Iranian Uprising

Widow maker 223 said:
They want the people distracted. Once the normies finally see what is coming here in a few weeks to months. It will be just like the great TP famine of the dark Rona times.

Also everyone forget that the FDIC is insolvent, they are a joke anyhow. They have 99yrs to pay you back LOL. Most banks in the country are insolvent too. Let that sink in. If a bank run starts happening the big cities will be lit.
Click to expand...
I don’t think major systems tend to break in one dramatic collapse—they usually shift and strain over time, through pressure points that build gradually and are visible in real time if you’re looking for them. A lot of people would say we’ve been in a kind of denial about how those long-term changes accumulate.

As T. S. Eliot put it, “this is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.”
 
Anybody watch the House Armed Services Committee hearing (April 29, 2026)?

According to right-wing media—especially if you’re tuned into Fox News—this thing looks buttoned up. Strong leadership, necessary fight, everything moving according to plan. The kind of confidence that makes it sound like the ending’s already written and we’re just watching it play out. And if you dare ask a direct question—like what victory actually looks like or how this ends—you’re suddenly framed like you’re rooting for Iran instead of just asking for a plan. Real reassuring… until you actually listen to what was said in the hearing.

Because in the room, it wasn’t that clean. Both sides flagged the same uncomfortable reality: stockpiles are thinner than they should be, supply chains aren’t exactly built for a long war, and the timeline has already drifted past what was originally sold. That’s not spin—that’s just what was sitting on the table.

Then you had Democrats doing something almost dangerous in today’s climate—asking direct questions: What does victory look like? What are the benchmarks? How does this end? And instead of getting a roadmap, they got polished, high-level language about strength and deterrence. Which sounds great right up until you realize it doesn’t actually tell you where the finish line is—or if anyone bothered drawing one.

So here’s the disconnect: we’re being sold certainty, while the people in the room couldn’t get straight answers on the fundamentals. And if you’re a die-hard Trump loyalist, that probably just becomes “trust the plan.” But it’s hard to ignore the pattern—confidence on the front end, vagueness on the back end, and a lot of faith filling in the gaps where specifics should be.

“No forever wars”—but this is where the eerie parallels start showing up, and they’re not subtle. Clear initial objective… fuzzy long-term definition. After the September 11 attacks, Afghanistan had a straightforward goal: dismantle al-Qaeda and remove Taliban protection. Iraq was framed around WMDs and regime change. Both started with something concrete. What came next was a lot less defined early on.

And I’ll be honest—I used to be a lot more comfortable with the “go in hard and figure it out” mindset. But watching how this plays out in real time, it starts to feel like confidence is doing a lot more work than clarity ever did.

Did any of you get a different take on it?
 
So far, we have. The nuke material is buried, will take a bunch of $ to dig it out which Iran doesn't have. But yes, not like Germany and Japan who 'quit' after their military was taken out. We would have won Korea if Mac was allowed to go after the Chinese. Might have needed another A-bomb though. But I will agree with you, always been somebody in history wanting to fight a war. Doubt that will change.
 
That is a relief—we won. I was starting to doubt it there for a second. Anyway, glad we cleared that up. Finally can get back to making America not only first, but greater…
 
Now to get rid of Cornyn and Thune and the like! No SAVE act and all in for Gov controlled 'bit coin'. FDIC is not broke, just has $ in same place we do and never intended to save from a major crash. Nor bail out NYC that is billions in debt.
No nukes in Iran? That do? And Iran has gotten UAE and others mad.
 
my cousin is a retired Admiral. he once told me that we shouldnt get into any conflict with out a clear exit strategy. in other words...know what the end goal is and how to achieve it.
 
bohunr said:
my cousin is a retired Admiral. he once told me that we shouldnt get into any conflict with out a clear exit strategy. in other words...know what the end goal is and how to achieve it.
Click to expand...
Your cousin’s point is exactly what makes all of this hard to square.

If you’re getting all your information from Fox News, Trump, and his war department, then yeah—you’re probably going to think we “won.” But if you listen to what was actually said in yesterday’s hearing, it’s a different tone entirely.

When pressed on cost, they testified we’ve already spent about $25 billion—and that’s just the initial phase. They also said they can’t provide a total projected cost yet because the scope and duration still aren’t clearly defined.

On the core objective, they did not present a final accounting of the nuclear material—only that it’s been disrupted, with portions still unaccounted for or inaccessible.

That leaves your cousin’s “exit strategy” question unanswered—because if the scope, timeline, cost, and even the end-state conditions aren’t fully defined, then neither is the endpoint. Calling it a clean “win” doesn’t match the testimony—that’s not spin, that’s what was put on the record.
 
Back
Top