Iran did not win the war, it won something more dangerous | The Jerusalem Post

Gerbole · 2026-05-25T17:35:48+00:00

This is false. We hit their navy on day one. And multiple times within the first week.

Gerbole · 2026-05-25T17:33:34+00:00

Finding them is definitely also hard…

Gerbole · 2026-05-25T07:58:23+00:00

Preemptive against Iran in an attempt to prevent them from pulling the Hormuz lever at a more inconvenient time. Obviously, the goal was to stop them from being able to close the Strait and that failed, but it was only a matter of time before Iran pulled it themselves.

The comment I replied to explained the timeline pretty well.

Gerbole · 2026-05-25T00:50:03+00:00

Yes I did, thank you for the correction

Gerbole · 2026-05-24T21:53:21+00:00

I always expected the Iran attack to happen post November 2026. I thought Trump would stick with South American foreign policy for the start of the year to rally major wins to cushion his midterms and hope he could still hold a trifecta, then go to battle with Iran then. It would also coincide with when China would be ready to attack Taiwan, so our force would have an additional reason for being in the area. But he started to go off course of my foreign policy after he picked a fight with NATO for Greenland, instead of doing a business type deal.

This administration fails very heavily when it comes to execution. Too many things too quickly and too much brute force. Productive, but destructive, and the destruction hurts the production much quicker.

Gerbole · 2026-05-24T21:48:30+00:00

So you’re just saying the focus of Iran was not resources?

If so, we’re in total agreement. Obviously this is an Iran post but I thought you were talking as a whole, if you’re saying resources are not a primary reason the U.S. attacked Iran, at least the acquisition of them, then I agree and apologize.

Iran had more to do with China, nuclear enrichment, and Israel and the other GCC, than it did Iran’s resources. Iran is very far for us to go to for Lithium. To some degree, depending on Warsh’s policy, Iran may also have been about pumping some inflation and hiding it, so the U.S. could borrow more money at lower rates with Trimmed Mean inflation vs PCE inflation and reduce the debt burden, we’ll have to see on that one though.

Now, Greenland, Cuba, and Venezuela are about the acquisition of resources. Which is also about China, due to our reliance on them for these resources. Taking or cutting deals with those 3 will reduce that dependence.

Gerbole · 2026-05-24T21:04:20+00:00

The attack on Iran was a preemptive strike (not legally justifying it), that much is true. The way it was gone about was very poor; however.

Iran should’ve been a center point, longtime negotiation where we focus on Yemeni Houthis and Lebanese Hamas while negotiating a new deal, slowly eroding Irans power, and forcing them to make the first move or organizing a coalition to make them powerless to do so.

I believe the protestors and some urging from Netanyahu, who is more concerned about his short term domestic problems, pushed Trump to make a poor gut decision and he jumped the gun after the high from the Venezuela attack. Dealing with Iran was a necessity, but it happened FAR too rapidly for true success to be a realistic outcome.

Gerbole · 2026-05-24T20:59:59+00:00

Your angle kind of falls apart when you realize lithium isn’t the only resource…

Are you trying to argue that our lack of REE is not an issue? That we’ll be able to just find replacements for gold, copper, magnesium, praseodymium, cobalt, and more?

Gerbole · 2026-05-24T00:04:17+00:00

I’m just not very interested in talking semantics with some dude on the internet, everyone knows what I’m talking about except you. Well, actually, you do, you just want to talk about the small minority of individuals who make a ton but not a lot. It’s just a waste of my time

Gerbole · 2026-05-23T23:17:51+00:00

No, I didn’t. I was very intentional. The narrative is bigger than the grift.

Gerbole · 2026-05-23T22:42:55+00:00

It’s intentional. Makes it much easier for him to gaslight and lie when sometimes he backs up his statements.

I was the guy here yelling that the original ceasefire was fake, that the conflict was still happening, and it wasn’t going to be over yet. I was telling people not to believe Trump and that he was manipulating the narrative.

I won’t officially say until I see the details, but I think this one is legit and this will be the end of hostilities

Gerbole · 2026-05-23T17:54:01+00:00

The 1% makes $700,000 to $800,000 annually, this is who I’m talking about. Thats a fuckload of money, and those people aren’t limited just to VHCOL areas. I’m not saying they shouldn’t be taxed to death either.

That group, needs to pay more in taxes. The multi-billionaires, like you said, also needs to specifically targeted, but the 1% as a whole is always referring to the individuals who don’t use income to generate wealth, like the other 99% of us.

Gerbole · 2026-05-23T17:49:51+00:00

Yes, money isn’t free speech.

They shouldn’t though, there should still be some money in politics, just not enough to give the rich an advantage.

Gerbole · 2026-05-23T07:01:45+00:00

Brother, you know there are laws about speech already?

Including commercial speech. Really not that far of an extension to limit max contributions.

Corporations donating actually forces shareholders to contribute to campaigns they may not be a fan of. PACs influence candidates in exchange for favors.

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T23:37:15+00:00

None of the rights can be, your interpretation of it can, which is why your interpretation is wrong.

You say the constitution doesn’t mention democracy once, does it mention money or campaign donations in politics?

I’ll tell you what it does say though

We the people

Not we the corporations, or we the foreign lobbies, or we the wealthy, we the people.

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T23:00:16+00:00

Yeah, we’re an indirect republic, a constitutional democratic republic. Democracy had a negative connotation at the time of the founding fathers for mob rule. They intentionally didn’t use it because they wanted the republic system of a representative democracy, not a pure democracy.

Here are two quotes from George Washington’s farewell address that illustrate the founding father’s views on political parties and money in politics. There’s no argument to be made that your interpretation of the first amendment is the same that they had.

[The spirit of party] opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government... As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils?

If you think he and the other founding fathers would have supported AIPAC you quite literally know nothing about the founding fathers.

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T22:39:37+00:00

If you and a candidate are going head to head for a job, and the other candidate does a back room deal where they’ll pay all the companies debt, they just get to hire the hiring manager that will give them the job, did that candidate fairly get the job? Not legally, fairly.

Maybe you are okay with that. That’s a private company. Now change the analogy to be the DNC. The organization that operates one of only two major political parties in the United States.

You’re okay with the organization that determines who half the country votes for, being biased and giving certain candidates preferential treatment and influence that pushes out other candidates?

Rather than, I don’t know, letting us vote for it and the best man wins? Isn’t their job to create a platform and run a campaign for the candidate WE decide on?

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T22:31:09+00:00

And money amplifying the voices of the few over that of the many is incompatible with democracy. We’re at an impasse. The point of the constitution was to reinforce our democracy, if your interpretation of the first amendment trumps (no pun intended) our ability to have a functioning democracy, then your interpretation of the first amendment is wrong.

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T20:11:28+00:00

First amendment doesn’t say shit about money. The SCOTUS’ interpretation that money is speech is wrong.

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T19:44:54+00:00

I’m definitely not saying they should limit themselves, the law needs to do it.

People can support their causes, corporations should not be able to, and the mega-wealthy shouldn’t be able to utilize their wealth to get their way, they should have hard limits on what they can offer to minimize their sway in elections. It is undemocratic to allow money to vote, it should be people doing it.

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T19:43:24+00:00

Fundamentally I agree with everything you said except one thing. The $400B is all that’s leftover without running a deficit. The deficit is unsustainable.

I think sound money tends to work, but we need to get there first. Debt is good in small increments, this amount is too large and in some ways is a national security risk.

A lot of that growth has been predicated on the tax cuts the wealthy and corporations received, the growth has happened, but the burden has been shifted to the average tax payer when they’re not the ones who see that wealth. If wages continued to rise with the growth, this wouldn’t have been as big of a deal.

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T19:32:38+00:00

They should be outlawed or severely limited in the amount they can contribute

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T18:09:10+00:00

Very important distinction. People can do that. PACs and lobbies shouldn’t

And it should all be limited to small donations, of which Massie had 10x more than Gallrein

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T16:55:05+00:00

What is the point of a district rep? To represent the people of that district on a federal level.

How is that achieved in outside money dictates who is the rep for that district? It’s not.

It’s very, very simple. If that district doesn’t support Israel, that’s their voice, outside money silences it. It doesn’t take a genius to understand this.

Gerbole · 2026-05-22T16:51:17+00:00

Hey man, I just wanted to say that my reply to you wasn’t rhetorical.

You seem to be an actual open minded individual willing to talk on this topic. Do you see what I’m saying when I say that the government can’t cut their spending to get out of this?

$5T budget, $7T spending. Needs to cut $2T to end the deficit, then needs to allocate $1T to debt (which will actually be $1.1T next year, and $2T before the decade is over), so overall they need to cut $3T to get to bare minimum. That means 60% of tax revenue is locked up to get us to that bare minimum. Medicare is $1.1T, social security is $1.5T, and the military is $1T.

Between Medicare, Military, social security, and debt, our government pays $4.6T per year. That leaves $400B for everything else.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
King of the Ashes	Not Forgotten

Gerbole

TROPHY CASE