They need to kick both Iran and the US out.
Iran v US confrontation
- Thread starter 4bars
- Start date
2mufc0
Everything is fair game in capitalism!
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,094
- Supports
- Dragon of Dojima
Boris will be right behind him.Trump better not drag Europe into this. fecking plank.
I just managed to stream Iranian state Media...and Jesus christ. All channels are black, everything about QS....huge threats and claims of retaliation being given....basically all 6-7 channels are one Soleimani tribute and talks of retaliation by Akhoonds (clerics) and regime officials.
All concerts in the entire country have been cancelled, all comedies and serials cancelled.
All concerts in the entire country have been cancelled, all comedies and serials cancelled.
I mean aside from Britain, who will probably be under pressure to appease the US, I don't really see anyone from the EU rushing to their side. Iran's reaction could change things of course.Trump better not drag Europe into this. fecking plank.
Trump better not drag Europe into this. fecking plank.
I find the European stance (including UK here) in all these things quite hypocritical and cynical.Boris will be right behind him.
On one hand they profit from the US having their backs on everything including protecting their eastern border, but disdain being America's bitch and being dragged into conflicts. Conflicts that often protect their interests too might I add. While at the same time being too timid, disorganised and nationalistic to put their lot together and form a unified military force and strong foreign policy agenda, so they get taken seriously at the global stage and become independent of US foreign policy.
Of course he will and it’s fecking retarded. We can’t afford a war.Boris will be right behind him.
The thing to do would’ve been to get into stocks in anticipation of events taking place (as in, several months ago).So umm.... How do I buy the shares/who does everyone use?
The Firestarter
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,494
The Firestarter
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,494
Seeing what's transpiring right now in Iran, it is similar to what the reaction to a head of state assassination would be. Such a ridiculous decision, basically a declaration of war.
This is one of the reasons I was so against Brexit. We've alienated Europe and been pushed firmly into the arms of America who will demand we have their backs and we'll have to appease them because they're going to be our main source of money with trade deals. It was so fecking predictable this would happen.I mean aside from Britain, who will probably be under pressure to appease the US, I don't really see anyone from the EU rushing to their side. Iran's reaction could change things of course.
I hope you realize that you are actually the revisionist in this scenario. Revisionism is not some clever code for "leftist propaganda", it's a word with actual meaning in history academia.Shah was 100 times better and more civilized than the current bunch. When protests got big and massive, he actually left Iran with tears and a bag of soil.
This revisionism by Western Leftists that Shah was some sort of one of the most vicious dictators of 20th century is absurd. Yes, he was a dictator, but there were many, many, many significantly worse than him in that decade. He did a lot more good than bad for the country. That's why in the protests Iranians were chanting his father's name. "Reza Shah, Rouhat Shad."
That was more risky then, unless you had insider info. Also people always say that, but then the biggest upward movements tend to happen when the every Fund and individual investor starts piling in. Don't think that's happened yet.The thing to do would’ve been to get into stocks in anticipation of events taking place (as in, several months ago).
adexkola
Doesn't understand sportswashing.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2008
- Messages
- 48,850
- Supports
- orderly disembarking on planes
If you place money into an investment fund, best believe the managers of that fund are moving money towards such stocks automatically (unless you have some sort of ethical clause). Cold world.I was thinking about doing the same. What have we become, lads? Thinking about making profit off of a potential conflict that could affect thousands if not millions. I know this is just how the game is played, but god damn...
Revisionism can be done by both left-wing and right-wing...it's not exclusive to either one. But in terms of Shah and Iran pre-revolution, it's mostly done by the Left. Not surprising though, as Iran's communist party (Toodeh) collaborated side by side with Khomeini to bring Shah down after getting promises from him that he'll allow them in the national referendum after all. and then boom! he, of course, didn't.I hope you realize that you are actually the revisionist in this scenario. Revisionism is not some clever code for "leftist propaganda", it's a word with actual meaning in history academia.
There was also going to be a coup against the Islamic Republic very early in the reign in 1980 (Noje Coup Plot), which was thwarted after Toodeh Party gave intel to the regime before the coup was to happen.
Brwned
Have you ever been in love before?
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 50,854
It's funny how people read what they want to read, rather than what was actually said. I'll quote it again to help you out:@Brwned you were saying something about checks and balances to president's military power.
Do you think Trump made this decision without the military's influence? Do you think he makes the majority of military decisions without the military's influence all over them? As you can see in this thread, the first question is a subject of debate - but thinking the military weren't majorly involved in the decision-making process appears to be a minority view, with some evidence underpinning that. The second question is not a subject of debate - it's a minority view.If you think the president makes the majority of military decisions without the military's influence all over them, I'd think you're in the minority. He has absolute power but even dictators had to contend with the influence, intelligence and power of the military in major actions. Or to make it more specific about Trump, I'm sure you'll find lots of military interventions in "A Warning from Anonymous".
There's no question that the president makes military decisions without congress' approval, and it's been a consistent concern over the last two decades.
Random Task
WW Lynchpin
How long before the UK gets dragged into this nightmare?
Organic Potatoes
Full Member
Drifter
American
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 68,432
As soon as the US says jump.How long before the UK gets dragged into this nightmare?
The Firestarter
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,494
By 'the military' do you mean the NSC uniformed members or actual combatant commands ?It's funny how people read what they want to read, rather than what was actually said. I'll quote it again to help you out:
Do you think Trump made this decision without the military's influence? Do you think he makes the majority of military decisions without the military's influence all over them? As you can see in this thread, the first question is a subject of debate - but thinking the military weren't majorly involved in the decision-making process appears to be a minority view, with some evidence underpinning that. The second question is not a subject of debate - it's a minority view.
There's no question that the president makes military decisions without congress' approval, and it's been a consistent concern over the last two decades.
I can't find any of this funny at all. Twitter is a fecking cesspool of cnuts today. So many relishing the chance to go to war with Iran to bring American justice.
The attitude of so many in the USA is just completely fecked. Who cares who dies... Just yeeeeehaw! feck yeah!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
The replies though. FML.
Scrumpet
There are no words
What does the best case scenario look like from here?
2mufc0
Everything is fair game in capitalism!
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2014
- Messages
- 17,094
- Supports
- Dragon of Dojima
Since when is destabilising the middle East in Europe's interest? The Iraq war started the whole mess which resulted in the refugee crisis, isis, terrorist attacks etc.. Which Europe has taken the brunt of.I find the European stance (including UK here) in all these things quite hypocritical and cynical.
On one hand they profit from the US having their backs on everything including protecting their eastern border, but disdain being America's bitch and being dragged into conflicts. Conflicts that often protect their interests too might I add. While at the same time being too timid, disorganised and nationalistic to put their lot together and form a unified military force and strong foreign policy agenda, so they get taken seriously at the global stage and become independent of US foreign policy.
With regards to the Eastern border, European nations do contribute and its also in America's interest to keep it secure from Russia.
There's absolutely no good reason to get involved in these terrible conflicts. And neither is it hypocritical to call out BS when you see it.
Kaos
Full Member
He was put into office by democratic consensus, the Shah’s appointment was ceremonial. It’s like saying the Queen had put Boris into number 10.For a grand total of one year. Shah was in power, then he was sidelined and Mosaddeq became PM, and then the coup and Shah back. It's a shame they couldn't work together. It was in fact Shah who first appointed Mosaddeq as the PM in 1951 after he was nominated by the parliament.
I'm not knocking Mosaddegh, but the way people talk about that "one year" of democracy is as we were having decades of Finland-like Liberal Democracy before the CIA coup to bring Mosaddeq down. None of us know how he'd have gone as time went on and he got more powerful. He was off to a great start though, with nationalizing the oil.
The point is Iran had a genuine democratic process in place and the US/UK decided to sabotage it because the Iranians had the audacity to want to exert control over their own national resources. The current Iranian regime is the resulting backlash to that policy.
That’s how professionals do it, they predict trends and get into positions well before events happen. Getting in now only provides the liquidity to the pros to trade out.That was more risky then, unless you had insider info. Also people always say that, but then the biggest upward movements tend to happen when the every Fund and individual investor starts piling in. Don't think that's happened yet.
Kaos
Full Member
Ideally yes, but unfortunately an impossible task considering how their politicians are hopelessly compromised by corruption owing to both sides.They need to kick both Iran and the US out.
The Iranian backed militias also pretty much hold the nation to ransom, and unfortunately many Iraqis are still more loyal to Khameini than they are to their own compatriots.
milemuncher777
formerly kid777
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 5,156
Shitting his pants sitting in Lebanon thinking whether he'll be next as his Iranian and Iraqi terrorist brothers from irgc and hezbulla were annihilated. Tbh US should've taken him out in same operation.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How's Nasrallah feeling right now?
He has said that before, hasn't he?Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Off to buy oil and defence shares then
Ballache
Full Member
1. He's no terrorist, Hezbollah are in the Lebanese government and they represent about 30% of the population. They, alongside their many allies have the majority in the parliament. So do some research and don't listen too much to the media.Shitting his pants sitting in Lebanon thinking whether he'll be next as his Iranian and Iraqi terrorist brothers from irgc and hezbulla were annihilated. Tbh US should've taken him out in same operation.
2. He has been a target for 15 years so good luck with that
buckooo1978
Full Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 13,777
dragged in.... I'd say Johnson will be only too happy to jump in to support TrumpHow long before the UK gets dragged into this nightmare?
milemuncher777
formerly kid777
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 5,156
MDFC Manager
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 24,587
Yes, except now, there's a reelection at stake.He has said that before, hasn't he?
milemuncher777
formerly kid777
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 5,156
So by this logic I'm sure you love Bush and Blair and dont consider them terrorist for their adventures and destruction that they caused in Iraq and Afghanistan.1. He's no terrorist, Hezbollah are in the Lebanese government and they represent about 30% of the population. They, alongside their many allies have the majority in the parliament. So do some research and don't listen too much to the media.
2. He has been a target for 15 years so good luck with that
Smores
Full Member
- Joined
- May 18, 2011
- Messages
- 25,652
You just know this will guarantee a Trump 2020 victory. The republicans go blood thirsty, the Dems urge caution and then get accused of not being on Americas side.
milemuncher777
formerly kid777
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2011
- Messages
- 5,156
Today his boss and his counterpart from Iraq were taken out. Nasralla will also go soon and when it eventually does happen don't cry your eyes out because he will always be a terrorist for his role in Syria.2. He has been a target for 15 years so good luck with that
Kaos
Full Member
I can understand being relieved to see Soleimani go, but I don't understand your cheerleading of it.Today his boss and his counterpart from Iraq were taken out. Nasralla will also go soon and when it eventually does happen don't cry your eyes out because he will always be a terrorist for his role in Syria.
Do you believe the US and Trump are going to make Syria/Lebanon any safer?
Are USA citizens actually dumber than the rest of the world or does it only get so much exposure because there's so many of them and they're so active on Twitter? The replies on all those Trump and Iran-related tweets are just fecking mind boggling.