-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monitoring the situation in Iran
- Thread starter EviLore
- Start date
- Status
buttnuggett
Gold Member
The whole debate about a Greenland invasion is ridiculous. The US economy wouldn't survive that. Who owns a huge part of the US debt? Correct.
What made Trump back off last time? When "insignificant" countries in Europe started selling off some US bonds.
Americans. I think there's 9 trillion owed by foreigners. Don't look now, but that could be erased. Of course, it still doesn't address the rest.
Hypereides
Member
Sitting here from Denmark and reading these kind of views, coming from some American users about how they perceive the north and entertaining the idea of conquest, is certainly something. What in the world is going on.
buttnuggett
Gold Member
NickFire
Member
What's going on is simple:
Sitting here from Denmark and reading these kind of views, coming from some American users about how they perceive the north and entertaining the idea of conquest, is certainly something. What in the world is going on.
1) Our president shit talks but was never in a million years going to take over a European country by force.
2) A handful of autistic people don't understand shit talking and actually believed him.
3) A much much larger group of people pretended he was serious for political gain or just because they hate him and that the country rejected them.
ReasonBeing
Member
9 trillion is "a huge part"
buttnuggett
Gold Member
Huge, but a lot can be written off on reparations. At that point, FIAT currency will be worthless.
ReasonBeing
Member
Considering how disruptive that would be, isn't it safe to say that that is besides the point.
buttnuggett
Gold Member
If it gets to that point, those 9 trillions will be worth about maybe 4 rolls of toilet paper.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
It has nukes, F35's, Typhoons, subs, aircraft carriers, battleships etc. The UK has a sub constantly on patrol carrying 40 nukes each 6 x the power of the Hiroshima bomb.
buttnuggett
Gold Member
The nukes are good. The f35's will be disabled and completely useless. Your aircraft carriers are old and slopped. The british nukes are also completely irrelevant. You leased them from us. Only the french nukes will be a problem. Although, don't get me wrong, 300 warheads will fucking ruin your day. lol
Idleyes
Gold Member
Not quite. America put herself in a isolationist glass box, Trump got pissed because her bitch ass safe space was broken so he threatened total annihilation if Iran doesn't make America feel secure again. Iran ignored his dumbass so he pointed at the mess of glass fragments and reassured his bitch that it's a sign of victory.
NickFire
Member
Er, I was talking about the Greenland bluff
The US may ultimately win due to the location of the territory and defensive advantage (Europe hasn't really fortified the island because it didn't really see a threat at all) but do you honestly think that would be a pushover when the US has lost so many planes against an army using dated 1990s equipment that was mostly destroyed preemptively? It would be a much more messy war in comparison.
Baemono
Gold Member
i read someone saying on Twitter « well he's a liar, but at least he's honest about it »
Haint
Member
OK so what is Ukraine? They're not in NATO so why are we bankrupting ourselves supporting them from Russia at NATO's request? The answer is NATO views it as a potential precursor to a Russian invasion and is going on the offense via proxy Ukraine. Seems kinda similar to preemptively attacking a terrorist country whose motto is "death to America" and brags about having nuclear warheads, no? Only real difference is we're not faking it with a proxy shell country like Ukraine, which is a distinction without a difference. If NATO actually stuck to your "Defense Only, Article 5!!1111" schtick Ukraine would have been a Russian territory in a month.
Last edited:
Denmark set up Operation Arctic Endurance which included sending medical blood supplies and explosives to destroy runways. They took the threat somewhat seriously.
Last edited:
Baemono
Gold Member
You do realize Trump accused Obama to launch a war in Iran for years and then ran on the fact that he wouldn't go to war, and when Harris said that Trump would go on war with Iran, it was « dems warmongering »
Like when you do all of these and then still end up contradicting yourself (through the worst way possible), people (and not just « dems ») are like « are you f kidding me ? »
I mean that's populism after all. Orbán is saying « if you don't vote for me you'll be sent to Ukraine » while actively supporting Russia's war in Ukraine. And some people believe it.
Gamerfan81
Member
In diplomacy and geopoltiics, the rule of thumb is that when a head of state says something, it is considered to be policy until it is walked back or contradicted. Nation-states won't see it as shit talking when comments are made about a country's sovereignty. Geopolitics runs on effect. What others believe you might do matters as much as what you plan to do.
So the Greenland incident was bizarre in that it accomplished nothing but damage the alliance. And contrary to belief it is mutually beneficial for European countries and the U.S. These alliances are not some charity as Trump and his base believes.
So the Greenland incident was bizarre in that it accomplished nothing but damage the alliance. And contrary to belief it is mutually beneficial for European countries and the U.S. These alliances are not some charity as Trump and his base believes.
Idleyes
Gold Member
I'm not sure when America started centering itself so heavily around Trump. Down here in Florida, a lot of the people I'm around still don't trust the government in general. They may strongly oppose Democrats, but they're not the type to put any politician, Trump included, on a pedestal. I mostly only run into the 'Trump is infallible' crowd online.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
NATO isn't going on the offensive in Ukraine.
NickFire
Member
Wait. I've seen a million reels where she says she would tell Iran "dont", and he says "im gonna bomb the shit out of them"
Haint
Member
LOL ok, just giving them all their weapons, intelligence, and communication capabilities. You guys don't seem to understand what a distinction without a difference is.
Last edited:
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Yes, for Ukraine's defense.
NATO nations aren't sending their troops or helping invade Russian territories.
Idleyes
Gold Member
Both are true. NATO isn't deploying troops directly, but it is actively providing support (VIA member countries, technically not NATO itself).
Haint
Member
UKRAINE IS NOT IN NATO, defending who from what? They are being used as a proxy to go on the offense against Russia. It is a distinction without a difference, semantics letter of the law word games.
Last edited:
Hypereides
Member
Its a proxy war. They aren't directly involved. They're supplying and providing them the means to stand and hold their ground.
Idleyes
Gold Member
No surprise there. The enemy of your enemy has always been a natural ally. It's not even about who's right or wrong, that's just how conflicts have worked for as long as they've existed. In Fact the USA has always had Enemies that become friends only to become an enemy again.
Edit Historic example: Both Russia and China was once a US ally against Japan; now Japan is our ally while Russia and China is on the other side.
Last edited:
calico
Member
I don't think they're going to retake Greenland with nuclear weapons. If Europe deployed its conventional forces -those capable of operating 1000+ miles from home- against the US (which it wouldn't) they would be destroyed very, very easily.
I think people don't quite grasp the power disparity when it comes to fighting away from home. It would be like a toddler trying to fight prime Mike Tyson. Europe understands a military response would be a total non-starter. Mark Rutte -quite rightly- LOLd at the idea of Europe being able to defend itself in Europe without the US; being able to fight the US in North America is in the realm of pure fantasy.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Sure, you can say that.
But let's not make it sound like Ukraine is the only non NATO country the organization has helped, they do it all the time in Asia, Africa etc.
Bojji
Gold Member
NATO offense against Russia? Are you swallowing Russian propaganda like this guy is swallowing vodka?
Ukraine was attacked by Russia, USA signed Budapest memorandum (to defend Ukraine territory) and Europe has direct interest in helping Ukraine. It's simple as that.
This is similar to how USA helped Afghanistan when it was attacked by Soviet Union:
Same stingers were later used to attack American army. Soviet Union was helping Vietcong in a similar way, proxy wars like that are nothing new.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
The United Nations requested them in both of those cases.
Last edited:
Idleyes
Gold Member
If the goal is regime change and a real end to hostilities with Iran, it won't happen from the air alone. It would require a ground strategy—and that only works with meaningful support from Iranians themselves. The terrain, the scale, and the realities on the ground make anything else nearly impossible.
Hitting civilian infrastructure or harming ordinary people erodes any chance of that support. It doesn't make cooperation impossible, but it makes it far harder. Threatening to wipe people out—bluff or not—only makes that worse. And if the plan is just more bombing, don't expect the Strait to magically reopen. There isn't a volume of conventional strikes that solves that problem, and if it escalates to nuclear weapons, then everyone loses.
Trump just keeps putting his foot up his own ass when he's better off with it in his mouth.
Hitting civilian infrastructure or harming ordinary people erodes any chance of that support. It doesn't make cooperation impossible, but it makes it far harder. Threatening to wipe people out—bluff or not—only makes that worse. And if the plan is just more bombing, don't expect the Strait to magically reopen. There isn't a volume of conventional strikes that solves that problem, and if it escalates to nuclear weapons, then everyone loses.
Trump just keeps putting his foot up his own ass when he's better off with it in his mouth.
Wildebeest
Member
The treaty to defend Ukraine after nuclear disarmament is the Budapest Memorandum, not NATO. The countries signed up to it are Russia, US, Ukraine, and the UK. Obviously Russia violated the treaty. What the US provided to Ukraine is very far from bankrupting the US and is a bargain for what they are getting in return.
Critical Hit
Member
What he's doing is a lot less fucked up if you ignore what he's saying
How so?
calico
Member
So none, which dispels the notion that NATO only operates if a member is attacked. The majority of times it has acted it has been in an offensive capacity against a party which has not attacked a NATO member.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
No.
It went into Bosnia on UN's request to stop the ongoing ethnic cleansing and went in Libya on UN's request to stop the already ongoing civil war. NATO hasn't entered any conflict as an offensive party, going into the attack first.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
Nobody is going on the offense against Russia, what are you talking about? NATO countries are helping Ukraine defend itself (and in turn the rest of Europe) from Russia. Very different.
calico
Member
If we are to consider any military action seeking to defend any party as being a defensive action -even when this entails attacking a party which has not attacked you / a NATO member first- then the 'but NATO is a defensive alliance' comments become meaningless. The US action in Iran could be described as a defensive action by this standard and NATO joining it would therefore also be defensive.
This is not what people mean when they state that 'NATO is a defensive alliance'. The 'defensive' in that statement is specifically meaning 'defensive in response to attacks upon NATO members', ie. they are saying Iran has nothing to do with NATO because Iran did not attack a NATO member first. The Bosnia and Libya examples show this is actually not a prerequisite for NATO military action historically, and that the majority of times NATO has taken military action it has not been preceded by an attack on a NATO member.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
You're either missing the point or conflating two different things. Article 5 COMPELS other NATO members to be involved and that is for a member that is under attack or threat of attack. The only NATO nation that qualifies for that would be Turkey and Turkey has not invoked it or even hinted at doing so.
NATO's involvement, or lack thereof, in Iran is not the same as their involvement in Libya or Bosnia where they were formally requested by the U.N to do so.
Last edited:
Hari Seldon
Member
It's ridiculous because the American people don't even support wars against brown people anymore. Even "King" Trump can't make this Iran war popular. A war against the whitest people on earth would be a nonstarter. That is why, although the current US president is clearly senile at this point, it is better to have a democracy on top.The whole debate about a Greenland invasion is ridiculous. The US economy wouldn't survive that. Who owns a huge part of the US debt? Correct.
What made Trump back off last time? When "insignificant" countries in Europe started selling off some US bonds.
Gp1
Member
So its even worse.
Possibly but it's more likely that Oman is ok with it. Last week Iran was drafting a protocol with Oman to require ships to obtain permits to sail through their waters:
Iran and Oman drafting protocol to 'monitor' Hormuz Strait traffic: IRNA
The Strait of Hormuz, the vital artery for global oil transit, has been effectively closed since the Iran war started in late February.
www.cnbc.com
Vestal
Junior Member
Actions don't exist in a vacuum.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked