Iran War. . . USA Up 2-0 in the First Period
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
How the fuck did MTG and Tucker Carlson become voices of reason?
youtube.com
Post from Tucker Carlson
The United States committed troops to this conflict because the prime minister of Israel, not Israel as a nation, but the guy who runs it, Benjamin Netanyahu...
youtube.com
Last edited:
I’ve actually seen several videos of his and his body doesn’t move and he’s always got the same exact perfectly white shirt. I assumed he was AI.
Anyway, doesn’t sound like this is de-escalating.
U.S. says war ‘just getting started’ as Iran vows ‘complete destruction.’ Follow for live updates. — CTV News
Israel and the U.S. continued to hammer Tehran and cities across Iran on Wednesday as the war entered its fifth day.
US Canada Britain and a chunk of NATO couldn't beat the Taliban. Iran is 45X the size of Gaza with 91.5 Million highly educated people with a pile of Arabs jumping on board. This isn't going to end anytime soon.I’ve actually seen several videos of his and his body doesn’t move and he’s always got the same exact perfectly white shirt. I assumed he was AI.
Anyway, doesn’t sound like this is de-escalating.
U.S. says war ‘just getting started’ as Iran vows ‘complete destruction.’ Follow for live updates. — CTV News
Israel and the U.S. continued to hammer Tehran and cities across Iran on Wednesday as the war entered its fifth day.apple.news
Didn’t expect us to end anytime soon, but it didn’t seem like Iran was winning friends and influencing people, as far as what the neighbours are saying anyway.
As far as your media sources are saying.
You still think Israel won the 12 Day War.
The British, Americans and other NATO allies are a lot more technologically advanced than Iran.
Are they? Iran rendered a $2 Trillion air defense system the west relies on useless leaving system operators to "use judgement and not rely on what they see on screen".
Yes. The British, Americans, French and others are a lot more technologically advanced than Iran. I'm not an expert but I think we all know that's the case.
Britain, America and France are also nuclear powers, so if the need ever arises each country could completely destroy any other non-nuclear country. They have the capabilities to do so.
As for the British - and I'm trying not to be biased - but you don't fuck with them especially. The Americans may be a lot larger and more powerful but I do think the British are often more difficult to beat in wars than even the Americans. The British not only have a warrior spirit but they have a high intelligence and cunning in wars that the Americans especially lack. The Americans are the brawn and the British are the brains. The people you DON'T want to fight in a war are the British. The chances are they'll beat you.
No defence against Iran? There is no way Iran will beat either the United States or Great Britain or France - three of the five great powers (the other two being China and Russia) - in a full scale war. Iran would be destroyed.
As for Russia, her status as one of the five great powers is waning as she struggles in a war against a much smaller country.
Was the MTG clip AI? Has that feel, & whether or not it was, still, nice background! The random hand flutter from the bottom of the screen is a nice touch. Not discounting what was said, but I don’t think that was really her in all honesty
Yeah, how many Iranians back the current regime & how many identify as Persians? Anyway, the current regime doesn’t have to win in order to win, it just has to exist come April Fools Day in order to claim a victory…& I would venture a guest at about 10% of the population supporting the current regime, & about 90% identifying as Persians. Similar ratio to Germany in the late 30s and early 40s, etc…
Anyway, on the ground in Iran, it’s gonna come down to who has access to weaponry and who doesn’t. The 10% who do are probably gonna be the ones that stay in control.
The write up from Tucker Carlson in post 62 reads like Carlson sounds as of late. That seems legit.
I don’t think they lost it, or won it. I see that is more of another battle in an extended war, and it did contribute to weakening the Iranian regime and many of it’s proxies in the ongoing ongoing over the last couple of years since this pimple popped October 7, 2023.
Iran (the current regime) has the home ground advantage, and Iran isn’t just a desert, all kinds of weird geography, including mountains and valleys to be used like mujahideen used against Russia in Afghanistan. This won’t be quick or easy, and this can’t be done just from boats & planes.
How many times have any nuclear weapons been used against any other country ever since America on Japan in the last 70yrs? Having the ability to do so and actually doing so are not the same thing.
A 96%-98% effective defensive is not no defence.
The current Iranian regime doesn’t have to beat anybody, it just has to survive for the next six weeks or so, and in that it can claim a victory over everybody.
Eventually America, & France, & Britain will have to leave in order to rearm and repair and cycle out it’s military, etc…the Iranian regime (or what will be left of it) doesn’t have to leave to do this. China & Russia just have to smuggle in supplies without having to get directly involved.
U.S. Senate Republicans backed President Donald Trump's military campaign against Iran on Wednesday, voting to block a bipartisan resolution aiming to stop the air war and require that any hostilities against Iran be authorized by Congress.
The Senate voted 53 to 47 not to advance the resolution, largely along party lines, with all but one Republican voting against the procedural motion and all but one Democrat supporting it.
The latest effort by Democrats and a few Republicans to rein in President Donald Trump's repeated foreign troop deployments, the war powers resolution was described by sponsors as a bid to take back Congress' responsibility to declare war, as spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
Opponents rejected this, insisting that Trump's action was legal and within his right as commander in chief to “protect the United States” by ordering limited strikes. They accused supporters of the resolution of endangering U.S. forces.
"This is not a forever war, indeed not even close to it. This is going to end very quickly," (???) Republican Senator Jim Risch of Idaho, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech against the resolution.
The measure had not been expected to succeed. Trump's fellow Republicans hold slim majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and have blocked previous resolutions seeking to curb his war powers.
Backers of the resolution said they would not give up, and even some Republicans who voted to block it said they would press for public testimony from Trump aides about the administration's Iran strategy, especially if the conflict lasts for weeks, as Trump has predicted.
Debate about Trump's buildup of military assets in the Middle East, and American and Israeli strikes on Iran has centered on whether Trump is pulling the country into another "forever war" like the long conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Today senators face a choice, stand with the American people who are tired of war in the Middle East, or side with Donald Trump, who bumbled America into another war most Americans fiercely oppose," said Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, a co-sponsor of the resolution.
With control of Congress potentially shifting to Democrats in November's midterm elections, a prolonged Iran war could concern voters.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Tuesday showed that only one in four Americans approved of U.S. strikes on Iran and about half believe Trump is too willing to use military force. The House is expected to vote on a similar Iran war powers resolution on Thursday."Imagine a scenario where Congress would vote to tell the commander-in-chief that he was no longer allowed to complete this mission. That would be a very dangerous thing," Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana told reporters after a classified briefing on the Iran conflict from top administration officials.
Even if a resolution were to pass both the Senate and House, it would not go into effect unless it could garner two-thirds majorities in both chambers to survive an expected Trump veto…much like how I foresee Trump governing for the 1000-ish days between the midterm elections in November and the next US federal election.
US Senate backs Trump on Iran strikes, blocks bid to limit his war powers — Reuters
U.S. Senate Republicans backed President Donald Trump's military campaign against Iran on Wednesday, voting to block a bipartisan resolution aiming to stop the air war and require that any hostilities against Iran be authorized by Congress.