Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, CayceG said: Can we cool it on the WW3 references? A regional war between the US and Iran has almost no chance of expanding into a true global conflict. How are you defining "regional"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 There is also no guarantee this will result in war either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris- Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 10 minutes ago, Jose said: The histrionics in this thread are crazy! We’ll have to turn the Gulf into glass, right @CayceG? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Trump doesn’t have the patience or follow through to actually do the whole war thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewhyteboar Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 5 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: How are you defining "regional"? Mesopotamia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 1 minute ago, sblfilms said: Trump doesn’t have the patience or follow through to actually do the whole war thing. We may not have a World War for 200 years (or hopefully ever again), but the guy loves people adoring him, and his rally goers love it when he thinks with his dick. So if it means rallies, he'll have plenty of patience if he wanted to do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 so when will gas hit $6/gal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 I love that subtlety is out the door Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 21 minutes ago, SaysWho? said: We may not have a World War for 200 years (or hopefully ever again), but the guy loves people adoring him, and his rally goers love it when he thinks with his dick. So if it means rallies, he'll have plenty of patience if he wanted to do it. He has rallies, they cheer him on for any number of dumb things he does. We’ve seen repeatedly that dude loves these one off military actions. It’s much more the sort of thing to expect him to do for cheers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutSurgen Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Suggesting that this attack necessitates an escalation to ground war in Iran is hyperbole. Soleimani's assassination is no more an act of war than any of the killings he (allegedly) ordered through both the Qud and/or regional militias that he (allegedly) established, supported and directed. There are no winning strategies in the Middle East -- no one to ally with. The regional powers all seem to be morally bankrupt monarchies, vicious dictators or evil theocracies. This action was likely a mistake. However, allowing Iran to commit terrorism, develop nuclear weapons and destabilize its neighbours is also a mistake -- and everything I have read in the media suggests Soleimani was a key actor on this front. Perhaps allowing Russia to gain influence in this region, and have them be responsible for long term peace in the Middle East is the best way forward. (I don't really believe this, but I also don't believe that anyone in the West has any plan to do this.) Quote The Middle East is one of the hardest-hearted areas in the world. It has always been fought over, and peace has only reigned when a major power has established firm influence and shown that it would maintain its will. Your friends must be supported with every vigour and if necessary they must be avenged. Force, or perhaps force and bribery, are the only things that will be respected. It is very sad, but we had all better recognise it. At present our friendship is not valued, and our enmity is not feared. Winston Churchill, 1958 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, sblfilms said: He has rallies, they cheer him on for any number of dumb things he does. We’ve seen repeatedly that dude loves these one off military actions. It’s much more the sort of thing to expect him to do for cheers. This thinking, however, relies on Iran being the pragmatic one and ignoring this assassination. In any other administration, this would be no different than a declaration of war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 9 minutes ago, sblfilms said: He has rallies, they cheer him on for any number of dumb things he does. We’ve seen repeatedly that dude loves these one off military actions. It’s much more the sort of thing to expect him to do for cheers. He's gone after NAFTA and ran for president after teasing it for 30 years. The man has patience. Whether or not this leads to something disastrous, let us divorce ourselves from this notion that he's lazy and won't follow through on something. The guy started a Super PAC for reelection years ago; he doesn't mind doing the work for prolonged admiration. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said: Suggesting that this attack necessitates an escalation to ground war in Iran is hyperbole. Soleimani's assassination is no more an act of war than any of the killings he (allegedly) ordered through both the Qud and/or regional militias that he (allegedly) established, supported and directed. The criticism that says we're on our way to a war is based on this: This attack is explicitly one on Iran itself--a member of the Iranian government and military. It invites retaliation from Iran, which we should expect. But that also means the US will respond to that in some way. We are not sure how each response will climb the escalation ladder. We don't know what Iran will do in response to our attack, but they have legitimate cause to escalate. Which will then give us legitimate cause to escalate. This action stepped over a line in terms of who is responsible. It's much more blatant than Soleimani getting his proxies to do his dirty work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Just now, SaysWho? said: He's gone after NAFTA and ran for president after teasing it for 30 years. The man has patience. Whether or not this leads to something disastrous, let us divorce ourselves from this notion that he's lazy and won't follow through on something. The guy started a Super PAC for reelection years ago; he doesn't mind doing the work for prolonged admiration. He replaced NAFTA with basically NAFTA, because he couldn’t get anything more done because he doesn’t have the patience. Need better examples Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 16 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I love that subtlety is out the door Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Just now, sblfilms said: He replaced NAFTA with basically NAFTA, because he couldn’t get anything more done because he doesn’t have the patience. Need better examples I don't know if, "Sticking with something for 30 years and half-assing it," is reassuring to anyone. The results are irrelevant to me: the guy didn't just attack NAFTA and then never mention it again. He railed against it for 30 years and made it a centerpiece of his platform, and if doing a shitty job replacing it, but signing a new treaty just so he can get more adoration from his rally goers by saying he did something, is the result, then his being commander-in-chief of the US Armed Forces and doing a bad job for a long time isn't something I should be comfortable with either. He has plenty of patience. People thought he didn't want to win in 2016 and might just resign because he doesn't want it and he set up a Super PAC earlier than anyone expected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutSurgen Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, CayceG said: The criticism that says we're on our way to a war is based on this: This attack is explicitly one on Iran itself--a member of the Iranian government and military. It invites retaliation from Iran, which we should expect. But that also means the US will respond to that in some way. We are not sure how each response will climb the escalation ladder. We don't know what Iran will do in response to our attack, but they have legitimate cause to escalate. Which will then give us legitimate cause to escalate. This action stepped over a line in terms of who is responsible. It's much more blatant than Soleimani getting his proxies to do his dirty work. Suggesting that using proxies to commit attacks makes you any less responsible for them only emboldens Iran to continue them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 8 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said: Suggesting that using proxies to commit attacks makes you any less responsible for them only emboldens Iran to continue them. Existing in a region that puts us in competition with them does the same. Also, if pulling out is not on the table, I'd rather embolden them as opposed to providing them a casus belli. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 You know what emboldens Iran and it's proxies? US presence in the region. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutSurgen Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: You know what emboldens Iran and it's proxies? US presence in the region. You know what also emboldens Iran? The existence of non-Shia adherent people in the region. 10 minutes ago, CayceG said: Existing in a region that puts us in competition with them does the same. Also, if pulling out is not on the table, I'd rather embolden them as opposed to providing them a casus belli. Iran has no way of realistically invading the US. Declarations of war are so 1940s, Iran is already acting as if they are at war with the U.S. Any "retaliation" may have happened anyways. Quote Those [Iranians] who want to promote negotiation and surrender to the oppressors and blame the Islamic Republic as a warmonger in reality commit treason. The reason for continuation of this battle is not the warmongering of the Islamic Republic. Logic and reason command that for Iran, in order to pass through a region full of pirates, needs to arm itself and must have the capability to defend itself. The accelerated scientific advancement of the last 12 years cannot stop under any circumstances. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 No one is talking about invasion or anything like that. But reprisals for this could very well be a step up beyond what has been going on. Imagine if during the Korean War the Soviet Union assassinated General MacArthur. That's what just happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Man, if only the CIA had not deposed a democratically-elected government in 1953 and installed a monarchical regime who employed a torture apparatus trained by the United States and Israel all because the UK was pissy that the democratically-elected government wanted to audit a British oil company. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 17 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said: You know what also emboldens Iran? The existence of non-Shia adherent people in the region. That's not our problem. Quite literally. We don't need Saudi oil, and Israel can take care of it's own w.r.t. apartheid. We have no loyalty to marginalized groups to protect, we're just hired mercs for the house of Saud and the new sultan edrogan, and in all probability to line the pockets of Trump personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: That's not our problem. Quite literally. We don't need Saudi oil, and Israel can take care of it's own w.r.t. apartheid. We have no loyalty to marginalized groups to protect, we're just hired mercs for the house of Saud and the new sultan edrogan. I mean, just look at the great job we've done with the Kurds who have only ever helped us with whatever garbage we've found ourselves in. Repeatedly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 11 minutes ago, CayceG said: No one is talking about invasion or anything like that. But reprisals for this could very well be a step up beyond what has been going on. Imagine if during the Korean War the Soviet Union assassinated General MacArthur. That's what just happened. Exactly this. Trump has moved the choice to further escalate tensions squarely in Iran's hands. It's out of our control what happens next. They have full reason to retaliate and I can't imagine a scenario where they do and Trump doesn't do the same in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted January 3, 2020 Author Share Posted January 3, 2020 Iran should make a deal with China to become untouchable by us. That would be their smartest move. Get Chinese interests in the country, make a trade deal, cut us out of the middle east. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbsolutSurgen Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 7 minutes ago, 2user1cup said: Iran should make a deal with China to become untouchable by us. That would be their smartest move. Get Chinese interests in the country, make a trade deal, cut us out of the middle east. I don't think the Chinese are interested. 11 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said: Exactly this. Trump has moved the choice to further escalate tensions squarely in Iran's hands. It's out of our control what happens next. They have full reason to retaliate and I can't imagine a scenario where they do and Trump doesn't do the same in return. Iran's actions have never been in control by the US. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CayceG Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said: Iran's actions have never been in control by the US. But the attacks Iran can commit against US forces are much more varied and serious when US forces are NEXT TO IRAN than if US forces are not in Iraq or Kuwait or the Gulf. If we aren't there, Iran can't really do shit to us directly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Just now, AbsolutSurgen said: Iran's actions have never been in control by the US. They very much were not that many years ago. Following that, the extent of their actions were within what most would deem, acceptable control. Since Trump decided to increase tensions with Iran for purely anti-Obama reasons, they've feebly poked the US through proxies in response. This just opened everything up in a very public way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 20 minutes ago, CayceG said: If we aren't there, Iran can't really do shit to us directly Unless they do the cyber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 21 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said: They very much were not that many years ago. Following that, the extent of their actions were within what most would deem, acceptable control. Since Trump decided to increase tensions with Iran for purely anti-Obama reasons, they've feebly poked the US through proxies in response. This just opened everything up in a very public way. The Senate also voted recently 98-2 (Bernie and Paul against) to increase sanctions don't forget that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osxmatt Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 Any chance that Iran attacks Israel to draw us (and other countries) in to larger scale conflict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted January 3, 2020 Share Posted January 3, 2020 US to deploy thousands of additional troops to Middle East following Soleimani killing Quote The US will deploy thousands of additional troops to the Middle East as tensions with Iran mount following the airstrike that killed Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, a US defense official tells CNN. The additional troops will come from the Immediate Response Force of the 82nd Airborne Division. CNN has previously reported that these forces had been placed on prepare-to deploy orders and would be sent to the region if the situation merited it. Following the disturbance at the US Embassy in Baghdad earlier this week, the US deployed 750 troops from the same unit and said that additional deployments were possible. The new deployment will encompass the rest of the brigade, typically about 3,000 soldiers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.