U.S. pulls staff from Iraq, says Iran gave 'blessing' for tanker attacks

[Morch]

8 hours ago, Srikcir said:

It's insane.

• Even though North Korea still has nuclear-armed ballistic missiles, Trump tells American they can sleep without fear.
• Even though Iran doesn't have any nuclear armaments, Trump tells Americans they must fear Iraq.
• Meanwhile Trump is prepared to send nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia that could further nuclearize the Middle East after Israel and Pakistan.

 

Yeah, and I think you are aware of my views regarding Trump and his policies. But - for all this, the sky is still up there. We're not quite permanently or royally "screwed". His term does take it's toll, sure - but it remains to be seen how much of this got a lasting effect. 

 

I think Americans could have slept without much fear regardless of the Kim-Trump games. Iran is not a nuclear power, and while the agreement was adequate, it didn't make Iran into a non-threat country (nice Freudian slip there). KSA will hopefully be denied its wishes, or swayed - either way could probably get it if they really want, too much money too many sellers.

 

My point is that there's a tendency to hype some of what Trump says as actually representing action. Not always true, but often serving Trump's agendas. 

[FritsSikkink]

11 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Trump withdrew from the "Obama" USA - Iran agreement and reimposed, much stronger, sanctions resulting in Iran being unable to sell their oil and bankrupting their economy.

 

Small wonder they are hitting back by attacking oil tankers in the gulf.

Do you have any proof of them hitting back or do you believe anything that orange <deleted> tells you?

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

Do you have any proof of them hitting back or do you believe anything that orange <deleted> tells you?

 

Do you have any proof they did not? Or do you believe whatever Iranian officials say?

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Do you have any proof they did not? Or do you believe whatever Iranian officials say?

Nonsense. Old Croc asserted as fact that the Iranians attacked. FritzSikkink's question was entirely reasonable. He asserted nothing.

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nonsense. Old Croc asserted as fact that the Iranians attacked. FritzSikkink's question was entirely reasonable. He asserted nothing.

 

Guess I should temporarily forget your "cui bono" etc. posts on the parallel topic then.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Guess I should temporarily forget your "cui bono" etc. posts on the parallel topic then.

A truly incompetent deflection. Not at all up to your usual standards.

[Morch]

Just now, bristolboy said:

A truly incompetent deflection. Not at all up to your usual standards.

 

You inject yourself into a whodunit exchange, scolding one participant. On another topic, you're pretty much engaged in the same, if in another direction. I'm not the one deflecting here, son.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

You inject yourself into a whodunit exchange, scolding one participant. On another topic, you're pretty much engaged in the same, if in another direction. I'm not the one deflecting here, son.

If not addressing the issue of FritzSkikking's question is not deflecting, you got me. Maybe in the future you should send your replies via messaging. Not in an open forum.

[Morch]

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If not addressing the issue of FritzSkikking's question is not deflecting, you got me. Maybe in the future you should send your replies via messaging. Not in an open forum.

 

I was addressing your posts, under the same context. If you don't wish your posts addressed, don't post them.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

I was addressing your posts, under the same context. If you don't wish your posts addressed, don't post them.

This is getting petty but when did I complain about you answering a post of mine addressed to another poster? However, you have succeeded in extending the deflection. Bravo!

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This is getting petty but when did I complain about you answering a post of mine addressed to another poster? However, you have succeeded in extending the deflection. Bravo!

 

The deflection is yours, and so are the complaints/instructions as to which posts are to be addressed. Look up your own comments in the posts above.

[JimmyJ]

9 hours ago, candide said:

Right. To some extent, the region's security is in the hands of Hannity. Let's hope he will be reasonable.....

In the hands of Hannity...

and  - Fox & Friends.

@foxandfriends

 

 

 

[Basil B]

13 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Looks like they have enough facilities to handle ten thousands of visas every day - even in a big bunker.

And Americans in Austria can now order a BigMac Happy meal while ordering a replacement passport.

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/us-consulate-mcdonalds-austria-scli-intl/index.html

[Old Croc]

9 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Do you have any proof of them hitting back or do you believe anything that orange <deleted> tells you?

Yes, I have a dossier provided exclusively to me from the CIA!!!!  (sarcasm!)

 

Not being an American Republican, I don't believe anything that orange deleted says. Unlike many here, I don't blindly follow the ramblings of any despot.  My use of the name of Obama was a sarcastic comment used to highlight the obsession of a crazed tyrant against any achievement of a predecessor. Went over your head I guess.

I am able to think for myself and form opinions based on my own observations and the probabilities, and express them on this opinion forum. I am a great believer in the principle of parsimony.

 

If you believe the attacks on the oil tankers were unrelated to the current US-Iran strained relations, that's your opinion. 

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

 

Not being an American Republican, I don't believe anything that orange deleted says. Unlike many here, I don't blindly follow the ramblings of any despot.  My use of the name of Obama was a sarcastic comment used to highlight the obsession of a crazed tyrant against any achievement of a predecessor. Went over your head I guess.

I am able to think for myself and form opinions based on my own observations and the probabilities, and express them on this opinion forum. I am a great believer in the principle of parsimony.

 

If you believe the attacks on the oil tankers were unrelated to the current US-Iran strained relations, that's your opinion. 

Except that "Obama" in and of itself is not a signifier of sarcasm. And in this case not unfair to qualify the agreement with Obama's name since he signed it but neither house of congress endorsed it.

And as for the attacks on the oil tankers, we don't even know if the plural use of "tanker" is valid. And the question isn't just whether the attack(s) is or are related to the current strain in relations, but who is responsible. You definitely assigned said responsibility to the Iranians.

[Old Croc]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Except that "Obama" in and of itself is not a signifier of sarcasm. And in this case not unfair to qualify the agreement with Obama's name since he signed it but neither house of congress endorsed it.

And as for the attacks on the oil tankers, we don't even know if the plural use of "tanker" is valid. And the question isn't just whether the attack(s) is or are related to the current strain in relations, but who is responsible. You definitely assigned said responsibility to the Iranians.

A pedantic response.

I definitely gave an opinion. I don't get to assign responsibilities.

[JimmyJ]

War hawk John Bolton who is claiming secret info on Iran and has never seen a country he wouldn't love to invade,  astonishes and is taken to task by right wing Fox contributor "Judge" Andrew Napolitano after he talks about lying:

 

 

"That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good To Lie About War"

 

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/that-time-john-bolton-said-its-good-to-lie-about-war-4b956c063caa

 

How can anyone be stupid enough to take anything Bolton says seriously?

 

 

 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, Old Croc said:

A pedantic response.

I definitely gave an opinion. I don't get to assign responsibilities.

A new ending for the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

"I definitely gave an opinion. I don't get to assign responsibilities."

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

War hawk John Bolton who is claiming secret info on Iran and has never seen a country he wouldn't love to invade,  astonishes and is taken to task by right wing Fox contributor "Judge" Andrew Napolitano after he talks about lying:

 

 

"That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good To Lie About War"

 

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/that-time-john-bolton-said-its-good-to-lie-about-war-4b956c063caa

 

How can anyone be stupid enough to take anything Bolton says seriously?

Unfortunately Trump might be.

[Thakkar]

22 hours ago, johnnysunshine said:

Relax!   We will not be going to war!

Phew, thanks! I’m relieved.

Everyone’s such a Chicken Little when it come to the US taking a war like stance by sending in armadas and threatening to deploy 120,000 troops, accusing—without evidence—a country of transgressions, imposing sanctions, and ratcheting up war rhetoric. C’mon, man, when has *that* ever led to war, am I right?

[Thakkar]

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

War hawk John Bolton who is claiming secret info on Iran and has never seen a country he wouldn't love to invade,  astonishes and is taken to task by right wing Fox contributor "Judge" Andrew Napolitano after he talks about lying:

<snip vid>

2 hours ago, JimmyJ said:

 

"That Time John Bolton Said It’s Good To Lie About War"

 

https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/that-time-john-bolton-said-its-good-to-lie-about-war-4b956c063caa

 

How can anyone be stupid enough to take anything Bolton says seriously?

 

 

The Onion (‪@TheOnion‬)

15/5/19, 21:53

John Bolton: ‘An Attack On Two Saudi Oil Tankers Is An Attack On All Americans’ trib.al/QDgc7f3pic.twitter.com/nvxyCtNCVh

 

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, Thakkar said:

Phew, thanks! I’m relieved.

Everyone’s such a Chicken Little when it come to the US taking a war like stance by sending in armadas and threatening to deploy 120,000 troops, accusing—without evidence—a country of transgressions, imposing sanctions, and ratcheting up war rhetoric. C’mon, man, when has *that* ever led to war, am I right?

 

Did the USA actually threat to deploy 120,000 troops to the region? Was there any such massive troop deployment? As for alleged transgressions - as far as the Iran Deal itself was concerned, mostly dreamed up, taken out of context or exaggerated. The other issues mentioned were real enough, but alas, don't fall under the scope of the Iran Deal. Bellicose rhetoric isn't one-way either.

 

Fair enough objecting to USA practices of power projection or involvement in limited military operations. Confusing these with full blown war is another thing.

[Scott]

Reported posts have been removed.  

 

[bristolboy]

11 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Guess I should temporarily forget your "cui bono" etc. posts on the parallel topic then.

No I guess you should learn to distinguish between an assertion of fact and an assessment of probability.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No I guess you should learn to distinguish between an assertion of fact and an assessment of probability.

[billd766]

On 5/16/2019 at 11:32 AM, Old Croc said:

Trump withdrew from the "Obama" USA - Iran agreement and reimposed, much stronger, sanctions resulting in Iran being unable to sell their oil and bankrupting their economy.

 

Small wonder they are hitting back by attacking oil tankers in the gulf.

How do you "know" that Iran are hitting tankers in the Gulf?

 

Is it because Trump/ Bolton and Pompeo say so?

 

Perhaps it was the USA, Israel or Saudi under a false flag operation that did it to ratsh1t up the waverers and as a further step to was on Iran.

 

 

[Thakkar]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Did the USA actually threat to deploy 120,000 troops to the region? Was there any such massive troop deployment? As for alleged transgressions - as far as the Iran Deal itself was concerned, mostly dreamed up, taken out of context or exaggerated. The other issues mentioned were real enough, but alas, don't fall under the scope of the Iran Deal. Bellicose rhetoric isn't one-way either.

 

Fair enough objecting to USA practices of power projection or involvement in limited military operations. Confusing these with full blown war is another thing.

120 k troops — it was, according to The Pentagon, “a range of options presented to the president” Trump, when asked directly, denied he was deploying said troops, but added that if he were, it would be “a hell of a lot more.”

I think that counts as a threat. 

 

Quote

Was there any such massive troop deployment?

 

I never said there was. But the threat was made. Prior to the Iraq war, Dick Cheney planted a story in The NYT, then quoted that story as a reason to be worried about Iraq. This is how it works. Someone sent a story to the press, the press reported, they walk it back a bit, then not quite by adding, “if it were happening, the numbers would be bigger”

 

Iranians (middle easterners in general) have long memories. Their belicose rhetoric is a result of the US actually having overthrown a duly elected Iranian government, actually supported for decades a brutal, corrupt dictator who oppressed the populace, then actually tried to undermine the Iranian government for almost 4 decades.

 

The Iranians are no choir boys either, but lets not pretend there is a balance of fault here.

 

edit:

adding:

do I think the US will go to war? Probably not. One, because there’s zero international support (Israel and KSA excluded), and, two, it’s not what Putin wants, and Trump so far has generally done what Putin wants as much as it has been in his power to do so.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, billd766 said:

How do you "know" that Iran are hitting tankers in the Gulf?

 

Is it because Trump/ Bolton and Pompeo say so?

 

Perhaps it was the USA, Israel or Saudi under a false flag operation that did it to ratsh1t up the waverers and as a further step to was on Iran.

 

 

How do you "know" that Iran didn't? Because they denied it?

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How do you "know" that Iran didn't? Because they denied it?

Probably it hurts, but at the moment America and their Saudi friends are not more credible than Iran.

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Thakkar said:

120 k troops — it was, according to The Pentagon, “a range of options presented to the president” Trump, when asked directly, denied he was deploying said troops, but added that if he were, it would be “a hell of a lot more.”

I think that counts as a threat. 

 

 

I never said there was. But the threat was made. Prior to the Iraq war, Dick Cheney planted a story in The NYT, then quoted that story as a reason to be worried about Iraq. This is how it works. Someone sent a story to the press, the press reported, they walk it back a bit, then not quite by adding, “if it were happening, the numbers would be bigger”

 

Iranians (middle easterners in general) have long memories. Their belicose rhetoric is a result of the US actually having overthrown a duly elected Iranian government, actually supported for decades a brutal, corrupt dictator who oppressed the populace, then actually tried to undermine the Iranian government for almost 4 decades.

 

The Iranians are no choir boys either, but lets not pretend there is a balance of fault here.

 

edit:

adding:

do I think the US will go to war? Probably not. One, because there’s zero international support (Israel and KSA excluded), and, two, it’s not what Putin wants, and Trump so far has generally done what Putin wants as much as it has been in his power to do so.

 

About that 120,000 troop thing. Figures for the either Iraq wars were way higher. Considering the views that Iran is a different ball game, such a deployment, even if it was reality, would have been less than adequate for the task at hand. Doubt the Iranians are not well aware of either fact. Had there actually been 120,000 troops deployed, maybe. As rumor about a figure mentioned in a Pentagon briefing? Sorry, but no. It's not a threat, it's a joke. If it was actually meant as some sort of psychological warfare, then someone sucks doing what he does. And I'm all too aware of how such things work, thanks a bunch. No credible threat. At most, posturing aimed at voter base, maybe supportive elements among allies.

 

Generalizations about Iranians and Middle Easterners are cute. Of course, one would have to ignore the numerous times alliances are switched, tossed aside and the rest of this stuff, but hell, what's that compared to a "winning" argument. 

 

Iran's leadership's bellicose rhetoric is in place for the same reason most regimes taking up such a tone do it - focus public attention on an external enemy, divert public attention from their own failures. As for balances of fault, wouldn't know who audits such things, seems for a lot of posters the equation comes down to this - if Trump (or for the more hardcore, USA) is on side, than righteousness is automatically on the other, regardless of pretty much anything.

 

I concur that the USA will probably not go to war, if not mainly/solely for the reasons cited. IMO, the main thing is Trump willing to talk the talk, and there it stops. At least on some matters (military, for example). No idea whether this is down to being a bully/chicken, or figuring out that yet another prolonged war in the ME, is not a popular proposition (even among his base), or that casualties during election year could pan either way - the bottom line seems the same.