Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
War with Iran?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Pies4shaw Leo

pies4shaw


Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:06 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

They’re in a bit of a spot, really, because it is a domestic wedge strategy that is being run. There is so much jingoistic claptrap about their great country spouted by so many people who might otherwise have the potential for intelligent thought that the Democrats can’t allow themselves to be “soft on terror” or “unwilling to advance American values and defend our way of life internationally” etc etc. so, they think they have to do a tight-rope act of some sort.

The likelihood is that this issue alone will cost the Democrats any chance of taking the White House or a Senate majority (unless there are, say, a lot of retaliatory deaths early - something for which no one would wish). Not that it matters much - they’re all about as bad as each other.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:11 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

What are you on about? They're all pretty much saying "Terrorist general good, Trump bad".

There's a lack of nuance alright, they're just doing the "Orange man bad" routine for their low information base.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:02 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

On the contrary, Warren, Biden and Buttigieg et al. are all doing the “He was an evil man who had it coming but we need to be cautious of the consequences” thing. As they point out in the podcast, only Sanders, Gabbard and a couple of others are coming out aggressively against this (and also recognising that it’s not just “orange man bad" but that said orange man has a whole army of jackals in his administration and the Washington policy establishment behind him on this) without equivocation.

P4S, I’m not so sure about that. American anti-war sentiment is much higher than it was in the Bush years, and cuts right across the political spectrum, and a war with Iran would be easy to campaign against. As Menaker and co. argue, the very worst thing would be for the Dems to concede Trump’s basic premise but then act like wishy-washy critics about the way he’s doing things, because that just makes Trump look like the decisive action man and makes them look like wusses. Better to be uncompromising and aggressive from the get-go and vigorously denounce all aspects of the warmongering narrative. At least people will know what such a candidate stands for.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
pietillidie 



Joined: 07 Jan 2005


PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:13 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^Especially in disorienting, panicked times when the whiff of decline is in the air. Much raging and denial still to take place, I fear; no one who wants to win can risk letting the precarious veil of past glories slip.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 10:52 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

And here we go.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world/middleeast/trump-iran.html
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 11:59 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

The reprisals start, then again the bombing the Iranian military leaders was also a reprisal:

https://m.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Multiple-rockets-hit-Taji-base-in-Iraq-hosting-American-troops-613476

_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:53 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah, it bothers me how often it's being said that this kicked off with droning the general. That guy had just planned and launched an attack on a US embassy, trying to recreate a Benghazi situation. Unlike when Obama and Hillary were in charge Trump sent in the Marines straight away instead of leaving US diplomats and employees to be torn apart.

Trump then retaliated against the architect of that plan. (proportional and justified response)

Iran then launched 60 missiles at a US base in Iraq. (Escalation)

There's no coming back from that one, I'd expect a huge response in the next 24 hours from the US, probably an attempt to take out Iranian air defences. Guess we'll see after than if Iran wants to punch on.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:18 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Calling an illegal assassination of a foreign official a "proportionate and justified response" – and buying US intelligence claims about another Benghazi being in the works – is falling for the propaganda hook, line and sinker. Besides, every side in a war views their act of escalation as a "proportionate and justified response". The trick is to not be dumb enough to get into that situation in the first place. Trump has opened Pandora’s Box and has little capacity to deal with the magnitude of the consequences he has unleashed.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:33 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_attack_on_the_United_States_embassy_in_Baghdad

Do you actually find out what happens in the world or take your cues from leftist, US hating pages on social media?
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Wed Jan 08, 2020 8:53 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, I’m well aware of the embassy raid (itself a "proportionate and justified response" in the view of the Iranians). But the claims that another attack on US forces was in the works have been offered by Pence etc. without evidence (I reread your post and acknowledge that you weren’t repeating those claims, sorry).
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 12:57 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Wokko wrote:
If this precipitates the US getting kicked out of Iraq then I'm even more for it. They should leave the Middle East and stop fighting Saudi and Israel's wars for them.

Is
But that’s literally what they’re doing at this very moment. If they weren’t fighting the Saudis’ battles Trump wouldn’t have vetoed the bill to leave Yemen. And Suleimani’s assassination was apparently done in concert with Mossad..... ")


Mossad and other national spy agencies often share intelligence about their enemies and so they should. What do you expect, that they’d tell the Iranians “we know what did last summer”? This isn’t tiddlywinks.

Mossad has also tipped off Russia about imminent threats despite Russia arming the Iranians / Syrians and Hezbollah. It’s what national spy agencies do. However to say with certainty they acted “in concert with” is also speculative as none of us is definitely know

_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:36 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

A huge relief: Trump de-escalates. Looks like the war’s off, at least for now.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/08/trump-backs-away-from-further-military-confrontation-iran

Starting to notice a pattern here in his foreign policy approach – push things to the brink and then pull away at the last moment. It may seem like genius to some, but he’s playing with fire.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Wokko Pisces

Come and take it.


Joined: 04 Oct 2005


PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:42 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

When you're in the position of power then brinksmanship is possible, it'd be something he's learned in business. If you're willing to blow everything up (walk away from a deal) then the other party will buckle. He also seems to understand the need of the weaker party to "save face".

I was skeptical that geopolitics could be played as a business deal, but I guess in the end the human psychology involved is the same, even if the stakes are a lot higher. Maybe having a businessman in charge wasn't so crazy after all.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

I dare you to try


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 9:51 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ I could agree with that, but what is the cost of Trump getting to flex his brinkmanship skills? Suleimani didn’t need to be taken out, and innocent civilians died as a result of that attack. Neither did Trump need to pull out of the Iran deal, or place such severe sanctions on the country, or go all in with Saudi Arabia in Yemen against the Iran-backed Houthis. I’ll give him credit where it’s due – he did achieve something positive with North Korea, even though not much has come of it – but his dealings with Iran have just seemed like vandalism from the get go. Sanders put it best after the last near-crisis when he described Trump as setting fire to a wastepaper basket and then putting it out. He’s relying a good deal on caution and level-headedness from the other side, too, and anyone familiar with history will recognise that that’s a risky game.

As a little aside, I had a friend post on my Facebook yesterday that she and her boyfriend had spent the day in tears worrying about what might happen to his family in Iran. They’d be feeling more relief than many of us today, but it’s a reminder that this isn’t a chess game; these are human lives being played with, and if Trump stumbles, or a situation like this gets out of his control, the outcome may be cataclysmic.

_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Jezza Taurus

2023 PREMIERS!


Joined: 06 Sep 2010
Location: Ponsford End

PostPosted: Thu Jan 09, 2020 4:13 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

In the end, this is the best outcome in the circumstances.

It's evident now that Trump has adopted brinkmanship and the "mad man" strategy when it comes to his foreign policy approach toward Iran, North Korea and other adversaries.

Trump initiating war against Iran or anyone else would probably lose him the election. Yes, many who voted for Bush 15-20 years ago voted for Trump, but Trump also has a large base of anti-war voters that have disdain for the Neo-Conservative school of thought. His coalition of voters is not conventional for a typical Republican President.

Both sides will argue this is a victory for them. The US will argue they've taken out a dangerous figure within the regime and all Iran could produce was a predictable retaliatory attack that killed no one. On the other hand, Iran will argue their retaliation is a projection of strength and reinforce to their citizens that they will stand up against the US.

_________________
| 1902 | 1903 | 1910 | 1917 | 1919 | 1927 | 1928 | 1929 | 1930 | 1935 | 1936 | 1953 | 1958 | 1990 | 2010 | 2023 |
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 11 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group