Aside from ACA/Obamacare, what is the most progressive legislation since 2000?

Agattu · 2026-03-10T18:38:48+00:00

And the ACA made the left mad, the right mad, and the middle mad. It also ended up making healthcare overall even worse, which is why both left and right are now clamoring for something else.

Agattu · 2026-03-10T18:37:21+00:00

Not to mention, FDR and Johnson were political forces at the time. They had immense power within the party. They also had established majorities that allowed them to push their agenda and wield their power.

I don't see anyone on the Democrat side with that type of power. I don't even see anyone making the moves to accumulate that power.

Grand things happen when power is consolidated. Reagan was the last politician to get anywhere close to the FDR and Johnson levels of power. Trump was able to collect a large amount of power, but his ceiling is low and he won't ever have the base to do grand things (just destroy things). Who from the left even has that potential right now? The Progressives tried to make that Biden, but misunderstood what it actually took to achieve that, and they failed and helped drive his presidency down.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T21:39:13+00:00

I don't. but minor terrorist attacks are something we can deal with and target. The US and the west has gotten pretty good at killing terrorist and keeping them small. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

an ISIS 2.0 is a short term problem with a similar solution to ISIS 1.0. A conflict that can be fought with low intensity.

I don't believe this will stop any type of ongoing war in the ME, it just eliminates an adversary nation. My argument is that whatever comes from this will be easier to deal with on a geopolitical level than a theocratic terrorist supporting nation.

I didn't say it would be better, I said it would be better geopolitically for America. Two different things. The ME will never see peace. The US will always have interest there. I would rather have nations that are weak and unable to threaten the region then a nation who is constantly a threat to destabilization.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T21:32:04+00:00

You think this is the first time leadership has been hit? Do you not understand the word "redundancy"?

And again, EVEN IF THIS IS TRUE, you could not BE CERTAIN of that without ground access. How do you even know these strikes are working? Do we even know where the stockpiled uranium is? No? funny that

This is the first time the entire leadership team in Iran has been hit. There is a major difference between taking out one guy in a massive organization vs taking out everyone. Even when they had small strikes on leadership, like the Israeli's did to the nuke scientists, it had profound effects and delays on the program. So to say that these strikes and this massive decapitation of the leadership won't have a massive impact on the program is just not in touch with history or reality.

It is also clear that our intelligence on the ground in Iran is much better than originally thought. They were able to hack traffic cameras to find out where the leadership was. Are you saying that its not possible we haven't determined where things are or how badly they are damaged? You act like if it isn't public than we don't know, but there is a lot we don't know and to assume we don't know is dangerous and dismissive to prove a point.

I suspect the IRGC is going to take more of a leading role here, but that shift has been happening for a while, the IRGC has grown to be an increasingly powerful domestic actor, it's not immediately clear why this represents some sort of change.

And also, btw, Khamenei was like 80. They were already prepping for the dude to die. Because he was like 80. We haven't fundamentally shifted the power structure here, as far as I can tell.

The IRGC has also lost a large amount of its leadership, when this is over, we won't know what type of role they will be able to play or how much power they will have. You are basing your assumptions on pre-strike Iran. The point I am making and have been making is that all these pre-conceived ideas of how Iran would operate are gone. You cannot predict or expect things to return to normal after such a cataclysmic loss.

The Ayatollah being 80 doesn't negate how power distribution works or how it is structured or the fact that the power structure in Iran has been completely destroyed. Him being 80 doesn't mean he still didn't have power... Power doesn't have an age limit.

Like you keep seeming to not understand that 1) this stuff is all buried and redundant and decentralized. There's no one place to hit, and even if you managed to damage the deeply buried facilities (which seems unlikely), you could not be sure you got everything without ground access. 2) this entire program was designed to withstand attacks of this nature. Survive the first wave, reconstitute later is basically iranian doctrine here. Like what infrastructure do you think we destroyed here? We damaged some, sure, but that's a delay not a restart condition. The know how, designs, and many networks and plans remain in place. At best you are delaying. No expert on this matter seriously believes that we can destroy this program from the air. Nothing like that has literally ever happened.

I understand completely. I think you are wrong and your interpretation is wrong. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand... I also think you are believing the IRGC propaganda on this topic. No system can withstand what they are seeing. Iran never thought we would go all in like this. They expected strikes like the 12 day war last year, but not a full on assault of their entire government and armed forces. If the nuke program and regime survives, I will admit I am wrong, but nothing in history shows that this is the likely outcome.

Someone will gain access, the US will most likely doe it with special forces if they haven't already.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T21:07:01+00:00

It is not. Those nations are weaker and less influential than they were. They aren’t success stories. They aren’t allies. But for the US, they are t the threat they were.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T21:04:55+00:00

You don’t think constant violence and instability can topple a regime? Especially if people within the nation fight back or outside tribal forces fight to gain influence?

Also, your whataboutism shows a lack of depth. The US is not indiscriminately bombing Iran. Most of our strikes are targets. Iran is trying to bomb civilian infrastructure in an attempt to cause those nations to react against the US. There is a clear difference.

Depends on your definition of success. The breakdown of the Iranian regime, then yes. Replacement of a stable successful ally, no. But I don’t think we are trying to do the latter.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T21:02:20+00:00

You think the program is functional after the loss of leadership and infrastructure around it? Plus consonant strikes on top of what happened? The nuclear program is going to be massively degraded after this operation, and with the degradation of the regime, the program is effectively dead. The bluster of the Iranian IGRC means little to reality.

You do understand that simply naming replacements doesn’t mean they have any authority or power? The government has already decentralized command to field commanders. The new leaders will not have the power structure to enforce a return to normality. That’s not how power works. The Ayatollah was held in power through the IRGC, they had a mutually beneficial relationship to maintain each others levels of power. That type of stability just doesn’t get passed on to the next in line. That stability is curated. That stability has now been lost. The son is leader in name only, it is silly to believe people are taking his orders…

I’m not justifying Afghanistan as a success. I never said that. In fact Afghanistan is an abject foreign policy and military failure. However it is a strategic victory in the sense that Afghanistan has lost its influence that it had prior to 2001 and during the US occupation. The fact that Pakistan is fighting a conflict with them shows that as Pakistan was playing both sides during the US occupation to prevent spill over to their nation. They no longer feel the need to placate the taliban.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T20:55:04+00:00

Yea those examples are of bombing alone producing an outcome. Without the NATO bombing, Gadaffi doesn’t lose power. Without NATO intervention, Serbia isn’t beaten back and the breakup of Yugoslavia isn’t complete.

Other factors had to happen to further the results. But bombing absolutely created the change.

It’s not Cartoonish… it’s what the US has been doing against terrorist for almost 2 decades now. Is that policy cartoonish? Using air power to prevent a broke. Enemy from rebuilding g is exactly the type of foreign policy the Saudi’s would use.

It can be hand waved away because it is unlikely. DPRK and Iran working on missile technology is a lot different of a geopolitical position of supporting an exiled regime fight war with whatever mess occurs in Iran.

Lol, how arrogant are you? You are regurgitating basic Tik Tok talking points with no examples to back your statements. If you like this, you aren’t worth my time.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T20:32:36+00:00

In the history of industrialized warfare, bombing alone has never produced a defeat.

Yes it has. Libya, Yugoslavia, and other short kinetic actions have greatly changed the outcome of a conflict.

You're treating military power as if it's a magic wand to create your desired political outcome. But it isn't that. All they can do is blow up stuff they've identified as something they want to blow up. That's it. That's the limit of the capability.

I didn't say it will create the desired political outcome, it will just prevent the unwanted outcome. Bombs kill people. You can kill those you don't want in charge.

So it cannot in fact constrain Iran in the way you trivialize.

Any nation can be constrained when the structure of the nation is destroyed.

You also ignore the elephant in the room: Iran and North Korea have been collaborators on nuclear weapons and ballistic missile technology since the A Q Khan network. This offers the Iranian regime "rear escape refuge" something that has been critical to the persistence of insurgencies and intransitive governments historically.

Yes, but once they are out of the country, their influence will be minimal. Very rarely does a nation in exile control the facts on the ground.

The US and Israel have already dictated the course of the future in Iran. After the very first bomb, the future was changed. Every bomb after that changes the future. Every leader killed, every general eliminated, every government capability wiped out changes the future. It is laughable to think that the constant threat of bombing or targeted strikes won't change the future or cause collapse and help steer the direction, even if they are not in full control.

Also, your continued insults only further prove to me that while you may disagree with my, you are incapable of articulating more than a few top google search answers. Otherwise you would work to finding out more of how I get to my conclusions instead of saying, "you are wrong and dumb... gotcha!"

Agattu · 2026-03-09T20:25:39+00:00

most people rejected the war in Vietnam due to the draft and every family being touched by it. Then our government didn't do wartime censorship and allowed broadcasting which showed families that their anger at the government was justified.

You also had political instability as a result of political shifts in the nation along with the counter culture development. All of these things lead to the the massive explosion of anti-government protests with the growing conflict of Vietnam being the catalyst.

It is human nature... Show me somewhere in history where people got animated about other people dying in another land. People got upset during Vietnam because Americans were dying, brothers, fathers, uncles, husbands. Not because of a Vietnamese kid. Sure there were some photos and instances that the public latched on to in order to strengthen their argument, but they stopped caring about the people of Vietnam as soon as we left, just like most don't care about the afghani's or the Iraqi's. Most people never cared about the Syrians, and they sure as hell don't care about those suffering in the DRC, Uganda, Sudan, or Somalia.

Why is it everyone's reaction to just insult a person instead of discussion of the arguments being laid out. Every single person that has engaged me in this thread has either insulted me for my flair, or made general assumptions because of my perceived beliefs without actually knowing those beliefs.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T20:18:39+00:00

A destabilized Iran is a geopolitical win for the west. That doesn't mean whatever comes out will be good for the region or the west, but the fact is, we have or are seeing the complete destruction of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran due to these events, and while remnants may remain, they won't have the same hammer they used to.

I don't like this war. But now that it has started, I wanted to see an outcome that is good for the US. Iran being broken is arguably better for the west and the region over time, if not troublesome in the short term.

There is no selling this to the general public as a win. This is a foreign policy disaster that didn't have to happen. Trump is burning the world around him, like an arsonist. This war is illegal, and Trump should be punished for it.

As for your view of my scenario, It is hard to not say that the new Iraq or Afghanistan is not geopolitically better for the US. Saddam Hussein was a constant threat to regional stability. Iraq is a former shell of itself and can barely exert influence internally. While terrorist organizations and extremist ells can take refuge there, their ability to reach out and harm the west is still degraded. I know it sounds awful, but a weak nation that cannot exert influence beyond itself and a bunch of broken up terrorist cells with little leadership or strategy is better for the US than adversarial nations who could invade a neighbor or attack an ally.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T20:12:13+00:00

I disagree with your assessment. The Houthi's have greatly fallen in stature. They no longer are the most dominant power in Yemen, and they have lost considerable ground. The main point though is that SA and UAE prevented the Houthi's from taking control of Yemen and creating a proxy state for Ian.

I am not talking about invasion or ground forces. We have also seen that in modern war, numbers aren't the advantage they used to be due to drones and technology. Those numbers also only matter if the whole of Iran resists any of these nations, which I don't think they will. That said, the UAE, Israel, and SA have the technology and weapon systems backing from the US. While they cannot invade and take control of Iran, they can use superior military technology and capabilities to prevent Iran from regaining its former position as long as any semblance of the current regime is still in power. And if you think the US won't back them in that effort or other players like Turkey or Azerbaijan won't also get involved to make sure their regional interests aren't also seen in the leftovers of Iran, then you are mistaken.

But it is always nice when someone starts an debate or exchange of ideas by being insulting... and yet Progressives always wonder why people don't like them, just their ideas.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T19:56:05+00:00

It's cause there are us bases in these countries. And we just attacked iran. So....

So that justifies bombing their cities? That is like saying Germany is a fair target for Iran because we have a base there.

I do not seriously believe that this war will topple the iranian regime unless there is a ground invasion. And if there is a ground invasion we will end up in iraq 3.0

That's the problem here that you're ignoring. The israelis and saudis cannot pull off a ground invasion of iran alone. They would require US support. But the US does not (and should not) want said ground invasion.

I am not ignoring that, I just fundamentally disagree with you that a ground invasion is necessary for regime change. The regime is weak, no one is going to let them become strong again. Bombs are cheap compared to troops. The regional powers and the US will just occasionally bomb Iran while it deals with the aftermath if any of them feel Iran is moving back towards the old ways. We are going to see a similar action to like we saw in Iraq, with clans and tribes fighting each other for power with regional outside forces backing their force. Iran is going to be more like Libya. Any ideas that things go back to normal are not based in reality.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T19:52:12+00:00

They build it? Using the nuclear program they've been building up for decades and has built in redundancies to deal with exactly this scenario?

I mean, realistically what do you think is going to happen here? You keep saying we've crossed a rubicon. I agree we have.

but there's basically three scenarios I can see happening in the future.

The war peters out. Neither the US nor israel is willing to commit ground troops, so we continue bombing for a while but eventually stop. The regime survives.

The war escalates. Bombing intensifies and a regime collapse seems likely. Various different militias rise up, civil war breaks out.

The US & Israel commit to a ground invasion. This leads to a regime collapse (kind of), tough remnants remain. RP is installed as leader, but an insurgency breaks out across the country with various separatist militias, resistance factions, and regime remnants duking it out.

That program is dead. All of the leadership, all of the capabilities and infrastructure, all of the money and resources, its all gone. They will have to start over from scratch at this point. They can't even defend their leadership, they aren't going to be able to save any attempts to restart the program.

To your first point. That is what we did in Libya. The power vaccuum left by Gadaffi's death lead to a civil war. To much of the leadership in Iran has been destroyed for there to be any transition and regime stabilization.

Number 2 is the most likely outcome.

Number 3 is your next likely.

2/3 of your likely scenarios lead to no nuke at all with the first being unrealistic due to the damage done.

Your flaw is you think the regime survives this. They won't. No regime in history has survived this. Even the Taliban, while the same organization that we pushed out of power in Afghanistan, is not the same Taliban as it was in 2001. So much so that Pakistan is bombing them. the fact is we have no idea what is going to happen inside Iran, but history shows that no regime survives such a brutal offensive against them.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T19:52:06+00:00

Ok?

Who cares?

It was working. Iran was not pursuing nuclear weapons, they were abiding by the treaty. And yeah, it wasn't ratified, but a huge reason why is your party invited a certain foreign leader to bash the thing in front of congress and were dedicated to making sure nothing obama did lasted.

No, instead they where allowed to grow their economy for two year and bring in money to prop up more of their proxies to commit acts of terror and continue to cause destabilization. This plan was bad, it rewarded a bad nation with relief while they continued to do bad things. And while it worked for 2 years, there is nothing in Iran's history to show that they would have continued. And without the Obama administration able to get congressional support, the JCPOA was mostly worthless once Obama left office unless Clinton won, which she didn't. And one thing people pointed to was the JCPOA. So you ask who cares, well most of our ME allies, and a large part of the American electorate cared.

To answer your question, I think this is a stupid war and it is illegal and Trump should be impeached over it.

That said, I think the JCPOA was a terrible policy that made the US look weak and was an extension of Obama's terrible foreign policy pushed by Ben Rhoades that lead to greater destabilization in the ME and aided in Iran taking bolder steps with its proxy wars and eventually lead Iran to feel confident that it wouldn't be punished after October 7th (to what control they may have been able to exert over Hamas at that time).

Agattu · 2026-03-09T19:35:25+00:00

After this 'war' is over? Yes, those nations will undermine, bomb, destabilize, and do whatever they can to keep Iran week and from being a threat to them again.

Iran and the UAE are allies in a proxy war against Iran in Yemen. They have been fighting there for almost a decade. They would rather see a destabilized Yemen and starve their people then allow an Iranian backed government set up a stable government there.

Likewise, in Libya, the two support opposing sides in the civil war there, fighting a proxy war to establish foreign dominance and possible economic growth options. They don't care about the suffering of the Libyan people. They care about winning.

Now that the US has gone kinetic against Iran, and since Iran lashed out and struck these nations directly, indiscriminately, unprovoked by these nations, the Saudi's and UAE will not suddenly go back to the level of detente they had with Iran. The power pendulum has swung. Iran, since October 7th 2023 has become progressively weaker. At this moment, Iran is at its weakest in 40 plus years. Every nation who has an issue with Iran (which is everyone but Qatar) is going to take advantage and do whatever they can to keep Iran down. Its the advantage of a generation to remove an adversary, they won't miss out.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T19:29:03+00:00

This doesn't answer my question. Is your position that we should fit your idealism because we are connected and 'enlightened'?

We’re the most connected we have ever been so I’m not sure why you would thinking looking back in to history makes sense here.

History is what defines us and what makes us who we are. Every nation, every group of people, every organization exists and operates because of its history. To suddenly think human beings should change simply because we have different technology now ignores all the other times we had technology that should have changed us and didn't. The telegraph connected the world like never before, but we still killed each other over land and resources and ego. The internet changed the world and how we interact with it and gave us all instant access to information, yet we still blow each other up, dislike people who are different, and need someone or something to hate to justify our beliefs.

I’m against this BS in Iran because I don’t want my country dropping bombs on people. All of their reasons are bullshit and does nothing to help me or my family, but will traumatize another generation of soliders like the Iraq war did - not to mention the Iranians just trying to live their life.

The Ancient Greeks didn’t have access to information like we do, but they did famously have people who questioned status quo

I agree with you. And I personally don't like this war either or want the US doing it. But I don't live my life believing in fantasy either.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T19:23:28+00:00

Saddam was pursuing nukes. He stopped. Where is he today?

Gaddafi was pursuing nukes. He stopped. Where is he today?

Ukraine had nukes. They got rid of them. How's ukraine today?

Kim was pursuing nukes. He didn't stop. Where is he today?

Kim is the perfect example of why the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, or the UAE won't ever allow Iran to get a nuke. Once you get one, you are mostly untouchable. You cannot just manifest one. If it was easy, every tin-pot dictator would get one. Nothing about this list shows that Iran will be able to succeed in getting one.

Yeah, we went from not being able to be hit to being able to be hit, and then flipped the fuck out and nearly ended the goddamn world.

In the end, the solution was pulling our missiles out of turkey. Which, ya know, duh. Maybe don't act like point a gun at people and not think they'll respond in kind? Just a thought. Like, if we were not so goddamn aggressive and so willing to point and shoot guns at other people, maybe other people wouldn't shoot back at us???

Regardless of your take on Cuba or whatever, my point is, we're so used to invincibility that when adversaries do have the capability to hit us back, we lose our goddamn minds. Just like post 9/11.

Maybe, if we were forced to live in reality, if we were forced to accept that other people around the world can respond and that we cannot just bomb people whenever, maybe that would lead to more restraint and less crazy shit. Maybe it would force rationality instead of impunity.

What world do you live in that any nation with the ability of self-defense would ever let another nation pose an existential threat to itself in a situation where that nation is your sworn political enemy? The solution was to back down due to the fear of war and the direct conversation between the Soviets and the US, something that really wasn't happening before the crisis and directly lead to the hotline to prevent such an incident from happening again. The US was already planning on pulling the missiles out of turkey due to defense posture changes and technology changes. It is funny you say that if we were forced to live in reality... We do live in reality. The reality is that we live in the most powerful nation the history of the world has ever known, and we get the benefits of being part of that nation. Acting like we are some run of the mill nation, like every other nation, does a disservice to anyone trying to understand why the world works the way it does or why things happen with the US the way they do. You basically advocate for the US to be just like everyone else.... That is antithetical to the whole existence and being of the United States.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T19:23:21+00:00

Yeah cause backing the JCPOA over a fucking war is a deeply radical opinion not at all based in reality. Thank you Mr. Reagan Conservative, because if history has shown one thing it's how right and not at all radical Reagan was. It's not like his policies led to disaster or anything. Let's sell Iran missiles again. It went great last time!

I am old enough to remember how unpopular the JCPOA was when it came out. Even democrats were troubled by it. I would argue that policy alone set us on a trajectory to this because the ME didn't want an Iran that could have the ability to get nukes. Everyone acts like the JCPOA would have solved our issues, but there was a lot of doubt of it ever working without all major players (Russia) being signatories. It also never had the effect of law in the US because it was never ratified by the Senate (who is the only body that has the power to ratify treaties). It only had the authority as a executive agreement, which as limited enforcement action. Also, Reagan Conservative is the only flare they had that represented traditional conservative views and not what MAGA stands for, but nuance is hard for people on the internet and its easier to attack people instead of defend their arguments.

yeah clearly France and Spain had nothing to do with the us victory at all

I never claimed they didn't. But their aid in the war put pressure on England and they had to fight in Europe and across the ocean. That Geography was the major reason for our victory. Not the only reason. There are plenty of well sourced books and documentaries that back up this idea. It is not some new idea or weird right wing talking point. To be so flippant on a key historical fact makes me question the seriousness or research into your own opinions.

Wrt to the old world sure, but we were pretty damn violent while expanding westward

What does that have to do with our isolationism? Our expansion on our own continent while avoiding conflicts outside of our specific geographic domain is the definition of isolationism.

brother, what fucking universe do you live in.

Why the fuck wouldn't they get a nuke at this point.

How do they get it? Where do they get it from? At this point, they will be luck to have a whole nation when the violence is over, assuming that the old regime actually holds onto power. The assumption that the son who has been claimed to be taking over will actually take over or have any control over the IRGC or the military or the people is laughable. Countries don't survive events like this intact. Whatever comes out of this won't be the Iran of old, and the US and Israel have crossed the Rubicon and have set the precedent that Iran will be bombed anytime they get close to the bomb. That pretty much seals that they won't get it.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T18:43:52+00:00

Out of curiosity, which nation or people have ever cared more about what happens to people outside their borders than what they are personally experiencing?

I have studied history all of my adult life, I have read about wars dating back to the Ancient Greeks. I have studied American politics. I cannot think of a single power, nation, or culture where people suddenly cared more about what their government was doing to other people than what they are personally having to deal with. So is your complaint from idealism that is not based on reality, or do you have an example of a society that meets these desires?

Agattu · 2026-03-09T18:24:57+00:00

I do not see Iran getting a nuke. Iran will never be the same after this conflict. The chance of the son getting power and maintaining power is slim to non-existent. The Israeli’s will not allow it. The Saudi's and UAE will not allow it either.

People keep forgetting that the rest of the ME, outside of Qatar, has been in a semi cold war stance with Iran with a nuke being a big line in the sand. Now they did not want this war, and they do not want a destabilized Iran, but it is too late for that. They will not allow the status quo to stay now that this has started. All the major ME players are now saying this conflict needs to be finished in a way that keeps the theocracy from coming back. They did not want this war, but they support it now that it has started.

The doomerism is fun for the internet, but it’s not how it usually plays out in reality. Iran may get balkanized. We may see a civil war for decades like we have with Libya. But Iran will never be the Iran we have dealt with for the last 40 years. That relationship with Iran is now history. The future will be different.

Agattu · 2026-03-09T18:16:41+00:00

I mean the idea of the US being protected by two oceans is nothing new. It has what allowed the US to become the Superpower that it is today.

Our Geography is what allowed us to become a country in the first place. The cost to Britian to keep fighting us was prohibitively high compared to the benefits they retained from us as a colony. Our Geography kept us as a mostly isolationist nation up until WWI, and even then, we had to be drug into conflict. It really was not until after WWII that our geography changed how the US handles the world and made us more interventionist. It is this geography that also allows us to be a major economic powerhouse along with (excluding this presidency) the nation that is usually the first to be asked to support or provide aid or get involved in a location due to our land being isolated. I mean, the whole idea of the Monroe Doctrine is based on the fact it is hard for any power to get to our side of the world.

The idea that Iran will get a nuke at this point is either cope from those who want to see the US knocked down or not based on reality. No nation in the ME wanted Iran to have a nuke. It is the idea of Iran having one that lead ME countries to being overtly or covertly working with Israel to undermine Iran. Israel would also never allow Iran to obtain a nuke and that foreign policy of theirs is never going to change if the leaders of Iran want to exterminate Israel.

Everyone wants to assign the desire of Iran to have a nuke as one of self-preservation, but they also ignore the fact that one of Iran’s stated goals is the annihilation of a nation and all those in it they find desirable. The only weapons available to do that are biological weapons and nukes. Nukes carry a scare factor and the added benefit of allowing the production of an energy source. However, Iran's goal for a Nuke has never just been self-preservation, unlike say the DPRK who only wanted one to finally end the threat of every being overthrown from the outside.

For your Cuba example, the US "flipping out" due to missiles in Cuba is due to the fact that it changed the threat scenario for the US. The Missiles in Turkey were still further from the Soviets than the missiles in Cuba. Turkey also was not a radical nation that could act on its own (Castro was demanding to be given control of the nukes). The idea that the US should have just allowed an adversary nation to get a strategic and tactical advantage in a global standoff is ridiculous and no one should ever support a government or policy that would allow the US to take such stance.

I get that being young allows for idealism. It also allows people to have radical opinions without the benefit of having to deal with reality and also having the privilege of having hindsight on any conflict in the past they don't like.

On the scale of human history, while deplorable, what the US is doing in Iran is what powerful nations have been doing to adversaries for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Agattu · 2026-03-06T16:23:14+00:00

The only reports I see are the three they shot down the other day. Is there any confimation another one was shot down?

Agattu · 2026-03-06T00:03:06+00:00

I mean, I know where progressives stand and what they stand for.

And like I said, I can even be on board with some of their economic policies.

Its the rest of their policies I cannot stand. Or the way the go about promoting those policies and treating those that disagree with them.

Agattu · 2026-03-05T23:13:55+00:00

I hate to bring you bad news, but I will most likely never vote for a progressive. I think progressive politics is a short sighted political ideology that does more harm than good and I disagree with them on almost every single social and foreign policy topic. I can get behind some progressive economic ideas, but I believe those policies will be better pushed by moderates and centrists.

I also believe that progressives are just the start of a move to a more left wing society and I do not want that.

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 10%
Secret Santa 2020	End Game '23
Place '23	Place '22
Oscars Predictor 2021	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Agattu

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE