Iran

[rikberry31]

/Pop quiz, who is the only member of NATO to ever invoke Article 5?

I believe we did in 2001 after 9/11. NATO was a different animal 20 years ago, before half of NATO was Muslim nations. Besides we pay for the whole damn thing they ought to help us. We kept the Soviets/Russians out of Western Europe for 80 years.

 

[MontyPython]

Now we would seize them if they didn't turn around, like we did in Venezuela.

Who cares? We are having our way with them like they are our date on prom night.

NATO alllies? They would stick their thumbs up their azzes and sit down.

You definitely have all the answers.

Honestly, you'd fit right in on Trump's cabinet.

Enjoy WWIII with China!

 

[Persian Vol]

Now we would seize them if they didn't turn around, like we did in Venezuela.

Who cares? We are having our way with them like they are our date on prom night.

NATO alllies? They would stick their thumbs up their azzes and sit down.

What the ****

 

[MontyPython]

I believe we did in 2001 after 9/11. NATO was a different animal 20 years ago, before half of NATO was Muslim nations. Besides we pay for the whole damn thing they ought to help us. We kept the Soviets/Russians out of Western Europe for 80 years.

@rikberry31 gets blown up again by AI.

Here’s a factual breakdown of each claim in that statement.

---

1) “NATO was a different animal 20 years ago”​

Partly true (but vague)​

• NATO has changed since the early 2000s:
  • Expanded from 19 members in 2000 to 32 members today (as of 2026).
  • New members include Eastern European states (Baltics, Balkans, Finland, Sweden).
  • Missions shifted from Cold War deterrence → counterterrorism, Afghanistan, cyber defense, and now renewed focus on Russia.

Bottom line:​

• Yes, NATO has evolved significantly.
• But “different animal” is political framing, not a precise factual claim.

---

2) “Before half of NATO was Muslim nations”​

False​

This is the most factually incorrect part.

NATO membership reality:​

NATO has 32 countries, and:

Muslim-majority NATO members:​

• Turkey
• Albania
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (partially Muslim-majority population)

That’s it.​

So:

• 3 out of 32 members have significant Muslim populations or Muslim-majority status.
• That is about ~9%–10%, not “half.”

Bottom line:​

• The statement is wildly inaccurate numerically.

---

3) “We pay for the whole damn thing”​

Misleading​

NATO funding basics:​

NATO is funded through:

1. Direct common funding (very small share)
   • Headquarters, infrastructure, command structure
   • Shared roughly proportionally among members
2. Defense spending by each country (the big part)
   • Each country pays for its own military

U.S. contribution reality:​

• The U.S. pays about 15–16% of NATO’s common budget, not “the whole thing.”
• However, the U.S. does spend more overall on defense than other NATO countries.

Bottom line:​

• The U.S. is the largest contributor in absolute dollars
• But it does not “pay for the whole thing”

---

4) “They ought to help us”​

Opinion, not a factual claim​

This is a normative statement about burden-sharing.

What is factual:​

• NATO members are required under Article 5 to treat an attack on one as an attack on all.
• Many allies have supported the U.S. in:
  • Afghanistan (post-9/11 NATO mission invoked Article 5)
  • Counterterrorism operations
  • Sanctions and military support in Ukraine

But also:​

• Some allies spend below the NATO defense target of 2% of GDP (though this has been rising since 2022).

Bottom line:​

• The sentiment reflects a debate over burden-sharing, not a factual assertion.

---

Final evaluation​

Claim	Accuracy
NATO changed over 20 years	Mostly true
“Half of NATO is Muslim nations”	False
“U.S. pays for the whole thing”	False
“They ought to help us”	Opinion

---

Bottom line​

The statement mixes:

• Some real changes in NATO over time
• With significant factual inaccuracies and exaggerations, especially regarding membership composition and funding.

---

 

[rikberry31]

Wow.

And this is why you're in charge of... nothing.

Buddy we already did it. I didn't think it up. China didn't do squat, it is embargoed oil.

 

[BeardedVol]

I believe we did in 2001 after 9/11. NATO was a different animal 20 years ago, before half of NATO was Muslim nations. Besides we pay for the whole damn thing they ought to help us. We kept the Soviets/Russians out of Western Europe for 80 years.

Lol the things MAGA are afraid of, never cease to amaze me.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Lol the things MAGA are afraid of, never cease to amaze me.

Keep believing in the lies you make up on here. Thanks, Mohab
the goat herder..

 

[NashVol11]

Keep believing in the lies you make up on here. Thanks, Mohab
the goat herder..

MAGA makes clear all the time that they are afraid of things like groups of Muslims praying, or riding the subway. IIRC the former was something you posted yourself

 

[rikberry31]

Gladly. I do love my AI. It literally just kicks you in the nuts every time and it takes like 2 seconds.

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.

---

1. I have no argument with the fact that They have a large army and missile technology. They would be would be a monster to invade.
2. China would have serious issues with an amphibious or airborne assault and occupation of another country that had any military means at all.
3. Their equipment on the battlefield has shown it inferiority when faced with U.S. technology and equipment. Venezuela and Iran lasted a day each armed with Chinese junk aginst U.S. equipment and tech.
4. China did get their azz kicked by Vietnam in 1979.
5. China wouldn't even be able to make a WWII D-Day type invasion against WWII tech. They would never be able to pull it off with against the defenses Taiwan has now.
The U.S. would most certainly have something to say about it and they definitely couldn't hang with us. Ask the Russian how they did against U.S. equipment? And that wasn't even the good stuff.
China invading Taiwan would be similar.

 

[rikberry31]

You definitely have all the answers.

Honestly, you'd fit right in on Trump's cabinet.

Enjoy WWIII with China!

You libs have been saying we were starting WWIII for 60 years. You must be on WWXVII by now.

 

[BeardedVol]

Keep believing in the lies you make up on here. Thanks, Mohab
the goat herder..

How'd you find time in the day from worrying about sharia law being forced upon you, to post in this thread?

Just think of all the boomer bait you are missing.

 

[rikberry31]

What the ****

Buddy Iran's air force, navy, anti-aircraft, and command structure was destroyed in a weekend. That is called russleing the women and raping the horses or getting your shite pushed in. These people in charge now better smarten up and make a deal or they will be dead too by next week.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

How'd you find time in the day from worrying about sharia law being forced upon you, to post in this thread?

Just think of all the boomer bait you are missing.

Boomer bail. You crack me up.

 

[MontyPython]

Buddy Iran's air force, navy, anti-aircraft, and command structure was destroyed in a weekend. That is called russleing the women and raping the horses or getting your shite pushed in. These people in charge now better smarten up and make a deal or they will be dead too by next week.

Birth control poster boy.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

Just casual rape jokes. Happy Monday all!

 

[MontyPython]

Lol the things MAGA are afraid of, never cease to amaze me.

This.

The most extreme MAGA posters here are clearly also the most petrified of so many things in this world.

It’s sad, really. Ignorance coupled with dogmatic racism makes for a pathetic human being.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[85SugarVol]

Buddy Iran's air force, navy, anti-aircraft, and command structure was destroyed in a weekend. That is called russleing the women and raping the horses or getting your shite pushed in. These people in charge now better smarten up and make a deal or they will be dead too by next week.

There’s some weird prison rape energy lurking here.

 

[rikberry31]

@rikberry31 gets blown up again by AI.

Here’s a factual breakdown of each claim in that statement.

---

1) “NATO was a different animal 20 years ago”​

Partly true (but vague)​

• NATO has changed since the early 2000s:
  • Expanded from 19 members in 2000 to 32 members today (as of 2026).
  • New members include Eastern European states (Baltics, Balkans, Finland, Sweden).
  • Missions shifted from Cold War deterrence → counterterrorism, Afghanistan, cyber defense, and now renewed focus on Russia.

Bottom line:​

• Yes, NATO has evolved significantly.
• But “different animal” is political framing, not a precise factual claim.

---

2) “Before half of NATO was Muslim nations”​

False​

This is the most factually incorrect part.

NATO membership reality:​

NATO has 32 countries, and:

Muslim-majority NATO members:​

• Turkey
• Albania
• Bosnia and Herzegovina (partially Muslim-majority population)

That’s it.​

So:

• 3 out of 32 members have significant Muslim populations or Muslim-majority status.
• That is about ~9%–10%, not “half.”

Bottom line:​

• The statement is wildly inaccurate numerically.

---

3) “We pay for the whole damn thing”​

Misleading​

NATO funding basics:​

NATO is funded through:

1. Direct common funding (very small share)
   • Headquarters, infrastructure, command structure
   • Shared roughly proportionally among members
2. Defense spending by each country (the big part)
   • Each country pays for its own military

U.S. contribution reality:​

• The U.S. pays about 15–16% of NATO’s common budget, not “the whole thing.”
• However, the U.S. does spend more overall on defense than other NATO countries.

Bottom line:​

• The U.S. is the largest contributor in absolute dollars
• But it does not “pay for the whole thing”

---

4) “They ought to help us”​

Opinion, not a factual claim​

This is a normative statement about burden-sharing.

What is factual:​

• NATO members are required under Article 5 to treat an attack on one as an attack on all.
• Many allies have supported the U.S. in:
  • Afghanistan (post-9/11 NATO mission invoked Article 5)
  • Counterterrorism operations
  • Sanctions and military support in Ukraine

But also:​

• Some allies spend below the NATO defense target of 2% of GDP (though this has been rising since 2022).

Bottom line:​

• The sentiment reflects a debate over burden-sharing, not a factual assertion.

---

Final evaluation​

Claim	Accuracy
NATO changed over 20 years	Mostly true
“Half of NATO is Muslim nations”	False
“U.S. pays for the whole thing”	False
“They ought to help us”	Opinion

---

Bottom line​

The statement mixes:

• Some real changes in NATO over time
• With significant factual inaccuracies and exaggerations, especially regarding membership composition and funding.

---

1. If you think the current reaction of NATO would be the same 20 years ago you are fooling yourself. Reason: They scared to death by the reaction of the much larger Muslim populations. Just like Minnesota is terrified of their Somali population.
2. Your AI (probably Gemini, ask Gemini he/she/it will tell you them/theyselves) for got the U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, and Belgium. Ironically that is where our bases are. The all are greatly influenced by the recent rapid influx of immigrants from muslim nations, which in the past they were not. The are held hostage by their own wokeism.
3. The U.S. contributes about 8 times the money alone as the rest do collectively. NATO would be dead without the U.S., worse than the League of Nations (younguns will think that is a Marvel movie).
4. Yes at the minimum they should let us use our bases and their air space. If not pull out and let them deal with Putin.
Bottom line: F'em.

 

[rikberry31]

Lol the things MAGA are afraid of, never cease to amaze me.

I am not afraid of them. The UK, France, Germany, and Belgium are. They are held hostage by by their own woke azzes. We were on the way until your buddy became Commander-in-Chief.

 

[rikberry31]

Birth control poster boy.

Back to the insults without substantive response. What happened did Gemini let you down. Acess to information is much different than knowledge or wisdom.
By the way, I did just fine procreating and I am very proud of my children.

 

[rikberry31]

"Blocking the strait would also raise the risks of diplomatic confrontations with large powers such as China if the US sought to halt any of their vessels transiting the strait. Trump has invested substantial political capital in his summit next month with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, which has already been postponed once because of the war.

A US blockade halting all ships that agreed to Iran’s terms of passage might also harm allies like Japan and those in Europe that Trump has already alienated with the war and which rely heavily on Gulf oil supplies.

Small wonder that some Trump critics doubt his latest attempt to wrest control of the war will work, seeing it as another example of erratic leadership featuring shifting rationales for the conflict, grave threats and climb downs.

“I don’t understand how blockading the strait is going to somehow push the Iranians into opening it. I don’t get the connection there,” Sen. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, said on “State of the Union.”

We are not blockading the entire Strait, Just the stuff coming from Iran. Oil will be going through, just not Iranian oil. Very similar to Venezuela.