Iran

[Majors]

whatd she say?

Here’s the clip from earlier this year.

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Iran is reacting calmly, saying there was no damage to their nuclear facilities that cant be fixed. So, Iran is basically saying it was a lie. They were not "obliterated".

Now, they could be Baghdad Bob'ing, who knows but right now, I dont see many people questioning the narrative that we destroyed Iran's nuke capabilities (despite no evidence we actually did). Also, there really isnt a way to verify either side's claims without on the ground evidence.

As someone pointed out, you seem to postulate this was a US - Iran back channel ruse.

Again, what's the endgame? What's the purpose?

I could speculate they dropped unicorn dolls, not weapons, but that makes no sense either.

Just WHY would the US spend the kind of money spent to work with Iran to do...... NOTHING?

 

[Persian Vol]

It has nothing to do with then being Muslim. It's because of their track record in regards to attacking their neighbors and anyone else within the region. They've earned the biggest state sponsor of terror monicker for a reason.

If one doesn't understand why you wouldn't want terrorists gaining nuclear weapon technology.......... You can lead the horse to water but you can't make him drink.

If we’re going to use this logic let’s look at a map and contrast America and Iran on who has done more harm to Iranian neighbors.

 

[Smokey123]

Now is a good time for everyone familiarize themselves with Sarah Adams and her Shawn Ryan appearances. And the Homeland Attack.

Fear porn bs

 

[Orange_Crush]

Iran is reacting calmly, saying there was no damage to their nuclear facilities that cant be fixed. So, Iran is basically saying it was a lie. They were not "obliterated".

Now, they could be Baghdad Bob'ing, who knows but right now, I dont see many people questioning the narrative that we destroyed Iran's nuke capabilities (despite no evidence we actually did). Also, there really isnt a way to verify either side's claims without on the ground evidence.

Iran's only global leverage is for the world to believe that they are very near having operational Nukes. They are ducks in water if the world believes their nuclear threats are hollow--especially considering that Russia and China seem happy to stay on the sidelines on this and not directly intervene.

Iran's regime is in an existentially threatened position, and you should probably discount their claims before ours. In short... They need some form of "Continue messing with us and we'll destroy you!" message, and "Dammit, ya'll just (at the very least) buried our facilities to the point that we can't even access them" probably wouldn't cut it for their needs.

 

[Smokey123]

The war propaganda machine is insane.

Right now, we have continual bipartisan support for military aid to Israel.

A president who promised to keep us out of war bombs Iran, unprovoked, without approval from congress, and didn't invoke the War Powers resolution...just 6 months into his presidency. And an alarming number of people here are all about this.

My wife hit the road yesterday to go see my family. I'll catch up to them next week. This is what she sent me. WTF is wrong with America? We are scared of the stupidest **** and those fears lead us around by the nose.

View attachment 750373

Living in paranoia and fear seems like a terrible way to live

 

[Orange_Crush]

Our biggest worry? There is no known sleeper cell threat and it should be our BIGGEST worry? I'm not surprised at all that you believe this.

I'll tell you, I'm much more worried about two inevitable threats than unverifiable threats, and you should be too:

1) financial ruin as a national security threat
2) blowback and consequences from interventionist foreign policy

US intel claims that there are, and that it is a great worry. Explain to us why you should be the SME on this.

 

[volgr]

His original conspiracy theory actually seemed to include a coordination and partnership between the US and Iran, to fool the world into thinking that we bombed them, when we didn't.

When Soleimani was killed, Iran worked through back channels to let the US know a strike was coming to ensure no Americans were killed. So it was more of a face saving non-escalation option. Also, Trump has precedence for this when he "struck" Syria in response but his strike did no real damage. It was a face saving strike.

They arent working together in a partnership, they are working through back channels to ensure this doesnt escalate further.

Again, I could be totally wrong, but right now it isnt that far fetched. Trump and all of his administration have made sure to repeat the same line...this is a one time strike, we dont want regime change and we dont want boots on the ground. They dont want this going up the escalation ladder, so yeah it is plausible we worked back channels with Iran.

 

[n_huffhines]

Yes we do. I don't want anyone dictating anything to us. If we aren't the empire, then someone else will fill that vacuum. Would you rather have that?

Yes. I'm specifically interested in two objectives with foreign policy:

- be good guys
- put America first

I can tell you with all the confidence in the world, trying to be the empire that dictates the terms of the world has not been good for America. It is not in our best interest. We would be better off financially, we'd have fewer enemies, we'd be a much smaller target for terrorism, we wouldn't have thousands of dead soldiers, homeless vets with PTSD, and 9/11 wouldn't have happened, and Beirut, and hostage crisis, etc. Etc.

So yeah, let someone else ruin themselves trying to control the world. We'll still be a super power when they fall.

 

[Majors]

Fear porn bs

Possibly, with the unguarded borders the last few years puts the option on the table. We all know it wasn’t just those from Mexico and South America entering.

 

[Orange_Crush]

As someone pointed out, you seem to postulate this was a US - Iran back channel ruse.

Again, what's the endgame? What's the purpose?

I could speculate they dropped unicorn dolls, not weapons, but that makes no sense either.

Just WHY would the US spend the kind of money spent to work with Iran to do...... NOTHING?

Even more importantly, why would Iran participate?

 

[Majors]

Living in paranoia and fear seems like a terrible way to live

I always tell my kids, if you look to the sky waiting for asteroids to fall you’ll get hit by a car.

 

[headhunter15]

I will take an economic response over a military response (keeps our troops safe).

Gonna get the Navy involved. Don’t see Iran being able to close the strait and nothing happens. 20% of the worlds oil goes through there.

 

[Gandalf]

So are the Trump supporters happy with this? You want us to take on Israel's wars? What about any of this is America First?

I am not entirely happy but I am darn sure not sad.

 

[volgr]

As someone pointed out, you seem to postulate this was a US - Iran back channel ruse.

Again, what's the endgame? What's the purpose?

I could speculate they dropped unicorn dolls, not weapons, but that makes no sense either.

Just WHY would the US spend the kind of money spent to work with Iran to do...... NOTHING?

The endgame is not to escalate this further. For both Iran and the US.

Flag draped coffins returning home will wreck Trump's Presidency, he knows that.

 

[Enki_Amenra]

View attachment 750371

I don't want to fight, but I'll definitely punch you in the mouth if it's warranted. What's the problem with that?

 

[volfanhill]

 

[SayUWantAreVOLution]

Even more importantly, why would Iran participate?

The guy makes zero sense.

I could go with "the bombs didn't do as much damage as we are saying" which is possible as it's a first time use in a non-test environment. It's not knowable yet, but it's plausible.

That we faked what we dropped or attacked with less force as a PR stunt with Iran is just nuts.

 

[volfanhill]

 

[Orangeburst]

there an echo in here?

 

[Volsdeep4]

Don’t you get it?
Everyone is evil, nobody is good.
So it really doesn’t matter, just win and protect your own.

This is the simplest way I’ve heard this said. Very well done. And if you are too nice and good. The bad will always take over.

 

[Majors]

View attachment 750371

Typically happens when you’re given a timeline and then opt to go against the peace talks. And then follow it up with threats before and after the timeline has expired.

 

[Gandalf]

Iran will eventually get a nuke and our recent actions have guaranteed that outcome. At some point China/Russia will also give them ICBMs.

There really isnt a way to stop it without risking heavy casualties to our servicemen.

The west is going to have to re-learn the art of diplomacy.

No, they will not. Russia nor China would even think about giving ICBMs to Iran. You clearly dont understand the game to say such a thing.

Second. You are presuming that the current Iran regime survives several more years. That is looking like a rather shaky assumption.

 

[volgr]

Gonna get the Navy involved. Don’t see Iran being able to close the strait and nothing happens. 20% of the worlds oil goes through there.

Yemen, a rag tag bunch of militia, did quite a job in the Red Sea. Now apply that to Iran. What do you think they are capable of? Also, what role might Russia/China play?

 

[Tin Man]

I think it's in our best interest to back off with the already given warning that aggression by Iran will be met with a massive response. Us staying out of it from here on out would be good.

We’ll see if that’s possible. Iran not striking US assets and personnel in the region either directly or by proxy and agreeing to not have an enrichment program doesn’t seem very likely.