More American war hero claims about WWII, where they claim to have won the war.
Everyone knows that America only entered the war near the end. This was after Pearl Harbour when America declared war on Japan (They still did not enter WWII).
Only when Germany declared war on America did they finally enter the war.
The USSR was responsible for over 75% of the deaths of Hitler's army. Hitler messed up by trying to attack the USSR during winter.
"The first person to deviate from the topic on this thread was ButtPlug, when he brought Covid conspiracies into this. Then he complains about going off topic,,LOL"
Yes, i did that for a reason...read it again...
"The stuff you post, and your sheer lack of willingness to understand what you are posting before you do so, is the antithesis of "science".
Moz explained it to you. And what's your rebuttal? Same as unironically screaming "science" in order to follow non-scientific methods only, in a different format this time, "The Swiss said so and thus it must be true" in the face of being presented with the parameters of the contract."
It was simply to make the larger point that feelings override facts for you when it comes to Trump and the US. It did not veer off topic AT ALL.
Which is entirely different to going on some insane rant about polling numbers, Nazis, etc, that have nothing to do with this.
And the point remains, because now we are apparently discussing culture wars and whatever else you need to be able to justify the fact that you think your feelings override what is written down in a contract.
NATO are being responsible by not getting involved in the Trump Epstein distraction war
Trump was reckless to not involve and inform NATO of his intentions to attack Iran
DA, that's quite different to what you said here:
"Mar 05, 2026, 08:33
Trump was absolutely correct to target Iran
Previously, Iran has called for the elimination or annihilation of Israel, calling it "Little Satan", or the "Cancerous Tumor" and it is a regime that must be "Wiped off the map"
Most experts have agreed that Iran's nuclear program has long been viewed as a potential means to achieve that objective.
The US government has stated for years that a nuclear Iran would very likely seek the total annihilation of Israel.
The council of foreign relations has also stated that a nuclear Iran poses a existential threat to Israel
Israel is the only country that Iran has repeatedly threatend with destruction in official statements.
Obviously... targeting Israel or anywhere else with even one nuclear missile, would be absolutely suicidal for Iran, because they would be completely obliterated from the world map..... but just imagine a time and day where Iran was permitted to continue their nuclear ambitions, in good faith, and then for some reason, one day, you wake up and see that they have targeted Israel with a nuclear weapon, due to no or very limited oversight on their nuclear ambitions.....
That needed to be avoided at all costs, and Trump did that."
Not caring about aid that doesn’t reach all ordinary people is not the same as not caring about civilians being killed.
One is about real economic impact, the other is basic human reality.
You’ve taken a practical point about cost of living and twisted it into a moral argument because you’ve got nothing else.
You jumped in from the sidelines, cherry-picked a line, and tried to manufacture a contradiction that isn’t there...
DA, spare me the moral lecture.
You’re talking about “millions of lives” and empathy, but when an real world case comes up...like a mother being shot by ICE...you’re suddenly very quiet or busy justifying it.
So don’t stand here preaching to me about compassion when yours clearly depends on who’s involved and when it suits your argument.
You want to talk about Morals and hypocrisy? Start there.
DA, that's quite different to what you said here:
I don't see anything different at all
I said, and I have continued to say, even in my most recent post in another thread today, that Trump was 100% correct to target Iran..... I have never once changed my stance on that....and I won't.
Could he have done a better job, hell yes
Could he have waited a little longer...... I believe so, yes
Could he have involved more people to discuss all the possibilities of going to war with Iran, especially the possible world repercussions with regards to the Strait Of Hormuz ....absolutely
Do I think he should have consulted with NATO before going ahead .... yes
Do I think it was reckless and stupid to do so, and only then ask NATO for help later ... yes
I posted that almost a month ago....... have I changed some thoughts or opinions on this war and how it has gone... damn right I have.
Don't make it sound like just because I agree with Trump on this war with Iran that I now agree to anything and everything he says and does, and that there is no room for improvement and that he is never wrong... because I don't and never will.
Not caring about aid that doesn’t reach all ordinary people is not the same as not caring about civilians being killed.
Lol.... whatever helps you sleep at night M
No aid to Africa results in millions being killed every year from starvation, famine, disease, healthcare etc etc
Yeah.... whatever
So don’t stand here preaching to me about compassion when yours clearly depends on who’s involved and when it suits your argument
Yep, because you are the very same guy that shows no compassion at all if no aid comes in, because as you yourself said, it doesn't affect or help White people, so fuck everybody else...
Selective empathy M .... not cool
DA, you said Bozo was "absolutely correct" to go to war.
If something is absolute, there are no "buts" or "maybes".
DA, now you just making things up.
I never said “no aid should exist” and I never said “fuck everybody else" because they not white...what utter nonsense.
My point is simple and hasn’t changed:
Aid that doesn’t improve the daily reality of all ordinary people is not something I’m going to celebrate or feel grateful for. That’s a practical point, not a moral one.
I was talking about South Africa and my real life situation, not the whole of “Africa” and your dramatic “millions dying” narrative. Stick to what I actually said, not what you wish I said.
And this “selective empathy” nonsense?
Caring about civilians dying and questioning whether aid improves my cost of living are two completely different things.
You’re the one trying to mash them together to score a cheap shot. Nice, just keep on inventing things I didn’t say.
DA, you said Bozo was "absolutely correct" to go to war.
If something is absolute, there are no "buts" or "maybes".
He was, and I still believe that... no question....I just have questions and reservations now on some issues that have happened since that post was made.
In particular, nobody knew what would happen with the Stait of Hormuz..... not you, not me, not Trump and I assume nobody that Trump comsulted with either....
So yeah, could many aspects of this war have been done better, or differently ....absolutely....
I see nothing different to you and your Rassie analogy that has been brought up so many times in the past.... regarding winning the world cup....you said it would never happen with Rassie at the helm.....then you changed your mind later, after the world cup had already been won or whilst it was being won, or something similar to that, I don't remember the specifics .... it's called hindsight, and I have never once brought it up with you, because after it happened, you had the opportunity to look at things differently...... and you did, and you changed your opinion on it......so allow me the same courtesy... I have seen and heard things since I made that post, and my opinion on certain things have changed.
For clarity, I "absolutely" agree with what Trump did 100% .....regarding the war with Iran ......but now you want to add in everything that has happend since I made that post nearly a month ago, which is crazy.
Do I believe there are many different ways Trump could have done it better, which would possbily have resulted in less lives lost.... absolutely..... do I still agree with this war with Iran, yes I do.
In the knockout stages of the 2023 RWC I said that if Rassie wins this thing for us that I will never criticise him again.
All I did was keep my promise.
Don't get me wrong, I welcome Trumpanzees changing their minds and finally recognising that this self-serving and incompetent fool is in fact a very dangerous clown. I'm just not seeing any of you admitting it.
LOL...run by terrorists for 50 years. News to me.
I clealy hit a nerve if you felt compelled to type such crap
Anger I said controlled by terrorists, meaning for 50 years these thugs flourished and affected the welfare of the whole country….not ‘run’ which has a different meaning, although I accept this may not be obvious to you.
If you want to quote me, cut and paste, that way we can also avoid associating me with your crude English, grammar and typos. Is that cleal (sic).
In the knockout stages of the 2023 RWC I said that if Rassie wins this thing for us that I will never criticise him again.
I was referring to your comment about if they win it, it will be despite him and not with him.... or something like that... but I could be wrong, and it honestly doesn't even matter, all I was saying was that I respected your change of opinion towards Rassie... it happens to all of us, all the time.... just as the world cup developed, your opinions changed on rassie..... and as this war progresses, my opnions have changed.... it is what it is.... and I am not hiding it, why should I or would I, I am not ashamed of my constantly changing opinions of what happens in my everyday life.
I do criticise Trump, I always have, and I always will....and I won't stop, and I won't increase or reduce that level of criticism just to meet someone's expectations of what or how I should be behaving towards Trump to appease them.
I haven't always trusted Trump
I haven't always believed Trump
I haven't always agreed with Trump
I have called him an egotiscal narcicistic lying arsehole before, and that won't change
Yes, I believe Trump can be dangerous, but anyone in that position can be a dangerous person
All of this above and also my lack of commenting on something in particular, does not mean that I endorse anything and everything that Trump says or does, and my silence on any topic also does not mean that I endorse or condone anything that Trump says or does either, it just means that I don't and won't ever feel the need to speak up or voice a personal opinion, just to please people like you who believe that if I won't or don't speak up and say something on something in particualr, that I am now automatically in agreement with whatever it is being posted, when in fact it is far from it.
How can anyone admire Trump? I have never met or seen anyone lie as much as he does.
"How can anyone admire Trump?"
I often ask myself the same question. A truly repulsive human being.
I don't recall anyone saying that they admire Trump
Try reading a few posts from ou Maaik or Draad . . .
So can we assume ……’if Rassie Trump wins this thing for us that I will never criticise him again’….applies?
Define "win" first.
A land attack is almost impossible in such a mountainous region. Kharg island is the logical target, but they can still load oil from smaller ships to tanker ships. So America would need to destroy those ships as well.
Although taking Kharg might be relatively easily, but maintaining it will probably be harder. American soldiers coulld be sitting ducks.
Stocks set new records, the only reliable indicator,
Now, Hitler (Trump) also says he will take out the water supply. Any Iranians who might have supported the destruction of the Iranian leadership are going to change their tune. No water and no electricity is going to make them more radical.
". . . the only reliable indicator,"
If you're a billionaire maybe. Not so much for the average person who hasn't got shares . . . in other words, the vast majority.
Stocks will only set records if oil prices decline and economic activity picks up creating jobs to replace those lost to AI. Plenty of room there for the working man to participate. But the people in Iran need a new government, their calculus is different .
SB
I d not recpgnoze you nmymore - yars a o you rote shit n site - but at east you try and pove it from some sources.
Now you write totlly il;logical snmakeshot n sote amd you have obviously gone bonke totally, There are not even logic about anything you wrote, You sound more and more like an Ayatollah regme admorer and in fact you come up with unbelievable BS/
One can nwo see no t hinkin g ability to find out what you come up iwth is BS Supreme lik bstating that Trump is equiaslent to Hitler. S o you are an arsekreeper f the A yatollah Regim and Stalin - with Mao thrwn in fr good measuure, Htred have driven you to madnes and brainwashing adds to it,
Really time for you to consult a shrink before you end up in a loony binm. . ,
DumbMike, you are a backward redneck.
Anyone who supports bombing a country's energy and water supplies is a sub-human.
It is a war crime- and it would lead to genocide.
Stocks set new records, the only reliable indicator,
What?
Firstly while some stocks are achieving record high this month, it's actually not a historically high number. Of 5,135 stocks evaluated just 0.5%of them were at record highs.
Overall the number is actually unusually low which indicates a weaker market than headline indexes suggest.
As for the Indexes themselves. the S&P 500, Dow Jones and Nasdaq all achieved records highs in the recent past, but before the War with Iran started. None of them are at record highs now.
But even if the stock markets are booming... do you really think the radicals in Tehran are just going say oh wow that's fantastic, lets stop the war and cash in our secret billions of Nvidia stock?
It's also been widely reported that in the last few days the markets have stopped responding as much to Trump's statements as they don't trust him after all his flip flops and are actually more interested in what Iran says, because they seem to be coming around to what many geo-political pundits are thinking...that Iran now holds the strategic initiative and the war will likely end when Iran decides it wants it to end, not Trump.
Pooinek I an surorized by your all round approach. F=r years CNN and oth er leftist media spoke about what tuned out to be the Rusiaan Hoax. The refrain went on for years and your daily forecasrt of Trump being guilty of collusion wiotyh Putin n the 2016 electrion. Trump was guuilty and he must be ku cked ot of the Presidency.
Since then there were 2 Special Council investigations and an investgation as to te conduct of the FBI conduct when ot comes to the collusion alegations,
S o Muelde was appointed to find Trump G uilty and he went on for 30 months hiring only lawyers approved by the D P leadership and a ter wasting $100 million and came out with a report tha indicated eh fund no evidence he added an indocy that he cannt "exonerate{ Trump - a stupid idiocy since there is no provision in legal handbooks aand the cosnitution that anybody can be exonerated from a criminal guilty of a crime - charges must be laid. If a court has found the accused to be pardoned by the Presidenmt, Reccenrtly you qipted that BS as proving anything . NOBODY CAN EXONERATE ANYBODY ACCUSED OF COMMITTING A CRIME SUCH A PESON MUST BE ACCISED IN A COURT OF LAW. tHAT IS NOT FROM ANY NEWSAPER OT S FROM jUDICIAL PROCESSES IN THE USA.
In any event Muelleer was a despicable liar - he wa th person who convnced the S enate to authotize the Iraq invsion in 2003 claiming their is proof of Iraq has weapons of mass destruction - while it was proven to be a lie - causing the deaths of millions of people. His nxt racke protecion job relates to he Uranium 1 case. Uranium 1 used to be a SA company = but afterwars oved them to he Canadian stock exhnage,. Before that Unrium 1 gpt te mining rights on Uranium iro 25$ of the U SA strategic reserve of the USA. In 2011 the Russian Company Rosatom tried to buy Uranium 1, In view of the strategic situation the Obama Administration had tto approve of the sale, Despite eerything the sale was approved,
The D irham Specia Council was appointed to find the source of the lies used by the media months later Rosatom made a contribution of $142 million to t he racketeering Clinton Foundation. A a result of the obvious corrupt scandal Mueller was appoed as S pecial Council to investgate what happened, He claimed in his report he could found no proof of what happned to the $142 million and he could not implicate anybody invoved in the scam. So once a liar always a liar/
Now back to what really was found as t he rpigin of the Russian Collution allegations, Special Council Huxham found that the who sage was started by the Clinton Election Campaign supported by the Obma Afdmi.nistration. That was supported about the origin of the lies used in the media. In his report he exposed the lies and fale documents fed to the media came from the FBI and the CIA. Huxhm did find the basic truth about hat happened, - but one document was not made available to Huxham - it was a CIA document dated 7 December 2016 the CIA claimed that they could find no evidence of any corrupt and illegal relationship btween Trump's electopm camaign and the Russians. The document was supposed to eb released to the media on 8 December 2016 - but it was never released, since Obama called a meeting of some of his cabinet memebers - inclusive of Boden and Clintonm and together with the CIA nd FBI would act to undermine teh Trump A dministration wth the aim to have Trump impeached,
That dcuent was supposed tos top the leis of the Democrats and the emdia - but they enver stopped ying and you never stopped believing the lies, If I found out soebody had lied to em on a dai;y basis I would have learned fnmever to trust the media/. It later came out that th real reason for the raid by the FBI on Trump's home was driven b the fear that he may have a copy of the CIA report of 7 Dcember 2016 using ot he may put a lot of eople in jail. As ii was the document was not amomgst the documents ziessed by the FBI.
The above are based on report nd documents exposed since 2016 - and oif you continue with arguments based on lies you are suffering abdly from delusion and are psychologically irrationa.
l . .
"Try reading a few posts from ou Maaik or Draad . . ."
Aha, the new bandwagon...good luck with that.
Yes. Nazi Germany, under Hitler’s leadership, repeatedly attacked or disrupted infrastructure that supplied essentials such as water, power, housing, and transport in the countries it invaded or bombed. These attacks were often aimed at both military?industrial targets and civilian areas, and they crippled civilian life as much as the war economy.
The Luftwaffe deliberately bombed cities such as Warsaw in 1939 and Rotterdam in 1940, targeting urban centers, residential districts, and even clearly marked hospitals to break civilian morale and force surrender. Later in the war, the Luftwaffe also conducted terror?style bombing of British cities (e.g., the Blitz), which hit housing, utilities, and public services.
In occupied and bombed areas, attacks on power stations, railways, and urban infrastructure often deliberately or effectively cut off water supplies, electricity, and sanitation.
Hitler’s forces also seized and repurposed foreign utilities. In Norway, the Vemork hydroelectric plant was used to produce heavy water for Germany’s nuclear?weapons research, so it became a military?industrial target rather than a purely civilian water?and?power facility. This illustrates how “civilian” infrastructure such as hydro plants could be turned into strategic targets, and vice versa, blurring the line between military and civilian objectives.
List other leaders/countries that have used the same tactics since WW2
Completed 1 step
Since World War II, several leaders and governments have employed similar tactics—deliberately attacking or weaponizing civilian infrastructure such as water, electricity, and housing—to weaken enemy societies or populations. Below are some major examples, grouped by conflict and actor.
that Iran now holds the strategic initiative and the war will likely end when Iran decides it wants it to end, not Trump.
Undeniable ... fiddle dee dee dum dee.
bst
Stocks set new records, the only reliable indicator,
What?
Firstly while some stocks are achieving record high this month, it's actually not a historically high number. Of 5,135 stocks evaluated just 0.5%of them were at record highs.
Once again your comprehension lets you down …..but not your outrage. If you check a little higher in the thread you will notice Rooinek asks ‘define win first’. ‘Stocks set new records’ is an answer to that question, which Rooi clearly understood.
Just so you are clear, it doesn’t mean that stocks are setting new records, merely that stocks setting new records would be an indicator that the war had been successfully concluded.
Feeling silly again? Nobody with even the slightest knowledge of the stock market would assume stocks are setting records right now,
