Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Just now, Hank_Hill said:

The sooner people realize that in this environment and for the next +4 years there will be no separation between DT and CR discussions the better. It’s not going to happen. 

It’s possible not to bitch about Trump in this thread. You just have to exhibit a modicum of self control. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s possible not to bitch about Trump in this thread. You just have to exhibit a modicum of self control. 

It’s possible, but it’s not gonna happen 

  • Haha 4
  • Fuck You 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

I think Trump is demented enough to send in US troops and involve US bombers, to show his base that he is very powerful. And who knows, maybe start WWIII, when China seized the opportunity to advance on Taiwan.

Dude, then we have them surrounded and our bombers just go home that way. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
46 minutes ago, troph said:

This is true in theory but telling an establish leader to unconditionally surrender is kind of a stupid fucking thing to say when all anyone really wants - debate the method but the desire is clear - is to see Iran (remain) denuclearized. I don’t give a fuck if it’s Biden, Obama or my mother saying it, it’s really fucking stupid. 

This assumes everyone wants the Iranian regime to stay in power. 

They don't.

And Trumps comment was well covered. Nobody rational disagreed.

It doesn't have to be rehashed multiple times on every page of the thread.

Posted
2 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This assumes everyone wants the Iranian regime to stay in power. 

They don't.

And Trumps comment was well covered. Nobody rational disagreed.

It doesn't have to be rehashed multiple times on every page of the thread.

Most of the west would prefer a regime change if it was guaranteed to work. 

I get it but he’s a central figure here and he’s making news. Where the line is crossed isn’t in talking about what he says, it’s in blind assumption he’s always wrong and in name calling. I do neither outside the cloak room. And truly, I’m not necessarily opposed to what’s going on with Israel bombing Iran, and I’m not sure I agree it means every country is going to look for nukes. Even those that want them it’s still pretty fucking hard to get. So I’m not here to say he’s a POS because he’s DJT or that everything he does is bullshit. but he’s not off limits when he makes news and boy can that man make some fucking news, Jesus. 

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
4 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

This assumes everyone wants the Iranian regime to stay in power. 

They don't.

And Trumps comment was well covered. Nobody rational disagreed.

It doesn't have to be rehashed multiple times on every page of the thread.

 

Right, so let's be very clear and not pretend this is a necessary or defensive war. It's very much a preemptive war of choice in which Israel (and the US, if we join in) are absolutely the aggressors, determining for the Iranian people that their government (no matter how shitty it might be) is no longer fit to rule there and acknowledging that the Iranian people will just have to pay the price...along with all the other foreseeable, and unpredictable, consequences (i.e., regional instability and whatever that might do to Middle Eastern countires, the price of oil and whatever that might do to the global economy, terrorism, international relations, and all the rest).

Let's be clear-eyed about this. There will be a price to pay. If it's worth it, then fine. But no one here or in leadership should come back in a few months or years and say, "Damn, I didn't expect it to cause X, Y, and Z," and then try to place the blame on someone else when they can't put out the fire fast or thorough enough.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, troph said:

This is true in theory but telling an establish leader to unconditionally surrender is kind of a stupid fucking thing to say when all anyone really wants - debate the method but the desire is clear - is to see Iran (remain) denuclearized. I don’t give a fuck if it’s Biden, Obama or my mother saying it, it’s really fucking stupid. 

Yeah everyone understands your fucking point. The CR is right over there. I’d like to read about the conflict without having anyone bring up their Trump hatred reflexively nonstop. We get it. He’s a tweeting buffoon. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 2
Posted
3 hours ago, bolverk said:

Let's be clear-eyed about this. There will be a price to pay. If it's worth it, then fine. But no one here or in leadership should come back in a few months or years and say, "Damn, I didn't expect it to cause X, Y, and Z," and then try to place the blame on someone else when they can't put out the fire fast or thorough enough.

Whether it’s mines in the Persian Gulf, or terrorist acts against Americans, or something even worse (dirty bombs, etc. - pull out the Tom Clancy playbook), it’s pretty fucking clear that A) Netanyahu is driving this, at least in part, out of his own political survival and B) there is no exit strategy.

The lack of exit strategy is the bigger problem. 

  • Hook 'Em 9
Posted
7 hours ago, Bevo said:

Most people fear their own death, the death of their loved ones, and/or the death of their people. A dirty bomb ensures that their life is forfeited and the lives of their loved ones and their country may end as well.

The Iranian leadership gives no shits about their people, otherwise they wouldn't have morality police beating the hell out of women (and/or killing them) for not dressing modestly enough. They can get their families to Moscow (and rumors are some have done that, although I have my doubts).

So that leaves the lives of the actual leadership. 

Not every dictatorship ends with a quick flight to Moscow like it did with Syria. If Trump actually keeps up with the "unconditional surrender" angle, the Iranian leadership all saw what happened to Gaddafi and Hussein when they were driven out of power by Western military might, and if it's not outright capture by citizens and the shoving up the ass of red hot pokers like Gaddafi, it'll be turned over to the civilian population like Hussain. Some of them are nuts enough to decide they are going to take down a lot of innocent people on their way out, and they have a shit-ton of missiles and at least some nuclear material.  I wouldn't put it past them if things go down that road.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
12 hours ago, Duane Moore said:

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. 

 

It also mostly clears the way in the Middle East. Iraq stabilizes further, Shia/Muslim international terrorism and extremism takes a big hit, the Abraham accords continue and accelerate, Syria and Lebanon continue to stabilize and turn towards the West, Hezbollah/Houthis/Hamas are largely neutered, and a friendlier Iran turns on the taps for Europe to continue diversifying away from Russian crude. The only downside is Turkey has a much free-er hand in the region and will work to further align Libya, Syria, Lebanon, and Sunni extremism towards their worldview.

If the Mullahs actually fall, it will be awesome. A western friendly Iran will help western goals worldwide, including the Pacific. Fingers crossed

 

12 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

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

 

Relative to the neighborhood, the Shas's reign was peaceful and stable.

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The geopolitics guys I've listened to, Ian Bremmer and Peter Zeihan, both think regime change will be very tough to accomplish because the IRGC effectively run the country. 

It’s not happening unless the west / US hasn’t leaned from its mistakes and tries it again. 

Edited by troph
Posted
3 hours ago, MagicSoccerSpray said:

 

Relative to the neighborhood, the Shas's reign was peaceful and stable.

 

 

I’m sure the Persian people loved SAVAK.  The Shah was just another brutal dictator propped up by the US

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
11 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

You cannot talk about a conflict involving Israel, Iran, and the US and not talk about the leaders of each. That means opinions too. If you want just facts, I don't think that exists anymore, certainly not on a damn message board. 

This. Especially when the facts are malleable. There’s not even agreement within the regime on the facts. The DNI and POTUS have contradicted each other in public within the last week.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Schulz2.0 said:

The geopolitics guys I've listened to, Ian Bremmer and Peter Zeihan, both think regime change will be very tough to accomplish because the IRGC effectively run the country. 

I’m coming around to the idea that if the nukes at Fordow can be eliminated and they keep degrading the ballistic missile capability, keeping Khameini in power may be the preferred outcome. He’s proven to be completely outclassed in this conflict. Keep letting the old fool run the country into the ground.

Obviously, if there was an Ataturk type who could replace him with a secular democracy that would be the fantasy scenario, but I’m not holding my breath on that. Reza Pahlavi doesn’t seem to have any substantial base of support and I haven’t seen anyone else (either an individual or party/movement) that might step up into that role. 
 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

The Iranian leadership gives no shits about their people, otherwise they wouldn't have morality police beating the hell out of women (and/or killing them) for not dressing modestly enough. They can get their families to Moscow (and rumors are some have done that, although I have my doubts).

So that leaves the lives of the actual leadership. 

Not every dictatorship ends with a quick flight to Moscow like it did with Syria. If Trump actually keeps up with the "unconditional surrender" angle, the Iranian leadership all saw what happened to Gaddafi and Hussein when they were driven out of power by Western military might, and if it's not outright capture by citizens and the shoving up the ass of red hot pokers like Gaddafi, it'll be turned over to the civilian population like Hussain. Some of them are nuts enough to decide they are going to take down a lot of innocent people on their way out, and they have a shit-ton of missiles and at least some nuclear material.  I wouldn't put it past them if things go down that road.

I don’t disagree the risk is there for missile strikes but I understood their missile capacity was quite limited. In fact something like 2000 total and much of that is likely expended already trying to push back Israel? 

I don’t think it’s bad to expose Iran’s shitty military capability just like Russia was exposed. Leaves China alone. They have no military allies. So when this shit shifts to Taiwan they will be 100% isolated on that. The emerging axis of Russia, China and Iran is a house of cards (except to the extent the lesser are just pawns to provide oil).

I think the bigger risk above missile strikes is ancillary terrorism from Iran - stunts in the Red Sea, proxy responses from the Houthis and others.

but it is interesting, some of the Arab states even most of them seem to have an appetite for moving on from the foundational grievances. There seems to be a fair amount of if you can’t beat them join them from the more developed parts of the region. 

Iran already fucks with shit in the Middle East so who is to say confirming their nuke program is busted and setting them back is a bad thing? I’m still open minded about it all - though I’d like the US to stay out of it.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
4 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

I’m coming around to the idea that if the nukes at Fordow can be eliminated and they keep degrading the ballistic missile capability, keeping Khameini in power may be the preferred outcome. He’s proven to be completely outclassed in this conflict. Keep letting the old fool run the country into the ground.

Obviously, if there was an Ataturk type who could replace him with a secular democracy that would be the fantasy scenario, but I’m not holding my breath on that. Reza Pahlavi doesn’t seem to have any substantial base of support and I haven’t seen anyone else (either an individual or party/movement) that might step up into that role. 
 

 

I agree though a free and secular Iran would a boon to the world economy. I really wish they could fully join this century. Too much to ask. 

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

I agree though a free and secular Iran would a boon to the world economy. I really wish they could fully join this century. Too much to ask. 

Lol. If you think we would ever allow a free and secular Iran I have a bridge to sell you. The best we can hope for is we use our attack dog to decapitate the current regime and they fly Pahlavi's ass back over there and reinstall the monarchy, and then this all happens again in a couple decades.

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

I agree though a free and secular Iran would a boon to the world economy. I really wish they could fully join this century. Too much to ask. 

Absolutely. It’s such a shame because they really should not have any natural enmity with Israel. The two countries don’t even share a border. If they spent their efforts trying to ensure the prosperity and security of their people rather than defining their nation around the elimination of an entire state solely due to their religion, everyone one in the region would be better off. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Duane Moore said:

Absolutely. It’s such a shame because they really should not have any natural enmity with Israel. The two countries don’t even share a border. If they spent their efforts trying to ensure the prosperity and security of their people rather than defining their nation around the elimination of an entire state solely due to their religion, everyone one in the region would be better off. 

Yeah there is no real reason beyond the shitty, religious extremist ideology of the mullahs. They were strategic allies prior to the Iranian Revolution. No reason it can't be the case in the future.

Aside from the ones I gave, of course.

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

Yeah there is no real reason beyond the shitty, religious extremist ideology of the mullahs. They were strategic allies prior to the Iranian Revolution. No reason it can't be the case in the future.

Aside from the ones I gave, of course.

So then the Clerics must go. Otherwise it won't change. Did you know there were Taliban within the Karzai government? Quite openly. But they were willing to listen and see. They were from the Deep south. 

When we decided to impose what we call Democracy vs. their traditional system they said nah, fuck this. And went to be come regional leaders. 

Keep big Army out of this. Want them removed? It is a Special Operations mission. Delta, Rangers, the Airborne. 1st Cav can watch. 10th mountain, keep guarding our northern border. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, InkaUtexas said:

So then the Clerics must go. Otherwise it won't change. Did you know there were Taliban within the Karzai government? Quite openly. But they were willing to listen and see. They were from the Deep south. 

When we decided to impose what we call Democracy vs. their traditional system they said nah, fuck this. And went to be come regional leaders. 

Keep big Army out of this. Want them removed? It is a Special Operations mission. Delta, Rangers, the Airborne. 1st Cav can watch. 10th mountain, keep guarding our northern border. 

 

Yeah I would think it would have to be a targeted, precision op. Dropping MOABs everywhere ain't gonna do it.

Posted
1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah I would think it would have to be a targeted, precision op. Dropping MOABs everywhere ain't gonna do it.

Bomb it, cuz we already sent the shit over and show China what we can do. There are probably very few people there. Sucks. Then let the IDF go in and really neutralize the site. Invite some international "monitors," That is all the IDF can do on the ground. Fuck it, do the two nuke sites.

Meanwhile the US takes the 5 major airports, Bandar Abbas (port only), only special ops personnel. Get them up and running to normal ASAP. Take Kharg Island and get the oil moving. Cut a deal with the non-ICRG managers of the refineries. Get them going. 

Open up the airports and port. MASSIVE influx of aid. Food, medicine, fuel. Alleviate any possible bitching. 6 months US leaves. Replaced by an international monitoring and security force. 

Allow regional leaders to continue day to day operations. 18 months to national elections. No member of the Shah's family or member of the current regime allowed to run. Keep the threat up that if ANYONE gets out of line, in a big way., there will be tit for tat BS, US air is coming. 

Oh, and to the poster above who said Savak controlled everything? Do not you think the IRG does? 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
40 minutes ago, troph said:

I agree though a free and secular Iran would a boon to the world economy. I really wish they could fully join this century. Too much to ask. 

 

35 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Lol. If you think we would ever allow a free and secular Iran I have a bridge to sell you. The best we can hope for is we use our attack dog to decapitate the current regime and they fly Pahlavi's ass back over there and reinstall the monarchy, and then this all happens again in a couple decades.

where did I say I think we would allow it?
 

26 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Yeah there is no real reason beyond the shitty, religious extremist ideology of the mullahs. They were strategic allies prior to the Iranian Revolution. No reason it can't be the case in the future.

Aside from the ones I gave, of course.

aspirations and reality are not the same, agreed.

  • Like 1
Posted

There is a lot to unpack in this rather long Reuters Paylink Article

I'll put some highlights in spoilers below but broad take aways with as little bias as possible 

1) Iran saber rattling and declaring no surrender

2) Russia getting in the saber rattling game. 

3) Iran making veiled threats to OG facilities and shipping which won't help their cause with US or ME OG powers.

4) Internal concerns in Iran about tactical errors due to leadership deaths.

5) Iranian people fleeing cities

6) Iran going full dictatorship and banning public filming. Limiting purchases etc

Iran's Khamenei rejects Trump's call for surrender as thousands flee Tehran -

Spoiler

DUBAI/JERUSALEM - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected U.S. President Donald Trump's demand for unconditional surrender on Wednesday, as Iranians jammed the highways out of Tehran fleeing from intensified Israeli airstrikes.

In a recorded speech played on television, his first appearance since Friday, Khamenei, 86, said the Americans "should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage."

"Intelligent people who know Iran, the Iranian nation and its history will never speak to this nation in threatening language because the Iranian nation will not surrender," he said.

Trump has veered from proposing a swift diplomatic end to the war to suggesting the United States might join it. In social media posts on Tuesday he mused about killing Khamenei, then demanded Iran's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!

...

Israel's military said 50 Israeli jets had struck around 20 targets in Tehran overnight, including sites producing raw materials, components and manufacturing systems for missiles. The military told Iranians to leave parts of the capital for their safety while it struck targets.

Traffic was backed up on highways leading out of the city of 10 million people. Arezou, 31, told Reuters by phone that she had made it out to the nearby resort town of Lavasan.

Russia's foreign ministry said the world was "millimetres away from catastrophe" due to daily strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Germany's foreign minister appealed to Iran's leaders to make credible assurances they were not seeking a nuclear weapon and show willingness to find a negotiated solution.

...

Iran had conveyed to Washington that it would retaliate strongly without restraint against the United States for any direct participation, its ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, said. He said he already saw the U.S. as "complicit in what Israel is doing".

Iran has been exploring options for leverage, including veiled threats to hit the global oil market by restricting access to the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important shipping artery for oil. Tehran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through.

A former Iranian Economy Minister, Ehsan Khandouzi, said on X that Iran should start requiring permission for tankers transiting the strait, a move he said would be "decisive" but only if implemented quickly. Iran's Oil Ministry and Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Authorities are intent on preventing panic and shortages, and fewer images of destruction have been allowed to circulate than in the early days of the bombing, when state media showed pictures of explosions, fires and flattened apartments. A ban on filming by the public has been imposed.

With Khamenei's main military and security advisers killed by Israeli strikes, the leader's inner circle has been narrowed, raising the risk that he could make strategic errors, according to five people familiar with his decision-making process.

 

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

There is a lot to unpack in this rather long Reuters Paylink Article

I'll put some highlights in spoilers below but broad take aways with as little bias as possible 

1) Iran saber rattling and declaring no surrender

2) Russia getting in the saber rattling game. 

3) Iran making veiled threats to OG facilities and shipping which won't help their cause with US or ME OG powers.

4) Internal concerns in Iran about tactical errors due to leadership deaths.

5) Iranian people fleeing cities

6) Iran going full dictatorship and banning public filming. Limiting purchases etc

Iran's Khamenei rejects Trump's call for surrender as thousands flee Tehran -

  Reveal hidden contents

DUBAI/JERUSALEM - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected U.S. President Donald Trump's demand for unconditional surrender on Wednesday, as Iranians jammed the highways out of Tehran fleeing from intensified Israeli airstrikes.

In a recorded speech played on television, his first appearance since Friday, Khamenei, 86, said the Americans "should know that any U.S. military intervention will undoubtedly be accompanied by irreparable damage."

"Intelligent people who know Iran, the Iranian nation and its history will never speak to this nation in threatening language because the Iranian nation will not surrender," he said.

Trump has veered from proposing a swift diplomatic end to the war to suggesting the United States might join it. In social media posts on Tuesday he mused about killing Khamenei, then demanded Iran's "UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!

...

Israel's military said 50 Israeli jets had struck around 20 targets in Tehran overnight, including sites producing raw materials, components and manufacturing systems for missiles. The military told Iranians to leave parts of the capital for their safety while it struck targets.

Traffic was backed up on highways leading out of the city of 10 million people. Arezou, 31, told Reuters by phone that she had made it out to the nearby resort town of Lavasan.

Russia's foreign ministry said the world was "millimetres away from catastrophe" due to daily strikes on Iran's nuclear sites. Germany's foreign minister appealed to Iran's leaders to make credible assurances they were not seeking a nuclear weapon and show willingness to find a negotiated solution.

...

Iran had conveyed to Washington that it would retaliate strongly without restraint against the United States for any direct participation, its ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, Ali Bahreini, said. He said he already saw the U.S. as "complicit in what Israel is doing".

Iran has been exploring options for leverage, including veiled threats to hit the global oil market by restricting access to the Gulf through the Strait of Hormuz, the world's most important shipping artery for oil. Tehran has in the past threatened to close the strait but has never followed through.

A former Iranian Economy Minister, Ehsan Khandouzi, said on X that Iran should start requiring permission for tankers transiting the strait, a move he said would be "decisive" but only if implemented quickly. Iran's Oil Ministry and Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Authorities are intent on preventing panic and shortages, and fewer images of destruction have been allowed to circulate than in the early days of the bombing, when state media showed pictures of explosions, fires and flattened apartments. A ban on filming by the public has been imposed.

With Khamenei's main military and security advisers killed by Israeli strikes, the leader's inner circle has been narrowed, raising the risk that he could make strategic errors, according to five people familiar with his decision-making process.

 

Live shot of senior IRGC officials on the streets:

756b5e21-0149-467e-a677-a579883dec93_tex

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Haha 1
Posted

This seems pretty reasonable.

 

 

10 hours ago, troph said:

This is true in theory but telling an establish leader to unconditionally surrender is kind of a stupid fucking thing to say when all anyone really wants - debate the method but the desire is clear - is to see Iran (remain) denuclearized. I don’t give a fuck if it’s Biden, Obama or my mother saying it, it’s really fucking stupid. 

This is example #287 of Trump doing the bluster, over the top proclamations, then he'll fall back. 200% tariffs!

My optimistic side says we're setting up for, blow up the nuclear program, let ayatollah stay on. Move on to next problem.

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, troph said:

I agree though a free and secular Iran would a boon to the world economy. I really wish they could fully join this century. Too much to ask. 

I think they can and possibly would.

Sometimes countries can find their own autonomy post regime change. Most posters here, due to historicals, have completely dismissed the Iranian peoples ability of self determination and self rule. It's myopic and a discredit to the humans living in the country of Iran. 

They are a proud and historical amazingly strong people.

I DO get the historical realities of the ME, but to automatically assume with certainty that the Iranian people are completely incapable of self determination is frankly racist.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
52 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Bomb it, cuz we already sent the shit over and show China what we can do. There are probably very few people there. Sucks. Then let the IDF go in and really neutralize the site. Invite some international "monitors," That is all the IDF can do on the ground. Fuck it, do the two nuke sites.

Meanwhile the US takes the 5 major airports, Bandar Abbas (port only), only special ops personnel. Get them up and running to normal ASAP. Take Kharg Island and get the oil moving. Cut a deal with the non-ICRG managers of the refineries. Get them going. 

Open up the airports and port. MASSIVE influx of aid. Food, medicine, fuel. Alleviate any possible bitching. 6 months US leaves. Replaced by an international monitoring and security force. 

Allow regional leaders to continue day to day operations. 18 months to national elections. No member of the Shah's family or member of the current regime allowed to run. Keep the threat up that if ANYONE gets out of line, in a big way., there will be tit for tat BS, US air is coming. 

Oh, and to the poster above who said Savak controlled everything? Do not you think the IRG does? 

It seems wildly optimistic that we'd sustain follow through aid for even 6 weeks. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I’m sure the Persian people loved SAVAK.  The Shah was just another brutal dictator propped up by the US

https://gamaan.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/GAMAAN-Political-Systems-Survey-2022-English-Final.pdf

A 2022 survey by Gamaan found that 64% of respondents viewed Mohammad Reza Pahlavi positively, while 28% judged him negatively.  I bet that number is significantly higher today.

Edited by Frank Drebin
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
8 hours ago, Rex Kramer said:

Yeah everyone understands your fucking point. The CR is right over there. I’d like to read about the conflict without having anyone bring up their Trump hatred reflexively nonstop. We get it. He’s a tweeting buffoon. 

It's real simple to ignore the cloak room clowns who cannot help themselves in making every post political.

Posted
1 hour ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I’m sure the Persian people loved SAVAK.  The Shah was just another brutal dictator propped up by the US

 

Name one decently sized ME autocracy that doesn't/didn't have a brutal secret police.

 

1 hour ago, Brian Fantana said:

Lol. If you think we would ever allow a free and secular Iran I have a bridge to sell you. The best we can hope for is we use our attack dog to decapitate the current regime and they fly Pahlavi's ass back over there and reinstall the monarchy, and then this all happens again in a couple decades.

 

Persians are not Arab and are not historically fundamentalist. Under the Shah they had a history of personal freedom and religious tolerance relative to the rest of the ME.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
20 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I think they can and possibly would.

Sometimes countries can find their own autonomy post regime change. Most posters here, due to historicals, have completely dismissed the Iranian peoples ability of self determination and self rule. It's myopic and a discredit to the humans living in the country of Iran. 

They are a proud and historical amazingly strong people.

I DO get the historical realities of the ME, but to automatically assume with certainty that the Iranian people are completely incapable of self determination is frankly racist.

could happen for sure. I think if any ME country ruled under an iron fist could it would be them. just doubt it.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, burnt beanz said:

 

 

Bibi has been saying this, more or less, for the past decade and a half and yet, Iran has never completed the puzzle. Yes, we need Iran back at the table to talk about denuclearization but using the argument that "they're almost there, we think, but it's ambiguous" to bomb Tehran is disingenuous at best.

  • Hook 'Em 5
Posted
6 minutes ago, dieucla98 said:

It's war. It's always going to be political. Wake the fuck up.

Generally, the Ukraine/Russia discussion has been pretty politically free and commentary has been more subject oriented. Every once in awhile the cloak room people and associated commentary crop up but overall it has been good since the thread was started in 2022.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Bevo said:

Generally, the Ukraine/Russia discussion has been pretty politically free and commentary has been more subject oriented. Every once in awhile the cloak room people and associated commentary crop up but overall it has been good since the thread was started in 2022.

there's a lot more information to share in that war, Ukraine strategically has been an open book. Iran is not that. there is VERY little tactical information out there to share.  No westerners (media, etc.) on the ground in Iran really.

Posted
1 minute ago, Bevo said:

Generally, the Ukraine/Russia discussion has been pretty politically free and commentary has been more subject oriented. Every once in awhile the cloak room people and associated commentary crop up but overall it has been good since the thread was started in 2022.

The politics are there, we are all just on the same side of the politics so no one minds it.

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...