Trump is Delivering The Biggest Win the US, or Anyone, has Ever Had. And leftists HATE it.

[WestCanMan]

Iran was trying to get nukes, period. And in a country that large, with almost no supervision and cloaked in an internet blackout, it was just a matter of time until they got them. Maybe weeks, maybe months, but not years and definitely not 'never'.

They were amassing a huge stockpile of ballistic missiles and drones, that is indisputable. 

The Iranian regime has been openly calling for genocide against the Jews and America for generations. 

Now, at the cost of the lives of 6 US servicemen, the US has sunk 30+ Iranian ships, destroyed all of their radar detection and guidance systems, destroyed all of their anti-aircraft batteries, destroyed countless ICBM's & ballistic missiles, countless drones, wiped out the ayatollah and at least 2 successors, obliterated the upper echelons on Iran's military and their mullahs, they're destroying Iran's bigotry-police stations, etc, etc, etc.

There has never been a war this one-sided in all of recorded history. This is shaping up to be the most epic win of all time. 

Not only that, it's one of the rare instances when a country's enemies in a war are actually the ones defending the majority of its people... Iranian people actually feel safer and are safer with American bombs raining down on them than they do when their own police are running loose on them. 

Iranian civilian deaths in this war aren't on pace to come anywhere near what the ayatollah inflicted oon the in the last month alone. 

 

Despite all that, American leftists, who mostly cheered on Hamas, are now cheering for the ayatollah's regime.

Aren't they supposed to be defenders of women's rights? Shouldn't they care that women get flogged and jailed just for taking off hijabs?

Where did the left's love of genocide and violent bigotry come from, they they can openly support Hamas and the ayatollah's regime? They seemed to have left violent bigotry behind them when they had their [imaginary] break with the KKK, no?

Then again, they did have that 3-year stint recently where they were pushing BLM riots, and they've been letting criminals out of jail or not incarcerating them for a while now. 

And they supported death threats against the president, severed-head effigies, assassination attempts, cheered the murder of Charlie Kirk, viewed the congressional baseball game shooting with apathy, etc. 

Now, if you look back at Obama's messaging, it's basically on a parallel course with Iranian propaganda... Could Iran really be trusted with a nuclear program, as Barry would have us believe? Was racism and slavery a current problem while Obama was in the WH? Did anyone have any reason to believe that Trayvon was just a smiling, polite kid that got shot, or that "friendly giant" M Brown wasn't actually a violent thug for the last ten minutes of his life? And what's with Obama using Jessie Jackson's funeral as a platform for anti-Trump invective?

At what point did that smooth-talking, calculating, couching, dog-whistling piece of shit ever say anything that couldn't be construed as more pro-Iranian than pro-American?

My sharpest critique of Trump is that he can be classless and boorish, but Obama just brought presidential decorum to a new low at that funeral. 

 

 

Thank God for Trump. It's looking like he might pull off a modern-day miracle in Iran. One that the world desperately needs. 

[John Johnston]

Nutanyahoo was waiting for 40 years to find the most reckless and dumb president to drag America into this war. That is what all of this is about. 

[robosmith]

15 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Iran was trying to get nukes, period.

A lot of countries try to get nukes when their worst enemy has them. Nothing new about that.

But Iran agreed NOT to enrich Uranium beyond 20% under the JCPOA and inspectors agreed they were NOT.

Of course Trump arbitrarily TRASHED that agreement, implicitly giving Iran permission to violate it.

There is NO EVIDENCE they were BUILDING a BOMB, so your OPINION is NULL and VOID.

[ironstone]

Far more sensible to prevent rather than respond to a nuclear attack.

Trump has been pretty consistent with his stance on how to treat Iran.

 

[John Johnston]

3 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Far more sensible to prevent rather than respond to a nuclear attack.

Trump has been pretty consistent with his stance on how to treat Iran.

 

This is a War of choice that nobody asked for, or wanted. It is only downhill from here. 

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Far more sensible to prevent rather than respond to a nuclear attack.

Trump has been pretty consistent with his stance on how to treat Iran.

 

Far more sensible to negotiate a REDUCTION in nuclear arms than to start a WAR thus proving they are necessary  for DEFENSE.

But BULLIES are never sensible, because they believe no one will ever beat them and we will all pay a huge price when they TRY.

[John Johnston]

8 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Far more sensible to negotiate a REDUCTION in nuclear arms than to start a WAR thus proving they are necessary  for DEFENSE.

But BULLIES are never sensible, because they believe no one will ever beat them and we will all pay a huge price when they TRY.

Not to mention religious wars seldom work out in anybody's favor, all this will do is created more hatred and mistrust than we have already. The religious right sure like to kill stuff to make their point, goes for Iran as well as American and Israel, and a few others. 

[CdnFox]

59 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Iran was trying to get nukes, period. And in a country that large, with almost no supervision and cloaked in an internet blackout, it was just a matter of time until they got them. Maybe weeks, maybe months, but not years and definitely not 'never'.

They were amassing a huge stockpile of ballistic missiles and drones, that is indisputable. 

The Iranian regime has been openly calling for genocide against the Jews and America for generations. 

Now, at the cost of the lives of 6 US servicemen, the US has sunk 30+ Iranian ships, destroyed all of their radar detection and guidance systems, destroyed all of their anti-aircraft batteries, destroyed countless ICBM's & ballistic missiles, countless drones, wiped out the ayatollah and at least 2 successors, obliterated the upper echelons on Iran's military and their mullahs, they're destroying Iran's bigotry-police stations, etc, etc, etc.

There has never been a war this one-sided in all of recorded history. This is shaping up to be the most epic win of all time. 

Not only that, it's one of the rare instances when a country's enemies in a war are actually the ones defending the majority of its people... Iranian people actually feel safer and are safer with American bombs raining down on them than they do when their own police are running loose on them. 

Iranian civilian deaths in this war aren't on pace to come anywhere near what the ayatollah inflicted oon the in the last month alone. 

 

Despite all that, American leftists, who mostly cheered on Hamas, are now cheering for the ayatollah's regime.

Aren't they supposed to be defenders of women's rights? Shouldn't they care that women get flogged and jailed just for taking off hijabs?

Where did the left's love of genocide and violent bigotry come from, they they can openly support Hamas and the ayatollah's regime? They seemed to have left violent bigotry behind them when they had their [imaginary] break with the KKK, no?

Then again, they did have that 3-year stint recently where they were pushing BLM riots, and they've been letting criminals out of jail or not incarcerating them for a while now. 

And they supported death threats against the president, severed-head effigies, assassination attempts, cheered the murder of Charlie Kirk, viewed the congressional baseball game shooting with apathy, etc. 

Now, if you look back at Obama's messaging, it's basically on a parallel course with Iranian propaganda... Could Iran really be trusted with a nuclear program, as Barry would have us believe? Was racism and slavery a current problem while Obama was in the WH? Did anyone have any reason to believe that Trayvon was just a smiling, polite kid that got shot, or that "friendly giant" M Brown wasn't actually a violent thug for the last ten minutes of his life? And what's with Obama using Jessie Jackson's funeral as a platform for anti-Trump invective?

At what point did that smooth-talking, calculating, couching, dog-whistling piece of shit ever say anything that couldn't be construed as more pro-Iranian than pro-American?

My sharpest critique of Trump is that he can be classless and boorish, but Obama just brought presidential decorum to a new low at that funeral. 

 

 

Thank God for Trump. It's looking like he might pull off a modern-day miracle in Iran. One that the world desperately needs. 

Not to take away from anything you just said, it's mostly accurate, but it's important for us all to remember that this is a long way from over. The US has not won yet, there will be more deaths, the outcome is not certain.

Again I'm not distracting from anything you said but it's important that we don't act like this is over or that we won. There's a lot of work to do left yet and we can't let our guard down or get complacent just yet.  There's a lot of work to do 

[ironstone]

43 minutes ago, John Johnston said:

This is a War of choice that nobody asked for, or wanted. It is only downhill from here. 

Allowing radical Islamists to develop nuclear weapons is just bad in every way.

One should also not ignore the indisputable fact that Iran was/is behind much of the terrorism in the world.

When it comes to regime change in the Islamic world, it's a roll of the dice.  Hopefully the Iranian people can make the most out of this opportunity. What does it say when so many Iranians, in that country and all over the world, are thrilled that the Ayatollah is dead? It was a brutal dictatorship through and through.

[ironstone]

47 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Far more sensible to negotiate a REDUCTION in nuclear arms than to start a WAR thus proving they are necessary  for DEFENSE.

But BULLIES are never sensible, because they believe no one will ever beat them and we will all pay a huge price when they TRY.

How trustworthy were the Ayatollah's? They 'negotiate' while at the same time, they are constructing HEAVILY fortified underground uranium enrichment facilities.

Did they ever stop sponsoring terrorist groups everywhere? No, they didn't.

[robosmith]

10 minutes ago, ironstone said:

How trustworthy were the Ayatollah's? They 'negotiate' while at the same time, they are constructing HEAVILY fortified underground uranium enrichment facilities.

Both Israel and the US continually enrich bomb grade Uranium and BUILD BOMBS with IMPUNITY.

And implicitly threaten to use them.

It is not really complicated WHY Iran believes they need to do the same for DEFENSE.

It is obvious that the US and Israel would not be bombing Iran if it was nuclear armed. 

10 minutes ago, ironstone said:

Did they ever stop sponsoring terrorist groups everywhere? No, they didn't.

The US continually sponsors the terrorist group known as Israel and ships them bombs they use on civilians.

Unlike Iran which is condemned for killing 30,000 protesters, Israel has killed over 70,000 Gazan citizens.

[Reg Volk]

39 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Both Israel and the US continually enrich bomb grade Uranium and BUILD BOMBS with IMPUNITY.

 

and thank goodness for that!! 

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

But Iran agreed NOT to enrich Uranium beyond 20% under the JCPOA and inspectors agreed they were NOT.

Who gives a crap what Iran and some UN flunkies said?

I'm pretty sure that the UN isn't supposed to take part in terrorist attacks either and yet the UNRWA did just that.

Even NATO can't be trusted to keep their word ffs.

And do you think that in all of Iran, a place where women get beaten and thrown in jail just for taking off their hijab, they can't find a spot to enrich Uranium in secrecy? 

Quote

There is NO EVIDENCE they were BUILDING a BOMB, so your OPINION is NULL and VOID.

There is no evidence that they weren't building a bomb, but they actually did have thousands of pounds of Uranium at 60%.

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

This is a War of choice that nobody asked for, or wanted. 

Except for Iran. They just wanted to win it, and kill everyone in Israel and the US.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, John Johnston said:

Not to mention religious wars seldom work out in anybody's favor, all this will do is created more hatred and mistrust than we have already. The religious right sure like to kill stuff to make their point, goes for Iran as well as American and Israel, and a few others. 

It's only a 100% religious war from the ex-ayatollah's POV. For him this was ALL about religion.

It's impossible that religion didn't factor into it at least somewhat for 95% of the people with an interest in that war, but Israel and America had far more pressing concerns than just religion, genocide being one of them. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Both Israel and the US continually enrich bomb grade Uranium and BUILD BOMBS with IMPUNITY.

And implicitly threaten to use them.

The difference being that Israel and the US don't fund terrorist attacks to kill children, and they don't threaten anyone with genocide. 

Quote

It is not really complicated WHY Iran believes they need to do the same for DEFENSE.

It's not really complicated WHY everyone KNOWS that Iran wants to get a bomb for GENOCIDE. 

1. They keep saying that they will commit genocide
2. The Quds force was created for/named for the day they finally commit genocide against Israel

[ironstone]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Both Israel and the US continually enrich bomb grade Uranium and BUILD BOMBS with IMPUNITY.

And implicitly threaten to use them.

It is not really complicated WHY Iran believes they need to do the same for DEFENSE.

It is obvious that the US and Israel would not be bombing Iran if it was nuclear armed. 

The US continually sponsors the terrorist group known as Israel and ships them bombs they use on civilians.

Unlike Iran which is condemned for killing 30,000 protesters, Israel has killed over 70,000 Gazan citizens.

Neither the US or Israel are perfect, but in a general sense, they are the good guys.

Iran's regime, are the bad guys. They have no interest in accepting free and democratic Israel, just as they never had any intention of halting their nuclear weapons program or their terrorist proxies.

The Iranian government slaughtering their own people cannot be justified. Israel is justified in defending themselves and they continually went out of their way to limit civilian casualties in Gaza, where it's not that simple to distinguish terrorists from civilians.

When it comes to acquiring nuclear weapons, think of it like gun control and background checks...Iran wasn't capable of passing the background check.

[Legato]

[BeaverFever]

Dow futures tumble 800 points as U.S. oil tops $100 a barrel to begin the week's trading
 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/03/08/stock-market-today-live-updates.html

 

The Iran War Is Jeopardizing the Entire Global Economy

The fallout from conflict in the Gulf will be much bigger than just oil.
 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/03/04/iran-war-dubai-saudi-qatar-global-economy-oil-shipping-trade/
 

War with Iran spreading economic damage far beyond oil and gas markets

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/08/iran-war-economy-air-freight/

Iran war could make affordability bigger issue in 2026 elections

PUBLISHED SAT, MAR 7 2026 8:00 AM ESTUPDATED SAT, MAR 7 2026 12:27 PM EST

 

Garrett Downs@_GARRETTDOWNS@IN/GARRETT-DOWNS-28528513B/

Justin Papp@JUSTINJPAPP1@IN/JUSTIN-PAPP

WATCH LIVE

KEY POINTS 

• Democrats hoping to flip the House and Senate in the 2026 midterm elections are dialing up their messaging on cost-of-living issues after the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran.
• U.S. crude oil has jumped past $90 per barrel, up from $67 the day before the Iran war broke out. 
• Republicans are projecting confidence, predicting a short conflict and arguing they can continue to work on affordability while the country is at war.
• The war is unpopular with the American public, at a time that 61% of voters disapprove of President Donald Trump's management of the economy.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/03/07/iran-war-affordability-midterm.html
 

 

Majority of Americans oppose Trump’s Iran strikes, per new polling

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/02/trump-iran-strikes-polling-00807060
 

Unpopularity of Iran war 'almost unprecedented' this early on, expert says

"even in the most controversial wars, like Iraq, when the war initiates, people tend to rally around the flag [...] this is remarkable that at the very beginning of the war there's overwhelming opposition not only from liberals and the left, but much of Trump's spaces as well".

https://www.france24.com/en/unpopularity-of-iran-war-almost-unprecedented-this-early-on-expert-says
 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I'm pretty sure that the

No one cares what you're "pretty sure" of.

You were sure it didn't rain at Trump's first inauguration, but IT DID according to evidence YOU POSTED. LMAO

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The difference being that Israel and the US don't fund terrorist attacks to kill children

In reality, the US is almost certainly responsible for bombing that school that killed 170 children

The U.S. military was targeting an area near bombed Iranian school, sources say

Three witnesses and an education official told NBC News that the school was located on a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base that closed 15 years ago.

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

, and they don't threaten anyone with genocide. 

Just Gazan citizens.

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It's not really complicated WHY everyone KNOWS that Iran wants to get a bomb for GENOCIDE. 

1. They keep saying that they will commit genocide
2. The Quds force was created for/named for the day they finally commit genocide against Israel

LMAO

It is Israel who was continualy threatening to BOMB Iran and finally did.

[Legato]

23 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Dow futures tumble 800 points as U.S. oil tops $100 a barrel to begin the week's trading
 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/03/08/stock-market-today-live-updates.html

 

The Iran War Is Jeopardizing the Entire Global Economy

The fallout from conflict in the Gulf will be much bigger than just oil.
 

https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/03/04/iran-war-dubai-saudi-qatar-global-economy-oil-shipping-trade/
 

War with Iran spreading economic damage far beyond oil and gas markets

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/03/08/iran-war-economy-air-freight/

 

Iran war could make affordability bigger issue in 2026 elections

PUBLISHED SAT, MAR 7 2026 8:00 AM ESTUPDATED SAT, MAR 7 2026 12:27 PM EST

 

Garrett Downs@_GARRETTDOWNS@IN/GARRETT-DOWNS-28528513B/

Justin Papp@JUSTINJPAPP1@IN/JUSTIN-PAPP

WATCH LIVE

KEY POINTS 

• Democrats hoping to flip the House and Senate in the 2026 midterm elections are dialing up their messaging on cost-of-living issues after the United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran.
• U.S. crude oil has jumped past $90 per barrel, up from $67 the day before the Iran war broke out. 
• Republicans are projecting confidence, predicting a short conflict and arguing they can continue to work on affordability while the country is at war.
• The war is unpopular with the American public, at a time that 61% of voters disapprove of President Donald Trump's management of the economy.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2026/03/07/iran-war-affordability-midterm.html
 

 

Majority of Americans oppose Trump’s Iran strikes, per new polling

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/02/trump-iran-strikes-polling-00807060
 

Unpopularity of Iran war 'almost unprecedented' this early on, expert says

"even in the most controversial wars, like Iraq, when the war initiates, people tend to rally around the flag [...] this is remarkable that at the very beginning of the war there's overwhelming opposition not only from liberals and the left, but much of Trump's spaces as well".

https://www.france24.com/en/unpopularity-of-iran-war-almost-unprecedented-this-early-on-expert-says
 

 

[BeaverFever]

Operational Excellence, Strategic Incompetence

The president and his advisers are in the grip of “victory disease.”

Tom NicholsMarch 6, 2026
 

The president and his advisers are in the grip of “victory disease.”

The war in Iran has reaffirmed two truths. One is that the United States is blessed with the most professional and effective military in the world. The men and women of the American armed forces can conduct missions of almost any size with formidable competence, from special operations to seize a rogue-state president to a large-scale war. The other truth is that the Trump administration, when it comes to strategy, is incompetent.

Strategy is about matching the instruments of national power—and especially military force—to the goals of national policy. The president and his team, however, have not enunciated an overarching goal for this war—or, more accurately, they have presented multiple goals and chosen among them almost randomly, depending on the day or the hour. This means that highly effective military operations are taking place in a strategic vacuum.
 

 

Worse, Donald Trump is now pointing to these missions as if the excellence with which they have been conducted somehow constitutes a strategy in itself. He appears so enthralled by the execution of these missions that he has enlarged the goals of this war to include the complete destruction of the Iranian regime, after which he will “Make Iran Great Again.”

This kind of thinking is an old problem, and it has a name: “victory disease,” meaning that victory in battle encourages leaders to seek out more battles, and then to believe that winning those battles means that they are winning the larger war or achieving some grand strategic aim—right up until the moment they realize that they have overreached and find themselves facing a military disaster or even total defeat. It is a condition that has afflicted many kinds of regimes over the course of history, one so common that my colleagues and I lectured military officers about it when I was a professor at the Naval War College. The issue is especially important for Americans, because when national leaders have exceptionally capable military forces at their disposal—as the United States does—they are even more likely to be seized by victory disease.
 

…And now Trump seems to have contracted a whopping case of victory disease. He is clearly convinced that previous operations in Venezuela, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, and, of course, Iran are all evidence that a total victory over the regime in Tehran will be relatively quick. But he has provided no conception of what “victory” would look like. As of yesterday, his goals have expanded to include a demand for “unconditional surrender.”

 

Admiring the performance of the U.S. military is understandable. But it is not the same thing as using that military power to achieve some national purpose. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth so far seem to be enjoying the fireworks. But the efficient and rapid destruction of buildings and machines, and the killing of some enemy leaders, is not the same thing as a strategy.

 

….Operational competence, however, cannot answer the question of national purpose. What is the war about, and when will America know it’s done? Trump, when pressed, dodges the issue of war aims by pointing to the excellence of the military. “I hope you are impressed,” Trump said on Thursday to ABC’s Jonathan Karl. “How do you like the performance? I mean, Venezuela is obvious. This might be even better.” Trump then repeated, “How do you like the performance?” Karl noted that no one is questioning the success of military operations, and he asked the president what happens next. “Forget about ‘next,’” Trump answered. “They are decimated for a 10-year period before they could build it back.”

…Each time Trump or one of his lieutenants speaks this way, they generate more questions than answers. Yes, military operations are proceeding impressively, with very few casualties among the U.S. and Israeli operators. But what would have constituted a “10” that we can now say that America is at a “15”? Now that Trump, at least for the time being, has issued a call for “unconditional surrender,” perhaps vaporizing every piece of military hardware with an Iranian flag on it is enough. Comments on Thursday by Hegseth and Admiral Brad Cooper of Central Command suggest that this seems to be the plan.

 

But “unconditional surrender” is unlikely to last. To effect such a total defeat, Iran would have to be occupied and administered by the victors. This kind of language is at odds with the reluctance of some in the Trump administration and other Republicans, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, to even call Operation Epic Fury a “war.” (I will exercise my prerogative here as someone who has studied and taught national security and international relations and confirm that when you bomb a nation, kill its leaders, and call for its people to rise up, you’re engaged in war, and if you call for “unconditional surrender,” you are definitely at war.)

Trump will likely find himself backpedaling from the demand for unconditional surrender. He might also redefine unconditionalto denote more easily achieved aims. (Indeed, hours after Trump’s post, the White House spokesperson Karoline Leavittwas already offering an interpretation of unconditionalthat was far more limited than absolute capitulation.) Soon, the Americans could find themselves retreating to the strategic incoherence that has characterized the administration’s approach since the first hours of the war. Military operations and national purpose will become more and more distanced from each other, because military prowess cannot clarify America’s war aims. As the old saying warns: If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there
 

My colleagues Marie-Rose Sheinerman and Isabel Ruehl have pointed out the severity of this problem by noting that Trump and his aides have offered at least 10 rationales for war over the course of only six days. Rationale No. 1 was “an imminent threat” from Iran, Rationale No. 2 was nuclear weapons, Rationale No. 5 was election interference, Rationale No. 6 was “world peace” writ large, Rationale No. 10 was that America had been dragged into the war by Israel. Some of these reasons might constitute a casus belli—others, such as Rationale No. 9 (“fulfill God’s purpose”), less so—but Trump’s team has thrown them all at the wall to see what sticks, perhaps in part because the war is still unpopular with the American public and Trump has so far seen no “rally ’round the flag” benefit from launching it.
 

But each of these rationales demands a different strategy; eliminating an imminent threat involves a different set of operations than establishing peace in the region (or the world). Instead, the Americans are choosing an “all of the above” approach, employing immense power across Iran. Entranced by the show, Trump, Hegseth, and others assume that because these operations are going well, something good will come of them. This kind of poor strategy, ironically, is an option only because of the excellence of the American and Israeli militaries: If Trump had to make decisions under greater material or military constraints, such as shortages of money, weapons, or talent, he would have to choose an actual war aim and stay with it.
 

If the goal is regime change and “unconditional surrender,” do current U.S. operations support that goal? Again, military prowess and victory disease may be encouraging the White House to avoid thinking about some hard realities. Regimes are not changed by bombing; they are put in place by men and women wearing boots and carrying guns. (These need not be American boots, but they have to be somebody’s boots.) Trump has called for the Iranians to surrender, but to whom? A U.S. occupation force? Or is an internal group of rebels assembling in Iran? In any case, a new regime will have to gain support by rebuilding infrastructure that’s being destroyed. Are the target sets being adjusted accordingly over time? No one can answer these questions, because the civilian leadership of the United States does not seem to have thought them through.
 

Meanwhile, despite the successes of the military overseas, Trump now admits that a regime that was supposed to be eliminated quickly could reach the United States with terrorist attacks. He told Time this week that “we expect some things. Like I said, some people will die. When you go to war, some people will die.” The American people might be willing to tolerate such risks if they knew what their sons and and daughters were fighting for and how long they would be at war. Trump has retreated behind the skill of the U.S. military rather than answer such questions.

Perhaps the greatest danger of the current epidemic of victory disease is that it seems to be making Donald Trump think he’s a brilliant strategist: He is already talking about overthrowing the government of Cuba, even as American forces are still fighting in the Middle East, and the threat of terror may well be growing at home now that the United States is at war. At this point, all Americans can do is admire the fortitude and excellence of the U.S. military while hoping for victory—whatever that is, and whenever it comes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/iran-strategy-victory-disease/686275/

 

 

[BeaverFever]

 

 

[User]

19 minutes ago, robosmith said:

In reality, the US is almost certainly responsible for bombing that school that killed 170 children

You are comparing the accidental mistake of killing those children to the purposeful and deliberate targeting of them.

 As usual, you are a clown. 

[John Johnston]

It is getting harder and harder to figure out who is the Villain these days...