Trumpbots sure are crying an awful lot today...


 

The Iranian Stooge, judging by his pro-Iran, anti-America stance, is clearly zuker.

16 hours ago, lynched1 said:

444 days. F Iran right off the globe.

wait, you want to F iran off the globe ? wow, that's mensa member level thinking there. i mean i get the endless wars some want, but Fng them to death, i think you're onto something here, bud. 

18 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

I love watching Van destroy these neocons on Iran. It never gets old.

  

 

Except van is a fool at best and more likely just a coward

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

Except van is a fool at best and more likely just a coward

please explain further. 

Just now, ToastJenkins said:

Except van is a fool at best and more likely just a coward

 

No, Van is actually 100% right on this subject. You must love protracted wars and brinksmanship. The fools are the ones still playing that game.

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Except van is a fool at best and more likely just a coward

Thanks man!

Just now, Alpha_TATEr said:

please explain further. 

Have numerous times. Acting as if iran would/was complying with the deal in good faith is moronic.

but van is a diplomacy zealot. So fearful of conflict. Even ones we win easily.

i dont want conflict but there is an appropriate time and place for it. The smart play was the keep sanctions on and cripple their govt

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

No, Van is actually 100% right on this subject. You must love protracted wars and brinksmanship. The fools are the ones still playing that game.

No i like mature thought and logic

van is childish emotion through and through

Spare me the strawman and false dichotomy

1 minute ago, ToastJenkins said:

Have numerous times. Acting as if iran would/was complying with the deal in good faith is moronic.

but van is a diplomacy zealot. So fearful of conflict. Even ones we win easily.

i dont want conflict but there is an appropriate time and place for it. The smart play was the keep sanctions on and cripple their govt

They'll treat us like liberators!  Mission accomplished!

4 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Even ones we win easily.

The level of mental gymnastics required to rationalize that we'd easily win a war with Iran after we're still stuck in Iraq and a failed state like Afghanistan after twenty years of trying to turn them into functional states is really on an Olympic level. You should book a flight to Tokyo.

  

4 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Spare me the strawman and false dichotomy

Strawman? Lol, the last 60+ years of our history provide numerous examples of this. Wake up.

In terms of "winning the fight" with these countries...this is the 21st century. National security is best secured through more tactical, targeted efforts in concert with allies. Special ops,  cyber warfare, counterinsurgency, and the like. You're still trying to use a hacksaw when you need a scalpel. Force needs to be applied proportionally, efficiently, and covertly. Diplomacy must be aggressive but restrained. This penchant for open combat and regime change in the 21st century is the modern equivalent of medieval warfare.

23 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

They'll treat us like liberators!  Mission accomplished!

Again not what i said

keep trying, coward

22 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

The level of mental gymnastics required to rationalize that we'd easily win a war with Iran after we're still stuck in Iraq and a failed state like Afghanistan aftery twenty years of trying to turn them into functional states is really on an Olympic level. You should book a flight to Tokyo.

  

Strawman? Lol, the last 60+ years of our history provide numerous examples of this. Wake up.

Nation building since Nam doesnt work. Thats not what i am advocating. You cripple them by either indirect means or if necessary direct means

more of this thread please. 

 

 

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Nation building since Nam doesnt work. Thats not what i am advocating. You cripple them by either indirect means or if necessary direct means

Then you are apparently clinging to the misguided notion that the Iranian regime will eventually collapse under the weight of sanctions, but they were under sanctions that had been incrementally increased for 30 years prior to the JCPOA. Any day now...

The sanctions worked to the extent that it brought Iran to the negotiating table. Collapse is a pipedream. If it was going to happen, it would've happened long ago. The regime is far too entrenched and the population far too beholden to the idea of the West as the Great Satan. You are seeking an ideal solution for a situation that will not permit it.

5 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Then you are apparently clinging to the misguided notion that the Iranian regimd would eventually collapse under the weight of sanction, but they were under sanctions that had been incrementally increased for 30 years prior to the JCPOA. Any day now...

The sanctions worked to the extent that it brought Iran to the negotiating table. Collapse is a pipedream. If it was going to happen, it would've happened long ago. The regime is far too entrenched and the population far too beholden to the idea of the West as the Great Satan. You are seeking an ideal solution for a situation that will not permit it.

All of this.  They're living in a fantasy world because they've built up a reactionary coward foreign policy.  The only reason they oppose the Iranian deal is because Obama proposed it.  That's it.  That's literally the only reason.  If it had been proposed by Trump, they would've been all in.  And we know that with 100% certainty.   For F's sake, Trump simply talked to Kim Jong Un and the right praised it as peace on the Korean peninsula despite it accomplishing absolutely nothing.

And what's worse, none of their opposition is based on any consistent foreign policy ideology, because they don't have one anymore.  They're a hollow shell of failed Neo-con nation-building and fake Populist bluster, where they're looking for 100% concession from the other side with nothing given from our side and without firing a shot.  It's a fantasy.  And it's strictly political.  It has nothing to do with actually accomplishing foreign policy goals that make the world a safer place.  

18 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

For F's sake, Trump simply talked to Kim Jong Un and the right praised it as peace on the Korean peninsula despite it accomplishing absolutely nothing.

'Memba back around 2007/08 when FoxNews and all the right-wing dopes skewered candidate Obama for, in their words, "willingness to meet with our enemies without preconditions."
 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Nation building since Nam doesnt work. Thats not what i am advocating. You cripple them by either indirect means or if necessary direct means

Do tell about your direct means and how that plays out.

16 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Do tell about your direct means and how that plays out.

in this particular case, you bomb them then let Russia worry about either rebuilding them or dealing with those overthrowing the govt. worst case we set them back a generation or two. doesn't need to be overly complicated.

hopefully the sanctions would cripple them to the point they collapse economically and it wouldnt be necessary, although russia would likely prop them up. so you weaken russia in the process.

43 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

in this particular case, you bomb them then let Russia worry about either rebuilding them or dealing with those overthrowing the govt. worst case we set them back a generation or two. doesn't need to be overly complicated.

hopefully the sanctions would cripple them to the point they collapse economically and it wouldnt be necessary, although russia would likely prop them up. so you weaken russia in the process.

Yeah, bombing the ME is a true success story with no other ramifications.

Geez, you're Fing dim.

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

in this particular case, you bomb them then let Russia worry about either rebuilding them or dealing with those overthrowing the govt. worst case we set them back a generation or two. doesn't need to be overly complicated.

 

wasnt the GOP just ripping biden as a war monger over an attack of iranian backed fighters in syria ?  

 

yet you want the US to do this and think we can just walk away after that ? 

I dont believe i ripped him on that

and yes you can walk away. Thats how you treat an enemy

It's not even the idea of bombing that really gets me. It's the utter absurdity of thinking that turning Iran into a power vacuum for Russia to fill is a viable option. I can't think of a more recklessly self-defeating approach.