Trump says he bombed Iran

[SomeStupidName]

They, who is they… like all of them? I find that really hard to believe. Many Iranians had a candle light vigil in Tehran in solidarity with the US after 9/11.

People are nuanced, they all didn’t hate the US and agree with their government just like not everyone here supports our admin and our actions. 

We’re seeing Neocons recycle the same thing as Iraq “you don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud”. 

Yet, a vast majority of wars post WWII were proven to be bullshit and constructed by elites for agendas outside of the normal Americans. We don’t profit when we war for oil, we don’t have a higher standard of living after these wars, usually the opposite.

You can't nuke around the good ones that's not how it works, I'm alright with the loses and I'm okay with world being upset about it. I would rather we still nuke them now rather then do nothing and in the next 12 months they nuke us. I'm not interested in absorbing one first.

[SomeStupidName]

So you are advocating for nuclear war? 

Where will that lead? 

Because it's nowhere good...

Keep in mind who Iran's allies are.

Toothless tigers and dragons, if they want to dance then today is a good day to die I hope they have their affairs in order.

[andy06shake]

You can't nuke around the good ones that's not how it works, I'm alright with the loses and I'm okay with world being upset about it. I would rather we still nuke them now rather then do nothing and in the next 12 months they nuke us. I'm not interested in absorbing one first.

Another argument that falls apart under basic reality.
 
There's no solid evidence Iran was about to nuke anyone imminently, else im sure you will be able to provide it.

So "nuke them now or get nuked in 12 months" is fear-based guesswork, not fact.
 
And preemptive nuclear strikes don't eliminate risk.

They guarantee escalation.

Even conventional strikes near nuclear sites already risk disaster.
 
You're not choosing safety, you're choosing maximum chaos based on hypothetical threats.

That’s not strategy, it's panic dressed up as policy.

[andy06shake]

Toothless tigers and dragons, if they want to dance then today is a good day to die I hope they have their affairs in order.

Wars aren't cinematic last stands SomeStuWrote.

And treating escalation like a game just proves you don't grasp the consequences of what you're advocating.

Which is nuclear war...

Oh dear.

[Encia22]

REPEATING THIS ONE LAST TIME...

 

 

MOD NOTE

This is not Deny Politics!

So, please stay On Topic

and avoid Political Rants.

POSTS WILL BE REMOVED.

Thank you

Do not reply to this post.

[SomeStupidName]

Another argument that falls apart under basic reality.
 
There's no solid evidence Iran was about to nuke anyone imminently, else im sure you will be able to provide it.

So "nuke them now or get nuked in 12 months" is fear-based guesswork, not fact.
 
And preemptive nuclear strikes don't eliminate risk.

They guarantee escalation 

Even conventional strikes near nuclear sites already risk disaster.
 
You're not choosing safety, you're choosing maximum chaos based on hypothetical threats.

That’s not strategy, it's panic dressed up as policy.

Wrong again andy, The admitted to having the material and if you rob a store with hand in your pocket shaped like a gun you still get charged with armed robbery this no different. The clearly look to cause us harm and every chance they get they take it.  

They want a nuke we should give them some today.

[putnam6]

No, that's not what I believe. Honestly I think....well I hope....it's just threatening rhetoric to get Iran to submit and agree to a deal. On the other hand...One can't be sure with this guy. He likes deception and keeping people guessing.

Thanks for the response just checking.

I agree, I do not like how Trump is, reacts, talks much of the time either, haven't since the 80s....

It's mostly a negotiation tactic, 90% at least, but it's that 10% uncertainty
This is all one needs to get an edge in negotiations.

Iran seems split, but the Guard is in control enough that they will have to be dealt with. Especially in Tehran, they can effectively police with motorcycles and machine guns.

Side note ...

Why hasn't anybody discussed the guns to the Kurds? To pressure Iran, they took them and pivoted towards their tribal militia enemy in Iraq.

End of the day seems like complete subterfuge, even if it was unintentional

what happened in the guns to the Kurds

Searching the web

50 results

Searching on X

5 results

The most recent high-profile incident involving "guns to the Kurds" refers to claims made by President Donald Trump in early April 2026.Trump's ClaimTrump stated in a Fox News interview (and repeated publicly) that the US had sent "a lot of guns" intended for Iranian anti-regime protesters during nationwide demonstrations that erupted in late December 2025/early January 2026 (sparked by economic hardship and other grievances). The weapons were reportedly routed through Iranian Kurdish groups (or Kurdish networks in Iraq) as a way to smuggle or distribute arms to help the protesters fight back against Iranian authorities. Trump added that he believes "the Kurds took/kept them" and that the guns largely never reached the intended Iranian protesters.

the-independent.com

Kurdish ResponseIranian Kurdish opposition groups and parties (including PJAK, PAK, and others) have strongly denied receiving any such US weapons. Leaders said:No arms were delivered at all.
They continue relying on old stockpiles from the fight against ISIS.
The claim could endanger them by provoking retaliation from Tehran.

newsweek.com

Some reports noted that the US (via the CIA in earlier related efforts) had been exploring or working on arming Iranian Kurdish forces to pressure or destabilize the Iranian regime amid broader US-Israel tensions with Iran.

responsiblestatecraft.org

Historical ContextThis isn't the first time "guns to the Kurds" has been controversial. Past examples include:2014 Kobani airdrops (anti-ISIS fight in Syria): The US dropped weapons and supplies for Kurdish fighters, but at least one bundle was seized by ISIS fighters (confirmed by Pentagon and videos). Turkey criticized the operation.

theguardian.com

German/UK arms to Iraqi Peshmerga (anti-ISIS): Some weapons ended up on the black market, were lost, or left without ammunition, leading to temporary halts in shipments and Kurdish complaints.

dw.com

Broader US support to Syrian Kurds (YPG/SDF) against ISIS was later curtailed due to Turkish objections, and Kurds have repeatedly felt abandoned after key battles.

The 2026 claim has sparked debate online and in media, with some viewing it as an admission of a covert op gone wrong, while Kurds reject it as inaccurate or risky. No independent verification has publicly confirmed the delivery or diversion of the specific weapons in question.

[SomeStupidName]

Wars aren't cinematic last stands SomeStuWrote.

And treating escalation like a game just proves you don't grasp the consequences of what you're advocating.

Which is nuclear war...

Oh dear.

I well aware of the consequences, I'm all good with mutual assured destruction.

[andy06shake]

Wrong again andy, The admitted to having the material and if you rob a store with hand in your pocket shaped like a gun you still get charged with armed robbery this no different. The clearly look to cause us harm and every chance they get they take it.  

They want a nuke we should give them some today.

Garbage.

Having material isn't the same as having a weapon.

And it was not enriched to weapons-grade, as you are plainly aware.

Never mind the fact that Trump obitterated the stuff last June...

You're jumping from suspicion to justification for nuclear war.

That's not deterrence, that's escalation.

[cherokeetroy]

The face of the radical right

Tell me how this is any different than chanting, "Death to America!"

https://x.com/RepFine/status/2041266001199743276?s=20
https://x.com/HighImpactFlix/status/2041...62518?s=20
https://x.com/MrSausageGet/status/204133...32003?s=20