Iran

#23,127
#23,127
MontyPython said:
No—that claim is not true. It’s an overgeneralization.

The reality is more nuanced: Iran has both complied with some agreements at times and violated or disputed others at different times.

🧭 The factual record​

✅ Periods where Iran did comply​

The clearest example is the 2015 nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

  • The International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly verified that:
    • Iran stayed within uranium limits
    • Reduced centrifuges
    • Allowed inspections
👉 Multiple reports confirmed Iran was meeting its commitments in the early years of the deal (Arms Control Association)
👉 U.S. government research also states Iran implemented restrictions under the deal (Iran Watch)

❌ Periods where Iran did not comply​

There are also documented violations and disputes:

  • Pre-2015 (before the deal):
    • Iran was found in noncompliance with nuclear safeguards and UN resolutions
    • Failed to fully cooperate with inspections (Congress.gov)
  • After U.S. withdrawal (post-2018):
    • Iran gradually exceeded nuclear limits (enrichment, stockpile levels)
    • Reduced cooperation with inspectors
  • More recently (2025):
    • The IAEA formally declared Iran in violation of obligations related to undeclared nuclear material (The Washington Post)

⚖️ Why people say “Iran never complies”​

That claim usually comes from:

  • Focus on violations and secrecy before 2015
  • Concern about partial cooperation and limited transparency
  • Distrust of Iran’s long-term intentions
But it ignores the documented period where:
👉 Iran was complying under strict international monitoring

🧠 The balanced conclusion​

  • ❌ False: “Iran has never complied with any agreement ever”
  • ✅ Accurate:
    • Iran has sometimes complied (especially 2016–2018 JCPOA period)
    • Iran has also violated or fallen short at other times

🧩 Bottom line​

Iran’s track record is mixed, not absolute:

  • Compliance under pressure and incentives
  • Noncompliance or disputes when conditions change
Click to expand...
🐂 💩.
The reason Iran was "compliant" after 2015 is because there was no real oversight and a pile of cash. If the inspectors had to give a month's notice is a joke and even that would have sunet by now. The whole deal in 2015 was a joke and handed Iran an atomic bomb.
 
#23,128
#23,128
BeardedVol said:
View attachment 826009
www.mirror.co.uk

Turkey brands Netanyahu 'Hitler of our time' as Erdogan threatens to invade

The Turkish President has attacked Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu who is 'blinded by blood' following the indictment of Israeli officials who were charged with crimes against humanity
www.mirror.co.uk www.mirror.co.uk
Click to expand...
Turkey ain't gonna do squat. The don't want to have their country destroyed too. They would get their shite push in. They use old American and the garbage that China and Russia use. We have seen how that equipment stands up in the last few years.
Iraq's military was a joke, the Russian military got its azz handed to them by Ukraine, the Iranian military is a joke. Wash, rinse, repeat for Turkey and China.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#23,130
#23,130
NashVol11 said:
China apparently saying the Strait is open to them, and that they expect others to not meddle in their affairs. Will be interesting
Click to expand...
China is another paper tiger. Having a large army and missiles is not the same as being able to project military power. Their equipment suck and they are tactically built for WWII. They haven't been in prolonged conflict since 1979 and they got their azz handed to them.
They might might be able to attack Taiwan with rockets, but the could never occupy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 05_never_again
#23,133
#23,133
rikberry31 said:
China is another paper tiger. Having a large army and missiles is not the same as being able to project military power. Their equipment suck and they are tactically built for WWII. They haven't been in prolonged conflict since 1979 and they got their azz handed to them.
They might might be able to attack Taiwan with rockets, but the could never occupy.
Click to expand...
Seriously ignorant statement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11
#23,134
#23,134
rikberry31 said:
We don't have to be in the Strait to blockade it. They know what ships are coming from Iran and they will stop them. The Navy can just sit in the Arabian sea and easily do that. This ain't 1787.
Click to expand...
And if a Chinese oil tank doesn't stop for our "blockade", then what, Chuckles?

We gonna board Chinese merchant vessels? We gonna fire on them?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol and NashVol11
#23,137
#23,137
MontyPython said:
You sure seem to know a lot about how China will respond to our potential Act of War vis a vis blockading their ships.

我再也不想和你说话了，你这个没脑子的动物食槽擦拭工！我朝你的方向放屁！你母亲是只仓鼠，你父亲闻起来像接骨木莓！
Click to expand...
Since I don’t read Chinese I will assume this says you agree and admire my wisdom…or something like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol737 and MontyPython
#23,140
#23,140
BeardedVol said:
If Israel were to launch a preemptive strike on Turkey, and Turkey invoked Article 5, Trump would most likely destroy NATO by not responding in their defense, if not outright joining Israel in the attack.
Click to expand...
NATO needs blown up. I wouldn't defend any of them, maybe The Baltic states and Canada. The rest of them can pound salt. Turkey wouldn't let us use our air bases in Turkey. F'em.
 
#23,146
#23,146
MontyPython said:
Devil's in the details...

We gonna blow up Iranian oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz that don't stop for our "blockade"
Click to expand...
Now we would seize them if they didn't turn around, like we did in Venezuela.
MontyPython said:
And how would Iran react to such violence? Probable lob a bunch of missiles at our allies' soft targets like desalinization plants and oil refineries.
Click to expand...
Who cares? We are having our way with them like they are our date on prom night.
MontyPython said:
How will our allies react to that?



.
Click to expand...
NATO alllies? They would stick their thumbs up their azzes and sit down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#23,150
#23,150
rikberry31 said:
Prove me wrong. It is easy to say it's ignorant. Or just do the lib thing lob insults not backed by substance, when proved wrong just quietly move on to the next load of 🐂 💩.
Click to expand...
Gladly. I do love my AI. It literally just kicks you in the nuts every time and it takes like 2 seconds. :cool:

Analyze the validity of the following statements: "China is another paper tiger. Having a large army and missiles is not the same as being able to project military power. Their equipment suck and they are tactically built for WWII. They haven't been in prolonged conflict since 1979 and they got their azz handed to them. They might might be able to attack Taiwan with rockets, but the could never occupy."

The statement mixes a few partly grounded observations with a lot of overstated or incorrect claims. I’ll break it down piece by piece.

1. “China is another paper tiger.”​

This is political rhetoric, not an analytical claim.

  • China is clearly a major military powerwith:
    • The world’s largest active-duty military (by personnel)
    • Rapidly expanding naval and missile forces
    • Significant domestic defense industrial capacity
  • However, “paper tiger” is an oversimplification:
    • China is not untested at scale in modern high-end war
    • But it also has limited recent combat experience compared to the U.S.
Verdict: ❌ Oversimplified / rhetorical, not factual.

2. “Having a large army and missiles is not the same as being able to project military power.”​

This is partly correct.

  • Military power projection requires:
    • Blue-water navy
    • Air refueling / long-range logistics
    • Overseas bases
    • Combat experience and joint operations
  • China:
    • Has improved rapidly (especially navy + missiles)
    • But still lags the U.S. in global projection capability
Verdict: ✅ Mostly true, but incomplete (China is improving quickly).

3. “Their equipment suck and they are tactically built for WWII.”​

This is largely false / outdated.

  • China’s military today:
    • Operates modern stealth fighters (J-20)
    • Advanced ballistic and hypersonic missile systems
    • Modernized navy with aircraft carriers and A2/AD systems
  • Doctrine is not “WWII-based”:
    • Focus is on modern asymmetric denial warfare, not mass infantry offensives
    • Heavy emphasis on missiles, cyber, space, and anti-access strategies
There are real critiques (engine quality, integration, training), but “WWII tactics” is inaccurate.

Verdict: ❌ Incorrect and outdated characterization.

4. “They haven't been in prolonged conflict since 1979 and they got their a** handed to them.”​

This refers to the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War.

  • True: China has not fought a major sustained war since 1979
  • Also true: The 1979 conflict was costly and operationally disappointing for China
But:

  • That war was not a modern comparison point
  • Since then, China has:
    • Modernized massively
    • Studied Gulf War, Iraq, Ukraine, etc. intensively
    • Rebuilt doctrine around high-tech warfare
Verdict: ⚠️ Historically true, but often misused to imply current incompetence.

5. “They might be able to attack Taiwan with rockets, but they could never occupy.”​

This is the most debated claim.

What is plausible:​

  • China has:
    • Massive missile forces capable of striking Taiwan
    • Air and naval blockade capabilities (at least regionally)
  • A missile-heavy opening phase is widely expected in any Taiwan scenario

What is uncertain:​

  • An actual amphibious invasion and occupation of Taiwanwould be:
    • One of the most complex military operations in modern history
    • Extremely high risk even for China
  • Key challenges:
    • Amphibious lift capacity (limited relative to need)
    • Taiwan’s geography and defense systems
    • U.S. and allied intervention uncertainty
    • Logistics under fire across the Taiwan Strait
But “could never occupy” is too absolute:

  • Militaries rarely say “never” in this context
  • China is actively training, expanding sealift, and developing joint landing capabilities specifically for this contingency
Verdict: ⚠️ Directionally reasonable skepticism, but “could never” is not defensible

Bottom line​

  • The statement contains:
    • ✅ One valid strategic point (power projection matters)
    • ⚠️ One partially true historical observation (1979 war relevance is limited today)
    • ❌ Several outdated or exaggerated claims about equipment and doctrine
    • ❌ An absolute conclusion about Taiwan that is not supportable

More accurate summary would be:​

China is a rapidly modernizing regional great power with strong anti-access capabilities, but still faces major uncertainties in long-range power projection and amphibious warfare at scale—especially in a Taiwan scenario.

 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top