Do you feel like the winds of change are blowing today too?
POSTED BY: 6ixStringJack
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 16:05
VIEWED: 185382
PAGE 437 of 479
Quote:A Very Stable War
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Your world is dead.
Turns out my lungs are fine and all I need are some antibiotics. Probably got the staph infection pneumonia from one of your Illegal Alien friends at the local ALDI.
Thanks for that, loser.
Keep on posting dumb shit, idiot.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Evil. Be a dick.
J. D. Vance says this Middle East entanglement can’t be dumb—because Trump is smart.
By Jonathan Chait | March 3, 2026, 10:42 AM ET
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/trump-iran-rubio-vance-war/6
86219/
After the president of peace, a man who felt deserving of the Nobel Prize, authorized a massive aerial bombardment of Iran last summer, the task of explaining away the contradiction fell to J. D. Vance.
“I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,” the vice president told NBC—a stark understatement, given that Vance had, up to this point, unsparingly denounced Middle East wars and promised that the Trump administration would avoid them. “I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then, we had dumb presidents, and now we have a president who actually knows how to accomplish America’s national-security objectives.”
The difference was simple: Other wars were bad because they were led by dumb presidents, but a Trump war would be good because Donald Trump is smart.
Yet after the administration’s second wave of air attacks on Iran, the president’s strategy seems more sundown than Sun Tzu.
The Wall Street Journal reported on January 30 that Trump was planning a major military campaign, but was still “debating whether the main aim is to go after Iran’s nuclear program, hit its ballistic missile arsenal, bring about the collapse of the government—or some combination of the three.” Generally speaking, military strategists tend to first settle upon their objective, and then devise a tactic to achieve it. The Trump method of first deciding on the tactic, and only getting around to what he wants to accomplish afterward, is unorthodox.
A lack of clarity has continued to define the operation. In his videotaped message announcing the latest attacks, Trump repeated his boast that the previous round of air strikes, in June, had “obliterated the regime’s nuclear program at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan.” But if the obliteration lasted only half a year, what value is there in re-obliterating it? Will biannual bombing campaigns be employed until Iran submits to American demands?
Because Trump appears not to know what he wants from his military strikes, he is also unable to make clear what he is demanding of Iran to stop them. At times, he faults Tehran for refusing to abandon its nuclear ambitions. “They wanted to do it. They didn’t want to do it. Again they wanted to do it. They didn’t want to do it,” he complained in his taped address. This tracked with the rationale that Vance offered last summer: “Simple principle: Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon.”
Yet at other times, Trump has floated more extensive ambitions. “Our objectives are clear,” he announced at the White House yesterday, ticking off a four-point list: eliminating Iran’s conventional missiles, destroying its navy, and ending its ability to fund terrorism, along with the original nuclear-nonproliferation goal.
The simple principle is now four simple principles. And Trump’s complaint that the mullahs were getting too “cute” in the negotiations has been mixed with grievances going back decades. On Sunday he told my colleague Michael Scherer, “They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them.” The next day, he described Iran’s government as “sick and sinister,” language implying a desire for regime change.
Despite planning the war with the keen brainpower that Vance finds so impressive, Trump has conceded his apparent failure to anticipate some of its more predictable cons
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Keep my quotes out of your dumb bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Trump's world is dead because he has too few Patriot missiles. When he runs out, he will declare victory and leave. The dependably gullible Trumptards will believe he won because their Führer said so:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Your world is dead.
Turns out my lungs are fine and all I need are some antibiotics. Probably got the staph infection pneumonia from one of your Illegal Alien friends at the local ALDI.
Thanks for that, loser.
Keep on posting dumb shit, idiot.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Evil. Be a dick.
The One Variable that Could Decide the War
The U.S. and Israel are racing to destroy Iran’s missile supplies before their own air defenses are exhausted.
By Missy Ryan and Nancy A. Youssef | March 3, 2026, 3:26 PM ET
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/03/war-stockpiles/6
86212/
When General Mark Milley outlined the U.S. Army’s future priorities in 2017, he said that new long-range missiles, improved tanks, and better-armed, better-trained infantrymen were vital to America’s domination of the next major conflict. But those plans, the then–Army chief and soon-to-be chairman of the Joint Chiefs said, came with an important caveat: The upgrades would be useless unless the military came up with a more effective air defense. “None of the above,” he noted, “will matter if you are dead.”
The Trump administration is finding out just how much air defense matters in its war with Iran. The open-ended campaign poses the biggest-ever test of America’s 21st-century sky shield, a network of weapons to protect against incoming missiles, drones, and ordnance.
So far, that system has mostly held up against the barrage of drones and missiles that Iran has fired at U.S., Arab, and Israeli targets since Saturday morning. But that won’t remain true indefinitely. U.S. military leaders may soon be forced to choose between protecting troops and civilians near Iran and maintaining U.S. combat readiness against larger, more consistent threats from Russia and China. Even though President Trump and other officials have suggested that the war could last at least four or five weeks, and maybe longer, the conflict in some ways has already become a race to weaken Iran’s missile-launch capacity before Tehran can deplete Washington’s finite air-defense supplies.
Trump appears aware of the threat. In a late-night post on Truth Social yesterday, he said that the U.S. munitions stockpiles “have, at the medium and upper medium grade, never been higher or better” but added, “At the highest end, we have a good supply, but are not where we want to be.” He went on to blame Joe Biden for not replacing weapons provided to Ukraine.
Tom Karako, who heads the missile-defense project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told us that the strain on U.S. weapons stockpiles could become so severe that the Trump administration would be forced to dispatch troops to Iran—a move that Trump has not ruled out—to neutralize underground missile-launch sites and hunt down Soviet-designed Scud missiles. “We can’t afford to keep doing this,” Karako said. “That’s why there’s such an urgency to finish the job.”
Before Trump launched Operation Epic Fury on Saturday, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine and other officials had expressed concerns about the supply of interceptor missiles and about the threat to troops of not having enough, U.S. officials told us. Even with plentiful supplies, U.S. air-defense systems are not impregnable. Six American service members have been killed since the war began, all of them in an Iranian retaliatory strike on a U.S. facility in Kuwait. Iranian attacks also killed civilians in Israel and the United Arab Emirates, hit a British base in Cyprus, grounded much of the region’s airline travel, and brought maritime commerce to a near halt in some of the world’s busiest shipping lanes. The State Department closed embassies in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia after a drone att
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Reality Sets In on Trump’s New War
Surprise! War in the middle of the world’s most important oil fields has consequences
Bear in mind that this isn’t even a war of choice; it’s a war of whim, marked by a near-total lack of planning.
Oil prices are up around $15 per barrel since mid-February. “Why has oil not hit $100 a barrel?”, asks the Financial Times. The best answer seems to be that even now traders are betting that the Strait of Hormuz won’t stay closed for more than a few days. I hope I’m wrong, but I expect the Strait to remain closed for weeks despite Trump’s assurances.
https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/reality-sets-in-on-trumps-new-war
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:Trump's world is dead because he has too few Patriot missiles. When he runs out, he will declare victory and leave. The dependably gullible Trumptards will believe he won because their Führer said so:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Your world is dead.
Turns out my lungs are fine and all I need are some antibiotics. Probably got the staph infection pneumonia from one of your Illegal Alien friends at the local ALDI.
Thanks for that, loser.
Keep on posting dumb shit, idiot.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Evil. Be a dick.
The One Variable that Could Decide the War
The U.S. and Israel are racing to destroy Iran’s missile supplies before their own air defenses are exhausted.
By Missy Ryan and Nancy A. Youssef | March 3, 2026, 3:26 PM ET
https://www.theatlantic.com/national-security/2026/03/war-stockpiles/6
86212/
None of this article is even true.
Written by a know nothing Muslim who writes hundreds of articles that cease to age well a week after she writes them, and some dumb white college "educated" Karen for the most Anti-American, TDS riddled rag out of the UK.
They were probably finger-blasting each other while they came up with this slop, and shared a cake and had a cry over their loveless cat-filled lives when they were finished.
Get fucked, stupid.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Real Reason Trump Went to War
Trump has called for sending American forces to Iran since 1980. He finally has, and must own the consequences.
By Yair Rosenberg | March 4, 2026, 9:37 AM ET
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/03/trump-iran-war-justi
fication/686229/
Why did President Trump decide to attack Iran? It depends on what day of the week you ask. On Saturday, the president claimed in a recorded address that he acted because Iran’s rulers refused to “renounce their nuclear ambitions” and were developing long-range missiles that threatened America and its allies. On Sunday, a senior administration official told reporters that Iran and its proxies “posed an imminent threat to U.S. personnel and allies in the region.” On Monday, House Speaker Mike Johnson and Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested that Trump acted preemptively to protect U.S. forces in advance of an unavoidable Israeli attack on Iran that would inevitably lead Iran to retaliate against America. The next day, Trump rejected this framing, telling reporters that “if anything, I might have forced Israel’s hand” because he believed Iran was “going to attack if we didn’t do it.”
All of these pretexts present problems. Why would America need to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities if, as Trump previously claimed, they’d been “completely and totally obliterated” eight months ago in Operation Midnight Hammer? In 2025, the Defense Intelligence Agency assessed that Iran’s missile program was a decade away from being able to target American shores. That hardly sounds like an imminent threat. As for the Israel excuse, Trump is the senior partner in the U.S.-Israel relationship, and he sets the terms. When he wanted Israel to end its June 2025 war with Iran, he publicly forced the country to recall its fighter jets, even without avenging a closing strike that had left four Israelis dead.
Trump could have dissuaded the Israelis once again. Instead, the president ordered the largest U.S. air-power buildup in the Middle East since the invasion of Iraq. Then, according to The New York Times, his CIA gave Israel the intelligence to locate and kill Iran’s supreme leader, Ali Khamenei. (Axios reported instead that the intelligence was Israel’s and the CIA confirmed it.) “He was unable to avoid our Intelligence and Highly Sophisticated Tracking Systems,” Trump crowed on Truth Social, announcing Khamenei’s death. The two countries reportedly had planned the ensuing assault for weeks.
The shifting explanations for Trump’s war and the alleged imminent threat that prompted it suggest poor planning and internal confusion about the president’s motives. They are also a smoke screen. Fundamentally, a war ordered by the most powerful man in the world, commanding the most advanced military in the world, is the responsibility of the man who ordered it. Trump is a two-term president with agency, and he has long telegraphed and demonstrated his eagerness to use military force around the world—and in particular, in Iran.
In 1980, NBC interviewed a young Trump about the ongoing Iran hostage crisis. He did not hold back. “That this country sits back and allows a country such as Iran to hold our hostages, to my way of thinking, is a horror, and I don’t think they’d do it with other countries,” he said. When the interviewer asked if that meant “you’re advocating that we should have gone in there with troops,” Trump replied, “I absolutely feel that, yes,” adding that had America done so, “I think right now we’d be an oil-rich nation.” (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said that he had dreamed of being able to “smite the terror regime” in Iran for 40 years; it turns out Trump had him beat.)
In 1987, the Times reported that Trump declared in a New Hampshire speech that “the United States should attack Iran and seize some of its oil fields in retaliation for what he called Iran’s bullying of America.” In 1988, Trump told The Guardian that “I’d be harsh on Iran. They’ve been beating us psychologically, making us look a bunch of fools.”
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh... I'm sure some dumb cocksucker at the Atlantic knows the REAL reason...
You're so fucking stupid, Second.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Word on the street is that you might see Ted Cruz on the Supreme Court soon.
Boy... Democrats are just going to lose everything forever.
Every one of your nightmares are coming true.
Rest in Piss, idiots.
In the meantime, fuckwits...
Sen. Cruz Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Cement Supreme Court at Nine Justices
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-introduce
s-constitutional-amendment-to-cement-supreme-court-at-nine-justices
Yeah. Let's do that.
No court packing for the cheating Democratic Party on the extremely unlikely chance any living human being on the planet lives long enough to ever seen them in power again.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Nice. Don't be a dick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Trump’s Iran gamble carries a political cost
The decision to go to war was a dangerous wager that force could achieve what diplomacy couldn’t — and it’ll likely cause the president trouble come November.
By Ivo Daalder | March 5, 2026 4:00 am CET
Ivo Daalder, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center.
https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-iran-gamble-carries-a-pol
itical-cost-weinberger-doctrine/
Last December, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth laid out the current administration’s National Defense Strategy, arguing that President Donald Trump was the true heir to former President Ronald Reagan’s strategy of peace through strength.
A key part of that strategy, Hegseth maintained, was the Weinberger Doctrine, which determined the principles for when and how the U.S. was to use military force. He then claimed that last June’s Operation Midnight Hammer against Iran had been “a textbook example” of that doctrine, its strikes “obliterating the Iranian nuclear program.”
But what about the current war against Iran? Does Operation Epic Fury also hold up against Weinberger’s tenets? Hegseth would surely have a tough time making that case — and for Trump, this could finally mean trouble.
In a November 1984 speech, then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger outlined six principles for military engagement that were, in many ways, drawn from lessons learned during that year’s disastrous Lebanon expedition and the failures in Vietnam a decade before. Unsurprisingly, Trump’s Iran war fails to meet virtually every single one.
First, Weinberger said, force should only be used if a vital national interest is at stake. And while Iran may be governed by an odious regime that has accumulated a vast arsenal of ballistic missiles, pursued a nuclear program and exported terrorism overseas, the U.S. has lived with this very regime for almost half a century.
Moreover, Tehran is weaker today than it has been in decades. Its economy is in shambles, its proxies have been decimated by Israel, and its allies in Syria have been ousted. The list doesn’t end there: Its nuclear program was buried deep underground after last year’s Israeli-U.S. bombing campaign; its missile stockpiles are dwindling; its production facilities are damaged; its air force can’t fly; its army can’t move beyond its borders; and its navy is little more than a coastal fleet.
So while the end of the Iranian regime would be a good thing, it’s hard to make the case that, weakened as it was by war, sanctions and mismanagement, Tehran posed enough of a threat to vital U.S. national interests to justify a preventive war.
Next come Weinberger’s second, third and fourth principles — that before deciding to use force, the U.S. needs to have clearly defined objectives, be wholeheartedly committed to achieving them, and deploy sufficient force to make sure it does. In the case of Iran, there are problems with all three.
For one, Trump and his aides have cited many different objectives: deposing the regime, ensuring Iran never has nuclear weapons, destroying the country’s missile capabilities, vanquishing its navy, ending support for its proxies and terrorism, exacting revenge for past attacks killing Americans, as well as ensuring Iran can never project force beyond its borders.
All these constitute a tall order, to say the least. Regime change, for one, is hard to achieve from the air, and yet it seems Washington has no intention of deploying ground troops to depose Iran’s regime, maintain order and assist a new one in taking over. And though airpower can do a lot to degrade and destroy the country’s nuclear program, missile capability and military in the short run, those are a means to an end.
What political objective would be served by effectively disarming Iran? What would constitute success for the U.S.? And how much force would be needed to achieve it? On this, the administration and the president have been silent.
Finally, we have Weinberger’s last two principles, which are the most
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:During the Civil War, the slaveowners on the Supreme Court blocked Lincoln. What did he do about them? Execute them? That would have been quicker. Instead, something Lincoln thought better. But remember, Lincoln's charity toward evil got him killed in the end:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
In the meantime, fuckwits...
Sen. Cruz Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Cement Supreme Court at Nine Justices
https://www.cruz.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sen-cruz-introduce
s-constitutional-amendment-to-cement-supreme-court-at-nine-justices
Yeah. Let's do that.
No court packing for the cheating Democratic Party on the extremely unlikely chance any living human being on the planet lives long enough to ever seen them in power again.
--------------------------------------------------
Be Evil. Be a dick.
• Opposition: Chief Justice Roger Taney (a Southerner) and other Southern justices challenged Lincoln's wartime powers, favoring states' rights and slavery.
• The Prize Cases (1863): In a 5-4 vote, the Court upheld the legality of Lincoln's blockade of Southern ports, with the majority including some justices who had previously opposed him, as well as new appointees.
• Court Packing: To secure a friendly court, Lincoln appointed three new justices and, with Congress, expanded the Court, shifting the balance of power away from the Southern bloc.
• Ignoring Rulings: When the Court challenged him, such as in Merryman, Lincoln often ignored the rulings to maintain federal authority, believing them to be Obstructing his duty to save the Union.
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at https://www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME