How long will hardcore MAGAs stomach Trump's Forever War in the Middle East?

[HikerGuy83]

Americans kill much more children annually.
And Iran don't do it annually.

Whatever you say Achmed.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Erradicating a disease by killing your patients and nurses? Are you sure you are a doctor?

Never said I was a doctor.

But I did say you were a disease.

 

[Zavulon]

Whatever you say Achmed.

It's Zeb, if you don't mind.

 

[HikerGuy83]

It's Zeb, if you don't mind.

Sure, Achmed

 

[Zavulon]

Sure, Achmed

As you wish, HookerGay.

 

[Mac-7]

They are not suiciders. They prefer to protect Iranians to killing Americans. That's how the detterence works. "If you kill us - we kill you. If you don't kill us - we don't kill you." And, may be, they may acquire this capability.

Anyway. Talking theoretically - are you ready to lose a certain amount of Americans to destroy Iran, or you can kill only defenseless people? If you are ready to lose some Americans - what exact number is the top price you are ready to pay?

I dont have a lib crystal ball so I cant say how many Americans will die in the future from this war with Iran

But you can consult your crystal ball and we will work from there

Right now no Americans are dying

I liked it when the IDF was killing clerics and Revolutionary Guard generals

What did you think about that?

 

[Zavulon]

I dont have a lib crystal ball so I cant say how many Americans will die in the future from this war with Iran

I don't ask you how many will actually die. I just asked, what price is acceptable, and on what level of estimated losses would you stop?

But you can consult your crystal ball and we will work from there

--------
Let's play the game. With continuing blockade of Hormuz strait and skyrocketing oil prices, Western Europe, especially France is destabilising. There is more or less peaceful Red-Green Revolution in France, with radical Socialist and Islamists coming in power (but officially France is still a NATO member and ally of America). Those guys believe that the only obstacle on the way to peace is Israel, and, allied with certain Arab states in the Middle East region, they decided to, at least, coerce Israel into Europe-Arab acceptable peace. They do some escalation and after few tactical nuclear skirmishes, France decided to eliminate Israeli strategic nuclear forces (commit counter-force strike) and Israel decided to follow "Samson protocol" - massive counter-value strike against most populated Arab cities in the region. French counter-force strike was partly successful, so only twenty million of mostly civilian Arabs and half of million of civilian Frenchies are killed. It's not enough to win a war, but it's pretty enough to make people really angry, and France nuked Israel's cities in return, killing one third of its population - 3 mln of Jews (also mostly civilian). Local Arabs, now are quite determined to genocide all Jewish survivors - 6 mln of them.
All three French strategic nuclear submarines are in the ocean, they don't make preparations to attack the USA, but, in the case of US attack on France - they are ready to nuke American cities, too, causing, as they believe, "unacceptable damage".

So, now it's the time for your moral choice, as the decision maker of the USA.

1) You can do nothing. In this case Arabs will kill six millions of Jews and end existence of Israel. They are quite determined to do exactly this. Then, you'll be able to settle the things down and re-establish some political and economic ties.
2) You can try to attack French nuclear submarines to prevent their retaliation on the USA and use the threat of really massive nuclear attack on French and Arab cities (with their virtually total annihilation) to prevent their already ongoing attack on Israel. But if you attack French nuclear submarines - they will definitely try to attack US cities and kill some Americans.

So, here is the question - how many Americans are "acceptable losses" to prevent the death of six millions of Jews?
I think that if US Navy has a good plan to eliminate French submarines before they could launch their missiles and US ABD is good enough to intercept some launched missiles, with, finally, 5% risk of death of no more than 1 mln of Americans - it may worth it.
If there is no good plan to attack and simultaneously eliminate them, and if French SLBMs are extremely good and US ABD and civil defence are extremely poor, and final estimation is 95% risk of the death of half of the US population - it definitely doesn't worth it.

But what is your opinion? Explain why.
---------

Right now no Americans are dying

Not necessarily. Piracy is a risking business. And are you ready for the escalation?

I liked it when the IDF was killing clerics and Revolutionary Guard generals

What did you think about that?

First of all, it was (and still is) an act of illegal and unprovoked aggression. Second - clerics are non-combatants, and their intentional murder is a war crime. Third - Generals are stupid and corrupted things. By killing them, you increase both moral and effectivness of the enemy.

 

[schmidlap]

The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. today is $4.54.

The cost of Trump's Middle East war is $74 billion and rising.

Iran's regime is still in power.

Iran's regime still has its enriched Uranium stockpile.

For Trump's worshipers, that is success, Trump style,

Most America, by a significant margin, differ:

Approval of Military Action Against Iran | RealClearPolling

Approval of Military Action Against Iran | RealClearPolling

www.realclearpolling.com

 

[jacksonlamb]

Now THAT is some funny shit! Like anyone cares about the "rules" that Iran thinks they can impose! The US controls the seas. The US blockade is strangling the Iranian regime. The worse it gets for them the louder they bluster. That waterway is not Iranian territory. They have ZERO right to close it! It is an international waterway.

Everybody care about Iran thinks, and nothing about what you think.

You are such a bors sucker.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I don't ask you how many will actually die. I just asked, what price is acceptable, and on what level of estimated losses would you stop?



--------
Let's play the game. With continuing blockade of Hormuz strait and skyrocketing oil prices, Western Europe, especially France is destabilising. There is more or less peaceful Red-Green Revolution in France, with radical Socialist and Islamists coming in power (but officially France is still a NATO member and ally of America). Those guys believe that the only obstacle on the way to peace is Israel, and, allied with certain Arab states in the Middle East region, they decided to, at least, coerce Israel into Europe-Arab acceptable peace. They do some escalation and after few tactical nuclear skirmishes, France decided to eliminate Israeli strategic nuclear forces (commit counter-force strike) and Israel decided to follow "Samson protocol" - massive counter-value strike against most populated Arab cities in the region. French counter-force strike was partly successful, so only twenty million of mostly civilian Arabs and half of million of civilian Frenchies are killed. It's not enough to win a war, but it's pretty enough to make people really angry, and France nuked Israel's cities in return, killing one third of its population - 3 mln of Jews (also mostly civilian). Local Arabs, now are quite determined to genocide all Jewish survivors - 6 mln of them.
All three French strategic nuclear submarines are in the ocean, they don't make preparations to attack the USA, but, in the case of US attack on France - they are ready to nuke American cities, too, causing, as they believe, "unacceptable damage".

So, now it's the time for your moral choice, as the decision maker of the USA.

1) You can do nothing. In this case Arabs will kill six millions of Jews and end existence of Israel. They are quite determined to do exactly this. Then, you'll be able to settle the things down and re-establish some political and economic ties.
2) You can try to attack French nuclear submarines to prevent their retaliation on the USA and use the threat of really massive nuclear attack on French and Arab cities (with their virtually total annihilation) to prevent their already ongoing attack on Israel. But if you attack French nuclear submarines - they will definitely try to attack US cities and kill some Americans.

So, here is the question - how many Americans are "acceptable losses" to prevent the death of six millions of Jews?
I think that if US Navy has a good plan to eliminate French submarines before they could launch their missiles and US ABD is good enough to intercept some launched missiles, with, finally, 5% risk of death of no more than 1 mln of Americans - it may worth it.
If there is no good plan to attack and simultaneously eliminate them, and if French SLBMs are extremely good and US ABD and civil defence are extremely poor, and final estimation is 95% risk of the death of half of the US population - it definitely doesn't worth it.

But what is your opinion? Explain why.
---------


Not necessarily. Piracy is a risking business. And are you ready for the escalation?

View attachment 1253538


First of all, it was (and still is) an act of illegal and unprovoked aggression. Second - clerics are non-combatants, and their intentional murder is a war crime. Third - Generals are stupid and corrupted things. By killing them, you increase both moral and effectivness of the enemy.

I knew it.

You are a cartoonist.

This was funny, Achmed.

 

[Mac-7]

I don't ask you how many will actually die. I just asked, what price is acceptable, and on what level of estimated losses would you stop?



--------
Let's play the game. With continuing blockade of Hormuz strait and skyrocketing oil prices, Western Europe, especially France is destabilising. There is more or less peaceful Red-Green Revolution in France, with radical Socialist and Islamists coming in power (but officially France is still a NATO member and ally of America). Those guys believe that the only obstacle on the way to peace is Israel, and, allied with certain Arab states in the Middle East region, they decided to, at least, coerce Israel into Europe-Arab acceptable peace. They do some escalation and after few tactical nuclear skirmishes, France decided to eliminate Israeli strategic nuclear forces (commit counter-force strike) and Israel decided to follow "Samson protocol" - massive counter-value strike against most populated Arab cities in the region. French counter-force strike was partly successful, so only twenty million of mostly civilian Arabs and half of million of civilian Frenchies are killed. It's not enough to win a war, but it's pretty enough to make people really angry, and France nuked Israel's cities in return, killing one third of its population - 3 mln of Jews (also mostly civilian). Local Arabs, now are quite determined to genocide all Jewish survivors - 6 mln of them.
All three French strategic nuclear submarines are in the ocean, they don't make preparations to attack the USA, but, in the case of US attack on France - they are ready to nuke American cities, too, causing, as they believe, "unacceptable damage".

So, now it's the time for your moral choice, as the decision maker of the USA.

1) You can do nothing. In this case Arabs will kill six millions of Jews and end existence of Israel. They are quite determined to do exactly this. Then, you'll be able to settle the things down and re-establish some political and economic ties.
2) You can try to attack French nuclear submarines to prevent their retaliation on the USA and use the threat of really massive nuclear attack on French and Arab cities (with their virtually total annihilation) to prevent their already ongoing attack on Israel. But if you attack French nuclear submarines - they will definitely try to attack US cities and kill some Americans.

So, here is the question - how many Americans are "acceptable losses" to prevent the death of six millions of Jews?
I think that if US Navy has a good plan to eliminate French submarines before they could launch their missiles and US ABD is good enough to intercept some launched missiles, with, finally, 5% risk of death of no more than 1 mln of Americans - it may worth it.
If there is no good plan to attack and simultaneously eliminate them, and if French SLBMs are extremely good and US ABD and civil defence are extremely poor, and final estimation is 95% risk of the death of half of the US population - it definitely doesn't worth it.

But what is your opinion? Explain why.
---------


Not necessarily. Piracy is a risking business. And are you ready for the escalation?

View attachment 1253538


First of all, it was (and still is) an act of illegal and unprovoked aggression. Second - clerics are non-combatants, and their intentional murder is a war crime. Third - Generals are stupid and corrupted things. By killing them, you increase both moral and effectivness of the enemy.

I think we are safe from a nuclear war between the US and France unless muslims completely take over the country and install an islamic republic

Tell us how close we are to that and I will access the risk of war with france

You want to know how many Americans I am willing to sacrifice for Israel?

But I dont have an exact number

As far as I am concerned this miserable unhappy Church Age can last as long as God wills it and not one day longer

The world is getting perilously close to Armageddon but its still anyone’s guess when this all ends

You tell me if you think you know

In any case, preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons will buy us some time

 

[Mac-7]

The average price of a gallon of gasoline in the U.S. today is $4.54.

Thanks in part to price gouging by the lib democrat california state legislature and Guv Newsom

High gas tax and the war on oil companies has their average price around $7 there but under $4 in Texas

 

[HikerGuy83]

Thanks in part to price gouging by the lib democrat california state legislature and Guv Newsom

High gas tax and the war on oil companies has their average price around $7 there but under $4 in Texas

Gasoline is very inelastic in the short term.

You really gotta raise prices a lot to get people to quit buying a little.

 

[schmidlap]

Thanks in part to price gouging by the lib democrat california state legislature and Guv Newsom

High gas tax and the war on oil companies has their average price around $7 there but under $4 in Texas

Always blame somebody else.
​

​

Texas gas prices have surged to $4.09 per gallon on average, the highest since July 2022, as AAA Texas reports KHOU. The statewide average is up 48% from this time last year and has climbed 24 cents in just one week.​

​

​

 

[HikerGuy83]

View attachment 1253548
Always blame somebody else.
​

​

Texas gas prices have surged to $4.09 per gallon on average, the highest since July 2022, as AAA Texas reports KHOU. The statewide average is up 48% from this time last year and has climbed 24 cents in just one week.​

​

​

Who was president in 2022?

Oh...that's right

 

[Mac-7]

View attachment 1253548
Always blame somebody else.
​

​

Texas gas prices have surged to $4.09 per gallon on average, the highest since July 2022, as AAA Texas reports KHOU. The statewide average is up 48% from this time last year and has climbed 24 cents in just one week.​

​

​

Its even a little higher at a few stations I have seen

But much lower than california

Btw: who was president in 2022?

He promised an end to fossil fuels and lib snowflakes cheered

 

[schmidlap]

Its even a little higher at a few stations I have seen

But much lower than california

Btw: who was president in 2022?

He promised an end to fossil fuels and lib snowflakes cheered

Most folks have the integrity to admit that Trump's war with Iran is the principle reason for the surge in gas prices nationally and internationally.

Global progress is being made in the transition from dirty fuel to clean energy, but it will take decades.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Most folks have the integrity to admit that Trump's war with Iran is the principle reason for the surge in gas prices nationally and internationally.

You lecturing others on integrity is funny.

Everyone knows why prices are higher.

What's funny is that this wasn't an issue when Bidenflation was sending these same prices even higher. And yes it is relevant as you still have your head up the ass of the DNC.

Global progress is being made in the transition from dirty fuel to clean energy, but it will take decades.

That's what they want you to believe.

It's not.

Third world countries are coming on line and putting in coal plants.

That won't change for a while.

I am hopeful that new technology will make energy cheaper and cleaner.

But the Green Scam is only making harder to adopt them as they come along.

Nobody trusts people like you.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Most folks have the integrity to admit that Trump's war with Iran is the principle reason for the surge in gas prices nationally and internationally.

Global progress is being made in the transition from dirty fuel to clean energy, but it will take decades.

No, it's Iran's blockade of the Strait that is causing the oil shortage. A typical terrorist tactic from the fanatical terrorists who rule over the Iranian people.

 

[kyzr]

Most folks have the integrity to admit that Trump's war with Iran is the principle reason for the surge in gas prices nationally and internationally.
Global progress is being made in the transition from dirty fuel to clean energy, but it will take decades.

If you can't afford the slight bump in gas prices take the bus.