╌>

Iran: America's Latest Drive for War

  

Category:  Op/Ed

Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  5 years ago  •  316 comments

Iran: America's Latest Drive for War

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



This week, two oil tankers exploded in the Persian Gulf,   reportedly as a result of a limpet mine attack . Neither tanker flew a US flag. One was Panama-flagged, and the other was Marshall Islands-flagged. No one was killed.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo immediately accused the Iranian regime of being responsible for the attack. Pompeo told reporters   that the accusation was “based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping.”

It's unclear yet what course of action the administration will opt for in coming days. But, it's likely to include calls for new sanctions at the very least. But it may also include calls for invasions, bombings, and yet another US-involved war.

Needless to say, we've all seen this movie before, and we know how it works: the US government claims that something a foreign country has done poses a grave threat both to the international order and to the United States directly. Or we may be told the foreign regime in question is perpetrating horrific human rights violations against its own people. The US then insists it must launch new airstrikes, enact new economic sanctions, or even orchestrate a new invasion and occupation of a foreign country.

The administration will claim that it has special "intelligence" that the foreign culprit has "weapons of mass destruction." The US government may offer some grainy video or some still photos purporting to show the enemy   in flagrante delicto , or at least a gruesome aftermath.

The US media will enthusiastically assist the administration in spreading whatever images and bullet points the administration wants it to.

If the US government succeeds in getting what it wants, it will send naval vessels and troops to the selected battlefield, and spend trillions of dollars on a long, protracted "war of attrition" which we'll be repeatedly assured is absolutely necessary to maintain the security of the United States.

What exactly this has to do with the defense of the US is unclear.  For example, even if the Iranians are responsible for the explosions, how is an attack on two non-US oil tankers a threat to the United States? In the wake of the US's (failed) drive for an invasion of Syria, Tucker Carlson   asked the obvious question : how will the proposed war "make the US safer"?

The question naturally applies to any proposed war against Iran as well.

As far as the case for Iran as any sort of threat to the US "homeland," the administration and its pro-war backers do not appear to even be bothering themselves with such trivialities.

The Iranian regime's tiny air force and navy pose no threat to a country with a navy   many times larger   than any other navy , and which spends more on military projects than the next   eight most militarized regimes combined . As President Dwight Eisenhower understood —   as he   cut   military spending in the face of a resurgent Soviet Union   — the US's   huge nuclear arsenal   is a deterrent countries like Iran have no hope of sidestepping.

But even if the Iranians potentially posed a true threat to the US — which, again, they do not — the burden of proof is still on the US government to affirmatively demonstrate that in this instance, the Iranian regime somehow endangers the United States, its borders, and its population.

This will not happen, however, because that's not how foreign policy is made in the US. There will be no meaningful debate in Congress, and little more than accusations and innuendo will be issued from the administration and other organs of the executive branch. "Trust us, we wouldn't lie" will be the central claim of the American war promoters. Americans will, yet again, be told to sacrifice both treasure and freedoms to satisfy the latest schemes of the American military establishment.

Given that only a portion of the population will buy any claims that Americans are in danger, we'll hear vague platitudes about humanitarian missions, and how the Iranian regime must be stopped for the sake of decency and human rights. We heard the same thing in both Iraq and Libya before regime change was effected there in the name of humanitarianism. In both cases, however, the region was only made less stable, and more prone to radical Islamism. The result has been anything but humanitarian or decent.

[RELATED: " The Unseen Costs of Humanitarian Intervention " by Ryan McMaken]

Nor can advocates for war supply any answer to the question of what would replace the Iranian regime were the US to carry out regime change there. The most likely candidates are radical Islamists of the type we saw rise up in the wake of the Iraq and Libya invasions.

Moreover, so long as the US continues to ignore the humanitarian disaster in Yemen being perpetrated by American ally Saudi Arabia, any claims of "humanitarian" intent are not credible.

Indeed,   any   alliance with Saudi Arabia makes a mockery of American claims to be supporting human rights. The Saudi regime, a brutal, terrorism-sponsoring dictatorship, tolerates no religious group outside the state-sponsored brand of fanatical Wahhabism. Christianity is essentially outlawed in the country. Judaism has been completely banished. The regime tolerates no political dissent, as was illustrated in 2017 when Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman   rounded up and tortured   his rivals.  While Iran is hardly a beacon of religious freedom, it looks downright tolerant compared to Saudi Arabia. Both   synagogues   and Christian churches function openly in Iran.

I don't note these facts to claim that Iran is a liberal and freedom-loving place. The fact that Iran compares favorably to Saudi Arabia is quite relevant, however, because the Saudi regime stands to benefit the most from regime change in Iran. The collapse of Iran would produce a power vacuum in the Gulf region allowing the Saudi regime to further spread its brand of radical Islamism. Thus, US claims that it is fighting terrorism or radicalism by opposing Iran are dubious at best.

More astute observers, of course, know the US drive for yet another war in the Persian Gulf region has nothing to do with human rights or defense of the United States.

The real motivation behind the latest drive for war might be found by employing a strategy recently suggested by Lew Rockwell in regards to the proposed Syria war. Rockwell   writes :


When you hear the words "national security" or "national interest" used by people in Washington, I think it's important to substitute "imperial" for "national." So is it in the national interest of the United States to bomb Syria? No. Is it in the imperial interest of the American Empire to do so? Yes.

In other words, the US state and many of its allies stand to benefit significantly from war with Iran.

As Randolf Bourne pointed out a century ago, "war is the health of the state," and yet another war will help the American regime justify   larger budgets , larger deficits, more taxes, and more state power in general.

For this reason, there has always been a close connection between the ideology of   laissez-faire   liberalism, and the ideology of peace. In the 19th century, it was free-market liberals like   Richard Cobden   and his friend   Frédéric Bastiat   who regarded economic intervention, slavery, and war as all part of one authoritarian package. This mantle was later picked up by the great liberal economist Ludwig von Mises, and then by his student Murray Rothbard.

Even in the cases where defensive war might have been justified, the costs of war, the liberals understood, have been far more grave than our rulers would have us believe. War is always a disaster for life, for liberty, and for the quality of life for those who survive. The only exception, it seems, are those organs of the state that benefit so handsomely from armed conflict.

But, on the matter of war, the position of the liberals — those we now know as "libertarians" — have long been firmly on the side of peace whenever possible:


But wars are not made by common folk, scratching for livings in the heat of the day; they are made by demagogues infesting palaces. It is not necessary for these demagogues to complete the sale of a war before they send the goods home, as a storekeeper must complete the sale of, say, a suit of clothes. They send the goods home first, then convince the customer that he wants them. ... But the main reason why it is easy to sell war to peaceful people is that the demagogues who act as salesmen quickly acquire a monopoly of both public information and public instruction. ... The dead are still dead, the fellows who lost legs still lack them, war widows go on suffering the orneriness of their second husbands, and taxpayers continue to pay, pay, pay. In the schools children are taught that the war was fought for freedom, the home and God. — H.L. Mencken

Modern war is merciless, it does not spare pregnant women or infants; it is indiscriminate killing and destroying. It does not respect the rights of neutrals. Millions are killed, enslaved, or expelled from the dwelling places in which their ancestors lived for centuries. Nobody can foretell what will happen in the next chapter of this endless struggle. This has little to do with the atomic bomb. The root of the evil is not the construction of new, more dreadful weapons. It is the spirit of conquest. It is probable that scientists will discover some methods of defense against the atomic bomb. But this will not alter things, it will merely prolong for a short time the process of the complete destruction of civilization. — Ludwig von Mises

Public opinion must undergo a change; our ministers must no longer be held responsible for the everyday political quarrels all over Europe; nor, when an opposition journalist wishes to assail a foreign secretary, must he be suffered to taunt him with the neglect of the honor of Great Britain, if he should prudently abstain from involving her in the dissensions that afflict distant communities. — Richard Cobden

England, by calmly directing her undivided energies to the purifying of her own internal institutions, to the emancipation of her commerce … would, by thus serving as it were for the beacon of other nations, aid more effectually the cause of political progression all over the continent than she could possibly do by plunging herself into the strife of European wars. — Richard Cobden

The libertarian's basic attitude toward war must then be: it is legitimate to use violence against criminals in defense of one's rights of person and property; it is completely impermissible to violate the rights of  other  innocent people. War, then, is only proper when the exercise of violence is rigorously limited to the individual criminals. We may judge for ourselves how many wars or conflicts in history have met this criterion. ... If classical international law limited and checked warfare, and kept it from spreading, modern international law, in an attempt to stamp out "aggression" and to abolish war, only insures, as the great historian Charles Beard put it, a futile policy of "perpetual war for perpetual peace." — Murray Rothbard

The second Wilsonian excuse for perpetual war ... is even more utopian: the idea that it is the moral obligation of America and of all other nations to impose "democracy" and "human rights" throughout the globe. In short, in a world where "democracy" is generally meaningless, and "human rights" of any genuine sort virtually nonexistent, that we are obligated to take up the sword and wage a perpetual war to force utopia on the entire world by guns, tanks, and bombs.  — Murray Rothbard


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2  MrFrost    5 years ago

If only there was some way we could keep an eye on Iran, a way for the US to keep close tabs on what Iran is doing behind closed doors.....a deal of some kind. Oh well. Not having the ability to see what they are up to is probably a far better way to keep them under control than some silly...deal. 

.

.

.

.

/s

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @2    5 years ago

Please, the Iranians have already violated the deal Obama worked out. Did the snap back sanctions take affect? The Russians, Chinese, and our supposed NATO allies in the security council will never let that happen.

The genie out of the bottle. But it is up to the ME to deal with Iran. We have done more than enough by giving Iran Iraq and Yemen.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    5 years ago
Please, the Iranians have already violated the deal Obama worked out.

They did so after trump pulled out of the deal. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    5 years ago

Wrong again. They were violating it during the Obama administration as well. Obama just turned a blind eye to it.

Iranian leaders have breached both the resolutions and the nuclear agreement for the third time since the nuclear deal went into effect in January 2016. Iran has repeatedly test-fired, long-range ballistic missiles and laser-guided surface-to-surface missiles.

In October and November, just after the nuclear deal was reached, Iran tested a new ballistic missile capable of carrying multiple warheads .

In March, Iran again test-fired two ballistic missiles.

More recently and for the third time, the Iranian government fired a test missile two weeks ago which was accurate to 25 feet, which is characterized as zero error, according to the Brigadier General Ali Abdollahi, the Iranian military’s deputy chief of staff, and Iran’s semi-official Tasnim news agency.

The range of existing Iranian ballistic missiles has grown from 500 miles to over 2,000 kilometers (roughly 1,250 miles), which can easily reach Eastern Europe as well as countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Yemen.

Iranian leaders dismiss the notion that the Revolutionary Guard Corps military activities are breaching the nuclear agreement as well as several of the UN Security Council resolutions. World powers appear to acquiesce to Iran’s stance as well.

But, the United Nations Security Council resolution (Paragraph 3 of Annex B of resolution 2231, 2015) is clear. The resolution “calls upon Iran not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

The second UN Security Council resolution 1929 indicates “Iran shall not undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using ballistic missile technology, and that States shall take all necessary measures to prevent the transfer of technology or technical assistance to Iran related to such activities”.

In addition, the Joint Plan of Action Agreement (JCPOA) of the nuclear agreement between P5+1 and Iran is crystal clear in stating that Iran should not undertake any ballistic missiles activity “until the date eight years after the JCPOA Adoption Day or until the date on which the IAEA submits a report confirming the Broader Conclusion, whichever is earlier.”

So when are those snap back sanctions coming?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
2.1.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.2    5 years ago

Your article conflates UN resolutions regarding missile testing with the altogether different multi-party international uranium enrichment deal.  The way we can tell is that the link in that last paragraph of the article excerpt that you provided doesn't have anything to do with either ballistic missile testing or the PCPOA.  It's author is, of course, an Iranian in exile who also hopes for a war with Iran.  I can understand his feelings but that's not a reason for the U.S. to gin up phony reasons to attack Iran.

Here's a summary of the main elements of the JCPOA and ballistic missile testing is not among them:

And this one points out that Shitbag, himself, certified that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA (until he decided they weren't on the basis of bullshit):

I think that's strike 3 on this at-bat for you

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
2.1.5  Don Overton  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    5 years ago

Lots of conjecture there Ronin absolutely no facts.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3  Ender    5 years ago

Bolton has long been pushing for confrontation and now it seems Pompeo is too.

Actually this is one thing I don't think trump is dumb enough to do.

At least until after re-election.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ender @3    5 years ago
Actually this is one thing I don't think trump is dumb enough to do.

Meh, he was dumb enough to attempt negotiations with NK.....twice. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    5 years ago

True that. And he does seem to be ramping up deployments.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
3.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    5 years ago
Meh, he was dumb enough to attempt negotiations with NK.....twice.

By negotiate, you must mean cave in.  NK is testing nuclear weaponry and the vehicles to carry it at an even faster pace now.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.2    5 years ago

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4  Sean Treacy    5 years ago

Iran is attacking neutral shipping.

They are beating the war drums...

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
4.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    5 years ago

....Iran is attacking neutral shipping.

Like you love to say.... "GOT PROOF ?"

Fortunately the Iranians aren't nearly as stupid as you make them out to be Sean.  Ask yourself the question...... Who benefits most if the US gets involved in a shooting war with Iran.  I suggest you take a strong look at MBS and the Saudi's.

I'd like to say the Mossad (they've done these "false flag" operations in an attempt to provoke a military confrontation between the USA and Iran before- multiple times.) but they are much smarter than MBF.  The Israelis stick to business and the actual threats that they face, without any desire to destabilize the middle east.  The judgement of the Israelis is far better that that of the loose cannon MBS.

Looking at the type of damage to the tankers, there is much that doesn't make sense.  (Photos taken by USS Bainbridge)  If this had been torpedo's launched by Iranian submarines (all of which use 533mm diameter Russian made torpedoes 400-1000 pound HE Torpex equivalent)  the ships would be on the bottom.  The holes are above the waterline!  Torps nor Limpet mines do not jump out of the water.  Exocets would have caused more damage.

Why don't you just wait for "the fact" AKA..."proof" to come out Sean rather than beating Bolton's war drum.....

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
4.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    5 years ago
Iran is attacking neutral shipping.

Based on what evidence?  The same kind of evidence that there were WMD in Iraq, Sean?  

 
 
 
It Is ME
Masters Guide
5  It Is ME    5 years ago

What is Japan going to do about it ?

Call the U.S. for help ?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6  Ender    5 years ago

I have to wonder, why can't Saudi Arabia use the soon to be acquired new weapons sold to them by trump?

What is the point of selling them all of these weapons if we end up in a confrontation.

I say let them handle it with their new toys.

Same with Israel. We supply them with a massive amount of weapons yet we end up the ones in conflict.

Let others handle it for once.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
6.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ender @6    5 years ago

 Have to agree. We have spent far more than our share of our militaries blood in giant sand trap. Let the local regional powers sort their own mess out.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.2  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @6    5 years ago

1) Saudi Arabia doesn't have the stomach for full on war with Iran. But you are correct it is their responsibility to deal with Iran.

2) Israel will never risk war with Iran. About the only thing the Saudis and Iranians can agree on is that they both hate Israel more. Want the ME united against a common enemy- get Israel involved in a full scale war with Iran.

I agree with the sentiment- it is well past time we let the ME handle their own affairs.  Outside of keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons (too late for that), and starting a cold war race in the ME- there is nothing the US can do.  Again, it is too late for that. Nothing is stopping the Iranians from getting nuclear weapons. It will only be a matter of time after that the Saudi Arabia and Egypt acquire them; maybe even from the US.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
Junior Quiet
6.2.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2    5 years ago
Israel will never risk war with Iran

I will say, don't be so sure, but not in an active aggressive manner, rather, if it comes to it, an all out defensive manner. No holds barred.

There was a time when folks around the world would volunteer to defend Israel in all all out attack, myself included, but I would say the dupes in western media who have fallen for the propaganda who wish all of Israel pushed into the sea have put a kibosh to that. I am just too old these days and not able to do the things I could 45 years ago. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  dave-2693993 @6.2.1    5 years ago
I will say, don't be so sure, but not in an active aggressive manner, rather, if it comes to it, an all out defensive manner. No holds barred.

Israel has the capability to attack Iran, and other ME countries might turn a blind eye to it; but it would have to be a one offer. It would take a sustained military offensive to cripple Iran's nuclear capabilities. Israel has proven they are not against preemptive strikes when they feel threatened. They also have no problem crossing into other countries' territory. 

I will say, don't be so sure, but not in an active aggressive manner, rather, if it comes to it, an all out defensive manner. No holds barred.

Times have changed. Israel is not the struggling country beset by massive Arab military might anymore. They are the strongest, and meanest, bully on the block. Outside of proxy militia/terrorist groups no ME country is willing to face Israel in direct military conflict.

but I would say the dupes in western media who have fallen for the propaganda who wish all of Israel pushed into the sea have put a kibosh to that.

Israel has earned some of their bad reputation. Neither side is completely innocent or free of blame. Innocents on both sides are being hurt by governments that refuse to negotiate a true end to hostilities.

I am just too old these days and not able to do the things I could 45 years ago. 

I would be 7. I would take being able to do things I could just 12 years ago.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7  JBB    5 years ago

Excepting for our foreign enemies (Especially China and Russia), John Bolton and the goddamn Gatestone Institutue exactly nobody American should be going all gungho for war between the US and Iran. I, for one, am greatly sceptical of the two minor incidents being used to excuse escalating the situation. Both Iran and the tanker's owners deny Iran was responsible. Now is time to slow down and communicate. The USA has sacrificed enough already. We do not need ME oil enough anymore to sacrifice even one more young American soul on Allah's messed up middle eastern alter of burning oil. Let the damn Sunnis and the damn Shiites fight it out amongst themselves... for just this once. This is just a good estimate butt a war with Iran would result in hundreds of thousands dead and trillions and trillions spent and with absolutely no good ever coming out of it to our own selves, ever...

 
 
 
Snuffy
Professor Participates
7.1  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @7    5 years ago
Both Iran and the tanker's owners deny Iran was responsible.

I know Iran has denied responsibility, but where did  you see that the tankers owners also deny that Iran is responsible?  I have not found that. All I am able to find anywhere close to that is that most involved don't feel there is sufficient evidence to definitely pin this on Iran.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8  Sparty On    5 years ago

These big tankers need to mount a couple sea wizzers, hire a few retire navy weapons guys to operate em and enforce a reasonable cordon around their ships.

Let R2-D2 sort it out.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
8.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sparty On @8    5 years ago

Shall we add Prarie Masker and Nixies to the CWIZ installation?

 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.1    5 years ago

Hell yes if they can afford em jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif .... that said, i bet R2D2 will do the trick .... a few boats get shredded and the word will get out.   They could save some money using the cheaper HE rounds as well.   No need for armor piercing with most of the dingleberry puddle pirates they'll be dealing with.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

McMakem is arguing against American intervention on many fronts, from the minor significance of tanker bombings to what regime change in the Iranian theocracy might look like. He seems to have left out one - the democrats in congress and the msm will not support this President going to war, at any time or for any reason! I myself, have not formed an opinion on what should be done with Iran, but I firmly believe, as I always have, that once the US military is committed - the US must prevail!  I believed that during the Vietnam War and I believe it now.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    5 years ago
but I firmly believe, as I always have, that once the US military is committed - the US must prevail!  I believed that during the Vietnam War and I believe it now.

I agree; but with the caveat that the US military must never be deployed in an unwinnable situation. Nation building first and foremost (Vietnam certainly was); which is what Iran would become. Afghanistan and Iraq are other prime examples.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    5 years ago

Vietnam was unwinnable because we placed restrictions on the US military and the enemy hung on because they saw all the protests taking place in the US. The legacy of the US leaving Vietnam the way we did is that every little anti-American group challenged the US thereafter. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    5 years ago

Vietnam was unwinnable because we were not disposed to slaughter the natives. The only way to win a guerilla war, when the peasantry is hostile or even neutral, is to kill and kill and kill... to waste village after village, just because they don't tell you where the guerillas are... until the natives are too afraid of you to not betray the guerillas.

The Brits did it in Burma, and won.

They backed off in East Africa... and were ejected.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.2    5 years ago
Vietnam was unwinnable because we were not disposed to slaughter the natives.

Unwinnable because we couldn't invade the north or go into other countries and close down those supply & invasion routes used by the North Vietnamese. We fought with both hands behind our backs and they used every tactic they pleased. And don't forget the fuckin' protesters - that kept the North fighting despite the destruction of the Viet Cong during the Tet Offensive!

"By the end of 1969, there was little communist-held territory, or "liberated zones", in South Vietnam, according to the official communist military history. [78]  There were no predominantly southern units left and 70 percent of communist troops in the South were northerners. [79]"





 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.3    5 years ago

We invaded Cambodia, and made a mess worse than Vietnam. Invading the North would have been more of the same.

To win a guerilla war, one must be murderous. We were not, and that is a good thing.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.4    5 years ago

We eventually & reluctantly went into Cambodia to lose down that supply line. The media called it "widening the war". We should have won that war. Easily.


 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.5    5 years ago

We hav "eventually & reluctantly gone into" lots of countries over the last fifty or sixty years. In general, we have made messes.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
9.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.6    5 years ago

Then don't go in. All I say is that if we do we must prevail!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
9.1.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.7    5 years ago

The U.S. military should never be sent into any war the civilian politicians do not have the stomach or will to win...

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
9.1.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    5 years ago
Vietnam was unwinnable because we placed restrictions on the US military and the enemy hung on because they saw all the protests taking place in the US.

Oh, some revisionist BS there.  The protests had no effect until it was clear the the war was unwinnable.  

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
9.1.10  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    5 years ago
Nation building first and foremost (Vietnam certainly was);

If I'm not mistaken...wasn't Viet-Nam the first war the U.S. lost?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
9.1.11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    5 years ago
the US must prevail! 

You can't still be under the delusion that we "prevailed" in Iraq.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
9.1.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.4    5 years ago
We invaded Cambodia, and made a mess worse than Vietnam. Invading the North would have been more of the same.

Not to forget Nixon's illegal carpet bombing of Laos which deterred neither the NV army nor the Viet Cong in the slightest.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @9.1.11    5 years ago
You can't still be under the delusion that we "prevailed" in Iraq.

Perhaps it was confusion with our great success in Afghanistan...

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
9.2  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    5 years ago

So your answer is just to have U.S. military bodies laying around  

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
9.3  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    5 years ago
the democrats in congress and the msm will not support this President going to war, at any time or for any reason!

At any time...for any reason?

Well, by now I've become quite used to the prevailing ignorance of history amongst the vast majority NT users...and that lack of knowlegde of the actual facts is usually no impediment to shootin off their mouths...

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
9.3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @9.3    5 years ago
that lack of knowlegde of the actual facts is usually no impediment to shootin off their mouths...

Since when is knowledge of a subject a prerequisite for having an opinion about it?

Don't be ridiculous.

What will you want next? That we listen to experts? Silly idea.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10  Sparty On    5 years ago

Like it or not without US intervention the middle east, as we know it today, would be gone.   One can debate whether we should just let that happen or not but one can not debate the overall stabilizing effect we and others have had over there.

Much out this has occurred because of our national guilt trip over what we allowed to happen during WW-2.   Not so much with todays kinder/gentler "washed" history generation.   Heck, many of them couldn't even tell you what Auschwitz was.

That said, i guess i fall more in the let them burn it down group than not.   We've pretty much proven over the years that there is nothing we can do to stop them from hating each other.   Maybe if the middle east glows for the next ten thousand or so years they might figure it out.   Too bad the dumb-asses will be gone.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
10.1  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @10    5 years ago

If the UK hadn't decided to create random countries by combining enemy tribes, I wonder what the Middle East would look like now.

Unfortunately, whether we intervene or not, things are always bad over there.  There is no good answer.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
Professor Guide
10.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  katrix @10.1    5 years ago

Imagine what the middle east would look like today without everyone finding oil reserves under that sand.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
10.1.2  katrix  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @10.1.1    5 years ago

Very good point.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @10.1    5 years ago

It goes back much further than that.   The feuds go back to biblical times.

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
10.1.4  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.3    5 years ago

True, but forcing these warring tribes into countries didn't work out too well after WWI.  You can't force people with a tribal mentality into a nation mentality, it would seem.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @10.1.4    5 years ago

I agree.

The Treaty of Versailles and its extensions may just have ended up being the most destructive document/rulings in history.

No argument there.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
10.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.3    5 years ago

It goes back much further than that.   The feuds go back to biblical times.

Yep, the ME has been a battle field for 15, 1600 years. One of the reasons I always laugh when I hear a politician say they are going to bring peace to the Middle East. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @10.1    5 years ago
If the UK hadn't decided to create random countries by combining enemy tribes, I wonder what the Middle East would look like now.

Don't forget France's roll in that process.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
10.1.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  katrix @10.1    5 years ago

Balfour Declaration:

384

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
10.1.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.1.8    5 years ago

There's the source, well-meaning as it may have been, that ended up being the slow burning fuse that exploded in 1948.  I'm not sure how a homeland for European Jews could otherwise have come about and it seems that this declaration didn't really result in much migration from Europe to Palestine until the massive inflow of refugees following WWII.  Clearly, the existing Arab Palestinian population had not been given any consideration in the matter so its response was understandable.  

I think the Great Mr. Newman sang it best:

Hide your wives and daughters
Hide your groceries too
Great nations of Europe coming through
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
10.1.10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.7    5 years ago
Don't forget France's roll in that process.

Or the United States' role in the Western Hemisphere.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
10.1.11  Krishna  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.1.9    5 years ago
Clearly, the existing Arab Palestinian population had not been given any consideration in the matter so its response was understandable. 

Actually the bulk of "The British Mandate of Palestine" went to the Arabs. (Well over 60 % of it went to the Arabs in 1946-- an area that still has Arab self-government. (Currently its called Jordan-- an independent self-ruled Arab country.).

The smaller remaining part was supposed to become 2 smaller new countries-- one a Jewish state, one yet  another Arab state. However on what was supposed to be the eve of independence for those 2, several Arab countries attacked. When the dust settled, the Jews survived and Israel was created.

But why wasn't that other Arab state created? Because the Egyptians and Jordanians occupied it and refused to have a new independent Arab country ("Palestine") to be formed.(Egypt continued to occupy part of it-- Gaza-- and Jordan occupied the other part of what was supposed to become "Palestine"--i.e. "the West Bank").

So the reason another Arab country-- to be called "Psalestine"-- was never created was because those areas were occupied by Egypt and Jordan-- both of whom refused to allow the creation of "Palestine"

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
10.1.12  Krishna  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.1.9    5 years ago
I'm not sure how a homeland for European Jews could otherwise have come about

Israel was not meant to be a homeland only for European Jews (as your comment implied). It was meant to be a homeland for all Jews who had for the most part been conquered and kikced out (by the Romans, IIRC that was 72 AD).

Jews have lived in that area continuously since ancient times-- in fact that was their homeland long before the first Muslim ever sert foot in the area.

"European Jews" were those who fled to Europe and lived there when the Romans conquered their ancient homeland, but others thed to Asia-- even as far away as India and China. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
10.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @10.1.11    5 years ago
Well over 60 % of it went to the Arabs in 1946-- an area that still has Arab self-government. (Currently its called Jordan -- an independent self-ruled Arab country.).

73%, to be precise.

Not incidentally, this was at independence "The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan". So named because it was composed of all of the Palestinian Mandate east of the Jordan River.

During the 1948 war against Israel, Transjordan occupied most of the regions of Judea and Samaria. (Yes... the first occupation of the "Occupied Territories", the event that gave that name to that area, was by an Arab army.) The Occupied Territories were formally annexed by Transjordan, which thus became "Jordan" in 1950.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
10.1.14  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.1.13    5 years ago
During the 1948 war against Israel, Transjordan occupied most of the regions of Judea and Samaria. (Yes... the first occupation of the "Occupied Territories", the event that gave that name to that area, was by an Arab army.)

I wonder how many people here are aware of that?

A new identity was created-- the "Palestinians". And then a new country for them was supposed to be created. But the reason it never came to be?

When it was supposed to come into being, Egypt and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan occupied it-- thus preventing its formation. (Yes-- it was the Arabs thsat prevented the creation of a "palestine"-- not the Israelis!).

And as you also pointed out, Jordan changed the status of its occupation. They ended the status of "occupied"-- and actually annexed what was supposed to be Palestine-- they made it part of Jordan. (The so-called "Palestinians" living there were then ruled by Jordanians...).

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
10.1.15  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @10.1.12    5 years ago
Israel was not meant to be a homeland only for European Jews (as your comment implied).

But in the aftermath of the Holocaust, it was the only place available  for the  survivors.  This country wasn't about to accept all of the ones who wanted to come here (of course it wasn't because of anti-semitism but why should this country with that big statue claiming to welcome be expected to take so many of "these, the homeless, tempest tossed"?) /S  And, of course, the Brits basically ignored the Balfour Declaration after the war when they actively prevented those survivors from entering the territory.  

I'd forgotten the role other Arab and Muslim countries played in blocking the creation of the Palestinian state.  Thanks for the reminder.  What a mess.....from the beginning. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
10.1.16  Ronin2  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.1.10    5 years ago

We kind of abstained in that whole Sykes-Picot process. If you want to blame us for allowing it to happen, I can't disagree.  The main brunt of blame still falls on France and Britain. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
10.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.16    5 years ago

America was in one of its isolationist phases at the time.

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
10.2  Don Overton  replied to  Sparty On @10    5 years ago

And, possibly, you and I along with them.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Don Overton @10.2    5 years ago

I'm afraid its only a matter of time before some pissed off radical or government touches off a nuc somewhere in the US or one of our allies

Good help the world when that happens.   Until then i am all for whatever it takes to make sure pissed off radicals/governments don't get nucs.

Hard to understand how some can't fully embrace such a concept.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
10.2.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.1    5 years ago
I'm afraid its only a matter of time before some pissed off radical or government touches off a nuc somewhere in the US or one of our allies

The most likely suspect for setting something like that into motion is your very own Shitbag of a "president" who--unbelievable for any other president* in memory--ordered and then cancelled a strike on Iran last night.  

*oh, wait--except for Reagan when his dementia was beginning to be obvious and he  hot-miked i an a  order for a nuclear attack on Russia.  It was "just a joke." 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.2.2    5 years ago

 Oh wait, except for Johnson who started a war based on a fake attack that killed 58,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese.   Not to mention even greater numbers of dead on both sides later as a direct result of it.   I can't count the number of friends who died later of cancer related to their war exposure and they are still dying today.

Interestingly, in your rush to judge, you forgot to mention that one.

What a shocker!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
10.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.3    5 years ago

I'm not following your reasoning, here. I hope.

You seem to be saying that we should hold current leaders to whatever was the worst behavior of previous leaders.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.2.4    5 years ago

I didn't start that train of thought   You need to ask Atheist that question since he did.

I was simply calling him on out on his partisan BS.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
10.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.5    5 years ago

I understood you to be saying that Trump is entitled to doing the worst that Johnson did (or any other predecessor).

Do you agree that the misbehavior of predecessors cannot be used to justify misbehavior by incumbents?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
10.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.2.6    5 years ago

Be happy to answer that.    After you ask the person who started it.   

Had he not started it, you and i wouldn't be having this conversation.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
10.2.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.5    5 years ago
I was simply calling him on out on his partisan BS.

Oh, you are a rich source for self-mockery for that one.   Let's go back to 1968 in the time machine, shall we?  Tricky Dick campaigns on being the one to end the Vietnam War ("with honor") and his favorite slogan was "those who've had 4 years to end the war and couldn't should not be given another 4 years."  Now fast forward to 1972 when Criminal Dick Nixon is running for re-election.  The Vietnam War is nowhere near winding down despite Nixon's illegal invasion of Cambodia and the saturation bombing of Laos. Forward again three years:  over 20,000 more US combat deaths during lying, fucking, criminal Nixon's soon to end in disgrace presidency.  The US finally abandons Vietnam in a clusterfuck of chaos and leaves thousands of its partners in the war to the "mercy" of the victors. 

Of course, that's not taking into account that the first US military commitment to Vietnam began in the 1950s under Eisenhower, increased by Kennedy and, of course, massively so by Johnson.  But the most despicable player in the whole disastrous story is the one who promised  victory and peace with honor and delivered the exact opposite of that--Richard Fucking POS Criminal Nixon. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
10.2.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.7    5 years ago

You've answered quite clearly...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
12  Ender    5 years ago
Sen.   Tom Cotton   (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urged Trump to order a military strike against Iran.

 

“The president has the authorization to act to defend American interests,” Cotton told CBS’s “ Face the Nation ” on Sunday.   “What I'm talking about is not like what we've seen in Iraq for the last 16 years or Afghanistan for the last 18 years, but retaliatory military strikes against Iran that make it clear we will not tolerate any kind of attacks on commercial shipping on the open seas,”   he said.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
12.2  Krishna  replied to  Ender @12    5 years ago
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, urged Trump to order a military strike against Iran.

Actually I think of those politicians who are trying to convince Trump to start a war with Iran, the one who seems to have the most influence is John Bolton.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
13  Bob Nelson    5 years ago

Good seed.

I don't note these facts to claim that Iran is a liberal and freedom-loving place. The fact that Iran compares favorably to Saudi Arabia is quite relevant, however, because the Saudi regime stands to benefit the most from regime change in Iran. The collapse of Iran would produce a power vacuum in the Gulf region allowing the Saudi regime to further spread its brand of radical Islamism. Thus, US claims that it is fighting terrorism or radicalism by opposing Iran are dubious at best.

This is important.

There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. There are only "bad guys" and "less bad guys". Fifteen of nineteen 9/11 terrorists were Saudis. Bin Laden was a Saudi. Saudi's human rights record is abysmal.

Iran's ayatollahs are not nice, but their record is vastly better than Saudi's. They are hostile to the US, of course. So is most of the Middle East. There's a solid argument that over the long haul, the US is the aggressor.

Anyone who tries to present the Middle East as black&white is a snake-oil-salesman.


There's a very good news-analysis program on French TV, in late afternoon. An animator who asks pertinent questions, and four or five specialists. Last week, they analyzed the Gulf situation.
Some conclusions:
 - The US is behaving like a schoolyard bully. Breaking all the rules, including those the US created.
 - Bolton wants war. Despite decades of Middle East failures, he still believes the US can impose itself.
 - Pompeo wants war. Not clear why. Machism, maybe.
 - Trump's signals are mixed . He may go off in any direction, depending on his mood, perhaps violently.
 - The "evidence" is most definitely NOT trustworthy. America's credit was already bad, after the fake WMD "evidence", but now, with Trump... nothing America contends may be believed.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
13.1  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    5 years ago
 - Pompeo wants war. Not clear why

I could be wrong, but my guess is that basically his job is to support whatever policies Trump comes up with, ( not to give the best assessments available)...and he's doing his job quite well jrSmiley_7_smiley_image.png

(People like Mattis were more honorable-- they were under the illusion that Trump wanted to know the actual facts...so they are no longer advisors to Trump).

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
13.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @13.1    5 years ago
I could be wrong, but my guess is that basically his job is to support whatever policies Trump comes up with, (not to give the best assessments available)...and he's doing his job quite well

It pains me to say but I think ShitBAG is scared shitLESS about being in a war.  Even he seems to see the political risks to his shot for a second term.  And I think Putin has been in Shitbag's ear and doesn't like the idea of Americans dropping bombs so close to his border.    Pompeo and Bolton really don't give a shit about Shitbag's political fate.  Their loyalties lie elsewhere.  They're both globalists in the sense they want the US to go back to trying to Cop to the World. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
13.4  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    5 years ago
Anyone who tries to present the Middle East as black&white is a snake-oil-salesman.

Or ...possibly.. a member of the (unfortunately) not so silent majority on most social media sites. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
13.4.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @13.4    5 years ago

Yes. I should have said, "... either a snake-oil-salesman or a fool."

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
13.5  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    5 years ago
There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. There are only "bad guys" and "less bad guys"

Well, maybe some of the Kurdish groups might be considered good guys-- or at least some of the least bad of the bads. 

They really deserve to get their own homeland-- but they've constantly been screwed over by the major powers.

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
14  The Magic 8 Ball    5 years ago
The US media will enthusiastically assist the administration in spreading whatever images and bullet points the administration wants it to.

  the media is against all things trump, but if they support the "admin" on this? 

that only means the globalists want it to happen.

from chaos, a new order.  /  want a new order? cause chaos.  (this game is older than civilization itself)


one problem with their plans... trump is not a globalist.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
14.1  Krishna  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @14    5 years ago

 the media is against all things trump, but if they support the "admin" on this? 

Just curious-- why do you not consider Fox News to be media?

(Or, for that matter, numerous "talk radio" news outlets?)

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
14.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  The Magic 8 Ball @14    5 years ago
. trump is not a globalist.

But everyone around him is, at least as throwing our military might everywhere they crudely, stupidly and now well-proven false that  think we can "fix" to our advantage.  And Trump is so ignorant and so lacking in judgment that they'll eventually manipulate him to do what they want.  That's  the Deep State that you rightwingers have been looking for in all the wrong places.  They're the people you put into power. 

 
 
 
The Magic 8 Ball
Masters Quiet
14.2.1  The Magic 8 Ball  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14.2    5 years ago
And Trump is so ignorant and so lacking in judgment that they'll eventually manipulate him to do what they want. 

they tried that with syria and north korea...

and now they have failed with iran as well.

cheers )

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
15  Krishna    5 years ago

Re: the title of this seed:

Iran: America's Latest Drive For War

Probably unintentional, but it may be a bit misleading . . . 

I'm wondering if "America" actually wants a war with Iran?

Or, for that matter, if "America" wants any additional war at this point???

Rather, a more accurate title might be:

Iran: Trump's Latest Drive For War

 
 
 
freepress
Freshman Silent
16  freepress    5 years ago

Republicans embrace war, they embrace tearing down the middle class with tax cuts for the wealthy, and they ignore any economic damage they do by embracing Trump with his ignorant tariffs. Add the way Republicans completely ignored the Bush economic collapse and the damage done from 8 years of war based on lies with no way to pay for it, and then add the way they completely ignore the deficit when they have political control and it is beyond clear they do not love America. They love power and lying to their constituents to bluster away their terrible, terrible policies. Enough with the shell game using our Veterans and causing more war and more loss of American lives. 

 
 
 
lady in black
Professor Quiet
17  lady in black    5 years ago

64451021_886045328403037_4406606299320549376_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&_nc_oc=AQkvHm9HZ_syjomY-51XYmVZhg2uLYneeYXmpVLwBclJrEjGfaS1kyvawtzXv_dis34&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=9dc8dccf768dc7cc0f95918b889bcabe&oe=5D8F70D1

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19  Vic Eldred    5 years ago

Iran has attacked oil tankers and most recently has shot down a US Navy drone. How much does the US tolerate?  Where is the line?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19    5 years ago

Proof that they attacked oil tankers?

Why shouldn't they have shot down the drone?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @19.1    5 years ago
Proof that they attacked oil tankers?

"THE US has released footage which it claims shows an Iranian navy boat removing a mine from the side of a bombed oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman yesterday.



Why shouldn't they have shot down the drone?

Because it wasn't in their air space!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.1    5 years ago
'THE US has released footage'

Not a reliable source with that turd as 'president'

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @19.1.2    5 years ago

I think you've shown whom you prefer to believe.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.1.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.1    5 years ago
Because it wasn't in their air space!

Was or wasn't, either way it was a provocation to even get close.  We would have done the same thing before it got into our airspace.  Shitbag's wants to be a "war president" just like Bush.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.1.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.3    5 years ago
I think you've shown whom you prefer to believe.

And you apparently believed Shitbag when he said he wouldn't get us into any wars.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.1.4    5 years ago
Was or wasn't, either way it was a provocation.  We would have done the same thing before it got into our airspace.  

EXACTLY.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.1.7  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.1    5 years ago
"THE US has released footage which it claims shows an Iranian navy boat removing a mine from the side of a bombed oil tanker in the Gulf of Oman yesterday.

You really can't be that gullible, vic--unless you need to be in order to get into a war.  Are you really that desperate and worried  about getting your Shitbag re-elected that you'd support warmongering to gin up public support for him? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.1.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.3    5 years ago
I think you've shown whom you prefer to believe.

And the one you've chosen has shown himself to be a pathological liar thousands of times since occupying the WH. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
Sophomore Quiet
19.1.9  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.1    5 years ago

According to who. The Army. From many personal experiences they often don't have a real clue

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
19.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.3    5 years ago

She like many others here are loyal members of the "Blame America First " crowd 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  arkpdx @19.1.10    5 years ago

I predicted they would, right. And if Hillary was elected and we had to go to war, the media and the left would be holding hands,  humming "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.11    5 years ago

Seriously?

Are you really arguing from hypotheticals about a person who has been gone for two years?

Wouldn't it be more useful to explain why Trump's rush to war is a good thing?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.11    5 years ago

But, but, but Hillary, for Fucks' sake.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.12    5 years ago
Trump's rush to war

But he didn't go to war, even after we were attacked

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.14    5 years ago
But he didn't go to war...

In fact, he did. He unilaterally declared an embargo, which is an act of war.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.15    5 years ago

So are all the subversive acts Iran has undertaken for decades, every day, against the US and US interests.

And they are numerous.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.15    5 years ago
He unilaterally declared an embargo,

That's what America does with sponsors of terrorism. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.14    5 years ago

When were 'we' attacked?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.16    5 years ago

So you can name those 'subversive acts' that Iran has undertaken for decades, every day against the US and US interests?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
19.1.20  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.15    5 years ago

Right.... 

Unlike Obama's military adventures into Libya and Syria which were what again? Or how about his extra judicial drone killings across the globe? Or maybe you want to discuss his regime change actions in the Ukraine and Yemen? 

The left's definition of "an act of war" is getting ridiculous.

Now Trump did threaten sanctions against all countries importing Iranian oil; but that is a different matter, and still doesn't constitute an act of war.

You are thinking of blockade rather than embargo; which is a completely different thing.

An embargo is when one nation establishes a policy not to trade with another nation and not to allow its own ports or territory to be used for commerce with that nation. Establishment of an embargo is the prerogative of any nation. For decades the United States has had an embargo on trade with Cuba. This is a policy decision which has been made by the Government. The policy may be wise or foolish, but nations are clearly within their rights to establish embargos.

Similarly, Israel and Egypt have a right to embargo trade with Gaza. If Egypt or Israel believes the Government in Gaza poses a threat to its stability or security, they have a right to place an embargo on Gaza. What that means is that trade with Gaza is restricted through Israeli and Egyptian ports and territory. Nations have the right to secure their borders and the Israelis and the Egyptians are exercising that right.

A blockade is totally different. A blockade is closing to international commerce by military force the coast of another entity. A blockade prevents third parties from undertaking normal commercial activity. A blockade is an act of war rather than merely exercising one’s own prerogatives.
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.21  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.16    5 years ago

"Who struck the first blow?" is a stupid game that should be outgrown in elementary school.

But if you insist... the CIA fomented a coup d'état in 1953 that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government led by Mohammad Mosaddegh. The CIA installed the Shah, and more importantly, the SAVAK... the Shah's bloody secret police.

So... if you insist on playing "Who struck first?", there is no question: The United States struck first.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.17    5 years ago
That's what America does with sponsors of terrorism. 

Most of the world considers the worst "sponsor of terrorism" to be the United States. No other country has caused so much chaos and death and suffering over the last fifty years.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ronin2 @19.1.20    5 years ago

What does Obama have to do with anything?

The seed is about Iran and Trump.

Now Trump did threaten sanctions against all countries importing Iranian oil

Trump threatened all companies, regardless of their product/service, with exclusion form American markets if they continued to do business with Iran. So maybe you're right - maybe we should be calling Trump's action a "blockade" rather than an "embargo".

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.24  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @19.1.19    5 years ago

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last 40 years, i shouldn't need to.

You defend a known terrorist state.   I'll defend the USA.

No problem.   SOSDD for you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.24    5 years ago

That's what I thought.  Ya got nothin', as usual.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.26  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.21    5 years ago
Who struck the first blow?" is a stupid game that should be outgrown in elementary school.

Thats your game, not mine.   I'm simply pointing out the obvious.  

Iran is a government this is actively sponsoring terrorism against the USA and allies today.   Not 70 years ago.   The end rarely justifies the means in such matters.   After decades and decades of subversive action, Iran is reaping what it has sown.   Nothing more, nothing less.

You defend Irans actions and i'll defend ours.   No problem.   Now we both know where we stand.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.27  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.24    5 years ago
You defend a known terrorist state.   I'll defend the USA.

Iran is not a risk to world peace. The United States is a grave risk to world peace.

Iran has imposed itself... nowhere.

The United States has imposed itself... just about everywhere on the globe...

Which is the "known terrorist state"?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.27    5 years ago

We disagree where the real problem is.   Completely.

Nothing new there.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.26    5 years ago
You defend Irans actions

I have not defended Iran's actions. I have condemned America's actions.

We invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban who were giving aid and comfort to al Qaeda. The Taliban were on the run in six weeks. Then we changed the mission to "nation building", and we still in that quagmire eighteen years later.

We invaded Iraq because Saddam had WMD. That was a lie, but necessary to get the American people to support a war to overthrow Saddam and build a new order in the Middle East. After fifteen years, tens of thousands of dead, trillions of dollars wasted... we slunk home, leaving behind an Iraqi government aligned with... our enemies the ayatollahs of Iran.

Now we're trying to start a war with Iran. It's stupid. it's wrong.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.30  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.29    5 years ago
I have not defended Iran's actions.

Sure you have.   And you've made excuses for them as well.

Now we're trying to start a war with Iran.

Is that why Trump called off the retaliatory strike for the Drone shoot down?     Because we are trying to start a war?

Interesting take on things Bob.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.31  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.30    5 years ago
I have not defended Iran's actions.
Sure you have. And you've made excuses for them as well.

Link?

I assume you can distinguish between "explaining why someone does something" and "justifying that something".

Is that why Trump called off the retaliatory strike for the Drone shoot down?     Because we are trying to start a war?

Trump has a method: he creates a crisis, and then calls himself "brilliant" when he unwinds the crisis. We seen this film several times already. The problem is that he always leaves the overall situation worse than it was before.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.1.32  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  arkpdx @19.1.10    5 years ago
She like many others here are loyal members of the "Blame America First " crowd 

We can expect you to sign up quickly to go fight this war with Iran.  If you can't get into the actual service you can join the Iranian forces in exile who surely  will want to join the fray.  Lots of ways to serve your country other than just cheerleading from a couch at home. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.1.33  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.24    5 years ago
I'll defend the USA.

With your body in the war zone, of course.  "Defend" does not mean sitting at home eating Cheetos and mouthing worn out patriotic clichés. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
19.1.34  arkpdx  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.1.32    5 years ago
We can expect you to sign up quickly to go fight this war with Iran.

I would proudly serve thIs country in any capacity I am able.  Unlike you and those of your ilk, I am not ashamed to be a citizen of the greatest country in the world 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.35  Sparty On  replied to  arkpdx @19.1.34    5 years ago

Thats a standard haters retort in cases like this.  

Many who talk like that never served a minute and secretly (or not so secretly) hate the military always.    Many of them who did serve, that bitch like that, are BCD eating mofo's or something other than honorable.  

My Honorable discharge hangs proudly in my home.   Always will.   Whiny little pricks that are OTH are jealous of that i guess.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.36  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.35    5 years ago
haters

Could you give me an explanation of "haters"? It seems to be a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with the far right... and does not seem to involve "hatred". What is "a standard haters retort"?

Many who talk like that never served a minute and secretly (or not so secretly) hate the military always.

Do you have any basis whatsoever for this?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.37  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.36    5 years ago
Could you give me an explanation of "haters"? It seems to be a blanket epithet for anyone who disagrees with the far right... and does not seem to involve "hatred". What is "a standard haters retort"?

I'd name names but don't really need another bad chit.   That said, you're a smart boy Bob,   I bet you can figure it out if you read the thread.

 
Do you have any basis whatsoever for this?

Yes i do.   Its actually not uncommon at all.  

Arrogant pricks like that are all over the place.   They aren't hard to spot if you're looking.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.1.38  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.37    5 years ago

IOW, you got nothin'.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.39  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.1.38    5 years ago

I've got hitting too close to someones wheelhouse is what i got.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.40  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.37    5 years ago

So... You use "haters" but won't or can't say what it means...

... and you throw the worst sort of insult without grounds.

Class act!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.41  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.40    5 years ago

Bob, i know you've been in France for awhile so maybe something gets lost in translation.

Here's a refresher:

Hater
hat·er
/ˈhādər/
 
noun: hater; plural noun: haters
person who greatly dislikes a specified person or thing.
  • informal
    a negative or critical person.
Hopefully that helps!
Sincerely,
A Class Act
 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.1.42  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.41    5 years ago

I know how to use a dictionary.

I also know that the dictionary definition does not apply to this usage by the right.

"Hate" needs an objet: the persons / things that are hated. The right uses the word without any object. In this case, the word means "anyone who hates anything". I doubt that's what you mean.

So... What do you mean by "haters"?

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
19.1.43  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.42    5 years ago
I know how to use a dictionary.

I don't think you do.   Your answer is in the definition i've already given you.

Can't make it any more clear for you Bob.

Words mean what they mean and i use them accordingly.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.1.44  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.39    5 years ago
I've got hitting too close to someones wheelhouse is what i got.

You imagination is running amok, as usual. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
19.1.45  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.14    5 years ago

They shot down a drone! That invaded their air space! Nobody was killed.

We don't go to war over a drone for chrissakes!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
19.1.46  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @19.1.45    5 years ago
We don't go to war over a drone for chrissakes!

Bolton would push Trump to go to war if a fly landed on the end of his nose. As long as he does not have to risk his own life he wants his war!

At least for now Trump is listening to saner heads. But, he could change his mind in a heartbeat, depending on who he decides to listen to at that second.

 
 
 
arkpdx
Professor Quiet
19.1.47  arkpdx  replied to  Trout Giggles @19.1.45    5 years ago
 That invaded their air space

No it did not! 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19    5 years ago

America has overthrown a legitimately elected Iranian government and supplied satellite intelligence to an enemy in wartime, causing tens or hundreds to thousands of Iranian casualties.

More recently, America has unilaterally imposed an embargo, outside of all international law, imposing hardship on the Iranian people.

How much does Iran tolerate? Where is the line?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2    5 years ago
How much does Iran tolerate? Where is the line?

Iran seem's to be doing the provoking, do you dispute that?

The question may be why?

The answer may be to lure the President into some military action that Iran can survive thru the 2020 election and might just get Trump defeated and produce another friendly democratic administration. That would solve their problems, wouldn't it?  Then they can have their cozy deal back. (Kerry & Feinstein & co).

Trump has to play this just right. No boots on the ground and nice swift punishing air strikes on Iran's refineries and ports. Maybe wipe out it's little navy?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.1    5 years ago
Iran seem's to be doing the provoking, do you dispute that?

I certainly do....sending a drone even close to Iranian airspace was a blatant provocation.  The US would have done the same thing the Iranians did.  Shitbbag's trying to start a war so he can call himself  "war president" and get public support for his re-election.  He's one huge desperate piece of shit. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to    5 years ago
And if any President is susceptible to being 'lured', it is this one.

So far he's been a model of restraint. Keep in mind that a US Drone has been shot down - a clear act of war!

Acting unilaterally and excluding Congress is a recipe for disaster. 

Sen Lindsey Graham may give the President some help in that regard

Hopefully the joint chiefs, who understand the human costs, can dissuade the hawks in trumps inner circle to show a modicum of restraint. 

Suddenly, we want military control?  What would Truman say?  What would the old fashioned liberals say?

This is a but pissing match 

This is not a pissing match...Iran is collapsing under severe sanctions and longs for the deal & status Obama once gave it.  Iran is trying for an American regime change...That's the game being played here.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.2.3    5 years ago
'I certainly do'

I second that.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.4    5 years ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  Release The Kraken @19.2.8    5 years ago

How soon they forget!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.2.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.1    5 years ago
Iran seem's to be doing the provoking, do you dispute that?

Of course.

The US has placed Iran under an embargo, with no justification other than President Trump's whim. That embargo is an act of war. It severely impacts the lives of the Iranian people.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
19.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.10    5 years ago

An embargo is strictly trade. Iran is free to export their goods to other nations. The US doesn't HAVE to trade with Iran.

It is NOT an act of war.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.2.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @19.2.11    5 years ago

The US has forbidden commerce with any entity that does commerce with Iran. Companies with long-standing partnerships, like auto manufacturers Renault and Peugeot, have been forced to cease operations in Iran.

Can you imagine how America would react?

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Guide
19.2.13  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @19.2.11    5 years ago

It's at minimum, an economic war.  It can be an act of war.

The fact that ships cannot move during an embargo makes sense from the Latin root of the word, a verb meaning impede with barriers. If one government places a trade embargo on another, it can be an act of war between the two countries.

On top of the original embargo and sanctions this  Administration expanded it's embargo on Iran to include any of our allies and trading partners, threatening to cut off trade with all of them.

The President is now weaponizing trade and threatening Germany over an undersea pipeline from Russia a decade in the making.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.2.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Release The Kraken @19.2.8    5 years ago
all your favorite people voted for it.

More pure BS from you as usual.  

Senate Dems (21) who voted against AUF Iraq:

Akaka  ( D - HI ),  Bingaman  ( D - NM ),  Boxer  ( D - CA ),  Byrd  ( D - WV ),  Conrad  ( D - ND ),  Corzine  ( D - NJ ),  Dayton  ( D - MN ),  Durbin  ( D - IL ),  Feingold  ( D - WI ),  Graham  ( D - FL ),  Inouye  ( D - HI ),  Kennedy  ( D - MA ),  Leahy  ( D - VT ),  Levin  ( D - MI ), Mikulski  ( D - MD ),  Murray  ( D - WA ),  Reed  ( D - RI ),  Sarbanes  ( D - MD ),  Stabenow  ( D - MI ),  Wellstone  ( D - MN ), and  Wyden ( D - OR ).

House Dems (126) who voted against same:

  • Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) Tom Allen (D-Maine) Joe Baca (D-California) Brian Baird (D-Washington) John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine) Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)  Xavier Becerra (D-California) Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office) Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania) Corinne Brown (D-Florida) Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
  • Lois Capps (D-California) Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts) Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland) Julia Carson (D-Indiana) William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri) Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office) James Clyburn (D-South Carolina) Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office) John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan) Jerry Costello (D-Illinois) William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office) Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
  • Susan Davis (D-California) Danny Davis (D-Illinois) Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts) Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) John Dingell (D-Michigan) Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) 
  • Anna Eshoo (D-California) Lane Evans (D-Illinois) Sam Farr (D-California) Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania) Bob Filner (D-California) Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
  • Alice Hastings (D-Florida) Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office) Maurice Hinchey (D-New York) Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas) Rush Holt (D-New Jersey) Mike Honda (D-California) Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon) John Hostettler (R-Indiana) Amo Houghton (R-New York, retired from office) Jay Inslee (D-Washington)
  • Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-Illinois) Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas) Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) Dale Kildee (D-Michigan) Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Michigan) Jerry Kleczka (D-Wisconsin, retired from office) Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
  • John LaFalce (D-New York) James Langevin (D-Rhode Island) Rick Larsen (D-Washington) John Larson (D-Connecticut) Jim Leach (R-Iowa) Barbara Lee (D-California) Sandy Levin (D-Michigan) John Lewis (D-Georgia) Bill Lipinski (D-Illinois, retired from office) Zoe Lofgren (D-California)
  • James Maloney (D-Connecticut, retired from office) The late Robert Matsui (D-California) Karen McCarthy (D-Missouri, retired from office) Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota) Jim McDermott-D-Washington) Jim McGovern (D-Massachusetts) Cynthia McKinney (D-Georgia) Carrie Meek (D-Florida, retired from office) Gregory Meeks (D-New York) Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey) Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-California) George Miller (D-California) Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia) Jim Moran (D-Virginia) Connie Morella (D-Maryland)
  • Jerrold Nadler (D-New York) Grace Napolitano (D-California) Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts) Jim Oberstar (D-Minnesota) David Obey (D-Wisconsin) John Olver (D-Massachusetts) Major Owens (D-New York)
  • Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-New Jersey) Ed Pastor (D-Arizona) Donald Payne (D-New Jersey) Nancy Pelosi (D-California) David Price (D-North Carolina) Nick Rahall (D-West Virginia) Charles Rangel (D-New York) Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) Lynn Rivers (D-Michigan, retired from office) Ciro Rodriguez (D-Texas, retired from office) Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-California) Bobby Rush (D-Illinois)
  • Martin Olav Sabo (D-Minnesota) Loretta Sanchez (D-California) Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) Thomas Sawyer (D-Ohio) Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois) Bobby Scott (D-Virginia) Jose Serrano (D-New York) Louise Slaughter (D-New York) Vic Snyder (D-Arkansas) Hilda Solis (D-California) Pete Stark (D-California) Ted Strickland (D-Ohio) Burt Stupak (Michigan)
  • Mike Thompson (D-California) Bennie Thompson (D-Mississippi) John Tierney (D-Massachusetts) Edolphus Towns (D-New York) Mark Udall (D-Colorado) Tom Udall (D-New Mexico)
  • Nydia Velaquez (D-New York) Pete Visclosky (D-Indiana) Maxine Waters (D-California) Diane Watson (D-California) Melvin Watt (D-North Carolina) Lynn Woolsey (D-California) David Wu (D-Oregon)

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.2.15  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.4    5 years ago
So far he's been a model of restraint.

More like weakness.  Bolton and Pompeo are out there pounding the war drums and he's allegedly pleading with them to no avail to cool down their hawkishness.  Why can't/doesn't he order them to stop it? 

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
19.2.16  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.9    5 years ago

Talk about forgetting!  The same people pushing lies to get us into Iraq are the same ones pushing to take on Iran.  And they started as soon as the jackass took office, just like Bush did.  Now we are supposed to believe a bunch of LIARS who push Trump lies and ignorance daily?  F'n A.  Lets not forget who starts the lies and false information in the fricken first place.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.2.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @19.2.16    5 years ago
The same people pushing lies to get us into Iraq

At the risk of sounding like Roy Cohn, "could I have their names?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.2.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @19.2.18    5 years ago
So you are an Iranian sympathizer now.

No.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
19.2.20  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.10    5 years ago

Second time you have said that second time you are wrong.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
19.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @19.2.20    5 years ago

He is correct for the second time

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
19.2.22  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.12    5 years ago
The US has forbidden commerce with any entity that does commerce with Iran. Companies with long-standing partnerships, like auto manufacturers Renault and Peugeot, have been forced to cease operations in Iran.

No, the US has threatened sanctions against countries doing business with Iran. The countries can still do business with Iran at their own risk. China is defying the sanctions and still doing business with Iran. So far no sanctions have brought against China for it. 

It is Renault and Peugeot decision to cease operations in Iran. By the way, how did they ever get away with operating in Iran with the sanctions in place by Bush, Obama, and the coalition that was put together to drag Itan to the negotiating table? Europe was a part of those sanctions.  Why weren't those sanctions an act of war?

This is still not an act of war no matter how you want to spin it.

Can you imagine how America would react?

We don't have to imagine. Just look at Libya, which was a war for oil. Britain and France didn't like China getting oil development contracts, or the threat of Libya nationalizing their oil fields. Regime change here we come. But that is different, the person in the White House had a D behind their name, was a NATO action, and a had bogus UN Security Council agreement to protect Libyan civilians (no regime change mentioned).

Love the Iranian apologists popping up all over the place. I am against war with Iran, but in no way are they the poor little innocent country that wants to coexist with their neighbors, that Trump just won't leave alone.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.2.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ronin2 @19.2.22    5 years ago
By the way, how did they ever get away with operating in Iran with the sanctions in place by Bush, Obama, and the coalition that was put together to drag Itan to the negotiating table?

Perhaps by beginning operations there fifty years ago? Operations that they've now had to cease...

... Iranian apologists... poor little innocent country...

No one has said anything "nice" about Iran. The ayatollahs are not nice people.

But just as America "created" the Taliban in Afghanistan, during their fight against the USSR, we also "created" Muslim fundamentalists in Iran - the ayatollahs - by supporting a bloody police-state dictatorship, hated by all the Iranian people.

The important subject isn't Iran, which can never be more than a nuisance for the world's great powers. The important subject is the United States, imposing its will by force. The Imperial States of America.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
19.2.25  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.23    5 years ago
No onehas said anything "nice" about Iran. The ayatollahs are not nice people.

No, but they are defending Iran to the hilt. There is no defense for Iran, period. I don't care who is in the White House. 

But just as America "created" the Taliban in Afghanistan, during their fight against the USSR, we also "created" Muslim fundamentalists in Iran - the ayatollahs - by supporting a bloody police-state dictatorship, hated byallthe Iranian people.

You left out creation of ISIS/ISIL after deposing Saddam; and installation of a pro Iranian regime (Though that is not what we intended) in Iraq. The expansion of ISIS/ISIL into Syria with our efforts to destabilize that country; and their expansion into Libya with the chaos our regime change caused there.  We have been stuck on stupid for a very long time. 

The important subject isn't Iran, which can never be more than a nuisance for the world's great powers.

You are right, unless they get nuclear weapons; even then it will be a long time before they could hope to get a missile with enough range to hit the US. The real danger is small portable nuclear weapons in the hands of their militia and terrorist groups. That is a threat to the whole world.

The important subject is the United States, imposing its will by force. The Imperial States of America.

So what the hell else is new? Do you think the US imposing it's will by force is something new?  Where the hell was everyone during the Obama administration? Seems the left took an eight year holiday after Bush Jr left office.

I will repeat this, I am against war with Iran. If they need to be taken care of there are plenty of countries in the ME capable of doing the job, and footing the bill themselves.  But, when it comes to stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons that is an issue the US cannot avoid. Unless you want to see Saudi Arabia and Egypt with nukes shortly thereafter?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
19.2.26  Bob Nelson  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @19.2.24    5 years ago
I don't know how anybody could mistake a statement like that for anything but an apologist and sympathy for Iran.

I called Iran a nuisance. I didn't give a single compliment.

Apologist?

I've seen this phenomenon before: you are so sure that you "know" my thinking that you do not actually read the words I write.

I condemn America's behavior in the Middle East. You presume that therefore I must praise someone else's behavior. I have praised no one.

I have repeatedly said that the ayatollahs are not nice, and are enemies of America. But Iran is a medium regional power. Not a big deal on the international scene.

America is a bully, imposing its will on the entire world.

There's no comparison.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.2.27  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.4    5 years ago
.Iran is collapsing under severe sanctions and longs for the deal & status Obama once gave it. 

So no attack needed, then.  But, by the way, how many years now has this imminent  "collapse" by predicted?  

 
 
 
lib50
Professor Silent
19.2.28  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.17    5 years ago
"could I have their names?

John Bolton.  The Cheneys.  The Hucklefucks.  Guiliani.  McConnell.  Pompeo is currently attached at the hip with chicken hawks although he wasn't in office back in the Iraq war days.  Rick Santorum.  Marsha Blackburn.  Lindsay Graham.  Marco Rubio.  Ted Cruz.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
19.2.29  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @19.2.28    5 years ago

And Hillary Clinton and the democrats.  Judith Miller is usually the one who gets left holding the bag.



 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.2.30  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.29    5 years ago
And Hillary Clinton and the democrats. 

Nope.  She fully supported the Iranian nuke deal to avoid just the kind of clusterfuck that Shitbag has created.  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
19.2.31  mocowgirl  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.2.30    5 years ago
She fully supported the Iranian nuke deal to avoid just the kind of clusterfuck that Shitbag has created. 

Clinton also saber rattled against Iran & planned to funnel more arms to Syria in 2015 after the announcement of her candidacy for presidential nominee.

“Distrust and verify” would be her approach, she insisted, turning Ronald Reagan’s “trust but verify” line about the Soviet Union on its head. She went on to describe Iran as a “ruthless, brutal regime,” words far harsher than Mr. Obama has used as he has sought to coax the Iranians along in the years of perilous diplomacy. She added, “I will not hesitate to take military action” if Iran seeks to obtain a nuclear bomb despite its commitments, a deliberately stronger formulation than Mr. Obama’s “all options are on the table.”

She also took shots at former Vice President Dick Cheney, who spoke against the deal on Tuesday, reminding her audience of invited guests that the Iranian   nuclear program   surged ahead during the Bush administration.

But she knew that an endorsement without an explanation of how she would counter Iran would leave many in her Democratic base dissatisfied, so Mrs. Clinton took several opportunities to draw contrasts between her approach to Middle East policy and that of the administration she left 32 months ago. She reiterated her call to arm moderate Syrian rebels, a case she and David Petraeus made when she was secretary of state and he was director of the C.I.A., and she criticized her own record when she said that she and the administration did do enough to support the 2009 uprising in Iran.

Mrs. Clinton’s promise that her approach to the Iranians would be to “confront them across the board” appeared part of an effort to answer one of the chief criticisms of the deal: that the resumed flow of oil revenue into Iran will help it fund proxies like Hezbollah and embolden the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps to conduct what Mrs. Clinton described as “cyberattacks or other nontraditional attacks.” So, she said, the deal must be the starting point of a new American containment strategy.
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.2.32  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.17    5 years ago

George Bush

DICK Cheney

Donald Rumsfeld

Colin Powell

Condoleeza Rice

John Bolton

All but 6 House and 1 Senate member of the entire Republican caucus at the time (you can look up their names yourself).    

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.2.33  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Have Opinion Will Travel @19.2.24    5 years ago
I don't know how anybody could mistake a statement like that for anything but an apologist and sympathy for Iran. 

That just tells us what  the company you keep is and that's no surprise.  And, BTW, accusing someone of supporting Iran for calling out the horrible record Shitbag is piling up with the handling of the Iranians as well as  all over the world also tells us what a weak case you've got. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
19.2.34  Trout Giggles  replied to  Release The Kraken @19.2.8    5 years ago

We were right to go into Afghanistan and hunt down bin Laden and his cronies. Those who voted "yea" for the war in Iraq were wrong

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
19.2.35  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @19.2.25    5 years ago
You left out creation of ISIS/ISIL after deposing Saddam;

You must not be aware that Iran is fighting ISIS/ISIL on behalf of Syria which is both a good thing and a problematic thing for the region and the U.S. You also seem to have forgotten, if you ever knew, that ISIS/ISIL was created out of the chaos caused by the incompetence of Bush/Cheney following our "GLORIOUS VICTORY"  in Iraq.  Elements of the disbanded Iraqi army (Sunnis) formed ISIS/ISIL because they were ignored and marginalized by the US provisional authority under the infamously stupid and incompetent Paul Bremer (who, of course, was just following if much more infamously stupid, lying and incompetent Bush/Cheney criminal enterprise).

and installation of a pro Iranian regime (Though that is not what we intended) in Iraq.

But was not unforeseen.  Shiites make up the majority of Iraqis and the removal of the Sunni dominated government and execution of Saddam opened the way for Shia control of the government.  Opponents of the Iraq war made this case many times in hopes of heading it off but were dismissed.  Unintended consequences are very often linked to poor decisions and rejection of facts and that was Bush/Cheney in spades.  

The expansion of ISIS/ISIL into Syria with our efforts to destabilize that country; and their expansion into Libya with the chaos our regime change caused there.  We have been stuck on stupid for a very long time. 

Yes, but the the massive lying by and incompetence of the Bush/Cheney disaster is where it all began.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
21  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    5 years ago

As we're already beginning to hear how easy it's going to be to topple Iran's government and how it's going to be a cakewalk and  bring "peance and freeance" to the region from the usual sources, let's review some of the rosy predictions the Bush/Cheney Criminal Enterprise gave us before the Glorious Invasion of Iraq (which was a much weaker country militarily than Iran is), shall we:

Ahead of and shortly after the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a number of officials, including former  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld  and his deputy  Paul Wolfowitz  suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. 

"Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that," [Rumsfeld] said.

The Bush Administration, including the president, argued that the US would successfully bring democracy to Iraq and in the process, set off a cascade of democracy in the middle east.

I'm sure others will add to that list.  The next few months will inform us if the American people can be foolled again so soon after the last time it got lead by the nose into a disastrous military, political and international clusterfuck like we're smelling right before our noses now. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
21.1  Krishna  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @21    5 years ago

I'm sure others will add to that list.  The next few months will inform us if the American people can be foolled again so soon after the last time it got lead by the nose into a disastrous military, political and international clusterfuck like we're smelling right before our noses now. 

I would imagine that the vast majority of the 37-40% of Americans who comprise Trump's base believe every word he says. 

But the rest of the population? Probably no so much . . . 

(Of course the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces has great powers-- not subject to what the majority of Americans want :-(

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
23  Krishna    5 years ago

Nothing if we hit them hard enough they will be unable to respond.

Just like we did in Iraq!

(A great victory that one-- Wonderful war! Hopefully we can repeat that experience again ...this time in Iran!)

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
Junior Participates
23.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @23    5 years ago

These numbskulls and their bullshit mythology never fail to lead to disaster.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
23.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @23    5 years ago

Iran will surely gives better results than Iraq.

There are three times as many people... No problem!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
23.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Release The Kraken @23.2.1    5 years ago

Exactly.

But hey! That would be happening way over on the other side of the world. Two minutes per hour on cable news.

No big deal...

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
23.2.3  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @23.2    5 years ago

There are three times as many people... No problem!

Yes.

And there are other major differences  re: Iraq and Iran.

One of them is the typography. Why?

Here's a clue-- a photo of Tehran (Iran's capital) I came across a while back:

384

Whoa-- wait a minute! A Middle eastern country-- aren't those supposed to consist of vast stretches of flat desert terrain? (Conducive to lightning fast strike by the tanks and armoured personnel carriers of any invading army)?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
23.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @23.2.3    5 years ago

Ummmm... The next country to the east is Afghanistan.

There are hills. 

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
23.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @23.2.4    5 years ago

Ummmm... The next country to the east is Afghanistan.

There are hills. 

I just realized-- a map of the area would really make this clear. 

512

All those areas in brown are mountains! Almost the entire country of Iran is mountainous, a small flatter lowlands in small areas (green) on the coasts. Also notice Iraq to the west-- basically a pretty flat lowland country, quite a difference. (Iraq has just a few very small mountainous areas in the North-- that's mainly where the Kurds live).

This map clearly indicates how mountainous Iran is-- it would be a nightmare to invade!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
23.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @23.2.5    5 years ago

Well... not quite all mountains.

There's also a big desert.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
23.2.7  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @23.2.6    5 years ago
Well... not quite all mountains. There's also a big desert.

Yes. 

But I was thinking about what an invasion would be like. (It looks like that desert is mainly in the center of the country).

I'm not all that familiar with iranian topography , but looking at teh map, there looks like only two routes into the country that go through lower areas-- that yellow area to the East on the Afghani border, and the low lying area to the North of The Straits of Hormuz (separating the Persian Gulf from The Arabia Sea). But it looks like that only gives access to a relatively small low lying area-- which is also mostly surrounded by mountains).

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
23.2.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @23.2.7    5 years ago

What's the upland equivalent of "quagmire"?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
23.3  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @23    5 years ago

Everyone is assuming we just don't bomb them into oblivion and then sit back and watch Iran collapse from within; like we did Libya. Not an ideal result, and would cause a massive refugee problem (Iraq, Syria, and Yemen seem to like Iran now- wonder how much they would like a massive influx of Iranians?) Bonus is we might end up with a pro western government; who would be just as bad to their own people in order to keep power.

Negative is unlike Libya, we don't have a ready pro western terrorist organization, militia, or even dissident group we can incite.  Where is Hillary when you need her. I am sure she could find some low life Iranians somewhere that would be happy to take over. Her judgement was so good with the Libyan rebel groups she deserves a second shot. 

 
 
 
katrix
Sophomore Participates
23.3.2  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    5 years ago

To be honest, I don't think there is a good answer to the problems we have with the Middle East.   And Trump certainly doesn't have a clue; he doesn't even listen to foreign policy advisors or our military folks.

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
23.3.3  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    5 years ago
Where is Hillary when you need her. I am sure she could find some low life Iranians somewhere that would be happy to take over. Her judgement was so good with the Libyan rebel groups she deserves a second shot. 

I have noticed that there is a group of people-- who are often quite vocal on social media-- that attribute more power and influence to Hillary than she really has....

WHY???

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
23.3.4  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    5 years ago
Negative is unlike Libya, we don't have a ready pro western terrorist organization, militia, or even dissident group we can incite. 

That's not what caused the overthrow of Ghaddafi. Rather, it was the effect of the Arab Sprib which was sweeping the Arab world (discontent with Ghaddafi's corrupt regime finally boiled over).

 
 
 
Krishna
Professor Expert
23.3.5  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    5 years ago
Negative is unlike Libya, we don't have a ready pro western terrorist organization, militia, or even dissident group we can incite. 

They've already had a rebellion against their theocratic government (which was brutally repressed).

But the rebellion wasn't caused by us-- it was a spontaneous movement by the Iranian people. And the vast majority were not radicals, but rather ordinary pro-Democracy Iranins.

It was called "The green Movement" (or "The Persian Spring"). You can read about it HERE.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
23.3.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  katrix @23.3.2    5 years ago
To be honest, I don't think there is a good answer to the problems we have with the Middle East.

Let their neighbors figure it out for a change. Let Europe get involved. The Saudis hate them... let them earn their keep. 

The only thing I care about is them getting the bomb. But of course, I am sure we will let the Israelis take care of that problem. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
23.3.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.3.7    5 years ago
Let their neighbors figure it out for a change. Let Europe get involved. The Saudis hate them... let them earn their keep.

Right on!!!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
Professor Guide
23.3.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.3.7    5 years ago

Let nobody get involved. Let the locals figure it out.

 
 

Who is online


CB
shona1
Snuffy
bugsy
Jeremy Retired in NC
Sean Treacy


70 visitors