Cthepack said:

---

jkpackfan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

This is wild. Simply put, whether the sites in Iran were partially destroyed, destroyed, or have not a scratch, the demonstration by Israel to eliminate Irans proxy groups and both countries demonstrating that they can own the Iranian military anytime they want to (Israel is currently dominating Iranian airspace), and the complete elimination of the upper echelon of the Iranian military should be enough for Iran to think twice about restarting nuclear bomb making, because make no mistake about it, bombing will happen again if Iran chooses violence.

How that isn't a positive outcome, I have no idea how it couldn't be

---

Was there some previous doubt that Israel and the US (especially together) could own the Iranian military?

Israel spends 3x more on defense than Iran and has long had one of the best-trained militaries on the planet; the US spends 80x what Iran does.

A show of force, essentially as a marketing exercise to remind the world we sling a big one isn't a reason to drop bombs. The world already knows we could wipe Iran off the face of the map if we wanted to.

When did we stop weighing out all the true benefits and costs of bombing a country as a justification to proceed (or not), and instead start using Twitter sound bites as justification to pull the B-2's out of the hangar?

---

im not sure what to tell you other than a Nuclear Iran is bad for the world, and if we slowed them down enough to continue to delay that possibility, then this was 100% a successful mission. I fail to understand why that's a problem.

Why do you need a hardened bunker to produce nuclear fuel for domestic purposes?

Iran wants nuclear weapons and will most certainly use them to destroy Israel. If you cry wolf long enough, you will suffer the consequences. If you're policy as a country is annihilation of western civilization you should take them at their word.

---

Based on what you've read or heard, do you think the 2015 agreement that Trump ripped up was slowing down their nuclear program, at least as much as these widely forecasted bombing runs?

If the Pentagon is correct and the mission delayed their program by only a few months, what then? Bomb them again in 6 months or a year?

Treating this like it's some sort of unqualified success is wildly myopic when it seems not likely to be anything more than a very short therm solution; is deficient compared to the 2015 treaty; is less impactful long-term than myriad other layered diplomatic and economic solutions; and potentially comes with economic and security risk downsides.

---

Pieces of paper did not stop Iran from spending billions of dollars to enrich uranium for weaponization. Perhaps they'll take things more seriously now, same as Hamas and Hezbollah.

We are at almost 60 years of the same old policy with respect to terrorists and those countries who support terrorism. Treaties don't work, the head of the snake should be cut off and if a new snake takes its place you cut that one off too. Eventually, the snakes will run out.

The US has not taken seriously the fact that the intent of these leaders is to end western civilization. We got stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan because we didn't go for victory, and victory was needed to provide stability and we messed that up. We can't be afraid to win, that's what has created forever wars.

---

The problem isn't the US not taking religious fanaticism or terrorist-harboring states or ass-backwards theocracies seriously. The problem is that you're fighting ideology far mare than you're fighting militarily and that's way more complex than cutting the head off of the snake. Even if the regime rolls over, voids in leadership just beget more unstable governance. Look at Afghanistan. America nation-builds but eventually they have to leave. Who fills the void? The Taliban.

There is zero evidence that you can defeat Muslim extremist governments by bombing them, or occupying their countries, or nation-building, or by militarily forcing regime change. The best we may be able to hope for is to limit their damage and inhumanity by applying economic pressure; inspection oversight to the max practicable extent; and supporting those Westernized or allied nations that do try to or need to combat them militarily (Israel).

On Iran and nukes, partially staving off their nuke program is all you get from any of of the wide range of potential solutions.

You're not going to cure their nuclear ambitions as long as this regime is in charge. The only question is, how much can you slow them down.

Bombing them did not scare them into permanent submission. It just delayed their ambitions by a few months.

Again, is that better than "nothing" as Gulf say on here on repeat, even though there are obviously many things to do other than "bomb" or "nothing."

I'm not even opposed to bombing Iran, I just want to hear for once what the mid-term and long-term proposed plan is, because bombing these sites is a short-term solution that also may beget other problems.

---

Where did you get only delayed a few months?

---

That would be based on the media misinterpreting damage reports.

---

Exactly, a preliminary report that was noted as low confidence but of course the media ran with it as fact and a lot of people lapped it up.

---

I saw the Ayatollah come out today and said very little damage was inflicted. He should know it is his country.

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

jkpackfan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

This is wild. Simply put, whether the sites in Iran were partially destroyed, destroyed, or have not a scratch, the demonstration by Israel to eliminate Irans proxy groups and both countries demonstrating that they can own the Iranian military anytime they want to (Israel is currently dominating Iranian airspace), and the complete elimination of the upper echelon of the Iranian military should be enough for Iran to think twice about restarting nuclear bomb making, because make no mistake about it, bombing will happen again if Iran chooses violence.

How that isn't a positive outcome, I have no idea how it couldn't be

---

Was there some previous doubt that Israel and the US (especially together) could own the Iranian military?

Israel spends 3x more on defense than Iran and has long had one of the best-trained militaries on the planet; the US spends 80x what Iran does.

A show of force, essentially as a marketing exercise to remind the world we sling a big one isn't a reason to drop bombs. The world already knows we could wipe Iran off the face of the map if we wanted to.

When did we stop weighing out all the true benefits and costs of bombing a country as a justification to proceed (or not), and instead start using Twitter sound bites as justification to pull the B-2's out of the hangar?

---

im not sure what to tell you other than a Nuclear Iran is bad for the world, and if we slowed them down enough to continue to delay that possibility, then this was 100% a successful mission. I fail to understand why that's a problem.

Why do you need a hardened bunker to produce nuclear fuel for domestic purposes?

Iran wants nuclear weapons and will most certainly use them to destroy Israel. If you cry wolf long enough, you will suffer the consequences. If you're policy as a country is annihilation of western civilization you should take them at their word.

---

Based on what you've read or heard, do you think the 2015 agreement that Trump ripped up was slowing down their nuclear program, at least as much as these widely forecasted bombing runs?

If the Pentagon is correct and the mission delayed their program by only a few months, what then? Bomb them again in 6 months or a year?

Treating this like it's some sort of unqualified success is wildly myopic when it seems not likely to be anything more than a very short therm solution; is deficient compared to the 2015 treaty; is less impactful long-term than myriad other layered diplomatic and economic solutions; and potentially comes with economic and security risk downsides.

---

Pieces of paper did not stop Iran from spending billions of dollars to enrich uranium for weaponization. Perhaps they'll take things more seriously now, same as Hamas and Hezbollah.

We are at almost 60 years of the same old policy with respect to terrorists and those countries who support terrorism. Treaties don't work, the head of the snake should be cut off and if a new snake takes its place you cut that one off too. Eventually, the snakes will run out.

The US has not taken seriously the fact that the intent of these leaders is to end western civilization. We got stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan because we didn't go for victory, and victory was needed to provide stability and we messed that up. We can't be afraid to win, that's what has created forever wars.

---

The problem isn't the US not taking religious fanaticism or terrorist-harboring states or ass-backwards theocracies seriously. The problem is that you're fighting ideology far mare than you're fighting militarily and that's way more complex than cutting the head off of the snake. Even if the regime rolls over, voids in leadership just beget more unstable governance. Look at Afghanistan. America nation-builds but eventually they have to leave. Who fills the void? The Taliban.

There is zero evidence that you can defeat Muslim extremist governments by bombing them, or occupying their countries, or nation-building, or by militarily forcing regime change. The best we may be able to hope for is to limit their damage and inhumanity by applying economic pressure; inspection oversight to the max practicable extent; and supporting those Westernized or allied nations that do try to or need to combat them militarily (Israel).

On Iran and nukes, partially staving off their nuke program is all you get from any of of the wide range of potential solutions.

You're not going to cure their nuclear ambitions as long as this regime is in charge. The only question is, how much can you slow them down.

Bombing them did not scare them into permanent submission. It just delayed their ambitions by a few months.

Again, is that better than "nothing" as Gulf say on here on repeat, even though there are obviously many things to do other than "bomb" or "nothing."

I'm not even opposed to bombing Iran, I just want to hear for once what the mid-term and long-term proposed plan is, because bombing these sites is a short-term solution that also may beget other problems.

---

Where did you get only delayed a few months?

---

That would be based on the media misinterpreting damage reports.

---

Exactly, a preliminary report that was noted as low confidence but of course the media ran with it as fact and a lot of people lapped it up.

---

I saw the Ayatollah come out today and said very little damage was inflicted. He should know it is his country.

---

That's right. It's his country. Which is why he should know that he can't just tell the populace that his government's forces and nuclear program just got their asses thoroughly punched out.

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

jkpackfan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

This is wild. Simply put, whether the sites in Iran were partially destroyed, destroyed, or have not a scratch, the demonstration by Israel to eliminate Irans proxy groups and both countries demonstrating that they can own the Iranian military anytime they want to (Israel is currently dominating Iranian airspace), and the complete elimination of the upper echelon of the Iranian military should be enough for Iran to think twice about restarting nuclear bomb making, because make no mistake about it, bombing will happen again if Iran chooses violence.

How that isn't a positive outcome, I have no idea how it couldn't be

---

Was there some previous doubt that Israel and the US (especially together) could own the Iranian military?

Israel spends 3x more on defense than Iran and has long had one of the best-trained militaries on the planet; the US spends 80x what Iran does.

A show of force, essentially as a marketing exercise to remind the world we sling a big one isn't a reason to drop bombs. The world already knows we could wipe Iran off the face of the map if we wanted to.

When did we stop weighing out all the true benefits and costs of bombing a country as a justification to proceed (or not), and instead start using Twitter sound bites as justification to pull the B-2's out of the hangar?

---

im not sure what to tell you other than a Nuclear Iran is bad for the world, and if we slowed them down enough to continue to delay that possibility, then this was 100% a successful mission. I fail to understand why that's a problem.

Why do you need a hardened bunker to produce nuclear fuel for domestic purposes?

Iran wants nuclear weapons and will most certainly use them to destroy Israel. If you cry wolf long enough, you will suffer the consequences. If you're policy as a country is annihilation of western civilization you should take them at their word.

---

Based on what you've read or heard, do you think the 2015 agreement that Trump ripped up was slowing down their nuclear program, at least as much as these widely forecasted bombing runs?

If the Pentagon is correct and the mission delayed their program by only a few months, what then? Bomb them again in 6 months or a year?

Treating this like it's some sort of unqualified success is wildly myopic when it seems not likely to be anything more than a very short therm solution; is deficient compared to the 2015 treaty; is less impactful long-term than myriad other layered diplomatic and economic solutions; and potentially comes with economic and security risk downsides.

---

Pieces of paper did not stop Iran from spending billions of dollars to enrich uranium for weaponization. Perhaps they'll take things more seriously now, same as Hamas and Hezbollah.

We are at almost 60 years of the same old policy with respect to terrorists and those countries who support terrorism. Treaties don't work, the head of the snake should be cut off and if a new snake takes its place you cut that one off too. Eventually, the snakes will run out.

The US has not taken seriously the fact that the intent of these leaders is to end western civilization. We got stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan because we didn't go for victory, and victory was needed to provide stability and we messed that up. We can't be afraid to win, that's what has created forever wars.

---

The problem isn't the US not taking religious fanaticism or terrorist-harboring states or ass-backwards theocracies seriously. The problem is that you're fighting ideology far mare than you're fighting militarily and that's way more complex than cutting the head off of the snake. Even if the regime rolls over, voids in leadership just beget more unstable governance. Look at Afghanistan. America nation-builds but eventually they have to leave. Who fills the void? The Taliban.

There is zero evidence that you can defeat Muslim extremist governments by bombing them, or occupying their countries, or nation-building, or by militarily forcing regime change. The best we may be able to hope for is to limit their damage and inhumanity by applying economic pressure; inspection oversight to the max practicable extent; and supporting those Westernized or allied nations that do try to or need to combat them militarily (Israel).

On Iran and nukes, partially staving off their nuke program is all you get from any of of the wide range of potential solutions.

You're not going to cure their nuclear ambitions as long as this regime is in charge. The only question is, how much can you slow them down.

Bombing them did not scare them into permanent submission. It just delayed their ambitions by a few months.

Again, is that better than "nothing" as Gulf say on here on repeat, even though there are obviously many things to do other than "bomb" or "nothing."

I'm not even opposed to bombing Iran, I just want to hear for once what the mid-term and long-term proposed plan is, because bombing these sites is a short-term solution that also may beget other problems.

---

Where did you get only delayed a few months?

---

That would be based on the media misinterpreting damage reports.

---

Exactly, a preliminary report that was noted as low confidence but of course the media ran with it as fact and a lot of people lapped it up.

---

I saw the Ayatollah come out today and said very little damage was inflicted. He should know it is his country.

---

That's right. It's his country. Which is why he should know that he can't just tell the populace that his government's forces and nuclear program just got their asses thoroughly punched out.

---

Cthepack said:

---

Oldsouljer said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

jkpackfan said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Cthepack said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Civilized said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

This is wild. Simply put, whether the sites in Iran were partially destroyed, destroyed, or have not a scratch, the demonstration by Israel to eliminate Irans proxy groups and both countries demonstrating that they can own the Iranian military anytime they want to (Israel is currently dominating Iranian airspace), and the complete elimination of the upper echelon of the Iranian military should be enough for Iran to think twice about restarting nuclear bomb making, because make no mistake about it, bombing will happen again if Iran chooses violence.

How that isn't a positive outcome, I have no idea how it couldn't be

---

Was there some previous doubt that Israel and the US (especially together) could own the Iranian military?

Israel spends 3x more on defense than Iran and has long had one of the best-trained militaries on the planet; the US spends 80x what Iran does.

A show of force, essentially as a marketing exercise to remind the world we sling a big one isn't a reason to drop bombs. The world already knows we could wipe Iran off the face of the map if we wanted to.

When did we stop weighing out all the true benefits and costs of bombing a country as a justification to proceed (or not), and instead start using Twitter sound bites as justification to pull the B-2's out of the hangar?

---

im not sure what to tell you other than a Nuclear Iran is bad for the world, and if we slowed them down enough to continue to delay that possibility, then this was 100% a successful mission. I fail to understand why that's a problem.

Why do you need a hardened bunker to produce nuclear fuel for domestic purposes?

Iran wants nuclear weapons and will most certainly use them to destroy Israel. If you cry wolf long enough, you will suffer the consequences. If you're policy as a country is annihilation of western civilization you should take them at their word.

---

Based on what you've read or heard, do you think the 2015 agreement that Trump ripped up was slowing down their nuclear program, at least as much as these widely forecasted bombing runs?

If the Pentagon is correct and the mission delayed their program by only a few months, what then? Bomb them again in 6 months or a year?

Treating this like it's some sort of unqualified success is wildly myopic when it seems not likely to be anything more than a very short therm solution; is deficient compared to the 2015 treaty; is less impactful long-term than myriad other layered diplomatic and economic solutions; and potentially comes with economic and security risk downsides.

---

Pieces of paper did not stop Iran from spending billions of dollars to enrich uranium for weaponization. Perhaps they'll take things more seriously now, same as Hamas and Hezbollah.

We are at almost 60 years of the same old policy with respect to terrorists and those countries who support terrorism. Treaties don't work, the head of the snake should be cut off and if a new snake takes its place you cut that one off too. Eventually, the snakes will run out.

The US has not taken seriously the fact that the intent of these leaders is to end western civilization. We got stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan because we didn't go for victory, and victory was needed to provide stability and we messed that up. We can't be afraid to win, that's what has created forever wars.

---

The problem isn't the US not taking religious fanaticism or terrorist-harboring states or ass-backwards theocracies seriously. The problem is that you're fighting ideology far mare than you're fighting militarily and that's way more complex than cutting the head off of the snake. Even if the regime rolls over, voids in leadership just beget more unstable governance. Look at Afghanistan. America nation-builds but eventually they have to leave. Who fills the void? The Taliban.

There is zero evidence that you can defeat Muslim extremist governments by bombing them, or occupying their countries, or nation-building, or by militarily forcing regime change. The best we may be able to hope for is to limit their damage and inhumanity by applying economic pressure; inspection oversight to the max practicable extent; and supporting those Westernized or allied nations that do try to or need to combat them militarily (Israel).

On Iran and nukes, partially staving off their nuke program is all you get from any of of the wide range of potential solutions.

You're not going to cure their nuclear ambitions as long as this regime is in charge. The only question is, how much can you slow them down.

Bombing them did not scare them into permanent submission. It just delayed their ambitions by a few months.

Again, is that better than "nothing" as Gulf say on here on repeat, even though there are obviously many things to do other than "bomb" or "nothing."

I'm not even opposed to bombing Iran, I just want to hear for once what the mid-term and long-term proposed plan is, because bombing these sites is a short-term solution that also may beget other problems.

---

Where did you get only delayed a few months?

---

That would be based on the media misinterpreting damage reports.

---

Exactly, a preliminary report that was noted as low confidence but of course the media ran with it as fact and a lot of people lapped it up.

---

I saw the Ayatollah come out today and said very little damage was inflicted. He should know it is his country.

---

That's right. It's his country. Which is why he should know that he can't just tell the populace that his government's forces and nuclear program just got their asses thoroughly punched out.

---

So Civ and the Ayatollah are sharing the same propaganda? Interesting company for both.

---

SmaptyWolf said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

Yep, moves to class action rules now. And to be fair, you loved this happening when it was going against Democratic President's executive orders

---

Isn't it funny that this Supreme Court didn't think to make this ruling during the 7 million nationwide injunctions of Biden's executive orders?

Such a cartoonishly corrupt court. Every ruling seems to find a way to expand Trump's power, shield him from accountability, and/or facilitate corrupt delays.

---

Counting partial dissents as dissents, here's some topline SCOTUS stats:

6-3 ideological: 9%

6-3 w Court's 3 most conservative justices in dissent: 5%

Divided cases with all 3 liberal justices in dissent: 15%

Divided cases w only conservatives justices in dissent: 28%

— Sarah Isgur (@whignewtons) June 27, 2025