Iran: America's Latest Drive for War

  
Via:  badfish-hd-h-u  •  4 months 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
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

We need to shut this down quickly! There is no legitimate reason to beat war drums.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.1  Freedom Warrior  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @1    4 months ago

 You do understand the United States geopolitical role and how manifestly they must act in some manner that does not ignore the situation to the point that it becomes a free for all.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
1.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    4 months ago

The World's Policeman.  How's that worked for us so far? 

 
 
 
Don Overton
1.1.2  Don Overton  replied to  Freedom Warrior @1.1    4 months ago

Explain your reasoning. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2  MrFrost    4 months 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
2.1  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @2    4 months 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
2.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    4 months ago
Please, the Iranians have already violated the deal Obama worked out.

They did so after trump pulled out of the deal. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @2.1.1    4 months ago

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

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/iran-breached-the-nuclear_b_9977768

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
2.1.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.2    4 months 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:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33521655

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):

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-irans-multiple-violations/

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

 
 
 
Don Overton
2.1.5  Don Overton  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1    4 months ago

Lots of conjecture there Ronin absolutely no facts.

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2  WallyW  replied to  MrFrost @2    4 months ago

The truth is, we really don't know what is going on, because real inspections aren't allowed

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @2.2    4 months ago
because real inspections aren't allowed

Define real inspector, please. 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
2.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  MrFrost @2.2.1    4 months ago

Anyone who is properly qualified and credentialed as a international inspector, and is not an Iranian stooge.

As it is now, they are not allowed at the sites.

stg061819dAPR20190618034507.jpg

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.2    4 months ago

Iran fought a long war against Iraq during the 1980s. The United States supplied satellite intelligence to Iraq. Iran lost hundreds of thousands of casualties. The Iraqi leader to whom the United States supplied that intelligence was of course Saddam Hussein.

America is responsible for thousands of times the number of Iranian dead, as Iran is of American dead. The Iranian people have excellent reasons for hating us. And now America is imposing an embargo because President Trump decided so.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
2.2.4  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.2.3    4 months ago

Let us not forget how the role of the US government in the Iranian revolution leading to the tyranny Iranians now live under. The US and Great Britain weren't to pleased with the Nationalization of oil.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @2.2.4    4 months ago

Yes.

We (the CIA) mounted a coup d'état against a democratically elected government led by a guy named Mossadegh. We installed an absolute ruler, the Shah, whose secret police (SAVAK) were everything you could wish from a secret police.

The Shah was a good buddy of Israel, apparently not too bothered by the SAVAK.

The Shah was People before People was a thing. In all the best magazines...

We prepared Iran for the ayatollahs.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @2.2    4 months ago
The truth is, we really don't know what is going on, because real inspections aren't allowed

Wrong (reader's option to substitute false or lie ) again.  

Under the JCPOA, the IAEA has daily access to declared nuclear sites for 15 years and continuous electronic monitoring of those sites for at least 15 years, as explained in a   67-page guidebook  published by the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. There is a separate confidential agreement covering the Parchin military site, which has been the site of  past activity  that the IAEA has suspected was connected to nuclear weapons development. Critics have claimed that that agreement amounts to self-inspections, a claim that the IAEA has denied,  as we have written before .

“This is the most egregious of Trump’s claims,” Davenport, of the Arms Control Association, told us. “The IAEA clearly stated that Iran has granted inspectors all of the access the agency has requested. If Iran had blocked access, the P5+1, including the United States, would not have been able to say that Iran is complying with the accord.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/trump-irans-multiple-violations/
 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
2.2.7  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.2    4 months ago

JFC, do you think we should go to war with every fucking country that makes statements like that.  We'd be fighting on every continent forever.  Geez, this is dogwhistle stuff for  radicals and of all people the rightwing in this country should recognize it for what it is and why it's used. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  Greg Jones @2.2.2    4 months ago

They have been saying that for 50 years Greg... Still waiting. 

 
 
 
Ender
3  Ender    4 months 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
3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ender @3    4 months 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
3.1.1  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
3.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MrFrost @3.1    4 months 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
3.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @3.1.2    4 months ago

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    4 months ago

Iran is attacking neutral shipping.

They are beating the war drums...

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
4.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months 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
4.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    4 months 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
5  It Is ME    4 months ago

What is Japan going to do about it ?

Call the U.S. for help ?

 
 
 
Ender
6  Ender    4 months 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
6.1  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ender @6    4 months 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
6.2  Ronin2  replied to  Ender @6    4 months 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
6.2.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Ronin2 @6.2    4 months 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
6.2.2  Ronin2  replied to  dave-2693993 @6.2.1    4 months 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
7  JBB    4 months 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
7.1  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @7    4 months 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.

 
 
 
WallyW
7.2  WallyW  replied to  JBB @7    4 months ago

If Iran didn't do it, who did?

 
 
 
JBB
7.2.1  JBB  replied to  WallyW @7.2    4 months ago

It could be anyone who would profit by war between the US and Iran or by any Sunni nation, see Saudi Arabia, who has a beef with Iran. Whatever, it should not be our problem. Let the Muslims fight it out between themselves. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
7.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  WallyW @7.2    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.3  FLYNAVY1  replied to  JBB @7.2.1    4 months ago
I would say MBF/Saudi Arabia would be the first up on the board in the nominating process.

 
 
 
JBB
7.2.4  JBB  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.3    4 months ago

A lot of countries might benefit from a US-Iran War but not the USA...

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.5  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @7.2    4 months ago
If Iran didn't do it, who did?

A long shot, but maybe we did, to fan the flames of war. GWB lied and lied to get his Iraq war going, trump could too. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.6  MrFrost  replied to  JBB @7.2.4    4 months ago

Directly, no. Indirectly, absolutely. Look how much Haliburton made on the Iraq war. 

 
 
 
Ender
7.2.7  Ender  replied to  MrFrost @7.2.5    4 months ago

Funny how with his intel people he doesn't believe certain things or they are partisan hacks yet on this he absolutely knows they have the goods.

 
 
 
MrFrost
7.2.8  MrFrost  replied to  Ender @7.2.7    4 months ago
Funny how with his intel people he doesn't believe certain things or they are partisan hacks yet on this he absolutely knows they have the goods.

Bingo, exactly. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
7.2.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  WallyW @7.2    4 months ago
If Iran didn't do it, who did?

So, that's how you decide who did it?  No wonder that kind of thinking ends up biting us in the ass.  As FLYNAVY1 put it--cui bono? Who benefits from a US war with Iran.  Not Iran and not the US.  So, use your imagination.

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.10  Krishna  replied to  JBB @7.2.4    4 months ago

A lot of countries might benefit from a US-Iran War but not the USA...

The U.S. as a country wouldn't benefit-- but someone who will be running to be re-elected president might gain from such a war (or at least he might believe he'd gain).

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2.11  Krishna  replied to  WallyW @7.2    4 months ago
If Iran didn't do it, who did?

Maybe the same folks who butchered then murdered Khashoggi?

Or even...some Houthi rebels..????

 
 
 
Sparty On
8  Sparty On    4 months 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
8.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sparty On @8    4 months ago

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

 

 
 
 
Sparty On
8.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @8.1    4 months 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
9  Vic Eldred    4 months 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
9.1  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    4 months 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
9.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    4 months 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
9.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    4 months 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
9.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.2    4 months 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]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_Cong



 
 
 
Bob Nelson
9.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.3    4 months 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
9.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.4    4 months 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
9.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.5    4 months 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
9.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.6    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
9.1.8  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.7    4 months 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
9.1.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @9.1.1    4 months 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
9.1.10  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    4 months 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
9.1.11  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1    4 months ago
the US must prevail! 

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

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
9.1.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Bob Nelson @9.1.4    4 months 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
9.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @9.1.11    4 months 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
9.2  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Krishna
9.3  Krishna  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    4 months 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
9.3.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @9.3    4 months 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
10  Sparty On    4 months 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
10.1  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @10    4 months 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
10.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  katrix @10.1    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
katrix
10.1.2  katrix  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @10.1.1    4 months ago

Very good point.

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @10.1    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
katrix
10.1.4  katrix  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.3    4 months 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
10.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  katrix @10.1.4    4 months 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
10.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Sparty On @10.1.3    4 months 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
10.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  katrix @10.1    4 months 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
10.1.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  katrix @10.1    4 months ago

Balfour Declaration:

384

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
10.1.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.1.8    4 months 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
10.1.10  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.7    4 months ago
Don't forget France's roll in that process.

Or the United States' role in the Western Hemisphere.

 
 
 
Krishna
10.1.11  Krishna  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.1.9    4 months 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
10.1.12  Krishna  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.1.9    4 months 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
10.1.13  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @10.1.11    4 months 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
10.1.14  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.1.13    4 months 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
10.1.15  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @10.1.12    4 months 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
10.1.16  Ronin2  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.1.10    4 months 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
10.1.17  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.16    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Don Overton
10.2  Don Overton  replied to  Sparty On @10    4 months ago

And, possibly, you and I along with them.

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  Don Overton @10.2    4 months 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
10.2.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.1    4 months 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
10.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @10.2.2    4 months 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
10.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.3    4 months 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
10.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.2.4    4 months 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
10.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.5    4 months 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
10.2.7  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.2.6    4 months 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
10.2.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.5    4 months 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
10.2.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @10.2.7    4 months ago

You've answered quite clearly...

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
11  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

It's a special requirement if you are going to be a republican or democrat in America. Ya gotta have a mouth for war!

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
11.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @11    4 months ago

That phony schtick of yours reeked the first time you used it and it's only gotten ranker ever since. 

 
 
 
Ender
12  Ender    4 months 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.

https://thehill.com/homenews/morning-report/448835-the-hills-morning-report
 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
12.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Ender @12    4 months ago

We should load Tom Cotton into a bomber and drop him on Tehran.

 
 
 
evilgenius
12.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @12.1    4 months ago
We should load Tom Cotton into a bomber and drop him on Tehran.

I would support that.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
12.1.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  evilgenius @12.1.1    4 months ago

Hopefully our Air force will carry on the tradition and write something cute on his back like, "From Arkansas Neocons with Love"!

 
 
 
devangelical
12.1.3  devangelical  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @12.1    4 months ago

bombers have the capacity to carry more than 1 chickenhawk senator

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  devangelical @12.1.3    4 months ago
bombers have the capacity to carry more than 1 chickenhawk senator

Then they have room for Darth Cheneyhawk. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
12.1.5  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  devangelical @12.1.3    4 months ago

Ok, good point.

Let's drop all 50 on Tehran!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
12.1.6  FLYNAVY1  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @12.1.5    4 months ago

…..Let's drop all 50 on Tehran!

We know they are extremely toxic, and biological warfare is prohibited by the Geneva Accords.....

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12.1.7  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  evilgenius @12.1.1    4 months ago
I would support that

I second that motion.

 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.8  MUVA  replied to  devangelical @12.1.3    4 months ago

You mean the bronze star winning two combat tours Tom Cotton hardly a chicken hawk definitely not a key board warrior either. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
12.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @12.1    4 months ago

Yep, I'd love to see him do a Slim Pickens routine. Let's see who gets that one...jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1.10  Sparty On  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.9    4 months ago

Mein fuehrer ..... i can walk!

Love that movie.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
12.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Sparty On @12.1.10    4 months ago

Yep. it is a classic!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
12.1.12  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @12.1.11    4 months ago

My favorite is the rundown of the personal survival kits.......

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @12.1.8    4 months ago
Your hero Cotton isn't a hero.
This is old but Cotton is no hero
Tom Cotton (AP/Carolyn Kaster)

10 frightening facts about Tom Cotton

A letter to Iran is only his latest stunt. The Tea Party darling is one of the Senate's biggest bullies


MARCH 14, 2015 4:00PM (UTC) This article originally appeared on   AlterNet .

unnamed.png

Hailing from Arkansas, 37-year-old Senator Cotton boasts the title of being the youngest member of the Senate, but he spouts the old warmongering rhetoric of 78-year-old Senator John McCain. From Guantanamo to Iran, food stamps to women’s rights, here are ten reasons why Tom Cotton is a dangerous dude.

This iframe is not allowed 1.  He penned an underhanded letter to the leaders of Iran that sparked the trending hashtag #47Traitors.  On March 9th, Cotton and 46 of his Republican colleagues went behind President Obama’s back by signing an “informative”  letter  to Iran, saying that a nuclear deal would not last because the next president could reverse it. Secretary John Kerry, one of the lead negotiators in the talks, called the letter “utterly disgusting” and “irresponsible.” Two dozen editorial boards  slammed  the letter and over 200,000 people signed a  petition  asking the senators to be charged for violating the Logan Act, a law which forbids unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments.

2. Senator Cotton said the only problem he has with Guantanamo Bay prison is that “there are too many empty beds.”  Ignoring waterboarding, indefinite detention, forced feeding and other torturous acts, Tom Cotton insists that the US should be "proud" of how it treats the " savages " detained in Gitmo. As far as Cotton is concerned, "[the prisoners] can rot in hell. But as long as they don’t do that, then they can rot in Guantanamo Bay." This is counter to the position of many other Senators and President Obama, who has promised time and time again to close the prison. There are still dozens of men held at Gitmo who have been cleared for release, but that doesn’t seem to bother Senator They-Can-Rot-in-Hell.

3. He has compared the negotiations of the UN Security Council (P5+1) with Iran to the “appeasement of Nazi Germany.” This accusation is ridiculous. Rouhani’s Iran is not Hitler’s Germany. Despite Cotton’s claims that “there are nothing but hardliners in Tehran,” Rouhani is a reformist, someone we need to work with to defeat ISIL. And the ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran are a far better ––and safer–– approach than pushing Iran to the brink of war with the US (and Israel). For once, there is actually hope for a peaceful solution, something that certainly was not an option with Nazi Germany.  

4. He thinks the use of killer drones should be expanded.  Killer drones have resulted in thousands of civilian deaths in countries we’re not even at war with, like Pakistan and Yemen, and have led to an expansion of extremist groups. Senator Cotton makes the argument of many other pro-droners: that drone pilots are safer than air pilots, and casualties are reduced. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Drone pilots still suffer the psychological trauma associated with attacks, and the “collateral damage” of drone strikes means that families and children lose their lives along with the targeted terrorists. (Note: only 2% of all people killed by drone strikes have been confirmed “high-value” targets.) The last thing we need is the expansion of drone warfare, Tom.

5. He claims that “bombing makes us safer.”  While in some masochistic, twisted logic that might make sense in the short term, historically speaking US military intervention has led to more extremism–– as with the formation of ISIS after the invasion of Iraq ––and turned local populations against the United States. Ultimately, bombing other countries just fosters more hate and anti-American sentiment. Bombing might not make us safer, but it certainly makes Tom Cotton’s friends in the defense industry a whole lot richer. Just 24 hours after his notorious letter to Iran became public, Cotton was  the guest of honor at an event hosted by the National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors.

6. He uses fear-mongering to call for a crackdown on immigrants and a clampdown on the Mexican border.  Senator Cotton says drug cartels in Mexico are ready to expand into human trafficking and even terrorism, and could infiltrate our southern border and “ attack it right here in places like Arkansas .” He’s made the wild accusation that Hezbollah is collaborating with locals in Mexico to “cross our borders and attack us here.” Ignoring the fences, drones, cameras and patrols that constantly survey the border, he maintains that the border is wide open. “As long as our border is open and it's defenseless, then it's not just an immigration issue, it's a national security issue.” Be afraid, says Cotton, very afraid--so I can keep feeding the national security state!

7. He received $700,000 for his senate campaign from the Emergency Committee for Israel. That’s correct -- $700,000! Such an exorbitant amount of money ensures that Cotton is one of the most pro-Israel senators in Congress. During the 2014 Israeli invasion of Gaza, when over 500 Palestinian were killed, Cotton called the Israeli defense force “the most moral, humanitarian fighting force in the world.” In December he said Congress should consider  supplying Israel with B-52s and so-called “bunker-buster” bombs for a possible strike against Iran.

8. As an Army Lieutenant in 2006, Cotton called for the prosecution of two New York Times journalists for espionage. From his early days, Cotton has not been a fan of expository journalism. When the New York Times published an article about how the government was tracking terrorist financing, Cotton called for the journalists to be imprisoned. This news story got a lot of heat from various conservative outlets, but before he was even running for office, Cotton took it upon himself to publicize his grievances in a sarcastic letter  to journalists Eric Lichtblau and James Risen. It seems that Cotton’s letter to Iran a few days ago was not the first of its kind.

9. He thinks food-stamp recipients are “addicts.” Senator Cotton hates food stamps. In his own words, he thinks the system is “riddled with fraud and abuse” and “has resulted in long-term dependency.” This is coming from the senator of Arkansas, which ranked number one in the number of residents who suffer from food insecurity. If Cotton had his way, there would be much harsher restrictions on food stamps, and the overall budget for welfare would be cut severely. Considering the high level of poverty in Arkansas, Cotton is actually voting against the interests of the people he is supposed to represent. If he’s concerned that the system is “riddled with fraud and abuse,” an audit of the Pentagon should be at the top of his to-do list.

10.  He has opposed legislation to expand women’s rights. Senator Cotton voted against equal pay legislation and the Violence Against Women Act. While Senator Cotton’s website will say that the vote was taken out of context, and that the Senator supports harsh punishment for sexual assault, a vote is a vote. If that’s the case, then why would he vote against an act that would give women more resources in the case of abuse or assault? And why would he vote against legislation that would push for equivalent pay? No matter what defense Cotton’s team comes up with, there’s really no logic or excuse to vote against women’s rights.

Rep. Alan Grayson says Sen. Cotton is “already on his way to marking himself as the premiere warmonger of the 114th Congress.” Heather Digby Parton from Salon called him “Ted Cruz with a war record, Sarah Palin with a Harvard degree, Chris Christie with a Southern accent.” Whatever your characterization, this much is clear: this freshman senator is an arrogant bully and needs a time out.
 
 
 
MUVA
12.1.14  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.13    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @12.1.12    4 months ago

Interesting tidbit about that movie.   Peter Sellers was originally slated to play Major Kong as well but when he had trouble with the Texas accent and hurt his leg, they called in Slim Pickens.   But even then Pickens was not the first choice.  

They asked John Wayne who never replied and then Dan Blocker who allegedly thought the material was too "Pinko" to consider the part before settling on Pickens.   A fortuitous turn of events if you ask me.

I've got the DVD with extras.   Lots of cool little extras in it like this one.   One to collect if you like the movie.

 
 
 
Tessylo
12.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @12.1.14    4 months ago

I got plenty.  

He is no hero.  

He's scum.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
12.1.17  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @12.1.8    4 months ago

Thanks for reminding us that rightwingers only consider medal winners on their side worthy of respect. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
12.1.18  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.13    4 months ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
12.1.19  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sparty On @12.1.15    4 months ago

Another point that is missed by many is that Dr. Strangelove was the first appearance for James Earl Jones in movies. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
12.1.20  Sparty On  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @12.1.19    4 months ago

Yeah i love trivia like that.

Thx

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
12.1.21  Trout Giggles  replied to  Tessylo @12.1.13    4 months ago
Rep. Alan Grayson says Sen. Cotton is “already on his way to marking himself as the premiere warmonger of the 114th Congress.” Heather Digby Parton from Salon called him“Ted Cruz with a war record, Sarah Palin with a Harvard degree, Chris Christie with a Southern accent.”

All of them are right

 
 
 
Krishna
12.2  Krishna  replied to  Ender @12    4 months 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
13  Bob Nelson    4 months 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
13.1  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    4 months 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
13.1.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @13.1    4 months 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. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
13.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    4 months ago
There are no "good guys" in the Middle East. There are only "bad guys" and "less bad guys".

I am in agreement. Very True.

America's dependence on foreign oil are at a 30 year low. It's time to tell our allies to make their own sacrifices for Middle Eastern oil, we are done!

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.1  Sparty On  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13.2    4 months ago

Not that simple i'm afraid.

Would you propose to let Israel fend for itself?

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
13.2.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.1    4 months ago

I wasn't aware that the oil tankers were Israeli?

Oh wait, they aren't!

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13.2.2    4 months ago

I wasn't aware all the problems in the middle east were oil related.

Oh wait, they aren't!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @13.2.1    4 months ago

For several years now, Saudi has been very quiet about the Palestinian cause. Some commentators go so far as to say that there are ultra-secret coordination meetings with Israel.

I'm not sure that Israel is as alone as once was the case.

 
 
 
Sparty On
13.2.5  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @13.2.4    4 months ago

I believe that would be a good thing.   For all parties ..... whether they know it or not.

 
 
 
Krishna
13.2.6  Krishna  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13.2    4 months ago
America's dependence on foreign oil are at a 30 year low.

If I'm not mistaken, we are now totally not dependent on foreign oil.

Why?

Because of technology. Numerous American oil fields that were pereviously thought to be "depleted" now produce. (This is due to the invention of the process of "Hydraulic Fracturing", horizontal drilling, etc. That creates other problems-- but because of it we are now energy independent).

So now we no longer have to kiss the Arabs' asses!!!

 
 
 
Krishna
13.2.7  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @13.2.4    4 months ago

For several years now, Saudi has been very quiet about the Palestinian cause. Some commentators go so far as to say that there are ultra-secret coordination meetings with Israel.

I'm not sure that Israel is as alone as once was the case.

I recently came across this:

Hamas rejects Bahrain conference that 'normalises' Israel ties

An agreement reached in November is supposed to ensure calm in exchange for Israel easing its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The Jewish state has never publicly confirmed the deal but has since allowed Qatar to bring millions in cash and investments into the Palestinian enclave.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.2.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @13.2.7    4 months ago

Hmmmmm.....

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
13.2.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @13.2.2    4 months ago
I wasn't aware that the oil tankers were Israeli?

Are you telling us that you didn't know Israel was in the Middle East?  That's what the comment you clumsily tried to dodge was about.  

 
 
 
MUVA
13.3  MUVA  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    4 months ago

The French can’t be trusted they were buying oil from Saddam when the world had sanctions against Iraq.

 
 
 
Krishna
13.3.1  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @13.3    4 months ago

The French can’t be trusted they were buying oil from Saddam when the world had sanctions against Iraq.

IIRC, at the time the French didn't believe the false accusations that Saddam had WMDs.

(Saddam did have WMDs at one point-- but he no longer had them at the time iof the U>S. war on Iraq).

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.3.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @13.3.1    4 months ago

France led the movement at the UN to prevent any Resolution from sanctioning the American invasion. Ultimately, it became clear that America's motion did not have the majority in the Security Council, and was withdrawn. America's invasion of Iraq was without UN cover.

French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin warned that the invasion would destabilize the entire Middle East, for a very long time.

The primary consequence for America was "Freedom fries".

 
 
 
MUVA
13.3.3  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @13.3.1    4 months ago

I was in Iraq when WMD were destroyed vx , sarin nerve agents and old mustard gas artillery shells.The fact remains the French bought oil from Iraq during a embargo.

 
 
 
Krishna
13.3.4  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @13.3.3    4 months ago
I was in Iraq when WMD were destroyed vx , sarin nerve agents and old mustard gas artillery shells.The fact remains the French bought oil from Iraq during a embargo.

At one time Saddam had had a nuclear reactor under construction. 

I often wonder what would've happened if it was completed-- and Saddam had nuclear weapons to use on American (& other coalition forces) when we invaded?  

(But fortunately someone destroyed that reactor...way back in 1981!!!)

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
13.3.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Bob Nelson @13.3.2    4 months ago
it became clear that America's motion did not have the majority in the Security Council, and was withdrawn.

Which led to one of the myriad of Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lies in the run up to that war--that it wouldn't go forward unless it got approval by the Security Council.  But all of us who could see, hear and think knew everything those MFers said was a lie. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
13.3.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @13.3.5    4 months ago

There were actually two stages to the UN fiasco.

At first the Bush Administration wanted and expected to get Security Council approval. That was absurdity: vetoes could be expected from Russia, China, and France.

So as a fall-back position, Bush's people announced that they would be satisfied with the "moral victory" of getting a majority. O-o-o-p-s! Despite the kind of arm-twisting that only the richest country in history can engage... it soon became clear that there would be no majority.

IIRC, it was the public assurance that Cameroon would vote against the US motion that finally brought it down.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
13.3.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @13.3.3    4 months ago

But we didn't go to war in Iraq based on chemcial WMDs, did we?

It was all about "the mushroom cloud"

Bush and Company lied to us about Iraq and look where we are now.

 
 
 
Krishna
13.4  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    4 months 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
13.4.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @13.4    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Krishna
13.5  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @13    4 months 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 Eight Ball
14  The Magic Eight Ball    4 months 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
14.1  Krishna  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14    4 months 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
14.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @14    4 months 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 Eight Ball
14.2.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @14.2    4 months 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
15  Krishna    4 months 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
16  freepress    4 months 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
17  lady in black    4 months ago

64451021_886045328403037_440660629932054

 
 
 
MUVA
17.1  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @17    4 months ago

That post is a lie the deal didn't keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon it just postponed it for 10 years.Did you know that Iran was responsible for 40% of IED deaths in Iraq and the jackass Obama made a deal anyway.   

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
17.1.1  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @17.1    4 months ago

….Iran was responsible for 40% of IED deaths in Iraq

Source please?

 
 
 
MUVA
17.1.2  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @17.1.1    4 months ago

I was deployed with with EOD out of fort story mobile 22 at time  saw the evidence first hand by the way Iran is also responsible for a good portion on civilian deaths from car and  suicide bombings.

 
 
 
Sparty On
17.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  MUVA @17.1    4 months ago

Deals like that without "anywhere anytime" inspection clauses aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Amazingly many here don't trust Trump but they seem to be able to trust a Government that openly calls for their destruction.

Wow!   Just wow!

 
 
 
Tessylo
17.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @17.1.2    4 months ago

So we'll just take your word for it then?  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
17.1.5  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @17.1.4    4 months ago

Why wouldn't you believe him?   He sez he was there.   Are you calling him a liar?

 
 
 
Krishna
17.1.6  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @17.1    4 months ago
Did you know that Iran was responsible for 40% of IED deaths in Iraq and the jackass Obama made a deal anyway.   

Saddam and Iran were bitter enemies.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
17.1.7  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Sparty On @17.1.5    4 months ago

Data driven world Sparty..... 

If I posted that currently 68% of our land based ICBMS would never make it out of their holes, would you take that at face value, or question the validity of the data by asking for my source?  I don't question that MUVA was in that shithole of a country, but as a data driven engineer, I always source the data to understand it.  

 
 
 
 
Don Overton
17.1.9  Don Overton  replied to  Tessylo @17.1.4    4 months ago

Absolutely not

 
 
 
Don Overton
17.1.10  Don Overton  replied to  Sparty On @17.1.5    4 months ago

Yet you call people liars all the time

 
 
 
Sparty On
17.1.11  Sparty On  replied to  Don Overton @17.1.10    4 months ago

Wrong again Don.  

 
 
 
Krishna
17.1.12  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @17.1.6    4 months ago
Saddam and Iran were bitter enemies.

P.S: Saddam not only used banned WMDs on Kurdish civilians- - he used them on Iranian civilians. 

Iraq chemical attacks against Iran  refers to chemical attacks used by the Iraqi armed forces against Iranian combatants and non-combatants. The Iraqi armed forces employed chemical weapons against combatants and non-combatants in border cities and villages and more than 30 attacks against Iranian civilians were reported. There were chemical attacks against some medical centers and hospitals by the Iraqi army. [1]  According to a 2002 article in the  Star-Ledger , 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas.

 
 
 
Texan1211
17.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @17.1.12    4 months ago
.S: Saddam not only used banned WMDs on Kurdish civilians-- he used them on Iranian civilians.
Iraq chemical attacks against Iran refers to chemical attacks used by the Iraqi armed forces against Iranian combatants and non-combatants. The Iraqi armed forces employed chemical weapons against combatants and non-combatants in border cities and villages and more than 30 attacks against Iranian civilians were reported. There were chemical attacks against some medical centers and hospitals by the Iraqi army.[1] According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian combatants and combat medics were killed on the spot by nerve gas.

That must be fake news, because we have been told repeatedly there weren't any WMDs in Iraq.

/s

 
 
 
Krishna
17.1.14  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1.13    4 months ago
That must be fake news, because we have been told repeatedly there weren't any WMDs in Iraq.

There weren't-- when the U.S. invaded. 

I remember the details quite distinctly-- at the time I followed the news-- from various sources-- daily.

Since our gov't used the allegations that Saddam had WMDs as a justification for the war, large number of U.S. troops were tasked with long searches for them. They went to great lengths in attempting to find them. But-- they didn't.

How could that be? its been documented beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam had used WMDs-- at the very least againat Iran as well as against his own people (Halabja).

So here are the facts. At one point he did have WMDs. But when we invaded he no longer had them.

 
 
 
Krishna
17.1.15  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @17.1.14    4 months ago

How could that be? its been documented beyond any shadow of a doubt that Saddam had used WMDs-- at the very least againat Iran as well as against his own people (Halabja).

So here are the facts. At one point he did have WMDs. But when we invaded he no longer had them.

BTW, here's an additional fact to consider. When the U.S. and allies invaded, Saddam fought back. But here's something to think about-- if indeed he had WMDs-- why wouldn't he have used them against invading forces? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.16  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @17.1.2    4 months ago
I was deployed with with EOD out of fort story mobile 22 at time  saw the evidence first hand by the way Iran is also responsible for a good portion on civilian deaths from car and  suicide bombings.

So, just your word for it otherwise known as no evidence.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.17  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @17.1.3    4 months ago
Amazingly many here don't trust Trump but they seem to be able to trust a Government that openly calls for their destruction.

Anyone who trusts Shitbag to run a war needs to sign up for it now--no excuses accepted.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.18  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @17.1.13    4 months ago
That must be fake news, because we have been told repeatedly there weren't any WMDs in Iraq.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

Do you really enjoy being the butt of our jokes? 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.19  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @17.1.6    4 months ago
Saddam and Iran were bitter enemies.

Yeah, to believe Shiite Iran was supplying weaponry to the Sunni army of Iraq is to make a full confession to living in a fantasy world where no ridiculous thought goes unvoiced.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
17.1.20  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @17.1.5    4 months ago
Are you calling him a liar?

You sure you believe him?  That Shiite Iran was sending arms to Sunni Iraqis? 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
18  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

If you are a supporter of war with Iran, do the noble thing and volunteer to fight so we don't have to send another generation of young people. Buy your own plan ticket too, we have a little debt problem right now.

I'll donate a M4 carbine if you need one. Good luck!

 
 
 
MUVA
18.1  MUVA  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @18    4 months ago

We don’t have to send one person just destroy their infrastructure. I’m not for war but think coddling terrorist isn’t good either.

 
 
 
Krishna
18.1.1  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @18.1    4 months ago
We don’t have to send one person just destroy their infrastructure.

And what would you guess would be the Iranian response if we did that?

 
 
 
Don Overton
18.1.2  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @18.1    4 months ago

Then you are for war and killing our troops.

 
 
 
MUVA
18.1.3  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @18.1.1    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Krishna
18.1.4  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @18.1.3    4 months ago

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

Like we did in Viet-Nam?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
18.1.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @18.1.3    4 months ago
Nothing if we hit them hard enough they will be unable to respond.

You were in the military and didn't learn anything from the disasters of Vietnam and Iraq?  

 
 
 
TTGA
18.2  TTGA  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @18    4 months ago
If you are a supporter of war with Iran, do the noble thing and volunteer to fight so we don't have to send another generation of young people.

Already done that.  Besides, not many soldiers needed, if any.  It's really bad strategy to put valuable, highly trained soldiers in close contact with fanatics who think that the best way to win is to blow themselves to bits.  Two things to remember.  First, how we dealt with the Algerian pirates back in the late 18th Century.  The same method still works.  We just stood off from their base (Tripoli) and bombarded it until they agreed to do what we told them to do.  Second, you can still pump oil through radioactive glass.

 
 
 
Krishna
18.2.1  Krishna  replied to  TTGA @18.2    4 months ago
We just stood off from their base (Tripoli) and bombarded it

And what you you guess Iran's response would be if we did that?

(Hint: 21st century Iran is not 18th Century Algeria).

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
18.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  TTGA @18.2    4 months ago

America could smash the ayatollahs.

America smashed Saddam Hussein. How did that work out?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
18.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  TTGA @18.2    4 months ago
First, how we dealt with the Algerian pirates back in the late 18th Century. 

Are you referring to the several  Barbary Wars in which the U.S. basically fought to a draw, had to pay ransom to get captured sailors back and after the first round signed the Treaty of Tripoli in which the phrase "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" is found?  

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
18.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @18    4 months ago

Thank-you. I would like to see my son have children of his own some day.

And thanks for this seed. It's a good one. Do you have Hulu? If so, "Vice" is streaming on there. It's about Darth Cheney and how he ran the White House. Good movie.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
18.3.1  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Trout Giggles @18.3    4 months ago

That movie was so good. I highly recommend it.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
18.3.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @18.3.1    4 months ago

I watched it last night. Good satire

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
19  Vic Eldred    4 months 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
19.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19    4 months ago

Proof that they attacked oil tankers?

Why shouldn't they have shot down the drone?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
19.1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @19.1    4 months 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.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9292749/gulf-of-oman-video-limpet-mine-oil-tanker/

Why shouldn't they have shot down the drone?

Because it wasn't in their air space!

 
 
 
Tessylo
19.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.1    4 months ago
'THE US has released footage'

Not a reliable source with that turd as 'president'

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
19.1.3  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @19.1.2    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
19.1.4  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.1    4 months 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
19.1.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.3    4 months 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
19.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.1.4    4 months 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
19.1.7  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.1    4 months 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
19.1.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.3    4 months 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
19.1.9  Don Overton  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.1    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
arkpdx
19.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.3    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
19.1.11  Vic Eldred  replied to  arkpdx @19.1.10    4 months 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
19.1.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.11    4 months 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
19.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.11    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
19.1.14  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.12    4 months ago
Trump's rush to war

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

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
19.1.15  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.14    4 months 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
19.1.16  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.15    4 months 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
19.1.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.15    4 months ago
He unilaterally declared an embargo,

That's what America does with sponsors of terrorism. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
19.1.18  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.14    4 months ago

When were 'we' attacked?

 
 
 
Tessylo
19.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.16    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Ronin2
19.1.20  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.15    4 months 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.

https://www.mei.edu/publications/blockade-and-embargo-have-different-meanings

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
19.1.21  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.16    4 months 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
19.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.17    4 months 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
19.1.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ronin2 @19.1.20    4 months 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
19.1.24  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @19.1.19    4 months 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
19.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.24    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Sparty On
19.1.26  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.21    4 months 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
19.1.27  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.24    4 months 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
19.1.28  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.27    4 months ago

We disagree where the real problem is.   Completely.

Nothing new there.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
19.1.29  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.26    4 months 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
19.1.30  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.29    4 months 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
19.1.31  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.30    4 months 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
19.1.32  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  arkpdx @19.1.10    4 months 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
19.1.33  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.24    4 months 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
19.1.34  arkpdx  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.1.32    4 months 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
19.1.35  Sparty On  replied to  arkpdx @19.1.34    4 months 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
19.1.36  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.35    4 months 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
19.1.37  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.36    4 months 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
19.1.38  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.37    4 months ago

IOW, you got nothin'.  

 
 
 
Sparty On
19.1.39  Sparty On  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.1.38    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
19.1.40  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.37    4 months 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
19.1.41  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.40    4 months 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
19.1.42  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.41    4 months 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
19.1.43  Sparty On  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.1.42    4 months 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
19.1.44  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Sparty On @19.1.39    4 months ago
I've got hitting too close to someones wheelhouse is what i got.

You imagination is running amok, as usual. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
19.1.45  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.1.14    4 months 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
19.1.46  Raven Wing  replied to  Trout Giggles @19.1.45    4 months 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
19.1.47  arkpdx  replied to  Trout Giggles @19.1.45    4 months ago
 That invaded their air space

No it did not! 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
19.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19    4 months 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
19.2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2    4 months 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?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
19.2.2  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.1    4 months ago
The answer may be to lure the President

And if any President is susceptible to being 'lured', it is this one. Acting unilaterally and excluding Congress is a recipe for disaster. Hopefully the joint chiefs, who understand the human costs, can dissuade the hawks in trumps inner circle to show a modicum of restraint. This is a but pissing match and neither side has show the temperament or maturity to realize the implications of escalation. No winners here, just wieners.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
19.2.3  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.1    4 months 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
19.2.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  r.t..b... @19.2.2    4 months 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
19.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.2.3    4 months ago
'I certainly do'

I second that.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
19.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.4    4 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
r.t..b...
19.2.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.4    4 months ago
Iran is trying for an American regime change...

For goodness sake. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
19.2.8  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.2.3    4 months ago

Let's not pretend you were always against war, all your favorite people voted for it.

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
19.2.9  Vic Eldred  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @19.2.8    4 months ago

How soon they forget!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
19.2.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.1    4 months 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
19.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.10    4 months 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
19.2.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @19.2.11    4 months 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
19.2.13  Split Personality  replied to  Texan1211 @19.2.11    4 months 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. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/embargo

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.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/08/trump-iran-tweet/566948/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-29/u-s-warns-europe-that-its-iran-workaround-could-face-sanctions

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

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/trump-trade-war-threatens-germany-sanctions-over-russian-gas-pipeline-2019-6-1028276069

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
19.2.14  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @19.2.8    4 months 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
19.2.15  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.4    4 months 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
19.2.16  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.9    4 months 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
19.2.17  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @19.2.16    4 months ago
The same people pushing lies to get us into Iraq

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

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
19.2.18  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2    4 months ago

So you are an Iranian sympathizer now.  A country that has publicly proclaimed the would like to nuke Israel into the stone age, has wacko religious leaders and has commited acts of war against the US. Holy Cow.  Now I have heard everything. No wonder we are heading for a civil war.  I'd like to see how many other left wingers have the same nonsensibie viewpoint.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
19.2.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @19.2.18    4 months ago
So you are an Iranian sympathizer now.

No.

 
 
 
Ronin2
19.2.20  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.10    4 months ago

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

https://www.mei.edu/publications/blockade-and-embargo-have-different-meanings

 
 
 
Tessylo
19.2.21  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @19.2.20    4 months ago

He is correct for the second time

 
 
 
Ronin2
19.2.22  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.12    4 months 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. 

https://www.bourseandbazaar.com/articles/2019/5/17/china-restarts-purchases-of-iranian-oil-bucking-trumps-sanctions

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
19.2.23  Bob Nelson  replied to  Ronin2 @19.2.22    4 months 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.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
19.2.24  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.23    4 months ago
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.

I don't know how anybody could mistake a statement like that for anything but an apologist and sympathy for Iran.  There are some serious nut cases over there hell bent on developing nukes to threaten the world.  I wouldn't mistake them for anything but, don't know why you would.

 
 
 
Ronin2
19.2.25  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @19.2.23    4 months 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
19.2.26  Bob Nelson  replied to  Freedom Warrior @19.2.24    4 months 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
19.2.27  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.4    4 months 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
19.2.28  lib50  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.17    4 months 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
19.2.29  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @19.2.28    4 months ago

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



 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
19.2.30  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.29    4 months 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
19.2.31  mocowgirl  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @19.2.30    4 months 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.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/politics/hillary-clinton-backs-iran-nuclear-deal.html

“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
19.2.32  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @19.2.17    4 months 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
19.2.33  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Freedom Warrior @19.2.24    4 months 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
19.2.34  Trout Giggles  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @19.2.8    4 months 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
19.2.35  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @19.2.25    4 months 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.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
20  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    4 months ago

I'm happy to report no lives were lost when Iran shot down our RC airplane.

512

Go to radio shack and by the DOD a new plane before we end up sending our children to fight Iran.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
20.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @20    4 months ago

4K457qCF?format=jpg&name=small

And that's why the Navy has drones out

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
20.2.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Vic Eldred @20.2    4 months ago

Vic, is that photoshopped or a picture taken in Iranian waters -- either way it doesn't show us anything that you might have hoped it would.  Are you trying to produce your own little Gulf of Tonkin propaganda "evidence."  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

You should get help from some professional false propagandists.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
20.2.2  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @20.2.1    4 months ago

Who saw this coming, Atheist, the CNN sunshine pumper calling his very favorite news organization fake news.

384

 
 
 
Texan1211
20.2.3  Texan1211  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @20.2.2    4 months ago

That is freaking hilarious!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
20.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @20.2    4 months ago

512

US aircraft carrier strike group heads for volatile Persian Gulf as Iran tensions soar

If you are worried an about Iranian speedboat, imagine how Iranians feel about this.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
20.2.5  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @20.2.2    4 months ago

Isn't CNN fake news anymore?  You could have proved this actually came from CNN instead of it also being an altered photo but since you've never backed anything up in the past why start now, right?  This is called stepping on your own, er, "member," BF.  But I am enjoying you pretending to be agains Shitbag's warmongering even as you show us you can't repress your love affair for him.

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
20.2.6  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Texan1211 @20.2.3    4 months ago
That is freaking hilarious!

That you'd take BF's BS for anything truly is.  

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
20.2.7  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @20.2.5    4 months ago

Good deflection....epic fail!   Faux Liberal exposed.

256

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
20.2.8  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @20.2.7    4 months ago
Good deflection....epic fail! 

Deflection as in showing what BS you keep putting up?  I accept your surrender and that post is a full retreat in a rout.  

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
20.2.9  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @20.2.7    4 months ago
Faux Liberal exposed.

BF: Self-revealed as a Trumpster....yet again!!! 

You started this seed posing as being against Shitbag's warmongering and in just a couple  exchanges with me trying  (and failing) to score points revealed what BS that is. You seem incapable of concealing how phony you're so-called "centrism" is.   

 
 
 
Krishna
20.2.10  Krishna  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @20.2.1    4 months ago
Vic, is that photoshopped or a picture taken in Iranian waters -- either way it doesn't show us anything that you might have hoped it would. 

It might be photoshopped.

But even if its real-- what does it prove?

It shows a boat with an Iranian flag traveling along, with a tanker in the background. The smaller (Iranian flagged) boat is not attacking the tanker-- in fact they are not even moving toward the Tanker).

If you look at a map of the Persian Gulf, you can see that part of the coastline is Iran (the northern coast)-- the rest is several other Arab countries (Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE).. 

So it should come as no surprise that small armed boats from several countries are constantly patrolling in their coastlines in that area. And IIRC, these countries are all major oil producers-- so there's a constant stream of oil tankers in the area.

320

 
 
 
Krishna
20.2.11  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @20.2.10    4 months ago
small armed boats from several countries are constantly patrolling in their coastlines in that area.

And not just ships from Arab countries and Iran:

Al Udeid Air Base is a military base southwest of Doha, Qatar, also known as Abu Nakhlah Airport.

It houses Qatari Air Force, U.S. Air Force, Royal Air Force, and other Gulf War Coalition personnel and assets.

According to media reports in June 2017, the base hosted over 11,000 U.S. and U.S.-led anti-ISIL coalition forces and over 100 operational aircraft.

In 1999, the then Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad, told U.S. officials that he would like to see as many as 10,000 U.S. servicemen permanently stationed at Al Udeid

Food for thought: why on earth would an Arab ruler want so many kufar ("kafir") military forces stationed in his country?

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
20.2.12  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @20.2.10    4 months ago
But even if its real-- what does it prove?

Exactly nothing.  As far as we know the boat with the Iranian flag is in Iranian waters and it's a stock photo.  It's the dumbest shit ploy you can imagine to put that up and think it makes a point.

 
 
 
Ronin2
20.2.13  Ronin2  replied to  Bob Nelson @20.2.4    4 months ago

Hopefully scared shitless. That is the point of it being there. That and helping the Iranian backed Iraqi government fight ISIS/ISIL. Still sounds stupid no matter how often it is repeated. The air craft carrier is in international waters, just like the drone was when they shot it down.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/08/iraq-air-campaign-ships-aircraft/13792573/

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
21  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו    4 months 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
21.1  Krishna  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @21    4 months 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 :-(

 
 
 
MUVA
22  MUVA    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
22.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  MUVA @22    4 months ago
Nothing if we hit them hard enough they will be unable to respond.

Echoes of "shockandawe."  Some people neither learn nor give up on phony clichés. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
22.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו @22.1    4 months ago

If we go straight search and destroy Iran would be toast; but we will get Libya part II. If we decide to nation build and move in troops to occupy and set up a new government we hope is pro western, then it will be the Afghanistan and Iraq quagmire all over.

But since Trump still hasn't started a single military engagement it is all speculation at this point. 

 
 
 
Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו
22.1.2  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Ronin2 @22.1.1    4 months ago
If we go straight search and destroy Iran would be toast;

You must have slept through the Glorious War in Iraq and its aftermath.  

 
 
 
Krishna
23  Krishna    4 months 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
23.1  Atheist יוחנן בן אברהם אבינו  replied to  Krishna @23    4 months ago

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

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
23.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @23    4 months ago

Iran will surely gives better results than Iraq.

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

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
23.2.1  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Bob Nelson @23.2    4 months ago

Another war with the great Satan of the west will mobilize every man of fighting age in Iran not to mention the surrounding countries. Foreign fighters would pour in from surrounding countries and we'd watch the most advanced well trained army in the world suffer horrific casualties with a primitive yet effective insurgency once again.

The civilian deaths due to poverty and disease would cement a hate bred for generations perpetuating the failures of our foreign policy.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
23.2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @23.2.1    4 months 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
23.2.3  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @23.2    4 months 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
23.2.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @23.2.3    4 months ago

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

There are hills. 

 
 
 
Krishna
23.2.5  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @23.2.4    4 months 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
23.2.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @23.2.5    4 months ago

Well... not quite all mountains.

There's also a big desert.

 
 
 
Krishna
23.2.7  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @23.2.6    4 months 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
23.2.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @23.2.7    4 months ago

What's the upland equivalent of "quagmire"?

 
 
 
Ronin2
23.3  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @23    4 months 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. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
23.3.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    4 months ago
Where is Hillary when you need her.

At your beck and call whenever a deflection is required when dealing with the here and now.

 
 
 
katrix
23.3.2  katrix  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    4 months 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
23.3.3  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    4 months 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
23.3.4  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    4 months 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
23.3.5  Krishna  replied to  Ronin2 @23.3    4 months 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.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
23.3.6  seeder  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  katrix @23.3.2    4 months ago

The answer to the middle east right now needs to be one of peace. We have an entire generation of veterans that are suffering as our their families. We've been at war for 18 years and our war nerve is broken.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
23.3.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  katrix @23.3.2    4 months 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
23.3.8  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.3.7    4 months 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
23.3.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @23.3.7    4 months ago

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

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Sunshine
jungkonservativ111
KDMichigan
Wishful_thinkin
Ender
Dean Moriarty
Tessylo
JBB


82 visitors