Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:20 AM
TonySinclair is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Or this operation on a Japanese admiral in WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Vengeance
Good analogy.
  #52  
Old 01-03-2020, 03:41 AM
Francis Vaughan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 5,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
^
The less a white dude knows about the region the more confident they are in their “analysis” and the posts.
Never fails.
Not sure which way to take this comment. I'm the first to admit I have not a great understanding of the region, but I have at least spent a small amount of time in a few countries (mostly on oil exploration related business, so that taints my view a bit) and this is my genuine take on matters. I care enough to be enlightened.
  #53  
Old 01-03-2020, 04:15 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
Would Iran nuking the United States in return for this be a justified response as I'm seeing twitter claim? And how Europe wouldn't shed a tear?
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons or the means to deliver them to the USA, so it doesn't really matter.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 01-03-2020 at 04:15 AM.
  #54  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:08 AM
Dereknocue67 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 1,208
Was the name of this strike, 'Operation - Reelect Trump'?
  #55  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:22 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,438
Uggh. Hopefully this is the extent of any military action against Iran. War with Iran would be catastrophically harmful to the US -- far more so than the dumb Iraq war.
  #56  
Old 01-03-2020, 05:29 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,438
Hugely stupid. War with Iran would be catastrophic for the US - thousands and thousands of dead US troops. I'm not sure if we'd even win. Obviously we have a military at least ten times as powerful as the Iranian military. But would the US public put up with casualties significantly higher than the Iraq war, for months and months, with no benefit to the US, against a country that wasn't a threat to the US?

Ugh. Makes me sick to my stomach. I'll hope against hope that this is the extent of US military action against Iran.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #57  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:01 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons or the means to deliver them to the USA, so it doesn't really matter.
Yet.

From their p.o.v. nuclear weapons might be useful to have now, so we can probably say goodbye to any attempt to restrain their development of them.
  #58  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:39 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
What happened in the news yesterday that would have prompted the POTUS to order this attack? Or are you gonna stick with an argument based on paranoia?
Trump was feeling neglected, what with all those people celebrating New Year's instead of celebrating him....
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #59  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:47 AM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,532
The reaction from congresspeople? Here's a take from Pelosi, and one from Lindsey Graham:
"The strike was carried out without an "authorization for use of military force" against Iran and without the consultation of Congress, the speaker said.
"The full Congress must be immediately briefed on this serious situation and on the next steps under consideration by the Administration, including the significant escalation of the deployment of additional troops to the region," Pelosi said.





...
Graham said in a statement that Suleimani "had American blood on his hands" and welcomed what he called Trump’s “bold action against Iranian aggression."
"To the Iranian government: if you want more, you will get more," Graham said."


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ation-n1109831
  #60  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:51 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Some people thought the same thing about at least the last two Presidents. If you noticed, it didn't happen.
Unlike the other two, Trump and his supporters have come up with several reasons why he should get a third term.
  #61  
Old 01-03-2020, 06:54 AM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,190
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
What happened in the news yesterday that would have prompted the POTUS to order this attack? Or are you gonna stick with an argument based on paranoia?
Uh... I have absolutely no idea. This feels like unprovoked terrorism on our part, to me. I would love to hear a more optimistic spin.
  #62  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:10 AM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,582
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Some people thought the same thing about at least the last two Presidents. If you noticed, it didn't happen.
Unlike the other two, Trump (and his supporters) has been making noises about deserving a third term.
  #63  
Old 01-03-2020, 07:54 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,265
Good thing we've got an agreement with Iran where they've agreed to not develop nuclear weapons.

Oh wait.
  #64  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:03 AM
Alessan's Avatar
Alessan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Tel Aviv
Posts: 25,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbroome View Post

As to who killed him, well the only two countries that want him dead are the US and Israel. The US has a lot more to lose by doing this. So that narrows down the possibilities....
Israel is in Iranian missile range, so obviously, the US has a lot more to lose. Makes sense.
  #65  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:04 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Killing Suleiman, accident or not, is an adequate retaliation for their attack on our Embassy. Let them think twice about unprovoked acts of aggression against us or our Allies. The Iranian government is not a popular one and some USA carrot and stick might pay off.
They will think twice -- about how to better defend themselves against these kinds of attacks and they will also think twice about the appropriate form of escalation.

What Trump's administration is trying to do is to send the message to Iran's leadership that they are doomed to succumb to America's economic and military warfare, and that their only option is to accept American demands unconditionally. That is not the world in which Iran intends to live.

Sure, America could fuck Iran right up, but as with Iran, I can almost guarantee that we're not prepared for the aftermath.
  #66  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:15 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by russian heel View Post
Thanks I finally looked it up, Shiites outnumber Sunni 2:1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq
One of the many reasons it was extremely stupid for the U.S. to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. Despite the Shi'ite majority, Iraq under Saddam (who was Sunni) was the military counterweight to Iran in the region. Taking out Saddam and leaving a weakened, divided, Shi'ite-dominated Iraq in the place of his regime has left Iran with little regional opposition that matters, as Iraq is largely allied with Iran now. (Yes, there is Saudi Arabia, but the Saudis strongly prefer to have someone else do their fighting.)

And Lord help us if Trump and his loony-tunes henchmen get us into a war against Iran. We couldn't control Iraq after Saddam, and Iran is much larger than Iraq and has three times the population. Needless to say, if anyone thinks Trump & Co. have any idea what they're doing here, I want some of what they're smoking.

Remember when the Republicans were the 'daddy party,' mostly because they were the party that supposedly knew what they were doing with respect to defense and national security? Buaha...never mind, it isn't funny in the least.
  #67  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:29 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,436
Yeah, from the Irianian perspective, this is sort of like if our CIA Director was killed while visiting Ottawa. This is a really big deal.

Though, I wonder if the Iranian response is going to be better thought out than this was: they may try to strike back in ways less attributable to them than issuing a press release about who they just killed.

I would also be surprised if Iraq didn’t kick out all US troops in the next few days.
  #68  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:34 AM
BobLibDem is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 21,955
Reckless and dangerous, entirely avoidable. Iran was abiding by the nuclear treaty, but Donald could not bear the notion of honoring a treaty crafted by a black guy, so he tore it up. Now a full scale shooting war seems certain. If you think this will be easy, I think you'll be disappointed. The Iranian military is not to be trifled with, even by the US. Who knows what the Syrians or Russians will do?

So the knucklehead starts a war without notifying Congress, with the exception of Lindsey Graham, whose response was to immediately begin verbal fellation of the Donald.

This will not end well. Remember those gains on your 401 k in 2019? I think they'll be gone in 2 weeks. Deficit? How about $3 Trillion.
  #69  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:42 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,265
Freedonia's Going To War - just because.
  #70  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:45 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,649
You can be sure that Soleimani has been tracked by the US for years. Wonder why they terminated him now.

It's so fucking transparent - it's wag the dog time.

(BTW, to those who may spout the party line that Iran/Solemani was about to kill Americans and needed pre-emptive incineration, what do you think about those Iraqi WMD. Got to hand it to them. Very well hidden.)

ETA: A perfect time for Kim Jong Un to do something provocative.

Last edited by KarlGauss; 01-03-2020 at 08:50 AM.
  #71  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:46 AM
Ludovic is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,697
Hey, leave My hometown out of this!
  #72  
Old 01-03-2020, 08:46 AM
carnivorousplant is offline
KB not found. Press any key
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 59,572
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Killing Suleiman, accident or not, is an adequate retaliation for their attack on our Embassy. Let them think twice about unprovoked acts of aggression against us or our Allies. The Iranian government is not a popular one and some USA carrot and stick might pay off.
I think they will take the macho alternative of getting even.
__________________
You callous bastard! More of my illusions have just been shattered!!-G0sp3l
  #73  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:02 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Killing Suleiman, accident or not, is an adequate retaliation for their attack on our Embassy. Let them think twice about unprovoked acts of aggression against us or our Allies. The Iranian government is not a popular one and some USA carrot and stick might pay off.
This is absolute bullshit.

You can be sure Soleimani has been tracked for years. Why take him out now? Do you really think that the straw that broke Trump's back was what happened at the embassy? And, please, don't tell me it was done to pre-emptively prevent "attacks on US personnel". Sounds too much like "Iraq possesses WMD and we need to find them and destroy them. Now."

As I said in the other thread, this is wag the dog time. A long-predicted distraction as both impeachment and the election loom.
  #74  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:06 AM
Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: on your last raw nerve
Posts: 23,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
Graham said in a statement that Suleimani "had American blood on his hands" and welcomed what he called Trump’s “bold action against Iranian aggression."
"To the Iranian government: if you want more, you will get more," Graham said."

I read these words, but in my head I hear these: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A
  #75  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:10 AM
Chief Pedant is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francis Vaughan View Post
Not sure which way to take this comment. I'm the first to admit I have not a great understanding of the region, but I have at least spent a small amount of time in a few countries (mostly on oil exploration related business, so that taints my view a bit) and this is my genuine take on matters. I care enough to be enlightened.
I'd be inclined to enlighten you on the mistaken notion that current international conflicts are somehow the result of poorly-drawn borders created by outsiders when they withdrew whatever control they had. This has been used as an excuse for miserable outcomes for every part of the world that was ever controlled by an outside entity during the last couple hundred years.

That's a very naive view of history, in my opinion. It's a cheap and easy way to fix blame elsewhere and create victims, as if the conflict(s) and shitty current situation(s) would not exist were it not for interference from outsiders.

If it were the case that externally-drawn borders were crummy, then the peoples within those borders could fix them.

Last edited by Chief Pedant; 01-03-2020 at 09:11 AM.
  #76  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:15 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by carnivorousplant View Post
I think they will take the macho alternative of getting even.
It's not about macho -- that's the wrong way to view Iran's position. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Iran believes the United States and its more bootlicking allies are an existential threat to its regime.

If we want to understand the behavior of "crazy" and "macho" testosterone-fueled regimes like Iran and North Korea...we need to understand how they view the outside world working against them. That doesn't mean we need to sympathize with their world view, but we need to have the ability to understand it -- seeing the world from their eyes will lead to more rational decision making on our part instead of this "Fuck you, America's the leader of the free world and if you don't do as we tell you, we'll we've got the most powerful military and economic machine in the world to make you comply -- but yah, like, freedom and stuff, too."

Iran has been preparing for war with the United States for 40 something years. Obama, with the coordination of Russia, Europe, and other allies actually got Iran to deescalate, and it's because the framework represented both a pause and an avenue for a face-saving way out for all parties involved. Ever since Trump decided to tear up that framework simply because it had Obama's fingerprints on it, Iran has felt an economic noose tighten around its neck.

"Well why don't they negotiate and spare themselves a war then?"

Right, uh huh. Everything on America's terms, with no guarantees about the survival of the current Iranian regime and not even ruling out the possibility of a war later that eventually fractures Iran itself. What we're asking Iran to do, after having watched what happen to their neighbor in Iraq, is to just trust us.

Right. Sure. Okay. Glad we cleared that up.

Iran and North Korea are not mad. They're not macho. They've made the same calculated, rational decision that they are not going to go down without a fight. They are not going to just let America sit back in the pocket and pass all over the field at will. They're going to blitz once in a while. They're going to scrap. They're going to do everything they can to preserve their own survival.
  #77  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:21 AM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,361
Would somebody kindly break down for me how panicked I should be on a scale of 1–10? I sort of feel like this is a 4, but that may be just because there's been rather a lot of inflation during the Trump era and I'm getting inured to the news. I know next to nothing about US-Iran issues, or Persian politics, other than that there has been tension for a while, and I don't feel I can calibrate this.
  #78  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:21 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Hey, leave My hometown out of this!
Hail, hail Fredonia!
  #79  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:24 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 59,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbroome View Post
As to who killed him, well the only two countries that want him dead are the US and Israel. The US has a lot more to lose by doing this. So that narrows down the possibilities....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessan View Post
Israel is in Iranian missile range, so obviously, the US has a lot more to lose. Makes sense.
I thought rbroome was being ironic: of the two countries, the U.S. has more to lose.... so of course Trump went ahead and did it, because Trump is a moron.
  #80  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:27 AM
MortSahlFan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: US
Posts: 618
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbroome View Post
Well I will be darned.
The Pentagon just announced that the US killed the general on Trump's direct orders.
I guess he got tired of looking like a wimp.
And now we will see what happens. I can't imagine Iraq allowing the US to stay in-country, but I am rarely correct about such things. Iran is certainly going to do it's best to retaliate. Hope the US forces in the area keep their heads down and defenses up.
Iraq is owned by the US.. There is no sovereignty. We went from regime change, to region change. Hell, Wesley Clark mentioned every country we'd be invading over a decade before we did, and it's on YouTube - media won't mention it of course, because their paycheck depends on this warfare state.
  #81  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:37 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobLibDem View Post
The Iranian military is not to be trifled with, even by the US.
Oh please. Their troops haven't fought a war since 1989, their equipment is 30+ years out of date, and they don't have that much of it (~210 combat aircraft, ~1100 tanks, etc...)

They'd get curb-stomped by the US military(who has fought multiple wars recently and has a LOT of up-to-date equipment) and they know it.
  #82  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:37 AM
Bear_Nenno's Avatar
Bear_Nenno is online now
Endowment Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bavaria
Posts: 9,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
^
The less a white dude knows about the region the more confident they are in their “analysis” and the posts.
Never fails.
Those damn white people, amiright? Non-white people never have this problem, is that it?
  #83  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:39 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,936
Trump's strategy remains the same as it ever was:
1) Change the subject - Much less talk of impeachment across all media.
2) Best defense is a new offence - Trump supporters newly motivated and armed with new talking points.
3) Make opponent look weak - Democrats on the back foot again, demanding accountability from the Trump administration and being rebuffed.
4) Profit: Mission Accomplished; Consequences be damned.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #84  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:40 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
Would somebody kindly break down for me how panicked I should be on a scale of 1–10? I sort of feel like this is a 4, but that may be just because there's been rather a lot of inflation during the Trump era and I'm getting inured to the news. I know next to nothing about US-Iran issues, or Persian politics, other than that there has been tension for a while, and I don't feel I can calibrate this.
For those of us living outside Europe, Africa, or southwest Asia, this is not duck-and-cover territory just yet, though there's a decent chance of cyberattacks. My concern is about the other poles of conflict in the mideast that were already on a knife's edge. Sunni Iraqis vs. Iran, Saudi vs. Iran, Israel vs. Hezbollah, Israel vs. everybody, and of course the US vs all sorts of actors that were constrained/controlled by Iran. Honestly there are so many ways this could all go to shit that I can't enumerate all of them.
  #85  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:43 AM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsircool View Post
Trump, believe it or not, might have actually done the right thing here.
Whether something is the right thing is completely irrelevant to Trump. His only interest is his image. He wants to do things which he thinks look "tough."
  #86  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:47 AM
Icarus's Avatar
Icarus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In front of my PC, y tu?
Posts: 5,472
Not to be glib (ok, maybe I can't help myself), but most all of Trump's thoughts mirror those of the loudmouth drunk uncle at the end of the bar. Having been around those types, one of their common ruminations about Iran (or pretty much the whole mid-east) is along the lines of "Nuke em!" (their innocent citizenry be damned). I suspect that Trump is of the same mind.

So, we take out their big guy, they blow up a freighter in the gulf, Trump feels that now he can pull out "the suitcase" and press that big red button. The MAGA hat crowd goes wild!
__________________
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
- C. Darwin
  #87  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:50 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Oh please. Their troops haven't fought a war since 1989, their equipment is 30+ years out of date, and they don't have that much of it (~210 combat aircraft, ~1100 tanks, etc...)

They'd get curb-stomped by the US military(who has fought multiple wars recently and has a LOT of up-to-date equipment) and they know it.
I forget, how have all these battle-hardened troops with their shiny new gear performed in those wars lately? I will never understand how people can look at the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and think it's going to be Gulf War 1 all over again. What kind of thought process does that involve?

Sure, make no mistake, every US war will now feature a Fox News phase with 1-2 months of spectacular destruction which America will surely triumph, and then another decade or so of bleeding treasure and prestige while Iran shreds US forces and interests from the margins, away from the battlefields. And remember Iran already has a regionwide if not global terrorist/nonconventional operations network that Iraq never had.

That's before we get to the careening instability caused by refugees/regional power vacuums/lack of any real stabilizing power.
  #88  
Old 01-03-2020, 09:52 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,295

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Those damn white people, amiright? Non-white people never have this problem, is that it?
Let's leave this out of the discussion, please.
  #89  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:01 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 19,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I forget, how have all these battle-hardened troops with their shiny new gear performed in those wars lately? I will never understand how people can look at the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and think it's going to be Gulf War 1 all over again. What kind of thought process does that involve?

Sure, make no mistake, every US war will now feature a Fox News phase with 1-2 months of spectacular destruction which America will surely triumph, and then another decade or so of bleeding treasure and prestige while Iran shreds US forces and interests from the margins, away from the battlefields. And remember Iran already has a regionwide if not global terrorist/nonconventional operations network that Iraq never had.

That's before we get to the careening instability caused by refugees/regional power vacuums/lack of any real stabilizing power.
And now Russia has a more established presence and vital interest in the area. An interest that is at odds with the US. And China is only too happy to sell weapons to fuel the conflict.

What's that movie line about things getting out of hand and being lucky just to survive it?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #90  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:05 AM
guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Trump's strategy remains the same as it ever was:
1) Change the subject - Much less talk of impeachment across all media.
2) Best defense is a new offence - Trump supporters newly motivated and armed with new talking points.
3) Make opponent look weak - Democrats on the back foot again, demanding accountability from the Trump administration and being rebuffed.
4) Profit: Mission Accomplished; Consequences be damned.
True--all this because the only thing Trump cares about is his image. He wants to look "tough" because that's all his base can understand.

None of the geopolitical stuff matters (and he's too lazy to learn about it anyway). He's been waiting for an opportunity to do something like this. It's just more of his show--his performance.
  #91  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:07 AM
HMS Irruncible is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 8,942
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
Some people thought the same thing about at least the last two Presidents. If you noticed, it didn't happen.
1. The people who thought that about Obama are demonstrably paranoid, ill-informed, and unreachable by anything resembling reality.
2. The people who thought that about Bush are... who, again?
3. Unlike other Presidents, Trump frequently jokes about serving more than two terms.
4. Unlike other Presidents, Trump's survival as a free man depends on him staying in office to forestall the state & federal criminal investigations against him and his cronies.

Saying there's a high likelihood isn't the same as saying he'll pull it off, but he has every survival-related reason to do it, and has given overt hints that he'd be interested in trying.
  #92  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:08 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,097
I have been fired due to my age and will be out of here on Saint April Fool's Day. Any bets if things will hold off until then?
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #93  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:14 AM
AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear_Nenno View Post
Those damn white people, amiright? Non-white people never have this problem, is that it?
Oh we do. But since this particular mess has created by YOU guys, you get called out on it.

No one is blaming you for the fucking Naxalites. Or Muslim-Sikh riots.

Last edited by AK84; 01-03-2020 at 10:15 AM.
  #94  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:20 AM
Jonathan Chance is online now
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 23,295

The Moderator Speaks


All right, that's enough.

I was on the fence enough to talk about your casual swipes in your earlier post, AK84. But doubling down after I said knock it off just a few posts earlier?

Warning issued.
  #95  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:24 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,971
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMS Irruncible View Post
I forget, how have all these battle-hardened troops with their shiny new gear performed in those wars lately? I will never understand how people can look at the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions and think it's going to be Gulf War 1 all over again. What kind of thought process does that involve?

Sure, make no mistake, every US war will now feature a Fox News phase with 1-2 months of spectacular destruction which America will surely triumph, and then another decade or so of bleeding treasure and prestige while Iran shreds US forces and interests from the margins, away from the battlefields. And remember Iran already has a regionwide if not global terrorist/nonconventional operations network that Iraq never had.

That's before we get to the careening instability caused by refugees/regional power vacuums/lack of any real stabilizing power.
First, any Iranian war would be a naval/air war. Why would we invade? There's absolutely nothing in it for us. It's not like their navy has become MORE capable since the last time we wrecked it, and we're very likely to be dominant in the air as well. Plus, their economy is highly dependent on oil, which means that they're dependent on tankers and oil pipelines, both of which are easy to spot and capture/destroy.

Iran is a second rate at best power. Probably more like third rate when you get right down to it. They are not a serious threat.
  #96  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:26 AM
AK84 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 16,646
Didn’t see it. Fine. Will not talk on this topic again.

Last edited by AK84; 01-03-2020 at 10:26 AM.
  #97  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:26 AM
John Bredin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: BuffaloGrove IL (Chicago)
Posts: 2,096
Quote:
Originally Posted by TonySinclair View Post
Good analogy.
Except the U.S. was at war with Japan at the time, so a military leader was a legit target. We're not at war with the nation-state of Iran -- yet -- and so killing this guy isn't the same as taking out Admiral Yamamoto then or an AlQaida or ISIS leader now. It's a pretty clear casus belli if the Iranians want to run with it.
  #98  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:32 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Oh please. Their troops haven't fought a war since 1989, their equipment is 30+ years out of date, and they don't have that much of it (~210 combat aircraft, ~1100 tanks, etc...)

They'd get curb-stomped by the US military(who has fought multiple wars recently and has a LOT of up-to-date equipment) and they know it.
When you get down to it, the United States military hasn't conclusively won a war in 7 decades, and has never, ever won a war without massive allied support which exceeded that... especially in body count... the US's contribution.

Your faith in our military's ability to win a war is grossly misplaced, it seems to me.

Last edited by JohnT; 01-03-2020 at 10:34 AM. Reason: We didn't "win" the Gulf War. We just restored the status quo.
  #99  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:37 AM
Paul in Qatar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia
Posts: 13,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Oh please. Their troops haven't fought a war since 1989, their equipment is 30+ years out of date, and they don't have that much of it (~210 combat aircraft, ~1100 tanks, etc...)

"Underestimating the other fellow is a rookie mistake."
--Some colonel at War College.
__________________
800-237-5055
Shrine Hospitals for Children (North America)
Never any fee
Do you know a child in need?
  #100  
Old 01-03-2020, 10:39 AM
JohnT's Avatar
JohnT is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 24,091
In addition, they are hobbled from serving under a President who has done nothing but smear and attack our intelligence community, our military leaders, as well as our allies, including NATO and the Kurds.

Again, the US military is $800 billion of smoke and mirrors which hasn't conclusively won a conflict with true geopolitical consequences and changes since 1945.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017