Oh Good! A War With Iran!

[Gameface]

I didn't even get to vote on whether or not we were going to war. Wtf?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

I'm going to tell you right now that if the U.S. people were able to vote to go to war with Iraq in 2003 when it happened, it would have been very close to 90% saying go to war.

I don't care what people say now. They are reimagining who they were then.

I joined the Navy in 2000. I was in Navy technical school until mid 2002. I was stationed on a carrier in 2002 and we began to prepare for our 2003 deployment as soon as I got there. That deployment was going to happen with or without a war with Iraq. But we began to drill as though we were going to go to war with Iraq.

In early 2003 our ship's captain told us that if he had to guess he'd guess we were going to deploy and be engaged in a war with Iraq.

**** was at a fever pitch. Everyone still wanted blood for the 9/11 attack. Afghanistan was mostly won by Afghanis (the Northern Alliance). The U.S. hadn't properly kicked anyone's *** yet. Iraq was going to be the *** we kicked for 9/11 and the vast majority of Americans were enthusiastically for it. I remember, because I was going to deploy as part of the *** kicking mission. Our morale was high. We felt the massive support at home. We were ready to go kick some serious ***.

It wasn't even kind of up for debate in 2003. *** needed to be kicked and it was going to be kicked. Whos *** was secondary, if that. Iraq was 1000% good enough. America was bought-in.

People saying otherwise now have erased and rewritten their historical record. If they want to claim they were against it I want to see verifiable documentation, because they would be in the VERY VERY tiny minority, and unless they can prove it I call BULL ****.

 

[lauriandres]

Sanctions are the cowards weapons. They aren't more humane. They aren't more civilised. They are the most despicable. They target the weak and the innocent.

We need to end that strategy.

Just some thoughts-questions.

Aren't the weak and innocent also the voters who decide what kind of government they have? As i was only 4 years old when the hostage crisis happened - wasn't the Iranian goverment's (and therefore the voters) answer-approach something in a style "stupid americans, who forced you to have embassy in our country? Now pay the price"? Nobody forced the hostage takers to concentrate about guerilla warfare instead of learning science etc. Or had in theory Nixon or Reagan (when i was 18 then at high school even our history teacher said, that Carter was weak/unlucky) acted differently? A la "ajatollahs, you have 20 seconds to resolve the situation and we will be friends forever or else your curtains will be closed for you"?

At the same time (according the travellers from my country who have visited Iran) - Iran is a beautyful country to visit and its people in general are one of the most hospitable people ever. So that somehow complicates things; in theory the Iran should be prosperous and popular country with everybody - but for some reason the local people choose to elect persons who behave like they behave.

 

[Gameface]

Just some thoughts-questions.

Aren't the weak and innocent also the voters who decide what kind of government they have? As i was only 4 years old when the hostage crisis happened - wasn't the Iranian goverment's (and therefore the voters) answer-approach something in a style "stupid americans, who forced you to have embassy in our country? Now pay the price"? Nobody forced the hostage takers to concentrate about guerilla warfare instead of learning science etc. Or had in theory Nixon or Reagan (when i was 18 then at high school even our history teacher said, that Carter was weak/unlucky) acted differently? A la "ajatollahs, you have 20 seconds to resolve the situation and we will be friends forever or else your curtains will be closed for you"?

At the same time (according the travellers from my country who have visited Iran) - Iran is a beautyful country to visit and its people in general are one of the most hospitable people ever. So that somehow complicates things; in theory the Iran should be prosperous and popular country with everybody - but for some reason the local people choose to elect persons who behave like they behave.

How legit are the votes in Iran? I don't really know.

I'm probably about the same age as you if not a bit younger.

I was in the navy with a guy (U.S. citizen) who's family had come from Iran. He was one of the most laid back easy going guys I served with. Shortly after 9/11 we stood barracks watch together (neither of us lived in the barracks we were standing watch for overnight). He told me how sad his father was. His father was sad because he feared Iran would be blamed for the 9/11 attacks and that innocent Iranians would suffer because he knew the U.S. had to attack someone after being attacked like that.

I have no idea if he was relieved that we picked Iraq instead of Iran.

But war hurts the people in the military first, the people in charge of the military second and the people last. That's exactly the way it should be. Sanctions hurt the poorest, the most powerless and they almost never hurts the powerful in any sort of meaningful way in proportion to how much the poor suffer. Sanctions are war crimes against the most innocent. Actual war is a more brutal but far more honest and honorable way attack the people you want to hurt.

I think we should leave sanctions in the scrap heap of history as a failed experiment.

 

[fishonjazz]

I'm going to tell you right now that if the U.S. people were able to vote to go to war with Iraq in 2003 when it happened, it would have been very close to 90% saying go to war.

I don't care what people say now. They are reimagining who they were then.

I joined the Navy in 2000. I was in Navy technical school until mid 2002. I was stationed on a carrier in 2002 and we began to prepare for our 2003 deployment as soon as I got there. That deployment was going to happen with or without a war with Iraq. But we began to drill as though we were going to go to war with Iraq.

In early 2003 our ship's captain told us that if he had to guess he'd guess we were going to deploy and be engaged in a war with Iraq.

**** was at a fever pitch. Everyone still wanted blood for the 9/11 attack. Afghanistan was mostly won by Afghanis (the Northern Alliance). The U.S. hadn't properly kicked anyone's *** yet. Iraq was going to be the *** we kicked for 9/11 and the vast majority of Americans were enthusiastically for it. I remember, because I was going to deploy as part of the *** kicking mission. Our morale was high. We felt the massive support at home. We were ready to go kick some serious ***.

It wasn't even kind of up for debate in 2003. *** needed to be kicked and it was going to be kicked. Whos *** was secondary, if that. Iraq was 1000% good enough. America was bought-in.

People saying otherwise now have erased and rewritten their historical record. If they want to claim they were against it I want to see verifiable documentation, because they would be in the VERY VERY tiny minority, and unless they can prove it I call BULL ****.

I was just saying i never got to vote on it. I didnt even know that in order to go to war it has to be voted on first.


Sent from my iPad using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Red]

I'm going to tell you right now that if the U.S. people were able to vote to go to war with Iraq in 2003 when it happened, it would have been very close to 90% saying go to war.

People saying otherwise now have erased and rewritten their historical record. If they want to claim they were against it I want to see verifiable documentation, because they would be in the VERY VERY tiny minority, and unless they can prove it I call BULL ****.

Well, then I must have been in your hypothetical 10%, although I think the number was larger. Saddam was keeping at bay the disparate and competing elements in Iraqi society, like Sunni vs. Shia. My belief at the time is that surely our leaders had to know that if you suddenly remove the power keeping the disparate groups from each other's throats, then the result would be chaos. The result would not be people lining the streets to cheer and welcome their "liberators". The result would be increased civil disorder. Saddam might have been brutal and evil, but he kept the country under his thumb. Remove that, and you're opening floodgates. Well, our leaders did not know that. Apparently. And I could not believe everyone did not understand that would be the result. In fact, I would say to myself, "how the hell can a nobody like me anticipate this, and people like Rumsfeld could not see it coming?" Call it BULL**** if you want, but it was obvious to me at the time.

 

[Red]

My belief at the time is that surely our leaders had to know that if you suddenly remove the power keeping the disparate groups from each other's throats, then the result would be chaos.

I remember even comparing the situation to the so-called "butterfly effect" in chaos theory. If a butterfly flaps its wings on one side of the world, eventually the effects of that decision will be felt on the other side of the world. And it is impossible to predict with any precision, what effect such a seemingly inconsequential decision will engender. The butterfly effect, as my non-physics savvy mind understood it, is a way of saying everything in the world is interconnected. You can't change one thing without it affecting everything in the long run. So I saw that the removal of Saddam would not inevitably lead to American forces being showered with flowers as they marched down the street, as Rumsfeld predicted. Instead, we could not possibly control what the outcome of his removal would trigger. It was not a simple equation, the way Rumsfeld made it sound. Far more likely would be a situation where things spun out of any control.

 

[One Brow]

So there isn't a possibility of a miscalculation based on miscommunication with perhaps unknown talks with another power? Or is it only communication with Americans that cause such miscalculation?

I'm not sure who else Hussein would have worried about intervening back in 1990.

 

[One Brow]

Good ****ing hell there is a difference between being WRONG and LYING you stupid ****ers cannot get through your ****ing thick skulls.

A third option is that of being convinced of a result, and examining all the evidence in a manner to support your conviction.

 

[LogGrad98]

A third option is that of being convinced of a result, and examining all the evidence in a manner to support your conviction.

That actually isn't a third option, it's a different version of being wrong.

 

[One Brow]

That actually isn't a third option, it's a different version of being wrong.

Following your bias is different from simply being wrong.

 

[LogGrad98]

Following your bias is different from simply being wrong.

But everyone has biases that unconsciously influence their decisions every day. If they are consciously following those biases and fabricating evidence to support it then yes, that's different. Otherwise it's just being wrong.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

The proper action to take is to understand what they hope to gain by giving the U.S. justification for a military strike.

The idea you put forward, that they are irrational and that their religion inclines them to national suicide is incorrect. Try again.

That's my question as well. It's been eerily quiet since Trump got elected. No missiles from N. Korea over Japan, no Russia into Crimea type stuff, haven't heard anything about China and disputed territories, ISIS is defeated and Syria is relatively quiet... why is Iran doing this now?

I don't see why you are writing off a suicidal nation so quickly. What are Iran's alternatives? A person with nothing to lose... desperate people will... sanctions are crippling Iran and the recent suspension of waivers tightened it up even more. Their alternative is to play nice with Trump and give up nukes. Apparently they decided testing the waters was worth the risk.

 

[One Brow]

why is Iran doing this now?

Is Iran doing this now?

... sanctions are crippling Iran and the recent suspension of waivers tightened it up even more.

Sanctions weren't rippling Iran before the nuclear agreement, and with the treaty meaning many of our previous sanction partners are no longer applying sanctions, this is even less true now.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Is Iran doing this now?



Sanctions weren't rippling Iran before the nuclear agreement, and with the treaty meaning many of our previous sanction partners are no longer applying sanctions, this is even less true now.

First I've read that. Where are you getting this? My source is the IMF.

 

[One Brow]

First I've read that. Where are you getting this? My source is the IMF.

A lot of people are saying this, but I have trouble seeing the cause-and-effect here. If sanctions are hurting Iran so badly this time, why were they so ineffective the first time? How do we know Iran's economic troubles aren't just another economic swing?

 

[JazzGal]

It wasn't even kind of up for debate in 2003. *** needed to be kicked and it was going to be kicked. Whos *** was secondary, if that. Iraq was 1000% good enough. America was bought-in.

People saying otherwise now have erased and rewritten their historical record. If they want to claim they were against it I want to see verifiable documentation, because they would be in the VERY VERY tiny minority, and unless they can prove it I call BULL ****.

I didn't know enough about the Middle East at the time to know any different, so I believed the government had the necessary intel to know what they are doing. I was naïve, obviously. My best friend at the time was totally opposed to the war, and I remember that my main argument was that they must know what they are doing. She insisted that we were making a terrible mistake. As I recall, she was the only one I knew who believed that.

I had seen the movie "Black Hawk Down" in 2001, I think, and I understood that we had made a mistake thinking we could fix Somalia because we didn't understand tribal issues, and I do recall wondering if Iraq was similar. But I still trusted Bush and company.

 

[One Brow]

Some of the atheist/skeptical blogs I read (Pharyngula, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, etc.) felt the evidence Secretary Powell presented was unconvincing. They couldn't say with certainty that the war was unjustified, but they did say they hadn't seen a justification.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

A lot of people are saying this, but I have trouble seeing the cause-and-effect here. If sanctions are hurting Iran so badly this time, why were they so ineffective the first time? How do we know Iran's economic troubles aren't just another economic swing?

I'm not sure you aren't trolling here...

Why do you think Obama's sanctions didn't do anything? How is the cause and effect of going from 2.8 mmbpd exports to about one million not obvious?

They are clearly hurting Iran. If you want to talk about effectiveness i.e. regime change, well, I don't know that they'll ever do much in that regard. It seems the opposite outcome happens with deeper entrenched regimes lasting what seems like forever. Kim's, Castros, Iran, those people all seem to have rallied around their flags (and thus regimes) from external pressure in the form of economic sanctions.

 

[One Brow]

I'm not sure you aren't trolling here...

Why do you think Obama's sanctions didn't do anything? How is the cause and effect of going from 2.8 mmbpd exports to about one million not obvious?

Most of the news reports seem to be repeating what the government says, so I'm not sure how reliable they are.

How many years was Iran under sanctions before the nuclear deal? While I am sure Iran was glad to relieve sanctions, was that really the main impetus for their agreeing to the treaty? Trump's sanctions seem to have a number of exceptions, so wouldn't they be even less effective on hurting the economy?

 

[Red]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...ed-out-troops-middle-east-uranium-tehran.html

"The Trump administration, already suffering from a serious credibility deficit with allies, is now in the awkward position of demanding that Tehran comply with an agreement the American president has not only derided, but pulled out of! “Administration officials found themselves Monday grappling with whether to press the remaining parties to the deal, including Britain, France and Germany, to demand that Iran stay in compliance,” the Associated Press reports. “They must also consider if such a stance would essentially concede that the restrictions imposed during the Obama administration, while short of ideal, are better than none.”

It’s almost like the previous administration weighed up the pros and cons and made a decision in the best strategic interest of the country. That feeling you have right now is nostalgia for competence."