Royal Spa

War with Iran

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,558
3,414
113
They would destroy all the oil infrastructure. They are experts in asymmetrical warfare, they are trainers of terrorists. And you just killed the Pope.
I think the Iranian leaders that matter (whoever is left) will be more interested in self-preservation and skimming some cream off the top (the oil industry). The sense is the military leadership are more opportunists than Islamists.

Holy fuck, you have some polling at 75% USA against it. So there is no buy in. They maybe have 6 weeks of ammo left. And it takes years to make more.
CNN has the following:
Overall, 59% of Americans disapprove of the initial decision to strike Iran, with 41% approving. Strong disapproval (31%) roughly doubles strong approval (16%). A marginally higher share (44%) say they favor the US trying to overthrow the Iranian government, with 56% opposed to that.

n the initial days here, that last number 56% opposed more than likely reflects Trump's approval/disapproval numbers before the attack. There's a whole lot that is still playing out. What someone thinks now will likely change in six months. Their perspective might change more than once.

The Cold War difference? No body bags. No actual extensive use of ammo. No major shots fired.
Perhaps for Canadians. Sometimes in your eagerness to support your argument you lose a sense of events and history.
I assure you this statement above could not be any more wrong.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,558
3,414
113
I so much hate when a single word is used both for the government and the people of the country, especially in totalitarian countries. The correct wording should be It should not be "Iranians" but "the Iranian regime." Same as not "Russians" but "Putin's regime." It is important to understand that in many countries, people and governments are not the same, and the vast majority of the population hate their government but are afraid (and for a good reason) to do anything about it.
A recent polling of Iranians shows the regime has a 96% approval rating.

Reporters tried to interview some in the 4% for their perspective, but apparently they all had abruptly moved to new addresses.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: fall

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,558
3,414
113
They already joined, Qatar has been firing on Iranian jets and downed a few.

Qatar downs two Iranian fighter jets as conflict widens
Qatari Defence Ministry also says seven ballistic missiles and five drones fired by Iran were intercepted.

Qats like a knife.

There's an Easter egg for Canadians in that pun. ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Carpa

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,558
3,414
113
Are you willing to acknowledge that this move has potentially put the midterms and even 2028 on a knife-edge?

The political consequences are going to hinge almost entirely on what happens next. If this turns into a quick, decisive outcome where Iran is effectively neutralized as a threat and there’s minimal blowback, no prolonged conflict, very little American casualties, no major spike in gas prices, then Republicans will almost certainly campaign on strength and decisive leadership. In that scenario, the midterms likely tilt in their favor, and the 2028 nominee would inherit that advantage.

But if this drags into a prolonged conflict, rising fuel prices, economic strain, U.S. casualties, and instability in the region, then the political fallout could be severe. Voters historically punish the party in power for drawn-out conflicts and economic pain. That could flip the midterms decisively and set the stage for a Democratic victory in 2028, whether that’s someone like Gavin Newsom or another nominee. Do you agree, Ritchie??
First, sincerely thanks for your honest and realistic assessment of the Iranian regime. For many years, we have had a small but vocal contingent that supports radical Islamists every step of the way.

All of what you said is fair commentary and essentially true.

I myself might be less optimistic about Republicans chances in the Midterms even with good outcomes in the Mideast. I still think the Democrats will win the House. On the other hand, the 2028 Republican nominee could possibly accrue some benefits. Presidential elections are different animals. Strong leadership and foreign policy take on more importance. In the Midterms, you obviously have less turnout but also people know their Congressman has less direct impact on foreign policy.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,558
3,414
113
US knows they have multiple layers of leadership...and they're peeling them like onions...
So that's why so many of our Iran apologists are crying.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: richaceg

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,608
33,092
113
Whats 2 billion? Its chump change compared to what they gave Israel since 2023. They're going to spend a lot more. Meanwhile, US taxpayers lose their jobs to AI, can't afford their homes, and go bankrupt for healthcare. And they have an open border, unlike Israel.
True, that counter doesn't add in the $5 billion in radar and THAAD destroyed or those fired already.
The question is what happens after the defensive missiles are gone.
Once it starts being a drone war Iran has the advantage.

 

Butler1000

Well-known member
Oct 31, 2011
34,023
7,907
113
I think the Iranian leaders that matter (whoever is left) will be more interested in self-preservation and skimming some cream off the top (the oil industry). The sense is the military leadership are more opportunists than Islamists.



CNN has the following:
Overall, 59% of Americans disapprove of the initial decision to strike Iran, with 41% approving. Strong disapproval (31%) roughly doubles strong approval (16%). A marginally higher share (44%) say they favor the US trying to overthrow the Iranian government, with 56% opposed to that.



Perhaps for Canadians. Sometimes in your eagerness to support your argument you lose a sense of events and history.
I assure you this statement above could not be any more wrong.
In discussing the leadership you are, as an American, too used to corruption bring the default position of that class. I think fanaticism better describes the leadership in Iran.

And CNN has always been the biggest supporters of wars. Since Desert Storm they have has a deal eith the military. Any polling they do on this, even as unpopular as this one is will always be suspicious.

I haven't lost my senses. I'm predicting it either results in a loss for the USA, with serious damage to Iran but the power structure(not people, power)intact. Or Libya. Which is a win for a Israel. But may result in lasting problems with oil production in the region.

Now its just wait and see.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
109,608
33,092
113
I think the Iranian leaders that matter (whoever is left) will be more interested in self-preservation and skimming some cream off the top (the oil industry). The sense is the military leadership are more opportunists than Islamists.



CNN has the following:
Overall, 59% of Americans disapprove of the initial decision to strike Iran, with 41% approving. Strong disapproval (31%) roughly doubles strong approval (16%). A marginally higher share (44%) say they favor the US trying to overthrow the Iranian government, with 56% opposed to that.



Perhaps for Canadians. Sometimes in your eagerness to support your argument you lose a sense of events and history.
I assure you this statement above could not be any more wrong.
You being an american likely can't see this, but america is now the evil empire.
Lead by a pedophile and controlled by a state committing genocide and responsible for most of the wars this century.

Venezuela - evil empire type attack
Threats to Canada - evil empire
Threats to Greenland - same
Palestine - you can't get more evil than backing genocide

Now the army is saying they are fighting for armeggedon, making trump the actual antichrist.

 

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
16,540
3,192
113
Ghawar
So that's why so many of our Iran apologists are crying.

I gather you believe assassination of foreign leaders, which
Ronald Reagan banned, is a smart war tactic. Not even Adolph
Hitler would stoop as low---Hitler simply deployed the Luftwaffe
to bomb London. Winston Churchill and the British royalties
were spared.

Remember in the future your enemy can do the same deed on
your leaders, government officials and scientists outside the
battlefield.
 

WyattEarp

Well-known member
May 17, 2017
9,558
3,414
113
It's hard to understand how the Washington Post is failing with lovely writing such as this.

"With his bushy white beard and easy smile, Ayatollah Khamenei cut a more avuncular figure in public than his perpetually scowling but much more revered mentor, and he was known to be fond of Persian poetry and classic Western novels, especially Victor Hugo’s 'Les Misérables.' ... Some Iranians who knew Ayatollah Khamenei before he became supreme leader described him as a 'closet moderate'' ...

Ryan Reynolds.gif
 
  • Haha
Reactions: xmontrealer
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts