• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

🗣️ | US-Israel/Iran | Post CF Anouncment | ANALYSIS OF REPORTS

DEFCON Warning System said:
Under what terms?
Click to expand...
I dunno that's for the politicians to sort out.
Presumably something that includes:
- Iran doesn't get a nuclear bomb (maybe returning to the JCPOA or something similar is hammered out)
- The strait is open to toll-free traffic

In return the Iranians would want the sanctions lifted and probably other stuff like reparations
 
Friendly Engineer said:
Mood from the UK public is overwhelmingly that this isn't our war and we're staying out of it. It's the US's mess let them fix it.

But because we're one of the few nations with a minesweeping ability we'll chip in once the dust settles and help get rid of the mines.
Click to expand...

I am also from the UK and Engineer is right. Also the whole Greenland fiasco with threats of tariffs damaged US relations significantly. But I think the real reason the British public hate Trump was his comments about Coalition soldiers "stayed at the back" in Afghanistan. This has made him "Persona Non Grata" even his biggest fan Farage couldn't defend him.

I laughed when some of you suggested that we would attack a US vessel?

With what Navy? Have you seen the state of the UK Navy? If we send anything to Strait it will like Engineer said Minesweepers and support vessels.

This the UK and France offering support to help clear the Strait. Not the old 'Empires Strike Back'.
 
Friendly Engineer said:
but we're not refusing to bomb Iran just to spite him, it's for the reasons I said above.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but where exactly did I say “bomb”? My point was not even that. I was talking about Europe being willing to let us use our bases there JUST for starters. Yes, the UK is allowing it now, but that was not the case at first. My frustration is not really with the UK so much as with Europe more broadly.

And honestly, I am not sure why you are being so defensive. You were very pro brexit and openly happy to leave the European Union. Are you not anymore?
 
NuclearID said:
I even said before the war started that the oil Iran provides to the world let alone even to China is very miniscule, "a drop in the bucket" as one would say.

The world learned (including China) how to live without Iranian oil for a long time now and the oil anyone gets from Iran is again a drop in the bucket.

And the only reason why Energy prices are going up is not because of lack of Iranian oil it's the lack of the oil that flows through the international waters next to Iran.

Extreme distinction... The world isn't missing Iranian oil, it's just missing a free open Water way to transport the world's oil.

So yeah stopping Iranian oil OR EVEN blowing up all Iranian oil production wouldn't hamper China in any way. The oil Iran provides to China is again a drop in the bucket and ditto for anybody else that receives it.

Anyone who is buying Iranian oil is doing so as a gift essentially because they could really get it from anywhere else and it's more of a trouble to get it through them than anywhere else.
Click to expand...
I think they just want to poke at the US! You know, middle finger.
 
This war has permanently and irreversibly changed how I view NATO and Europe.

For all my life, I was a strong supporter of NATO. I believed that beneath all the temporary politics, beneath all the noise, there was still a durable allied core that would hold when confronted with a serious enough & common threat.

I do not believe that anymore.

What disgusts me most is not that some European countries chose not to actively join this war. That alone is one thing. What I cannot accept is that some were unwilling even to allow the United States to use bases or shared infrastructure ALL THE WHILE still wanting to condemn the war and lecture from the outside.

That is where this stops being mere disagreement and starts looking like something much closer to cowardice and abdication!

If a country truly believes a war is being mishandled, there is far more leverage in conditional support than in total distance.

Participation (not even bombing) gives influence. Participation gives leverage. Refusing to participate at all, while also limiting allied access, leaves you with far less ability to shape the outcome while still preserving the dumb illusion of clean hands.

That disgusts me, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.

👉This is also not about Trump, at least not for me. I do not support Trump. I never have. I still do not. But Iran is NOT a Trump era problem. Iran has been a serious strategic threat for decades both to Europe & US. Trump is temporary. That threat is not.

And that is exactly why this crisis has so deeply shattered my view of NATO.

If this is what allied seriousness looks like when pressure is real, then I no longer see the point in preserving old illusions.

At this stage, I firmly believe the United States should leave NATO behind, let Europe handle Europe, and focus where the real long term strategic challenge lies which is Asia, and especially China.

It's over. Hope it was worth standing up for what again? 🤔 Pack up boys, screw em, and come home.
 
Regardless though, Europe combined economy and military (without US) still out matches Russia's ten fold. So no excuses for us to be there anyways anymore when the red dragon in Asia is growing unchecked.
 
NuclearID said:
This war has permanently and irreversibly changed how I view NATO and Europe.

For all my life, I was a strong supporter of NATO. I believed that beneath all the temporary politics, beneath all the noise, there was still a durable allied core that would hold when confronted with a serious enough & common threat.

I do not believe that anymore.

What disgusts me most is not that some European countries chose not to actively join this war. That alone is one thing. What I cannot accept is that some were unwilling even to allow the United States to use bases or shared infrastructure ALL THE WHILE still wanting to condemn the war and lecture from the outside.

That is where this stops being mere disagreement and starts looking like something much closer to cowardice and abdication!

If a country truly believes a war is being mishandled, there is far more leverage in conditional support than in total distance.

Participation (not even bombing) gives influence. Participation gives leverage. Refusing to participate at all, while also limiting allied access, leaves you with far less ability to shape the outcome while still preserving the dumb illusion of clean hands.

That disgusts me, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.

👉This is also not about Trump, at least not for me. I do not support Trump. I never have. I still do not. But Iran is NOT a Trump era problem. Iran has been a serious strategic threat for decades both to Europe & US. Trump is temporary. That threat is not.

And that is exactly why this crisis has so deeply shattered my view of NATO.

If this is what allied seriousness looks like when pressure is real, then I no longer see the point in preserving old illusions.
Click to expand...
I believe this gets to the core of why President Trump wants to make Greenland part of the US. IMO
NuclearID said:
At this stage, I firmly believe the United States should leave NATO behind, let Europe handle Europe, and focus where the real long term strategic challenge lies which is Asia, and especially China.

It's over. Hope it was worth standing up for what again? 🤔 Pack up boys, screw em, and come home.
Click to expand...
 
Lostpuppy said:
What is an act of war? For our guest readers🤔???
Click to expand...
An act of war is a hostile action, whether military or direct, undertaken by one state against another, or an action committed within the context of an armed conflict. It is often a casus belli (cause of war) justifying a response or a declaration of war, such as an invasion, bombing, blockade, or cyberattack.

The act of war was committed by the USA and Israel on February 28.
 
Friendly Engineer said:
This Iran problem affects the UK quite seriously, our fuel prices have shot up.
We want it finished ASAP, but we know it'll be diplomacy that keeps the strait open, not war. Diplomacy is the only long term solution to the Iran problem (as Trump is slowly finding out).

As for spiting Trump, yes he's rather unpopular here (maybe he should stop insulting the UK or raising our fuel prices), but we're not refusing to bomb Iran just to spite him, it's for the reasons I said above.
Click to expand...
You relize that the missile Iran has will reach you in the UK and in the near future, sans the USA actions would be possibly carrying a radiological paylaod.

Also the gas and oil Europe and the UK need long term can stopped at any second by Iran…like now.

Britain is going to get a breather on the bomb and a full supply of oil only because of the USA and Israel.

That nest of terrorists with the bomb were going to bleed everyone except the USA and Russia, dry. Iran would probably hold the entire world hostage, and thats just for oil.
 
william said:
I believe this gets to the core of why President Trump wants to make Greenland part of the US. IMO
Click to expand...
Trump thinks Greenland has a liner future that is Invaded and occupied by:
A) Russia B) China C) Russia (again) or D) purchased and integrated into the United States, all as citizens if they wish.

Personally I wish He had left it unspoken. We already have nearly complete military rights to all of Greenland and could put 100,000 troops there tomorrow.

Why alienate a population that has already decided to host America to keep out the Red Tide? To me it makes no sense.
 
Torch said:
Trump thinks Greenland has a liner future that is Invaded and occupied by:
A) Russia B) China C) Russia (again) or D) purchased and integrated into the United States, all as citizens if they wish.

Personally I wish He had left it unspoken. We already have nearly complete military rights to all of Greenland and could put 100,000 troops there tomorrow.

Why alienate a population that has already decided to host America to keep out the Red Tide? To me it makes no sense.
Click to expand...
I never truly believe the U.S. would make a play for Greenland, but I have to wonder if the U.S. being denied overflight in Europe will push the U.S. to do something otherwise irrational. But that’s a conversation for another forum.
 
teekay99 said:
Implementing price controls to override the free market is generally not a conservative position...
Click to expand...
...until those prices start hurting their finances. Interesting how Americans don't give a shit about policies or wars until those policies or wars start impacting them directly.
 
RiffRaff said:
...until those prices start hurting their finances. Interesting how Americans don't give a shit about policies or wars until those policies or wars start impacting them directly.
Click to expand...
You’ve just discovered the single issue voter problem that has plagued the United States for decades.
 
RiffRaff said:
...until those prices start hurting their finances. Interesting how Americans don't give a shit about policies or wars until those policies or wars start impacting them directly.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Philosophy and ideology generally takes a back seat to self-interest and self-preservation.
 
Torch said:
I guess they should get off their arse and send a destroyer or two and a minesweeper would not go amiss
Click to expand...
Personally, I would rather see them send hearts and flowers. Keep all their military hardware right where it is as a hedge against the dragon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom