100 Marines to Baghdad (Iran conflict discussion)(Reopened & Merged) (1 Viewer)

[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.

 

[brandon]

Iran supposedly has made a threat to attack inside the US if we respond to the missile attack.

CNN reporting Trump preparing to address the nation.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

NBC Tehran Bureau Chief

 

[Nebaghead]

He is making ads about his attack now.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ing-hundreds-of-facebook-ads-praising-himself

 

[efil4]

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.

Basically same. They are playing several angles here. Backing him into a corner with his own words. Placating thier own people in Iran with swift and concise response.
Ball is his court 100% now. What he does next determines a lot. I don't know what to think he will do, so I will avoid temptation to assume.
But I'm squarely with you on the last part. I hope those around him can reign in his penchant to feed his ego.

They have to.

 

[Heathen]

No.. Your defending Iran... Because you don;t like Trump, Can;t admit that something should have been done... They can;t just keep attacking shipping, shooting down drone and sending missles at US bases can they?

Don't know who this was directed at but I criticize any US president who's policies in the ME are hawkish (nearly every modern one, btw).

It isn't a perfect science, and there's plenty of contextual information. I'm not dismissing that. But I'm not inconsistent in my criticisms.

 

[samiam5211]

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.

I am hoping that our soldiers know better who to trust than we do and do not automatically assume someone they trust is an enemy based on their nationality.

 

[efil4]

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.

His unrestrained response for killing a US DoD contractor?

That's what it was. When you kill a general outside the battle arena, it's an assassination. So if it makes you feel better not calling it so, so be it.

You are quite cavalier about tossing "ordinance down range". As a veteran of GW1, I take that post quite disrespectful to all the men and women that put themselves in harms way on the orders of someone who has never been in that position.
Cute terminology but you better be prepared for the repercussions of doing so.

Trump has an opening here for diplomacy. Let's see if he takes it.

 

[Heathen]

Tell that to NO Bronco and Ward... Maybe they will believe you.




So... The attacks on Shipping in the Straight of Hormuz, The Shooting down of a US Drone, and a Rocket attack on a US base that kills an American and wounds other Americans should all just go by the wayside without any repercussions at all?

Doesn't look like Trump doing it just for political purposes to me. In fact.. This was why he was voted in to begin with. A stronger hand at Foreign policy.

We got a good look at Hillary's Foreign Policy At Benghazi and when Russia took over the Crimea from Ukraine.

There are acts of aggression that must be met with strength and repercussion. There are also discussions of our overall foreign policy being drastically and destructively over the top. So I fall into the Camp of reducing our foreign influence and making a stronger nation here. I don't trust that our military at the top level isn't like every other large corporation - - prone to greed and sickening corruption.

There will always be the 'you don't understand foreign policy' folks who shoot down ideas like us not having the right to unilaterally bomb cities, aid in killing civilians (much more than pose a threat to us) etc. I have to sit back and wonder how many times the goalposts moved. Look.. I have a problem with the war machine, not those who believe in fighting for the right thing. Let's make that clear.

Bottom line is that Trump ran on one thing and then did the opposite. I believe in judging a leader based on their track record. His, like many, flops when the rubber meets the road. Can you not admit that?

So to answer your question, it depends.. But Repubs and Dems alike for too long have supported a machine that has kept us at war for 20 damn years. That whole rationale needs a paradigm shift. I hope many vote accordingly.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Mixed feelings.

On the one hand America and the world is safer without Trump on TV overcompensaing for his lifelong cowardice and saying a bunch of dumb shirt he will once again think he has to back up. Inching us closer to the event horizon of protracted conflict where no one can deescalate.

On the other, the president has escalated us into direct conflict that has resulted in a retaliation by that sovereign country and he is refusing to address the nation.

 

[samiam5211]

Power and strength are not the same thing.

Many weak kings have used great power to try to get everything they want.

Strength is only using power when it is truly needed.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I've said often that among my many problems with Trump, one of the biggest is he's a very weak man, and times like this are not a time for weak people.

 

[Beach Friends]

You are quite cavalier about tossing "ordinance down range". As a veteran of GW1, I take that post quite disrespectful to all the men and women that put themselves in harms way

Well, you can be personally offended if you like - but it's damn sure not like you have any greater right than I to determine what's disrespectful to our military. I think it would be disrespectful, but more importantly it would be imprudent, not to respond to the loss of American lives like I suggested. But, that's my personal opinion and I don't pretend to speak for our troops just because I am a vet.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Well, you can personally offended if you like - but it's damn sure not like you have any greater right than I to determine what's disrespectful to our military. I think it would be disrespectful, but more importantly it would be imprudent, not to respond to the loss of American lives like I suggested. But, that's my personal opinion and I don't pretend to speak for our troops just because I am a vet.

That’s rich, get incredulous and tell the veteran to take a hike so you can cheer on putting his fellow soldiers at risk to satiate your seemingly never ending bloodlust built on a clear human apathy and extreme jingoism.

 

[brandon]

On the other, the president has escalated us into direct conflict that has resulted in a retaliation by that sovereign country and he is refusing to address the nation.

Yea, I agree with both points. On one hand, we don’t need him talking. On the other hand, he’s coming across pretty weak by not responding at all after we’ve been attacked.

 

[First Time Poster]

Yea, I agree with both points. On one hand, we don’t need him talking. On the other hand, he’s coming across pretty weak by not responding at all after we’ve been attacked.

Put me in the camp that is hopeful that he just shuts the eff up until he has something productive to say. If my mom dies, would I like my dad to say a few words? Sure. But, if he is a struggling alcoholic with a propensity for histrionics? Ehh...

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Put me in the camp that is hopeful that he just shuts the eff up until he has something productive to say. If my mom dies, would I like my dad to say a few words? Sure. But, if he is a struggling alcoholic with a propensity for histrionics? Ehh...

Unfortunately, he has already made statements promising retaliation and a low threshold at that, and has Fox News talking about how we need to retaliate to look strong. Hannity talking up how we are going to hit them with fire and fury unlike any you have ever seen....The guy Fox News insiders said basically has a desk as the shadow bureau chief for the administration and speaks to Trump several times a week.

 

[FullMonte]

You wanted Trump to do something different, he did, he decided to tear up the nuclear agreement that had stalled out Iran’s push for a nuclear weapon, kept a tight inspection regime in place to ensure adherence, and been deescalating tensions in the region. Under the guise that a little strength now would produce an even better result sooner rather than later.

What did many of us ask you all? What happens if Iran doesn’t capitulate? What if they push back? And guess what? They pushed back.

We see what the early response is from Trtumpers, push harder! With seemingly no exit strategy if Iran doesn’t magically start doing the things you all seem so certain they will. As that undergirds all of this, as it undergirded the the Iran nuclear deal, and Saddam two decades ago.

But I ask you and the rest of the conservatives cheering on Trump, at what point will you demand dovishness? Because the logical endgame of this if Iran doesn’t adhere to your magical thinking is protracted war. And if you don’t have an answer to that question it is simply inseparable at this point that you all are the backbone of blindly pushing our country into another one.

More importantly..as Rand Paul pointed out...up until two weeks ago, there were moderates in the Iranian government who were willing to talk to the US, who were interested in moving towards a more westernized way of life.....now, that's gone....a diplomatic solution is basically ipos

 

[samiam5211]

We need to tell Iran that we will be removing our personnel from Iraq within the next six months, and and any attack against them in Iraq during that time would result in devastating strikes on all military targets inside Iran. Whether it was from a known proxy group of a supposed goat farmer in a village, Iran would be held responsible.

Then we get them all out as soon as we’ve made sure nothing left behind compromises our security. Sooner rather then later.

Then the UN can deal with any geopolitical issues that are left like they are supposed to do.

We can continue to punish Iran economically. They can’t attack our soldiers if they are not there, and our continued presence in Iraq probably isn’t a net gain anyway.

Let’s not be victims of the sunk cost fallacy.