Did WWIII just start?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bush ran on a peace platform against nation-building, Obama promised "change", Biden would "bring the adults back", and Trump would get the US out of the forever wars in the Middle East. They all started wars...
It does not matter who you vote for, when they do not work for you.

Own your mistake, MAGA

Truly. They swore up and down ad nauseam that the felon was a peacenik. GMAFB!

We were told that Democrats started every single war, that Trump would bring peace, that Project 2025 was nothing and Dems were just being hysterical.

So sick of MAGA gaslighting. Everything they say is a bald-faced lie.

A lot of MAGA actually believed he'd bring peace. They are pissed.

New talking points are out. Limited strike that will bring peace through strength. They are fine with this. And when Iran retaliates, they will say Trump has no choice but to go all in.

MAGA is gullible idiots who just did a 180.

You're only looking at one axis, republican vs democrat. There's also populist vs neocon. Most MAGA base is populist anti war, they will join with populist anti war dems like sanders on this. The blood thirsty neocon stalwarts are running the show, just like they did under Bush and Obama.

This is what the populists voted for. Bombing Iran. They need to admit their mistake, own it, and stop doubling down on delusional, demented MAGA bullshit.

Serious question: what evidence do you have?

Trump was pretty vocal about avoiding war. In fact, he made clear his plan was to dig down on isolationism.

His maga followers have openly criticized any steps towards military action.

So what makes you think Trump wanted this all along and his voters are supportive?

Signed,

Democrat

Trump doesn’t “want” anything other than to be Trump. He’s weak and stupid, surrounds himself with bad people, and the hawks won out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

DP

Um, us bombing Iran has nothing to do with October 7…it’s bizarre to think that. The threat posed by Iran is bigger than Hamas. It’s Hamas + Hezbollah + Houthis + training camps in Syria + bankrolling terror groups and sleeper cells everywhere + nuclear developments, etc.

This bombing will polarize public opinion for sure. But we knew that. It’s a risk.

BF Chris Christie is complimenting Trump on ABC, noting Israel took out Iran’s defense capabilities so we could fly in a carpet bomb…despite Trump’s obvious aversion to getting sucked into a war.

Seems like this was a calculated risk aimed at delaying/preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. That’s seemingly a reasonable goal.

I don’t know if it’s a reasonable goal but ITA that the Iran strike has nothing to do with 10/7 in the way antisemites here want to claim. But I am fully looking forward to reading endlessly on DCUM about how Trump is doing the bidding of his Zionist masters and Iran is the friend of the US people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

If not for Iranian support, there would be no Hamas. Without Hamas, there'd have been no Oct 7. Cut off Hamas' source of money and weapons, and Hamas falls apart even more than it has in the face of the IDF.

There are no rules which say that self defense should not amount to 100X the damage an enemy initially inflicted when starting a war. Self defense means neutralizing the enemy, not merely giving a little slap on the wrist and asking them politely to please not do it again. Hamas asked for it, they got it. Iran did the same, by supporting and encouraging Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis. Tolerating such behaviour for decades didn't mean the U.S. and Israel would tolerate it forever.

The traditional approach of the last several decades of proportional response has not worked. Response to October 7th needed to be swift and overwhelming as did the response to Iran the financier and puppet master of terror in the Middle East.

Only time will tell if overwhelming response truly solves the problem but proportional response didn’t and never will. This all started with Palestinians throwing rocks at Israelis who shot back with rubber bullets. But most here are too young to remember those days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bush ran on a peace platform against nation-building, Obama promised "change", Biden would "bring the adults back", and Trump would get the US out of the forever wars in the Middle East. They all started wars...
It does not matter who you vote for, when they do not work for you.

Own your mistake, MAGA

Truly. They swore up and down ad nauseam that the felon was a peacenik. GMAFB!

We were told that Democrats started every single war, that Trump would bring peace, that Project 2025 was nothing and Dems were just being hysterical.

So sick of MAGA gaslighting. Everything they say is a bald-faced lie.

A lot of MAGA actually believed he'd bring peace. They are pissed.

New talking points are out. Limited strike that will bring peace through strength. They are fine with this. And when Iran retaliates, they will say Trump has no choice but to go all in.

MAGA is gullible idiots who just did a 180.

You're only looking at one axis, republican vs democrat. There's also populist vs neocon. Most MAGA base is populist anti war, they will join with populist anti war dems like sanders on this. The blood thirsty neocon stalwarts are running the show, just like they did under Bush and Obama.

Welp, 45 years of back and forth with them.

What would you have said in negotiations yesterday to make clear they cannot have nuclear weapons?

I'm all ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bush ran on a peace platform against nation-building, Obama promised "change", Biden would "bring the adults back", and Trump would get the US out of the forever wars in the Middle East. They all started wars...
It does not matter who you vote for, when they do not work for you.

Own your mistake, MAGA

Truly. They swore up and down ad nauseam that the felon was a peacenik. GMAFB!

We were told that Democrats started every single war, that Trump would bring peace, that Project 2025 was nothing and Dems were just being hysterical.

So sick of MAGA gaslighting. Everything they say is a bald-faced lie.

A lot of MAGA actually believed he'd bring peace. They are pissed.

New talking points are out. Limited strike that will bring peace through strength. They are fine with this. And when Iran retaliates, they will say Trump has no choice but to go all in.

MAGA is gullible idiots who just did a 180.

You're only looking at one axis, republican vs democrat. There's also populist vs neocon. Most MAGA base is populist anti war, they will join with populist anti war dems like sanders on this. The blood thirsty neocon stalwarts are running the show, just like they did under Bush and Obama.

Welp, 45 years of back and forth with them.

What would you have said in negotiations yesterday to make clear they cannot have nuclear weapons?

I'm all ears.

Frankly, I'm tired of dealing with that entire region. Let them figure it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

If not for Iranian support, there would be no Hamas. Without Hamas, there'd have been no Oct 7. Cut off Hamas' source of money and weapons, and Hamas falls apart even more than it has in the face of the IDF.

There are no rules which say that self defense should not amount to 100X the damage an enemy initially inflicted when starting a war. Self defense means neutralizing the enemy, not merely giving a little slap on the wrist and asking them politely to please not do it again. Hamas asked for it, they got it. Iran did the same, by supporting and encouraging Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis. Tolerating such behaviour for decades didn't mean the U.S. and Israel would tolerate it forever.

Actually, there are. International law, and basic morality, does not allow you to wipe out whole populations of civilians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

If not for Iranian support, there would be no Hamas. Without Hamas, there'd have been no Oct 7. Cut off Hamas' source of money and weapons, and Hamas falls apart even more than it has in the face of the IDF.

There are no rules which say that self defense should not amount to 100X the damage an enemy initially inflicted when starting a war. Self defense means neutralizing the enemy, not merely giving a little slap on the wrist and asking them politely to please not do it again. Hamas asked for it, they got it. Iran did the same, by supporting and encouraging Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis. Tolerating such behaviour for decades didn't mean the U.S. and Israel would tolerate it forever.

Actually, there are. International law, and basic morality, does not allow you to wipe out whole populations of civilians.

So 99X would be ok? Who gets to define the scope of the response to an unprovoked attack? Not the losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

If not for Iranian support, there would be no Hamas. Without Hamas, there'd have been no Oct 7. Cut off Hamas' source of money and weapons, and Hamas falls apart even more than it has in the face of the IDF.

There are no rules which say that self defense should not amount to 100X the damage an enemy initially inflicted when starting a war. Self defense means neutralizing the enemy, not merely giving a little slap on the wrist and asking them politely to please not do it again. Hamas asked for it, they got it. Iran did the same, by supporting and encouraging Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis. Tolerating such behaviour for decades didn't mean the U.S. and Israel would tolerate it forever.

Actually, there are. International law, and basic morality, does not allow you to wipe out whole populations of civilians.

Wars and kinetic action are the result of "law" and "people of virtue" breaking down.

International law, and basic morality, does not allow terrorism either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

If not for Iranian support, there would be no Hamas. Without Hamas, there'd have been no Oct 7. Cut off Hamas' source of money and weapons, and Hamas falls apart even more than it has in the face of the IDF.

There are no rules which say that self defense should not amount to 100X the damage an enemy initially inflicted when starting a war. Self defense means neutralizing the enemy, not merely giving a little slap on the wrist and asking them politely to please not do it again. Hamas asked for it, they got it. Iran did the same, by supporting and encouraging Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis. Tolerating such behaviour for decades didn't mean the U.S. and Israel would tolerate it forever.

Actually, there are. International law, and basic morality, does not allow you to wipe out whole populations of civilians.

Wars and kinetic action are the result of "law" and "people of virtue" breaking down.

International law, and basic morality, does not allow terrorism either.

Exactly. Terror groups abdicate any claim to a moral high ground in the face the consequences of their actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

If not for Iranian support, there would be no Hamas. Without Hamas, there'd have been no Oct 7. Cut off Hamas' source of money and weapons, and Hamas falls apart even more than it has in the face of the IDF.

There are no rules which say that self defense should not amount to 100X the damage an enemy initially inflicted when starting a war. Self defense means neutralizing the enemy, not merely giving a little slap on the wrist and asking them politely to please not do it again. Hamas asked for it, they got it. Iran did the same, by supporting and encouraging Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis. Tolerating such behaviour for decades didn't mean the U.S. and Israel would tolerate it forever.

Actually, there are. International law, and basic morality, does not allow you to wipe out whole populations of civilians.

So 99X would be ok? Who gets to define the scope of the response to an unprovoked attack? Not the losers.

Since you support preventive attacks, the other side could also call October 7 a preventive attack and justify it.

The reality is that we now live in a lawless world where the powerful nations dictate the law. It will only encourage other nations to build their own nuclear weapons.
We all saw what happened to Ukraine because they gave up their nukes.

This war may delay Iran’s nuclear program but it will not kill it. They will have it one way or another.

[Anonymous]

America really needs some soul-searching.

We are heavily in debt and domestic militias are on the rise. We are on the brink of implosion.

Foreign countries including their advocates in the US with dual loyalty will exploit this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

If not for Iranian support, there would be no Hamas. Without Hamas, there'd have been no Oct 7. Cut off Hamas' source of money and weapons, and Hamas falls apart even more than it has in the face of the IDF.

There are no rules which say that self defense should not amount to 100X the damage an enemy initially inflicted when starting a war. Self defense means neutralizing the enemy, not merely giving a little slap on the wrist and asking them politely to please not do it again. Hamas asked for it, they got it. Iran did the same, by supporting and encouraging Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis. Tolerating such behaviour for decades didn't mean the U.S. and Israel would tolerate it forever.

Actually, there are. International law, and basic morality, does not allow you to wipe out whole populations of civilians.

So 99X would be ok? Who gets to define the scope of the response to an unprovoked attack? Not the losers.

Since you support preventive attacks, the other side could also call October 7 a preventive attack and justify it.

The reality is that we now live in a lawless world where the powerful nations dictate the law. It will only encourage other nations to build their own nuclear weapons.
We all saw what happened to Ukraine because they gave up their nukes.

This war may delay Iran’s nuclear program but it will not kill it. They will have it one way or another.

Calling Oct 7 a preventive attack by Hamas is idiotic. Gaza was not under attack, or any threat of attack, by Israel. The threat of Israeli retaliation for Palestinian terror was present, but that's the prospect of Israeli self-defense if attacked only, not an unprovoked offensive spree of rape, murder, and kidnaping. Trying to justify Oct 7 retrospectively by reference to Israel's response is intellectually and morally bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

If not for Iranian support, there would be no Hamas. Without Hamas, there'd have been no Oct 7. Cut off Hamas' source of money and weapons, and Hamas falls apart even more than it has in the face of the IDF.

There are no rules which say that self defense should not amount to 100X the damage an enemy initially inflicted when starting a war. Self defense means neutralizing the enemy, not merely giving a little slap on the wrist and asking them politely to please not do it again. Hamas asked for it, they got it. Iran did the same, by supporting and encouraging Hamas, Hezbollah, Assad, and the Houthis. Tolerating such behaviour for decades didn't mean the U.S. and Israel would tolerate it forever.

Wrong! Just wrong. Netanyahu and his cohorts gave money, propped up, and supported Hamas for years.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/a-brief-history-of-the-netanyahu-hamas-alliance/0000018b-47d9-d242-abef-57ff1be90000
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
https://www.jpost.com/arab-israeli-conflict/netanyahu-money-to-hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-palestinians-divided-583082
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The war started when people targeted innocent concert goers

Don’t start nuttin won’t be nuttin

And Israel was able to retaliate x100. How does what Hamas did to Israel justify us bombing Iran?

DP

Um, us bombing Iran has nothing to do with October 7…it’s bizarre to think that. The threat posed by Iran is bigger than Hamas. It’s Hamas + Hezbollah + Houthis + training camps in Syria + bankrolling terror groups and sleeper cells everywhere + nuclear developments, etc.

This bombing will polarize public opinion for sure. But we knew that. It’s a risk.

BF Chris Christie is complimenting Trump on ABC, noting Israel took out Iran’s defense capabilities so we could fly in a carpet bomb…despite Trump’s obvious aversion to getting sucked into a war.

Seems like this was a calculated risk aimed at delaying/preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. That’s seemingly a reasonable goal.

I don’t know if it’s a reasonable goal but ITA that the Iran strike has nothing to do with 10/7 in the way antisemites here want to claim. But I am fully looking forward to reading endlessly on DCUM about how Trump is doing the bidding of his Zionist masters and Iran is the friend of the US people.

Now you know darn well nobody has said Iran has been a friend of the US since 1979. What has been noted is that Iran has at times had some shared interests with the US and at times were fighting the same targets. Kinda like Russia and the US were not friends during WW2, but yet they both had a shared enemy of target, until they did not.

[Anonymous]

The attack on Ukraine was a preventive attack. I imagine the next two years will be interesting, all around the world. The US has no moral ground to stand upon now.