100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

We’re gonna try to stay on point in this one - .

After the Iranian admission of shooting down the Ukrainian 737, which was carrying 82 Iranian passengers, protests against the Supreme Leader have broken out.

The UK ambassador to Iran has been arrested for talking photos of the protests. President Trump has tweeted support for the protesters in English and Farsi.

 

[samiam5211]

No, we can't afford to act like you would have us act - way too weak.

In the past 100 years the Republicans have went from carrying a big stick to bombing people to prove how big their hands are.

 

[Beach Friends]

Convenient how you 60 year old hawks aren’t the ones who will have to spill blood for your geopolitical ignorance, bloodlust, and grotesque jingoism. Led to this point by a draft dodger and lifelong coward.

How many civilians do you think die in your scenario? Honestly, do you even consider it?....Any service member that dies from this ignorant Trump created escalation is on his hands. And by extension his followers that continue to demonstrate they are incapable of learning the lessons of our recent history and only need the slightest justification to catapult us into bloodshed and war.

Hey, I have been there and done that. And I was glad to have the support of the nation.

So, you can wrap your Trump hate and fear up however you want to, I am not impressed in the least.

 

[DR Hook]

Take a moment to think how absolutely crazy it is to be reliant upon Iranian calculation and restraint(yes, Iranian restraint) to avoid an American induced escalation against the strongest power America Has picked a fight with in a generation because our president couldn’t allow the black man he hated to keep his legacy.That the Iranian’s were upholding and was serving as a deescalatory pillar in the region? That his own military warned him would lead to this?

Forcing us to further abandon our efforts to combat Isis in the region in order to focus our resources on this self-induced escalatory crisis? Cascading the fallout that much more.

They started the lastest round of tit for tat. They allowed their proxies (likely directed) to attack and kill a U.S. citizen. We retailiated by havinf some F-15's bomb their proxy's bases. They then slowed/directed an attack on SOVERIEGN U.S. territory. We then took out their general that controlled all of the foreign proxies and has been on the list of terrorists since 2005. They now launch ballistic and cruise missiles from within Iran against a U.S. base in Iraq. Now you want to make this a racist event? bullshirt!

 

[N.O.Bronco]

They are showing restraint because they don't want to be bombed into glass. If they thought they could win they would have hit us hard and where it hurts. I don't think Trump should have acted without telling Iraq or congress before but I think the action was the right one. And all accounts are that Iran was involved with Isis anyway. So it is fighting the same war just on a bigger stage.

For such a short response there is a lot to unpack here.

1.) Iran involved with Isis? Iran is Shia, ISIS Sunni, it is a schism as old as time. Soleimani‘s militias were a major reason Isis was pushed out of Iraq, which we had found common cause in Iraq and were able to largely defeat them. Something now at risk because America has had to abandon their fights with Isis to focus on this self-induced crisis and long-term risks getting kicked out of the country and inspiring a new generation of terrorists If this escalates to a more direct conflict.

2.) Why was it the right move? What strategic goal did it achieve for America? America is less safe today than it was yesterday, Iran’s capabilities by all expert accounts is not going to be significantly weakened. The regime’s legitimacy has only strengthened internally and our legitimacy weakened in the eyes of the world. This has not deterred conflict, it has not incentivized Iran to the negotiating table, it has not strengthened our allies allegiance to us, it has not improved our military position and legitimacy. What made this the right move?

3.) Glass them? Are you aware how insane either that either makes us for killing 80 million people and calls into question your judgement in thinking that would be the president’s response if Iran slightly miscalculates?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

No, we can't afford to act like you would have us act - way too weak.

How many more wars that bog America down, drain trillions of treasure, sow discontent amongst military and civilian alike, breed fresh generations of terrorists, and weaken our hegemony will it take for you all to realize the chasing of these neocon fantasies and the fetishizing of strong men rhetoric/thinking doesn’t actually help strengthen our country?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

They started the lastest round of tit for tat. They allowed their proxies (likely directed) to attack and kill a U.S. citizen. We retailiated by havinf some F-15's bomb their proxy's bases. They then slowed/directed an attack on SOVERIEGN U.S. territory. We then took out their general that controlled all of the foreign proxies and has been on the list of terrorists since 2005. They now launch ballistic and cruise missiles from within Iran against a U.S. base in Iraq. Now you want to make this a racist event? bullshirt!

Latest round? The escalation began when America, without just cause, unilaterally abandoned a working non-proliferation agreement and began imposing draconian sanctions that included denying the import of life-saving drugs to the citizens of Iran. How many Iranians do you think died as a result of our unjustified sanctions? There are other ways to commit evil. One way is to force the citizens of a country under rule you set in motion to suffer and die because you abandon an agreement that your own advisors said was reducing that regime’s threat level and improving regional stability.

....But if we really want to play this game of original sin, we ultimately just get back to this:

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DR Hook]

You mean that JOKE of an agreement that Obama had to sign as a Presidential order because he couldn't get support from within his own party that controlled the Senate at the time? The same JOKE that gave Iran BILLIONS to spend in support of their proxy terrorists. Give me a break.

 

[MotorCityMod]

For such a short response there is a lot to unpack here.

1.) Iran involved with Isis? Iran is Shia, ISIS Sunni, it is a schism as old as time. Soleimani‘s militias were a major reason Isis was pushed out of Iraq, which we had found common cause in Iraq and were able to largely defeat them. Something now at risk because America has had to abandon their fights with Isis to focus on this self-induced crisis and long-term risks getting kicked out of the country and inspiring a new generation of terrorists If this escalates to a more direct conflict.

2.) Why was it the right move? What strategic goal did it achieve for America? America is less safe today than it was yesterday, Iran’s capabilities by all expert accounts is not going to be significantly weakened. The regime’s legitimacy has only strengthened internally and our legitimacy weakened in the eyes of the world. This has not deterred conflict, it has not incentivized Iran to the negotiating table, it has not strengthened our allies allegiance to us, it has not improved our military position and legitimacy. What made this the right move?

3.) Glass them? Are you aware how insane either that either makes us for killing 80 million people and calls into question your judgement in thinking that would be the president’s response if Iran slightly miscalculates?

Every one I've heard agrees this guy was bad news. Mark Warner was saying that on the Sunday morning shows. He was a problem and needed to be dealt with. And Iran had a vested interest in keeping other parts of the middle East destabilized. So yeah. They probably were helping in Syria and Iraq to keep them at war and to keep Isis out of Iran. And I wasn't saying we should glass them. You made a huge leap there. But do you think this president wouldn't consider it? And do you think Iran thinks he would consider it? I do on both counts. And think that is why they hit where they did. To look tough but not call down the thunder.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

You mean that JOKE of an agreement that Obama had to sign as a Presidential order because he couldn't get support from within his own party that controlled the Senate at the time? The same JOKE that gave Iran BILLIONS to spend in support of their proxy terrorists. Give me a break.

Yes, the agreement that put a lid on Iranian nuclear activity and reduced tension in the region. Left open the legitimacy of concurrent sanctions to reduce and nudge the Iranians with a working diplomatic channel to continue choosing economic growth and deescalation of real politick and fractionalism.

But it’s almost like we arent in 2020 with comments like this? Like we are still in 2016 when arguments like that could be contorted to make sense If you ignored certain undercurrents and context, engaged in wishful thinking yet sullied by reality.

What has happened under the Trump policy? Iran has continued and even emboldened their terrorist activities since the unilateral abandonment, Iran has began to accelerate their enrichment, Americans have died, our self-induced escalation has forced us from being able to focus on anything else in the region, possibly significantly conceding major regional influence to Iran as we poison our relationships with key allies like Iraq, and the regime has not weakened, in fact, by assassinating a respected leader, may have strengthened and helped legitimize them.

...All the things critics like us warned mind you. Because we managed to learn the right lessons of history.

 

[Dadsdream]

Before we all jump off the deep end on this, let's pause a moment and consider some facts.

Iran is roughly four times the size of Iraq with roughly twice the population.

Superimposed on the US, Iran would stretch from Chicago to Dallas, and Mobile to Denver.

Attacking and trying to occupy Iran would be a completely, incredibly stupid move.

Let us pray . . . amen.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Every one I've heard agrees this guy was bad news. Mark Warner was saying that on the Sunday morning shows. He was a problem and needed to be dealt with. And Iran had a vested interest in keeping other parts of the middle East destabilized. So yeah. They probably were helping in Syria and Iraq to keep them at war and to keep Isis out of Iran. And I wasn't saying we should glass them. You made a huge leap there. But do you think this president wouldn't consider it? And do you think Iran thinks he would consider it? I do on both counts. And think that is why they hit where they did. To look tough but not call down the thunder.

I think he is about the closest thing to an irrational actor on the world stage we have ever had, so yes, I don’t rule out a completely idiotic maneuver. Which further begs the question why anyone would support this sort of behavior that has such a risk of miscalculation that can lead to so many deaths?

As to him being bad news. That was literally the most common defense of invading Iraq. Saddam was a bad guy, deserved to die, he was bad news folks! But like that reckless act, what did it ACTUALLY achieve? I doubt anyone can say it was a net positive.

What has killing Soleimani achieved? It hasn’t weakened the regime, it hasn’t deterred Iran, it hasn’t weakened their network, it hasn’t improved American security, it hasn’t improved the chances of a broader peace deal, it hasn’t endeared us to allies, it hasn’t strengthened our hegemony. Heck, you even think its very possible this could lead to 80 million dead with miscalculation on Iran’s part. By your own argument this was one of the most foolish acts I could think of. I mean I think Putin, Xi, Un and many of their senior officials deserve death, but it would be utterly idiotic to assassinate them. Because it is only a paradox. A self-inflicting act. As it simply makes all the things you claim to want to improve worse. Which is what more rational presidents like Bush(crazy to say) and Obama realized.

 

[efil4]

So here we go.

Now what is the response? Trump is now backed into a corner. His assassination precipitated this and now he has to decide if this makes the sides even or do we retaliate in kind? (do we strike back "strongly" and devastatingly)

How he responds will determine how this plays out. Reservation?

 

[samiam5211]

You mean that JOKE of an agreement that Obama had to sign as a Presidential order because he couldn't get support from within his own party that controlled the Senate at the time? The same JOKE that gave Iran BILLIONS to spend in support of their proxy terrorists. Give me a break.

The Iran deal gave us 10 years of wearing them down economically and politically through proxy wars before we reevaluated the nuclear deal.

Trump began the current cycle of escalation which has gotten us to this point when he pulled out of the deal.

Iran is responsible for the deaths they caused today, but the cycle of escalation that led us here is entirely Trump’s and his supporters’ responsibility. There is plenty of blood left over after covering the hands of lran’s leaders to cover Trump’s tiny hands.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Before we all jump off the deep end on this, let's pause a moment and consider some facts.

Iran is roughly four times the size of Iraq with roughly twice the population.

Superimposed on the US, Iran would stretch from Chicago to Dallas, and Mobile to Denver.

Attacking and trying to occupy Iran would be a completely, incredibly stupid move.

Let us pray . . . amen.

Assuming this isn’t sarcasm I can’t sense, this is amongst the wisest posts I think you have ever made. Their army and capabilities are also far superior to Iraqs, their geographical terrain much harder to navigate. It would be the bloodiest conflict since Vietnam.

We fought A LOT about the legitimacy of the actions of the Bush administration, we clearly don’t really like one another, but it is comforting that maybe the fatigue of two decades or war, the deep down concern by some of Trumps supporters, which can maybe help our country from idiotically fumbling his ego into a war neither side clearly wants.

 

[efil4]

Every one I've heard agrees this guy was bad news. Mark Warner was saying that on the Sunday morning shows. He was a problem and needed to be dealt with. And Iran had a vested interest in keeping other parts of the middle East destabilized. So yeah. They probably were helping in Syria and Iraq to keep them at war and to keep Isis out of Iran. And I wasn't saying we should glass them. You made a huge leap there. But do you think this president wouldn't consider it? And do you think Iran thinks he would consider it? I do on both counts. And think that is why they hit where they did. To look tough but not call down the thunder.

These were ballistic missiles... Not katyusha 20mm Rockets.
They still don't have the capability of pinpoint accuracy, but much better than a Scud, which was more fearful due to no one knowing just where that missile would land.

This was bait. Curious to see if Trump takes it.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

These were ballistic missiles... Not katyusha 20mm Rockets.
They still don't have the capability of pinpoint accuracy, but much better than a Scud, which was more fearful due to no one knowing just where that missile would land.

This was bait. Curious to see if Trump takes it.

I honestly don’t think it is bait so much as a stalking horse or first volley.

Frankly, the suddenness and boldness worries me.

The lack of clear signaling between both sides has only increased the margin for miscalculation.

And with Trump already priming the pump of his ego proclaiming he will meet every act of force with force, and the way he sees himself as weak by not projecting strength, no matter if that projection actually weakens him, I am actually more worried today than I was when I said no way this is a Franz Ferdinand moment a couple days ago.

This country really needs to get back to not treating crassness of complexity, experience, and ignorance of the job as a virtue. We put an emotionally stunted reality TV star, with no base of knowledge or competency about the world except through propaganda that feeds his baser instincts, the keys to the most powerful hegemony the world has ever known, with the capacity to kill the planet several times over.

The insanity of that can not be understated.

 

[reubenray]

I am hoping our men over there are not trusting any Iraq soldiers that are on the base with them. I especially would not trust any Iraq soldiers that are guarding our Embassy.

 

[Beach Friends]

So here we go.

Now what is the response? Trump is now backed into a corner. His assassination precipitated this and now he has to decide if this makes the sides even or do we retaliate in kind? (do we strike back "strongly" and devastatingly)

How he responds will determine how this plays out. Reservation?

Have fun calling it an "assassination" if that flips your skirt, I think killing the man who was actually responsible for attacks on American soldiers was more justified than killing the cleaning staff at some site inside Iran.

Trump has shown restraint- but at some point we have to respond. Now, I would be glad if the Iranian missiles being fired clearly fall outside the bases they are "targeting."

But, if they have killed American troops I think it's time for us to some ordinance down range.