Iran threatens to blockade the straits of Hormuz

[The South Falls]

We tried to do this in Iraq. It failed miserably. Just look at it this way. Western values will not go down well with those people. Rebellion all the time. We saw it with Iraq. And Pakistan.

We just didn't have any strong figures to support, so extremists found their own strong figures to take charge instead.

If we were to try again, it would need to be slower, and more calculated rather than just straight fucking shit up.

We'd have to install a Pro-US figure that was also local, and respected by people across the nation. Then, slowly pull the military out, and push that figure in. It could take up to 30 years to make it stable.

[NeuPolska]

We just didn't have any strong figures to support, so extremists found their own strong figures to take charge instead.

If we were to try again, it would need to be slower, and more calculated rather than just straight fucking shit up.

We'd have to install a Pro-US figure that was also local, and respected by people across the nation. Then, slowly pull the military out, and push that figure in. It could take up to 30 years to make it stable.

It could, but I think that's largely dependent on the figure.

If they were truly local and respected, we could probably set up a small installation like we have in Germany and pull out most troops pretty quick. Send advisers to help with establishing the new leader's government.

[Berdan]

We just didn't have any strong figures to support, so extremists found their own strong figures to take charge instead.

If we were to try again, it would need to be slower, and more calculated rather than just straight fucking shit up.

We'd have to install a Pro-US figure that was also local, and respected by people across the nation. Then, slowly pull the military out, and push that figure in. It could take up to 30 years to make it stable.

Yeah, lets install someone as leader on the sole basis of them being popular and Pro-America, and make sure that they stay in power for at least three decades. That's a good way to make the nation love us and not see us as the enforcers of the Dictator-of-the-week.

[NeuPolska]

We'd have to install a Pro-US figure that was also local, and respected by people across the nation. Then, slowly pull the military out, and push that figure in. It could take up to 30 years to make it stable.

Yeah, lets install someone as leader on the sole basis of them being popular and Pro-America, and make sure that they stay in power for at least three decades. That's a good way to make the nation love us and not see us as the enforcers of the Dictator-of-the-week.

You have a better idea?

[Frievolk]

We'd have to install a Pro-US figure that was also local, and respected by people across the nation. Then, slowly pull the military out, and push that figure in. It could take up to 30 years to make it stable.

Yeah, lets install someone as leader on the sole basis of them being popular and Pro-America, and make sure that they stay in power for at least three decades. That's a good way to make the nation love us and not see us as the enforcers of the Dictator-of-the-week.

Hey, a lot of Iranians are monarchists. Put Reza on the throne, and then hope he survives 30 years

[Firaxin]

We just didn't have any strong figures to support, so extremists found their own strong figures to take charge instead.

If we were to try again, it would need to be slower, and more calculated rather than just straight fucking shit up.

We'd have to install a Pro-US figure that was also local, and respected by people across the nation. Then, slowly pull the military out, and push that figure in. It could take up to 30 years to make it stable.

Instead install a quality leader who actually wants to help his people, and support him extensively. Now there is a leader who is happy with the US, and will still stand up for his people.

[The South Falls]

We'd have to install a Pro-US figure that was also local, and respected by people across the nation. Then, slowly pull the military out, and push that figure in. It could take up to 30 years to make it stable.

It could, but I think that's largely dependent on the figure.

If they were truly local and respected, we could probably set up a small installation like we have in Germany and pull out most troops pretty quick. Send advisers to help with establishing the new leader's government.

We did that with West Germany, yes. But right now, we shouldn't just go in. Iran will back down, they know what we're saying is what the US is most likely planning.

[NeuPolska]

We'd have to install a Pro-US figure that was also local, and respected by people across the nation. Then, slowly pull the military out, and push that figure in. It could take up to 30 years to make it stable.

Instead install a quality leader who actually wants to help his people, and support him extensively. Now there is a leader who is happy with the US, and will still stand up for his people.

This is all very subjective. "Actually wants to help his people" is a terrible descriptor. Adolf Hitler actually wanted to help his people.

It could, but I think that's largely dependent on the figure.

If they were truly local and respected, we could probably set up a small installation like we have in Germany and pull out most troops pretty quick. Send advisers to help with establishing the new leader's government.

We did that with West Germany, yes. But right now, we shouldn't just go in. Iran will back down, they know what we're saying is what the US is most likely planning.

Oh yes, of course. This is all just hypothetical thought in the case of Iran actually starting something.

[Erdogan in cool sunglasses]

As an Iranian, I support this wholeheartedly. (Also, Iran was called Iran when it was under a US Sympathizer. Persia was before that)

Persia is a better name imo. Much more connected to tradition and ancestry. Sounds more exotic as well, so that's a plus.

Iran is called Iran not Persia not because of someone's will but because there are a bunch of different peoples (like Kurds, Baluchis, Lurs, Azerbeijanis and other Persian Turks) of which Persians are not the most populous and the shah in 20s didn't want them to see themselves as conquered people but like equal to Persians. Also Persia is a international nickname derived by somewhat deaf Greeks, while Iran ( "land of the Aryans") is an indigenous name which was always used in Iran.

[Berdan]

Yeah, lets install someone as leader on the sole basis of them being popular and Pro-America, and make sure that they stay in power for at least three decades. That's a good way to make the nation love us and not see us as the enforcers of the Dictator-of-the-week.

You have a better idea?

Yeah, its called "Lets just speed along the fail of Iran's economy, let its government fail, and offer an olive branch to their replacement"- you know, instead of giving the Iranian people yet another memory of American soldiers bearing our flag coming in as invaders, and occupying the country until a foreign-backed Dictator took power.

How would you feel about Russia if Russia were to invade your country, prop up a popular public figure as Dictator, and stage a violent occupation of your country for 30 years while their autocratic pro-Russia government was cemented?

[NeuPolska]

Persia is a better name imo. Much more connected to tradition and ancestry. Sounds more exotic as well, so that's a plus.

Iran is called Iran not Persia not because of someone's will but because there are a bunch of different peoples (like Kurds, Baluchis, Lurs, Azerbeijanis and other Persian Turks) of which Persians are not the most populous and the shah in 20s didn't want them to see themselves as conquered people but like equal to Persians. Also Persia is a international nickname derived by somewhat deaf Greeks, while Iran ( "land of the Aryans") is an indigenous name which was always used in Iran.

I've already gotten brainblasted with this, but thank you.

[Firaxin]

Instead install a quality leader who actually wants to help his people, and support him extensively. Now there is a leader who is happy with the US, and will still stand up for his people.

This is all very subjective. "Actually wants to help his people" is a terrible descriptor. Adolf Hitler actually wanted to help his people.

He exterminated several of his own citizens, and encouraged class collaboration. Sorry, I don't see that as wanting to help his people.

[Frievolk]

This is all very subjective. "Actually wants to help his people" is a terrible descriptor. Adolf Hitler actually wanted to help his people.

He exterminated several of his own citizens, and encouraged class collaboration. Sorry, I don't see that as wanting to help his people.

Germans have a different definition of what makes a person a citizen. Hitler just took that to its logical conclusion.

[NeuPolska]

You have a better idea?

Yeah, its called "Lets just speed along the fail of Iran's economy, let its government fail, and offer an olive branch to their replacement"- you know, instead of giving the Iranian people yet another memory of American soldiers bearing our flag coming in as invaders, and occupying the country until a foreign-backed Dictator took power.

How would you feel about Russia if Russia were to invade your country, prop up a popular public figure as Dictator, and stage a violent occupation of your country for 30 years while their autocratic pro-Russia government was cemented?

That's not as easy as you seem to think. With Russia as an ally, Iran could last for a very long time, especially as Russia becomes more aggressive and influential, as it is now.

As an American, that would not happen, unless we were really fucked. It's different when you're taking about two major powers. As a Pole, we've had actually had this exact scenario happen to us. We also understand that we're stuck between two alliances so we chose the one that supported freedom, where our economy and people could prosper.

[NeuPolska]

He exterminated several of his own citizens, and encouraged class collaboration. Sorry, I don't see that as wanting to help his people.

Germans have a different definition of what makes a person a citizen. Hitler just took that to its logical conclusion.

Exactly.

He certainly didn't view Jews or homosexuals or the mentally ill as his people. His people were the Germans who contributed towards the Wehrmacht.

[Berdan]

Yeah, its called "Lets just speed along the fail of Iran's economy, let its government fail, and offer an olive branch to their replacement"- you know, instead of giving the Iranian people yet another memory of American soldiers bearing our flag coming in as invaders, and occupying the country until a foreign-backed Dictator took power.

How would you feel about Russia if Russia were to invade your country, prop up a popular public figure as Dictator, and stage a violent occupation of your country for 30 years while their autocratic pro-Russia government was cemented?

That's not as easy as you seem to think. With Russia as an ally, Iran could last for a very long time, especially as Russia becomes more aggressive and influential, as it is now.

As an American, that would not happen, unless we were really fucked. It's different when you're taking about two major powers. As a Pole, we've had actually had this exact scenario happen to us. We also understand that we're stuck between two alliances so we chose the one that supported freedom, where our economy and people could prosper.

So what you are saying is that instead of simply diplomatically keeping Iran contained to its current sphere, we should straight-up invade it over a minor provocation and risk all-out nuclear war? The first World War began with the international response to the invasion of the tiny slavic nation of Serbia. How likely do you think it would be if a nuclear war between the US and Iran were to occur?

[Azurius]

Traditionally, Iran was always called Iran by Iranians. Persia was just the retarded Greco-Roman term for it because they tended to put the name of ethnicities on the places they lived in. (Persians being the ethnicity Greco-Romans had to deal with the most often)
If you read about it, Even before Islam, The Persian Empire was always called "Iranshahr" (ایرانشهر) rather than Persia (which is only a single province, or rather a single region, in the geographic Greater Iran)

Huh, interesting, I wasn't aware of this. Thank you for the knowledge.

Maybe you´d see more growth and results if you held up your treaties and stopped sanctioning and bombing the shit out of the middle east every few years. You´d see a lot less american hating radicals as well.

Oh yeah you mean like in the 20th century? They adopt our ways like they did back then and 50 years later you have the audacity to criticize them for that because our own values changed? Lmao.

As of such i´d advise the middle east in fact not to adopt western ways. Nor sign on any treaty dashed out by America.

Also a nice way to go to destroy the last bit of reputation through decades of propaganda you americans had in the ME.

If life sucks so much that they can't grow, then any competent leader could take the steps necessary to encourage growth if they wanted it. The current state of leadership in the ME is corrupt and self-serving. There's no real interest in developing a proper military nor a functioning society. They have the choice between the United States or Russia/China. Most seem to choose Russia due to the fact that their governments are the most similar to each other, and they obviously don't want to relinquish any of their autocratic power.

Tbf our values were much better as a whole back in 1940-1960.

Then the Middle East should fall to Russian influence?

You're not mentioning Russia's influence at all. All I'm hearing is "hurr durr America sucks" while conveniently ignoring that the ME would be even more backwards if Russia was allowed to have its way.

Okay so: The world can then just carpet bomb the shit out of America constantly, and if your economy then collapses we´ll be: "Tough luck buddies, if you can´t grow it´s because you lack the competence, no it´s not because we constantly embargo, exploit and carpet bomb you, no surely not. So we will continue with the bombing then."

It is in most countries in the ME at least yes. However I fail to see any difference to America or most countries in Eastern Europe for that matter. Also you set these corrupt regimes up lmao. And now you blame the ME for it? Yeah seems legit, and totally not insane...


This is a really ridicilious and very ill informed statement, either that or a cheap try of pure propaganda. Please explain how the cultures and even regimes of the ME and Russia are in any way similiar? One is an oligarchy with democracy on paper, the others are mostly ran by oligarchic monarchs. The later, the case of Russia, in fact being very close to America(and much closer in culture as well). Americas democracy is only on paper too which is why it is dubbed an "incomplete democracy" and unfortunately overran by oligarchic structures that hold practically all political power in America by now. As said this statement is really ridicilious and by now I am starting to think you just try to make up random excuses to justify your warmongering and enabling of dictatorships and undermining of fair and free trade.

And maybe they trade with Russia so much because Russia at least doesn´t backstab them and carpet bomb them all the time? Did that thought ever occur your mind in your blind modus of american superiority? I guess not.

I see, so you support conservative values. Why do you hate the ME so much then? They adopted and largely still live these ultra conservative values you like so much. I see, it´s because "they´re not christian" obviously.

So let me get that straight: In order for a nation to be under your own influence, your only way of achieving that is by eforcing your culture on them...? Wow. Worst diplomacy ever and pure warmongering and racism. Hell this borderlines on genocide. Maybe you should first look up what diplomacy means and how it is supposed to work and then work out better, cheaper and less destructive ways of removing russian influence. But wait, then you would lose your own monopolies and semi-colonies, and America can´t let that happen right? Typical.

America and people like you = Dictators cloaked in the mantle of democracy since they lack the guts to openly admit their fascist ways.

And a nice try of a strawman here to undermine your lacking arguments and self contradictions. So, first of all the West is now suddenly "America"? Okay... You know the world doesn´t stop and end with the north american continent, nor does the west begin and stop there either.

Secondly we are talking about the wests and trumps policies here, not russias. Also a nice try to shift the blame from yourself onto someone else. Stay on topic and adress your shoddy, warmongering diplomacy please.

[Erdogan in cool sunglasses]

He exterminated several of his own citizens, and encouraged class collaboration. Sorry, I don't see that as wanting to help his people.

Germans have a different definition of what makes a person a citizen. Hitler just took that to its logical conclusion.

And he believed he he was helping his people. But he believed some other things which are dumb from our perspective. For example he thought that population of Germany exceed 120 millions in 50s and if he hadn't start the whole drang nach osten, the nation will starve because of lack of food. And starvation was still a real problem of Europe by the time.

[Azurius]

We tried to do this in Iraq. It failed miserably. Just look at it this way. Western values will not go down well with those people. Rebellion all the time. We saw it with Iraq. And Pakistan.

We just didn't have any strong figures to support, so extremists found their own strong figures to take charge instead.

If we were to try again, it would need to be slower, and more calculated rather than just straight fucking shit up.

How come that most of these "own" strong figures were and are US puppets?

[Baalkistann]

Sounds like good target practice for the American Navy

[Azurius]

Yeah, lets install someone as leader on the sole basis of them being popular and Pro-America, and make sure that they stay in power for at least three decades. That's a good way to make the nation love us and not see us as the enforcers of the Dictator-of-the-week.

You have a better idea?

How about stop the embargoes, drop your provocative attitude on the political world stage, stop carpet bombing them and just leave them the fuck alone for once?

[Thermodolia]

I mean yeah it fucked up the country as a whole but that was a fantastic victory for the Coalition.

Taking out Iran would be a great strategic move against Russia and therefore China as well.

Until we’re stuck in Iran for 8 years

Minor issues

[Thermodolia]

Agreed. The small-boat issue was a lesson the USN was slow to pick up on: it took the bombing of the USS Cole to get the train in motion, and the bombing of the MV Limburg off Yemen to kick it even more into gear. MC02 underscored the threat even more. There have also been a number of incidents since then (the January 2008 incident involving the USS Hopper, USS Ingraham, and USS Port Royal comes to mind, but there have been others).

To its credit, though, the USN has been investing heavily into countering this danger. New platforms such as the MQ-4C Triton, P-8 Poseidon, and RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile have come online since 2002. There's also the ongoing effort with ship-mounted lasers for use against small boats, the Littoral Combat Ship, and more.

Sourcing: Former USN Operational Intelligence Analyst (2007-2013). Spent 10 months on deployment in the Northern Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf, from 2007-2008.

The point isn't "now we can cover small boat threats". The point is the arrogance of thinking always "we are ready now", when, as every military in history, you're always ready for the last war that happened, and not for the next one.

Right and Italians where never ready for any war

[Azurius]

Yeah, its called "Lets just speed along the fail of Iran's economy, let its government fail, and offer an olive branch to their replacement"- you know, instead of giving the Iranian people yet another memory of American soldiers bearing our flag coming in as invaders, and occupying the country until a foreign-backed Dictator took power.

How would you feel about Russia if Russia were to invade your country, prop up a popular public figure as Dictator, and stage a violent occupation of your country for 30 years while their autocratic pro-Russia government was cemented?

That's not as easy as you seem to think. With Russia as an ally, Iran could last for a very long time, especially as Russia becomes more aggressive and influential, as it is now.

As an American, that would not happen, unless we were really fucked. It's different when you're taking about two major powers. As a Pole, we've had actually had this exact scenario happen to us. We also understand that we're stuck between two alliances so we chose the one that supported freedom, where our economy and people could prosper.

How come that happened and still keeps happening all the fucking time? A pretty bad excuse to yet again implement such a failed policy.

Well you as poles, were not exploited or oil embargoed, in fact you received some initial subsidies. Something the people in the middle east didn´t. Besides Poland is currently slipping back to autocracy, they just removed the indepedent judicary last year, so de-facto Poland is not a democracy anymore and lacks free courts ever since 2017 again. So no rolemodel i´d show off if I were you.

[Firaxin]

The best option if we have to go to war is to annex them. There, now they can be confident in the fact that we care for them because we actually will, and we won't have to worry about them anymore.