Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your core argument is entirely wrong, that's the problem. Iran is notorious for aggression and bullying. There's a reason they have given US leadership a headache for decades now. It's nothing new to Trump.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you are a pacifist, as are a surprising number of people on here who would rather the US stay out of the middle east conflicts, bury our collective heads in the sand, and pretend the world's problems will magically go away. News flash -- they won't. We may not have a spotless track record in the middle east, but we are a force for good in the region, fighting for oppressed citizens who need help and want their voices to be heard. That's worth the fight, IMO, even if it means taking 4 steps forward and 3 steps back.
And your rebuttal is off the chart ignorant of your own history.
You once had a president who actually made some effort to get along and go along with allies. When that idiot Bolton kept lying about the WMD's in Iraq it still took until Kuwait was invaded to foment actual war.
There was massive effort expended by the U.S. into forming a coalition of allies ready and willing to subjugate themselves to American command and go in to clean house even while knowing Bolton's rhetoric was probably a false flag.
There was a clear and stated goal to achieve by which the coalition could actually tell it's citizens "this is what we're doing and why we're doing it and we will stop and bring the boys and girls home when this goal is reached."
End result; even with a coalition of allies, a clearly defined plan and a stated target indicating a successful completion, along with a President declaring "mission accomplished" on the deck of the very same aircraft carrier now cruising the same neighbourhood ……...YOU LOST!!!!!
Today:
A silly ramping up of useless rhetoric such as: "Iran had better not pull the trigger or there will be bigly, yuuuge repercussions for them"....WhateverTF that means????
There is no coalition of the "willing" because your current doofus-in-chief has busily gone about pizzing off any and all allies the U.S. could have counted upon to contribute meaningful resources. Your guy likes to insult other world leaders and countries. They've listened and are now considering what's in it for them by having their young put at risk for a purely American bombastic precipitated problem that as soon as it's over they'll be once again 'Sent to Coventry' by American short memory spans.
There is no plan, there is no clearly defined end result by which you (Trump) can clearly claim to have succeeded with any military nonsense as regards Iran.
Iran militarily, makes Iraq look like the local Bumfugg, Montana chapter of the Boy Scouts by comparison. They'll whip your azz given your propensity to lose your thrall for actual wars when the body bags start coming home by the gross. Short of an actual invasion and successful occupation you lose wars by accomplishing nothing but getting a whole lot of folks killed and spending a lot of money doing it, money you no longer have.
Lastly: Are your NBFF's the Russkies likely to sit back and watch without throwing a match or two into the leaking gasoline? How about China? You think they'll simply study the situation and not take whatever steps are at their disposal without actually risking anything to make your end game that much more impossible?
Turkey among a lot of other regional countries going to let you turn their neighbourhood into a conflagration with even more refugees running over their barbed wire?
What's very likely to occur is the U.S.; actually Trump unilaterally, (given your congressional lack of cojones to do anything but whine) having once evaded (dodged) contributing to a stupid war himself, without thought to the consequences, will see this as his opportunity for redemption and bluster his way into an actual shooting war with Bolton, Pompeo, the MIC et-al cheering him on.
Given your recent history, and penchant for snatching defeat from the jaws of success, this one will, without a doubt, end very, very badly for you and very likely a lot of other countries as well...AGAIN!
Your core argument is entirely wrong, that's the problem. Iran is notorious for aggression and bullying. There's a reason they have given US leadership a headache for decades now. It's nothing new to Trump.
That's simply a false narrative. It's been the other way around between the US and Iran.
Quote:
Whether you want to admit it or not, you are a pacifist, as are a surprising number of people on here who would rather the US stay out of the middle east conflicts, bury our collective heads in the sand, and pretend the world's problems will magically go away. News flash -- they won't. We may not have a spotless track record in the middle east, but we are a force for good in the region, fighting for oppressed citizens who need help and want their voices to be heard. That's worth the fight, IMO, even if it means taking 4 steps forward and 3 steps back.
Your core argument is entirely wrong, that's the problem. Iran is notorious for aggression and bullying. There's a reason they have given US leadership a headache for decades now. It's nothing new to Trump.
Whether you want to admit it or not, you are a pacifist, as are a surprising number of people on here who would rather the US stay out of the middle east conflicts, bury our collective heads in the sand, and pretend the world's problems will magically go away. News flash -- they won't. We may not have a spotless track record in the middle east, but we are a force for good in the region, fighting for oppressed citizens who need help and want their voices to be heard. That's worth the fight, IMO, even if it means taking 4 steps forward and 3 steps back.
Both the external and internal behaviors of the Iranian regime are horrendous. Any unbiased observer would agree that such behavior should be described as aggression, terrorism, and blatant violation of human rights. We're dealing with an extremist Islamist regime that not only has established hegemony from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon to Yemen, but is on the verge of developing nuclear arms and rapidly developing ballistic missiles, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, with ever expanding ranges. The Obama deal, in the long run, did NOTHING to change that. There are sunset clauses that put an end to whatever restrictions the regime committed to in the short term. There are NO restrictions on nuke-capable ballistic missile development. There are NO restrictions on malevolent Iranian behavior throughout the region, which includes massive financial and military support for internationally-designated terror organizations. In fact the deal gave the regime many $billions generated by business and trade. The history of the three years immediately following the Obama deal shows how the regime nefariously put those $billions to use.
Some posts on this forum clearly display isolationism (not pacifism). If this were the 1930's these isolationists would be very comfortable in the Bund and among the isolationists who kept the US out of intervening to help the anti-Nazi forces in Europe. Those isolationists succeeded until early 1942. By then the Germans had a tight grip on all of Europe. The war would have been significantly shortened and many millions of lives would have been saved had the philosophical forbearers of today's neo-isolationists not been successful.
Isolationism is a danger to the security of the US and should not be American strategy. A policy of isolationism is no policy at all. Such a non-policy will lead to the same tragedies that it led to in WWll.
Last edited by spectator11040; 05-19-2019 at 03:45 PM..
President Trump threatened to destroy Iran in a tweet sent in the wake of reports that a rocket was fired into Baghdad’s heavily fortified Green Zone less than a mile away from the US Embassy.
“If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!,” Trump tweeted Sunday afternoon.
It’s unclear exactly what promoted Trump’s posting, but news outlets reported explosions in Iraq’s capital and that a rocket launcher was discovered in eastern Baghdad, an area that is home to Iranian-backed Shiite militias.
Both the external and internal behaviors of the Iranian regime are horrendous. Any unbiased observer would agree that such behavior should be described as aggression, terrorism, and blatant violation of human rights. We're dealing with an extremist Islamist regime that not only has established hegemony from Iraq to Syria to Lebanon to Yemen, but is on the verge of developing nuclear arms and rapidly developing ballistic missiles, capable of carrying nuclear warheads, with ever expanding ranges. The Obama deal, in the long run, did NOTHING to change that. There are sunset clauses that put an end to whatever restrictions the regime committed to in the short term. There are NO restrictions on nuke-capable ballistic missile development. There are NO restrictions on malevolent Iranian behavior throughout the region, which includes massive financial and military support for internationally-designated terror organizations. In fact the deal gave the regime many $billions generated by business and trade. The history of the three years immediately following the Obama deal shows how the regime nefariously put those $billions to use.
Some posts on this forum clearly display isolationism (not pacifism). If this were the 1930's these isolationists would be very comfortable in the Bund and among the isolationists who kept the US out of intervening to help the anti-Nazi forces in Europe. Those isolationists succeeded until early 1942. By then the Germans had a tight grip on all of Europe. The war would have been significantly shortened and many millions of lives would have been saved had the philosophical forbearers of today's neo-isolationists not been successful.
Isolationism is a danger to the security of the US and should not be American strategy. A policy of isolationism is no policy at all. Such a non-policy will lead to the same tragedies that it led to in WWll.
While you do make some good points, you are still missing the bigger picture. Netanyahu is absolutely right in stating that the Iranian regime is a threat to Israeli security.Now granted, he is using that for his own ends, but the underlining point remains. Iran has been supplying weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Syrian regime.
The problem is that any conflict with Iran will only do damage in the long run. It is in no one's interest. Iran doesn't have the capacity to destroy Israel therefore they are stuck using the aforementioned proxies.
The bigger problem is that it will only empower the other regional titan: Saudi Arabia. And trust me, that's the last thing any sane person would want.
Ideally, it would be great if there was a way for both the Saudi and Iranian regimes to collapse simultaneously without firing a shot. No one should die for this, not military personal nor any civilian.
You should be bashing the United States when we’re wrong instead of endorsing the wrongdoing out of patriotism. That’s called loving your country and expecting it to live up to its stated and enshrined ideals.
We liberals expect more out of our country because of its exceptionalism.
Patriotism and exceptionalism are great. They are not part of a suicide pact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
You should ALSO be doing that. We blame the United States for nefarious actions that the United States should be implicated in. That’s called talking responsibility. When the varnish comes off of our self proclaimed image, it also comes off of its citizens. I have a stake in our wrongdoing, and so do you. And you’re being derelict by refusing to own up to your role in it.
What the heck does that mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
Putting as much as a finger on Iran is wrong, criminal, irresponsible, and unjustified.
Iran is doing a lot more than putting fingers on people. They are fomenting vicious wars in Yemen and Gaza through proxies the Houtis and Hama.
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
You won’t be one of the troops getting their head blown off in an intractable insurgency in the Iranian mountains. You’ll be at home, eating your steak in the comfort of your home...watching Fox News and screaming at the TV about how we’re losing the war because bad rules of engagement, the troops have their hands tied behind their backs, the lefty protesters are undermining troop morale, we don’t have enough forces on the ground, or how we need to let the generals fight the war. That kinda tripe that typically comes out the mouths of right wing war mongers when the wars they advocate for go down in smoke.
You’ve learned nothing from our losing adventure in Iraq.
We fought in Iraq hand-tied. There was more concern about the humiliation of a few prisoners at Abu Ghraib than the accomplishment of our objectives. To be clear the forces against which we are fighting are not constructive. Sticking your thumb in America's eyes should be painful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
