12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

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

 

Personally, doesn't hurt me one bit. And I'm fine with this proposition. Can't argue that it wasn't earned. But even so, seems like some people are more into assigning blame/responsibility based on their politics, rather than anything else.

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Personally, doesn't hurt me one bit. And I'm fine with this proposition. Can't argue that it wasn't earned. But even so, seems like some people are more into assigning blame/responsibility based on their politics, rather than anything else.

Well, if i was American, it would surely hurt me.

I am surprised about the apparent lack of dissent from American citizens against this overtly aggressive foreign politics.

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:
 
[/url]  
"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?
 
 
 

There is a “Trump cult” in USA that consists of poorly educated people along with the “ISIS acting” Christian evangelists that support this hypocrite that pays off porn stars to keep quiet or hasn’t stepped into a church before he became POUUS. The sissy lily-white Republican Congressmen in Washington DC are afraid to speak out against the orange bully because their constituents back home support this narcissistic, lying, ignorant bag of hot air. Politicians do not want to lose their financially lucrative positions despite being unpatriotic.



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

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.

Belicosity towards an external foe as a means to control internal dissent and bellicosity towards that foe because they are genuinely aggressive are not mutually exclusive. If anything, US aggression (or unqualified US support, in the case of theUS-installed Shah) allows the mullahs (or Shah) to sideline/suppress moderate, reforming forces within. The result in both cases is that the long suffering people of Iran can’t get a break, regardless of which administration is in The WH, or Tehran. Obama’s and John Kerry’s diplomacy, with help from the Europeans and the IAEA brought (alas, briefly) some hope for betterment.

 

The current US bluster, if you want to call it that, risks war and serves zero US national interests. It alienates European allies, rattles markets, bolsters narrow war hawk interests in Iran, Israel, KSA, and US arms industry—not to mention militant Shia and Sunni militant fanatics who actually want a religious war to settle a 1400 year old dispute. The US withdrawal from the multilateral international treaty on flimsy grounds also means that all future presidents will be hamstrung when negotiating anything. Even Trump doesn’t need this bluster except for some weird self affirmation, because his base is already solidly behind him anyway.