When you ask these questions based on an assumption of the future, you limit the discussion towards your own personal vision of the future, which only indirectly promotes your idea. Intentionally or otherwise.
Which is some sort of hope, desire, or expectation of "the water wars" whether or not they will occur. But if you are asking if the Taliban can overthrow the Iranian government, maybe, maybe not, only God knows. We could call this a water war, according to the last intelligence I saw, they were waiting to see if it was a holy war or just a conventional war over water and oppression.
They said they would fight the Iranian government with a greater fury than they fought the Americans.
But the Iranian government is not nearly as powerful as the US military. There are allegations of Mossad collusion, maybe they are seeking American backing.
Will Washington back the Taliban, once again, like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan did? Or are they just waiting to see how it all plays out?
> But if you are asking if the Taliban can overthrow the Iranian government, maybe, maybe not, only God knows
Iran might not be unified and it’s regime might not be as popular as it once was but the Taliban have no capacity to project beyond simple border outposts.
The whole reason they attacked Iran to begin with is to draw Tehran’s attention and to bring them to the negotiation table to address grievances and to show they will be a problem that won’t be ignored.
They’ve done this plenty of times in the past with some provocations such as murdering 7 Iranians, nearly causing Iran’s army to invade Afghanistan in 1998.
They have a religious authority who says, "Yes, this is Jihad" or "No, this is not Jihad" and if it's Jihad they fight until it is over.
America directly and openly supported what they called Jihad or holy war, by the Mujahideen or Jihad fighters, against the godless communist Soviets of the USSR.
They are usually defending their country, it is a very big difference for them to be invading a neighboring country to overthrow them, but they are trying to overthrow a state that has persecuted Christians.
Now, let us say Iran defeats them, then nothing changes really, the government stays the same. Let's say the Taliban wins. If it's a holy war, then they claim the territory. If it's not a holy war, then they just have a second Iranian Revolution.
Would the Taliban be kinder to Christians or religious minorities than the current Iranian government? Maybe, maybe not. I think this will depend on things like Western support or Israel. Israel is worried about getting nuked by Iran, and they wanted the USA to invade Iran. Well, it looks like the Taliban is doing that for them, very strange.
> Would the Taliban be kinder to Christians or religious minorities than the current Iranian government?
There are millions of afghans in Iran that fled due to war and religious persecution for being shia. For years Hazaras and other Shias have been attacked, killed, and had their communities and mosques suicide bombed by the Taliban and other groups. The taliban also famously destroyed Buddhist relics and told the last israelites of the country to kindly frick off to Israel after they couldn’t stop arguing with each other in their jail cell >Maybe, maybe not. I think this will depend on things like Western support or Israel.
The taliban won’t receive much support for a war that’s I’ll ultimately fail before it even starts. The west and Israel don’t need to support the Taliban to fight Iran. There are multiple insurgencies and independence movements ranging from Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs, and Kurds. Not to mention growing resentment among the the overall population. There’s been more and more protests over the years that the regime cannot stop with arrests, bullets, or hangings. >Israel is worried about getting nuked by Iran,
They’re less afraid of getting nuked but more afraid of losing the ability freely engage Iran on its own borders with aviation strikes and Mossad shit. Just like how North Korea got nukes as a trump card to dispel any US/SK invasion of war were to break out again (not to mention more gibs) >and they wanted the USA to invade Iran.
Israel wants the US to be it’s attack dog but it wants everyone to be it’s attack dog. In Lebanon, it was Christians. In the 1980s, it was Iran against Saddam, who was far more proactive in his anti-Israeli rhetoric and was a fare bigger threat than contemporary Iran will ever be.
>Well, it looks like the Taliban is doing that for them, very strange.
See
> But if you are asking if the Taliban can overthrow the Iranian government, maybe, maybe not, only God knows
Iran might not be unified and it’s regime might not be as popular as it once was but the Taliban have no capacity to project beyond simple border outposts.
The whole reason they attacked Iran to begin with is to draw Tehran’s attention and to bring them to the negotiation table to address grievances and to show they will be a problem that won’t be ignored.
They’ve done this plenty of times in the past with some provocations such as murdering 7 Iranians, nearly causing Iran’s army to invade Afghanistan in 1998.
The CIA and most world governments are well aware that water scarcity is going to be a big fricking problem by 2040. It's not idle speculation, it is an informed prediction based on ongoing trends that haven't changed or slowed. Or do you live your life never expecting tomorrow to come because "you just don't know what the future will hold"?
There is strategic advantage to predicting things before they occur and acting accordingly before they do. Like preparing for winter. It comes every year but how do you know winter is going to come this year? You don't but you can predict that it probably will.
Australia is very smart to have those solar powered desalination plants.
If you have electric power, from fossil fuels or otherwise, you can desalinate water. That can prevent conflicts.
Let's say you are the director of the CIA.
Would you rather help Iran defend itself against the Taliban, or help the Taliban overthrow the government of Iran? The "regime" which sounds more adversarial than government.
I would reason that they could be inclined to support the Taliban indirectly or otherwise, if they didn't do the same by leaving behind all that equipment.
But, if the problem is water, the answer does not have to be war. The Taliban said the government was oppressive and they wanted to have a revolution to overthrow it. So it's not just about water.
Afghanistan itself is landlocked, while Iran borders the Caspian Sea and the ocean. Iran could have a desalination program like Australia, even one powered by their vast reserves of energy. That would be better than trying to oppress the Afghan people, who are landlocked, if that is the situation as claimed by the Taliban.
When you ask these questions based on an assumption of the future, you limit the discussion towards your own personal vision of the future, which only indirectly promotes your idea. Intentionally or otherwise.
Which is some sort of hope, desire, or expectation of "the water wars" whether or not they will occur. But if you are asking if the Taliban can overthrow the Iranian government, maybe, maybe not, only God knows. We could call this a water war, according to the last intelligence I saw, they were waiting to see if it was a holy war or just a conventional war over water and oppression.
They said they would fight the Iranian government with a greater fury than they fought the Americans.
But the Iranian government is not nearly as powerful as the US military. There are allegations of Mossad collusion, maybe they are seeking American backing.
Will Washington back the Taliban, once again, like Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan did? Or are they just waiting to see how it all plays out?
> But if you are asking if the Taliban can overthrow the Iranian government, maybe, maybe not, only God knows
Iran might not be unified and it’s regime might not be as popular as it once was but the Taliban have no capacity to project beyond simple border outposts.
The whole reason they attacked Iran to begin with is to draw Tehran’s attention and to bring them to the negotiation table to address grievances and to show they will be a problem that won’t be ignored.
They’ve done this plenty of times in the past with some provocations such as murdering 7 Iranians, nearly causing Iran’s army to invade Afghanistan in 1998.
>murdering 7 Iranians, nearly causing Iran’s army to invade Afghanistan in 1998
There is bad blood like with Donbas
It almost seems like a setup for a proxy conflict
The US was deployed in Pakistan to support the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets
They have a religious authority who says, "Yes, this is Jihad" or "No, this is not Jihad" and if it's Jihad they fight until it is over.
America directly and openly supported what they called Jihad or holy war, by the Mujahideen or Jihad fighters, against the godless communist Soviets of the USSR.
They are usually defending their country, it is a very big difference for them to be invading a neighboring country to overthrow them, but they are trying to overthrow a state that has persecuted Christians.
Now, let us say Iran defeats them, then nothing changes really, the government stays the same. Let's say the Taliban wins. If it's a holy war, then they claim the territory. If it's not a holy war, then they just have a second Iranian Revolution.
Would the Taliban be kinder to Christians or religious minorities than the current Iranian government? Maybe, maybe not. I think this will depend on things like Western support or Israel. Israel is worried about getting nuked by Iran, and they wanted the USA to invade Iran. Well, it looks like the Taliban is doing that for them, very strange.
> Would the Taliban be kinder to Christians or religious minorities than the current Iranian government?
There are millions of afghans in Iran that fled due to war and religious persecution for being shia. For years Hazaras and other Shias have been attacked, killed, and had their communities and mosques suicide bombed by the Taliban and other groups. The taliban also famously destroyed Buddhist relics and told the last israelites of the country to kindly frick off to Israel after they couldn’t stop arguing with each other in their jail cell
>Maybe, maybe not. I think this will depend on things like Western support or Israel.
The taliban won’t receive much support for a war that’s I’ll ultimately fail before it even starts. The west and Israel don’t need to support the Taliban to fight Iran. There are multiple insurgencies and independence movements ranging from Baluchis, Azeris, Arabs, and Kurds. Not to mention growing resentment among the the overall population. There’s been more and more protests over the years that the regime cannot stop with arrests, bullets, or hangings.
>Israel is worried about getting nuked by Iran,
They’re less afraid of getting nuked but more afraid of losing the ability freely engage Iran on its own borders with aviation strikes and Mossad shit. Just like how North Korea got nukes as a trump card to dispel any US/SK invasion of war were to break out again (not to mention more gibs)
>and they wanted the USA to invade Iran.
Israel wants the US to be it’s attack dog but it wants everyone to be it’s attack dog. In Lebanon, it was Christians. In the 1980s, it was Iran against Saddam, who was far more proactive in his anti-Israeli rhetoric and was a fare bigger threat than contemporary Iran will ever be.
>Well, it looks like the Taliban is doing that for them, very strange.
See
The CIA and most world governments are well aware that water scarcity is going to be a big fricking problem by 2040. It's not idle speculation, it is an informed prediction based on ongoing trends that haven't changed or slowed. Or do you live your life never expecting tomorrow to come because "you just don't know what the future will hold"?
There is strategic advantage to predicting things before they occur and acting accordingly before they do. Like preparing for winter. It comes every year but how do you know winter is going to come this year? You don't but you can predict that it probably will.
Same shit here.
I fricking hate chat AI.
who will win the air wars?
Whoever maintains purity of essence best.
no one
i can't see a single one ending well for anyone. .
Australia is very smart to have those solar powered desalination plants.
If you have electric power, from fossil fuels or otherwise, you can desalinate water. That can prevent conflicts.
Let's say you are the director of the CIA.
Would you rather help Iran defend itself against the Taliban, or help the Taliban overthrow the government of Iran? The "regime" which sounds more adversarial than government.
I would reason that they could be inclined to support the Taliban indirectly or otherwise, if they didn't do the same by leaving behind all that equipment.
But, if the problem is water, the answer does not have to be war. The Taliban said the government was oppressive and they wanted to have a revolution to overthrow it. So it's not just about water.
Afghanistan itself is landlocked, while Iran borders the Caspian Sea and the ocean. Iran could have a desalination program like Australia, even one powered by their vast reserves of energy. That would be better than trying to oppress the Afghan people, who are landlocked, if that is the situation as claimed by the Taliban.
finland with its 10 billion lakes and easily defended forested swampland territory
me
i will win
all your water are belong to me
Unironically Canada
hopefully we'll have been annexed into the USA by the time the water wars start.
I'm tired of having my rights tramped on by french c**ts from the eastern edge of Ontario.
you vill speak french and you vill be happy
Not Arizona.
Everyone will lose.
The places with water?
These two
The guy who owns the most bottling companies and MIC shares.
bullet farm