Jump to content

Update: Iraqi court issues arrest warrant for Insurrectionist-in-Chief over killing of paramilitary leader last January


Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

The Senate also voted recently 98-2 (Bernie and Paul against) to increase sanctions don't forget that

 

That means absolutely nothing here. The only reason that was even necessary was because Trump is always in an undo everything Obama did mood. Also, Democratic leadership, especially in the Senate, is incredibly stupid.

 

That all said, it still means nothing. Sanctions and retaliatory feeble pokes in return were acceptably within what I'd call reasonable expectations. This move goes far beyond any of that and there's no reason not to believe it could lead to escalating action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ghost_MH said:

 

That means absolutely nothing here. The only reason that was even necessary was because Trump is always in an undo everything Obama did mood. Also, Democratic leadership, especially in the Senate, is incredibly stupid.

 

That all said, it still means nothing. Sanctions and retaliatory feeble pokes in return were acceptably within what I'd call reasonable expectations. This move goes far beyond any of that and there's no reason not to believe it could lead to escalating action.

Think of it this way, they don't care who is president. They see the US overthrowing their democraticlly elected government in the 50's, prop up a brutal monarchy until they overthrow it, and they then give aid and comfort to this brutal monarch after they are overthrown. Recently, they see the US make a deal, and later walks away from the deal. The legislature then increases sanctions on you after they leave the deal you both agreed to. All the while in recent history kinda sorta but actually not working together to rid the region of isis. Then they assassinate the most popular general in the country in retaliation for ransacking the embassy in their client state, which was in turn retaliation for increased US attacks in said client state. 

 

We massively fucked up, and dramatically upped the ante for the next round of one upsmanship, and it fits a pattern of increasingly hostile behavior by the US towards Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Think of it this way, they don't care who is president. They see the US overthrowing their democraticlly elected government in the 50's, prop up a brutal monarchy until they overthrow it, and they then give aid and comfort to this brutal monarch after they are overthrown. Recently, they see the US make a deal, and later walks away from the deal. The legislature then increases sanctions on you after they leave the deal you both agreed to. All the while in recent history kinda sorta but actually not working together to rid the region of isis. Then they assassinate the most popular general in the country in retaliation for ransacking the embassy in their client state, which was in turn retaliation for increased US attacks in said client state. 

 

We massively fucked up, and dramatically upped the ante for the next round of one upsmanship, and it fits a pattern of increasingly hostile behavior by the US towards Iran.

 

Yeah, I think we're saying the same thing here. Sanctions and pokes were an uncomfortable equilibrium. I'm sure there were plenty in the Iranian government and our own that were holding our breath waiting to see what came of the 2020 election. Trump's move here just throws all of that out the window.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the US does get involved in a war with Iran, even mostly just an air/strike war...it's not going to end if Trump loses the election. Democrats are spineless, and they will likely say something like "We should never have started this war, but now that we are in it we can't back down, otherwise we will betraying our troops and the people of the region" or some crap like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to come up with Iranian options that go beyond the expected Iran blowing things up by proxy. The big one is close the straits, but the Navy has been preparing for that scenario for decades and the Navy would eventually reopen it. 

 

What if Iran just straight up invaded Iraq to "liberate" from the US? Are we really going to commit several divisions to keep them out? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

In the five days prior to launching a strike that killed Iran’s most important military leader, Donald Trump roamed the halls of Mar-a-Lago, his private resort in Florida, and started dropping hints to close associates and club-goers that something huge was coming.

 

Wasn't the embassy attack only three days ago? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...