Trump says "Iran agreed to everything"

LoudLove
Posts
2863
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
6/16/2026 4:29am
LoudLove wrote:
Me?  As in the here and now?  Not a bit of if I look at life through a straw with blinders on. I’m at the beach...

Me?  As in the here and now?  Not a bit of if I look at life through a straw with blinders on. I’m at the beach in my 4Runner 2-3 days a week and living large!  

But if we’re talking “security”, that’s a long term mixed bag. Iran made the US look unprepared at best, and unwilling to see the fight to the end at worst. We couldn’t finish a campaign we started, and were consistently thwarted by primitive weaponry.  Our high-tech gadgetry works great against other high tech gadgetry but has weaknesses when facing slower but smaller opponents. Iran’s counter-offensives were noted globally, and while Trump and his supporters may shout “Winning!”, objectively the outcome weakened the US on the global stage. 

ToolMaker wrote:
"But if we’re talking “security”, that’s a long term mixed bag. Iran made the US look unprepared at best, and unwilling to see the fight to...

"But if we’re talking “security”, that’s a long term mixed bag. Iran made the US look unprepared at best, and unwilling to see the fight to the end at worst. We couldn’t finish a campaign we started, and were consistently thwarted by primitive weaponry.  Our high-tech gadgetry works great against other high tech gadgetry but has weaknesses when facing slower but smaller opponents. Iran’s counter-offensives were noted globally, and while Trump and his supporters may shout “Winning!”, objectively the outcome weakened the US on the global stage. "

In the words of  respected member "I honestly have no idea what you're talking about"

I pretty much thought it was brilliant. Bomb the bejuzes out of them and then just sit there and wait till they realize there's nothing they can do. Sure, it didn't happen over night. But here we are on the verge of peace through the ME. That aside, if you think your position is "our equipment didn't work" you should be thankful you/we found out now vs when it's really necessary. IF they didn't in fact work, you can revamp them. It's a great testing ground. What exactly do you mean "not finish the campaign"? you're of the mindset that we needed to keep bombing them? Why? Because that's what we've always done? This strategy brought the ME together against Iran. IF there was "no strategy to end the war" why exactly do you think it's over? This was over a long f#@%ing time ago, it just took time to play out. Everyone is so used to instant results they have no patience anymore.

Your turn,

TM

I find it laughable that anyone would say the USA’s military equipment didn’t work. 😆

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

7
5
ns503
Posts
4585
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
NS Toolies CA
6/16/2026 4:56am
ToolMaker wrote:
"But if we’re talking “security”, that’s a long term mixed bag. Iran made the US look unprepared at best, and unwilling to see the fight to...

"But if we’re talking “security”, that’s a long term mixed bag. Iran made the US look unprepared at best, and unwilling to see the fight to the end at worst. We couldn’t finish a campaign we started, and were consistently thwarted by primitive weaponry.  Our high-tech gadgetry works great against other high tech gadgetry but has weaknesses when facing slower but smaller opponents. Iran’s counter-offensives were noted globally, and while Trump and his supporters may shout “Winning!”, objectively the outcome weakened the US on the global stage. "

In the words of  respected member "I honestly have no idea what you're talking about"

I pretty much thought it was brilliant. Bomb the bejuzes out of them and then just sit there and wait till they realize there's nothing they can do. Sure, it didn't happen over night. But here we are on the verge of peace through the ME. That aside, if you think your position is "our equipment didn't work" you should be thankful you/we found out now vs when it's really necessary. IF they didn't in fact work, you can revamp them. It's a great testing ground. What exactly do you mean "not finish the campaign"? you're of the mindset that we needed to keep bombing them? Why? Because that's what we've always done? This strategy brought the ME together against Iran. IF there was "no strategy to end the war" why exactly do you think it's over? This was over a long f#@%ing time ago, it just took time to play out. Everyone is so used to instant results they have no patience anymore.

Your turn,

TM

I find it laughable that anyone would say the USA’s military equipment didn’t work. 😆

LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

Plus all the damage done relatively easily to US bases. There are very good reasons no prior president did this. 

5
6
LoudLove
Posts
2863
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
6/16/2026 5:11am

I find it laughable that anyone would say the USA’s military equipment didn’t work. 😆

LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

ns503 wrote:

Plus all the damage done relatively easily to US bases. There are very good reasons no prior president did this. 

I’ve agreed with numerous Trump policies.  Lowering taxes, immigration reform, the Abraham Accords, and even Iran initially.  Each had significant merit because Trump listened to advisors.  But for some reason he did not heed expert advice that Iran is a formidable adversary that’s been engaged in near constant conflict for 50 years. Cutting the head off the snake simply generates a new snake.  The State Dept and DoD knew it, but when led by sycophants, their warnings fell on deaf ears. 

4
6

The Shop

6/16/2026 5:12am

I find it laughable that anyone would say the USA’s military equipment didn’t work. 😆

LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

ns503 wrote:

Plus all the damage done relatively easily to US bases. There are very good reasons no prior president did this. 

What damage, there was no damage, no reason to censor US satellite images of US bases in the Middle East, nothing to see here...

image 3228

they were just laundry fires...

image 3231
4
6
6/16/2026 6:28am

So who won?

ToolMaker wrote:
Your ability to comprehend is beyond my ability to explain. But let's have a go at it, "the countries of the world". Even you and the...

Your ability to comprehend is beyond my ability to explain. But let's have a go at it, "the countries of the world". Even you and the rest of the Trump haters won.

TM

I'll make it easier for you to explain...

  1. USA
  2. Israel
  3. Iran

Pick a number, which country won?

Thanks for making my point of your ability to comprehend. 

TM

2
18
6/16/2026 6:32am

so my tax dollars in the billions were spent to bomb Iran to get rid of their nukes, which immediately skyrocketed my gasoline costs. And now my tax dollars in the 400+bn range are being used to rebuild the country we blew up while they still have nukes. Do I follow? USA! USA!

11
7
avidchimp
Posts
5775
Joined
7/9/2008
Location
EGL, MN US
6/16/2026 7:01am
so my tax dollars in the billions were spent to bomb Iran to get rid of their nukes, which immediately skyrocketed my gasoline costs. And now...

so my tax dollars in the billions were spent to bomb Iran to get rid of their nukes, which immediately skyrocketed my gasoline costs. And now my tax dollars in the 400+bn range are being used to rebuild the country we blew up while they still have nukes. Do I follow? USA! USA!

This is just pure mastery of the art of negotiation. Best and biggest negotiations ever. Nobody has ever negotiated a deal like this.

8
6
6/16/2026 8:04am

So $300B in us taxpayer dollars.  Easy enough to do the math on that. Dived by 174m ( the average  number of people who file incometaxes in the us each year)and you can see how much it cost per person who filed income taxes.  

Plus the inflation and the cost for the military operations. And dont forget lost lives . 

 

And  asuming the released details are true. in the end Iran can still develope longrange convenional missles, fund anti american terra groups . Those groups that have shown they are more of a threat than the stories sold by Netanyahu about a nuke. 

 

The obama deal would have already expired. So perhaps a deal with a longer term is going to be the "win" here. But at a dramatically much higher cost than the old deal. 

I think its a bit early to claim the agreement as a win. Perhaps when the auctually details are released it wont look so heavily favored towards Iran.

To me it looks more like a draw than a win.  But i do agree Trump is a genius marketer , hes got a good amount of people convinced that so many failures are wins. And that anything saying otherwise is made up. 

Even while he uses the excuse if Iran being close to have a nuke. After selling his followers on totally obliderating them a year ago. Claiming to have set them back many years. And yet just 6 months later they were somehow closer than ever to having such a weapon. And yet his followers still take everything he says as gospel.  And anybody pointing out issues the one that is not seeing things clearly. 

8
5
bonseff
Posts
2050
Joined
3/29/2011
Location
Frisco, TX US
6/16/2026 8:34am

Wait, whaaaa? So Vance is saying that as long as Iran acts right, other gulf countries will fund their reconstruction as an investment? Who actually believes this shit? Oh, wait, I know who believes this shit.
https://x.com/Megatron_ron/status/2066539716019659098

5
4
6/16/2026 8:36am
ToolMaker wrote:
"But if we’re talking “security”, that’s a long term mixed bag. Iran made the US look unprepared at best, and unwilling to see the fight to...

"But if we’re talking “security”, that’s a long term mixed bag. Iran made the US look unprepared at best, and unwilling to see the fight to the end at worst. We couldn’t finish a campaign we started, and were consistently thwarted by primitive weaponry.  Our high-tech gadgetry works great against other high tech gadgetry but has weaknesses when facing slower but smaller opponents. Iran’s counter-offensives were noted globally, and while Trump and his supporters may shout “Winning!”, objectively the outcome weakened the US on the global stage. "

In the words of  respected member "I honestly have no idea what you're talking about"

I pretty much thought it was brilliant. Bomb the bejuzes out of them and then just sit there and wait till they realize there's nothing they can do. Sure, it didn't happen over night. But here we are on the verge of peace through the ME. That aside, if you think your position is "our equipment didn't work" you should be thankful you/we found out now vs when it's really necessary. IF they didn't in fact work, you can revamp them. It's a great testing ground. What exactly do you mean "not finish the campaign"? you're of the mindset that we needed to keep bombing them? Why? Because that's what we've always done? This strategy brought the ME together against Iran. IF there was "no strategy to end the war" why exactly do you think it's over? This was over a long f#@%ing time ago, it just took time to play out. Everyone is so used to instant results they have no patience anymore.

Your turn,

TM

I find it laughable that anyone would say the USA’s military equipment didn’t work. 😆

LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from undesired outcomes. IE: how did that drone get through? But we are on that too. In the not to distant future, ships and mobile craft will have lasers that zap them out of the sky. Of course there will always be new tech that we have to figure out. Small underwater drones, small land drones. It's just like Prado practicing. His real experience is from actual racing. Same here, you always learn new things and adjust. But to say we didn't finish a campaign is just foolish. We just used a strategy that hasn't been used in centuries. It was very common that an army surrounded a castle with a formidable wall and waited till the resources ran out inside the castle. But the current strategy in the modern world is blow the shit out of everything. As far as helping them rebuild? Of course you're going to help them rebuild. Why in the world would they stop fighting if the alternative is no better than fighting till nothing's left?

TM

1
10
6/16/2026 8:41am
LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

ns503 wrote:

Plus all the damage done relatively easily to US bases. There are very good reasons no prior president did this. 

LoudLove wrote:
I’ve agreed with numerous Trump policies.  Lowering taxes, immigration reform, the Abraham Accords, and even Iran initially.  Each had significant merit because Trump listened to advisors...

I’ve agreed with numerous Trump policies.  Lowering taxes, immigration reform, the Abraham Accords, and even Iran initially.  Each had significant merit because Trump listened to advisors.  But for some reason he did not heed expert advice that Iran is a formidable adversary that’s been engaged in near constant conflict for 50 years. Cutting the head off the snake simply generates a new snake.  The State Dept and DoD knew it, but when led by sycophants, their warnings fell on deaf ears. 

"Cutting the head off the snake simply generates a new snake.  The State Dept and DoD knew it, but when led by sycophants, their warnings fell on deaf ears. "

I many cases this is true. And in the past the way we handled things would lead one to believe that's a given. Things are being done different now. Don't agree? Please explain Venezuela. So to just say "he should have listened to his advisors", what you're really saying is "he should have listened to his advisors that agree with me". In which case we would just be back to same old, same old.

TM

2
12
bonseff
Posts
2050
Joined
3/29/2011
Location
Frisco, TX US
6/16/2026 8:42am

Iran literally bombed every surrounding country with an American base, and they are now expected to pay Iran for the privilege of getting bombed by association? You literally cant make this shit up.™

4
4
Kenny Banyan
Posts
4067
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA US
6/16/2026 8:52am
JerryVan wrote:
Goodnight to my American cousins, may your tax dollars be well used

Goodnight to my American cousins, may your tax dollars be well used

IMG 6987 1.jpeg?VersionId=
How to not answer a question...https://x.com/Acyn/status/2066689796689539263

How to not answer a question...

https://x.com/Acyn/status/2066689796689539263

image 3226

CRICKETS!😆

4
Kenny Banyan
Posts
4067
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA US
6/16/2026 8:59am
So $300B in us taxpayer dollars.  Easy enough to do the math on that. Dived by 174m ( the average  number of people who file incometaxes...

So $300B in us taxpayer dollars.  Easy enough to do the math on that. Dived by 174m ( the average  number of people who file incometaxes in the us each year)and you can see how much it cost per person who filed income taxes.  

Plus the inflation and the cost for the military operations. And dont forget lost lives . 

 

And  asuming the released details are true. in the end Iran can still develope longrange convenional missles, fund anti american terra groups . Those groups that have shown they are more of a threat than the stories sold by Netanyahu about a nuke. 

 

The obama deal would have already expired. So perhaps a deal with a longer term is going to be the "win" here. But at a dramatically much higher cost than the old deal. 

I think its a bit early to claim the agreement as a win. Perhaps when the auctually details are released it wont look so heavily favored towards Iran.

To me it looks more like a draw than a win.  But i do agree Trump is a genius marketer , hes got a good amount of people convinced that so many failures are wins. And that anything saying otherwise is made up. 

Even while he uses the excuse if Iran being close to have a nuke. After selling his followers on totally obliderating them a year ago. Claiming to have set them back many years. And yet just 6 months later they were somehow closer than ever to having such a weapon. And yet his followers still take everything he says as gospel.  And anybody pointing out issues the one that is not seeing things clearly. 

Iran didn’t win…..😆

1
4
LoudLove
Posts
2863
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
6/16/2026 9:09am

I find it laughable that anyone would say the USA’s military equipment didn’t work. 😆

LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

ToolMaker wrote:
No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from...

No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from undesired outcomes. IE: how did that drone get through? But we are on that too. In the not to distant future, ships and mobile craft will have lasers that zap them out of the sky. Of course there will always be new tech that we have to figure out. Small underwater drones, small land drones. It's just like Prado practicing. His real experience is from actual racing. Same here, you always learn new things and adjust. But to say we didn't finish a campaign is just foolish. We just used a strategy that hasn't been used in centuries. It was very common that an army surrounded a castle with a formidable wall and waited till the resources ran out inside the castle. But the current strategy in the modern world is blow the shit out of everything. As far as helping them rebuild? Of course you're going to help them rebuild. Why in the world would they stop fighting if the alternative is no better than fighting till nothing's left?

TM

Bro, you’re in too deep. The end result is a massive departure from what was discussed when “Iran agreed to everything”. Of course, Trump’s lack of commitment gives ample wiggle room for people who call any outcome a win. 

TM, you seem like a decent dude, but I cannot recall a single instance where you disagreed with Trump at any level. Loyalty is to be admired, but fealty generates eye rolls. Gotta come up for air sometime. 

12
3
mvd61
Posts
1256
Joined
10/15/2021
Location
Brandon, SD US
6/16/2026 9:24am

I find it laughable that anyone would say the USA’s military equipment didn’t work. 😆

LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

ToolMaker wrote:
No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from...

No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from undesired outcomes. IE: how did that drone get through? But we are on that too. In the not to distant future, ships and mobile craft will have lasers that zap them out of the sky. Of course there will always be new tech that we have to figure out. Small underwater drones, small land drones. It's just like Prado practicing. His real experience is from actual racing. Same here, you always learn new things and adjust. But to say we didn't finish a campaign is just foolish. We just used a strategy that hasn't been used in centuries. It was very common that an army surrounded a castle with a formidable wall and waited till the resources ran out inside the castle. But the current strategy in the modern world is blow the shit out of everything. As far as helping them rebuild? Of course you're going to help them rebuild. Why in the world would they stop fighting if the alternative is no better than fighting till nothing's left?

TM

Resources running out? How about ours? We’re forty fucking trillion in debt. Lolololololol holy fuck tm. 

11
3
borg
Posts
6748
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA US
6/16/2026 9:26am

Where does Trump plan on getting this 300 billion from? The details are sketchy right now. And why? WTF is it for? We're sorry, we'll pay for the damages? More questions than answers in this deal so far.

4
3
mvd61
Posts
1256
Joined
10/15/2021
Location
Brandon, SD US
6/16/2026 9:42am

I really like the idea of the “strategic oil reserves”. We don’t get much oil from Iran, so we release from the reserves, that were purchased with our tax dollars, the cost of fuel goes way up, and we pay for that too. #ponzischeme #fuckthegovernment

1
3
6/16/2026 9:54am
LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

ToolMaker wrote:
No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from...

No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from undesired outcomes. IE: how did that drone get through? But we are on that too. In the not to distant future, ships and mobile craft will have lasers that zap them out of the sky. Of course there will always be new tech that we have to figure out. Small underwater drones, small land drones. It's just like Prado practicing. His real experience is from actual racing. Same here, you always learn new things and adjust. But to say we didn't finish a campaign is just foolish. We just used a strategy that hasn't been used in centuries. It was very common that an army surrounded a castle with a formidable wall and waited till the resources ran out inside the castle. But the current strategy in the modern world is blow the shit out of everything. As far as helping them rebuild? Of course you're going to help them rebuild. Why in the world would they stop fighting if the alternative is no better than fighting till nothing's left?

TM

LoudLove wrote:
Bro, you’re in too deep. The end result is a massive departure from what was discussed when “Iran agreed to everything”. Of course, Trump’s lack of...

Bro, you’re in too deep. The end result is a massive departure from what was discussed when “Iran agreed to everything”. Of course, Trump’s lack of commitment gives ample wiggle room for people who call any outcome a win. 

TM, you seem like a decent dude, but I cannot recall a single instance where you disagreed with Trump at any level. Loyalty is to be admired, but fealty generates eye rolls. Gotta come up for air sometime. 

Well LL, I tend to think your pretty decent too. But you premise that I never disagree with Trump is flawed. It's just that the things I agree with are typically more discussed and you'll see more posts. So I'll give one example and then move on from that point.Trump walked away from the abortion issue as "it's a state issue" while I understand the logic, I highly disagree. I really wanted a national standard and for it to be legal. While I'm not an abortion advocate. Most of the country agrees the necessity of abortion access with reasonable limits. Trump could have, should have tackled that. No it's not a "constitutional right" but it is "the right thing to do". Will the extreme of both sides scream about it? Sure, but most of the country would be on board. Trump gets an "F". There, your argument just went in the toilet. Like I said, not going to debate that I only ever support Trump. And as an FYI, when the Dems get total control, they'll do it with unreasonable limits per my standards.

TM

1
8
6/16/2026 10:36am
LoudLove wrote:
No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how...

No doubt US tech is very, very effective. However, against a significantly inferior opponent, it needs 100% effectiveness. Each Iranian defeat of US assets, regardless how small, was a victory. And Iranian drone tech is good but not great.  Yet the straits were shut down based on that tech, and the US depleted significant assets deploying countermeasures. We fell far short of Trump’s initial goals being 98% effective. 

ToolMaker wrote:
No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from...

No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from undesired outcomes. IE: how did that drone get through? But we are on that too. In the not to distant future, ships and mobile craft will have lasers that zap them out of the sky. Of course there will always be new tech that we have to figure out. Small underwater drones, small land drones. It's just like Prado practicing. His real experience is from actual racing. Same here, you always learn new things and adjust. But to say we didn't finish a campaign is just foolish. We just used a strategy that hasn't been used in centuries. It was very common that an army surrounded a castle with a formidable wall and waited till the resources ran out inside the castle. But the current strategy in the modern world is blow the shit out of everything. As far as helping them rebuild? Of course you're going to help them rebuild. Why in the world would they stop fighting if the alternative is no better than fighting till nothing's left?

TM

mvd61 wrote:

Resources running out? How about ours? We’re forty fucking trillion in debt. Lolololololol holy fuck tm. 

Hmmm, do you stop paying those sailors if they're not park in the straight?

7
6/16/2026 12:06pm
So $300B in us taxpayer dollars.  Easy enough to do the math on that. Dived by 174m ( the average  number of people who file incometaxes...

So $300B in us taxpayer dollars.  Easy enough to do the math on that. Dived by 174m ( the average  number of people who file incometaxes in the us each year)and you can see how much it cost per person who filed income taxes.  

Plus the inflation and the cost for the military operations. And dont forget lost lives . 

 

And  asuming the released details are true. in the end Iran can still develope longrange convenional missles, fund anti american terra groups . Those groups that have shown they are more of a threat than the stories sold by Netanyahu about a nuke. 

 

The obama deal would have already expired. So perhaps a deal with a longer term is going to be the "win" here. But at a dramatically much higher cost than the old deal. 

I think its a bit early to claim the agreement as a win. Perhaps when the auctually details are released it wont look so heavily favored towards Iran.

To me it looks more like a draw than a win.  But i do agree Trump is a genius marketer , hes got a good amount of people convinced that so many failures are wins. And that anything saying otherwise is made up. 

Even while he uses the excuse if Iran being close to have a nuke. After selling his followers on totally obliderating them a year ago. Claiming to have set them back many years. And yet just 6 months later they were somehow closer than ever to having such a weapon. And yet his followers still take everything he says as gospel.  And anybody pointing out issues the one that is not seeing things clearly. 

Iran didn’t win…..😆

Well I said it looks more like a draw than a win.  So yah. 

In competitive games and sports, to draw (or tie) means that the contest concludes with both opponents or teams achieving an equal number of points, goals, or a completely inconclusive result. Neither side wins, and the match ends in a deadlock

 

 While Iran may not have won, the US did not win either in my opinion. Otherwise why would we be paying them $300B in addition to unfreezing assets to get them to talk about stopping the thing that was the cause for the entire war?  To me it feel like a big step backwards. If they were already negotiating some sort of deal on not enriching uranium to a higher level when the US started to bomb them. And now all that money has to be exchanged and the US has to meet conditions before they will go back to talking  about Nukes again.  I know that Iran  also has to meet certain conditions too.

   I just don't see it as a win by the US either , but I guess if you don't factor in the cost, and just look at the end result. It may work out that Iran keeps the enrichment to a lower level in the future. And if they can secure a MUCH longer term deal than the one Obama put together than that would be a good thing. 

 

 It's just hard to really feel like its a win when the same thing has been said about Iran and a Nuke for so long. It feels like I should write another children's book to go along with the President that cried peace deal. I think the Israeli that cried WMD would be a fitting title. 

4
3
mvd61
Posts
1256
Joined
10/15/2021
Location
Brandon, SD US
6/16/2026 1:34pm
ToolMaker wrote:
No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from...

No, it does not need 100%. Actually 100% is a myth. Of course every altercation you learn from. The tragedy would be to NOT learn from undesired outcomes. IE: how did that drone get through? But we are on that too. In the not to distant future, ships and mobile craft will have lasers that zap them out of the sky. Of course there will always be new tech that we have to figure out. Small underwater drones, small land drones. It's just like Prado practicing. His real experience is from actual racing. Same here, you always learn new things and adjust. But to say we didn't finish a campaign is just foolish. We just used a strategy that hasn't been used in centuries. It was very common that an army surrounded a castle with a formidable wall and waited till the resources ran out inside the castle. But the current strategy in the modern world is blow the shit out of everything. As far as helping them rebuild? Of course you're going to help them rebuild. Why in the world would they stop fighting if the alternative is no better than fighting till nothing's left?

TM

mvd61 wrote:

Resources running out? How about ours? We’re forty fucking trillion in debt. Lolololololol holy fuck tm. 

ToolMaker wrote:

Hmmm, do you stop paying those sailors if they're not park in the straight?

I’d guess if they’re on the ship they are being paid. You know this TM. Whether they’re sitting in the Straight or in the Caribbean. That was all you could come up with? Hmmmm

2
early
Posts
9872
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH US
6/16/2026 2:43pm
1000051530 0.jpg?VersionId=fbnX9cA1ZuGupvA
7
1
LoudLove
Posts
2863
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
US
6/16/2026 2:55pm
So $300B in us taxpayer dollars.  Easy enough to do the math on that. Dived by 174m ( the average  number of people who file incometaxes...

So $300B in us taxpayer dollars.  Easy enough to do the math on that. Dived by 174m ( the average  number of people who file incometaxes in the us each year)and you can see how much it cost per person who filed income taxes.  

Plus the inflation and the cost for the military operations. And dont forget lost lives . 

 

And  asuming the released details are true. in the end Iran can still develope longrange convenional missles, fund anti american terra groups . Those groups that have shown they are more of a threat than the stories sold by Netanyahu about a nuke. 

 

The obama deal would have already expired. So perhaps a deal with a longer term is going to be the "win" here. But at a dramatically much higher cost than the old deal. 

I think its a bit early to claim the agreement as a win. Perhaps when the auctually details are released it wont look so heavily favored towards Iran.

To me it looks more like a draw than a win.  But i do agree Trump is a genius marketer , hes got a good amount of people convinced that so many failures are wins. And that anything saying otherwise is made up. 

Even while he uses the excuse if Iran being close to have a nuke. After selling his followers on totally obliderating them a year ago. Claiming to have set them back many years. And yet just 6 months later they were somehow closer than ever to having such a weapon. And yet his followers still take everything he says as gospel.  And anybody pointing out issues the one that is not seeing things clearly. 

Iran didn’t win…..😆

Well I said it looks more like a draw than a win.  So yah. In competitive games and sports, to draw (or tie) means that the contest...

Well I said it looks more like a draw than a win.  So yah. 

In competitive games and sports, to draw (or tie) means that the contest concludes with both opponents or teams achieving an equal number of points, goals, or a completely inconclusive result. Neither side wins, and the match ends in a deadlock

 

 While Iran may not have won, the US did not win either in my opinion. Otherwise why would we be paying them $300B in addition to unfreezing assets to get them to talk about stopping the thing that was the cause for the entire war?  To me it feel like a big step backwards. If they were already negotiating some sort of deal on not enriching uranium to a higher level when the US started to bomb them. And now all that money has to be exchanged and the US has to meet conditions before they will go back to talking  about Nukes again.  I know that Iran  also has to meet certain conditions too.

   I just don't see it as a win by the US either , but I guess if you don't factor in the cost, and just look at the end result. It may work out that Iran keeps the enrichment to a lower level in the future. And if they can secure a MUCH longer term deal than the one Obama put together than that would be a good thing. 

 

 It's just hard to really feel like its a win when the same thing has been said about Iran and a Nuke for so long. It feels like I should write another children's book to go along with the President that cried peace deal. I think the Israeli that cried WMD would be a fitting title. 

To recap:

US original goals:  regime change, complete dismantling of nuclear program, neuter Iran as a Middle Eastern power 

Iranian goals:  survive. 

Who won?  Who knows. But Iran didn’t lose…

12
2
ShellyMX
Posts
805
Joined
3/22/2026
Location
Smyrna, GA US
6/16/2026 3:11pm
early wrote:
1000051530 0.jpg?VersionId=fbnX9cA1ZuGupvA
IMG 2589 4
1
14
matt.3150
Posts
744
Joined
3/20/2015
Location
San Jose, CA US
6/16/2026 3:47pm

Iran didn’t win…..😆

Well I said it looks more like a draw than a win.  So yah. In competitive games and sports, to draw (or tie) means that the contest...

Well I said it looks more like a draw than a win.  So yah. 

In competitive games and sports, to draw (or tie) means that the contest concludes with both opponents or teams achieving an equal number of points, goals, or a completely inconclusive result. Neither side wins, and the match ends in a deadlock

 

 While Iran may not have won, the US did not win either in my opinion. Otherwise why would we be paying them $300B in addition to unfreezing assets to get them to talk about stopping the thing that was the cause for the entire war?  To me it feel like a big step backwards. If they were already negotiating some sort of deal on not enriching uranium to a higher level when the US started to bomb them. And now all that money has to be exchanged and the US has to meet conditions before they will go back to talking  about Nukes again.  I know that Iran  also has to meet certain conditions too.

   I just don't see it as a win by the US either , but I guess if you don't factor in the cost, and just look at the end result. It may work out that Iran keeps the enrichment to a lower level in the future. And if they can secure a MUCH longer term deal than the one Obama put together than that would be a good thing. 

 

 It's just hard to really feel like its a win when the same thing has been said about Iran and a Nuke for so long. It feels like I should write another children's book to go along with the President that cried peace deal. I think the Israeli that cried WMD would be a fitting title. 

LoudLove wrote:
To recap:US original goals:  regime change, complete dismantling of nuclear program, neuter Iran as a Middle Eastern power Iranian goals:  survive. Who won?  Who knows. But Iran didn’t...

To recap:

US original goals:  regime change, complete dismantling of nuclear program, neuter Iran as a Middle Eastern power 

Iranian goals:  survive. 

Who won?  Who knows. But Iran didn’t lose…

Well Iran is getting $300 billion in US investment, that just to negotiate for 60 days.  And MAGA complained the Iran got $6billion of their own money back with the JPCOA that did stop Iran from a nuke. That just to negotiate!🤯 The 14 point MOA go leaked and it’s bad 

7
3
6/16/2026 4:22pm
Well I said it looks more like a draw than a win.  So yah. In competitive games and sports, to draw (or tie) means that the contest...

Well I said it looks more like a draw than a win.  So yah. 

In competitive games and sports, to draw (or tie) means that the contest concludes with both opponents or teams achieving an equal number of points, goals, or a completely inconclusive result. Neither side wins, and the match ends in a deadlock

 

 While Iran may not have won, the US did not win either in my opinion. Otherwise why would we be paying them $300B in addition to unfreezing assets to get them to talk about stopping the thing that was the cause for the entire war?  To me it feel like a big step backwards. If they were already negotiating some sort of deal on not enriching uranium to a higher level when the US started to bomb them. And now all that money has to be exchanged and the US has to meet conditions before they will go back to talking  about Nukes again.  I know that Iran  also has to meet certain conditions too.

   I just don't see it as a win by the US either , but I guess if you don't factor in the cost, and just look at the end result. It may work out that Iran keeps the enrichment to a lower level in the future. And if they can secure a MUCH longer term deal than the one Obama put together than that would be a good thing. 

 

 It's just hard to really feel like its a win when the same thing has been said about Iran and a Nuke for so long. It feels like I should write another children's book to go along with the President that cried peace deal. I think the Israeli that cried WMD would be a fitting title. 

LoudLove wrote:
To recap:US original goals:  regime change, complete dismantling of nuclear program, neuter Iran as a Middle Eastern power Iranian goals:  survive. Who won?  Who knows. But Iran didn’t...

To recap:

US original goals:  regime change, complete dismantling of nuclear program, neuter Iran as a Middle Eastern power 

Iranian goals:  survive. 

Who won?  Who knows. But Iran didn’t lose…

matt.3150 wrote:
Well Iran is getting $300 billion in US investment, that just to negotiate for 60 days.  And MAGA complained the Iran got $6billion of their own...

Well Iran is getting $300 billion in US investment, that just to negotiate for 60 days.  And MAGA complained the Iran got $6billion of their own money back with the JPCOA that did stop Iran from a nuke. That just to negotiate!🤯 The 14 point MOA go leaked and it’s bad 

Yah but they also did have a lot of damage done  from the bombing so it's hard to say its a clear win . If we are not judging if from a MAGA Obama was the devil point of view.  

I do look forward to seeing how  some of the diehard Trump loyalists will twist this into a positive while still  shitting on the old deal.  That should be interesting to see. 

 

 I do think Iran is coming out of this a lot better off than many people expected.  If the goals were as stated by Loudlove, there was no real regime change, this deal is to agree to talk about the nuclear program, and I think if anything Iran has shown it has more power than the average person would have thought before going into all of this. Knowing the trouble they can cause by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz . I do not think the US has achieved those goals yet. The end of the Nuclear program could still happen.  

 I've never heard Trump or any of the people who speak for him clearly state what the goals were so I guess if Trump says  it's a win, You can't really argue right?  If Trump achieved  what he set out to by going to war, well it's a win. And if he never tells anybody  , because if You can't see the win etc. etc.     

    

1
3
6/16/2026 4:29pm
mvd61 wrote:

Resources running out? How about ours? We’re forty fucking trillion in debt. Lolololololol holy fuck tm. 

ToolMaker wrote:

Hmmm, do you stop paying those sailors if they're not park in the straight?

mvd61 wrote:
I’d guess if they’re on the ship they are being paid. You know this TM. Whether they’re sitting in the Straight or in the Caribbean. That...

I’d guess if they’re on the ship they are being paid. You know this TM. Whether they’re sitting in the Straight or in the Caribbean. That was all you could come up with? Hmmmm

"That was all you could come up with?" Nope, that's all I "needed" to come up with.

You're welcome,

2
14
mvd61
Posts
1256
Joined
10/15/2021
Location
Brandon, SD US
6/16/2026 4:35pm
ToolMaker wrote:

Hmmm, do you stop paying those sailors if they're not park in the straight?

mvd61 wrote:
I’d guess if they’re on the ship they are being paid. You know this TM. Whether they’re sitting in the Straight or in the Caribbean. That...

I’d guess if they’re on the ship they are being paid. You know this TM. Whether they’re sitting in the Straight or in the Caribbean. That was all you could come up with? Hmmmm

ToolMaker wrote:

"That was all you could come up with?" Nope, that's all I "needed" to come up with.

You're welcome,

High five brother. 

6

Post a reply to: Trump says "Iran agreed to everything"

The Latest