(10-16-2026 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It seems the IRGC has substantially increased the number of ships they are hitting on the US sponsored southern Omani route---and it does not seem that we are responding at all. It does not appear we are even bothering to hit the missile launch sites that are sending the increased volume of missiles across the Strait. Cant say Im a fan of just sitting on our hands like this and being 100% defensive until after the mid-terms. Sure hope whatever we have planned after the mid-terms really knocks em into next month.

Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

(10-16-2026 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It seems the IRGC has substantially increased the number of ships they are hitting on the US sponsored southern Omani route---and it does not seem that we are responding at all. It does not appear we are even bothering to hit the missile launch sites that are sending the increased volume of missiles across the Strait. Cant say Im a fan of just sitting on our hands like this and being 100% defensive until after the mid-terms. Sure hope whatever we have planned after the mid-terms really knocks em into next month.

Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That said---I dont think a major ground incursion is in the cards. Not enough troops are in the area to do that. If they do anything, it would be fairly large scale commando like hit and run raids on the Iranian "missile cities", maybe the nuclear sites, and perhaps the occupation of some of the small islands in the Strait. Im thinking something that might look like an old fashioned air cavalry raid in Vietnam. The idea would be to get in---search and destroy---and then get the heck out. Use air power to interdict enemy reinforcements so the enclave stays relatively safe until they are ready to get out. If successful---you can destroy large swaths of the Iranian long range missile threats without having to intercept them in the air. Since we are short interceptors and cant really fill that gap for a while----that would seem like the best plan available at this time to handle those Iranian missiles.

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It seems the IRGC has substantially increased the number of ships they are hitting on the US sponsored southern Omani route---and it does not seem that we are responding at all. It does not appear we are even bothering to hit the missile launch sites that are sending the increased volume of missiles across the Strait. Cant say Im a fan of just sitting on our hands like this and being 100% defensive until after the mid-terms. Sure hope whatever we have planned after the mid-terms really knocks em into next month.

Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

We never learn.

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

Agree 100% on the first point. Agree 50% on the 2nd. Regardless, Israel never needed our help to eliminate the nuclear threat. Well... no more help than we've given them over the past 5 decades.

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It seems the IRGC has substantially increased the number of ships they are hitting on the US sponsored southern Omani route---and it does not seem that we are responding at all. It does not appear we are even bothering to hit the missile launch sites that are sending the increased volume of missiles across the Strait. Cant say Im a fan of just sitting on our hands like this and being 100% defensive until after the mid-terms. Sure hope whatever we have planned after the mid-terms really knocks em into next month.

Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

Thats only true to the extent they have no missile that can yet strike the USA. That was true of N Korea----right up until the day it was not. I hate to break it to you---but if we do nothing----the day the Iranians have the ability to place a nuclear missile in the USA will come---and then what are you going to do when they close the Strait again? Thats will be the time to do nothing---because you wont really be able to do anything.

(10-16-2026 12:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It seems the IRGC has substantially increased the number of ships they are hitting on the US sponsored southern Omani route---and it does not seem that we are responding at all. It does not appear we are even bothering to hit the missile launch sites that are sending the increased volume of missiles across the Strait. Cant say Im a fan of just sitting on our hands like this and being 100% defensive until after the mid-terms. Sure hope whatever we have planned after the mid-terms really knocks em into next month.

Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

Thats only true to the extent they have no missile that can yet strike the USA. That was true of N Korea----right up until the day it was not. I hate to break it to you---but if we do nothing----the day the Iranians have the ability to place a nuclear missile in the USA will come---and then what are you going to do when they close the Strait again? Thats will be the time to do nothing---because you wont really be able to do anything.

They have no delivery mechanism to reach us. They've never come close.

Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I have zero worries that even if Iran ever acquired the capability to reach us with a nuclear weapon that they would ever use it. They may act like it, but no, they don't have a wish to not exist. It's a deterrent. Just like the rest of the countries that have them.

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It seems the IRGC has substantially increased the number of ships they are hitting on the US sponsored southern Omani route---and it does not seem that we are responding at all. It does not appear we are even bothering to hit the missile launch sites that are sending the increased volume of missiles across the Strait. Cant say Im a fan of just sitting on our hands like this and being 100% defensive until after the mid-terms. Sure hope whatever we have planned after the mid-terms really knocks em into next month.

Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

You have no actual way to know if the bold is true. Iran has publicly stated it wants to eliminate Israel off the map and has stated it wants nuclear power. Doesn't take a genius to put the two together and realize that nuclear power isn't just for "electricity".

(10-16-2026 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 11:27 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  It seems the IRGC has substantially increased the number of ships they are hitting on the US sponsored southern Omani route---and it does not seem that we are responding at all. It does not appear we are even bothering to hit the missile launch sites that are sending the increased volume of missiles across the Strait. Cant say Im a fan of just sitting on our hands like this and being 100% defensive until after the mid-terms. Sure hope whatever we have planned after the mid-terms really knocks em into next month.

Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

You have no actual way to know if the bold is true. Iran has publicly stated it wants to eliminate Israel off the map and has stated it wants nuclear power. Doesn't take a genius to put the two together and realize that nuclear power isn't just for "electricity".

Any time you want to present the evidence to the class of their capability, I'll gladly listen.

(10-16-2026 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

Thats only true to the extent they have no missile that can yet strike the USA. That was true of N Korea----right up until the day it was not. I hate to break it to you---but if we do nothing----the day the Iranians have the ability to place a nuclear missile in the USA will come---and then what are you going to do when they close the Strait again? Thats will be the time to do nothing---because you wont really be able to do anything.

They have no delivery mechanism to reach us. They've never come close.

Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I have zero worries that even if Iran ever acquired the capability to reach us with a nuclear weapon that they would ever use it. They may act like it, but no, they don't have a wish to not exist. It's a deterrent. Just like the rest of the countries that have them.

You'd be all in favor of this if Biden did it.

(10-16-2026 02:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well, my guess is ground troops.

Are you in favor of that? If so, how many US casualties would be acceptable to you? That number won't be zero.

The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

You have no actual way to know if the bold is true. Iran has publicly stated it wants to eliminate Israel off the map and has stated it wants nuclear power. Doesn't take a genius to put the two together and realize that nuclear power isn't just for "electricity".

Any time you want to present the evidence to the class of their capability, I'll gladly listen.

There is plenty of evidence. In the end, like N Korea----they will not be a nuclear threat until the day they admit they are---and at that point---there wont be anything we can do about it. When the people who actually control a nation constantly say their goal is the destruction of your country---and admit that they dont really mind dying to accomplish that goal---Im not so sure the whole concept of nuclear deterrence will actually work with that sort. The best way to handle someone like that is to make sure they never have access to a nuclear weapon.

(10-16-2026 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

You have no actual way to know if the bold is true. Iran has publicly stated it wants to eliminate Israel off the map and has stated it wants nuclear power. Doesn't take a genius to put the two together and realize that nuclear power isn't just for "electricity".

Any time you want to present the evidence to the class of their capability, I'll gladly listen.

There is plenty of evidence. In the end, like N Korea----they will not be a nuclear threat until the day they admit they are---and that point---there wont be anything we can do about it. When the people who actually control a nation constantly say their goal is the destruction of your country---and admit that they dont really mind dying to accomplish that goal---Im not so sure the whole concept of nuclear deterrence will actually work with that sort. The best way to handle someone like that is to make sure they never have access to a nuclear weapon.

The best way? The best way is to wipe out, eradicate, all who believe that dying is justified to strike an opponent. There are certainly people in those places who do not believe that and for their sake and the sake of the safety of our citizens, it's more crucial to eliminate those who threaten, than even to eliminate their present capability of attacking. Eliminate the mindset and the mode of weaponry is moot.

(10-16-2026 10:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 09:00 AM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 08:52 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 08:11 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dumest. President. Ever.

Uhm, you misspelled dumbest.

Quote:Donald Trump stunned a Las Vegas audience by explaining that the word "dumb" does not contain the letter "B." The president made this remark while discussing his preferred nickname for political opponents. This came during a speech about economic policy.

Speaking at the Red Rock Casino on Wednesday, Donald Trump paused his remarks on the "no tax on tips" policy to deliver what appeared to be a spelling lesson. "Nobody knows that 'dumb' doesn't have a 'b'," Trump told the crowd sincerely, before congratulating himself for coining the term "Dumocrats" as an insult for Democrats.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/arti...30635.html

I believe it was intentional.

The promulgation of ignorance is destroying communication in this nation. I don't care if it was intentional or not. Stupid is not an art form. I also don't care if it comes from the left or the right as it is simply wrong in either case. How can we progress at anything if we don't hold higher standards, especially in basic communication. Calling out Trump for promoting it even in humor is quite appropriate. There is dignity in seeking to raise the level of integrity in communication. "Dumb" is just dumb. It's not folksy. It's not counterculture. All it ever illustrates is another display of the failure of public education in the United States. Since we communicate with language, negotiate with language, resolve with language, direct with language, and all of our civilization is dependent upon words holding the power of meaning, any misappropriation of a word, or deliberate breakdown of it from its intended purpose, or the sabotaging of the language to pervert terms and words to other purposes for the goal of confusion, is destructive. It is why the country has an official language and while we allow for other languages to be spoken English must remain the singular language of business and government.

Trump should know better. A troll of anyone or anything through the deliberate breakdown of a word or its meaning is a destructive, not constructive act. Those who would subvert your language would subvert your ideals, your laws, and the conduct of the people within your borders.

As a civilized people we have not taken this threat as seriously as it should be taken. And it shows in our streets daily. Shame on anyone who deliberately misuses our language.

Well put, JR. And I agree.

And I trust you don't get hammered by some of the righties on the board for offering a fine example of "both sides do it."

(10-16-2026 02:31 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:45 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  The number would not be relevant to my answer. All I can do is give you my opinion---Trump had better be ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those troops and win. If the prospect of innocents getting killed in the process of "doing what is necessary to protect those troops and win" makes our president uneasy----then dont go that route. I just dont see the logic of being ready to have Americans die, and then pull back because non-Americans might get killed in the process of keeping American soliders alive. I can tell you now, if we go in with troops--collateral damage (including casualties) is going to be part of the deal. Thats just how war works.

As for how many American deaths will the public accept. I dont know. I do know the American people wont like casualties---but I think they can accept them if the war is wildly successful, ends the Iranian nuclear threat, and it returns the world to normal. What Americans want nothing to do with is a half measure that gets a bunch of kids killed, fails to accomplish the mission, and leaves us mired in another forever war. So if we go in----Trump better be sure he's willing to whats necessary to protect those troops and win (and then---turn it over to the Iranian civilians and get the heck out--no nation building).

That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

Thats only true to the extent they have no missile that can yet strike the USA. That was true of N Korea----right up until the day it was not. I hate to break it to you---but if we do nothing----the day the Iranians have the ability to place a nuclear missile in the USA will come---and then what are you going to do when they close the Strait again? Thats will be the time to do nothing---because you wont really be able to do anything.

They have no delivery mechanism to reach us. They've never come close.

Maybe I'm being optimistic, but I have zero worries that even if Iran ever acquired the capability to reach us with a nuclear weapon that they would ever use it. They may act like it, but no, they don't have a wish to not exist. It's a deterrent. Just like the rest of the countries that have them.

You'd be all in favor of this if Biden did it.

Sure, Jan.

Never mind my many many posts about the deal we had during Obama that I was in favor of keeping...or even for trump keeping but modifying and not just **** canning with nothing to replace it.

(03-02-2026 12:06 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I expect the ethnic Kurds in the northwest of Iran and possibly the ethnic Baluchs in the south west along the Pakistan border to start making some organizing noise soon.

Aaaand there are now multiple reports of several armed uprising events by the Baluchs in Baluchistan the second largest province in Iran.

If the Kurds start at the opposite end of the nation it will get interesting quick.

(10-16-2026 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 12:50 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  That answer is zero.

And I hate to break this to you, but there is NO Iranian nuclear threat to us...and there is a very minimal one to Israel.

The problem is trump is incapable of making a credible case for ground troops. Not to mention that there is really no credible case TO make in the first place!

You have no actual way to know if the bold is true. Iran has publicly stated it wants to eliminate Israel off the map and has stated it wants nuclear power. Doesn't take a genius to put the two together and realize that nuclear power isn't just for "electricity".

Any time you want to present the evidence to the class of their capability, I'll gladly listen.

There is plenty of evidence. In the end, like N Korea----they will not be a nuclear threat until the day they admit they are---and that point---there wont be anything we can do about it. When the people who actually control a nation constantly say their goal is the destruction of your country---and admit that they dont really mind dying to accomplish that goal---Im not so sure the whole concept of nuclear deterrence will actually work with that sort. The best way to handle someone like that is to make sure they never have access to a nuclear weapon.

The best way? The best way is to wipe out, eradicate, all who believe that dying is justified to strike an opponent. There are certainly people in those places who do not believe that and for their sake and the sake of the safety of our citizens, it's more crucial to eliminate those who threaten, than even to eliminate their present capability of attacking. Eliminate the mindset and the mode of weaponry is moot.

Right you are sir!

(10-20-2026 10:10 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 03:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 03:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-16-2026 02:13 PM)VA49er Wrote:  You have no actual way to know if the bold is true. Iran has publicly stated it wants to eliminate Israel off the map and has stated it wants nuclear power. Doesn't take a genius to put the two together and realize that nuclear power isn't just for "electricity".

Any time you want to present the evidence to the class of their capability, I'll gladly listen.

There is plenty of evidence. In the end, like N Korea----they will not be a nuclear threat until the day they admit they are---and that point---there wont be anything we can do about it. When the people who actually control a nation constantly say their goal is the destruction of your country---and admit that they dont really mind dying to accomplish that goal---Im not so sure the whole concept of nuclear deterrence will actually work with that sort. The best way to handle someone like that is to make sure they never have access to a nuclear weapon.

The best way? The best way is to wipe out, eradicate, all who believe that dying is justified to strike an opponent. There are certainly people in those places who do not believe that and for their sake and the sake of the safety of our citizens, it's more crucial to eliminate those who threaten, than even to eliminate their present capability of attacking. Eliminate the mindset and the mode of weaponry is moot.

Right you are sir!

I second that endorsement....


Iran is not to be trusted - period. "Coexist" is not in their vocabulary.

I guess my biggest question is that if we have to "wipe out, eradicate, all who believe that dying is justified to strike an opponent" why does Israel need our help? They can handle Iran in a few hours or less if they really want to. I hate to say it but I've always been suspicious just like I'm suspicious of Democrats who don't really want to eliminate a problem. It gives them job security basically, constantly deflect. If Israel's enemies are wiped out they're not getting the fancy new toys year after year after year.