- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
wdhalgren
| Favorite team: | Georgia  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 4798 |
| Registered on: | 5/27/2013 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
quote:
Because the mechanism is not geopolitical.
I wouldn't bet my life on that.
quote:
It is actuarial. And actuaries do not take calls from the Politburo.
Maybe not, but I'd wager the actuaries' bosses have had conversations with multiple political entities in recent days.
0
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/3/26 at 5:18 pm to AUTiger1978
quote:
This is a question that still deserves an answer.
I answered the question earlier. I'm not a follower of Walsh and have no intention of becoming one. I do not like what he seems to be insinuating, but I could be completely wrong about what he's trying to say. Since you and your buds brought his ideas and words here, I'll ask you some questions.
Does Matt Walsh believe (in your opinion, obviously), or state explicitly, that the President and his staff have placed the interests of Israel over the interests of the US? Does he believe that the US President started a military conflict in service of Israel's interests, over the interests of his own country? If so, what was the motive? Was there some quid pro quo involved? Does Walsh believe that this is an "illegal" war?
What, exactly, is Walsh's assertion and his immediate term goal (during this conflict)? Is he just "starting a conversation", trolling for clicks? I'm genuinely trying to understand.
quote:
If Walsh is no longer a political commentator for not being 100% sold on military intervention in a foreign country, what are you accusing him of being?
I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar. From what I've read on this message board, he appears to be saying that our government has been somehow coerced into acting in the interests of Israel instead of US interests. And he's saying those things repeatedly and publicly during a war. Feel free to correct me on any or all of those points.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/3/26 at 10:39 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
But I don't shy away from opposing points of view. I seek to understand them.
Maybe I'm being too judgmental, but Mr. Walsh doesn't sound like he's "seeking to understand". It appears he's steadily attempting to change hearts and minds during a conflict.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/3/26 at 10:27 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
I've been told that we are not in a war.
Did you argue for or against that? Personally, I believe that we are in a war, even without a declaration. Not a "proxy war" like Ukraine, but a US war fought by US forces. Personally, I believe that even if I oppose a war on some grounds (like economic, which I generally do unless convinced otherwise by evidence), it would be very dangerous and counterproductive to try and undercut the rationale or goals for an ongoing military campaign where Americans are fighting and dying. I will not give any aid or comfort or moral support to our enemy in that situation. That's my opinion.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/3/26 at 10:08 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
He is a well-known conservative pundit, and normally a supporter of Trump. His perspective is interesting to me. If you aren't interested, you can just scroll on by.
There's a bright line between politics and war. In politics, people can waffle and make unverifiable assertions, use broad generalizations and talking points. "Border control is racism". Law enforcement is fascism. Gender is a state of mind.", etc. That's politics.
In wartime, talking points that agree with or otherwise support the enemy are something else. During wartime, accusing your own government of acting in bad faith is something else. Accusing your government of acting against the interests of the country, while the bombs are falling, is something else. Anyone pushing those "perspectives" right now, during wartime, is no longer just a political commentator.
quote:
Starmer had issued his strongest rebuke yet of Trump’s action in Iran, saying the UK did not believe in Show more
Interesting.
re: Foreign Service Officer for State Dept. was reportedly the road rage stabber in D.C.
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/3/26 at 9:03 am to SallysHuman
quote:
Reddit thread on it made it sound like he was intentionally ramming/chasing cars before getting stabby.
If that's true, why would "officials" discount the possibility of terrorism. If the guy was still actively employed at State Dept, doesn't sound like he was schizophrenic or otherwised deranged. If you're riding around with a big knife ramming cars and stabbing people to death, that sounds like terrorism.
Is that the real John Cleese? Where's he living right now?
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/2/26 at 2:30 pm to RazorBroncs
quote:
What happened to the Brits?
Their decline has taken centuries, but the proximal cause is absence of a functioning border. When a welfare state reaches that stage, the end is near.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/2/26 at 11:10 am to AUTiger1978
quote:
However, when you can sell something with the verifiable truth you should do it, and we clearly can in this case. The fact that you feel the need to argue the other side of this is insane when there is no benefit to the lie.
I'm not arguing any side of this. You're the one arguing about how these matters should be handled. I live in the real world and I'm telling you how it works and always has and always will. And I'm telling you that's not going to change.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/2/26 at 9:52 am to TulsaSooner78
quote:
I believe last summer Trump used the word "obliterated" to describe the state of the Iranian nuclear program. All he needed to say was that we have evidence that they have continued to work on the development of a nuclear weapon. I would be good with that.
If the intent is to come back when the time is right and finish the job, do you believe any sensible leader is going to publicly serve notice well in advance? No, because that's counterproductive. Same thing here. Those comments are carefully crafted to say exactly what the planners want to say. They're not going to intentionally tell the public and the enemy what they know or think, because that might give an indication of future planning. IMO, this war is more about oil than anything else, and they haven't said that either. I don't care because that's not how it works.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/2/26 at 9:35 am to AUTiger1978
quote:
I don’t really think we have to rely on bullshite tactics to sell this to the American people at this point.
There you go again. You can phrase it however you like, expectations or, "I don't really think", or whatever. No world leader cares what you think they should say on those matters, never have and never will. When it comes to public comments on matters of national security and geopolitics, what they say is intended to be obscure and even misleading. Scream at the sky or post it non-stop in this thread, but that will never change.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/2/26 at 7:48 am to AUTiger1978
quote:
And people react the same dumbass way when you notice, suggesting you don’t support the military operation.
I'm not gonna try to suggest anything about you, but I will give some insight from my experience. Anyone expecting world leaders to give them accurate and up-to-date information about matters of war, national security, and geopolitics, has unrealistic expectations. Nobody does that; it's not the policy, ever, anywhere.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/1/26 at 7:38 pm to PsychTiger
quote:
Maybe that will work, and lead to the Western Nations waking up and finally dealing with the Muslim problem.
Like I said, it's just a theory. I do believe that it would be a mistake to dismiss anything that happens in coming weeks as random or stupid knee-jerk responses. The regime knew this was coming just like everyone else. So did China and Russia and Europe. Plans were made and it would risky to assume those plans have already been fully activated and revealed.
quote:
To the question of why would Iran and/or its proxies be firing missiles at countries other than Israel, perhaps it’s based on a thought by very desperate “backups” now finding themselves in the role of decision makers, hoping to essentially extort “the world” into putting pressure on the U.S. and Israel to cease with further bombing operations within Iran. In other words, “get them to stop, then we’ll stop.” Not saying it’s a good idea, just spitballing.
Here's my spitball theory. They want to draw other western nations into the conflict and widen it. So what happens? UK says we'll take a defensive stance --> their base in Cyprus gets hit. Maybe UK gets a bit more aggressive, which triggers a Muslim response back home, which forces the UK authorities to respond on the streets of London. Etc. If they can somehow turns this into widespread Arab unrest inside Western countries, Pakistan, India, etc., maybe they believe a broad coalition will form against the US and Israel and demand an end to hostilities. The provocations coming from inside Iran are just a way to widen the whole thing and kick off something bigger.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/1/26 at 4:26 pm to BayouBengal51
quote:
French military says no aircraft carrier is being deployed to the region.
I normally have mixed feelings when the US gets involved in foreign conflicts. If we end up fighting alongside the French, I become confident that we've made a mistake.
re: Official US/Israel vs Iran war thread
Posted by wdhalgren on 3/1/26 at 1:52 pm to hawgfaninc
quote:
So this reinforces the idea that the coalition expects an extended phase, not a quick off ramp.
I wonder how many Iranians are dedicated supporters of the regime, and will remain so even when the paychecks stop coming? How many are willing to sacrifice everything for the cause? I'm far from an expert on any kind of warfare, but when the opponent can surveil and harass you from above with impunity, aided by countless spotters on the ground, it seems like moving forces and supplies quickly becomes a huge problem
.
quote:
Does Ukraine have any of our stuff left over or have they already sold it all?
I didn't read the article. Did the author of that article even mention things we've used in Ukraine? That seems odd.
Context is important. Digital money and the knock-on effects can and will be used for more govt control. It's not a new concept, governments everywhere and always use innovation to increase their control, because control is what governments want. Govts are, after all, run by people with a taste for power.
But to put this subject back into the current context, the ongoing war with Iran, are China and the Iranian regime the representatives of small govt and freedom in this discussion? Like I said, that's a hard sell. If you or Tucker or Ms. Fitts are saying geopolitics are complex and the motive for war is never pure altruism, that's correct. If you're using this theory to change minds about who's right vs wrong, good vs bad, in the Iranian conflict, I don't think you're making a good case.
There is a different case to be made that the US shouldn't be involved in this war. I think George Washington made that case in his farewell address and it's more relevant today than ever. We need to avoid foreign entanglements whenever possible. If for no other reason than we can't pay for them without debasing the US dollar. Was this war absolutely vital to US interests? I don't know the answer to that but I'm pretty certain that we are headed for financial trouble and this probably won't help.
But to put this subject back into the current context, the ongoing war with Iran, are China and the Iranian regime the representatives of small govt and freedom in this discussion? Like I said, that's a hard sell. If you or Tucker or Ms. Fitts are saying geopolitics are complex and the motive for war is never pure altruism, that's correct. If you're using this theory to change minds about who's right vs wrong, good vs bad, in the Iranian conflict, I don't think you're making a good case.
There is a different case to be made that the US shouldn't be involved in this war. I think George Washington made that case in his farewell address and it's more relevant today than ever. We need to avoid foreign entanglements whenever possible. If for no other reason than we can't pay for them without debasing the US dollar. Was this war absolutely vital to US interests? I don't know the answer to that but I'm pretty certain that we are headed for financial trouble and this probably won't help.
In the real world, things are never black or white. May be some truth there but any theory that makes the Iranian regime and China the good guys is gonna be a hard sell.
Popular
17
