So Czer is ISIS really just a Saudi front created to mess w/Iran?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Utumno, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Iran, China slam US unilateralism, vow to boost ties
    June 15, 2019

    Iran and China on yesterday criticised unilateral policies of the US during a regional security summit in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek, as reported

    Speaking at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said: “Pressures that the US administration is putting on Iran, China and other countries are aimed at dominating the entire Asia and the world.”

    He expressed willingness to play a vital role in China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative which aims to connect China to Central and South Asia and onward to Europe through a series of roads and railway networks.

    “Given its exceptional geographical location, Iran is ready to play an important role in the Belt and Road Initiative and willing to continue cooperation with China in energy fields and the development of infrastructures […],” he said.

    Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping said Beijing maintains strategic relations with Tehran.

    “Beijing will continue and develop its strategic relations with Iran,” Xi said, adding that Washington’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal was a major source of tension in the region.

    Tensions between Iran and the US have mounted steadily since 2017, when Trump withdrew his country from a landmark nuclear agreement between Tehran and the P5+1 group of nations (the five permanent UN Security Council members plus Germany).

    Since then, the Trump administration has also re-imposed sanctions on Iran’s banking and energy sectors, while Iran has threatened to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz to US oil shipments.
  2. Utumno

    Utumno Administrator Staff Member

    Post Count:
    I mean yeah but China accusing ppl of unilateralism is also kinda lol
  3. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    that was a good comment, remember when china invaded a country every year for as long as you were born, me either
  4. Utumno

    Utumno Administrator Staff Member

    Post Count:
    i don't approve on unilateralism in general but let's get real for a moment that shit is almost entirely driven by the might makes right dynamic. if your yuge you do it because who is going to stop you? i'm not giving the US a pass, they've got an awful track record here. i'm just saying china trying to play like they're fucking switzerland or modern germany or some shit is fucking HILARIOUS

    china increasingly does not need to give fucks anymore, and they won't.

    also i was born a long time ago bruh
  5. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    switzerland is tiny, and germany was the center of two of the worst wars in human history that were almost back to back so

    everyone should hope germany doesn't switch it up
  6. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:

    Germany's Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on Friday cast doubt on evidence that the U.S. government claims is proof that Iran was behind an attack this week on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

    The attack on the two vessels, one Japanese and one Norwegian, took place as Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe was visiting Iran to try to calm tensions between Tehran and Washington.

    The U.S. Navy later released a video that purported to show members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard sneaking over to the ship in the middle of the night to remove an unexploded mine. U.S. officials claimed this is evidence of Iran's culpability, but Maas argued that the video was insufficient proof to pin the attack on Iran.

    "The video is not enough. We can understand what is being shown, sure, but to make a final assessment, this is not enough for me," Maas told reporters during a press conference on Friday. The boat's Japanese owner also cast doubt on the theory that a mine had been used to attack the ship, telling journalists that members of his crew had witnessed a flying object.

    Iran has denied any role in the event, and some observers have raised questions about whether the intelligence was being used as a pretext for the U.S. to escalate conflict with the country.

    "Whether it's an attempt to remove Venezuela's democratic government or regime change in Iran, the USA is causing global instability in furtherance of its imperial interests. We must reject the lies being used by the Trump admin to gain public support for their disastrous plans," Chris Williamson, a member of the British parliament with the UK's Labour Party, said in a statement.

    The Conservative-led government in the UK, however, released an official statement saying that it is "almost certain" that Iran's military carried out the attack.

    A second U.S. ally, France, was less committal. While the French Foreign Ministry condemned the attack, it refrained from saying whether its government had assessed the U.S. intelligence or any other evidence.

    Meanwhile, European Union officials called for "maximum restraint."

    "We are gathering more information and we are assessing the situation," a spokeswoman for the EU's foreign service told reporters.

    On Friday, President Donald Trump called the morning television show Fox & Friends and claimed unequivocally that Iran was behind the attack.

    "Iran did do it. And you know they did it because you saw the boat. I guess one of the mines didn't explode and it's probably got essentially Iran written all over it," Trump said during the early morning interview. "You saw the boat at night trying to take the mine off unsuccessfully. Took the mine off the boat. And that was exposed. That was their boat. That was them. And they didn't want the evidence left behind. I guess they didn't know that we have things that can detect in the dark that work very well.
  7. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Schiff is Jewish

    so he doesn't need to see facts about Iran, only about Trump???

    Transcript: Rep. Adam Schiff on "Face the Nation," June 16, 2019
    June 16, 2019

    MARGARET BRENNAN: We are back now with California Congressman Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Happy Father's Day to you, too, chairman.


    MARGARET BRENNAN: Good to have you here. You heard Tom Cotton, the senator, and before, that the secretary of state, lay out this case against Iran. You, because you're on the Intelligence Committee, have been tracking the intelligence as well. Is there any question in your mind that it is Iran and its Revolutionary Guard that is behind these attacks?

    REP. SCHIFF: There's no question that Iran is behind the attacks. I think the evidence is very strong and compelling. In- in fact, I think this was a class "A" screw up by Iran to insert a mine on the ship. It didn't detonate. They had to go back and retrieve it. I can imagine there are some Iranian heads rolling for that botched operation. But nonetheless, the problem is that we are struggling, even in the midst of this solid evidence, to persuade our allies to join us in any kind of a response and it shows just how isolated the United States has become. Our allies warned the United States, I think our intelligence agencies warned policymakers, that this kind of Iranian reaction was likely a result of a policy of withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Agreement.

    And so what we see is a split of the US from our allies and we see Russia and China coming together and having Iran's back. This is, I think, the worst of all situations and the maximalist pressure campaign has massively failed and only heightened the risk of conflict. For my colleague, Senator Cotton, to advocate that we attack Iran and provoke a war, that there's no Congressional authorization necessary, I think is exactly the wrong answer on- on both levels. Congressional approval is necessary to initiate hostilities against Iran. We should be trying to corral a response, though, from the international community to protect shipping, to impose sanctions, but because we have so alienated ourselves from our allies, that's not happening.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Do you see the risk of- of this getting out of control and escalating further? I mean you hear very clearly from the Secretary of State, the president is not seeking war. Senator Cotton is laying out a very different pathway.

    REP. SCHIFF: I think that's true. Certainly the president has said that he doesn't want war. But nonetheless, his people, and I don't know if this is Pompeo or Bolton or both seem to be taking actions to undercut that ambition to stay out of warfare at a time when the president sent a message, apparently through the Japanese prime minister, of an interest in going back to the table to negotiate, Bolton was announcing new sanctions on Iran. Now is that an effort to scuttle the president's effort to initiate a dialogue? It certainly seemed to have that effect.

    But I think the- the whole idea that somehow through this pressure campaign we were going to force Iran to capitulate and say, "okay we'll come back to the table, we'll give up everything" was naive- dangerously naive in the first place and this is what our allies are reacting to. This was eminently foreseeable. These attacks on shipping were eminently foreseeable, and the fact that our reneging on the deal hasn't made us safer is part of the proof. And I- and I think for the secretary to tell you this morning that, "see the flaws in the nuclear deal? Iran can go back to enriching now." We left the nuclear deal. How is that to make the case that the nuclear deal was flawed? We left the deal and now we're going to complain that Iran is leaving as well?

    MARGARET BRENNAN: I want to switch gears to talk a little bit about Russia. There was this New York Times report, that I'm sure you saw, that the U.S. is stepping up cyber, I guess, offensive actions to shut down, potentially, Russian infrastructure if needed. Part of it is retaliation for attempts to interfere in elections including 2018 and now. Is the national security community responding in a stronger way to Russian interference than what we hear from President Trump, himself?

    REP. SCHIFF: Certainly, I think the intelligence community is training its focus and resources on the Russian threat, even if the president isn't. I can't comment on whether the New York Times report is accurate or inaccurate. But certainly, we- we've had a heightened focus on Russian meddling in our elections. There have been persistent concerns about Russia and other nations preparing the battlefield in terms of our energy grid, and establishing a deterrent I think is very important. But that effort to establish a determined- deterrent is dramatically undercut when the president a month ago told Putin over the phone that he still thinks the Russian interference in our election was a hoax.

    When the president says that he still is open to receiving foreign help and he may or may not call the FBI. What I found most disturbing about that New York Times story about whether we're preparing the battlefield, in terms of the electrical grid in Russia, was the fact that the security officials with the administration felt they couldn't tell this to the president because he might compromise that information in a conversation with the Russians, or he might countermand their orders, their military decisions because of the president's obsequious attitude towards Russia.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Is Congress getting briefed on that? Is there enough congressional oversight of this kind of program?

    REP. SCHIFF: We are certainly. And- and again I can't confirm whether the program that is described in The New York Times is either accurate or inaccurate, but we certainly press the intelligence community and our military to be briefed, kept currently informed and I think we are- are being kept informed. But- but it's a continual effort.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: You said recently that you may subpoena the FBI director, Chris Wray, to ask him questions about the original counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign as it relates to 2016. Why is that necessary? Are you still suggesting that the president may be a Russian asset?

    REP. SCHIFF: What I'm suggesting is that the counterintelligence investigation that began when the FBI had concerns that people around the president and ultimately the president might be acting as witting or unwitting agents of a foreign power. We have not been able to get a briefing on since the day James Comey was fired. Now we are still- now we are just starting to get some information from the FBI. I think the threat to subpoena the director has had some impact, but we still don't know just who did the FBI have concerns about, what findings did they make. The special counsel does refer in his report to FBI agents who were abetted and--


    REP. SCHIFF: --sent some findings back to headquarters. We need to see those findings.

    MARGARET BRENNAN: Congressman thank you very much. And we'll be back in just a moment.


    Japan doesn't agree

    Japan demands more proof from U.S. that Iran attacked tankers
    June 16

    The Japanese government has been requesting the United States for concrete evidence to back its assertion that Iran is to blame for the attacks on two tankers near the Strait of Hormuz on Thursday, government sources said Sunday.

    The request came after U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave a statement hours after the attacks blaming Iran but without offering proof. The Department of Defense later released a video allegedly showing an Iranian patrol boat removing an unexploded mine attached to the side of the Japanese-operated tanker Kokuka Courageous.

    But Japanese government officials remain unconvinced, the sources said. "The U.S. explanation has not helped us go beyond speculation," said one senior government official.

    Japan has been seeking more concrete evidence through various channels, including Foreign Minister Taro Kono who is likely to have made the request during a call with his counterpart on Friday, the sources said.

    Pompeo said in a press conference Thursday that the United States' assessment was based on their "intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication."

    A source close to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said, "These are not definite proof that it's Iran."

    "Even if it's the United States that makes the assertion, we cannot simply say we believe it," he said.

    If having expertise sophisticated enough to conduct the attack could be a reason to conclude that the attacker was Iran, "That would apply to the United States and Israel as well," said a source at the Foreign Ministry.

    The attacks occurred around the time Abe was meeting with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran.

    "The attacks have severely affected the prime minister's reputation as he was trying to be a mediator between the United States and Iran," said the source close to the premier. "It is a serious concern, and making mistakes when determining facts is impermissible."

    The Japanese government has refrained so far from commenting on who is responsible for the attacks.
  8. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Democrats helped re enforce the unlimited presidential war powers recently

    US senators introduce new war authorization with no expiration date
    April 16, 2018

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump would get broad authority to use force against terrorist groups, with no expiration date, under a new bipartisan proposal unveiled in the U.S. Senate on Monday.

    The proposed bill would cover all terrorist groups the U.S. is currently fighting, and it would not restrict the president from taking immediate action against enemies in other global hot spots.

    The new proposal, which advances a congressional debate about America’s ongoing conflicts around the world and the 17-year-old war on terrorism, comes as Congress is asking questions about President Donald Trump’s strike on Syria last week.

    The new resolution would not necessarily provide congressional authorization for the airstrikes Trump ordered, with coalition forces, in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack against civilians in the Damascus suburb of Douma.

    The war authorization negotiated by Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Tim Kaine, D-Va., was released Monday. Its co-sponsors include Sens. Chris Coons, D-Del.; Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.; Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Todd Young, R-Ind.

    Corker said he is focused on the committee’s markup, set for Monday and not the murky politics of its passage in Congress. Corker acknowledged he has no commitment from Senate GOP leaders the bill will advance to a floor vote and a path to passage in the House is unclear.

    “It is a political season, everybody says they want to weigh in on a new AUMF, we’ll see if they really want to weigh in on a new AUMF,” Corker said, using the acronym for authorization of the use of military force.

    The proposed authorization would not expire on a specific date — which some Democratic lawmakers would prefer. It would instead include a process for lawmakers to review the previous authorization and vote to repeal or modify it. Congressional inaction would allow the previous authorization to remain.

    An added oversight measure would require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours if and when military operations are expanded into countries beyond Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen and Libya, or against “new designated associated forces.”

    Such a notification would kick off a two-month review period by Congress during which legislation to block the expanded strikes would qualify for expedited consideration.

    This is the latest attempt to replace the war authorizations Congress passed in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, which have since been stretched to include conflicts far beyond Iraq and Afghanistan, where Congress initially gave President George W. Bush authority to deploy troops.

    Congressional reaction to the Syria strikes have been mixed, but there has been support across partisan lines. However, Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and other lawmakers of both parties have called on the administration to present its strategy for the complex conflict.

    Kaine was among mostly Democratic critics of the Trump administration’s Syria airstrikes, calling them “illegal” and “reckless” without congressional approval and absent a broader strategy.

    Kaine has pressed for a war authorization ever since the Obama administration. Last year, he and Flake introduced one that would cover the Islamic State, al-Qaida and the Taliban, but expire after five years and require congressional approval if the administration wants to include new groups.

    “I hope President Trump will follow the American Constitution,” the Democratic senator from Virginia said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “It’s very, very clear Congress has the power to declare war — and only Congress.”

    Flake told Defense News that lawmakers’ uneasiness about deepening U.S. involvement in Syria could fuel support where other authorization proposals failed. Flake predicted this bill would achieve “overwhelming Republican support.”

    “It certainly recognizes the authority of the president and it doesn’t restrict the use of ground troops or geography,” Flake said. “It’s deferential to the president but it still gives us a chance to weigh in.”

    Republican lawmakers have, for the most part, resisted a new war authorization as limiting to the executive branch. House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week before the airstrikes, that Trump had the authority under the existing AUMF to act.

    “I would hate since we have threats across the globe, especially ISIS, is to have an AUMF that ties the hands of our military behind their backs,” said Ryan, R-Wis.

    Though lawmakers were reluctant to advance an AUMF while Obama was president, there’s a key difference that may move lawmakers to want more oversight now. That’s Russia’s presence in Syria and the danger of stumbling into a war.

    “That’s the difference between then and now,” said Steve Bell, a former senior Senate aide now with the Bipartisan Policy Center.

    Yet, significant headwinds remain. In the House, a majority of Republicans would not support a new AUMF, and Ryan is unlikely to bring one to the floor unless it is structured in a very mild way, Bell said.

    In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., may opt not permit a floor vote if the bill cannot achieve a strong GOP vote.

    “It would split the party further,” Bell said of the pitfalls for McConnell. “I think he’s looking ahead and saying, there’s some fights I have to have. Do I want some additional stuff? I think the answer’s ‘no’ at this point.”


    Senate Rejects Attempt To Repeal 16-Year-Old War Authorization
    This was the chamber’s first vote in 15 years on the executive branch’s war-making powers.

    Three Republicans voted in support of the proposal: Sen. Rand Paul (Ky.), the author of the amendment; Dean Heller (Nev.); and Mike Lee (Utah).

    Thirteen Democrats voted to “table,” or kill, the amendment: Tom Carper (Del.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Mark Warner (Va.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.).

    Paul threatened to hold up passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, which sets forth the Pentagon’s budget, unless the Senate voted on repealing the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for the use of military force (AUMF) for the wars against al Qaeda, the so-called Islamic State and the Taliban. The repeal would not have taken effect until six months after the amendment’s passage, however, to give Congress time to pass a new authorization for the use of military force.

    “I don’t think one generation should bind another generation to war,” Paul said during an interview Wednesday on MSNBC. “I don’t think that the resolution in 2001 has anything to do with the seven different wars we’re involved with now.”

    White House legislative director Marc Short said Monday the administration does not support the push for a new authorization for the use of military force because it already has adequate legal authority to wage war against terror groups based on the 2001 authorization.

    The Afghanistan War is the nation’s longest-running war. American troops have been stationed in the Middle Eastern country for more than 16 years, with no end to the mission in sight. President Donald Trump signed off on sending an additional 4,000 troops there last month.

    The opposition to Paul’s amendment was bipartisan.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) argued the 2001 war authorization is still needed because al Qaeda is not yet defeated.

    “Why would we vote to repeal our authority to defeat al Qaeda? All that we do to defeat al Qaeda and ISIL rests on this AUMF,” McConnell said Wednesday on the Senate floor, referring to another name for the Islamic State militant group.

    Reed, the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he worried Paul’s amendment would “be read in many places as a signal the Senate has essentially declared in six months we are going to de-authorize military actions.”

    Wednesday’s vote also drove a wedge between Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who joined forces to draft a new war authorization earlier this year. Flake said he wanted to move the effort through the normal committee process. Kaine, however, supported Paul’s amendment “as a way to accelerate” debate and markup of a new authorization for the use of military force in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  9. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    Some observations:
    1) Their blurry video just shows a boat near a ship (the right ship?) with some people (who?), doing something (hard to tell, it's so blurry).
    2) Trump's credibility is pretty low when he has even been caught spreading doctored pictures of the size of crowds attending his rallies.
    3) There are several feasible suspects that could potentially benefit, e.g. Saudi+Allies/Trump, Iran, Russia, perhaps even China, of which the Saudi's would be at least as likely as Iran.
  10. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    the juden snake


  11. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
  12. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Pompeo says U.S. weighing "full range" of options to counter Iran, including military strike
    June 16, 2019

    Amid simmering tensions between the U.S. and Iran over recent attacks on civilian oil tankers in the Middle East, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the Trump administration is considering a "full range of options" — including a military strike — to counter belligerent moves by the government in Tehran.

    "The United States is considering a full range of options," Pompeo said on "Face the Nation" Sunday. "We have briefed the president a couple of times. We'll continue to keep him updated. We are confident that we can take a set of actions that can restore deterrence which is our mission set."

    Pressed on whether military actions against Iran were also being discussed, America's chief diplomat replied, "Of course."

    Asked if the administration had the legal authorization to strike Iran without congressional approval, Pompeo suggested he believes it does. "We always have the authorization to defend American interests," he said, adding that the administration would only take steps that were "lawful."

    Last week, Pompeo and other U.S. officials accused the Iranian government of attacking two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, an important waterway near the Arabian Peninsula for oil exports. He said U.S. intelligence suggested the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — an elite military unit charged with exerting Tehran's influence around the world — was behind the attacks.

    On Sunday, Pompeo doubled down on the accusations and said the attacks — as well Tehran's decision to ramp up nuclear fuel production — were signs that President Trump made the right decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known as the Iran nuclear deal, which was designed to ensure Tehran gradually eliminated its uranium stockpile in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions.

    Although European allies are still abiding by it, Mr. Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement in May 2018, deriding it as a one-sided deal.

    "We don't want Iran to get a nuclear weapon," Pompeo said Sunday. "The previous administration put them on a pathway that virtually guaranteed that they could get there. So we withdrew from the ridiculous JCPOA and are moving ourselves towards a set of policies which will convince Iran to behave simply like a normal nation."

    Democrats and other critics of the administration fear a full-blown conflict that could be sparked as hardliners in both Tehran and Washington, like national security adviser John Bolton, escalate their rhetoric. Pompeo, however, said the White House is only looking to defend American interests abroad and not seeking confrontation.

    "President Trump has said very clearly, he doesn't want to go to war," he said.
  13. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    Out of curiosity, what do you think would happen if the US just bombed and left like in Libya? I know a land war in Iran would be a mess, but one would expect they should be able to muster enough air power to bomb it at least.
  14. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    Iran will flip over Iraq/Syria/Lebanon/Afghanistan

    Pakistan and Turkey would shrivel back into their borders. I guarantee neither nation would accept taking a side against Iran in any fashion whatsoever.

    That's if they didn't also decide to start picking at everyone on our sides soldiers. Iran technically has the gulf arabs surrounded and they are impotent.

    Israel couldn't defeat Lebanon in a conventional war let alone Iran, they would need nukes. So that argument aside, Iran will flip over the middle east.

    China and Russia will sell Iran arms and Iran would supply the countless Shia militias across the region like they do Hezbollah. You would have a giant, multi million member Hezbollah everywhere that acts as an auxiliary to Iran.

    Guys who have no qualm with crawling into a tunnel and pulling an ISIS member out to behead him.

    For the US to impose a no fly zone on Iran they would also need to impose it on Russia to stop the Caspian Sea transportation.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  15. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    A lot of assassinations in the west.

    Secular groups would be wiped out in an instant within Iran itself.

    IRGC/Basij/Vaja Kurds would be sent into Turkey/Syria/Iraq to deal with the locals. (This was the threat Qassem Suleimani gave the Kurds previously in Iraq if they didn't surrender)

    Iran is similar to North Korea where at any moment the military/paramilitary will snap into action, and they are omnipresent everywhere. Iran blends in more, Basij are dressed casually and most agents are.

    If Iran itself was attacked they would immediately spread it throughout the region, instantly.

    You would have a battle of attrition everywhere our troops are stationed. Probably the most advanced asymmetrical warfare the world has ever experienced would begin.
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2019
  16. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    I should have clarified that Iran won't distinguish the war how the western public does "Air attack" vs "Invasion" it's all the same and will trigger the same reaction for Iran.
  17. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    If we are going to look at this strictly from a real politik angle, the US doesn't need Afghanistan, or even Israel for that matter. Many of the problems the US has with this situation is of their own design.

    Anyway, it seems that Iranian oil exports have fallen dramatically due to the sanctions. If they are getting desperate, the attack could be Iran's way of trying to send a message after all. If Trump's sanctions are actually working, it would certainly make it more likely.

    Why are the arabs still running tankers through the Gulf anyway? That seems like a silly way to expose yourself, pipelines aren't THAT hard to build.
  18. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:

    the arab countries have no self defense they would get destroyed by groups like ISIS let alone a full nation like Iran, they are completely welfare states in every sense of the word

    desperation that's what you should be sensing from our allies in the region, they are insanely desperate because we don't seem to be able to stop Iran and Iran is coming for them

    you can't build pipelines across the earth, and flying oil would be real hard and dangerous. Ships can be very large and hold an enormous amount. If the ships have to go through the red sea that would mean passing the Houthis which is what Iran wants, to control both outlets of oil and they do
  19. Czer

    Czer I'm a poor person. The lambo is my cousin's.

    Post Count:
    For actual perspective on how middle easterners, or people from eurasia view the world.

    The Ottomans conquered the capital of the Byzantine empire Constantinople in 1453, and the Turks were not defeated until world war 1 but held their country and a capital of Europe. That's the view of European history.
  20. Velox

    Velox TZT Abuser

    Post Count:
    SA shares a border with Egypt, why not just use the Suez canal, or even piping it all the way to the Mediterranean.

    Regarding "Iran coming for them", they could just wall off the Arabian peninsula to stop conventional means. If Iran starts a war, both sides will burn, but the US won't suffer much. Heck, it barely needs the oil any more. I'm not convinced Iran could do much by conventional means at least.