Global Conflict Escalations

[CousinsCowgirl84]

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

 

 

Is it really cynical of me to think this is Russia-Iran-China working to turn the electorate against Biden?

 

If he keeps acting like sleepy joe it will. It’s time to show some leadership.

[CobraCommander]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If he keeps acting like sleepy joe it will. It’s time to show some leadership.

So we should definitely start a war even though we are not technically engaged in a war? That might not help his chances.

[Fergasun]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

We have to go after Iran on Iran soil. Otherwise the sleepy joe monicker will become too real. Trump will keep bashing him over and over again, and the fact that much of this is Trumps fault due to his policy of retreating American leadership, it won’t matter. 

No, we don't.  I am already sick of Trump's fantastical "Ukraine, Gaza and this attack don't happen if I am President."  

 

We keep hammering the heck out of their proxies and ensuring that all their drone shipments get shut down.  Their weapons destroyed on launchers and drone factories hit.  We should try to minimize casualties as much as possible, but the organizations launching these should be made well aware it is not a matter of "if" but "when".  I think we already have the "red dots" on these people and them killing our servicemen just removes some restraint.  Sadly, I imagine "militiaman targetting Israel and US interests" is a lucrative proposition in that region.  

 

It sucks, but if we want to maintain influence in the region, this is a direct result of our support for Israel and involvement.  Trump and GOP can act like they have some magic bean answer short of "total middle eastern withdrawal". 

[Renegade7]

35 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

We should bring the war to Iran. They are the sole source of funding and weaponry. They are directing these terrorists. They are calling the shots.

 

No, call their bluff, beating their proxies to a pulp is the jot the same as going at it with revolutionary guard and trying to occupy Tehran.

 

We're trying to avoid a major escalation unless we have to regardless of the the title of this thread.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

30 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

No, we don't.  I am already sick of Trump's fantastical "Ukraine, Gaza and this attack don't happen if I am President."  
 

oh no, they are happening because was president!

 

 

30 minutes ago, Fergasun said:

 

 

It sucks, but if we want to maintain influence in the region, this is a direct result of our support for Israel and involvement.  

it’s a direct result of our policy of deescalation and our decision to invade Iraq (removing a Foe of Iran from the region). Anytime Iran/Israel got heated we would always focus on deescalation. We let the problem fester too long. Now Iran is almost a problem that is too big to deal with. They are killing our troops. It’s time.

3 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

No, call their bluff, beating their proxies to a pulp is the jot the same as going at it with revolutionary guard and trying to occupy Tehran.

 

We're trying to avoid a major escalation unless we have to regardless of the the title of this thread.

Who said anything about occupying Tehran, take out all there nuclear sites. Trying to avoid escalation so we just let our troop get thrown into the garbage disposal?

 

 

35 minutes ago, CobraCommander said:

So we should definitely start a war even though we are not technically engaged in a war? That might not help his chances.

The war has already started. Wake up.

Edited January 28 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Renegade7]

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

oh no, they are happening because was president!

 

 

it’s a direct result of our policy of deescalation and our decision to invade Iraq (removing a Foe of Iran from the region). Anytime Iran/Israel got heated we would always focus on deescalation. We let the problem fester too long. Now Iran is almost a problem that is too big to deal with. They are killing our troops. It’s time.

Who said anything about occupying Tehran, take out all there nuclear sites. Trying to avoid escalation so we just let our troop get thrown into the garbage disposal?

 

 

The war has already started. Wake up.

 

You trippin, we take out Iran's nuclear sites when they thr most parts are still themselves directly staying in sidelines and letting their proxies take most of the beating?

 

Iran will fire missles at every US military member in the Middlea East if we do that, only way to stop them would be occupying Tehran

 

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

You trippin, we take out Iran's nuclear sites when they thr most parts are still themselves directly staying in sidelines and letting their proxies take most of the beating?

 

Iran will fire missles at every US military member in the Middlea East if we do that, only way to stop them would be occupying Tehran

 

Iran is already firing missles at US military members.

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Iran is already firing missles at US military members.

 

It's not like they've never done that before.

 

You sound like you want to rip the bandaid off here, understand that with this situation that will mean blood everywhere.

 

Need cooler heads to prevail here, going for the jugular with the Iran shouldn't be off the table, but make sure we're in same page what that means if we do.

 

Won't benmany players in that part of the world NOT involved if the top comes off, Pakistan IS a nuclear power.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

9 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

going for the jugular with the Iran shouldn't be off the table, but make sure we're in same page what that means if we do.

 

 

I think we know what it means. There will be a high cost. But it’s not like anything ever gets better with Iran. Especially with China and Russia egging them on. The longer we wait the exponentially higher the costs will be. Once they have a nuclear weapon they are untouchable.

[Renegade7]

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

I think we know what it means. There will be a high cost. But it’s not like anything ever gets better with Iran. Especially with China and Russia egging them on. The longer we wait the exponentially higher the costs will be. Once they have a nuclear weapon they are untouchable.

 

Getting ahead of every problem via war is why we are always at war...

[PeterMP]

49 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

oh no, they are happening because was president!

 

 

it’s a direct result of our policy of deescalation and our decision to invade Iraq (removing a Foe of Iran from the region). Anytime Iran/Israel got heated we would always focus on deescalation. We let the problem fester too long. Now Iran is almost a problem that is too big to deal with. They are killing our troops. It’s time.

Who said anything about occupying Tehran, take out all there nuclear sites. Trying to avoid escalation so we just let our troop get thrown into the garbage disposal?

 

 

The war has already started. Wake up.

 

There are several assumptions that are inherent in your argument.  Two are that we can destroy meaningful targets in Iran without risking the lives of Americans (eg that we can destroy their nuclear sites using missiles or drones in a manner that don't directly put US lives at risk).

 

And that striking in Iran won't result in more US lives being put into the "garbage disposal". Eg. That for example doing so doesn't make it easier for anti-US groups to attract members willing to take a lot of risks to kill Americans and potentially increase their ability to recruit directly in Iran and so more Americans don't end up dead 

 

(Note, I am not saying we should not hit Iran.  But most people arguing either way are arguing in absence of important information.

 

Though unfortunately I agree with you though part of the decision making process will be the political implications.  And I do mean unfortunately because I 100% reject the implication that blowing up something in Iran is showing leadership and that if we don't that some how suggest or indicares that Biden is a poor leader.  Blowing up something in Iran right now is the easy thing to do.  But that doesn't necessarily make it the best.)

[CousinsCowgirl84]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

There are several assumptions that are inherent in your argument.  Two are that we can destroy meaningful targets in Iran without risking the lives of Americans (eg that we can destroy their nuclear sites using missiles or drones in a manner that don't directly put US lives at risk).

no, I didn’t say they wouldn’t put American lives at risk. It would. Right now though we are at risk and every day we don’t respond with force is another day we embolden Iran. I’m not necessarily saying we should topple Irans government. But the price they have to pay is swift and severe. We are continually letting them off the hook.

 

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

And that striking in Iran won't result in more US lives being put into the "garbage disposal". Eg. That for example doing so doesn't make it easier for anti-US groups to attract members willing to take a lot of risks to kill Americans and potentially increase their ability to recruit directly in Iran and so more Americans don't end up dead 

 

long term Iran has to be dealt with. We keep putting it off and the problem keeps getting worse.  The costs you are talking about in your comments are going to happen eventually anyway. Iran is never going to be anything but a staunch enemy of the United States. It’s just a matter of how hard the problem will be to mitigate. The longer we wait the harder it gets.
 

[PeterMP]

21 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

no, I didn’t say they wouldn’t put American lives at risk. It would. Right now though we are at risk and every day we don’t respond with force is another day we embolden Iran. I’m not necessarily saying we should topple Irans government. But the price they have to pay is swift and severe. We are continually letting them off the hook.

 

 

long term Iran has to be dealt with. We keep putting it off and the problem keeps getting worse.  The costs you are talking about in your comments are going to happen eventually anyway. Iran is never going to be anything but a staunch enemy of the United States. It’s just a matter of how hard the problem will be to mitigate. The longer we wait the harder it gets.
 

 

The suggestion of your post was that the result of your actions would be preventing the loss of American lives.  If Americans die in your strikes against Iran, I don't see how that helps at all.  And to me at least appears to be throwing more Americans to the "garbage disposal".  If that's not the case, then any logic in your argument falls apart.  You try to strike at Iran in Iran, and you end up with dead Americans, then what are you doing?

 

Taking out their nuclear sites (while potentially getting Americans killed) doesn't really "deal with Iran".  If you take out their nuclear sites, Iran still can pass missiles and funds onto other organizations to kill Americans. 

 

I generally reject the idea that Iran is always going to be a staunch enemy of the United States.  The Iranian regime appears to have issues in their own country from both the left (people wanting liberalization) and also from conservative Muslims (e.g. ISIS).  There's no reason to think the regime is very stable and will bein charge in a few years.  It seems like part of what they are doing might be to try and provoke a response to rally the people around the government.

 

If you want to talk about this lay out what you are going to do that actually prevents Iran from giving weapons to groups that will attack the US and why it will be harder in the future.

 

To me the question out of this is, why do we have people in Jordan?  Is that really something we are benefitting from?

 

And how did a drone get close enough to where they are to result in killing people?  What this really suggest is that there is some benefit in having American on the ground in Jordan in a situation where we can't really protect them.  I'm pretty doubtful that's the case.

Edited January 28 by PeterMP

[Bang]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The war has already started. Wake up.

This is truth. 
We have to be careful, though because Iran's job is to pester us, threaten us, keep us busy expending arms, money and allowing time to drive propaganda wedges against our actions, whatever they may be, against Iran.
I agree, we need to take the fight to them in their house. but I prefer the quiet with them. Attack, **** them up, but keep the ability to say "Who, us?" in the propaganda war.
We do need to keep an eye on the bigger picture rather than follow the lures.

 

~Bang

Edited January 29 by Bang

[CousinsCowgirl84]

28 minutes ago, Bang said:

This is truth. 
We have to be careful, though because Iran's job is to pester us, threaten us, keep us busy expending arms, money and allowing time to drive propaganda wedges against our actions, whatever they may be, against Iran.
I agree, we need to take the fight to them in their house. but I prefer the quiet with them. Attack, **** them up, but keep the ability to say "Who, us?" in the propaganda war.
We do need to keep an eye on the bigger picture rather than follow the lures.

 

~Bang

I am fine with that, we can be smart about it. But we just can’t stay indecisive.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

The suggestion of your post was that the result of your actions would be preventing the loss of American lives.  If Americans die in your strikes against Iran, I don't see how that helps at all.  And to me at least appears to be throwing more Americans to the "garbage disposal".  If that's not the case, then any logic in your argument falls apart.  You try to strike at Iran in Iran, and you end up with dead Americans, then what are you doing?

 

We are going to have to deal with Iran sooner or later. More American lives will be spent dealing with them the longer we wait. 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

Taking out their nuclear sites (while potentially getting Americans killed) doesn't really "deal with Iran".  If you take out their nuclear sites, Iran still can pass missiles and funds onto other organizations to kill Americans.
 

 

They can. But then we have demonstrated real deterrence. Iran will have actually lost something. If they continue down the road, what else will they loose? Americas words have no deterrent effect anymore. I think that is a huge problem that can only be dealt with through force.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I generally reject the idea that Iran is always going to be a staunch enemy of the United States.  The Iranian regime appears to have issues in their own country from both the left (people wanting liberalization) and also from conservative Muslims (e.g. ISIS).  There's no reason to think the regime is very stable and will bein charge in a few years.  It seems like part of what they are doing might be to try and provoke a response to rally the people around the government.

 

everyone has some kinda phantasy where if “x regime” wasn’t in power the people would accept “democracy” and be friendly to the west. Time and time again, that fantasy collapses.  Iran’s government is made up of Iranians who believe what they believe. A new Iranian government won’t be that much different that the old one. 
 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

If you want to talk about this lay out what you are going to do that actually prevents Iran from giving weapons to groups that will attack the US and why it will be harder in the future.

 

To me the question out of this is, why do we have people in Jordan?  Is that really something we are benefitting from?

 

Jordon is just where the deaths occurred. There have been attacks in Syria and Iraq. We just got lucky no one died there. Our luck ran out.
 

Or perhaps you are sympathetic to Trumps version of America’s place on the world stage? Isolationists that let Russia, China, and their proxies (NK and Iran) do the heavy lifting for world order. Thats what you are shouting when you try to argue that our troops wouldn’t have died if they weren’t there.

Edited January 29 by CousinsCowgirl84

[PeterMP]

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

I am fine with that, we can be smart about it. But we just can’t stay indecisive.

 

We are going to have to deal with Iran sooner or later. More American lives will be spent dealing with them the longer we wait. 

 

They can. But then we have demonstrated real deterrence. Iran will have actually lost something. If they continue down the road, what else will they loose? Americas words have no deterrent effect anymore. I think that is a huge problem that can only be dealt with through force.

 

everyone has some kinda phantasy where if “x regime” wasn’t in power the people would accept “democracy” and be friendly to the west. Time and time again, that fantasy collapses.  Iran’s government is made up of Iranians who believe what they believe. A new Iranian government won’t be that much different that the old one. 

Jordon is just wear the deaths occurred. There haven been attacks in Syria and Iraq. We just got lucky no one died there. Our luck ran out.
 

Or perhaps you are sympathetic to Trumps version of America’s place on the world stage? Isolationists that let Russia, China, and their proxies (NK and Iran) do the heavy lifting for world order. Thats what you are shouting will you try to argue that our troops wouldn’t have died if they weren’t there.

 

I'm not at all sure attacking Iran is a deterrent that is going to save American lives, especially if it cost American lives in the process.

 

That's your assumption.  If you lose lives in attacking Iran, then the attack has to be a sufficient enough deterrent to save lives to off set the lives you lost.  You don't know that attacking their nuclear sites (or anything in Iran) will do that.

 

It might serve as a rally to the government with the bodies of dead Americans being marched through the streets of Tehran.  It might help to stabilize the regime and result in young Iranians flocking to entities that are willing to attack the US.  

 

IF the attack actually acts as deterrent, that's great.  But you've got no evidence that it will.  That was my point to start with.

 

The end is just ludicrous and garbage.  Americans aren't dying because of our support of Ukraine, and I've been saying from the start we should be doing more with Ukraine.  If it was up to me, Ukraine would have gotten tanks and planes right away.   Americans aren't dying because of our support of S. Korea and Japan.  No Americans have died because the US Navy and Air Force keep operating in the S. China Sea. 

 

That we should be doing a basic cost benefit analysis out of what do we get for putting Americans in positions where don't seen to be able to adequately protect them should be obvious.

 

Yes, there were other attacks.  But it seems we had security/processes in place that prevented deaths (or maybe we did just lucky).  Asking what was the benefit of having people in Jordan that we don't seem to have been able to protect and was it worth it doesn't mean that we can't still have an active foreign policy.

Edited January 29 by PeterMP

[TheGreatBuzz]

Since China's economy has been mentioned. 

 

 

 

 

[Bang]

Interesting development.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/china-presses-iran-rein-houthi-attacks-red-sea-sources-say-2024-01-26/

China presses Iran to rein in Houthi attacks in Red Sea, sources say
 

DUBAI, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Chinese officials have asked their Iranian counterparts to help rein in attacks on ships in the Red Sea by the Iran-backed Houthis, or risk harming business relations with Beijing, four Iranian sources and a diplomat familiar with the matter said.

The discussions about the attacks and trade between China and Iran took place at several recent meetings in Beijing and Tehran, the Iranian sources said, declining to provide details about when they took place or who attended.

More under link above.


 Wonder if they're serious or they are just playing a feint for public facing.

 

~Bang

 

[PeterMP]

54 minutes ago, Bang said:

Interesting development.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/china-presses-iran-rein-houthi-attacks-red-sea-sources-say-2024-01-26/

China presses Iran to rein in Houthi attacks in Red Sea, sources say
 

DUBAI, Jan 26 (Reuters) - Chinese officials have asked their Iranian counterparts to help rein in attacks on ships in the Red Sea by the Iran-backed Houthis, or risk harming business relations with Beijing, four Iranian sources and a diplomat familiar with the matter said.

The discussions about the attacks and trade between China and Iran took place at several recent meetings in Beijing and Tehran, the Iranian sources said, declining to provide details about when they took place or who attended.

More under link above.


 Wonder if they're serious or they are just playing a feint for public facing.

 

~Bang

 

 

Probably real.  They have as much to lose as anybody if oil production/shipping is disrupted, global trade routes are disrupted, and/or there is a larger global economic disruption.  Americans being killed in Syria, Iraq, or Jordan is probably fine with them.  Disrupting the movement of ships through what is an important water way in the global trade routes is probably not ok with them.

[Cooked Crack]

 

 

[Larry]

4 hours ago, Bang said:

Wonder if they're serious or they are just playing a feint for public facing.

 

~Bang

 

It's China. 

[Cooked Crack]

 

[Fergasun]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/politics/us-warship-close-call-houthi-missile/index.html

 

Quote

 

A cruise missile launched by the Houthis into the Red Sea on Tuesday night came within a mile of a US destroyer before it was shot down, four US officials told CNN, the closest a Houthi attack has come to a US warship.

In the past, these missiles have been intercepted by US destroyers in the area at a range of eight miles or more, the officials said. But the USS Gravely had to use its Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) for the first time since the US began intercepting the Houthi missiles late last year, which ultimately succeeded in downing the missile, officials said.

 

Too close after what just happened in Jordan. "We just hit your $2B warship."

 

 

[China]

Israel and Lebanon are prepping for a war neither wants, but many fear it’s becoming inevitable

 

he prospect of a full-scale war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia terrifies people on both sides of the border, but some see it as an inevitable fallout from Israel’s ongoing war against Hamas in Gaza.

 

Such a war could be the most destructive either side has ever experienced.

 

Israel and Hezbollah each have lessons from their last war, in 2006, a monthlong conflict that ended in a draw. They’ve also had four months to prepare for another war, even as the United States tries to prevent a widening of the conflict.

 

Here’s a look at each side’s preparedness, how war might unfold and what’s being done to prevent it.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]