@Cerberus I admire your optimism but I also remember the time when you really didn't think a lot of awful stuff would happen, but they happened nevertheless.
@Færd Well, that's a bit pessimistic. You expected a war to erupt after the assassination, or some time earlier, but it didn't
I'm pretty sure you predicted it, but don't remember what it was about.
It hasn't happened yet.
I believe the number of the infected should be more, but 1) not all that's missing from the reports is malice, some is incompetence, and 2) It's unfair to compare Iran to the likes of South Korea
For no reason more important than that people here are a bit more resistant to the whole medical system, and a bit more superstitious.
> There is a slight possibility that *this* may happen, but it is unlikely. At any rate, it wouldn't be disaster for Iran. America is not very important for Iranian oil trade.
Three examples up there. "this" refers to the US revoking the nuclear deal.
@Cerberus I should speak in less certain terms, but really when I say "certainly" I mean "most probably".
And it rests on the analysis that we almost came back from the brink of war a few months back and the first thing that prevented it happening was probably Trump's fear that it might cost him his reelection, and then it was his disinclination to engage in prolonged battles.
@Færd Well, you can compare fatalities to number of total cases only in the early stages of the epidemic (in Iran and South Korea, rather than China, although China's would still be "early" I guess)
Death/Cases ratio of SK would be 1/10th of Iran.
It is certain that the (unofficial) number of cases would be higher, but how much, we don't know
P.S. do we ever? If you look at the last pandemic, swine flu, the stats seem pretty rough
So . . . What I'm saying is, it's very possible that Rouhani's entourage and a few higher-ups in the ministry of health would deliberately lie, but some of the others are less politicized, and there's always some considerable error in these stats
@Færd Mhm, war is good for trade, but only one with a controllable number of casualties
I saw this float around Facebook. It seems it originated from the Twitter account of People For Bernie,
Bernard Sanders is the only candidate in history (in a competitive primary) to win the popular vote in the first 3 states. - People For Bernie
I went looking to corroborate it and it seem...
I guess I made a mistake to use the base form after rather than up there. It should be "it complements, rather than contradicts, my statement", if I'm not mistaken.
@Cerberus Yeah, that's what I said. Thinking about it, maybe because it was the first big blow after almost a generation. The first slap is the most noticeable, and it's what starts nosebleeds
Everything is bleeding now but the start can't be denied.
Rouhani is more deceptive, Ahmadi was taken off guard, and if he and his cabinet were trying to lie, they were too far too late
The past 7 years, though, have been an elaborate spider web of lies, shifting with every wind and self-contradictory, yet weasely enough to get nothing but grunts for the most part
You can literally make dozens of 30-second videos comparing Rouhani's speeches of 2015 and 2018, each sentence contradicting the last from three years ago
Exactly like that, no deduction skills needed. 2015 he says X, and 2018 says not X.
Heck, even one of the recent farces, about gasoline prices, a week earlier (?) he had thundered with absolute certainty that oil prices will not increase, and some time earlier an entire speech about why it's not the right way.