U.S. warns merchant ships of possible Iranian attacks; cleric threatens U.S. fleet

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, khunken said:

You have previously & now stalked many of my posts (& others whose posts went against your agenda). Reasoned argument my arse as your second paragraph totally distorts what I said.

So I'll write it slowly so's you understand - European governments (Unlike the US) excepting always the UK, do not blindly impose sanctions on companies outside their jurisdictions that do business with Iran. They normally follow UN mandates which certainly have no chance of being imposed just because the US says so. As most major EU companies have withdrawn due to US threats, the impact of EU countries withdrawing from the pact in minimal. So, I'll repeat that IMO Iran will eventually go nuclear, the only question is 'when'.

Am I allowed to have an opinion or are you back to carrying out your pseudo-mod agenda?

 

Responding to posts is not stalking, unless one tends toward paranoia. Agenda? Do tell - don't think you'll find a single post of mine much in support of Trump's policies on this. Similarly, there wasn't anything said about you not being allowed to have an opinion, just another accusation tossed about. Nothing was distorted. Like yourself, I may have a differing opinion, and a different take on things. It's also possible for other posters to misinterpret posts - not everything is a conspiracy.

 

The US sanctions, by themselves, were enough to cripple the Iranian economy. The added effect of actual European sanctions will make things worse, even if it doesn't have the same reach as the ones imposed by the US (but in reality, I think, not too far behind, even if imposed in a less confrontational manner).

 

Iran trying to "go nuclear" while the current inspections regime and other restrictions provided for in the agreement, is unlikely given the risk of such efforts being detected. Iran trying to "go nuclear" after opting out of the agreement and inspections regime is essentially going rogue, with all that it implies - plus the risk of military action being taken to curb such efforts (and this time, probably with greater justification and international support). Iran's effective path to achieve such a goal would be to bear the terms of the agreement, even accept certain compromises to have the US off its back, and treat it as a long term goal. There are issues with that as well, but given the nature of the regime, not impossible to pull off.

 

IMO, the thinking behind the agreement was that the combination of economic incentives, the inspections regime and prosperity over time will serve to divert Iran from such a course. Granted, Trump's policies on this pretty much nullified the expected carrots, but they also demonstrated something else - that the US can severely hurt Iran using sanctions alone. If Iran had military nuclear capability today, it wouldn't help a whole lot on that front. 

 

 

 

[khunken]

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Responding to posts is not stalking, unless one tends toward paranoia. Agenda? Do tell - don't think you'll find a single post of mine much in support of Trump's policies on this. Similarly, there wasn't anything said about you not being allowed to have an opinion, just another accusation tossed about. Nothing was distorted. Like yourself, I may have a differing opinion, and a different take on things. It's also possible for other posters to misinterpret posts - not everything is a conspiracy.

 

The US sanctions, by themselves, were enough to cripple the Iranian economy. The added effect of actual European sanctions will make things worse, even if it doesn't have the same reach as the ones imposed by the US (but in reality, I think, not too far behind, even if imposed in a less confrontational manner).

 

Iran trying to "go nuclear" while the current inspections regime and other restrictions provided for in the agreement, is unlikely given the risk of such efforts being detected. Iran trying to "go nuclear" after opting out of the agreement and inspections regime is essentially going rogue, with all that it implies - plus the risk of military action being taken to curb such efforts (and this time, probably with greater justification and international support). Iran's effective path to achieve such a goal would be to bear the terms of the agreement, even accept certain compromises to have the US off its back, and treat it as a long term goal. There are issues with that as well, but given the nature of the regime, not impossible to pull off.

 

IMO, the thinking behind the agreement was that the combination of economic incentives, the inspections regime and prosperity over time will serve to divert Iran from such a course. Granted, Trump's policies on this pretty much nullified the expected carrots, but they also demonstrated something else - that the US can severely hurt Iran using sanctions alone. If Iran had military nuclear capability today, it wouldn't help a whole lot on that front. 

 

 

 

Responding to posts is not necessarily stalking but your record on responding to mine (the few I make) does fit the stalking category, not to mention dishonesty. BTW I'm not accusing Trump of anything as it has always been the hawks & neo-Nazis that have continually tried to reimpose a Shah-like dictator or puppet in the country (just like Venezuela currently).

Yes, sanctions have hurt Iran but going nuclear will allow a NK-like prevention from attack. Iran is far more capable of withstanding sanctions than NK. What the US hasn't learned that, bad and all as their governments are, most country's citizens don't take kindly to invasions, bombing campaigns, regime changes (successful or unsuccessful) and some even lead to the (re-) creation of extremist organisations that bite back at imperialist misconduct.

 

[toenail]

Beware: The USA propaganda machine  is scaremongering its citizens so they can have a distraction from Trump’s troubles in the WH. 

The invasion on Iraq was not necessary and false information was used to fuel the USA propaganda machine.

True, Iran is not perfect but losing American lives over it is not worth it. 

[Spike1938]

21 hours ago, bristolboy said:

So making threatening noises against Iraq is the Trump adminstration's way of protecting the Straits? Incite a threat and then oppose it? Maybe it's better not to have made those threats in the first place.

Anyone remember the Gulf of Tonkin phony set-up that led to the American war in Vietnam. I just hope the Iranians don't do anything to play into Bolton's plan to get Iranian oil into the hands of American oil companies. He is a very dangerous man.

[mikebike]

Anyone who thinks a "military victory" is just the ability to win an engagement and "punch the other side in the face" BUT not to be able to hold and control the territory post engagement has no understanding of "victory".

[Morch]

7 hours ago, toenail said:

Beware: The USA propaganda machine  is scaremongering its citizens so they can have a distraction from Trump’s troubles in the WH. 

The invasion on Iraq was not necessary and false information was used to fuel the USA propaganda machine.

True, Iran is not perfect but losing American lives over it is not worth it. 

 

Well, the Iranian propaganda machine is doing pretty much the same thing to keep its own citizens in tow. Nothing like an external enemy to divert attention from domestic issues or unpopular policies. Seems that their leadership (like many others, including the Trump administration) isn't 100% focused on their people's needs.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, mikebike said:

Anyone who thinks a "military victory" is just the ability to win an engagement and "punch the other side in the face" BUT not to be able to hold and control the territory post engagement has no understanding of "victory".

 

If you say so, it must true. Here's another take on the above - there can be different ways of defining victory, and such definitions tend to change over time following acceptable norms and technological advances. Holding and controlling a territory is an ambiguous concept - does it last days? Months? Years? When does it turn into a full-blown military occupation? Does control imply assuming responsibility for all services previously supplied by authorities? Etc.

[mikebike]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

If you say so, it must true. Here's another take on the above - there can be different ways of defining victory, and such definitions tend to change over time following acceptable norms and technological advances. Holding and controlling a territory is an ambiguous concept - does it last days? Months? Years? When does it turn into a full-blown military occupation? Does control imply assuming responsibility for all services previously supplied by authorities? Etc.

Do you consider Iraq a victory?

 

USA "won" the conflict but could not, or would not, commit the resources to control the region so almost immediately the "military victory" was moot and defacto "control" returned to the locals.

 

If you cannot control the territory you have a very hollow "victory".

[metisdead]

Some off topic baiting posts and replies have been removed. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

Do you consider Iraq a victory?

 

USA "won" the conflict but could not, or would not, commit the resources to control the region so almost immediately the "military victory" was moot and defacto "control" returned to the locals.

 

If you cannot control the territory you have a very hollow "victory".

 

I consider the military phases as decisive victories. The trouble was with things dragging on, and the US not having much of an exit strategy, or a clear, realistic goal. Whether this falls under the label of defeat/victory or policy making can be argued.

 

And again - maintaining control is a temporal proposition. I think that armed forces, in general, are ill suited to handle long term situations of occupying civilian areas. That's not what they are for. Since such situations became a regular feature (owing both to changing nature of war and public perceptions), achieving victory in the "classic", text-book version offered is almost impossible.

 

The way I understand it, holding on to territory gained was more to do with denying it to the opposition, and as such, more on the military operational level. Reading it as replacing local authorities and making fundamental economic, political and social changes is a different take on things.

[Morch]

10 hours ago, khunken said:

Responding to posts is not necessarily stalking but your record on responding to mine (the few I make) does fit the stalking category, not to mention dishonesty. BTW I'm not accusing Trump of anything as it has always been the hawks & neo-Nazis that have continually tried to reimpose a Shah-like dictator or puppet in the country (just like Venezuela currently).

Yes, sanctions have hurt Iran but going nuclear will allow a NK-like prevention from attack. Iran is far more capable of withstanding sanctions than NK. What the US hasn't learned that, bad and all as their governments are, most country's citizens don't take kindly to invasions, bombing campaigns, regime changes (successful or unsuccessful) and some even lead to the (re-) creation of extremist organisations that bite back at imperialist misconduct.

 

 

Seems like you define stalking as critical comments on your posts. But do go about posters having rights to differing opinions. Toss about some more irrelevant and unsupported personal comments about dishonesty, while at it. 

 

What Neo-Nazis? Or is this just an extended version of the personal mud-slinging above? US sanctions on Iran were upheld by administrations which can't be described as hawkish, and I don't think all of them were as bent on such efforts as you claim.

 

I fail to see how Iran trying to "go nuclear", in defiance of agreements and commitments, will go without response. Your analysis somehow skips that part. 

 

As for withstanding sanctions, I beg to differ. Dissatisfaction with some of the regime's policies, corruption and the state of the economy already led to several wide-spread instances of protest. This isn't NK where the populace was brought to heel long ago and indoctrinated for decades. 

 

Having extremist organizations creeping up following a lengthy occupations seems to come with the territory. For the most part, though, they aren't a massive threat to the occupying forces homelands.

 

[metisdead]

An off topic baiting post Bla..Bla about the American War in Iraq has been removed as well as a reply. 

 

Some other troll posts and replies have been removed. 

[Nyezhov]

22 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

ndeed, that is the definition of Trump's foreign policy scorecard.

If you view international politics as a Game, deflection, uncertainty, signals and strange manuevering are all part of it. 

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

If you view international politics as a Game, deflection, uncertainty, signals and strange manuevering are all part of it. 

You omitted from your quote the sentence before: USA is unreliable.

[Nyezhov]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

You omitted from your quote the sentence before: USA is unreliable.

The perception of unreliability is a facet of of the game.

Unreliability is a subset of fear.

Fear should alwys be on the table.

 

Edited May 12, 2019 by Nyezhov

[Morch]

11 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

If you view international politics as a Game, deflection, uncertainty, signals and strange manuevering are all part of it. 

 

9 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

The perception of unreliability is a facet of of the game.

Unreliability is a subset of fear.

Fear should alwys be on the table.

 

 

That would be fine if there was reason to believe that such element are guided and utilized following a coherent policy. The Trump administration, more often than not, isn't a good example of such.

 

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

You omitted from your quote the sentence before: USA is unreliable.

 

The Trump administration isn't. The USA, as such things go, is.

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.

[stevenl]

12 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

The perception of unreliability is a facet of of the game.

Unreliability is a subset of fear.

Fear should alwys be on the table.

 

Except in this case USA has shown it to be unreliable, not as a facet of the game.

[Stargeezr]

Neutron!