Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion

James wrote: We know only too well how conflict can break bodies and souls.

Yes, but so do sanctions. A case can be made that prolonged sanctions lead to taking antisocial actions simply to stay alive. Sanctions wrecked the Iraqi economy and led to all sorts of corruption as well as starvation/death from lack of pharmaceuticals. The US claims it has been trying to repair the Iraqi economy over the past 17 years, but it has not succeeded, arguably because of its past actions. (Giving money to Haliburton hardly helped, though.) However, in many ways ISIS and the Shia militias have arisen because of these sanctions, and the attack that killed that contractor did not necessarily come through Iranian command; there are plenty of Iraqis that have lost loved ones thanks to US action and who now have no future and who may well have done that purely for personal revenge.

9 Things Americans Need to Know about General Soleimani’s Assassination https://geopoliticsalert.com/soleiman...

Baghdad (GPA) – It’s time to debunk the common misconceptions floating around and cover important points missing in most mainstream op-eds, analysis, and Tweets about General Qasem Soleimani, the US occupation of Iraq, and Washington’s 67-year aggression against Iran.

Iran is surrounded by US military bases and facilities. Here's a snapshot https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-0...

It would be wise if they desisted then. They could be vanquished in no time!

Ian wrote: "James wrote: We know only too well how conflict can break bodies and souls.

Yes, but so do sanctions. A case can be made that prolonged sanctions lead to taking antisocial actions simply to stay a..."

The sanctions had the reverse effect in that it also made people gravitate towards Bathist support, due to it causing a deeper gulf in 'haves and have nots'.

Also the Iraq war was pre-internet and propaganda and 'leaks' were far more contained and manageable, so a lot of the blame would have been focused and emphasized on 'The Great Satan(as they termed it).

"in many ways ISIS and the Shia militias have arisen because of these sanctions"

It was easy going to the party, not so much having to stay behind and clear-up . . . .

IN 2002, THE U.S. MILITARY CONDUCTED AN IRAN WAR SIMULATION AND IRAN WON #WARTHOGDEFENSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy9ZP...

James wrote: "9 Things Americans Need to Know about General Soleimani’s Assassination https://geopoliticsalert.com/soleiman......"

How do we know which of these is fake news?

Iain wrote: "IN 2002, THE U.S. MILITARY CONDUCTED AN IRAN WAR SIMULATION AND IRAN WON #WARTHOGDEFENSE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy9ZP..."

The argument is that the U.S. has had 17 years to develop tech and 17 years war experience since then. The counter argument is that Iran has also had 17 years to observe U.S. mistakes, strategy and tactics and to probe them via proxy . . . .

Alexis wrote: "How do we know which of these is fake news?..."

We don't.
Not with any news.
Which in my opinion is why it's important to remain "agnostic" and just take in all sides, but know that anything could be propaganda...

Iain wrote: "The argument is that the U.S. has had 17 years to develop tech and 17 years war experience since then. The counter argument is that Iran has also had 17 years to observe U.S. mistakes, strategy and tactics and to probe them via proxy . . . ...."

Depends how bad America wants it...or needs it.

For example, if US national security was actually on the line (hasn't ever been since 1945 in my assessment), then the likes of Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan could've all been sent back into the Stone Age in about a week! But it depends how committed America is to "winning at all costs"...Again, I don't think we have ever seen the US military fully committed since 1945...

Alexis wrote: "James wrote: "9 Things Americans Need to Know about General Soleimani’s Assassination https://geopoliticsalert.com/soleiman......"

Most of it is known, but some of it the mainstream omitted or brushes over.

1. Tell us something we don't know

2. Assassination at top level is usually frowned upon; there's a tacit agreement by leaders not to engage in this. Trump might have taken us back to the days of JFK?

3. That's true, but it also has logistical use for Afghanistan and could also be a convenient deployment to counter Russia via its soft underbelly in the Southern Caucus

4. They had no option

5. One day your friend, next day your enemy. Always been the way in the M.E.. Has much changed?

8. Iran actually helped aid the U.S. after 9/11 with intel on the Taliban and the region. It soured was cut off after Bush's Axis of Evil speech

9. Maybe they don't, they also don't understand that there's also internal power struggles in tandem to their external woes

Iain wrote: "Alexis wrote: "James wrote: "9 Things Americans Need to Know about General Soleimani’s Assassination https://geopoliticsalert.com/soleiman......"

While our eyes are on Iran, the actual longer-term strategy or one part of a multi-faceted strategy might be to strangle China or stem its ascension via an Iranian threat justification and need to be in the region or a counter to Russia?

The U.S. currently enjoys a much greater level of energy independence than that of the past . . . .

Energy dominance is leverage for US foreign relations

https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-en...

James wrote: "Iain wrote: "The argument is that the U.S. has had 17 years to develop tech and 17 years war experience since then. The counter argument is that Iran has also had 17 years to observe U.S. mistakes,..."

James wrote: "Iain wrote: "The argument is that the U.S. has had 17 years to develop tech and 17 years war experience since then. The counter argument is that Iran has also had 17 years to observe U.S. mistakes,..."

The Nazis and the Japanese mobilized their entire respective countries; the threat was that if Hitler took Europe and Hirohito took Asia, America was next to fall to invasion. The follow-up was that Stalin would fill the void post-Hitler too.

Vietnam was presented to the public as a war of proxy(Soviets) and ideology, i.e. communist(north) vs anti-communist(south); justification for Afghanistan was blamed on terrorists and specific regimes(Taliban) and the counter and removal of a 'dictator' was cited for the Iraq war(s).

The German and Japanese threat was national in scope and carried the risk of invasion, the threats post 1945 were more isolated and regional in their respective threat vectors and on the surface presented the peoples of these nations as being held captive by the prevailing powers of the day to the point it demanded their emancipation.

In addition, to the threat level, scope, enemy and terrain differing, the military carries out orders on behalf of governments that provide them and that brings a measure of constraint, protocol, intrinsic requirements and personal consequences.

Since 1945 the threats presented don't warrant or justify an all-out blitzkrieg on that level.

Iain wrote: "Since 1945 the threats presented don't warrant or justify an all-out blitzkrieg on that level. ..."

Agreed.
But that's what I'm saying re the US...it's in many ways a sleeping giant militarily, that you wouldn't want to prod. Given that it's been the dominant force in the post WW2 era without ever firing on all cylinders or anything close to that, you have to question what sort of war simulation would have Iran defeating the US!

James wrote: "Iain wrote: "Since 1945 the threats presented don't warrant or justify an all-out blitzkrieg on that level. ..."

Agreed.
But that's what I'm saying re the US...it's in many ways a sleeping giant ..."

That particular simulation had the results fudged by a U.S. general to make the outcome less severe!

The U.S. Can Only Lose in War With Iran

https://quincyinst.org/2020/01/03/the...

I'd give Iran a puncher's chance mate...

Think Eubank Jr vs a prime Sugar Ray Robinson :)

James wrote: "I'd give Iran a puncher's chance mate...

Think Eubank Jr vs a prime Sugar Ray Robinson :)"

I'd say more LaMotta vs SSR with 5-1 odds. :)

U.S. can easily win by 'sticking and moving' from distance, but if dragged into a raw and crude slugfest 'in the pocket', then they even the odds up to give the opp a chance.

Iran cannot win in the usual sense because it cannot get at the US, but the US can easily lose. After all, apart from the number of dead, it has come out worse off in all its other adventures in the ME. It can kill and it can create rubble at will, but if that is its objective, it is pretty pathetic.

As for Soleimani planning "imminent attacks against the US". several US senators from both parties have been recorded as saying the security briefing they were given showed no evidence whatsoever. Not even fake news! The accusation is merely another Trump blatant lie. Nobody takes much notice because such lies are so common.

Facebook admits censoring posts supporting slain Iranian General Qassem Soleimani - ABC News https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-1...

Social media giant Facebook has admitted to censoring posts in support of slain Iranian General Qassem Soleimani that it says violate US sanction laws, including posts from dozens of Iranian journalists and Instagram influencers.

In the days following the US drone strike that killed General Soleimani, thousands of Iranians flooded their social media accounts with tributes to the high-ranking General.

Many found their posts had been deleted for "violating community standards", while some users found their accounts had been deleted altogether, including at least 15 Iranian journalists, the Association of Iranian Journalists in Tehran (AIJT) said.

In a statement provided to the ABC, Facebook admitted to deleting posts and accounts that it said did not comply with US sanctions.

Facebook has been terrorised by team Trump and is running scared. What surprises me is they could actually get around and do it.

I wonder what happens if someone from outside the US but not Iran or the "axis of evil" does it? They are not subject to US law, but I suppose nobody is going to find out because it is easier to ignore Facebook

Ian wrote: "I wonder what happens if someone from outside the US but not Iran or the "axis of evil" does it?..."

Lucky this group is not on Facebook, Ian...

Iran holds 10% of the world's proven oil reserves and 15% of its gas. It is OPEC's second largest exporter and the world's fourth largest oil producer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ9r8...

James wrote: "Lucky this group is not on Facebook, Ian..."

Indeed!

Maybe Team Trump is losing friends. Canada's Justin Trudeau has come out and stated h considers that Trump's attitude contributed to the downing of the Ukrainian plane.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&r...

James wrote: "Iran holds 10% of the world's proven oil reserves and 15% of its gas. It is OPEC's second largest exporter and the world's fourth largest oil producer...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJ9r8..."

It's a competitor as much as a supplier, that's what adds an interesting dynamic here.

Some allies might not want them to be too secure or too weak on that condition?

Other's on the same side would prefer them 100% secure

Iran accuses Europe of yielding to 'high school bully' Trump in nuclear row https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ir...

Accurate, although slightly misleading. The EU has said it won't join Trump, but the European companies don't want to be sanctioned so they have pulled out of Iran and the EU is toothless and refuses to do anything but talk. It goes on and says it wants to keep the nuclear deal in place, but it is doing nothing to honour its side of it. China is different. When Trump tries to bully it, it retaliates.

Ian wrote: "Accurate, although slightly misleading. The EU has said it won't join Trump, but the European companies don't want to be sanctioned so they have pulled out of Iran and the EU is toothless and refus..."

Militarily China has nothing on the U.S.. But when it retaliates financially, Trump retaliates back and the cycle goes on.

Be a few years before it plays out and we see the true magnitude of the damage.

Iain wrote: "Ian wrote: "Accurate, although slightly misleading. The EU has said it won't join Trump, but the European companies don't want to be sanctioned so they have pulled out of Iran and the EU is toothle..."

Or something will kick off and you back track the origin.

Militarily is an interesting case Iain. China can't do much to the US, but as long as it doesn't use thermonuclear missiles, the US cannot do much to China other than bomb it, and that may not be so easy if Chinese missiles can sink carriers. Nobody knows whether carriers are vulnerable now because the US is no developing anti-carrier missiles (nobody ls has carriers, so no point) and who really knows what Russia has? The US troops would be buried if it tried a land war against China.

In the trade war, China is fighting with one hand tied behind is back because China has too many US bonds, but it is divesting. The long-term future is murky there, and China is probably hoping Trump goes in November.

Ian wrote: "Militarily is an interesting case Iain. China can't do much to the US, but as long as it doesn't use thermonuclear missiles, the US cannot do much to China other than bomb it, and that may not be s..."

They wouldn't have to necessarily rely on carriers. They have subs, LD stealth aircraft bombers, cyber and financial war capabilities and so on at their disposal.

The other factor here is China has little modern war experience, vis-a-vis the U.S. it pales in comparison. That's a major factor, as you have to coordinate your resources to the best of your ability to be accurate enough to target those 19-20 Carriers at America's disposal, while defending from other augmenting attacks directed by that experience. And then there's the question of what the U.S. have in space? Kinetic weaponry? Satellite killers? Lasers? Who knows . . ..

If China went thermo, the U.S. would respond in accord and nobody survives.

Beijing knows what Russia has, as the Kremlin have their missiles pointed at them too . . . .

The most potent weapon however might be making sure China doesn't meet GDP quotas. The internal discord of a few hundred million would topple the CCP and PLA a lot sooner than bombs would.

The first thing we can say about recent wars is they never develop how everyone thought they would. Yes, the US could fire missiles at China, but if conventional, they would not win any war. If nuclear, we probably all die. The US has, from time to time, proposed the doctrine of advancing with a wall of small nukes, kill a few hundred million, and win that way, but I suspect the response would not be small nukes. I would not count on Russia sitting on the sidelines either if the US went nuclear, because they would suspect they were next. I also wouldn't count on satellites being very effective because Russia could fry them with big emp pulses. Everyone thinks they wouldn't do that because that would eliminate GPS for them too, but I think the US is more dependent on that.

Hopefully we never find out

Recent wars have been regional in scope. This war is gonna be full on.

Thuycidides trap might be the most apt description.

Never say never.

One power's in ascendancy. Another wants to maintain status quo. One is trying to revive. Co existence might be an option. Anyway let's see how it develops.

Mightn't

I started this thread in June of last year when various respected news outlets, even the New York Times, were saying one attack Iran was being blamed for had all the hallmarks of a false flag...

Have now decided to close this thread to new posts, for the time being at least -- as that potential false flag that started this new Iran-US conflict is long ago. And the rest of the military/war analysis is now far too mainstream for this group -- it's becoming like any old analysis you could get on BBC or CNN (which is the antithesis of "underground knowledge").

Will re-open if/when new false flag operations are suspected for or against Iran.