DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Iran War II

I said they have their own intel. I said that if Iran can deliver a nuclear device to us they can also deliver one to them. Pay attention.


I highly suggest you take this into consideration..................

"I always thought it was me against the world and then one day I realized it’s just me against me."

So you think European intelligence agencies have the same level of intel on Iran that Mossad and the CIA do? I doubt they even tell Trump all the details because he's a blabbermouth that would burn sources (and he'd get bored if they tried.)

In theory, yes, Iran or their proxies can deliver elsewhere. Yet, there's no indication that they intend to deliver anything anywhere other than Israel or the US. The people with the direct threat are more likely to take a situation more seriously than those only threatened indirectly, especially when the undertaking is expensive.


I think you're projecting again and should take your own advice. My eyes are open, and I'm not the one fighting myself.

I have already shown you how there were European nations with intel that was far more accurate than our own in regards to Iraq having WMD. Yet they trusted U.S. intel over their own which led to a huge mistake on their part. I know you have yourself convinced that the U.S. is the best at everything, all the time. But that's simply not true.


Not only is there an indication of it, there is proof of it...............

Saudi Arabia: Strikes on key energy infrastructure, including the Shaybah oil field, and Prince Sultan Air Base.

United Arab Emirates: Missile and drone attacks causing fires at oil facilities (like in Fujairah) and debris impacts near Dubai's Al Minhad Air Base.

Bahrain: Direct strikes targeting the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet Headquarters and local refining infrastructure.Kuwait: Heavy ballistic missile and drone interceptions over U.S. and allied facilities, including Camp Arifjan.

Qatar: Drone and missile attacks targeting the Al Udeid Air Base.Iraq: Multiple strikes on military sites (such as Jurf al-Sakher) and areas near the U.S. consulate in Erbil.

Jordan: Interception of drones and missiles over U.S. and allied installations, including the Muwaffaq Salti Airbase.

Syria: Escalation of strikes by Iran and affiliated militias against U.S. and allied outposts.

Cyprus: A drone strike hit the British RAF Akrotiri military base.

Anyone that are allies of the U.S. in the region have been struck. You know, nations Iran is actually capable of striking.

As much as you wish to minimize, rationalize and skirt around the facts, not only has Europe refused to back us in battle ships, aircraft carriers and ships of war even just show force alone and defend the Strait of Hormuz, they even refused to send mine sweepers to help clear the strait. Yet they were there in Afghanistan and they were there in Iraq.

And before you go off on another back alley stroll, if there is any president in my lifetime Europe would capitulate to it would be trump. He has already hit them with massive trade tariffs. He has threatened to back out of NATO. They know just how vindictive and punitive he can be. Since you brought up financial ramifications.

Earlier you blamed it on what I read in the media and the usual blah, blah, blah BS the right uses. But none of that is needed. Anyone keeping up with things knows what I just posted is true.

All one needs to do is read actual quotes from trump and see how Europe reacted. All you need to do is see that Europe was there for us in Iraq. They were there for us in Afghanistan and they are not there for us now. You can look at our allies in the region to see that Iraq will attack any of our allies they can reach by the strikes they have conducted since the start of this "excursion".

And if anyone would punish them for it, it would be trump.

Not to muddy the waters, but simply to add, NATO allies refuse to let American forces use their bases to fuel planes for proactive strikes against Iran. That goes beyond. Just not turning up and supporting the war effort. They do not believe the war is justified. And that is not because they want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

That isn't muddying the waters. That serves as an exclamation point.

Well I don't think the other person is having an honest conversation... I don't want a comment from me to derail whatever the talking point of the moment is. But yes, if Europe thought Iran was close to a nuclear weapon, then they would have joined in the efforts in Iran. They did not and they do not.

No, I definitely don't think we are the best at everything. Stop making up BS, if you're capable, which seems unlikely. It seems to be all that you do. False claim after false claim. Mossad is generally considered the top intelligence agency, and this is happening in their "sandbox." You haven't shown more accurate intel. You've shown articles making claims after the fact. One piece of bad evidence does not show good intel elsewhere. The British probably have the best intelligence service in the EU and they're the ones that provided us with the "bad intel."

None of those countries are in the EU, which is what we were talking about. Most of these aren't in NATO. And most of the targets were bases we use. So effectively, they were still targeting US. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have carried out attacks in Iran. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/14/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-uae-iran-attacks.html

The EU/NATO has most of its forces tied up watching Russia already. It's one of the most basic principles of warfare to never fight a war on two fronts. NATO has 8 multinational battlegroups deployed on its eastern border. Their naval groups are active in the Mediterranean and Baltic Seas for the same reason. Non-US NATO countries have a total of six active aircraft carriers. Between the Med, Baltic and their own borders, they're busy. We have 11 traditional carriers and 9 helo carriers on our own. "Mine sweepers" don't really get used a whole lot any more. It's more drones or helo-towed equipment now. They could still be used elsewhere, but in the Strait where they'd be susceptible to artillery fire, not really going to be used.

Now who is making up bogus BS. Europe capitulating to Trump? Doesn't seem like you've ever been to Europe. Or anywhere overseas for any amount of extended time. If anything, Trump has the opposite effect. They are more likely to do things just to spite Trump.

Anyone that is not just sucking at the mass media teat or lost entirely in their own fantasy world knows that what you just posted is the opposite of true. The list of places seemed legit, but they support my position more than yours. The rest was slop from your imagination.

Is it not justified or is it just politically expedient to "stand up to Trump" because Trump is massively unpopular pretty much everywhere and the current heads of state in Spain and Italy have hit rough patches in their own popularity at home and supporting Trump is political suicide there?

It'd be great to have a president that wasn't himself "radioactive" figuratively speaking.

Or is it because Spain really want Iran to have a nuke?
Or is it because they were all high at the time?
Or maybe They did it as a dare?

Along with France and the UK and Austria and Switzerland ....

See ... you aren't here for an honest conversation.

Donald Trump: Hero in the Fight Against Global Warming?

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/the-world-is-quietly-adapting-to-9-less-oil-100000514.html

Posting purposefully absurd reasons is having an honest conversation? I think you need to look in the mirror to see who isn't being honest.

Austria and Switzerland both have always had "strict, legally binding doctrine(s) of permanent neutrality." France is another country with political upheaval at home.

We're actually using RAF Fairford, so I'm not sure why the UK is on your list. link

I think it's either because you're not interested in honest conversation or you don't really understand how the military and politics intersect. Yes, the UK is calling it defensive mission use for political reasons, but they're basically also calling anything related to Iran's military or nuclear facilities defensive. It's part of the reason I hate politics. Saying one thing for appearances while really doing something else is, annoyingly, the way politics are played.

You did nothing but go on a personal attack rant and ignored pretty much every point I made. If Mossad is generally considered the top intelligence agency, and this is happening in their "sandbox.", why has Netanyahu been claiming Iran has been on the verge of having a nuclear weapon for 30 years now?

I stated factual information you can't refute based solely on what has happened. Once you can't refute factual things that actually happened, you lose. You're just not smart enough to figure that out yet.

Netanyahu is nothing but Israel's version of trump. He is currently charged with crimes in his own country and has been playing The Boy Who Cried Wolf over Iran for over three decades now. Yet you claim not to trust trump as you claim Netanyahu is preaching the gospel.

As has been pointed out to you, the world disagrees with you. Not according to the media but based on their own words backed up by actions.

Now go back on another one of your childish rants.

I commented on practically every "point" you tried to make and explained why I disagreed with your interpretation.

Maybe because Iran has been working towards nuclear weapons for more than 30 years now, with Mossad continuously trying to set them back?

The facts you're claiming, some of which I've admitted, don't support the "inferences" (seem to be fallacies) you are making based upon them.

Naftali Bennett was Israel's prime minister from 2021-2022. He had the same stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Your interpretation of what the world's words and actions mean are not facts.

Facts are not interpretations.

I was only half-joking when I posted that DJT will have done more for EV adoption than Biden.

I think my "absurd" reasons are just examples of the type of none fact based, emotional "what if" deflection you peddle in sometimes.

If France or any other NATO ally had intel to suggest Iran had imminent ability to make a nuke, they would have joined in the war effort ... or let the US use their bases.

The UK did NOT permit the USA to fuel planes for proactive attacks on Iran - it supported the US only in defensive actions where allies (the US/neighboring countries to Iran) were being attacked.

Here's the bottom line: Maybe you think it's plausible that Trump and his administration shared fact based data to show Iran was imminently able to obtain a Nuclear weapon - and their reaction was that they collectively shrugged their shoulders and declined to get involved because of political popularity at home ... I find that idea laughable. Not only that but I do not believe for an iota that Trump would not then release and roast those nations publicly. As it is - we get a changing made up lie out of Trump every other day with zero facts or evidence of any claim he makes.