Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:00 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I'M suggesting that if you want the US to go to war, then you should fight in it if you are able.

You can provide any statistics you want, if that makes you feel better.
*shrug* I don't believe for a second that you're concerned about my feelings.

Much to the lament of the SJW's, there aren't yet any gender / racial / occupational requirements to holding /sharing an opinion or advocating a particular position. I don't have to be in the military to have an opinion on military action. I don't have to be a woman to advocate for a particular position on abortion, and I don't have to be black to share my thoughts on affirmative action.
  #52  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
So I guess it's the fault of these fantasy SJW creatures that you didn't answer my question about whether you plan to volunteer for military service if the Trump administration has us go to war with Iran or Venezuela?

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-14-2019 at 08:16 PM.
  #53  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:23 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
I don't have to be in the military to have an opinion on military action.
Of course you don't. Just don't expect your opinion to mean much. You know the saying
  #54  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:25 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
I'M suggesting that if you want the US to go to war, then you should fight in it if you are able.

You can provide any statistics you want, if that makes you feel better.
Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3b6SGoN6dA
  #55  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:44 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
...
Much to the lament of the SJW's, ....
I don't know you. Which is why I ask: Are you a grown man?

Last edited by bobot; 05-14-2019 at 08:45 PM.
  #56  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:58 PM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,603
There are too many reasons not to enlist to make willingness to do so the litmus test in judging causes belli (sp?). War is a national, not individual, endeavor. The interests of the nation should be consulted.

Not that I wasn't thinking the exact same thing today. Whose kids fight and die over Iran, and for what?


Then there is the Hooverville situation at the border. Have we declared war on Latin America? If not, wtf?
  #57  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:35 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So I guess it's the fault of these fantasy SJW creatures that you didn't answer my question about whether you plan to volunteer for military service if the Trump administration has us go to war with Iran or Venezuela?
I didn't answer your question because I didn't think it was relevant. You are the one that has adopted a moral code of "I will not support or advocate for any military action that puts young Americans at risk unless I plan to return to service and join them." That's not something you and I share.

But, since you're apparently interested: I feel no compunction about supporting military actions that I will not be fighting in. The Trump administration could have us go to war with either or both of them and I would still have no intention of volunteering for military service.
  #58  
Old 05-14-2019, 11:36 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I don't know you. Which is why I ask: Are you a grown man?
Yes. Is English your first language?
  #59  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:48 AM
raventhief's Avatar
raventhief is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
*shrug* I don't believe for a second that you're concerned about my feelings.

Much to the lament of the SJW's, there aren't yet any gender / racial / occupational requirements to holding /sharing an opinion or advocating a particular position. I don't have to be in the military to have an opinion on military action. I don't have to be a woman to advocate for a particular position on abortion, and I don't have to be black to share my thoughts on affirmative action.
Are you actually telling military veterans that you are perfectly within your rights to support sending them to their potential deaths, even though you are (apparently) unwilling to put your life in the line and nyah nyah there is nothing they can do about it? You are within your rights, advocate away for anything you like, but damn.

That's some brave, classy shit right there.

Last edited by raventhief; 05-15-2019 at 12:50 AM.
  #60  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:48 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
So I guess it's the fault of these fantasy SJW creatures that you didn't answer my question about whether you plan to volunteer for military service if the Trump administration has us go to war with Iran or Venezuela?
HurricaneDitka would only go to war if libruls were coming for his gunz.
  #61  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:54 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Are you actually telling military veterans that you are perfectly within your rights ... You are within your rights...
Sounds like you've answered your own question. I ascribe to Try2B's viewpoint:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
There are too many reasons not to enlist to make willingness to do so the litmus test in judging causes belli (sp?). War is a national, not individual, endeavor. The interests of the nation should be consulted. ...
You and/or iiandyiiii are free to claim whatever personal moral code you feel is appropriate, but I don't share it, and feel no need to abide by it.
  #62  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:11 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
If you want the US to go to war with Iran, I'm not concerned about your feelings in the slightest. I'm concerned about your sanity. I'm concerned about the blood on your hands. I'm concerned about your utter unwillingness to learn from the last decade and a half of US foreign policy, and wondering how many people have to fucking die before you figure you figure out that statements like this:
"Yes, two strikes," he told Margaret Hoover of "Firing Line" when asked if the U.S. could win a war against Iran. "The first strike and the last strike."
Are fucking insanity.
  #63  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:32 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
There are too many reasons not to enlist to make willingness to do so the litmus test in judging causes belli (sp?). War is a national, not individual, endeavor. The interests of the nation should be consulted.



Not that I wasn't thinking the exact same thing today. Whose kids fight and die over Iran, and for what?





Then there is the Hooverville situation at the border. Have we declared war on Latin America? If not, wtf?
This doesn't actually conflict with anything I said. Yes, whether we go to war should be judged based on whether it's good or bad for the country. Also, if you push for a war that you're able but unwilling to fight in, then you're a gutless coward. Those two assertions aren't in conflict.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #64  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:33 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
"I think you and/or your close friends should go overseas, endure hardship, and risk trauma and death for this big important thing."

"Do you plan to join us?"

"Well, I'd rather not. I'm capable of it, but I'd rather not. So no."

Does anyone really find it mysterious why many veterans and active duty service members would find this sentiment cowardly and infuriating?
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-15-2019 at 06:34 AM.
  #65  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:01 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
"Do you plan to join us?" is not a sentiment I hear very often from service members. YMMV, obviously.
  #66  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:05 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Please, by all means, regale this veteran and current military civilian with your vast experience interacting with veterans and service members.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #67  
Old 05-15-2019, 07:59 AM
Ann Hedonia's Avatar
Ann Hedonia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 3,552
I would never serve on the front lines of any war, whether I believed in it or not. I have no skills or aptitude that would be useful in that situation. It would be a suicidal gesture and it wouldn’t help “my side” at all.

But if I believed the war was right and necessary, I would try to find a way to use my abilities to support the war effort in a way that might actually help.
  #68  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:07 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I would never serve on the front lines of any war, whether I believed in it or not. I have no skills or aptitude that would be useful in that situation. It would be a suicidal gesture and it wouldn’t help “my side” at all.

But if I believed the war was right and necessary, I would try to find a way to use my abilities to support the war effort in a way that might actually help.
This is all that I ask, pretty much. If you are American and think young Americans should endure hardship and risk of death for some important reason, then you should contribute. That means joining the military, if you have the relative youth and able body (i.e. "aptitude") for it, and finding another way to contribute if you do not. And choosing not to is, IMO, extremely cowardly.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-15-2019 at 08:08 AM.
  #69  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:26 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You and/or iiandyiiii are free to claim whatever personal moral code you feel is appropriate, but I don't share it, and feel no need to abide by it.
Yours is not an uncommon position. Think the phrase is "chicken hawk".
  #70  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:29 AM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Are you actually telling military veterans that you are perfectly within your rights to support sending them to their potential deaths, even though you are (apparently) unwilling to put your life in the line and nyah nyah there is nothing they can do about it? You are within your rights, advocate away for anything you like, but damn.
Yes, it also seems like this to me.
  #71  
Old 05-15-2019, 08:52 AM
Budget Player Cadet is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 9,722
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yours is not an uncommon position. Think the phrase is "chicken hawk".
Obligatory: Roy Zimmerman's "Chickenhawk".

(For the record: every single person on his "Roll Call" deserved to be sent into Iraq. As an additional layer of armor for our armored vehicles.)
  #72  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:14 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,603
Gutless coward? I think that is going too far. People have to stay and run the country, and besides, how many people are we going to send? Not everyone can or should go.

That said, I am talking as someone against war with Iran. I predict a million civilian deaths, a refugee crisis, and anywhere from economic problems to economic disaster. For what? I don't think the regime is exactly a bunch of nice guys, but I also don't see how war makes the world better or how are backs are somehow up against a wall and we have no choice.

I think Trump and his war hawk cronies are basically tilting towards "evil" status. We may stumble into another disaster because easily fooled or religiously fanatic/racist people believe tax cut pay for themselves, or a wall puts an end to migrants, or a long list of other stupid stuff. America has built a Baal out of its own bullshit and is getting ready to make its latest mad sacrifice to it.

You think the country is divided now? Wait until the body bags are on the news every night, the economy goes to shit, people lose their jobs and farms, all because ignorant bible beaters think their religion should be the law, or because rednecks think minorities have no place here. Foreign policy And domestic crisis all at once. Meanwhile, China seems professional and together, relatively. Way to go, America.
__________________
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
  #73  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:26 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
Gutless coward? I think that is going too far. People have to stay and run the country, and besides, how many people are we going to send? Not everyone can or should go.
You're entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. And my position doesn't conflict with leaving people "to stay and run the country" -- most of our population is not young and able-bodied with the capability to serve in the military. And I wouldn't expect even all of these folks to volunteer necessarily -- but if they're advocating for a war, and willing to risk others (including many of my friends that I served with) but not themselves for that war, then I feel perfectly inclined to call them gutless.

Quote:
That said, I am talking as someone against war with Iran. I predict a million civilian deaths, a refugee crisis, and anywhere from economic problems to economic disaster. For what? I don't think the regime is exactly a bunch of nice guys, but I also don't see how war makes the world better or how are backs are somehow up against a wall and we have no choice.

I think Trump and his war hawk cronies are basically tilting towards "evil" status. We may stumble into another disaster because easily fooled or religiously fanatic/racist people believe tax cut pay for themselves, or a wall puts an end to migrants, or a long list of other stupid stuff. America has built a Baal out of its own bullshit and is getting ready to make its latest mad sacrifice to it.

You think the country is divided now? Wait until the body bags are on the news every night, the economy goes to shit, people lose their jobs and farms, all because ignorant bible beaters think their religion should be the law, or because rednecks think minorities have no place here. Foreign policy And domestic crisis all at once. Meanwhile, China seems professional and together, relatively. Way to go, America.
I generally agree with all of this. War with Iran would be colossally foolish and do incredible harm to America, both by killing Americans for nothing and greatly harming our long-term international standing and security.
  #74  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:47 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,718
Any sort of war with Iran wouldn't be an invasion. There's absolutely nothing to gain from it. It would take a HUGE number of troops- Iran is over twice the population of Iraq, considerably larger, and the capitol is in the far northern part of the country.

What's more likely IF there is war with Iran would be air strikes and some kind of naval combat, along with a blockade of some kind.

And... this isn't the first time we've been in this same sort of situation w.r.t. Iran. Ever since 1979, we've been more or less on the brink of war. Hell, in 1988 we mounted the largest surface engagement since WWII in Operation Praying Mantis where we sank or severely damaged half of Iran's navy in one fell swoop, as retaliation for Iranian mines and missiles damaging the USS Samuel B. Roberts and USS Stark.

The Trump Administration is definitely going about this the wrong way by increasing tensions, etc... but make no mistake, the Iranian government is a gang of assholes as well.
  #75  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:55 AM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"I think you and/or your close friends should go overseas, endure hardship, and risk trauma and death for this big important thing."

"Do you plan to join us?"

"Well, I'd rather not. I'm capable of it, but I'd rather not. So no."

Does anyone really find it mysterious why many veterans and active duty service members would find this sentiment cowardly and infuriating?
But I've got a giant support the troops yellow ribbon plastered to the back of my pickup and "Proud to be an American" on Repeat in its CD player.

Now while I may not support extra funding for VA hospitals, one time I did buy a wounded vet a beer in a bar and thanked him for his service.

So while they go out and blow up whatever shit hole country their deployed to show the wrold that you don't mess with the US, I'll do my part by chanting USA, USA, USA while I watch the Olympics.

So don't you tell me who doesn't support our Troops.

Last edited by Buck Godot; 05-15-2019 at 11:56 AM.
  #76  
Old 05-15-2019, 11:56 AM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
The Trump Administration is definitely going about this the wrong way by increasing tensions, etc... but make no mistake, the Iranian government is a gang of assholes as well.


Yeah, but they're a gang of assholes who actually seem to be in the right on this one.

As you've said, we've been at odds with Iran for most of my life, and most of that was at least somewhat justified from our point of view. But that's not the case any longer. We made a deal with Iran to stop their nuclear program, and basically everyone but GOP partisans agrees that Iran was complying with that agreement. Sure, the agreement didn't fix every problem we have with Iran, but it was a big step forward in improving relations, and could have formed the basis for further development.

But then Trump went and tossed that deal, for no better reason than pandering to his stupid GOP base, who all bought into the politically-motivated line of bullshit that this was the "worst deal ever" signed by "weak Obama".

So is it any surprise that Iran has basically decided to tell the US to go fuck itself? And I can't even fault them for it. The US should go fuck itself. They're the Bad Guy in this latest episode.
  #77  
Old 05-15-2019, 12:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck Godot View Post
But I've got a giant support the troops yellow ribbon plastered to the back of my pickup and "Proud to be an American" on Repeat in its CD player.

Now while I may not support extra funding for VA hospitals, one time I did buy a wounded vet a beer in a bar and thanked him for his service.

So while they go out and blow up whatever shit hole country their deployed to show the wrold that you don't mess with the US, I'll do my part by chanting USA, USA, USA while I watch the Olympics.

So don't you tell me who doesn't support our Troops.
Yep. This is what "patriotism" became, at least to some significant extent, in the early and mid aughts. "Patriotism" (not real patriotism, clearly), led by W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld, became easy, inexpensive, sacrifice-free, and entirely superficial. Real patriotism is none of those things.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 05-15-2019 at 12:23 PM.
  #78  
Old 05-15-2019, 01:50 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
You and/or iiandyiiii are free to claim whatever personal moral code you feel is appropriate, but I don't share it, and feel no need to abide by it.
What other people are pointing out is that you appear to be unwilling to abide by your own moral code as well.
  #79  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:02 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Nemo View Post
What other people are pointing out is that you appear to be unwilling to abide by your own moral code as well.
Which moral code of mine does it appear I'm unwilling to abide by?
  #80  
Old 05-15-2019, 02:35 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,026

Moderating


Let's make this thread about foreign policy actions and their implications and dial back the negative personalization of commentary. As an example of such, all of this would be no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobot View Post
I don't know you. Which is why I ask: Are you a grown man?
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Yes. Is English your first language?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
HurricaneDitka would only go to war if libruls were coming for his gunz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This doesn't actually conflict with anything I said. Yes, whether we go to war should be judged based on whether it's good or bad for the country. Also, if you push for a war that you're able but unwilling to fight in, then you're a gutless coward. Those two assertions aren't in conflict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Yours is not an uncommon position. Think the phrase is "chicken hawk".
Quote:
Originally Posted by raventhief View Post
Are you actually telling military veterans that you are perfectly within your rights to support sending them to their potential deaths, even though you are (apparently) unwilling to put your life in the line and nyah nyah there is nothing they can do about it? You are within your rights, advocate away for anything you like, but damn.

That's some brave, classy shit right there.
ETA - personal morality as well.

[/moderating]

Last edited by Bone; 05-15-2019 at 02:35 PM.
  #81  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:03 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
So the OP says it "seems like all the plot points coming together for an epic tale of utter humiliaton on the world stage" and the thread title says we're about to "go into a foreign policy death spiral". What would that look like? What indicators should we be watching to be able to look back in a year or two and say, "yup, the OP really nailed it"? Does USA get kicked out of NATO? Something less dramatic / definitive? What?
  #82  
Old 05-15-2019, 03:36 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So the OP says it "seems like all the plot points coming together for an epic tale of utter humiliaton on the world stage" and the thread title says we're about to "go into a foreign policy death spiral". What would that look like? What indicators should we be watching to be able to look back in a year or two and say, "yup, the OP really nailed it"? Does USA get kicked out of NATO? Something less dramatic / definitive? What?


How about this? Trump drums up a war against Iran on even weaker reasons than the war against Iraq, and just about everyone else in the world comes down on Iran's side.
  #83  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:10 PM
Little Nemo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 83,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
So the OP says it "seems like all the plot points coming together for an epic tale of utter humiliaton on the world stage" and the thread title says we're about to "go into a foreign policy death spiral". What would that look like? What indicators should we be watching to be able to look back in a year or two and say, "yup, the OP really nailed it"? Does USA get kicked out of NATO? Something less dramatic / definitive? What?
Trump realizes that there's no point in the United States unilaterally imposing sanctions against Iran if other countries are willing to work with Iran. So Trump belatedly calls on other countries to join in with American sanctions. And those other countries say no because they see that Trump's policies are incoherent.
  #84  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:19 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
How about this? Trump drums up a war against Iran on even weaker reasons than the war against Iraq, and just about everyone else in the world comes down on Iran's side.
Okay, that's a good start, what does "comes down on Iran's side" look like? Strongly-worded letters? Joining their Iranian brothers in taking up arms against the wicked imperialist Americans? Something in between? Little Nemo suggested they might blow off sanctions. Perhaps ceasing international military exercises with the US military? F-35 sales plummet? They revoke American visas? Kick us out of military bases in their territory?

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 05-15-2019 at 04:21 PM.
  #85  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:21 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
How about this? Trump drums up a war against Iran on even weaker reasons than the war against Iraq, and just about everyone else in the world comes down on Iran's side.
Followed by global sanctions, freezing of U.S. assets overseas, widespread boycotts of U.S. exports and large-scale disinvestment. That's what happens when you're the bad actor.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #86  
Old 05-15-2019, 04:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Followed by global sanctions, freezing of U.S. assets overseas, widespread boycotts of U.S. exports and large-scale disinvestment. That's what happens when you're the bad actor.
If those things don't happen (and I think they're exceedingly unlikely to happen), will it be safe to conclude that the OP was wrong and President Trump is not a bad actor?
  #87  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:07 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Okay, that's a good start, what does "comes down on Iran's side" look like? Strongly-worded letters? Joining their Iranian brothers in taking up arms against the wicked imperialist Americans? Something in between? Little Nemo suggested they might blow off sanctions. Perhaps ceasing international military exercises with the US military? F-35 sales plummet? They revoke American visas? Kick us out of military bases in their territory?

A little of column A, and a little of Column B.

Really, any action that we take, no matter how small, is a huge slap in the face to US prestige in the world. The US has had some problems post-9/11, with going a bit over the top, but in general, their traditional allies still gave them the benefit of the doubt, and assumed honest intent, even if we disagreed with some details of US policy. But in less than two years, Trump has trashed all that.

And even a small movement, the "Strongly-worded letters" you mention, might be just the thin edge of the wedge that starts driving the US and the rest of the world apart.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Followed by global sanctions, freezing of U.S. assets overseas, widespread boycotts of U.S. exports and large-scale disinvestment. That's what happens when you're the bad actor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If those things don't happen (and I think they're exceedingly unlikely to happen), will it be safe to conclude that the OP was wrong and President Trump is not a bad actor?

Yes, if you don't immediately beat the crap out of the biggest bully on the block, you obvious don't think he's a bully.

Even with all the crap Trump has pulled, the US is still the dominant power in the world, and even if the rest of us all immediately agreed to start isolating them, it would take years, probably decades, to do that. You don't undo 80 years of political, military and economic connections overnight. Well, I suppose we could, at the cost of an economic disaster that would make the Great Depression look like Boom Times.

But once that process starts, it will also be hard to stop. Given a decade or two of people disengaging from the US, and you may come to regret letting Trump try to push everyone around.
  #88  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:08 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If those things don't happen (and I think they're exceedingly unlikely to happen), will it be safe to conclude that the OP was wrong and President Trump is not a bad actor?
I agree that they're highly unlikely, because I can't believe even the toadiest of Trump's coterie will let him launch an unprovoked war against Iran. But if he does, the U.S. (not just Trump) will be the "bad actor," and we will all suffer the consequences.

So no, those things not happening does not in any way vindicate Trump's foreign policy performance so far.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #89  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:09 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,718
I'm still having a hard time imagining a casus belli beyond them damaging oil tankers, and it would seem to me that the appropriate and proportional response might be to hit Iranian Navy facilities along the coast, along with any supporting infrastructure, airfields within range, and surface-to-air missile sites and radars within range of the installations.

Anything else seems like pointless escalation- it would be highly dumb to actually invade Iran. There's not an opposition party we're trying to prop up, there's not a pretender to the throne, or anything like that. We'd be invading to do what exactly?

While I suspect the actual warfighting segment would play out similarly to the fighting vs. the Iraqi Army, we'd be in a worse position than in Iraq afterward, because instead of a power vacuum and subsequent insurgency, we'd be facing an even more pissed off populace who would be more united than the Iraqis were post-Hussein.

So I imagine it would be somewhere along the lines of an Operation Praying Mantis combined with fairly extensive air strikes on land. Possibly with punitive type strikes further north.
  #90  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:18 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I agree that they're highly unlikely, because I can't believe even the toadiest of Trump's coterie will let him launch an unprovoked war against Iran. But if he does, the U.S. (not just Trump) will be the "bad actor," and we will all suffer the consequences.

So no, those things not happening does not in any way vindicate Trump's foreign policy performance so far.
Let's hypothesize momentarily that later this week President Trump has just had enough. Perhaps it was one mean tweet too many, or the beady little eyes of the spokesperson on TV, but for whatever unjustified reason you want to imagine, President Trump decides, "that's it, we're doing this" and orders the USAF and USN to bomb the IRGC out of existence. A massive bombing campaign ensues. What does the rest of the world do?

Do you think it will be "Followed by global sanctions, freezing of U.S. assets overseas, widespread boycotts of U.S. exports and large-scale disinvestment"? I don't think that's likely, even if the hypothesized military action doesn't have the EU's seal of approval. Do you though?
  #91  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:24 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
I'm still having a hard time imagining a casus belli beyond them damaging oil tankers, and it would seem to me that the appropriate and proportional response might be to hit Iranian Navy facilities along the coast, along with any supporting infrastructure, airfields within range, and surface-to-air missile sites and radars within range of the installations.

Anything else seems like pointless escalation- it would be highly dumb to actually invade Iran. ...
In general, I think you're right (about an air sea war rather than a ground invasion), but the line "Anything else seems like pointless escalation" struck me as odd. If you're going to be bombing bases and military targets, you might as well bomb their known nuclear facilities too, and set their program back a bit, right?
  #92  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:47 PM
Akaj's Avatar
Akaj is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: In the vanishing middle
Posts: 860
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Let's hypothesize momentarily that later this week President Trump has just had enough. Perhaps it was one mean tweet too many, or the beady little eyes of the spokesperson on TV, but for whatever unjustified reason you want to imagine, President Trump decides, "that's it, we're doing this" and orders the USAF and USN to bomb the IRGC out of existence. A massive bombing campaign ensues. What does the rest of the world do?

Do you think it will be "Followed by global sanctions, freezing of U.S. assets overseas, widespread boycotts of U.S. exports and large-scale disinvestment"? I don't think that's likely, even if the hypothesized military action doesn't have the EU's seal of approval. Do you though?
I don't think the world would sit idly by if we launched a completely unprovoked attack on Iran. It's beyond my powers of projection to know if all the consequences I mentioned would actually happen, but I believe there would be painful consequences -- and furthermore, I believe we would deserve them.
__________________
I'm not expecting any surprises.
  #93  
Old 05-15-2019, 05:51 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
I don't think the world would sit idly by if we launched a completely unprovoked attack on Iran. It's beyond my powers of projection to know if all the consequences I mentioned would actually happen, but I believe there would be painful consequences -- and furthermore, I believe we would deserve them.
I think there's a massive excluded middle between "sit idly by" and "global sanctions, freezing of U.S. assets overseas, widespread boycotts of U.S. exports and large-scale disinvestment". I don't expect they'd all collectively do nothing, but neither do I expect their action would take the form of sanctions, seizures, boycotts, and divestment. I think it'd be something between those two extremes, probably more towards the milder side, at least for the countries that matter.
  #94  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:56 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Okay, that's a good start, what does "comes down on Iran's side" look like? Strongly-worded letters? Joining their Iranian brothers in taking up arms against the wicked imperialist Americans? Something in between? Little Nemo suggested they might blow off sanctions. Perhaps ceasing international military exercises with the US military? F-35 sales plummet? They revoke American visas? Kick us out of military bases in their territory?
Refusal to participate in Trump's bullshit embargoes, leaving Iran economically better off than they were before Trump started beating his flabby chest.
Refusal to support U.S. military by denying to the U.S. bases from which to stage attacks. (Staging including any transport operations.)
Withdrawal of support, including exchange of intelligence, with the U.S. in what would be a more legitimate opposition to Iran's idiotic war against Israel.
Eventually, refusal to join with U.S. on any joint operations, anywhere, on the grounds that the U.S. has become the newest rogue/bully nation.
Possibly more support for Putin and China in all sorts of international situations.

All so that Trump and Bolton can feel like they are strong.
  #95  
Old 05-15-2019, 06:59 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,939

Moderating.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
HurricaneDitka would only go to war if libruls were coming for his gunz.
Stick to the actual topic and leave personal shots to The BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]
  #96  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:00 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If you're going to be bombing bases and military targets, you might as well bomb their known nuclear facilities too, and set their program back a bit, right?

And that right there highlights exactly how fucking stupid US policy under Trump has become.

If you wanted to "set their program back a bit", you should have stayed in the Iran nuclear deal that was actually working to keep their program in check. Every single observer except That Idiot Donald Trump and his enablers said that the program was working. You threw that all away over a bullshit talking point you used to score points against the Democrats.

Nice job breaking it, hero.

When Iran re-starts their nuclear program, perhaps with a bit of help from North Korea, they'll be completely justified, and you'll have only yourselves to blame for it.
  #97  
Old 05-15-2019, 09:09 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
And that right there highlights exactly how fucking stupid US policy under Trump has become.

If you wanted to "set their program back a bit", you should have stayed in the Iran nuclear deal that was actually working to keep their program in check. Every single observer except That Idiot Donald Trump and his enablers said that the program was working. You threw that all away over a bullshit talking point you used to score points against the Democrats.

Nice job breaking it, hero.

When Iran re-starts their nuclear program, perhaps with a bit of help from North Korea, they'll be completely justified, and you'll have only yourselves to blame for it.
The nuclear deal ship has sailed. The war with Iran one has not yet left the dock. But if it does, your plan would be ... what exactly? Bomb them a bunch, sink their "navy", really piss them off, but leave them with intact nuclear enrichment facilities? That strikes me as a special kind of stupid.
  #98  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:05 PM
Max S. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 2,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Let's hypothesize momentarily that later this week President Trump has just had enough. Perhaps it was one mean tweet too many, or the beady little eyes of the spokesperson on TV, but for whatever unjustified reason you want to imagine, President Trump decides, "that's it, we're doing this" and orders the USAF and USN to bomb the IRGC out of existence. A massive bombing campaign ensues. What does the rest of the world do?

Do you think it will be "Followed by global sanctions, freezing of U.S. assets overseas, widespread boycotts of U.S. exports and large-scale disinvestment"? I don't think that's likely, even if the hypothesized military action doesn't have the EU's seal of approval. Do you though?
I don't think the President has the authority to order that bombing. Not like that stopped either Clinton, Obama, or Trump before. But just because they flouted the War Powers Resolution doesn't mean Trump should.

~Max
  #99  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:21 PM
Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
The nuclear deal ship has sailed. The war with Iran one has not yet left the dock. But if it does, your plan would be ... what exactly? Bomb them a bunch, sink their "navy", really piss them off, but leave them with intact nuclear enrichment facilities? That strikes me as a special kind of stupid.


"My plan" would be don't start a stupid fucking war for no reason in the first place.



"Not responsible for advice not taken". You voted for this fucking idiot, it's on you what happens. How about you focus on what you should do, instead if what you think I should do?
  #100  
Old 05-15-2019, 10:35 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 15,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
"My plan" would be don't start a stupid fucking war for no reason in the first place.



"Not responsible for advice not taken". You voted for this fucking idiot, it's on you what happens. How about you focus on what you should do, instead if what you think I should do?
Sure, I agree, we shouldn't start wars "for no reason". If, however, we find ourselves in a war, which is the scenario I was discussing when you took issue with my post, don't you think it would make sense, at that point, to damage their nuclear infrastructure too? Or do you still think it would be "fucking stupid"?
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 09:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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