Tucker Carlson Tears Into Ted Cruz In The Most Gloriously Awkward Interview You'll See

Desk trauma · Jun 19, 2025

Landon Caeli said:
I've come to realize that when people are 'hungry', they're more willing to do risky things... All that oil money could sure make a difference for a lot of North Koreans in a communist environment... Not to mention, the common enemy they share with Iran.

An influx of foreign currency wouldn’t change anything for the hungry North Koreans. Trickle down is fantasy in democracies it’s laughable in a slave state.

Pommer · Jun 19, 2025

Postvieww said:
Seriously? This particular nation for years has been shouting death to America and Israel.

When all your nation has are conventional WMD, belligerent rhetoric abounds.
Right now they’re a paper tiger; should they ever obtain the ability to create fission weapons, that rhetoric will moderate.
They’d still have to test their designs.

Postvieww said:
Not to mention all of the terrorism funded by Iran.

You just did, what of it?
(In their view, the U.S. is using Israel as a terror vassal-state, our bulldog in the region.)

Postvieww said:
Is this a nation you support having a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles?

I do not support Iran having nuclear weapons, only question why our nation gets to decide which countries are “allowed” to arm themselves as they see fit.

Postvieww · Jun 19, 2025

Pommer said:
I do not support Iran having nuclear weapons, only question why our nation gets to decide which countries are “allowed” to arm themselves as they see fit.

Because if they attain them , Iran will be a direct threat to the US and world peace. We did not allow Cuba to have them for the same reason.

BCP1928 · Jun 19, 2025

Pommer said:
When all your nation has are conventional WMD, belligerent rhetoric abounds.
Right now they’re a paper tiger; should they ever obtain the ability to create fission weapons, that rhetoric will moderate.
They’d still have to test their designs.

You just did, what of it?
(In their view, the U.S. is using Israel as a terror vassal-state, our bulldog in the region.)

I do not support Iran having nuclear weapons, only question why our nation gets to decide which countries are “allowed” to arm themselves as they see fit.

As you see, it's easy: "If you align yourself with our foreign policy agenda you can acquire nukes. Otherwise we will destroy you if you try it."

ThatRobGuy · Jun 19, 2025

Postvieww said:
Because if they attain them , Iran will be a direct threat to the US and world peace. We did not allow Cuba to have them for the same reason.

There are some distinct differences between Cuba and Iran. While both have authoritarian regimes...

Population of Iran is 9x the population of Cuba (and not an island) which means a bigger migration issue if things get destabilized.

Cuba is an island right under our nose with not much in the way of adjacent powerful allies, which makes surveilling what's going in and out much easier.

Cuba didn't have a deeply instilled religious backdrop to their regime. Fundamentalist Religious ideologies tend to have a little more of an unwavering resolve than economic ideologies. While Cuba was definitely of the ilk that sympathized with the notion of helping communism spread, they didn't think their afterlife was dependent on it, nor did they think they'd achieve some special martyrdom status in the afterlife if they died for that cause.

I think the proof is in the pudding on that.

Most of formerly socialist/communist regimes from the soviet era that have abandoned that and made the switch to more open & democratic systems, the same can't be said for Islamic regimes making the switch to secularism. It was considered a "milestone" when a few of those countries actually started letting women drive.

Pommer · Jun 19, 2025

Postvieww said:
Because if they attain them , Iran will be a direct threat to the US and world peace.

If we had better diplomacy maybe we could’ve talked them out of a decision to try to fashion fission weapons…oh wait, we did, the Obama era JCPOA, that Trump walked away from, oops!

Postvieww said:
We did not allow Cuba to have them for the same reason.

Cuba/Russia ran afoul of the Monroe Doctrine, too.

Postvieww · Jun 19, 2025

Pommer said:
If we had better diplomacy maybe we could’ve talked them out of a decision to try to fashion fission weapons…oh wait, we did, the Obama era JCPOA, that Trump walked away from, oops!

Your mistake is you fail to recognize the Iranians would not keep any agreement with anyone! It is obvious you know very little about the goals of Islam.

Postvieww · Jun 19, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
There are some distinct differences between Cuba and Iran. While both have authoritarian regimes...

Population of Iran is 9x the population of Cuba (and not an island) which means a bigger migration issue if things get destabilized.

Cuba is an island right under our nose with not much in the way of adjacent powerful allies, which makes surveilling what's going in and out much easier.

Cuba didn't have a deeply instilled religious backdrop to their regime. Fundamentalist Religious ideologies tend to have a little more of an unwavering resolve than economic ideologies. While Cuba was definitely of the ilk that sympathized with the notion of helping communism spread, they didn't think their afterlife was dependent on it, nor did they think they'd achieve some special martyrdom status in the afterlife if they died for that cause.

I think the proof is in the pudding on that.

Most of formerly socialist/communist regimes from the soviet era that have abandoned that and made the switch to more open & democratic systems, the same can't be said for Islamic regimes making the switch to secularism. It was considered a "milestone" when a few of those countries actually started letting women drive.

My reference to Cuba was only in response to Pommer's comment on why should have a say in another nation's defense. I did not mean to imply any political or religious connection only that we we did not allow Cuba to have nukes on their soil.

NxNW · Jun 19, 2025

Landon Caeli said:
As long as the hot heads don't have a drop of enriched Uranium, and a depleted stockpile of weapons..? Then whatever they're left with is their own problem.

How are we not the hotheads now?

ThatRobGuy · Jun 19, 2025

Pommer said:
If we had better diplomacy maybe we could’ve talked them out of a decision to try to fashion fission weapons…oh wait, we did, the Obama era JCPOA, that Trump walked away from, oops!

The JCPOA had some flaws, both in theory, and in execution.

The issues with the theory: It was basically tantamount to saying "we'll overlook your litany of human rights abuses & your funding of terrorism, and help bolster you economically, just please don't build a nuke...pretty please!"

We pretty much throw away any leverage we have to correct bad behavior via sanctions if the precedent is going to be "Just threaten to to build a nuke, and the EU and US will back off the sanctions and let us keep cutting peoples' heads off"

In terms of execution, the issue was that sites were exempted from inspections, and others were subject to "sunsetting provisions" rather than a "shut it down now!" mandate. And then other ones were mothballed instead of actually taken down (meaning, allowed to remain in a state where they could be spun back up quickly)

It should have been a more forceful
"The human rights abuses stop today. You WILL dismantle all of the sites ASAP, you will give UN inspectors full unrestricted access to anything they want to see/read/inspect when they watch you dismantle these sites...I want to see an empty patch of dirt when I come back in 3 months. Then we'll talk about unfreezing those assets and getting some sanctions lifted so you can sell your oil again, got it?"

Postvieww said:
My reference to Cuba was only in response to Pommer's comment on why should have a say in another nation's defense. I did not mean to imply any political or religious connection only that we we did not allow Cuba to have nukes on their soil.

The answers to why one nation would have a say in another nation's defense could be for a few reasons.

1) If they made a security guarantee in exchange for another country voluntarily removing their own standing army as part of a post-conflict deal. (like we did for a period with Japan after WW2)

2) If a country explicitly asks for their help

3) If there's a de facto assumption/expectation that their country will be the one expected to intervene and restore order should that other country go off the rails and start attacking other countries

#3 is the one that would apply to the US with regards to Iran.

If Iran did develop some serious weaponry, and decided to go rogue and start committing attacks against "the great Satan" they see as westernized civilizations, the expectation is going to be that we (the US) be the one to get in the cage and wrestle the bear.

If Iran decided to go even further than using weapons on Isreal, and said "you know, we never like those infidel Western Europeans either" and started hitting some of them

And it's not as if the ambition isn't there for Iran to do that...

Year	Country	Event/Incident	Perpetrator / Link to Iran	Details / Outcome
1980–1982	France	Series of bombings	Iranian intelligence suspected	Multiple dissidents targeted; linked to Iranian operatives.
1986	France	Paris bombing campaign	Pro-Iranian groups, likely IRGC-linked	Bombings to pressure France over extraditions and arms deals.
1991	France	Assassination of Shapour Bakhtiar	Iranian intelligence operatives	Bakhtiar stabbed and strangled in his home near Paris.
1992	Germany	Mykonos restaurant killings (Berlin)	Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, Hezbollah operatives	Four Kurdish men killed; German court implicated top Iranian leadership.
2012	Bulgaria	Burgas bus bombing (5 Israeli tourists killed)	Hezbollah, funded/trained by Iran	First EU soil attack with direct link to Iran-backed Hezbollah.
2015	Netherlands	Assassination of Ahmad Mola Nissi	Dutch authorities blamed Iran	Netherlands later expelled two Iranian diplomats in protest.
2017	Netherlands	Assassination of Iranian dissident Ali Motamed	Dutch authorities blamed Iran	Dutch government publicly accused Iran of ordering the killing.
2018	France/Belgium	Foiled bomb plot near Paris	Asadollah Assadi (Iranian diplomat) + operatives	Assadi convicted in Belgium in 2021 — first Iranian diplomat convicted for terrorism in EU.

So if they got more advanced weaponry, and decided to start using it against France/Germany/Belgium/etc... for the "grave infraction" of harboring a dissident they don't like...

It's overwhelmingly likely that it will be the US & UK that gets called in for help. So by that logic, we do have a vested interest in what kinds weaponry they're cooking up over there if we're going to be the ones expected to step up to the plate should they (likely) end up using those weapons in places outside of their region.

durangodawood · Jun 19, 2025

Ted is an opportunistic blowhard. Tucker is a credulous lightweight with no moral center of gravity.

Probably they both lost the fight - to any observer with good sense. Well, one of them may have won the shouting match.

rjs330 · Jun 20, 2025

Pommer said:
Tell me why the U.S. gets to decide (unilaterally) which nations are “allowed” to try to possess the capability to produce nuclear weapons?

Aren’t we supposed to be “the good guys”?

We are the good guys. And the good guys should be smart enough not to let the evil fanatic death cult guys have a nuclear weapon.

rjs330 · Jun 20, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
After Europe's experience with having to take in Syrian refugees, they may have an opinion on that.

I believe at least some countries have realized too late that they made a mistake. Some haven't figured it out yet, but its coming.

There is no need to take in refugees and the opinion should be no refugees from Iran.

BCP1928 · Jun 20, 2025

ThatRobGuy said:
If Iran did develop some serious weaponry, and decided to go rogue and start committing attacks against "the great Satan" they see as westernized civilizations, the expectation is going to be that we (the US) be the one to get in the cage and wrestle the bear.

Why not? We're the ones who poked the bear in the first place. (Actually, it was the Brits and Russians who invaded and divided neutral Iran into "spheres of influence" during WW I but we took over in 1953.)

ThatRobGuy said:
If Iran decided to go even further than using weapons on Isreal, and said "you know, we never like those infidel Western Europeans either" and started hitting some of them

And it's not as if the ambition isn't there for Iran to do that...

Year
Country
Event/Incident
Perpetrator / Link to Iran
Details / Outcome
1980–1982
France
Series of bombings
Iranian intelligence suspected
Multiple dissidents targeted; linked to Iranian operatives.
1986
France
Paris bombing campaign
Pro-Iranian groups, likely IRGC-linked
Bombings to pressure France over extraditions and arms deals.
1991
France
Assassination of Shapour Bakhtiar
Iranian intelligence operatives
Bakhtiar stabbed and strangled in his home near Paris.
1992
Germany
Mykonos restaurant killings (Berlin)
Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, Hezbollah operatives
Four Kurdish men killed; German court implicated top Iranian leadership.
2012
Bulgaria
Burgas bus bombing (5 Israeli tourists killed)
Hezbollah, funded/trained by Iran
First EU soil attack with direct link to Iran-backed Hezbollah.
2015
Netherlands
Assassination of Ahmad Mola Nissi
Dutch authorities blamed Iran
Netherlands later expelled two Iranian diplomats in protest.
2017
Netherlands
Assassination of Iranian dissident Ali Motamed
Dutch authorities blamed Iran
Dutch government publicly accused Iran of ordering the killing.
2018
France/Belgium
Foiled bomb plot near Paris
Asadollah Assadi (Iranian diplomat) + operatives
Assadi convicted in Belgium in 2021 — first Iranian diplomat convicted for terrorism in EU.

So if they got more advanced weaponry, and decided to start using it against France/Germany/Belgium/etc... for the "grave infraction" of harboring a dissident they don't like...

It's overwhelmingly likely that it will be the US & UK that gets called in for help. So by that logic, we do have a vested interest in what kinds weaponry they're cooking up over there if we're going to be the ones expected to step up to the plate should they (likely) end up using those weapons in places outside of their region.

Should be UK and the French to step up. They started all this in 1918. Maybe they should be the ones who finish it.

rjs330 · Jun 20, 2025

Pommer said:
f we had better diplomacy maybe we could’ve talked them out of a decision to try to fashion fission weapons…oh wait, we did, the Obama era JCPOA, that Trump walked away from, oops!

Maybe you shoild re-read Robs post. The agreement was useless and did nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Obama was an idiot to agree to it.

BCP1928 · Jun 20, 2025

rjs330 said:
We are the good guys. And the good guys should be smart enough not to let the evil fanatic death cult guys have a nuclear weapon.

LOL. And they think they are the good guys and we are godless imperialist barbarians. Go figure.

Landon Caeli · Jun 20, 2025

NxNW said:
How are we not the hotheads now?

I don't know what to say to this, honestly.

Landon Caeli · Jun 20, 2025

BCP1928 said:
LOL. And they think they are the good guys and we are imperialist barbarians. Go figure.

No they don't think that. That's where you are gravely mistaken.

BCP1928 · Jun 20, 2025

Landon Caeli said:
No they don't think that. That's where you are gravely mistaken.

What do they think? Evidently you know more about it than the Iranians.

Landon Caeli · Jun 20, 2025

BCP1928 said:
What do they think? Evidently you know more about it than the Iranians.

I'm not the one speaking for them, you are. How many Iranians have you spoken to in Iran? Zero?

Tucker Carlson Tears Into Ted Cruz In The Most Gloriously Awkward Interview You'll See

The pickles are up to something

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Believer

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Believer

Believer

Well-Known Member

Part of the IT crowd

re Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I ♡ potato pancakes

I ♡ potato pancakes

Well-Known Member

I ♡ potato pancakes

Similar threads