What's new
By:
Filters

Oh Good! A War With Iran!

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

You understand are bringing the skepticism of a quack author here? It's kinda funny having you sound like @Eenie-Meenie or @babe has hacked your account. Careful, they might fall in love reading this from you

Do you have any reason to not believe something that is universally accepted, and for solid reasons? Claiming the sanctions aren't working now or haven't in the past is simply absurdity.


One Brow said:
Is Iran doing this now?
Click to expand...

I'm not taking the current words from a fanatical religious country over the US intelligence agencies. Iran threatened to do this.

“America should know that we are selling our oil and will continue to sell our oil and they are not able to stop our oil exports. If one day they want to prevent the export of Iran’s oil, then no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf,”. -President Rouhani


One Brow said:
How many years was Iran under sanctions before the nuclear deal?
Click to expand...

Since 1979. Sanction isn't a blanket term. Sanctions are not all equal. Obama's were draconian. Trump's moreso.

One Brow said:
While I am sure Iran was glad to relieve sanctions, was that really the main impetus for their agreeing to the treaty?
Click to expand...

The ability to refine uranium on their own soil, getting them closer to their goal of having warheads within ten years.

One Brow said:
Trump's sanctions seem to have a number of exceptions, so wouldn't they be even less effective on hurting the economy?
Click to expand...

For this question to have merit, the humanitarian exceptions and oil export exceptions would have to allow a large enough amount of trade to render the loss of 1.8 mmbpd, or 65% of all oil exports, a drop in the bucket. They aren't.

Plus, Trump did not renew the waivers China and other countries were importing Iranian oil under. That was on April 22 and exports are set to drop even further. These attacks followed, just as Iran threatened. For context on why now: Oil exports in March: 1.86 mmbpd. Oil exports in April: 938 kbpd. Even China went along with the waivers expiring by dropping imports by over 1/2 m-o-m.


One Brow said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting on where you are getting this. You don't normally make strong claims without good reason so I went searching. I found nothing.

Here's some light reading on the effects: https://www.google.com/amp/s/en.radiofarda.com/amp/29901117.html
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
You understand are bringing the skepticism of a quack author here? It's kinda funny having you sound like @Eenie-Meenie or @babe has hacked your account. Careful, they might fall in love reading this from you

Do you have any reason to not believe something that is universally accepted, and for solid reasons? Claiming the sanctions aren't working now or haven't in the past is simply absurdity.




I'm not taking the current words from a fanatical religious country over the US intelligence agencies. Iran threatened to do this.

“America should know that we are selling our oil and will continue to sell our oil and they are not able to stop our oil exports. If one day they want to prevent the export of Iran’s oil, then no oil will be exported from the Persian Gulf,”. -President Rouhani

Not sure of your position because it's out of context. So you are putting the onus for the problem on Iran? If you are, I think you ought to go back into history, and learn about when our CIA led a coup that toppled their democratically-elected leader, Moseddegn and replaced him with the Shah in 1953, to maintain our geopolitical control of international oil sales. We've been trying to overthrow the current government for many years. You know about the Jerry Sterling, whistleblower case. Look it up. It's very pertinent to what's happening now.



Since 1979. Sanction isn't a blanket term. Sanctions are not all equal. Obama's were draconian. Trump's moreso.



The ability to refine uranium on their own soil, getting them closer to their goal of having warheads within ten years.



For this question to have merit, the humanitarian exceptions and oil export exceptions would have to allow a large enough amount of trade to render the loss of 1.8 mmbpd, or 65% of all oil exports, a drop in the bucket. They aren't.

Plus, Trump did not renew the waivers China and other countries were importing Iranian oil under. That was on April 22 and exports are set to drop even further. These attacks followed, just as Iran threatened. For context on why now: Oil exports in March: 1.86 mmbpd. Oil exports in April: 938 kbpd. Even China went along with the waivers expiring by dropping imports by over 1/2 m-o-m.




I'm still waiting on where you are getting this. You don't normally make strong claims without good reason so I went searching. I found nothing.

Here's some light reading on the effects: https://www.google.com/amp/s/en.radiofarda.com/amp/29901117.html
Click to expand...
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
You understand are bringing the skepticism of a quack author here? It's kinda funny having you sound like @Eenie-Meenie or @babe has hacked your account. Careful, they might fall in love reading this from you
Click to expand...

As convenient as that would be, it's unlikely.

Thank you for the lesson. I only had one objection.

idestroyedthetoilet said:
The ability to refine uranium on their own soil, getting them closer to their goal of having warheads within ten years.
Click to expand...

To my recollection, they were refining uranium before the treaty. In fact, didn't we attack their centrifuges via virus for just that reason?
 
Stoked said:
Ugh...

What are the odds we just employ “lethal deterrence” instead of active war? Basically Iran, you do you. Come and go and talk to who you please. But come near our stuff and your units die. harass any ship, planes or tankers and the offending Iranian units die.
Click to expand...
Slim. I wouldn't be surprised for Trump to wage his own full on war. It's the only thing as president he can do that he hasn't really done yet, his last toy to play with so to speak.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Slim. I wouldn't be surprised for Trump to wage his own full on war. It's the only thing as president he can do that he hasn't really done yet, his last toy to play with so to speak.
Click to expand...

From what I’ve read he doesn’t want war but his advisors, Bolton specifically, do.
 
I've counted some Iranians as friends since 1968. I don't talk to them much, or often, but here's the gist..... Back in the day, the Shah had more "intelligence agents" here in the US than real students or green card legal honest folks, just watching out for disloyalty or revolution.... commies, let's say.

Since the Ayatollah/Nazi ideologues....the remnants of Hitler's agents in Iran during WWII.... took over..... well, let's say, it turned out the "commies" the Shah was worried about weren't real commies at all. Some were tools of US intelligence special units, little different, really, from Russia's "tools of KGB intelligence". Agitators seeking little angles of control and influence in an independent country..... Machiavellian schemers.....

Nobody can claim to run Iran today. The so-called "religious fanatics" of the Iranian government are Western educated, and know all about western intrigue, Russian intrigue, and Chinese intrigue. They simply believe they have the right to have their independence, and their own foreign policy like other "Big Shots" with the power and tools it takes to be independent.

They still believe Jews.... international banker Jews in particular..... are as much the problem with the world, as Hitler ever did.

Israeli government officials believe they are that bad.

Russia's "meddling" in Iran and the Middle East is not all the bad we could imagine. Russia has a fairly positive view of Israel, and uses their influence to intimidate/control the Iranian racists. Assad was not nearly the bad in Syria that our Press makes him out to be, either. Assad protected the 25% of his people who were Christian, and who were essential to his power base.

What went wrong was our idiot President Obama, and Hitler Hillary.... and yes, she is not a democrat by any stretch.... she is R for Rockefeller, the most deranged Secretary of State we ever had. Obama and Hillary contrived to help ISIS get up and running, made arms available.... cash flow available. Without Obama and Hillary, ISIS would never have happened, and would not have prospered, nor lasted. Obama tried to "buy Iran" with billions in outright cash for terrorism, and with a deal that would have in fact enabled Iranian nuclear development. But Iran is smarter than Obama, and never would have become a "good boy" in the New World Order, compliant with Western or any other kind of agenda.

Iranian leaders might be smarter than Trump, too. Genocidal genius generally won't seek alliance. The only thing that will really help Iran is general world sympathy for the majority of peon Iranians, generous asylum rules, and humanitarian aid that does not feed the monster government.

And really, really serious anti-terrorism and punishment of Iranian allies/tools around the world. The serious attack should be on the ideological terrorists where ever they are. The best we can hope for is that the old guard will be so miserably and so catastrophically failed, nobody will want to try to continue their hate-based world view.

So, Trump, don't be a jackass. Shock and Awe military adventurism is stupid here.
 
Call me crazy, but Our incoherent foreign policy seems to be the result of having an incompetent CinC. But I know that can’t be it...

What exactly are we trying to accomplish with Iran again?
 
Zombie said:
Yeah, OK sure, but this this time it'll be different. There's no way this could blow up in our faces and create decades of unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

You’re wrong. Isis was created by Hillary cuz Benghazi she planned to take out the ambassador because he was going to reveal that she was secretly selling arms to terrorists in Libya. Also, uranium one. Those two things created isis. The Iraqi invasion brought freedumb to Iraqis and freedumb fries to America.
 
One Brow said:
A third option is that of being convinced of a result, and examining all the evidence in a manner to support your conviction.
Click to expand...

It was widely reported that George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) was pressured by Bush to find intelligence for Iraqi WMDs. That unique bias skewed the intelligence gathering. It’s difficult to provide the country with accurate information if you’re working under the assumption that iraq already has WMD program and your job was to provide evidence of the assumption rather than finding evidence that leads you to assume that Iraq might have a wmd program.

Furthermore, someone here asked the question why Hussein didn’t allow inspectors to come.

It’s simple, who’s his neighbor? If Iran knew he didn’t have WMDs, his power would’ve been weakened and Iran would’ve been empowered. In Hussein’s view, maintaining the belief that he had WMDs kept Iran from interfering in his country. However, when he saw that the USA was serious about invading, he offered his country to be inspected, we declined.

America wanted its war with him.

Also, those who think that America didn’t support this war are kidding themselves. I don’t think 90 percent of the country would’ve supported it. But I do believe we the majority sure would’ve. People forget how popular Bush was post 9/11 and pre Katrina.
 
The Thriller said:
Also, those who think that America didn’t support this war are kidding themselves. I don’t think 90 percent of the country would’ve supported it. But I do believe we the majority sure would’ve. People forget how popular Bush was post 9/11 and pre Katrina.
Click to expand...

I distinctly remember a sizable number of people's were against war with Iraq. Yes, a majority supported it, but I'm not suffering from false memory syndrome. I certainly was far from alone in thinking it was a mistake....

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...-united-states-before-and-after-the-iraq-war/

"Iraq dominated the headlines throughout the fall of 2002 and into the winter of 2003. Public opinion on the wisdom of war, however, stabilized relatively early and slightly in favor of war. Gallup found that from August 2002 through early March 2003 the share of Americans favoring war hovered in a relatively narrow range between a low of 52 percent and a high of 59 percent. By contrast, the share of the public opposed to war fluctuated between 35 percent and 43 percent."
 
Red said:
I distinctly remember a sizable number of people's were against war with Iraq. Yes, a majority supported it, but I'm not suffering from false memory syndrome. I certainly was far from alone in thinking it was a mistake....

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/...-united-states-before-and-after-the-iraq-war/

"Iraq dominated the headlines throughout the fall of 2002 and into the winter of 2003. Public opinion on the wisdom of war, however, stabilized relatively early and slightly in favor of war. Gallup found that from August 2002 through early March 2003 the share of Americans favoring war hovered in a relatively narrow range between a low of 52 percent and a high of 59 percent. By contrast, the share of the public opposed to war fluctuated between 35 percent and 43 percent."
Click to expand...
To say it was divisive is an understatement. The revisionist history I find irritating is from the people who voted for it in Congress, using the same intelligence bush had in the first place and obviously interpreting it the same way, who then completely backpedal and say "I never agreed with this, we were lied to" as if they never read the same reports. That's next-level denial **** right there, almost Trump-like in the ability to lie and backpedal with a straight face.
 
Just skimming the comments above...… pretty good I think all around.

I was a sort of Rand/Ron Paul believer that American foreign policy had been hijacked by megalomaniacal exploiters of progressive idealism/globalism..... making the US taxpayer foot the bill for grand schemes to render the world compliant with the grand dreams..... well, at least the specific interests of the top tier fascists who have the global management frame of mind. And the dumbass American patriots who believe in freedom do the grunt boots on the ground to make the World Great.

Dems and Repubs and our media were all on board with the Iraq war. You couldn't get a word in edgewise. I was calling in, actually "On Air" with Doug Wright on KSL trying to explain why we shouldn't go to war in Iraq when Sen. Bennet, Utah's elitist CFR errand boy bumped me and Doug just dropped my comments mid-sentence, breathless announcing Sen Bennett wanting to push NAFTA to the good folks of Utah....

Good of you all, now, to see American intervention for "higher causes" on the world stage as problematic.

I think Iran is deeply divided internally. A military strike would work to unite them. Better to just double down on the sanctions that affect the government operations the most, and find ways to get humanitarian aid into Iran while doing so..... There are organized Persian groups seeking to do a popular revolution in a manner that will unite the ordinary people effectively. moderate religious elements, westernized elements. I have taken occasion to advise them that they should not seek, nor rely on "American" help because we are too committed to world agendas we will mess up the locals and just ruin their efforts. We don't want our CIA or psy=op globalist operators having a hand in it.

We have lots of ways to give the Persians a chance, a clear shot, at their own solution. Just don't intervene.

Obama did the Iranian people a great disservice bankrolling the regime. He had no good reason to do that, except the misguided intent to gain a handle, a political handle, the "manage" things his way.

I don't think Russia wants to get into it, but China under Xi still isn't tired of trying to insert leverage. Outside leverage will be resented. Persia... Iran... is a culture, though "balkanized" into tribal and local factions with ages of local resentments, that is on the whole proud.... and as ancient as China. Nobody from the outside has ever run Iran.

Nobody.

Alexander the Great made it into Persia, but could not control it, and died trying.

Nobody will ever "manage" Iran with any grand global vision.

They will, of their devices, establish a modern nation with influence the world over, that is not some damn fundamentalist religious dictatorship.

Zoroastrianism just isn't ever going to be any government's religion.
 
Last edited:
A war with Iran? Pffft. Child’s play.

I want the main course. America versus the world!

 
Stoked said:
A war with Iran? Pffft. Child’s play.

I want the main course. America versus the world!

Click to expand...

I've long said that the biggest advantage the U.S. military has is logistics. Getting the military power where it needs to be when it needs to be there. No other nation is even in the same universe in that regard.

What the video doesn't get into is that the U.S. military is the most practiced military. Every generation of leadership in the U.S. military has engaged in real world military conflicts. We have WAY more actual experience using our military in real world situations than all the rest of the world combined.

Another huge advantage is that the U.S. is pretty much the only nation with a massive civilian gun culture. The best shooters are not trained by the military, they learn from their dads, uncles and grandpas. They go out shooting several times a year from a relatively early age. They go hunting. The military can train a person how to shoot, but the U.S. military has the massive advantage of having a very good portion of their enlistees entering with a lifetime of firearm experience. People may underestimate how much that matters, but it matters.

Iraq believed that the U.S. had a weak stomach for war. That the first sign of American blood would send us reeling. They thought we could only fight if we had massive advantages and suffered minimal losses. I think the extended occupation with snipers and IEDs showed that the U.S. would absolutely withstand casualties and continue to operate at the highest level.

So there are all those factors and then the fact that the U.S. has the most military equipment. The newest military equipment. The best soldiers, sailors and airmen.

I think much of the U.S. advantage could be negated though. I think our enemies are smart and that we underestimate them. We could easily be provoked into a trap and then commit a number of subsequent blunders before realizing that the world (Really, what I worry about is the alliance of BRIC) has been carefully planning for that very day and we are attacked all at once with our pants down after already suffering a major loss and subsequent misstep.

We have to know our enemies better than they know us. I don't think that's true ATM.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top