Iran Catch-All | US Build-up in region

  • Thread starter Thread starter theel4life
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 3K
  • Views: 99K
  • Politics 
Duke Mu said:
On paper, Iran could mine the strait west and south of a passage that allows exports from Bandar Abbas to move out.

www.ainvest.com

Iran's Bandar Abbas Port Explosion: A Geopolitical Flashpoint for Oil Markets

Iran's Bandar Abbas Port Explosion: A Geopolitical Flashpoint for Oil Markets
www.ainvest.com www.ainvest.com


Regardless, man we really need to get back on the Green Energy path!
Click to expand...
Then we would clear the mines and destroy their ports and their ability to mine the strait again.

There is a lot of doomsaying here. I think the most likely outcome is that a regime that has spent the last 45 years preserving and maintaining its grip on power in spite of all the pressure the west could provide outside a military invasion will walk back from the abyss and self preserve its position of power on Iran by trying to de-escalate. The real question is whether or not the Trump administration will take the win.
 
stankeylegjones said:
I completely agree with your last paragraph. Regarding "nuclear physics" perhaps I should have been more precise and prefaced everything with that I'm talking about theoretical aspects - more education was in theoretical physics, not experimental physics - of which I have only some knowledge. The neutron was predicted well before it was observed in experiment. We had a very solid understanding of the physics well before the 1940s.
Click to expand...
It was predicted by Rutherford but I'm not sure that model was very well accepted. It doesn't matter. We both agree that physics has come a long way since then. We didn't even know about quarks until the 60s.
 
lawtig02 said:
Ha Ha Smile GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon

Hit dog hollers. Nothing wrong with you posting here, Dr. Lynch. Just good for everyone to know who they’re dealing with.
Click to expand...
You really are embarrassing yourself. Responding to a false allegation does not make that allegation somehow true. Man, that's your third strike today. And you claim to be a lawyer? I feel horrible for any clients you might have. I've walked the dog with you all day today and haven't even had to try.
 
p5mmr9 said:
Then we would clear the mines and destroy their ports and their ability to mine the strait again.

There is a lot of doomsaying here. I think the most likely outcome is that a regime that has spent the last 45 years preserving and maintaining its grip on power in spite of all the pressure the west could provide outside a military invasion will walk back from the abyss and self preserve its position of power on Iran by trying to de-escalate. The real question is whether or not the Trump administration will take the win.
Click to expand...
Careful with your logic and reason here. The people are convinced that World War III is imminent. To suggest otherwise is to run afoul of the groupthink.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I suspect the first 3 points are actually well-known to those with higher security clearances than anyone here has. Particularly numbers two and three. An0maly's link stated that Iran was probably less than a week from developing a bomb....I think that might be a little generous, but I notice how you didn't jump on that poster for putting that out there.

For points 4 and 5, you are correct that we can't predict that future with 100% certainty. We can and do know that Iran is weaker now than it ever has been, and that is capability to respond is more diminished now than it ever has been. Those aren't opinions. Those are facts. To go back to my sports analogy, if you are playing football and are up by 3 in the 2nd quarter and you see that the defense has completely forgotten to cover your best receiver, you go for the easy touchdown. It doesn't matter that you might not need those points in the 4th quarter. There is a good chance that you might. And there is always the slight risk that your receiver pulls a hamstring or something while running 80 yards to the house. But you take the points. Iran left our best receiver open. We took the points.
Click to expand...
Ok, let’s get this back on track. You acknowledge here that you don’t actually know the answer to any of those five questions, all of which impact what happens next. And yet, the vast majority of this thread has been most of us (including me) saying there’s no way to know what will happen, and you disagreeing and assuring us nothing bad will happen. If you could just have had the humility to acknowledge you don’t really know what you claim to know (which you essentially did in the post above), this thread would probably only have 70 pages or so, but they would be far more useful.

And with that, I’m out. Feel free to have the last word. I’m happy to let the board judge our relative credibilities.
 
lawtig02 said:
Ok, let’s get this back on track. You acknowledge here that you don’t actually know the answer to any of those five questions, all of which impact what happens next. And yet, the vast majority of this thread has been most of us (including me) saying there’s no way to know what will happen, and you disagreeing and assuring us nothing bad will happen. If you could just have had the humility to acknowledge you don’t really know what you claim to know (which you essentially did in the post above), this thread would probably only have 70 pages or so, but they would be far more useful.

And with that, I’m out. Feel free to have the last word. I’m happy to let the board judge our relative credibilities.
Click to expand...
I just find it interesting, once again, that these ground rules only apply to certain posters. For instance, no one seemed to mind another poster claiming that tens of thousands of American soldiers are going to die now. We're OK with alarmism but not the opposite.

Of course no one knows what is going to happen in the future. I posted my opinion, just like others did. But only some opinions are tolerated, it seems.
 
lawtig02 said:
These two posts together are a great example of the point. NOBODY knows what will happen from here. Nobody on this board knows. Trump sure as hell doesn’t know. That’s terrifying to me, but anyone saying with certainly how this will turn out is just way, way premature.
Click to expand...
Bumping for the guy with reading comprehension problems, whatever his prior username was.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
You really are embarrassing yourself. Responding to a false allegation does not make that allegation somehow true. Man, that's your third strike today. And you claim to be a lawyer? I feel horrible for any clients you might have. I've walked the dog with you all day today and haven't even had to try.
Click to expand...
This is an idiosyncratic view and not really supported by the evidence.

Also, you don't get to pull the "are you really a lawyer" card given that you're not a lawyer and generally know nothing about the law. Leave that shit to the rest of us.

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You were enlarging the five-to-six days stuff and also denying that you think Iran can build a nuke in a week. Honestly, your position is inscrutable and seems to be internally contradictory to me. Maybe that's because you're responding to many different posts, but I'm not slamming on you. I really don't know what point you think you're making.

The point is twofold:

1. If Iran was really 5 to 6 days away from enriching that much uranium, then none of these attacks are going to compromise their ability to produce a bomb because they are almost there. They don't need more than one centrifuge. Having many centrifuges speeds up the process, and that's all. So if they were 5 days away, maybe now they are 100 days away. They have not been crippled at all, on this theory.

2. As suggested previously, the 5 to 6 day claim beggars belief. If it's true, it means that they weren't enriching this whole time. If not, then well it's wrong. It doesn't help your case either way.

Generally speaking, your posts on this thread have cut against your argument as much as supporting it. You should stop to think a little bit. You're veering wildly, in my view.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
I just find it interesting, once again, that these ground rules only apply to certain posters. For instance, no one seemed to mind another poster claiming that tens of thousands of American soldiers are going to die now. We're OK with alarmism but not the opposite.

Of course no one knows what is going to happen in the future. I posted my opinion, just like others did. But only some opinions are tolerated, it seems.
Click to expand...
Did anyone else endorse the tens of thousands of American soldiers view? I didn't see any of it. It's not a question about "minding" so much as whether the point continued to be argued for many pages.
 
superrific said:
This is an idiosyncratic view and not really supported by the evidence.

Also, you don't get to pull the "are you really a lawyer" card given that you're not a lawyer and generally know nothing about the law. Leave that shit to the rest of us.

I don't even know what you're arguing at this point. You were enlarging the five-to-six days stuff and also denying that you think Iran can build a nuke in a week. Honestly, your position is inscrutable and seems to be internally contradictory to me. Maybe that's because you're responding to many different posts, but I'm not slamming on you. I really don't know what point you think you're making.

The point is twofold:

1. If Iran was really 5 to 6 days away from enriching that much uranium, then none of these attacks are going to compromise their ability to produce a bomb because they are almost there. They don't need more than one centrifuge. Having many centrifuges speeds up the process, and that's all. So if they were 5 days away, maybe now they are 100 days away. They have not been crippled at all, on this theory.

2. As suggested previously, the 5 to 6 day claim beggars belief. If it's true, it means that they weren't enriching this whole time. If not, then well it's wrong. It doesn't help your case either way.

Generally speaking, your posts on this thread have cut against your argument as much as supporting it. You should stop to think a little bit. You're veering wildly, in my view.
Click to expand...
Not that you asked for my opinion on this, but it’s all good. He only got his hackles raised because of some of the things I said to him. And he’s admitted now he doesn’t really know anything about all the things he claimed (for pages) to know all about, so I think we can put this all behind us now and move on to more interesting discussions of what comes next.
 
Duke Mu said:
Completely hypothetical, but this scenario would allow Iran to export substantial oil flows, but would restrict Iraq, Saudis, Qatar, and UAE.



mines.jpg
Click to expand...
And this is also why, if the Iranians are truly serious about it, the three strikes from us won't be the last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top