Iran will defeat Trump just like it did Saddam, won't abandon missiles -Rouhani

[Ron19]

A troll post was reported and has been removed.

 

9) You will not post inflammatory messages on the forum, or attempt to disrupt discussions to upset its participants, or trolling. Trolling can be defined as the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet by posting controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.

[The manic]

13 hours ago, sebastion said:

This is what Israel has been preparing for.
They will play a covert role in destabilising things.

Sent from my EVA-L19 using Tapatalk
 

Hopefully yes.

[ezzra]

9 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Nah. The Israelis will be in there quicker than flies on a t*rd.

On the contrary, while Israel has the might, reach and the fire power to wreak havoc on Iran, just like Israel stayed out when the US was bombing Iraq even when Iraqi missiles were hitting Israel they didn't intervene so not to draw the ire of other more 'friendly' arab countries...

[Esso49]

3 minutes ago, ezzra said:

On the contrary, while Israel has the might, reach and the fire power to wreak havoc on Iran, just like Israel stayed out when the US was bombing Iraq even when Iraqi missiles were hitting Israel they didn't intervene so not to draw the ire of other more 'friendly' arab countries...

Because if they did, then that will be the end of them

[Morch]

10 hours ago, candide said:

The situation was quite different. Saddam's regime was not supported by his people. His regime was clerical, while actually dominated by Sunni muslims, and the Shia majority of the population was against him.

 

If the US attacks Iran, it will be a holy war for Shia Muslims. On top of it, the Shia religion has been build on the concept of martyrdom, so many guys are ready to die for their religion, like Ali and Hussein did in the past.

Of course, the USA could technically win the war as they have the power to destroy most heavy weaponry. But then it will become like Afghanistan at 10x scale, with candidates for martyrdom at every street's corner.

 

How much actual popular support the Iranian regime commands can be debated. Some could say recent and ongoing protests, civil unrest and domestic violence is all imported and instigated - IMO, it's kinda hard to pull without something concrete to build on. The difference between Iran and some other ME countries is that Iranians are actual people, as opposed to relatively new "nations" created by drawing lines on the decaying corpse of the Ottoman empire etc.

 

Shias are not necessarily into actual "martyrdom", and there's no lack of such among Sunnis.

 

And again, "winning" is not necessarily conditional on satisfying concepts lodged in the past.

 

 

[Morch]

15 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

If the US and Iran clash militarily do you think it will just remain local?

 

15 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

'

Nope,

 

Not a chance of that.

 

Define local. Just the US and Iran slugging it? Probably not. Regional? Pretty much a given. More than that? Fantasies.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[The Theory]

23 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

If the US and Iran clash militarily do you think it will just remain local?

Democrats helped the revolution (since king of Iran was planing to have more control on oil, just like Saddam) to be successful and still are a great back up for Iran’s regime. Unblieveable !!!! 

Now after 40 years that policy is going to be challenged by republicans. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution

Edited September 23, 2018 by The Theory

[candide]

57 minutes ago, The Theory said:

Democrats helped the revolution (since king of Iran was planing to have more control on oil, just like Saddam) to be successful and still are a great back up for Iran’s regime. Unblieveable !!!! 

Now after 40 years that policy is going to be challenged by republicans. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/10/ayatollah-khomeini-jimmy-carter-administration-iran-revolution

Another point of view is that, after removing the main barrier to Iran's influence in the middle-east (Saddam's regime), and messing up things afterwards (hence ISIS expansion in Irak), the republicans are trying to catch-up their blunder. (IMO more likely with another blunder).

[Kiwiken]

The main way to hurt Iran is to block its oil exports via an embargo. This is unlikely to succeed as outside Of the USA , Israel and Saudi Arabia no one else will enforce an embargo. As the largest percentage of Iranian Oil goes to China . you would then be blocking Chinese oil. Iran is also supplied with arms by Russia and I suspect india. The US can bluff but short of a physical blockade which will bring in Outside players I cannot see the US forcing Iran to back down.

[SuperTed]

 

How much actual popular support the Iranian regime commands can be debated. Some could say recent and ongoing protests, civil unrest and domestic violence is all imported and instigated - IMO, it's kinda hard to pull without something concrete to build on. The difference between Iran and some other ME countries is that Iranians are actual people, as opposed to relatively new "nations" created by drawing lines on the decaying corpse of the Ottoman empire etc.

 

Shias are not necessarily into actual "martyrdom", and there's no lack of such among Sunnis.

 

And again, "winning" is not necessarily conditional on satisfying concepts lodged in the past.

 

 

Iran is ripe for regime change. It would be a great thing; conservative Islam has ruined a beautiful nation and culture.

The US imposed the regime change that led to the mullahs taking over Iran; sadly, I think the current President lacks the skills or willpower to make it happen again.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[dexterm]

On 9/22/2018 at 9:27 PM, billd766 said:

 

Nah. The Israelis will be in there quicker than flies on a t*rd.

Possibly. But they did not participate last time...didn't even send a medic. Allowed the dopey allies to do all the fighting for them.

 

They probably will get involved if Iran's ally Hezbollah start lobbing missiles at their cities.

 

Maybe hundreds, thousands of casualties on both sides. All so avoidable.

 

If the proverbial does hit the fan, remember who started all this, when Trump unilaterally cancelled a deal that was working.

Edited September 24, 2018 by dexterm

[billd766]

4 hours ago, SuperTed said:

Iran is ripe for regime change. It would be a great thing; conservative Islam has ruined a beautiful nation and culture.

The US imposed the regime change that led to the mullahs taking over Iran; sadly, I think the current President lacks the skills or willpower to make it happen again.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

The problem with the USA imposing a regime change is that they only look to the short term and never 20 or 30 years ahead. This is why they are still bogged down in Iraq some 27 years later and similar in Afghanistan.

 

The USA can fairly easily win a war but that is only the easy part. It is winning the peace, gaining the trust of the population and rebuilding what you destroyed which is the hard part, especially in a country who last week/month/year ago you were killing their military and civilian men, women and children.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, SuperTed said:

Iran is ripe for regime change. It would be a great thing; conservative Islam has ruined a beautiful nation and culture.

The US imposed the regime change that led to the mullahs taking over Iran; sadly, I think the current President lacks the skills or willpower to make it happen again.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

I have no idea what you base the "ripe" thing on, or who gets to determine such things. As for the second part of your post - we'll have to disagree. I don't know that "the mullahs taking over Iran" can be directly blamed on the US, unless one really wants to over simply things, that is. Not much issues with the assessment of Trump's prowess at managing such issues, but then again, it's not quite the case that past presidents were doing great in this department. Regime changes are dodgy and volatile undertakings.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Morch

[Nyezhov]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

If the proverbial does hit the fan, remember who started all this, when Trump unilaterally cancelled a deal that was working.

For the Iranians 5555

 

wish he could get the cash back

[Morch]

17 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

The main way to hurt Iran is to block its oil exports via an embargo. This is unlikely to succeed as outside Of the USA , Israel and Saudi Arabia no one else will enforce an embargo. As the largest percentage of Iranian Oil goes to China . you would then be blocking Chinese oil. Iran is also supplied with arms by Russia and I suspect india. The US can bluff but short of a physical blockade which will bring in Outside players I cannot see the US forcing Iran to back down.

 

Economic sanctions apply also to financial transactions, and generally dealing with Iran. If you imagine countries will ignore that, think again. Quite a few major European firms already pulled out deals and investments - even before sanctions were actually in place. With regard to oil exports, countries which will continue buying from Iran, are in a position to get better terms, meaning less revenues for Iran.

 

I don't know that arms sales are much to do with the first part of your post, but Russia is rather weary with regard to what it supplies to Iran, and as for India being a supplier - I think you're confusing it with China and/or North Korea.

 

Not exactly sure what "back down" amounts to, or how you imagine that Iran would be able to maintain its economy and domestic stability under control given current conditions.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, dexterm said:

Possibly. But they did not participate last time...didn't even send a medic. Allowed the dopey allies to do all the fighting for them.

 

They probably will get involved if Iran's ally Hezbollah start lobbing missiles at their cities.

 

Maybe hundreds, thousands of casualties on both sides. All so avoidable.

 

If the proverbial does hit the fan, remember who started all this, when Trump unilaterally cancelled a deal that was working.

 

More of your usual drivel, addressed on numerous past topics. That you feign ignorance and post the same misleading garbage over and over again is quite telling.

 

Israel was discouraged from participating, as open involvement would have made life difficult for Arab regimes partaking in the coalition(s). That you want to spin it otherwise, is unsurprising, same as taking up any possible chance to hijack topics in order to bank on your standing agenda.

 

Trump didn't actually "cancel" the deal, but withdrew US participation in such. Not quite the same thing, and that's without getting into the circumstances related to the previous US administration getting on board.

 

Seems like you are giving the Iranians a carte blanche with regard to responsibility for any possible hostilities - about as contrived and biased as expected. 

 

 

[Morch]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

The problem with the USA imposing a regime change is that they only look to the short term and never 20 or 30 years ahead. This is why they are still bogged down in Iraq some 27 years later and similar in Afghanistan.

 

The USA can fairly easily win a war but that is only the easy part. It is winning the peace, gaining the trust of the population and rebuilding what you destroyed which is the hard part, especially in a country who last week/month/year ago you were killing their military and civilian men, women and children.

 

Countries governed by democratic systems are not particularly effective when it comes to long term planning and considerations. Politicians are usually elected for (relatively) short terms, and relying on public support can often make long terms gains less viable political propositions. This is hardly unique to the US, though.

 

As for "...winning the peace, gaining the trust of the population and rebuilding what you destroyed..." - while these things are sort of taken for granted as being part and parcel of the aftermath, that's not actually a given.

[Thorgal]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

Possibly. But they did not participate last time...didn't even send a medic. Allowed the dopey allies to do all the fighting for them.

 

They probably will get involved if Iran's ally Hezbollah start lobbing missiles at their cities.

 

Maybe hundreds, thousands of casualties on both sides. All so avoidable.

 

If the proverbial does hit the fan, remember who started all this, when Trump unilaterally cancelled a deal that was working.

 

Israel sent military advisers,  military aircraft spare parts, ammunition, etc. to Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_role_in_the_Iran–Iraq_war

 

 Trump was under pressure from a certain well known secret lobby. That's why he cancelled the deal and endorsed the eternal capital to Israel.

[jayboy]

Neither Iran nor Iraq won the war between their two countries.They fought themselves to a draw so the result was a stalemate.

 

I'm not an undiluted fan of Kissinger but he got it right when he said it was a pity both sides couldn't lose.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Israel sent military advisers,  military aircraft spare parts, ammunition, etc. to Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_role_in_the_Iran–Iraq_war

 

 Trump was under pressure from a certain well known secret lobby. That's why he cancelled the deal and endorsed the eternal capital to Israel.

 

I am a bit confused.

 

Can you explain this to me?

 

quote "a certain well known secret lobby".

 

If it is well known, then it cannot be secret, and if it is secret, then it cannot be well known.

[SuperTed]

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

The problem with the USA imposing a regime change is that they only look to the short term and never 20 or 30 years ahead. This is why they are still bogged down in Iraq some 27 years later and similar in Afghanistan.

 

The USA can fairly easily win a war but that is only the easy part. It is winning the peace, gaining the trust of the population and rebuilding what you destroyed which is the hard part, especially in a country who last week/month/year ago you were killing their military and civilian men, women and children.

U.S. generals staying they have achievable goals and an end game for Afghanistan has been a low point in the history of US military assessment. No one wins in Afghanistan.

[SuperTed]

7 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Economic sanctions apply also to financial transactions, and generally dealing with Iran. If you imagine countries will ignore that, think again. Quite a few major European firms already pulled out deals and investments - even before sanctions were actually in place. With regard to oil exports, countries which will continue buying from Iran, are in a position to get better terms, meaning less revenues for Iran.

 

I don't know that arms sales are much to do with the first part of your post, but Russia is rather weary with regard to what it supplies to Iran, and as for India being a supplier - I think you're confusing it with China and/or North Korea.

 

Not exactly sure what "back down" amounts to, or how you imagine that Iran would be able to maintain its economy and domestic stability under control given current conditions.

EU and China have already rushed into Iran under Obama; it will be interesting to see if Trump can pull them back out.

 

China is wetting the bed over Trump’s imposition of sanctions for buying Russian missles. I don’t know how they will react to sanctions for buying Iranian oil.

[billd766]

6 minutes ago, SuperTed said:

EU and China have already rushed into Iran under Obama; it will be interesting to see if Trump can pull them back out.

 

China is wetting the bed over Trump’s imposition of sanctions for buying Russian missles. I don’t know how they will react to sanctions for buying Iranian oil.

 

IMHO they will simply ignore the USA.

 

What can the USA do about it? Seize Chinese tankers and that would cause huge problems. Complain the the UN Security Council? The Chinese will simply veto it. Impose sanctions on China? He has already been there and done that.

 

The problem belongs to the USA and particularly to Trump.

 

He has caused the problem, so it is his problem to sort out.

Edited September 24, 2018 by billd766
added extra text

[SuperTed]

2 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

Israel sent military advisers,  military aircraft spare parts, ammunition, etc. to Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in the 80's.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_role_in_the_Iran–Iraq_war

 

 Trump was under pressure from a certain well known secret lobby. That's why he cancelled the deal and endorsed the eternal capital to Israel.

Casual racism is clearly tolerated, but please no blind anti-semitism. Of course Israel is happy about Jerusalem, but that was a package deal which the new leadership of Saudi Arabia bought into. Crédit Kushner for hammering that out.

 

but if there was a secret Jewish cabal behind Trump, why are his and Kushner’s businesses bankrupt? Kushner would not have been jumping into bed with the Chinese on 666 Park (5th?) if he knew the Rothchilds  were behind him.

[SuperTed]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

IMHO they will simply ignore the USA.

 

What can the USA do about it? Seize Chinese tankers and that would cause huge problems. Complain the the UN Security Council? The Chinese will simply veto it. Impose sanctions on China? He has already been there and done that.

 

The problem belongs to the USA and particularly to Trump.

 

He has caused the problem, so it is his problem to sort out.

Ideally yes, but in practicality, no. American sanctions hurt both us and our trading partners, and can’t be ignored by any of us.

 

Also if Trump wants to go full tilt, he can down ships carrying Iranian oil.

[SuperTed]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

I have no idea what you base the "ripe" thing on, or who gets to determine such things. As for the second part of your post - we'll have to disagree. I don't know that "the mullahs taking over Iran" can be directly blamed on the US, unless one really wants to over simply things, that is. Not much issues with the assessment of Trump's prowess at managing such issues, but then again, it's not quite the case that past presidents were doing great in this department. Regime changes are dodgy and volatile undertakings.

The US ousted the democratically elected President of Iran, and replaced him with the Shah of Iran (their King), with the express purpose of moving all power over oil to the Shah, so the US could control Iran’s oil supply.

 

Once Iranians figured out what had happened, they were very unhappy with the U,S. Cue radical Islam and the revolution.

[Thorgal]

Casual racism is clearly tolerated, but please no blind anti-semitism. Of course Israel is happy about Jerusalem, but that was a package deal which the new leadership of Saudi Arabia bought into. Crédit Kushner for hammering that out.
 
but if there was a secret Jewish cabal behind Trump, why are his and Kushner’s businesses bankrupt? Kushner would not have been jumping into bed with the Chinese on 666 Park (5th?) if he knew the Rothchilds  were behind him.

Was one of the popular slogans from Trump during his election campaign to “drain the swamp” from all lobbyists from DC...

No need to keep your “eyes wide shut” in a political forum debate.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Kiwiken]

7 hours ago, SuperTed said:

Ideally yes, but in practicality, no. American sanctions hurt both us and our trading partners, and can’t be ignored by any of us.

 

Also if Trump wants to go full tilt, he can down ships carrying Iranian oil.

And if he decided to go full tilt you think the action would be limited to the Gulf. Given the US disdain for the UN where will you negotiate the ceasefire? In the ashes of Geneva.

[dexterm]

Who'd have thought a few months ago that everything was hunky dory: nuclear inspectors reporting full Iranian compliance. So Trump started poking and prodding Iran (no harm to USA 6,000 miles away) by reneging on a deal that was working, then started bullying other countries with sanctions to undermine the Iranian economy, effect regime change, and drive it to the brink... a clear provocation.

 

A war with Iran which Trump has been itching for at the behest of his only friends (a racist regime, corrupt aristocracies and dictatorships) would also be a neat distraction from his domestic woes.

 

Don't forget that Trump started this;  another fine mess he's gotten us into.