Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

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? 

International relations are not a black and white thing. Some of our "allies" do unspeakable things, including genocide. Obama made a deal with some bad people, and Trump tore it up. It's possible to strike a good deal with bad people, and Trump was on the verge of doing that so that we could get closer to stability in the region.

If we learned anything from Iraq, it's that there are high costs and long lasting consequences for trying to be the hero on every corner of the globe. Yes the world is better off without Saddam, but was the invasion truly necessary to get rid of him? Could that not have been achieved with soft power? With diplomacy? By propping up his internal adversaries?

The goal was to prevent Iran from having nukes, and I fail to see how or why American intervention is the only way to achieve that. If you believe that's the same thing as "cheering for the bad man to stay in power forever," then that says more about you than it does about me.

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

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.

Some people interpret facts as criticism and cry "CR" when they feel attacked. You are 100% correct.

Posted
3 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

International relations are not a black and white thing. Some of our "allies" do unspeakable things, including genocide. Obama made a deal with some bad people, and Trump tore it up. It's possible to strike a good deal with bad people, and Trump was on the verge of doing that so that we could get closer to stability in the region.

If we learned anything from Iraq, it's that there are high costs and long lasting consequences for trying to be the hero on every corner of the globe. Yes the world is better off without Saddam, but was the invasion truly necessary to get rid of him? Could that not have been achieved with soft power? With diplomacy? By propping up his internal adversaries?

The goal was to prevent Iran from having nukes, and I fail to see how or why American intervention is the only way to achieve that. If you believe that's the same thing as "cheering for the bad man to stay in power forever," then that says more about you than it does about me.

International relations are not a black and white thing, unless you want to make them black and white when it suits your purpose.  The rest of your post is saying shit everyone already knows, or just you wringing your hands that different means should/could be used to achieve the goals we want. You know, unless the folks who started this, Israel, didn't have any of those methods at their disposal because everyone in the region wants them to die. So you know, fantasyland shit akin to "Why didn't they just ask The Avengers to do in there and take the nukes?!?!"

You can attempt to revise your statements any way you want, but your direct quote was "There's nothing better in the bullpen" and then you cite historical failures to support your fact. That puts the burden on proof that regime change never benefits anyone (even though you admitted it was better for Iraq) on you, dude. Not me. It's your fucking quote, so you tell us how "The bullpen isn't any better and we don't want to go to war with Iran" isn't you saying "leave bad men in power."

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

If we learned anything from Iraq, it's that there are high costs and long lasting consequences for trying to be the hero on every corner of the globe. Yes the world is better off without Saddam, but was the invasion truly necessary to get rid of him? Could that not have been achieved with soft power? With diplomacy? By propping up his internal adversaries?

Iran has always been a far bigger threat than Iraq ever was.

That's part of what was so dumb about burning so much trust and goodwill to invade that shithole. 

I've always been more of an isolationist but I can see the argument to go for it. It's obvious at this point that it is happening. Just have to hope that we can remain involved only via the air. 

As one data point all the pro-Russian twitter accounts are very upset about the prospects of this happening. 

  • Fuck You 4
Posted

I did not say it was necessarily better for Iraq. I'm saying the world is better off without Saddam.

We don't know of anyone in the bullpen for Iran, so how can anyone say that there's someone better waiting to rule it? And if that person had existed why would we have waited so long to intervene? What do you know that Obama, Trump, and Biden didn't know?

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

I did not say it was necessarily better for Iraq. I'm saying the world is better off without Saddam.

We don't know of anyone in the bullpen for Iran, so how can anyone say that there's someone better waiting to rule it? And if that person had existed why would we have waited so long to intervene? What do you know that Obama, Trump, and Biden didn't know?

How can you say there isn't someone better?
Uh, because intervening in foreign affairs is messy? "Why haven't we assassinated Putin, and Xi? Gosh, EVERYONE MUST BE WORSE." That's a lot of unearned faith in our Presidents and intelligence agencies, you must think them infallible? By that token, maybe Iraq and Afghanistan were successes! 

As I said, black and white and absolutes only work when you're declaring them, right?
 

Posted
Just now, SydneyCarton said:

How can you say there isn't someone better?
Uh, because intervening in foreign affairs is messy? "Why haven't we assassinated Putin, and Xi? Gosh, EVERYONE MUST BE WORSE." That's a lot of unearned faith in our Presidents and intelligence agencies, you must think them infallible? By that token, maybe Iraq and Afghanistan were successes! 

As I said, black and white and absolutes only work when you're declaring them, right?
 

I mean.....you've seen the candidate lined up to replace Ken Paxton at AG, right?

In this timeline, a default conclusion of "it only gets worse" is not irrational at all.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 minutes ago, burnt beanz said:

Iran has always been a far bigger threat than Iraq ever was.

That's part of what was so dumb about burning so much trust and goodwill to invade that shithole. 

I've always been more of an isolationist but I can see the argument to go for it. It's obvious at this point that it is happening. Just have to hope that we can remain involved only via the air. 

As one data point all the pro-Russian twitter accounts are very upset about the prospects of this happening. 

You are the one who was claiming that the assassin in Minnesota was a "lefty"  ROTLMAO.    Any update, chud?

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

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.

I don't know what to tell you, man. You seem to be the only person that interpreted it that way. Your initial post seemed barely above the level of the cretins on this board that tell me I want to get buttfucked by a terrorist when I level any criticism of Israel. I'm not sure why you expected me to respond to that with any level of charity when I have repeatedly talked about how much I want the current Iranian governance to be dead and gone.

Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

How can you say there isn't someone better?
Uh, because intervening in foreign affairs is messy? "Why haven't we assassinated Putin, and Xi? Gosh, EVERYONE MUST BE WORSE." That's a lot of unearned faith in our Presidents and intelligence agencies, you must think them infallible? By that token, maybe Iraq and Afghanistan were successes! 

As I said, black and white and absolutes only work when you're declaring them, right?
 

At this point you're basically just wishcasting that the power vacuum would magically be filled by someone kind and aligned with US interests. History teaches that US intervention is almost never beneficial for the targeted nation. We have never been "greeted as liberators."

There is almost no upside for getting involved.

Posted
5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I don't know what to tell you, man. You seem to be the only person that interpreted it that way. Your initial post seemed barely above the level of the cretins on this board that tell me I want to get buttfucked by a terrorist when I level any criticism of Israel. I'm not sure why you expected me to respond to that with any level of charity when I have repeatedly talked about how much I want the current Iranian governance to be dead and gone.

Except even when disagreeing with you, I've said that to you. That being said, I don't expect you to respond to me with any charity. Even if I've responded to you with charity.

We both know I'm capable of removing all charity when posting towards others as well, and I frequently do. I don't have any hard feelings. 

4 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

At this point you're basically just wishcasting that the power vacuum would magically be filled by someone kind and aligned with US interests. History teaches that US intervention is almost never beneficial for the targeted nation. We have never been "greeted as liberators."

There is almost no upside for getting involved.

At this point, you're just obfuscating that youre basically go out of your way to muddy the waters from your original post, which was stupid and idiotic.

I'd be happy if a good person who didn't hate women and wasn't a religious zealot came to power in Iran. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm pretty tired and disillusioned with US interests myself, to a degree. Just not to the point that I'd even bother consider making a comment like "assuming Iran would misbehave more with a nuke is a lazy, stupid take" but then again, I'm not you. 

I can think of some upside to getting involved, or letting Israel do it's thing. But again, I'm not you, and my entire worldview isn't tied to the worst possible outcomes for Israel. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
Just now, SydneyCarton said:

Except even when disagreeing with you, I've said that to you. That being said, I don't expect you to respond to me with any charity. Even if I've responded to you with charity.

We both know I'm capable of removing all charity when posting towards others as well, and I frequently do. I don't have any hard feelings. 

It's all good, man, I know that you are a good faith poster. I was shocked that you interpreted my post that way is all.

Posted
12 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

At this point you're basically just wishcasting that the power vacuum would magically be filled by someone kind and aligned with US interests. History teaches that US intervention is almost never beneficial for the targeted nation. We have never been "greeted as liberators."

There is almost no upside for getting involved.

Do you hold the same position for the Ukraine? Are you unable to see how this helps the Ukraine? Do you hold the same position on the leadership of Russia as Iran? Do you object to US involvement in Ukraine? Do you also think Israeli leadership should remain status quo? 

Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Do you hold the same position for the Ukraine? Are you unable to see how this helps the Ukraine? Do you hold the same position on the leadership of Russia as Iran? Do you object to US involvement in Ukraine? Do you also think Israeli leadership should remain status quo? 

He's already chosen not to answer that question from me several times. Because the answer is inconvenient to his worldview. 

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

Do you hold the same position for the Ukraine? Are you unable to see how this helps the Ukraine? Do you hold the same position on the leadership of Russia as Iran? Do you object to US involvement in Ukraine? Do you also think Israeli leadership should remain status quo? 

We have not sent our own troops to Ukraine, but they were invaded so it's not the same thing. Biden's team viewed the Ukraine war as a low cost way to field-test some US weapons, and a way to weaken Russia.

I don't know enough about Russia to say if someone better is ready to step up in Putin's place, but I don't think direct American intervention should be the way to accomplish that.

I personally do not object to the support we're providing to Ukraine.

I don't believe Israel's leadership is good, but that doesn't mean the US should attack Israel.

Posted
1 hour 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. 

It depends if that one has the Naval Strike Missile on it or not.  

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

We have not sent our own troops to Ukraine, but they were invaded so it's not the same thing. Biden's team viewed the Ukraine war as a low cost way to field-test some US weapons, and a way to weaken Russia.

I don't know enough about Russia to say if someone better is ready to step up in Putin's place, but I don't think direct American intervention should be the way to accomplish that.

I personally do not object to the support we're providing to Ukraine.

I don't believe Israel's leadership is good, but that doesn't mean the US should attack Israel.

We haven't sent any troops to Iran. But I fucking love how earlier you said "What do you know that our presidents don't" when referring to a potential bullpen of leadership in other countries, but here you flat out state definitively what Biden's intentions and strategy were in regards to Ukraine. Are you omniscient now? Fucking LOL. 

"Field Test Some Weapons in Ukraine" yeah, that's a fair take of the situation, it was a knock down drag out fight for literally with years with our congress to send them 40 year old weapons...to "field test." "Listen guys, Joey Two Scoops saw this as a great opportunity for us to finally field test some mortars...and some HIMARS" might be one of the most laughably insincere lies I've seen regarding Ukraine, and I've had to read posts from GRU Horn. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is a pudding brain take on Ukraine and what happened and you should sit some of these convos out. 

He doesn't know how. His entire worldview is "what's bad for Israel is all that matters." Maybe mix in a dash of "What's bad for palestine is fine as long as it's also bad for Democrats."

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted

Seen lots of data points like this on the abstract question of Iran getting nukes:

So the “why should we care if Iran gets a bomb” crowd may have a large online voice but are definitely in the minority.
 

Question then becomes how far we should go to produce that outcome. I’m personally very comfortable with a B-2 dropping a MOAB or two on Fordow to seal the deal, especially now that the air defenses are gone, and Iran’s proxies have been largely defanged. Pretty sure that’s going to be a politically popular position with the average American as well.  We don’t like Forever Wars but we don’t mind the isolated air strike with maximum value (see, e.g., Soleimani, Qasem, Zawahiri, Ayman-al, etc.).

I’m much more agnostic on regime change, as much as the mullahs would deserve it karmically for what they’ve done to that country. I tend to think that what comes after would be better than the status quo, but that’s at best a 60/40 proposition.  We shouldn’t be involved either way. The value of preventing them from going nuclear means we don’t have to pay attention to them any longer and can focus limited military assets in the Indo-Pacific countering China. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
Quote

U.S. intelligence shows that Iran has been preparing for possible strikes on U.S. bases, officials say.

The U.S.S. Carl Vinson aircraft carrier in 2024. The carrier is currently steaming in the Arabian Sea. Iranian allies or proxies are expected to resume attacks on U.S. ships in the region if the United States joins Israel’s campaign.Credit...Richard A. Brooks/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Iran has prepared missiles and other military equipment for strikes on U.S. bases in the Middle East should the United States join Israel’s war against the country, according to American officials who have reviewed intelligence reports.

The United States has sent about three dozen refueling aircraft to Europe that could be used to assist fighter jets protecting American bases or that would be used to extend the range of bombers involved in any possible strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

Fears of a wider war are growing among American officials as Israel presses the White House to intervene in its conflict with Iran. If the United States joins the Israeli campaign and strikes Fordo, a key Iranian nuclear facility, the Iranian-backed Houthi militia will almost certainly resume striking ships in the Red Sea, the officials said. They added that pro-Iranian militias in Iraq and Syria would probably try to attack U.S. bases there.

Other officials said that in the event of an attack, Iran could begin to mine the Strait of Hormuz, a tactic meant to pin American warships in the Persian Gulf.

Commanders put American troops on high alert at military bases throughout the region, including in the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The United States has more than 40,000 troops deployed in the Middle East.

Two Iranian officials have acknowledged that the country would attack U.S. bases in the Middle East, starting with those in Iraq, if the United States joined Israel’s war.

Iran would also target any American bases that are in Arab countries and take part in an attack, the two officials said.

“Our enemies should know that they cannot reach a solution with military attacks on us and will not be able to force their will on the Iranian people,” Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said in a statement on Monday. Mr. Araghchi told his European counterparts in phone conversations that if the war spread, the blame would be on Israel and its main supporters, according to a summary of the calls provided by Iran’s foreign ministry.

U.S. officials said Iran would not need much preparation to attack American bases in the region. The Iranian military has missile bases within easy striking range of Bahrain, Qatar and United Arab Emirates.

The prospect of U.S. forces joining the war has increased in recent days as Israel has continued its campaign, and Iran has launched waves of missiles at Israel in response.

It is not clear how much damage a strike on Fordo would do to Iran’s nuclear capabilities or how long it would delay the development of a weapon. Iran’s current stockpile of enriched uranium is also hidden in tunnels at different locations in the country.

Several American officials said that Israel would need U.S. help to more significantly damage Iran’s nuclear program.

American assistance could include providing air cover for Israeli commandoes who go into Iran on the ground. But, officials said, the more probable outcome is a strike by U.S. B-2 stealth bombers armed with the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a weapon that theoretically has the ability to bore into the mountain that shelters the underground Fordo facility.

Any strike on Fordo by the United States or with U.S. assistance would prompt Iran and its allies to retaliate.

Iran and its allies have been able to harm Americans in the past. The Houthis curbed their attacks after the Trump administration stepped up strikes on them. But in recent years they have repeatedly tried to strike American warships and have hit commercial shipping. In January 2024, an Iranian-backed militia carried out a drone attack on a U.S. base in Jordan near the Syrian border that killed three American soldiers.

American intelligence agencies have long concluded that Iran was close to being able to make a nuclear weapon but had not decided whether to do so. If Iran decided to make a weapon, it would be less than a year away from being able to field one. A crude, more basic nuclear bomb could possibly be constructed more quickly.

President Trump has repeatedly said he will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. On Tuesday, he called for Iran’s unconditional surrender.

But the Israeli attacks may have changed Iran’s calculus. U.S. officials skeptical of Israel’s campaign said on Tuesday that it has probably convinced Tehran that the only way to prevent future attacks would be to develop a full nuclear deterrent.

Some of those officials said that if Iran is likely to pursue a nuclear weapon no matter what, pressure could increase on the Trump administration to strike.

But critics of aggressive, militaristic foreign policy said it was not too late for the United States to turn back.

“It is never too late to start a war,” said Rosemary Kelanic, the director of the Middle East program at Defense Priorities, a think tank that advocates a restrained foreign policy.

Ms. Kelanic acknowledged that Israel’s strike had given Iran an incentive to potentially develop a nuclear weapon. But she added that the incentive would “multiply dramatically if the United States joins the war.”

“Once you get involved, man, its really hard to step back,” she said. “You are just going to go all in.”

Adam Goldman contributed reporting.

 

Posted
9 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

This is a pudding brain take on Ukraine and what happened and you should sit some of these convos out. 

Let's hear your galaxy brain take.

5 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

He doesn't know how. His entire worldview is "what's bad for Israel is all that matters." Maybe mix in a dash of "What's bad for palestine is fine as long as it's also bad for Democrats."

The Obama deal was bad for Israel?

Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

I’m much more agnostic on regime change, as much as the mullahs would deserve it karmically for what they’ve done to that country. I tend to think that what comes after would be better than the status quo, but that’s at best a 60/40 proposition.  We shouldn’t be involved either way.

This is the kind of take, devoid of any and all historical context or understanding, that makes me chuckle to myself and wonder how we are going to move forward as a species. We're literally where we are right now because of our destabilizing actions towards Iran going back to the 1950s. Yeah, the mullahs fucking suck and they deserve to be launched into the sun, but it's very unlikely they would be in power today, while we're now on the verge of another war that will cost us trillions, were it not for the disastrous results of our past actions.

Shrugging that responsibility off as if it's nothing seems extremely irresponsible to me.

e: grammar am hard

Edited by Brian Fantana
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

Let's hear your galaxy brain take.

The Obama deal was bad for Israel?

I don't know. You'd have to dig up all of your posts from 2008-2106 praising the nuclear deal for Iran. I'm only familiar with Chainsaw The Poster from about 2022 onward, where your opinions are certain topics are pretty transparent, at least the posts you make that stand out to me. But I do know it's pretty easy to point to something in retrospect and scream "HEY I LIKED THAT ONE THING AT THE TIME THAT WENT AWAY!" Just like it's pretty easy for me to look back at all the pussy I turned down in my 20's because it wasn't quite hot enough for my dumb fucking standards at the time. 45 year old me, it turns out, thinks most of those girls were plenty fucking attractive. 

1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

This is the kind of take, devoid of any and all historical context or understanding, that makes me chuckle to myself and wonder how we are going to move forward as a species. We're literally where we are right now because of our destabilizing actions towards Iran going back to the 1950s. Yeah, the mullahs fucking suck and they deserve to be launched into the sun, but it's very unlikely they would be in power today, while we're now on the verge of another war that will cost us trillions, were it not for the disastrous results of our past actions.

Shrugging that responsibility off as if it's nothing seems extremely irresponsible to me.

e: grammar am hard

Don't worry. We're not. And if we do it will be so many generations after we're fucking dust it won't matter. 

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

Just like it's pretty easy for me to look back at all the pussy I turned down in my 20's because it wasn't quite hot enough for my dumb fucking standards at the time. 45 year old me, it turns out, thinks most of those girls were plenty fucking attractive. 

Man, my record on this board is pretty clear as to owning the stupidity of some things I did/believed in the past (e.g., I thought "trickle down" economics made some sense, etc.).

But I think my lucky stars that the quoted was NOT one of my youthful mistakes.  I appreciated pretty much ALL of it....can only think of a couple of hard rejects....goddammit, now that I think about it, I regret the hell out of both of those hard rejections.  Idiot.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
14 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

Seen lots of data points like this on the abstract question of Iran getting nukes:

So the “why should we care if Iran gets a bomb” crowd may have a large online voice but are definitely in the minority.
 

Question then becomes how far we should go to produce that outcome. I’m personally very comfortable with a B-2 dropping a MOAB or two on Fordow to seal the deal, especially now that the air defenses are gone, and Iran’s proxies have been largely defanged. Pretty sure that’s going to be a politically popular position with the average American as well.  We don’t like Forever Wars but we don’t mind the isolated air strike with maximum value (see, e.g., Soleimani, Qasem, Zawahiri, Ayman-al, etc.).

I’m much more agnostic on regime change, as much as the mullahs would deserve it karmically for what they’ve done to that country. I tend to think that what comes after would be better than the status quo, but that’s at best a 60/40 proposition.  We shouldn’t be involved either way. The value of preventing them from going nuclear means we don’t have to pay attention to them any longer and can focus limited military assets in the Indo-Pacific countering China. 

This is pretty close to my take, but I lean a lot more pro-regime change. I do fully support air attacks directly and sea support indirectly. I strenously object to US ground forces in Iran. I'd also much prefer the use non-vested non-US leaning intermediary assistance in the rebuilding. Particularly as it relates to cultural aspects. I also openly acknowledge all my wants and preferences may be wishing in one hand. Those positions form from what I admit is a weird quasi-isolationist world view. Help a man learn to fish, but don't tell him how to tie flies or what sort of fishing rig to use, if you like analogies.

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

We're literally where we are right now because of our destabilizing actions towards Iran going back to the 1950s.

We got 26 years of stability from Iran with the Shah. In foreign policy, that’s about as good a result as you can hope for.  No action we take in another country is going to produce a permanent set of conditions favorable to our interests. 

Posted
6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, my record on this board is pretty clear as to owning the stupidity of some things I did/believed in the past (e.g., I thought "trickle down" economics made some sense, etc.).

But I think my lucky stars that the quoted was NOT one of my youthful mistakes.  I appreciated pretty much ALL of it....can only think of a couple of hard rejects....goddammit, now that I think about it, I regret the hell out of both of those hard rejections.  Idiot.

I celebrate my entire catalog. 

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

Just like it's pretty easy for me to look back at all the pussy I turned down in my 20's because it wasn't quite hot enough for my dumb fucking standards at the time. 45 year old me, it turns out, thinks most of those girls were plenty fucking attractive. 

Don't worry. We're not. And if we do it will be so many generations after we're fucking dust it won't matter. 

It has paid long term dividends to be "open minded" regarding my sexual partner preference throughout my "career"

I for one support our new cockroach overlords! Viva la Blattodea!

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This is pretty close to my take, but I lean a lot more pro-regime change. I do fully support air attacks directly and sea support indirectly. I strenously object to US ground forces in Iran. I'd also much prefer the use non-vested non-US leaning intermediary assistance in the rebuilding. Particularly as it relates to cultural aspects. I also openly acknowledge all my wants and preferences may be wishing in one hand. Those positions form from what I admit is a weird quasi-isolationist world view. Help a man learn to fish, but don't tell him how to tie flies or what sort of fishing rig to use, if you like analogies.

If the current regime in Iran collapses, the one thing I can guarantee is that our current Regime and those connected to it will be single-minded in their attempted profiteering, angling for power/control/wealth extraction, etc.

In short, if you think it was bad when we had NATIONAL interests in getting our grubby paws on a country's riches, wait till you see completely amoral and criminal oligarchs with full control of our military, laws, power, and diplomacy doing the same.

Edited by Brisketexan
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Rage+1 2
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

If the current regime in Iran collapses, the one thing I can guarantee is that our current Regime and those connected to it will be single-minded in their attempted profiteering, angling for power/control/wealth extraction, etc.

In short, if you think it was bad when we had NATIONAL interests in getting our grubby paws on a country's riches, wait till you see completely amoral and criminal oligarchs doing the same.

No one will claim you're inconsistent on your takes and concerns about the current US administration.

Edited by BurntEyes
Accuracy
  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean.....you've seen the candidate lined up to replace Ken Paxton at AG, right?

In this timeline, a default conclusion of "it only gets worse" is not irrational at all.

I Guess If You Say So GIF

Posted
10 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

We got 26 years of stability from Iran with the Shah. In foreign policy, that’s about as good a result as you can hope for.  No action we take in another country is going to produce a permanent set of conditions favorable to our interests. 

The shah's reign was many things but stable is certainly not one of them.

Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Man, my record on this board is pretty clear as to owning the stupidity of some things I did/believed in the past (e.g., I thought eating that Allsup's burrito was a good idea).

 

FIFY

  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I was right then, I'm right now.

Allsups-Burrito.jpg

25c8d1e3387b340491abfc15493301cb

Right stupid.

 

ETA But I'll agree that looks mighty tasty.

Edited by DDD Dad
Posted
2 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

Shame Facepalm GIF by MOODMAN

I know this hilarious reaction gif was directed at me.  I don’t understand your notion that October 7th doesn’t play a role in Israel’s post 10/7 actions. As if everything happens in a vacuum. You cannot make your statement make sense. 

Posted
4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

I know this hilarious reaction gif was directed at me.  I don’t understand your notion that October 7th doesn’t play a role in Israel’s post 10/7 actions. As if everything happens in a vacuum. You cannot make your statement make sense. 

The fuck you got against Taco Villa?

Posted
1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Let's hear your galaxy brain take.

The Obama deal was bad for Israel?

I don’t feel like recreating my corpus on the Ukraine thread going back years for someone thick enough to post this shit in 2025. All over this board there are actual experts on some things if you care to pause and read carefully.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Drool 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

I don’t feel like recreating my corpus on the Ukraine thread going back years for someone thick enough to post this shit in 2025. All over this board there are actual experts on some things if you care to pause and read carefully.

Mhm. You can't even give a TLDR?

I recall many posters in that thread citing Peter Zeihan with approval.

Do you consider him also to be a puddle brain?

Posted
59 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I was right then, I'm right now.

Allsups-Burrito.jpg

 

Oh fuck that.  I've not had the best experiences there, and this gal I was banging on the side, maybe 20-25 years ago, she got the worst diarrhea ever in her life from an Allsups burrito (she ate 2 or 3 burritos, and I think some potatoes, but it sounded like all it took was one burrito). Just seeing that photo you posted makes me cringe.  Think it was the Stratford Allups, but tried to block out the story, so thanks for reminding me.

 

  • Haha 1
  • Drool 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...