• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Monitoring the situation in Iran

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMG-0022.jpg
 
Tams said:
It's clearly the militant wing of Hezbollah that's being referred to.
Click to expand...

Removing the militant wing doesn't mean they're no longer being occupied by Hezbollah though. They're still a major political force. That's like saying you got rid of your guns because you moved them to your mom's house. Congrats, you changed the address, not the reality. :messenger_winking_tongue:
 
Tams said:
As predicted, they've had a conference where they discussed the obvious and came up with a 'solution' that is unrealistic and amounts to pretty much doing nothing.

And they wonder why the US administration aren't happy with Europe.
Click to expand...

I mean, this wasn't a problem before the U.S. entered the conflict so. The poor solutions are born out of a poor situation they were forced into, and one that didn't exist less than 3 months ago.

Let it not be lost on anyone that it did not HAVE to play out this way.
 
Boo Who? said:
Are there a bigger group of pussies that pose as "leaders" than the European leaders? Talk, talk, talk. That is all they do. I know our leaders here in the states are a piece of work as well, but holy shit, I will take them 10 times out of 10 over the spineless fucktards that Europe put up.
Click to expand...
Air strikes in Syria, Naval operations around Somalia, aiding Ukraine
www.aljazeera.com

UK, France carry out joint strike on ISIL target near Syria’s Palmyra

The UK's Ministry of Defence says an underground facility likely storing ISIL weapons was the target of the attack.
www.aljazeera.com www.aljazeera.com
tvpworld.com

UK to send its ‘biggest ever’ drone shipment to Ukraine

The UK’s defense secretary said the “battle-proven” drones would help defend against Russia.
tvpworld.com tvpworld.com
They are willing to take action - just not in this war because
a) why would they?
b) they have an aggressive Russia on their border
c) what would they actually do that the most powerful military in the world can't?
 
Toons said:
I mean, this wasn't a problem before the U.S. entered the conflict so. The poor solutions are born out of a poor situation they were forced into, and one that didn't exist less than 3 months ago.

Let it not be lost on anyone that it did not HAVE to play out this way.
Click to expand...
Definitely but we need not to make it worse for ourselves. Trump is a flood but we built a crap dam in Europe. Most of the energy policy decisions that have left countries like Germany susceptible happened before Trump's first term. It seems crazy now but after the invasion of Georgia in 2008, countries built pipelines to Russia. That's why whoever is in charge of Germany they get crushed in the polls. Can't just blame Trump there. This is why we can't give in to Iran because we are allowing economic blackmail which any country can then do to us after the precedent is set. We don't have a time machine to stop Trump but we can start prioritising our economic interests and military interests. Last thing we need to do is become an economic hostage to China, Iran, Russia because incase anyone forgets, they are allies
 
Last edited:
winjer said:
Viktor Orbán was losing the campaign, so JD Vance went to Hungary last week to support his campaign.
The elections were this past weekend in Hungary. And Orban lost even harder.

1776017362316.jpeg
Click to expand...

Trump was very popular among right wing parties in Europe (and their supporters) before his elections, but after all the stuff he has done in 2025/2026 to damage EU/USA relations - no wonder that European nationalistic parties and their supporters now (at least) dislike him.

Vance visit was like a kiss of death.
 
Bojji said:
Trump was very popular among right wing parties in Europe (and their supporters) before his elections, but after all the stuff he has done in 2025/2026 to damage EU/USA relations - no wonder that European nationalistic parties and their supporters now (at least) dislike him.

Vance visit was like a kiss of death.
Click to expand...

On a positive note, Orban accepted the results and called Magyar to congratulate him for his victory.
 
Wildebeest said:
The atomic bomb was used in war but a hydrogen bomb has never been used in war. They are much more powerful and deadly than a puny Hiroshima bomb and apparently can have wildly different characteristics when it comes to how "clean" they are. The "taboo" on their use has never been broken but taboos exist to be broken so we can all act surprised when they are.
Click to expand...
"Insert the "not how the force works""

Every nuclear treaty deals of thermonuclear weapons in broad terms. so H weapons has the same stigma as nuclear weapons. Even small tactical devices has it.

Ps. I like how people talks about Hungary's elections as if we're not dealing with two right wing candidates :)
 
Last edited:
Gp1 said:
Ps. I like how people talks about Hungary's elections as if we're not dealing with two right wing candidates :)
Click to expand...

Winner is right wing but most likely won't block EU voting on Russia (like Orban did). He wants to unlock frozen EU funds.
 
Bojji said:
Winner is right wing but most likely won't block EU voting on Russia (like Orban did). He wants to unlock frozen EU funds.
Click to expand...

Magyar already confirmed he will vote to unlock the frozen Russian funds for Ukraine.
Of course, this is going to anger people like Putin, Orban and JD Vanced.
 
winjer said:
We just saw JD Vance supporting the election for Órban.
Click to expand...
Trump used him as a means of exerting pressure on the EU.

winjer said:
Magyar already confirmed he will vote to unlock the frozen Russian funds for Ukraine.
Of course, this is going to anger people like Putin, Orban and JD Vanced.
Click to expand...
At his first press conference after being elected Prime Minister of Hungary, Péter Magyar said on Monday that the country will continue seeking the cheapest energy sources, including from Russia. His statement appear to clash with earlier pledges to phase out Russian energy imports by 2035.
Click to expand...
www.euronews.com

Magyar keeps door open to Russian energy despite EU phase-out plans

At his first press conference after being elected Prime Minister of Hungary, Péter Magyar said on Monday that the country will continue seeking the cheapest energy sources, including from Russia. His statement appear to clash with earlier pledges to phase out Russian energy imports by 2035...
www.euronews.com www.euronews.com

adamsapple said:
Signs point to Cuba.
Click to expand...
I was referring to Iran, where the easy options seem to have run out.
 
Idleyes said:
We were talking about how international law sets an evidence-based standard for using force...
Click to expand...
I was never talking about that. There was back and forth between you and aditar (iirc) about whether the threat was 'imminent' or not. I posed the question what is the virtue of waiting for the threat to become 'imminent' before addressing it?

I still don't know at which point you would consider the threat sufficiently 'imminent' for addressing it to be acceptable to you / 'international law'. When Iran is assembling the nuclear weapon? When the Ayatollah's finger is hovering over the launch button? When the warhead is half way to Rome or Paris or Berlin?

It seems to me if you wait for any of those definitions of 'imminent' you have left it entirely too late, and now you can no longer act anyway because they have or will 'imminently' have a nuclear weapon. If 'international law' would oblige us to not take action until an Islamic terror state acquires nuclear weapons then there is no rational choice but to ignore it.
 
I think this thread is slipping back into at best tangental politics.

And as much as I'd like to chime in, reel it back in guys.
 
I am not as confident on Magyar. He is certainly better than Orban, but he took less time than I thought before talking about not shooting themselves over Russian gas. So the Hungarians will still be giving more money to Russia than Ukraine. He is also still committed to Orban's pledge to not being part of the loan as well as allowing Ukraine quickly into the EU. He isn't exactly pro Ukraine. He just doesn't hate the EU like Orban. Still very right wing.
 
calico said:
I was never talking about that. There was back and forth between you and aditar (iirc) about whether the threat was 'imminent' or not. I posed the question what is the virtue of waiting for the threat to become 'imminent' before addressing it?

I still don't know at which point you would consider the threat sufficiently 'imminent' for addressing it to be acceptable to you / 'international law'. When Iran is assembling the nuclear weapon? When the Ayatollah's finger is hovering over the launch button? When the warhead is half way to Rome or Paris or Berlin?

It seems to me if you wait for any of those definitions of 'imminent' you have left it entirely too late, and now you can no longer act anyway because they have or will 'imminently' have a nuclear weapon. If 'international law' would oblige us to not take action until an Islamic terror state acquires nuclear weapons then there is no rational choice but to ignore it.
Click to expand...

I hear ya, what do you think would be the best way to address the issue you are talking about?

A regime change with a ground war?
 
calico said:
I still don't know at which point you would consider the threat sufficiently 'imminent' for addressing it to be acceptable to you / 'international law'. When Iran is assembling the nuclear weapon? When the Ayatollah's finger is hovering over the launch button? When the warhead is half way to Rome or Paris or Berlin?
Click to expand...

Could've just asked. The way you jumped in made it sound like I was arguing something I wasn't, when I was actually talking about something else.

When Iran is actually assembling a nuclear weapon is my answer. Anyway, Iran enriching to 60% is concerning, but that's not the same as producing weapons-grade material or building a bomb. The U.S. and Israel can already point to other issues, like Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas. So why layer on claims about imminent nuclear threat that haven't been clearly backed up?

The Trump administration made that claim. If the evidence exists, why hasn't it been shown to the public or clearly demonstrated? Don't tell me the answer, just ask yourself if you really believe your answer. :messenger_beaming:
 
Last edited:
calico said:
It seems to me if you wait for any of those definitions of 'imminent' you have left it entirely too late, and now you can no longer act anyway because they have or will 'imminently' have a nuclear weapon. If 'international law' would oblige us to not take action until an Islamic terror state acquires nuclear weapons then there is no rational choice but to ignore it.
Click to expand...

My point isn't 'wait until it's too late.' It's that if you're going to claim an imminent threat, you should be able to show evidence of that, not just assert it. We probably wouldn't even be having this discussion if the U.S. and Israel had clearly demonstrated that evidence. And to be clear, international law can object all it wants, but states act anyway. The difference is whether they can actually point to evidence to justify those actions after the fact, or whether they're relying on claims that were never substantiated.
 
Idleyes said:
My point isn't 'wait until it's too late.' It's that if you're going to claim an imminent threat, you should be able to show evidence of that, not just assert it. We probably wouldn't even be having this discussion if the U.S. and Israel had clearly demonstrated that evidence. And to be clear, international law can object all it wants, but states act anyway. The difference is whether they can actually point to evidence to justify those actions after the fact, or whether they're relying on claims that were never substantiated.
Click to expand...
Iranian regime admitted its nuclear goals and rejected negotiations centered around nuclear disarmament and no longer funding terror cells. That's sufficient casus belli, and given how Iran cluster bombed and drone striked civilian targets in every neighboring country when the war broke out, and put a troll toll on the world's oil supply, they've more than proven themselves unstable and dangerous.
 
Tams said:
I think this thread is slipping back into at best tangental politics.

And as much as I'd like to chime in, reel it back in guys.
Click to expand...
Nah, let them do it until the thread gets locked again

Then someone will make a thread complaining about it getting locked again being completely oblivious to why it got locked again
 
Boo Who? said:
Are there a bigger group of pussies that pose as "leaders" than the European leaders? Talk, talk, talk. That is all they do. I know our leaders here in the states are a piece of work as well, but holy shit, I will take them 10 times out of 10 over the spineless fucktards that Europe put up.
Click to expand...

Their idea of stopping a threat is to ask nicely. They don't think they need an army because they can "just use their words". Unless of course, there's an actual conflict and then they expect the US to do all the heavy lifting.

Listening to them bitch when the Russia Ukraine war started was hilarious. They were so shocked to see a conflict and then of course they blamed us for not doing enough as they sat on their asses while a war happened on their doorstep.

Total cake and eat it diplomacy. They don't want Iran to have nukes but they won't do shit about it either.
 
Tams said:
As predicted, they've had a conference where they discussed the obvious and came up with a 'solution' that is unrealistic and amounts to pretty much doing nothing.

And they wonder why the US administration aren't happy with Europe.
Click to expand...

Boo Who? said:
Are there a bigger group of pussies that pose as "leaders" than the European leaders? Talk, talk, talk. That is all they do. I know our leaders here in the states are a piece of work as well, but holy shit, I will take them 10 times out of 10 over the spineless fucktards that Europe put up.
Click to expand...

Fundamentally, this doesn't differ much from the U.S. attempts to end the Russia-Ukraine war by first trying to hash out a deal between Russia and the US alone, cutting out Ukraine and Europe.

delirium trigger said:
Listening to them bitch when the Russia Ukraine war started was hilarious. They were so shocked to see a conflict and then of course they blamed us for not doing enough as they sat on their asses while a war happened on their doorstep.
Click to expand...

Strange retelling of what happened. Biden's excessive caution in providing heavy support and permissions for long range strikes really hampered Ukraine.
Though some other countries like Germany also had that bug.
 
Ozriel said:
Fundamentally, this doesn't differ much from the U.S. attempts to end the Russia-Ukraine war by first trying to hash out a deal between Russia and the US alone, cutting out Ukraine and Europe.



Strange retelling of what happened. Biden's excessive caution in providing heavy support and permissions for long range strikes really hampered Ukraine.
Though some other countries like Germany also had that bug.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.
 
calico said:
IMG-0022.jpg
Click to expand...

I seriously wonder if Trump is insane and stupid OR if there is a certain deliberation to the way he speaks on this own social media platform, in order to make it easier for his "que in an uncharming word for not so bright" MAGA voters to follow along? It's like he translates information into a deliberately easy form of words for better comprehension.

As harsh as it sounds, but maybe people under a certain IQ shouldn't be allowed to vote if the world wants to make sure World War 3 never happens? Because how is it even possible this orange monkey got elected TWICE?

Technically he's even right, when he says the US is better at fighting than anyone else, but that's not important if you aren't also smart enough to know WHEN to fight. Iran is a shit country (or rather it's dictatorship) and attacking it, or better, trying to free it from a dictatorship, is a good thing, but doing so without any actual plan on how to succeed is mighty stupid. There wasn't enough preparation beforehand, or any actual assessment whether or not the people within Iran are capable of a regime bust, whether or not they have the means (weapons, freedom fighters, etc).

This is why the regime bust in Syria worked, because they actually had all that.
 
EviLore said:
Iranian regime admitted its nuclear goals and rejected negotiations centered around nuclear disarmament and no longer funding terror cells. That's sufficient casus belli, and given how Iran cluster bombed and drone striked civilian targets in every neighboring country when the war broke out, and put a troll toll on the world's oil supply, they've more than proven themselves unstable and dangerous.
Click to expand...

Iran absolutely hit targets across the region, no argument there. But most of that came after they were already attacked by the U.S. and Israel, so it's not really addressing what I'm saying. My point is much simpler: the U.S. and Israel already have a basis for attacking Iran directly as a result of Iran's long-standing support of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. We don't need to anchor our argument to nuclear weapons development at all.

Anyway, when you say Iran 'admitted its nuclear goals,' what exactly did they admit to? Admitting that 'we're not giving up nuclear energy' isn't the same thing as 'we're building nukes'. Kna mean?
 
I really wish the US actually put some thought into "epic fury" instead of just charging in without a solid plan.

Absolute shit show. How could they not see this coming. People can defend the US and Israel all they want or side with Iran. What ever. But this whole thing has been stupid as fuck in how it's been handled. Fucking moronic.
 
Idleyes said:
Iran absolutely hit targets across the region, no argument there. But most of that came after they were already attacked by the U.S. and Israel, so it's not really addressing what I'm saying. My point is much simpler: the U.S. and Israel already have a basis for attacking Iran directly as a result of Iran's long-standing support of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. We don't need to anchor our argument to nuclear weapons development at all.

Anyway, when you say Iran 'admitted its nuclear goals,' what exactly did they admit to? Admitting that 'we're not giving up nuclear energy' isn't the same thing as 'we're building nukes'. Kna mean?
Click to expand...

They were offered free nuclear fuel for their reactors in an agreement to halt their uranium enrichment program and they told everyone to kick rocks, lol.
 
delirium trigger said:
They were offered free nuclear fuel for their reactors in an agreement to halt their uranium enrichment program and they told everyone to kick rocks, lol.
Click to expand...
Their stated reasoning was avoiding dependence on other countries for their energy needs, which is something most countries try to avoid. Look, we don't need to make things up. The Ayatollah isn't exactly dodging U.S. and Israeli justification for conflict. There are already real issues there without stretching the nuclear claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Can we has back our Iran thread?
2 3
100
1K
LearnandBurn replied
  • Locked
UK bans Coinbase ad mocking UK's current situation, portraying the country as dystopian
20
2K
TommyCronin6969 replied
Any recommendations on a portable monitor? The ones that look like an iPad.
2
571
IDKFA replied
Why isn't Windows 11 auto changing to the correct HDR/Monitor profile when I change which monitor I want to use? (It used to...)
2
494
YCoCg replied
Chat Control, the EUs super bill to monitor the web
2 3 4
164
5K
Unknown Soldier replied
Top Bottom