Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest The Last Don

In The World: Iran

Recommended Posts

^ But in the past you may not have had access to such a high value target, that was responsible for thousands of deaths including hundreds of American deaths over the last 30 years.

It was not the assassination of a leader, and technically, the Revolutionary Guard was not an official state actor but rather a branch of the Iranian caliphate. Therefore, that is equivalent to going after Bin Laden or the leader of ISIS instead of a true military general associated with the Iranian army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

What people fail to mention regarding the embassy attack and seem to gloss over, is that this was an attack on our sovereignty and sovereign lands. It is at the same level as an attack on Hawaii, Alaska or even Puerto Rico.  An attack on an embassy is no different than an attack on the homeland. 

 

 

Legally correct, but of course culturally not so much.  Culturally it might be more like an attack on an American possession (e.g., Guam) than part of the homeland, if that.  People obviously didn't react to the embassy attacks here or in Libya as they did to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

  

23 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^ But in the past you may not have had access to such a high value target, that was responsible for thousands of deaths including hundreds of American deaths over the last 30 years.

It was not the assassination of a leader, and technically, the Revolutionary Guard was not an official state actor but rather a branch of the Iranian caliphate. Therefore, that is equivalent to going after Bin Laden or the leader of ISIS instead of a true military general associated with the Iranian army.

 

I don't think this is legally correct.  I think the Quds Force is part of the IRGC which in turn is part of the Iranian state apparatus.  They don't necessarily have a US parallel but people have used the analogy of Delta Force (which I think is not necessarily a good analogy but close enough to make the point that they're part of a part of a part of the state).  Thus why I think it is extremely significant that he was at Baghdad Airport meeting Iraqi anti-American militia leaders, not killed at his home in Tehran or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the dialogue. We can debate Soleimani's formal position as a state leader, but his was more than just that of the Iranian caliphate. He rose to the position of general of a formal military structure -- the top branch of Iran's revolutionary guard. His authority over Iran's military has grown and was recognized last year when he received the Order of Zolfiqar medal, Iran’s highest military honor. And I'm sure he gained Trump's attention when Soleimani taunted him in a video in 2018. Here is an interesting article on Soleimani....

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-security-soleimani-newsmaker/soleimani-was-irans-celebrity-soldier-spearhead-in-middle-east-idUSKBN1Z20C4

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/why-us-iran-war-isnt-going-happen-111211

 

Why A U.S.-Iran War Isn't Going To Happen

 

===============

 

TNI is something of a rare voice in the sense of being a longtime paleoconservative realist outlet even back during the days of neoconservative dominance of almost all levers of power and thought leadership in the conservative movement.  Other outlets have started to recruit more traditional realist voices in recent years, and TNI never had the largest audience AFAIK.  But it's a decent guide to what a consistent hard-realism foreign policy actually based on Trump's words and the id he tries to activate would mean.  Granted, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good guide to what Trump will actually do, since his words and his actions are occasionally inconsistent (...).

 

The TNI view in a nutshell is that Iran doesn't want a war with the US because it would lose, and the US doesn't want a war with Iran because it would involve too much cost and too much distraction to win--specifically distraction from China.

 

One of the main ways TNI has differed from other conservative thought outlets in the last 10-20 years is that most others celebrated trade and business with China (especially given how rich it was making American corporations, even as it made China even richer); TNI has long viewed China as a rising geostrategic and military rival and been skeptical that anything but traditional military alliance politics would either contain its military rise or moderate its actions within itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ram23 said:

Most recently, Iran helped organize and supply militant groups who launched rockets at US bases and organized an attack on the American embassy in Baghdad. This was, finally, met with a military response from the US.

 

I just don't buy the argument that Trump wants war or is trying to "wag the dog." It seems like he's done everything he can to avoid conflict. How much longer can the US and our allies let a violent, rogue theocracy bully the region around?

 

This is, unsurprisingly, a load of horse crap.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/29/politics/us-strikes-iran-backed-militia-facilities-in-iraq-syria/index.html

 

Quote

US forces conducted airstrikes in Iraq and Syria against five facilities the Pentagon says are tied to an Iranian-backed militia blamed for a series of attacks on joint US-Iraq military facilities housing American forces.

 

On December 29th, American forces struck back against sites associated with the KH group - widely believed to be behind the attack on the U.S. base - killing at least 25 people.

 

So you can't say the assassination of Soleimani was the "military response" when we already responded militarily just days before.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, KJP said:

Why should the USA respond to attacks on oil tankers or oil fields that do not belong to the USA? Should we get involved in a Kashmir border skirmish between India and Pakistan? Or a fight between Nigerian clans?

 

The US did need to respond to the other things. This action was an escalation. It wasn't commensurate with the previous actions by Iran. But all of this begs the question -- why in the hell are US forces still there, despite Trump's promises to reduce our presence?

 

Notice how conservatives can't answer these questions.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

Thus why I think it is extremely significant that he was at Baghdad Airport meeting Iraqi anti-American militia leaders, not killed at his home in Tehran or something.

 

Yes.  He was acting as the leader of Quds, a terrorist organization.   Meeting with a group that literally attacked US soil.   Not much different from the bin Laden raid.

 

It wouldn’t surprise me if we were attacking the militia bosses and got him serendipitously.    Trump is certainly the type to claim credit for pure luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, KJP said:

Why should the USA respond to attacks on oil tankers or oil fields that do not belong to the USA? Should we get involved in a Kashmir border skirmish between India and Pakistan? Or a fight between Nigerian clans?

 

The US did need to respond to the other things. This action was an escalation. It wasn't commensurate with the previous actions by Iran. But all of this begs the question -- why in the hell are US forces still there, despite Trump's promises to reduce our presence?

 

Because we have taken on, largely by default, the role of guarantor of global free passage on the high seas.  

 

There’s a good chance this pays for itself, in terms of the price we pay for things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Because we have taken on, largely by default, the role of guarantor of global free passage on the high seas.  

 

There’s a good chance this pays for itself, in terms of the price we pay for things.

 

Just because we patrolled all the world's oceans post-WWII does not mean we should continue to do so, or even that we can afford to do so. 

 

What products ship through the Indian ocean that cost less because we patrol there?  I imagine that oil is the only substantial product we can obtain from the Indian Ocean area, and the US is now a net exporter of oil.  Is that oil really that much cheaper than the additional ships, bases, and all other military expenditures in that area, not to mention the oil that we already have here?

 

I'm with KJP on this one:  why the hell are US forces still in Iraq in the first place, particularly in view of Trump's promises to bring the troops home?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Yes.  He was acting as the leader of Quds, a terrorist organization.   Meeting with a group that literally attacked US soil.   Not much different from the bin Laden raid.

 

It wouldn’t surprise me if we were attacking the militia bosses and got him serendipitously.    Trump is certainly the type to claim credit for pure luck.

 

WAAAAYYYYY different than the Bin Laden raid.  Not necessarily morally, but certainly strategically.  Quds may be called a terrorist organization (and that may be fair), but it is not a stateless entity.  When we killed Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda didn't have anything beyond it's already degraded terrorist capacities to respond.  Not so with Soleimani.  We have committed an act of war against a sovereign nation with substantial conventional military capabilities, a few allies, a large and capable network of non-state (yes terrorist) groups that will act at it's direction, and significant cyber warfare capabilities.  Soleimani was, by most accounts, the second most important man in Iran, and judging from the size of his funeral, he was a national hero.

 

Oh, and then our President declared that he would target Iran's cultural sites for military strikes.  So we can pretty well count on the Iranian people being all in on this war.

 

This was the dumbest way to go to war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Foraker said:

 

Just because we patrolled all the world's oceans post-WWII does not mean we should continue to do so, or even that we can afford to do so. 

 

What products ship through the Indian ocean that cost less because we patrol there?  I imagine that oil is the only substantial product we can obtain from the Indian Ocean area, and the US is now a net exporter of oil.  Is that oil really that much cheaper than the additional ships, bases, and all other military expenditures in that area, not to mention the oil that we already have here?

 

I'm with KJP on this one:  why the hell are US forces still in Iraq in the first place, particularly in view of Trump's promises to bring the troops home?

 

We were in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqis to stabilize their country from ISIS.

 

If they no longer want us, then we should leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Gramarye said:

 

Legally correct, but of course culturally not so much.  Culturally it might be more like an attack on an American possession (e.g., Guam) than part of the homeland, if that.  People obviously didn't react to the embassy attacks here or in Libya as they did to 9/11 or Pearl Harbor.

 

I agree with you on the fact that an attack on an embassy does not resonate the same way in the US as say an attack on Pearl Harbor or another state in the mainland. I don't even think an attack on Guam or Puerto Rico would generate the same sense of urgency as an attack on an actual State.  Regardless, we still have a duty to protect our sovereignty and an attack on National Sovereignty should be met with a response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

We were in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqis to stabilize their country from ISIS.

 

If they no longer want us, then we should leave.

 

We were also there to provide a counterbalance to Iranian influence.  Now the Iraqis want us to leave.  How did this response advance American interests, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, X said:

 

 

It's not inherent in their culture.  Clearly you didn't look at the link.  Pre-Revolution the women of Iran dressed like women in America or Europe.  After- well you know that part.  Don't understand it, but you know it.

I would say that Sharia law is more endemic to Iranian civilization than the Western values that were imposed externally by the colonial powers during the Pre-Revolutionary days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you saying that colonial powers forced women to dress in western dress before the Revolution?

 

You do know that Iranian society isn't monolithic, and that much of that country is chafing under theocratic rule, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, shack said:

I would say that Sharia law is more endemic to Iranian civilization than the Western values that were imposed externally by the colonial powers during the Pre-Revolutionary days.

yeah, everyone looked so sad and oppressed living under "Western" values. Good thing they had the revolution.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, E Rocc said:

Because we have taken on, largely by default, the role of guarantor of global free passage on the high seas.  

 

team_america_world_police05.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Foraker said:

 

Just because we patrolled all the world's oceans post-WWII does not mean we should continue to do so, or even that we can afford to do so. 

 

What products ship through the Indian ocean that cost less because we patrol there?  I imagine that oil is the only substantial product we can obtain from the Indian Ocean area, and the US is now a net exporter of oil.  Is that oil really that much cheaper than the additional ships, bases, and all other military expenditures in that area, not to mention the oil that we already have here?

 

I'm with KJP on this one:  why the hell are US forces still in Iraq in the first place, particularly in view of Trump's promises to bring the troops home?

 

 

Cheap oil prices may not be a net benefit for American oil exporters but they are a major benefit to the US economy as a whole.  One of the triggers of the Great Recession was higher oil prices (gas hit above $4.50/gal in the year before the Great Recession even in Ohio, to say nothing of what it was in coastal markets).  The overextension on credit and mortgage-backed securities obviously helped make the US economy a powderkeg but high oil prices created an environment where a spark was more likely.  Oil prices are set globally, so it does not matter if none of the Persian Gulf oil reaches the US and in fact it's entirely possible that very little does anymore, since we now produce enough domestically for our actual consumption needs (which will also hopefully shrink over the next decade, but aren't going to go away).

 

For as many people work in the US petroleum sector, not as many as you might think work on the extraction side of the business, which is the one that gets the benefits when prices are high.  The value-added midstream and refining services that turn raw petroleum into product we actually use are important whether prices are low or high and can actually do better when their own raw material prices are low.

 

That said, I don't necessarily have a good answer to your answer of why US forces are still in Iraq, especially if the local government no longer wants us there.  But that is the blunt answer to why US forces are still in the Middle East. Of course we don't necessarily need Iraqi bases; we had plenty in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain (naval), and Saudi Arabia before 2003 and we could probably go back to that force posture without sacrificing too much in terms of operational ability.  (We also have a major airbase in Turkey, but that's a whole other can of worms at the moment.)

 

1 hour ago, shack said:

I would say that Sharia law is more endemic to Iranian civilization than the Western values that were imposed externally by the colonial powers during the Pre-Revolutionary days.

 

I think I share X' confusion on this.  Also--"endemic?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, taestell said:

 

team_america_world_police05.jpg

 

That was truly a great movie.   The speech at the end that compared certain people to certain parts of the anatomy accurately described Trump a good twelve years before he was elected.

 

They triggered some serious "outrage" because unlike South Park of that era, they didn't even pretend to mock both sides equally.  But by then, as of now, they were immune to such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shack said:

I would say that Sharia law is more endemic to Iranian civilization than the Western values that were imposed externally by the colonial powers during the Pre-Revolutionary days.

 

So you are good with imposing religious rules on people who do not share the beliefs from which they spring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

yeah, everyone looked so sad and oppressed living under "Western" values. Good thing they had the revolution.

 

 

And you know why there was a revolution in the first place, right?  It wasn't all the US, but we had a hand in rolling that boulder down the hill.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/06/20/64-years-later-cia-finally-releases-details-of-iranian-coup-iran-tehran-oil/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

Cheap oil prices may not be a net benefit for American oil exporters but they are a major benefit to the US economy as a whole.  One of the triggers of the Great Recession was higher oil prices (gas hit above $4.50/gal in the year before the Great Recession even in Ohio, to say nothing of what it was in coastal markets).  The overextension on credit and mortgage-backed securities obviously helped make the US economy a powderkeg but high oil prices created an environment where a spark was more likely.  Oil prices are set globally, so it does not matter if none of the Persian Gulf oil reaches the US and in fact it's entirely possible that very little does anymore, since we now produce enough domestically for our actual consumption needs (which will also hopefully shrink over the next decade, but aren't going to go away).

 

For as many people work in the US petroleum sector, not as many as you might think work on the extraction side of the business, which is the one that gets the benefits when prices are high.  The value-added midstream and refining services that turn raw petroleum into product we actually use are important whether prices are low or high and can actually do better when their own raw material prices are low.

 

That said, I don't necessarily have a good answer to your answer of why US forces are still in Iraq, especially if the local government no longer wants us there.  But that is the blunt answer to why US forces are still in the Middle East. Of course we don't necessarily need Iraqi bases; we had plenty in Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain (naval), and Saudi Arabia before 2003 and we could probably go back to that force posture without sacrificing too much in terms of operational ability.  (We also have a major airbase in Turkey, but that's a whole other can of worms at the moment.)

 

 

I think I share X' confusion on this.  Also--"endemic?"

 

It's not just oil, though that's the biggest impact.   Quite a bit of global trade is done on container ships, which are as large, bulky, and vulnerable as tankers.  Piracy would almost certainly be an issue, and a cost factor, if not for the US Navy globally, and others on a more regional basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this comment is on point.

Quote

“The president has always made it his first priority to protect American citizens, and the intel that we had, the information we had — which we believe was very strong — shows that Soleimani and those he was plotting with were looking to kill American diplomats and soldiers in significant numbers in the coming days,” said national security adviser Robert O’Brien. . . .

1) “The information we had.” This is a regime that has spent the last three years undermining the legitimacy of our intelligence and national security agencies. Now we’re supposed to believe that they trust those same agencies? Risible. And of course, we’ve been through this song and dance before. . . . 

 

2) The president’s first priority is making money for himself. Why pretend otherwise?

 

3) It’s likely that Soleimani was involved in organizing militias that are fighting U.S. forces and their allies. It’s no surprise that we’re fighting a multi-front proxy war in the Middle East, and not for lofty ideals like “democracy” and “human rights.” We’re working on behalf of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and other despotic regimes that are despicable abusers of basic human rights. On the other side, we have Iran, yes, but also Trump’s crush, Russia. If Soleimani is complicit in plotting to harm U.S. troops (likely), so is Putin. And heck, so is Saudi Arabia, for that matter. 

 

4) If it’s true that Soleimani was plotting actions that will take place in the very near future, how does killing Soleimani affect those plans? He wasn't going to strap on a suicide vest himself and run into a U.S. embassy in the region. His role would be to sign off on such an attack, and let others manage the planning and execution. Killing him does nothing to stop such an attack. And—here’s the rub—by killing him, the U.S. has forfeited all moral authority. 

 

Say that tomorrow, a U.S. diplomatic outpost in the region gets hit, several American diplomats die. Iran can claim retaliation, and the world community will simply grimace and nod. Trump opened up that Pandora’s box, and who can argue that Iran isn’t justified? On the other hand, had that same attack happened without the assassination, the United States would have a compelling case to take to the world community, and a strong rationale to build international consensus against Iran. 

 

Of course, that would assume an American regime interested in “international cooperation.” But regardless, we are now an isolated rogue state, and we’ve handed Iran a hall pass to commit all sorts of atrocities against American targets in the name of “an eye for an eye.” 

 

In the end, the Soleimani assassination has united Iran against the U.S.; given it a global green light to strike at American targets; done nothing to make America safer; shipped thousands of fresh troops to the Middle East, tearing them away from their husbands, wives, children, and other loved ones—and for what? 

 

This also will not help reduce oil prices or improve the safety of international shipping. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Foraker said:

I think this comment is on point.

 

This also will not help reduce oil prices or improve the safety of international shipping. 

 

Both of which boosts Russia's oil industry and shipping. Meanwhile.....

 

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, E Rocc said:

 

Because we have taken on, largely by default, the role of guarantor of global free passage on the high seas.  

 

There’s a good chance this pays for itself, in terms of the price we pay for things.

 

If we seek to have NATO members pay a larger share of the costs of NATO to defend themselves, shouldn't we also demand that those engaged in the shipping of oil through risky shipping lanes assume the burden of that risk? If a nation lacks the capabilities to defend their commercial shipping, then perhaps they should't subject themselves to such risks?


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, X said:

 

WAAAAYYYYY different than the Bin Laden raid.  Not necessarily morally, but certainly strategically.  Quds may be called a terrorist organization (and that may be fair), but it is not a stateless entity.  When we killed Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda didn't have anything beyond it's already degraded terrorist capacities to respond.  Not so with Soleimani.  We have committed an act of war against a sovereign nation with substantial conventional military capabilities, a few allies, a large and capable network of non-state (yes terrorist) groups that will act at it's direction, and significant cyber warfare capabilities.  Soleimani was, by most accounts, the second most important man in Iran, and judging from the size of his funeral, he was a national hero.

 

Oh, and then our President declared that he would target Iran's cultural sites for military strikes.  So we can pretty well count on the Iranian people being all in on this war.

 

This was the dumbest way to go to war.

There is no appetite for war in the common people of the US or Iran

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

There is no appetite for war in the common people of the US or Iran

 

I guess our leaders are out of lock-step with them big-time.....

 

 

 

 

In other words, people died. Iran said its attack was in response to the USA's assassination of Soleimani. So should I assume that Iraqis will respond against Iran AND the USA?

 

 

Edited by KJP

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, X said:

 

WAAAAYYYYY different than the Bin Laden raid.  Not necessarily morally, but certainly strategically.  Quds may be called a terrorist organization (and that may be fair), but it is not a stateless entity.  When we killed Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda didn't have anything beyond it's already degraded terrorist capacities to respond.  Not so with Soleimani.  We have committed an act of war against a sovereign nation with substantial conventional military capabilities, a few allies, a large and capable network of non-state (yes terrorist) groups that will act at it's direction, and significant cyber warfare capabilities.  Soleimani was, by most accounts, the second most important man in Iran, and judging from the size of his funeral, he was a national hero.

 

Oh, and then our President declared that he would target Iran's cultural sites for military strikes.  So we can pretty well count on the Iranian people being all in on this war.

 

This was the dumbest way to go to war.

It sounds like you are worried that the Iranian military has the ability to defeat the US military. The biggest issue the US has in wars is the nation building that came after. If Iran tried to go to war with the US, they would be crushed. As long as the US runs it like the 1990 Gulf War and eliminates the threat without really storming Tehran, it would be over quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too soon to know if this airplane was shot down or went down due to a non-military action....

 

 

 

Edited by KJP

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

. As long as the US runs it like the 1990 Gulf War and eliminates the threat without really storming Tehran, it would be over quickly.


If the US “runs it like the 1990 Gulf War,” they’d be pushing ill-equipped Iranian forces with poorly maintained Soviet Technology out of a neighboring country and back to their border (until Don Jr. goes for round 2). 
 

So yeah, this is a poor take. The situations are not at all similar aside from the fact that both Iran and Iraq happen to be in the Middle East. 
 

The current military forces of Iran, while not equipped on the scale of the US Military, are far better trained and armed than the Iraqi Army of 1990 or 2003. A prolonged ground conflict is not going to be pretty, nor would it be something that could be “run” like Gulf War 1.

 

Not to mention, then comes the “nation building.” And on top of that, the American military is being managed by a Republican administration that’s proven to have far more missteps than the last Republican administration that picked a Mideast fight. 
 

So maybe let’s take a step back on the overly simple “it will be over quickly” takes. That’s the kind of thinking that politicians sold people on the last time. Don’t let that dust covering your “Mission Accomplished” banner cloud your vision from the thousands of dead American soldiers who died in the last Iraq War. 
 

Sure glad we got them WMDs, tho!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It sounds like you are worried that the Iranian military has the ability to defeat the US military. The biggest issue the US has in wars is the nation building that came after. If Iran tried to go to war with the US, they would be crushed. As long as the US runs it like the 1990 Gulf War and eliminates the threat without really storming Tehran, it would be over quickly.

On Iranian soil they would destroy us. They can perform asymmetric warfare all over the Gulf region, and possibly even against the US directly. I can't really overemphasize how bad it would be compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, which were COMPLETE DISASTERS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Cavalier Attitude said:

On Iranian soil they would destroy us. They can perform asymmetric warfare all over the Gulf region, and possibly even against the US directly. I can't really overemphasize how bad it would be compared to Iraq and Afghanistan, which were COMPLETE DISASTERS.

If you are seeking regime change like 2003 Iraq, then it would be a long haul and like Iraq in 2003. However, if the goal is to essentially put them in their place bomb them to oblivion, like in the first gulf war, then control their ability to operate outside its borders, that could be much more attainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is equally bizarre....

 

 

Edited by KJP

"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

It sounds like you are worried that the Iranian military has the ability to defeat the US military. The biggest issue the US has in wars is the nation building that came after. If Iran tried to go to war with the US, they would be crushed. As long as the US runs it like the 1990 Gulf War and eliminates the threat without really storming Tehran, it would be over quickly.

 

No,  I am worried that good people- American and Iranian- will die senselessly because a conman is trying to distract the American people from his impeachment, and trying to rally his idiot supporters with jingoistic war rhetoric.  I'm worried about who else gets pulled into this war, and what hell they can unleash.  I'm worried that we will either get bogged down trying to rebuild Iran, or worse, we will wreck it and leave it a ruin where even worse things than the Ayatollah's theocracy will find fertile ground to grow and trouble the world in the future.  I am worried that we will dig a hole for our country in terms of our international standing, our ever-increasing deficit, and our internal social divisions.  I am worried about another generation of scarred soldiers that will need help for a lifetime to recover from a war we don't have to and have little reason to fight.  I'm worried about their children, and their loved ones.

 

No, I am not worried at all that we can't "whoop them".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran is claiming that the Boeing commercial jet owned by Ukraine went down due to mechanical problems but it's quite obvious that they did something to it.  Those people died as a result of Trump distracting the U.S. population from his impeachment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, KJP said:

 

If we seek to have NATO members pay a larger share of the costs of NATO to defend themselves, shouldn't we also demand that those engaged in the shipping of oil through risky shipping lanes assume the burden of that risk? If a nation lacks the capabilities to defend their commercial shipping, then perhaps they should't subject themselves to such risks?

 

In principle you are correct, in practice those are costs that are passed on directly to the consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Iran is claiming that the Boeing commercial jet owned by Ukraine went down due to mechanical problems but it's quite obvious that they did something to it.  Those people died as a result of Trump distracting the U.S. population from his impeachment.  

 

No.   if they did that, especially intentionally, they are the kind of people that should be kept in check.    At the very least it is their responsibility, not ours.  

 

He doesn't need to distract anyone, it's correctly seen as a completely political process.

Edited by E Rocc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...