HeelInTheOzarks
Esteemed Member
- Messages
- 730

MAGA to Trump: Supporting Israel attacks is a 'middle finger' to voters
Supporters react angrily and swiftly, suggesting that he is not putting America first

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He seems stung by criticism from his base.![]()
MAGA to Trump: Supporting Israel attacks is a 'middle finger' to voters
Supporters react angrily and swiftly, suggesting that he is not putting America firstresponsiblestatecraft.org
Whatever it takes to keep Iran from a nuke.of course not and let's hope we don't get directly involved. Still, the tough nut to crack will be the Fordow enrichment facility. I don't think the IDF has the munitions to clear it from the air. Only the US and Russia do. It will likely require the insertion of ground troops. Let's hope they aren't American.
Waaaaaaahhhhhhh!
The mission has little to do with nukes. That's for the masses. The mission has to do with degrading Iran as a threat. Their proxies are gone and only the Mullahs stand as a threat. This has to do with regime change despite what the IDF spokespersons, or the media feed you.Or the mission is a failure and Israel’s strength is compromised due to poor decision making.
It exists. No doubt it's a target as were the senior scientists. I am just saying the fundamental mission is regime change. There are other rouge countries with nukes like North Korea and Pakistan but they aren't threats to Israel. If the pre-79 regime was in power, or anyone not fundamentally built on Israel's destruction, no one would be bombing. The long term mission is regime change. The nuke presents a tool to get there.So that stuff about the enrichment facility you mentioned was what exactly?
Netanyahu trying to pull Trump’s strings and goad Trump into military support of the attack on Iran.
your words are too confusing to understandSo Israel will just need help destroying an enrichment facility that will be the first of (presumably) many dominoes to fall that will result in regime change. The nuclear stuff is all a front for public consumption to build support for some good old fashioned nation building. The fact that regime change is being talked about by multiple people on this message board doesn’t mean that the job of fooling the US populace will be a failure, they will clearly believe it’s all about the nuclear program.
That about the weight of it?
It is permitted to discuss multiple topics in this thread, no? I made a comment about the IDF's inability to take out Fordow. They simply don't have the tools. I made another comment about the what I think is driving the IDF overall. I might be wrong. I think I am right. As for your attempts to put words in my mouth, I don't get it, but carry on any way you wish. I still don't understand what you are getting at.There’s a reason for that. The whole bit about regime change was a non sequitur.
You posited that Israel’s defense capabilities were being degraded which would require more direct US involvement. When I questioned support for that you veered off into capability of taking out an enrichment facility and how that would require direct US involvement.
My only point has been that it’s very possible that Israel made a poor choice that will have degraded its defenses and failed to reach its goals. You have mentioned the need for more direct US involvement. There’s a possibility that doesn’t happen, or at least doesn’t happen to the degree necessary.
Words stopped making sense because the target moved every time the idea that Israel may have made a mistake was broached.
Agreed and I'm pulling against direct US involvement. It's telling the Iranians haven't targeted in theatre bases yet despite saying they would. They know the IDF is pulling for our involvement.I’ll make it really straightforward. Direct US involvement is not a guarantee and any plan that relies on that for success is a potentially bad one. Assurances that the plan is actually much broader in scope makes that problem significantly worse.
My posts have had near fortune cookie depth. “This might be a mistake with negative consequences” is hardly a bold position to take. I find the need to deflect from this very basic idea somewhat telling.