Frank wrote on Mar 24^th, 2026 at 8:32pm:


Does this help to answer your question, Sad?

Frank wrote on Mar 24^th, 2026 at 8:32pm:


How could I possibly answer that in any meaningful way?

You're asking what I'd do differently to Trump. Fine. At the most basic level, we could start with not sexually abusing minors.  But, I assume you're trying, unsuccessfully, to gesture toward policy rather than character.

So let's narrow it properly. On Iran, before anyone can propose an alternative course of action, we need to establish something you've consistently refused to articulate: what exactly are the objectives? What was the strategic goal behind initiating the conflict, and what outcome is meant to justify it?

Without that, the question is empty. You can't compare alternatives to a plan that hasn't even been defined.

This has always been your problem. You're deeply invested in defending positions you won't clearly state. You gesture toward support, you echo talking points, but when pressed on what you actually believe the goal is, you go evasive.

If you support going to war with Iran, then by definition, you support the objectives behind that decision. So spell them out. What are they? Regime change? Nuclear containment? Regional dominance? Domestic political theatre? Pick one, or at least have the intellectual honesty to nominate the mix you think justifies it.

You've already seen that I'm willing to engage in good faith when someone actually puts forward a coherent rationale, as I did with Tallo. The difference is that they were prepared to state a position that could be examined.

So I'll ask again, plainly: what are the goals you believe justify this war?

Until you answer that, your question about "what would I do differently" is just a deflection dressed up as an argument.

Avoidance, as usual.

I think you expected a one-line answer from me, rather than an actual discussion, so you could use that answer as a way to insult me. 

Do better.

Sadroo, I  your opinion has Iran the intention to build nuclear weapons?

chimera wrote on Mar 25^th, 2026 at 10:26am:

Yes, the first part of the article does draw such a parallel to illustrate a point:

If Not Trump’s Way, What?
Peter Smith

Mar 22 2026

There is a curious remark without informative follow-up at the end of the first paragraph in Roger Partridge’s piece “Trump and the Paradox of American Power” in Quadrant Online on March 12. It is two sentences long and goes like this: “I have long favoured taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities. But not like this.”

Supposing I were to say that I favoured the unconditional surrender of Japan in August 1945 but not in the way it was produced by Harry Truman. To me that makes sense. There was an alternative which had been discussed and debated. The alternative was to invade and occupy Japan island by island. This alternative was rejected principally because it would have cost the lives of too many American soldiers. It might or might not have resulted in fewer Japanese non-combatants, including women and children, being killed. Another alternative of a different kind was to pursue a peace deal with Japan which fell short of unconditional surrender.

Truman made his decision. Many Japanese civilians died in the atomic blasts. My purpose in bringing this up is not to relitigate Truman’s decision; it is to suggest that there were two alternatives to dropping the bombs which were coherent and comprehensible.

Now back to Iran and its nuclear facilities. Donald Trump has decided to bomb the facilities out of existence and to cripple the regime’s capacity to reconstitute them in any short period of time. He would like a regime change in order to produce a long-lasting solution. But that, he recognises, is not necessarily within his power to bring about.

Partridge appears to know another way of “taking out” Iran’s nuclear facilities. Presumably a better way than Trump’s. Fine, but what is it? In my WWII example, the alternatives open to Truman were evident and explicable. But in this case any alternative appears to be shrouded in mystery; to me anyway.

How can Iran’s nuclear facilities be taken out without bombing them? I would like to give Partridge credit that he isn’t second guessing the US military’s tactics; but, instead, has something more fundamental in mind. One hopes that this alternative isn’t as wishy-washy and empty as any strategy other than Trump’s. Reflexively not agreeing with whatever Trump does is not a strategy. It falls under the mental sickness of TDS.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/middle-east/if-not-trumps-way-what/

Frank wrote on Mar 25^th, 2026 at 10:39am:


In your own words, Frank.

In one succinct sentence.

Frank wrote on Mar 25^th, 2026 at 10:39am:


What you've posted still doesn't answer the question, it just avoids it more eloquently.

You've written a long moral justification for bombing Iran, invoked Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama for historical flavour, compared the regime to Nazis and serial killers, and then declared that "something must be done". None of that tells us what the actual objective is.

You keep asking for an "alternative plan", but you refuse to define what success even looks like. That's not a serious question, it's a rhetorical trap. If the goal is regime change, that's one discussion. If it's stopping weaponisation, that's another. If it's delaying the program, that's something else again. Each requires a completely different strategy, and has completely different costs and risks.

Instead, you collapse all of that into a single emotional premise, "they are evil", and then pretend the only logical conclusion is bombing. That's not strategy, that's moral theatre standing in for analysis.

You also assert that diplomacy "doesn't work" while simultaneously describing a situation where bombing hasn't achieved a decisive outcome either. Iran still has fissile material, still has intent, and now has even less incentive to cooperate. By your own account, the policy you're defending hasn't solved the problem, it's entrenched it.

So I'll ask you again, plainly:

What is Trump's objective?

Is it zero enrichment?
Is it no nuclear weapons capability?
Is it long-term containment?
Or is it outright regime change?

Until you answer that, your "what would you do differently" question is meaningless, because you can just shift the goalposts after the fact and declare any alternative a failure.

Define the objective, then we can talk about methods. Until then, this isn't a debate, it's just you insisting that bombing feels right and working backwards from there.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 25^th, 2026 at 11:15am:


I think you've identified exactly why Frank doesn't want to list the objectives of the war with Iran.

It would give us not only context to suggest a different course of action as he's requested, but set immovable goalposts to judge the success of Trump's war.

Accountability is toxic to MAGA.  It forces them to face realities they are ill-equipped to handle.

As Scoot put it:

aquascoot wrote on Mar 24^th, 2026 at 3:51pm:


This is what it takes to stay MAGA in 2026.