America and Iran step closer to the brink of war

[JonnyF]

Biden has proven to be quite the warmonger.

 

I guess now he knows he'll be facing Trump, he's thinking a war might be just the ticket to rally ailing voter support. 

[impulse]

17 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Biden has proven to be quite the warmonger.

 

I guess now he knows he'll be facing Trump, he's thinking a war might be just the ticket to rally ailing voter support. 

 

I'm not a Biden fan at all, but I don't think he's the one that will light the spark.  His minions, absolutely.  They have no moral compass.

It'll be just like the neocons leading W and Colin Powell to war.  I still think both of those guys were decent, moral men.  But they got schnookered by the people surrounding them.  (who all should have ended up in prison)

 

Just like Biden will.  So a hot war on some front in this election year wouldn't surprise me a bit.  Question is, which front and how bad?

 

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I'm not a Biden fan at all, but I don't think he's the one that will light the spark.  His minions, absolutely.  They have no moral compass.

It'll be just like the neocons leading W and Colin Powell to war.  I still think both of those guys were decent, moral men.  But they got schnookered by the people surrounding them.  (who all should have ended up in prison)

 

Just like Biden will.  So a hot war on some front in this election year wouldn't surprise me a bit.  Question is, which front and how bad?

 

I am also not a Biden, but any military action he has ordered was in defense of our troops in Syria and Iraq.  Same thing goes for the Houthis in Yemen.  They fired first.

[BritManToo]

13 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

I am also not a Biden, but any military action he has ordered was in defense of our troops in Syria and Iraq.  Same thing goes for the Houthis in Yemen.  They fired first.

Yeah but those aren't your country, shouldn't the USA keep out of other people's wars?

If you keep attacking other countries, don't be surprised when they attack your home country.

Edited January 23 by BritManToo

[impulse]

10 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

I am also not a Biden, but any military action he has ordered was in defense of our troops in Syria and Iraq.  Same thing goes for the Houthis in Yemen.  They fired first.

My only objection to his military action was the number of unanswered attacks before he finally pulled the trigger.  Seemed that he was waiting for the polls to tell him when it was acceptable to defend our troops.  Right or wrong, it looked to me that he was more concerned with the votes than taking care of troops.

 

[Morch]

12 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump was not only a terrible negotiator who could not negotiate his way out of a paper bag, but he appointed the worst person possible to lead the negotiations. Jared Kushner might be capable of running a kindergarten but he certainly failed at trying to establish peace in the Middle East. 

 

I did not and do not exaggerate the value of them Abraham Accords, but relative to the diplomatic wasteland in previous years, it was a positive development. I do not think there was an actual expectation that he would bring about peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, or something much grander than what he delivered. There were words said, yes - but political talk is cheap. In real terms, he actually got an ok deal.

[Morch]

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

His administration cranked the dial on U.S. competition with China, assassinated an influential Iranian general, and brokered the Abraham Accords between Israel and a number of Arab states, while also alienating allies in Europe, signing a catastrophic deal with the Taliban, and withdrawing the United States from both the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate accords. 

 

The remainder of this section discusses the details of the quid pro quo deals that created the Abraham Accords—and, in many cases, their heavy costs for progressive foreign policy aims.

 

https://tcf.org/content/report/salvage-progressive-policies-abraham-accords/

 

@ozimoron

 

'progressive foreign policy aims' - is that a thing? Are America's policies (and specifically, foreign policy) 'progressive'? Or is this more of a partisan thing? A fantasy?

[Morch]

12 hours ago, ozimoron said:

 

What would taking out Ayatollah Khomeini achieve besides ww3? Or was it ww2? Trump said it would be.

 

@ozimoron

 

Khomeini has been dead since 1989. His successor and current main man is Khamenei.

As for WW3, just more of your constant scaremongering.

 

 

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

The problem is how many someones are there.  It would have to be an extremely charismatic someone who would have little or no opposition.  Who is this someone?

 

 

Edited January 23 by Morch

[Morch]

4 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Biden has proven to be quite the warmonger.

 

I guess now he knows he'll be facing Trump, he's thinking a war might be just the ticket to rally ailing voter support. 

 

Proven how?

[Morch]

3 hours ago, impulse said:

 

I'm not a Biden fan at all, but I don't think he's the one that will light the spark.  His minions, absolutely.  They have no moral compass.

It'll be just like the neocons leading W and Colin Powell to war.  I still think both of those guys were decent, moral men.  But they got schnookered by the people surrounding them.  (who all should have ended up in prison)

 

Just like Biden will.  So a hot war on some front in this election year wouldn't surprise me a bit.  Question is, which front and how bad?

 

 

Which 'minions' would that be? The movie characters seemed quite harmless....

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

My only objection to his military action was the number of unanswered attacks before he finally pulled the trigger.  Seemed that he was waiting for the polls to tell him when it was acceptable to defend our troops.  Right or wrong, it looked to me that he was more concerned with the votes than taking care of troops.

 

 

I think they were trying to sort it diplomatically first, at least for appearances sake. Then they waited for the UN thing, to make it 'legit'. Once that was on, attacks started up rather quickly.

[Morch]

5 hours ago, placeholder said:

If the Iranians believe that the likelihood of a war waged against them by the US has risen, that would give them more of an incentive to enrich their stocks of uranium to the level where they can be used to create nuclear weapons. As Ukraine has learned, not having nuclear weapons can be a distinct disadvantage when facing a powerful foe.

 

Iran pulling such a move (increased enrichment, nuclear device development) would provide the exact pretext and motivation to attack it. Considering that they are still a ways away from either having enough enriched material, developing and testing a device, and coupling in with a delivery system - it is probably not an immediate, current concern. Given that a credible threat would require multiple such weapons deployed, it's even more of a non issue, for now.

[impulse]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I think they were trying to sort it diplomatically first, at least for appearances sake. Then they waited for the UN thing, to make it 'legit'. Once that was on, attacks started up rather quickly.

 

You may be right.  But I got the sense that they were gauging the pro-Palestinian protests and polling numbers to make sure there wouldn't be too high a political price to pay for actually defending troops.

 

To answer your question about minions, they're the people whose sole job is getting their guy into power and keeping him in power, no matter how much it hurts Americans.  They'd gladly see a war with Iran (or anyone else) if it kept their guy in the White House.  They seem to be beating the war drums.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/22/biden-admin-american-troops-iran-houthis-middle-east/

 

Edit:  Minions are also the ones claiming the border is secure...

Edited January 23 by impulse

[Morch]

10 minutes ago, impulse said:

 

You may be right.  But I got the sense that they were gauging the pro-Palestinian protests and polling numbers to make sure there wouldn't be too high a political price to pay for actually defending troops.

 

To answer your question about minions, they're the people whose sole job is getting their guy into power and keeping him in power, no matter how much it hurts Americans.  They'd gladly see a war with Iran (or anyone else) if it kept their guy in the White House.  They seem to be beating the war drums.

 

https://dailycaller.com/2024/01/22/biden-admin-american-troops-iran-houthis-middle-east/

 

Edit:  Minions are also the ones claiming the border is secure...

 

Presidents looking at public trends before making policy decisions is pretty much routine. Guess if it wasn't done, some would complain about the President not taking into account public sentiment etc.

 

As for your link - still no support for your allegations about 'minions'. Care to name, specify etc?

 

 

[Hawaiian]

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Yeah but those aren't your country, shouldn't the USA keep out of other people's wars?

If you keep attacking other countries, don't be surprised when they attack your home country.

After Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990, the U.S. led a 42 nation coalition against Iraq. The U.S. was specifically asked by the Saudis to help. Then in 2003, the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq again on the premise that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction.  This turned out to be based on faulty intelligence.  Supposedly, the U.S. pulled out in 2011, but a small contingent of troops remain there until today. 

As to Syria, the U.S. got involved in the civil war against the Assad regime and to help the Kurds fight the Islamic State.

Yemen is a slightly different situation.  The U.S. is there to protect maritime shipping in international waters.  U.S. ships were repeatedly fired upon by the rebel Houthis.  Now the U.S. is retaliating.

 

 

 

 

[impulse]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

As for your link - still no support for your allegations about 'minions'. Care to name, specify etc?

 

I don't sit in those rooms.  But when I see such a tightly choreographed administration release a statement claiming Iran is probably going to kill Americans (direct or by proxy), I don't think it's nothing.  They made that release for a reason.  They're priming us to accept war.

 

[placeholder]

1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Iran pulling such a move (increased enrichment, nuclear device development) would provide the exact pretext and motivation to attack it. Considering that they are still a ways away from either having enough enriched material, developing and testing a device, and coupling in with a delivery system - it is probably not an immediate, current concern. Given that a credible threat would require multiple such weapons deployed, it's even more of a non issue, for now.

Well, the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Proliferation, apparently the go-to organization when it comes to evaluating countries' nuclear weapons statuss,  pretty much says that the state of Iran's nuclear stockpile is very uncertain, to say the least, now that the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy Agency, can no longer monitor Iran's nuclear program. They could possibly create enough in a few weeks for 5 devices containing 16 kilos of fissile material each, or 11 devices containing 7 kilos each. Those latter devices would yield an explosion slightly smaller than the one created by the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. But even if Iran could create that much material, there's a lot more that goes into the making of a nuclear weapon The state of progress there is unclear, or, rather, opaque.

https://www.iranwatch.org/our-publications/articles-reports/irans-nuclear-timetable-weapon-potential

[Morch]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

I don't sit in those rooms.  But when I see such a tightly choreographed administration release a statement claiming Iran is probably going to kill Americans (direct or by proxy), I don't think it's nothing.  They made that release for a reason.  They're priming us to accept war.

 

 

I see.

So you've nothing to support your claims with, then? Surprising.....

[The Theory]

😆😆😆😂😂😂😃😃😃

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Hawaiian said:

After Iraq invaded and occupied Kuwait in 1990, the U.S. led a 42 nation coalition against Iraq. The U.S. was specifically asked by the Saudis to help. Then in 2003, the U.S. and Britain invaded Iraq again on the premise that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction.  This turned out to be based on faulty intelligence.  Supposedly, the U.S. pulled out in 2011, but a small contingent of troops remain there until today. 

As to Syria, the U.S. got involved in the civil war against the Assad regime and to help the Kurds fight the Islamic State.

Yemen is a slightly different situation.  The U.S. is there to protect maritime shipping in international waters.  U.S. ships were repeatedly fired upon by the rebel Houthis.  Now the U.S. is retaliating.

 

 

 

 

Helping the Saudis ..... then they did 9/11.

That'll teach you to help Saudi!

[Hawaiian]

17 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Helping the Saudis ..... then they did 9/11.

That'll teach you to help Saudi!

Saudi Arabia feared that Saddam Hussein might attack the next.  Because of that possibility it was feared Saddam would control a whole lot of oil.  That was one consideration for the coalition to act.

As for 9/11, it has never been established that the Saudi government was responsible.  Lots of circumstantial evidence, but no proof. Yes, Saudi citizens were involved in the attack, although not acting in behalf of their government.

[placeholder]

44 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I see.

So you've nothing to support your claims with, then? Surprising.....

Given that it isn't ruled out, and that it could be the case, I'm not sure what you're driving at. Now, if I had claimed the same possibility for, say, Montenegro, you might have a better point.

[BritManToo]

35 minutes ago, Hawaiian said:

Saudi Arabia feared that Saddam Hussein might attack the next.  Because of that possibility it was feared Saddam would control a whole lot of oil.  That was one consideration for the coalition to act.

As for 9/11, it has never been established that the Saudi government was responsible.  Lots of circumstantial evidence, but no proof. Yes, Saudi citizens were involved in the attack, although not acting in behalf of their government.

All but 1 were Saudi nationals.

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

All but 1 were Saudi nationals.

 

My recollection is 15 of 19.

 

 

 

Edited January 23 by ozimoron

[Presnock]

16 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Trump was not only a terrible negotiator who could not negotiate his way out of a paper bag, but he appointed the worst person possible to lead the negotiations. Jared Kushner might be capable of running a kindergarten but he certainly failed at trying to establish peace in the Middle East. 

Yeah but look how rich he got for all his fumbling!

 

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, Presnock said:

Yeah but look how rich he got for all his fumbling!

 

 

Apparently less rich than if he'd just put it into a blind investment fund.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2021/10/11/its-official-trump-would-be-richer-if-he-had-just-invested-his-inheritance-into-the-sp500/?sh=2db8102b1c48

Edited January 23 by ozimoron

[Presnock]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Yeah but those aren't your country, shouldn't the USA keep out of other people's wars?

If you keep attacking other countries, don't be surprised when they attack your home country.

You in the eu uk weren't telling the US to stay out of their attack by the Gemans!

[placeholder]

24 minutes ago, Presnock said:

You in the eu uk weren't telling the US to stay out of their attack by the Gemans!

While I've always thought of BritmanToo too as being an old duffer, I never suspected that he was that old. Thank you for holding back the Jerries, BritmanToo

Edited January 23 by placeholder

[scottiejohn]

11 minutes ago, placeholder said:

While I've always thought of BritmanToo too as being an old duffer, I never suspected that he was that old. Thank you for holding back the Jerries, BritmanToo

Do you think he is referring to WW1 or WWII?