I wonder if back in the 70's Bolton tried or maybe even fucked a Persian chick and then fell in love with her. Obviously she didn't fall in love with him, I mean look at that goony fuck. Ever since then he's been trying to destroy her homeland.
At a young age he learned his mother, that beautiful creature who had birthed him, nurtured him, taught him to read, how to live... she was... Canadian!!!
It's less of an irrational hatred and more of a checklist of non-nuclear american opponents that can be defeated with traditional warfare, which our generals have been ball aching for since Vietnam.
Can't be Russia, or North Korea, or Al Qaeda so.... Iran?
I know really. They only have 5 times more troops, ballistic missiles, S-300 SAMs, industry capable of mass-producing conventional weapons, and 80 million well-educated people willing to embrace martyrdom to defend their country. What could possibly go wrong?
I’m going to spell out Iraq’s situation in the gulf war for you since you are too young and dumb to know about it.
Iraq at that point was the 4th largest army on earth, they had the most advanced air defense network around Baghdad outside of Moscow. They had just finished warring with Iran for 10 years where America had given them assistance.
They had a standing army of over 650,000 people. In the war we destroyed over 3000 modern tanks, and over 2000 apcs. They had a modern air force, scud middles, and the ability to use chemical weapons. We thought we were going to lose 10,000s of soldiers to this army.
We wiped out this army in less then 2 months. The coalition lost 292 people, half of those to friendly fire. We lost exactly 31 tanks and 28 apcs.
In contrast, we killed over 75,000 Iraqi soldiers, wiped out a large majority of their mechanized force, and we did this so quickly and efficiently that the media was calling our militaries actions war crimes.
Iran would go very much the same way and anyone who tells you different doesn’t know about desert storm because they are too fucking dumb to know history.
Oh, I thought you meant 2003. Because bringing up the 1991 war is even more fucking retarded. Iran is not going to send its army out into the desert to try to fight WW2 with us. They're going to fight us the same way that Hezbollah has fought and defeated the Israelis. They pummel the region with missiles, and the only thing we can do to stop them is invade their territory and fight it out on their terms.
During Desert Storm, T-72s built in Taji were technologically 20 years out of date. Only one M1 Abrams was officially documented during the Persian Gulf War as having received enough damage to be towed and receive maintenance after being struck three times on the turret by a Lion.[27] Another six M1A1s were allegedly hit by Iraqi T-72 tank fire in the Gulf War official report, but the impacts were largely ineffectual.
Lion of Babylon or Asad Babil (Arabic: اسد بابل) is the name given to a project of the Ba'athist Iraqi army to locally produce the Soviet T-72 tank during the late-1980s. The tanks were to be assembled at a factory near Taji, Iraq. This project represented an attempt by Saddam Hussein's regime to locally manufacture tanks, triggered in part by the Western embargo against the sale of military vehicles to Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War. However it is disputed if any tanks have ever been finished.
Just telling it like it is man. Higher ups life to justify their own existence and even they have given up on the myth of winning counter insurgency. They're all desperately searching for opportunities to prove themselves.
I think invading Iran, win or lose, would just break the American Empire. All USG has done for decades is curb stomp militaries that can't put up a fight and then get bogged down in guerilla war and insurgencies. Iran's military is weaker, but they could at least put up a fight.
There was this war games last decade where the commander playing Iran devastated the invaders by playing smart, so they restarted, made him play dumb, and called it a validation of the invasion plan.
Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States Armed Forces in mid-2002. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises and computer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military "transformation"—a transition toward new technologies that enable network-centric warfare and provide more effective command and control of current and future weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, referred to as "Blue", and an unknown adversary in the Middle East, "Red", with many lines of evidence pointing at Iran being the Red side.
There's just no possible justification for invading Iran. They've barely lifted a finger against us since the 80's, and we were on the path to repairing our relationship. The only thing that Iran has done wrong aside from having a shitty government is challenge Israeli and Saudi power in the region. I'm sure some dicksucking yokels would support any war under Trump, but everybody who isn't brainwashed would wonder what the fuck the point is.
I mean, just because there's isn't one, that doesn't mean it can't be made from scratch. There wasn't much of a justification for invading Iraq, a second time, either and yet...
Iran provided a huge amount of support to Iraqi insurgents during the Iraq War, so that was kind of a dick move on their part that helped keep the country fragmented for much longer than necessary. Realpolitik on their part, but still, I always felt they got off lightly for that.
Same could be said of Pakistan’s support for both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It’s ironic how many things you can get away with geopolitically when you possess nukes.
They've been hit with a shitton of sanctions though, and the government has gotten much calmer over the last couple decades. There's no need to erase our progress with them over shit that happened a decade ago that was a major sin on our part too.
... Iran had a hand supporting the government allied militias. The insurgents were (((Sunni))) former Iraqi army looking for a pay day for their pacifity.
Those militias are allied with the government now. They weren't back during the Iraq War.
I dunno they lined up behind the post invasion PM pretty quickly, filled the ranks of the new military due to the de baathification, and the paramilitary and regular troops we pretty interchangeable with the same level organization (not much) for a long time.
You’re referring to the Popular Mobilization Forces. Three of the biggest ones are the Badr Organization, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, and the Peace Companies. The Badr Organization is the only one that supported the Iraq Government during the Iraq War. And even it is responsible for large numbers of sectarian killings and is seen as a stalking horse for Iran. AAH fought against it and America, and the Peace Companies are a reconstruction of the Mahdi Army, which also fought against us. In fact they’re led by Muqtada al-Sadr, who is largely to blame for the Shiite insurgency.
They made overtures to help deal with the post invasion clusterfuck. They were ignored so they did what any country would do when their next door neighbor was thrown into chaos.
Probably boomers with a chip on their shoulder about something that happened before many of us were born; to me it seems like the only thing Iran has done to us lately is look at us funny. Outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia's completely lame feuds with Iran that they're constantly trying to involve us in, I'm not sure there's a rational explanation for why we should care at all.
No, we were not on the path to repairing our relationship. We were trading concessions for an Obama legacy. That’s why what we got in the Iran deal only lasted for 10 years. What could we possibly concede when those 10 years are up?
The deal made it clear that Iran is completely open to having a relationship with the West. They were following the guidelines of the deal and had toned down their rhetoric considerably, even after Trump got elected and appeared to be interested in revoking the deal. There's a reason why the EU is committed to pursuing the deal regardless of whether or not we do. Not to mention that actually 'trading concessions' and not just paying lip service is a huge indication of a diplomatic relationship that has potential.
They were following guidelines, but those guidelines were way too lenient and allowed the Iranians ample notice to pick up their programs and move them from the American eye. In addition they expire in ten years. We already lifted our sanctions and gave them the money we were holding from them. What do we do to reach another agreement ten years in the future?
Also the reason the EU supports the Iran deal is because they want cheap oil and don’t care about Israel or Middle Eastern democracy.
And their rhetoric. I don’t think this counts as toned-down? Not to mention their continued massive support for Bashar al-Assad and backing of Hamas and al-Qaeda. Or their brutal crackdown on protests at home. That last one also proves that Qasem Soleimani is more important than Rouhani. The “moderate Iranian Government” is nothing more than propaganda.
What do we do to reach another agreement ten years in the future?
There's a lot that can be done. Trade agreements, lifting visa restrictions, lifting or lessening financial restrictions (it's extremely difficult for Iranians to move money around in the US market), etc. Not to mention that ten years is enough time to forge a diplomatic bond such that an agreement wouldn't be necessary. That's never going to happen now, but it could have.
Also the reason the EU supports the Iran deal is because they want cheap oil and don’t care about Israel or Middle Eastern democracy.
Well yeah, of course they're trying to distance themselves from Israel, given that it's Israel. And Middle Eastern democracy is an oxymoron. Even Israel's democracy is shoddy at best and not getting any better.
And their rhetoric. I don’t think this counts as toned-down? Not to mention their continued massive support for Bashar al-Assad and backing of Hamas and al-Qaeda. Or their brutal crackdown on protests at home. That last one also proves that Qasem Soleimani is more important than Rouhani. The “moderate Iranian Government” is nothing more than propaganda.
The Iranian government is horrible, but the country has the best potential for becoming a large, stable power in the Middle East due to the people, culture, not being sunni, etc. And Assad is terrible too, but the potential alternatives are much worse. Most Middle Eastern countries can't handle democracy right now. Assad would just be replaced by another dictator and most likely an Islamist one.
The whole, “Muslims can’t handle democracy” line is nothing but a bigoted slur against Muslims. If they can’t handle democracy, then it makes sense to expel them from the Western world. Don’t tell me you support that.
Israel is a democracy, and it is also our best ally in the region. If its democracy is shoddy then ours doesn’t exist.
Third, the only way to build a diplomatic relationship would be to disregard all the many times our interests clash. And lol at the country being stable. Constant destabilizing interventions, a feud with the Saudis and Israelis, and riots in all cities are not what I’d call stable.
The deal made it clear that Iran is completely open to having a relationship with the West.
Do you really think that Iran signed the deal because they wanted better relations with west? It's so that the sanctions were called off.
They were following the guidelines of the deal and had toned down their rhetoric considerably, even after Trump got elected and appeared to be interested in revoking the deal.
False. There have been multiple occurrences of Iran not abiding by the nuclear deal.
And iirc Nikki Haley had provided actual evidence to the UN, of Iran transporting arms to the Houthis in Yemen, which definitely isn't in compliance with the treaty
Also, Rouhani's re election last year destroyed any chance of Iran abiding by the terms of the JCPOA + any sort of better relations with the west(iirc his rival had actually said that he'd improve Iranian ties with America)
Do you really think that Iran signed the deal because they wanted better relations with west? It's so that the sanctions were called off.
I'm not sure how much you know about Iran-US relations, but the fact that they were open to negotiating with the West is monumental. Iran was never starving and was getting along just fine (given the circumstances and compared to other cunts in the region) even with the sanctions. The fact that they were okay with sacrificing their nuclear program absolutely means that they're willing to start repairing their relationship with the West and begin to open themselves up to global influence.
False. There have been multiple occurrences of Iran not abiding by the nuclear deal.
Fair enough, but is that remotely worth going to war over?
Also, Rouhani's re election last year destroyed any chance of Iran abiding by the terms of the JCPOA + any sort of better relations with the west(iirc his rival had actually said that he'd improve Iranian ties with America)
Yeah, because Iran's been antagonized ever since Trump got elected and for absolutely no reason. If the US government's reverting back to using classic anti-Iran scare rhetoric, then why would Rouhani even bother? He held his tongue after Trump got elected only to get burned.
I'm not sure how much you know about Iran-US relations, but the fact that they were open to negotiating with the West is monumental. Iran was never starving and was getting along just fine (given the circumstances and compared to other cunts in the region) even with the sanctions. The fact that they were okay with sacrificing their nuclear program absolutely means that they're willing to start repairing their relationship with the West and begin to open themselves up to global influence.
No it isn't Snally. We both know that Iran cares about international law almost as much as the United States does, when they're the ones not abiding by agreements (a violation of the JCPOA is a violation of the VCLT, in which the ICJ would technically have jurisdiction over)
Fair enough, but is that remotely worth going to war over?
No it isn't. But it shows that the treaty was worthless and is one of the reasons why I doubt anything will come out of Trump's meeting with North korea
Yeah, because Iran's been antagonized ever since Trump got elected and for absolutely no reason. If the US government's reverting back to using classic anti-Iran scare rhetoric, then why would Rouhani even bother? He held his tongue after Trump got elected only to get burned.
You're right he shouldn't, because he doesn't need to. American foreign policy was disintegrating under the Obama administration, and I really don't think that Rouhani even cared about the terms of the treaty. If anything, it was a win for Iran, as they succeeded in pissing off Saudi Arabia, America's main Ally in the middle East, got the sanctions called off and got the world to think that Iran was getting rid of it's nuclear program.
The Trump administrations change in policy towards Iran would naturally end up leading to Rouhani not wanting to establish friendly terms with he west, although I doubt he was considering it. But at the end of the day, he's still making it seem as if the treaty's failure is a cause of a change in American policy, rather than it being because it's refuses to abide by it's terms.
To be fair they definitely have been supplying Iraqis with IED's and weapons. Though it's not like the US hasn't been fucking with them hard so they get a pass on that.
There was this war games last decade where the commander playing Iran devastated the invaders by playing smart, so they restarted, made him play dumb, and called it a validation of the invasion plan.
I knew this was going to be the Millenium Challenge. The Iranian commander only "won" because he used IRL-impossible exploits, like 400 mph motorcycles.
I'd take a lot of that with a grain of salt. That's from an interview with the General who lost. Right after he says:
Q: As a follow-up to what he said, Van Riper also said that most of the blue Naval losses were due to cruise missiles. Can you talk about that and say how concerned you are about that?
Kernan: Well, I don't know. To be honest with you, I haven't had an opportunity to assess the aegis of what happened. But that's a possibility, once again, because we had to shut off some of these self-defense systems on the models that would have normally been employed. That's a possibility. I think the important thing to note is -- is that normally, the Navy would have been significantly over the horizon. They would've been arrayed an awful lot differently than we forced them to because of what they had to do for live-exercise piece of it. And it forced us into a -- to the same environment from a simulation perspective. Yeah, I think we learned some things.
The specifics of the cruise-missile piece -- I don't -- you know, I really can't answer that question. We'd have to get back to you.
Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore.
Holy shit this is like when you give your younger sibling infinite money in Monopoly to stop them from crying and flipping the board lmao.
There was this war games last decade where the commander playing Iran devastated the invaders by playing smart, so they restarted, made him play dumb, and called it a validation of the invasion plan.
There were some reasonable points made in that war game, but if you'll forgive a bit of realposting here: that commander was a dick and he "won" by manipulating (and outright breaking) the artificial rules of the simulation in order to make himself look good, and then publicized the aftermath.
In particular, the "small boats crippling the powerful US fleet" thing was massively misrepresented. The "US fleet" was forced to stay essentially immobile in a very small space to conform to existing commercial shipping lanes (because you don't get to shut down traffic in the gulf unless there's an actual war on). They couldn't do any actual maneuvering to avoid the anti ship missiles.
It also (this was the biggest single thing) forced them to be out of the middle of the ocean, right agains the shore. That is not what the US navy typically does. We do not park aircraft carriers next to a hostile shoreline. If we did, it would not be particularly surprising if someone blew them up. All the defensive systems rely on maintaining a very long range defensive screen that was not allowed in the exersize.
They also had to shut off most of their electronics countermeasures to avoid pissing off commercial shipping and yada yada you get the idea.
The "bad guys" had no such constraints and the general leading them deliberately chose to use tactics that abused the simulation limitations and then got all pissy and quit halfway through when leadership said "well, that taught us nothing. why don't we try again except maybe this time you don't do all the stuff that would only work in a simulation".
Attacking Iran whit full force land assault would be such logistic nightmare and you had to take some air force casualtys, that it won't happen unless you have balls to use tactical nukes to help a assault.
Yeah, that was pretty horrible. Ghaddafi would never have dreamed of interfering in other countries' politics the way that George Soros has. All he did was send money to any dipshit around the world willing to set off a bomb, so I guess he's the hero of all disgruntled teenagers.
No sir, YOU are the brave one. Going along with the dumb, easy thing that requires no conflict and that you are told to believe - despite the vicious gassings and kristallnachtings you suffer for you beliefs - that is true bravery.
You are a brave, beautiful woman, no matter what gender you self-identify as.
Why is John fucking Bolton a viable cabinet pick in 2018. Does trump just watch old Bush era fox news to see who he wants in government? First Larry Kudlow, now this!
141 comments
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-03-22
Iran better get dat booty ready.
1 Matues49 2018-03-22
Sing it with me now...
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
Invading Iran would somehow be more shameful than when we invaded Iraq (the second time). Pls no.
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-03-22
I wonder if back in the 70's Bolton tried or maybe even fucked a Persian chick and then fell in love with her. Obviously she didn't fall in love with him, I mean look at that goony fuck. Ever since then he's been trying to destroy her homeland.
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
That would explain a lot. I wonder if Mattis got burned too, given his irrational hatred for Iran.
1 Dontfuqfatties 2018-03-22
I think Mattis just likes blowing shit up and after too many years in 29 Palms, blowing shit up in the desert is what’s right.
1 Burnnoticelover 2018-03-22
“General Mattis, you’re f-“
“You know, it’s amazing how many nooks and crannies of the White House you can cram emulex into.”
“Free to stay on as long as you like.”
1 wwyzzerdd 2018-03-22
Mattis's wounds are much, much deeper.
At a young age he learned his mother, that beautiful creature who had birthed him, nurtured him, taught him to read, how to live... she was... Canadian!!!
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
Enough to drive the strongest man to madness.
1 MooseHeckler 2018-03-22
If one of my progenators was Canadian I would keep myself safe.
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2018-03-22
It's less of an irrational hatred and more of a checklist of non-nuclear american opponents that can be defeated with traditional warfare, which our generals have been ball aching for since Vietnam.
Can't be Russia, or North Korea, or Al Qaeda so.... Iran?
1 izuerial 2018-03-22
We did it to Iraq the first time. Iran won’t be any more impressive.
1 Redactor0 2018-03-22
I know really. They only have 5 times more troops, ballistic missiles, S-300 SAMs, industry capable of mass-producing conventional weapons, and 80 million well-educated people willing to embrace martyrdom to defend their country. What could possibly go wrong?
1 izuerial 2018-03-22
I’m going to spell out Iraq’s situation in the gulf war for you since you are too young and dumb to know about it.
Iraq at that point was the 4th largest army on earth, they had the most advanced air defense network around Baghdad outside of Moscow. They had just finished warring with Iran for 10 years where America had given them assistance.
They had a standing army of over 650,000 people. In the war we destroyed over 3000 modern tanks, and over 2000 apcs. They had a modern air force, scud middles, and the ability to use chemical weapons. We thought we were going to lose 10,000s of soldiers to this army.
We wiped out this army in less then 2 months. The coalition lost 292 people, half of those to friendly fire. We lost exactly 31 tanks and 28 apcs.
In contrast, we killed over 75,000 Iraqi soldiers, wiped out a large majority of their mechanized force, and we did this so quickly and efficiently that the media was calling our militaries actions war crimes.
Iran would go very much the same way and anyone who tells you different doesn’t know about desert storm because they are too fucking dumb to know history.
1 Redactor0 2018-03-22
Oh, I thought you meant 2003. Because bringing up the 1991 war is even more fucking retarded. Iran is not going to send its army out into the desert to try to fight WW2 with us. They're going to fight us the same way that Hezbollah has fought and defeated the Israelis. They pummel the region with missiles, and the only thing we can do to stop them is invade their territory and fight it out on their terms.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-03-22
I remember that shit and you're full of shit.
Mostly barely trained auxiliary forces
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤗
lol no we didn't
Casualties were so low because we didn't march on Baghdad and fought the majority of it from air and sea vs a joke of a navy and airforce.
1 izuerial 2018-03-22
Hahahaha tell that to the republican guard divisions that we’re routed at 73 Easting.
Not to mention t-72s, which were in the Iraqi army at the time and used, were modern enough at the time.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-03-22
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_of_Babylon_(tank)
🙄
1 WikiTextBot 2018-03-22
Lion of Babylon (tank)
Lion of Babylon or Asad Babil (Arabic: اسد بابل) is the name given to a project of the Ba'athist Iraqi army to locally produce the Soviet T-72 tank during the late-1980s. The tanks were to be assembled at a factory near Taji, Iraq. This project represented an attempt by Saddam Hussein's regime to locally manufacture tanks, triggered in part by the Western embargo against the sale of military vehicles to Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War. However it is disputed if any tanks have ever been finished.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
The Lions of Babylon probably didn’t even exist.
1 Redactor0 2018-03-22
But weren't the T-72s crap that was sold for export while the real thing (T-64s) were reserved for Germany?
hewentthere
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
But, like, aren't there easier targets that we aren't building a diplomatic relationship with like Turkmenistan?
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2018-03-22
Probably but Turkenistan doesn't get neo con's dicks hard or defy western hedgemony
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
tru
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
Bad logistics. Also we really should build relations with Central Asian countries, because then we can bypass Pakistan.
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
why do you hate Iran?
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
Because Iranians are white
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
But also because they're a dictatorship that supports several groups we hate, such as the Syrian government, Hezbollah, Hamas, and al-Qaeda.
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
>he doesn't support Hezbollah and Hamas
s*nni detected
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
Mash’allah
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
I’m not surprised we got Trump when people like you worship anyone who’ll agree with you while casting aspersions on any expert who doesn’t.
1 AHealthySenseofDread 2018-03-22
Just telling it like it is man. Higher ups life to justify their own existence and even they have given up on the myth of winning counter insurgency. They're all desperately searching for opportunities to prove themselves.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
This is what economic nationalists think about real economists.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
talk about something real, snally
1 niexx 2018-03-22
iran cucked america with that embassy thing
1 SWIMsfriend 2018-03-22
<--------ChapoTrapHouse is that way sir
1 none_to_remain 2018-03-22
I think invading Iran, win or lose, would just break the American Empire. All USG has done for decades is curb stomp militaries that can't put up a fight and then get bogged down in guerilla war and insurgencies. Iran's military is weaker, but they could at least put up a fight.
There was this war games last decade where the commander playing Iran devastated the invaders by playing smart, so they restarted, made him play dumb, and called it a validation of the invasion plan.
1 WikiTextBot 2018-03-22
Millennium Challenge 2002
Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States Armed Forces in mid-2002. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises and computer simulations. MC02 was meant to be a test of future military "transformation"—a transition toward new technologies that enable network-centric warfare and provide more effective command and control of current and future weaponry and tactics. The simulated combatants were the United States, referred to as "Blue", and an unknown adversary in the Middle East, "Red", with many lines of evidence pointing at Iran being the Red side.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source | Donate ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
There's just no possible justification for invading Iran. They've barely lifted a finger against us since the 80's, and we were on the path to repairing our relationship. The only thing that Iran has done wrong aside from having a shitty government is challenge Israeli and Saudi power in the region. I'm sure some dicksucking yokels would support any war under Trump, but everybody who isn't brainwashed would wonder what the fuck the point is.
1 Matues49 2018-03-22
I mean, just because there's isn't one, that doesn't mean it can't be made from scratch. There wasn't much of a justification for invading Iraq, a second time, either and yet...
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
this is true.
1 Leitos 2018-03-22
Iran provided a huge amount of support to Iraqi insurgents during the Iraq War, so that was kind of a dick move on their part that helped keep the country fragmented for much longer than necessary. Realpolitik on their part, but still, I always felt they got off lightly for that.
1 Strictlybutters 2018-03-22
Same could be said of Pakistan’s support for both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It’s ironic how many things you can get away with geopolitically when you possess nukes.
1 CirqueDuFuder 2018-03-22
Lol what about the shit Pakistan and Saudi Arabia does?
1 Matues49 2018-03-22
Pakistan literally harbored Big Bad Osama himself less than a mile away from their version of West Point and never got as much as slap on the wrist
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
They've been hit with a shitton of sanctions though, and the government has gotten much calmer over the last couple decades. There's no need to erase our progress with them over shit that happened a decade ago that was a major sin on our part too.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-03-22
... Iran had a hand supporting the government allied militias. The insurgents were (((Sunni))) former Iraqi army looking for a pay day for their pacifity.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
Those militias are allied with the government now. They weren't back during the Iraq War.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-03-22
I dunno they lined up behind the post invasion PM pretty quickly, filled the ranks of the new military due to the de baathification, and the paramilitary and regular troops we pretty interchangeable with the same level organization (not much) for a long time.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
You’re referring to the Popular Mobilization Forces. Three of the biggest ones are the Badr Organization, Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, and the Peace Companies. The Badr Organization is the only one that supported the Iraq Government during the Iraq War. And even it is responsible for large numbers of sectarian killings and is seen as a stalking horse for Iran. AAH fought against it and America, and the Peace Companies are a reconstruction of the Mahdi Army, which also fought against us. In fact they’re led by Muqtada al-Sadr, who is largely to blame for the Shiite insurgency.
1 Whaddaulookinat 2018-03-22
Wait which Iraqi government are you talking about, pre/transitional/or post invasion?
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
After Sadaam Hussein. These groups currently support the Iraq Government only because its an Iranian puppet.
1 alltheword 2018-03-22
They made overtures to help deal with the post invasion clusterfuck. They were ignored so they did what any country would do when their next door neighbor was thrown into chaos.
1 SWIMsfriend 2018-03-22
That's enough
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
Wrong. Consider:
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
SAY UNKIND THINGS TO THOSE WHO INSULT IRAN
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
Make Iran Zoroastrian Again!
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
EXCELLENT taste.
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
Insh'allah.
1 BigBrownDog12 2018-03-22
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
I choose neither!
1 RelevantEmployment 2018-03-22
Probably boomers with a chip on their shoulder about something that happened before many of us were born; to me it seems like the only thing Iran has done to us lately is look at us funny. Outside of Israel and Saudi Arabia's completely lame feuds with Iran that they're constantly trying to involve us in, I'm not sure there's a rational explanation for why we should care at all.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
Challenging America is a perfectly valid reason to invade Iran.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
No, we were not on the path to repairing our relationship. We were trading concessions for an Obama legacy. That’s why what we got in the Iran deal only lasted for 10 years. What could we possibly concede when those 10 years are up?
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
The deal made it clear that Iran is completely open to having a relationship with the West. They were following the guidelines of the deal and had toned down their rhetoric considerably, even after Trump got elected and appeared to be interested in revoking the deal. There's a reason why the EU is committed to pursuing the deal regardless of whether or not we do. Not to mention that actually 'trading concessions' and not just paying lip service is a huge indication of a diplomatic relationship that has potential.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
They were following guidelines, but those guidelines were way too lenient and allowed the Iranians ample notice to pick up their programs and move them from the American eye. In addition they expire in ten years. We already lifted our sanctions and gave them the money we were holding from them. What do we do to reach another agreement ten years in the future?
Also the reason the EU supports the Iran deal is because they want cheap oil and don’t care about Israel or Middle Eastern democracy.
And their rhetoric. I don’t think this counts as toned-down? Not to mention their continued massive support for Bashar al-Assad and backing of Hamas and al-Qaeda. Or their brutal crackdown on protests at home. That last one also proves that Qasem Soleimani is more important than Rouhani. The “moderate Iranian Government” is nothing more than propaganda.
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
There's a lot that can be done. Trade agreements, lifting visa restrictions, lifting or lessening financial restrictions (it's extremely difficult for Iranians to move money around in the US market), etc. Not to mention that ten years is enough time to forge a diplomatic bond such that an agreement wouldn't be necessary. That's never going to happen now, but it could have.
Well yeah, of course they're trying to distance themselves from Israel, given that it's Israel. And Middle Eastern democracy is an oxymoron. Even Israel's democracy is shoddy at best and not getting any better.
The Iranian government is horrible, but the country has the best potential for becoming a large, stable power in the Middle East due to the people, culture, not being sunni, etc. And Assad is terrible too, but the potential alternatives are much worse. Most Middle Eastern countries can't handle democracy right now. Assad would just be replaced by another dictator and most likely an Islamist one.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
The whole, “Muslims can’t handle democracy” line is nothing but a bigoted slur against Muslims. If they can’t handle democracy, then it makes sense to expel them from the Western world. Don’t tell me you support that.
Israel is a democracy, and it is also our best ally in the region. If its democracy is shoddy then ours doesn’t exist.
Third, the only way to build a diplomatic relationship would be to disregard all the many times our interests clash. And lol at the country being stable. Constant destabilizing interventions, a feud with the Saudis and Israelis, and riots in all cities are not what I’d call stable.
1 Cuddlyaxe 2018-03-22
Not to mention there's plenty of stable Muslim democracies. Look at the Balkans, Central Asia or Turkey
1 JohnTheOrc 2018-03-22
You’re literally Chamberlain, snally
1 nameuser4321 2018-03-22
Do you really think that Iran signed the deal because they wanted better relations with west? It's so that the sanctions were called off.
False. There have been multiple occurrences of Iran not abiding by the nuclear deal.
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9977768
http://www.thetower.org/article/why-is-iran-testing-ballistic-missiles-after-the-nuclear-deal/
And iirc Nikki Haley had provided actual evidence to the UN, of Iran transporting arms to the Houthis in Yemen, which definitely isn't in compliance with the treaty
Also, Rouhani's re election last year destroyed any chance of Iran abiding by the terms of the JCPOA + any sort of better relations with the west(iirc his rival had actually said that he'd improve Iranian ties with America)
1 snallygaster 2018-03-22
I'm not sure how much you know about Iran-US relations, but the fact that they were open to negotiating with the West is monumental. Iran was never starving and was getting along just fine (given the circumstances and compared to other cunts in the region) even with the sanctions. The fact that they were okay with sacrificing their nuclear program absolutely means that they're willing to start repairing their relationship with the West and begin to open themselves up to global influence.
Fair enough, but is that remotely worth going to war over?
Yeah, because Iran's been antagonized ever since Trump got elected and for absolutely no reason. If the US government's reverting back to using classic anti-Iran scare rhetoric, then why would Rouhani even bother? He held his tongue after Trump got elected only to get burned.
1 nameuser4321 2018-03-22
No it isn't Snally. We both know that Iran cares about international law almost as much as the United States does, when they're the ones not abiding by agreements (a violation of the JCPOA is a violation of the VCLT, in which the ICJ would technically have jurisdiction over)
No it isn't. But it shows that the treaty was worthless and is one of the reasons why I doubt anything will come out of Trump's meeting with North korea
You're right he shouldn't, because he doesn't need to. American foreign policy was disintegrating under the Obama administration, and I really don't think that Rouhani even cared about the terms of the treaty. If anything, it was a win for Iran, as they succeeded in pissing off Saudi Arabia, America's main Ally in the middle East, got the sanctions called off and got the world to think that Iran was getting rid of it's nuclear program.
The Trump administrations change in policy towards Iran would naturally end up leading to Rouhani not wanting to establish friendly terms with he west, although I doubt he was considering it. But at the end of the day, he's still making it seem as if the treaty's failure is a cause of a change in American policy, rather than it being because it's refuses to abide by it's terms.
1 nameuser4321 2018-03-22
/u/snalllygaster, 2 months later...
1 nameuser4321 2018-03-22
/u/snallygaster 2 months later...
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2018-03-22
To be fair they definitely have been supplying Iraqis with IED's and weapons. Though it's not like the US hasn't been fucking with them hard so they get a pass on that.
1 KULAKS_DESERVED_IT 2018-03-22
I knew this was going to be the Millenium Challenge. The Iranian commander only "won" because he used IRL-impossible exploits, like 400 mph motorcycles.
1 SWIMsfriend 2018-03-22
Motorcycles are limited electronically. I bet you could overclock them.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-03-22
Link? I tried looking and found nothing
1 KULAKS_DESERVED_IT 2018-03-22
Here
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-03-22
I'd take a lot of that with a grain of salt. That's from an interview with the General who lost. Right after he says:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2002/09/mil-020917-dod01b.htm
1 izuerial 2018-03-22
We slaughtered the Iraqis in 1991. What are you talking about dude?
1 cimarafa 2018-03-22
Holy shit this is like when you give your younger sibling infinite money in Monopoly to stop them from crying and flipping the board lmao.
1 hesh582 2018-03-22
There were some reasonable points made in that war game, but if you'll forgive a bit of realposting here: that commander was a dick and he "won" by manipulating (and outright breaking) the artificial rules of the simulation in order to make himself look good, and then publicized the aftermath.
In particular, the "small boats crippling the powerful US fleet" thing was massively misrepresented. The "US fleet" was forced to stay essentially immobile in a very small space to conform to existing commercial shipping lanes (because you don't get to shut down traffic in the gulf unless there's an actual war on). They couldn't do any actual maneuvering to avoid the anti ship missiles.
It also (this was the biggest single thing) forced them to be out of the middle of the ocean, right agains the shore. That is not what the US navy typically does. We do not park aircraft carriers next to a hostile shoreline. If we did, it would not be particularly surprising if someone blew them up. All the defensive systems rely on maintaining a very long range defensive screen that was not allowed in the exersize.
They also had to shut off most of their electronics countermeasures to avoid pissing off commercial shipping and yada yada you get the idea.
The "bad guys" had no such constraints and the general leading them deliberately chose to use tactics that abused the simulation limitations and then got all pissy and quit halfway through when leadership said "well, that taught us nothing. why don't we try again except maybe this time you don't do all the stuff that would only work in a simulation".
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2018-03-22
ahem
1 letter_of_resignatio 2018-03-22
Attacking Iran whit full force land assault would be such logistic nightmare and you had to take some air force casualtys, that it won't happen unless you have balls to use tactical nukes to help a assault.
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
Don't bring up that shit. The guy used a lame exploit necessitated by the limited nature of the exercise.
1 ConfirmableVelvet 2018-03-22
Cheat during war games
make zodiacs carry eight torpedoes heavier than them at top speed
Make your motorcycle relays teleport instantly ignoring logic
Scream not unh every time you are told to play according to reality
🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
1 SlavophilesAnonymous 2018-03-22
It's the only way to stop the IRGC.
1 scatmunchies 2018-03-22
Remember when people said Mommy was gonna get us into a war and Daddy wouldn’t? Good times.
1 SWIMsfriend 2018-03-22
At the very least, trump managed to go 2 years without war. Hilary would have been competent enough to get us in a war in the first two months
1 Think_Once 2018-03-22
War against white males don't count.
1 better_bot 2018-03-22
That's because white males aren't people.
1 Think_Once 2018-03-22
Good bot.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-03-22
I know it's felt like much longer.
1 westofthetracks 2018-03-22
at least he managed to keep us in all the ones we had going on when he got in
1 Pickled_Kagura 2018-03-22
pick one
1 j1l1l1 2018-03-22
I'm not sure you know what that word means.
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2018-03-22
Math is hard
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
Mommy already did.
1 K-town- 2018-03-22
Ya but Daddy is going to push the button with his retard strength
1 freet0 2018-03-22
The question was never if, the question was "with whom?"
Personally I'm just praying it's some third world shithole and not like France or Canada because their PM happens to insult his hair or some shit.
1 a_normal_human 2018-03-22
Dude, please, us Leafs need occupation.
Besides, at this point, Canada qualifies as full of brown people.
1 KekGratiaRex 2018-03-22
Hilary already co-started a war. Libya.
1 Redactor0 2018-03-22
Yeah, that was pretty horrible. Ghaddafi would never have dreamed of interfering in other countries' politics the way that George Soros has. All he did was send money to any dipshit around the world willing to set off a bomb, so I guess he's the hero of all disgruntled teenagers.
1 ucstruct 2018-03-22
Yeah, seriously. The guy took down an airliner in Scotland but reddit thinks its bad to be mean to him.
1 miraclebelly 2018-03-22
Man it’s such a BUMMER that the DEEP STATE didn’t let Daddy fill out his CABINET the FIRST TIME! MAGA!
1 Dontfuqfatties 2018-03-22
He just needs to hire and fire the people he gets to pick until he gets the people he wants!
1 j1l1l1 2018-03-22
He only hires and fires the best people.
1 ProMikeZagurski 2018-03-22
Daddy's fixing the economy by having everyone serve two weeks in His Cabinet.
1 AlveolarPressure 2018-03-22
So how long until North Korea gets nuked?
1 scatmunchies 2018-03-22
Nah, he’s gonna start shit with Iran.
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-03-22
FTFY
1 ironicshitpostr 2018-03-22
This is good for my defense portfolio
1 AnnoysTheGoys 2018-03-22
I picked up a quick 6% swing trading $KTOS between Monday and Tuesday. Looks like tomorrow's another good opportunity.
1 Redactor0 2018-03-22
Oh shit. The leader of Hezbollah made fun of his moustache years ago. They're gonna be the first to get it.
1 TaylorSwiftOfRdrama 2018-03-22
Great Yosemite Sam here is gonna cause us all to get nuked to oblivion and back
1 Starship_Litterbox_B 2018-03-22
https://im-01.gifer.com/790k.gif
1 hexane360 2018-03-22
https://youtu.be/QhL5EiK7_Kc
1 kippot 2018-03-22
well as long as you dont involve nato, have at it burgers
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
1 MegaSeedsInYourBum 2018-03-22
You know damn well they'll want REEEEEEEEEinforcements because it got hard.
1 kippot 2018-03-22
Gonna be Afghanistan all over again lol
Gl burgers
1 kippot 2018-03-22
wait a sec, wasnt hillareeeee the warmonger?
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
Yes. She was and she lost and it owned.
1 kippot 2018-03-22
What?
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
Hillary was the warmonger, now she is not the President and never will be because she is a comical side of beef, and it makes me lol
1 kippot 2018-03-22
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK
OUT OUT OUT
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
No, that is for Mexicans
1 kippot 2018-03-22
no this is for mouthbreathing mongoloid centipedos
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
No, staying in America is for Americans. Getting the fuck out is for Mexicans, globalists and jihazis.
1 kippot 2018-03-22
such a brave centipedo
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
No sir, YOU are the brave one. Going along with the dumb, easy thing that requires no conflict and that you are told to believe - despite the vicious gassings and kristallnachtings you suffer for you beliefs - that is true bravery.
You are a brave, beautiful woman, no matter what gender you self-identify as.
1 kippot 2018-03-22
yeah i get it, youre a centipedo
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
Pedros out!
1 JosephSmithsCunt 2018-03-22
You Daddy defenders have the most one-note, unentertaining banter
1 Blames_The_Russians 2018-03-22
I am enjoying it, and I don't give a fuck whether you are. :-D
1 TheFallenHero 2018-03-22
Why is John fucking Bolton a viable cabinet pick in 2018. Does trump just watch old Bush era fox news to see who he wants in government? First Larry Kudlow, now this!
1 Death_Trolley 2018-03-22
Larry Kudlow was more Bush I era even
1 buttermyself 2018-03-22
Trumps going to fire him in the middle of the war with iran because of that mustache.
1 hlary 2018-03-22
Afghanistan 2 shia boogalu
1 wwaalleess 2018-03-22
> tfw u are 26
1 Starship_Litterbox_B 2018-03-22
I'll just show them my reddit accounts. Better to be committed to the asylum than die in a dusty desert concrete jungle
1 rhiehn 2018-03-22
Unironically the worst thing daddy's done so far, and that's even competing with the trade war nonsense.
1 PM_ME_HAIRLESS_CATS 2018-03-22
👌😂🔫