Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)


Recommended Posts

I still think we moved their mines so one would hit a ship and cause an international incident. 

 

Now they’ve shot down a drone. 

 

Good. If there’s one thing we need badly it’s another war in the ME

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we learned nothing from the last time the GOP was in power, we are headed for another unpaid pointless war in the Middle East to go along with tax cuts for the wealthy. 

 

Kids born today will be fighting in the Middle East in 20 years if we do this. If we haven’t defaulted on our debt and driven our public finances over a cliff that is. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The ironic part is that it is Trump himself who seems to be downplaying everything going on, so I guess he can pretend like his hand was forced into going to war later on. 

 

I am sure the wealthy will gladly request that their tax cuts are rescinded to help pay for the upcoming never ending war.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NoCalMike said:

The ironic part is that it is Trump himself who seems to be downplaying everything going on, so I guess he can pretend like his hand was forced into going to war later on. 

 

Based on everything we've observed about Trump since he took office, what gives you the impression this is his idea or that he even understands any of it? I don't view the guy as intelligent enough to have a foreign policy framework, much less one that we can judge as good/bad. To me he's obviously doing what he admin is directing him, and I don't think that's that grand of a statement considering who he has in what roles. At this point I don't even think he has the intellectual capacity to sit down, shut up, and listen to the relevant intelligent officers brief him on things.

 

Does he strike you as the kind of guy that can sit in a 30-60 minute briefing on the going-ons of Iran? Do you think he can even keep straight who's Sunni and who's Shia? Do you think if someone asked him who the Houthie's are that he'd even have a clue as to where to start? I'm betting he'd try to play it off as a music group of some sort. "Yeah, I've listened to their music but I'm not that big of a fan" is the type of response I'd expect, for example.

 

The GOP has had it out for Iran for a long time. One of the first things I read when Trump won the election and started building his admin, was that they were all very anti-iran, some not just anti-iran but overtly looking for a way to justify a war.  I told my friends and wife early on that the thing to watch for was starting a war with Iran. Hell, we've been in a proxy war with them via Yemen/Saudi Arabia for years, it's not exactly a stretch to predict this. Trump's the perfect person for them to manipulate, because he had his number one goal (it seems) to be to dismantle anything Obama did just to spite Obama, one of which was the Iran nuclear deal. Given what we know about Trump's intellect, I can't imagine it was hard for someone like Bolton to slow-play that from spiting Obama to being on the cusp of war with them.

 

Much like Bush was the perfect person to manipulate with the invasion of Iraq. It wasn't a tough sell to say Saddam was a cruel dictator that was openly courting Bin Laden, and tie that to justification for invading. 9/11 was still recent in everyone's minds. Convincing him to go in with little to no plan was probably not hard.

 

Now the news from the US is that they're determining an appropriate response and putting together support for their claim that the drone was over international waters. NPR humorously ran with the idea this morning that it could lead to sanctions, but my bet is on a missile strike. 

 

I'm willing to bet the only thing that's keeping us from striking iran are military generals that are actually in-tune with what it means to send young men and women into a combat zone to potentially die, or come back with devastating injuries (even if just mental.)  Until we have a competent president with competent national security advisers, I think that's the only thing keeping us from going to a war with someone.

 

PS: Houthies launched rockets in Saudi Arabia about the same time Iran shot down the drone. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

Edited by tshile
Link to post
Share on other sites

When someone asked candidate Trump how he would handle fighting between Al Quds forces and ISIS, he had no clue what the interviewer was talking about.  Not surprising, since President Trump in France last year started lecturing the befuddled Presidents of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia about how they screwed up Yugoslavia...until one of his aides explained to him the difference between the Baltic states and the Balkans.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Based on everything we've observed about Trump since he took office, what gives you the impression this is his idea or that he even understands any of it?

 

Oh I agree with your entire post. I don't strike Trump as someone who understands anything about much of anything.  He probably falls asleep during meetings or spaces out, has little intellectual curiosity about anything, has pre-conceived notions about everything that he refuses to bend on even after being confronted with facts that contradict his thinking which is based on only his "super excellent knowledge on all things ever."  

 

What I was trying to say is that Trump is likely going to be manipulated into this war by his cabinet because he has no real thoughts of his own. He claims to not be for intervention but he has no experience or wherewithal to go about diplomacy aka negotiate with hostile countries.  The people around him know he is an easy target to manipulate and push in whatever direction they want him to go.   Trump can say he is not for war, but it is based on nothing.  Sort of like his "wonderful healthcare plan"  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Based on everything we've observed about Trump since he took office, what gives you the impression this is his idea or that he even understands any of it? I don't view the guy as intelligent enough to have a foreign policy framework, much less one that we can judge as good/bad. To me he's obviously doing what he admin is directing him, and I don't think that's that grand of a statement considering who he has in what roles. At this point I don't even think he has the intellectual capacity to sit down, shut up, and listen to the relevant intelligent officers brief him on things.

 

I don't think Trump is particularly intelligent or interested in learning.  I suspect he governs a lot by "instinct".  But I also think he does understand that there isn't a lot of public interest/appetite out there for another war.  And that will affect his thinking.  I think he knows in general wars are bad for the economy and a good economy is an important factor in him being re-elected.  I don't think he's eager to go to war with Iran.

 

But I also think he wants to play the tough guy.  He wants to carry a big stick and be loud, but he doesn't really want to use the big stick.  He likes the likes of Bolton because they have that tough guy and be loud component to them, but I don't think he's as willing to use the stick as them.

 

But I also don't think he really has any idea of how to be that loud tough guy while avoiding using the big stick (well, really, I don't think he's put much thought into how to do that.)

 

And so the only thing he can really do is down play the Iranian actions.

 

(And I'm a little worried that's going to result in Iran being further emboldened to the point that they do something that's not really reversible (and is really bad).  In general and normally, I'd say that Iran is what I'd call a rational actor and I'm not overly worried about them doing something to cause a war.  But they are used to a rational actor based on a US that follows a set rules well grounded in historical norms.  Which is not currently the case.)

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

 

But I also think he wants to play the tough guy.  He wants to carry a big stick and be loud, but he doesn't really want to use the big stick.  He likes the likes of Bolton because they have that tough guy and be loud component to them, but I don't think he's as willing to use the stick as them.

 

But I also don't think he really has any idea of how to do that (well, really, I don't think he's put much thought into how to do that.)

 

And so the only thing he can really do is down play the Iranian actions.

 

This is one big issue with electing someone who has zero experience in these matters.  I remember being alarmed at the lack of insight Bush had in foreign policy when he was running, he outright said he was relegating foreign policy matters to Cheney, which pretty much meant war was on the agenda eventually. Their goal was aided by the horrific events of 9/11 but make no mistake war with Iraq was on the agenda the entire time regardless.

 

With Trump, it is well & good that he might not personally want a war, partially due to his own lack of ability to be a true commander in chief with lives on the front lines of war, and maybe out of personal preference to not go to war, however what worries me is that he has no experience of ability to go about the alternatives to war. Look at his laughable attempts so far with North Korea.  He was made a fool of on a national stage. Now you couple that with the fact that his cabinet is full of characters who want and have wanted war with Iran for quite some time, and it tends to make me think that Trump will be pushed into a conflict because he has no ability to go about things in other ways. 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

think he knows in general wars are bad for the economy and a good economy is an important factor in him being re-elected. 

 

The reason I say this, is because I felt like it was a component to Bush's reelection and it's not something I've studied so that's about all I have to go on, but...

 

It feels to me like being in the early stages of a war is also good for a president. That we, the general public, are reluctant to change leaders at the start of a war. Only over time, if the war drags on, does public sentiment change and getting out of the war spark a significant portion of the population to want to change presidents to get us out of the war...

 

Everyone's talked about how the economy doing better is going to make i tough to beat him, but I also think starting a war 6-18 months before the election may help too.

 

I'm just making that up though.

Edited by tshile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wars are bad for the economy? Eh....not so sure. They cost a lot, which in turn means all those weapons and bombs being used need to be replenished.  The production of more weapons of mass destruction will drive the economy.  Didn't Bush' "War economy" mask the overall stagnant economy for awhile?  I know there was a lot of manipulation with the books back during that time. 

Edited by NoCalMike
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Springfield said:

No wartime president has been voted out of office, correct?

But in 2008 a big component of Obama winning, i think, is that people thought he would get us out of the ME wars (I believe he campaigned on that and closing gitmo...) while McCain would not. So, no, Bush wasn't voted out, but I think a big part of the GOP losing the White House was that the public wanted someone they thought would end our involvement in the wars.

 

I believe throughout most of his two terms there was some pretty constant criticism that he didn't really live up to either promise. The only real withdrawl of troops (for a long time) was with Iraq and that was an agreement put in place by Bush before Obama took office.  I may be remembering that incorrectly though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
 
 
4
8 minutes ago, tshile said:

But in 2008 a big component of Obama winning, i think, is that people thought he would get us out of the ME wars (I believe he campaigned on that and closing gitmo...) while McCain would not. So, no, Bush wasn't voted out, but I think a big part of the GOP losing the White House was that the public wanted someone they thought would end our involvement in the wars.

 

I believe throughout most of his two terms there was some pretty constant criticism that he didn't really live up to either promise. The only real withdrawl of troops (for a long time) was with Iraq and that was an agreement put in place by Bush before Obama took office.  I may be remembering that incorrectly though...

thats what happened

Link to post
Share on other sites

The public was pretty pro-Iraq War until halfway into Bush's 2nd term.  The overall support had started to wane but it was still strong enough to get Bush a win in 2004.

 

His entire 2004 re-election campaign was "stay the course" and how you couldn't switch the commander in chief in the middle of a war.   

 

Obama's win definitely had something to do with people seeing McCain as not only in support of the Iraq War, but in favor of escalating it, and being pretty pro-war across the board.  The public had soured on the thought of endless war.  

 

Unfortunately that feels like a lifetime ago and I am really hoping people's memories aren't so short as this Iran stuff escalates. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • visionary changed the title to US and Iran Relations (News and Discussion)

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.

×
×
  • Create New...