Iran Crisis ∩ Trump Politics Mass Debates Thread

[Gay Sex Enjoyer]

The US political establishment has spent 25 years reframing armed resistance to military occupation as capital-T Terrorism, and since Iran was supplying weapons to said TERRORISTS during GWOT, we have now been told that the destruction of Iran will somehow lead to the dissolution of TERRORISM against US military occupation in the Middle East proper.

0:19

 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

So you agree that even taking out a smaller regional power like Iran is a ridiculous notion for the modern US military, unless they're willing to restart the draft.

I don't think the draft has anything to do with it, no. There won't be a draft in the US. Ever again. Any conflict with a major power that would need those kind of numbers above and beyond the normal Jobs Program enlistment would quickly end up nuclear and end everything before it got there. MAD still exists.

The US isn't trying to take out Iran through conventional means and instead made, what I feel, is a very bad miscalculation on how ready the civilians were ready to die for a revolution. Now we're going to have to kill a fuck ton of them by destroying their water and electrical grids so we can feel like we've won before we walk away and leave a broken nation behind that others will have to clean up.

Again, Russia and China have NOOOOOOOKS, so why even waste time with terrain analysis?

You mentioned the fact that we cant deal with iran, much less those two nations. That's why I mentioned why Iran is different than those two. If not for the terrain, Iran would have been Iraq Pt 3, The Freedom Eagle Returns.

China and Russia aren’t getting invaded. Shit would go nuclear well before that was even close. Think Fallujah was bad? Imaging fighting in this shit.

Exactly my point above about the draft. Urban fighting against a resistance with no uniforms and no way to tell friend from foe is absolutely the worst case scenario.

 

[Pimp C]

It’s all just bullshit, the same people going total Muslim death right now cheered on HTS overthrowing Assad.

Islamist help Israel = good

Islamist hurt Israel = bad

This is very clearly what’s actually going on lol

I'm old enough to remember when Ghaddafi voluntarily gave up his WMD program in exchange for normalized relations with the West. He died getting sodomized with a bayonet by US-NATO backed jihadis. At least the new Libya post-Ghaddafi can't pose a threat to Our Greatest Ally.

 

[Prööt :DD]

We shouldn’t have buddy fucked their nuclear weapons program in the 80’s.

Just like with Ukraine, we are seeing what happens to countries that gave up their nooks. What better motivation is there for Iran to actually develop a nook than what's happening right now?

 

[Taser Confetti]

Now we're going to have to kill a fuck ton of them by destroying their water and electrical grids

That’s a war crime.

 

[Lt. H. DuBois]

Despite Iran being a self proclaimed Islamic Theocratic Republic I feel what alot of Americans fail to realize is that the country is much more socially liberal than alot of other Mesopotamian countries, certainly our "best buddy" Gulf states, this isnt 1979 the Republican Guard arent rounding up women and beating them for not wearing a hijab properly, theyve realized to make this project work certain concessions need to be made. Other than Turkey Iran is probably the most culturally similar country in all the Mid East, on the surface all this seems like a contradiction but I guess it all goes back to the 6000 years of Persian culture argument

 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

That’s a war crime.

No one cares about war crimes other than people who like to point at things and call it a war crime. I hear about war crimes being committed every fucking day around the world. It's like calling everyone a pedo. It's lost its meaning and importance. There hasn't been a successful international tribunal for a nation's leader since 2012. It's just "War" and yes.... innocent people die needlessly and in horrible ways. Its why war shouldn't happen and why people shouldn't be so eager and bloodthirsty about it.

 

[Prööt :DD]

videoplayback (7).mp4

With all due respect to Hatemonger, is attacking Iran going to stop TERRORISM in the Middle East, especially considering the attacks against US forces in the region were at an all-time low?

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

To me a bunch of towelheads saying death to america

their open hostility towards america is huge, this is the government that has been screeching "death to america" for decades

Oh no, means words.

And we're so nice to the Iranian people too, why would they hate us so much? One day we hope to unlock this mystery.

The US political establishment has spent 25 years reframing armed resistance to military occupation as capital-T Terrorism, and since Iran was supplying weapons to said TERRORISTS during GWOT, we have now been told that the destruction of Iran will somehow lead to the dissolution of TERRORISM against US military occupation in the Middle East proper.

The funniest part is Hamas and Hezbollah don't have a history of attacking the US, but you know who does? Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and it's affiliates. But ISIS and al-Qaeda are funded and financed by our Gulf State "Allies", so the media just mushes them all together under one "Middle East terrorist" label in the hopes that the average American will just assume Iran must be where those "crazy ISIS fuckers" come from, and so why wouldn't we just carpet bomb the place?

And they're right, the people are that retarded, so it works. Meanwhile, an actual ISIS affiliated terrorist leader who had a $10 million bounty on his head for years up until recently is now "our guy in Syria". And we're supposed to take this shit seriously? We're allied with ISIS leaders, while fighting against a country that wasn't attacking the US. Brilliant foreign policy as usual.

 

[Bogliacci]

The IRGC dedicates an Iranian Shahed-136 kamikaze drone to rapper Tupac Shakur:

Tupac is alive in Serbia and would never agree to his image being used by filthy shitites

 

[Pimp C]

You mentioned the fact that we cant deal with iran, much less those two nations. That's why I mentioned what Iran is different than those two. If not for the terrain, Iran would have been Iraq Pt 3, The Freedom Eagle Returns.

Terrain poses a problem, sure, but the biggest impediment is the resistance to a traditional military expedition by the overwhelming majority of the American people. The fact that Trump and his ballwashers have to pilpul over the definition of what constitutes a war is proof. Engaging in anything else but pushing buttons to drop bombs in the long term with US casualties is political suicide. I'm dead serious when I say Trump traded away his legacy to slurp up another rope of juju cum.

That’s a war crime.

He'll get the sloppiest toppy from Larry Loomer for it, though. Let's focus on what's important.

 

[Prööt :DD]

No one cares about war crimes other than people who like to point at things and call it a war crime. I hear about war crimes being committed every fucking day around the world. It's like calling everyone a pedo. It's lost its meaning and importance. There hasn't been a successful international tribunal since 2012. It's just "War" and yes.... innocent people die needlessly and in horrible ways. Its why war shouldn't happen and why people shouldn't be so eager and bloodthirsty about it.

War crime or not, there still needs to be a desired outcome from actions taken during this conflict. What strategic benefit is there to destroying civilian infrastructure? Is it going to foment resentment of the people against their own government for not stopping the bombing, or is it instead going to foment resentment against those who are bombing their infrastructure and further solidify control of the residing government? I feel like these are important questions that simply aren't being considered by the current US leadership in favor of "woah cool bomb video".

 

[ThisIsGonnaBeGood]

Describe:

A: What would be nuked,
B. How many nukes would be deployed,
C. The desired outcome of the nuking,
D. What would be the plan if the desired outcome doesn't occur?

A. Everything.
B. As many as it takes.
C. Stop Iran from ever being a problem to the world again.
D. Keep dropping nukes.

Houthis have arrested a number of people they claim were Israeli intel assets.

Mossad is so deeply embedded that I can't even tell if they're lying at this point.

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

Mossad is so deeply embedded that I can't even tell if they're lying at this point.

While thinking everyone is Mossad is a paranoia tactic, they are extremely good at infiltration. We are stuck between having to assume anyone could be compromised and just going about normally. I don’t think there has ever been a country as cunning as these guys. And I really wish the Overton window allowed for anti-Israel sentiments to not be considered antisemitism.



Edit so I don’t double post, it was fun. All good things end eventually.

 

[CaliforniaRaisin]

but the biggest impediment is the resistance to a traditional military expedition by the overwhelming majority of the American people.

While I get the sentiment you're going for, it means almost nothing in reality. If resistance to military action was a factor in things, we wouldn't have fired up the MIC in the ME again after being told we were going to focus on America first "for a change" and electing leaders, largely, to do just that based on their promises. Now, we've been told we're too busy fighting wars around the world to invest in America first. In a broad sense, the administration has done the exact opposite of what the people wanted, and yet there are no repercussions for them.

tl:dr - Public Sentiment hasn't stopped the administration from doing the exact opposite of what it said it was going to do and it won't stop them from doing whatever the fuck they get talked into doing either.

War crime or not, there still needs to be a desired outcome from actions taken during this conflict. What strategic benefit is there to destroying civilian infrastructure? Is it going to foment resentment of the people against their own government for not stopping the bombing, or is it instead going to foment resentment against those who are bombing their infrastructure and further solidify control of the residing government? I feel like these are important questions that simply aren't being considered by the current US leadership in favor of "woah cool bomb video".

Like it or not, Iran was going to go to war with someone eventually. I firmly believe this. If it was with Israel, the UAE, The USA... it didn't matter. You can spend years debating who is in the right or the wrong regarding Iran's position and influence in the Global World Order, but it doesn't change anything. The US and Israel weren't going to change, and Iran wasn't going to change. If they were, it would have happened already. Instead, you're left with a ticking time bomb of a conflict in the ME and the only question was if a viable Thermonuclear device was going to be a part of that equation.

I think ideally, the administration believed cutting the head off the regime was going to be enough to spark that change in Iran to deflect away from the course we were on. That didn't happen. And the only other recourse to save the projection of power is to now obliterate their entire civilian infrastructure along with their military and say "we won. Look at their civilian population, they're dying of thirst they're so destroyed"

 

[TayTweets]

Iranians be bussin

 

[Gay Sex Enjoyer]

With all due respect to Hatemonger, is attacking Iran going to stop TERRORISM in the Middle East, especially considering the attacks against US forces in the region were at an all-time low?

It doesn't need to be some instantaneous magical cure-all for it to still be beneficial.

I don't think anything short of Christ coming back is going to make the Middle East anything remotely resembling peaceful, let alone make terrorism (or "terrorism") cease to exist, but Iran was funding proxies to outright attack US interests and is directly allied with + supplied by our rivals. They serve as a massive advantage for those rivals in the ME, ergo removing them from the equation via a crippled regime or the dissolution of the IRGC would be an outright net-positive.

It's not even a RAH RAH TERRORISM issue, just from a purely realpolitik perspective they had to be dealt with eventually. As much of a bully as the US can be sometimes, a BRICS-allied Islamic Theocracy having a stranglehold over that much trade is objectively not a good status-quo for global markets.

Speaking emotionally, I don't take the appeals of "just resisting US occupation" seriously when the people using it also just straight up massacre their own citizens, doubly so when it's because they were also too corrupt to not fuck up their own water infrastructure for quick government money-laundering. Oppressors don't get to simultaneously claim legitimate resistance, that's the same horseshit song and dance Chicom cocksleeves like Pol Pot used.

 

[Prööt :DD]

Like it or not, Iran was going to go to war with someone eventually. I firmly believe this. If it was with Israel, the UAE, The USA... it didn't matter.

Israeli logic, redraw the red line further up the stupid bomb picture.
Iran had no reason to start an offensive war and had already set a precedent of only directly retaliating in response to aggressive actions against it. How many times are you allowed to "preemptively strike" another country before they're allowed to retaliate?

 

[Pimp C]

While I get the sentiment you're going for, it means almost nothing in reality. If resistance to military action was a factor in things, we wouldn't have fired up the MIC in the ME again after being told we were going to focus on America first "for a change" and electing leaders, largely, to do just that based on their promises. Now, we've been told we're too busy fighting wars around the world to invest in America first. In a broad sense, the administration has done the exact opposite of what the people wanted, and yet there are no repercussions for them.

tl:dr - Public Sentiment hasn't stopped the administration from doing the exact opposite of what it said it was going to do and it won't stop them from doing whatever the fuck they get talked into doing either.

The MIC was 'fired up' and there's nowhere enough personnel or materiel to effectively wage war. It's laughable. The reason the pieces couldn't be put in place is because no one but the most addled miggers, the type that inhabit USPG2, can defend it. The cultists represent a sliver of the electorate. If Rabbi Trump could just do whatever he wanted without repercussions, he wouldn't have done the most retarded thing in the most retarded way possible. Do you think after Republicans get gaped in the midterms, they'll have any reason to gunt guard Trump? Even Trump isn't retarded enough to believe it.

 

[Pimp C]

Ver archivo adjunto 8806256

Iranians be bussin

I'm not a killa but don't push me
Revenge is like the sweetest joy next to Hormussy

we dyin for israel on god fr fr

Israeli logic, redraw the red line further up the stupid bomb picture.
Iran had no reason to start an offensive war and had already set a precedent of only directly retaliating in response to aggressive actions against it. How many times are you allowed to "preemptively strike" another country before they're allowed to retaliate?

It sounds a lot like "If I don't steal it, someone else will."