+- 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 - BmorePat87 - 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.
Iran said the US had a small dick. The US dropped their pants and showed a porn dick. Then Iran dropped their pants, showed a chode, and said they had a bigger dick.
No one but Iran believes that Iran looked tough.
We retaliated to the embassy attack by targeting and killing a top Iranian official. They responded to that by showing that their military is vastly inferior to ours. Shrugging that off as a "That's it?" and walking away is absolutely a "win"... AS OF NOW.
I may not agree with the initial strike, but walking away now shows strength and good judgement. Even better judgement would be saying to Iran "Look, clearly we outmatch you. Come to the table to negotiate or we will be forced to take your weak attacks seriously".
RE: Iran Situation - Dill - 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.
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).
Yes, Mill, way over the line. I know you are no dummy. Let's set aside the numerous negatives for US national interest following the assignation of Soleimani (e.g.,we have united Iran, invited an anti-US insurgency within Iraq, frightened and disconcerted our Gulf allies and Israel, etc.) to focus on a few points about international norms/law.
1. Iraq is a sovereign country. We disrespect that sovereignty when we kill the general of a country partnered with them, an ally in their (and our) war against ISIS, on their soil without their permission. In doing so, we signal the world that we are not really about respecting international norms and rule of law. Where we have the power, we will do what we want. This is an especially bad move when, so far as the US Command is concerned, we need Iraq in order to monitor/operate in Syria and to hold down the northern end of the Gulf in the current conflict with Iran. If the US wants effective sanctions against Iran, then Iraq may be the most crucial player, as without the US presence, Iraq can easily sell its oil through a cooperative Iraq. It is also part of a pattern of disrespect for international norms, which in the ME context includes trashing the Iran Deal. We break things now. We don't fix them.
2. Soleimani was "operating out of Iraq" you say. But remember that the US is also "operating out of Iraq" to harm Iranian interests. Your stated standard, unless you are assuming a double standard, would make our generals legitimate targets for Iran, but it has so far chosen not to go that route. So viewed more neutrally, outside the US media frame, the US is also equally "orchestrating attacks" against "their people" everywhere in the region. And we would certainly call it a "terrorist attack" if Al Quds took out one of our generals in Iraq or Afghanistan--or for better comparison, while he was in a neutral state like Qatar or Jordan.
3. Building on point 2, regarding the status of Soleimani, we, and the rest of world, distinguish between state and non-state actors, between official representatives of sovereign nations and charismatic leaders of insurgencies and political movements, including terrorist groups. The former REPRESENT states, making attacks on them an attack on a state. Just as we respect the embassy officials and grounds of other states as matter of convention--even when they are adversaries--so do we respect their officials. Iran went against international norms when Iranian students took over the US embassy in 1979, and made itself an international pariah when Khomeini and the fledgling revolutionary government decided to back the move. We are similarly scorning international norms by assassinating a legitimate and high-ranking representative of the Iranian state--a general with whom WE were partnered only a few months ago--on Iraqi soil.
So in my view, this assassination and its aftermath are really ALL ABOUT the kind of international norms/laws we want the rest of the world to uphold with us and respect. Trump's views on this issue place him clearly outside the norm adopted by the worlds current "good guys"--e.g., Europe, Canada, Japan, and clearly in line with bad actors like Russia.
(PS the bolding is meant to single out central ideas in each paragraph for easier comprehension--not intended as shouting.)
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 04:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 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.
We threatened them not to retaliate and they did.
They threatened us not to retaliate and we backed down.
This will go down as a loss in the history books. We should have ended it on our terms. We didn't. Iran's word (to attack our allies in the area if we responded) clearly carried more credibility then Trumps as America acted like Iran should have by backing down (if we had a C-n-C with some credibility). The didn't.
And that is defeat.
RE: Iran Situation - BmorePat87 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 04:30 PM)jj22 Wrote: We threatened them not to retaliate and they did.
They threatened us not to retaliate and we backed down.
This will go down as a loss in the history books. We should have ended it on our terms. We didn't. Iran's word (to attack our allies in the area if we responded) clearly carried more credibility then Trumps as America acted like Iran should have by backing down (if we had a C-n-C with some credibility). The didn't.
And that is defeat.
So we have to respond with more military strikes because some people might see it as a defeat? That's how you get stuck in quagmires and it's a very bad way to govern.
RE: Iran Situation - Dill - 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.
Bels clarified the "War on Terror" pretty much, as well as the status of the Quds force as a state actor.
But I want to add a couple of points with how Iran responded to our declaration of war on "terror" in 2001.
1. Iran denounced Al Qaeda and expressed sympathy with the US and condolences for our dead.
2. General Soleimani, already working with the US proxy Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, quickly directed Iran to provide the US with intelligence for and help in coordinating US operations there. The US, in return, gave the Iranians intel on an Al Qaeda operative hiding out in Norther Iran. Soleimani wanted the Iranian leadership to "rethink" its position towards the US, given their common enemies (the Taliban and Al Qaeda), but Bush's "axis of evil" speech in Jan. 2002 angered Soleimani and ended the apparent thaw in relations.
One final point--since the so-called "War on Terror," the term "terrorist," already problematic, has become politicized, by which I means now it has come to serve various policy goals rather than to accurately describe actions which, from some neutral perspective, could be called "terrorist."
Designating the Al Quds brigade and its leader as "terrorists" in this case was more about increasing the reach of sanctions than identifying an Al Qaeda-like organization out to attack the US. This is especially questionable when it occurs after the US has invaded a country like Iraq on false pretext and then begun killing those who opposed that illegal occupation, designating most all of them as terrorists--but conveniently working with them at later times when it suited US purposes.
Last week on the Ingraham Angle, some Fox "expert" claimed Soleimani was behind the attack on the US Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983--a time when he was junior officer in the the Tharallah Division fighting in the Iran Iraq war, a thousand miles away. The same guy also claimed Soleimani bore responsibility for the 500,000 deaths in the Syrian war--and all that is why he is a "terrorist.' Now more than ever, we need to vet carefully the claims made about ME actors so that government officials can't lead us in whatever direction they like.
RE: Iran Situation - fredtoast - 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.
WTF does this mean?
Only people living in the right-wing echo chamber believe that the MSM was saying Trump was going to use an atomic bomb.
RE: Iran Situation - fredtoast - 01-08-2020
Trump assassination of Solimaini was a bad move.
His decision not to escalate the conflict after the Iranian missile strikes was a good move, but it would never have been necessary if not for his original bad move.
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 04:38 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: So we have to respond with more military strikes because some people might see it as a defeat? That's how you get stuck in quagmires and it's a very bad way to govern.
It is. But when you put you make your bed...... And Trump did when he issued the threats.
When you go there it leaves you no choice if you want creditability. He should have at least backed down on his on terms. Not after Iran made their threat.
RE: Iran Situation - bfine32 - 01-08-2020
It seems this event has unfolded as well as anyone could have expected and many are mad. Some who proclaim to support our troops. These Iranian bombing where pretty like the tree that falls in the forest.
RE: Iran Situation - bfine32 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 06:06 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump assassination of Solimaini was a bad move.
His decision not to escalate the conflict after the Iranian missile strikes was a good move, but it would never have been necessary if not for his original bad move.
I find both to be good moves.
The only thing I dislike is the use of drones.
RE: Iran Situation - Matt_Crimson - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 02:47 PM)Dill Wrote: 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?
No.I was making fun of all the fear mongering going around about WW3 starting.
As for a bad day for the MSM. They have long pressed hard about the idea that Trump is a psychopath that cant control himself and is always seconds away from shooting off a nuclear bomb.
(01-08-2020, 06:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: WTF does this mean?
Only people living in the right-wing echo chamber believe that the MSM was saying Trump was going to use an atomic bomb.
See my post to Dill. Hope that clears things up.
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
Personally I think it's important for our troops to have a commander in chief who's word has meaning and credibility.
This does nothing to help support our troops in harms way when no one take Trumps threats seriously and reacts a week after he threatens to hit 54 sites if they do (and gets away with it).
They are less safe in the region that clearly doesn't fear the POTUS now.
Not good.
RE: Iran Situation - GMDino - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 06:24 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: No.I was making fun of all the fear mongering going around about WW3 starting.
As for a bad day for the MSM. They have long pressed hard about the idea that Trump is a psychopath that cant control himself and is always seconds away from shooting off a nuclear bomb.
See my post to Dill. Hope that clears things up.
All of those things are true even if he never shoots off a nuclear bomb.
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
Sen. Chris Murphy: "The damage that has been done already, just in the last four days, to American security interests in the region is perhaps irreparable."
This.
All of our enemy's from Al Queda to ISIS to Russia to NK to Iran got the message. Trump is all talk, and that is worst case scenario with what just took place.
RE: Iran Situation - fredtoast - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 06:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It seems this event has unfolded as well as anyone could have expected and many are mad.
How is the Iraqi government ordering US troops to leave a good thing?
Seems to me it will just open the door for the rise of more radical terrorists groups in Iraq.
RE: Iran Situation - fredtoast - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 06:24 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: As for a bad day for the MSM. They have long pressed hard about the idea that Trump is a psychopath that cant control himself and is always seconds away from shooting off a nuclear bomb.
I think you are a little confused.
FOXNews is the one who brags about how unstable Trump is. In fact they claim that his strength in international policy is the fact that he is unpredictable and likely to nuke a county like Iran or North Korea. Supposedly that is so much better than the other recent Presidential pusssies who everyone knew could control themselves.
RE: Iran Situation - TheLeonardLeap - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 06:28 PM)jj22 Wrote: Personally I think it's important for our troops to have a commander in chief who's word has meaning and credibility.
This does nothing to help support our troops in harms way when no one take Trumps threats seriously and reacts a week after he threatens to hit 54 sites if they do (and gets away with it).
They are less safe in the region that clearly doesn't fear the POTUS now.
Not good.
Why do I get the strong feeling that if the US responded to an attack with 0 American deaths by blowing up all of Iran's oil refineries rather than the current deescalation, you wouldn't be talking about how happy you are that the CiC's word had meaning and credibility? That you wouldn't be thinking that the troops are safer now that the region fears the POTUS?
I just want to have your answer out in the open in completely undeniable simplicity...
Do you want The US to go to full blown war with Iran? Yes or no.
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 06:46 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Why do I get the strong feeling that if the US responded to an attack with 0 American deaths by blowing up all of Iran's oil refineries rather than the current deescalation, you wouldn't be talking about how happy you are that the CiC's word had meaning and credibility? That you wouldn't be thinking that the troops are safer now that the region fears the POTUS?
I just want to have your answer out in the open in completely undeniable simplicity...
Do you want The US to go to full blown war with Iran? Yes or no.
The Independent in me has always sided with Republicans on foreign policy. And I could be considered a Hawk by most for my pro American anti isolationist world views. I want the President to be respected overseas regardless of how I feel about him or party. I'm an American first and foremost.
I'd rather the US get this war with Iran over with and shots were fired by the hit on their top general which I consider an act of war. This was the time/excuse to hit their Nuclear facilities at the very least.
Do I want war with Iran? No. But if the Commander in Chief threatens it and they don't respect the threat, then they've left me no choice but to support a war with them. The President of the United States must be respected.
RE: Iran Situation - TheLeonardLeap - 01-08-2020
(01-08-2020, 06:52 PM)jj22 Wrote: Cause you should know the independent in me has always sided with Republicans on foreign policy.
I want the President to be respected overseas.
I'd rather the US get this war with Iran over with and shots were fired by the hit on their top general which I consider an act of war. This was the time/excuse to hit their Nuclear facilities at the very least.
So that's a yes, you do want full blown war with Iran?
RE: Iran Situation - jj22 - 01-08-2020
Yes. If the American POTUS threatens it and they ignore the threat.
He's left me no choice but to support.