Trump says he bombed Iran

[govshill2]

Well most sources are better than the propaganda from places like the mouth piece Fox News!!

Maybe back up your claims with poof that the sources are incorrect?? Also making strawman comments doesn't back your argument the way you think it does.
Until the ceasefire Iran (though reduced) had continued to fire missiles and drones at it's neighbours. No one said they'd stop the U.S. navy, but in all honesty, the U.S. navy never went near Iran or the Straits.

I see you're beat and asking for proving negatives LOL

So show us 10 or 15 times Fox has been proven false (might actually be easy) 

None of your sources seem to show any proof at all, just slanted picayune claims and false equivalencies. 

[govshill2]

Maybe read all my posts before commenting?  I did post 'up until today several ships had passed through the straits' as reported, just not reported by the fake 'War department' media suck ups.

Here ya go...

Those sources offer no proof at all!!  LOL  

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

You people seem to agree with him.....

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y3599gx4qo


Will be nine counting this one

How do you get credit for stopping a war you started? Abdication logic? 

As for the other "eight." 

Here is a breakdown of the eight conflicts frequently cited by the White House to support this claim, as of early 2026:

And I am go through them and award 0-2 bias points. 

16 points total possible. 

WAR 1: 

Israel and Hamas (Gaza): A ceasefire and hostage deal was achieved in late 2025 following intense pressure, but its long-term durability remained uncertain.

Okay... sure... but this should only get half credit for all the favoritism and direct involvement with our own hostages. 

+ 1 point 

WAR 2: 

Israel and Iran: Trump claimed to have negotiated a ceasefire following 12 days of direct conflict in June 2025, which included US air strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. The truce was deemed a tactical pause rather than a lasting peace.

So I'm guessing this one doesn't count anymore? 

+ 0 points.

WAR 3:

Armenia and Azerbaijan: A peace agreement was signed in August 2025 to end a long-standing dispute in Nagorno-Karabakh, which observers noted was largely driven by Azerbaijan's military successes, though the US helped broker the deal.

I like when he called them  "Albania and A-ber-by-an"  Only Trump could have ended that war! 

He "brokered" a deal in a dispute that was already decided. 

+ 1 point

WAR 4: 

DR Congo and Rwanda: A U.S.-mediated peace agreement was signed to address decades of border violence, but violence continued in the region shortly after the signing.

Well, there is a piece of paper people signed. DRC is still fighting M23 though. They say NOTHING has ended. 

+ 0 points.

WAR 5:

Cambodia and Thailand: A ceasefire was reached in July 2025 following border skirmishes, but the underlying territorial dispute was not resolved, and fighting flared up again later in the year.

July - Trump threatens tariffs on both countries 
Oct - Trump broakers ceasefire in Malaysia 
Dec - Fighting continues, dispute not resolved at all for any claim in "ending the war." 

+ 0 points

WAR 6: 
 

India and Pakistan: A ceasefire in Kashmir was announced in May 2025, but India disputed the significance of U.S. intervention, stating they negotiated the ceasefire directly with Pakistan.

This one can count. Vance and Rubio made a lot of phone calls pushing for resolution. But it's true they did not actually mediate the deal, just got them to talk directly.

+ 1.5 points 

WAR 7: 

Serbia and Kosovo: Trump cited this as "preventing" a war through economic agreements, though there was little evidence a new full-scale war was imminent.

At least he didn't make them all be Yugoslavia again, so he wouldnt have to remember so many countries.

Make money, not war!  make war for money then use money to prevent war. 

But preventing a possible war from happening doesn't count as stopping a war. 

+ 0 points 

WAR 8: 

Egypt and Ethiopia: This involved a diplomatic dispute over a dam rather than an active war, which remains a tense, unresolved diplomatic standoff

A water rights dispute over a dam is a war? Trump would support Egypt blowing the Dam to shit too... 

+ 0 points.   

Total points = 3.5/16 

Bias conclusion: He's ended 1.75 of 8 wars, and played a role in stopping 3 of 8.

[ReturnofBroccoli]

I don't think China want an open conflict with the U.S. but the American war in Iran is hurting them as much as Europe is hurting.  There's articles from plenty of news agencies showing China have been supplying Iran with weapons, and satellite data to help attack it neighbours. I think China see this as a way to test American might without direct involvement and Trump has failed to reign in Iran as quickly as he claimed, showing his lack of skills in this with his flip flopping.

I'm no supporter of Starmer but his decision to not blindly follow Trump, is the first good decision he's made, this whole sh*t show was caused by Trump, who was easily manipulated by Israel. As for your comments about hating Trump, I've said many times I don't hate him, but I do think he's a moron and total ignoramus who is turning America into a clown show for the whole world to laugh at.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78lleelxj4o


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04...1f68cd6e27

My point wasnt hating trump it was that starmer is killing yall, we already export LNG to you. LNG is tied to crude oil prices through Oil-Indexed Contracts. Historically, a large portion of LNG trade (up to 75%) has been tied to crude oil prices. In these long-term contracts, the price of LNG is often calculated as a percentage of the crude oil price. When oil prices rise or fall, LNG prices under these contracts follow, though often with a time lag.

By doing nothing Starmer is increasing U.S. profits without joining the conflict. It may be better for you if you joined at least you might get some discount but instead its leading to an increase. In the long run joining the conflict would be better for you but probably less money for starmer

[RazorV66]

Here's another thing you terrorist supporters are supporting. 

You clowns should be ashamed of yourselves, but to feel shame, you need to have morals and a conscience. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/iranian-am...-protester
 

"This woman, Beta, is about to be gang-raped and publicly executed, and so are three more women," Nazarian said. "They have been doing this to many young people every single day, one or two public executions."
 
Nazarian described practices she attributed to the Iranian regime regarding female prisoners facing execution.
 
"In Iran, this regime, these Islamists, they believe that if a woman is killed and she’s a virgin, she goes to heaven," she said. "So what they do is they will gang-rape her before they execute her."

[ReturnofBroccoli]

How do you get credit for stopping a war you started? Abdication logic? 

As for the other "eight." 

And I am go through them and award 0-2 bias points. 

16 points total possible. 

WAR 1: 

Okay... sure... but this should only get half credit for all the favoritism and direct involvement with our own hostages. 

+ 1 point 

WAR 2: 

So I'm guessing this one doesn't count anymore? 

+ 0 points.

WAR 3:

I like when he called them  "Albania and A-ber-by-an"  Only Trump could have ended that war! 

He "brokered" a deal in a dispute that was already decided. 

+ 1 point

WAR 4: 

Well, there is a piece of paper people signed. DRC is still fighting M23 though. They say NOTHING has ended. 

+ 0 points.

WAR 5:

July - Trump threatens tariffs on both countries 
Oct - Trump broakers ceasefire in Malaysia 
Dec - Fighting continues, dispute not resolved at all for any claim in "ending the war." 

+ 0 points

WAR 6: 
 

This one can count. Vance and Rubio made a lot of phone calls pushing for resolution. But it's true they did not actually mediate the deal, just got them to talk directly.

+ 1.5 points 

WAR 7: 

At least he didn't make them all be Yugoslavia again, so he wouldnt have to remember so many countries.

Make money, not war!  make war for money then use money to prevent war. 

But preventing a war from happening doesnt count as stopping a war. 

+ 0 points 

WAR 8: 

A water rights issue is a war? Trump would support Egypt blowing the Dam to shit too... so...

+ 0 points.   

Total points = 3.5/16 

Bias conclusion: He's ended 1.75 of 8 wars, and played a role in stopping 3 of 8.

By your logic he still stopped approximately 175% more wars than you have 
also I disagree on "preventing a war is not stopping a war" and on the "half points for favoritism because of our own people being hostaged" because it was still stopped not half stopped and prevention of something stops something. Ill let you re add the points and percentages in comparison, if you like. Haven't dug into any of the wars to see if their conflicts are still going on or not but ill take it that maybe you did and give him the 400-500% stoppage

[Oldcarpy2]

My point wasnt hating trump it was that starmer is killing yall, we already export LNG to you. LNG is tied to crude oil prices through Oil-Indexed Contracts. Historically, a large portion of LNG trade (up to 75%) has been tied to crude oil prices. In these long-term contracts, the price of LNG is often calculated as a percentage of the crude oil price. When oil prices rise or fall, LNG prices under these contracts follow, though often with a time lag.

By doing nothing Starmer is increasing U.S. profits without joining the conflict. It may be better for you if you joined at least you might get some discount but instead its leading to an increase. In the long run joining the conflict would be better for you but probably less money for starmer

Article 6 of NATO'S Charter, made at the insistence of the US:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

We were not given any advance notice of your War, it's objectives or any plan.

It's not our War.

The only time Article 5 was invoked was after 9/11.

We came to your aid, and Trump insulted our military for their efforts.

Is there any surprise that we told him where he could stick it?

[cherokeetroy]

Here's another thing you terrorist supporters are supporting. 

You clowns should be ashamed of yourselves, but to feel shame, you need to have morals and a conscience. 

https://www.foxnews.com/media/iranian-am...-protester
 

Question--

What's Trump doing to stop it

Is Trump negotiating on behalf of the prisoners?

Is MAGA pushing for a stay on the executions?

Or are the Iranian people simply being used as pawns in a propaganda war

"On Fox News, I showed an image of four female prisoners sentenced to death and said to President Trump: If "not having nuclear weapons" is a condition for negotiating with Iran, "not having the right to execute opponents" must also be another condition. This is the most important step to save the lives of prisoners inside Iran."

https://x.com/sardar_pashaei/status/2044...10339?s=20

[ReturnofBroccoli]

Article 6 of NATO'S Charter, made at the insistence of the US:

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack: on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

We were not given any advance notice of your War, it's objectives or any plan.

It's not our War.

The only time Article 5 was invoked was after 9/11.

We came to your aid, and Trump insulted our military for their efforts.

Is there any surprise that we told him where he could stick it?

You are forgetting that this isn't a war and isnt bound by that, thanks again though!

[Oldcarpy2]

My point wasnt hating trump it was that starmer is killing yall, we already export LNG to you. LNG is tied to crude oil prices through Oil-Indexed Contracts. Historically, a large portion of LNG trade (up to 75%) has been tied to crude oil prices. In these long-term contracts, the price of LNG is often calculated as a percentage of the crude oil price. When oil prices rise or fall, LNG prices under these contracts follow, though often with a time lag.

By doing nothing Starmer is increasing U.S. profits without joining the conflict. It may be better for you if you joined at least you might get some discount but instead its leading to an increase. In the long run joining the conflict would be better for you but probably less money for starmer

Nobody on here is a terrorist supporter.

No matter how many times you repeat this lie, it's still untrue.