• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Yet another war, this time with Iran

This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever
While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.
 
Well I don't know wtf barbos is talking about. I'm sure there's a YouTube video out there somewhere that will bring clarity.
Who cares? He is trying to deflect from how the Russian military tried to get to Kyiv, but were stopped by flooded ground and having senior commanders getting killed in the gauntlet they were stupidly using to track to Kyiv. The war started primarily as a western front, which hasn't existed in years.
 
Well I don't know wtf barbos is talking about. I'm sure there's a YouTube video out there somewhere that will bring clarity.
Who cares? He is trying to deflect from how the Russian military tried to get to Kyiv, but were stopped by flooded ground and having senior commanders getting killed in the gauntlet they were stupidly using to track to Kyiv. The war started primarily as a western front, which hasn't existed in years.
Yes, this imbecilic theory is what neocon media propagated successfully into heads of western public.
I merely returning the favour.
So how is mighty US Navi doing? Still thousand miles off the coast of Iran?
 
Well I don't know wtf barbos is talking about. I'm sure there's a YouTube video out there somewhere that will bring clarity.
Who cares? He is trying to deflect from how the Russian military tried to get to Kyiv, but were stopped by flooded ground and having senior commanders getting killed in the gauntlet they were stupidly using to track to Kyiv. The war started primarily as a western front, which hasn't existed in years.
Yes, this imbecilic theory is what neocon media propagated successfully into heads of western public.
I merely returning the favour.
So how is mighty US Navi doing? Still thousand miles off the coast of Iran?
Sure, Russia was always looking to pull off a long invasion of attrition to the east, making the attempt on Kyiv merely a distraction so Russia could very very VERY slowly take over tiny plots of land to the east.

7c05a08d-60c4-414f-9841-bf9c6552c183.png
 
A few observations from the news today

“I would say the ceasefire is on massive life support,” the president told reporters in the Oval Office.

I don't know why I'd believe Trump

President Donald Trump on Monday accused Iran of reneging on an agreement to allow the US to remove its supply of enriched uranium.
“They did two days ago,” he said from the Oval Office. “But they changed their mind, because they didn’t put it in the paper.”

Trump’s remarks followed his declaration that the most recent Iranian counterproposal to end the war was “unacceptable.”

In negotiations leading up to that proposal, the president said, Iran told the administration that it would give up its enriched uranium, but that the US would have to come and remove it.

“They told me, number one, you’re getting it, but you’re going to have to take it out,” Trump said of the uranium buried under the nuclear sites that the US bombed last year. “The site was so obliterated that there’s only one or two countries in the world that could get it.”

I know no reason to believe that Trump's claim that Iran agreed to allow the US to remove the enriched uranium. Trump lies all the time.

Besides, if only one or two countries could dig it up, why's the issue. Keep the satellites on it and bomb it again if they start digging.


Trump, however, has demanded that Iran formally halt its nuclear program for a defined period — US officials seem to want at least 10 years — and turn over its existing stockpile of an estimated 440 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.


Sounds a lot like the deal Obama had that Trump threw out the window. Now Trump's struggling to get even that. What a shithead.

Iran wants an agreement to be approached in phases. Trump wants everything at once.

“They will not give him concessions at the start of the agreement because they don’t trust him,” Vakil said, adding that the Iranians have been “personally burnt by him.”

No one. Not Iran, the UK, Russia, China, Australia, France, Japan, Denmark or any other country should ever trust Trump. He lies. He attacked Iran when negotiations were still going on. This is what Japan did to the US on Dec 7 1941.

None of this is to say that Iran is any better than Trump. However I think we should expect Trump to be better than Iran but I see no evidence that he can be believed any more than Iran can be believed.
 
Well I don't know wtf barbos is talking about. I'm sure there's a YouTube video out there somewhere that will bring clarity.
Who cares? He is trying to deflect from how the Russian military tried to get to Kyiv, but were stopped by flooded ground and having senior commanders getting killed in the gauntlet they were stupidly using to track to Kyiv. The war started primarily as a western front, which hasn't existed in years.
Yes, this imbecilic theory is what neocon media propagated successfully into heads of western public.
I merely returning the favour.
So how is mighty US Navi doing? Still thousand miles off the coast of Iran?
Sure, Russia was always looking to pull off a long invasion of attrition to the east, making the attempt on Kyiv merely a distraction so Russia could very very VERY slowly take over tiny plots of land to the east.

7c05a08d-60c4-414f-9841-bf9c6552c183.png
Stop pretending to be dumb.
 
Trump, if he had any tiny bit of honor, would admit that he fucked up catastrophically and resign as President. But he does not have any tiny bit of honor. Same goes for Netanyahu. And Fuck Iran too.
What do you want Iran to do?
They had a nuclear deal, then you elected that piece of shit.
 
Trump, if he had any tiny bit of honor, would admit that he fucked up catastrophically and resign as President. But he does not have any tiny bit of honor. Same goes for Netanyahu. And Fuck Iran too.
What do you want Iran to do?
They had a nuclear deal, then you elected that piece of shit.

I see that is was unwise for me to have taken you off ignore - out of curiosity. I thoutht that you might be amusing. Of course Trump is a piece of shit but I didn't vote for him. Of course Obama had a deal with Iran that Trump threw away. I even said so above. So you don't get to blame him on me. You are going back on ignore because I don't believe you add any value to the conversation. Bye bye
 
Last edited:
Trump, if he had any tiny bit of honor, would admit that he fucked up catastrophically and resign as President. But he does not have any tiny bit of honor. Same goes for Netanyahu. And Fuck Iran too.
What do you want Iran to do?
They had a nuclear deal, then you elected that piece of shit.

I see that is was unwise for me to have taken you off ignore - out of curiosity. I thoutht that you might be amusing. Of course Trump is a piece of shit but I didn't vote for him. Of course Obama had a deal with Iran that Trump threw away. I even said so above. So you don't get to blame him on me. You are going back on ignore because I don't believe you add any value to the conversation. Bye bye
You failed to explain "And Fuck Iran too".
Biden, by the way, could have simply returned to the Obama Deal, but he didn't.
 
This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever
While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.

Why do you think clossing the straight of Hormuz is a comparable leverage to that of making the entire planet a barren wasteland? How's your reasoning?
 
This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever
While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.

Why do you think clossing the straight of Hormuz is a comparable leverage to that of making the entire planet a barren wasteland? How's your reasoning?
It takes many thousands of nuclear bombs to make "the entire planet a barren wasteland". Iran is looking to have similar leverage to that of North Korea, with her sixty or so warheads, not to that of the USA or Russia with their ~5,000 apiece.

A few dozen nukes are in the "Invade us and we will hurt you bad" degree of severity, not the "Invade us and we will destroy half the world" degree. And yes, the former is of similar magnitude to closing the Strait.
 
This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever
While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.

Why do you think clossing the straight of Hormuz is a comparable leverage to that of making the entire planet a barren wasteland? How's your reasoning?
It takes many thousands of nuclear bombs to make "the entire planet a barren wasteland". Iran is looking to have similar leverage to that of North Korea, with her sixty or so warheads, not to that of the USA or Russia with their ~5,000 apiece.

A few dozen nukes are in the "Invade us and we will hurt you bad" degree of severity, not the "Invade us and we will destroy half the world" degree. And yes, the former is of similar magnitude to closing the Strait.

The only effective retaliation to a nuclear strike is another nuclear strike. The worry is that alliances will quickly widen any conflict escalate and trigger a third world war. It'll be like WWI except that it really will be over by Christmas.

Its not an unreasonable scenario. Anyway... that's the worry.
 
In other news in the ME the Afghan-Pakistan war is still going.

But who cares?

Peculiar that whilst Pakistan is acting as mediator in one conflict it is involved in another with its neighbour.

Yesterday I learned that there's two different Talebans. Afghan Taleban and Pakistani Taleban (TTP). These are typically referred to as the same. But they're different organisations. They're also intertwined, as many are members of both, and often behave as a single unit. The Afghan Taleban has tried distancing them from the TTP. With mixed success.

I get the feeling that since the Afghan Taleban won their inserection they're now happy about the status quo in Pakistan and have now suddenly lost the urge to insist on Islamist nonsense in Pakistan. Which causes friction in the movement.
 

I see that is was unwise for me to have taken you off ignore - out of curiosity. I thoutht that you might be amusing. Of course Trump is a piece of shit but I didn't vote for him. Of course Obama had a deal with Iran that Trump threw away. I even said so above. So you don't get to blame him on me. You are going back on ignore because I don't believe you add any value to the conversation. Bye bye
Barbos on ocassion does provide some comic relief. Its hard to believe he is serious most times.
 
This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever
While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.

Why do you think clossing the straight of Hormuz is a comparable leverage to that of making the entire planet a barren wasteland? How's your reasoning?
Because one comes without the collateral damage, is much cheaper and safer, impacts the globe while acting locally.

The initial impact isn't remotely as drastic, however, the impacts add up and after a period of time, can have a substantial impact on the global economy. Best yet for the Iranian Theocrats, it becomes like a waterway filibuster, where merely threatening it can provide leverage because the follow-through isn't remotely as drastic as a nuclear weapon. It isn't called out as a bluff like a nuke because they've done it before, can easily do it again.

Hormuz doesn't make Iran a "global player", but it does increase their prominence and influence substantially, where as nuclear weapons merely protects the regime from incursions. Nukes provide leverage for staying in power, not mitigating things like sanctions. North Korea has had nukes for a while now, and are still heavily sanctioned. Hormuz is a weapon Iran can use now, thanks to the awful incompetence of Trump and Netanyahu.
 
This war demonstrates the power of nukes. If Iran had nukes they would have been left alone. Ironically, if the regime isn't toppled they're going to try to get nukes more than ever
While the development of a nuke could be beneficial for the Theocracy, the Strait of Hormuz provides a ton more leverage and costs a lot less to use and deploy, and comes with almost no baggage. Trump has helped the weaponization of Hormuz become a thing, possibly making a nuclear weapon obsolete.

Why do you think clossing the straight of Hormuz is a comparable leverage to that of making the entire planet a barren wasteland? How's your reasoning?
Because one comes without the collateral damage, is much cheaper and safer, impacts the globe while acting locally.

The initial impact isn't remotely as drastic, however, the impacts add up and after a period of time, can have a substantial impact on the global economy. Best yet for the Iranian Theocrats, it becomes like a waterway filibuster, where merely threatening it can provide leverage because the follow-through isn't remotely as drastic as a nuclear weapon. It isn't called out as a bluff like a nuke because they've done it before, can easily do it again.

Hormuz doesn't make Iran a "global player", but it does increase their prominence and influence substantially, where as nuclear weapons merely protects the regime from incursions. Nukes provide leverage for staying in power, not mitigating things like sanctions. North Korea has had nukes for a while now, and are still heavily sanctioned. Hormuz is a weapon Iran can use now, thanks to the awful incompetence of Trump and Netanyahu.

Countries haven't sent troops to Ukraine. I think its the fear of nukes that's the reason
 
Back
Top Bottom