So America bombed a Girls school killing 150+ in Iran?

"The celebration videos... Useful only when it matches liberals' mindsets. Is there any event people have not celebrated?"

Yes, your birth.

M

When I asked you if you knew what altruism was, you replied with...

"Yes, it's possible putting other people's needs before your own. I've done it many times myself."

Do you belive that acting selflessly is something to be proud of?

Moz, I hear you asking what we do about Iran. Then the Bigger picture of China and Russia. But let’s step back and look at what’s really going on with Trump and Israel here.

This isn’t just about the evil regime in Iran. Why now? They’ve allowed the regime to do horrific things for decades, but only now they decide to act. Why?

In my opinion, reading some of the articles, maybe Trump wants to distract from the Epstein files. And maybe he's using the war to manipulate the midterms.

So we also have to take into consideration that Israel has had issues with Iran for decades already. And let’s be honest, the bigger prize in Iran is the oil.

The land itself is really not that special. And especially if Donald Trump does win the war and they do take over.

Who do you think he's going to put in charge? He's most probably going to put Israel in charge of Iran.

Also, wars like this don’t just stop the regime. They usually provoke revenge and make them even more determined to get nukes.

So, if we’re going to talk about “what to do,” we can’t ignore the real motives behind the actions.

It’s not just saving people from a regime. There’s personal, political, and financial gain involved, and timing matters.

"So what’s the plan…we leave Iran to develop nukes, nuclear delivery systems,ramp up other offensive missiles, promote terrorism in the ME, kill the opposition when there are elections."

I'd honestly like to know from Rooi and Stavie what they think.

Plum, acting selflessly isn’t about feeling proud or standing there as a hero. If you have any kind of feelings like that, any ulterior motives in doing what you’re doing, being unselfish, then you shouldn’t do it in the first place.

Do it because it’s the right thing to do. Do it because you want to, plain and simple. You not getting anything out of it. You shouldn't care about ego or being seen as a hero. It’s just what needs to be done.

Isn’t this what humans are supposed to do for each other? Isn’t this what it comes down to, that we help each other in need? I’m also not helping someone else to expect something back. This is my opinion.

Instead of asking me a bunch of questions, why don’t you go ahead and explain your motive for bringing up altruism? How does it actually relate to this discussion? Enlighten us.

That's not what I asked. Please read my question again.

I asked, are you proud of yourself for acting selflessly?

I didn't ask if you acted like or wanted to be seen as a hero, or if you showed off about it or if you sought any social credit for it.

"Plum, acting selflessly isn’t about feeling proud"

No, I don't feel proud of acting selflessly. Now answer my question.

Mozart

Hall Of Famer

48,799 posts

Mar 08, 2026, 23:14

So what’s the plan…we leave Iran to develop nukes, nuclear delivery systems,ramp up other offensive missiles, promote terrorism in the ME, kill the opposition when there are elections.

What do we do….nothing? Talk nicely to them? Continue the 45 year long negotiation, refuse to buy Iranian oil knowing China will buy it all anyway?

-------------------------

We can take a look at what "appears" to be Trump's plan and compare it to the 45-year status quo.

Trump's plans appear to be a regime change. Trump has said he wants to be involved in selecting the new leader. The gameplan appears to be to attack Iran until such time as this objective is achieved.

There are a few ways that could play out:

Short-war. The regime gets changed within weeks.

New leadership is appointed that is pro-America. In this case their will be minimal American war casualties. Oil prices will go back to what they were, and the rest of the Middle East will no longer be threatened by drones.

Medium-term war, 6 months to 2-years:

MAGA boots on the ground. Deaths go into the hundreds.

Substantial damage to the global economy, with energy prices going through the roof.

MAGA is fighting in a mountainous territory against bands of guerrilla warfare factions. American military costs increase, and drone warfare takes out expensive American kit.

Long-term war: Over 2 years.

We are starting to get into Putin territory here with a special military operation gone totally awry.

At this stage, it is not clear which Iranians need to be killed. It starts to get into genocide with no surrender in sight. It turns into another Vietnam.

New President

It is looking like a forever war. A new president takes over and ends the war. The Military objectives have not been achieved. Iran now hates America more than ever.

Trump's impeachment is inevitable

So what’s your solution?

Obama's agreement was pretty good- the previous status quo was the best solution.

Trump cancelled the agreement, and then Iran started enriching plutonium to nuclear weapons grade.

If Trump gets Iran to agree to stop producing nuclear weapons, it would just bring the status quo back to what it was.

Except, America now looks like the bad guy. Bomb schools and civilian areas, to get someone to agree not to produce nukes. An agreement they were already following before Trump.

This was verified by international inspections and detection units.

Trump has another 10 years left in this world at best, so people in the future will have to deal with the bad will of Trump destroying their country.

I dont see the Iranians agreeing to a deal, but if they had no other choice but to accept a deal, they would break this deal in the not so distant future.

Obama's agreement was pretty good- the previous status quo was the best solution.

Releasing $100 billion of sequestered funds, about half of which was available for ‘worthy projects’ And dooming the 70% of Iranians who want regime change to indefinitely be governed in religious tyranny.

And what would you do in the Ukraine?

So what’s your solution?

Realistically its a pummeling in the Midterms resulting in Trump's mad Maga losing both Houses & his subsequent inevitable impeachment.

Give me hope, Joanna !!

8 Months is a long time in poletics...

Will never happen Batshit Brain.

Note how nobody has provided an alternative solution.

"Instead of asking me a bunch of questions, why don’t you go ahead and explain your motive for bringing up altruism? How does it actually relate to this discussion? Enlighten us."

I explained it very clearly...look up on this thread.

Moz asks, "Show us your solution."

VisKop - Allow a brutal regime to keep killing population and sponsoring terror around the world.

Blo - Change the president. Which is not a solution but rather the latest output from a TDS riddled and totally cooked mind.

M - No solution

I wonder, if the ANC government start killing whites, Zulus, Indians and Coloureds. And we are totally powerless against the SA military, would you guys still be as non-interventionist?

I very much doubt it.

Trump provided an excellent liberal comment, showing once again how much liberals thrive on contradictions and how they look for submission.

The US did not do it: they do not target civilians, Iran did it, they target civilians.

The US use precise missiles, Iran does not use precise missiles.

Another jewel.

So what’s your solution?

What is the solution for the RDC conflict? It has killed more people than Iran and it happens on the African continent.

a TDS riddled and totally cooked mind.

Maybe when you witness the next record-breaking nationwide NO KINGS protest (in 3 weeks time nogal) you'll acknowledge that a Trump midterm massacre is a possible' fait accompli.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PxLNDa8AoZ8

No, I don't feel proud of acting selflessly. Now answer my question.

Oh, but there is nothing wrong with people feeling proud for acting as who they are.

are you proud of yourself for acting selflessly?

Liberals are so empty. It is not possible to get used to it through time, it is staggering.

They are so full of contempt, they say they are somewhat heirs of European traditions and yet, they keep trying demolishing them as they make them uncomfortable.

Their claim that altruism does not exist is usually based on the capability to frame any action as an ulterior selfish interest by a third party.

Here's an example: a guy rides along the river bank, he sees somebody about to drown, jumps into the waters, gets the person out of the waters, checks on the person, gets on his bike and rides away. The guy who is taken out of the waters spreads the story as he wants to know who his saviour is.

It always is possible to frame this action as a selfish action. Guy felts happy because he save somebody's life? Guy acted selfishly.

It is how liberals work; for altruism to be, altruistic people must feel nothing about being themselves. This dude who jumped into the waters because he is that person can not feel happy about himself as it marks him as a selfish person. Utter non sense. But liberals do as they are.

And remember, peeps, they are also christian at times and they will go around telling that altruism can not exist but yet that christianity is real.

Very, very funny.

Blo, I mean Trad... I mean Blo, is back

:-)

Hey Trade, I mean Blo, I mean Trad....I think i found a cure

c

Obama's agreement was pretty good- the previous status quo was the best solution.

This agreement actually meant nothing ..... especially with Iran's carefully managed access for the inspectors, so I support Trump's reluctance to buy into this deal.....hell....the inspectors themselves could not exactly go where they wanted to....to conduct proper and comprehensive nuclear inspections... it was a bloody farce, and there were quite a few reasons why Trump was against it, but it really only took one specific incident to convince him to pull out.

Trump cancelled the agreement

Yep, you might want to read into what exactly happened here and why Trump finally pulled the trigger on this nuclear deal... and why he cancelled it before you start blaming anyone on the US side.....because Iran had for many years before this been secretly planning the develpment of nuclear weapons, including many blueprints of ballistic missile designs that could also carry nuclear warheads..... and this information was never previously disclosed, which in my mind shows the clear and deliberate intent on what Iran had wanted to do, years before.... and even if it was done a few years before the deal was made with Obama, the non-disclosure of this information was a justified deal breaker.

An agreement they were already following before Trump.This was verified by international inspections and detection units.

Yeah..... it's like listening to your neighbour next door telling everyone around you that he is wanting to wipe your property off the map, yet he keeps on promising you that he doesn't have the means to do this, and he limits your inspections of his property as well.......only for you to secretly and conclusively find out later that he has all the plans to do exactly that, in the basement of his home next to your house, and that he has had these plans for quite a while already ....

Do you wait for him to make the first move on you, or do you go on the offensive .....

sdfghj

DA

None of what you posted above is difficult to understand or illogical.

The problem is that I think most here know it had to be done but they simply can't stomach that Trump has done it.

It's why you have guys like Viskop providing solutions that amount to allowing Iran to continue sponsoring terror, developing nukes and killing their own people and Blo's solution is "Orange man bad".

I honestly believe that the only two anti-Trumpers on this site that are capable of proving logical counter arguments to the current US action are Rooi and Stav.

As for your question, my answer was no, because I feel you should do something unselfishly firstly because you want to, and secondly because it’s the right thing to do...not because you feel proud of it.

That and your original question was anwsered in one of my earlier post on this thread by the way!

At the same time, by answering 'No' instead of 'yes', I realize I have also taken away your angle with this question of trying to prove that pure altruism doesn’t exist.

As I've said before, you talking about "pure altruism" in a abstract and philosophical sense.

But how does that change or justify anything about the war, the regime, or innocent people?

How will you show, in practice, that every good deed has some benefit to the actor?

You can't measure feelings, hidden motives, or inner satisfaction...

Also I never claimed that Trump or Israel were acting selflessly. I am pointing out that there actions, has consequences.

So your philosophical "detour" does not disprove my argument and still leaves the question unanswered: why did you bring up altruism in the first place?

Saying “M – no solution” is wrong. My solution was:

"The U.S. has the best-trained special forces, Navy SEALs, and Marines, and a properly executed operation could take out Khamenei and his inner circle without killing hundreds of innocent people."

You said in the " Isreal/USA Versus Iran" thread that their weapons, vessels, communications, and leaders all needed to be taken out.

With close combat and bullets, you could take out the leader and his Regime.

Then, by placing strategic charges, you can destroy weapons, vessels, and communications.

You haven’t proved that this is impossible. You’re sidestepping, that’s all.

Also, you clearly don’t see that the way it was done cost many innocent lives...like the school with children.

That’s what blind bombing does, far from a precision strike.

It is very funny. Remember, peeps, the greatest speculation: liberals are en route to kill hundreds of millions of people.

A course of action that demands a solid framework which liberals are establishing.

English is a bastard language, which gives ground for liberals to manipulate words meaning.

Self-less and altruistic: when Romans or Greeks thought, they thought in a cohesive language framework that prevents them from straying. They thought in a language that referred to itself.

English, though, has gaps in its lexicon: to find a word, one switches from words from different etymological roots, german, latin etc

In action, altruism, altruistic, but the root notion is referred by the word other. That breaks the semantic continuity.

The centre for a an altruistic behaviour is the other. Since altruistic and other are unrelated, liberals use this as a trick to make the centre of an altruistic action the person who performs the action. Liberal inversion.

Now self less, which quite often reports as a synonym for altruism.. When taken literally, it means acting with no self. Which is not possible, as everyone has a self.

Aligning with one's self is a common goal for human beings: people wants to act in a way they are in unison with. When people manage to act in such a way, it is a personal benefit for them.

The framework is established:

Altruistic people have an altruistic self. Any time they express it, any time they align with their self, they find a benefit from it and therefore, they can not be altruistic. It is utter garbage but that the kind of convolutions liberals are used to delivering. There is nothing in it. And they claim it is a manifestation of deep intelligence.

This framework allows liberals to deny the existence of segments of humanity, which liberals are going to eliminate.

Here's the thing Plum

There was one particular site, that had long been suspected of previous nuclear weapons related activities...

However.... in September 2015, what does the IAEA very confidentially propose and decide to do with Iran

The Iranians were permitted by IAEA, to use their own personnel, to collect samples...... whilst being viewed on remotely supplied cameras that were supplied by IAEA.

So...... you can provide your same neighbour that I mentioned earlier....that wants to destroy you.... with a video camera..... and ask him to go and record what is down in his basement with your camera, and when you see nothing is there on the camera, deem that to be a significant and conclusive search that all is good.

It's the same as collecting your own soil samples and putting them discreetly into the containers that were provided to you by IAEA....

Self monitoring of a wannabe nuclear state is just laughable, especially after what came to light in 2018 when the shit hit the fan and Iran were found out to be the liars that everyone either knew or suspected them to be all along, but everyone keeps conveniently forgetting to bring that up

"The U.S. has the best-trained special forces, Navy SEALs, and Marines, and a properly executed operation could take out Khamenei and his inner circle without killing hundreds of innocent people."

They do, but this was never possible ....they would never be able to get that close to everyone involved before they each went into hiding after the first shot was made

With close combat and bullets, you could take out the leader and his Regime.

Just not possible M, not even remotely so ..... the odds of success are nil.... it would be a suicide mission, and even then, not much would have been achieved

Then, by placing strategic charges, you can destroy weapons, vessels, and communications.

Nope, just imagine for yourself how much weight in explosives alone, they would need to carry or get into Iran undetected .... nevermind the manpower needed to achieve all this with so many different sites around the country....heavily scrutinsed and protected...... and by the time one or two blasts were known, they would very quickly be moving anything and everything else they had left, to some other destination.

This is also precisely why they conducted this raid in the daytime, which was so much more risky due to being detected.... but the odds of success by doing it during the day by far exceeded the odds of conducting this raid during the night time

M

So your plan is to basically drop special forces in behind enemy lines all over Iran and then they sneak around blowing up sites and assassinating regime members.

How long do you think that would take? How many special forces teams do you think Isreal and the US have? Have you considered that you can't attack military bases where hundreds and sometimes thousands of Regime forces are located with a group of special forces guys? Have you considered that you can't fly willy nilly over Iran's airspace and drop special forces guys off if you don't have air superiority...like how do you you get past ground to air defences with a chopper full of Seals? Have you considers that a lot of these sites are actually in populated areas and how difficult it is to insert teams into them? Have you considered what happens if/when some of those forces are captured and held hostage and now you have to negotiate for their release? Have you considered that even if a few teams get in and get lucky on one or two targets, that still does absolutely nothing to solve the basic scale problem, because Iran is a massive country with military infrastructure spread out over huge distances, multiple chains of command, redundant systems, hardened facilities and units that can relocate, disperse or just rebuild after the fact? Have you considered that special forces are not magic and they are usually used for raids, reconnaissance, target designation and very specific missions, not as some fantasy army that can dismantle an entire state’s military footprint by itself? Have you considered the logistics of fuel, extraction, resupply, communications, medevac, intelligence updates and exfiltration once the whole country is on alert and every roadblock, police checkpoint, militia unit and security service is looking for foreign operators? Have you considered that once you start setting off bombs and killing officials the regime is not just going to stand there confused, it is going to lock the country down, arrest people by the thousand, flood sensitive areas with extra security and make every follow-on mission ten times harder? Have you considered that the first few attacks might be the easiest part and after that every target gets harder, every insertion gets riskier and every team you lose becomes a political disaster on top of a military failure? Because what you are describing is not some clean surgical campaign where a handful of guys in the dark topple an entire system, it is a drawn-out, high-risk, intelligence-heavy operation across hostile territory against a state that still has armed forces, air defences, internal security, counterintelligence and the ability to adapt, and the more you think it through the less it sounds like a serious plan and the more it sounds like a movie plot.

I'm very far from being a military expert but I can tell you, without a shadow of a doubt that there are a million reasons why that is unrealistic and nonsensical. The above is jsut a summary.

You're basically suggesting taking out Iran's entire military capability with special forces.

Here, I have used chat GPT...

Query; On a scale of 1-10 how likely is it that the US and Isreal could take out Iran's military installations, equipment and regime forces through the use of social forces.

Response; "With assassinations and bombings/sabotage alone, I’d still put it at about 1–2/10.

Those methods can kill leaders, disrupt command, damage selected facilities, and slow programs, but they are not a realistic way to eliminate all of Iran’s military installations, equipment, and regime forces. Iran’s key assets are spread across a large country, with important sites hardened, underground, and repeatedly repaired or reconstituted after attacks. Recent IAEA and Reuters reporting says entrances at underground Natanz were hit, yet the facility itself was not simply erased, and Reuters also reported Iran repairing and fortifying damaged sites."

So, I wasn't sidestepping anything. Honestly I didn't think I needed to justify why that was a terrible idea and barely worth considering. It seemed very obvious to me.

I could provide many more reasons why it simply wouldn't work and why one would have to resort to bombing but you'll feel personally attacked, so I won't.

"Self monitoring of a wannabe nuclear state is just laughable, especially after what came to light in 2018 when the shit hit the fan and Iran were found out to be the liars that everyone either knew or suspected them to be all along, but everyone keeps conveniently forgetting to bring that up."

Jirre, the mere idea of self monitoring should have been laughed off the floor.

It's crazy how this stuff actually happens in the real world.

How much difference will any of this make?

Whatever the outcome, the Iranians will just hate the Americans even more than they do already . . . the same way Americans hate Iranians.

They both have lunatic governments and - if Pete Hegseth is to be believed - they both have a leader who has been appointed by God so everything is justified.

It's oil again. Spin it however you want. The US only attempts "Regime change" when it involves natural resources.

Who is dumb enough to think the next Iranian government (or Venezuelan government for that matter) is going to be fundamentally different to the ousted one?

Every Trumpanzee, that's who. This is all for Bozo to try and win the mid-terms . . . so he isn't impeached . . . and oil of course.

The fact that it's all deflecting away from why we haven't seen the Bozo entries in the Epstein files is a convenient bonus.

My suggestion was simply an idea based on one main concern: minimizing civilian casualties.

What we are already seeing from the current strategy of bombing is that innocent people...including children...are dying while the regime itself remains in place.

If the goal is to weaken or remove the regime, then this approach clearly has serious problems.

You asked how long my suggestion would take. But the same question applies to the current strategy. How long will bombing take to achieve regime change?

History shows that airstrikes alone rarely topple governments:

During Gulf War, massive air campaigns were carried out against Iraq, yet Saddam Hussein stayed in power until a later ground invasion.

In the Vietnam War, huge bombing campaigns like Operation Rolling Thunder caused immense destruction but did not remove the North Vietnamese government.

Even in Afghanistan in 2001, airstrikes alone did not collapse the Taliban government until ground forces were involved.

So bombing alone often doesn’t achieve regime change either, while it still causes large civilian casualties.

The idea behind my suggestion was not that it’s a perfect solution, but that it might reduce the number of innocent people being killed compared with large bombing campaigns.

But honestly, the best outcome would have been avoiding this war in the first place and pushing much harder for negotiations before things escalated to this point.