Ummmm, dumbass, Iran declared war on us 47 years ago.
Trump finally said "ok, let's dance"
Why is the West pretending Iran is winning the war against Israel, the US?
- Thread starter Doc7505
- Start date
Trump finally said "ok, let's dance"
Nothing but net!
candycorn
Diamond Member
And backed down immediately.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Yep.Without provocation?
- Sep 16, 2012
- 78,074
- 75,192
- 3,605
Wrong. Iran has been pummeled into near oblivion. Take your lies and shove them.
Tuckers been bought.
- Sep 16, 2012
- 78,074
- 75,192
- 3,605
a) That's an ad hom attack. If you have a problem with something he has said, quote it, provide evidence and logic that refutes the point. Attacking the character of someone you disagree with? I had thought you, of all folks, were better than that.
b) You have no proof of this allegation. You can't have. No one does.
c) He has constantly denied taking any money for his opinions.
d) I looked into that "Qatari," connection, there is nothing to it. I do believe a Qatari PR firm set up an interview with him for their leaders, but that only profited the PR firm.
Is Tucker Carlson leaving US for Qatar? Inside the row over his drift away from MAGA - The Times of India
US News: Right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson, who has been distancing himself from core MAGA values recently, has announced he will purchase property in Qata.
timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Not nuclear war
HikerGuy83
Diamond Member
- Dec 26, 2021
- 21,768
- 17,140
- 2,288
True that.
Yeah, but it's also factual. He also is a long time Trump hater, so his judgment is clouded by that.a) That's an ad hom attack. If you have a problem with something he has said, quote it, provide evidence and logic that refutes the point. Attacking the character of someone you disagree with? I had thought you, of all folks, were better than that.
b) You have no proof of this allegation. You can't have. No one does.
c) He has constantly denied taking any money for his opinions.
d) I looked into that "Qatari," connection, there is nothing to it. I do believe a Qatari PR firm set up an interview with him for their leaders, but that only profited the PR firm.
View attachment 1240978
Is Tucker Carlson leaving US for Qatar? Inside the row over his drift away from MAGA - The Times of India
US News: Right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson, who has been distancing himself from core MAGA values recently, has announced he will purchase property in Qata.
I used to like Tucker a lot, but he went off the deep end months ago.
candycorn
Diamond Member
Thats weird...because up until he chickened out tonight, he was going to bomb them...if they are already in oblivion--dismissed ex mod--why more bombing?
candycorn
Diamond Member
The blob signed the surrender papers in Afghanistan. Clearly he was the wrong leader.
They agreed to HIS demands, dumbass.
candycorn
Diamond Member
We lose like a dozne soldiers, get another 300 injured, spend $40B, the price of oil doubled, gas is over 4 a gallon? And they get to keep their uranium?
What a loser. He almost suck as much as you.
Doc7505
Diamond Member
- Feb 16, 2016
- 24,178
- 43,010
- 2,430
- Thread starter
- #36
<~~~~~~~~~~>
Unless you have amnesia, please remember that Iran sent missiles into Israel not to destroy bridges. infrastructure or military targets but specifically into urban centers to kill civilians.
Neither the U.S. nor its ally in this operation against Iran have attacked the civilian population.
Even this past evening Iran fired missiles with "Cluster Bombs" into Israel.
The threat to bomb all the bridges and electric generation plants is not a war crime.
Additionally, although prices may be rising it is still better that requiring a ration card to buy meat, coffee, butter, bacon, cheese, shoes, alcohol, and fuel to drive your car or heat your home.
Don't think you'd be capable of living that way for four years. The Brits lived on rationing from 1939 to 1954
If you're so overwrought over what's happening in Iran. Think about the "Firebombing" of the German cities of Berlin, Dresden, and Hambourg.
Read more:
:https://ameshistory.org/content/world-war-ii-rationing-us-homefront?utm_source=copilot.com
Yes, until... Hitler committed suicide and Germany accepted unconditional surrender. Which was the declared wargoal. Until... Japan accepted unconditional surrender and was subsequently administratively ruled by McCarthur again achieving the stated wargoal. Until Lee surrendered and the Union was restored. THE STATED WARGOAL.
If the wargoal in Iran is regime change and that wargoal isn't reached you sure as hell didn't win.
Now to the general commentary to your OP.
We have to split the question into 2 first. Did Iran win vis a vis Israel, add did it win vis a vis the US which in my opinion are 2 different answers.
And to answer that question we have to first determine what the wargoals where (hard to do when the people who started the war have given about 6 different answers) and wether or not ending it now under the proposed conditions achieves those goals. Or
So let's start with Israel. What did they wanted to achieve and did they achieve it? Well Israel would have liked regime change. So that's a no, but they also wanted to hit Iran's military capability both conventional and nuclear. That's been achieved at least in the short and medium turn. They also got a convinient excuse to take parts of Lebanon and weaken their government. They lost some money, took a neglible amount of damage and a spike in oil and gas prices and increased inflation caused by the supply disruption. What Iran got is their current government still in power and probably in my opinion the abilty to derive long term income from controlling the straight. This will in the long term increase their economic prospects.
Did they win vis a vis the US. Well, if the goal was regime change then yes. If the goal was developing nukes. I thinkthat's completely up in the air.
See, here's the issue. Trump's constant TACO'ing says a great deal about how far he is willing to go and where the limits of his and the US power are. Before he started it, there was ambigiuty to those things Trump has ended that.
It showed that when push comes to shove the US can bomb whatever, whenever.
But it also showed that Iran can keep the straight shut down if they so please despite all the bombing, and that Trump doesn't have the political will to prevent that. What I mean by that is that it would take ground forces, a lot of ground forces in an indefinite deployment. Something Trump is unwilling to do.
So not only didn't the US achieve amy wargoal stated or otherwise. But it cleared up strategic ambiguity over what the US and Trump could do amd would do, it likely will improve the Iranian regime's hold on power and long term economic outlook.
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
- Apr 29, 2017
- 101,644
- 108,639
- 3,615
Europe much like the democrat party feed more on propaganda and ideology than they do reality.
And both wish to see the US fall.
The "reality" is, is that the US started a conflict without so much as a heads up. A conflict that has MAJOR consequences globally. Consequences that will linger probably indefinetly if Iran starts demanding toll from every passing ship.
So no, Europe doesn't want the US to fail, they want the US to not do things that affects everybody else without regards to the consequences.
It's the ******* arrogance that makes not just Europe but the entire world mad.
Let me give you an example. The price for diesel in Belgium has gone up from around 6 euro per gallon to 10. I'll repeat 10 EURO.
See, while the US, thanks to the shale revolution they have some insulation from the global market, most other countries don't. This will cause inflation on everything and I fear it will be massive inflation.
So my question is this. If Europe would do something lile that to the US would you applaud?
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 56,272
- 16,185
- 2,180
Why is the West pretending Iran is winning the war against Israel, the US?
Despite Iran's military collapse, Western analysts continue to push a false narrative of victory. The facts don't align with the rhetoric surrounding the conflict.7 Apr 2026 ~~ By Nadim Koteich
Why is the West pretending Iran is winning the war against Israel, the US? | The Jerusalem Post
Despite Iran's military collapse, Western analysts continue to push a false narrative of victory. The facts don't align with the rhetoric surrounding the conflict.www.jpost.com
Let us be precise about what is happening here. A war is being fought in the Middle East. Another war is being fought in the pages of newspapers, on the panels of cable networks, and in the faculty lounges of institutions that have confused sophistication with a reflex. The second war has a declared winner: Iran. It just has nothing to do with what is actually happening in the first one.
The claim, repeated with the solemnity of established fact, is made by smart and credentialed people, who know and want you to know they know. However, they are wrong. Not subtly wrong. Not wrong in ways that require careful qualification. They are wrong in the way that requires ignoring ninety percent of Iran's missile capacity destroyed in week one, a navy that no longer exists, a Supreme Leader killed in the opening hours of the campaign, and a proxy network that is fracturing from Lebanon to Yemen.
Wrong in the way that requires looking at the Gulf states, which are doubling down on the relation with the US and Israel, and concluding somehow that Iran has outmaneuvered everyone.
This is not an analysis. So, what is it?
Start with the cultural reflex that makes it possible. There is a tradition in Western intellectual life, old and deeply rooted, that assigns moral value to resistance independent of what the resistance actually represents. The weaker party defying the stronger carries a charge, almost aesthetic in nature, that bypasses any serious accounting of the defiant party's actual character. Content is irrelevant. Posture is everything.
So the theocracy that massacred thousands of its own citizens in January, that has bled Lebanon dry through Hezbollah, that has sustained proxy wars across four countries at its own people's expense, gets cast as a proud country holding the line against imperial aggression. Few, in this context, question what the country actually does to the people living inside it. The template does not require that question. Power versus resistance. Empire versus defiance. The weaker party is always the more sympathetic one, and sympathy, in this world, travels quickly into presumed strategic vindication.
~Snip~
The liberal international order has two problems with this war. The first is structural. America is the last Western democracy that still believes military force is a legitimate instrument of order, not a confession of civilizational failure. Europe settled that question in its own mind decades ago and built an entire political identity around the settlement. American willingness to remain the enforcer was tolerable when it meant keeping Soviet tanks out of Bonn. It is intolerable now because it validates a vision of the world, one where power and deterrence are the actual foundations of stability, that the European liberal project has spent fifty years attempting to replace with institutions, dialogue, and the softly spoken authority of multilateral consensus. A successful American military campaign does not just win a war. It wins an argument they thought they had closed, and it wins it twice. Because Ukraine already cracked every institution built to make war obsolete on the European continent, proving decorative the moment Russia invaded. The entire post-Cold War security architecture, gone in seventy-two hours.
The second problem is simpler and more raw. If America did it, it must be wrong. Not as a conclusion, but as a premise. American power is suspect by definition, its exercise presumptively illegitimate, its victories either temporary, tainted, or both. This is not a position that arrives after examining the evidence. It is the lens through which the evidence is examined, which means no evidence can ever change it. That is not a political view. It is a religion with better footnotes.
And then there is Trump. A Trump failure ratifies everything the liberal order has argued since 2016, whereas a Trump success is an ideological catastrophe. Because it means the man they identified as the singular threat to civilized governance managed to accomplish something consequential and real in the one domain where their own preferred approach produced the JCPOA, the engagement doctrine, and two decades of elaborately reasoned accommodation with a revolutionary theocracy that never moderated and never intended to.
They cannot let that be visible. So the goalposts move. Every civilian casualty becomes evidence of strategic bankruptcy. Every Iranian missile that gets through becomes proof of resilience. Every European condemnation becomes a harbinger of American isolation. The war must be failing because the alternative, a world in which this worked, is a world that does not fit the story they have been telling.
There is a test for this. Ask any of them directly: what would American victory look like to you? If the answer keeps changing, if every benchmark met produces a new benchmark, if success in their telling is always just out of reach, you are not in the presence of an analyst. You are in the presence of someone who decided the verdict before the trial began and is now selecting evidence accordingly.
The facts are not difficult. The enemy's supreme leader is dead. His navy is at the bottom of the Gulf. His missile arsenal is a fraction of what it was. His neighbors are not mourning. They are urging Washington to finish the job.
That is not a war Iran is winning. Saying otherwise is not sophistication. It is not moral complexity. It is a political project dressed in the language of seriousness, executed by people who know exactly what they are doing and are counting on the rest of us not to notice.
Commentary:
Good question for Democrats, the Media and their goat copulating IRGC 5th columnists and Tehran Tiffanys.
If the goal of the United States is to overthrow the mullahs and effect regime change, then Iran does appear to be winning.
This is ridiculous. If Iran is winning, then Japan was “winning” right up until the Emperor surrendered. Germany was winning until Hitler offed himself and Lee was winning until…
The media is playing for the other team. It is no longer the Fourth Estate; it has grown into the Fifth Column and a direct threat to National Security.
Who can forget the Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Geraldo Rivera, Peter Arnett, Lester Holt and the rest of the blame America first media screaming the preferred media talking point of the day for the Afghan war - constant weeks of repeated coordinated messaging of “quagmire, quagmire, quagmire, quagmire, quagmire , quagmire , quagmire ,quagmire followed by a croaking. “We won”. “Whenever you hear the media coordinated talking point campaign you can be certain the people are being played, bluffed, baffled and bullshitted.
The news media and their fellow traveler Democrats talking points this time are "War Crime" and "Escalation".
Democrats are men and women that enslave others.
There have been slave owners since the beginning of time. If you control education and information, what will your population develop into?
Cooperative slaves.
Who dominates in Education and media? Democrats and their Marxist Socialist friends
Who dominates in productive industry? God fearing men.
I’m not always sure the military is a productive industry,
But their oath (and mine) ended with “So help me God.”
Personally. I believe there's no such thing as an Atheist in a war, and surely we are at war.
What is "winning" in this case? Beating someone up and walking away with the situation no different than before?
Or taking down the Iranian regime and putting in a puppet government?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Do you think US physicians would describe Mort as white based on his biological profile?- Started by Mortimer
- Replies: 6
-
-
