War with Iran?

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Where did I say they hate anyone? 

Well, how about "be upset with".

(06-17-2019, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But a bumper sticker answer is:

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

How does this answer the question?

What good does it do a hero to "die just once" if he spends most of his life missing a couple of legs and going insane because of PTSD?  Does that fact that the Iraq campaign was a failure based on lies make then feel happy?

[fredtoast]

The only people who really respect our military men and women are the ones that don't want them killed for stupid reasons.

[GMDino]

(06-17-2019, 04:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

I prefer:

"The man who puts on his armor should not brag. It's the man who lives to take it off who has the right to brag."

Kings 20:11

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 04:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I prefer:

"The man who puts on his armor should not brag. It's the man who lives to take it off who has the right to brag."

Kings 20:11

That sounds like a passage Trump would quote.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 04:32 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The only people who really respect our military men and women are the ones that don't want them killed for stupid reasons.

Hell I don't want them killed for any reason.

Must be my brainwashing

[Belsnickel]

(06-17-2019, 04:43 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That sounds like a passage Trump would quote.

He probably would, not knowing what it actually means.

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 04:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: I prefer:

"The man who puts on his armor should not brag. It's the man who lives to take it off who has the right to brag."

Kings 20:11

That was back when Ahab was in God's good graces, before Jezebel. Funny, I was just thinking about old Ahab earlier today.

Ahab was actually a very capable leader. He defeated the Syrians (a.k.a. Aram) led by Ben Haddad in the battle just after this section. But Israel and the Syrians had bigger problems. The Assyrians in Turkey were rising again and on the warpath. And they had a much bigger army. Ahab then did something you don't hear very much about: he went to the Syrians and other small kingdoms in the area and put together an 11-nation (including Phoenicians, Arabs, etc.) coalition to oppose the Assyrians. It was probably the first multi-national coalition. The army was jointly led by Ahab and Ben Haddad and they met the Assyrians at the Battle of Qarqar. This is all documented on the Kurkh Monolith at Tell Qarqar built by the Assyrians later. The battle was the largest battle up to that time. Israel alone produced a massive corp of 2,000 chariots.

The results are debatable. The Assyrians under Shalmaneser III claimed victory. But they ALWAYS claimed victory. What appears to have happened is that the Assyrians held the field, but also lost so many troops that their campaign into Syria and Israel was delayed for years. When they came back, however, the former coalition had fallen apart.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 04:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That was back when Ahab was in God's good graces, before Jezebel. Funny, I was just thinking about old Ahab earlier today.

Ahab was actually a very capable leader. He defeated the Syrians (a.k.a. Aram) led by Ben Haddad in the battle just after this section. But Israel and the Syrians had bigger problems. The Assyrians in Turkey were rising again and on the warpath. And they had a much bigger army. Ahab then did something you don't hear very much about: he went to the Syrians and other small kingdoms in the area and put together an 11-nation (including Phoenicians, Arabs, etc.) coalition to oppose the Assyrians. It was probably the first multi-national coalition. The army was jointly led by Ahab and Ben Haddad and they met the Assyrians at the Battle of Qarqar. This is all documented on the Kurkh Monolith at Tell Qarqar built by the Assyrians later. The battle was the largest battle up to that time. Israel alone produced a massive corp of 2,000 chariots.

The results are debatable. The Assyrians under Shalmaneser III claimed victory. But they ALWAYS claimed victory. What appears to have happened is that the Assyrians held the field, but also lost so many troops that their campaign into Syria and Israel was delayed for years. When they came back, however, the former coalition had fallen apart.

IMO Ahab was boasting in this passage.

[GMDino]

(06-17-2019, 04:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That was back when Ahab was in God's good graces, before Jezebel. Funny, I was just thinking about old Ahab earlier today.

Ahab was actually a very capable leader. He defeated the Syrians (a.k.a. Aram) led by Ben Haddad in the battle just after this section. But Israel and the Syrians had bigger problems. The Assyrians in Turkey were rising again and on the warpath. And they had a much bigger army. Ahab then did something you don't hear very much about: he went to the Syrians and other small kingdoms in the area and put together an 11-nation (including Phoenicians, Arabs, etc.) coalition to oppose the Assyrians. It was probably the first multi-national coalition. The army was jointly led by Ahab and Ben Haddad and they met the Assyrians at the Battle of Qarqar. This is all documented on the Kurkh Monolith at Tell Qarqar built by the Assyrians later. The battle was the largest battle up to that time. Israel alone produced a massive corp of 2,000 chariots.

The results are debatable. The Assyrians under Shalmaneser III claimed victory. But they ALWAYS claimed victory. What appears to have happened is that the Assyrians held the field, but also lost so many troops that their campaign into Syria and Israel was delayed for years. When they came back, however, the former coalition had fallen apart.

So this was all before he went after the white whale?

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 05:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: IMO Ahab was boasting in this passage.

Yeah. Pride cometh before the fall, eh. About three years after the Battle of Qarqar, Ahab got into a war with one of his former allies, the Armeans. Per the Bible, he disguised himself and was hit by an unaimed arrow which killed him. And "the dogs licked his bones", which which was a rather shameful thing to have happen to year remains back then.

[Bengalzona]

(06-17-2019, 05:07 PM)GMDino Wrote: So this was all before he went after the white whale?

That was the sequel: "Ahab 2: Get That Dam Whale!"

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 04:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Hell I don't want them killed for any reason.

Then keep pumping out the rhetoric about how we could whip Iran's ass with just the Rhode Island National Guard because we were able to end the conflict in Iraq in just 100 hours.

I am sure that won't encourage anyone to support another stupid war that will result in thousands of dead and wounded soldiers.

[Dill]

(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.

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

LOL Back in fall of '16, when I argued that the election had just put an angry, ignorant and unstable person in charge of US foreign policy and made him Commander-in-Chief of the world's most powerful military with a mandate to "shake up" US foreign policy, a few in this forum actually argued that the awesome magnitude of the office would change Trump, and in any case it was "career staffers" who actually direct foreign policy.

So not to worry.  "Leftist" alarmism over the potential for damage was just "butthurt"  over Hillary losing.

Since then Trump has pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement and the TPP, and broken the Iran Deal, as well as introducing Kim to the world outside North Korea and starting a trade war with China most economists are sure will be counterproductive. The "career staffers" have become the DEEP STATE, secretly and quietly blocking Trump's attempts to pull out of KORUS and Syria, and who knows what else. Congress had to work around Trump to keep sanctions on Russia, and Trump has leaked classified Israel intel to the Russians, and called our allies "deadbeats" while praising dictators like Putin, Kim and Duterte, and allowed his son in law to greenlight a blockade of our ally Qatar, where sits the largest US airbase in the region. He has shamed his own intel services on the world stage by taking their word over the Russians, and then set his DOJ to investigating THEM for investigating HIM. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/us/politics/russia-investigation-cia.html. LOL an AMERICAN PRESIDENT disrupting his own intel services; thus proceeds apace the most successful clandestine operation, not just in Russian, but in WORLD history. 

There were only three foreign policy scandals breaking last week end:

1. our intel services were carrying the cyberwar to Russia without Trump's knowledge, because they could not trust him with intel and their clandestine activity. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/15/us/politics/trump-cyber-russia-grid.html

2. When it was revealed that Kim's half brother had been a CIA agent, Trump loudly and publicly told Kim that not happen under his administration! Like we had been unfair to Kim. https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2019/06/13/ej-dionne-trump-sides/

3. Maybe even more jaw-dropping, Trump insisted that he would take "dirt" on a political opponent from a foreign power to help win an election, insisted that would not be interference, and the Director of the FBI was JUST PLAIN WRONG if he thought it was illegal. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-abc-interview-president-tells-george-stephanopoulos-hed-be-open-to-taking-info-on-opponents-from-foreigners/

Sorry it takes me so long to get to your question about a possible war with Iran, but context is everything when we are talking Trump foreign policy. This is not a "bigger topic" because Americans in general don't know a lot about foreign policy and have short memories. How many Trump supporters/defenders remember that guy leading Trump's foreign policy, the guy who "knows" that Iran is still working for a bomb, is one of the neo cons who "knew" Saddam had WMDs?  (And how long did it take us to kick Saddam's ass?  Not long, right? Why should we fear Iran?!)

Yet this is a serious topic because, as I said almost three years ago, the election put an angry unstable person in charge of the world's largest military, someone who has no plan, no endgame, no overarching Middle East policy against which to measure current actions. It doesn't matter whether today, Trump wants war or not; he has created a situation in which an accident could trigger every form of kinetic confrontation, the most difficult kind to de-escalate. Now that the adults-in-the-room have been fired or resigned and advisors from the policy fringe reign unchecked, even the DEEP STATE cannot function as a reliable check.

But it is quite possible that our neo con friends did learn something from our last ME fiasco.  Last spring, when Bolton/Trump first asked the Pentagon to work up some plans for a conflict with Iran, someone floated a white paper discussing how to take out their nuclear sites on the cheap, without an invasion. Though atomics were not explicitly named, it does appear they were implied. Leaking that info could have been deliberate, an attempt to scare Iran. Yet I can't shake the feeling the use of some nukes, if only tactical or neutron type, MUST make sense to the guy who always wanted to keep nukes on the table and expressed anger that we didn't "keep the oil" when we invaded Iraq on false pretenses. The guy with no impulse control who thinks he knows more than the generals. And no more adults in the room.

LOL so no, I don't see what could go wrong here. Our army could take their army! Sounds like you are hysterical and still upset that Hillary lost. Get over it

[hollodero]

(06-17-2019, 03:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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'm not the biggest expert on that agreement, but it seems European countries on their own can't quite hold up their side of the bargain. The US threatens all companies dealing with Iran with sanctions, which obviously led to most of them pulling out - so there are de facto sanctions from European companies in place.

Under this circumstances and when the biggest power - and biggest aggressor - is no part of the agreement any longer, it's quite pointless for Iran to stick to it, for effectively no benefit to their own people. I sure have no sympathy for this regime, but in this case I'd rather blame the US than them for not the deal not holding any longer.

[Bengalzona]

(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?

The Saudis have told this administration to put pressure on Iran. And because money, this administration feels compelled to comply.

Where does this all end up? Who knows.

Personally, I do not see the U.S. committing troops to a ground war in Iran. The population is divided and has not forgotten the Iraq morass. Also, it is altogether likely that Iran would seek help from the Russians.

Air strikes are likely and probable, judging from the admin's history. Maybe we won't warn them in advance where we are bombing this time.

A U.S. nuclear strike is also possible with this President. After all, the Saudis do have a lot of money. But it is more likely that the admin would just try to slip the Saudis a nuke and let them do the dirty deed.

The one thing I know won't happen is diplomacy. The Saudis don't want to see any of that nonsense.

[Dill]

(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. 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.

The nuke deal is a bit more complicated. Trump is attempting to force the other signatories to re instate sanctions or face sanctions from the US. If the other signatories do that, then they will in effect be breaking the deal too. Some EU members have created a mechanism for bartering goods with Iran without using currency, but it is not clear if that will prove effective.

The immediate result of the US pull out then would be that Iran had 100 (150?) billion dollars back plus two years of non-sanction economic activity, and then reinstated sanctions as a strong incentive to go back to producing fissile material.

It doesn't matter to me whether the Iranians set the tankers on fire or not.  We are in this confrontation because the US pulled out of a deal that IT engineered, and is openly pushing Iran to confrontation.  One consequence is that the "moderate" forces in Iran have lost face and their radical right is now in ascendance--their Trumps, Boltons and Grahams are running the show now. Like our rightists, they see little incentive to talk to "evil."

(06-17-2019, 03:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: 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.

Yes, this is authoritarian foreign policy. But what bothers me about it is that OUR authoritarian is more unstable than most.  A smart chickenhawk would know how to play near, but not right on, the edge of war.  Trump does not have this skill.  He can only rush us to the edge, and teeter there where he is unable to back down if the country we are surrounding with weapons and drones and incrementally increasing military forces "starts something."  He has no historical knowledge to draw on for guidance (maybe the first president since Kennedy who has not read Tuchman's the Guns of August or even watched The Missiles of October), and no impulse control.

I should add this is not just about Iran. We seem to be advancing a right wing Israeli foreign policy as well as the interests of Saudi Arabia in this current stand off.  And looking downrange at the consequences--first off a world oil shortage--this will be another massive disruption affecting our allies and our world markets.

Remember that if the war starts, then we will need to put our petty partisan disagreements aside and back the C in C. I.e., side with America.  Drop any divisive investigations we may have ongoing, not spew hatred of America in online forums by opposing Trump.

[*bfine32*]

(06-17-2019, 05:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Then keep pumping out the rhetoric about how we could whip Iran's ass with just the Rhode Island National Guard because we were able to end the conflict in Iraq in just 100 hours.

I am sure that won't encourage anyone to support another stupid war that will result in thousands of dead and wounded soldiers.

And you can keep ignoring the fact that we defeated Iraq's Army in about 100 hours. You have no idea what would happen in Iran if we toppled their current government or if our post-war actions would be the same. It could very easily be like Desert Storm.

I've already said any Military action against Iran should be a coalition. I just balked at the suggestion that Iran would be a greater foe than Iraq.   

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 06:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: And you can keep ignoring the fact that we defeated Iraq's Army in about 100 hours.

I am not ignoring anything. I am just pointing out how meaningless that is considering 5,000 more troops died after that.  I am sure the parents and families of those dead troops are thrilled to know that they all died after the "conflict" was over.


But, hey, "MISSON ACCOMPLISHED", right?  I mean it said it right on the banner.  What more do you need to know?  

[fredtoast]

(06-17-2019, 05:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote:  The population is divided and has not forgotten the Iraq morass.

Some have.

They are the ones predicting that we could take out Iran with the Rhode Island National Guard.

The "conflict" in Iraq was over in 100 hours, remember?

[Benton]

(06-17-2019, 04:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: That was back when Ahab was in God's good graces, before Jezebel. Funny, I was just thinking about old Ahab earlier today.

Ahab was actually a very capable leader. He defeated the Syrians (a.k.a. Aram) led by Ben Haddad in the battle just after this section. But Israel and the Syrians had bigger problems. The Assyrians in Turkey were rising again and on the warpath. And they had a much bigger army. Ahab then did something you don't hear very much about: he went to the Syrians and other small kingdoms in the area and put together an 11-nation (including Phoenicians, Arabs, etc.) coalition to oppose the Assyrians. It was probably the first multi-national coalition. The army was jointly led by Ahab and Ben Haddad and they met the Assyrians at the Battle of Qarqar. This is all documented on the Kurkh Monolith at Tell Qarqar built by the Assyrians later. The battle was the largest battle up to that time. Israel alone produced a massive corp of 2,000 chariots.

The results are debatable. The Assyrians under Shalmaneser III claimed victory. But they ALWAYS claimed victory. What appears to have happened is that the Assyrians held the field, but also lost so many troops that their campaign into Syria and Israel was delayed for years. When they came back, however, the former coalition had fallen apart.

Just think about beer and boobs like the rest of us.

(06-17-2019, 05:35 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: The Saudis have told this administration to put pressure on Iran. And because money, this administration feels compelled to comply.

Where does this all end up? Who knows.

Personally, I do not see the U.S. committing troops to a ground war in Iran. The population is divided and has not forgotten the Iraq morass. Also, it is altogether likely that Iran would seek help from the Russians.

Air strikes are likely and probable, judging from the admin's history. Maybe we won't warn them in advance where we are bombing this time.

A U.S. nuclear strike is also possible with this President. After all, the Saudis do have a lot of money. But it is more likely that the admin would just try to slip the Saudis a nuke and let them do the dirty deed.

The one thing I know won't happen is diplomacy. The Saudis don't want to see any of that nonsense.

I don't either. The 'Oh, now they're in Afghanistan. Er, we meant Syria.' worked ok because there were bad guys in those countries, and those countries were unstable because of the constant string of bad guys. Iran is a little different as it's more of a stable country (compared with Afghanistan and Syria, anyway) suffering from a small man complex (partly because we continue to pump billions into countries it doesn't get along with and sell billions in weapons to other countries it doesn't get along with.

But I can't see us getting into a land war. Maybe fire a few rockets at a wayward military exercise or impose new sanctions.