Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

https://archive.is/mkHnl#selection-2155.0-2167.160

 

 
 

 

Are you implying that Iran doesn't participate in international terrorism? That it didn't kidnap and kill US civilians, soldiers, and employees in Lebanon in the 80s, bomb a community center in Argentina in the 90s, kill US soldiers with IEDs in Iraq in the 10s, or try to kill US politicians and Generals on US soil in the teens? Iran has been the largest sponsor of International Terrorism since the Islamic Republic was founded after the fall of the Shah. "Death To America!" is an official regime slogan... and they mean it.

 

 

Are you implying that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program? That it hasn't actively been trying to develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction for 20+ years?

 

 

What the Fuck are you talking about?

 

 

Blame Hamas for using their own people as human shields while they hide underneath schools and Mosques with their kidnapping victims. And where are you getting the 25k+ number from? Hamas?

 

 

Define "equally". Are you actually trying to draw an equivalency between the actions of Israel, and Iran? Are you serious?

 

I just said they fund Hamas.  I asked where they have attacked the US or US personnel, perhaps I should have clarified recently or within current events.  You don't have to give me a history lesson.  There are plenty of countries that fund militias and terrorists groups, Iran is not alone with this.  We are talking about starting a war where many lives will be lost, a lot of American lives as well.  I'm sorry if I'd like a reason for us to enter a conflict and events that happened in the 80s and 90s aren't factoring into my decision making.  

I posted a link in a post above and there is a whole separate thread for this.  All the reports and evidence shows that they do not have the capability to make or launch a nuke.  You are right, people have been saying for 20+ years that Iran is months from a Nuke, yet here we are and they still do not have one.

I blame Hamas for a lot and they deserve whatever comes there way.  I want to be very clear.  Israel has the right to exist and defend themselves.  What happened to those hostages and Jewish people was horrendous and I have no sympathy for Hamas.  With that said, I'm going to be really honest with you and I do not expect you to change your mind or opinion.  This entire escalated conflict has been going on for more than a few years.  I pretty much ignored it because it does not affect my daily life nor do I have the mental bandwidth do give a shit with running my business and raising a family.  For anyone that wanted to talk to me about it, I just did want to hear it.  I spent some time listening and watching a lot of interviews with American and European humanitarians, doctors, aid workers and then made the mistake of watching actual footage, more than I wanted to but I'm glad I did.  Having a 3 year old and a new born coming in 2 months, what I saw made my stomach turn.  There are no shortage of podcasts, tv shows, interviews whether it's Joe Rogan, Tucker Carlson, Pierce Morgan or influencers... whatever floats your boat... where you can listen to people's, specifically Americans, experience that were there.  If you listen to their experiences and you come away that any of this is morally right, then I am at a loss of words.  A simple google search will provide you with confirmed lives lost of children, not including the ones still buried under the bombed buildings.  I'm sorry if you feel differently, I personally wish I did not turn a blind eye and wish I spoke out sooner or at least acknowledged that this is wrong.  Bomb all the terrorists you want, but I cannot morally accept murdering kids, burning them, dropping bombs on them, and starving them.   Perhaps your line of what is right and wrong extends further than mine.

I'm going to exit this thread for a while, feel free to DM me if you want to talk further.

Edited by victory88
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

Dude, Iran has openly made it clear for decades that complete annihilation of Israel is their goal. They've made every effort to do so. 

Whether or not they would use nukes against Israel is open for debate but their ultimate plans are not.

I for one, care more about the threat to the US and other western countries should a caliphate regime deeply in bed with terrorist gain access to nukes.

While some crazies might want "annihilation" the official stance hasn't been countrywide genocide. It's been the dissolving of the zionist state which isn't that crazy given the history of the crusades and Israel's predecessor western states. The idea that a political goal of dissolving a state equates to nuking 10 million people is just zionist propaganda proliferated by western states who desperately don't want jews to immigrate into their country. 

Posted

So, as we get to the hard realization that Iran can not stop Israel in the air and Israel does not have the air and ground capability to fully accomplish their full set of goals, we get to the "what now" part of all of this.

1. People keep discussing destroying the Iranian oil and gas production to bring "Iran to their knees" and thus ending the war. This is probably both overly simplistic and missing a huge part of the puzzle. If the idea were so binary, the US would have wiped out Kharg Island years ago, and Iran would have just drifted off into obscurity, right? The problem goes beyond OPEC+ and economics, and falls into the simple idea of what comes after. If you ever view the dream of a return to the classic Iranian Persian Monarchy with sympathetic ties to the west, the environment needs to be viable for success. If you wipe the refining capabilities off the map, you are looking at decades and decades to rebuild the refining capability at the cost of billions and billions of dollars. Without the ability to both extract and refine the natural resources, Iran has no economic future, and the Iranian people are looking at mass poverty and hardship. If you expect the current style of government to stay in power, you are balancing the idea of keeping the populace alive and having hope while trying to limit the headaches they can bring about with the hard currency they can make. If you expect a regime change and want that regime to last long term, you can't destroy the one resource they have to provide them a viable future. 


So what do you do? That is the hard question, and why you are seeing Israel right now targeting domestic storage, production, and use facilities instead of the big refineries. I swing back and forth on how I view this because, without resources, Iran as a regional power player shrivels and dies. But without a future, the idea and dream of a Western-aligned Persia dies as well. This is why sanctions have always been used instead of strikes on refineries in the past. The "cut the baby in half" approach would be to target the field incrementally to halt production and therefore halt supply instead of the refining capability. Recapping a burning well is still a problem, but in the grand scheme of things, it is not viewed as a generational timeline that the loss of refining capability would be. 

2. We are seeing a steady degradation of the Iranian response capabilities. Ignore the "damage porn" of missiles getting through to the Israeli cities, and just focus on numbers. Missile intercepts are always going to be a fixed value tied to a distribution. That distribution will be a function of intercept capability and missile path.  Missiles will get through and there will be casualties. That should be a given.  What is more telling is not the damage but the count of missiles launched per wave. That is tied directly to the finite number of launchers. If you are paying attention, we are seeing a steady degradation of Iranian launch capabilities, with Israel having assigned a heavy priority of targeting launchers (even over air interdiction of missiles in flight). As there are fewer and fewer launchers, the intercept rate will steadily increase. The mix of a finite number of launchers and a limited number of ballistic missiles always puts a natural time limit on the number of days Iran could provide a military threat of response (not a nuisance threat), and by targeting the launchers, the volley size per wave is steadily decreasing. At some point, the launches lose military value and move into political theater. 

3. What do you do as Iran at this point? They have limited military responses available in the air. Israel is not invading on the ground (yet), and their neighbors are not going to let them move an army over their territory to let them attack Israel. Besides, any form of land assault would be a disaster with Israel having total control of the skies. Unless Egypt goes rogue and surprise attacks Israel, there is little to the idea Israel will have to engage in a large land battle at or near their territory. So Israel is insulated by a major land or air assault, and Iran has a finite number of ballistic missiles and launchers and the window of their ballistic missile response being anything other than a nuisance threat is closing. The only thing they have going for them is that the overall goal of Israel cannot be accomplished via air attacks (without the US becoming involved) and would require Israeli forces on the ground in mass. So what do you do? You have already hardened the locations you can, and troop distribution and movement mean very little in this type of war. There are already as many troops protecting their hardened nuclear production and research facilities as would be functionally possible, and your lone military response is a finite resource. At this point, the best approach would be unconventional warfare strategies (ie terror attacks, suicide bombings, ect.) and political pressure. The problem is that the unconventional strategies are something Israel has become hardened to due to decades of Hezbollah, Hamas, ect. attacks, and they have little to no political capital to use (which erodes even more if they use unconventional warfare). 

Iran is in a waiting game and is in a completely reactionary stance that will be dictated by what Israel and the US decide. The best approach is to try and get Israel to the table now under the condition of a complete ceasefire. The problem is that Israel has a "plan" of targets that covers 10-20 days of targets, and unless it becomes politically disadvantageous, they will stick to it. Much like with Gaza, their willingness to ignore the "bad" press on the global stage has insulated them from these types of demands by Iran. The only thing Iran has left to trade is their nuclear weapons program, and until it becomes apparent that it is either trade that or their regime being in power, Iran will not truly negotiate, and Israel knows this. What makes it more dangerous is at some point the US (or someone else) may decide that the only way this stops is to provide Israel the airframes needed to drop the ordnance to collapse these hardened facilities.  

There is no real "end" to this that is positive to the current Iranian regime, without outside intervention on their behalf. Without their proxies, Iran is a "paper tiger" and the ME political landscape has made it more advantageous to be neutral on this topic than it is to be an ally to Iran. We can get into the religious/cultural ties with all of this, but even the Sunni/Shite rift and Arab vs. Persian divide only mean so much. We are now seeing the ME starting to act more "rational" as they begin to accept that the problems Iran brings to the region are no longer worth what it would take to "save" them. You can call it becoming westernized, or the power of capitalism, or the spread of exposure to rational discourse because of the internet, or the desire to normalize relations for a stronger ME as a whole, but the shift has occurred and now it doesn't look like anyone is coming to ride in and save the Iranian regime.  Without it, it is just a matter of time for either Iran to cave to the Israeli and US demands (which may lead to a regime change) or being overthrown.  

  • Hook 'Em 8
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Yeah, If the Isrealis have complete air superiority and control over Iran, any bombing they are doing at this point is to reduce ballistic missile strikes and destablize the Iranian regime.  I'm sure Trump is promising relief in his gross ass zero sum way. 

To build on @BurntEyes comments:  Since the Iranians are mere weeks away from enriching to weapons grade and maybe a few months from a deliverable warhead to Isreal, it's now existential to the Isrealis. If they have to use their own nukes preventively to protect Tel Aviv, they will, so it's unfortunately in our interest to finish what Isreal has started.  I don't make the rules, but that's the reality. 

It's wild how much the entire Islamic world is basically: I'm all good. That ain't none of my business. 

I agree. Israel will finish this, while they have the chance, and while the rest of the world waits (and quietly supports).

 From the Bullock Musuem, 

CC64D744-9E02-4540-AC03-1293DD831243_1_201_a.thumb.jpeg.c24f73d02837ad83b6935f6f57b6867d.jpeg

Posted
2 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Good Lord...

 

 

Define "Effective"

 

 

Define "working"

You seem to be assigning an awful lot of good faith to the world's largest nation-state sponsor of international terrorism. It's already been established that Iran was actively breaking the terms of the deal, hiding facilities, and continuing to develop weapons. Wishing that wasn't so, doesn't change that.

No, it hasn't. Donald Trump certified to Congress on April 18, 2017 and July 17, 2017 that Iran was complying with JCPOA. He did not refuse certification in October 2017 for any of the reasons you claim. He refused to certify in October 2017 (ostensibly) because he determined that suspension of sanctions was appropriate and proportionate to the measures taken by Iran and vital to national security interests. In other words, he ostensibly suspended the deal because Iran was still doing shit that wasn't covered by the deal (e.g. supporting terrorist groups), not because he thought Iran had violated the deal.  The real reason he terminated is for CR discussion. 

Posted
13 minutes ago, Pasken said:

While some crazies might want "annihilation" the official stance hasn't been countrywide genocide. It's been the dissolving of the zionist state which isn't that crazy given the history of the crusades and Israel's predecessor western states. The idea that a political goal of dissolving a state equates to nuking 10 million people is just zionist propaganda proliferated by western states who desperately don't want jews to immigrate into their country. 

I don't know where you found that hard to read and badly written, piece of shit quote, but describing Iran's goal as "dissolve a state" is certainly a choice. If, by dissolve, they mean in acid, it checks. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I agree. Israel will finish this, while they have the chance, and while the rest of the world waits (and quietly supports).

 From the Bullock Musuem, 

CC64D744-9E02-4540-AC03-1293DD831243_1_201_a.thumb.jpeg.c24f73d02837ad83b6935f6f57b6867d.jpeg

I think it pretty clear at this point this is at an end game point. Many have already pointed it out, but the silence of the rest of the ME is, imo, the biggest tell. I wrote much more about it last page, but I haven't seen any indicators to this point that Israel is stopping nor have I seen signs of anyone making moves to stop them. Things can change in an instance, but I think, and frankly hope that it comes to final resolution.

Posted
13 minutes ago, Laxtonto said:

So, as we get to the hard realization that Iran can not stop Israel in the air and Israel does not have the air and ground capability to fully accomplish their full set of goals, we get to the "what now" part of all of this.

1. People keep discussing destroying the Iranian oil and gas production to bring "Iran to their knees" and thus ending the war. This is probably both overly simplistic and missing a huge part of the puzzle. If the idea were so binary, the US would have wiped out Kharg Island years ago, and Iran would have just drifted off into obscurity, right? The problem goes beyond OPEC+ and economics, and falls into the simple idea of what comes after. If you ever view the dream of a return to the classic Iranian Persian Monarchy with sympathetic ties to the west, the environment needs to be viable for success. If you wipe the refining capabilities off the map, you are looking at decades and decades to rebuild the refining capability at the cost of billions and billions of dollars. Without the ability to both extract and refine the natural resources, Iran has no economic future, and the Iranian people are looking at mass poverty and hardship. If you expect the current style of government to stay in power, you are balancing the idea of keeping the populace alive and having hope while trying to limit the headaches they can bring about with the hard currency they can make. If you expect a regime change and want that regime to last long term, you can't destroy the one resource they have to provide them a viable future. 


So what do you do? That is the hard question, and why you are seeing Israel right now targeting domestic storage, production, and use facilities instead of the big refineries. I swing back and forth on how I view this because, without resources, Iran as a regional power player shrivels and dies. But without a future, the idea and dream of a Western-aligned Persia dies as well. This is why sanctions have always been used instead of strikes on refineries in the past. The "cut the baby in half" approach would be to target the field incrementally to halt production and therefore halt supply instead of the refining capability. Recapping a burning well is still a problem, but in the grand scheme of things, it is not viewed as a generational timeline that the loss of refining capability would be. 

2. We are seeing a steady degradation of the Iranian response capabilities. Ignore the "damage porn" of missiles getting through to the Israeli cities, and just focus on numbers. Missile intercepts are always going to be a fixed value tied to a distribution. That distribution will be a function of intercept capability and missile path.  Missiles will get through and there will be casualties. That should be a given.  What is more telling is not the damage but the count of missiles launched per wave. That is tied directly to the finite number of launchers. If you are paying attention, we are seeing a steady degradation of Iranian launch capabilities, with Israel having assigned a heavy priority of targeting launchers (even over air interdiction of missiles in flight). As there are fewer and fewer launchers, the intercept rate will steadily increase. The mix of a finite number of launchers and a limited number of ballistic missiles always puts a natural time limit on the number of days Iran could provide a military threat of response (not a nuisance threat), and by targeting the launchers, the volley size per wave is steadily decreasing. At some point, the launches lose military value and move into political theater. 

3. What do you do as Iran at this point? They have limited military responses available in the air. Israel is not invading on the ground (yet), and their neighbors are not going to let them move an army over their territory to let them attack Israel. Besides, any form of land assault would be a disaster with Israel having total control of the skies. Unless Egypt goes rogue and surprise attacks Israel, there is little to the idea Israel will have to engage in a large land battle at or near their territory. So Israel is insulated by a major land or air assault, and Iran has a finite number of ballistic missiles and launchers and the window of their ballistic missile response being anything other than a nuisance threat is closing. The only thing they have going for them is that the overall goal of Israel cannot be accomplished via air attacks (without the US becoming involved) and would require Israeli forces on the ground in mass. So what do you do? You have already hardened the locations you can, and troop distribution and movement mean very little in this type of war. There are already as many troops protecting their hardened nuclear production and research facilities as would be functionally possible, and your lone military response is a finite resource. At this point, the best approach would be unconventional warfare strategies (ie terror attacks, suicide bombings, ect.) and political pressure. The problem is that the unconventional strategies are something Israel has become hardened to due to decades of Hezbollah, Hamas, ect. attacks, and they have little to no political capital to use (which erodes even more if they use unconventional warfare). 

Iran is in a waiting game and is in a completely reactionary stance that will be dictated by what Israel and the US decide. The best approach is to try and get Israel to the table now under the condition of a complete ceasefire. The problem is that Israel has a "plan" of targets that covers 10-20 days of targets, and unless it becomes politically disadvantageous, they will stick to it. Much like with Gaza, their willingness to ignore the "bad" press on the global stage has insulated them from these types of demands by Iran. The only thing Iran has left to trade is their nuclear weapons program, and until it becomes apparent that it is either trade that or their regime being in power, Iran will not truly negotiate, and Israel knows this. What makes it more dangerous is at some point the US (or someone else) may decide that the only way this stops is to provide Israel the airframes needed to drop the ordnance to collapse these hardened facilities.  

There is no real "end" to this that is positive to the current Iranian regime, without outside intervention on their behalf. Without their proxies, Iran is a "paper tiger" and the ME political landscape has made it more advantageous to be neutral on this topic than it is to be an ally to Iran. We can get into the religious/cultural ties with all of this, but even the Sunni/Shite rift and Arab vs. Persian divide only mean so much. We are now seeing the ME starting to act more "rational" as they begin to accept that the problems Iran brings to the region are no longer worth what it would take to "save" them. You can call it becoming westernized, or the power of capitalism, or the spread of exposure to rational discourse because of the internet, or the desire to normalize relations for a stronger ME as a whole, but the shift has occurred and now it doesn't look like anyone is coming to ride in and save the Iranian regime.  Without it, it is just a matter of time for either Iran to cave to the Israeli and US demands (which may lead to a regime change) or being overthrown.  

Good shit. 

I think for the Isreali's they have 3 military options for the nuclear program, none of which are perfect:

1. Use their limited bunker buster weapons repeatedly in hopes of eventually breaking through deep buried Iranian facilities. Both inefficient and risks potential dirty bomb scenerio.

2. Use nukes tactically.  I don't believe this is really on the table short of some sudden existential threat we haven't seen. 

3. Some sort of airborne operation to take the facilities in force.  The chances of this turning into a debacle are high. 

Which leaves them with two other outs:

4. We use our bombers to destroy the facilities, which is possible if option5 doesn't happen. 

5. Iranians capitulate and give up weapons and/or internal regime change. 

 

It's worth noting, while Iranians are suffering civilian casaulties, the Israelis appear to be using much more caution than they are in Gaza. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
8 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I don't know where you found that hard to read and badly written, piece of shit quote, but describing Iran's goal as "dissolve a state" is certainly a choice. If, by dissolve, they mean in acid, it checks. 

 

The fact that you find it "hard to read" explains a lot about your position. 

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, PTINS said:

I agree. Israel will finish this, while they have the chance, and while the rest of the world waits (and quietly supports).

 From the Bullock Musuem, 

CC64D744-9E02-4540-AC03-1293DD831243_1_201_a.thumb.jpeg.c24f73d02837ad83b6935f6f57b6867d.jpeg

I have one of those, but no sheath. 
So no honor forthcoming, much likr this war.

 

562$$IMG_2235.jpeg

Edited by Armybrat
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I don't know where you found that hard to read and badly written, piece of shit quote, but describing Iran's goal as "dissolve a state" is certainly a choice. If, by dissolve, they mean in acid, it checks. 

 

Tbh, dissolving every Likud party member in acid would probably be a net positive for the world.

e: Similar to the mullahs

Edited by Brian Fantana
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, victory88 said:

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12106/IF12106.17.pdf
 

Lots of information summarized in there.  Take from it what you will.  I don't see any concrete evidence in there stating they are weeks from being able to launch a nuke.  If they did, Trump would be the first to fly a plane with a US bomb.  If anything, he is trying to avoid conflict and that would not be the case if Iran was an imminent threat.  I don't agree much with the orange man, but I agree with him here.  We can take the conversation to the other thread as it is better suited. 

The article posted yesterday from FT, now probably 2 pages back, discusses the status of their program. They have high-grade enriched uranium and they have the knowhow and if they wanted they could build more than one nuclear weapon in a matter of days or weeks. They also have a different secret facility called Pickaxe they can use, possibly others as well, and it may be even more difficult for missiles to take out/cut off access to than Fordow.

Edited by Chopper
Posted
2 minutes ago, Pasken said:

The fact that you find it "hard to read" explains a lot about your position. 

I found it hard to read because it was highlighted dumbass. 

It's been a pleasure. Enjoy yo self!

Posted
7 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Good shit. 

I think for the Isreali's they have 3 military options for the nuclear program, none of which are perfect:

1. Use their limited bunker buster weapons repeatedly in hopes of eventually breaking through deep buried Iranian facilities. Both inefficient and risks potential dirty bomb scenerio.

2. Use nukes tactically.  I don't believe this is really on the table short of some sudden existential threat we haven't seen. 

3. Some sort of airborne operation to take the facilities in force.  The chances of this turning into a debacle are high. 

Which leaves them with two other outs:

4. We use our bombers to destroy the facilities, which is possible if option5 doesn't happen. 

5. Iranians capitulate and give up weapons and/or internal regime change. 

 

It's worth noting, while Iranians are suffering civilian casaulties, the Israelis appear to be using much more caution than they are in Gaza. 

I think, most likely some amalgamation of 4 and 5 are what ends up happening. But... I admit I tend very hawkish in regards to my disdain for Iran and frankly this conflict. Purely selfishly I am ready for the can kicking to end. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I think, most likely some amalgamation of 4 and 5 are what ends up happening. But... I admit I tend very hawkish in regards to my disdain for Iran and frankly this conflict. Purely selfishly I am ready for the can kicking to end. 

On one hand I understand being hawkish against the current regime and I definitely agree they need to go, but it's always amusing to me how no one wants to look back and consider why Iran is the way it is now and how that should factor in to how this goes. 

It doesn't seem to be that bombing the shit out of this country and then installing whatever puppet government we choose is going to ultimately lead to a better outcome than what we have today.

Seems like a lot of selfish, short term interest is driving a lot of this.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I think, most likely some amalgamation of 4 and 5 are what ends up happening. But... I admit I tend very hawkish in regards to my disdain for Iran and frankly this conflict. Purely selfishly I am ready for the can kicking to end. 

Same. Although I'm getting more isolationist as a I get older. 

3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

On one hand I understand being hawkish against the current regime and I definitely agree they need to go, but it's always amusing to me how no one wants to look back and consider why Iran is the way it is now and how that should factor in to how this goes. 

It doesn't seem to be that bombing the shit out of this country and then installing whatever puppet government we choose is going to ultimately lead to a better outcome than what we have today.

Seems like a lot of selfish, short term interest is driving a lot of this.

America never thinking more than one step ahead and resorting to force as a solution for everything? 

first time GIF

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted

As an aside, I've heard anecdotally the Air Force is loathe to use B-2 for almost anything these days, out of fear that each time use them, there's the potential the Chinese pick up improved data on stealth detection. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

On one hand I understand being hawkish against the current regime and I definitely agree they need to go, but it's always amusing to me how no one wants to look back and consider why Iran is the way it is now and how that should factor in to how this goes. 

It doesn't seem to be that bombing the shit out of this country and then installing whatever puppet government we choose is going to ultimately lead to a better outcome than what we have today.

Seems like a lot of selfish, short term interest is driving a lot of this.

Well, few things here.

It the toppling of the current Iranian regime was inevitable, for a ton of different reasons. The current how was always the mostly likely way, but we all know there were multiple options.

Second, putting in a new puppet master is absolutely suboptimal. However, I'm not sure it could be a LOT worse. It certainly could be, but I have my doubts it would. 

Third, my true hope is the people of Iran find their own autonomy and self rule something that might not be a democracy but at least something better than a tyranical caliphate. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

As an aside, I've heard anecdotally the Air Force is loathe to use B-2 for almost anything these days, out of fear that each time use them, there's the potential the Chinese pick up improved data on stealth detection. 

The logic of that certainly tracks. 

Counter point, sometimes our military truly enjoys flexing despite the negatives.

Posted
7 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Third, my true hope is the people of Iran find their own autonomy and self rule something that might not be a democracy but at least something better than a tyranical caliphate. 

Right, my point was they have had this before and we decided to destroy it because they dared to nationalize their own oil industry and refused to capitulate to Western (mostly British at the time) oil interests.

We will never allow them to have a democratic government because they will want to maintain control of their own interests.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Right, my point was they have had this before and we decided to destroy it because they dared to nationalize their own oil industry and refused to capitulate to Western (mostly British at the time) oil interests.

We will never allow them to have a democratic government because they will want to maintain control of their own interests.

Going to agree to disagree on this point.  It's not the 19--s any more.

Neither of us know and its all purely supposition. Either way, I'm pretty confident the current Iranian regime is going to end and I'll choose the cup half full vision. Again, it can't get a lot worse for the people or the western countries so.. FAFO.

Posted
22 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Going to agree to disagree on this point.  It's not the 19--s any more.

Neither of us know and its all purely supposition. Either way, I'm pretty confident the current Iranian regime is going to end and I'll choose the cup half full vision. Again, it can't get a lot worse for the people or the western countries so.. FAFO.

Yes, you're right, it's worse now.

If you think we're funneling money and weapons to Israel and sending strategic bombers over there to spread democracy you're kidding yourself. It's the exact same delusion that the powers that be counted on vis a vis Iraq. A government amenable to us plundering their natural resources (and keeping them from flowing into China) is the only acceptable option. And we aren't the only interested parties, the Saudis are very interested in this as well.

Posted
3 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

https://archive.is/mkHnl#selection-2155.0-2167.160

 

 
 

 

Are you implying that Iran doesn't participate in international terrorism? That it didn't kidnap and kill US civilians, soldiers, and employees in Lebanon in the 80s, bomb a community center in Argentina in the 90s, kill US soldiers with IEDs in Iraq in the 10s, or try to kill US politicians and Generals on US soil in the teens? Iran has been the largest sponsor of International Terrorism since the Islamic Republic was founded after the fall of the Shah. "Death To America!" is an official regime slogan... and they mean it.

 

 

Are you implying that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program? That it hasn't actively been trying to develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction for 20+ years?

 

 

What the Fuck are you talking about?

 

 

Blame Hamas for using their own people as human shields while they hide underneath schools and Mosques with their kidnapping victims. And where are you getting the 25k+ number from? Hamas?

 

 

Define "equally". Are you actually trying to draw an equivalency between the actions of Israel, and Iran? Are you serious?

 

 

9xlomg.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
44 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Going to agree to disagree on this point.  It's not the 19--s any more.

Neither of us know and its all purely supposition. Either way, I'm pretty confident the current Iranian regime is going to end and I'll choose the cup half full vision. Again, it can't get a lot worse for the people or the western countries so.. FAFO.

I agree with this. Watch the first 3 minutes of Argo.

The world has changed a lot since 1979. America does't have anywhere near the influence, and a lot of countries have a lot of money = influence.
I'm not offering any endorsement or criticism of anybody, but Iran migrating towards a Qatari/Emirates mindset would make the world a much better place. As Charliie Wilson opined, "You think they might be a lot happier over there if they could just get women and booze in the same room at the same time?"

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, PTINS said:

You think they might be a lot happier over there if they could just get women and booze in the same room at the same time?"

They had that before.  They were, indeed, much happier.

4691BF5C00000578-0-image-a-142_151126776

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Drool 2
Posted
39 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

It's the exact same delusion that the powers that be counted on vis a vis Iraq. A government amenable to us plundering their natural resources (and keeping them from flowing into China) is the only acceptable option. And we aren't the only interested parties, the Saudis are very interested in this as well.

 

Iraq's biggest customers for it's oil, at market prices, are India and China. Iraq is also a (poorly) functioning democracy, which is far better than the totalitarian menace it was before. I think you need to work on your definition of "plundering", and I don't think your statements support your argument.

Posted
5 hours ago, victory88 said:

The reports from the US intelligence community was that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon.  Netanyahu has been saying for 25 years that Iran is months away from developing a nuclear weapon only for them to never have one.  I'm all for Iran's regime being over thrown so their people can elect a non extremist leadership so they can enjoy basic rights, but we do NOT need to be dragged into this.  There is no reason to involve US resources into a regional conflict.  Let Israel fight their battles.  We have supplied them with enough weapons and bombs to commit one genocide.  We can use diplomacy to monitor Iran like the rest of the world has and like we have previously done. Is there actual evidence of Iran not complying with the monitoring, testing, and surveillance.?  Negotiations were set to start again until Israel went Leeroy Jenkins with their attack.  Stop wasting tax payer dollars on this bullshit.

I've been saying for decades that I'm going to get with Sela Ward, regardless of how many annoying restraining orders get in the way, but it isn't happening.  Yet.

Netanyahu barely survived a no-confidence vote last week only because he caved to the Orthodox part of his coalition and said he wouldn't draft their sons, so I'm a wee bit suspicious as to the timing of this war.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Armybrat said:

I have one of those, but no sheath. 
So no honor forthcoming, much likr this war.

 

562$$IMG_2235.jpeg

 

Was the Mexican dead or alive when you took it from him?

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

Netanyahu barely survived a no-confidence vote last week only because he caved to the Orthodox part of his coalition and said he wouldn't draft their sons, so I'm a wee bit suspicious as to the timing of this war.

Yeah GIF

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
4 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

Dude, Iran has openly made it clear for decades that complete annihilation of Israel is their goal. They've made every effort to do so. 

Whether or not they would use nukes against Israel is open for debate but their ultimate plans are not.

I for one, care more about the threat to the US and other western countries should a caliphate regime deeply in bed with terrorist gain access to nukes.

Iran knows Israel has the means to nuke them several times over, and that they would not get a chunk of Israel's nukes even in a first-strike.  They also know that the US and others would get involved (the fallout might even trigger Article 5).  They also know the Arab/non-Shiite world would get involved against them - fallout doesn't give a fuck about borders, but also none of them want nukes popping off in the Middle East regardless of fallout patterns.  It's just all around a good way to ensure that the Iranian leadership will cease to exist, along with a chunk of Iran, and for all of their bullshit, I don't think they are that crazy - they like staying in power and being alive.

Look at the fact that they aren't shutting down the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz, even though multiple Sunni nations are allowing Israeli overflights. They also aren't attacking those nations for passively supporting Israel.

Plus, their last friendly nation with decent power is Russia and Russia ain't doing shit to help them.

I'm more worried about Pakistan losing a nuke or two, or some organization ginning up a dirty bomb and putting it on a cargo ship into a Western port than I am Iran trying to wipe Israel off the map.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They had that before.  They were, indeed, much happier.

4691BF5C00000578-0-image-a-142_151126776

I never realized Epstein was a Persian woman. I thought he was a Puerto Rican Jew?

 

 

4691BF5C00000578-0-image-a-142_1511267769425.jpg

  • Haha 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Netanyahu barely survived a no-confidence vote last week only because he caved to the Orthodox part of his coalition and said he wouldn't draft their sons, so I'm a wee bit suspicious as to the timing of this

IMG_4733.thumb.jpeg.aa4b1013cdc72355b2531a26e52750c0.jpeg

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Deej said:

I never realized Epstein was a Persian woman. I thought he was a Puerto Rican Jew?

You think Epstein was looking good, you should see his mother.

Signed, 

Epstein's Mother

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I've been saying for decades that I'm going to get with Sela Ward, regardless of how many annoying restraining orders get in the way, but it isn't happening.  Yet.

Netanyahu barely survived a no-confidence vote last week only because he caved to the Orthodox part of his coalition and said he wouldn't draft their sons, so I'm a wee bit suspicious as to the timing of this war.

 

There's also the fact that Macron was getting ready to announce recognition of a Palestinian state at a conference in Saudi Arabia, which has now been postponed, because of the bombing of Iran. Moreover, Germany is reportedly strongly contemplating tagging along with their recognition of one as well if France goes first. And then this:

On Thursday, Mr. Macron posted a statement on X lauding Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, saying that a letter “of hope, courage and clarity” received from him last Tuesday “traced the path toward a horizon of peace.”

In the letter, Mr. Abbas called for Hamas to “hand over its weapons,” immediately free all hostages and leave Gaza. He also committed to reform the notoriously corrupt and ineffective Palestinian Authority.

The letter met several of the conditions set by Mr. Macron for French recognition of a Palestinian state. But other voices close to the president are pushing him in another direction.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/16/world/middleeast/france-israel-macron-palestinian-state.html

It's not a done deal yet, but currently, 147 members of the UN's 193 already do so. Also, recall that Ireland, Spain, and Norway announced recognition last year. French recognition of Palestine would be a big deal since they've historically been a major supporter by providing them with the tech for their nuclear program, as well as all the Mirage jets they provided Israel, and also because 150,000 French citizens currently live in Israel.

Edit to add map of countries that recognize a Palestinian state.

1200px-Palestine_recognition_only.svg.pn

Edited by bolverk
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Iran knows Israel has the means to nuke them several times over, and that they would not get a chunk of Israel's nukes even in a first-strike.  They also know that the US and others would get involved (the fallout might even trigger Article 5).  They also know the Arab/non-Shiite world would get involved against them - fallout doesn't give a fuck about borders, but also none of them want nukes popping off in the Middle East regardless of fallout patterns.  It's just all around a good way to ensure that the Iranian leadership will cease to exist, along with a chunk of Iran, and for all of their bullshit, I don't think they are that crazy - they like staying in power and being alive.

Look at the fact that they aren't shutting down the Persian Gulf/Strait of Hormuz, even though multiple Sunni nations are allowing Israeli overflights. They also aren't attacking those nations for passively supporting Israel.

Plus, their last friendly nation with decent power is Russia and Russia ain't doing shit to help them.

I'm more worried about Pakistan losing a nuke or two, or some organization ginning up a dirty bomb and putting it on a cargo ship into a Western port than I am Iran trying to wipe Israel off the map.

Not sure why you directed this at me. I said:

Whether or not they would use nukes against Israel is open for debate but their ultimate plans are not.

I for one, care more about the threat to the US and other western countries should a caliphate regime deeply in bed with terrorist gain access to nukes.

...but I lean very heavily towards never happen for many of the very reasons you noted.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
38 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They had that before.  They were, indeed, much happier.

4691BF5C00000578-0-image-a-142_151126776

The Iranian Revolution spooled up the year I graduated. I have no first hand knowledge of any those sweet things.

I'm betting everybody was much happier.   

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 hour ago, PTINS said:

I agree with this. Watch the first 3 minutes of Argo.

The world has changed a lot since 1979. America does't have anywhere near the influence, and a lot of countries have a lot of money = influence.
I'm not offering any endorsement or criticism of anybody, but Iran migrating towards a Qatari/Emirates mindset would make the world a much better place. As Charliie Wilson opined, "You think they might be a lot happier over there if they could just get women and booze in the same room at the same time?"

Argo fuck yourself. – @miserym on Tumblr

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Tomcats down!

 

1) Fucking Israel just ruined our chances of making the plot of "Maverick" come true.  FUCKING BASTARDS.

8 minutes ago, SurlyGator said:

This seems newsworthy...

 

2) So, to be clear....the commander in chief of a nuclear superpower just said that the entire capital city of another country should evacuate.

The technical, political, and military term for that statement is "absolutely fucking insane."

Seriously, I know that nothing matters anymore, but if it did.....that statement alone would dominate the news for a month, and it absolutely should.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...