War with Iran?

[hollodero]

I wonder how this is not a bigger topic. It seems in the making. The tanker incident, the existence of John Bolton, the rhetorics, the cancelling of the nuclear deal, talks about additional troops in the region.

And of course Trump slamming Iran for not complying with the agreement he cancelled ("Iran defying the limits"). Which is the oddest thing ever. I sure dislike the Iranian regime very much, but when you cancel the deal, why should they feel forced to follow it still or still accept any limits from a torn up agreement? And of course now they want the bomb more than ever. I don't like that, but I can genuinely understand that. "We should rather negotiate" is nothing one could sell to the Iranian people any longer. Negotiations or agreements with the US have proven to be worthless. So why bother? Also, countries with nuclear bombs are usually left alone, while those who have none are potential targets. Everything seems to take a pro bomb course for Iran, and the way I see it Trump is partially to blame for that legacy of his tenure.

Could a war prevent an Iranian bomb? I don't know. I personally feel a war with Iran would be devastating, cost millions of lifes, including much american life, and nothing good would come of it. This isn't Iraq, the US has no friendly group like the Kurds there, their military is prepared for centuries for that war to come.
Someone should tell Trump that a war with Iran is what McCain would have wanted. Just in case.

What do my american friends think about this? Is a war possible, would it do good, or are folks like me just hysterical?

[GMDino]

(06-17-2019, 01:19 PM)hollodero Wrote: I wonder how this is not a bigger topic. It seems in the making. The tanker incident, the existence of John Bolton, the rhetorics, the cancelling of the nuclear deal, talks about additional troops in the region.

And of course Trump slamming Iran for not complying with the agreement he cancelled ("Iran defying the limits"). Which is the oddest thing ever. I sure dislike the Iranian regime very much, but when you cancel the deal, why should they feel forced to follow it still or still accept any limits from a torn up agreement? And of course now they want the bomb more than ever. I don't like that, but I can genuinely understand that. "We should rather negotiate" is nothing one could sell to the Iranian people any longer. Negotiations or agreements with the US have proven to be worthless. So why bother? Also, countries with nuclear bombs are usually left alone, while those who have none are potential targets. Everything seems to take a pro bomb course for Iran, and the way I see it Trump is partially to blame for that legacy of his tenure.

Could a war prevent an Iranian bomb? I don't know. I personally feel a war with Iran would be devastating, cost millions of lifes, including much american life, and nothing good would come of it. This isn't Iraq, the US has no friendly group like the Kurds there, their military is prepared for centuries for that war to come.
Someone should tell Trump that a war with Iran is what McCain would have wanted. Just in case.

What do my american friends think about this? Is a war possible, would it do good, or are folks like me just hysterical?

I was following the different stories about this while on vacation and (to me) it seems that the lack of trust in ANYTHING anyone in the Trump admin says has caused there not to be this groundswell of support for war.  Without that DJT would never be okay with it.

He likes to bluster because big talk makes his followers think he's really big and tough.  He just doesn't want action because then he has to lie answer for the consequences.

Also, to fair to Donald, he does seem to NOT want more war in the middle east.  Why? Anyone's guess as he has no ethics or morals that can be zeroed in on as "consistent".

It's still possible as long as we have men who would never actually go fight willing and raging in their pants to have a good old war...but I don't think it's likely at this point.  Just my opinion.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 01:25 PM)hollodero Wrote: I wonder how this is not a bigger topic. It seems in the making. The tanker incident, the existence of John Bolton, the rhetorics, the cancelling of the nuclear deal, talks about additional troops in the region.


And of course Trump slamming Iran for not complying with the agreement he cancelled ("Iran defying the limits"). Which is the oddest thing ever. I sure dislike the Iranian regime very much, but when you cancel the deal, why should they feel forced to follow it still or still accept any limits from a torn up agreement? And of course now they want the bomb more than ever. I don't like that, but I can genuinely understand that. "We should rather negotiate" is nothing one could sell to the Iranian people any longer. Negotiations or agreements with the US have proven to be worthless. So why bother? Also, countries with nuclear bombs are usually left alone, while those who have none are potential targets. Everything seems to take a pro bomb course for Iran, and the way I see it Trump is partially to blame for that legacy of his tenure.

Could a war prevent an Iranian bomb? I don't know. I personally feel a war with Iran would be devastating, cost millions of lifes, including much american life, and nothing good would come of it. This isn't Iraq, the US has no friendly group like the Kurds there, their military is prepared for centuries for that war to come.
Someone should tell Trump that a war with Iran is what McCain would have wanted. Just in case.

What do my american friends think about this? Is a war possible, would it do good, or are folks like me just hysterical?

They were actually talking about this on NPR today. One stance is Trump wants a war so we won't transfer "Leadership" in the middle of it. Others think we must act because we are the defenders of the  Strait of Hormuz for the world, while others state it's much ado about nothing.

As to the "threat" Iran would pose. We kicked Iraq's but in about 100 hours and they kicked Iran's but. So we'd most likely have to commit the Rhode Island National Guard. Personally I don't want armed conflict and put the chances of it happening right between slim and none, but if it comes to conflict, it must be a coalition.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-s-red-line-in-the-sand?highlight=iran

[NATI BENGALS]

Seeing that grainy video that was supposedly proof Iran was responsible was pretty upsetting. I was hoping that was not what we used as an excuse to go to war.

Meanwhile scumbag Kushner who couldn't get a security clearance is right along side scumbag Trump selling nuclear technology to some radical prince in Saudi Arabia the country responsible for 9/11 who happens to be Iran's biggest regional foe. I wonder if the Trump family has any agreements in place that would enrich their family if they come through with the nuke technology for our sinister "friends" in the middle east?

Skirting congress to sell weapons to the Saudis as well.

WTF did these shitheads think would happen if we sold one side of the religious civil war nukes and pulled out of a nuclear agreement with the other?

Greedy dumb conman is inching us closer to a major war. And our traditional allies have been alienated. Maybe NK and Russia will be our allies in this war.

What a joke. A sad sad joke.

[SunsetBengal]

(06-17-2019, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They were actually talking about this on NPR today. One stance is Trump wants a war so we won't transfer "Leadership" in the middle of it. Others think we must act because we are the defenders of the  Strait of Hormuz for the world, while others state it's much ado about nothing.

As to the "threat" Iran would pose. We kicked Iraq's but in about 100 hours and they kicked Iran's but. So we'd most likely have to commit the Rhode Island National Guard. Personally I don't want armed conflict and put the chances of it happening right between slim and none, but if it comes to conflict, it must be a coalition.

http://thebengalsboard.com/Thread-Trump-s-red-line-in-the-sand?highlight=iran

Did you see the scare article in USA Today, claiming that it would certainly take a drafted Army to defeat Iran on their own soil?

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 02:00 PM)bfine32 Wrote: We kicked Iraq's but in about 100 hours

Then 5 thousand more US troops were killed over the next 5 years.

But at least their butts were kicked.  At least that is what the military boys were told, and we know they never question anything their superiors tell them.

[fredtoast]

Trump has used increased military spending to pump up the economy. He knows that a war is "good for business".

Iran is the obvious target because he loves Israel and Saudi Arabia so much.

Bolton was the final piece of the puzzle. I am pretty sure we will be at war by the time the campaign gets rolling.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-17-2019, 03:09 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Did you see the scare article in USA Today, claiming that it would certainly take a drafted Army to defeat Iran on their own soil?

How many lives and how much time, money, and resources did it take to fail in Iraq? Iran has twice the population and almost 4 times the land mass. 

What makes you think this was a scare article? I didn't see it.

[GMDino]

(06-17-2019, 03:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then 5 thousand more US troops were killed over the next 5 years.

But at least their butts were kicked.  .  .  .  I guess.

(06-17-2019, 03:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How many lives and how much time, money, and resources did it take to fail in Iraq? Iran has twice the population and almost 4 times the land mass. 

What makes you think this was a scare article? I didn't see it.

None of the cowards talking about going to war care about the lives lost...only their own and how they can line their pocketbooks.

I feel for anyone currently enlisted being at the mercy of these chicken hearts.  

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 03:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How many lives and how much time, money, and resources did it take to fail in Iraq? Iran has twice the population and almost 4 times the land mass. 

What makes you think this was a scare article? I didn't see it.

A lot more than it took for us to fail in Afghanistan.

Plus the majority of the population of Iran is not oppressed by its current leaders the way Iraq was.  So there will be none of that "Welcomed as liberators" BS this time.

Also don't forget that the US was just part of a coalition that invaded Iraq.  Since the reason we would be going to war with Iran would be that we backed out on a deal brokered by a coalition I seriously doubt if any of those countries will help us out this time.  Sometimes a country has to pay a price for pissing off its allies.  

[CJD]

It must be because I just don't see the master plan, but everything Trump does in terms of foreign policy seems to be hinged upon a coin flip.

[Benton]

There's a small number of people making large piles of money off the constant conflict. I'd put war with (insert country) as fairly likely given that were about out of dirt huts to re-bomb.

People seriously need to stop voting for the same group of soulless people we have in Congress.

[Belsnickel]

The tanker thing is something I am torn on, but leaning heavily on not believing Pompeo and our government. I want to see some evidence before laying blame at their feet, and that evidence is conspicuously lacking at this moment. As for the nuclear deal, we may have pulled out, but they are still in it with the other signatories. If they violate it, then it is up to those signatories to take action. Trump can feel free to have an "I told you so" moment about that, though the news doesn't sound all that nefarious, to me.

I know there will be the usual crowd poo-pooing this idea, but Trump is playing out of the autocrat playbook by blustering in this way. His posturing on the global stage and continual use of Iran as a foil is a tool of dictators all throughout history and the world that have attempted to hold power. He isn't the first POTUS to do this by any means, but it's a concerning act. The choice of Iran as the foil probably does have a ton to do with Bolton's proximity to the Oval Office, as he has been a notorious hawk towards Iran for years. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 03:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then 5 thousand more US troops were killed over the next 5 years.

But at least their butts were kicked.  At least that is what the military boys were told, and we know they never question anything their superiors tell them.

(06-17-2019, 03:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How many lives and how much time, money, and resources did it take to fail in Iraq? Iran has twice the population and almost 4 times the land mass. 

What makes you think this was a scare article? I didn't see it.

Those lives were not lost in Combat with the Iraqi Army. So I don't see the correlation.

What we should do after the conflict is a whole different matter.

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 03:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The tanker thing is something I am torn on, but leaning heavily on not believing Pompeo and our government.

Iran pays money to a lot of splinter groups that they don't really control or give orders to.

Iran is a Shia Muslim country.  Worldwide only about 15% of Muslims are Shia and they see themselves as the "oppressed minorities" of the Muslim faith.  But about one-third of all Shia Muslims live in Iran.  So Iran is always supporting these rebel groups that are fighting against Sunni opposition around the world.  The United Sates has done this same for years.  We supported the Contras in Nicaragua and the Taliban in Afghanistan.  We did not control them or give them orders.  We just gave them support because they were on our "side".

So th Iranians might have provided some support for whoever bombed the tanker, but we have no idea if they had any control over the operation.


 

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 03:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: None of the cowards talking about going to war care about the lives lost...only their own and how they can line their pocketbooks.

I feel for anyone currently enlisted being at the mercy of these chicken hearts.  

...and none of those boasting about "failures" behind their keyboards care about the survivors' mental health...only how they can spew their hatred.

I feel sorry for anyone currently enlisted that has to read that bullshit spewed from these chicken hearts.

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 04:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and none of those boasting about "failures" behind their keyboards care about the survivors' mental health...only how they can spew their hatred.

I feel sorry for anyone currently enlisted that has to read that bullshit spewed from these chicken hearts.

Why would they hate the ones who want to PREVENT them being killed or mentally broken?

You sound like a battered wife defending her husband.

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 04:15 PM)bfine32 Wrote: These things work better if you read the actually post instead of being a little *****.

This type of response works better if you point out what I misread.

Are you denying that you claimed that there was no "conflict" after the first 100 hours?

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 04:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why would they hate the ones who want to PREVENT them being killed or mentally broken?

You sound like a battered wife defending her husband.

Where did I say they hate anyone?


But a bumper sticker answer is:

A hero dies but once, while a coward dies 1,000 times.

[GMDino]

(06-17-2019, 04:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and none of those boasting about "failures" behind their keyboards care about the survivors' mental health...only how they can spew their hatred.

I feel sorry for anyone currently enlisted that has to read that bullshit spewed from these chicken hearts.

Horsehockey.

Our "leaders" have been churning through our enlisted people for profit forever....then do nothing for them when they come home broken.

If challenging them (the leaders) from "behind a keyboard" as cowards and chicken hearts upsets you you've been brainwashed into blaming the wrong people for the ills of you brethren.

Lots of us care.  So much so we try to NOT see people like you get sent into another endless war just to keep the war machine profitable.

Go take another oath.