+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive)
+---- Thread: Iran Situation (/Thread-Iran-Situation)
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
It is a bad day when the American Commander in Chief makes a threat which is ignored and then he doesn't back it up.
Next time he makes a threat guess what? No one will listen, and none of us should want that.
RE: Iran Situation - Millhouse - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:30 PM)jj22 Wrote: He won? This is ridiculous.
2 foreign powers threatened each other not to retaliate and the one that listened won? I disagree.
America told Iran not to retaliate or hell will be paid. They did.
Iran told America not to retaliate and we stood down.
I don't consider that winning. But I don't consider a lot of Trumps actions winning like some people do.
Iran could have used a proxy to respond. They didn't. They themselves took action. That's significant.
Its not ridiculous when you take the anti-Trump blinders off. I don't like Trump either, but I don't let that effect on how I look at what unfolded these last few days.
RE: Iran Situation - Dill - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:28 PM)Millhouse Wrote: No, he didn't get shut down but rather he actually won on this one. Only place in the world that may see this as a win for Iran is in Iran itself because they are straight up lying to their people they killed 80 Americans in response. When in reality they lobbed a few missiles at an Iraqi base where U.S. & Allied troops are stationed, and most likely missed on purpose knowing they would lie about it to save face with their people.
It's likely that most of the world thinks that Trump went way over that line of international norms the US claims to respect when he took out "terrorist" Soleimani, followed by a pile of unintended consequences--among them the demand the US leave Iraq and direct threats to a city in Israel and the UAE. Ambassadors and representatives of every Gulf state and Pakistan were begging the US to stand down before the strikes.
Iran had to do something in response to save face, but it also did not want to paint itself into a corner as Trump did, so it warned the Iraqis it would drop some missiles on bases housing Americans, and did.
Most of the rest of the world, certainly other Gulf nations, will see Iran as the rational actor here, the US floundering again and ready to lash out without considering second and third order policy impacts. Trashing the Iran Deal has made the Gulf--the world's oil supply-- much more dangerous.
If this was a "win," then I and most of the rest of the world are VERY tired of winning.
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
What unfolded? Trumps threats were well documented in this thread. He shouldn't have said it if he couldn't back it up.
That's a lesson everyone should know not just the Commander in Chief.
Made worse by Iran's complete disrespect of his threat by retaliating less than a week later. They clearly don't respect him. And that is unfortunate not because it's Trump but because it's the American POTUS.
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:39 PM)Dill Wrote: It's likely that most of the world thinks that Trump went way over that line of international norms the US claims to respect, followed by a pile of unintended consequences--among them the demand the US leave Iraq and direct threats to a city in Israel and the UAE. Ambassadors and representatives of every Gulf state and Pakistan were begging the US to stand down before the strikes.
Iran had to do something in response to save face, so it warned the Iraqis it would drop some missiles on bases housing Americans, and did.
Most of the rest of the world, certainly other Gulf nations, will see Iran as the rational actor here, the US floundering again and ready to lash out without considering second and third order policy impacts. Trashing the Iran Deal has made the Gulf--the world's oil supply-- much more dangerous.
If this was a "win," then I and most of the rest of the world are VERY tired of winning.
I agree with this.
The American Presidents word, rather we like him (or her) or not, must be respected. Must be. This isn't even a question for me and I dislike Trump greatly.
RE: Iran Situation - Nately120 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:32 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: And just like that World War 3 is over and Trump still hasn't dropped an atomic bomb. Bad day for the MSM.
Mission accomplished again?
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:44 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Mission accomplished again?
For Iran.
There was protest in the streets of Iran and against the head of Iran and corruption etc. They shut down the Internet to keep the protest hidden after 100's were killed. All leading up to the killing of the General. Now the country is as unified as ever. None of this turned out well for America.
RE: Iran Situation - Dill - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:32 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: And just like that World War 3 is over and Trump still hasn't dropped an atomic bomb. Bad day for the MSM.
Did you just say that the Gulf/Iran conflict is now over, or did you just mean the recent crisis?
Why is it a bad day for MSM if Trump stands down instead of following up on his threats?
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:47 PM)Dill Wrote: Looks like WW III has been postponed till the next Gulf crises.
Why is it a bad day for MSM if Trump stands down instead of following up on his threats?
They didn't say the same about Obama's red line. And we didn't commit an act of war by killing their top general, and Syria didn't attack an American base in response after Obama threatened total destruction if they did.
I believe Obama should have followed through too. But at least that wasn't a conflict between American Military vs Syria Military. It was principle of using gas on their people.
And yet Trump supporters still attack him for his weakness.
They certainly didn't credit him for stopping WWIII and take a shot at conservative media. Go figure.
RE: Iran Situation - Dill - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:43 PM)jj22 Wrote: I agree with this.
The American Presidents word, rather we like him (or her) or not, must be respected. Must be. This isn't even a question for me and I dislike Trump greatly.
Yes, but I would add that if a president sends out crazy, destabilizing tweets, then it is not a good thing for him to back them up because a president should do what he says. We should be happy when he does not.
Yes, having a president who sends out raving rage tweets like Kim does or Saddam did is a terrible look for the US. But the solution is to get him out of office and stop electing incompetents to the highest office in the land, putting them in charge of US foreign policy.
RE: Iran Situation - Belsnickel - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:39 PM)Dill Wrote: It's likely that most of the world thinks that Trump went way over that line of international norms the US claims to respect when he took out "terrorist" Soleimani, followed by a pile of unintended consequences--among them the demand the US leave Iraq and direct threats to a city in Israel and the UAE. Ambassadors and representatives of every Gulf state and Pakistan were begging the US to stand down before the strikes.
Iran had to do something in response to save face, but it also did not want to paint itself into a corner as Trump did, so it warned the Iraqis it would drop some missiles on bases housing Americans, and did.
Most of the rest of the world, certainly other Gulf nations, will see Iran as the rational actor here, the US floundering again and ready to lash out without considering second and third order policy impacts. Trashing the Iran Deal has made the Gulf--the world's oil supply-- much more dangerous.
If this was a "win," then I and most of the rest of the world are VERY tired of winning.
I completely agree with all of this. I still give him credit for not escalating things further, but I agree with all of this.
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, but I would add that if a president sends out crazy, destabilizing tweets, then it is not a good thing for him to back them up because a president should do what he says. We should be happy when he does not.
Yes, having a president who sends out raving rage tweets like Kim does or Saddam did is a terrible look for the US. But the solution is to get him out of office and stop electing incompetents to the highest office in the land, putting them in charge of US foreign policy.
I agree we don't want a Kim or Saddam (well those of us who didn't vote for Trump). But we have one and in order for him not to be a crazed madman full of blunder and bark to state run media, and the laughing stock of the world, he should have backed it up (or ended it on his terms and not the threat of Iran if he retaliated). Now he is like Kim and Saddam. And that is unfortunate given he's the American POTUS.
RE: Iran Situation - Millhouse - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:39 PM)Dill Wrote: It's likely that most of the world thinks that Trump went way over that line of international norms the US claims to respect, followed by a pile of unintended consequences--among them the demand the US leave Iraq and direct threats to a city in Israel and the UAE. Ambassadors and representatives of every Gulf state and Pakistan were begging the US to stand down before the strikes.
Iran had to do something in response to save face, but it also did not want to paint itself into a corner as Trump did, so it warned the Iraqis it would drop some missiles on bases housing Americans, and did.
Most of the rest of the world, certainly other Gulf nations, will see Iran as the rational actor here, the US floundering again and ready to lash out without considering second and third order policy impacts. Trashing the Iran Deal has made the Gulf--the world's oil supply-- much more dangerous.
If this was a "win," then I and most of the rest of the world are VERY tired of winning.
We take out someone orchestrating attacks against our people & others in the region that are foes of Iran, and that is way over the line of international norms? It wasn't like he was operating out of Iran, but in Iraq in which Iran is slowly trying to take over via influence thru Shiite dominence. It was a fair play.
We struck that guy down first, they missed with a few missiles then naturally lied about it, situation back to them chanting Death to America which they have done for decades.
Trump didn't handle it well by any means, hopefully has learned a lesson on use of rhetoric (doubt it though).
RE: Iran Situation - Belsnickel - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:59 PM)Millhouse Wrote: We take out someone orchestrating attacks against our people & others in the region that are foes of Iran, and that is way over the line of international norms? It wasn't like he was operating out of Iran, but in Iraq in which Iran is slowly trying to take over via influence thru Shiite dominence. It was a fair play.
It was an assassination of a foreign official. Under certain viewpoints this could be a violation of international law. It was done in a different country without notifying them ahead of time, violating the sovereignty of that nation. It was definitely over the line of international norms.
(01-08-2020, 02:59 PM)Millhouse Wrote: We struck that guy down first, they missed with a few missiles then naturally lied about it, situation back to them chanting Death to America which they have done for decades.
Did they miss? Advanced warning was given to Iraq, and they had to know that would be passed along to US forces. Smells more like things went as intended.
RE: Iran Situation - Dill - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:50 PM)jj22 Wrote: They didn't say the same about Obama's red line. And we didn't commit an act of war by killing their top general, and Syria didn't attack an American base in response after Obama threatened total destruction if they did.
I believe Obama should have followed through too. But at least that wasn't a conflict between American Military vs Syria Military. It was principle of using gas on their people.
And yet Trump supporters still attack him for his weakness.
They certainly didn't credit him for stopping WWIII and take a shot at conservative media. Go figure.
That's a useful comparison, for several reasons (e.g. Obama's efforts to inform and involve Congress before acting), but I don't agree that Obama didn't "follow through."
His goal was to get chemical weapons out of Syria, which he did through a diplomatic action involving Russia, France, Finland, Denmark, Great Britain, and Germany. That was serious cost to the Assad regime.
In the last months of Obama's presidency, Assad began rebuilding the program and used chemical weapons again in 2017. Trump impulsively sent a round of cruise missiles into Syria in response to a reported use of Sarin. The Syrians then continued using Chlorine gas. The situation was complicated by the fact ISIS and Al Nusra also began using chemical weapons. So Trump drew another red line, claiming he would attack again if Assad used the nerve agent Sarin. Trump did attack again in 2018.
Anyway, you make a good point when you say that a President needs to keep his word, especially regarding bad actors. I just don't think that really applies to Obama's Syria red line, since clearing the country of chemical weapons was more damaging than a strike, and WAS keeping his word--just not the kind of pyrotechnic unilateral action US neocons like Bolton wanted.
Yes, Trump supporters do go on and on about Obama's "weakness" and failure to bomb, but that kind of rhetoric can only circulate effectively where detailed, contextualized knowledge of US foreign policy actions and their consequences is practically non-existent. We don't want to adopt their account of the Syrian intervention, right?
RE: Iran Situation - Mike M (the other one) - 01-08-2020
(01-07-2020, 08:59 PM)Dill Wrote: What are the double standards that you see here?
Easy, We are at war with Terrorists, to my knowledge that War has not ended.
We were not at war with Iran per se, but they are supporting and enabling a known Terrorist group the Quds. It doesn't matter that they have a prominent position with in Iran's Government. When the war was declared, we were very clear that anyone country/countries aiding or shielding known terrorists would be putting themselves at risk. Iran has had plenty of time to disassociate themselves from this group. They chose not to. Many are also crying, you assassinated a government official, we did not, we assassinated a known terrorist who just happens to also be government personnel. He was not targeted because of his government position. The biggest double standard I have is that the terrorists don't check in before they act. They act then claim it. Why does Congress and other countries have to have a say before we act? Again, it's not like this guy just popped up on the list overnight and was killed. He's been on it for a while.
(01-07-2020, 09:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I disagree. We don't end terrorism by killing terrorists. All we do is create more martyrs and enemies.
The main point of conflict in the middle east is between two different factions of Islam. The only time they are interested in killing Americans is when we choose one side over the other.
Bin Laden told us his exact motives for the 9-11 attacks. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them involved actions we took in the Middle East.
It can and does, but you can't let up on the pressure. Sure Bin Laden rose to prominence because of him getting away with it. Remember, Clinton didn't kill him when he had the chance. So BL was able to learn how to lay low and build up an enormous amount of cash. After 9/11, Al Queida was hunted down. By the time we found BL, Al Queida was pretty much dead already and killing BL was more or less just for show.
This is the attitude that needs to be changed:
The president then issued a threat to Iran, to which the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded that America “can’t do a damn thing.”
The way I see it, kill the Jihadists before they have a chance to do something and become a martyr.
(01-07-2020, 10:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Did you just “you guys” me with these freaks?
LOL No not really, I just got lazy and didn't feel like creating another post, but come on, we all like to get our freak on now and then.
RE: Iran Situation - Millhouse - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 03:03 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was an assassination of a foreign official. Under certain viewpoints this could be a violation of international law. It was done in a different country without notifying them ahead of time, violating the sovereignty of that nation. It was definitely over the line of international norms.
Did they miss? Advanced warning was given to Iraq, and they had to know that would be passed along to US forces. Smells more like things went as intended.
I stated earlier they missed on purpose most likely knowing they would lie about it to save face with their die hards in their country.
And this wasn't just a "foreign official' either, nor was the other guy with him killed who was actually once sentenced to death for the attack on the U.S. embassy in Kuwait back in 1983.
Who knows, maybe there is more to all of this that we know, like perhaps someone high up in Iran wanted him taken out or something. I doubt it, but its never out of the realm of possibilities.
RE: Iran Situation - Belsnickel - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 03:42 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Easy, We are at war with Terrorists, to my knowledge that War has not ended.
We were not at war with Iran per se, but they are supporting and enabling a known Terrorist group the Quds. It doesn't matter that they have a prominent position with in Iran's Government. When the war was declared, we were very clear that anyone country/countries aiding or shielding known terrorists would be putting themselves at risk. Iran has had plenty of time to disassociate themselves from this group. They chose not to. Many are also crying, you assassinated a government official, we did not, we assassinated a known terrorist who just happens to also be government personnel. He was not targeted because of his government position. The biggest double standard I have is that the terrorists don't check in before they act. They act then claim it. Why does Congress and other countries have to have a say before we act? Again, it's not like this guy just popped up on the list overnight and was killed. He's been on it for a while.
The War on Terror is specifically about those that carried out the attacks on 9/11 and those associated with them. That is what the AUMF says. Iran was an enemy of those actors. This is the biggest problem with the ongoing hostilities in the ME. Even the fight against ISIS isn't really covered by that AUMF. So no, we aren't really at war with these folks.
Just so you know, the Quds force is a branch of the IRGC, which is a military unit of Iran. It is like our JSOC. Every action Soleimani took was a sanctioned action by Iran. He absolutely was killed because of his position in the Iranian government because the actions he did on their behalf is why we had a problem with him. His actions had to be approved by the Supreme Leader, even, so he did actually have to check in before taking action. In fact, one of the reasons we know the "imminent attack" line is bullshit is because he had recently been recalled to Iran to discuss something he had been planning, which isn't something that happens when his boss is okay with the plan.
RE: Iran Situation - Belsnickel - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 03:55 PM)Millhouse Wrote: And this wasn't just a "foreign official' either, nor was the other guy with him killed who was actually once sentenced to death for the attack on the U.S. embassy in Kuwait back in 1983.
Still an assassination, which is illegal under both international and US law.
RE: Iran Situation - BmorePat87 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 12:49 PM)jj22 Wrote: It was American base. Just so happened to be on Iraqi land. But it was not an attack on Iraq. Their intentions were clear and stated. Not sure where this it was Iraq they attacked comes from. There's no reason to deny we are at war at this point.
U.S will respond, as we have to. Trump said if they retaliated in any way they'd pay the price. They ignored him and did less than a week later. I don't care for Trump, but the US Commander in Chief must be respected. Or else all is lost in the world credibility wise.
Trump is about to speak.
We have to?
Mirroring what Au and Mason said, their response to us conducting a military strike that killed a huge target was to bomb a base but not kill any Americans.
You do not have to respond to this. We had the more impressive show of force.