USA Goes to War Against Iran
Time for a dedicated thread to the war.
How long will it last and what will be the probable outcome?
I was a big Biden and Harris guy, who the media somehow successfully painted as the warhawks (compared to Trump). So I sleep pretty well at night knowing I did my part to prevent the current timeline.
Congrats to Iran over their big historic win over USA!#1. Normally we only lose to superpowers like Vietnam or Afghanistan, but these plucky Iranians really stepped up their game.
After "winning" the war, Vietnam remained a destitute country for decades until they eventually opened their markets and aligned with the US.
Afghanistan is literal hell on Earth.
If that is "winning," then count me out.
All Iran "won" is the right to keep sucking for the foreseeable future, and for all their best and brightest to continue leaving for greener pastures.
After "winning" the war, Vietnam remained a destitute country for decades until they eventually opened their markets and aligned with the US.
Afghanistan is literal hell on Earth.
If that is "winning," then count me out.
All Iran "won" is the right to keep sucking for the foreseeable future, and for all their best and brightest to continue leaving for greener pastures.
You use perjorative terms like "destitute" to define a country as if your belong to the religious group which worships at the altar of GDP.
In the last half century, male testosterone levels have declined by nearly 50%. Plastic levels in our brains have doubled in the last 10 years. All while GDP has soared.
You come across as morally, intellectuallly and spiritually destitute.
40% of American women aged 15-44 want the opportunity to emigrate to a more preferable country. That's a destitute nation.
You use perjorative terms like "destitute" to define a country as if your belong to the religious group which worships at the altar of GDP. In the last half century, male testosterone levels have declined by nearly 50%. Plastic levels in our brains have doubled in the last 10 years. All while GDP has soared. You come across as morally, intellectuallly and spiritually destitute.
Mong probably has a lot to do with that statistic.
Another low IQ post - yeh the US is just giving them 300b with nothing in return. You nailed it!
Oh, yeah, forgot about that... the US gets:
- the Strait of Hormuz opened (was already opened before the war)
- ceasefire extension (didn't need one before the war)
- 60-day nuclear negotiations (were already in negotiations before the war)
So yeah, nothing in return that is better than before the war and far worse than when the JCPOA was in place, but now lots of people died and it cost taxpayers a half-trillion dollars.
Trump created a problem, is going to fix the problem he created to be worse than before he created the problem, and you clap like a trained seal. Pure genius.
Sounds right to me. Maybe we have few more 'iterations' to go through but quite likely to end here.
Like I said, I'll trust an agreement when negotiations are done, the agreement signed and it has been adhered to for a time period that shows genuine commitment to it.
None of the actors in this debacle are trustworthy.
What's your view on china becoming more significant and maybe eventually replacing the usa as the key super power in the region? Any thoughts on the Turkey/Pakistan grouping?
That is a very complex question that is answered in one of the most complex regions on earth when it comes to conflict.
First, it is important to note that not many states in the region really minds the US bombing iran. I'm sure you'll find local disagreement, but at the state level, Iran is a problem. It represent a hostile neighbour with a history of proxy warfare. What they do mind, or at least have to mind in public, is Israel bombing Iran.
A lot of gulf states have paper armies. Badly trained forces and outdated doctrines combined with expensive equipment largely bought for diplomatic influence. Old colonial borders also often make for less than convinced soldiers should their service be required outside parades, plus a genuine fear of internal strife and uprising means a lot of security efforts are aimed internally. They can't really do much about Iran on their own. Not that Iran is some military miracle, but it does have passable training and plenty of fanatics and nationalists, combined with a willingness for war. Of course, if we go a bit broader than the gulf states, we find Turkey which does have a good army, and Pakistan who has nuclear capacity. They add more wrinkles to an already complex issue, but for now I won't focus on them much. Suffice to say that this region is often difficult to analyze, because there are so many interlinked webs of influence and strategic goals.
What these states do mind is Iran bombing them and the US being largely unable to stop it. The Trump administration's opaque nature and incessant lying about events in the war, combined with lack of diplomatic staff in key positions in the Gulf States probably does not improve matters. This change in the reality of war raises genuine concern that relying on western assistance and protection is not enough, of course combined with distrust of the west still being high due to the Iraq war.
So, that leaves us with China. China of course is a welcome partner in trade and commerce, and is often successful in selling itself as a guarantee for stability in foreign matters. China's willingness to lubricate the wheels of commerce is of course also greatly welcomed in a region where corruption is the nature of business, whereas western companies' ability to do this have been greatly reduced due to political and legal ramifications at home.
Chinese willingness to offer diplomatic support for Palestine and recognition of Palestine statehood is also popular. However, on the negative side of that you have Chinese ties to Iran (China imports the bulk of Iranian oil). Though since Chinese support to Iran does not seem to have extended to direct military support, I'm guessing there is willingness to to overlook this.
So all in all, in terms of soft power, China is definitely at superpower level.
However, the conflict also clearly shows that in terms of hard power, China is not a superpower. It has very limited ability to project force, focusing mainly on its intermediate borders and regions. Unlike the US, China is involved in a lot of regional disputes with bordering nations, so you can even raise the question of how much they want to invest in force projection capacity. They have plenty of problems back home.
Basically, China isn't going to send ships, expeditionary forces, operate forward bases or do much in terms of direct support, and their capacity to do so in the foreseeable future will not change, and even if it did, they probably would still not do so.
So, the Gulf states are left in a pickle between a superpower and near superpower. One with the ability to project force and offer protection, which they do not trust and whose diplomatic strength is waning. One they probably trust more and whose diplomatic strength is increasing, but without the ability or willingness to offer protection.
Oh, yeah, forgot about that... the US gets:- the Strait of Hormuz opened (was already opened before the war)- ceasefire extension (didn't need one before the war)- 60-day nuclear negotiations (were already in negotiations before the war)So yeah, nothing in return that is better than before the war and far worse than when the JCPOA was in place, but now lots of people died and i
You're really clueless - there's no finalized deal and won't be for some time as negotiations take place - those are preliminary agreements to get things back on track and work towards a more detailed arrangement. Another libtard seeing a CNN headline.
You're really clueless - there's no finalized deal and won't be for some time as negotiations take place - those are preliminary agreements to get things back on track and work towards a more detailed arrangement. Another libtard seeing a CNN headline.
So your argument is, "Why bring up the $300 billion and not bring up what the US is getting in return" and when I bring up what the US is getting, you say, "Hey, bro, that's just preliminary - we've got a long way to go."
What a retaad.
This is literally true, which I have discussed a number of times in this forum. I was on psych meds for almost 30 years.
I'm doing much better now after getting off those meds and trusting in Jesus Christ to give me peace and joy.
You undoubtedly ignore crazy street preachers when you encounter them yelling at lampposts. Do the same here.
I ignore them as well.
I don't 'yell' at lampposts or anyone or anything else for that matter.
I publicly share the Gospel of Jesus Christ for ears who might want to hear the Good News.
I don't recall wishing death on anyone. If I have, please cite where I did that so I can publicly repent and apologize'
Didn't you agree with vic when he said "I want the people that slaughter children for sport put in body bags"?
Come on, this was only seven hours ago. You're supposed to be loving your enemies, not fantasising about someone killing them.
Didn't you agree with vic when he said "I want the people that slaughter children for sport put in body bags"?
Come on, this was only seven hours ago. You're supposed to be loving your enemies, not fantasising about someone killing them.
It's important to view the quote I 'liked' in it's entirety:
Two reasons I 'liked' what he said:
First, I understand, and 100% agree with, the sentiment of wanting to punish folks who slaughter children by killing them. And there is nothing inherently wrong with capital punishment for murder. One can both approve of the death penalty while at the same time 'not taking delight in the death of the wicked.'
Second, Victor acknowledged the potentially problematic nature of that sentiment by admitting 'I'm no saint.'
Context matters.
its not really about the punishment. maybe a tiny bit. its much more about wanting the slaughtering to sop. the only way to end genocide is by force.
