Should The US Nuke Iran?

Should The US Nuke Iran?


  • Total voters
    34
I know that Trump currently is trying a blockade hoping that Iran will negotiate, but now apparently Iran has started pumping their oil into the water which will cause a mass pollution for the environment and wild life and innocent people. So Trump has already set out a warning that if the Iranians don't sign an agreement soon Iran will glow.


Here's the question though, are nukes the ONLY way to solve the problem and end this war because it seems like there's just going to be a whole lot more problems if Trump gave the order than if he still was trying to negotiate with them even though they clearly have no interest in it. I just worry about the innocent Iranian people though.





(That's no leak btw, you can count on that.)



Have you lost your alleged mind?
 
It's not an unreasonable thing....but too expensive and completely unnecessary.

Iran has miles and miles of coastline and close up looks like the coast of Greece does from far away.....lots of coves and inlets. That's where all the speedboats are hiding.

Plus there are a ton of mountains in Iran....lots of places to hide.
Not really....because we can find anyone anywhere....no real place to hide at all.
Saddam hid for 2 weeks.....kinda...not really. They just waited until they could grab him without civilians getting hurt.

There exists a fractured government in Iran....not very functional and will never be now.

They are desperately trying to keep their oil wells functional. Because without them they are toast as a nation in the future.

The USA can hold the blockade longer than Iran can flare or store oil....
The Iranian speedboats are ineffective. Never will be effective. The USA has tons of munitions despite the Democrats rhetoric. And Obama's envoy in Pakistan is the one making things take longer. He is using Iran to try and make Trump look bad....and doesn't care how many Iranian lives he spends doing it.

Just a matter of having a bit of patience.
The Democrat rhetoric?
You have must have memory loss.
As of early 2026, the claim that supplying weapons to Ukraine will deplete U.S. stockpiles and hurt military readiness is a key argument used by some Republicans, particularly those aligned with the Trump administration. [1, 2]
This position has led to significant debate regarding the balance between supporting Ukraine and maintaining domestic defense capabilities, especially amidst conflicts in other regions. [1, 2]
Key Aspects of the Argument (As of May 2026):
  • Stockpile Depletion Concerns: President Trump and some GOP lawmakers have argued that transferring high-end weaponry to Ukraine has depleted U.S. stockpiles and that these stocks have not been replaced fast enough.
  • Impact of Multiple Conflicts: Reports in 2026 indicate that the combination of aid to Ukraine and weapons used in the Middle East has strained U.S. inventories of precision weapons, including Tomahawk missiles, Patriot interceptors, and HIMARS
 
Hey dickwad, unless Trump nuked the entire country end to end, 90 million people won't be killed. All it would take is a nuke dropped on Tehran to wipe out 9-10 million people, you moron.

Before you call someone a retard, try to raise your own I.Q. above single digits, which for you would be a real stretch.
So it would be OK with you if they stopped with just the 10 million or so in Terhan.
 
The Democrat rhetoric?
You have must have memory loss.
As of early 2026, the claim that supplying weapons to Ukraine will deplete U.S. stockpiles and hurt military readiness is a key argument used by some Republicans, particularly those aligned with the Trump administration. [1, 2]
This position has led to significant debate regarding the balance between supporting Ukraine and maintaining domestic defense capabilities, especially amidst conflicts in other regions. [1, 2]
Key Aspects of the Argument (As of May 2026):
  • Stockpile Depletion Concerns: President Trump and some GOP lawmakers have argued that transferring high-end weaponry to Ukraine has depleted U.S. stockpiles and that these stocks have not been replaced fast enough.
  • Impact of Multiple Conflicts: Reports in 2026 indicate that the combination of aid to Ukraine and weapons used in the Middle East has strained U.S. inventories of precision weapons, including Tomahawk missiles, Patriot interceptors, and HIMARS
Ummmm
Different types of munitions.

And it still doesn't have anything to do with Obama flat out going to Pakistan and lying to Iranian government representatives just to proving the war.

Trump is gonna put Obama in jail if he doesn't stop....I mean sending troops to arrest him if need be.
 
Hey dickwad, unless Trump nuked the entire country end to end, 90 million people won't be killed. All it would take is a nuke dropped on Tehran to wipe out 9-10 million people, you moron.

Before you call someone a retard, try to raise your own I.Q. above single digits, which for you would be a real stretch.
White knighting for a demented psycho retard is not a good look.
Here buddy, go take you an IQ test and post back your results:
Use a disposable e-mail and screenshot your results. TIA! :p
 
Ha! TACO boy just stole all of Venezuela's uranium. All he is is a thief, a plunderer; he's hardly anything respectable, much less a faker and a phony, and he's bluffing on using nukes..
TACO boy would be funny if the results of his actions weren't so serious.

He's a clown with his fat little fingers on the nuclear button.

arcjwz.jpg
 
Ummmm
Different types of munitions.

And it still doesn't have anything to do with Obama flat out going to Pakistan and lying to Iranian government representatives just to proving the war.

Trump is gonna put Obama in jail if he doesn't stop....I mean sending troops to arrest him if need be.
Former US presidents can and often do act as diplomats, utilizing their prestige for unofficial or special envoy missions rather than formal, staff-level diplomatic roles. While not technically serving as official U.S. ambassadors, they leverage their gravitas for high-level meetings, such as the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton trips to North Korea. [1]
 
No, Carter did not do that; it was the Shah who abused his own people, and they revolted and overthrew the government. Just like the US did under British rule.
Oh, but he did, cupcake. He was soft on them, so now they think they can get away with things.
They can't, and they will be hammered in the next 48 hrs.
 
Oh, but he did, cupcake. He was soft on them, so now they think they can get away with things.
They can't, and they will be hammered in the next 48 hrs.
What was he going to do, send in the army? Iran is its own nation; we should have left it alone in the first place.

they will be hammered in the next 48 hrs.
Are they delivering the kegs of beer as we speak?
 
Former US presidents can and often do act as diplomats, utilizing their prestige for unofficial or special envoy missions rather than formal, staff-level diplomatic roles. While not technically serving as official U.S. ambassadors, they leverage their gravitas for high-level meetings, such as the Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton trips to North Korea. [1]
NOT WHEN THEY HAVE CONFLICTING AGENDAS, OPINIONS, AND GOALS.

Which is why Obama is fixing to go to jail....He personally has Iranian blood on his hands by intentionally interfering in this war.
 
NOT WHEN THEY HAVE CONFLICTING AGENDAS, OPINIONS, AND GOALS.

Which is why Obama is fixing to go to jail....He personally has Iranian blood on his hands by intentionally interfering in this war.
Based on the available search results as of May 9, 2026, there are no reported official, direct contacts or meetings between former President Barack Obama and the government of Pakistan in 2026.
 
15th post

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom