Bootstrap wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 1:45 pm
I can't think of any feasible outcome better than not invading in the first place.
How do you suggest keeping them from nuclear weapons? You know their desire and no, you cannot @work with” terrorist regimes.
This morning a poll came out that 44% of Muslims in America support Hamas. I for one do not find that comforting-
So far, none of the proposals for preventing Nukes are as strong as the Obama framework of inspections, which Trump canceled. I don't think this war has done anything to get us positioned for doing better.
How do you suggest keeping them from nuclear weapons? Given the way the war is going so far, how do you get there from here?
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
I can't think of any feasible outcome better than not invading in the first place.
How do you suggest keeping them from nuclear weapons? You know their desire and no, you cannot @work with” terrorist regimes.
This morning a poll came out that 44% of Muslims in America support Hamas. I for one do not find that comforting-
Who there is terrorists? The leaders? The military? The government? The citizens? Perhaps there are some but I’m very unwilling to brand a nation as terrorists and unwilling to negotiate.
This nation at least before the US bombed the leadership was composed of rational players with clear agendas and strategic plans
They’ve been called terrorists for quite awhile - the leaders. We must get our news from completely different sources. Even Iranians themselves call the leaders terrorists
Soloist wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 3:32 pmWho there is terrorists? The leaders? The military? The government? The citizens? Perhaps there are some but I’m very unwilling to brand a nation as terrorists and unwilling to negotiate.
This nation at least before the US bombed the leadership was composed of rational players with clear agendas and strategic plans
They’ve been called terrorists for quite awhile - the leaders. We must get our news from completely different sources. Even Iranians themselves call the leaders terrorists
OK, but calling them terrorists doesn't change much in achieving war objections. What alternative is there to negotiating with them? Wait for the Iranian people to rise up and depose their government? Send in ground troops? What would you do instead of negotiating?
And isn't war "continuing diplomacy by other means", a more drastic form of negotiation? If we want to persuade them to do something different, how do we do that? How well is the war accomplishing that so far? What do you expect to change?
Will dropping more bombs do that? Making Iranian civilians more miserable by destroying their economy even more when so many are starving? Killing more Iranians?
Last edited by Bootstrap on Tue Jul 14, 2026 7:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
1 x
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
Soloist wrote: ↑Tue Jul 14, 2026 3:32 pmWho there is terrorists? The leaders? The military? The government? The citizens? Perhaps there are some but I’m very unwilling to brand a nation as terrorists and unwilling to negotiate.
This nation at least before the US bombed the leadership was composed of rational players with clear agendas and strategic plans
They’ve been called terrorists for quite awhile - the leaders. We must get our news from completely different sources. Even Iranians themselves call the leaders terrorists
OK, but calling them terrorists doesn't change much in achieving war objections. What alternative is there to negotiating with them? Wait for the Iranian people to rise up and depose their government? Send in ground troops? What would you do instead of negotiating?
And isn't war "continuing diplomacy by other means", a more drastic form of negotiation? If we want to persuade them to do something different, how do we do that? How well is the war accomplishing that so far? What do you expect to change?
Will dropping more bombs do that? Making Iranian civilians more miserable by destroying their economy even more when so many are starving? Killing more Iranians?
I’ve heard this for over two decades now and I KNOW it’s true. You really cannot negotiate with terrorists. Especially radical Islam- especially when they have been chanting for a LONG time “death to Israel and death to America” it’s hard to understand it all and we cannot be in the know about everything for obvious reasons. There have been over 30,000 Iranians killed for protesting against their government (I actually have heard close to 50,000 now) but I’ve heard Iranians interviewed how badly they want to see this regime out. Well Trump has had ideas about Iran at least since 1981 (I recently watched an d interview from then) he hoped other presidents would do more.
Concerning nuclear weapons, it seems to me the message to Iran is build them as soon as possible and never cooperate or sign treaties with the Americans because they will elect someone who doesn't honor them anyway.
barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 6:05 am
Concerning nuclear weapons, it seems to me the message to Iran is build them as soon as possible and never cooperate or sign treaties with the Americans because they will elect someone who doesn't honor them anyway.
Yeah which is why the president is talking about bombing a site that supposedly can’t be taken out with the bombs America has.
Iran was attacked during negotiations which is the easiest way to lose credibility that you actually are willing to make an agreement. At this point I’m seeing discussion about getting an agreement out of them that results in collapse after.
I believe that the goal at this point perhaps indirectly is a failed state which will seriously hurt any Iranian and the EU nations pushing them more nationalistic.
It might create the opportunity that America seems after (with possibly one failure already) to retrieve the uranium .
barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 6:05 am
Concerning nuclear weapons, it seems to me the message to Iran is build them as soon as possible and never cooperate or sign treaties with the Americans because they will elect someone who doesn't honor them anyway.
Yeah which is why the president is talking about bombing a site that supposedly can’t be taken out with the bombs America has.
Iran was attacked during negotiations which is the easiest way to lose credibility that you actually are willing to make an agreement. At this point I’m seeing discussion about getting an agreement out of them that results in collapse after.
I believe that the goal at this point perhaps indirectly is a failed state which will seriously hurt any Iranian and the EU nations pushing them more nationalistic.
It might create the opportunity that America seems after (with possibly one failure already) to retrieve the uranium .
We need to accept the fact that we will not be made privy to all the intelligence that those making decisions have- we probably know a fraction of it so in a sense we cannot speak into a situation with anything but guessing, probably futile.
I listen to the “talks” & speeches (I watch a lot of it live, yet I know I’m not hearing all they know to be able to analyze this in the same way only they can. And depending on your news source you may not be getting all and the most up to date information anyways. We here are so limited on everything to do with analyzing let alone making decisions that are best for our country, Israel, our allies, the Mid-East in general and the oppressed Iranians
barnhart wrote: ↑Thu Jul 16, 2026 6:05 am
Concerning nuclear weapons, it seems to me the message to Iran is build them as soon as possible and never cooperate or sign treaties with the Americans because they will elect someone who doesn't honor them anyway.
Yeah which is why the president is talking about bombing a site that supposedly can’t be taken out with the bombs America has.
Iran was attacked during negotiations which is the easiest way to lose credibility that you actually are willing to make an agreement. At this point I’m seeing discussion about getting an agreement out of them that results in collapse after.
I believe that the goal at this point perhaps indirectly is a failed state which will seriously hurt any Iranian and the EU nations pushing them more nationalistic.
It might create the opportunity that America seems after (with possibly one failure already) to retrieve the uranium .
We need to accept the fact that we will not be made privy to all the intelligence that those making decisions have- we probably know a fraction of it so in a sense we cannot speak into a situation with anything but guessing, probably futile.
I listen to the “talks” & speeches (I watch a lot of it live, yet I know I’m not hearing all they know to be able to analyze this in the same way only they can. And depending on your news source you may not be getting all and the most up to date information anyways. We here are so limited on everything to do with analyzing let alone making decisions that are best for our country, Israel, our allies, the Mid-East in general and the oppressed Iranians
Yeah I don’t listen to his speeches or the media. What I do is I read tactical analysis of the military moves or strategic planning.
While I don’t know what intel is kept back, I do know what has been done and what is being telegraphed by troop movements.
A good assumption is never take the public statements as reality. Look at what they do. In terms of military engagements and strategy, I get much more from my sources then the media gives. Unless the media is giving names and pictures, it’s just opinions regurgitated over and over.
I’m not on anyone’s side but regardless of enemy, attacking during negotiations is a bad move for any future negotiations to be in good faith.
Yeah which is why the president is talking about bombing a site that supposedly can’t be taken out with the bombs America has.
Iran was attacked during negotiations which is the easiest way to lose credibility that you actually are willing to make an agreement. At this point I’m seeing discussion about getting an agreement out of them that results in collapse after.
I believe that the goal at this point perhaps indirectly is a failed state which will seriously hurt any Iranian and the EU nations pushing them more nationalistic.
It might create the opportunity that America seems after (with possibly one failure already) to retrieve the uranium .
We need to accept the fact that we will not be made privy to all the intelligence that those making decisions have- we probably know a fraction of it so in a sense we cannot speak into a situation with anything but guessing, probably futile.
I listen to the “talks” & speeches (I watch a lot of it live, yet I know I’m not hearing all they know to be able to analyze this in the same way only they can. And depending on your news source you may not be getting all and the most up to date information anyways. We here are so limited on everything to do with analyzing let alone making decisions that are best for our country, Israel, our allies, the Mid-East in general and the oppressed Iranians
Yeah I don’t listen to his speeches or the media. What I do is I read tactical analysis of the military moves or strategic planning.
While I don’t know what intel is kept back, I do know what has been done and what is being telegraphed by troop movements.
A good assumption is never take the public statements as reality. Look at what they do. In terms of military engagements and strategy, I get much more from my sources then the media gives. Unless the media is giving names and pictures, it’s just opinions regurgitated over and over.
I’m not on anyone’s side but regardless of enemy, attacking during negotiations is a bad move for any future negotiations to be in good faith.
Every military expert, Colonel former leader, giving their analysis said you cannot trust the Iranian regime at all and negotiations. There is no one that I’ve heard being interviewed believe that you can everything I watch is the actual people not just journalist commenting on it but round tables discussions, interviews, press, conferences, etc. where are they’re actually The people involved making the decision decisions
