Iran v US confrontation

Kaos said:
They held an emergency Parliament session today, many calling for a complete end to US presence in the region.
Click to expand...
They need to kick both Iran and the US out.
 
I just managed to stream Iranian state Media...and Jesus christ. All channels are black, everything about QS....huge threats and claims of retaliation being given....basically all 6-7 channels are one Soleimani tribute and talks of retaliation by Akhoonds (clerics) and regime officials.

All concerts in the entire country have been cancelled, all comedies and serials cancelled.
 
RedSky said:
Trump better not drag Europe into this. fecking plank.
Click to expand...

I mean aside from Britain, who will probably be under pressure to appease the US, I don't really see anyone from the EU rushing to their side. Iran's reaction could change things of course.
 
RedSky said:
Trump better not drag Europe into this. fecking plank.
Click to expand...
2mufc0 said:
Boris will be right behind him.
Click to expand...

I find the European stance (including UK here) in all these things quite hypocritical and cynical.

On one hand they profit from the US having their backs on everything including protecting their eastern border, but disdain being America's bitch and being dragged into conflicts. Conflicts that often protect their interests too might I add. While at the same time being too timid, disorganised and nationalistic to put their lot together and form a unified military force and strong foreign policy agenda, so they get taken seriously at the global stage and become independent of US foreign policy.
 
Seeing what's transpiring right now in Iran, it is similar to what the reaction to a head of state assassination would be. Such a ridiculous decision, basically a declaration of war.
 
do.ob said:
I mean aside from Britain, who will probably be under pressure to appease the US, I don't really see anyone from the EU rushing to their side. Iran's reaction could change things of course.
Click to expand...

This is one of the reasons I was so against Brexit. We've alienated Europe and been pushed firmly into the arms of America who will demand we have their backs and we'll have to appease them because they're going to be our main source of money with trade deals. It was so fecking predictable this would happen.
 
Hanks said:
Shah was 100 times better and more civilized than the current bunch. When protests got big and massive, he actually left Iran with tears and a bag of soil.

This revisionism by Western Leftists that Shah was some sort of one of the most vicious dictators of 20th century is absurd. Yes, he was a dictator, but there were many, many, many significantly worse than him in that decade. He did a lot more good than bad for the country. That's why in the protests Iranians were chanting his father's name. "Reza Shah, Rouhat Shad."
Click to expand...

I hope you realize that you are actually the revisionist in this scenario. Revisionism is not some clever code for "leftist propaganda", it's a word with actual meaning in history academia.
 
Raoul said:
The thing to do would’ve been to get into stocks in anticipation of events taking place (as in, several months ago).
Click to expand...

That was more risky then, unless you had insider info. Also people always say that, but then the biggest upward movements tend to happen when the every Fund and individual investor starts piling in. Don't think that's happened yet.
 
MadMike said:
I was thinking about doing the same. What have we become, lads? Thinking about making profit off of a potential conflict that could affect thousands if not millions. I know this is just how the game is played, but god damn...
Click to expand...

If you place money into an investment fund, best believe the managers of that fund are moving money towards such stocks automatically (unless you have some sort of ethical clause). Cold world.
 
nimic said:
I hope you realize that you are actually the revisionist in this scenario. Revisionism is not some clever code for "leftist propaganda", it's a word with actual meaning in history academia.
Click to expand...

Revisionism can be done by both left-wing and right-wing...it's not exclusive to either one. But in terms of Shah and Iran pre-revolution, it's mostly done by the Left. Not surprising though, as Iran's communist party (Toodeh) collaborated side by side with Khomeini to bring Shah down after getting promises from him that he'll allow them in the national referendum after all. and then boom! he, of course, didn't.

There was also going to be a coup against the Islamic Republic very early in the reign in 1980 (Noje Coup Plot), which was thwarted after Toodeh Party gave intel to the regime before the coup was to happen.
 
The Firestarter said:
@Brwned you were saying something about checks and balances to president's military power.
Click to expand...

It's funny how people read what they want to read, rather than what was actually said. I'll quote it again to help you out:

Brwned said:
If you think the president makes the majority of military decisions without the military's influence all over them, I'd think you're in the minority. He has absolute power but even dictators had to contend with the influence, intelligence and power of the military in major actions. Or to make it more specific about Trump, I'm sure you'll find lots of military interventions in "A Warning from Anonymous".
Click to expand...

Do you think Trump made this decision without the military's influence? Do you think he makes the majority of military decisions without the military's influence all over them? As you can see in this thread, the first question is a subject of debate - but thinking the military weren't majorly involved in the decision-making process appears to be a minority view, with some evidence underpinning that. The second question is not a subject of debate - it's a minority view.

There's no question that the president makes military decisions without congress' approval, and it's been a consistent concern over the last two decades.
 
Brwned said:
It's funny how people read what they want to read, rather than what was actually said. I'll quote it again to help you out:



Do you think Trump made this decision without the military's influence? Do you think he makes the majority of military decisions without the military's influence all over them? As you can see in this thread, the first question is a subject of debate - but thinking the military weren't majorly involved in the decision-making process appears to be a minority view, with some evidence underpinning that. The second question is not a subject of debate - it's a minority view.

There's no question that the president makes military decisions without congress' approval, and it's been a consistent concern over the last two decades.
Click to expand...
By 'the military' do you mean the NSC uniformed members or actual combatant commands ?
 
Organic Potatoes said:
It wouldn’t be Trumpian without a bit of comedy to it somewhere...

Click to expand...


I can't find any of this funny at all. Twitter is a fecking cesspool of cnuts today. So many relishing the chance to go to war with Iran to bring American justice.

The attitude of so many in the USA is just completely fecked. Who cares who dies... Just yeeeeehaw! feck yeah!
 
MadMike said:
I find the European stance (including UK here) in all these things quite hypocritical and cynical.

On one hand they profit from the US having their backs on everything including protecting their eastern border, but disdain being America's bitch and being dragged into conflicts. Conflicts that often protect their interests too might I add. While at the same time being too timid, disorganised and nationalistic to put their lot together and form a unified military force and strong foreign policy agenda, so they get taken seriously at the global stage and become independent of US foreign policy.
Click to expand...
Since when is destabilising the middle East in Europe's interest? The Iraq war started the whole mess which resulted in the refugee crisis, isis, terrorist attacks etc.. Which Europe has taken the brunt of.

With regards to the Eastern border, European nations do contribute and its also in America's interest to keep it secure from Russia.

There's absolutely no good reason to get involved in these terrible conflicts. And neither is it hypocritical to call out BS when you see it.
 
Hanks said:
For a grand total of one year. Shah was in power, then he was sidelined and Mosaddeq became PM, and then the coup and Shah back. It's a shame they couldn't work together. It was in fact Shah who first appointed Mosaddeq as the PM in 1951 after he was nominated by the parliament.

I'm not knocking Mosaddegh, but the way people talk about that "one year" of democracy is as we were having decades of Finland-like Liberal Democracy before the CIA coup to bring Mosaddeq down. None of us know how he'd have gone as time went on and he got more powerful. He was off to a great start though, with nationalizing the oil.
Click to expand...
He was put into office by democratic consensus, the Shah’s appointment was ceremonial. It’s like saying the Queen had put Boris into number 10.

The point is Iran had a genuine democratic process in place and the US/UK decided to sabotage it because the Iranians had the audacity to want to exert control over their own national resources. The current Iranian regime is the resulting backlash to that policy.
 
MadMike said:
That was more risky then, unless you had insider info. Also people always say that, but then the biggest upward movements tend to happen when the every Fund and individual investor starts piling in. Don't think that's happened yet.
Click to expand...

That’s how professionals do it, they predict trends and get into positions well before events happen. Getting in now only provides the liquidity to the pros to trade out.
 
2mufc0 said:
They need to kick both Iran and the US out.
Click to expand...
Ideally yes, but unfortunately an impossible task considering how their politicians are hopelessly compromised by corruption owing to both sides.

The Iranian backed militias also pretty much hold the nation to ransom, and unfortunately many Iraqis are still more loyal to Khameini than they are to their own compatriots.
 
Sir Matt said:


How's Nasrallah feeling right now?
Click to expand...

Shitting his pants sitting in Lebanon thinking whether he'll be next as his Iranian and Iraqi terrorist brothers from irgc and hezbulla were annihilated. Tbh US should've taken him out in same operation.
 
milemuncher777 said:
Shitting his pants sitting in Lebanon thinking whether he'll be next as his Iranian and Iraqi terrorist brothers from irgc and hezbulla were annihilated. Tbh US should've taken him out in same operation.
Click to expand...

1. He's no terrorist, Hezbollah are in the Lebanese government and they represent about 30% of the population. They, alongside their many allies have the majority in the parliament. So do some research and don't listen too much to the media.
2. He has been a target for 15 years so good luck with that
 
Ballache said:
1. He's no terrorist, Hezbollah are in the Lebanese government and they represent about 30% of the population. They, alongside their many allies have the majority in the parliament. So do some research and don't listen too much to the media.
2. He has been a target for 15 years so good luck with that
Click to expand...

So by this logic I'm sure you love Bush and Blair and dont consider them terrorist for their adventures and destruction that they caused in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
You just know this will guarantee a Trump 2020 victory. The republicans go blood thirsty, the Dems urge caution and then get accused of not being on Americas side.
 
Ballache said:
2. He has been a target for 15 years so good luck with that
Click to expand...
Today his boss and his counterpart from Iraq were taken out. Nasralla will also go soon and when it eventually does happen don't cry your eyes out because he will always be a terrorist for his role in Syria.
 
milemuncher777 said:
Today his boss and his counterpart from Iraq were taken out. Nasralla will also go soon and when it eventually does happen don't cry your eyes out because he will always be a terrorist for his role in Syria.
Click to expand...
I can understand being relieved to see Soleimani go, but I don't understand your cheerleading of it.

Do you believe the US and Trump are going to make Syria/Lebanon any safer?
 
Are USA citizens actually dumber than the rest of the world or does it only get so much exposure because there's so many of them and they're so active on Twitter? The replies on all those Trump and Iran-related tweets are just fecking mind boggling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.