ordnance on unique targets. I'm accustomed to things that benefit my country being done for atrocious reasons.

What are the repercussions? Is it true that the Arab countries will not react much to this attack on the Persian one? What is their stance at this moment? I really don't know. Forty years ago, I would have expected them all to be in states of fury.

Is Iran the only state or entity that will move against us? What are their capabilities? They must be underground other than the threat of their submarines to the USN.

If this truly disrupts Iran's verified attempt to build a bomb (all speculation at this point, I know), why would this be a bad policy?

Possible answers: We're unilaterally attacking another country; Our actions may not have even been necessary; We've just had our toe pulled into Israeli plans to further make the MidEast its defacto empire.

I'm keeping my mind open. My nose tells me there are foul odors about.

Edited by RomaVicta
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Holy fuck, he's a goddamn child. This is the leader of the free (for now) world.

 

May I interest you in collie stashun?

Imagine the calamitous volley of Aggie voices if the Texags office was targeted. 

Posted

I'm telling you, they have got to get Annie Jacobsen on Fox News immediately before that toddler decides to lob a nuke at Iran. It's the only way to get it through his moronic brain that nukes will kill all of us.

 

81RWBdyovbL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I'm telling you, they have got to get Annie Jacobsen on Fox News immediately before that toddler decides to lob a nuke at Iran. It's the only way to get it through his moronic brain that nukes will kill all of us.

 

81RWBdyovbL._UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg

 

Counterpoint:  It was written by a female, therefore DEI.

 

 

Edited by Francisco 2.0
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

If this truly disrupts Iran's verified attempt to build a bomb (all speculation at this point, I know), why would this be a bad policy?

Possible answers: We're unilaterally attacking another country; Our actions may not have even been necessary; We've just had our toe pulled into Israeli plans to further make the MidEast its defacto empire.

We're unilaterally helping an ally dismantle the defenses of a truly vile perpetrator of violence that has sworn to pursue the destruction of at least two Western democracies.  A nation that is driven by religious fanaticism that everyone should abhor.  As in twice as much as we abhor the present trend toward authoritarianism driven by religious fanaticism in our country. 

The unilateral way that the dotard did this should be condemned, but beyond that - at best the argument is that there is a good chance it will backfire in some way that no one has anticipated.  But the gamble looks decent to me for now.

I would have given the Israelis the bunker busters, loaned them the B2 and let them go at it "alone".

  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
Posted

If that is it from Iran, man do they not want this to escalate.  That would be a good thing, if President Tiny Hands can understand things at all and let it go.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Yeah, how is it propaganda?  As in "biased or misleading"?

As in simplistic, biased, and naive.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

I'm whispering that this is a dumb fucking statement.

 

18 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

We're unilaterally helping an ally dismantle the defenses of a truly vile perpetrator of violence that has sworn to pursue the destruction of at least two Western democracies.  A nation that is driven by religious fanaticism that everyone should abhor.  As in twice as much as we abhor the present trend toward authoritarianism driven by religious fanaticism in our country. 

The unilateral way that the dotard did this should be condemned, but beyond that - at best the argument is that there is a good chance it will backfire in some way that no one has anticipated.  But the gamble looks decent to me for now.

I would have given the Israelis the bunker busters, loaned them the B2 and let them go at it "alone".

Cracking Up Lol GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 5
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

As in simplistic, biased, and naive.

1) We're unilaterally helping 2)an ally 3) dismantle the defenses of a 4) truly vile perpetrator of violence 5) that has sworn to pursue the destruction of at least two Western democracies.

1) Apologies if I'm leaving El Salvador out.

2) Israel is an ally

3) Israel has effectively destroyed Iran's defenses.

4) Iran supports Hamas, Hezbollah and its weapons kill Ukrainians and Americans.

5) Iran clearly supports the destruction if Israel.  Should have left it at that and added "and clearly promotes killing civilians and soldiers of western democracies through terrorism and direct aid."

 

Edited by The Original Greaser Bob
Posted
32 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Imagine the calamitous volley of Aggie voices if the Texags office was targeted. 

 aggy Qatar is close enough to be a target 

Posted
17 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

Yeah, how is it propaganda?  As in "biased or misleading"?

Do you really need a definition for propaganda?  Do you acknowledge the continuous stream of propaganda regarding Iran for the last 50 years?

Yep, sure, reasons.  Iran's government sucks.  No question or argument on that. But, do you not acknowledge the propaganda? 

  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Tuco said:

Do you really need a definition for propaganda?  Do you acknowledge the continuous stream of propaganda regarding Iran for the last 50 years?

Yep, sure, reasons.  Iran's government sucks.  No question or argument on that. But, do you not acknowledge the propaganda? 

No, but some folks here do.  The definition of propaganda is "misleading or biased".  You're also free to tell me what part of my post was misleading or biased.  

I acknowledge the stream of propaganda from every government for all time.

 
 
 
prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
noun
 
  1. 1.
    information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
Posted
4 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

I don't know if it will be accepted as such, but the attack on Qatar was a clear attempt by Iran to de-escalate.  

I can believe it, but I am curious to your reasoning.  Care to expand? 

Posted
1 hour ago, Ted Lange said:

 

image.thumb.png.f3fa989bc4878d04dbc85b043f3a7485.png

 

Why would Tucker Carlson be presenting the other side of the debate? I thought he chugged red pills for breakfast. 

Posted

i'm coming back to my bribe plan for those that didn't see it

there are 340000 in the iranian military

$10k (hard dollars not crypto) in swiss trust accounts for each

that's $3.4 billion to buy off the iranian military

give the account keys to the rahzvedi shadow admin in london

un security council vote to release the money 1 year after a new government installed following democratic elections

+++

to which i will add

give the supreme leader, and anyone that wants to go with him, free passage and 20 years of paid exile UNDER GUARD in switzerland

upon departure, the interim iranian (rahzvedi) government recognizes israel's right to exist and disavows all terrorist funding

bibi must resign and call new elections 30 days after the supreme leader regime arrives in exile

israel pays for 50% of the $3.4B over 20 years - they can afford that

the g7 pick up 49% and finance the israeli 50%

vlad has to pay 1% cash up front day 1 just because he's a bitch

Posted

He’s throwing a bitch fit over the difference between destroyed and pretty well destroyed?

Also, Allison Cooper. Do you get it? It’s because Anderson Cooper is gay. Funny stuff, from the president also making n-word jokes earlier.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Rage+1 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Hagbard Celine said:

i'm coming back to my bribe plan for those that didn't see it

there are 340000 in the iranian military

$10k (hard dollars not crypto) in swiss trust accounts for each

that's $3.4 billion to buy off the iranian military

give the account keys to the rahzvedi shadow admin in london

un security council vote to release the money 1 year after a new government installed following democratic elections

+++

to which i will add

give the supreme leader, and anyone that wants to go with him, free passage and 20 years of paid exile UNDER GUARD in switzerland

upon departure, the interim iranian (rahzvedi) government recognizes israel's right to exist and disavows all terrorist funding

bibi must resign and call new elections 30 days after the supreme leader regime arrives in exile

israel pays for 50% of the $3.4B over 20 years - they can afford that

the g7 pick up 49% and finance the israeli 50%

vlad has to pay 1% cash up front day 1 just because he's a bitch

There's a reason Mossad has been very effective operating within Iran.  They've basically been paying people off.  Iran govt is corrupt as hell.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
33 minutes ago, The Original Greaser Bob said:

1) We're unilaterally helping 2)an ally 3) dismantle the defenses of a 4) truly vile perpetrator of violence 5) that has sworn to pursue the destruction of at least two Western democracies.

1) Apologies if I'm leaving El Salvador out.

2) Israel is an ally

3) Israel has effectively destroyed Iran's defenses.

4) Iran supports Hamas, Hezbollah and its weapons kill Ukrainians and Americans.

5) Iran clearly supports the destruction if Israel.  Should have left it at that and added "and clearly promotes killing civilians and soldiers of western democracies through terrorism and direct aid."

 

IxlnNN.gif

Posted
1 minute ago, westexhorn said:

There's a reason Mossad has been very effective operating within Iran.  They've basically been paying people off.  Iran govt is corrupt as hell.

cash is king

Posted
2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He’s throwing a bitch fit over the difference between destroyed and pretty well destroyed?

Also, Allison Cooper. Do you get it? It’s because Anderson Cooper is gay. Funny stuff, from the president also making n-word jokes earlier.

He’s mad bc they are reporting facts like: we can’t confirm how effective the bombs were, and we may not have touched a significant amount of enriched uranium at all. But he’s going after all news for not repeating propaganda 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Also, Allison Cooper. Do you get it? It’s because Anderson Cooper is gay. Funny stuff, from the president also making n-word jokes earlier.

He could’ve called him Anderson Pooper.

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

image.thumb.png.f3fa989bc4878d04dbc85b043f3a7485.png

 

Why would Tucker Carlson be presenting the other side of the debate? I thought he chugged red pills for breakfast. 

Bc he’s a shill for Putin, who doesn’t want Iran in a war and would rather all its missiles and drones sent to Russia, so Russia can keep attacking Ukraine.

  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...