visionary

NYT: As Trump Accuses Iran, He Has One Problem: His Own Credibility

Recommended Posts

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/14/us/politics/trump-iran-credibility.html

Quote

 

As Trump Accuses Iran, He Has One Problem: His Own Credibility

 

To President Trump, the question of culpability in the explosions that crippled two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman is no question at all. “It’s probably got essentially Iran written all over it,” he declared on Friday.

 

The question is whether the writing is clear to everyone else. For any president, accusing another country of an act of war presents an enormous challenge to overcome skepticism at home and abroad. But for a president known for falsehoods and crisis-churning bombast, the test of credibility appears far more daunting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by visionary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The GOPs wet dream of perpetual war is only possible because enough of the public is sufficiently dumb to keep entrusting  them with power. A war with Iran will end up worse than Iraq, but I’m sure satisfying John Bolton and Mike Pompeo’s war boners will be worth it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Springfield said:

I do not support this administration on any preemptive military action.

 

 

Not really preemptive but other than that i agree... not worth it.

49 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

A war with Iran will end up worse than Iraq

 

 

magnitudes worse.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Not really preemptive but other than that i agree... not worth it.

 

 

These aren't American ships and most of our oil is produced in house or comes from Canada, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Springfield said:

 

These aren't American ships and most of our oil is produced in house or comes from Canada, right?

 

Oil is a national security issue but besides then Iran has actively fought against our interests and undertaken criminal terrorist activities for the past 40 years.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m 49 years old so the Iran “boogeyman” schtick has been replayed on a loop for the vast majority of my existence.

 

It’s just played out and lazy at this point, honestly.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Oil is a national security issue but besides then Iran has actively fought against our interests and undertaken criminal terrorist activities for the past 40 years.  

 

I disagree that oil is a national security issue, when we are largely independent of foreign oil from what I understand.

 

I'd also like to point out that there are several other nations fighting against our interests that we aren't posturing military action against.

 

Also, I think it's dumb to send our kids to die for endless events.  Look what Iraq/Afghanistan did to them.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to remember (probably wrongly, I'm sure the Tailgate Scholars will be happy to correct me) from history class that we have typically not voted out a president during a war.  

 

Just my initial thought.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Springfield said:

 

I'd also like to point out that there are several other nations fighting against our interests that we aren't posturing military action against.

 

Yes, I agree. I said it wouldn't be preemptive, not that it was a good idea. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think this is rattling more about trying to get Iran to renegotiate with us than it is about going to war. John Bolton is very smart and I think he knows the consequences of going to war with Iran.

 

Trump is so unpopular and ineffective on the world stage that this likely won’t work, however. The world is just waiting him out.

 

 

 

57 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

I’m 49 years old so the Iran “boogeyman” schtick has been replayed on a loop for the vast majority of my existence.

 

It’s just played out and lazy at this point, honestly.

 

Thevd done a lot of ****ty things in the past 40 years as well. We’ve just cried wolf (at the wolf) but done nothing about it because there isn’t much that we can do without a lot of consequence.

 

The Iran deal was probably the best option because it moved Iran closer to what we wanted and cost us almost nothing. Too late.

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I think this is rattling more about trying to get Iran to renegotiate with us than it is about going to war. John Bolton is very smart and I think he knows the consequences of going to war with Iran. 

R71lQbq.jpg

 

What is this ****?

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Oil is a national security issue but besides then Iran has actively fought against our interests and undertaken criminal terrorist activities for the past 40 years.  

 

It's like deja vu all over again.  

 

(Famous quote.)

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Yes, I agree. I said it wouldn't be preemptive, not that it was a good idea. 

 

 

Just pointing out, "Hey, there's a 40 year old excuse we can point at" does not equal "not preemptive".  

 

As long as we're arguing over terminology, and all.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

59 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

"The US withdrawal from nuclear deal doesn’t give Iran the right to attack commercial vessels in one of the world’s most important shipping lanes."

 

True.  

 

It gives them the right to produce a nuclear weapon.  

 

(It was intentionally designed that way.)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

The “Bolton is a smart guy” angle is an interesting take.

 

 

He is a smart guy, have you read any of his books?  His diplomacy credentials really can’t be questioned, he’s been playing the game for a long time.  

 

Edited by CousinsCowgirl84

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

He is a smart guy, have you read any of his books?

 

Thats rich...

 

514mSX5NacL._SX334_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Spaceman Spiff said:

I seem to remember (probably wrongly, I'm sure the Tailgate Scholars will be happy to correct me) from history class that we have typically not voted out a president during a war.  

 

Just my initial thought.

 

Define "war", like officially declared? We are always at war with someone the last 100 years, troops on the ground shooting somewhere or drone striking somewhere else now.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

He is a smart guy, have you read any of his books?  

Whereas Trump is a blatant imbecile, I suppose that one might reasonably argue that people like Bolton and Wolfowitz are intelligent, despite a litany of policy disasters and no genuine successes. Both are pathological ideologues which renders them immune to reason, changing circumstances, or calculated actions.

When denouncing Iran, it's always about the past 40 years; never, say, the last 20.  That's because they have  often been on the right side of history the past two decades. Even after the destruction of priceless artifacts and harboring of Al Quaeda, the US continued to give tens of millions of dollars to the Taliban right up to 911. The Iranians, meanwhile, were supporting the Northern Alliance...the guys we eventually used to fight the Taliban we had created.

It was Iran's Al Quds forces who defeated ISIL on the ground, whereas the half billion we spent in Syria ended up in the hands of Jihadists.

Iran has supported brutal Shiite militias, but it is our supposed allies the Saudis who are funneling American materiel into the hands of rebranded Al Quaeda groups and promote the Salafist theology that is the backbone and breeding ground of Islamofacism and terrorism.

Edited by Riggo-toni
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hasn’t Iran threatened to shut down shipping through this particular body of water many times in the past?  Maybe I’m remembering it wrong.  

 

It seems premature to discuss war.  There is evidence, and so the reasonable course forward is to continue to investigate it.  Iran doesn’t have the power to make war against the US.  They don’t even have the power to survive such a war.  Not their government anyway.  There is no ticking clock in this situation.  Not yet.  So why not call for investigations?  The international community could even eliminate Iran’s physical presence in those waters.  Iran could choose to accept that or make war (and commit suicide).  

 

There is no good reason the options have to be reduced to war or not war.  Other than politics, anyway.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.