US goes to war with Iran

nikcers said:
The vast majority of weapons in the Iraq-Iran war was Russian weapons.

The USA never backed any side to win that war. We only put a stop to it to end it.

Just a few years later when the Gulf War happened there were thousands of Russians in Iraq when desert storm began.

They famously knocked out the Russian air defenses and Russian tanks.

Afterwards when Russia helped Saddams regime stay in power they bought even more weapons from Russia.

Many in the region were threatened by Iraq's vast army they had the 4th largest in the world.
Click to expand...


The facts would disagree with you, as usual.


















 
unknown said:
The facts would disagree with you, as usual.


















Click to expand...
No that aligned with everything I said.

99% of the weapons in Saddams army. Billions and billions of dollars of it were from other countries with the majority of it being Russian.

Reagan famously put a stop to that war after it went on for several years because Iran started to expand their borders.

The USA doesnt want one country to take over and expand their borders and rule the entire regions.

That's the entire threat of world war 3.

Once one country does that in one region and they are allowed to do it and the world doesn't stop it then it becomes a world war scenario.

It also becomes more likely that another country will do it.

The USA therefore did not side with any country in that war. They didn't want either one to expand their borders.
 
nikcers said:
No the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was by design not a response to the USA.

They started communist revolutions in the cold war in order to make countrys fight and kill each other and then they would go prop up the side that would let them rule their country by proxy as a totalitarian dictatorship.

Thats what happened in Korea and the front lines are froze to this day.

North Korea is ruled by Russia and is fighting and dying in the Ukraine war and has a dictatorship and South Korea is a prosperous free country that is a democracy.
Click to expand...
The PDPA was Soviet friendly, very much so. They ruled from 1978 but it became necessary to stop their overthrow by Paki and Mujahideen Sunni extermists, aka Mujahideen aka CIA. The Soviet invasion happened in order not not let the PDPA aka Marxist gov fall. It is doubtful that the PDPA would have come under so much revolutionary pressure without American regime change ops.
---------------------
A US-backed military coup d'état was launched in 1958 by the Pakistan Army command. The Urdu-speaking class and the Bengali nation were forcefully removed from the affairs of West Pakistan.
en.wikipedia.org

West Pakistan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

While building up the country's nuclear program, increasing Islamisation, and the rise of a homegrown conservative philosophy, Pakistan helped subsidise and distribute US resources to factions of the mujahideen against the USSR's intervention in communist Afghanistan.[141][142][143]
----------------------

Zbigniew Brzezinski to Afghan Mujahideen: "God is on your side" (1979)​

 
acptulsa said:
Q: What do cops accused of brutality, countries accused of genocide, and neocon apologists like TheTexan have in common?

A: "They brought this on themselves."
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's true, that they do it to themselves.

They basically begged for it

It's also entirely possible that they literally asked for it
 
TheTexan said:
If they make us bomb them again, they're gonna be years away from being years away from having nukes :cool:
Click to expand...

Maybe - but I'm skeptical.

My guess is that by then, Trump will already have declared final victory - yuuuge victory, the best victory - and will have moved on to something else.
 
Occam's Banana said:
Iran is just months away from being months away from having nukes ...

www.bbc.com

Iran could start enriching uranium within months, UN nuclear chief says

Rafael Grossi's claim contradicts President Trump, who insists Iran's nuclear capabilities have been "totally obliterated".
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...

Yes, the claim is purposely connected to Netanyahu's visit to the White House and potentially Congress in coming months.

This is why we've been inundated with "news" about Iranian terror cells planning an attack in the United States, along with the claims about a Fatwa ordering Trump's assassination which I debunked in the other thread.

The plan is to restock Israel and then have false-flag terror attacks in the United States concurrent with Netanyahu's arrival, either just before or during, and then have Netanyahu and Trump jointly announce the resumption of the war, as Americans mourn their dead, and the news is saturated with crisis actors or real dead people. I believe they are targeting September or October.
 
acptulsa said:
So you don't care if you're safe in your bed, you only care if you feelz safe in your bed?

You don't need to kill anyone. You just need to stop watching the news.
Click to expand...

I'm saying there's pros and cons and there are arguments for and against and both have merit.

I'm also saying that the US isn't the only world power and maybe it can be someone else's turn to keep Iran I'm check.

I'm also saying it's unlikely that Israel is gonna let Iran have a nuke regardless of what the US does or does not do, and if the US does not intervene as OB suggests, then either Iran or Israel will probably be destroyed by a nuke. (Not the worst thing that could happen)

I'm also saying that the US has sent a clear message that if you violate the NPT you're gonna get bombed at least a little. It's better than sending a message that NPT can be ignored with zero consequence.

Even if Iran does get a nuke I'm glad we at least made an attempt to stop them. Better than just saying to the world its open season for nukes. you get a nuke you get a nuke, look under your chairs
 
Last edited:
vita3 said:
Iran could have had a nuke decades ago if they really wanted.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. They may have lacked the time, resources, and tech to build the underground facilities that could survive US attempts to stop them.

Further - enriching to 60% is a pretty obvious message that they "really wanted"
 
TheTexan said:
Not necessarily. They may have lacked the time, resources, and tech to build the underground facilities that could survive US attempts to stop them.

Further - enriching to 60% is a pretty obvious message that they "really wanted"
Click to expand...

If they can enrich to 60%.

They could have kept going.

Their message is, we won't enrich to weapons grade, but we need a compromise, like easing 40+ year sanctions for ousting our US installed dictator.
 
unknown said:
If they can enrich to 60%.

They could have kept going.
Click to expand...

And if they did keep going the US probably would have attacked.

unknown said:
Their message is, we won't enrich to weapons grade, but we need a compromise, like easing 40+ year sanctions for ousting our US installed dictator.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of impactful sanctions have been directly related to their nuclear program.

They don't get to say "we'll stop pursuing nukes if you stop sanctioning us for pursuing nukes".

That's some weasel shit, and know what happens to weasels? FAFO
 
Anyone see that tweet of the pics of Jews in Iran's Cabinet?

I can't find it.
 
686e1b63c9203.webp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
US Military Integration Means Canada Already at War With Iran
Replies
3
Views
69
Anti Globalist
Anti Globalist
Occam's Banana
  • Featured
Scott Horton @ Lex Fridman: The Case Against War and the Military Industrial Complex
Replies
3
Views
1K
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
US Imposes More Sanctions on Iran Despite Negotiations
Replies
0
Views
42
PAF
PAF
PAF
Trump Says He Knows Location of Iran’s Leader, Demands ‘Unconditional Surrender’
Replies
7
Views
112
unknown
unknown
PAF
US Sent Israel Hundreds of Missiles Days Before Attack on Iran
Replies
1
Views
57
TheTexan
TheTexan
Back
Top