+- 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: War with Iran? (/Thread-War-with-Iran)
RE: War with Iran? - CJD - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, that's a way of interpreting the tweet and very well may the correct way.
WTS, we can all applaud his care for humanity and second thoughts. Right?
I applaud Trump's ability to make the right decision, even if the timeline and the rashness required to get to the brink of making the wrong decision is still a major problem with him as the commander in chief. Let's keep hoping he has changes of heart each time he's about to start a new war.
RE: War with Iran? - GMDino - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 03:12 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yeah, that's a way of interpreting the tweet and very well may the correct way.
WTS, we can all applaud his care for humanity and second thoughts. Right?
Yes, the bar is so low that Trump changing his mind and not bombing innocent people is what some will praise him for.
While they ignore his decision making "process" in authorizing the strike in the first place.
RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 01:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So he was supposed to ask how many would be killed before retaliations plans were even drawn up and ready to be executed?
Hmmm ok whatever. Your bias is very obvious.
Think a moment, OtherMike.
That someone could have the answer when Trump asked shows that someone had worked out costs/benefits for that option.
"How many would be killed" would be factored into any plans for military action as they were being drawn up. This is the "bias" of every competent military planner. That info would have been available for the asking before Trump ordered the retaliation.
I am puzzled that you would not want leaders/commanders to asses the costs of military actions vs the benefits.
What is so problematic in this case is that Trump's decision-making process appears whimsical, uninformed, and undisciplined, thus risking American lives and civilian lives on the Iranian side.
The US commander in chief backed himself into a corner on the world stage and then whiffed. Now he may be very concerned to fix his wounded pride. More unstable actions to follow.
RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 03:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So we agree? Announcing the halt of the strikes were a bad idea.
You still haven't read #289. There aren't "good and bad ideas" in play here.
Just random, undisciplined, situational reactions from a broken personality, shifting in mood from belligerent to fearful and back.
I will grant you this--from a strategic perspective, in terms of the goals Bolton and Pompeo have set,
if your goal is to provoke "aggression" from Iran so we can attack them to "defend" the US,
then yes, announcing the halt of strikes was a bad idea. Keeping your mouth shut about your indecisiveness is much wiser than announcing it, and then embellishing it with random humanitarian criteria.
Tacking on a "humanitarian" motive, after you have spent weeks setting in motion events which may kill hundreds of thousands, just expands on your lack of awareness of consequences.
As I say. moody. situational. Neither exercising some coherent ethical code nor sticking to the plan, such as it was.
RE: War with Iran? - GMDino - 06-21-2019
Welp...DJT has changed the story already.
Trump told Chuck Todd one of his "sir" tall tales while explaining why he decided at the last minute not to strike Iran. pic.twitter.com/W3okA1LVpj
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 21, 2019
Can anyone verify that the "generals" wouldn't have known any of this info prior to "everything being ready to go"?
RE: War with Iran? - jj22 - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 01:49 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: So he was supposed to ask how many would be killed before retaliations plans were even drawn up and ready to be executed?
Hmmm ok whatever. Your bias is very obvious.
I know I'm hard on Trump, but why is this outrageous? I would have asked about casualties before the retaliation plans were drawn up.
Are you saying they drew up the plans without even reviewing with the Commander n Chief?
Even worse that they don't trust him in such an important moment where war would have been likely.
I think your idea of how it "should" have been done is worse. As POTUS rather we like him or not, he should be involved in war plans and retaliations. Leaving everything up to Bolton is how he got to this point (looking woefully unprepared, and uninformed) to begin with.
If this was Obama being so out of touch in such an important moment could you imagine.....
RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 03:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I applaud Trump's ability to make the right decision, even if the timeline and the rashness required to get to the brink of making the wrong decision is still a major problem with him as the commander in chief. Let's keep hoping he has changes of heart each time he's about to start a new war.
You are applauding an accident. A chance event.
We need a better option than hoping for more chance events.
I am thinking many down the chain of command would agree right now.
That is also bad.
RE: War with Iran? - jj22 - 06-21-2019
Trump is reeling because he begged to meet with IRAN after he warned them of the imminent attack, and they quickly declined to meet with him. He knows he looks like he blew it, and got played by the Iranians.
RE: War with Iran? - jj22 - 06-21-2019
If folks truly support Trump, they wouldn't keep turning a blind eye to his actions that lead him to be mocked and played by these Dictators. They'd demand he get it together to save face and "get the respect he deserves".
Blindly supporting him is like letting a bad employee you like keep doing what they are doing that is going to get them fired.
A true friend would tell them.
Doesn't seem like anyone will tell Trump (anyone that he'll listen to ie his base).
RE: War with Iran? - fredtoast - 06-21-2019
Trump had the drone intentionally flown into Iranian air space knowing they would shoot it down. Now he gets to play the part of the level-headed leader who kept his calm instead of making a rash military strike in retaliation.
He did the same thing when he made intentionally whipped up a frenzy of war-threats against North Korea just so he could look like a calming force when he backed down and sought diplomatic resolutions.
The man is a genius. He is playing his geo-political adversaries like a bunch of 3-stringed banjos.
RE: War with Iran? - Dill - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 03:58 PM)jj22 Wrote: If folks truly support Trump, they wouldn't keep turning a blind eye to his actions that lead him to be mocked and played by these Dictators. They'd demand he get it together to save face and "get the respect he deserves".
Blindly supporting him is like letting a bad employee you like keep doing what they are doing that is going to get them fired.
A true friend would tell them.
Doesn't seem like anyone will tell Trump (anyone that he'll listen to ie his base).
JJ, if you follow the reports of his intimates, and the notes of WH observers, you'll see that people who demand Trump "get it together " don't last long. He doesn't have "true friends." He has fixers and yes men. And people who know how to play him. He demands completely loyalty but doesn't return it. Honorable people resign, or decline offered positions. Yes men and party hacks step up to fill the gaps. The last person out of the room has Trump's ear.
Trump supporters call these descriptions of Trump's interaction with his staff and cabinet members "fake news" from unnamed sources.
Then Trump himself treats us to press conferences in which cameras go round the room as various people speak of what an honor it is to work with the amazing Trump. And there is more WH turnover than any previous administration, and more leaks, which come from disgruntled and humiliated staffers battling one another for Trump's attention or trying to displace someone else. All amidst daily tweets insulting "enemies" and stating, then reversing policy positions, and making up facts.
Dysfunction from the top down. And those who warn us are the enemy of the people. As we stand on the brink of war.
RE: War with Iran? - Mike M (the other one) - 06-21-2019
I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't want to go to war, but if Iran keeps hitting oil tankers, then they will leave little room.
Iran is trying to manipulate the oil market by attempting to cause unstability in the ME. No one in their right mind wants a war with the US.
I say we re-flag all tankers with the US flag and provide naval protection. See if Iran will put their money where their mouth is. I bet they would hide like the little snakes they are.
RE: War with Iran? - Mike M (the other one) - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 03:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Think a moment, OtherMike.
That someone could have the answer when Trump asked shows that someone had worked out costs/benefits for that option.
"How many would be killed" would be factored into any plans for military action as they were being drawn up. This is the "bias" of every competent military planner. That info would have been available for the asking before Trump ordered the retaliation.
I am puzzled that you would not want leaders/commanders to asses the costs of military actions vs the benefits.
What is so problematic in this case is that Trump's decision-making process appears whimsical, uninformed, and undisciplined, thus risking American lives and civilian lives on the Iranian side.
The US commander in chief backed himself into a corner on the world stage and then whiffed. Now he may be very concerned to fix his wounded pride. More unstable actions to follow.
You missed my point.
At the time he approved of it, there wasn't a known cost attached yet. So yes, once all done and ready to roll there would be cost of lives involved.
RE: War with Iran? - jj22 - 06-21-2019
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-did-not-impose-new-iran-sanctions-thursday-despite-trumps-claim/2019/06/21/cd3938f0-9441-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.8cc4c942ddc4
And he lied (again).
RE: War with Iran? - fredtoast - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 04:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't want to go to war, but if Iran keeps hitting oil tankers, then they will leave little room.
Be careful Mike.
"If the Viet Cong don't stop attacking our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin. . . "
"If Saddam does not surrender his weapons of mass destruction. . . "
RE: War with Iran? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 10:59 AM)jj22 Wrote: Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
....On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked & loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it, not....
Interesting that even he admits he waited until 10m before the strike to ask that question...... AFTER he authorized the strike.
I gotta laugh at the bit about flying in international waters.
RE: War with Iran? - jj22 - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 04:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You missed my point.
At the time he approved of it, there wasn't a known cost attached yet. So yes, once all done and ready to roll there would be cost of lives involved.
This is just spin (and kinda sad to see Trump supporters having to make this excuse when we all know better). Causalities are always apart of the discussion. Well before strikes are approved.
RE: War with Iran? - Mike M (the other one) - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 04:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump had the drone intentionally flown into Iranian air space knowing they would shoot it down. Now he gets to play the part of the level-headed leader who kept his calm instead of making a rash military strike in retaliation.
He did the same thing when he made intentionally whipped up a frenzy of war-threats against North Korea just so he could look like a calming force when he backed down and sought diplomatic resolutions.
The man is a genius. He is playing his geo-political adversaries like a bunch of 3-stringed banjos.
Where you get that from?
Everything I have read is they flew in the international airspace of the Gulf of Oman, except of course the Iranians claiming it was in their airspace. But of course you're going to believe them over our intel, anything to make Trump and co look worse. amirite?
Seriously, didn't Iran fire missles on another one of our drones that was investigating the oil tankers that were attacked? which was in international waters?
RE: War with Iran? - fredtoast - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 04:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No one in their right mind wants a war with the US.
That's the problem.
Israel just announced plans for a new housing development in the Golan Heights called "Trumpville". They are playing the Donald and Junior like a couple of licorice kazoos. They will do whatever Israel tells them to.
RE: War with Iran? - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 06-21-2019
(06-21-2019, 01:32 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I honestly have NO IDEA why he would admit this.
It makes him look wishy washy as ****. And that is one of the key signs of a poor leader.
Also, there is no way their initial brief on the options did not include a potential casualty count. So the way he wrote this it sounds like 10 minutes before the strike, he asked and they re-iterated the potential casualty count. That means he was either not listening during the brief, or didn't even think about it until moments before.
That shit's crazy.
I doubt if anything he tweeted is true. Just wanted to show the world he has more wisdom than King Solomon. Next will be the obligatory explanations of what he really meant now that the tweet didn't play out like it did in his head.