Trump says he halted U.S. strike on Iran over possible casualties

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, OtinPattaya said:

Well, nor do you, mate. 

Well he does know and its easy to find out. The US froze Irans money. They then un froze it. 

 

The US didnt pay Iran or give Iran anything. It was Irans money.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, OtinPattaya said:

You cannot believe the USA "as a world partner." Where are you coming from, mate, that you, or your country, can be "believed"? You don't say. Easy for you to criticize a country when you won't even acknowledge your own. 

Its not about what his or any other country can be believed. It is the US pushing all this only because Trump reneged on a deal.

 

So its about whether Trump can be trusted and history proves he cannot.

[Rimmer]

Multiple off topic posts dragging Brexit into the topic have been removed.

 

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy

 

I think your talking point for today is Trump's reelection considerations. Hence you'll twist each and every reply or comment to accommodate the narrative.

 

If you do not wish to address my post, that's alright. Spinning it the way you do - not so much. There's a whole lot more topics and posts discussing the USA side of things, so going on about "one-sided" is not even remotely correct or to the point.

 

None of the stuff you're posting about Trump's reelections considerations playing a part in this is very original or new. Most of it was discussed and referenced long ago, even on this forum. And, of course, it's no magic solution for Iran's situation and circumstances.

Edited June 23, 2019 by Morch

[Morch]

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

Iran dont have to do anything. Trump will make all the moves. 

 

Trump will make the situation as bad as it can be, to the brink of war. Then he will get a very small concession from Iran. Then he will brazenly claim that he alone stopped a war and tell everyone how great he is.

 

Thats what he does. He takes a situation that is working. He makes it much worse. He then gets a little back and claims a success.

 

I doubt that's a viable strategy on Iran's part. Given existing tensions can result in a conflagration (intended or otherwise) on any given moment, the situation is maybe too fragile to bank on Trump not being in a situation where he can't avoid military actions. Granted, Iran does this walking on the brink thing at times, just that the odds and what's at stake are on a different scale.

 

I do agree it likely Iran will eventually make some sort of concession (whether hollow or not, is unimportant) to be used by Trump as an achievement to wave about. The problem with that is Iran's leadership, and more so hardliners, have the same issues with doing such things as Trump & Co. do.

 

IMO, there won't be any immediate return (or even a full one) of the USA to the framework of the JCPOA, though. That will take too much loss of face for Trump to absorb. 

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

@bristolboy

 

I think your talking point for today is Trump's reelection considerations. Hence you'll twist each and every reply or comment to accommodate the narrative.

 

If you do not wish to address my post, that's alright. Spinning it the way you do - not so much. There's a whole lot more topics and posts discussing the USA side of things, so going on about "one-sided" is not even remotely correct or to the point.

 

None of the stuff you're posting about Trump's reelections considerations playing a part in this is very original or new. Most of it was discussed and referenced long ago, even on this forum. And, of course, it's no magic solution for Iran's situation and circumstances.

But the point is that up and down in your posts concerning Iran you talk about how Iran fundamentally little leverage against a country as powerful as the USA. I don't recall you ever noting what assets Iran has in this struggle. So it absolutely is relevant as far as Iran's strategic situation is concerned. And I never said it was a magic solution. But keep distorting away.

 

And as for points I raised being original or new. Who cares? The question is whether or not its relevant. You keep harping away on how Iran has been kind of asking for it. Not very original or new either. But whatever the merits of your contentions, they're newness or originality aren't evident. Nor need they be.

 

And the thing is, the points I've raised about Trump's weak spots, are being borne out by recent events. Canceling the retaliatory strike at the last minute. Actually praising Iran for shooting down a drone instead of a planeful of Americans. Sorry they're not original or new. And I guess it counts for nothing that they seem to be accurate.

 

Once again, I recommend that article in the New York Times. Trump's position isn't nearly as strong as some think it is.

Facing Intensifying Confrontation With Iran, Trump Has Few Appealing Options

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/world/middleeast/trump-iran.html

[Morch]

 

@bristolboy

 

Misrepresenting my posts and pretending not to be aware of views are two things you invest quite a bit of effort it. So what you pretend to recall or not holds little significance. 

 

As opposed to your nonsense, I've actually reviews Iran's options. That I find them not particularly great might not fit the narrative you push. You're welcome to start and address such issues - so far you seem to be dodging them. Describing my views as "one-sided" is a laugh - more often then not I get criticized for not picking sides.

 

Hard not to see the latest talking-point-of-the-day as anything but a magic solution. Suddenly that's all that ought to be discussed, if one follows your posts. You're welcome to look up past topics - predictions that Trump will back up at the last minute, or that he'll change the narrative vs. Iran have appeared long ago.

 

And you're not "recommending" anything, just pushing the same talking point over and over again.

 

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, OtinPattaya said:

I don't know how many millions of US tax payer dollars were paid by Obama in order to placate Iran--and it didn't work. Billions of dollars under Obama? Why aren't the democrats in 2020 talking about this, about Obama's slavish billion-dollar bride to Iran?

You have no evidence that Obama paid anything to Iran.  All Obama did was release Iranian funds that had been held up.  You are just speculating about the possibility of payments because you have nothing else.

 

It works both ways.  For example: I don't know how many millions the Saudi government paid into the Trump businesses for Trump to back out of the Iran deal.  Billions of dollars paid by the Saudis?  Why aren't the Republicans in 2020 talking about his, about Trump's treasonous sell-out to Saudi Arabia.

[bristolboy]

5 hours ago, owl sees all said:

He is just intent on making America great again; as he said he would all along.

Clearly you've got lots of work to do on your baiting skills. Your bait is just way too obvious.

[Scott]

A post and reply with an oversized emoticon have been removed.  

 

[observer90210]

On 6/22/2019 at 4:47 PM, heybruce said:

As was explained before, you are giving him credit for stopping a war he was about to start.

And as said much before, it takes courage to admit a mistake and to go back on one's own decision...

[RJRS1301]

15 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

And as said much before, it takes courage to admit a mistake and to go back on one's own decision...

Or admit the fact he screwed up, and would have looked a bigger Buffon then ever, and caused an another  war

Edited June 23, 2019 by RJRS1301

[observer90210]

6 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

Or admit the fact he screwed up, and would have looked a bigger Buffon then ever

well at least he did admit and stop the carnage...many others have been wrong on many issues but never admitted it and caused massive casualties

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, observer90210 said:

well at least he did admit and stop the carnage...many others have been wrong on many issues but never admitted it and caused massive casualties

Was it courage or a belated realization that escalating the conflict could prove fatal for his reelection?

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, observer90210 said:

And as said much before, it takes courage to admit a mistake and to go back on one's own decision...

You are mistaken, Trump has never admitted to a mistake.

[RJRS1301]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You are mistaken, Trump has never admitted to a mistake.

He never makes mistakes, same as he never lies, or contradicts himself, and he knows BIG words, as he told us

Edited June 24, 2019 by RJRS1301

[bristolboy]

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

@bristolboy

 

Misrepresenting my posts and pretending not to be aware of views are two things you invest quite a bit of effort it. So what you pretend to recall or not holds little significance. 

 

As opposed to your nonsense, I've actually reviews Iran's options. That I find them not particularly great might not fit the narrative you push. You're welcome to start and address such issues - so far you seem to be dodging them. Describing my views as "one-sided" is a laugh - more often then not I get criticized for not picking sides.

 

Hard not to see the latest talking-point-of-the-day as anything but a magic solution. Suddenly that's all that ought to be discussed, if one follows your posts. You're welcome to look up past topics - predictions that Trump will back up at the last minute, or that he'll change the narrative vs. Iran have appeared long ago.

 

And you're not "recommending" anything, just pushing the same talking point over and over again.

 

I will undertake a search to find where it is you have noted what, if any advantages Iraq might possess in this situation. Because as far as I can recall, your tally of those amounts to exactly 0.

Edited June 24, 2019 by bristolboy

[owl sees all]

7 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Clearly you've got lots of work to do on your baiting skills. Your bait is just way too obvious.

What are you prattling on about now.

 

Virtually every speech, in the election campaign, he said something like "making America great again". Where were you during the run up to the US election? Or you were just not listening to him. Well, the American people liked his rhetoric and he got voted in. 

 

The Don's idea of making America great again might be different to yours or mine, but he is in the driving seat; not us.

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by owl sees all

[heybruce]

26 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

What are you prattling on about now.

 

Virtually every speech, in the election campaign, he said something like "making America great again". Where were you during the run up to the US election? Or you were just not listening to him. Well, the American people liked his rhetoric and he got voted in. 

 

The Don's idea of making America great again might be different to yours or mine, but he is in the driving seat; not us.

 

And yet in the eyes of most of the world and most Americans, he is diminishing America, not making it great.

[owl sees all]

43 minutes ago, heybruce said:

And yet in the eyes of most of the world and most Americans, he is diminishing America, not making it great.

I'm not so sure about that heybruce. Me, you and others might think so but,,,,,.

 

This latest stuff with the Iranians seems a sad advancement into even more imperialism for most of us. But I've seen reports that he is generally supported by the average American Joe.

 

The US military is still smarting over the hostage situation under Carter. And the ultra hawks want Iran sorted out once and for all. Of course there are others expectantly waiting in the wings; Saudi and Israel for two. Interesting to note an Israel paper's headlines said that a huge strategic strike upon Iran was imminent. As we know, The Don changed his mind at the death, (or was it part of the plan from the start), but how did the Israel paper get the info' in the first place?

 

The US took over from the Brits as THE imperial world power. I think it will all collapse (rather than they change their world outlook) and it is no secret that many feel the way to bring down America is through economic means not militarily. The petro-dollar is fighting for its life.

 

It's all a massive game of imperial chess. Where does Russia and China figure in all this? And, as a side issue, who will Thailand side with, US or China, when/if it all kicks off?

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by owl sees all

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, owl sees all said:

I'm not so sure about that heybruce. Me, you and others might think so but,,,,,.

 

This latest stuff with the Iranians seems a sad advancement into even more imperialism for most of us. But I've seen reports that he is generally supported by the average American Joe.

 

The US military is still smarting over the hostage situation under Carter. And the ultra hawks want Iran sorted out once and for all. Of course there are others expectantly waiting in the wings; Saudi and Israel for two. Interesting to note an Israel paper's headlines said that a huge strategic strike upon Iran was imminent. As we know, The Don changed his mind at the death, (or was it part of the plan from the start), but how did the Israel paper get the info' in the first place?

 

The US took over from the Brits as THE imperial world power. I think it will all collapse (rather than they change their world outlook) and it is no secret that many feel the way to bring down America is through economic means not militarily. The petro-dollar is fighting for its life.

 

It's all a massive game of imperial chess. Where does Russia and China figure in all this? And, as a side issue, who will Thailand side with, US or China, when/if it all kicks off?

 

Trump's approval ratings never went above 46%.  I think it's safe to assume the majority of Americans don't believe that he is making America great.   https://news.gallup.com/poll/203198/presidential-approval-ratings-donald-trump.aspx

[zydeco]

3 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Where does Russia and China figure in all this? And, as a side issue, who will Thailand side with, US or China, when/if it all kicks off?

If the rest of your scenario plays out, it means a Chinese dominated Europe, Asia, and Pacific. Enjoy trying to elevate your social credit score! Which you will need to purchase goods approved by your country's local Confucius Institute. Thailand, btw, has already decided. It doesn't matter who is in power, here. They are in the Chinese's pockets, now. Who would ever have imagined back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when Thailand was terrified of being invaded by China, that all it would take is for China to offer a few submarines, the promise of a train or two, and some casinos and the whole country would be theirs for the taking.

[owl sees all]

9 hours ago, zydeco said:

If the rest of your scenario plays out, it means a Chinese dominated Europe, Asia, and Pacific. Enjoy trying to elevate your social credit score! Which you will need to purchase goods approved by your country's local Confucius Institute. Thailand, btw, has already decided. It doesn't matter who is in power, here. They are in the Chinese's pockets, now. Who would ever have imagined back in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when Thailand was terrified of being invaded by China, that all it would take is for China to offer a few submarines, the promise of a train or two, and some casinos and the whole country would be theirs for the taking.

Good, thought provoking reply. Thailand and the Chinese system working hand-in-hand in hand; interesting.

 

I do think there is a case for people waking up and sniffing the coffee. The US Military annual budget is getting on for 1.5 trillion dollars a year. And of that, 25% in unaccountable and virtually untraceable. It goes in hand out, bribes, funding of secret and covert operations that even the POTUS can't know about. After all, the POTUS is just a temporary figurehead that has to do as advised; or else!!!

 

He has surrounded himself with ultra-hawks and they 'advised' The Don to smash Iran for the benefit of mankind (and the US). Then there is the Goldman Sachs and the FED people, whispering similar (after all, war doesn't cost anything Donald (we can print more money), and indeed there is decent money to be made, flogging arms, technology and expertise. And after we change the regime our companies can get access to their assets; legitimately.

 

I think he saw the case initially that strategic strikes on thirty, or so, Iran targets would make sense. Word went out that the strikes were inevitable and imminent. But, all this went against his natural instincts, and it was all called off. Far better to bring a country to its knees by sanctions; and the like. And perhaps more importantly (to him), a war might damage his second term chances, and a Nobel Peace award.

 

Unfortunately, for the US, Russia and China are not going anywhere and are formidable challenges.

 

The world is at a x-roads.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Scott

[RJRS1301]

8 hours ago, owl sees all said:

Good, thought provoking reply. Thailand and the Chinese system working hand-in-hand in hand; interesting.

 

I do think there is a case for people waking up and sniffing the coffee. The US Military annual budget is getting on for 1.5 trillion dollars a year. And of that, 25% in unaccountable and virtually untraceable. It goes in hand out, bribes, funding of secret and covert operations that even the POTUS can't know about. After all, the POTUS is just a temporary figurehead that has to do as advised; or else!!!

 

He has surrounded himself with ultra-hawks and they 'advised' The Don to smash Iran for the benefit of mankind (and the US). Then there is the Goldman Sachs and the FED people, whispering similar (after all, war doesn't cost anything Donald (we can print more money), and indeed there is decent money to be made, flogging arms, technology and expertise. And after we change the regime our companies can get access to their assets; legitimately.

 

I think he saw the case initially that strategic strikes on thirty, or so, Iran targets would make sense. Word went out that the strikes were inevitable and imminent. But, all this went against his natural instincts, and it was all called off. Far better to bring a country to its knees by sanctions; and the like. And perhaps more importantly (to him), a war might damage his second term chances, and a Nobel Peace award.

 

Unfortunately, for the US, Russia and China are not going anywhere and are formidable challenges.

 

The world is at a x-roads.

 

 

 

 

you forgot Halliburton and the links to famous former first families in the USA 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Scott

[tabarin]

On 6/22/2019 at 6:16 AM, Somtamnication said:

That is impossible. All military options and casualties, both in war zones and collateral, are discussed, reviewed and prepared for presidential briefings. He did not listen to them.

 

Now, one more reason to not add the USA as a world partner; you cannot believe them anymore!

What are you talking about? What he said is exactly what he gets to hear.
Just because the name Trump is in a article doesn't mean you have to doom talk it without facts, neither to follow the words of pseudo journalists.
Blaming Trump to be stupid while the people hating are one of the dumbest peasant bashers in history.

Edited June 24, 2019 by tabarin

[Thakkar]

First six minutes

 

 

[RJRS1301]

46 minutes ago, tabarin said:

What are you talking about? What he said is exactly what he gets to hear.
Just because the name Trump is in a article doesn't mean you have to doom talk it without facts, neither to follow the words of pseudo journalists.
Blaming Trump to be stupid while the people hating are one of the dumbest peasant bashers in history.

Your intemperate response about peasants etc reflects poorly on you, can you present a reasoned debate to back up your assertions?

 

[bristolboy]

57 minutes ago, tabarin said:

What are you talking about? What he said is exactly what he gets to hear.
Just because the name Trump is in a article doesn't mean you have to doom talk it without facts, neither to follow the words of pseudo journalists.
Blaming Trump to be stupid while the people hating are one of the dumbest peasant bashers in history.

Why would anyone ever accept without question Trump's version of events? The man does have a history.

This is just one of several articles on the subject of his cancellation of the airstrike:

'HARD TO BELIEVE' TRUMP ONLY LEARNED ABOUT CASUALTIES MINUTES BEFORE IRAN STRIKE: EXPERT

https://www.newsweek.com/experts-lawmakers-say-unlikely-trump-unaware-iran-strike-casualties-1445317

[RJRS1301]

27 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Why would anyone ever accept without question Trump's version of events? The man does have a history.

This is just one of several articles on the subject of his cancellation of the airstrike:

'HARD TO BELIEVE' TRUMP ONLY LEARNED ABOUT CASUALTIES MINUTES BEFORE IRAN STRIKE: EXPERT

https://www.newsweek.com/experts-lawmakers-say-unlikely-trump-unaware-iran-strike-casualties-1445317

I too find it hard to believe.

It is known that whenever a decision to strike a target the international law is reviewed, the target identified, estimates on retaliation, and also if any "collateral damage"(buildings, human, hospitals, schools, major roads dams)  will occur, estimated number of persons killed directly.

There is not just one person making a decision, all relevant maters are discussed and possible mitigation of damage reviewed. 

 

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, RJRS1301 said:

I too find it hard to believe.

It is known that whenever a decision to strike a target the international law is reviewed, the target identified, estimates on retaliation, and also if any "collateral damage"(buildings, human, hospitals, schools, major roads dams)  will occur, estimated number of persons killed directly.

There is not just one person making a decision, all relevant maters are discussed and possible mitigation of damage reviewed. 

 

I think it's obvious that he reversed course because of electoral considerations. Hard to square escalating this conflict on one hand, and on the other pledges to not get entangled in mideast conflicts.