Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

visionary

By visionary
in The Tailgate

 Share

Recommended Posts

Larry

Larry

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

 

 

Might increase the chance of the deal working.  This way, Iran doesn't have to trust Trump to cough up the money.  If Trump renegs on the deal, European banks get punished for money they've already given to Iran.  

 

 

Edited by Larry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CousinsCowgirl84

CousinsCowgirl84

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

How many zillions of petro-dollars and US arms deals is it gonna take for Saudi Arabia to be able to guard their own refineries?!?

 

 

I don’t think it is possible to prevent this kind of an attack... it seems like if they can get the production up in a few days, the damage was isolated and minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
23 hours ago, TryTheBeal! said:

How many zillions of petro-dollars and US arms deals is it gonna take for Saudi Arabia to be able to guard their own refineries?!?

The way a nation “protects” itself from these sorts of attacks is by going to war.  There’s no totally effective defense for essentially being bombed by a foreign power.  

 

Its becoming increasingly difficult to credibly deny that Iran is behind all of this.  Earlier actions by Iran were met with doubt, just look at the title of this thread for an example, and that doubt was fair.  Iran has since escalated however, and seems determined to provoke a response.  We’ve gone well beyond saber rattling, they’ve attacked an ally of the US and damaged the world energy markets.  There is every reason to believe they’ll continue to escalate.  

 

Iran is working hard to make war an inevitable conclusion.  

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
@DCGoldPants

@DCGoldPants

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Destino said:

The way a nation “protects” itself from these sorts of attacks is by going to war.  There’s no totally effective defense for essentially being bombed by a foreign power.  

 

Its becoming increasingly difficult to credibly deny that Iran is behind all of this.  Earlier actions by Iran were met with doubt, just look at the title of this thread for an example, and that doubt was fair.  Iran has since escalated however, and seems determined to provoke a response.  We’ve gone well beyond saber rattling, they’ve attacked an ally of the US and damaged the world energy markets.  There is every reason to believe they’ll continue to escalate.  

 

Iran is working hard to make war an inevitable conclusion.  

 

They are basically paying Terrorist orgs to NOT attack them. Now that somebody has, they don't know what to do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

I dont understand why they'd want a war they know they cant win by themself.  Unless they already got agreement from someone they wont be fighting by themself

They might be counting on the US refusing to fight, which Beto is happily signaling would be the case if he were elected President, and the UN stepping in and limiting any real damage that any other nations might do to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Destino said:

They might be counting on the US refusing to fight, which Beto is happily signaling would be the case if he were elected President, and the UN stepping in and limiting any real damage that any other nations might do to them. 

 

It begs the question if we should be maintaining a military defense pact with Saudi Arabia or even Israel anymore.  One is breaking international law with impunity and the other is funding terrorist organizations on low. 

 

Should we keep doing that because one is pretending to be a democracy in a region that needs one and the other is critical to the worlds oil supply?  It's obvious those two countries refusal to reconcile with anyone is because they believe if worst comes to worst we will take their side without asking questions.  Should we at least be asking questions now?

Edited by Renegade7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Momma There Goes That Man

Momma There Goes That Man

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

It begs the question if we should be maintaining a military defense pact with Saudi Arabia or even Israel anymore.  One is breaking international law with impunity and the other is funding terrorist organizations on low. 

 

Should we keep doing that because one is pretending to be a democracy in a region that needs one and the other is critical to the worlds oil supply?  It's obvious those two countries refusal to reconcile with anyone is because they believe if worst comes to worst will take their side without asking questions.  Should we at least be asking questions now?

 

The time to ask these questions is over. We can't be blindly loyal to SA and let them determine when we go to war or not which is what trump implied and Beto countered. They have been working behind our backs for quite a while. I don't consider them an ally which means we do not need to rush to their defense. They are simply a business partner with some mutual interests. They are bad faith actors which is why we should question military aid on their behalf and use the moment as a chance to hold them to task on issues. 

 

They just cut an American resident to pieces with a bonesaw and lied about it and now expect us to jump into another war for them? America doesn't have the appetite for this. With better leadership this likely all could have been avoided and still could be handled diplomatically. As it stands, I'm sure we will go to war because it might help the US economy and Trump's election chances. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mistertim

mistertim

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Destino said:

They might be counting on the US refusing to fight, which Beto is happily signaling would be the case if he were elected President, and the UN stepping in and limiting any real damage that any other nations might do to them. 

 

I'm not necessarily sure how Beto has anything to do with Iran counting on us to not fight; he's just some presidential candidate with a very low likelihood of winning the nomination.

 

Trump has been a paper tiger ever since he became POTUS. He's a blowhard who is addicted to talking tough and threatening but who always backs down eventually. The only time he hasn't was when he bombed Syria and in that instance the US government basically told Syria and Russia exactly where we were going to bomb and when so they could get their **** out of the way and then just rebuild quickly. It had little to no impact. 

 

I'm obviously not saying I WANT any sort of war with Iran (I definitely don't), but I don't think it's a stretch to say Iran looks at Trump and see a super weak leader who wouldn't actually start a war with them unless they directly and blatantly attacked us. Trump speaks loudly and carries a small stick. Trump is also acutely aware that he ran on getting out of foreign military adventures and apparently he wasn't all that happy about Bolton essentially pushing him in that direction constantly. He'd probably be very very worried about how his base would react to a military conflict with Iran, especially with an election coming up and with a potential economic downturn coming. 

 

Obviously his super hardcore supporters would back him no matter what...he could probably start a war with England and they'd back it. But the less frenzied followers could potentially start to atrophy and break away from him. Remember, all Trump cares about is Trump...nothing else. If he sees something as a threat to him or his chances at getting reelected he probably wouldn't do it.

Edited by mistertim
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TryTheBeal! said:

Am I losing my mind, or did Destino just try and pin this thing on Beto?!?

 

That kool-aid must be awfully delicious...

You’re losing your mind.  Beto shouldn’t be continuing Trumps awful policy of diplomacy via tweet, and it would matter if he were to win.  That does not mean Beto caused the Iran issue.  

 

He didn’t make Trump back out of the Iran deal on a whim.  He didn’t make Trump behave like a paper tiger (thanks @mistertim).  That’s all Trump.  He likewise didn’t create the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran.  Nor did he make Iran continue to act like assholes and make absolutely no effort to be anything other a constant annoyance to the international community.  

 

Rest easy I’m not pinning this on your boy.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted (edited)

@stevemcqueen1 I'm moving your post over here because I think its offtopic were we were having this discussion

 

 
  •  
  1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I see this conversation is occurring in two threads now glad to see that.  Outside of protecting the oil market, I'd like to hear a good reason for continuing a military alliance with that country?  To help protect democracy and freedom in the region, a kingdom that just gave women the right to drive less then two years ago?

 

We have a strategy of supporting Saudi Arabia and Turkey as two of the three regional powers as a check on Iranian supremacy in the region and to provide for Israeli security.  Iran is Russia's proxy in the Middle East.  Our positive bilateral relations with Saudi Arabia were necessary for Soviet containment in Iran and Afghanistan, as well as to limit the scope of regional warring between Israel and the Arab world because our engagement with the Saudis keeps them from backing any move against Israel.  It's also stabilized oil prices for the United States, which is a key strategic benefit for the US because of how central oil prices are to facilitating economic development and the deployment of military power.  We also supported each other against Iraq, back when they were a geopolitical enemy.  We used our close relationship to Saudi Arabia to solidify the dollar as the world's biggest reserve currency after Nixon ended the gold standard in the 70's.  Their oil production provided the key commodity we used to stabilize our dollar's value and promote demand for its use as a reserve.

 
  •  
  •  
  •  

 

  •  

Its 2019 now, though.  I'm glad your bringing the historical perspective because you cant have this conversation without it.  But why are we containing Iran like they are the only ones funding terrorism on the low?  Let's be honest that primary reason we took Saudi Arabias side in thi proxy conflict is because they had more oil.  How much will that matter once we commit to ending our dependence on it? 

 

What is the future of this relationship when its obvious the SA and Israel wont work for common ground with Iran because they hope to drag us into a war with them for them, one everyone in here knows we cant afford?  I like what @Momma There Goes That Man said that we are business partners with overlapping goals, not allies, we hurt ourselves blindly supporting those two countries, is it worth it going forward, not 20-30 years ago?

 

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Destino

Destino

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I'm not necessarily sure how Beto has anything to do with Iran counting on us to not fight; he's just some presidential candidate with a very low likelihood of winning the nomination.

Beto only matters if he gets elected.

 

22 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Trump has been a paper tiger ever since he became POTUS. He's a blowhard who is addicted to talking tough and threatening but who always backs down eventually. The only time he hasn't was when he bombed Syria and in that instance the US government basically told Syria and Russia exactly where we were going to bomb and when so they could get their **** out of the way and then just rebuild quickly. It had little to no impact. 

 

I'm obviously not saying I WANT any sort of war with Iran (I definitely don't), but I don't think it's a stretch to say Iran looks at Trump and see a super weak leader who wouldn't actually start a war with them unless they directly and blatantly attacked us. Trump speaks loudly and carries a small stick. Trump is also acutely aware that he ran on getting out of foreign military adventures and apparently he wasn't all that happy about Bolton essentially pushing him in that direction constantly. He'd probably be very very worried about how his base would react to a military conflict with Iran, especially with an election coming up and with a potential economic downturn coming. 

Agreed entirely.  I’ll add that not only has his fake tough guy routine made America appear weaker, he ran on the US being less involved militarily around the world,  he even floated the idea that countries should pay us if they want to enjoy our protection!  Remember that?  It was like 1569 outrageous Trump statements back.  He’s in a hurry to get US military out of the region and Iran is happily growing more aggressive as a result.

 

No US leader should be taking military options off the table publicly.  No US leaders should be conducting foreign policy via tweets.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 9/15/2019 at 10:37 AM, TryTheBeal! said:

How many zillions of petro-dollars and US arms deals is it gonna take for Saudi Arabia to be able to guard their own refineries?!?

 

Maybe they can track down the drone pilots, lure them to a Saudi embassy, inject them with a heavy sedative, kill them, then hack them to pieces with a bone saw.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Destino said:

Its becoming increasingly difficult to credibly deny that Iran is behind all of this.

 

My primary initial doubt that Iran was responsible was the Trump administration declaring that Iran was responsible.

Edited by Dan T.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

 

My primary initial doubt that Iran was responsible was the Trump administration declaring that Iran was responsible.

 

That's funny, my initial reaction was "where the hell did a terrorist group get drones that can fire missiles from? Boeing? Stark Industries?"

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Renegade7

Renegade7

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, visionary said:

Seems as if everyone is assuming true story is true.  Isn’t it kind of hard to believe Iran would be shooting a dozen or more cruise missiles from Iranian soil at Saudi oil refineries?

 

Yes, it does.  Jus as crazy as drones with missiles coming from Yemen terrorist and wondering where they came from.  This is past goating us into war, this feels like calling our bluff.

Edited by Renegade7
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dan T.

Dan T.

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

That's funny, my initial reaction was "where the hell did a terrorist group get drones that can fire missiles from? Boeing? Stark Industries?"

 

 

So you are shocked that rebel groups can get access to sophisticated weapons? I mean, with international arms sales so highly regulated and all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...