Military strikes have begun in Iran
- Thread starter Hugh's Burner Phone
- Start date
- Status
If you pick a thesis statement and defend that thesis statement and not stray or be hypocritical, I’ll discuss it with you.
but if you babble on for paragraphs that aren’t logical or on point, I’m gonna call you stupid.
Cronkite was very neutral and sometimes even on the administration”s side with his his reporting often repeating military and administration assertions that the US were on the brink of major victory. A repeated assertion that they kept putting out. He and the nation came to the shocking realization during and after Tet that the administration and military were not honest about it all along. It’s true that the Tet offensive ended up destroying the VC completely as an effective fighting force, which led to the NVA taking over most of the fighting after. However, it forced Cronkite and the nation in general to something approaching the reality that we weren’t coming out of Vietnam with anything like the victory they had been promised. Then he did editorialize that we were in a stalemate and should negotiate a peace. This was the feeling of most of the public as well as Nixon campaigned on that very idea with his “peace with honor” slogan and won. Peace with honor ended up being more bombing, less boots on the ground, invading Cambodia while negotiating, and finally declaring victory and leaving. It was a war where the US won nearly every major engagement but lost the strategic victory, and that wasn’t due to Cronkite or the media as so many would like to believe.
I’m gonna let you decide.
The point is very clear. No one ever said we destroyed ALL capability Iran had to do bad.
The admin did tell them directly “mess with civilians and you’ll pay”. Glad we kept our word!!
That may be true, but the only reason the right leaning media exists and is successful is because that market was being almost completely ignored by what was supposed to be a neutral unbiased traditional media.
It's a successful business model because of the massive mistakes made by legacy media that is staffed almost exclusively with liberals. Put an antenna up and watch what you can get for free. That stuff should be right down the middle, and trust me, it ain't.
They've been 3 years away from developing a nuke for about 30 something years now. Any day now, unless we act!
You are going to let me decide what you meant with your post?
What? That doesn't make sense. We were so close to having a discussion, and then...this.
So, Iran attacks our military bases in the middle east and we retaliate like we promised we would. And I come on here and read the typical "Orange man bad!" Or "Orange man good!" It is so predictable and obvious which posters will react the way they did.
I think this is fairly accurate from Politico in November 2025...
"More than half of Trump’s voters last year — 55 percent — describe themselves as MAGA, but a critical 38 percent do not, according to the survey, which comprised 2,098 U.S. adults online and was conducted Nov. 14-17, with a margin of sampling error at plus-or-minus 2 percentage points."
My problem is I don't know if it's bad or good. There's no consistent story or vision sold by the administration. What did we get out of the mission last summer and what is the objective today, tomorrow, and next year? Hell, I don't think Congress knows either and that's a yuge problem.
What Cronkite did with Tet was the equivalent of Edward R. Murrow saying that WWII was no longer winnable during and after the Battle of the Bulge. Tet was a massive victory for the US, and Cronkite led the charge to convert it into a loss. He was successful. What you just posted is exactly the line he took.
Trump said the objective today was regime change in Iran. Israel attacked the Iranian government in Tehran to depose the Ayatollah. We attacked their military. The Ayatollah has murdered over 36,000 protesters over the last couple of months.
Above my pay grade. I'm just stating what I read about Iran without emotional political leanings.
If they have rogue leadership, and are Hell Bent on having a Nuclear Arsenal, YES.
No. I read they would only target their nuclear production and any associated launch sites. They would NOT target the Regime, general government operations, the Republican Guard, or Iranian citizens. Quit the anti-Trump narrative. It makes Democrats look foolish.
Do we need to call your caretakers at the home and let them know that you aren't actually taking your midday nap? We would hate to see your pudding privileges taken away. You can also forget seeing the Wheel of Fortune for at least a week.
And we're going to bomb, leave, and let it happen organically? Or do we get in the weeds and direct traffic? It'd be awesome if we could bomb and bail and the rest takes care of itself but I'm not sure reality works that way. I'd bet this will get messy and I want to know what the plan/$/american casualties/innocent casualties/end state looks like in "regime change".
Trump has appealed to the Iranian people to step in and take their government over. Leading up to this he had appealed to them to continue putting pressure on the government.
Should concern everyone, including me. The unknown is always worrisome, but I have more faith in our current President to handle it vs any President in history. It will be a bumpy ride regardless. Buckle your seatbelts!
Not doing a good job dispelling the cult label...
He ended 12 wars, I think. Maybe 13. My two cats were fighting this morning and Trump was mentioned on the news and they stopped.
Our strikes in Iran this morning were retaliatory because they struck us first? I’ve been trying to keep up with this, but I’m not seeing this reported on any news site. What is your source?
I'm a Trump Cultist member. Be sure to finger me to the next DNCP President (whenever that is?) and Admin so they can imprison or behead me as they have stated they would like to do to all MAGAs.
I do know that power vacuums in the Middle East usually turn out well once leaders are removed from power
I suspect taking him out was a key point in even starting this operation. It had to be very near priority 1 and I have a feeling between us and Israel we knew where he was when it mattered.
I think you may have missed the link in this thread from the site that claimed “obliteration”. And pro-American narratives aren’t foolish.
Yes I understand this. That's not a plan though. An appeal is an ask. Are we in this with them through the change? It's not going to be a lift and shift whether we are involved long term or not. It's going to be messy with competition from all angles and will involve a lot of violence. We need an articulated end game for what Iran looks like in the future and what our involvement is to make it happen. I fear Trump has way oversimplified this.
I cannot think of a Middle East situation that got better long term after intervention. Destroy nuclear capabilities and forget about trying to do anything else. It’s a waste of lives and money. Maintain intelligence and destroy it again next time it recovers. My biggest beef, beyond the idiot in charge, is that Israel should not be dictating our foreign policy. That alone is a prime reason that the US is targeted by jihadists.
Last month we appealed to the Venezuelan people to overthrow their government, and instead Maduro's VP just took over and continued the regime, although in a way that's a little more personally friendly to Trump. So many people on the SixPack thread were insisting that Venezuela was about to be a democracy with Machado in charge, but that never materialized.
I hope that Iran decides to have a government that respects human rights more, but it's extremely naive to think that all you have to do it take out a third world leader and the people will rise up an install the government we want.
I hope that Iran decides to have a government that respects human rights more, but it's extremely naive to think that all you have to do it take out a third world leader and the people will rise up an install the government we want.
So are you seriously saying the international impact of Sudan and Myanmar is the same as that of Iran?
No, I was merely responding to argument that was presented. He said "The Ayatollah has murdered over 36,000 protesters over the last couple of months." and I cited other examples of governments that massacre civilians.
If he wanted to make your argument that Iran is a danger to the world, he could have done that, and I would have responded differently. But instead, he made what I would call a poor argument in favor of the strike (unless he also supports strikes on similar countries).
Really? Than any other president? More than Ike or FDR or TR or GW? Dude is 79, exhibits sociopathic tendencies, is the least Christian president we've ever had and he's been in an adversarial relationship with the truth for years. A 79-year-old male brain isn't something I tend to think is working at peak performance.
- Status