Iran

[Buckshot Bear]

Wishing Iran the best of luck for the outcome that they need. 

[John Kloehr]

2 weeks is a long time for protests to continue in Iran, I expected state response to quell it by now looking at previous patterns.

 

At this point, various reports are close to 500 protesters dead, 11,000 detained, perhaps over 100 police/military deaths. Difficult to judge truth with the Internet and telco blackout.

 

Compared to 2022, the Amini protests did last longer (months which was unusual), with about 500 dead and 20,000 detained. The Internet shutdown at that time was for the outside world, this time the Intranet (internal networks) seem to also be shut down or at least more severely restricted. Considering casualty counts to date and the short time (2 weeks), this event does seem more serious.

[Chantry]

I'm thinking there are those in current government leadership positions that are going to be dead in the next day or grabbed by Special Operations.  News sources are saying that Iran is planning on executing thousands, considered traitor on Wednesday.  Trump isn't capable of allowing that to happen without trying to help.

[Eyesa Horg]

Are we just wanting to run the world? What the heck is up with picking a fight with Greenland now, they don't seem to bother anybody. Geez!

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

Greenland ?  What did I miss this time?

[Eyesa Horg]

Our Pres. wants to buy Greenland. He said if they don't cooperate military and economic actions would be on the table! 

[ShadowCatcher]

Without getting into an evaluation of the Presidents bargaining technique, there are very sound reasons for pursuing

control of Greenland, and this is not the first time a US president has desired that, I believe going back to the 

time of Teddy Roosevelt. 

 

If you look at a polar view map and take into consideration the continuously improved accessibility of the trans-polar

routes it makes strategic sense to have complete control of that area.  We'll see how it plays out in the long run, and 

whether the people of Greenland want to become a protectorate, a territory, or eve a state.  The 65K people there 

should have the ultimate decision, but we do have a treaty or two that allows us to build as much military infrastructure

as we need.

 

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

4 minutes ago, ShadowCatcher said:

Without getting into an evaluation of the Presidents bargaining technique, there are very sound reasons for pursuing

control of Greenland, and this is not the first time a US president has desired that, I believe going back to the 

time of Teddy Roosevelt. 

 

If you look at a polar view map and take into consideration the continuously improved accessibility of the trans-polar

routes it makes strategic sense to have complete control of that area.  We'll see how it plays out in the long run, and 

whether the people of Greenland want to become a protectorate, a territory, or eve a state.  The 65K people there 

should have the ultimate decision, but we do have a treaty or two that allows us to build as much military infrastructure

as we need.

 

 

From what I read and understand is FDR took over security in Greenland during WW2, Denmark couldn’t defend the land. When the war was over Denmark came back. So why does Denmark have any more right to it than us? Trump likes to rattle cages, when asked he said military action is not off the table. I don’t believe for a second he would invade that country. He’s trying to make a deal with them from what I understand. There’s only 56,000 people there. I think He’s trying to buy them off. 😂😂

[Chantry]

1 hour ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Are we just wanting to run the world? What the heck is up with picking a fight with Greenland now, they don't seem to bother anybody. Geez!

 

In many cases we already are.  Twice we went to Europe's aid and after WWII, we were the only major participant in the war that had a truly functioning economy left after the war.  The very short version, the US directly or indirectly controlled large chunks of the world and we found it was better for other countries to react to us versus us than reacting to them..  I don't expect long campaigns with boots on the ground, like Afghanistan or Iraq.  I do expect repeats of Venezuela, in and out using overwhelming force against a target, person or country to achieve specific objectives.

[Chantry]

36 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

From what I read and understand is FDR took over security in Greenland during WW2, Denmark couldn’t defend the land. When the war was over Denmark came back. So why does Denmark have any more right to it than us? Trump likes to rattle cages, when asked he said military action is not off the table. I don’t believe for a second he would invade that country. He’s trying to make a deal with them from what I understand. There’s only 56,000 people there. I think He’s trying to buy them off. 😂😂

 

Adding a bit more detail, we took over protecting Iceland and Greenland, because the British needed their forces elsewhere.  The British had occupied Iceland, which has no military, when Denmark surrendered to the Germans.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

The United States has no earthly reason to intervene in Iran.  It's none of our business.  Intervention would tend to ignite another protracted religious conflict.  They can solve their own problems.

 

Greenland is a sovereign entity of Denmark.  Greenland is not ours for the taking.

 

What make anyone think our current leadership is going to pay any attention to any treaties??  Empire building anyone

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

10 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

The United States has no earthly reason to intervene in Iran.  It's none of our business.  Intervention would tend to ignite another protracted religious conflict.  They can solve their own problems.

 

Greenland is a sovereign entity of Denmark.  Greenland is not ours for the taking.

 

What make anyone think our current leadership is going to pay any attention to any treaties??  Empire building anyone

 

We want to help the people that are protesting and revolting in Iran against that dictatorship .
 

In the Greenland situation they’re trying to make a deal. No empire building just some deal making to keep Russia and China out of Greenland. Those countries may actually use military force to take it. That would cause a mess of a world war. 

Edited January 12 by Rye Miles #13621

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

I have seen no empirical data to suggest Russia or China are trying to "acquire" Greenland.  Just unsubstantiated political double speak.

 

I suppose, conversely, we should welcome anyone - any Forign entity to intervene and "help" those protesting ICE and their Gestapo tactics?? 

Edited January 12 by Colorado Coffinmaker
Wheeeeeeeee

[John Kloehr]

43 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

I have seen no empirical data to suggest Russia or China are trying to "acquire" Greenland.  Just unsubstantiated political double speak.

I have not seen this either. What I do see are lots of critical rare earth metal ores, and melting polar ice opening up shipping channels at the top. Items of interest to China, Russia, and the US.

[Rye Miles #13621]

1 hour ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

I have seen no empirical data to suggest Russia or China are trying to "acquire" Greenland.  Just unsubstantiated political double speak.

 

I suppose, conversely, we should welcome anyone - any Forign entity to intervene and "help" those protesting ICE and their Gestapo tactics?? 

They’ve got their eyes on Greenland, you better believe it. As was said there’s lots of minerals there.

 

Russia’s broader Arctic militarization (bases, submarines, air defenses) and China’s increased interest in Arctic routes and resources contribute to greater regional competition, which leads to heightened Western military presence and concern — but not direct Russian or Chinese military bases in Greenland’s waters themselves.

 

 

The ICE protests have nothing to do with this conversation! 

Edited January 12 by Rye Miles #13621

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

Sure they do Rye (the ICE Protests).  What's the difference pray tell?? 

 

You suggested WE should help the Iranian Protesters/Revolters against their government.

 

Same same, "Others" should be able to step in and help our Protesters in their struggle.  Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander.

[Rye Miles #13621]

16 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

Sure they do Rye (the ICE Protests).  What's the difference pray tell?? 

 

You suggested WE should help the Iranian Protesters/Revolters against their government.

 

Same same, "Others" should be able to step in and help our Protesters in their struggle.  Good for the Goose, Good for the Gander.

Help the protesters who are against ICE doing their job and picking up murderers and rapists and child molesters who are here illegally ? Are you out of your mind? Yes I believe you are! Better get some help buddy! 🙄🤪

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Oops, Soory Rye.  How about shooting people for no reason??  That ruffle you feathers too.  Expensive blinders you wear??

[DeaconKC]

She deliberately tried to run the officer over, almost every LE agency justifies use of deadly force to protect lives, including their own. 

So I guess now anyone can just run over someone they disagree with?

[Rye Miles #13621]

4 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Oops, Soory Rye.  How about shooting people for no reason??  That ruffle you feathers too.  Expensive blinders you wear??

She tried to run him down! That ICE agent thought his life was in danger! You’re the one with the blinders! Wake up man!

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

 

Sorry Deacon.  Video evidence to the contrary has been shown.  I have no quarrel with LE defending themselves and the population when in serious danger.  I've actually been there, done that.  things have just gotten out of hand.  ICE has shown they will apprehend anything that moves.

[Rip Snorter]

The benefits as a state or even a territory would be enormous and mutually beneficial.

[Rye Miles #13621]

5 minutes ago, Colorado Coffinmaker said:

 

Sorry Deacon.  Video evidence to the contrary has been shown.  I have no quarrel with LE defending themselves and the population when in serious danger.  I've actually been there, done that.  things have just gotten out of hand.  ICE has shown they will apprehend anything that moves.

Wrong again ! They’ve been picking up murderers and rapists like crazy! They’re doing their job! They’re cleaning up the mess from the last administration who let in millions of illegals!

Edited January 13 by Rye Miles #13621

[watab kid]

im all for greenland becoming the 51st state and after cuba falls it can be 52nd , 

[Trailrider #896]

7 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

From what I read and understand is FDR took over security in Greenland during WW2, Denmark couldn’t defend the land. When the war was over Denmark came back. So why does Denmark have any more right to it than us? Trump likes to rattle cages, when asked he said military action is not off the table. I don’t believe for a second he would invade that country. He’s trying to make a deal with them from what I understand. There’s only 56,000 people there. I think He’s trying to buy them off. 😂😂

IMHO, what will happen is that Trump will negotiate the ability to markedly increase our military bases on Greenland through leases with Denmark. The Danes must recognize the strategic importance of Greenland due to its presence as two vitally important choke points between the Atlantic and the Arctic. Look at ShadowCatcher's map. With increased air, naval and space assets, we can restrict or stop Russian and Chinese access. Troops-on-the-ground? Sure. Say hello to Thule and Blue West One plus others. 

[DeaconKC]

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

20 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Our Pres. wants to buy Greenland. He said if they don't cooperate military and economic actions would be on the table! 

Would that become a 51st state?  I would approve but I'm not sure Greenland would agree.  It would balance our nation's other island state with a startlingly different climate.

[Eyesa Horg]

24 minutes ago, DeaconKC said:

Isn't that interesting? Not being touted by the media however. Imagine that!

[Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680]

You're probably right that Trump's bluster about Greenland is a negotiating tactic, but it's a really really bad negotiating tactic. 

As far as ICE protests, why are you pretending that they're protesting the fact that ICE is doing their job when it's so obvious that what they're protesting is the way ICE is doing their job. When people protest police violence and the response is more police violence it sure makes it look like they're trying to provoke everybody past the breaking point until something happens so they can invoke the Insurrection Act. I'll believe I'm wrong about that as soon as they start to ratchet it down. 

As far as the shooting, if you watch her back up with the wheel to the left and then start to drive with the wheel turned to the right to avoid him and think she's trying to hit him, then you're just being silly. That's just talking about her intent though, and doesn't cover whether he has reason to fear when the car starts moving forward. For that self defense argument you have to remember that policy and training says he shouldn't get in front of the car and there's only certain situations when you can fire at a moving car. You also have to remember that about 10 years ago there was a study that found border patrol agents were stepping in front of cars as an excuse to pull their guns and force people to stop, and that he was in border patrol at the time. You also have to remember that last year Supreme Court ruled that you have to use "totality of circumstance" instead of "moment of threat" so you can't create your own danger and then use it to claim self defense. Still, no matter what you think about the first shot there's no credible claim for self defense on the second and third shot fired through the window from the side. Backing the blue is supposed to mean supporting every good shoot and expecting accountability for every bad shoot. 

[Rye Miles #13621]

1 minute ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

You're probably right that Trump's bluster about Greenland is a negotiating tactic, but it's a really really bad negotiating tactic. 

As far as ICE protests, why are you pretending that they're protesting the fact that ICE is doing their job when it's so obvious that what they're protesting is the way ICE is doing their job. When people protest police violence and the response is more police violence it sure makes it look like they're trying to provoke everybody past the breaking point until something happens so they can invoke the Insurrection Act. I'll believe I'm wrong about that as soon as they start to ratchet it down. 

As far as the shooting, if you watch her back up with the wheel to the left and then start to drive with the wheel turned to the right to avoid him and think she's trying to hit him, then you're just being silly. That's just talking about her intent though, and doesn't cover whether he has reason to fear when the car starts moving forward. For that self defense argument you have to remember that policy and training says he shouldn't get in front of the car and there's only certain situations when you can fire at a moving car. You also have to remember that about 10 years ago there was a study that found border patrol agents were stepping in front of cars as an excuse to pull their guns and force people to stop, and that he was in border patrol at the time. You also have to remember that last year Supreme Court ruled that you have to use "totality of circumstance" instead of "moment of threat" so you can't create your own danger and then use it to claim self defense. Still, no matter what you think about the first shot there's no credible claim for self defense on the second and third shot fired through the window from the side. Backing the blue is supposed to mean supporting every good shoot and expecting accountability for every bad shoot. 

You certainly have the right to your opinion even if you’re wrong! 🙄

[Eyesa Horg]

Bottom line, if she wasn't there obstructing law enforcement, she likely wouldn't be in a funeral home now. Another that didn't understand "STOP".

[Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680]

4 minutes ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

You certainly have the right to your opinion even if you’re wrong! 🙄

I think the only part of my post that was opinion is whether it's a really bad negotiating tactic and why people are protesting, the rest of it sounds more like facts than opinion. If my opinions are wrong feel free to explain why in a way that makes any sense. If any of my facts are wrong that will be easy to research and change my mind. 

[Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680]

3 minutes ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Bottom line, if she wasn't there obstructing law enforcement, she likely wouldn't be in a funeral home now. Another that didn't understand "STOP".

I sure wish people would stop saying it's ok if protesting leads to death. 

[Eyesa Horg]

1 minute ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

I sure wish people would stop saying it's ok if protesting leads to death. 

I'm not saying it's ok, just making an obvious point. To me it's no longer a peaceful protest when you start interfering with law enforcement. Had she just opened the door as asked when she blocked law enforcement, she'd still be here. Risks and consequences. Just like the angel Floyd. Not saying the officers were right or wrong, just saying she and he put themselves in the line of danger and lost. 

It's pretty likely that I will never be shot by a cop for the above reasons, I won't be interfering with them.

[Eyesa Horg]

Similar to the many thousands of miles I drove a motorcycle without a helmet. If I crashed and broke my skull, it's no one's fault but my own. Risks/decisions and  consequences.