10
   

Iranian war

 
 
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 12:34 pm
Do you think Trump would start an Iranian war to increase his chances of being reelected to the presidency?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 10 • Views: 3,136 • Replies: 236

 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 02:50 pm
@RABEL222,
According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll, 51% of Americans think that war with Iran is imminent within the next few years, but 60% think that the US should not conduct a pre-emptive attack. 79% think that the US should retaliate should Iran attack the US.

If the Trump administration could convince the US public that a war with Iran would be necessary then Trump stands a very good chance to be reelected during any such war.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 03:05 pm
@InfraBlue,
Considering his moral posture I would bet that he would start a war to help his reelection chances. After all he has already admitted he would accept help from foreign governments for reelection as he has already accepted help from Russia and Putin.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 04:21 pm
@RABEL222,
we get his voice"out his ass" on a daily basis of how hes way ahead of the curve. Meanwhile Russia AND China and Syria have signed mutual support treaties.
All Plumps blathering and his announcements about what a fuckin genius he is may just accidentally get us into a real war.

Jesus this guy is a loon an just because hes a loud loon, hes got a murmuration of supporters who are mostly all clueless.

oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 05:21 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Meanwhile Russia AND China and Syria have signed mutual support treaties.
All Plumps blathering and his announcements about what a fuckin genius he is may just accidentally get us into a real war.

He's going to upgrade our ICBM warheads to 455kt (finally). And these 455kt warheads are light enough that a Minuteman can still carry three of them as MIRVs.

If anyone wants a war, Trump is going to ensure that the US can give them a war.


"Sustain and modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile with five programs currently underway (W76-2 Modification Program, B61-12 Life Extension Program, W80-4 Life Extension Program, W88 Alteration 370, and W87-1 Modification Program)"
http://www.energy.gov/nnsa/budget
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 06:16 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
79% think that the US should retaliate should Iran attack the US.

Iran has attacked the US repeatedly ever since 1979.

Time to defend ourselves, IMO.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 06:24 pm
@oralloy,
Nuclear war isn't something the U.S. can 'win'.

In the event of a true nuclear war, the U.S. economy completely and utterly collapses (major buyers markets disappear, major importers disappear, fuel supplies no longer adequate, vital imports cut off <eg rare earths>, foreign debt called in, and the effect compounds as more and more people lose jobs, and prices skyrocket etc,) - as does the rest of the worlds (even it they weren't attacked, the flow on effect would collapse their economies).

Only an insane person thinks the nuclear threat holds anything other than mutual destruction <as in massive and irrecoverable loss>, with human leftovers left to fight for what's left....and that, in no sane persons mind = a win. Just massive loss the world over.

---------------------

As for Iran - if the U.S. can convince itself that yet another major 'pre-emptive strike' against a sovereign country in (surprise, surprise) the Middle East, is justified, well then, the 'leader of the free world' should really look at just how much of a hypocritical dictator it wants to be. That is, if. .

And if it can convince itself that yet another war in the midde east is necessary, after the obvious lies to them by their own government about Iraq, and the disaster of an invasion that followed.........



oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 06:47 pm
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Nuclear war isn't something the U.S. can 'win'.

We can make sure that the other side is completely exterminated and that everything they love is incinerated.


vikorr wrote:
As for Iran - if the U.S. can convince itself that yet another major 'pre-emptive strike' against a sovereign country in (surprise, surprise) the Middle East, is justified, well then, the 'leader of the free world' should really look at just how much of a hypocritical dictator it wants to be. That is, if. .

Hardly preemptive. Iran has been attacking us ever since 1979.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_United_States_embassy_bombing_in_Beirut
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombings
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_embassy_annex_bombing_in_Beirut
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_847
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanon_hostage_crisis

We'd just be defending ourselves from their ongoing aggression.


vikorr wrote:
And if it can convince itself that yet another war in the midde east is necessary, after the obvious lies to them by their own government about Iraq, and the disaster of an invasion that followed.........

The only disaster was the idea of sticking around to do nation building.

"Create a desert and call it peace" is the way to go.
neptuneblue
 
  3  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 08:18 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
He's going to upgrade our ICBM warheads to 455kt (finally). And these 455kt warheads are light enough that a Minuteman can still carry three of them as MIRVs.

"Sustain and modernize the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile with five programs currently underway (W76-2 Modification Program, B61-12 Life Extension Program, W80-4 Life Extension Program, W88 Alteration 370, and W87-1 Modification Program)"
http://www.energy.gov/nnsa/budget


No, he isn't. You got caught up in his lies. Again.

Pentagon is reportedly filling Trump's border wall account from ICBM, reconnaissance aircraft programs
May 13, 2019

The Defense Department said Friday that it intends to build 80 more miles of border fence using $1.5 billion taken from other projects, and on Sunday, The Washington Post revealed some details of where the Pentagon found its spare cash. Since Congress and Mexico have declined to fund President Trump's southern border wall, he has ordered the military to build it without congressional authorization, using authority claimed under a national emergency he declared and also by moving money around in the Pentagon's massive budget.

According to a Pentagon document obtained by the Post, this $1.5 billion will come from funds set aside to upgrade the Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile program and its aging ground control center; the Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) program and its reconnaissance aircraft, which provide airborne fighter jets surveillance and other information; an unidentified Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency (DARPA) "space test experiment"; funds to support coalition forces and the Afghan military; a military retirement fund; and other programs.

The Pentagon document doesn't detail how much money is being taken from each program, but The Associated Press reported Friday that $682 million will come from Afghan and coalition forces, $344 million from unspecified Air Force programs, $251 million from an ongoing program to destroy chemical weapons, and $224 from the military retirement system. In March, the Pentagon announced it's transferring $1 billion from military personnel funds for Trump's wall, and Trump plans to take another $3.6 billion in military construction funds.

The Pentagon said in the document obtained by the Post that it "carefully selected sources for the reprogramming that are excess or early to need and will not adversely affect military preparedness." Several top Democratic senators told the Pentagon on Friday that if it insists on flouting Congress' authority to dictate how federal money is spent, "we look forward to hearing your views on how you intend to repair the damaged relationship between the defense oversight committees and the department."
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 08:59 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
We can make sure that the other side is completely exterminated and that everything they love is incinerated.
Which would be part of reason the U.S. would lose.

Economic devastation aside, presumably, the U.S. would only do this to another Nuclear Power with the ability to strike the U.S.

As I said, anyone who thinks this is a win, is insane.

Quote:
Hardly preemptive. Iran has been attacking us ever since 1979.
If you are looking at historical dates for such things, from such a perspective, then perhaps you apply the same lens to the U.S. running a coup in Iran as far back as 1951, overthrowing a peaceful democracy to install a violent despot? Or the US helping Iraq to wage war on Iran? Or perhaps the U.S. shooting down an Iranian commercial airliner?

Do you have any justification for wanting to attack Iran, other than events that stopped over 2 decades ago?

As a side note, this particular example is piss poor:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis : which came on the back of the revolution that ousted the American installed and backed despot (from the previously mentioned 1951 american run coup) that brutalised Iran for decades.

The others, arguable attack Americans, arguably attack foreign powers oppressing their people - many of the examples you provided were multinational hostages, or were in the middle of a civil war, etc. Sure, they can be viewed as attacks on the U.S., if you want to use a lense that ignores all other ways of looking at it...

....and they are all more than 2 decades old.

As such, they make worse than piss-poor justification for pre-emptive strikes. Only bloodthirsty people would think they do.


longly
 
  -2  
Reply Fri 14 Jun, 2019 11:23 pm
You do know the word Iran is derived from the word Aryan which was their Bronze Age ancestors? So, they are Aryans isn’t that enough reason to be oppose to them?

There will be no war with Iran unless they attack us. Trump doesn’t want a war. Wars are risky and expensive and there is just too much to be fixed in this country.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:05 am
Isent Trump and the republican senate doing a great job of making America great again. Just ask McConnell and his wife about their Chinese. Connections.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:11 am
@neptuneblue,
neptuneblue wrote:
No, he isn't. You got caught up in his lies. Again.

Pentagon is reportedly filling Trump's border wall account from ICBM, reconnaissance aircraft programs

The ICBM upgrade program is important, but it is not the program that builds thermonuclear warheads.

We'll be able to put these new warheads on our existing ICBMs.

We do still need to upgrade to longer-range ICBMs too though. I'm not saying that the ICBM upgrade program isn't important.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:15 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Which would be part of reason the U.S. would lose.

Economic devastation aside, presumably, the U.S. would only do this to another Nuclear Power with the ability to strike the U.S.

As I said, anyone who thinks this is a win, is insane.

Don't think of nuclear war in terms of winning or losing.

Think of nuclear war in terms of erasing the other side from existence and destroying everything that they love.

If you think of nuclear war in terms of winning or losing, you're going about it the wrong way.

Yes, we should only use nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons powers, and only after they have used their nuclear weapons against us our our allies.

But if we get to the point where another nuclear weapons power is using their nuclear weapons against us or our allies, the only thing that's going to matter is killing all of them and smashing everything they've ever built. There will be no winning or losing.

I'm going to separate my reply about nuclear war from my reply about Iran, because they are really two separate trains of thought.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:22 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
If you are looking at historical dates for such things, from such a perspective, then perhaps you apply the same lens to the U.S. running a coup in Iran as far back as 1951, overthrowing a peaceful democracy to install a violent despot?

That isn't what happened. The driving force behind that coup was the same clerics who rule Iran today. We merely helped out the clerics after it was clear that their coup was going to happen with or without us.

We also did our best to curb the violent impulses of the Shah and steer Iran towards becoming a respectable and humane society.


vikorr wrote:
Or the US helping Iraq to wage war on Iran?

Self defense against the war that Iran was waging against us. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.


vikorr wrote:
Or perhaps the U.S. shooting down an Iranian commercial airliner?

More self defense against Iranian aggression. Iran had just viciously attacked another US warship with mines, and our guys mistakenly believed that Iran was attacking them.


vikorr wrote:
Do you have any justification for wanting to attack Iran, other than events that stopped over 2 decades ago?

No. Do I need any more justification than that?


vikorr wrote:
As a side note, this particular example is piss poor:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis : which came on the back of the revolution that ousted the American installed and backed despot (from the previously mentioned 1951 american run coup) that brutalised Iran for decades.

I disagree. I see it as an outstanding justification.

I addressed how it is wrong to blame us for the Shah a few lines up.


vikorr wrote:
The others, arguable attack Americans, arguably attack foreign powers oppressing their people - many of the examples you provided were multinational hostages, or were in the middle of a civil war, etc. Sure, they can be viewed as attacks on the U.S., if you want to use a lense that ignores all other ways of looking at it...

....and they are all more than 2 decades old.

As such, they make worse than piss-poor justification for pre-emptive strikes. Only bloodthirsty people would think they do.

I think that "very angry at Iran" is a more accurate label for me than "bloodthirsty".
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:38 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
That isn't what happened. The driving force behind that coup was the same clerics who rule Iran today. We merely helped out the clerics after it was clear that their coup was going to happen with or without us.
Keh, you don't know your own recorded history.

Have a read of CIA Legacy of Ashes, which is written from CIA records (and interviews with ex operatives) in 2007. It won a pulitzer prize. It rather agrees with 'All the Shahs Men', which said the same thing much earlier, but without access to the records.

The rest of your nonsensical view of the other events is just that - nonsensical - able to only consider one small part of a thing, and believing it to be the whole.

Quote:
I think that "very angry at Iran" is a more accurate label for me than "bloodthirsty"
No, in this case, bloodthirsty is very accurate. No one supports a pre-emptive strike that doesn't want blood, because blood is exactly what would be spilt, and lots of it. Literally the definition of bloodthirsty.

Quote:
More self defense against Iranian aggression.
Shooting down a commercial airline is self defense? This is so far gone into corruption that there's little more to say about such ugliness.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:44 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Don't think of nuclear war in terms of winning or losing.

Think of nuclear war in terms of erasing the other side from existence and destroying everything that they love.
Even were I to consider such an evil viewpoint - it would still be a blind viewpoint, failing to consider the repercussions on my own people.

Hence saying there are no 'winners' in a nuclear war. And agreement that it can't be thought of in terms of winning and losing, because there are no winners in a major nuclear war, just losers.

Quote:
No. Do I need any more justification than that?
I would hope you need more than decades old events, or there would be a long list of countries that need to pre-emptively strike the U.S:
- Mexico
- Philippines
- Panama
- Iraq
- Somalia
- Cuba
- several island nations
- Each country that the U.S ran coups in
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:49 am
@vikorr,
vikorr wrote:
Keh, you don't know your own recorded history.

I do know my own recorded history. The Iranian clerics were the driving force behind that coup. We only participated in the coup when it was clear that it was going to happen with or without us. And afterwards we did our best to curb the Shah's violent impulses and steer Iran towards humane civil rights.


vikorr wrote:
No one supports a pre-emptive strike that doesn't want blood, because blood is exactly what would be spilt, and lots of it. Literally the definition of bloodthirsty.

Not preemptive. Iran has been attacking us since 1979.


vikorr wrote:
Shooting down a commercial airline is self defense?

How did you manage to overlook the part where Iran had just viciously attacked another US warship and our guys mistakenly believed that they were under Iranian attack?


vikorr wrote:
This is so far gone into corruption that there's little more to say about such ugliness.

Our warships have every right to protect themselves from Iranian air strikes.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:51 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
How did you manage to overlook the part where Iran had just viciously attacked another US warship and our guys mistakenly believed that they were under Iranian attack?
I never did overlook that part. I posted the commercial airliner shooting because of your hypocrisy. If you are going to apply a standard to another countries actions - you must also apply the same standards to your country's actions.

I personally can see how it happened the way you describe. I can also see how Iran would be very skeptical of the U.S. version. The point is, your view "Iranian attacks on the U.S' is hypocritical, employing double standards that you don't apply to your own countries actions.
vikorr
 
  2  
Reply Sat 15 Jun, 2019 12:56 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Our warships have every right to protect themselves from Iranian air strikes.
By the way, your own records show your warships never broadcast their warnings on commercial frequencies, and the airline was flying a commercial air route. It may have been a mistake, but it was a really bad one. One that normal people would think have no chance of happening. For surely there was a protocol in place to test for commercial airliners. Hence a country like Iran would have every reason to think it deliberate.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Iranian war
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 02:19:37