Why do you think the USA is going into war with Iran?
Please don't go into a discussion here on Prez Trump. If you want to go that route, please post on thread under heading "Why did Trump decide to throw a war against Iran?" in the "all-Trump" thread.
If you think the idiot who started the war is the prez, just simply vote that spot, and cease and desist of further discussion of that theory. You can of course talk about it elsewhere, but please don't do it here.
If you think the idiot who started the war is the prez, just simply vote that spot, and cease and desist of further discussion of that theory. You can of course talk about it elsewhere, but please don't do it here.
Comments (270)
BitconnectCarlos is skeptical. I welcome your skepticism if it for sure leads the USA into peace with Iran.
I didn't say it was going to lead to peace. It's probably not going to lead to war either. The strike comes after a long string of Iranian offenses. On a moral level, I have no problem with the strike. On a strategic level, I think the jury is still out but based on the information I have now I don't hate it given the history of past Iranian transgressions. Yes it could have been executed better and more people could have been informed about it.
Think of the bookmakers. Death toll is a large unknown at this point. Which American city will be targeted with a nuclear warhead? I shudder to think it will be Los Alamos. If that city goes, the whole planet goes. They have hidden weapons of mass destruction under the sand in the Arizona desert. I think the only thing that can stop that war now is peace in the Middle East.
One word: Israel.
Well, yeah.
Obama was apparently not too keen on it. So, Benjamin did not manage to get his way. This time, it may actually work, but again, not sure. It must have been hard to get CENTCOM to "accidentally" press that button.
I wonder how much you need to "infiltrate" for that?
ha ah aha ha! ;-)
P.S. This time, it's even better than the fake "Zimmerman telegram":
Quoting On how to drag the unwilling Americans kicking and screaming into a new war.
Thanks for being honest.
The United States has always carried out extrajudicial killings and the assassination of the Iranian General was nothing short of a violation of international law. Not to mention that it was carried out in Iraqi territory. Imagine the second most powerful US official getting assassinated by a rival country. There would be a full scale invasion and all international support would goto US.
I think US killed him for weakening the final threat to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Both these countries are certainly quite happy with the result.It was a message to all those who oppose Israel/Saudi Arabia. It is same old power play. US wants to have power in an undiluted form.
There won't be a war in the traditional sense. Iran will target American interests which are spread around the middle east. In short, you can expect anything. Even a terrorist attack by the militia in US. Thanks to the genius plan of Donald Trump in using iran card for 2020.
In fact, the timing was actually quite bad, given the ongoing impeachment-zilla, I cannot imagine that Trump really signed off on it. Of course, he does not want to look like he is not in charge. So, he has now resolutely taken ownership!
What surprises me, is that Trump even doubled down in his speech in West Palm Beach. His speech is insanely insulting to Iran. It is even more insulting than the extrajudicial killing itself of Suleimani:
Quoting Donald Trump on 'terminating' Suleimani
After his barrage of insults at the dead Iranian state official, whom he "terminated" for good purpose, he still "don't want war". We'll spit in your face, pee on your mother's grave, fart in your general direction, and defecate in your living room, but hey, we are not interested in conflict! ;-)
They knew that Suleimani was going to be in Baghdad yesterday. They wouldn't have struck him while he was on Iranian territory. That would have been a little too much of a provocation.
How did they know that Suleimani was going to be there? What is the most likely reason that they even knew in what car he would arrive and leave?
Suleimani must undoubtedly have been there because he was invited to negotiate with US officials, who must have promised him a fantastic diplomatic breakthrough or so, if only he showed up ... It must have been an ambush. They must have conned him.
Furthermore, I seriously suspect that Trump was informed about the operation only after the facts. This is quite a victory for "incorruptible" Benjamin, of course. He must have had a big late-night party with his friends in Tel Aviv after this.
US administration will obviously say that they don't want to head into an another war but simultaneously create a situation which makes their intervention neccessary.
Classic strategy . America wants the oil supplying countries to be involved in the conflict so the economic progress of China and Russia can halt and become more unstable. That's another reason too.
"To protect our people there, we started a war with a country." Jesus, why are Americans so stupid? "In order to protect my car from your vandalism, I'll spray paint your house." "In order to protect my children in your school, I'll shoot the principal." "In order to protect my interest in your company, I'll destroy its main building." ETC.
I am not dissing you, NOS4A2, it's not your opinion, but the official line is the stupidest thing I've heard in my entire adult existence. It is a much bigger lie than I have ever suffered under Communism, and believe me, they knew how to lie.
You should have one reason:
"Lack of any kind of long term strategy and the result of narrowly visioned and not well thought responses to situations that simply have been let to go out of control."
The US doesn't want a war with Iran. Iran has shot down it's drowns, have attacked US troops in Iraq, taken US servicemen as prisoners without the US going to war with it. This is just playing the "US is the reason for every war to happen" card. The only country that truly wants the US to attack Iran is Israel.
Yes, the reason IS the utter ineptness of Trump into handling US foreign policy in a difficult area and the lack of strong sane leadership to counter Trump's emotional responses. And I know, there is a different thread to that.
I don't understand the correlation. I was under the impression that Israel was incapable of defending itself until recently when I was "enlightened" to how well armed Israel is. Which leads me to question what role you think the USA would play if Israel is attacked?
One thing to mention is that some kind of parallel strike on a US general or cabinet member would be treated as an enormous breach of international law. If Vietnam had killed Kissinger, say, on a visit to Europe, for his terrorist acts, the moral outrage against this would have been....big.
I would have voted for this, had it been written thusly:
"Leadership within the USA has had enough..."
We don't really know what real threats this may have averted, nor do we yet know how Iran will respond. I sincerely hope this was truly a product of reasoned judgment, but I'm highly suspicious of that. There will always be a cloud over this: what if we'd remained in the Iran-nucleal pact?
No war was started. So itâs stupid to say there is a war when there isnât one.
Iâm no pacifist because evil men are stopped by violent force. The blood-soaked career of a terrorist commander has ended. Iâm sorry for your loss.
Trump is dead?
One of Iranâs top military leaders, Qasem Soleimani, was killed in a drone strike.
So what could it accomplish?
Perhaps it is meant to show support for Israel or Saudi Arabia. They're sweating buckets as the US leaves all the areas they occupied in chaos and Iran fills up the power vacuum.
Perhaps it was a diversion from something else?
Perhaps it was simply murder out of spite, considering Soleimani probably orchestrated a large part of the disaster the US faced in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nature has a way of ending beefs. The strongest wins.
It puts the Ayatollah in a tough sport. Fight back and be demolished. Or do nothing and lose your credibility.
You said it buddy!
Meanwhile your country gets to rest peacefully knowing American forces defend your continent while you sleep.
If such a loss of credibility would take place, what would it amount to?
I think it would reveal the Ayatollahâs âdeath to Americaâ rhetoric to be empty, and his resolve to be weak. Thatâs not good for a country in grips of civil unrest.
Good job, Covfefe! (aka "Very Stable Genius") Good.
Job. :clap:
Vegas odds of both Netanyahu and Trump being in power by this time next year are less than 25%. If Israel is going to get its long-held wish of castrating its greatest enemy in the region, its best chance is now. And conflict with Iran could be particularly useful to Netanyahu who's got yet another crucial election coming up in March. What I'm not really seeing is the strategic upside for the US in starting yet another hopeless war in the Middle East. And the electoral payoff for Trump personally is questionable at best. But Netanyahu is the only leader in the region (and beyond) offering unequivocal vocal support for the attack. Because he's the one who stands to gain most from what could follow. Hence the "look to Israel" comment. I guess more will emerge in the coming days about the US's specific motivations here, but I don't expect solid evidence of any imminent threat that would make it legal under international law and more likely to garner support from other American allies.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
It depends on the specifics of the attack. But if it gets to Israel being directly attacked, you can be sure the US will already be embroiled in a wider conflict with Iran.
Lol. The one's in a tough spot are the Americans. Already Americans are fleeing Iraq. We'll see if they can still hang on to Iraq, or if we see them being kicked out. Might happen, might not, let's see later today.
Sadly I must agree with you. Trump's been captured by the neocon warmongers. He got rid of Bolton but Bolton is still running US foreign policy. Trump's a fool to get sucked into this. Some Iraqis attacked the Green Zone? Why do we have a fortress embassy in Iraq in the first place? We should have left years ago. We never should have gone in. I'm in total despair about what passes for US foreign policy.
If Trump gets involved in a shooting war w/Iran he won't be reelected. His supporters believed him when he said he'd get us out of the stupid Middle East wars, not get us into more of them. And Iran's no military pushover like Iraq was. I'm hoping for the best here, that's all anyone can do.
What is happening between the US and Iran is a consequence of what I describe in Winter Is Coming: an aggressive dictatorship's sense of impunity leading to the crossing of one line too far. Deterrence is based on standing up against small aggressions in order to prevent big ones, when the price will be much higher. Many years of success led Iran & Soleimani to feel invincible, to attack a US embassy, when of course a US president had to respond. This is how appeasement kills. This is why inaction can be a deadly choice. It raises the stakes, postpones the inevitable, and encourages aggressors to assume they can act with impunity until the eventual response is massive and destabilizing. Action has clear costs because it is the reality of the road taken, making it politically unattractive. Inaction hopes to pass the dire consequences and blame to a successor, as has happened with Syria and Iran. I wish Trump had a competent team capable of strategic planning and of inspiring the trust of allies and the fear of enemies. That is far from the case. But I can't criticize the killing of a mass-murdering terrorist mastermind & reminding his ilk that they are not safe. We'll never know how many more innocents Qasem Soleimani would have murdered or how many hundreds of thousands more refugees he'd have helped create. But don't pretend you know that what is to come is worse than the world with such a person in it.
END
So, it is an act of war. Not only by whatever other nations may think of it but by our own rules set up to distinguish conflict by proxies versus the governments who show up to the UN and stuff.
The first question should not be whether this was a good tactical decision but whether we gave up something for this pound of flesh that cannot be recovered.
Like the outcome of the Iraqi Wars, it will take some time to see the results.
Oh wait. This is one of the results.
I've come to the conclusion the US foreign policy doesn't exist anymore.
It's been replaced by Presidential tweets, that the US officials have to then respond to. And missile strikes ordered during meals in the "Winter Whitehouse".
Trump is favored to win.
Trump has about a 50% chance of winning (slightly less according to predictit.org). Equally so for Netanyahu. I'll leave you to do the rest of the maths yourself.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/6238/Will-Benjamin-Netanyahu-be-prime-minister-of-Israel-on-Dec-31,-2020
OK, let's use that figure, which is 55% x Netanyahu's 45% = 24.75%, which is less than 25%. Which is what I said.
Considering how much of a staging ground the middle east is for global conflict who the fuck knows what the strategic aims of the conflict would be and exactly what interests in America it would serve.
Not perfectly though. I can't plot a positive economic or strategic outcome to this for the US ruling classes that beats sticking with the Iran deal and encouraging progressive forces in the country. Maybe I lack a sufficiently Machiavellian imagination or something. Anyone here see a war being good for the US?
If it happens, it's probably imagined as being to the benefit of some of them and not others? Can't say to who though. Weakening Iran through military conflict probably has the same strategic goals as weakening them through economic sanctions, says the largely uninformed me. I have no idea what goes on in the boardrooms.
It's not just about them being weak or strong though, it's also about the extent to which they are likely to facilitate or oppose your interests. It wasn't long ago that Iran was helping America to fight ISIS in Syria and Soleimani, specifically, aided the Americans in their initial attacks against the Taliban after 9/11. Enemies can become friends when faced with greater enemies. That option is out the window re Iran right now.
Yes, that's well put. Weak/strong is a silly way of saying nothing relevant.
Whose interests would be facilitated by an armed conflict between America and Iran? And would they be facilitated better through this than through other means? Those are much better question framings.
Your point was that Israel wouldn't take on Iran without both Netanyahu and Trump in power, so this would be the best time for a war that would likely escalate to thermonuclear.
That's a great point. Thanks!
You do sarcasm better than you do maths. Not much better though. Moving on...
Also, Soleimani posted anti-Trump memes on the internet and Trump has the thin skin of any stupid bully.
Two birds with one stone.
Pluuuuus, reelection always works better when you have a new war to wage. Worked for Bush.
I just misread your post. Moving on...
Absolutely. I'd need some time to come up with a coherent theory on that though.
I doubt it's that simple.
Ok.
What are your thoughts @god must be atheist ?
Hasn't it all been so far with Trump?
Consider that Soleimani was totally replaceable to begin with. They are currently deciding on a new general to take his place, and there's no reason to believe that the next one will be any more sympathetic to US interests, and every reason to believe he will be less so.
There is no obvious tactical advantage to starting a war with Iran, it just makes a huge mess with Iraq.
Sure, the MIC loves continuing wars and starting new ones cause that's literally their business, but Trump had personal reasons to do this exact thing at this exact moment in time.
No one wants a war, but given these facts:
-The general was behind hundreds of american deaths in iraq.
-He was behind the recent embassy attack.
-Was very likely to be planning more attacks, and never even really attempted to hide his involvement.
What is your solution here? To my understanding, the attacks in recent years have gotten worse and we really haven't responded to iran directly so that just emboldened them. Don't tell me the solution is empowering progressive movements because the regime just opened fire on unarmed protesters last month and killed hundreds. If it was as easy as getting a nicer iranian leadership into power that would be the obvious solution but I don't think that's really plausible.
Not impossible but he has support on this from folks he doesn't normally get much support from, e.g. John Bolton and US intelligence chiefs. It seems to me his Syria withdrawal was much purer Trump i.e. knee-jerk.
Fellow supporters of the forever wars in favor of a trillion dollar war industry.
No one wants a war that could potentially kill hundreds of thousands but given that hundreds have been killed, we should have one. No, your position is incoherent.
That's what Trump ran against (and until very recently has been his official line). See.
Yeah, cause he neeeeeever lies :rofl:
I don't want a war. We don't have a war, at least not officially. You're acting like this strike just started a war out of nothing and that's just not the situation.
Because he's a serial liar doesn't mean he's not capable of having a policy he actually believes in. He said he wants a wall and he actually does want a wall. If I say he wants a wall, you're going to laugh and claim he doesn't because he's a liar? You need more than that.
A good way not to start a war would be not to assassinate the heads of foreign armies. You can punish your enemies in more subtle ways than that. It's like if I go up and punch someone in the face and then claim I don't want a fight, it's not going to fly is it?
Assassinating politicians and civilians is not how you conduct peace talks. So clearly he lied about not wanting to continue the wars.
And, no, I don't think Trump really cares about the wall. He just uses it as a talking point that works with his base.
The only policy I believe he believes in is "Trump first." And currently that means doing whatever he can to stay out of jail.
If you're going to reduce yourself to the absurd claim that Trump is not capable of believing in any policy of his because he's a liar, you'll find yourself on the same level of political confusion as those who believe he's an absolutely honest dealer. Again, you need more.
IOW, they're already at war with the US. On the US side, war would mean regime change by military means, which would be kind of psychotic for a country that's already in imperial overstretch.
But then the trade war with China also seems psychotic and were doing it. But Trump has no Wolfowitz, Cheney, or Rumsfeld. So no.
That makes no sense. He's lied about everything, and he's taken opposite positions on all important issues. His actions directly contradict many of his talking points.
Cmon. At this point it would be absurd to think he's anything but a sham.
If your concern is people not dying then my claim is you can't consistently support this move.
It would only take the minutest step back from hyperbole to concede the point. Even if Trump is 99.9% a sham, he would still be capable of believing in a given policy of his. If you can't accept that, let's just agree to differ.
You don't count the heads of the military-industrial complex being part of the US ruling class?
Do you think getting the evangelical vote is something that the Republican elite would not want?
There's no US foreign policy designed for the common American. What there is are agendas and objectives of various groups in the power elite. Think of it like a version of trickle down economics.
(Besides, the Trump supporters will ardently favour war if Trump is for it and it's opposed by the Democrats.)
If he's 99.9% scum, how would it make sense to ever give him the benefit of the doubt? Seems like a pretty steep gamble, especially when you have the fate of all the potential (and at this point probable) victims of war to consider.
The scorpion and frog fable still holds true after all these years.
Here's another analogy.
A: Check out this guy sticking pins in us.
B: What shall we do about it?
A: Well, we can't just let him get away with it forever. He'll just keep doing it.
B: I guess.
A: How about we cut his fingers off?
B: I don't know if that's such a good idea. His buddies are just likely to come and stick even more pins in us. They might even decide to cut our fingers off. What should we do then?
A: Um, I don't know. Cut their heads off?
B: Er...
The route to less violence is de-escalation. The US is doing the opposite right now.
An alternative:
A: Check out this guy sticking pins in us.
B: Why is he doing that and how can we get him to stop without getting hurt ourselves?
A: Good question...
You make the argument on a case-by-case basis looking at other factors besides the propensity for lies. And you have to do that with every politician. You may as well just presume they are all willing to lie when it suits them.
Yeah, I know that. I hadn't thought about the Evangelical angle though. Interesting one.
Your solution is we be blind to people's history and personality and everything they've ever said and everything they've shown us about themselves?
That logic would lead to the conclusion that we should let all criminals out of all prisons.
Yes, that's what I want. I want us to release all the prisoners. Cool we got to the bottom of our disagreement anyhow.
Not my fault your logic leads to absurd conclusions *shrug*
The guy is sticking pins in us because he genuinely hates us and has been hating us for decades. This is the regime, not the people. We can play nice with them, but that doesn't change the fact that we have diametrically opposed interests in the middle east. What Iran is doing now in targeting the US via proxy makes sense for it. It makes sense to ramp up the aggression if the US isn't responding too. That's just good strategy.
Exactly
Why?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Which is why he helped you fight the Taliban?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
No, it doesn't. You're not thinking. Try the analogy again. Try to think about not fucking yourself up just to get to fuck the other guy up. Or bite the bullet and admit you don't really care about how many people get killed, you care about being made to look bad by a country you consider inferior.
What are these, specifically, and why do they require you to get into an armed conflict with each other as opposed to finding some kind of mutually less destructive accommodation? I really don't think you know what you're talking about. But please prove me wrong.
Weird.
It was a good strategy, until you get blown up. But I suppose if youâre a theocrat thatâs the sort of martyrdom you want.
An embassy is American territory. Dictators arenât swayed by moral force, as Orwell once said: what despots fear is physical force. It was an appropriate response that will make them think twice about doing it again.
Your contribution has been a few rhetorical questions, a maths brain fart, and a poor attempt at sarcasm. Analysis, no.
Fuck yeeeeah!
All you had to do was ask why I kept mentioning Shiites. How was I supposed to know that you're clueless?
Oh wait.
You don't give the impression of someone with anything much to contribute @frank. You'll just have to own that until you actually say something other than the word "Shiite".
Just to clarify my argument by the way. My claim here is that the American action is likely to lead to more violence and death in the region, including on the American side with a small but significant risk of a full-scale war, and for that reason was undesirable. My claim is not that the general didn't deserve to be killed or wasn't involved in sponsoring attacks on American forces etc.
What I'm realizing is that you don't understand what's been happening in the middle east since the invasion of Iraq. You don't understand where ISIS came from, and therefore you don't really understand the Syria disaster. I mean, I could explain to you that Iran incites sectarian violence and that's the main reason the Middle East hasn't been able to recover from the American invasion of Iraq, but I don't think that's going to compute for you.
Eh, I don't care if you understand it. Good night. :)
The hardliners certainly hate our guts. Sometimes people just hate your guts.
yes, we will occasionally share interests with groups that we aren't normally friendly with. would it mean kim jung il likes us if he dislikes isis?
Bro, from a game theory perspective it makes sense to push the envelope if your opponent isn't responding. and that's exactly what happened; suleiman was brazen, he didn't even attempt to hide where he was going and he'd take selfies because he considered himself untouchable. you need to look at history and understand that sometimes the cost of inaction is worse than the cost of action. obviously, in this case, we'll just never know.
you keep implying that we can have peace and be best friends with iran but you never really come up with anything concrete... you just say de-escalate, but this term is pretty vague. so far you haven't suggested any actual alternative. the two nations won't even speak to each other directly. the iran govenrment as of 2018 refuses to negotiate with the US.
You've concluded I know nothing about the Middle East because I didn't ask you what you meant about something? You're an odd one. And I'm pretty sure everyone involved in the conversation understands that Iran has been inciting sectarian violence there. You'll need to come up with more than that if you want to contribute something to the discussion. And leave the silly face-saving ad-homs at home. They're not remotely credible.
Cool. So you understand why Sulimani had been a high value target for years, why the recent uptick in Iranian backed violence directed at Americans was testing the waters to see what the US would allow, and why the the assassination was the answer to that question.
You've got the whole picture?
Quoting Baden
If you say so. I'll keep what I really think of you to myself.
No, and nor is Obama, who trespassed into Pakistan to assassinate OBL in what the Dems have now clarified as a violation of international law. Fortunately there are no international courts to bring justice to either, although had there been, Suleimani. (and OBL) would have been convicted long ago of terrorism, thus eliminating the need for his elimination.
I think the strategy has been one of increasing sanctions, open mutual hostility, and a lack of diplomacy. Iranian hostilities go back from my memory to the Carter administration. I guess the real question is why the attack now? I don't really know what changed, but I don't know what less destructive accommodation there is other than letting it be what it is and tolerating it ianother 4 decades.
Imagine if Vietnam or Laos or Cambodia killed Kissinger for crimes they considered he committed during the Vietnam war. They did this while Kissinger was visiting France and while he was an advisor in some way to a current president.
And the idea with all these policies, such as one breaking international law, should be to protect US interests and citizens.
This act will very likely do just the opposite, except for certain interests: the arms and intelligence industries for example.
In the Vietnam war, many different leaders who knew the war was basically unwinnable continued to either escalate, start or continue the war. In Iraq, the entire reason for going to war was a lie and in Afghanistan, generals have recently admitted that they have no idea what they're even doing there.
The US has a history of political assassinations, supporting rogue groups and there's also an almost equally long history of how all of these things ended for the worst. In the middle east, in Asia and in South America.
America has such a bad history with the wars they've started, with the covert operations and assassinations they've carried out. If the US goes to war with Iran, we might find out 20-30 years later the answer why but until then, likely nothing is what it seems. I have no sympathy for Iran's regime, however, I also have no faith in America's ability to bring about a positive resolution through war and if this is the start of one then so far the start is pretty bad.
It's all over the mainstream media and both sides of the aisle- democrats and republicans seem to agree on the basic facts here. Soleimani's complicity seems to be universally accepted.
I actually work in intelligence. I could go into work tomorrow and get the inside scoop, but it's not like I could ever actually deliver any physical evidence to the general public (or even really talk about what I heard.) Additionally, for all I know, the reports have been doctored. At some point you just sort of need to throw in with it. I think the connection between Iran and known terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah (which have been behind American deaths) as well as sectarian groups in Syria has been pretty well established.
You wouldn't do this at the negotiating table, but out in the field I think Kissinger would have been a legitimate target for the vietnamese. I think a better comparison would be Westmoreland, who was actually a general - but yeah, absolutely a legitimate target for the Vietnamese. generals are absolutely legitimate military targets.
Yes, tensions could very well be inflamed. However, this comes after a long string of transgressions/attacks from Iran who previously believed themselves untouchable. With this strike that veil of impunity has been shattered. I'll make it very clear that I don't want war with Iran. Yes, we've raised the stakes but the iranians were really becoming quite bold thinking that we couldn't touch them. hopefully this will help prevent further bold escalations from iran because they know they are no longer untouchable. of course, the jury is still out on this one and the results will unfold over years.
I think that finally many of them start to be tired of being called hypocrites (by supporting Trump and saying that they are also for Christian values/virtues). I think another reason is that the shadow of Hillary is fading away. You simply cannot now start defending Trump by saying how worse Hillary would have been. 2016 is ancient history.
They'll find Trump again if the Democratic candidate can be portrayed to be an overt atheist hell bent on attack people of Christian faith or something.
So there you have it!
Americans are kicked out by the government they used so much effort and money to create and install. Hooray for democracy. And with 2,3 trillion dollars used.
Teheran will be all smiles.
BRAVO TRUMP! :cheer: :ok:
Iran, maybe not.
The US would not dream of assassinating any North Korean general or other high official. By the way, if Saddam Hussein or Qaddafi really had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have been in a position to avoid war. They were not, simply because they were too gullible.
It is Kim Jong-un who has got it completely right. Never hesitate to press the button, and make sure that the other side clearly understands that you will not hesitate for one second to effectively do it.
The only way to avoid war now, is for Iran to urgently acquire a nuclear arsenal along with the ballistic missiles to strike anywhere on the globe. Hence, for Iran, it is a race against time now. By the way, Iran should obviously have done that a long time ago already.
Another possible solution for Iran is to place itself under the Russian nuclear umbrella. If anybody strikes at Iran, the Russian Federation will immediately and without hesitation strike back. I think that this is to some extent already the case anyway.
The current generation is not marrying, first because divorce is now so common, and second because its income is lower than the prior generation. So there is a surfeit of testosterone going around and alot of people who are useless to the economy because, without having children, they arent buying enough stuff.
So the ruler's solution when there is a surfeit of useless people is to send them overseas to get killed off, while saying it values human life, it actually does everything it can to attribute war deaths to other factors, resulting in absurd statements I have heard like 'only 7 people were killed by the war' in the first persian gulf thing (stated deaths are only for combatants during declared military engagements, not including deaths from so called 'friendly fire,' which are frequently much higher than all deaths caused by the enemy).
The USA is looking for someone else to play the killing off game to the extent it is now being deliberately aggravating, assassinating Iranian generals when there had been many prior opportunities untaken.
It has most likely nothing to do with absolute level of income. If it did, then marriage should be almost non-existent in very poor countries, while that is clearly not the case.
The drop in marriage rate is probably more related to the shrinking difference in income between spouses. Marriage generally does not take place, if it does not allow the lower-earning spouse to gain access to the resources of a substantially higher-earning spouse.
Unconditional "romantic love" has always been just a Hollywood fairy tale. Marriage is first and foremost an economic arrangement.
Too much equality seems to lead to extinction! ;-)
That's true, but people in the USA have this in-built sense of entitlement that has long been fulfilled, leading them it to expect more. But capitalist exploitation of resources is hitting a wall as every possible avenue of exploitation is used up, so the progressive improvement over the last 150 years is breaking down. People in poor nations also have a sense of entitlement but don't really expect more.
Poor nations are generally no longer relatively as poor as they used to be.
For example, in PPP, income per capita per year in the UK is $46,000 while in Thailand it is $20,000, slightly less than half. Thailand is not that poor in relative terms, compared to the UK. They've clearly got the basics covered too, and then some.
In my opinion, this gap will further shrink in the next few decades, to the point that it will no longer be relevant for most countries.
I agree with this totally. This is the stupidity of Trump as the Obama agreement was indeed a better option. But the bad thing was that it was done by Obama, so for Trump it had to be bad. This is the crazyness of Trump. When it comes to Iran, he's been a hawk right from the start. It's a thing many Trump supporters haven't noticed in their daydreams about Donald.
Quoting alcontali
I think this is unlikely.
There's no reason for Russia to do this. The only country they would be willing to defend with nukes likely is Belarus, their closest ally. You see, Trump has a problem with Iran: he can surely bomb it, all those 52 places he has promised to bomb, but then what?
Invading and occupying Iran is out of the question. Too many people, a very socially cohesive people (unlike Iraq), very difficult terrain, all things that make it a nightmare to go in. Hence the thing Trump can do is to bomb the country and go after Iranian proxies or so-called Iranian proxies...and then declare himself a victor. Yet bombing Iran is as useful as bombing North Vietnam: it will strengthen their resolve and make the Iranian people back up their regime. The success is basically that the present nuclear program facilities can be destroyed. Hooray.
If Trump bombs Persepolis or even just sticks to military and oil production targets, Putin can actually be happy about it. Iran surely will need his help after the bombing has ended and the US is mired in a new war, which won't make him friends in Europe. After all, Putins objectives are:
a) break up NATO
b) break up EU
c) end the Transatlantic relationship between US and Europe
d) make Russia a Great Power again
How does the US attacking Iran hinder those objectives? It doesn't. Hopefully it can further them.
Obama seemed to have been better at juggling with Israel's pressure on the USA "to do something" about Iran. Israel is very selfish and will drag the USA without hesitation into adventures that are not in its best interest. Obama knew how to manage that. Well, he clearly did. By the way, I am otherwise no fan of Mr. fake Nobel prize winner Obama.
The assassination of Soleimani was certainly not the worst thing that Trump has done in this context. It is the insulting speech that he gave in West Palm Beach afterwards that is the worst. His allegations were so incredibly insulting that even CNN now demands that he must "prove it". He went seriously over the top there, and there was absolutely no need for that. On the contrary, it is not even an appropriate way to start a war, if that is what he actually wanted to achieve by rubbing salt into the wound.
It is the most astonishing thing about US foreign policy: that the sole Superpower goes is so much influenced and controlled by a small country, which is the closest ally by only defends it's own interests. It's simply crazy if you ask me. But when you have AIPAC and especially the Evangelicals with their insane beliefs, that's what you have. It's just about getting the votes and a twisted Overton window on what can be even said about the Mid-East policy in general.
Quoting Baden
I think he's milking the "outrage" factor with this. He wants to be seen as this "no-nonse" tough guy and for him it works if democrats and lefties get "outraged" by his rhetoric. That's the method. Everything is just about the next elections.
Risky to make bluffs that have your own guys contradicting you, especially when those guys are the ones you'll need to rely on for military action. Might play well to a certain crowd at home, but it's likely to embolden your enemies. We'll see how it plays out, but the US is looking more dazed and confused than tough at the moment.
This is the fear everybody has about Trump. Nobody believes that Trump would even consider preparing some coherent plan or form an alliance. What he basically is now doing is waiting for the countermove from Iran. In my view for Iran the best response would be to spend time and work on those nukes as much as they can and try to get Iraq really to go with it's Parliaments decision of sending the US troops home. If Trump really responds with sanctions on Iraq, it's a win for Iran.
Surrounded with yesmen and neocons, Trump can make absolutely bat-shit dumb decisions. That Mattis and all the "adults" have left the Trump administration is the problem now. It really has been downhill after Mattis has gone: first the debacle with Erdogan and the Kurds, now this.
Quoting Baden
You're not alone with this. I'm really starting to question if the country has anymore an effective foreign policy. Other commentators have made similar remarks especially about the State Department. It is simply a mess.
Now that Iran has casually shot missiles at American bases in Iraq, and with Iraq already demanding that these bases be gone, I wonder what the next improvised response is supposed to be? The assassination of another Soleimani?
Iraq is now militia-land, just like Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Somalia.
That is what was achieved by removing Saddam Hussein from Iraq, Qaddafi from Libya, and trying to remove Bashar from Syria.
My gut feeling says that we can expect an assault by Shia militia on American bases in Iraq and Syria. These militia have been watching them closely for years now anyway ...
I think Iran is only trying to save face. There will probably be no American casualties while Iran will claim to have successfully avenged the killing of Sulaimani.
Well, we have the promise from Trump to attack 52 targets, and luckily a flip-flop from him on the cultural targets, so I guess Persepolis will be intact (if ruins can be intact) after this war. It's a tit for tat, which others than the neocons, Israel and the Saudis aren't so excited about:
At least now it's obvious. Iran took the responsibility, Iraq and the US both noticed that the ballistic missiles came from Iran. So let's see what Trump does. And he is so insecure and inept we cannot know where he will take it. You see, it's all about his popularity, his base, the US elections, nothing else for him. And if there are even a few cracks in his base, it will show. That Tucker Carlson says what says below (qoute), really shouldn't matter at all, but in the case of Trump, it does:
Quoting alcontali
Yes. It already was in a deep political turmoil and now likely will be a renewed battlefield with such confusion that nobody can figure it out. Which I guess is the objective. After all, the ISIS thing was just to be over, so what everybody needs is a new reason for fighting.
:down:
Baden, President Trump is a personality that I think you misunderstand. If you listen closely you will hear that he "streams of conscious" when he speaks. It seems like when he is serious he is dismissed but the moment he is factious or sarcastic, chisel those words in stone.
President Trump is inconsistently consistent.
I am watching history being written as are you. The question is how will history see President Trump's actions? Will he be on the right side of history? Will the USA's Redline of harming a USA citizen or one of our allies pass snuff? If not where do you believe the Redline should be drawn?
Will you be on the right side of history?
Is there a "right" side that you can see from here and if so, what is it?
Should the USA have let the attacks dictated by Iranian General Qasem Soleimani continue?
Trump is an ignoramus who knows nothing about international or military affairs. There is no 'there' there behind the stupidities apparent in his interviews and his rallies. He wasn't even aware attacking cultural heritage sites was illegal. He indicated this himself in his most recent comments. Let that sink in Tiff. The commander-in-chief of the most powerful army in the world knows less about military affairs than the average man on the street. At least this time he has had the sense, after being put in his place by the Pentagon and others, to shut up and back off. He needs to leave this stuff to the experts in future.
Victim: Kuna (through Reuters page)
Yet Star & Stripes (via AP) reports:
Interesting to see how the news media handle obvious fake news on real time.
Also Israel is bristling with Nuclear Weapons, this might be their opportunity to attack.
The other player we are not hearing about, who might now fill the void is Russia. They could give Tehran a nuclear bomb, in return for influence in the region. Russia tightening its grip on the Middle East.
Baden, our President has not been groomed to hold the office he currently holds and that is a double edged sword but one we knew before electing him to office. Let that sink in. We did not want status quo. We didn't want to continue look the other way when our embassy was being breached. We didn't want our ambassadors around the world to meet the same fate as John Christopher Stevens did in Libya.
What are you missing in our right to defend our citizens when the host country, charged with protecting our embassy and our people while in their country,.allows the embassy's perimeter to be breached?
(a) So it doesn't trouble you - a patriotic American - that your president sold out his country's national security in an ill-advised attempt to personally benefit from extorting a foreign power to "dig-up oppo-research" on a political rival?
(b) Do you really think the same president who assassinated the second highest official of a sovereign state (& regional hegemon!), and who also took credit for it publicly (self-incriminating testimony against interest with respect to Executive Order 12036 - evidence of guilt: lack of prior notification to both NATO Allies (or even Israel, Saudi Arabia, et al in the region) abroad & the Congressional "Gang of Eight" at home ... for starters), only then to threaten, again publicly, to follow-up that strategically useless act with a campaign of no less than "52" war crimes (i.e. Violations of International Law according to the Geneva Convention, to which the United States is a treaty signatory) if that assassinated official's regime retaliates (or responds in kind - which they may yet do as per "eye for an eye" logic, etc) is now acting to make his country safer and not just, as usual, trying to distract (this time) from his pending trial in the U.S. Senate with another self-inflicted crisis?
(c) What values and/or historical principles do you really think you're defending, Tiff, when you defend this president?
On your first day in McDonald's, you learn to flip burgers or you're out. That principle of employee competence might be worth applying to the most important job in the world. On the rest, I defer to 180 except to add the context of America dumping the Iran deal and imposing sanctions (more today). Trace that line. The Iranians are no innocents but there are reasons for their behaviour which could be dealt with in ways that don't put your own people at such extreme risk.
The most likely explanation is that Iran made a mistake and shot it down.
The whole "But he did it first so I have to respond harder" is not my personal mantra. I have never been in a fist fight but I have always believed that if I was pushed to that point, I would be the one to end it.
Having said that I believe that not all are Doves nor are all Hawks. Is my (duely noted that you do not consider the President of the USA as yours despite living here) President not doing exactly as he said he would do?
Quoting 180 Proof
Are noted terrorists "assisnated" or are they killed?
No, I do not believe that we are seeing a "Wag the Dog" scenario play out.
Quoting 180 Proof
I am not sure "historical principals" are serving the people as well as they once did. That can be seen across our society; a change in respecting and repeating our historical principals but that is for another thread and likely too controversial for the boards.
Sorry if my honesty is surprising to you but I try to be as honest as possible. I don't consider what the popularity factor is when it comes to choosing my positions or my President.
What I knew about Trump before his run for president probably fits in the same thimble size cup as what I knew about President Obama. That is to say that I believe I can see "hustle" when it's headed my way and both are Master Hustler's. One came from my home town and the other comes from the city of BIGGLY town but both are Hustler's.
Is considering a Presidential candidates "hustle" factor important to me? When I can see it? You betcha :wink:
He helped the US fight the Taliban. He also fought ISIS, Al-Nusrah, and Al-Qaeda in Syria. He was a high-ranking military official of a sovereign nation. He was doing his job the same way your generals do. That includes supporting insurgent groups, something the US has been doing all around the world for the past couple of generations. That doesn't make him a good guy, but if you want to designate him a terrorist, you'll have to apply that to Reagan, Bush, Obama, and Trump, the latter who killed him in what much of the world outside your bubble considers an act of terrorism (illegal under international law in the absence of evidence of an imminent threat). So again you're failing the basic test of even attempting to get beyond your bias here. First step, give me an ideologically neutral definition of 'terrorist' and accept the consequences of who falls under that umbrella.
Do American generals also murder and imprison their own people when they protest? This happened by the hundreds maybe a month or two ago. I feel like you're one of those people who would wear a Che Guevara shirt because, hey, he's just sticking it to the Americans, right?
The American military has tortured and sponsored torture and the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and elsewhere. You think because they don't do it to "their own people" that makes them morally superior?
Au contrair, mon amie - he's very much mine too! Thus, my visceral - and vociferous - critical reactions to him. But you mistake my rhetorical emphasis for disavowal when really I'm just trying to keep front & center that it's (MAGA-supporters like) you who claim tRUMP (so much more than the majority of Americans - me included) enough to defend his indefensible conduct. Yeah I claim him as "my president", Tiff, and accept my duty, in solidarity with my fellow citizens, to resist (i.e. civilly disobey) tRUMP's pathological perfidy & various abuses of power in the near-term and hold him criminally, constitutionally & electorally accountable in the long-term. So yeah, "my president", my national disgrace, My Cosmopolitan Duty to take out the presidental trash! Care to join me, chère? :flower:
"Even so, the Pentagon said âGeneral Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region.â It pointed out that Iranâs Revolutionary Guard is a âUS-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization,â and added that Soleimani and his Quds Force âwere responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American and coalition service members and the wounding of thousands more.â
You realize most Iranians do not like Soleimani? Head over to r/iran if you don't believe me. I literally haven't heard anyone sympathize with him the way you have. It's absurd to the point where I feel like you're on the Ayatollah's payroll. It's just kind of funny because no one really sympathizes with this mass-murdering monster EXCEPT YOU and the Iranian regime. American Democrats and European liberals certainly don't. Normal Iranians don't support him. Only you seem to sympathize with him for some reason.
A "junk yard dog" hnmmmmm.....
What breed are we talking?
Ok, he's not a terrorist then.
I sympathize with him because I compared him to scumbags like Trump and Bush? Are you serious?
Could you tell me the last time Bush or Trump used machine guns on hundreds of peaceful protesters protesting the government? That happened last month in Iran.
Such a beautiful opening to an appeal to my emotional side that might just sway me :flower: I shall update my interpretation of your regard for our Commander in Chief.
I would enjoy such a stroll in todays weather with a mind that could feed my intelligent hunger.
But I should tell you in advance that I am of the valition that as long as we keep moving forward as a nation, the resistant trash will remain stagnant and eventually get so aromatic that it begins to compost in place. :fire:
On the bright side it is a renewable form of heat and energy :sparkle:
Give me an ideologically neutral definition of "terrorist" that you're prepared to test American leaders against and then let's do that.
I've never called him a terrorist. I understand what you're saying here. Let me ask you though: From a moral standpoint, do you think Soleimani deserved what he got, roughly speaking?
The likelihood is he's guilty of execution-worthy human rights abuses, yes.
Edit: just look at the name of the OP; âWhy do you think the US is going into war with Iran?â Fait accompli. Not âifâ but âwhyâ.
What you and others appear to have done is create a sort of cartoon character of Trump and then imagine him performing in ways that the character would behave; like heâs sitting in the White House eating hamburgers, watching tv, and thinking about attacking another country, then his hamburger goes cold, so he gets angry and assassinates some innocent abroad.
In fact youâre the trigger happy characters that jump up and down, waving your arms about, whenever Trump does something. Just using a little reason here on a philosophy forum, is it likely that everything he does is wrong, that he might not get something right even by chance? When are you going to apply a little reason to your responses to the elected President of the United States?
Obviously âTrump derangement syndrome is a real condition.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/best-things-trump-has-done/
Killing military personal who are in occupying countries is hardly befitting of the term "terrorist". Seems that the appellation is simply being used to denote any and all perceived enemies of the US. Additionally, as has been noted, Soleimani was a prominent government official. Should the US consider Putin a terrorist and assassinate him? Kim Jong Un? Maduro? Xi Jinping?
I think youâre spot on here. Trump derangement syndrome, like religion, makes even normally smart people into dogmatic morons. No middle ground, no room to discuss anything but black and white, no understanding. Rational discussion is not welcome on the topic of Trump.
I think Trump derangement syndrome infects both sides though, not just his opponents. Maybe ww disagree there?
Quoting DingoJones
Thatâs very true. Itâs a sort of for me or against me position on both sides. Trumpâs been accused of polarising people, but it seems to me there are a lot of people who like to indulge in this. Itâs an aspect of the times; heated over reaction. Like this OP, everyone ready for war, once again apocalyptic visions. This should be the OP, and Iâve tried to raise this as a discussion, why the rush to apocalypse, what does that mean?
Quoting tim wood
I donât know if Trump really is a Republican. He may not be a Democratâs but that doesnât make him a Republican. What he might have done is hijack the Republican Party. A big problem for people, in my view, is that politics has changed, itâs never going back to what it was. And what was it anyway? Two parties sharing the spoils, smooth talking characters talking out of the side of their mouth. Maybe it turns out things can be done differently and a Trump is the first to see that, or has the nerve to do it.
I donât think itâs reasonable to come up with your own definition so as to argue successfully against it.
From the Collins dictionary and pretty much understood by most:
âDerangement is the state of being mentally ill and unable to think or act in a controlled way.â
Quoting tim wood
Well certainly what they want.
Salt Lake Tribune, excerpts of statement after GOP & Democratic Senators were "briefed" by the WH today:
[quote=Sen. Mike Lee, R-UT]What I found so distressing about that briefing was that one of the messages we received from the briefers was, 'Do not debate. Do not discuss the issue of the appropriateness of further military intervention against Iran. And then if you do, you'll be emboldening Iran'.
[i]The implication [from the briefers] being that we would somehow be making America less safe by having a debate or a discussion about the appropriateness of further military involvement against the government of Iran. Now, I find this insulting and demeaning, not personally, but to the office that each of the 100 senators in this building happens to hold.
It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government â I donât care whether theyâre with the CIA, with the Department of Defense or otherwise â to come in and tell us that we canât debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran. Itâs un-American. Itâs unconstitutional, and itâs wrong.[/i][/quote]
Again I refer you (@ArguingWAristotleTiff) to my question (b) from a prior thread. GOP - otherwise loyal tRUMPkins - Senator Lee, R-UT & Senator Paul, R-KY (so far) seemed to have answered. Nakedly shameful wreckless disregard for U.S. national security by your president, Tiff (et al). Is this shitshow what you 'voted' for? :roll:
:clap: Well said, sir.
Again, I think you have it right on the money. Indulging the outrage, leaning into the division with selective reasoning and shamelessly mischaracterising everything Trump says and does are the hallmarks of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). The cherry on top of defining TDS is how unnecessary it is to lie and misrepresent Trump, of all people. Not just letting his actual characteristics speak for themselves they pile on more and more made up or skewed assessments and has the exact opposite intended effect. It empowers him and makes it easier to get away with the shenanigans he DOES actually commit. Every time they exaggerate, every time they lie, every time they act like Trump essentially, they give Trump something to point at and say âsee? Fake newsâ and be 100% correct. It makes him look better to his fans, and has zero effect on those who already hate him.
Another trait Ive noticed with TDS is how Trump voters are viewed. Those suffering from TDS cannot admit, or see, that there is actual logic and coherency to voting for Trump if the voter is operating under certain premises such as the country is so corrupt it has to be burned down and rebuilt, or that only someone who cannot be bought (on account of already having tons of money) can break the status quo or even that a straight talker is whats needed over a mouthy, pandering politician, then a vote for Trump makes sense. I dont think any of those things are true and its clear to me Trump is NOT a straight talker but if I did think those things Then Trump just might be my guy. To someone with TDS its simply the worst people voting for the worst guy cuz they are all just the worst.
Thanks for you sketch, Tim. It just shows how the whole political discourse has evolved. And I think of Trump's antics will be taken by the Party even when he leaves.
Especially now the Republican party is a mess. Many Republican politicians are now walking on eggshells thanks to the petulant yet popular Trump.
Or...
Perhaps we don't have all the information and probably aren't as smart as we think we are?
I described some of what defines TDS in my post to Brett, but Im choosing not to directly answer your charge because A) Its a plain attempt to put words in my mouth and dishonestly control the use of the term TDS and B) I have these little notes to myself regarding people ive interacted with on this forum and yours reads âdishonest and stupid, clarifying questions only, discussion pointlessâ.
Since you immediately proved my note correct by essentially using a âwhoever smelled it dealt itâ argument, Ill heed my note. Good day sir.
Quoting Tzeentch
Oh, finally.
But to the intelligent onlooker it's just more populism on steroids. It achieves its aim to keep a showman in charge of the show, " The Greatest Show on Earth", behold the mighty Kong, KING KONG.
But it's not a show, is it? The show is just a fascade.
In reality it's an office, perhaps the most important office in the world, with great responsibilities, an office supposed to be showing great statesmanship in its careful and considered governance of the most influential state in the world which over the last century has been showing leadership across the world.
Such a great office reduced to a sideshow, it's like Penguin in Batman has won and now controls Gotham City.
The tragedy is that it is betraying this high office, the country and the world for a sop, it's not even the spectacle of King Kong, it's The King of Comedy, Rupert Pupkin.
I think we can judge that an act was decided upon that would be considered an act of war by the united states, were the roles reversed. That is if someone high up in power in the US was in another country and a third country assassinated that person - say, Kissinger, not long after the Vietnam war, and the incursions into Laos and Cambodia - was killed while visiting France, for his crimes, by one of those asian countries.
We can certainly judge that the admistration has taken steps to start a war without going through due process. However much we may have gotten used to not going through due process. And that no coincidentally, the administration has been made up from the beginning by hawks who want to invade Iran. This is something we can have already known.
And none of this is dependent on thinking even those people are stupid, let alone that the military is or 'all representatives of government'.
Nor does it mean we have to assume they want to destroy the usa. The small fraction of the government that developed this action could be too willing to risk things that have a negative impact on the US, for example, without them wanting to destroy the US. They might be people who are happy to risk the lives of the soldiers right now flying into various bases in that region in large numbers, a region where their lives will be in more danger even if a war does not start. They might be people who aren't really thinking about how this approach might lead to more terrorism, more refugees, more hatred, more disruption in that region. Let alone possible increased and truly dangerous tensions with Russia and China. Again, that smaller subset of the government that can, unfortunately, make decisions like this, and need not be of low IQ. Nor do the experts on the military side who carry out the mission need to be of low IQ or have any of these motives.
So, to present the issue as if all of them must have those motives and levels of stupidty is to frame the issue in such binary and sweeping terms as to make any opponent seems necessarily idiotic, when in fact it is not remotely even implicit in most of the critics positions. Nor do we have to wait to know more. There are many things we already know, some mentioned above. And we have the last few decades of confused policies in the Middle East to look at where similar patterns have taken place.
Theyâre morons though. Theyâre human and most humans are moronic. The nonsense with Iran has been going on for years with the toppling of stable governments generally due to the fact that the Saudiâs and the western world have been in bed with each other for around half a century.
Itâs oil. The whole Syria business and the matter of Qatar and Iraq are proxy âwarsâ between NATO and Russia (because people have nothing better to do than play competitive games and try and âleave their markâ in the history books).
They wonât literally âgo to warâ. All war since the Cold War is propaganda - Iran will lose the propaganda war, and eventually the US will turn their focus on South America. The likeliest actually âtroops on the groundâ invasion will be in South America (likely via Columbian cooperation), into Brasil and/or Venezuela (Brasil is the juicier prize so probably the most likely target - doesnât take too much digging to see the posturing made by Obama under the previous administration, really the same old behind the scenes bunch, and the governmental scandal involved). If you donât know what Iâ talking about look into Obamaâs request to the then Brasilian president - now imprisoned - regarding cooperation/help with the Iranian nuclear programme.
They will be breathing down the necks of Europe, Israel and Saudi Arabia.
The issue is economic in terms of supplying oil to Europe. If the US was allowed to do as it pleases in Iraq, Syria and Turkey then Russians wouldnât have a monopoly on direct pipelines to Europe. Thatâs just the simple fact of the matter.
At the end of the day theyâre both happy to kick shit up in someone elseâs backyard rather than in their own. Yeah, weâre likely going to see someone try and drop a bomb at some point in the middle east, and that is basically preferable for the main players involved - but not for Iran, Israel or any other unfortunate puppet used in these silly games.
Aa long as the region is antagonised both Russia and the US remain relatively happy about it. If the middle east was to listen to each other and work together (as Gaddafi pointed out) then things would het better for them VERY quickly ... but that ainât gonna happen because Saudiâs are loving under a monarchy and basically donât much care to do anything other than sit back and watch the piles of cash rise.
On the optimistic side of things Saudi Arabia is slowly, and I mean SLOWLY, going through social change that will give its peoples greater freedom.
If it wasnât Iran it would be some other country of convenience to play some other silly game that the average citizen of most countries donât really give a shit about.
Iran is not âbreathing down the necksâ of anyone, nor will they be anytime soon. Nonsense! When did Iran invade anyone? MANY documents from the CIA have been made public since their contribution in the Iraq-Iran war (backed by the west).
I have found comfort in the past from the collective experience and knowledge that is the filter for some politicians including Ron Paul, Joe Liberman, my beloved Maverick and by extension, to a degree Rand Paul when it comes to national security. So I was surprised by Rand's response after being briefed on what the intelligence was before action was taken.
You keep asking if "this" is what I "voted" for which is the same question I am asked from my 20 yr old indian. He takes the question one step further in constantly measuring "When/what will President Trump have to do/or done "enough" to get you to not vote for him again/or regret voting for him to begin with?"
I cannot change the past and when I assess the three year impact of my current choice which includes 20k increase in my personal/small biz taxes over two years, a loss in combined Pell Grants for both myself and my indian and a noticeable increase in the cost of every day goods.
At the same time two of our 15 small businesses that we care for are being hit hard by the tariffs with China, though they have found other sources at a higher price and the pain from the tariffs is easing.
Three of our businesses have had record years for the past two years and with a loosening of a few more regulations we anticipate a new sector of small businesses opening up in the near future.
I don't have an answer to your question nor do I have one for my indian. The question is a complex one for me. In the past two years we have been able to refinance the ranch to utilize the equity to pay my surgeon $36k in cash for my procedure and that is with my insurance picking up their portion of $2k.
We could go off into the weeds of our health care system but for this thread I shall refrain.
Regret? Not yet. Possible change in vote this November? Possible.
I don't think we should underestimate what is going through Putin's mind. But he does seem to be testing the borders of the territory that is has influence over. It would be remarkable if he weren't looking at the chaos over the pond and looking for opportunities.
When I said "breathing down necks", I was referring to a future scenario in which there is a ring of Russian client states around the whole region. It might not happen, but is it a risk.
In fairness, you take a lot of flak on Trump from just about every angle and manage to stay remarkably good-natured about it, which is admirable. And with 15 small businesses, I imagine you have headaches enough on your plate.
At the moment on Iran, I'm at the thank-fuck-nobody-else-had-to-die stage. Hope it stays like that for the forseeable.
This from the survey, which got zero votes and turned out to be what happened.
Why did you get it so wrong?
Stick to your philosophy kiddies.
Quoting Baden
You have your answer.
The veneration of dumb luck? Apt.
So whatever he does, what ever works out, is just dumb luck? This also applies to everyone he consulted with and even includes the response from Iran, that they got away with dumb luck and didnât chose their targets carefully and announce their intentions before hand, all just dumb luck.
No, he planned it all from the start. He knew Iran would fire dozens of missiles at an American base in retaliation for his attack and these missiles would happen to cause no casualties, so he would be able to avoid starting a massive horrific war. He's clearly a genius.
Well letâs just say he knows more about what heâs doing than you do.
Right on. This guy's moves make Baldrick look like a n00b.
How long is this going to go on @Baden?
The development of full deterrent-level nuclear weapons in North Korea and Iran? Until they get them apparently. :grin:
Whatever, I'm just happy no-one is dead in a horrible war today. Let's all drink champagne and sing Kumbaya until Kim nukes LA.
I will ask you what I asked NOS4A2 and didn't get much of an answer, how will Trump prevent Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb?
It's looking like there are two people with the blood of those airline passengers on their hands, Trump and the those hotheads with that missile. Perhaps they were given the nod by the leaders, who then put out the press reports that it was an engine fire, afterwards. Outwitting The US, killing over 70 western citizens in reprisal for the assassination of Sulimani, in such a way that the US was found to be impotent, simply because it wasn't clear who actually killed them. This sets the stage for many more such accidents committed by rogue elements etc.
Quoting Punshhh
He probably didn't answer because it's a stupid question. How could we possibly know?
Please explain.
NOS4A2's answer to the question was that Trump is now going to strike a tougher deal with the Iranians.
Fat chance of that, sounds like he's got as little idea about what to do next, as Trump.
To summarise, any curb on Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb has now been removed and an incentive (numerous incentives) put in its place to acquire it more quickly. Also by taking such a hard line Trump is in danger of pushing Iran into the hands of the Russians. An outcome which probably won't end well.
Phew! Youâve convinced me.
But have you told Trump about this? Because obviously they need to know.
I'm an old, as the kids say. In grade school -- full disclosure, this was during the Eisenhower administration -- we used to talk about current events. The Middle East was about to blow up. I remember something we all agreed in class: That when WWIII starts, it will start in the Middle East.
Now it's all these many years later, and the Middle East is still about to blow up and we all agree that when WWIII starts, it will start in the Middle East.
You have a good insight about the bloody mess that's going to follow when the US leaves. That's the problem. I'm a peacenik and we never should have gone in. I think we should leave tomorrow morning. But when we do, things are going to be really really bad. And the US will be blamed. Colin Powell said about invading Iraq: "You break it, you bought it." And we broke it. We're screwed if we stay and screwed if we go. That is the legacy of Bush's war, aided and abetted by the NYT, Hillary, Joe Biden, and the rest of the Democratic establishment. No wonder there's a populist uprising, imperfect as its leader may be.
Have you ever considered the events of the last few days between America and Iran showing a greater understanding and appreciation of each other than ever before?
For what it's worth I supported Obama's Iran deal, imperfect as it was. For someone who wants to get us out of the wars, Trump's Iran policy has been counterproductive IMO.
It now seems that it was the air defence system that mis-identified the flight as a hostile, which does seem plausible.
However I agree that Trump's policy towards Iran is incoherent and motivated mainly by his hatred of Obama.
Quoting fishfry
...in response to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel.
I must admit, I really don't know what to say now.
Oh you mean like JFK and Nikita Khrushchev had after the Cuban missile crisis, where we were going to WW3?
Cold War continued afterwards with quite a lot of intensity. In 1983 the Soviets were really thinking that Reagan was contemplating an out-of-the-blue sudden nuclear strike on the Soviet Union.
(I think it's well known that Iranians can be reasonable, if you just put aside the Middle Eastern death rants intended for the domestic crowd. And then again, Americans can be reasonable too.)
Quoting ssu
I know the Shah wasnât too popular, but people forget what Iran was once like.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-4148684/Stunning-photos-reveal-life-Iran-revolution.html
I don't think that's plausible at all. Modern anti-air systems have all sorts of mechanics in place to avoid that from happening. For example, civilian aircraft broadcast their position and ID continuously. They have Identification Friend-or-Foe (IFF) systems. Furthermore, they fly at speeds and altitudes that make them easy to identify.
Additionally, these systems require well-trained crews to operate. It is not like one gets behind the wheel and starts shooting.
The scenario of accidentally shooting down an airliner with modern anti-air equipment is very unlikely.
I noticed you linked to The Daily Mail, one of the worst bigoted racist gutter rags in Britain, it should be burnt in the streets. I appreciate you probably didn't know this, my rant was not personal, or directed at you. People who don't live in the UK should be aware of the gutter press we have to put up with. I note Meghan Markle is moving to Canada now.
Youâre very good at missing the point. It doesnât matter what the newspaper was, itâs the photos that were important, which you completely ignored, and what Iran was once. It was about the people of Iran. Did you bother to look at them?
Going back to the point. I know what Iran used to be like and I felt the pain in 1979. But the US had become involved by that point and it may have been unsustainable, the imposition of western values in these countries. If the US had treated the Iranians with respect in the interim as they deserved, they might be best of friends by now, I know this is a big if. But the distrust, duplicity and superior arrogance of the US has not gone down well in the region. This may now be the end game.
The problem being what happens next if the US pulls out?
The problem with this perspective is that once you've carried out an action, and determined that it was a mistaken action, you cannot simply undo the mistake. So "we never should have gone in" does not justify "we should leave". When you put yourself into such a position, as having made a mistake, you are forced to live with the consequences, and the consequences of such a mistake are retributive requirements. It is utterly wrong to walk away from a mistaken action pretending that it didn't happen.
Thank you kindly Baden :flower:
[quote="Baden;370055] At the moment on Iran, I'm at the thank-fuck-nobody-else-had-to-die stage. Hope it stays like that for the forseeable.[/quote]
From your lips to God's ears :pray:
I believe that it would be naive to think that Iran does not already have a nuclear bomb. Knowledge obtained can rarely be eliminated.
Yes, I had considered that, the Russians could have given them one. I don't see why they would not want to tell the world about it. Because the main purpose of nuclear bombs seems to be to waive them in other people's faces.
In practical terms I agree. If we left there would be a bloodbath. This is how we stayed so long in Vietnam. We didn't want to "waste" all the lives and money already lost. So we wasted plenty more before Congress finally had enough and cut off funds for the war.
So as I said, we're screwed if we stay in Iraq and screwed if we leave. The disaster was inevitable the day we invaded. No way out.
True, but she received a lot of criticism at the time, including from Obama. Her warmongering is what cost her the Dem nomination. So yes, she was making a hypothetical point. But her language revealed her character. If you criticize me for taking her remark out of context, would you level the same charge at Obama?
Obama: Clinton's 'obliterate' Iran statement too much like Bush
https://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/04/dems.election/
:roll: :grimace:
On January 3, 2020, in a WH statement from Mar-a-Lago, President tRUMP claimed (sole) credit for ordering the assassination of the world's "number-one terrorist" ...
[quote=Individual-1]As President, my highest and most solemn duty is the defense of our nation and its citizens.
Last night, at my direction, the United States military successfully executed a flawless precision strike that killed the number-one terrorist anywhere in the world, Qasem Soleimani.
[ ... ]
For years, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its ruthless Quds Force â under Soleimaniâs leadership â has targeted, injured, and murdered hundreds of American civilians and servicemen ...[/quote]
... US-ally against ISIS/Daesh in Iraq & Syria since 2014 (BBC) AND former(?) tRUMP Organization business partner - from as far back as 2012 - as reported on in April 2017. According to the PATRIOT ACT and title 18 of the United States Code, sections 2339A and 2339B, providing material support for terrorism is a Federal crime. :point: Read it - die LĂźgenpresse? :monkey: - and weep, lil MAGAts.
:scream:
UPDATE:
[quote=@realDonaldTrump, Nov. 29, 2011]In order to get elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.[/quote]
Projection. (Hater's gotta hate.)
[quote=WSJ, Jan. 9, 2020]Mr. Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen. Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his impeachment trial in the Senate ...[/quote]
Self-interest at the expense (risk) of the National Interest (i.e. Abuse of Power).
:shade:
@ArguingWAristotleTiff
The Americans did it in 1990-something, to an Iranian 747.
//correction - airbus//
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
I missed this. Such an interesting comment. If people could get over their bias they might be able to observe a very interesting historic figure in their own time.
Quoting Punshhh
What is it if not?
Whatâs the difference?
Stream of consciousness is an ecstatic state, more like the trance of a medium. What Trump is doing is showmanship, it might look the same but it is a charade, if he's claiming it's stream of consciousness. I don't think he is making that claim, I don't think he wants to disguise his showmanship, it works and people like it.
Quoting Punshhh
No, thatâs not stream of consciousness. Nor is he claiming to do it. Itâs something @ArguingWAristotleTiff mentioned in a post.
A question for everyone:
Can only a politician be a capable President?
Can a president be an effective leader without being a capable politician?
The general consensus here seems to be no.
Edit: but whatâs a capable politician, one that can win the Democratic nomination or one that serves his constituency?
Yes, Eisenhower. Consistently ranked in the top 10 Presidents by both parties.
I see a capable President as just a President who is capable of achieving his objectives, not that those objectives are necessarily good. An effective, capable President is not necessarily a good President. I can think of worse things than an incapable President.
I think this has gone off the rails a bit from what I meant in my post.
What I was getting at was the charges against a Trump that he was ignorant and incompetent when it came to both domestic and foreign policy, that he was an amateur.
Is it necessary for a President to have come up through the political ranks. For instance, can Bloomberg be a reasonably successful a President? And are we seeing the beginning of the end of politicians as weâve known them, and is that a good or bad thing? Look at the Democrats running for President and the apparent disinterest in them.
Eisenhower's an interesting example. Presumably his war record served him well in that post-war period of uncertainty.
You're lucky, there aren't many here in the UK.
Eisenhower is a great example of someone coming into politics with a stellar career in another field. And keeping the Western Alliance during WW2 intact did show great leadership qualities. And then look at his policies especially the Interstate Highway System. Few if any infrastructure programs match in scale and importance of this government project. And done by a Republican!
Is this part of the problem people have with Trump, that he doesnât behave like a politician? And does that matter?
This discussion is about the US vs Iran; maybe you can repost your question in the [s]dump[/s] Trump thread.
Okay.
Trump basically doesn't believe that he could win any democrats over so why even bother? He doubles down on the polarization of the American voting population. What would benefit him is if everything is seen as part of a 'culture war'.
Why I think that Trump is a lousy president is because his administration is simply a confused mess and because he is inept in leadership. The talented ones in the Trump administration (yes, I believe there have been those) usually simply quit. It all is genuinely confusing. NATO is brain dead, US allies in the Middle East are either confused or simply play him (or his son-in-law, which is a total disaster), allies in the Far East are quite clueless what the US will do. The Trump-Putin bromance is bizarre. The only thing where Trump is persistent and goes on with a plan is basically appeasing and doing favors to his campaign donors. Their agenda is met indeed. So it's the American system on steroids with Trump. But that doesn't stop people hallucinating that "Trump will drain the swamp". Then
Some people think this is great, some enjoy Trump as being this stampeding elephant in the China shop. Bring out the popcorn! Others simply enjoy that he annoys democrats. Well, if the role of the President is to be annoying...
Basically still after four years many of Trump's supporters pin hopes to him which won't happen. There was a similar (if totally different) hope when Obama got into power.
And then there are the people who don't know or care much about foreign or domestic policy and who would doze off if actual goverment policies would be discussed, for them listening to Trump might be fun. Because, hell, he's one of them!
(Btw. the threads are mixed up, this talk ought to be in the Trump thread and vice versa, as Baden said, so let's talk Trump there.)
[quote=tRUMP tweet, 1.13.19]The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was âimminentâ or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesnât really matter because of his horrible past![/quote]
Admission of guilt.
If not, dear MAGAts, then tell me/us what the hell I'm/we're missing. :brow:
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Who should we believe, Tiff: y'all, or our lying eyes? :shade:
UPDATE:
"Lev Parnas and Rudy Giuliani have demolished Trumpâs claims of innocence"
~Neil Katyal, Op-Ed, Washington Post, 1.15.20
Ok this is an answer to your remark on the Trump thread.
There's three counterarguments to your opinion.
First, there is no unified Islamic front. In fact, there is a bitter fight ongoing between the Sunni states and the Shia Iran. Typically the allies (and the US would call them proxies) of Iran are Shiite or non-Sunni Muslims like the Alawite family ruling Syria. Yemen and Syria and also Iraq are battlefields of this inter-Muslim rivalry, which has caused a lot of bloodshed already.
In the case of Palestine this is blurred because Palestinians are Sunni Muslims hence Iran being supportive of Hamas is simply realpolitik for Hamas (as Hamas is not in good terms with the Palestinian Authorities on the West Bank).
Secondly, culture of over-the-top ranting is a really a trademark of the Middle East. In Europe and the West, it's totally the other way around: here ranting sounds like basically being Hitler, and every however populist a politician is, they will not want to be like him. To "strongly oppose" should send alarm bells here, in the Middle East it would be hardly noticed.
Thirdly, the Islamic Republic of Iran is an theocracy. Funding might be important in the US, but how the Iranian coffers are filled by oil money doesn't matter so much to the mullahs in power. Iran can fund organizations that lob few rockets into Israel here and there, because it knows that Israel won't retaliate by destroying Tehran with a nuke. Use of nuclear weapons truly has it's own logic and don't think that either side would take their use lightly. The last time nuclear weapons were thought as just more powerful weapons than conventional weapons ready to be used if necessary was by the US before the Soviet Union detonated it's first nuclear bomb. Then the whole concept changed.
Hey ssu, I just want to point out before I really respond that I don't consider us in a "debate" here. A debate implies that we're both fixed in opposing positions and we're trying our best to convince the other person that we're right. I don't really see that here.
I consider this more of a discussion. I'm engaging you here because you actually seem to hold a pretty deep knowledge of facts and history which can sometimes be hard to find on a forum full of theoreticians. I'd like to learn from you, and maybe you have something to gain from engaging with me. That's why I'm discussing with you. It's not score internet points against a stranger.
In any case, I did read your last point and I don't really disagree with anything that you've said.
I did pose a question that last time that I would have liked you to answer. There's not really a right or wrong answer to it, I'm just curious where you'd fall here.
Yes, it definitely shouldn't be taken lightly. If human beings were perfectly rational in the western sense of striving for self-preservation and happiness the odds of nuclear war would be 0%. I think any student of history knows that humans just aren't like that.
Sure. English isn't my first language, hence I didn't notice the difference between a debate and discussion. Note taken.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Discussing nuclear war is a very problematic topic, but interesting. They are not ordinary weapons or basically have become something else than just potent weapons.
The first thing to notice is the scare that it creates. Let's think about nuclear radiation first. Nuclear radiation and it's effects are something that people cannot understand and what the effects (unfortunately) differ in estimations wildly. Hence when a deadly T?hoku earthquake and tsunami hit Japan, the tsunami itself which killed nearly 16 000 people was brushed off as the focus was totally on the Fukushima nuclear plant, which killed by radiation...nobody. The only deaths that happen were during the evacuation of 170 000 people. If we get so scared of an accident in a nuclear power plant, how afraid do we got from the use of nuclear weapons.
There's the image of "Nuclear armageddon", and nuclear winter. There is the assumption that once nuclear weapons are started to be used, it escalates to all out use of the weapons. And then all life on the World is at peril. This all makes nuclear weapons something totally different from other weapons: Nuclear weapons aren't just a weapon system, they are a belief system.
Just think about it: let's say as an example that tactical nuclear weapons are used in a conflict in the Middle East towards military targets, air bases or tank formations on the field. The actual casualties wouldn't be huge, perhaps several thousand at worst, as armies understand to spread their forces not to create obvious targets, yet think of the impact it would have even on people here and everywhere else. How would people react to news that there's a nuclear war going on the Middle East? I bet MANY people would feel uncomfortable about it and have anxiety over it, even if none of their relatives or friends would be in danger. Would you think the politicians of World, starting from the Pope to your local prime minister or president, would stay silent? Would you think that the media would cover the issue with cool objecivity? No. The media would milk the panic the most it can and try to glue us to follow the coverage. Many people would assume that WW3 has started, even if we are talking about a regional war.
Hence the use of nuclear weapons is a huge political issue.
So it's more than about probabilities. In fact, I would argue that a continuing slow pace civil war kills as many as a nuclear strike would, and we are blissfully ignorant about it. Syrian civil war has killed over 100 000 people, and the Yugoslav civil war killed 130 000 - 140 000 people. Estimates of the Iraq war (after 2003) differ wildly (from 110 000 - 600 000). The way how people are killed matters.
Terrorist minds threaten the Western World.