Iran

[DinkinFlicka]

It's more for the libertarian view of "who are we to tell homicidal maniacs they can't have weapons to use against us"

While it may be correct on a "let them be no authority should exist" spectrum, the facts are there are very legal and moral reasons why we do not allow them to

Why? Are we afraid to relinquish sole possession of the "nuclear bombers" title?

Iran has sabre rattled for 50 years. Do you really think they were poised to attack the US 3 months ago?

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[MontyPython]

It’s called a blockade for a reason. Whether or not it is enforced and to what extent, remains to be seen. Xi is no dummy and he doesn’t want a conflict with the US that’s not on their terms and no where close to their backyard (Taiwan).

I seriously doubt Trump is the one who proposed the idea of a blockade at all, since it’s not likely he’s thinking that far in advance. The joint chiefs and/or Hegseth may have floated the idea.

You’re correct in that we’ll see what tomorrow brings. Oil prices will probably waitrise and the markets have been extremely volatile lately.

So no, I don’t believe your possible WW3 take on it.

Who said anything about World War III?

All I’ve said with certainty is that our president is a complete and utter ****ing moron.

And that we are not going to enforce any sort of blockade. Period.

And that, in all likelihood, the financial markets will react very negatively tomorrow to this incredibly stupid action on the part of our country.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Who said anything about World War III?

All I’ve said with certainty is that our president is a complete and utter ****ing moron.

And that we are not going to enforce any sort of blockade. Period.

And that, in all likelihood, the financial markets will react very negatively tomorrow to this incredibly stupid action on the part of our country.

Boo Hoo. Just adding more liberal tears.

 

[ButchPlz]

The world is not binary. I know the average person that still backs this president has a hard time going beyond one or two concurrent thoughts, but that doesn't mean that limited level of intelligence reflects reality.

 

[ETV]

The main point is to stop Iran from being able to sell its oil. Choke the regime off financially. I'm betting the extremists dictators have more patience for this game of chicken then we will. Financial and political pressure will be more of an issue for Trump than the Mullahs

The pressure at home and abroad will depend upon other factors. Sure, they have some patience but they also have never been in a conflict of this magnitude before. Fighting the Kurds to the north and the Iraq conflict are not a fair comparison.

Iran’s economy is already tanked and their offensive capabilities have been neutralized.

The blockade (if enforced) brings them to our terms sooner, rather than later.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Why? Are we afraid to relinquish sole possession of the "nuclear bombers" title?

Iran has sabre rattled for 50 years. Do you really think they were poised to attack the US 3 months ago?

I think if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would 100% use it at the drop of a hat. (but this has nothing to do with Trump and his dumb war), I am speaking from a world view level of the opinion of "let them have it who are we to tell them they can't" on a treaty that every civilized country in the world and Iran themselves supposedly agreed to initially

And the US used nuclear bombs to end a conflict that would've cost more lives in the end...

When the US had the most nuclear bombs of any nation for decades, we didn't willy-nilly launch them at every perceived insult or conflict

You can argue the "UN legality" of treaties restricting nuclear weapons to only a handful of countries, but I don't think that you can argue the common sense of why Iran, Haiti or Somalia shouldn't have nuclear weapons with low IQ violent populations with no regard for thinking past 15 minutes

 

[MontyPython]

The intent of the blockade is to stop ships that have bribed Iran for safe passage, not to prevent commercial traffic.

And so that is going to likely include Chinese tankers. I’ll pose the question yet once again: do you actually think our military is going to stop any Chinese oil tankers?

Yes, or no. There is no maybe.

And how about the tankers of our allies, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines? They are wholly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Are you suggesting that we are going to blockade our allies tankers?

Yes, or no? There is no maybe.

 

[DinkinFlicka]

I think if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would 100% use it at the drop of a hat.

And the US used nuclear bombs to end a conflict that would've cost more lives in the end...

When the US had the most nuclear bombs of any nation for decades, we didn't willy-nilly launch them at every perceived insult or conflict

You can argue the "UN legality" of treaties restricting nuclear weapons to only a handful of countries, but I don't think that you can argue the common sense of why Iran, Haiti or Somalia shouldn't have nuclear weapons with low IQ violent populations with no regard for thinking past 15 minutes

See, the emboldened here is the problem. One does not simply "use" a nuke when they have it. Delivering that nuke would be a much taller mountain to climb, especially considering the distance between the two countries as well as our missile defense capabilities.

That said, you can't justify all of the stupid, unnecessary bullsh*t we've kicked up in the past few months because you simply think they would "use a nuke at the drop of a hat."

If that were a view shared by a meaningful number of people, then it wouldn't just be Netanyahu and Trump all alone in a mountain of **** they've created.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

DA Schumer in 2026 ... Leave Iran alone.

 

[VAVol85]

And so that is going to likely include Chinese tankers. I’ll pose the question yet once again: do you actually think our military is going to stop any Chinese oil tankers?

Yes, or no. There is no maybe.

And how about the tankers of our allies, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines? They are wholly dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Are you suggesting that we are going to blockade our allies tankers?

Yes, or no? There is no maybe.

Yes to your question. Everybody goes through or nobody goes through. China can take it up with their supplier Iran. Since that is Iran's only customer, they should have some leverage.

Meanwhile, the US will begin clearing mines.

 

[CobbVol]

 

[NashVol11]

 

[VAVol85]

The main point is to stop Iran from being able to sell its oil. Choke the regime off financially. I'm betting the extremists dictators have more patience for this game of chicken then we will. Financial and political pressure will be more of an issue for Trump than the Mullahs

This is not the policy. If Iran relents and let's other ships pass, then the US will allow Iranian-bound ships to pass - everybody goes through or nobody goes through. The policy is designed to open the Strait not specifically to hurt Iran. If we want to hurt Iran economically, a day of bombing on Kharg Island is more that sufficient.

 

[ETV]

Who said anything about World War III?

All I’ve said with certainty is that our president is a complete and utter ****ing moron.

And that we are not going to enforce any sort of blockade. Period.

And that, in all likelihood, the financial markets will react very negatively tomorrow to this incredibly stupid action on the part of our country.

You stated in a previous post the what if argument that the US sinks a Chinese flagged vessel and then the what if the US boards Chinese ships. If those events occur, it won’t be ignored by the Reds.

The market will most likely see a dip, however once the conflict ends, it may skyrocket. There’s two sides to that coin.

 

[MontyPython]

Yes to your question. Everybody goes through or nobody goes through. China can take it up with their supplier Iran. Since that is Iran's only customer, they should have some leverage.

Meanwhile, the US will begin clearing mines.

I’m thinking you’re a bit naïve here. Sorry.

You do understand that if a destroyer goes through the Strait, it’s going to get the living **** blown out out of it by Iran, right? Or do you have some sort of fantasy that our ships are immune?

And if you do think our ships are immune, why is it that they haven’t gone through the Strait during this war?

 

[Vol8188]

A population drop during a global pandemic followed by continuous growth since,

Yet still below were it was. Seems the growth has been small.

with the metro area growing the entire time, is not "people are leaving in literal droves" haha

The metro area growing doesn’t help your argument. That just means people are leaving NY for Connecticut, Pennsylvania, etc

 

[ETV]

I’m thinking you’re a bit naïve here. Sorry.

You do understand that if a destroyer goes through the Strait, it’s going to get the living **** blown out out of it by Iran, right? Or do you have some sort of fantasy that our ships are immune?

And if you do think our ships are immune, why is it that they haven’t gone through the Strait during this war?

Are you familiar with the Aegis system and Phalanx weapons systems used by the USN?

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

You stated in a previous post the what if argument that the US sinks a Chinese flagged vessel and then the what if the US boards Chinese ships. If those events occur, it won’t be ignored by the Reds.

The market will most likely see a dip, however once the conflict ends, it may skyrocket. There’s two sides to that coin.

The market will always rebound. That should be the least of our worries

 

[MontyPython]

I think if Iran had a nuclear bomb they would 100% use it at the drop of a hat. (but this has nothing to do with Trump and his dumb war), I am speaking from a world view level of the opinion of "let them have it who are we to tell them they can't" on a treaty that every civilized country in the world and Iran themselves supposedly agreed to initially

And the US used nuclear bombs to end a conflict that would've cost more lives in the end...

When the US had the most nuclear bombs of any nation for decades, we didn't willy-nilly launch them at every perceived insult or conflict

You can argue the "UN legality" of treaties restricting nuclear weapons to only a handful of countries, but I don't think that you can argue the common sense of why Iran, Haiti or Somalia shouldn't have nuclear weapons with low IQ violent populations with no regard for thinking past 15 minutes

Iran agreed to a treaty with us to not build nuclear bombs. And then in 2018, our illustrious President Trump pulled out of that treaty.

And here we are…

 

[VAVol85]

I’m thinking you’re a bit naïve here. Sorry.

You do understand that if a destroyer goes through the Strait, it’s going to get the living **** blown out out of it by Iran, right? Or do you have some sort of fantasy that our ships are immune?

And if you do think our ships are immune, why is it that they haven’t gone through the Strait during this war?

Two of them went through yesterday. The sailed around in the Persian Gulf and went back through. Iran gave a "final warning" before the destroyers went through and then did nothing. These are not fishing boats, they have defensive weapons and no Iranian "fastboat" is going to come anywhere near a US destroyer.

 

[Rickyvol77]

See, the emboldened here is the problem. One does not simply "use" a nuke when they have it. Delivering that nuke would be a much taller mountain to climb, especially considering the distance between the two countries as well as our missile defense capabilities.

That said, you can't justify all of the stupid, unnecessary bullsh*t we've kicked up in the past few months because you simply think they would "use a nuke at the drop of a hat."

If that were a view shared by a meaningful number of people, then it wouldn't just be Netanyahu and Trump all alone in a mountain of **** they've created.

Again this has nothing to do with Trump or his dumbass justification for a war I don't agree with

This is a separate line of thinking about the comment the poster made about "who are we to keep Iran from a nuke" thinking...nothing more

And yes it's difficult to gain and utilize a nuke effectively for 2nd and 3rd world countries...just like it's difficult for The DC sniper or Dylan Roof to get and utilize fully-automated .50 caliber mounted guns on their vehicles, but it shouldn't mean they should be allowed to get them either

 

[NashVol11]

Yet still below were it was. Seems the growth has been small.

Nothing to do with what we were discussing

The metro area growing doesn’t help your argument. That just means people are leaving NY for Connecticut, Pennsylvania, etc

Everything outside the narrow "city" limits is in another state? You just made that up, you're now derailing from even the original derailment of this thread.

"Leaving" the NY part of NYC metro to move to the NJ part of the same city isn't "leaving in droves" either lol, it is in fact not leaving at all

 

[Rickyvol77]

Iran agreed to a treaty with us to not build nuclear bombs. And then in 2018, our illustrious President Trump pulled out of that treaty.

And here we are…

It wasn't a treaty, a treaty is required to be ratified by the Senate

It was simply a voluntarily "agreement" to give them their $ and hope they tell us the truth

Even by this flimsy agreement, your question is answered about "who are we to tell them they can't have nukes"...by the same actual agreements from the UN decades prior that they agreed to

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Playbook empty, no game plan.