Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
39 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yeah, we are going to join. In what capacity remains to be seen. Logistics to active bombing. 

We all know what he means by unconditional surrender. And there has to be people in Iran who watched how we dealt with Syria. Assad leaves, we recognize and pledge aid. 

I have no way of pointing out that sentence without turning it into heavy CR.

 

 

lets just say that "we" reads different in June 2025 than in Dec 2024 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

image.thumb.png.26ffc891949cc306e2d26f0734ce4ea2.png

Weird how all the available evidence backs up exactly what I was saying about Iran complying with the nuclear restrictions prior to Trump blowing up the agreement in 2018, and now we have a belligerently non-compliant Iran with its back to the wall and a stockpile of HEU. I'm sure all the resident donkeys that love to bray at me for pointing out obvious, easily verifiable information will provide some proof to match their vibes any minute now.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

Right, no sectarian violence, but there could absolutely be strong ideological differences. It's not like there isn't an example of the last Shah being deposed. And as for SE Iran, isn't that area dominated by Baluchis, the same group that's in western Pakistan? Haven't those guys been in some kind of low-level rebellion against the Pakistani government? If so, what's the risk of them uniting and trying to break off from both Iran and Pakistan to create their own country?

And, then of course, the installation of western troops (US or otherwise spread out trying to protect the oil & gas fields, as well as all the downstream infrastructure: refineries, pipelines, etc. Are Americans prepared to see US soldiers getting bombed protecting all those assets and facilities? 

Finally, what's the obligation of the Israelis under the principle of "you broke it; you fix it" if they're successful in their push for regime change? Obviously, they're not going in as occupiers, but should they pay some of the bills since they're the lead in all this?

Yes, there are Baluchi's there, but also other Sunni groups. Agree there would be some ideological differences. And external influence (Look north and west). Baluchis have always wanted their own place. They are a pretty big ass tribe sitting on some valuable land. Here is what they claim. Some pretty damn important ports, but also a lot of Chinese investment. 

image.jpeg.28fa0c5761aa41a969ab6b721403bc82.jpeg

No, it would not look good, and why I said no US troops. Canadians, Nordics, they do not carry the animosity. Sure high level of force protection, but it can be done. That is why you have contractors to protect those sites. 

Israel? yeah, they are not going to pay shit, but the Gulf Arabs will. They can fund reconstruction. They need the good press in the Shia world. Let each country adopt a province. They will try to outdo each other so hard. 

Risks-

Iran breaks up into regions controlled by warlords. Make sure people have jobs and they tend to not fight. We failed at that in both Afghanistan and Iraq relying on third country nationals for even down to the most basic jobs. 

Limit the Influx of foreign private capitol from Iranian diaspora. This tends to change the national make up a lot. Limit what they can do. If you create an Iranian first policy, make residency a requirement. 

Return of the Clerics at the regional level to keep being angry. Why are they angry? Invaders and they lost power. So limit the number of international (ie White) troops, and let them have roles. Again, we imposed religious leaders in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

Also, embrace Persian legacy. Make people proud of. Teach the Rubiyat on TV. Etc... Again, we stifled both in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to push Western culture. 

And at the regional level, well shit, if one province wants women to have their hair covered, so what? Not every state has the same laws. Allow that. It will slow down the calls for Radical growth. 

 

Edited by InkaUtexas
Added some shit
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yes, there are Baluchi's there, but also other Sunni groups. Agree there would be some ideological differences. And external influence (Look north and west). Baluchis have always wanted their own place. They are a pretty big ass tribe sitting on some valuable land. Here is what they claim. Some pretty damn important ports, but also a lot of Chinese investment. 

image.jpeg.28fa0c5761aa41a969ab6b721403bc82.jpeg

No, it would not look good, and why I said no US troops. Canadians, Nordics, they do not carry the animosity. Sure high level of force protection, but it can be done. That is why you have contractors to protect those sites. 

Israel? yeah, they are not going to pay shit, but the Gulf Arabs will. They can fun reconstruction. They need the good press in the Shia world. Let each country adopt a province. They will try to outdo each other so hard. 

Risks-

Iran breaks up into regions controlled by warlords. Make sure people have jobs and they tend to not fight. We failed at that in both Afghanistan and Iran relying on third country nationals for even down to the most basic jobs. 

Limit the Influx of foreign private capitol from Iranian diaspora. This tends to change the national make up a lot. Limit what they can do. If you create an Iranian first policy, make residency a requirement. 

 

Man, I love you, but there ain't no fucking way the Persian Diaspora isn't going to meddle incessantly in post Ayatolla Iran.  The US ones alone will pay-for-play with the Trump White House for concessions. 

It's not quite going to be on the grift level of South Florida Cuban meddling in the case of a Cuban government collapse, but it's going to be bad. 

Edited by Bateshorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, Bateshorn said:

Man, I love you, but there ain't no fucking way the Persian Diaspora isn't going to meddle incessantly in post Ayatolla Iran.  The US ones alone will pay-for-play with the Trump White House for concessions. 

It's not quite going to be on the grift level of South Florida Cuban meddling in the case of a Cuban government collapse, but it's going to be bad. 

No, it could be worse. See, the Diaspora has made a killing overseas. The maker of the primary truck trailer used to supply US forces in Iraq was, yep, Iranian based in Dubai partnered with the Kuwaiti royal family. Add to that the dudes who own the Kebab consortium just in Germany. The list goes on. I did not say stop it, no way, but limit it. It is easy. Limit the amount that can be transferred on any day. 

 

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

I posted it above, but the White House said Trump was leaving G-7 to deal with Israel-Iran.

Macron, when asked, said President was leaving to deal with Israel-Iran. 

Trump goes on Truth Social and says I didn't leave because of Israel-Iran and Macron is talking out of his ass. 

That's just in the last 18 fucking hours. 

 

Gaslighting and bullshit is default for this administration.  They are the fuckboi of Presidential Administration. 

I don't have a dog in the fight, but just for clarity, I think the disagreement was over Macron's use of the phrase "ceasefire". 

Posted
2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Yes, there are Baluchi's there, but also other Sunni groups. Agree there would be some ideological differences. And external influence (Look north and west). Baluchis have always wanted their own place. They are a pretty big ass tribe sitting on some valuable land. Here is what they claim. Some pretty damn important ports, but also a lot of Chinese investment. 

image.jpeg.28fa0c5761aa41a969ab6b721403bc82.jpeg

No, it would not look good, and why I said no US troops. Canadians, Nordics, they do not carry the animosity. Sure high level of force protection, but it can be done. That is why you have contractors to protect those sites. 

Israel? yeah, they are not going to pay shit, but the Gulf Arabs will. They can fun reconstruction. They need the good press in the Shia world. Let each country adopt a province. They will try to outdo each other so hard. 

Risks-

Iran breaks up into regions controlled by warlords. Make sure people have jobs and they tend to not fight. We failed at that in both Afghanistan and Iran relying on third country nationals for even down to the most basic jobs. 

Limit the Influx of foreign private capitol from Iranian diaspora. This tends to change the national make up a lot. Limit what they can do. If you create an Iranian first policy, make residency a requirement. 

 

 

I appreciate your patience in responding to my multiple "just asking questions" posts, but if we're going down this road to toppling another government, I'd really like us to have thoroughly discussed the consequences in addition to the casus belli.

Bolded would be my biggest worry. You know far more about the region than I ever will, so I'll take your word about the Kurds remaining peaceful, not trying to break away, and I had some idea about the folks in SE Iran already.

How about all these other groups, though? Do any of the others have breakaway tendencies, or do other neighboring countries have revanchist claims on Iranian territory?

image.thumb.png.85bf1d627036e0b7c6e12f9fc25ba6f7.png

image.thumb.png.8b588f56204b30df88a5fb4381ac5ca1.png

Posted
17 hours ago, InkaUtexas said:

Was sitting with an Emirati general on his fishing boat one day. Just off their Economic Zone. Basically a very  controlled area.

"See those Islands" he says.

Yep, as I sip a nice scotch.

"They have runways. Israel built them for their jets in case of emergency landings."

Shocked look on my face, not due to the scotch.

"Yep, we prefer them to the Clerics. Shia bastards."

This dude had spent his life up in the mountains fighting against Iranian rebels. He did not like them one bit.

 

What type of scotch?

Posted
3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

 

I appreciate your patience in responding to my multiple "just asking questions" posts, but if we're going down this road to toppling another government, I'd really like us to have thoroughly discussed the consequences in addition to the casus belli.

Bolded would be my biggest worry. You know far more about the region than I ever will, so I'll take your word about the Kurds remaining peaceful, not trying to break away, and I had some idea about the folks in SE Iran already.

How about all these other groups, though? Do any of the others have breakaway tendencies, or do other neighboring countries have revanchist claims on Iranian territory?

image.thumb.png.85bf1d627036e0b7c6e12f9fc25ba6f7.png

image.thumb.png.8b588f56204b30df88a5fb4381ac5ca1.png

From what I have learned in conversations and readings (I never lived or worked there) most are assimilated. Notice in the SE the Arab group and Bandari? Yeah, that is the SE I am talking about. 

The Azeri's could try to break away and join their brethren. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
49 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

Here's their movement on enrichment per CNN.

 

image.thumb.png.26ffc891949cc306e2d26f0734ce4ea2.png

image.thumb.png.acc58281b91cdd04cbe11bbaf5913e65.png

Gee, will ya look at that.  Somehow or other, enrichment accelerated when someone tore up this agreement we had.  Or maybe that whole thing is an elaborate construct of the MSM.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

I don't have a dog in the fight, but just for clarity, I think the disagreement was over Macron's use of the phrase "ceasefire". 

Technically you may be right, but it's a pedantic difference only this White House and the Surl would engage in.  I'm sure Macron was using some artistic license, or b eing polite.  Unlike Trump, I'm sure he didn't want to say "yeah, my understanding is he's going back to bomb the fuck outta Iran." 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

What type of scotch?

I don't remember, but with that dude it was going to be good and expensive. 

One night at my house I busted out a 20 year old Glenlivet (I was about 30 at the time) and got the look of "you poors" but it still had a few drinks. 

He kept a room at the old Fairmont in downtown Dubai. Dinner at the Emirates Palace hotel in Abu Dhabi. And still was pretty damn humble and open to talking. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

One final question to anyone in particular before I take off for a while: What's the likelihood of Saudi's own Shiite population getting all hot and bothered by this stuff? It seems there's a big concentration of them in the eastern part of that country. I realize they're Arabs, not Persians, but do they feel beholden to, or loyal to, Iran or any place in it, like Sunnis do Mecca/Medina?

17013802861_c4e1ee864a_o.jpg

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, bolverk said:

One final question to anyone in particular before I take off for a while: What's the likelihood of Saudi's own Shiite population getting all hot and bothered by this stuff? It seems there's a big concentration of them in the eastern part of that country. I realize they're Arabs, not Persians, but do they feel beholden to, or loyal to, Iran or any place in it, like Sunnis do Mecca/Medina?

17013802861_c4e1ee864a_o.jpg

Yes and no. It is where Saudi's have had some big issues, and why they hate Iran even more. I don't see them rising up for their Shia brothers and risk getting carpet stomped, which the Saudi's would do. 

Also there was a little dust up in Mecca in 1979 that gets overlooked by the West. (Shitty video, not any good ones out there I have found, but you get the point.) 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Gee, will ya look at that.  Somehow or other, enrichment accelerated when someone tore up this agreement we had.  Or maybe that whole thing is an elaborate construct of the MSM.

YARN | Evidently. | Seinfeld (1989) - S08E10 The Andrea ...

  • Haha 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

um.... 

 

Getting the fuck out of dodge or preparing to do something? I'm assuming the former since I can't imagine an LCS doing anything particularly useful in an actual warzone. 

Posted
5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Getting the fuck out of dodge or preparing to do something? I'm assuming the former since I can't imagine an LCS doing anything particularly useful in an actual warzone. 

Curious about this too.

Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

For the record, I've said it before but for clarification, I'm all for Iranian leadership getting taken down. There are lots of reasons for it. First, I'm personally tired of this can being kicked down the road. I also want the people of Iran out from under that oppressive regime and to hopefully find autonomy. I recognize a new puppet regime could come in or worse group, but like to believe it might not.

image.thumb.png.13ac5db9ea99c854f41f5a1743e5993f.png

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Getting the fuck out of dodge or preparing to do something? I'm assuming the former since I can't imagine an LCS doing anything particularly useful in an actual warzone. 

Fuck up Iranian speed boats. Support taking some oil rigs. Add in the Ocean Trader. 

LCS

image.thumb.jpeg.2924571a054fd56359622c5f9d40f047.jpeg

Ocean Trader

image.jpeg.048b68227ca3219cd8fcc176f8d0050c.jpeg

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 hours ago, chainsaw said:

I was making fun of Abrams. You can't criticize someone else for being simplistic about a topic and then, in the same tweet, offer a simplistic analysis on the same topic. I found the hypocrisy amusing.

The similarities between Iran and Pakistan are superficial. One is majority Shia, the other is majority Sunni.

One has an ongoing territorial dispute with a nuclear-armed neighbor, the other does not.

What does Abrahms even mean by "ramped up" or "support for terrorism" here?

How does he know that the "ramping up" didn't simply coincide with a global trend? How is he so sure that it was Pakistan's nuclear program that enabled it?

Just because I disagree with his analysis (which, yeah, more or less boils down to "Pakistan bad ergo Iran bad") doesn't mean I "stan" for Iran. I just wish we didn't have to deal with a social media environment where a platform like X allows someone to post dogshit takes and get millions of views.

I don't think it's simplistic to assume that a notoriously bad actor, one of the worst in the world currently, will act even worse if they have a nuclear shield to hide behind. Some statements are just pretty fucking obvious, like OU sucks, water is wet.. It's not surprising that lobbing barbs at obviously true statements and poisoning the well of the person delivering it...could be seen as stanning for Iran. 

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Would you like me to quote the multiple times I have stated that the current government of Iran needs to be removed, or would you like to actually read the thread yourself instead of forming a tapioca-brained opinion based on one single post you are misinterpreting?

I haven't read the thread now? And that whole post is an interesting take, considering the entire second half of my post was me saying "Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, please help me understand what you meant." Tapioca, eh?

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

@SydneyCarton to be clear, what I was saying was that it was ironic because Israel literally does that, not that Iran (under its current governance) wouldn't do it.

These seems like a much more calm, rational response, and explanation, and good faith effort to have a conversation. Thank you.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Fuck up Iranian speed boats. Support taking some oil rigs. Add in the Ocean Trader. 

LCS

image.thumb.jpeg.2924571a054fd56359622c5f9d40f047.jpeg

Ocean Trader

image.jpeg.048b68227ca3219cd8fcc176f8d0050c.jpeg

this will be the first major combat deployment for LCS ships - big time acid test for the hull brittleness and cracking issues

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I haven't read the thread now? And that whole post is an interesting take, considering the entire second half of my post was me saying "Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, please help me understand what you meant." Tapioca, eh?

These seems like a much more calm, rational response, and explanation, and good faith effort to have a conversation. Thank you.

I just didn't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that I was stanning for Iran based on the rest of the thread.

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, bolverk said:

Trump said he and Putin had discussed the situation in the Middle East on Saturday in a call that focused more on that conflict than the Russian war in Ukraine.

"He is ready. He called me about it," Trump said about Putin serving as a mediator, according to Scott. "We had a long talk about it. We talked about this more than his situation. This is something I believe is going to get resolved."

 

So, a war that's been going on for 5-6 days is more urgent than a war that has dragged on for three years.  And he wants to get a leader involved with peace negotiations, who is every day, and has been for the past 3+ years, directly ordering the murder of Ukrainian civilians.

Season 3 GIF by Parks and Recreation

Edited by atomheartbevo
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Rage+1 1
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I don't think it's simplistic to assume that a notoriously bad actor, one of the worst in the world currently, will act even worse if they have a nuclear shield to hide behind. Some statements are just pretty fucking obvious, like OU sucks, water is wet.. It's not surprising that lobbing barbs at obviously true statements and poisoning the well of the person delivering it...could be seen as stanning for Iran.

Nobody has an appetite for war with Iran. Iran was abiding Obama's deal, and they were actively engaged in peace talks with Trump's guy. Absofuckinglutely they have a bad reputation, but to my knowledge they didn't invade Ukraine or attack anyone else without provocation. The unwashed masses on X need more analysis than "Iran bad," even if you personally might think it's as self-evident as OU sux.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

this will be the first major combat deployment for LCS ships - big time acid test for the hull brittleness and cracking issues

I am sure it can withstand 50 cal. As for other items, maybe that's what mine sweepers are for? That and shipping lanes. 

Iran could easily just send out any sea mines it has. 

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Nobody has an appetite for war with Iran. Iran was abiding Obama's deal, and they were actively engaged in peace talks with Trump's guy. Absofuckinglutely they have a bad reputation, but to my knowledge they didn't invade Ukraine or attack anyone else without provocation. The unwashed masses on X need more analysis than "Iran bad," even if you personally might think it's as self-evident as OU sux.

I would not overlook their open support, and working on war crimes, against civilians in Syria. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

I would not overlook their open support, and working on war crimes, against civilians in Syria. 

They are bad, but nothing better is in the bullpen. We should have learned this from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

They are bad, but nothing better is in the bullpen. We should have learned this from Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is a train of thought that Afghanistan as the modern nation CANNOT be governed. It needs the warlords. Always did. When we had that, and very few troops, it was working. 

Nah, we had to bring in big army and democracy. 

Iraq was fucked the day Saddam ran from his palace. It was ready to blow up and only his secret police and parts of the army, the favored parts, had kept it together. 

 Read my posts above. 1- I am ok with regional warlords, let them sort it out as long as they don't go all ape shit. And if they do, well here come some air power. I would prefer Tucano's or A-10's vs. B1-B strikes. 2- Persia has a long as history. Iraq and Afghanistan were parts of Persia. England made them into their modern nation states. 3- You and me don't know who is in the bullpen, but someone is. 

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

I just didn't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that I was stanning for Iran based on the rest of the thread.

First, see my thoughts on Chainsaw's post above. When generally speaking, including by your own admission, almost everyone knows Iran is a piece of shit that abhors the existence of women other than brood mares, sponsors terrorism across the region and world, financed Hamas, sells/trades drones with Russia...but someone goes out of there way to mock someone stating a very obvious truth (to everyone but Chainsaw)...you doing see how someone might view that as stanning for Iran? Particularly someone with your views on the current state of Israel so well documented? Come on dude. 

6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Nobody has an appetite for war with Iran. Iran was abiding Obama's deal, and they were actively engaged in peace talks with Trump's guy. Absofuckinglutely they have a bad reputation, but to my knowledge they didn't invade Ukraine or attack anyone else without provocation. The unwashed masses on X need more analysis than "Iran bad," even if you personally might think it's as self-evident as OU sux.

Apparently at least one country has an appetite for war with Iran. And while no reasonable person here thinks the repeal of the nuclear deal with Iran by Trump was anything other than a disaster, making some false equivalency of "well, at least they're not Russia" is a laughably stupid defense and attempt at deflection as I've seen. And by the way it's Iran that is supplying arms to Russia. But yes, twitter sources should be ashamed of saying obvious things. You're right Chainsaw, notoriously horrible world actors usually act better and clean up their act the more power they accrue. 

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

They are bad, but nothing better is in the bullpen. We should have learned this from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another horrible comparison. "Nothing better in the bullpen." What does that even men? Let Iran off the hook for their horrible behavior because what's next might be worse? 

You're right, we should apply that same concept to Russia and Putin.

"I'm not sure the guy after Trump is any better, lets just let him do whatever the fuck he wants" - Chainsaw

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 2
Posted
1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

There is a train of thought that Afghanistan as the modern nation CANNOT be governed. It needs the warlords. Always did. When we had that, and very few troops, it was working. 

Nah, we had to bring in big army and democracy. 

Iraq was fucked the day Saddam ran from his palace. It was ready to blow up and only his secret police and parts of the army, the favored parts, had kept it together. 

 Read my posts above. 1- I am ok with regional warlords, let them sort it out as long as they don't go all ape shit. And if they do, well here come some air power. I would prefer Tucano's or A-10's vs. B1-B strikes. 2- Persia has a long as history. Iraq and Afghanistan were parts of Persia. England made them into their modern nation states. 3- You and me don't know who is in the bullpen, but someone is. 

All we want is for Iran not to have nukes. Obama got that done. Trump was going to get that done again, until Israel said hell no we want to drag the Americans into a war.

I won't go too CR because this is DT but this will not be good politics. Much of his base has loved ones in the military and don't want them in harm's way.

Posted
2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

First, see my thoughts on Chainsaw's post above. When generally speaking, including by your own admission, almost everyone knows Iran is a piece of shit that abhors the existence of women other than brood mares, sponsors terrorism across the region and world, financed Hamas, sells/trades drones with Russia...but someone goes out of there way to mock someone stating a very obvious truth (to everyone but Chainsaw)...you doing see how someone might view that as stanning for Iran? Particularly someone with your views on the current state of Israel so well documented? Come on dude. 

You realize that chainsaw and I are not the same person, right? 

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

All we want is for Iran not to have nukes. Obama got that done. Trump was going to get that done again, until Israel said hell no we want to drag the Americans into a war.

I won't go too CR because this is DT but this will not be good politics. Much of his base has loved ones in the military and don't want them in harm's way.

Please note I have never mentioned either US President or their policies. 

We also want Iran to liberalize and stop funding proxies. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

What does that even men?

Are you not paying attention? We fucked up in Iraq and we fucked up in Afghanistan because we had no clear plan for the country after toppling its leadership. We have no idea who will step up or if they will be better or worse. Without a plan, we're signing up for another longterm stabilization/supervision engagement that we can't afford.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Are you not paying attention? We fucked up in Iraq and we fucked up in Afghanistan because we had no clear plan for the country after toppling its leadership. We have no idea who will step up or if they will be better or worse. Without a plan, we're signing up for another longterm stabilization/supervision engagement that we can't afford.

That's our concern, dude.

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

All we want is for Iran not to have nukes. Obama got that done. Trump was going to get that done again, until Israel said hell no we want to drag the Americans into a war.

You happen to be leaving out the bit where in 2018 Trump tore up the agreement that Obama made, and has been trying to unring that bell now. He set the table for this in the first place

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
Just now, Captainant said:

You happen to be leaving out the bit where in 2018 Trump tore up the agreement that Obama made, and has been trying to unring that bell now. He set the table for this in the first place

True, but arguably CR.

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Are you not paying attention? We fucked up in Iraq and we fucked up in Afghanistan because we had no clear plan for the country after toppling its leadership. We have no idea who will step up or if they will be better or worse. Without a plan, we're signing up for another longterm stabilization/supervision engagement that we can't afford.

This.  You can't remove item 1 without having a damned good plan to replace it with item 2....

ZL89Pu.gif

That said, having a plan and executing it are two different things.  Odds are, it still ends up like

rock-indiana-jones.gif

Regime change is tricky fucking business.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
7 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

All we want is for Iran not to have nukes. Obama got that done. Trump was going to get that done again, until Israel said hell no we want to drag the Americans into a war.

I won't go too CR because this is DT but this will not be good politics. Much of his base has loved ones in the military and don't want them in harm's way.

Yes, Everyone has addressed that repealing the nuclear deal with Iran was stupid. Including me in the very post you're quoting. It has no bearing on the actual topic, which was your posting something that could easily have been construed as "Pshhh, we don't think Iran would behave worse with a Nuke! Stupid simplistic take!"

5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

You realize that chainsaw and I are not the same person, right? 

Yes. I'm aware that despite you're similar stances on some issues, you're not the same person, as he's borderline unhinged. That doesn't mean that what I said about his post didn't also apply to you, in the sense that timing and context with your messages could be seen as some version of Dismissal of how Iran would behave with a Nuke.

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

Are you not paying attention? We fucked up in Iraq and we fucked up in Afghanistan because we had no clear plan for the country after toppling its leadership. We have no idea who will step up or if they will be better or worse. Without a plan, we're signing up for another longterm stabilization/supervision engagement that we can't afford.

Oh, so you mean Iran might end up run by the same pieces of shit that are running it now? You cant even respond to how well your logic works when framed in other countries and leadership, like Russia, so you just squeal "But Afghanistan" and "but Iraq." Hey, you know, whoever is next might be worse than Netanyahu. We should probaly just cheer for him stay in power forever, right Chainsaw? 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

True, but arguably CR.

History and facts are not CR. If the deal that Iran was complying with (see surly thread covering that topic) was still in place, Israel would have non-violent means to secure their ultimate outcome of ensuring that Iran does not have nuclear weapons. 

Not making a value judgement on the decision - but they very simply would have an option besides bomb bomb bombing Iran to realize their national security objectives.

  • Hook 'Em 2

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...