Did Donald Trump Just Start a War with Iran?

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  krishna  •  9 months ago  •  121 comments

By:   Ted Galen Carpenter

Did Donald Trump Just Start a War with Iran?
People who assumed that America’s Middle East headaches couldn’t get any worse likely are in for an unpleasant surprise.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



384

Photo: Two American political leaders

The U.S. drone strike that killed Major General Qasem Soleimani, one of Iran’s top military leaders, is an extremely provocative incident. It triggered  immediate vows of retaliation  from Tehran, and there is every reason to assume that the clerical government intends to fulfill those vows.

Washington’s strike is the latest move in a dangerous tit-for-tat escalation over the past week that began with an assault by a pro-Iranian Iraqi militia that killed a U.S. “civilian contractor” at a base in Iraq. Washington launched retaliatory attacks on several militia installations in both Iraq and Syria. 

Demonstrators in Baghdad, egged on by militia leaders, then stormed the U.S. embassy, occupying part of the building and forcing staff members to take refuge in a special safe room. 

But Washington’s move constitutes a reckless escalation. It is a huge provocation that Iran almost certainly will not (indeed, cannot) tolerate.

Related: Fox News Host Comes Out Against Trump's Airstrike


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Krishna
1  seeder  Krishna    9 months ago

The U.S. drone strike that killed Major General Qasem Soleimani, one of Iran’s top military leaders, is an extremely provocative incident. It triggered    immediate vows of retaliation  from Tehran, and there is every reason to assume that the clerical government intends to fulfill those vows.

This is not good.

 
 
 
MAGA
1.1  MAGA  replied to  Krishna @1    9 months ago

Why the blame America first outlook?  What about each of the Iranian provocations that led to this.  The attack on an American base and the killing of an American.  What about their assault upon our embassy which is sovereign American soil?  What about the attacks he and his henchman were there plotting to do next?  We also took out a man who was involved in a 1983 bombing of our embassy in Kuwait.  Any retaliation Iran takes means the counter retaliation will take place on targets actually in Iran.  

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.1  bugsy  replied to  MAGA @1.1    9 months ago
What about each of the Iranian provocations that led to this

To the prog/lib it doesn"t matter. This time its Truuuuuuuuuuuump!!!!

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MAGA @1.1    9 months ago

Well.. we'll see what happens....

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  MAGA @1.1    9 months ago
Why the blame America first outlook?

... because America did strike first in the long ugly relationship between the two countries. In 1953, the CIA piloted a coup that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed a bloody police state under the autocratic rule of the Shah...

... because the US did supply satellite intelligence that allowed Saddam Hussein to better target his poison-gas artillery during the Iraq-Iran War... when we were allies of Saddam Hussein...

The ayatollahs are not well loved by the Iranian people... but those people actively hate America, and they have good reasons!

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.4  seeder  Krishna  replied to  bugsy @1.1.1    9 months ago
To the prog/lib it doesn"t matter.

prob/lib smog/lib!

As much as you may hate some of your fellow Americans, the likelihood of a major attack on a U.S. embassy, or military base-- or act of mass domestic terrorism or cyber-terrorism on American infrastructure by so called "prog/libs" is rather slim.

But our Bone-Spur-Challenged "Chickenhawk in Chief" has just stirred up n hornet's nest-- so that sort of attack by now by exceedingly pissed off Iranians (or their allied terror groups such as Hizb'Allah or Iraqi Shia militia, etc) has increased significantly!

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.5  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @1.1.4    9 months ago
But our Bone-Spur-Challenged "Chickenhawk in Chief" has just stirred up n hornet's nest-

For those unfamiliar with the term "Chicken-Hawk":

Chickenhawk  ( chicken hawk  or  chicken-hawk ) is a  political term  used in the United States to describe a person who strongly supports war or other military action (i.e., a  war hawk ), yet who actively avoids or avoided military service when of age.

Like, for instance... this one:

256

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @1    9 months ago
Major General Qasem Soleimani, one of Iran’s top military leaders,

Soleimani was the top military leader in Iran.  And he was considered the second most important political leader in Iran by many. The Iranians will retaliate.

Two rockets have been fired today in Baghdad.  One rocket hit the "protected" green zone putting U.S. citizens at risk.  U.S. assets in the region have become targets of opportunity for Iran.  Iran has called the U.S. "the great Satan" in their political/religious propaganda since 1979.  And they have always hated Israel.

The Iranians, thanks in part to Soleimani, have many resources besides using the Iranian army to attack U.S. and Israeli assets.  Hamas and Hezbollah are Iranian proxies and they are always positioned to fire missiles into Israel.  There are other terrorist organizations, like ISIS, that also that direction from Iran. 

Iran may decide to disrupt the world's oil supply by closing the Straits of Hormuz.  Closing the Strait of Hormuz means the oil shipments from Persian Gulf would be stopped.  One fifth of the world's oil passes through the Straits of Hormuz.  Gasoline prices would soar worldwide.

Iran may have sleeper cells in the U.S. that will be activated.  Iran was responsible for many of the IEDs that killed U.S. soldiers in Iraq.  I hope we don't start seeing IEDs here.

The killing of Soleimani has had repercussions beyond Iran.  In Iraq, Pakistan and Kashmir anti-American demonstrators chanted "death to America" and burned American flags. The killing of Soleimani has fanned the flames of terrorism.

 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.1  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2    9 months ago

Everything you cut and pasted has been threatened by the Iranians for decades, and nothing has ever come from them. I don't know how many times I have been through the Straits of Hurmuz, in an aircraft carrier no less, during those times Iran threatens to attack one of our warships or shut down the straits.

With the sanctions on them by this administration, they are having difficulty selling their oil. In order for them to export their il, they too have to go through the straits. I can assure you US ships will be stationed on either side of the straits to ensure NO Iranian oil gets through to anywhere if they decide to do something stupid....and they know it..

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  bugsy @1.2.1    9 months ago
Everything you cut and pasted

The only thing "copy&pasted" in my comment is the video clip.

I can assure you US ships will be stationed on either side of the straits

I hope they don't become targets for Iranian missiles.

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.4  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.2    9 months ago
I hope they don't become targets for Iranian missiles.

US ships have been targets to Iran for decades. Every time one of my ships went through the straights our EWs picked up radars associated with certain missile systems. More than likely they were only in search mode, never going to targeted mode.

Nothing will change. Iran can't afford to lose their entire navy if they dared fire on one of our ships, even if it is a "warning " shot.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.5  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2    9 months ago

In other words just another typical day in those countries. jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.6  seeder  Krishna  replied to  bugsy @1.2.4    9 months ago

US ships have been targets to Iran for decades. ..

.....never going to targeted mode.

So in other words...targets...but not targets.

Being targeted...but not being targeted.

Up is down.

Black is white

War is Peace!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.2    9 months ago

One carrier air wing can wipe out just about all of Iran's navy. I don't think Iran is that stupid, but I guess we will find out.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2.8  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.7    9 months ago
One carrier air wing can wipe out just about all of Iran's navy.

As I said on another thread, we can turn Iran into a fucking ashtray, butt I'd rather not do that.

We have Iran out gunned, so what?

Do you want to go to war with Iran?

We can defeat any country in the world, butt I do NOT advocate world war. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.2.9  bugsy  replied to  Krishna @1.2.6    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.10  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.8    9 months ago

I have been in and survived two wars and other smaller conflicts in 20 years of military service already and that was enough for me, thank you. No sane person  should ever want a war, but sometimes they become necessary as a last resort when all diplomatic means have been exhausted. I think the Iranian government wants a war a lot more than we do.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.11  r.t..b...  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.10    9 months ago
I think the Iranian government wants a war a lot more than we do.

With all due respect for your service, and that is most sincere, I disagree.

Iran does not want a war in the conventional sense, as they would have no chance. Their war is a centuries old war of contrition against the West. A religious, tribal conflict that we in the West have never fully comprehended and will never defeat. Best to let them to their own devices, withdraw completely, generate our own energy sources to divorce us from the monetary factor with the Saudis (a self-serving 'ally') and be done with the decades old conflict where too many have died and suffered to no logical end.

Again, with all due respect, Doc.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2.12  al Jizzerror  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.10    9 months ago
I have been in and survived two wars

Thank you for your service.

I'm also a Navy vet.

No sane person  should ever want a war

And, since I'm semi-sane, I don't want another fucking war.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
1.2.13  Jasper2529  replied to    9 months ago

[ deleted ]

 
 
 
cjcold
1.2.14  cjcold  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.2    9 months ago

Al-Qaeda took out the USS Cole with a rowboat.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
1.2.15  al Jizzerror  replied to  cjcold @1.2.14    9 months ago
Al-Qaeda took out the USS Cole with a rowboat.

I doubt if a similar attack would work again.

The USS Cole was damaged butt it wasn't taken out.

512

17 dead, 39 injured

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.16  seeder  Krishna  replied to    9 months ago
If they do something stupid to our ships, we could completely block their shipping

And then could retaliate for that retaliation by blowing up our embassies...or blowing up themselves in the streets of our cities...or continue to do something stupid to our shipping...

Or perhaps a cyber-attack on our infra-structure.

(Such are the perils of escalation by a theorcracy that has Islamic extremists in charge...)

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.17  seeder  Krishna  replied to  al Jizzerror @1.2.8    9 months ago
Do you want to go to war with Iran?

The point is, if we do go to war with Iran it won't be entirely a "conventional" war. it will consist of a lot of :"asymmetric warfare"-- i.e. terrorism and cyber-attacks. 

And my guess is that iran is clever enough not to limit it to the Gulf (or the rest of the Middle east)-- but rather attack American "soft targets" in Europe-- and probably even in the U.S. itself...

 
 
 
Krishna
1.2.18  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.2.10    9 months ago
I think the Iranian government wants a war a lot more than we do

I don't think so.

Why?

Because if they really wanted a real war with us, they could've easily started one.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.19  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Krishna @1.2.18    9 months ago

I think so. Iran is crazy, but they are not stupid. 

They are patient and waiting for just the right moment when they can be sure the world will think they are the victims and us the aggressors.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.3  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1    9 months ago

Do you think any of the IEDS  (terrorist) Major General Qasem approved and planed in Iraq during the Iraq were also extremely provocative?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Krishna @1    9 months ago

This is not good.

If you don't know what is going on in Iraq you are right.  

 
 
 
Krishna
1.5.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.5    9 months ago
This is not good. If you don't know what is going on in Iraq you are right.  

And if you do know what's going on in Iraq-- its even worse!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
1.5.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Krishna @1.5.1    9 months ago

More than likely, unlike you, I've been to Iraq AND Afghanistan and have seen first hand what Iran has been meddling with in both countries.  

There was no attack on Iran.  It was a strike in Bagdhad.  Do I have to give you a geography lesson?

 
 
 
Krishna
2  seeder  Krishna    9 months ago

But Washington’s move constitutes a reckless escalation. 

It is a huge provocation that Iran almost certainly will not (indeed, cannot) tolerate.

Uh-Oh! :-(

 
 
 
MAGA
2.1  MAGA  replied to  Krishna @2    9 months ago

Your source is a Never Trump neocon outfit.  

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MAGA @2.1    9 months ago

384

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @2.1.1    9 months ago

And any of this stops Nancy Pelosi from submitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate how exactly?

I don't understand how this distracts from impeachment when nothing is happening on impeachment right now.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    9 months ago

The president has been asking for the articles to be sent to the Senate quickly from the day they were voted on.

There is no way this is a distraction from impeachment.

Libs are just mad this president has been extremely successful where their messiah Obama failed....in other words....pretty much everything.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.4  al Jizzerror  replied to  Krishna @2.1.1    9 months ago

That meme is hilarious!

So is this tweet:

512

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.5  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.2    9 months ago
I don't understand how this distracts from impeachment when nothing is happening on impeachment right now.

Trump has already been impeached-- and IIRC only the third president in all of U.S. history to be impeached!  And he's freaked out over that....

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Krishna @2.1.5    9 months ago

Yes, he is the third. But you failed to mention that the previous two remained in office and completed their terms, as will Trump.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.8  Texan1211  replied to  Krishna @2.1.5    9 months ago

So anyone saying that whatever Trump does is a distraction from the impeachment is just flat out wrong then.

Good to know.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.9  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.8    9 months ago
So anyone saying that whatever Trump does is a distraction from the impeachment is just flat out wrong then.

That's NOT what he said.  Why do you always try to misspeak for others?

He said (comment # 2.1.5):

Trump has already been impeached

Impeachment had been dominating the news cycle.  Trump's attack is now dominating the news so it's a distraction.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.9    9 months ago
Impeachment had been dominating the news cycle.

Until Nancy stalled everything.

Trump's attack is now dominating the news so it's a distraction.

Distraction from what? Nancy sitting on the articles?

This whole premise that some have put forth that Trump did this to distract from impeachment is absolutely crazy.
Are people incapable of following more than one news story at a time?

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.11  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.10    9 months ago
Distraction from what? Nancy sitting on the articles?

Pelosi's "sitting on the articles" actually increased and extended media coverage.

Where were you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.12  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.11    9 months ago

The House adjourned for Christmas break on December 12. Anyone could figure it out--Nancy wasn't going to do a damn thing until Congress returned from break.

Why on earth would Trump want a distraction from Nancy sitting on them? 

Makes the Democrats look weak and ineffectual---voting for impeachment in "the vote of our lifetimes" to stop the "Constitutional crisis" they claim Trump is and then having their leader sit on them. 

That's a huge plus for Trump. Why on Earth would he distract from that--especially when D.C. is practically empty of Congress now?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
2.1.13  al Jizzerror  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.12    9 months ago
Why on earth would Trump want a distraction from Nancy sitting on them?

Because of what Moscow Mitch said the focus was about how the upcoming trial in the Senate would be a complete sham.

McConnell said, " "I'm not impartial about this at all."  He also said he is " coordinating" the trail strategy with The White House.  That sounds legit, right?

800

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.1.14  Ronin2  replied to  Krishna @2.1.1    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.13    9 months ago

Only fools consider the attack in Iraq a "distraction".

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.16  Bob Nelson  replied to  al Jizzerror @2.1.9    9 months ago
Why do you always try to misspeak for others?

Excellent question.

Perhaps misquoting, and mis-reformulating, and all such mischief should be a COC violation with automatic suspension. Members might be more careful... jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.17  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @2.1.6    9 months ago
Yes, he is the third. But you failed to mention that the previous two remained in office and completed their terms, as will Trump.

If nothing major happens, my guess is that he will remain in office and in fact get re-elected.

However, if there are major Iranian attacks, especially harming U.S. civilians...or a major war develops (even if iran "loses") that may change....

As a famous yogi once said:

Prediction is difficult, especially about the future

-Yogi Berri

 
 
 
Krishna
2.1.18  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Bob Nelson @2.1.16    9 months ago

Perhaps misquoting, and mis-reformulating, and all such mischief should be a COC violation with automatic suspension. Members might be more careful..

"might be"?

They definitely would be.  And things would be a lot more peaceful...and harmonious.

But fergedaboudit-- ain't never gonna happen.

(More nastiness results in more long drawn out arguments... which results in more "page views". . . that's just a fact of life on social media sites) 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.19  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @2.1.18    9 months ago

https://thenewstalkers.com/perrie-halpern/group_discuss/7458/whither-in-2020

Don’t be cynical. That's a cheap way out. Come help us try to make things better.

 
 
 
PJ
3  PJ    9 months ago

Yes, yes he did.  His craziness continues to escalate.  Next on his list is the red button.

tenor.gif?itemid=14853646

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1  bugsy  replied to  PJ @3    9 months ago

You guys have been saying this for almost 4 years now. By liberal "logic", we all should have been nuclear waste by North Korea three years ago.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  bugsy @3.1    9 months ago
By liberal "logic", we all should have been nuclear waste by North Korea three years ago.

And you know this... how? Do you have a "handbook fo 'liberal logic' "? Would you share it with us?

Or are you perhaps... just perhaps... makin' shit up?

 
 
 
MAGA
 
 
al Jizzerror
3.4  al Jizzerror  replied to  PJ @3    9 months ago
Next on his list is the red button.

800

 
 
 
Ronin2
3.4.1  Ronin2  replied to  al Jizzerror @3.4    9 months ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
4  bugsy    9 months ago

From what I have been seeing is the democrats and media are hoping now more than ever for a war with Iran to start. They know the Russian collusion failed, the Ukraine hoax failed, everything in between they have thrown to hope it sticks, and now the "impeachment" has fallen apart.

To them, this is a welcome development for them to blame Trump on, even though Iranians have been killing Americans for decades. The past president droned civilians, including an American, and not a peep from the first dem/lib.

What Trump did was significantly slow down the possibility of war that the past several administrations failed to, or were scared to take head on.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1  al Jizzerror  replied to  bugsy @4    9 months ago
From what I have been seeing is the democrats and media are hoping now more than ever for a war with Iran to start.

That's total fucking bullshit.

Please post proof that any Democrat is hoping for a war with Iran.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.2  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1    9 months ago
I hope they don't become targets for Iranian missiles.

Face it. We both know that lib/progs want a war simply so they can blame Trump, even though the current events were started by the killing of an American contractor and attacking the US embassy, a sovereign piece of US land . Iran has been targeting and ACTING on killing Americans for decades. No other American president has retaliated like Trump has, because none of them had the balls, hence the outright open hostility towards Americans.

Now, lib/progs all over talk shows are saying Trump is escalating tensions with Iran, and saying it with glee. Thankfully, we have true Americans with a voice countering those idiots.

This president is deescalating tensions. Iran is learning that screwing with us is now the wrong thing to do.

Instead of these dumbass talking heads saying that Americans will be killed as an aftermath of something IRAN started, why can't they back this president by saying that IRAN will pay a heavy price if they try and take revenge and kill innocent Americans.

They won't because they know that any defense of this president will find them as treasonous to the loony left they so wish to please.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.3  al Jizzerror  replied to    9 months ago
The Dems seem to support wars so Trump can be blamed for it...North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc.

That's bullshit.

Let's see your fucking proof.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.4  al Jizzerror  replied to  bugsy @4.1.2    9 months ago
This president is deescalating tensions.

You've got to be kidding.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.4    9 months ago

No, that's a real thing. I've been in enough fights to appreciate that sometimes punching the biggest asshole in the nose takes the steam out of everyone else in the room who is looking for a fight.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.6  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.4    9 months ago
You've got to be kidding.

Nope...not at all. The President has sent a strong message to the mullahs in Iran, and probably elsewhere, that the US is not to be screwed with or there will be repercussions, something the past occupant of the White House was too scared to do. He also made it clear that we will not be sending pallets of cash either.

More than likely, the guy named to take the terrorist's place first words were   (Aw shit!!)..

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.8  al Jizzerror  replied to    9 months ago
That's all y'all seem to talk about

I challenge you to produce a single comment where democrats are hoping for or advocating a war with Iran.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.3    9 months ago

You can challenge them for proof a zillion times - they won't answer. They know they're bullshitting, and they don't care. Truth and facts are of zero value to them.

Annoying a "proglib", though... That is a highly sought-after accomplishment. Does that seem very small-minded and stupid? Well, yes! It is small-minded and stupid.

That's who they are...

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
4.1.10  al Jizzerror  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.1.9    9 months ago
It is small-minded and stupid. That's who they are...

You're absolutely right!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  al Jizzerror @4.1.10    9 months ago

          You're absolutely right!

Of course. Always. ;-)

 
 
 
 
Krishna
4.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  bugsy @4    9 months ago
From what I have been seeing is the democrats and media are hoping now more than ever for a war with Iran to start.

Don't you follow the news?

It was Trump who ordered the attack on iran's top general--- not "the democrats" and not "the media" . . .sothe responsibility for any repercussions lie squarely on his shoulders!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Krishna @4.3    9 months ago

Don’t you follow the news? Iran has been at war with America for decades.  How many Americans are dead because of Iranian attacks  in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world? How many Americans can they kill before you think push back is acceptable.

did you read Soleimani‘s poetry and cry yourself to sleep that   the world has been deprived of a genius?

 
 
 
bugsy
4.3.2  bugsy  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.1    9 months ago
Don't you follow the news?

Don't you follow the news, or did  CNN and MSDNC not tell you that Iran attacked a US base and killed an American, then tried to overtake the embassy in Iraq? This was BEFORE Trump took out the terrorist.

In other words, for the feebly minded, Iran started this last dustup.

 
 
 
bugsy
4.3.3  bugsy  replied to  bugsy @4.3.2    9 months ago

Actually, Iran starts every dustup with the US. We just finally now have a president with the balls to confront the bullshit for what it is.

The last one just thought giving a pallet of cash would make Iran go away. Of course, like most everything else, he was wrong.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.3.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.1    9 months ago
Iran has been at war with America for decades.

Since 1953, to be precise.

When the CIA overthrew the legitimate, democratic government of Iran, and installed a police-state.

Why do you do this, Sean? You know history. Why do you distort it?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.3.4    9 months ago
Why do you do this, Sean? You know history. Why do you distort itate

I'm sorry,Bob, you just tried to depict the Shahs rule post 1953 as a police state, but not pre 1953 and you accuse me of distorting history?  Maybe you should do a little research into the reign of Reza Shah.

Talking about bloody police states though. Who do you think murdered more Iranians, the Shah running up to the 1979 revolution, or the Ayatollahs afterwards?  Do you think women were better off in Iran in 1978 or in 2020?  How many Iranians have the Ayatollahs killed in the last year?   If you are going to describe a regime as a bloody police state, at least pick the right one. 

So I understand it, your argument is that Iran has the right to kill Americans because it supported the Shah in 1953? Do Americans have the right to kill Japanese over 1941?  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.3.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.5    9 months ago

I really would like to know whether you actually believe what you post. I know you're intelligent, so I have to assume that your misuse of facts and logic is intentional.

But that's very strange to me, who prize truth above all.

You seem to willfully, intentionally, spread half-truths and falsehoods. I simply cannot understand why anyone would do that. It's... not healthy...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.3.6    9 months ago

ut that's very strange to me, who prize truth above all.

C'mon Bob. Please be serious.

Let's see how much you prize truth.  Do you believe Mosaddegh was a democratic politician? 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.3.8  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.7    9 months ago
Do you believe Mosaddegh was a democratic politician? 

For that time and that region... certainly.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.3.8    9 months ago

He was a democratic politician in the way Hitler was.

He jailed opponents, pardoned the partisan who assassinated his predecessor ,  rigged elections, rigged a plebiscite in order to justify  disbanding  the elected  legislative branch and assume dictatorial powers for himself and relied on organized violent faction fighters  to attack anyone who opposed his decrees.  

Unfortunately, you and others have been bamboozled by marxist propaganda into believing the US somehow overthrew a functioning  democracy governed by the Rule of law and installed a despot willing to do its bidding. Anyone the least bit familiar with the actual political situation in Iran post world knows how wrong and dishonest that narrative is, even if its simplicity and blame America theme appeals to the uneducated contemporary  progressive.

The idea that the coup replacing his dictatorial rule somehow justifies killing Americans in 2020 is simply preposterous.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.3.10  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.9    9 months ago

Wow. Hitler, already.

Ah, Sean...

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.3.10    9 months ago

Smart move avoiding substance Bob. It was heading downhill fast for you.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.3.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.11    9 months ago

Trump does that, too. Just claim victory - someone may believe you.

Or they may do a few minutes' research, in which case they'll know you s-o-o-o much better!  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  Bob Nelson @4.3.12    9 months ago

Anyone looking at  your substance and fact free arguments will know who's acting like a Trump stereotype.  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
4.3.14  Bob Nelson  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.13    9 months ago

Is that an attempt at some sort of judo move? Or just gibberish?

 
 
 
Tacos!
5  Tacos!    9 months ago
Did Donald Trump Just Start A War With Iran?

No, but he might be the guy that finishes it.

Do these people read their own writing? They answer their own question.

a dangerous tit-for-tat escalation over the past week that began with an assault by a pro-Iranian Iraqi militia that killed a U.S. “civilian contractor” at a base in Iraq.

So there you are. Trump didn't "start" anything. Iran did. 

Iran attacked our embassy in Tehran in 1979 and they have been chanting "Death to America" ever since. They have also been the biggest funder of terrorism in the world for a long time. Their terrorist programs allow them to attack other nations without having to make it "official" and be held responsible for it. They are murdering cowards.

The forces led by this scumbag Soleimani are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and thousands of our allies. Killing him is self defense and defense of others, not an assassination; and it sure as hell didn't "start" anything.

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1  bugsy  replied to  Tacos! @5    9 months ago
So there you are. Trump didn't "start" anything. Iran did.

But yet, we watch liberals hoping and "praying" that Iran retaliates simply because of their hatred for President Trump, just so they can blame him.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  bugsy @5.1    9 months ago

They obviously can’t wait to celebrate over the bodies of dead Americans.

Really sad to see.

 
 
 
al Jizzerror
5.1.2  al Jizzerror  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    9 months ago
They obviously can’t wait to celebrate over the bodies of dead Americans.

Who the fuck is "they".

There are certainly NO Democrats who would ever celebrate "over the bodies of dead Americans".

That's a dead strawman.

800

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1.3  bugsy  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.1.2    9 months ago

There is no doubt that if American are killed, liberals will waste no time getting in front of cameras to blame Trump.

To them, being able to blame Trump is celebratory, no matter the occasion.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.4  Bob Nelson  replied to  al Jizzerror @5.1.2    9 months ago

They have to use strawmen. Their real arguments are existent.

Of course... some of them don't understand what a strawman is, because they don't know the difference between reality and FoxWorld.

 
 
 
lib50
5.1.5  lib50  replied to  bugsy @5.1.3    9 months ago
To them, being able to blame Trump is celebratory, no matter the occasion.

Actually the only ones celebrating are the Trumpers, patting themselves on the back in support of Trump 'getting tough'.  So far, no proof of a legal reason to take out an Iranian general. And no apparent understanding of the ramifications and consequences of such an extreme action.  Now Iran's nuclear program is on steroids just like NK.  Trump's action won't make peace, it makes WAR, and it is one that may not be fully felt for decades, just like the Iran hostage crisis.   Trump has no idea about what he has unleashed, he is a foreign policy disaster.  Nobody is celebrating blaming Trump, its a freaking clusterfuck he started, of course he owns it.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  lib50 @5.1.5    9 months ago
Actually the only ones celebrating are the Trumpers

I beg to differ!

I'm pretty sure Kim Jong-un is laughing his ass off and guzzling champagne.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6  Paula Bartholomew    9 months ago

Hell yes he did.

 
 
 
Krishna
7  seeder  Krishna    9 months ago

Even Trump's usual sycophants have been coming out against trump's reckless actions:

Fox News Host Comes Out Against Trump's Airstrike!

 
 
 
lady in black
8  lady in black    9 months ago

81894933_3116461765033971_8918086367045484544_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_oc=AQmzRhQYv8yKRQWvRLfB_dbaPUYLYNnevLR844pdX80mtZZxTHIrwZblMfoDeRV6XMQ&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=33055844e4b1f032c2f42190a521857d&oe=5E68D08E

 
 
 
lady in black
9  lady in black    9 months ago

81874669_1441390352697531_3929681890843295744_n.jpg?_nc_cat=106&_nc_oc=AQmD4Uf5CCi7PkEYQXSGiv5vXY4oKkTU4z1PfDERKucQxIDjrR_5GsVIL66chSvArMU&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=56a4a7dc6950b2922aca70a4e6c57dea&oe=5EB43197

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
10  Buzz of the Orient    9 months ago

If Iran escalates, it provides an excuse to bunker-bomb their nuclear bomb and missile development and launching facilities, especially the military bases - kill two birds with one bomb.  I don't think the Iranian civilians deserve to be bombed.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    9 months ago
If Iran escalates

Ummm.... America just assassinated a very high Iranian official. So... if Iran assassinated, say, the American Secretary of Defense, it would NOT be "escalation" - it would be "appropriate response"... perhaps even "de-escalation", since many considered Soleimani to be the second personality of the regime. Any Iranian reaction that is less than the assassination of Mike Pence would NOT be "escalation".

This is where President Trump's inconsiderate bluster has put us.

 
 
 
Krishna
10.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    9 months ago
it provides an excuse to bunker-bomb their nuclear bomb and missile development

Iran is no Iraq!

After the Israeli attack that destroyed Saddam's nuclear reactor, the Iranians realized how vulnerable above ground facilities were.., they learned from that and if I'm not mistaken most of not all of the Iranian nuclear facilities are buried below ground.

(In addition, Saddam was having only one reactor being built-- the Iranian apparently have several facilities widely dispersed...)

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  Krishna @10.2    9 months ago

The Iranians have clearly stated that they no longer consider that any constraints on their nuclear programs are valid. They will go full speed ahead.

Trump has demonstrated that he will respect no rules, so why on earth should they?

They have seen how Kim can do pretty much whatever he wishes, and they're going to get the same status.

 
 
 
Texan1211
10.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.2.1    9 months ago
The Iranians have clearly stated that they no longer consider that any constraints on their nuclear programs are valid. They will go full speed ahead.

They may well have already started. The IAEA has had some trouble with getting information from them.

This might be nothing more than a useful excuse to justify their actions.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Texan1211 @10.2.2    9 months ago

It's a graven invitation to go full steam ahead, without the hassle of trying to hide anything.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
10.2.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @10.2.3    9 months ago

One would have to be pretty naive to think that using American moves as excuses was necessary for Iran to continue their development of nuclear bombs and missile delivery systems for them.  I think if one ever told Zarif that they believed Iran......

th?id=OIP.bO2SOzeKq1IyExFFUVT1xQHaD4&pid=Api&rs=1

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
10.2.5  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10.2.4    9 months ago

Don't bother to address me.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11  Nerm_L    9 months ago

The real question is if Iran finally started a war with the United States?  Iran has established proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.   Just because US soldiers, contractors, and diplomats are attacked by those proxies doesn't mean Iran's hands are clean.

Maybe the United States should have let Ukraine take care of it.  Isn't that why we are arming Ukraine as a proxy?

Yes, Trump has upset the proxy war apple cart.  Now the policy wonks, military brass, and politicians are on the front line.  The US can't depend upon proxies fighting and dying to protect 'important' people.  Let's see if the military and foreign policy strategists have the stomachs for war now that they can't hide behind proxies. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Nerm_L @11    9 months ago
"Iran has established proxies in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon."

...and Gaza and Yemen.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
12  Jeremy Retired in NC    9 months ago
Did Donald Trump Just Start A War With Iran?

In a nut shell, NO.

 
 
 
Krishna
12.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12    9 months ago
Did Donald Trump Just Start A War With Iran?
In a nut shell, NO.

Well... let's see what happens in the near future-- especially on January 11th or thereabouts  :-(

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
12.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Krishna @12.1    9 months ago

So what you are saying is you don't fully understand that the US did NOT attack Iran.

 
 
 
lib50
12.1.2  lib50  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @12.1.1    9 months ago

I didn't read that in Krishna's comment, where are you getting it?  (Rhetorical question, I already know).

 
 
 
It Is ME
13  It Is ME    9 months ago

"It triggered  immediate vows of retaliation  from Tehran"

NOT NEWS !

Tehran has been issuing those type threats for Decades !

"Did Donald Trump Just Start a War with Iran?"

Nope !

If one thinks we have never been in a "War" with Iran…..they forget that "Shadows" really do Exist. Just look down.....ONCE !

The " Shadow " knows ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Texan1211
JBB
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
GregTx
Tacos!
Dismayed Patriot
Snuffy
Gordy327
Greg Jones
r.t..b...

Ozzwald
CB
Save Me Jebus


49 visitors