Jump to content

A forthcoming Iran War?

Rate this topic


BrianBM

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Sudsy said:

The base is not looking for war, no one is

 

The threats and saber rattling serves a purpose - it keeps the opposition scared sh**less

 

It's pure posturing, a classic negotiators strategy - keep your opponent off balance !

The left is incapable of seeing it for what it is (the media doesn't want to so spins it for the rubes), but the fact that it's been working ! Look at Mexico, just the threats of tariffs, a believable threat (that's the key) and there are Mexican National guardsmen intercepting the fence jumpers on the Mexican side.

 

Iran is going to do absolutely nothing substantial to provoke this president - in other words, the posturing and saber rattling is working.

They'll bide their time until a snowflake democrat gets into office then they'll get their nuclear program back on track.

Resumption of that nuclear development has been immensely eased by squandering JCPOA, and even moreso by squandering the political alliance that brought the Iranians to the table in the first place. As long as either India or China remain Iranian customers, the government will have the cash it needs to survive. If they're both buying Iranian oil, as is currently the case, Iran will be able to maneuver well enough in the world economy to maintain the currency reserves it needs. North Korea has survived far more pressure without having anything to export.

 

No one's looking for war. But if the President can't force Iran to his terms, then he'll have squandered JCPOA and alliances alike for no gain. I fear that he's hoping, hoping, praying for someone to do something, however small, that will serve as a marketable excuse for action of some kind. Undoing something Obama did because Obama did it delights the base, but less so the general public.  

 

And that, of course, is the fault of snowflake Democrats. Sure. Absolutely. Tilting the balance of Iranian politics in favor of hardliners is the fault of Democrats, too.  Of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2019 at 5:10 PM, zak-striper said:

I don't have an online subscription to wsj so I can only read the beginning. However, they prove what I'm saying, that Obama gave back Iran their own money.

 

On 6/18/2019 at 8:30 PM, Nessmuk said:

 

Look, ah, has anyone, ever, claimed it was not Iranian money?  Like, ever?  Does it make a freaking difference to YOU?  Because it doesn't to anyone else with half a brain.  See, because the rest of us figure $50 billion+ to a terrorist government is, well, $50 billion+ to a terrorist government.  You'd have given the Nazi's billions "of their own money?"  You got a problem with keeping money belonging to a criminal?  A drug cartel?  Al Queda?  

 

Now, about the $1.3 billion in cash flown over...you want to revise your "facts?"

 

It was as stupid as it possibly could have been.  And you're defending it.  Does that make you smart?

 

C'mon, Zak.  Don't run from the tough ones.  So how are all those billions in assets and secretly flown cash being used today?  Are you totally shocked?  Mining tankers and shooting US aircraft.  Totally unpredictable, right?  Funding terrorist.  Funding Syria.  Funding nuke research.  Good call, Obama made, eh?

 

Doesn't "but it was their money" seem a little infantile in the face of all that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...