Do you support Iran or the US in the current conflict?

[Couchpotato]

That's what the Iran deal was. A Barry Hussein EO, nothing more.

And you are correct, it did nothing to change what Iran was doing.

Next?

They were at 3-4% enrichment under the JCPOA you dolt.

Bottom line the only reason you support this debacle is because of who started it.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Not sure what this TDS induced post has to do with the disaster that BArry's EO was.

Because............You're STUPID, Q-NUT.

 

[marvin martian]

I support Americans NOT Iran and NOT the lawless US government. Trump’s illegal war has blown up in his face.

“If Iran doesnt open the strait, I swear to God I will extend the deadline 2 more weeks!” - PussyTrump

We already know you're a Mullah-muncher, fruitcake. Now f*ck off.

 

[marvin martian]

So far, the lefties on the board are at 100% support for the Islamic Theocracy of Iran, where female genital mutilation, child marriage, and gay executions are the law of the land.

Just as I expected.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Lay out the case where the US is better off having launched this war against Iran.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Collapsing into a Caliphate

The way the Gulf Arabs refused to fight back after the Iranians bombed them shows that it would have been a cakewalk for Iran to seize Mecca and convert all Moslems to its denomination. With Fifth Column immigrants all over the decadent, weak-willed West, we'd be jello for the Jihad.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

the US is always using the CIA to start wars with other countries so its a no brainer. the USA is the biggest terrorist government on the planet.

Let Us Investigate Zionist Activity Clone

"It's THE JEWS!!!, isn't it? Knew it!
We have inside knowledge, straight from the top but only given to special people. We're far above the lowlife who don't know what's really going on."

 

[JanetTheGreat]

I've said it before, but when I say I am against the Iran War - I am saying that I am against the US's involvement. In no way do I support Iran's horrid regime. Iran's horrid regime must fall, but it must not be to the benefit of the US government, it must be to the benefit of the people themselves. It isn't out of the kindness of American hearts that the US is going to war with Iran. It's all to serve the benefit of the stock holders, the elites, and the military industrial complex. Just like all the other disastrous foreign interventions - Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, I see zero reason at this point to believe what the US is doing now will end up any different then before.

 

[georgephillip]

I've said it before, but when I say I am against the Iran War - I am saying that I am against the US's involvement. In no way do I support Iran's horrid regime. Iran's horrid regime must fall, but it must not be to the benefit of the US government, it must be to the benefit of the people themselves. It isn't out of the kindness of American hearts that the US is going to war with Iran. It's all to serve the benefit of the stock holders, the elites, and the military industrial complex. Just like all the other disastrous foreign interventions - Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, I see zero reason at this point to believe what the US is doing now will end up any different then before.

If one side has to win in this conflict, which would you prefer?

 

[Couchpotato]

Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Collapsing into a Caliphate

The way the Gulf Arabs refused to fight back after the Iranians bombed them shows that it would have been a cakewalk for Iran to seize Mecca and convert all Moslems to its denomination. With Fifth Column immigrants all over the decadent, weak-willed West, we'd be jello for the Jihad.

So the justification for attacking Iran is that other countries declined to also attack them? Which illustrates their inability to defend themselves against Iran if Iran chose to invade them. Wouldn’t we come to the aid of SA were it invaded by Iran?

Talk about straw grasping.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So the justification for attacking Iran is that other countries declined to also attack them? Which illustrates their inability to defend themselves against Iran if Iran chose to invade them. Wouldn’t we come to the aid of SA were it invaded by Iran?

Talk about straw grasping.

Appease Porridge Hot, Appease Porridge Cold, Appease Porridge in the Pot 47 Years Old

Israel is constantly being attacked by Iran's proxies, Hezbollah, but we've never sent troops there. Most Americans, including the C"I"A, have never understood the Shiite Jihad and its attempt to establish a base for world-wide terrorism in Mecca. Iran would have overrun the Gulf Arabs before we could have sent troops to stop it.

Jihad-deniers would have preached that it was just sectarian violence and no concern to the rest of world.

 

[Couchpotato]

Appease Porridge Hot, Appease Porridge Cold, Appease Porridge in the Pot 47 Years Old

Israel is constantly being attacked by Iran's proxies, Hezbollah, but we've never sent troops there. Most Americans, including the C"I"A, have never understood the Shiite Jihad and its attempt to establish a base for world-wide terrorism in Mecca. Iran would have overrun the Gulf Arabs before we could have sent troops to stop it.

Jihad-deniers would have preached that it was just sectarian violence and no concern to the rest of world.

So because Iran's proxies have attacked Israel the US has to attack Iran? You need to get your story straight and get back to us. FYI that's not the justification the admin is telling the American people.

BTW who's killed more people? Iran's proxies or Israel?

 

[Correll]

Because Trump is waging an illegal war of aggression and Iran is defending itself against an existential threat.

The act of seizing a sea lane chockpoint is not an operation against the American military.

It is a violation of long standing internatinal law.

IF the world has changed to where the global community is ok with such tactics,

then what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.


Either it is wrong of IRan to do this, or we are free to do it too.


You cannot have it both ways.

Not logically.

 

[Correll]

We are there because trump chose to insert US ( against majority wishes ) there. We have no rights there. All we should have done is continuing bathlingIran indirectly as we always have. We are going to regret this

I get your position on that, and it's.. fine, time will tell if you are correct or not.

I find the weird response of the world to Iran's closing of hte straits to be more interesting.


The US taking action against Iran is one thing. Iran taking action BACK, is certainly to be expected.

BUT, the closing of the straits is not a miliary operation against the US military.

It is a violation of international law, against the whole world.


Yet, no one is saying boo about it.


This suggests a number of odd possiblities.


1. The iranian leadership is not considered adults or rational, and thus not held as responsible for their own actions.


2. That the world global view on law has changed and it is ok to seize sea lanes.

...

really, that's about the only choices.

That I can think of.


Can you think of other choices? If not, which of the two do you think is correct? Either way, it raises a whole host of questions and problems we need to face.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

It's slowly coming out in a few other threads on this board, to no surprise, that the lefties here are supporting and cheering for the Islamic Theocracy of Iran in the current conflict.

Much like my thread that exposed the fact that EVERY leftist on the board believes the Charlie Kirk assassination and the Trump assassination attempt were faked, we're currently at ZERO leftists confirming they support the United States in the current conflict.

I don't expect that to change, but I'm keeping it open for anyone who wants to go on the record.

Speaking as a gay male with lesbian traits, post menopausal with a rope tied around my husband's balls, and jumps to and from therapists visits and the DNC, I'm the lone Democrat who will answer honestly to say we're a twisted people, misery loves company, and I hate Trump so much i wake-up daily hoping the usa goes down to Iran so I can say I told u so.

 

[georgephillip]

The act of seizing a sea lane chockpoint is not an operation against the American military.

It is a violation of long standing internatinal law.

Trump's war of aggression against Iran is one more example in a long list of US violations of the "supreme international crime, involving the illegal use of armed force by a state against the sovereignty or territorial integrity of another..."

The Straits of Hormuz were open before Trump started this war; Iran will do whatever is necessary to survive.

"Differences from War Crimes

"Unlike war crimes, which can be committed by soldiers of any side, a war of aggression is specifically about the initiation of the conflict. It is considered a 'trigger' for other international crimes, such as genocide or crimes against humanity"

GoogleAI Overview

 

[Nostra]

They were at 3-4% enrichment under the JCPOA you dolt.

Bottom line the only reason you support this debacle is because of who started it.

Hey Stupid, how would anyone know when the IAEA said there were NEVER able to prove compliance by your Mullah Messiahs?

 

[PeterPilot]

The Sage of Main Street

Israel has been attacking its neighbors in accordance with religious psychobabble for its entire existence. Were it not for Dwight Eisenhower, they would still be in the Sinai peninsula.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

So because

BTW who's killed more people? Iran's proxies or Israel?

Let Us Inspire Zombieland Anarchy

Thrill-killing desert apes aren't "people"; they are Neanderthal hybrids, or descended from various other humanoid species of that partially exterminated kind. Because of the decadence of those who had evolved into humans, the Nazislamis have survived long past their evolutionary expiration date.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I get your position on that, and it's.. fine, time will tell if you are correct or not.

I find the weird response of the world to Iran's closing of hte straits to be more interesting.


The US taking action against Iran is one thing. Iran taking action BACK, is certainly to be expected.

BUT, the closing of the straits is not a miliary operation against the US military.

It is a violation of international law, against the whole world.


Yet, no one is saying boo about it.


This suggests a number of odd possiblities.


1. The iranian leadership is not considered adults or rational, and thus not held as responsible for their own actions.


2. That the world global view on law has changed and it is ok to seize sea lanes.

...

really, that's about the only choices.

That I can think of.


Can you think of other choices? If not, which of the two do you think is correct? Either way, it raises a whole host of questions and problems we need to face.

Ewe Rope and Sunni Side Down

3. The Eurines and the Gulf Arabs are gutless pushovers.

 

[luiza]

Let Us Inspire Zombieland Anarchy

Woops .
Wasn't it supposed to be over in 2-3 days according to Munchers reading the Fake MSM.?

Well, well .Over two months later and ----
Who would have thought that other than the Lovely Luiza

Seems those Cheeky Chappies have confounded all known form.