- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: We're Going To War With Iran - Book It
Posted on 6/13/19 at 2:57 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 6/13/19 at 2:57 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Stop funding Islamist insurrection movements in other countries. I understand what you are saying about the 2015 deal, but that was nothing more than a lazy stop gap to an already existing situation and would never have been a long term solution anyways. Didn’t really do anything but kick the can down the road. So while backing out of it may have been shortsighted, it also doesn’t really change the ultimate outcome here from my point of view.
But the point remains that funding Hezbollah is something they could easily discontinue if they genuinely wanted to normalize relations with the West.
Attacking neutral shipping unprovoked, which gets very close to being an act of war, is just not the right move. In fact it is literally the only thing I can think of outside of bombing Israel that would make their situation worse. This doesn’t put pressure on Trump, it puts pressure on Iran. Europe is not going to tolerate the Straight being unsafe for shipping, and neither is China, Japan, or the rest of Asia. And all of those places depend more on ME oil than we do at present.
Our backing out of the deal does not give Iran carte blanche to use force against neutrals. I’m sure thats what our media will portray, but that is not going to be the position of NATO or the EU.
I don’t see one single POTENTIAL positive outcome that could result for Iran, assuming it is in fact Iran’s doing.
From the West's point of view, it would be great if Iran made the first step and disavowed Hezbollah. But I think you're ignoring domestic Iranian politics. The hardliners have to save face. They gave the moderates some rope with the 2015 deal and they were embarrassed on a global stage when Trump tore it up. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me (from the Iranian perspective).
I'm with you that bombing the Straight does not do much for them long-term. But from their perspective, however misguided it ultimately is, I can see how a proxy maintains plausible deniability for them and they simply attack random, non US vessels, and they may stay away from open warfare.
Unless Trump just says frick it and unleashes the hounds and then it was all for naught anyway
3
Posted on 6/13/19 at 2:57 pm to MrLarson
You one of them war mongering democrats?
Posted on 6/13/19 at 2:59 pm to DemonKA3268
quote:
Yeah, they were really "bombed" off the map. 2 tours in Iraq, guess what? it was and is still there. So, again, who has ever been bombed off the map? I thought you attorney's were supposed to be smart
My man, I appreciate you wanting to participate, but if you keep parsing semantics about "regime change" versus literal "bombing a place to where it no longer exists on the planet Earth" then I'm just gonna have to move you to the ignore pile.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:00 pm to MrLarson
quote:
Don’t get mad at me they weren’t bombing tankers with a real President in charge
They were just capturing our soldiers
While Assad was trampling over Obammy's red line.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:05 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:I don't think you get it. Nothing is going to happen because of these few incidents. Regime change has needed to happen for years but it won't. What I think you fail to realize is that are more than just 2 players in this. If it was just 2, the option to take them out would be a far easier decision. If you want to ignore, go ahead. We all talk out of our arses on here and no one yet has all the answers on what will happen, should happen or won't happen. At least we didn't resort to name calling.
My man, I appreciate you wanting to participate, but if you keep parsing semantics about "regime change" versus literal "bombing a place to where it no longer exists on the planet Earth" then I'm just gonna have to move you to the ignore pile.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:05 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
But I think you're ignoring domestic Iranian politics. The hardliners have to save face. They gave the moderates some rope with the 2015 deal and they were embarrassed on a global stage when Trump tore it up. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me (from the Iranian perspective).
This is a valid point, and you are correct that to some extent I was not considering the fragile domestic power situation in Iran.
I just have a hard time imagining what the Ayatollah sees as a desired outcome here. Say the West caves, we lift sanctions and Iran agrees to stop attacking the tankers. Seems good for Iran in the short term, but I do not think that the Western nations are going to allow Iran to hold a knife to their throat in the Strait for any extended length of time. “No sanctions or we attack ships in Hormuz”. Not sure that is something the Gulf States can live with either. And at some point, so much of the world’s oil passes through this region that we aren’t going to be talking about the West vs. Iran, we will be talking about the UN. (I doubt the UNSC does anything because Russia and China, though not directly involved, are absolutely smirking in a corner somewhere when stuff like this happens)
The more I think about it, even the threat of continued attacks by Iran is going to have NATO and the Gulf states on their toes.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:09 pm to boosiebadazz
It is absolutely Iran. And it means one of three things. The regime is in a squeeze at home. But still getting bombed back to the middle ages won't help with that, in fact the regime couldn't survive. They have the backing of and a commitment from Russia to intercede. Or they think the USA is near revolt and their activities will help their friends, the Democrat party replace Trump. Nothing else makes sense.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:15 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Link to a U.S. Court declaring it unconstitutional?
It is a treaty, a treaty can’t be enacted by the president alone. Which Obama did. So yes, it is unconstitutional.
quote:
Gonna need a link to this too. As I understood it, there were some agreed-upon freezes in pursuing nuclear technology.
We agreed to allow them to run their own nuclear program without any oversight. If an outside source was going to inspect their nuclear sites, then they had a very long time (like a week or two) before they were able to inspect. Which is plenty of time to make the necessary changes to pass an inspection. Not to mention that Israel’s special forces uncovered evidence that the Iranians were and still are enriching uranium to the point that it could be used for weaponization.
quote:
Are the Iranians acting in their rational self-interest due to a change in the geopolitical climate due to the recent actions and decisions of President Trump? Probably.
The Iranians interest is international jihad and destruction of anyone who does not follow their failed ideology. The money they were “owed” should have never been given to them. Instead we should have dispersed it amongst the families who lost loved ones due to the Iranians’ terrorism.
Recent article concerning Iran’s nuclear weaponization
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:18 pm to boosiebadazz
Aayatollah Khamenei may want war but don't underestimate the Iranian citizens. There has been a lot of unrest there. I think a drawn out war would cause a revolt and removal of power. Be great if someone else did the warring instead of the U.S. Maybe we just need to drop a bunch of guns there and let them civil war it out. Aayatollah Khamenei would ultimately lose support of the military and local leaders.
Iran is also not in the dark ages like afghanistan. They have intelligent citizens that understand democracy and republics, but they live in constant fear of expressing their views.
Iran is also not in the dark ages like afghanistan. They have intelligent citizens that understand democracy and republics, but they live in constant fear of expressing their views.
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 3:20 pm
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:23 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Don’t get mad at me they weren’t bombing tankers with a real President in charge
You mean like how Russia annexed Crimea under Obama’s nose?
Or the red line in Syria? Or the other red line? Or was it the other one?
Sissy mom jeans President:
Take no shite from anyone President:
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:24 pm to DemonKA3268
quote:
He won't be able to understand that.
Lol
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:26 pm to boosiebadazz
I know the Iranians. I know them personally. They are about two things: FACE and ADVANTAGE. And any deal you make with Iran you can be 100% sure of two things. You got screwed. Big time. And worse, they will never live up to it and had zero intention of doing so when they made it. They respect and understand one thing among themselves and any opposition RAW POWER! If you don't show it and show zero hesitation to use it, you have issued an open invitation to be taken advantage of.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:27 pm to Uncs
quote:
Would love to see Japan warships head to the area and bomb the crap out of them
lol we haven’t allowed Japan to have warships since 1945
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:28 pm to cwill
quote:
We have an unconstitutional treaty with Saudi Arabia???
Lol, they’re both predominantly Muslim so who gives a shite.
But seriously, Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism.
The June State Department report also lists 58 "Foreign Terrorist Organizations," of which over a dozen are allied with Iran. One Iranian Al Qaeda agent was specifically sanctioned by the US Treasury for distributing cash to the same al-Nusra Front the Iranian Foreign Minister complains is a terrorist organization.
Even more chilling has been Iran's joint missile and technology cooperation with North Korea, making the potential use of weapons of mass destruction against the US a growing possibility.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:31 pm to DemonKA3268
quote:
Okay, so what do you propose should happen? Don't pussyfoot around what I asked, answer the question.
Build the wall. Around the Sauds.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:32 pm to jnethe1
quote:
It is a treaty, a treaty can’t be enacted by the president alone. Which Obama did. So yes, it is unconstitutional.
Except it wasn't
It was the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. LINK
Didn't require Senate approval, and the Trump administration actually complied with it twice without submitting it for Senate approval. Because it wasn't a treaty. Sorry, dude.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:32 pm to tokenBoiler
quote:
Build the wall. Around the Sauds.
Unfortunately, so many "experts" say walls don't work.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:32 pm to MrLarson
The Saudis would like nothing more than to sucker us into attacking their Shia enemies.
We need to resist a mistake like that.
Just like we didn't need to get suckered in to attacking Syria because of the fake/staged chemical weapons attacks.
We need to resist a mistake like that.
Just like we didn't need to get suckered in to attacking Syria because of the fake/staged chemical weapons attacks.
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:33 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
There is no positive outcome for Iran in taking that path.
Cui bono?
Posted on 6/13/19 at 3:37 pm to deltaland
quote:
lol we haven’t allowed Japan to have warships since 1945
The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces have very modern frigates, guided missile destroyers, and F-35 capable helicopter destroyers.
Those very destroyers are involved in anti-piracy operations in and around Somalia.
This post was edited on 6/13/19 at 3:40 pm
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News