- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Chuck Barris
| Favorite team: | Alabama  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 2974 |
| Registered on: | 4/11/2013 |
| Online Status: | Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 3/3/26 at 4:34 pm to MSUDawg98
Nvm
1
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 3/3/26 at 12:41 pm to magildachunks
quote:Boy, I wonder who he might have been talking about?
He never said that they were going to be attacked by Israel and we knew about it, just that someone was going to attack Iran.
Perhaps Paraguay has been right on the edge of attacking Iran this whole time? Or maybe he meant Estonia? Maybe we had top secret information that Vanuatu was planning an invasion of Iran?
It's such a shame that there's absolutely no way that a reasonable person could possibly infer which country might have been about to attack Iran!
One thing's for sure though: Rubio absolutely wasn't talking about Israel, the country that just attacked Iran.
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 3/2/26 at 10:37 pm to cubsfan5150
quote:I had to look it up, but most Zoroastrians in Iran are part of the Persian majority.
Only for ethnic minorities, right?
The other minority religious groups are typically members of ethnic minorities.
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 3/2/26 at 10:00 pm to magildachunks
quote:This is just incorrect.
However, you can't really take any of those numbers as true because of the fact that it was illegal to not be Muslim under the Islamic Government.
There are congregations of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and others in Iran.
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 3/2/26 at 9:42 pm to Violent Hip Swivel
quote:Rubio just said the quiet part out loud. I'm honestly stunned. Surely somebody's going to try to walk this back or claim that he was misquoted, right?
Marco Rubio a few hours ago: "We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties."
Interpretation: Israel just dragged our arse us into a war.
The "imminent threat" was Iran's projected response to being attacked first?
This is like claiming that you were being threatened because your "friend" was about to punch someone, and that person would inevitably defend themselves, which would endanger you.
re: Once Iran is liberated, it’ll be a great place to travel
Posted by Chuck Barris on 3/2/26 at 10:56 am to RemouladeSawce
quote:If an attack on the uniformed armed forces of one sovereign state by the uniformed armed forces of two other sovereign states at the direction of their governments with the expressed goal of regime change isn't "war" then that word is meaningless.
There isn't really a war to enter at this point
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 3/2/26 at 10:23 am to Pettifogger
Trump won't rule out sending U.S. troops into Iran "if necessary"
LINK
LINK
quote:
WASHINGTON — President Trump told The Post Monday that he’s not ruling out sending US ground troops into Iran “if they were necessary” — adding that Operation Epic Fury was “way ahead of schedule” by taking out dozens of Tehran’s top officials.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground — like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it,” Trump said after launching strikes Saturday to decapitate Iran’s military and political leadership. “I say ‘probably don’t need them,’ [or] ‘if they were necessary.'”
[...]
Trump insisted that he believes he did “the right thing” and that most Americans support him — despite initial polling indicating otherwise — arguing that allowing “crazy people” to acquire a nuclear weapon would have been worse than even a regional conflict.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Saturday and Sunday found that just 27% of Americans approved of the strikes — while 43% disapproved and 29% weren’t sure. Polling ahead of the strikes showed similar minority support for a possible war.
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 3/1/26 at 9:49 am to Pettifogger
Three American service members have been killed. LINK
quote:Prayers for their families.
Three American service members have been killed and five have been seriously wounded in military operations targeting Iran, the U.S. military said.
They are the first reported American casualties since the U.S. and Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran.
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/28/26 at 3:51 pm to fightin tigers
quote:This would mean that the Omani minister, who is in a better position to be informed about what actually happened than almost anyone else and is playing the role of a neutral party, lied to CBS yesterday about how the negotiations were going.
Have you tried negotiating these concessions?
Yep. Here is the proof they will not concede.
Why do you think he would do that?
Or, is it more likely that the US went into these negotiations with no intent to accept any deal?
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/28/26 at 3:46 pm to jchamil
quote:Why?
You’ve got to at least try to negotiate
What's the point if a negotiation if you already believe that the other party won't honor any agreement that you reach?
There are only two possible scenarios:
1. We went into this knowing that negotiating with Iran was pointless, in which case we weren't actually trying to find a non-military solution, the negotiations were a smokescreen done in bad faith, and Trump lied about their purpose.
2. We went into this thinking that a negotiation could lead to a non-military solution, which means we believed that an agreement with Iran could be reached and maintained that would satisfy both parties, and Trump was telling the truth this whole time.
Now, which one do you think is more likely?
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/28/26 at 3:35 pm to TheOcean
quote:If we'd never believe anything Iran says, then what was the point of negotiating in the first place?
We're supposed to believe Iran? Haven't then been reneging/lying for decades?
We were either negotiating to try to find a non-military solution (as Donald Trump claimed), which implies that we were prepared to believe them about something, or we were negotiating in bad faith, which means that Trump lied to us all and we were going to war regardless of what took place.
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/28/26 at 3:15 pm to fightin tigers
quote:That's not what the negotiators said yesterday: LINK
They had no intention of budging.
quote:
MARGARET BRENNAN: So President Trump said Friday he's not happy with the way talks are going, and not happy that they're "not willing to give us what we have to have." From your point of view, is diplomacy failing?
MINISTER ALBUSAIDI: I am confident, and in my assessment of the way the talks are going, I think there is, really I can see that the peace deal is within our reach.
[...]
MARGARET BRENNAN: What has Iran agreed to, to you, that they have never done before? Can you give us any sense?
MINISTER ALBUSAIDI: The single most important achievement, I believe, is the agreement that Iran will never, ever have a nuclear material that will create a bomb. This is, I think, a big achievement. This is something that is not in the old deal that was negotiated during President Obama's time. This is something completely new. It really makes the enrichment argument less relevant, because now we are talking about zero stockpiling. And that is very, very important, because if you cannot stockpile material that is enriched then there is no way you can actually create a bomb, whether you enrich or don't enrich. And I think this is really something that has been missed a lot by the media, and I want to clarify that from the standpoint of a mediator.
He goes on to detail other Iranian concessions.
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/28/26 at 2:59 pm to fightin tigers
quote:If failing to immediately agree to every demand presented by the other side of a negotiation constitutes an "imminent threat" then any president has a green light to attack any nation for any pretextual reason.
I believe he will use them "backing away" from the table on Thursday.
"We demand that you unilaterally disarm, surrender 99% of your territory, and pay us five years of your nation's GDP in gold, immediately."
"What? Of course not."
"Imminent threat!"
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/28/26 at 2:21 pm to HempHead
What do you think the odds would have been of an actual declaration of war against Iran being approved by both houses of Congress?
(You know, if we were still paying attention to that antiquated old Constitution.)
(You know, if we were still paying attention to that antiquated old Constitution.)
re: WSJ/NYT - US & Israel Strike Tehran
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/28/26 at 2:15 pm to moontigr
quote:This is exactly, word for word, what people were saying to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. (Just switch out the name of the Middle-Eastern country and the Republican president, obviously.)
I swear, some people would rather let Iran continue to build nuclear weapons to use against us, than to support Trump in preventing that from happening. He's right - you're crazy.
I guess the old "If you don't support our attack on [insert country] then you must support them and hate America!" line will probably never stop working.
re: LSU to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms, President Wade Rousse confirms
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/27/26 at 9:48 pm to FnTigers
quote:Because I don't want the government telling me or my kid what to believe about God.
Why would any Christian get pissed because the Word of God is displayed publicly?!
Because involving government in religion inevitably tarnishes both, and leads to government sticking its nose into issues it isn't equipped to address while religion becomes hollow, lazy, and officious.
If you want your children to be Christians, that's your responsibility. Be a Christian example, take them to church, discuss religion with them, let them see you volunteering your time and money to help others, pray with them, etc.
If you want your nation to be more Christian, that's also your responsibility. Pray for the country and our leaders, share the gospel with other people, study to be knowledgeable about what you believe and why, support your church as a hospital for sinners and a training ground for saints, and make your life as a Christian something that others will find worthy of imitation.
"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity." - James Madison, Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821
re: Should Chicken create Profit Sharing for the posters who create the most response clicks?
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/27/26 at 1:45 pm to Harry Rex Vonner
Why pay money to people who are willing to work in exchange for attention?
It's already a great system: Chicken gets web traffic, and a group of about twenty people get a crumb of the validation that they've never received in their real lives.
It's already a great system: Chicken gets web traffic, and a group of about twenty people get a crumb of the validation that they've never received in their real lives.
re: Are Alabama fans so salty because of no titles in anything in 9 years?
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/22/26 at 8:13 pm to captdalton
quote:There are pediatric cancer wards that aren't as sad as LSU basketball.
Response threads are almost as sad as LSU basketball.
re: 2nd Half PMAC looks like 2nd Half Tiger Stadium
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/21/26 at 7:26 pm to TideSaint
LSU fans are just quick to 
re: The Thin Blue Line gang strikes again
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/21/26 at 9:49 am to TigahTeeth
quote:Or, and I know this is wild idea, perhaps the most sensible position is somewhere between "get rid of all law enforcement" and "police get free rein to break the law with zero consequences."
If you don’t want to back the blue then let’s get rid of all law enforcement.
re: Is Alabama no longer a thing for the SEC?
Posted by Chuck Barris on 2/20/26 at 10:00 pm to Gen Patton
quote:LSU fans, 2010 - present
Cope harder Gump! Your days of ruling us are over!
Popular
17
