Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
8 minutes ago, KYHorn said:

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

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

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

What type of scotch?

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

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

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

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

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

17013802861_c4e1ee864a_o.jpg

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

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

17013802861_c4e1ee864a_o.jpg

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

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

 

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

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

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

  • Haha 1
Posted
21 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

um.... 

 

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

Posted
5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

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

Curious about this too.

Posted
1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

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

image.thumb.png.13ac5db9ea99c854f41f5a1743e5993f.png

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

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

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

LCS

image.thumb.jpeg.2924571a054fd56359622c5f9d40f047.jpeg

Ocean Trader

image.jpeg.048b68227ca3219cd8fcc176f8d0050c.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

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

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

3 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

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

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

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

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

LCS

image.thumb.jpeg.2924571a054fd56359622c5f9d40f047.jpeg

Ocean Trader

image.jpeg.048b68227ca3219cd8fcc176f8d0050c.jpeg

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

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

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

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

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

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, bolverk said:

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

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

 

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

Season 3 GIF by Parks and Recreation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

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

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

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

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

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

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6 minutes ago, chainsaw said:

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

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

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted
2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

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

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

Posted
Just now, chainsaw said:

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

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

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

We also want Iran to liberalize and stop funding proxies. 

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

What does that even men?

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

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

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

That's our concern, dude.

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

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

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

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

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

True, but arguably CR.

Posted
1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

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

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

ZL89Pu.gif

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

rock-indiana-jones.gif

Regime change is tricky fucking business.

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

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

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

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

5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

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

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

1 minute ago, chainsaw said:

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

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

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

True, but arguably CR.

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

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

  • Hook 'Em 2
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
  • Like 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

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

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...