Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
17 minutes ago, Homelander said:

This regime has no idea what it’s doing; total amateur hour as expected.

 

 

 

Are you capable of basic understanding?

 

Vance correctly noted that the US is not actively engaged in regime change.

Trump is opining why such a thing wouldn't occur if the gov is no longer serving its people.

Not externally forced, but a natural consequence like 1776.

Posted
25 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Are you capable of basic understanding?

 

Vance correctly noted that the US is not actively engaged in regime change.

Trump is opining why such a thing wouldn't occur if the gov is no longer serving its people.

Not externally forced, but a natural consequence like 1776.


Don’t bother.  They were pulling for Iran…

Posted
51 minutes ago, Homelander said:

This regime has no idea what it’s doing; total amateur hour as expected.

 

 

Except pull off a coordinated attack without leaks. You really are a sad person. Did your parents not love you or something?

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Are you capable of basic understanding?

 

Vance correctly noted that the US is not actively engaged in regime change.

Trump is opining why such a thing wouldn't occur if the gov is no longer serving its people.

Not externally forced, but a natural consequence like 1776.

 

Witness how #MAGA copium works.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Doc said:


Don’t bother.  They were pulling for Iran…

 

I'm America First - aren't you?

Posted

Wow, they pulled off a coordinated attack without leaks? Groundbreaking stuff.

 

Next, we’ll be giving out medals for remembering to show up with pants on.

 

MAGA’s idea of 'American greatness,' right @Big Blitz? Just drooling over basic competence like it’s the moon landing.

Posted
2 hours ago, Homelander said:

This regime has no idea what it’s doing; total amateur hour as expected.

 

 

I don’t believe in the “regime change” philosophy..It’s undemocratic.

 

I’m also not thrilled with the bombing of Iran last night…

 

#MAGA

Posted
3 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

Are you capable of basic understanding?

 

Vance correctly noted that the US is not actively engaged in regime change.

Trump is opining why such a thing wouldn't occur if the gov is no longer serving its people.

Not externally forced, but a natural consequence like 1776.

Trump suggests regime change in Iran after Hegseth said that wasn’t the goal of strikes

 

https://flip.it/fK5jth

Posted
6 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

Trump suggests regime change in Iran after Hegseth said that wasn’t the goal of strikes

 

https://flip.it/fK5jth

 

We have to give them a moment - they’re still heartbroken over the “no new wars” peace pitch that tanked.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, 4th&long said:

Trump suggests regime change in Iran after Hegseth said that wasn’t the goal of strikes

 

https://flip.it/fK5jth


 

Same people “suggesting” all these things publicly literally to do 2 things:

 

 

1. Leave every enemy with no clue

 

2. To own Homeloser and the libs.  
 

 

 

 

These same people said “2 weeks.” 
 

48 hours later - a round trip refueled in mid air flight 3 times bombing campaign the likes of which we have not seen since WWII.   
 

 

Edited by Big Blitz
Posted
12 minutes ago, Homelander said:

Morons, yes.

 

 


 

 

Cope harder.  Loser.   Start by naming the source.  
 

Iran’s reaction sure says something devastating happened. 
 

 

So sorry for your loss.  America is back.  

  • Agree 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
28 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:


 

Same people “suggesting” all these things publicly literally to do 2 things:

 

 

1. Leave every enemy with no clue

 

2. To own Homeloser and the libs.  
 

 

 

 

These same people said “2 weeks.” 
 

48 hours later - a round trip refueled in mid air flight 3 times bombing campaign the likes of which we have not seen since WWII.   
 

 

 

And 2 ways to view the "our goal is not regime change in Iran" but "we'd be good with it should it happen" that don't leave these as contradictory messages are:

 

1. we have no intention of enacting regime change but if the Iranian people try to make it happen, we'd be more than willing to support them.  And

 

2. we've said repeatedly that we want to negotiate an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s).  If the mullahs are finally willing to come to the table, great.  But if they aren't, well there's more than 1 way to "negotiate" an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s).  We'll let the mullahs choose which way they want it to play out, but they have to make their choice very quickly.

 

Am not thrilled that the Netanyahu decided to bring this decades long conflict to a head nor that the US got involved.  But at the end of the day, prefer this to Iran having a nuclear weapon or 9.

Posted
11 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

Cope harder.  Loser.   Start by naming the source.  
 

Iran’s reaction sure says something devastating happened. 
 

 

So sorry for your loss.  America is back.  

 

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

And 2 ways to view the "our goal is not regime change in Iran" but "we'd be good with it should it happen" that don't leave these as contradictory messages are:

 

1. we have no intention of enacting regime change but if the Iranian people try to make it happen, we'd be more than willing to support them.  And

 

2. we've said repeatedly that we want to negotiate an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s).  If the mullahs are finally willing to come to the table, great.  But if they aren't, well there's more than 1 way to "negotiate" an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s).  We'll let the mullahs choose which way they want it to play out, but they have to make their choice very quickly.

 

Am not thrilled that the Netanyahu decided to bring this decades long conflict to a head nor that the US got involved.  But at the end of the day, prefer this to Iran having a nuclear weapon or 9.

 

Coping stage: unlocked. Now entering full delulu mode.

 

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

And 2 ways to view the "our goal is not regime change in Iran" but "we'd be good with it should it happen" that don't leave these as contradictory messages are:

 

1. we have no intention of enacting regime change but if the Iranian people try to make it happen, we'd be more than willing to support them.  And

 

2. we've said repeatedly that we want to negotiate an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s).  If the mullahs are finally willing to come to the table, great.  But if they aren't, well there's more than 1 way to "negotiate" an end to the Iranian regime's nuclear weapons program(s).  We'll let the mullahs choose which way they want it to play out, but they have to make their choice very quickly.

 

Am not thrilled that the Netanyahu decided to bring this decades long conflict to a head nor that the US got involved.  But at the end of the day, prefer this to Iran having a nuclear weapon or 9.


 

 

Source: 

 

We already have the new regime ready to go.  
 

This is so much easier than Iraq bc there is no Shia Sunni divide.  
 

We won’t need to oversee anything.   
 

99 percent of Iran wants this oppressive regime gone.

 

Those of you like me who know several Iranian ex pats that live here can absolutely verify that.  
 

Something historic can happen here if done right without costing us blood or treasure.  

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Homelander said:

Witness how #MAGA copium works.

 

I'm America First - aren't you?


Never haven’t been. You?
 

And copium?  LOL!

 

1 hour ago, Homelander said:

We have to give them a moment - they’re still heartbroken over the “no new wars” peace pitch that tanked.


Let us know when the “war” happens. 

Edited by Doc
×
×
  • Create New...