U.S. says to send more troops to the Middle East, cites Iran threats

[thaibeachlovers]

12 minutes ago, candide said:

Why inevitable?

Too involved to go into on here, but all the information is out there on the internet, if interested. 

[mikebike]

29 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO war with Iran is inevitable, whether now or years later.

I am seriously curious as to why you believe war with Iran is "inevitable"? What serious consequences would arise if the USA just walked away and left the 2 most powerful nations in the middle east to deal with Iran on their own?

[rabas]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

31 minutes ago, candide said:

Why inevitable?

Too involved to go into on here, but all the information is out there on the internet, if interested. 

 

41 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO war with Iran is inevitable, whether now or years later. I'd rather now before they have nuclear weapons.

 

Make it quick. Iran's "break out time" to a weapon is in months, and less using its advanced 'stored' centrifuges and existing 3.5% stock or other hidden assets.

 

Iran is known to have worked on bomb design at least once if not twice. The father of Pakistan's bomb, Khan, is on record saying he transferred bomb designs to Iran. Bomb design does not require the uranium core and it's impossible to detect such work under the current agreement, which was one of the original objections.  Remember how Pakistan and India both suddenly acquired nuclear weapons?  The only thing the agreement did for the West was prevent Iran having a bomb as long as they were happy. On the other hand, maybe that's the only agreement they would sign. If Trump is a genius then so is Iran.

 

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-fact-sheet

Edited June 21, 2019 by rabas

[RJRS1301]

Just heard a bulletin which said DJT wanted to launch a strike against Iran today, had to be reminded he required approval to do so, and the UN also  informed him about the folly of a unilateral strike.

 

I bet they never give him the code of the day for launchers ????

 

[mikebike]

33 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO war with Iran is inevitable, whether now or years later. I'd rather now before they have nuclear weapons.

Well of course the world's largest military, by all measurements, needs to be careful when attacking a country less than a quarter of its size and do it before said country has the same weapons - very few bullies will attack an opponent of similar stature and armament. I like to call it fighting "Thai style"... but I thought the USA was all about "a fair fight"... ????????

[candide]

13 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Too involved to go into on here, but all the information is out there on the internet, if interested. 

I am quite informed, and disagree. Iran is no angel but also not a big threat. In Irak and Syria they have significantly contributed to defeat ISIS and these two countries are now more peaceful In Yemen they do not worse than SA. Then there is Hezbollah, and it's also a question of point of view.

[RJRS1301]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Well of course the world's largest military, by all measurements, needs to be careful when attacking a country less than a quarter of its size and do it before said country has the same weapons - very few bullies will attack an opponent of similar stature and armament. I like to call it fighting "Thai style"... but I thought the USA was all about "a fair fight"... ????????

Well give you democracy, even if we have annihilate you to do so.  

[thaibeachlovers]

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I am seriously curious as to why you believe war with Iran is "inevitable"? What serious consequences would arise if the USA just walked away and left the 2 most powerful nations in the middle east to deal with Iran on their own?

If I gave you the short version you wouldn't understand my reasoning, and I don't have several hours to give the long version.

Seriously, it's an opinion formed from decades of observation and experience, and it's better for people to research such an important subject themselves and make up their own minds. It is after all, my opinion, as I'm not psychic. 

I keep remembering Chamberlain and his piece of paper, and how many lives might have been saved had he gone to war with Hitler before Hitler was ready.

IMO there are 2 major threats to the west, and one of them is Iran. Not difficult to guess the other.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 minutes ago, candide said:

I am quite informed, and disagree. Iran is no angel but also not a big threat. In Irak and Syria they have significantly contributed to defeat ISIS and these two countries are now more peaceful In Yemen they do not worse than SA. Then there is Hezbollah, and it's also a question of point of view.

You have your opinion and I have mine. I hope you are correct, as if I'm right it's going to be very bad for all of us.

[thaibeachlovers]

22 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I am seriously curious as to why you believe war with Iran is "inevitable"? What serious consequences would arise if the USA just walked away and left the 2 most powerful nations in the middle east to deal with Iran on their own?

I'm not talking about tomorrow, but in the long term, perhaps decades.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Just heard a bulletin which said DJT wanted to launch a strike against Iran today, had to be reminded he required approval to do so, and the UN also  informed him about the folly of a unilateral strike.

 

I bet they never give him the code of the day for launchers ????

 

Really? The anti Trumpers have been telling us for a couple years that Trump can let loose the nukes anytime he likes. Are they wrong?

Why would he need the code of the day? That's what the "football" is for.

[Morch]

40 minutes ago, meand said:

American tax dollars hard at work: destabilize the countries you enter, cause more pain and suffering to the people of the country, enrage people so as to create more of a terrorism threat toward yourselves.

 

And then when someone brings up universal healthcare, they ask "where will the money come from"? Hmmm, I wonder. 

 

Pretty much the same could  be applied to Iran. Gets involved in other countries, fosters factions amenable to political ends, weaponize them. Reacts with self-righteous indignation when it becomes an issue. Monies invested in such efforts are at the expense of domestic budgets and spending.

 

But sure, just a USA thing.

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, mikebike said:

I am seriously curious as to why you believe war with Iran is "inevitable"? What serious consequences would arise if the USA just walked away and left the 2 most powerful nations in the middle east to deal with Iran on their own?

 

Maybe the prospects of a major regional war which wouldn't be as easy to contain. Maybe something to do with global economical stability. Maybe the USA's interests aren't seeing a hostile Iran ascendant in the ME. Just a sample, sure there are others.

[RJRS1301]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Really? The anti Trumpers have been telling us for a couple years that Trump can let loose the nukes anytime he likes. Are they wrong?

Why would he need the code of the day? That's what the "football" is for.

The launch codes are held by several people and are changed daily.

Would you want that hothead being able to launch unilaterally??

He had the forces on standby, with time limits for action,until other intervened and he acquiesced 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

The launch codes are held by several people and are changed daily.

Would you want that hothead being able to launch unilaterally??

He had the forces on standby, with time limits for action,until other intervened and he acquiesced 

So those posters telling us that he could just do it were wrong? 

[RJRS1301]

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

So those posters telling us that he could just do it were wrong? 

If the president (who is commander-in-chief of the armed forces) ordered the use of nuclear weapons, the president would be taken aside by the "carrier" and the briefcase would be opened. A command signal, or "watch" alert, would then be issued to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The president would then review the attack options with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and decide on a plan, which could range from a single cruise missile to multiple ICBM launches. These are preset war plans developed under OPLAN 8010 (formerly the Single Integrated Operational Plan). Then, using Milstar, the aide, a military officer who has completed a Yankee White background check, would contact the National Military Command Center and NORAD to determine the scope of the pre-emptive nuclear strike and prepare a second strike, following which Milstar/Advanced Extremely High Frequency or Boeing E-4Bs and TACAMOs would air the currently valid Nuclear Launch Code to all nuclear delivery systems operational. Where a two-person verification procedure would be executed following this, the codes would be entered in a Permissive Action Link.^{[citation needed]}

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IMO there are 2 major threats to the west, and one of them is Iran. Not difficult to guess the other.

Well... it kinda IS difficult.

 

Is it Russia or China in YHO?

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Pretty much the same could  be applied to Iran. Gets involved in other countries, fosters factions amenable to political ends, weaponize them. Reacts with self-righteous indignation when it becomes an issue. Monies invested in such efforts are at the expense of domestic budgets and spending.

 

But sure, just a USA thing.

Your constant "whataboutisms" are becoming tedious.

 

Yes, we have ALL AGREED that neither country is a shining light on a hill.

 

The point MOST OF US are discussing is how to get the USA (ya know, the 1000lb gorilla in global affairs) NOT to behave like a tin-pot dictatorship in global affairs. Comparing them to a tin-pot dictatorship doesn't make the USA's decisions look better - it makes them look far worse.

[mikebike]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Maybe the prospects of a major regional war which wouldn't be as easy to contain. Maybe something to do with global economical stability. Maybe the USA's interests aren't seeing a hostile Iran ascendant in the ME. Just a sample, sure there are others.

None of your points say, "INEVITABLE"... and could just as easily apply to other nations.

[RJRS1301]

2 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Your constant "whataboutisms" are becoming tedious.

 

Yes, we have ALL AGREED that neither country is a shining light on a hill.

 

The point MOST OF US are discussing is how to get the USA (ya know, the 1000lb gorilla in global affairs) NOT to behave like a tin-pot dictatorship in global affairs. Comparing them to a tin-pot dictatorship doesn't make the USA's decisions look better - it makes them look far worse.

I think the decisions are the work of one delusional narcissist, not those of well skilled professionals, who attempt to reign the creature in  

[candide]

19 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

Make it quick. Iran's "break out time" to a weapon is in months, and less using its advanced 'stored' centrifuges and existing 3.5% stock or other hidden assets.

 

Iran is known to have worked on bomb design at least once if not twice. The father of Pakistan's bomb, Khan, is on record saying he transferred bomb designs to Iran. Bomb design does not require the uranium core and it's impossible to detect such work under the current agreement, which was one of the original objections.  Remember how Pakistan and India both suddenly acquired nuclear weapons?  The only thing the agreement did for the West was prevent Iran having a bomb as long as they were happy. On the other hand, maybe that's the only agreement they would sign. If Trump is a genius then so is Iran.

 

https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/irans-nuclear-breakout-time-fact-sheet

Your source is likely to be reliable but dates from before the agreement. Opinions diverge on the capability to produce enough enriched uranium. There is also a large time gap between gathering enough uranium and having a working nuclear arsenal.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-fast-could-iran-build-a-nuclear-bomb-1525803666

[billd766]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Not sneering, just boggled that anyone would believe that the mullahs aren't cheating in secret. There wasn't a better emoji, and it takes way too long to go to the emoji link for a more suitable one.

Those mullahs, IMO, are not to be trusted.

Do you think that Trump, Bolton and Pompeo are to be trusted either?

 

Remember it was Trump that started this whole shenanigan when he unilaterally pulled the USA out of the Iran nuclear agreement. He is also the one who haas forced sanctions on Iran and is threatening ANY country that dares to break them, allies or not. He is also the one who has sent a carrier group, B52 bombers and extra troops to the Gulf.

 

[bristolboy]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Pretty much the same could  be applied to Iran. Gets involved in other countries, fosters factions amenable to political ends, weaponize them. Reacts with self-righteous indignation when it becomes an issue. Monies invested in such efforts are at the expense of domestic budgets and spending.

 

But sure, just a USA thing.

Because the Iranians are the only nations in that arena that do this? Or is it just that they're better at it? Or is it that they've antagonized a certain country in the region? And made it a lot more difficult for them to push certain neighbors around?

Edited June 21, 2019 by bristolboy

[simple1]

2 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

He had the forces on standby, with time limits for action,until other intervened and he acquiesced 

Not nuclear, but conventional forces to attack some Iranian missile and radar sites.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-21/donald-trump-ordered-attack-on-iran-then-called-it-off/11235746

 

 

[RJRS1301]

10 hours ago, simple1 said:

Not nuclear, but conventional forces to attack some Iranian missile and radar sites.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-21/donald-trump-ordered-attack-on-iran-then-called-it-off/11235746

 

 

Did I say nuclear?

Any attack is irresponsible .

 

 

[Morch]

14 hours ago, mikebike said:

Your constant "whataboutisms" are becoming tedious.

 

Yes, we have ALL AGREED that neither country is a shining light on a hill.

 

The point MOST OF US are discussing is how to get the USA (ya know, the 1000lb gorilla in global affairs) NOT to behave like a tin-pot dictatorship in global affairs. Comparing them to a tin-pot dictatorship doesn't make the USA's decisions look better - it makes them look far worse.

 

Yawn - "constant"? "whataboutism"? Sure thing.

 

I don't thing "we have all agreed" on anything. That you claim so, doesn't make it factual or true. Reading these topics seems more posters are into black/white, good/bad takes.

 

Claiming "most of us" (the co-opting is dully noted) discuss this or that is irrelevant. Whether you like it or not Iran is part of what's discussed on this and other topics. That you wish to focus solely on the USA is, again, a choice.

 

If you feel Iran is a tin-pot dictatorship, then much of the previous narrative about letting the people sort it out etc. goes out the window. But again, not expecting much coherence from some on here.

[Morch]

15 hours ago, mikebike said:

None of your points say, "INEVITABLE"... and could just as easily apply to other nations.

 

Indeed. That would be because I do not subscribe to the "inevitable" bit. Wondered about that comment myself.

 

My post was more to do with the latter part of your post:

 

Quote

What serious consequences would arise if the USA just walked away and left the 2 most powerful nations in the middle east to deal with Iran on their own?

 

[Morch]

15 hours ago, RJRS1301 said:

I think the decisions are the work of one delusional narcissist, not those of well skilled professionals, who attempt to reign the creature in  

 

Some trying to rein him in or engage in damage control. Others try to influence him in order to further long standing agendas. Wouldn't know all fit the label of "well skilled professionals", though.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Morch

[Morch]

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Because the Iranians are the only nations in that arena that do this? Or is it just that they're better at it? Or is it that they've antagonized a certain country in the region? And made it a lot more difficult for them to push certain neighbors around?

 

Because this topic mostly deals with the USA and Iran. Other countries do that as well, if to a lesser degree or with less success. Might want to read the post I was replying to, and aquatint yourself with the concept of context.

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1107014-us-says-to-send-more-troops-to-the-middle-east-cites-iran-threats/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-14266950

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Because this topic mostly deals with the USA and Iran. Other countries do that as well, if to a lesser degree or with less success. Might want to read the post I was replying to, and aquatint yourself with the concept of context.

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1107014-us-says-to-send-more-troops-to-the-middle-east-cites-iran-threats/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-14266950

And there's nothing in the article about Iran's past history either. Yet you seem fondly partial to continually raising it.