War Against Iran?

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow. He went into their territory, and was the "victim" when they attacked. He went into their territory. Theirs. That was the initial act of aggression.

They responded to his aggression. That is considered an act of aggression by Iran by those who really want to go to war.

Reality check: The speedboats started attacking while the Vincennes was in international waters. It entered Iranian waters during the fight.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Obama sent a small group of soldiers to deal with terrorism and war lords, as have the French.

It is fashionable and cliché among some to somehow fit in an Obama bashing in any discussions on any topic. Hannity, Carlson, et al.

Obama did waffle on Syria.

Iran actively tries to destabilize Bahrain. It is Medieval religious geopolitics with modern weapons.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/world/middleeast/15bahrain.html

MANAMA, Bahrain — Saudi Arabia’s military rolled into Bahrain on Monday, threatening to escalate a local political conflict into a regional showdown with Iran.

Saudi Arabia has been watching uneasily as Bahrain’s Shiite majority has staged weeks of protests against a Sunni monarchy, fearing that if the protesters prevailed, Iran, Saudi Arabia’s bitter regional rival, could expand its influence and inspire unrest elsewhere.

The Saudi decision to send in troops could further inflame the conflict and transform this teardrop of a nation in the Persian Gulf into the Middle East’s next proxy battlefield between regional and global powers.

The big difference between democrats and republicans is that democrats generally tend to favor international cooperation in military engagements. We tend to like international arrangements. We uphold treaties. We respect and favor diplomacy. We also prefer locals to do their own policing. Republicans like to go it alone. Who cares about treaties. Trump has dramatically cut the state department and our diplomatic forces. Yes, Obama was wrong in Syria. But he and HRC mostly followed the international will.

 

[jonatha]

Wow. He went into their territory, and was the "victim" when they attacked. He went into their territory. Theirs. That was the initial act of aggression.

They responded to his aggression. That is considered an act of aggression by Iran by those who really want to go to war.

Reality check: The speedboats started attacking while the Vincennes was in international waters. It entered Iranian waters during the fight.

Where were the helicopters when they were fired on (wiki article doesn't say)?

 

[funinspace]

There is nothing legitimate about the regime of that bloodthirsty optometrist. The Assad regime is a dictatorship propped up by ruthless violence against dissidents.

Ok, then tell which governments/leaders are legit in the ME, as that is pretty much true for a majority of the ME nations.

And Hezbollah is a Shiite monstrosity. Hamas and Islamic Jihad, while nominally Sunni, are also funded and controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

Yeah, and how does one monstrosity negate another?

Yemen is a wasteland largely because the Saudi's are bombing the shit out of it with direct US help.

Iranian-backed Houthis (whose motto is, by the way, "God Is Great, Death to America, Death to Israel, Curse on the Jews, Victory to Islam") have done their share to make Yemen a wasteland. For example:
Yemen: Houthi Landmines Kill Civilians, Block Aid

Holy Zeus Batman, the Houthis aren't nice? Glad you like HRW... From your article:

outhi forces’ widespread use of landmines along Yemen’s western coast since mid-2017 has killed and injured hundreds of civilians and prevented aid groups from reaching vulnerable communities, Human Rights Watch said today.
<snip>
The Security Council should impose targeted sanctions on all individuals responsible for such violations. While the Council has imposed sanctions against Houthi leaders, it has taken no steps against members of the Saudi-led coalition, which has been responsible for numerous unlawful attacks since the conflict began.

https://www.hrw.org/middle-east/n-africa/yemen

The conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi forces has exacerbated the dire humanitarian situation and taken a terrible toll on Yemeni civilians. The coalition’s scores of indiscriminate airstrikes have killed and wounded thousands of civilians in violation of the laws of war. Houthi forces have fired artillery indiscriminately into Yemeni cities and launched rockets into populated areas of Saudi Arabia. The coalition has used banned cluster munitions; the Houthis banned landmines. The Houthis, pro-government forces, and United Arab Emirates-backed forces have arbitrarily detained, abused or “disappeared” scores. The US conducted ground raids and drone strikes against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the local Islamic State affiliate, causing civilian casualties.

So, in Syria you think Saudis are in the wrong because Assad was in power and they "picked a fight". But Houthis "picking a fight" is right in Yemen? It seems you automatically take whatever side Iranians are on!

Do you really live in a binary world? The Saudis and the US are wrong because their is no reason for them to be there. The Houthis are at least locals, even if still wrong and bad.

The former dictator abdicated, but seemed to have a change of heart later (maybe the Saudi's convinced him to try and get it back). Either way the Houthi's were gaining control of the country and the Saudi's were pissy that ethnic Zaidi's/Shia's were going to be in charge.

Yes, some faction trying to take control of a country is good when Iranians try to do it (Yemen) but bad when Iranians control the current regime (Syria)? Dictators like Assad are not that bad when controlled by Iran even when they use chlorine and nerve gas against civilians, as Assad did. Obama/Biden really screwed up with their "red line" there, by the way!

And the US supported Saddam Hussein when used massive amounts of chemical weapons against Iran. Assad was fighting against almost half the world to stay in power, though it doesn't make him nice. Yes Obama did screw up by getting involved. How in the world did Obama and our military not notice the hundreds of ISIS fuel trucks routinely going to Turkey to ship petro for dollars, which Russia finally destroyed?

Iran supported a lot of the heavy lifting in stopping the expansion of ISIS in Iraq.

Only because they are a different franchise. Not because they oppose the project of building an Islamic theocracy. Iranians (or as you would write "Iranian's") execute apostates and gays just as giddily as "I'SI'S".

Do you enjoy your spelling games? I'm fine with being corrected, but your presentation is quite childish... Anywho, yes the Iranian government is pretty bad, including its treatment of homosexuals. They could even be somewhat worse about it per capita when compared to SA. Yet for some reason SA are our buddies...

In the end, my point I was making was relative to Steve's comment about Iran being the biggest bad guy in the ME causing chaos. A point that you seemed to have ignored while making your childish insinuations that I like Iran.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The "leadership" of the USA has been itching for war against Iran for decades. I am grateful that it hasn't happened under Bush or Obama. Trump isn't a warmonger like them, but he does listen to the same crowd they listened to. Getting out of Syria and Yemen is a good thing for the US. Going to war with Iran is a bad thing for the US, and there is no actual basis for doing so.

Trump has no fucking clue what he is or what he’s doing when it comes to foreign policy. He'll flit from one extreme to the other, from calling Kim rocket man one day, and a great guy the next. He’s getting played by all of them, especially his staff , Bolton and Pompeo.

Trump certainly knows what he's doing. He wants to build his towers everywhere and make lots of money.

I'm wondering why he doesn't just launch a barrage of missiles like he did in Syria. That seemed to fix everything.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Obama sent a small group of soldiers to deal with terrorism and war lords, as have the French.

Hm, at least you acknowledge that there is more than one town in the whole of Libya, but you are overlooking his other military expansions.

It is fashionable and cliché among some to somehow fit in an Obama bashing in any discussions on any topic. Hannity, Carlson, et al.

Comparing Trump's military proclivities to those of his TWO predecessors is trying to "somehow fit in an Obama bashing in any discussions on any topic." Why didn't you accuse me of trying to somehow fit in a Bush bashing as well? Feeling touchy about the Peace Prize winner being a hawk?

Wow. He went into their territory, and was the "victim" when they attacked. He went into their territory. Theirs. That was the initial act of aggression.

They responded to his aggression. That is considered an act of aggression by Iran by those who really want to go to war.

Reality check: The speedboats started attacking while the Vincennes was in international waters. It entered Iranian waters during the fight.

Oooh, they got near them in international waters. That's almost as bad as dropping a nuke on Washington.

The Iranians know how the US plays the game - provoke them into shooting first then play the victim. They buzzed a ship of the US military, the ship followed them into Iranian waters. Now fans of the US military are trying to spin this into "they started it."

 

[steve_bank]

Wow. He went into their territory, and was the "victim" when they attacked. He went into their territory. Theirs. That was the initial act of aggression.

They responded to his aggression. That is considered an act of aggression by Iran by those who really want to go to war.

Reality check: The speedboats started attacking while the Vincennes was in international waters. It entered Iranian waters during the fight.

In the first war Bush Sr did a superb job of putting together an alliance inclusive of Arabs. He managed to keep Israel out of it despite misses from Iraq. Had Israel resounded the coalition would have fallen apart.

GWB put together a coalition first in Afghanistan and then Iraq.

I believe both Afghanistan and Iraq were backed by UN resolutions.

 

[Derec]

Ok, then tell which governments/leaders are legit in the ME, as that is pretty much true for a majority of the ME nations.

You are the one who insisted that the Assad regime was legitimate, to justify Iranian intervention.

Yeah, and how does one monstrosity negate another?

I never said it does. But the existence of Iranian-controlled monstrosity undermines your point.

Holy Zeus Batman, the Houthis aren't nice?

The reason Yemen got destabilized was the Houthi rebellion, not Saudi response to it. You have neglected to mention the Houthis when you talked about Yemen, as part of your Iran aplogia.

Do you really live in a binary world? The Saudis and the US are wrong because their is no reason for them to be there. The Houthis are at least locals, even if still wrong and bad.

First of all, it's "there". Second, both sides of this conflict have local troops and foreign involvement. By the way, Houthis have fired missiles at Riyadh, but Yemeni government troops have not attacked Iran.

And the US supported Saddam Hussein when used massive amounts of chemical weapons against Iran.

He was a bad guy, but the Ayatollahs are worse.

Assad was fighting against almost half the world to stay in power, though it doesn't make him nice.

Not really. The Gulf Arab states fought against him half-heartedly, and US was more like third-heartedly in it. On the other hand, both Iran and Russia were very gung ho to defend his dictatorship.

Yes Obama did screw up by getting involved.

He did not get involved enough. You do not draw lines in the sand and then back off. That shows weakness.

How in the world did Obama and our military not notice the hundreds of ISIS fuel trucks routinely going to Turkey to ship petro for dollars, which Russia finally destroyed?

Russia destroyed ISIS? Huh?

Do you enjoy your spelling games? I'm fine with being corrected, but your presentation is quite childish...

I do in fact.
And yes, initially I wrote a regular correction, but you used so many apostrophes that I decided to have a little fun with it. So sue me.

Anywho, yes the Iranian government is pretty bad, including its treatment of homosexuals. They could even be somewhat worse about it per capita when compared to SA. Yet for some reason SA are our buddies...

Not buddies, allies. Big difference. And the reason they are allies are two. For one, they play ball instead of calling us the Great Satan and holding our embassy staff hostage. Second, in Saudi Arabia, the populace is far more conservative than the government, especially now under MbS. In Iran it's the opposite. If you could wave a magic wand and gave fair and free elections in both countries, Arabia would elect something similar to ISIS while Iran would elect a much more secular and liberal government. So it makes a lot of sense to prop up the House of Saud and be opposed to the Iranian theocracy.

In the end, my point I was making was relative to Steve's comment about Iran being the biggest bad guy in the ME causing chaos. A point that you seemed to have ignored while making your childish insinuations that I like Iran.

Your post sure made it seem like you did.

 

[SLD]

Sure.


Isn't he dead?

Gulf War I, ask April Glaspie.

The mistake there was for Saddam to invade Kuwait.

Those events led to 911 and OIF. Wars are often started as mistakes.

What led to 9/11 was Islamist ideology of Al Qaeda. Ideology that goes back to Mo's ramblings in the 7th century.

Putting a carrier in a provocative is good way to start another mistake.

US Navy has the right to sail international waters. If weird beards do something stupid like order an attack on it, US should retaliate. Any war would be on the Iranians, not US.

- - - Updated - - -

Who expexts to gain from a war against Iran? That explains everything.

The entire region would gain if the theocracy were removed from power in Iran.

Admiral Stockdale was involved with the Gulf of Tonkin, and determined that the second incident during the night, didn’t happen and was the product of an overactive imagination by the ship's CO. But it was those actions that led Johnson to ask Congress for the resolution.

April Glapsie was US Ambassador to Iraq. She gave Saddam the go ahead to invade Kuwait because she misspoke in a conversation. As a result we established a permanent military presence in SA. That led to OBL breaking with the Saudis and establishing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The US Navy does indeed have a right to sail in international waters, and should, and does just to demonstrate that international waters are sacrosanct. But the Vincennes acting like a rogue commander was not. It was a mistake that almost started a war.

SLD

 

[DBT]

Surely the people of America would have no stomach for another war?

 

[Patooka]

I can't think of a more effective recruitment tool for Islamic extremism than having the US involved in a war with Iran. It redefines fucking stupid.

Leaving the Middle East under Iranian domination would be the definition of fucking stupid. Iranians are on a very aggressively expansionist track: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Yemen. What's next? Bahrain? Directly invading Saudi oil fields? How much do they need to do before you think it's ok to check them?

Had Hitler been checked when he anschlussed Austria or remilitarized Rheinland, WWII could probably have been avoided. We need more Churchill, less Chamberlain!

You don't have to be a genius to figure out Iran is a problematic nation. But you have to be a special type of moron to think US intervention, especially with this administration, would make things better.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Surely the people of America would have no stomach for another war?

I don't know about 'the people,' if the media can whip up the rhetoric the people will eb all over an invasion, a bombing, something that looks like a quick-resolution thing.
No, we have no stomach for another generation lost in multiple tours of the unwinnable war, but if the headlines are played just right, we don't think that far ahead.

The military is not prepared, obviously. We need to finish the ones we have, put the military back in garrison, wait until they're bored and the lack of combat tours is starting to affect promotions, THEN it'll be time for another war. Ramp up the appropriations budgets, get some medals out and tickets punched. It's a good think Trump ended the Mideast debacle in the first 100 days, like he promised.

 

[funinspace]

You are the one who insisted that the Assad regime was legitimate, to justify Iranian intervention.

Assad is as a legitimate dictator of Syris as the Royal dictators of SA. Iran is/was aiding their ally, not intervening.

And the US supported Saddam Hussein when used massive amounts of chemical weapons against Iran.

He was a bad guy, but the Ayatollahs are worse.

So the ends justify the means? Just wow...

How in the world did Obama and our military not notice the hundreds of ISIS fuel trucks routinely going to Turkey to ship petro for dollars, which Russia finally destroyed?

Russia destroyed ISIS? Huh?

You can notice 'their' verses 'there', but have no reading comprehension? Huh?

In the end, my point I was making was relative to Steve's comment about Iran being the biggest bad guy in the ME causing chaos. A point that you seemed to have ignored while making your childish insinuations that I like Iran.

Your post sure made it seem like you did.

Yeah, right...I think I'm done with your charade...

 

[Patooka]

Surely the people of America would have no stomach for another war?

I don't know about 'the people,' if the media can whip up the rhetoric the people will eb all over an invasion, a bombing, something that looks like a quick-resolution thing.
No, we have no stomach for another generation lost in multiple tours of the unwinnable war, but if the headlines are played just right, we don't think that far ahead.

The military is not prepared, obviously. We need to finish the ones we have, put the military back in garrison, wait until they're bored and the lack of combat tours is starting to affect promotions, THEN it'll be time for another war. Ramp up the appropriations budgets, get some medals out and tickets punched. It's a good think Trump ended the Mideast debacle in the first 100 days, like he promised.

Man, that is quite cynical. And depressingly accurate.

 

[Jarhyn]

Trump is a chickenshit bully. He talks tough, but I doubt he is willing to send people to death over this.

He steals childrens golf balls to cheat, and is encouraging shooting immigrants.

You really think he cares about soldiers he will never meet?

 

[steve_bank]

Surely the people of America would have no stomach for another war?

The propaganda campaign of the last 20 years has laid the foundation. Therer have been of few cases of abusing Christians that probably stick in the minds of American Christians.

Iran is an evil Christian hating country. But then again SA is probably worse. Iran is synonymous with anti Christian and terrorism. The fact that SA has produced terrorists directed at the USA seems to go over people's heads. There is the long standing personal relationship of the Bush family with SA and now the Trumps/.

 

[SLD]

Surely the people of America would have no stomach for another war?

The propaganda campaign of the last 20 years has laid the foundation. Therer have been of few cases of abusing Christians that probably stick in the minds of American Christians.

Iran is an evil Christian hating country. But then again SA is probably worse. Iran is synonymous with anti Christian and terrorism. The fact that SA has produced terrorists directed at the USA seems to go over people's heads. There is the long standing personal relationship of the Bush family with SA and now the Trumps/.

It doesn’t matter if the people of America want another war. Steve Bannon wants a war. And he doesn’t give a shit about the American people.

SLD

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The US is now removing staff from Iraq.

Iraq is commonly referred to as "not Iran". So it is a bit curious that US staffers are being told to leave a country that isn't being noted as a threat.

That is unless, Iran and Iraq are about to announce a partnership.

The department said the sudden changes were because the US government's "ability to provide routine and emergency services to US citizens in Iraq is extremely limited" and that as a result, the threat of "terrorism, kidnapping, and armed conflict" aimed at Americans in the country was too great a risk.

This is in contrast to the Deputy Commander of the US led coalition who noted "there has been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria."

Trump denied, in pure Trump style, that they were looking into plans of sending 120,000 troops to deal with the situation.

I think it’s fake news, OK? Now, would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.

The Mad Hatter spoke more clearly.

 

[SLD]

The US is now removing staff from Iraq.

Iraq is commonly referred to as "not Iran". So it is a bit curious that US staffers are being told to leave a country that isn't being noted as a threat.

That is unless, Iran and Iraq are about to announce a partnership.

The department said the sudden changes were because the US government's "ability to provide routine and emergency services to US citizens in Iraq is extremely limited" and that as a result, the threat of "terrorism, kidnapping, and armed conflict" aimed at Americans in the country was too great a risk.

This is in contrast to the Deputy Commander of the US led coalition who noted "there has been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria."

Trump denied, in pure Trump style, that they were looking into plans of sending 120,000 troops to deal with the situation.

I think it’s fake news, OK? Now, would I do that? Absolutely. But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we’re not going to have to plan for that. And if we did that, we’d send a hell of a lot more troops than that.

The Mad Hatter spoke more clearly.

The Mad Hatter is lying. There is indeed a plan to send 120,000 troops to the area. This is all Bolton gunning for war. He's trying to make up for his cowardice 50 years ago by appearing tough. Our only hope is that the Russians are telling Pompeo to back the fuck off or they’ll release the peepee tape.

SLD

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The US is now removing staff from Iraq.

Iraq is commonly referred to as "not Iran". So it is a bit curious that US staffers are being told to leave a country that isn't being noted as a threat.

That is unless, Iran and Iraq are about to announce a partnership.



This is in contrast to the Deputy Commander of the US led coalition who noted "there has been no increased threat from Iranian backed forces in Iraq and Syria."

Trump denied, in pure Trump style, that they were looking into plans of sending 120,000 troops to deal with the situation.

The Mad Hatter spoke more clearly.

The Mad Hatter is lying. There is indeed a plan to send 120,000 troops to the area. This is all Bolton gunning for war. He's trying to make up for his cowardice 50 years ago by appearing tough. Our only hope is that the Russians are telling Pompeo to back the fuck off or they’ll release the peepee tape.

SLD

In the normal world, where a person like Trump wouldn't get elected President of the US, sending over 100,000 troops to anywhere in the world would require Congressional authority, and a good deal of cash. It is hard to tell just when and why the GOP will step in and say "No" to this guy. Mobilization for another quagmire would, in the normal world, seem to be one of those instances.