Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Zero chance China can replace Iranian crude with domestic production. Probably ever. 

Agreed. Wasn't trying to imply they could. Most of their unconventional resources are gas from tight sandstones and shale, and coal-bed methane. 

Posted
3 hours ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Cliffs? It’s behind a paywall. 

Just a friendly reminder for the board that paywalls to read articles are ignored by AI:

1) Copy the URL
2) Copy Paste the URL into your favorite prompting tool
3) Read

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

 

I see a massive multi-multi-million-dollar engineering feat that could be defeated by a missile or drone.  That looks so vulnerable.

Giant, lumbering targets carrying large masses of soldiers over a straight that has TWO monsoon seasons.  Have fun with that.  Then you park that giant hunk of crap on the dunes and reefs that have been bracketed for decades with every piece of ordinance Taiwan owns.  No way.  These aren't siege towers from LOTR (which is what they remind me of)

China's only chance is sabotage from within - Israeli style.  They have to both secure the plants, AND more importantly, the select few people that know how to run them.  90% of all the advanced chips going into virtually every modern weapons system has chips in them from Taiwan.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 hours ago, Duane Moore said:

The military historian Edward Luttwak has made this point many times - “the Han don’t fight” as he says it.  Fair enough, but they seem to be building up their entire military with the purpose of taking Taiwan, an island that is very close to them and very far from us. With the PLA having more than 2 million people and their shipbuilding far outstripping every other country on earth, at some point quantity becomes a quality of its own. 
 

Hope we don’t ever have to find out. 

 

taiwan better have an ungodly amount of drones 

Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

There is the military logistical and capabilities reality, which is problematic. Potentially as big an issue is the hatred between the two. They make speak different dialects of the same language but culturally they are vastly different. This isn't a recent divide either. It's not China/Japan level hate, but it's real.

But... that's a different thread.

It's the exact same language not even a different dialect. And culturally there's not as big of a divide now as there was maybe twenty years ago.  The communist brainwashing apparatus has been effective.

Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, gsoda3 said:

It's the exact same language not even a different dialect. And culturally there's not as big of a divide now as there was maybe twenty years ago.  The communist brainwashing apparatus has been effective.

Not as of 5 years ago per the research below and not based on my Taiwanese national friends and his medical doctor wife who left Taiwan to come to the US based on concerns regarding China. Or... the rest of his family who now lives in the US.

PG_2020_05.12_Taiwan_0-04.png.080279847e4af9c37e0252ced09d124e.png

Link

Or this one from 3 months ago 

CFR article

Or this one from the BBC 6 months ago

BBC Article

Or this one from Reuters:

Taiwan president pledges peace with China but says island must strengthen defences - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/anniversary-taking-office-taiwan-president-reiterates-willingness-talk-china-2025-05-20/

I could go on. 

And if you think there are no dialect differences between Chinese Mandarin and Taiwanese Mandarin, I'm sure you think people in Boston speak like people in Kentucky. That's before dismissing all the other dialects found in China. But you're right, officially they speak the same language.

This fucking place. 

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Haha 3
Posted
56 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Not as of 5 years ago per the research below and not based on my Taiwanese national friends and his medical doctor wife who left Taiwan to come to the US based on concerns regarding China. Or... the rest of his family who now lives in the US.

PG_2020_05.12_Taiwan_0-04.png.080279847e4af9c37e0252ced09d124e.png

Link

Or this one from 3 months ago 

CFR article

Or this one from the BBC 6 months ago

BBC Article

Or this one from Reuters:

Taiwan president pledges peace with China but says island must strengthen defences - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/anniversary-taking-office-taiwan-president-reiterates-willingness-talk-china-2025-05-20/

I could go on. 

And if you think there are no dialect differences between Chinese Mandarin and Taiwanese Mandarin, I'm sure you think people in Boston speak like people in Kentucky. That's before dismissing all the other dialects found in China. But you're right, officially they speak the same language.

This fucking place. 

I mean, the Taiwanese will only put pee-pee in your DIET Coke, so there's obviously a pretty big difference there.

  • Haha 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 2
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

Not as of 5 years ago per the research below and not based on my Taiwanese national friends and his medical doctor wife who left Taiwan to come to the US based on concerns regarding China. Or... the rest of his family who now lives in the US.

PG_2020_05.12_Taiwan_0-04.png.080279847e4af9c37e0252ced09d124e.png

Link

Or this one from 3 months ago 

CFR article

Or this one from the BBC 6 months ago

BBC Article

Or this one from Reuters:

Taiwan president pledges peace with China but says island must strengthen defences - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/anniversary-taking-office-taiwan-president-reiterates-willingness-talk-china-2025-05-20/

I could go on. 

And if you think there are no dialect differences between Chinese Mandarin and Taiwanese Mandarin, I'm sure you think people in Boston speak like people in Kentucky. That's before dismissing all the other dialects found in China. But you're right, officially they speak the same language.

This fucking place. 

You, I believe, are talking to a Taiwanese person who emigrated to America with his family. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

You, I believe, are talking to a Taiwanese person who emigrated to America with his family. 

Fair, and he's absolutely entitled to his opinion, but it doesn't seem like his fellow countrymen agree.

(I was really tempted to light another CR/fire..... I resisted, you're welcome)

Edited by BurntEyes
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm sure you think people in Boston speak like people in Kentucky.

I don't think the dialect differences between Kentucky and Boston would prevent a hillbilly invasion

  • Haha 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, Ghost of NMAS said:

I don't think the dialect differences between Kentucky and Boston would prevent a hillbilly invasion

Go ask the people of Kentucky their thoughts on an all expenses paid 3 week vacation to Boston and get back to me.

Edit - Great now I'm thinking about Appalachians occupying Boston and the all the conversations that would be occurring. This actually would make for a hilarious sitcom.

Edited by BurntEyes
  • Haha 1
Posted

I made the mistake of telling a guy from Worcester that he didn’t sound like what the movies make them out to sound like. He was not amused, and informed me that’s because he went to school past the third grade. That the accent you hear in movies like The Town is only carried by mouth breathing idiots. Needless to say that was the last conversation I had with him that week.

  • Haha 1
Posted
55 minutes ago, Herbie Hancock said:

That the accent you hear in movies like The Town is only carried by mouth breathing idiots.

Good sir, this is America.  "Mouth-breathing idiots" is our core fucking brand.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I mean...we actually are.  That's the world we live in.  My kingdom for the wisdom, decency, and steady hand of GWB.

And no fucking twitter

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

And no fucking twitter

Remember when Charlie Strong proclaimed twitter would be the downfall of society?

Is it too late to admit he was right and apologize?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
  • Haha 4
Posted
17 minutes ago, utee94 said:

Remember when Charlie Strong proclaimed twitter would be the downfall of society?

Is it too late to admit he was right and apologize?

Chuckles and blind squirrels.. who knew. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
4 hours ago, Herbie Hancock said:

I made the mistake of telling a guy from Worcester that he didn’t sound like what the movies make them out to sound like. He was not amused, and informed me that’s because he went to school past the third grade. That the accent you hear in movies like The Town is only carried by mouth breathing idiots. Needless to say that was the last conversation I had with him that week.

Horseshit. They all sound like that, from Southie dock workers to Cambridge PhDs to the motherfucking 35th President of the United States. /noCR

Posted
1 hour ago, utee94 said:

Remember when Charlie Strong proclaimed twitter would be the downfall of society?

Is it too late to admit he was right and apologize?

it wasn't exactly a hot take

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Gatorubet said:

I’m sorry my bit on Trump’s steel tariff genius and possible negatives caused you pain. God Bless.

No pain. Just didn’t recognize the sarcasm. But it looks good on you though. image.gif.83f3e7d3ac32624eea84e27170936c06.gif

Posted (edited)

The question comes down to whether or not you are willing to let them have a nuclear bomb. Iran is the leading worldwide sponsor of terror attacks. They were the leading proponent of the Oct 7 attack, of the Houthis and their attacks on commercial trade, and of Hezbollah. They openly celebrate the rape and killing of women and the murder of (Christian or Jewish) children. They've been this way for decades. It is informative to consider the words of Khamenei from one month ago, prior to the current war. The point is, these aren't just emotional utterances but rather are fundamental values of the regime.

 

There is fundamentally no reason to enrich uranium. These fools are sitting on top of vast oceans of hydrocarbons. It's a nuclear program with one purpose. For this reason, literally nobody is coming to their rescue. There was no commercial reason to bury their uranium enrichment 300 feet deep outside of anticipating the air campaign. Nobody wants a nuclear arms race in the middle east.

Iran has no friends, not even China.

But air campaigns are not effective at regime change. So it's a conundrum, if you believe that they cannot have a nuclear weapon, which Trump has stated over and over again. Where is the off ramp? Do we have to use tactical nukes on Fordo? What do we do in six months if there is no regime change?

I do think the odds of an actual ground invasion are basically zero. I think if Iran tries to close the Straits, they will unite the world against them and actually get the regime change that is so unlikely as of now.

I think maybe 60% our attack will come this weekend. 

 

 

Edited by Thetexashammer
  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

I think maybe 60% our attack will come this weekend. 

The B-2’s just left Whiteman AFB, heading to Diego Garcia, so it may take a little longer than that. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

The question comes down to whether or not you are willing to let them have a nuclear bomb. Iran is the leading worldwide sponsor of terror attacks. They were the leading proponent of the Oct 7 attack, of the Houthis and their attacks on commercial trade, and of Hezbollah. They openly celebrate the rape and killing of women and the murder of (Christian or Jewish) children. They've been this way for decades. It is informative to consider the words of Khamenei from one month ago, prior to the current war. The point is, these aren't just emotional utterances but rather are fundamental values of the regime.

 

There is fundamentally no reason to enrich uranium. These fools are sitting on top of vast oceans of hydrocarbons. It's a nuclear program with one purpose. For this reason, literally nobody is coming to their rescue. There was no commercial reason to bury their uranium enrichment 300 feet deep outside of anticipating the air campaign. Nobody wants a nuclear arms race in the middle east.

Iran has no friends, not even China.

But air campaigns are not effective at regime change. So it's a conundrum, if you believe that they cannot have a nuclear weapon, which Trump has stated over and over again. Where is the off ramp? Do we have to use tactical nukes on Fordo? What do we do in six months if there is no regime change?

I do think the odds of an actual ground invasion are basically zero. I think if Iran tries to close the Straits, they will unite the world against them and actually get the regime change that is so unlikely as of now.

I think maybe 60% our attack will come this weekend. 

 

 

One can try to make friends out of cockroaches but will always find it a waste of time.

Posted

No need tomake friends with the Ayatollah’s crowd, as they will eventually be killed off and overthrown. 
Make friends with the opposition who want freedom from their fanatical oppression.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted

Last post said B-2’s headed to Diego Garcia, others now saying Guam. Not sure if Guam could be a stopover on the way to DG, which is the closest launch point for a mission to Iran. Also, this:

 

Posted
2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Theo Von is forty-five years old and once told the LSU student newspaper he was opposed to inter-racial dating but yeah let me hear his thoughts on geopolitics. 

And yet he's extremely popular. More significant to this discussion, Theo Von is usually a fairly accurate indication of how American men feel. Israel has never been less popular in the US, and if we get dragged into a forever war because of them, it will be very interesting to see those low numbers tank even more.

Posted
16 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Theo Von is forty-five years old and once told the LSU student newspaper he was opposed to inter-racial dating but yeah let me hear his thoughts on geopolitics. 

I honestly thought he was a zoomer until this exact moment.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
1 hour ago, Armybrat said:

No need tomake friends with the Ayatollah’s crowd, as they will eventually be killed off and overthrown. 
Make friends with the opposition who want freedom from their fanatical oppression.

That isn't our interest. We'll just fly Pahlavi back over there and reinstall the monarchy that everyone hated so this whole cycle can just repeat itself. 

Control over energy resources, or falling that, control over those who control it, is the point here.

If you are one of the posters here (and I'm using the Royal You here, not picking on you Armybrat) that is clamoring for war, at least be honest with yourself and the rest of us about why.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

I honestly thought he was a zoomer until this exact moment.

He was on Real World vs. Road Rules when I was in high school and he is dogshit. He may be right or wrong on lone items but for anyone with more than a lone BB rattling around their dome, it’s usually a safe bet to take the opposite of his stance absent Independent knowledge and reasoning. 

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

That isn't our interest. We'll just fly Pahlavi back over there and reinstall the monarchy that everyone hated so this whole cycle can just repeat itself. 

Control over energy resources, or falling that, control over those who control it, is the point here.

If you are one of the posters here (and I'm using the Royal You here, not picking on you Armybrat) that is clamoring for war, at least be honest with yourself and the rest of us about why.

I lean conservative but I in no way want war other than negating Iran's nuclear capability. For reasons stated upthread, they are a jihadist govt and I dont think we need to explain why them having nukes is unsettling. If we bomb their nuclear bunkers and then say peace out I am ok with that. If we are in anyway sending troops over there I am against that. I guess the question is what does everyone define as war? Is a brief aerial campaign targeting just their bunkers war? I am 36 and work with people between 25-40 and i think privately everyone is pretty tired of Israel, of their interreference in our politics, etc.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

He was on Real World vs. Road Rules when I was in high school and he is dogshit. He may be right or wrong on lone items but for anyone with more than a lone BB rattling around their dome, it’s usually a safe bet to take the opposite of his stance absent Independent knowledge and reasoning. 

Usually I'd agree, but despite Theo Von being a known dumbass, it's not like a guy with a huge audience putting out an anti war message is some kind of negative. I've seen you take the "worst person you know making a good point" stance before when it suits you, so I know you understand the concept.

If it helps put more people on the side of "let's not go spend trillions on another Middle East war, especially not at the behest of a little Nazi bitch trying to ignite said war to keep his own ass out of jail" camp, I'll allow it.

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

That isn't our interest. We'll just fly Pahlavi back over there and reinstall the monarchy that everyone hated so this whole cycle can just repeat itself. 

Control over energy resources, or falling that, control over those who control it, is the point here.

If you are one of the posters here (and I'm using the Royal You here, not picking on you Armybrat) that is clamoring for war, at least be honest with yourself and the rest of us about why.

The 2003 playbook has been dusted off. Scary guy in a black turban!!! He wants to nuke you!

The thing is this time around you have jaded Millennials who spent time in Iraq or Afghanistan, which means anti-war has fairly broad bipartisan support at least in that generation. You also have social media that changes how Americans discuss issues (memes and emojis) and they can select where they get their news from much more than they could back in 2003. Back then we were looking for someone to pulverize in retaliation for 9/11, and we just don't have the same appetite for war today.

Posted
4 minutes ago, WineGuy69 said:

I lean conservative but I in no way want war other than negating Iran's nuclear capability. For reasons stated upthread, they are a jihadist govt and I dont think we need to explain why them having nukes is unsettling. If we bomb their nuclear bunkers and then say peace out I am ok with that. If we are in anyway sending troops over there I am against that. I guess the question is what does everyone define as war? Is a brief aerial campaign targeting just their bunkers war? I am 36 and work with people between 25-40 and i think privately everyone is pretty tired of Israel, of their interreference in our politics, etc.

Ok, but if we do all that, do we believe that Iran is just going to sit there and take it? Obviously that would be an escalation and there would likely be some kind of response, and it seems likely to me that the escalations would continue until we find ourselves in a war.

At this point, I'd rather us facilitate regime change than get drawn into Bibi's little jihad (funny that...we call Iran jihadist but what is Israel?). If we're going to follow through with that, just reinstall Pahlavi and reinstate the JCPOA and make sure they keep in compliance. Trump can even take credit, I don't give a shit. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
That isn't our interest. We'll just fly Pahlavi back over there and reinstall the monarchy that everyone hated so this whole cycle can just repeat itself. 
Control over energy resources, or falling that, control over those who control it, is the point here.
If you are one of the posters here (and I'm using the Royal You here, not picking on you Armybrat) that is clamoring for war, at least be honest with yourself and the rest of us about why.

Yes and no. Oversimplification is your enemy, whether it be “they are bad guys who want a nuke and actively support terrorism” or “this is all about oil.”
Both things can be true. Take oil out of the equation, and the world would still be better off if Iran wasn’t a violently hostile chaos agent. There’s no need for Persia to be so bellicose, particularly as to a nation they don’t even share a border with. The ramped-up Shiite hate against Israel and Jews is and always has been a transparent “let’s manufacture a perpetual enemy to keep our authoritarian government in power” move (FFS, we’re running the same play here in the US against Mexicans). It’s fucking pointless and has been almost 50 years of violence and bloodshed and exported terror. The world would indeed be much better off if Iran was governed by a regime that wasn’t singularly focused on authoritarianism and a pointless hatred and warfare against “Israel and the west.”
But Iran of course would be much less important, and much less able to foment and support such assholery, if it did not have massive petroleum resources. And the history of western control and scheming for such control over those resources is a real thing. That said, there’s no real reason for “the west” to try to functionally capture Iran’s reserves. It’s a global commodity, China buys a bunch, etc. This isn’t the post WWII, Cold War, scramble for oil that set the table for the precious shenanigans in Iran.

I don’t support US involvement in Iran in this conflict. I think this particular conflict is 90% driven by Bibi trying to save his ass and stay out of prison. I also think that Iran way fucking overplayed its hand, and got their ass handed to them in Syria and with Hezzbollah, and I shed no tears for either of those strategic losses. Iran is a bad actor, fucked around and found out, etc. I also think that the current conflict is unnecessary and is being fought for the wrong reasons by a bad actor.
  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

Ok, but if we do all that, do we believe that Iran is just going to sit there and take it? Obviously that would be an escalation and there would likely be some kind of response, and it seems likely to me that the escalations would continue until we find ourselves in a war.

At this point, I'd rather us facilitate regime change than get drawn into Bibi's little jihad (funny that...we call Iran jihadist but what is Israel?). If we're going to follow through with that, just reinstall Pahlavi and reinstate the JCPOA and make sure they keep in compliance. Trump can even take credit, I don't give a shit. 

I get the question, but how would they retaliate. We have taken out so much of their leadership and what is their military capability? We tell the ayatollah we know where he is and if he retaliates the next missile will be one through his window. The entire world is against them. They have few allies. 

Edited by WineGuy69
Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Just moving those bombers can be signaling. I don’t think there’s been a final decision yet but there is the intent of showing that one can be made anytime. 

Absolutely. They are moving the pieces in place for if/when the decision is made to apply maximum pressure. I’m glad Trump is taking his time and exhausting every option for a deal, even though he’s put that hapless boob Witkoff in charge of it.  Still, I don’t see how we agree to any terms short of a Libya-style dismantling of the nuclear program and Khamenei in his bunker seems utterly defiant on any concessions so I doubt we even get back to the table. 

Posted
2 minutes ago, WineGuy69 said:

I get the question, but how would they retaliate. We have taken out so much of their leadership and what is their military capability? We tell the ayatollah we know where he is and if he retaliates the next missile will be one through his window. The entire world is against them. They have few allies. 

If that's true then it sounds like we don't need to go to war.

Sesame Street Idk GIF

Posted
4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


Yes and no. Oversimplification is your enemy, whether it be “they are bad guys who want a nuke and actively support terrorism” or “this is all about oil.”
Both things can be true. Take oil out of the equation, and the world would still be better off if Iran wasn’t a violently hostile chaos agent. There’s no need for Persia to be so bellicose, particularly as to a nation they don’t even share a border with. The ramped-up Shiite hate against Israel and Jews is and always has been a transparent “let’s manufacture a perpetual enemy to keep our authoritarian government in power” move (FFS, we’re running the same play here in the US against Mexicans). It’s fucking pointless and has been almost 50 years of violence and bloodshed and exported terror. The world would indeed be much better off if Iran was governed by a regime that wasn’t singularly focused on authoritarianism and a pointless hatred and warfare against “Israel and the west.”
But Iran of course would be much less important, and much less able to foment and support such assholery, if it did not have massive petroleum resources. And the history of western control and scheming for such control over those resources is a real thing. That said, there’s no real reason for “the west” to try to functionally capture Iran’s reserves. It’s a global commodity, China buys a bunch, etc. This isn’t the post WWII, Cold War, scramble for oil that set the table for the precious shenanigans in Iran.

I don’t support US involvement in Iran in this conflict. I think this particular conflict is 90% driven by Bibi trying to save his ass and stay out of prison. I also think that Iran way fucking overplayed its hand, and got their ass handed to them in Syria and with Hezzbollah, and I shed no tears for either of those strategic losses. Iran is a bad actor, fucked around and found out, etc. I also think that the current conflict is unnecessary and is being fought for the wrong reasons by a bad actor.

There's always a reason. Capturing control of their natural resources is a strategically +EV play for the US and it would make a bunch of shitty rich assholes even richer. That's the point, that's always been the point of our Middle East policy and Israel serves its purpose as our attack dog to that point.

I don't disagree with the points about Iran and I'd love to see the mullahs fuck off and die, like I've said many times, but we all know how it will end up in the end if the West facilitates regime change. Maybe it'll buy us another decade or two of relative stability before history inevitably repeats itself.

  • Hook 'Em 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...