The Coming War with Iran

AManLikePutin

Kingfisher
^ But you called the Islamic Republic as "nationalist" government. Come on, what sort of nationalism is that?

And 90% of my family still live in Iran and they share the same frustrations and views. And yes, I know the regime has its goons and supporters too. I know you have a hard-on for the so-called "Russia/Syria/IR/China alliance", but every country's case is unique and it's very lazy assumption to shove them all in one basket and see it at one go. If anything, Assad's regime has a lot more parallels with that of the Shah...than of IR, by the way.

Your black and white world view consists of Iran's options being only:
1- being ruled by Ayatollah and their fucking shitty regime for life
2- being leveled by foreign power to appease the neocons

Thankfully, in real life, there are other options than those 2 nightmare scenarios. Time will tell and hopefully, my people will prove me right.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
Yes AManLikePutin, we get it - The Islamic Republic is a terrible country. I agree. Does that mean we should be trying to invade it, or gently no-fly-zone it, in order to force it into regime change? Hell no. Just look at Libya - it was a shitty dictatorship for sure, but it sure beats the open-air slave markets, no water, no electricity, no food, marauding gangs raping and dismembering people at will.

Iran has to fix itself at some point, and the more US "assists" it, whether by Predator drones or by propaganda, the less likely is it to ever happen.
 

Handsome Creepy Eel

Owl
Gold Member
911 said:
(Patton discussion)
Thanks for all this great information, I didn't know that it was that easily doable. However, I still think that USA should never stoop to the low of backstabbing its ally, even if it's a country as bad as Soviet Union.

The true battle the USA lost was not in Europe, but at home. The USA today is edging towards a communist dictatorship year by year, and it's not the fault of Soviet Union.
 

AManLikePutin

Kingfisher
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
Yes AManLikePutin, we get it - The Islamic Republic is a terrible country. I agree. Does that mean we should be trying to invade it, or gently no-fly-zone it, in order to force it into regime change? Hell no. Just look at Libya - it was a shitty dictatorship for sure, but it sure beats the open-air slave markets, no water, no electricity, no food, marauding gangs raping and dismembering people at will.

Iran has to fix itself at some point, and the more US "assists" it, whether by Predator drones or by propaganda, the less likely is it to ever happen.
God bless you.

That's my point....the options to live aren't just "endure the shittiness" or "be bombed to democracy".

No invasion, never and under any circumstances, but that doesn't mean the alternative is sucking off the IR and pretending they are great and "nationalist" and are "preserving Persian culture."

The only people who can help Iranians, are Iranians themselves. The majority of them know it too.
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
AManLikePutin said:
Thankfully, in real life, there are other options than those 2 nightmare scenarios. Time will tell and hopefully, my people will prove me right.
I don't know if this is the case or not. The only countries in this world who are truly able to resist the US/Israel imperialism is Russia and China. And I am not even certain if they can resist it much longer with CIA staged protests + globohomo dopamine distractions.

These might be the only two choices, in fact, it looks like this is the only two choices. The regime you have, or the loss of your culture, your homeland, and soon your people replaced and written out of history like we are seeing in across the west right now.

You keep saying Americans don't know what it is like to live under harsh conditions. This is not true at all, Conditions in the USA are tough and getting far worse every day. Iranians, under this regime will survive. The descendants of the American settlers will not. In 100 years Iran will be Iran under control of Iranians. In 100 years the USA will be a real violent version of Brazil.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
AManLikePutin said:
^ But you called the Islamic Republic as "nationalist" government. Come on, what sort of nationalism is that?

And 90% of my family still live in Iran and they share the same frustrations and views. And yes, I know the regime has its goons and supporters too. I know you have a hard-on for the so-called "Russia/Syria/IR/China alliance", but every country's case is unique and it's very lazy assumption to shove them all in one basket and see it at one go. If anything, Assad's regime has a lot more parallels with that of the Shah...than of IR, by the way.

Your black and white world view consists of Iran's options being only:
1- being ruled by Ayatollah and their fucking shitty regime for life
2- being leveled by foreign power to appease the neocons

Thankfully, in real life, there are other options than those 2 nightmare scenarios. Time will tell and hopefully, my people will prove me right.
Nationalism without a national religion is doomed to failure (see Hitler's occult-inspired Nazis.) Shia Islam is Iran's national religion, that strain was fostered for nationalist reasons, to stand out from the Sunni muslims all around Iran. What percentage of Iranians consider their religion to be foreign, as you seem to?

Assad's regime is a tribal Alawite regime, originally only nationalist in name, and resented by the majority of Syrians. Assad married into the Sunni community and only took on the mantle of nationalism later on, towards teh middle of the decade, once the country was overrun by foreign salafists. Syrian Christians and most Sunnis rallied with him once they understood what the other option was, the jihadi caliphate and a broken country.

I basically agree with your take on the need for organic change, I think the current Iranian regime will mellow out once the young generation starts taking over leadership positions in 10-20 years, this is a demographic reality:



This will coincide with China taking over the region economically, so the geopolitical picture will be pretty different then. The same dynamics happened in Vietnam and China, who had regimes that were far more brutal and repressive than Iran's and have since moved to more pragmatic and prosperous governments following their natural cultural paths.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Handsome Creepy Eel said:
911 said:
(Patton discussion)
Thanks for all this great information, I didn't know that it was that easily doable. However, I still think that USA should never stoop to the low of backstabbing its ally, even if it's a country as bad as Soviet Union.

The true battle the USA lost was not in Europe, but at home. The USA today is edging towards a communist dictatorship year by year, and it's not the fault of Soviet Union.
The US would have done an enormous favor to the people of eastern Europe and even to Russians by pushing back the Soviets, it wouldn't be backstabbing an ally. Back then they were only 10-20 years removed from the worst of the domestic Bolshevik genocide and domestic support for the overthrow of the Soviets would have been strong.

It was precisely because the Soviets were propped by the deep state that they've managed to hold on till the late 20th century.

The backstabbing took place in the West, with figures like Victor Rothschild, who was the head of that banking dynasty, and a leading Soviet agent:

The Fifth Man, by the Australian author Roland Perry, claims to prove that Victor Rothschild stole 'all major UK/US weapons developments in the Second World War', including biological warfare, the atomic bomb and radar.

Specifically, he alleges that Rothschild, not Klaus Fuchs, or, as is generally believed, the civil servant John Cairncross, first alerted Stalin to Allied plans to build an atom bomb using plutonium 235.

Perry also claims that Rothschild, who died in 1990, was involved 'in so many aspects of spying that he seemed like a super-agent, sabotaging every Western intelligence initiative for 20 years after the war'.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rothschild-spied-as-the-fifth-man-1444440.html

etween 1935 and 1963, the Soviet Union knew all of Britain's military and scientific secrets thanks to "The Cambridge Five" a spy ring that operated in M1-5, MI-6 and the Foreign Office. Western intelligence agencies were rendered ineffective and Allied secrets, including the design of the atomic bomb, were stolen.

The traitors were Kim Philby, Donald Maclean, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt. But there is a natural reluctance to admit that "the Fifth Man" was Nathaniel Meyer Victor Rothschild (1910-1990), the Third Baron Rothschild, the British head of the world's richest banking dynasty, which controls the Bank of England.

In 1993, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, six retired KGB Colonels in Moscow confirmed Rothschild's identity to Roland Perry. Col. Yuri Modin, the spy ring's handler, went on the record.

The Rothschilds are undoubtedly the largest shareholders in the world's central banking system. Victor Rothschild's career as Soviet agent confirms that these London-based bankers plan to translate their monopoly on credit into a monopoly on everything using government as their instrument, ultimately a "world government" dictatorship akin to Communism.

It adds credence to the claim the Rothschilds were behind the Bolshevik Revolution, and used the Cold War and more recently the 9-11 hoax and bogus "War on Terror" to advance their world hegemony.

Which is more plausible? One of the richest men in the world, Victor Rothschild espoused Communist ideals so that his own fabulous wealth and position could be taken away?

Or that Communism in fact was a deception designed to take away our wealth and freedom in the name of "equality" and "brotherhood"?

...Rothschild was a personal friend of Winston Churchill. Perry writes:

"The two socialized often during the war years. Rothschild used his wealth and position to invite the prime minister to private parties. His entree to the wartime leader, plus access to all the key intelligence information, every major weapons development and his command of counter-sabotage operations in Britain, made Rothschild a secretly powerful figure during the war years...The result was that Stalin knew as much as Churchill about vital information, often before the British High Command was informed."

Rothschild helped neutralize enemies of the Soviet Union who came to the British for support. For example, he was involved in the cover-up of the assassination of Polish war leader and British ally Wladyslaw Sikorski, whose plane was blown up in July 1944. Sikorski had become burdensome to Stalin after he discovered the KGB had massacred 16,000 Polish officers in the Katyn Woods and elsewhere in 1940.

Victor Rothschild held many jobs that served to disguise his true role which I suspect was that of a member of the Illuminati Grand Council. (The Illuminati represent the highest rank of Freemasonry.) He was not a lowly agent. He probably gave orders to people like Winston Churchill, FDR and Stalin.

For example, he ensured that the USSR supported the establishment of the State of Israel. "He knew the proper back-channels to reach decision-makers in Moscow," a KGB Colonel told Perry. "Let us just say, he got things done. You only did that if you reached the top. He was very persuasive." (176)

...Rothschild and Churchill were inseparable during W.W.II. The bankers bought Churchill's services in W.W.II for a recorded £50,000 to lobby for total war with Germany, and in W.W.1 Churchill had a bank account in the name of 'Colonel Arden,' to accept these secret donations.

The fact that Rothschild was protected until his death suggests this is a ruling class conspiracy.

James Perloff:

I read Perry's book years ago; it was very enlightening, and further affirmed the intimacy between bankers and communists. The Fabian Society's Nicholas Murray Butler explained it well in 1937: "Communism is the instrument with which the financial world can topple national governments and then erect a world government with a world police and a world money."

The Protocols of Zion also affirmed it: "We appear on the scene as alleged saviors of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - Socialists, Anarchists, Communists . . . . By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with their hands shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."

The only reason Victor Rothschild gave Britain's World War 2 nuclear secrets to the USSR instead of Israel: Israel did not yet exist! The Soviet Union was the Rothschilds' first proxy state. But with the establishment of their REAL proxy state--Israel--in 1948, the Soviets became expendable. So we had the Cold War, which gave the Zionists a pretext for building up and weaponizing Israel as our "ally."

Then, in the mid 1980s, the Rothschilds were ready to have America switch its enemies. In 1985, Gorbachev came to power, signalling the end of the Cold War, and in 1986 Reagan bombed Libya based on a Mossad ruse, marking the start of the "War on Terror." After all, the goyim couldn't very well die fighting Muslims for Israel in Middle East wars if the dreaded Commies were still a threat.
https://www.henrymakow.com/2018/12/Was-Victor-Rothschild-a-Soviet-Agent.html
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
Blaster said:
What if it is?
You are asking "what if it is a war crime?".

When you don't treat your enemies with dignity/civility you can't respect any in return. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things in life and the wrong way will never work over the long term and will come back to haunt you.
 

Blaster

Ostrich
Gold Member
Incidentally, I am asking pointed questions about assassination because you are speaking in generalities. The term War Crimes is a loaded term that includes mass murder of civilian non-combatants and other extreme atrocities. Assassinating a high-ranking general is a very different category of crime than say, killing almost everyone in a village and raping anyone left alive. It should be discussed in its own context, not a vague appeal to legality-is-morality.
 

It_is_my_time

Hummingbird
Blaster said:
Incidentally, I am asking pointed questions about assassination because you are speaking in generalities. The term War Crimes is a loaded term that includes mass murder of civilian non-combatants and other extreme atrocities. Assassinating a high-ranking general is a very different category of crime than say, killing almost everyone in a village and raping anyone left alive. It should be discussed in its own context, not a vague appeal to legality-is-morality.
I'm not using the term in a general context. I am using it in a specific context. That context is that it is against the Geneva Convention to assassinate a foreign dignitary who is no threat to you. This General was invited by the Iraqi govt. to discuss peace talks. To assassinate him under these conditions and admit he is no threat is a war crime and very ugly precedent to set.

It doesn't even matter if Iran tries to do anything after this. They might or they might not. The precedent is set. The USA is now known to commit war crimes and even boast about it. Trump and his family have top notch security and will be safe. The rest of us don't and for our brave men deployed overseas it paints a bigger target on them. It was beyond a boneheaded move. But I guess we can see this whole thing is starting to crumble, so it was a boneheaded move when it was already too late anyway, and maybe it really will not matter.
 

Enigma

Hummingbird
Gold Member
911 said:
Nationalism without a national religion is doomed to failure (see Hitler's occult-inspired Nazis.) Shia Islam is Iran's national religion, that strain was fostered for nationalist reasons, to stand out from the Sunni muslims all around Iran. What percentage of Iranians consider their religion to be foreign, as you seem to?
Yet paragraphs later you use China and Vietnam, where the national religion is no religion, as examples of flourishing nationalism.

Even beyond the atheism, Vietnam is one of the most religiously confused countries on the planet, where a mishmash of Mahayana Buddhism, Taoism, and folk beliefs exist alongside Catholicism, weird syncretististic modern religions like Caodaism, and other odd modern creations like Haohaoism.

The examples are even more absurd when you consider that China has been a direct threat to Vietnamese nationalism for over 2,000 years, and continues to be one to this day.

Your entire worldview is incoherent. It has nothing to do with actual nationalism; you're just trading one form of imperialistic technocracy for another, because you think it will stick it to (((them))).

The irony of this all is that China and Israel's relationship only continues to deepen, as China invests billions into the country, particularly into Israeli tech. Even a simple search for "China Israel" would make this obvious. China will be running Israel's biggest port, in Haifa (where the US docks ships, mind you) starting in 2021. They're also building Tel Aviv's new, multi-billion dollar light rail system.

The Jews are so afraid of the "anti-globalist/zionist" Chinese that they're turning over half of their infrastructure to them.

I'm sure the Israelis are also furious about the giant railway (Belt and Road) that China is building right across the doorstep, as well. That'll be a huge blow to Israel's (((economy))).

Once they destroy it through ancient Eastern secrets, the Chinese, who write books on how to be more like Jews and are exterminating their Muslim population, will swoop in to bring peace to the Middle East, in their benevolence.
 

Goni

Robin
911 said:
Goni said:
911 said:
The Soviets would have collapsed well before 1991 without the financial support from the West, which also handed to them half of Europe on a platter after WW2, at a time when Patton, who didn't like that, could have easily taken back all of Eastern Europe without much opposition. Instead Patton was killed.

The current ayatollah regime was also propped up by the deep state in 1979, but since the 00s it's been on the regime change list.
It would be impossible for Patton to take over Eastern Europe.

Soviet Army was too strong , too numerous and heavily armed.

The men were also used much more to war than the Americans who used the massive industrial production to defeat the enemy , unlike the Soviets ( or unlike the Germans who used tactics, technology in small numbers im terms of production and bravery).

Patton was killed because he understood that the 3rd Reich was not the monster he was made the believe.

He understood the Jews were his masters and he was killed for that.

Pretty much like Kennedy.

Stalin was not under jewish control btw, or at least not entirely under their control.

He was an outcast.

His takeover òf power was not predicted. Trotsky was the one to become the Soviet leader.
Allied forces had 3,000 strategic bombers, complete air superiority, and nukes. As well the Soviets depended on Allied supplies on funds, weapons food products and key strategic items.

The Soviets were thousands of kms away from home and the US could have quickly taken out Soviet supply lines in a couple of weeks, grounding their armored brigades and air force. The Poles, Ukrainians, Hungarians would have cooperated, and the Soviet troops themselves had no animus towards Americans the same way they did towards the Germans.

Even without nukes, it would have been a mismatch, so much so that Stalin could have been forced to retreat to his 1945 USSR borders with just a bit of arm twisting. That was Patton's take as well:

Several months before the end of the war, General Patton had recognized the fearful danger to the West posed by the Soviet Union, and he had disagreed bitterly with the orders which he had been given to hold back his army and wait for the Red Army to occupy vast stretches of German, Czech, Rumanian, Hungarian, and Yugoslav territory, which the Americans could have easily taken instead.

On May 7, 1945, just before the German capitulation, Patton had a conference in Austria with U.S. Secretary of War Robert Patterson. Patton was gravely concerned over the Soviet failure to respect the demarcation lines separating the Soviet and American occupation zones. He was also alarmed by plans in Washington for the immediate partial demobilization of the U.S. Army.

Patton said to Patterson: "Let's keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened, and present a picture of force and strength to the Red Army. This is the only language they understand and respect."

Patterson replied, "Oh, George, you have been so close to this thing so long, you have lost sight of the big picture."

Patton rejoined: "I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof -- that's their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let's not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!"

...On May 18 he noted in his diary: "In my opinion, the American Army as it now exists could beat the Russians with the greatest of ease, because, while the Russians have good infantry, they are lacking in artillery, air, tanks, and in the knowledge of the use of the combined arms, whereas we excel in all three of these. If it should be necessary to right the Russians, the sooner we do it the better."

Two days later he repeated his concern when he wrote his wife: "If we have to fight them, now is the time. From now on we will get weaker and they stronger."
On Patton's assassination, which was done by Soviet agents with the tacit knowledge of Allied commanders:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...sm-of-allied-war-leaders-claims-new-book.html
Patton was a good general and a great man, but it does not mean he was right about the military strength of the Red Army.

Saying that allies were superior in terms of air force and artillery and that soviet supplies were chicken meat and cats is ridiculous.

Red Army had more than 17,000 armoured vehicles in 1945 of which more than 10,000 were tanks.

It had almost half of that number in terms of aircrafts. Does not matter how many bombers allies had, because everything was produced by the USA, industrial production of Britian was very small in comparison.

It had more than 8 million soldiers in the front, double size of the army of western powers in Europe.

Stalin had another 20 million russian slaves to be used as cattle every time. Why do you think so many Russians were killed in warfare against Germans? Besides german precission and skills, another reason was that Soviet leadership had no empathy for the loss of human life.

And artillery??

Thousands of pieces and technology of Katyushas was better than the western one.

No one was ready for a 3rd World War, people were devastated.

Btw, since this is a topic about Iran...

You said deep state wants Iran to be a backward country?

Since Iran is being valued in this thread for being a conservative country and holding against globalism, at the same time it is being called backward?

Also, how much sense does it make for the deep state to overthrow the Shah they put in power and place a regime hostile to the Deep State?

Or are you saying that the Deep State did not predict that?

Similair to Hitler who was initially financed by western industries but later on he turned to be a huge danger to them by the successful system he created and the war he was conducting against ((them))?

Btw Shah was a piece of shit. The deep state would not place on the top a descent man.

The Shah sold all the natural sources of Iran to the Deep State , he killed and imprisioned many people and during his time society got worse in terms of degeneration.

That is why this regime came in power in the first place
 

dicknixon72

Kingfisher
Goni said:
Patton was a good general and a great man, but it does not mean he was right about the military strength of the Red Army.

Saying that allies were superior in terms of air force and artillery and that soviet supplies were chicken meat and cats is ridiculous.

Red Army had more than 17,000 armoured vehicles in 1945 of which more than 10,000 were tanks.

It had almost half of that number in terms of aircrafts. Does not matter how many bombers allies had, because everything was produced by the USA, industrial production of Britian was very small in comparison.

It had more than 8 million soldiers in the front, double size of the army of western powers in Europe.

Stalin had another 20 million russian slaves to be used as cattle every time. Why do you think so many Russians were killed in warfare against Germans? Besides german precission and skills, another reason was that Soviet leadership had no empathy for the loss of human life.

And artillery??

Thousands of pieces and technology of Katyushas was better than the western one.

No one was ready for a 3rd World War, people were devastated.

Btw, since this is a topic about Iran...
You're making a lot of assumptions there.

Europe along with the Soviet Union was devastated by the war. Any industrial capacity the Soviets had that remained functioning during and after the war was thanks solely to the United States. Period.

Remember as well that the American "Fortress of Democracy" i.e. stateside remained 10% unscathed by the ravages of war, meaning a constant fresh supply of men, material, food, equipment, and raw resources.

No one possessed long-range bombers of any significance but the United States.

No one possessed the atomic bomb at that point besides the United States.

The Soviets would've been rout-able to a point where one well-placed atomic bomb would've convinced them to lay down arms and come to terms on OUR terms.

As far as technology? Katyushas? Really? Unguided artillery rockets fired in salvo? Okay. Very low-tech but effective in volume. And go look at preserved Katyushas on trucks - those trucks are American Dodges or Studabakers.
 

Yatagan

Pelican
Gold Member
Patton is an overhyped crank that lost several hundred men and 57 vehicles over some pea brained scheme to rescue his son-in-law that failed spectacularly. I'd take any assessment of his regarding the Soviets with a dump truck's worth of salt.

 
Top