Did the strike succeed

This is what the IAEA inspectors say:

Inspectors from the IAEA have remained in Iran throughout the war, but they are currently unable to inspect any nuclear sites due to safety concerns.

But with the “explosive payload utilized, and the extreme vibration-sensitive nature of centrifuges,” the agency believes “very significant damage is expected to have occurred” as a result of U.S. airstrikes at Fordo, according to a statement from IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi to the agency’s board earlier this week.

The centrifuges there are “no longer operational,” Grossi told Radio France Internationale on Thursday.

Centrifuges are used to enrich uranium — and could eventually bring it up to weapons-grade levels, if Iran chooses to do so.

……..

But take it this way. This was one strike and it’s had a meaningful effect. It’s not like it’s one and done. The example has been set….if Iran goes through the expense of doing this again what stops a similar response. They could do it better some might say….but they are already deep underground. And counter tactics will also evolve.

It seems highly unlikely that, short of buying them on the black market, Iran will have nuclear weapons. To me that’s success…regional powers with nuclear weapons is a risk the world doesn’t need.

Ffs with all the fist-pumping bravado an observer would think that the US had achieved a WW2 Dambusters raid. This lot flew in, dropped their bombs & returned to base .

So did the dambusters, except for the fellows who couldn’t make the climb over the mountains…..I watch that movie every 5 years or so. One of the greats along with Reach for the Sky and Sink the Bismarck

This lot flew in, dropped their bombs & returned to base .

37 Hours non-stop halfway around the world into hostile territory and back and Blob, just like the mainstream media he worships, wants to diminish it to a Sunday leisure flight over the lagoon and back. Pathetic.

Undetected...

....and regardless of the damage or lack therof deep down, the entrances are totally destroyed, so access is probably gonna be a tad difficult for a while.

Airline pilots fly around the world constantly ... Israel did all the ground work, then telling the US, c'mon in, the coast is clear, bomb the shit outa em. A doddle.

So did the dambusters, except for the fellows who couldn’t make the climb over the mountains…..I watch that movie every 5 years or so. One of the greats along with Reach for the Sky and Sink the Bismarck

No there was significant difference between the Operations and none of the Dambusters aircraft couldn't climb over mountain. While the movie is considered to be quite historically accurate, their is a number of inaccuracies like a bomber crashing into the side of a hill that was apparently added only to the American version of the film.

Operation Chastise (Dambusters) was the far risker of the two. They had to fly at such exceptionally low altitude to avoid radar, that one of the planes lost its damn busting bomb when it so flying so low the bomb clipped the water and was lost. Two more planes where lost when they collided with power cables. The dambuster also had to spend longer over enemy territory and anti air defences around the damn and over the flight path of the aircraft were for the time far greater threat to the aircraft, shooting down three of them. And while no encounter actually happened, enemy fighter planes would have also posed a more credible threat to the dambuster's than Iran's airforce than to American's bombers. The bombing's themselves where risker with one bomber sustaining damage from the blast of the bomb. In the end 8 bombers where lost, 53 aircrew killed and 3 captured. The outcome of the bombings was also much clearer, 2 damn's breached, 1 lightly damaged 1,600 civilians killed (including 1,000 slave labourers)

Not a shot was fired at the American bombers operating over Iran. Some have credited this to the Iranian air defence having largely already being destroyed and of course the American's were flying stealth bombers designed to avoid being detected by radar, the bombs were released from high altitude. The Operation itself was still a feet of endurance given the flight time and it requiring multiple airborne refuelling's which from my understanding even if routine is a high skill maneuverer.

Their was also 30 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired at two Iranian sites by submarines. Needless to say nothing like that happened during the Dambusters Operation.

37 Hours non-stop halfway around the world into hostile territory and back and Blob, just like the mainstream media he worships, wants to diminish it to a Sunday leisure flight over the lagoon and back. Pathetic.

What's pathetic is this post. This is a right wing narrative designed to misdirect. No one in the mainstream media criticized the way operation was carried out, no one is questioning the pilots bravery or competency or the planning that went into the operation, it was a very impressive military feet one way. What people are criticizing is the bravado and hype coming out of the White House, who are prone to overexaggerating. Declaring Iran's nuclear program obliterated when they did was always likely to be extremely dubious giving the time frame.

And questioning is the effectiveness of the bombing is not criticism of to do with the people who carried out the strike. The bombs were not designed to penetrate so far down to the ground and using multiple bombs to penetrate down further had never been tried before so it's a thing probably no one could really know how effective it would turn out to be until its tried.

Undetected...

Again we don't know if they were or not.

....and regardless of the damage or lack therof deep down, the entrances are totally destroyed, so access is probably gonna be a tad difficult for a while.

True.

Airline pilots fly around the world constantly ... Israel did all the ground work, then telling the US, c'mon in, the coast is clear, bomb the shit outa em. A doddle.

Airline pilots can fly up to 10 hours. Think this Operation was a couple hours longer. I wouldn't call it a doddle but the risk wasn't particularly high either.

Taking off from the U.S. heartland, B-2 stealth bombers delivered a total of 420,000 pounds of explosives, aided by an armada of refueling tankers and fighter jets — some of which launched their own weapons. U.S. officials said Iran neither detected the inbound fusillade, nor mustered a shot at the stealthy American jets.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-u-s-stealth-bombers-struck-irans-nuclear-sites-without-detection

A female pilot

Hegseth said Sunday that “our boys in those bombers are on their way home right now.”

But a U.S. official said one woman was among those piloting the B-2 bombers. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the mission publicly.

A doddle ...

Let's also take into account the numerous mid air refuellings that occurred.

Blob can barely do a crossword after a good night's sleep. Try refuelling a bomber mid-air after 30 hours on the job, Blobs.

It's always amusing to hear people with no expertise to speak off attempt to comment on exploits of people that are so far ahead of them on the capability curve that they may as well be a different species.

Blob, those pilots are you superiors in every single send of the word.

Bly maar liewers stil ou tjom.

"A female pilot

Hegseth said Sunday that “our boys in those bombers are on their way home right now.”

But a U.S. official said one woman was among those piloting the B-2 bombers. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the mission publicly."

Blob is the kind of supreme idiot that when at a dinner party and the host says "Enjoy the food guys..."

Blob interjects with "But there are woman here too."

What a lame ass loser.

January 22, 20256:38 PM ET

Heard on All Things Considered

By

Steve Walsh

1. 3-Minute Listen Transcript

Pete Hegseth has said that the military has lowered standards to include women in combat. Advocates say they have fought against similar claims since all combat positions were opened to women in 2015.

ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:

President Trump's nominee for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, is once again drawing scrutiny for his personal behavior. His ex-sister-in-law has told senators he was abusive to his second wife. But Republican support for the former Fox News host remains strong, and he is expected to be confirmed.

One of his most contentious views is that the military has lowered standards to include women in combat. Advocates say they have fought against similar claims since all combat positions were opened to women in 2015. Steve Walsh with WHRO in Norfolk has the story.

STEVE WALSH, BYLINE: During his confirmation hearings, Hegseth pointed to interviews conducted for his book "War On Warriors."

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

PETE HEGSETH: I spent months talking to active-duty service members - men and women, low ranks, high ranks, combat arms and not combat arms. And what each and every one of them told me and which personal instances have shown me, is that in ways direct, indirect, overt and subtle, standards have been changed.

WALSH: In 2012, now-retired Army Lieutenant Colonel Ellen Haring was part of a University of Virginia lawsuit. The suit eventually led Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to lift the remaining restrictions to allow women to serve in all combat roles.

ELLEN HARING: Not only have standards not been lowered, but when they first decided that - when they were going to open combat jobs to women, the services were given three years to actually set standards because up until that point in time, standards had been very loosely defined. They had changed over time.

WALSH: Haring also led a study which followed the careers of two dozen Army infantry officers and enlisted soldiers as they made their way through the process. She says leadership sets the tone.

HARING: One young enlisted woman that we talked to not too long ago - and she wasn't even part of the study - she said she would show up at formation, and they would chant - the men in her platoon would chant, kill yourself, kill yourself.

WALSH: She remains in contact with women currently serving in combat roles. Haring says they are watching the comments made by Hegseth and senators who question whether they are bringing down the performance of their units.

HARING: They feel like they've been sucker-punched, essentially. You know, they've struggled to earn their place in these occupations and units, and many of them have been very successful, and they're afraid they're going to lose their jobs.

WALSH: In recent weeks, Hegseth walked back comments made while promoting his book, where he said women did not belong in ground combat units. Without citing specific examples, he continued to say quotas were imposed on commanders to pass women. Kate Kuzminski studies women in the military for the Center for a New American Security.

KATE KUZMINSKI: If this were truly just a social experiment where we were lowering standards to let more women through, I think we would see much better data than what we're seeing, which is actually the upholding of these immensely difficult standards.

WALSH: Thousands serve in Army infantry roles, but women remain a fraction of the overall combat roles, she says.

LORY MANNING: He is right that not many women do pass a lot of these tests, but the ones who do are very darn good at what they do.

WALSH: Lory Manning, a retired Navy captain, says all services are required to make occupational standards gender neutral since 1994. For several years, the Army did experiment with a neutral standard for the physical fitness test that all soldiers are required to pass, but by 2022, the service reinstated gender and age standards because the failure rate was too high. She says a woman who could make it through the grueling Ranger School should easily pass the male version of the Army's basic fitness test.

MANNING: A lot of it is just, you know - it's the same sort of gossip that goes around on anything. It's not fair I flunked out and she didn't.

WALSH: The Senate is expected to vote on Hegseth's nomination as soon as this week. For NPR News, I'm Steve Walsh.

Copyright © 2025 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts may vary. Transcript text may be revised to correct errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org may be edited after its original broadcast or publication. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.

More Stories From NPR

& maybe the pilots who actually dropped the bombs, entered their respective cockpits (for the very first time) at whatever Euro base they stopped at ... relieving comrades who flew the first leg from the US, allowing them the benefit of going to war in prime condition.

Of course standards would have to drop.

The top woman in any physical category cannot compete with the top men in any of those categories.

Large parts of the military are, by default, centred around physical prowess because that's a prerequisite for violence. Marines, seals, delta...only in very rare circumstances do woman ever meet physical standard required.

But because you're obviously a retard, you want equal representation but no talk of having to drop standards to make that equity possible.

Lol...we shouldn't say standards have had to be dropped. No! Instead we should just falsify results and say the ladies did as many chin-ups as the men.

Blo...keep sucking that woke tailpipe, it's doing wonders for you.

Of course standards would have to drop.

But because you're obviously a retard, you want equal representation but no talk of having to drop standards to make that equity possible.

Lol...we shouldn't say standards have had to be dropped. No! Instead we should just falsify results and say the ladies did as many chin-ups as the men.

LOL FFS, what ignorance. Most women who join the military are not in combat roles, their is relatively few women in frontline combat roles, they tend to be in other support positions. This is because the combat roles require as you say physical prowess beyond most women (but not all) hence they go for the less physically demanding (but still very important) roles.

However the few that are in combat roles roles absolutely 100% pass the same requirements (physical and otherwise) that the men had to go through. The standard was never lowered for those roles to allow them in. This has been confirmed by multiple US Generals. You're talking shit.

Large parts of the military are, by default, centred around physical prowess because that's a prerequisite for violence.

Again a misunderstanding of how militaries work. For each combat solider there is multiple support personal, somewhere around 5 support personal for each active combat solider. Obviously fighting is the most important person of any army but it can't be effectively done without the required support elements.

I don't misunderstand how militaries work.

You simply rely on the unspoken to attempt to make stupid arguments.

Of course the military is made up of almost every type of vocation under the sun. From doctors to engineers, mechanics, psychologists...literally every profession has a place in the military.

But I'm obviously taking about soldiers. The guys that do the fighting with weapons in their hands.

You're proving yourself to be quite the dishonest guy, Stavie. I'm obviously not insinuating that woman aren't capable of being the same level of doctor, accountant, chef, etc as men are. In fact, I kind of resent the insinuation.

Please, act like a grown up. I treat your arguments with respect and don't use stupid tactics, try to offer me the same courtesy.

An 18 month study shows that 70% of casualties (Ukrainian v Russian) are a result of drone warfare ... yet we've BP with his sexist redneck rhetoric.

You literally said

Of course standards would have to drop.

But because you're obviously a retard, you want equal representation but no talk of having to drop standards to make that equity possible.

Lol...we shouldn't say standards have had to be dropped. No! Instead we should just falsify results and say the ladies did as many chin-ups as the men.

This is categorically not true. This has been confirmed by numerous people in the US military, there was zero lowering of standards for combat roles to accommodate women. Any women in those roles is there on merit having met the same required standards that the men do. Hegseth was talking shite and you were repeating it.

But I'm obviously taking about soldiers. The guys that do the fighting with weapons in their hands.

You're proving yourself to be quite the dishonest guy, Stavie. I'm obviously not insinuating that woman aren't capable of being the same level of doctor, accountant, chef, etc as men are. In fact, I kind of resent the insinuation.

Lol you're the one mispresenting what I'm saying. I didn't say you were insinuating women weren't as capable of being the same level doctor, accountant, chef etc. I brought up the large amount of supporting roles in the military as that's where most women in the US military serve. The people who say standard's have been lowered in the US military to accommodate women, never provide the distinction, so when they make the argument the layman thinks about combat personal, not supporting personal (that's not as physically demanding) and think's there might be something to the argument as surely all those women serving in the US military can't as physically capable as the men. Most women aren't but they are not in combat roles.

You were insinuating that there was been a lowering of standards in the US military to allow for women into combat roles. This is simply not true. Those relatively few who are in combat roles are their 100% on meirt, passing all the same tests the men did.

Please, act like a grown up. I treat your arguments with respect and don't use stupid tactics, try to offer me the same courtesy.

Your 100% wrong on this topic. Like dead to rights, stone cold wrong. You're probably feeling like abit of embarrassed tit right now given how strident you were in your claims and it's too much of a thing to man up and say I was wrong, so you accuse me of not acting like a grown up or using stupid tactics. Yawn.

Categorically wrong, you say?

Yet...

1. “Flexibility” manifested as adjustments in scoring systems and testing protocols to avoid unnecessarily high failure rates that could block qualified women from serving:
2. Example: The Army’s Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) introduced gender- and age-normed scoring, meaning that women and older soldiers could meet lower raw benchmarks but still pass.
3. This allowed the military to maintain a rigorous but realistic threshold for physical readiness without excluding too many women solely because of physical differences not critical to mission success.

Sounds a lot like the lowering of physical standards to me.

Perhaps do a little research before you storm out the gate.

Categorically wrong, you say?

Read my post again

This is categorically not true. This has been confirmed by numerous people in the US military, there was zero lowering of standards for combat roles to accommodate women.

Yet...

1. “Flexibility” manifested as adjustments in scoring systems and testing protocols to avoid unnecessarily high failure rates that could block qualified women from serving:
2. Example: The Army’s Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) introduced gender- and age-normed scoring, meaning that women and older soldiers could meet lower raw benchmarks but still pass.
3. This allowed the military to maintain a rigorous but realistic threshold for physical readiness without excluding too many women solely because of physical differences not critical to mission success.

Did you notice "older soldiers" in that point. Yes standards for the Army's Combat Fitness Test (which is a general test that recruits must pass to join the US military and has to be passed annually) which was lowered to accommodate women, older men as well as members of the reserve and national guard as well as noticed general decline of the physical standard of recruits (i.e more overweight people) who were all failing the test at higher rates. They were reduced because it was concluded that the testing requirements were not relevant to the role those people could be potentially serving. You don't need to be able to trek 19 miles with 75kg's worth of equipment when you're a in doctor/dentist role, or if you're someone operating a done, monitoring a radar etc. It was also changed because it was noted as not really helping in preventing injuries in the field. It's also a point to note that this test has been changed several times in the past as the nature of warfare has changed, standards change with it.

The requirement for combat roles was not lowered in any way.

Perhaps do a little research before you storm out the gate.

Practise what you preach.

But if you ask Chat to go beyond ‘numerous people in the US military’ and survey the field you get a different answer:

Yes, some standards for combat roles in the U.S. military have been adjusted—both formally and informally—in recent years. These changes reflect a complex mix of goals: integrating women into all combat roles, improving recruitment amid personnel shortages, and maintaining readiness. Here's a breakdown:

?? 1. Formal Changes to Standards

These are deliberate, documented changes made through policy or law.

When combat roles were opened to women:

1. All roles, including infantry, armor, and special operations, were opened in 2016.
2. Standards were reviewed, but the official line from the Pentagon was:
3. ?? "Standards will not be lowered; they will be validated for mission relevance."

However:

1. New occupational tests (like the ACFT) replaced older ones (like the APFT), and were designed to be gender-neutral.
2. In practice, adjustments were made to make these tests more broadly passable.

1. Initially implemented as a single-standard, gender-neutral test.
2. After very high failure rates among women, the Army in 2022 revised scoring to be gender- and age-adjusted.
3. Critics argued this effectively lowered the standard, though it was presented as a fairness/equity change.

?? 2. Informal or De Facto Changes

These are unwritten or operational decisions, often shaped by manpower needs or political pressures.

1. The military has faced major recruitment shortfalls, especially post-COVID.
2. Reports from whistleblowers and IG reviews (e.g., GAO reports) suggest:
3. Commanders may apply standards inconsistently.
4. Some basic training and entry thresholds have been relaxed (e.g., waivers for fitness, education, or prior misconduct).
5. Special Forces selection has faced internal controversy, with some alleging "standards creep" to increase graduation rates.

1. In 2022, a whistleblower complaint alleged that standards were lowered for Green Beret selection to help certain candidates pass.
2. The Army denied systematic lowering, but acknowledged there was "subjective interpretation" of pass/fail metrics by cadre.

?? 3. Standards Maintained in Elite Units (Mostly)

1. Navy SEALs, Delta Force, Army Rangers, Marine Recon units have been under intense scrutiny.
2. No official lowering of physical selection standards has been confirmed, but:
3. There's increased emphasis on mentorship and preparation, which can blur lines.
4. Some special operations insiders report pressure to graduate more candidates
5. 
   

.

So once again your vague woke leaning sources, if they even exist, are discredited.

1. Cartoons
2. E-Store
3. Contact us

Okay lets ask chat.

And unlike you I'll list the the exact question I asked it and I'll underline key points.

"have standards been lowered to allow women into combat roles in the US army?"

The U.S. military officially opened all combat roles to women in 2015, following a review and gradual integration process. The core principle guiding this change was that standards would not be lowered—instead, all personnel, regardless of gender, would be held to the same job-specific performance standards.

Key Points:

1. Gender-Neutral Standards:
2. The U.S. Army and other branches implemented gender-neutral standards for combat roles. This means that the requirements for physical fitness, skills, and performance are tied to the specific demands of each job—not adjusted based on gender.
3. Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT):
4. The ACFT, introduced in recent years to replace the older Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT), was initially designed to be gender- and age-neutral. However, after feedback and data analysis, the Army adjusted scoring standards by gender and age in 2022 to ensure fairness in evaluating readiness across a broader range of soldiers. Critics argue this might introduce a form of "lowering standards," but it’s important to distinguish between scoring metrics for fitness tests and requirements for specific combat roles, which remain based on mission-essential tasks.
5. Special Forces and Elite Units:
6. Units like the Army Rangers and Special Forces maintain extremely high physical and mental standards. A small number of women have successfully passed these rigorous courses, such as Ranger School, under the same standards as men.
7. Controversy and Debate:
8. Some critics argue that allowing women into combat roles has led to relaxed standards over time, especially regarding testing and training environments. However, military leadership maintains that combat effectiveness remains the top priority, and adjustments are often made in response to evolving operational needs, not to accommodate gender.

Bottom Line:

There has been no official policy of lowering standards to allow women into combat roles. Women who serve in these positions are expected to meet the same job-specific standards as men. However, some changes in fitness testing and assessment protocols have sparked ongoing debate about fairness, equity, and readiness.

Lets look at your points.

When combat roles were opened to women:

1. All roles, including infantry, armor, and special operations, were opened in 2016.
2. Standards were reviewed, but the official line from the Pentagon was:
3. ?? "Standards will not be lowered; they will be validated for mission relevance."

So yes in 2013-2016 combat roles were opened to women, while standards where reviewed the Pentagon stated standards will not be lowered. So nothing there to refute what I previously said.

However:

1. New occupational tests (like the ACFT) replaced older ones (like the APFT), and were designed to be gender-neutral.
2. In practice, adjustments were made to make these tests more broadly passable.

1. Initially implemented as a single-standard, gender-neutral test.
2. After very high failure rates among women, the Army in 2022 revised scoring to be gender- and age-adjusted.
3. Critics argued this effectively lowered the standard, though it was presented as a fairness/equity change.

Already covered in my previous posts. This is the standard test to get into the military and is not representative of the requirements for frontline combat roles.

?? 2. Informal or De Facto Changes

These are unwritten or operational decisions, often shaped by manpower needs or political pressures.

1. The military has faced major recruitment shortfalls, especially post-COVID.
2. Reports from whistleblowers and IG reviews (e.g., GAO reports) suggest:
3. Commanders may apply standards inconsistently.
4. Some basic training and entry thresholds have been relaxed (e.g., waivers for fitness, education, or prior misconduct).
5. Special Forces selection has faced internal controversy, with some alleging "standards creep" to increase graduation rates

Even by A.I standards, this is some lazy shit. What this is a raft of unsubstantiated claims that aren't even specifically about gender.

1. In 2022, a whistleblower complaint alleged that standards were lowered for Green Beret selection to help certain candidates pass.
2. The Army denied systematic lowering, but acknowledged there was "subjective interpretation" of pass/fail metrics by cadre.

More unsubstantiated bullshit...I guess the double question marks indicate even the A.I suspects your loading your question's looking for bullshit.

?? 3. Standards Maintained in Elite Units (Mostly)

1. Navy SEALs, Delta Force, Army Rangers, Marine Recon units have been under intense scrutiny.
2. No official lowering of physical selection standards has been confirmed, but:
3. There's increased emphasis on mentorship and preparation, which can blur lines.
4. Some special operations insiders report pressure to graduate more candidates
5. 
   

Lol more substantiated claims without anything backing them up. Yes I'm sure the A.I can find plenty of examples of intense scrutiny of military units such as the Navy Seals, Delta Force etc from the pants on head right wing retards desperately hoping to find examples of wokism in the military.

Oh dear did I manipulate the answer by ‘loading my question looking for bullshit’?

Here is my exact question:

‘Have the standards for combat roles in the US military been lowered formally or informally.’

Firstly only a fool would make an allegation without knowing the outcome, apparently you’re a fool. Secondly you are a fool who thinks everything you believe is right and everybody who disagrees is dishonest and uneducated.

So woke, so self righteous, so naive.

I still haven't heard the words...

As someone imbued with such astonishing objectivity and logic surely you know that the bombing of those sites delivered a great result.

And you obviously man enough to give credit where it is obviously due...so let's hear the words...

"Well done Donnie and well done USA"

...because not only is the world in a better place, Iranians are now a step closer to ending one of the most horrible regimes in the world.

Cumon, Stavie...put them big girl panties on and let's hear it

It's pretty easy Stav...have a look at how Trump is received in tue comments on this video relating to Syria...

A standing ovation...

And it's turned into a great result for Syria.

I hear that there are "Make Syria Great Again" billboards up in that country.

Be honest, just how much does it piss you off to see Trump succeeding?

Here we go...

https://youtu.be/3EkgikLph_I?si=cQXOjgh1S-7fIGbI

...who thinks everything you believe is right and everybody who disagrees is dishonest and uneducated.

So woke, so self righteous, so naive"

The new religion...

Firstly only a fool would make an allegation without knowing the outcome, apparently you’re a fool. Secondly you are a fool who thinks everything you believe is right and everybody who disagrees is dishonest and uneducated.

Least I'm a fool who didn't need to have it explained that VAT was not a tariff.

As for a fool who think's every I believe is right, the irony level here is so off the chart. You have an ego the size of Jupiter, hell you almost make Trump sound modest at times.

.

LOL how many times have you accused me of being dishonest, hell even Plum accused me on this very thread, but when he gets put back on you, you throw your little toddler rant. Grow up.

So woke, so self righteous, so naive.

So pompous, so childish, so pathetic.

I still haven't heard the words...

Plum you really need to go to trolling classes. These efforts are weak.

It's pretty easy Stav...have a look at how Trump is received in tue comments on this video relating to Syria...

A standing ovation...

And it's turned into a great result for Syria.

I hear that there are "Make Syria Great Again" billboards up in that country.

Be honest, just how much does it piss you off to see Trump succeeding?

Holy thread derailment, Batman. We are moving on too Syria now?

I take that back on the tolling classes this is a much better attempt. Labelling Trump providing Syria sanction relief after he was convinced too by Erdogan as Trump succeeding when literally had to do absolutely nothing to get to this point is chef kiss grade trolling...bravo. I'll credit Trump for doing what appears to be the right thing here, but man alive if the Olympics had medal's for stretching you'd get a gold.

The new religion...

Reality...the dreaded enemy of the cult.

It's same old same old, Draad.

More than anything else, they want Trump to fail. All the virtue signalling is quickly exposed when you ask them simply acknowledge a job well done.

Trump could speed across town to pull a hundred people out of a burning building and...

"He has no respect for the law and it's obvious from how he disobeyed the speed limit. How very dare he!?"

Yes, on to Syria.

Despite bending your brain six ways from Sunday, you aren't able to draw our sufficient negatives from the Iran strikes.

It's an obvious win from Trump.

So let's move onto some more wins while we're at it and watch you contort even more as you try to play them down as you attempt to rationalise your inability to admit the obvious.

But no apology for accusing me of falsifying the Chat answer by asking a ’loaded’ question. So woke, so self righteous, so intellectually dishonest.

As for me saying VAT is a tariff, once again your limited education trips you up. I said VAT has the same effect a Tariff does, displacing income tax and putting an equivalent burden on imports. Here let me confirm that for you by asking Chat….my question is included so you can’t lie about it again.

Does higher sales tax in Europe act like a tariff on US goods

Great question. In economic effect, Europe’s higher sales taxes (VAT) can act like a tariff on U.S. (or any foreign) goods — but with some key differences in structure and purpose….

It acts exactly like a tariff, potentially increasing the effective price paid for an item and displacing the need for other taxes. There are obviously differences in how VAT is collected and the purposes it’s assigned But from the exporters perspective, the effect is the same.

The competitive effect is more complicated you aren’t directly disadvantaged compared to local goods….but ultimately you are, because other taxes, like income tax, can be lowered on local input costs….making them more cost competitive

If you want the complete answer, just type in my question. Your tactics on here are getting rather tawdry, up your game Anger..

Brilliant analogy on the speed limit Plum…that’s what the ‘authority to act’ was all about. Thankfully the Supreme Court has now appropriately limited the authority of Federal judges to rule on national issues.

A Supreme Court that acts within the Constitution to protect citizens from judicial overreach, another gift fromTrump’s first term

It's same old same old, Draad.

More than anything else, they want Trump to fail. All the virtue signalling is quickly exposed when you ask them simply acknowledge a job well done.

Of course I want Trump to fail in an overall context. The principals and policies he stands for are truly appalling and he is absolute horrid human being, with near enough no redeeming qualities. But that doesn't mean I wanted the attacks to fail or result in a larger war between the US/Israel and Iran or that Iran to have a bomb just so I could go oh look Trump f**ked up.

You keep saying it's a job well down, like you can't grasp the absolutely basic concept of time, actions don't always have immediate consequences. We don't know how successful the strikes are, we don't know the long term repercussions, we don't know if the strikes are going make Iran more or less determined to get a nuke. We don't know if it's going trigger a rise in terrorism. We don't know if it's going to open a pandora's box of other countries attacking another citing the right to pre-emptive attack and using Israel/US's action's against Iran to justify their actions.

Virtue signalling, virtue signalling always screaming virtue signalling, you're starting to sound like Trad when he users the word liberal. I just take that as acknowledgement from you that you don't have any sort of valid argument.

Despite bending your brain six ways from Sunday, you aren't able to draw our sufficient negatives from the Iran strikes.

It's an obvious win from Trump.

I've sited multiple negatives. Do you have a portal to 20 years into the future were you come back and say that these strikes led Iran to the negotiating table, they gave up trying to develop a nuclear bomb, and there was no negative repercussions to the US actions? I doubt you do.

Do you remember when Bush flew onto that aircraft carrier and said missions accomplished. Well how did that turn out. Not saying that's 100% going happen regards the US strikes on Iran but we are not out of the woods yet.

So let's move onto some more wins while we're at it and watch you contort even more as you try to play them down as you attempt to rationalise your inability to admit the obvious.

Look Plum I get it, it's far easier to be annoyed at the person who's telling you, you're being conned than being angry at the person actually conning you, as the person conning you doesn't make you feel stupid, he tells you want you want to hear, he confirms your prejudices and makes you feel oh so good about owning the libs, so you want and need to believe everything Trump says, that everything he does turns to gold and you do so unquestioningly. Any criticism can be dismissed as TDS, Orange man bad or virtue signalling, no critical thinking required. I guess it's nice not having to think for yourself now but to spend some much time just mindlesslly parroting the nonsense has got to be a pretty shallow experience.

Chat GPT

is VAT a tariff?

No, VAT (Value-Added Tax) is not a tariff—they are two different types of taxes used for different purposes:

1. VAT (Value-Added Tax):

1. Type of tax: A domestic consumption tax.
2. Applied to: Goods and services at each stage of production and distribution, usually collected at the point of sale to the final consumer.
3. Purpose: To raise government revenue on domestic consumption.
4. Applies to: Both imported and domestically produced goods and services.

2. Tariff:

1. Type of tax: A trade tax or duty.
2. Applied to: Imported goods only (sometimes exports, though this is less common).
3. Purpose: To protect domestic industries, generate revenue, or influence trade policy.
4. Applies to: Imports, typically at the border.

Example to clarify:

1. When you buy a phone in your country, you pay VAT on the purchase.
2. If that phone was imported into your country, the importer might have had to pay a tariff when it entered the country plus VAT when it was sold.

So in short:

VAT = consumption tax, applies to all goods/services (imported and domestic)

Tariff = import tax, applies only to imported goods

_______________________________________

Okay let me ask ChatGPT the same question you asked

Does higher sales tax in Europe act like a tariff on US goods

No, higher sales taxes (like VAT in Europe) are not tariffs, but in practice, they can have similar effects in some cases — though not intentionally or directly targeted at U.S. goods.

Why VAT/Sales Tax ? Tariff

1. Sales tax/VAT in Europe applies equally to domestic and imported goods.
2. This means a U.S.-made product and a European-made product sold in France, for example, both face the same VAT rate (say 20%).
3. Therefore, it does not discriminate against U.S. goods, and under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, this makes it legal and non-protectionist.

But How It Can Feel Like a Tariff

Even though VAT isn’t a tariff, there are ways it can function similarly to one from a U.S. exporter’s perspective:

1. Raises the final price of the product in the EU, potentially making U.S. goods less competitive.
2. If the U.S. doesn't have a comparable VAT system (it doesn’t—sales taxes in the U.S. are lower and fragmented by state), this can lead to:
3. Exports from the U.S. being taxed upon arrival in Europe (via VAT).
4. Exports from Europe to the U.S. not facing a similar tax, because U.S. sales taxes are lower or not collected at the border.

Important Distinction

1. Tariffs are border taxes intended to protect domestic industries or influence trade.
2. VAT is a domestic consumption tax, designed to raise revenue without regard to origin.

Trade Fairness Issue?

Some U.S. policymakers and businesses have argued that this VAT system creates a kind of “tax disadvantage” for U.S. exports. But under current global trade rules (like WTO), VAT systems are considered fair as long as they are applied equally to domestic and imported goods.

Bottom Line

1. VAT is not a tariff, and doesn’t target U.S. goods.
2. But its uniform application can increase the final cost of U.S. exports in Europe, which can feel like a trade barrier, especially when the U.S. doesn’t have a similar system.

______________________________________________________________

Okay lets ask your question again to a different A.I, in this case Windows Co-Pilot

Does higher sales tax in Europe act like a tariff on US goods

1. VAT is a Neutral Consumption Tax

1. The Value-Added Tax (VAT) is applied to all goods sold for consumption in the EU, whether they’re imported or domestically produced.
2. When a U.S. company exports goods to Europe, the importer pays VAT at the border—but European companies pay the same VAT when selling locally.
3. This makes VAT non-discriminatory and trade-neutral, unlike tariffs which are specifically designed to protect domestic industries by making foreign goods more expensive.

2. VAT Is Border-Adjusted

1. Exports from the EU are exempt from VAT, and imports are taxed at the same rate as domestic goods.
2. This border adjustment ensures that the tax applies only to consumption within the EU, not to production origin.

3. Tariffs Are Targeted Trade Barriers

1. Tariffs are explicit duties placed on imported goods to raise their price and protect domestic producers.
2. For example, the EU might impose a 10% tariff on U.S. cars, while the U.S. imposes only 2.5% on European cars—a clear trade imbalance that has sparked political debate.

So Why the Confusion?

Some U.S. policymakers argue that the combination of EU tariffs and VAT creates an unfair burden on U.S. exports. But this argument misunderstands how VAT works. It’s not a subsidy for EU exports or a penalty on U.S. imports—it’s just a different tax structure.

Moz are you figuring out the problem yet with lazily use A.I to answer question?

Actually this is a good example of why AI remains enhanced search and isn’t actual reasoning logic. It has searched and picked up the WTO rules.

In my post I pointed out that local companies pay the same VAT although there are differences. But now look at it from the country perspective. They collect the VAT from domestic and foreign companies.

Using Germany as an example, 36% of Germany’s tax revenues come from VAT. That means labor can be taxed less by the same amount. Which means the 36% of the VAT on imported goods, can be used to subsidize labor and income tax in Germany …..making input costs for domestic goods that much cheaper.

The counter argument is these funds are passed back to the consumer/tax payer….logical, but there are many filters.

If the VAT of the exporting and importing countries were in balance and the exporter had a similar VAT it would be neutral. As it stands both the domestic and foreign companies products generate VAT raising their prices, but the differential in VAT rates acts to potentially reduce demand for high VAT taxed products

1. In 2023, VAT contributed €141.7 billion, which represented 36.3% of the federal government’s tax revenuetaxfoundation.org+1taxunfiltered.com+1elibrary.imf.org.

In theory, using the German example, if you were starting with a VAT regime of say 19% from scratch you would collect roughly 36% of your prior tax revenues that previously were collected as income and other tax.

To put the consumer/tax payer in a neutral position…..that entire amount should be reduced from income taxes to pay the VAT which would be a blend of 7% and 19% revenues.

According to Chat 85% to 90% of imports are taxed at the full rate. Only 66% of domestic is taxed at the full rate. So immediately you introduce these VATs with differential rates, you penalize imports more.

You also encourage the consumer to send money to other non VAT purposes….education and medical for example. And you make expenditures outside of the VAT zone more attractive.

But the numbers are pretty clear differential VATs punish imports. And that doesn’t include all the exemptions for reducing the VAT basis for domestically produced goods. And the simple fact is Europe adds 35% or so to the manufactured cost before an American import reaches the European consumer…in the US the number has been between 5 and 10% for a European import.