(06-22-2025 08:28 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-21-2025 08:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Fox reporting that the US dropped SIX bunker busters on Fordow. It has been "completely obliterated."

The other two sites were taken care of by 30 Tomahawk missiles launched from US submarines tonight, some 400 miles away.

That’s $30M for what two B1s could have done with a full load of JDAMs ($800k).

If the Israelis have eliminated their air defenses there is no reason to use high dollar Tomahawks vs cheap JDAMs.

So, you’re now calling the shots?

It’s not even Monday morning yet…

(06-22-2025 08:48 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:36 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Question for AI: Did bill Clinton seek permission from congress before bombing Serbia?

"President Bill Clinton did not seek formal permission from Congress before initiating NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999, known as Operation Allied Force. The military action, which began on March 24, 1999, was conducted under NATO's auspices to address the Kosovo crisis, specifically Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians. Clinton justified the intervention on humanitarian grounds, citing the need to prevent genocide and regional destabilization, and relied on his authority as Commander-in-Chief to engage U.S. forces.

In short, Clinton acted unilaterally to initiate the bombing, informed Congress as required, but did not receive explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the War Powers Resolution’s application."

The reader may recall the USA had nothing at stake in the conflict and yet it occurred without congressional authorization and the Dem's went along with it.

In contrast, a nuclear armed Iran is a material threat to the USA.

Yeah, but...but...ORANGE MAN BAD! REEEEEE! /sarcasm

Hypocrites.

Generally speaking the president has engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval.

What are you talking about? The Los Angeles riots before this? An appeals court has already ruled in his favor.

The attack last night? You think we shouldn't take out Iran's nuclear capability, when we are the only ones who can do it?

But beyond that, would you like a list of presidents who have taken military action without congressional approval? It is similar to the list of presidents who have served in office.

(06-22-2025 08:50 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:46 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:31 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:28 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-21-2025 08:06 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Fox reporting that the US dropped SIX bunker busters on Fordow. It has been "completely obliterated."

The other two sites were taken care of by 30 Tomahawk missiles launched from US submarines tonight, some 400 miles away.

That’s $30M for what two B1s could have done with a full load of JDAMs ($800k).

If the Israelis have eliminated their air defenses there is no reason to use high dollar Tomahawks vs cheap JDAMs.

You are just mad Trump pulled this off without a single lesbian firefighter trying to use hydrants hooked up to an empty reservoir.

Always a sign you have no valid argument against the content of my post and I’m right when you make an expletive laden post calling me names, then edit it to some random rant not about the subject.

Why don’t you try addressing the content of my post if you feel so strongly about it, instead of posting your stupid nonsense? JDAMs are dirt cheap, and the Israelis have supposedly achieved air superiority over IRAN. If that is the case $30M of tomahawks is a waste when $800k in JDAMs will have the same effect.

How do you know? Are you a military expert?

You're not? You're just talking out of your ass, as usual?

Maybe you should quit talking and sit this one out. You'll actually come of smarter than continuing to show your ignorance.

I posted that JDAMs are cheaper than tomahawks for the same effect. And that the Israelis are claiming to have already eliminated Irans air defense network.

What do you think is incorrect there?

(06-22-2025 08:36 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Question for AI: Did bill Clinton seek permission from congress before bombing Serbia?

"President Bill Clinton did not seek formal permission from Congress before initiating NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999, known as Operation Allied Force. The military action, which began on March 24, 1999, was conducted under NATO's auspices to address the Kosovo crisis, specifically Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians. Clinton justified the intervention on humanitarian grounds, citing the need to prevent genocide and regional destabilization, and relied on his authority as Commander-in-Chief to engage U.S. forces.

In short, Clinton acted unilaterally to initiate the bombing, informed Congress as required, but did not receive explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the War Powers Resolution’s application."

The reader may recall the USA had nothing at stake in the conflict and yet it occurred without congressional authorization and the Dem's went along with it.

In contrast, a nuclear armed Iran is a material threat to the USA.

But you are leaving something out....

most republicans cried like ******* about President Clinton not getting approval. That's the major problem with congress no matter what side does what the other will play politics.

Its only gotten worse since social media has became instant

(06-22-2025 08:39 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:35 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Thankful we have this guy in charge.





This is still the greatest clip EVER.

I agree, and I think the Presidential race was over, right then and there.

I was watching live when that happened, and I literally said out loud that he just won a second term.

(06-22-2025 08:39 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:35 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Thankful we have this guy in charge.





This is still the greatest clip EVER.

I agree, and I think the Presidential race was over, right then and there.

And we still know next to nothing about how this was allowed to happen.

Rally attendees with cell phone cameras were yelling at cops and SS that “he has a gun”, and nothing.

Father and sister were shopping at Costco the very next week. Nary a worry.

Rather odd, no?

(06-22-2025 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:48 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:36 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Question for AI: Did bill Clinton seek permission from congress before bombing Serbia?

"President Bill Clinton did not seek formal permission from Congress before initiating NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999, known as Operation Allied Force. The military action, which began on March 24, 1999, was conducted under NATO's auspices to address the Kosovo crisis, specifically Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians. Clinton justified the intervention on humanitarian grounds, citing the need to prevent genocide and regional destabilization, and relied on his authority as Commander-in-Chief to engage U.S. forces.

In short, Clinton acted unilaterally to initiate the bombing, informed Congress as required, but did not receive explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the War Powers Resolution’s application."

The reader may recall the USA had nothing at stake in the conflict and yet it occurred without congressional authorization and the Dem's went along with it.

In contrast, a nuclear armed Iran is a material threat to the USA.

Yeah, but...but...ORANGE MAN BAD! REEEEEE! /sarcasm

Hypocrites.

Generally speaking the president has engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval.

What are you talking about? The Los Angeles riots before this? An appeals court has already ruled in his favor.

The attack last night? You think we shouldn't take out Iran's nuclear capability, when we are the only ones who can do it?

But beyond that, would you like a list of presidents who have taken military action without congressional approval? It is similar to the list of presidents who have served in office.

Can you not read?

I said that generally other presidents have engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval. Trumps actions are in line with what other presidents have done without congressional approvals.

Who is talking about LA? This thread is about Iran.

(06-22-2025 08:54 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:36 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Question for AI: Did bill Clinton seek permission from congress before bombing Serbia?

"President Bill Clinton did not seek formal permission from Congress before initiating NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999, known as Operation Allied Force. The military action, which began on March 24, 1999, was conducted under NATO's auspices to address the Kosovo crisis, specifically Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians. Clinton justified the intervention on humanitarian grounds, citing the need to prevent genocide and regional destabilization, and relied on his authority as Commander-in-Chief to engage U.S. forces.

In short, Clinton acted unilaterally to initiate the bombing, informed Congress as required, but did not receive explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the War Powers Resolution’s application."

The reader may recall the USA had nothing at stake in the conflict and yet it occurred without congressional authorization and the Dem's went along with it.

In contrast, a nuclear armed Iran is a material threat to the USA.

But you are leaving something out....

most republicans cried like ******* about President Clinton not getting approval. That's the major problem with congress no matter what side does what the other will play politics.

Its only gotten worse since social media has became instant

Very true, and it's sickening.

Elvis: It doesn't matter if they're cheaper or not. The point is to get the job done and do it well. That's what we've done. But you keep Monday morning quarterbacking. Keep complaining about something Trump does or doesn't do. It's all you've got at this point. Keep on grasping at straws. You'll eventually grab one...maybe.

(06-22-2025 08:54 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:50 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:46 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:31 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:28 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  That’s $30M for what two B1s could have done with a full load of JDAMs ($800k).

If the Israelis have eliminated their air defenses there is no reason to use high dollar Tomahawks vs cheap JDAMs.

You are just mad Trump pulled this off without a single lesbian firefighter trying to use hydrants hooked up to an empty reservoir.

Always a sign you have no valid argument against the content of my post and I’m right when you make an expletive laden post calling me names, then edit it to some random rant not about the subject.

Why don’t you try addressing the content of my post if you feel so strongly about it, instead of posting your stupid nonsense? JDAMs are dirt cheap, and the Israelis have supposedly achieved air superiority over IRAN. If that is the case $30M of tomahawks is a waste when $800k in JDAMs will have the same effect.

How do you know? Are you a military expert?

You're not? You're just talking out of your ass, as usual?

Maybe you should quit talking and sit this one out. You'll actually come of smarter than continuing to show your ignorance.

I posted that JDAMs are cheaper than tomahawks for the same effect. And that the Israelis are claiming to have already eliminated Irans air defense network.

What do you think is incorrect there?

What you said is factual....

but dont you think those making the decision have more information than you? Lets look at this another way. Why put more half billion planes at risk than you need to? The B1 was the only thing that could carry the bunker buster so they had to be used. No reason to take the chance on more human life or 1/2 billion plane when others can do that job.

There's always the chance of a lucky shot and I bet you would be arguing the other way if a B1 did as you said and was shot down

(06-22-2025 08:54 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:50 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:46 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:31 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:28 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  That’s $30M for what two B1s could have done with a full load of JDAMs ($800k).

If the Israelis have eliminated their air defenses there is no reason to use high dollar Tomahawks vs cheap JDAMs.

You are just mad Trump pulled this off without a single lesbian firefighter trying to use hydrants hooked up to an empty reservoir.

Always a sign you have no valid argument against the content of my post and I’m right when you make an expletive laden post calling me names, then edit it to some random rant not about the subject.

Why don’t you try addressing the content of my post if you feel so strongly about it, instead of posting your stupid nonsense? JDAMs are dirt cheap, and the Israelis have supposedly achieved air superiority over IRAN. If that is the case $30M of tomahawks is a waste when $800k in JDAMs will have the same effect.

How do you know? Are you a military expert?

You're not? You're just talking out of your ass, as usual?

Maybe you should quit talking and sit this one out. You'll actually come of smarter than continuing to show your ignorance.

I posted that JDAMs are cheaper than tomahawks for the same effect. And that the Israelis are claiming to have already eliminated Irans air defense network.

What do you think is incorrect there?

What is incorrect is that you don't have all the military intel to make that determination. Yes JDAMS (which by the way, aren't actually bombs, they are guidance systems attached to dumb bombs) are def cheaper than Tomahawks.

But cost can't be the only consideration. Perhaps they determined that dumb bombs couldn't produce the desired result on the target.

Or perhaps, they deemed it was less risky to our personnel to fire Tomahawks from subs 400 miles away, as opposed to dropping them from a fleet of planes flying over the targets.

And you are assuming that Iran had no air defenses remaining, b/c you believe press reports. What if Iran had additional assets hidden somewhere? Would it be prudent to save money and then get surprised by that?

This is why I'm dumbfounded that you are making this flat out assessment without all the info that Trump, Hegseth and Caine had.

Now tell us that you know all that, too.

(06-22-2025 08:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Can you not read?

I said that generally other presidents have engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval. Trumps actions are in line with what other presidents have done without congressional approvals.

Who is talking about LA? This thread is about Iran.

No one gives a flip how you feel about anything. The American people soundly rejected your sick, twisted ideology and party and told you to sit down and shut up.

Your pathetic little group of 20 year old woke handlers are no longer running things.

(06-22-2025 09:03 AM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:54 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:50 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:46 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:31 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You are just mad Trump pulled this off without a single lesbian firefighter trying to use hydrants hooked up to an empty reservoir.

Always a sign you have no valid argument against the content of my post and I’m right when you make an expletive laden post calling me names, then edit it to some random rant not about the subject.

Why don’t you try addressing the content of my post if you feel so strongly about it, instead of posting your stupid nonsense? JDAMs are dirt cheap, and the Israelis have supposedly achieved air superiority over IRAN. If that is the case $30M of tomahawks is a waste when $800k in JDAMs will have the same effect.

How do you know? Are you a military expert?

You're not? You're just talking out of your ass, as usual?

Maybe you should quit talking and sit this one out. You'll actually come of smarter than continuing to show your ignorance.

I posted that JDAMs are cheaper than tomahawks for the same effect. And that the Israelis are claiming to have already eliminated Irans air defense network.

What do you think is incorrect there?

What you said is factual....

but dont you think those making the decision have more information than you? Lets look at this another way. Why put more half billion planes at risk than you need to? The B1 was the only thing that could carry the bunker buster so they had to be used. No reason to take the chance on more human life or 1/2 billion plane when others can do that job.

You and I just said the same thing, but you managed to say it much more succinctly.

Ven diagram so liberals can whine no matter what decision Trump makes.

(06-22-2025 08:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:48 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:36 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Question for AI: Did bill Clinton seek permission from congress before bombing Serbia?

"President Bill Clinton did not seek formal permission from Congress before initiating NATO's bombing campaign against Serbia in 1999, known as Operation Allied Force. The military action, which began on March 24, 1999, was conducted under NATO's auspices to address the Kosovo crisis, specifically Serbia's actions against ethnic Albanians. Clinton justified the intervention on humanitarian grounds, citing the need to prevent genocide and regional destabilization, and relied on his authority as Commander-in-Chief to engage U.S. forces.

In short, Clinton acted unilaterally to initiate the bombing, informed Congress as required, but did not receive explicit congressional approval, sparking debate over the War Powers Resolution’s application."

The reader may recall the USA had nothing at stake in the conflict and yet it occurred without congressional authorization and the Dem's went along with it.

In contrast, a nuclear armed Iran is a material threat to the USA.

Yeah, but...but...ORANGE MAN BAD! REEEEEE! /sarcasm

Hypocrites.

Generally speaking the president has engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval.

What are you talking about? The Los Angeles riots before this? An appeals court has already ruled in his favor.

The attack last night? You think we shouldn't take out Iran's nuclear capability, when we are the only ones who can do it?

But beyond that, would you like a list of presidents who have taken military action without congressional approval? It is similar to the list of presidents who have served in office.

Can you not read?

I said that generally other presidents have engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval. Trumps actions are in line with what other presidents have done without congressional approvals.

Who is talking about LA? This thread is about Iran.

Read your sentence again. Since we are talking about Trump, you said "THE president, NOT OTHER presidents or ALL presidents, so I took that to mean Trump.

And you did NOT add the clarifying sentence then that you did this time, about being in line with other presidential actions.

Can you not construct sentences that make your point clear?

(06-22-2025 09:06 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Can you not read?

I said that generally other presidents have engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval. Trumps actions are in line with what other presidents have done without congressional approvals.

Who is talking about LA? This thread is about Iran.

No one gives a flip how you feel about anything. The American people soundly rejected your sick, twisted ideology and party and told you to sit down and shut up.

Your pathetic little group of 20 year old woke handlers are no longer running things.

Good talk, thank you for your contribution to this discussion on Iran.

I hope you take this same energy to church this morning.

Elvis, just stop. You're out of your depth.

(06-22-2025 09:14 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 09:06 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Can you not read?

I said that generally other presidents have engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval. Trumps actions are in line with what other presidents have done without congressional approvals.

Who is talking about LA? This thread is about Iran.

No one gives a flip how you feel about anything. The American people soundly rejected your sick, twisted ideology and party and told you to sit down and shut up.

Your pathetic little group of 20 year old woke handlers are no longer running things.

Good talk, thank you for your contribution to this discussion on Iran.

I hope you take this same energy to church this morning.

Best thing you could do is join us before the clock runs out on your chance for forgiveness and redemption though Christ and the cross.

The road you are barreling down at 100 mph only ends in one place.

No ghey orgies & tranny story hours down there.

The second guessing of the type of weapons to employ in the name of economy is perhaps the most asinine notion I have ever read on this messageboard.

(06-22-2025 09:09 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Ven diagram so liberals can whine no matter what decision Trump makes.

Thanks for the chuckle this morning.

(06-22-2025 09:10 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:57 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:53 AM)TripleA Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:48 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(06-22-2025 08:38 AM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  Yeah, but...but...ORANGE MAN BAD! REEEEEE! /sarcasm

Hypocrites.

Generally speaking the president has engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval.

What are you talking about? The Los Angeles riots before this? An appeals court has already ruled in his favor.

The attack last night? You think we shouldn't take out Iran's nuclear capability, when we are the only ones who can do it?

But beyond that, would you like a list of presidents who have taken military action without congressional approval? It is similar to the list of presidents who have served in office.

Can you not read?

I said that generally other presidents have engaged in limited military action for up to 90 days without congressional approval. Trumps actions are in line with what other presidents have done without congressional approvals.

Who is talking about LA? This thread is about Iran.

Read your sentence again. Since we are talking about Trump, you said "THE president, NOT OTHER presidents or ALL presidents, so I took that to mean Trump.

And you did NOT add the clarifying sentence then that you did this time, about being in line with other presidential actions.

Can you not construct sentences that make your point clear?

I made my point quite clear, you are just so ate up with MAGA syndrome you argued with me when I agreed with you.