Katphood Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) No, everybody is scared because of the incoming sanctions so they are investing all of their money in gold coins. This cripples the economy and makes the dollar price rise at an exponential rate. If things go like this once the actual sanctions hit, the government will collapse. This could very well, be the start of some major changes in Iran. If this doesn't happen, Trump will likely make his own deal with Iran: 'Obama made a bad deal, I dropped that deal and forced the Iranians into signing a new and better deal. Vote for me!'. Edit: There is also a third option which is the worst: War between the two nations. Edited July 30, 2018 by Katphood There used to be a signature here, a really cool one...and now it's gone.
Lexx Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 I'm guessing the potential change in Iran won't be a positive one. To me this is just so painful to watch. Especially because the Saudis are our "friends".. ugh. "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
Gfted1 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 No, everybody is scared because of the incoming sanctions so they are investing all of their money in gold coins. This cripples the economy and makes the dollar price rise at an exponential rate. If things go like this once the actual sanctions hit, the government will collapse. This could very well, be the start of some major changes in Iran. If this doesn't happen, Trump will likely make his own deal with Iran: 'Obama made a bad deal, I dropped that deal and forced the Iranians into signing a new and better deal. Vote for me!'. Edit: There is also a third option which is the worst: War between the two nations. Oh yeah, the nuclear deal. At least the special forces general feels confident in laying a smackdown: Iran general threatens Trump: 'If you begin war, we will end it'. So dramatic! "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Chilloutman Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 I'm guessing the potential change in Iran won't be a positive one. To me this is just so painful to watch. Especially because the Saudis are our "friends".. ugh. Well the new prince of SA sounds like decent guy. Who knows tho I'm the enemy, 'cause I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, and freedom of choice. I'm the kinda guy that likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs with the side-order of gravy fries?" I want high cholesterol! I wanna eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, okay?! I wanna smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section! I wanna run naked through the street, with green Jell-O all over my body, reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly may feel the need to, okay, pal? I've SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It's a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiene"
Malcador Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Oh yeah, the nuclear deal. At least the special forces general feels confident in laying a smackdown: Iran general threatens Trump: 'If you begin war, we will end it'. So dramatic! "You know our power in the region and our capabilities in asymmetric war. We will act and we will work." Well, can see his point there. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Gfted1 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Yeah sure. Also, this guy: "There are no tanks in Baghdad". "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Malcador Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) See no real reason to doubt him, though. Iran does have ties to Hezbollah and given US troops invading countries on either side of them would be sensible for them to develop asymmetric warfare, again looking at those two countries. Probably should read more on it, but consensus seems to be Iran would be a pain to invade and occupy. In any case is just more macho posturing, one does it, another must do it back, etc. Edited July 30, 2018 by Malcador 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Gfted1 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 *tank rumbles by in background* "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Katphood Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 If Russia, Syria, China and Israel can come to an agreement, the U.S could invade Iran. But I don't see that happening. Though the U.S government have said time and time again that 'We don't need a war in order to change the regime in Iran'. There used to be a signature here, a really cool one...and now it's gone.
Sarex Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Iran would be a tough nut to crack, could maybe even break the teeth. "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
HoonDing Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) It's not really about winning the war, but about what comes after. Edited July 30, 2018 by HoonDing The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
Gfted1 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Iran would be a tough nut to crack, could maybe even break the teeth. To destroy militarily or to destroy and "occupy"? If the former, I don't think they would last any longer than Iraq did. If the latter, I agree. "Occupying" a country is just a meatgrinder and a waste of lives. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Lexx Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 More immigrants for europe, which I kinda feel like is exactly what america wants. "only when you no-life you can exist forever, because what does not live cannot die."
Gfted1 Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 How is that in the US interests? "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
HoonDing Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Trump wants a fractured EU for his great bilateral trade deals. The ending of the words is ALMSIVI.
rjshae Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 More immigrants for europe, which I kinda feel like is exactly what america wants. Rot-roh, he's on to us. "It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats."
Zoraptor Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 See no real reason to doubt him, though. Iran does have ties to Hezbollah and given US troops invading countries on either side of them would be sensible for them to develop asymmetric warfare, again looking at those two countries. Probably should read more on it, but consensus seems to be Iran would be a pain to invade and occupy. In any case is just more macho posturing, one does it, another must do it back, etc. Lebanese Hezbollah is largely irrelevant unless Israel is involved, and perhaps even then, though their very successful tactics from 2006 would no doubt form a basis for most tactics. For the US and Saudi/ Gulf the problem would be the enormous number of Iraqi PMUs- probably 100k+- who are almost all tied to Iran, and the smaller number of Iranian backed militia in- semi ironically, the most quiescent portions of- Afghanistan, plus the more direct threat of thousands of missiles aimed at oil refineries, US bases, ships and tankers etc. Al Sadr's insurgency did pretty well against the US even with minimal Iranian support and very basic tactics and that was a fraction of the size. Given Saudi's lack of performance in Yemen their army would probably lose to half a dozen Najafis in a Toyota just as readily as khat addled Houthis in night shirts. More immigrants for europe, which I kinda feel like is exactly what america wants. Maybe as a ternary bonus, but the driver is clearly Kushner and Bibi plus getting arms sales/ extorting protection from Saudi etc.
Guard Dog Posted July 30, 2018 Posted July 30, 2018 Here's an idea: let's not go to war with anyone. If I were president my foreign policy could be summed up like this: Don't attack our states or territories. Don't attack our citizens abroad who are behaving lawfully wherever they are. Don't attack nations with whom we have defensive pacts. Do those three things and you will never have to hear an american shot fired in anger. If it were up to me Iraq, Panama, Vietnam, Libya, Syria, etc would have gone down totally differently. "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Katphood Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 Iran would be a tough nut to crack, could maybe even break the teeth. To destroy militarily or to destroy and "occupy"? If the former, I don't think they would last any longer than Iraq did. If the latter, I agree. "Occupying" a country is just a meatgrinder and a waste of lives. You can also destroy a country without any sort of military intervention: Syria is a good example. There used to be a signature here, a really cool one...and now it's gone.
Gfted1 Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 Yeah, "regime change" almost never works in mondern day. Imo, true "regime change" takes a level of "purging" that we no longer have the stomach for. We try some soft reboot and just wind up with another mook. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now