The New Lounge
- Thread starter hpnole
- Start date
I don't want to see us bring democracy to Iran. I want to see the Iranian people take advantage of Israel's decision to take out their dictatorship and return to the freedom loving and thriving society from pre-1979 Iran.
Yeah, that's what I was doing. I don't ever want to fight. I just can't believe how dedicated to everything he says and does people are. It's nuts. Where I live people talk about him now second only to Christ. It's terrifying.
Because that will work out. It sure has for every other country we have bombed in the region.
True. The Left hasn’t shown an iota of concern for the half a million American citizens living in Israel. Not for the ones killed by attacks deliberately targeting civilians while Israel attacks military infrastructure such as launchers and ballistic missiles and nuclear sites.
Not for the ones at risk in the event of a nuclear attack.
No concern for their beloved Palestinians who would likely be killed by a nuclear attack by Iran.
No concern for the brave servicemen and women who carried out this historic operation today.
Only unhinged meltdowns, talks of impeachment, personal attacks. Par for the course.
The female cuckoo bird is known for changing mates often and for laying eggs in other birds' nests. Husbands whose wives cheat on them have been referred to as "cuckolds" since at least the 17th Century. In recent years that has been abbreviated to "cuck" and even turned into a verb, hence the past tense "cucked." Politically, it has been a term used to insinuate that a man is weak and does not conform to traditional social norms for men.
You make it sound like the carpet bombing of Dresden for Ch sake. It was a targeted attack of a rogue regime’s nuclear sites. No civilians killed that we know of. No boots on the ground.
Dude, Iran is the reason the region has been destabilized for decades. It is not even disputed that Iran is the number 1 sponsor of terrorism in the world. You're blaming us because Trump is the one who made the call. Your anger is influenced by your own biases. If you were to look at this as what is best for the world and America, you could see that Iran needed to be checked. But you're looking at it as how can we make Trump look like Hitler. You're ate up.
If my English prof was lucid/ sober that particular week, I’m pretty sure it dated back to the Canterbury tales
Never heard it used quite that way.
You're not following. I don't want or support us being the one to bring democracy to them. But I wish them freedom from within.
Just bookmarking this, in case. And so that I can easily find it in a search...
candyman
candyman
candyman
Don't be a pussy. You need to say candyman 5 times.
Fwiw, most of the people I know well are either Dems or non MAGA Rep. I support this operation and what he’s done on the border. But not a huge fan of the BBB or his tariff work. If you think the main conservative posters here are cultish I’d strongly beg to differ. I know I know, Datt, people in a cult don’t know they’re in a cult ha ha.
Well, when the cult is built around the illusion that we're all rugged individuals and self-made macho men who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, it's even harder for them to recognize they're in a cult. 🤷♂️
What has bleed ever said to indicate he's a homer for all things Democratic and an anti-Trumper no matter what?
Did he say "Hitler"?
"It is not even disputed that Iran is the number 1 sponsor of terrorism in the world."
Really? A month ago, I don't know that I, for one, would have come to that conclusion. I might have guessed that a terrorist organization itself was the biggest sponsor for others, or that the old Syrian regime or some evasive, hard-to-pin-down entities in Iraq or Afghanistan were most responsible. I reject the idea that it's not even disputed, or that there is overwhelming consensus predating the last few months' build-up.
And your rhetoric... it strikes me as dangerously Orwellian, like you are rewriting the past to make the present more sensible.
"If you were to look at this as what is best for the world and America, you could see that Iran needed to be checked."
That assumes that everyone looks at it the same way. What that really means is that if he saw it like you see it, he'd think what you think.
Where did I accuse him of being a Homer for all things democratic? He's an anti Trumper, no doubt.
You mentioned Syria and Afghanistan. What's funny about that is Iran has their hands all in those countries.
There is consensus. Has been for a long time.
Even prior to Oct 7th. Not just Hamas but Hezbollah and the Houti’s as well.
Iraq and Afghanistan aren’t even designated state sponsors of terror. Name a single terrorist attack Cuba or North Korea has carried out lately.
Understanding Iran's Use of Terrorist Groups as Proxies
Iran’s influence can be felt in multiple ongoing conflicts in the Middle East due to its use of terrorist groups as proxies. To learn more, we asked SIS professor Joe Young to explain Iran’s use of these groups.
www.american.edu
US Report Labels Iran 'Leading State Sponsor Of Terrorism'
The latest US annual Terrorism Report reiterated that Iran “continued its extensive support for terrorism,” providing funding, training and weapons to militant groups.
They kinda go hand-in-hand. Even "anti-Trumper" is a dismissive generalization. As if the only reason a person dislikes something is because our President did it.
Same thing with the Hitler allegation: "[Y]ou're looking at it as how can we make Trump look like Hitler." Nobody does that. You have it backward. Some people truly think his actions look like Hitler, and then they say so. There is no premeditated conspiracy to spin something to make him look like Hitler. Hyperbole? Absolutely. But genuine.
I very specifically said that I, personally, as an individual, might not have guessed Iran as my top guess as recently as a month ago. I think the claim that it is a consensus is a convenient assumption along the lines of asking why IAEA suddenly cited them.
You should seek to broaden your news sources if you’re truly unaware of what Hezbollah and the Houti’s have been up to for 20 months.
One of my links was from 23, one from 24. The international consensus that Iran is the world’s foremost sponsor of terror has been formed over decades and is not an assumption linked solely to the current conflict. It’s based on years if not decades of evidence.
Last edited:
My comments are directly related to my knowledge of Bleed's posting history.
Please take a look. This operation is clearly in the United States’ own security interests.
Iranian and Iranian-Backed Attacks Against Americans (1979-Present)
Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the clerical regime in Tehran and its proxies have committed a range of attacks against Americans. This memorandum provides select documentation of these assaults. While...
www.fdd.org
Last edited:
With 40+ years to work with, a list is gonna get pretty long. We shrug off the list of school shootings pretty easily.
But whatever. I'm really not able to debate against the idea that Iran has been a major threat all this time; I just don't like the rhetoric about how it's so, so obvious and everybody knows it. That starts whittling away at any dissent or reservations, leaving little room for even different levels of knowledge and awareness.
Some headlines I'm seeing this morning across multiple sources are expressing concern about where it all goes from here. What evidence is there of our President ever being able to soothe those concerns rather than belittle them?
But whatever. I'm really not able to debate against the idea that Iran has been a major threat all this time; I just don't like the rhetoric about how it's so, so obvious and everybody knows it. That starts whittling away at any dissent or reservations, leaving little room for even different levels of knowledge and awareness.
Some headlines I'm seeing this morning across multiple sources are expressing concern about where it all goes from here. What evidence is there of our President ever being able to soothe those concerns rather than belittle them?
No, I don't like Trump. But I was always just as anti-Biden as I am anti-Trump. I think Harris is one of the least qualified people to ever run for office. And her coronation was a joke. I knew Trump would destroy her. Biden and his handlers screwed over the party, allowing him to stay in as long as he did. I'm disgusted with the entire lot of them—and have been for years. I've posted as much on here before.
Also, let's just call this what it is: this is another unconstitutional regime change war. Iraq 2.0. Look, I hope I am wrong, but history says otherwise. I believe we are in for a rude awakening, too. Iran is far more capable of retaliation in the region than in the past. But Israel has been claiming for decades that they are days, weeks, months, etc away from developing a nuclear weapon. And now here we are about to be involved in yet another protracted, drawn-out conflict.
More like Korea 5.0. We haven't had an official war-war since WW2. To our shame, the more you do an unconstitutional thing, the more it is normalized.
We haven't reduced long-term terrorism yet, and I don't expect this to be any different. We keep chopping off one head that regrows as 2 heads. We never address underlying causes of terrorism because we're too busy focusing on the symptom. Every President and every Congress is only concerned with short-term wins.
Of course there is concern about where it goes from here. I am concerned. I just think it's a little premature to start calling it Iraq 2.0 or a forever war. Israel made a decision to react and October, 7th alone gives them the right to declare war on Iran, IMO. We decided to assist Israel with weapons they don't have. I really hope that's as far as we take it. But it will strongly depend on how Iran responds. Which is unnerving. If it helps Israel take out Iran's government and nuclear program in a timely manner, it will be worth the risk. If it leads to further war, well then the guy who ran on peace drew us into war.
We've been involved in "forever wars" for most of this century. It's not remotely premature to raise concerns about getting back into one.
"The guy who ran on peace" already has most of his party on board with this incremental step, and already claiming those who raise concerns don't care about the people of Israel (especially the cute ones with dimples) or Americans in Israel.
I predict "the guy who ran on peace" will receive support with each subsequent baby step into war with no more protest than "If it leads to further war, well then the guy who ran on peace drew us into war."
"The guy who ran on peace" already has most of his party on board with this incremental step, and already claiming those who raise concerns don't care about the people of Israel (especially the cute ones with dimples) or Americans in Israel.
I predict "the guy who ran on peace" will receive support with each subsequent baby step into war with no more protest than "If it leads to further war, well then the guy who ran on peace drew us into war."
Well, I am not going to go out in the streets and yell at the sky, Dattier. So yes, me expressing my displeasure would be the extent of my "protest". Sorry, I have more things to worry about than to join the pink hair mafia protesting our orange Hitler, king.
I can't even acknowledge the concerns you bring up without you being combative and condescending.
I can't even acknowledge the concerns you bring up without you being combative and condescending.
It was not my intention to be combative or condescending, and I think I was successful in that. Apologies all the same.
I was responding to your claim that it is premature to worry, which you follow up by characterizing condescendingly yourself: "pink hair mafia," etc.
In a vacuum, your previous post seems measured. I'm pointing out ways in which it seems like a gradual acceptance of a slide into far worse things. Our President ran on peace, as you put it. Now it's acceptable to drop bombs preemptively to assure peace further down the road and it will only cross the line if we end up with boots on the ground again. Defensible in its own right, but definitely a shifting of the goalposts. I predict that if it comes to boots on the ground, the goalposts/the line will shift again.
Happy to be wrong, and happier still if we never find out. I'm standing by my prediction. Sorry not sorry about that.
