lol, just complete lack of self-awareness

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708445)

If this were Iraq I'd be livid but it's not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708469)

what changed to make you do a complete 180 on supporting this type of thing?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708477)

idk what "big results" the tax payers reap from this though. looks like things are continuing to trend badly for americans, and i dont see how conflicts in veneseula and iran will change that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708552)

As to what happens here's domestically if you're talking about the affordability crisis or something yeah I Trump needs to do more about that. I want more deportations, no more H1B, more tariffs and manufacturing. But I don't see any downside to Iran. Like none zero zip. This was an easy win and we'll find out the results but I haven't seen a single downside.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708583)

why do you think their heads must be cut off anyway? i don't see how that makes things better for america.

you said this is low cost for big results for the taxpayer. im asking what those big results are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708680)

You know why we don't blow the heads off of the POTUS of normal countries? Because they're not criminally insane. We only overthrow shithole countries. No guarantee Iran will ever get it's shit together but we can eliminate major threats. Nipped in the bud. Iraq and Afghanistan were disasters because of nation building and trying to win hearts and minds. Fuck em. They can figure out their own country. And if they're dangerous again we strike em again. Easy. We are an empire and the world police. This is how it is. I do think Israel should refund us for the cost of the operation imo. I want a couple billion in kickbacks for coming through.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708697)

no movement on why it's necessary.

no movement on what the "big results" for tax payers are.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708722)

I don't have to define a win scenario. Time will pass and if it goes right in the long run it's a BIG WIN. Meanwhile naysayers are just crying wojacks.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708723)

for example saying you don't have to define what winning is but that you will be proven right. i have no doubt this will happen in your mind, its the same thing nsam and consuela do with vague, non-falsifable arguments. yet you can't explain what you're saying, much less what i am, so how could you ever actually be right?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708798)

2) this wasn't even about predicitng the outcome, it was about why you support it today. you said it's necessary and there's big results for taxpayers. i asked wdym by necessary and big results. you pivoted to being "proven right in the future", but whether we "win" has nothing to do with why you support it today!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708971)

i asked why you support this. whether we win has no bearing. if i said its a good idea to knock out a toddler with one punch, and you asked "why is that a good idea?", me getting up and punching a toddler and saying "told you!" doesn't explain why i thought it would be good to it.

we have a nuclear aresenal to turn the entire middle east to glass. no one thinks we lack the power to win.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49709057)

### Summary of the Conversation

This forum thread features a debate between gunneratttt (posting as "dick cheney's force ghost nodding at trump") and goyim in abundanceeeeee (HAtp) on America's recent military actions against Iran, framed as a potential war or conflict. The discussion begins with gunneratttt accusing goyim of a complete reversal from his previous anti-war stance, labeling him a "neocon" for supporting U.S. intervention. Goyim defends his position by distinguishing the Iran action from past wars like Iraq, crediting the Venezuela operation as a turning point that exposed flaws in anti-war ideologies (e.g., criticizing figures like Dave Smith, Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Ron Paul, and Noam Chomsky as childish or misguided). He argues that the U.S. can act as "world police" with low costs and big results, rejecting libertarian non-interventionism, and expresses strong anti-Iran sentiments while supporting Israel over "sand niggers" and similar derogatory terms. He advocates for repeated "hard resets" via decapitation strikes without nation-building.

Gunneratttt presses for clarification on why goyim changed his mind, questions the necessity of the action, and challenges the claimed "big results" for U.S. taxpayers, arguing it's against principle regardless of cost and could breed more anti-American extremism (e.g., comparing it to Canada assassinating U.S. presidents every decade). Goyim counters by dismissing concerns as speculative, emphasizing the U.S. as an empire that only targets "shithole" regimes, and suggests Israel should reimburse costs. He avoids defining success metrics, saying time will prove him right and listing vague benefits like removing threats, freeing Iran, weakening enemies like China and Russia, and controlling oil. The exchange escalates with gunneratttt highlighting goyim's evasions, inconsistencies, and inability to defend claims (e.g., using analogies like buying Tesla stock irrationally or punching a toddler), while goyim retorts with deflections, insults (e.g., "word salad"), and claims of future vindication. The thread ends without resolution, with goyim admitting he'd reverse if it goes wrong like Iraq but currently seeing only upsides.

### Performance Analysis

- **Engagement**: Both participants were highly engaged, posting responses within minutes to hours and sustaining the thread over several hours. Gunneratttt initiated and consistently followed up with pointed questions, while goyim responded to nearly every post, showing willingness to continue despite frustrations.

- **Persuasiveness**: Gunneratttt was more persuasive overall, using logical reasoning, historical analogies (e.g., past U.S. wars since Vietnam), and clear distinctions (e.g., ex ante rationale vs. ex post outcomes) to undermine goyim's position. His arguments were structured and evidence-based, effectively exposing gaps in goyim's claims. Goyim relied on emotional appeals, personal anecdotes (e.g., Venezuela as a revelation), and inflammatory rhetoric (e.g., slurs against Iranians and critics), which might resonate with like-minded audiences but lacked substantive evidence or data to back "big results" or long-term benefits. This made his case feel more ideological and less convincing to a neutral observer.

- **Responsiveness**: Gunneratttt excelled here, directly addressing goyim's points, quoting implicitly, and repeatedly circling back to unanswered questions (e.g., "what big results?" and "why necessary?"). He avoided tangents and built on prior responses coherently. Goyim was less responsive, often pivoting (e.g., from cost-benefit to "wait 2 weeks" or vague future proofs), deflecting with sarcasm (e.g., "Objection, speculative"), or dismissing critiques outright (e.g., "ljl at this pointless word salad"). He eventually listed some benefits but only after prolonged prodding, and his analogies (e.g., stock buying) didn't fully align with the questions.

- **Other Factors (Clarity, Civility, Originality)**: Gunneratttt maintained clarity and civility, with concise, focused posts that advanced the debate. Goyim's posts were longer and more rambling, blending original insights (e.g., critiquing anti-war figures) with unoriginal tropes (e.g., empire justifications) and uncivil language (e.g., slurs, suicide suggestions). This reduced his credibility, though it added a raw, passionate flair.

### Conclusion on Who Performed Best

Gunneratttt performed best overall. His structured, responsive, and logically consistent approach made him more effective in the debate, effectively cornering goyim on key inconsistencies without resorting to evasion or hostility. Goyim showed passion and a willingness to evolve his views publicly, but his defensiveness, lack of specificity, and inflammatory style undermined his persuasiveness, making him seem less prepared and more reactionary. In a forum context, gunneratttt's performance would likely sway more neutral readers, while goyim's might appeal to a niche echo chamber.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49709196)

Paramount reason is that it fucked up our economy. Too expensive and we couldn't afford it. The fiscal ramifications were immense and we're still crippled by it to this day.

Reason #2 4508 lives lost. Shitty and never had to happen. Pales in comparison to the financial impact but still very sad. Pointless deaths and this made the war very unpopular.

Third and least important reason is that it devolved into endless sectarian violence and spun off ISIS. OK this was pretty fucking gay but dune coons gonna dune coon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708435)

just kooky weird coincidences nothing for you to ponder at all my man

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5840418&forum_id=2...#49708450)