America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,921 comments
  • 1,804,298 views
Kind of interested to know how long this was in the realms of feasibility for them or if it really just was a reaction of the embassy incident earlier this week.

Also, TIL that a non-professional can somehow be intrinsically twined within a government while the two meanings go against each other...
 
I highly doubt there will be much of a retaliation from Iran.

The only real source of revenue they have is oil refineries, they know that’s precisely what will be the next target if they act.
 
Liquid
If it isn't an act of war, what is?
Click to expand...
The standing policy with Iran had been one of regime change through economic means. That is now escalated to military means. Ironically, the other major figure killed was the senior Iraqi government official in charge of the militia formed to fight ISIS in Iraq. So Iraq's government is now mightily upset at the US action. It's parliament is now acting to pass a measure to demand the US remove its troops from Iraq. So this reckless attack may now risk war with Iran, but also destroy our alliance with Iraq.

Retaliation from Iran will probably come in slow and indirect ways. Firstly their will be a massive funeral and a general whipping up of public anger against the US. Then you will see and hear of proxy attacks against various military and soft targets in the region. Israel has plenty to worry about.

Perhaps John Bolton has been fired, but Trump's action undoubtedly has put a smile on John's mustache. Perhaps the Don is attempting to mend fences with our favorite neocon?
 
Joey D
What are you talking about? Clinton didn't launch a strike on Sudan during his impeachment.

UHJRTnO.jpg
Click to expand...
Kids.

Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory

"The attack took place a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and two months after the film Wag the Dog, prompting some commentators to describe the attack as a distraction for the public from the scandal."
 
Chrunch Houston
Kids.

Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory

"The attack took place a week after the Monica Lewinsky scandal and two months after the film Wag the Dog, prompting some commentators to describe the attack as a distraction for the public from the scandal."
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I was talking about what Clinton did to take focus off his impeachment trial, not what he did to draw attention away from the scandal itself though. The parallels between Trump starting something with Iran and Clinton starting something with Iraq are mighty similar, even down to the time frame.

And kids? Well that's amusing.

TexRex
"Trump shouldn't have been impeached for abuse of power but he should totally be impeached for abuse of power."

:odd:
Click to expand...

Yo dawg, I heard you like abuse of power so we abused your power so you can abuse your power while you abuse your power. X to the Z Xzibit
 
What worries me is Trump getting comfortable with using military action when his chips are down. It's one thing to attack a military target like he has done fairly frequently, but this is something else. I really don't like that this happened...not for the sake of Soleimani, but that the USA is now openly assassinating state officials. If Trump escapes this episode with only benefits (which could happen) then is it going to be a tool to be exploited further? Who's next? The Ayatollah himself? The quick-witted Zarif? The democratically-elected* Rouhani? Maybe Maduro or Kim? Is this Trump's answer when he has grown frustrated with the slow and difficult process of real diplomacy?

What about other countries? Seems like Iran or Korea or Venezuela has just as much pretext to take out Mike Pompeo (for instance) if they had the opportunity to do so. It certainly seems like a less stable world when assassination is back on the table as a legitimate tool of statecraft, especially when it has been tacitly sanctioned by the leader of the free world.

Put another way: You couldn't imagine Iran or North Korea stooping to assassinating American officials before yesterday because it would be a blow to their already-fragile credibility. Now, it actually seems plausible. They can say, "well if America can do it, why not us?"
 
Last edited:
It could just be the usual "I'll start a war I can win to get re-elected" stunt a lot of presidents use.
 
Dotini
The standing policy with Iran had been one of regime change through economic means. That is now escalated to military means. Ironically, the other major figure killed was the senior Iraqi government official in charge of the militia formed to fight ISIS in Iraq. So Iraq's government is now mightily upset at the US action. It's parliament is now acting to pass a measure to demand the US remove its troops from Iraq. So this reckless attack may now risk war with Iran, but also destroy our alliance with Iraq.

Retaliation from Iran will probably come in slow and indirect ways. Firstly their will be a massive funeral and a general whipping up of public anger against the US. Then you will see and hear of proxy attacks against various military and soft targets in the region. Israel has plenty to worry about.

Perhaps John Bolton has been fired, but Trump's action undoubtedly has put a smile on John's mustache. Perhaps the Don is attempting to mend fences with our favorite neocon?
Click to expand...
Him coordinating his militia against ISIS does not detract from the US soldiers he has also killed in coordinating attacks.

Also, Bloomberg reports that there were future plans for attacks against US personnel. Whether or not these were ever going to go through was not mentioned.
 
Corsa
I highly doubt there will be much of a retaliation from Iran.

The only real source of revenue they have is oil refineries, they know that’s precisely what will be the next target if they act.
Click to expand...

But what I would do, if I were Iran, would be to immediately remove any and all hindrances from the nuclear weapons development program. They had been slow rolling it after the US pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal with the hope that the rest of the world could convince the US to get back on board, but it seems clear that at this stage they might actually need nuclear weapons for national defense.

I predict Iran will have nukes within 12 months. Hopefully they don't feel the need to demonstrate them.

PocketZeven
He Flipflops on almost every issue. Sometimes even the same day!
Click to expand...

 
Swagger897
Him coordinating his militia against ISIS does not detract from the US soldiers he has also killed in coordinating attacks.

Also, Bloomberg reports that there were future plans for attacks against US personnel. Whether or not these were ever going to go through was not mentioned.
Click to expand...

I could read through again, but I don't think anyone is trying to defend the General. He's clearly a bad guy from the perspective of the west. But assassination? C'mon. That's both beneath us and irresponsible in the context of almost-guaranteed blowback. You might say, "let them try!" And yes, we're obviously a superior military power. But what good comes out of it? If we get into a war with Iran, every casualty we suffer will be an unforced error, a needless death. Even in the most liberal sense, Americans would be dying for....Iraqis? Saudis? Israelis? They certainly wouldn't be dying for Americans. Iran is not a threat to the United States...they have no means to hurt us unless we are over there....and we seem to only be over there to ....try to prevent them from hurting...us? It's circular reasoning that is untenable. It would be an even more pointless war than the Iraq or Afghan war where at least there was the plausibility of threats to the United States.

It seems to me that this order came directly from Trump, with minimal input/oversight from advisers, as a response to a taunt from the Ayatollah. That means that Trump is beginning to trust his gut wielding the military. That's alarming.
 
It is on days like this that I really wonder if there are only very special people available in DC who take decisions like this.

We should create a pool on what the Iranian target will be. Winner gets all the cookies.
 
Dennisch
It is on days like this that I really wonder if there are only very special people available in DC who take decisions like this.

We should create a pool on what the Iranian target will be. Winner gets all the cookies.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will be like that. The Iranians are forced to be opportunistic....they don't have the reach to pick and choose targets. More than that, without their most influential player on the board (if it were chess, Iran just lost their Queen), its even more difficult to predict what Iran's next move will be. It might be smart for them to use the event as a wedge to garner support/sympathy, rather than go all out offensive - its become easier to see them as the victim here.

Who knows, if they play things well with Iraq...they might just annex some territory without any shots fired...
 
Eunos_Cosmo
It seems to me that this order came directly from Trump, with minimal input/oversight from advisers, as a response to a taunt from the Ayatollah. That means that Trump is beginning to trust his gut wielding the military. That's alarming.
Click to expand...
Dennisch
It is on days like this that I really wonder if there are only very special people available in DC who take decisions like this.

We should create a pool on what the Iranian target will be. Winner gets all the cookies.
Click to expand...
Bloomberg just came out with another report detailing both of these questions. Planning started after the contractor death back in December and movements were made starting Monday.


Eunos_Cosmo
I could read through again, but I don't think anyone is trying to defend the General. He's clearly a bad guy from the perspective of the west. But assassination? C'mon. That's both beneath us and irresponsible in the context of almost-guaranteed blowback. You might say, "let them try!" And yes, we're obviously a superior military power. But what good comes out of it? If we get into a war with Iran, every casualty we suffer will be an unforced error, a needless death. Even in the most liberal sense, Americans would be dying for....Iraqis? Saudis? Israelis? They certainly wouldn't be dying for Americans. Iran is not a threat to the United States...they have no means to hurt us unless we are over there....and we seem to only be over there to ....try to prevent them from hurting...us? It's circular reasoning that is untenable. It would be an even more pointless war than the Iraq or Afghan war where at least there was the plausibility of threats to the United States.
Click to expand...
The alternative to more Americans dying within the walls of US bases would be what then? I get that being there is already one thing, but then pulling out just opens another freight train of debate. Surely which could be answered from previous experiences.

I don’t like that he was assassinated along with other militia leaders, but I don’t know what the alternative to letting more people die under their command would be? You’re going to denounce them in front UN/NATO?
 
Swagger897
I don’t like that he was assassinated along with other militia leaders, but I don’t know what the alternative to letting more people die under their command would be? You’re going to denounce them in front UN/NATO?
Click to expand...

It's a bad situation, I won't argue there. But it's hard to see it any of it happening if we had stayed party to the nuclear deal. That wasn't an ideal situation either...but it's really hard to see how it was worse than where we find ourselves today.
 
Swagger897
The alternative to more Americans dying within the walls of US bases would be what then? I get that being there is already one thing, but then pulling out just opens another freight train of debate. Surely which could be answered from previous experiences.

I don’t like that he was assassinated along with other militia leaders, but I don’t know what the alternative to letting more people die under their command would be? You’re going to denounce them in front UN/NATO?
Click to expand...

What's the debate for pulling out of the Middle East? I've never heard a convincing reason that we should be there at all. Typically when I've posed this question I get varying answers that almost always boil down to "oil" and "Israel" which seems rather strange to me. It doesn't take a huge leap to see that the US could very well manage its own oil supply and if we got just a tad bit more eco-focused with our transportation methods our dependency on foreign oil would be pretty much nill. As for Israel, what is the justification for supporting them?

As for Middle Eastern people dying under Middle Eastern leaders, while tragic, it's just not America's problem. People do horrible things to one another, especially people in power to their subjects. It's not the responsibility of America to put an end to that. Every America soldier who dies in the Middle East is dying for no reason and they're certainly not protecting any of America's freedoms. As I've said, I'm not sure why any American would want to join the armed forces right now. Why fight and potentially die for someone else's war? If I was going to join the armed forces I'd want to serve my country, not get shipped to some desert half a world away because our leaders are overgrown children.
 
Joey D
What's the debate for pulling out of the Middle East? I've never heard a convincing reason that we should be there at all.
Click to expand...
Has the word, destabilization, never come across your screen at all? I've yet to see empirical data yet myself though that supports these sorts of claims, but I think it may have some merit.

Joey D
Typically when I've posed this question I get varying answers that almost always boil down to "oil" and "Israel" which seems rather strange to me. It doesn't take a huge leap to see that the US could very well manage its own oil supply and if we got just a tad bit more eco-focused with our transportation methods our dependency on foreign oil would be pretty much nill. As for Israel, what is the justification for supporting them?
Click to expand...
I don't disagree really... I'd rather see us drill out as much oil as possible currently while looking for alternatives to become self sufficient entirely. I was also never sure we currently have such a large interest in Israel either if the true goal is to leave the ME. It's as if they're playing tug-of-war, but only with themselves: Save Israel from ME adversaries, and remain in the ME to keep overwatch on the adversaries. You can have one but not both.
 
Joey D
What's the debate for pulling out of the Middle East? I've never heard a convincing reason that we should be there at all. Typically when I've posed this question I get varying answers that almost always boil down to "oil" and "Israel" which seems rather strange to me. It doesn't take a huge leap to see that the US could very well manage its own oil supply and if we got just a tad bit more eco-focused with our transportation methods our dependency on foreign oil would be pretty much nill. As for Israel, what is the justification for supporting them?

As for Middle Eastern people dying under Middle Eastern leaders, while tragic, it's just not America's problem. People do horrible things to one another, especially people in power to their subjects. It's not the responsibility of America to put an end to that. Every America soldier who dies in the Middle East is dying for no reason and they're certainly not protecting any of America's freedoms. As I've said, I'm not sure why any American would want to join the armed forces right now. Why fight and potentially die for someone else's war? If I was going to join the armed forces I'd want to serve my country, not get shipped to some desert half a world away because our leaders are overgrown children.
Click to expand...

Tomorrow the Iraqi parliament is probably going to legislate to evict the US from Iraq. This will be the perfect opportunity to go. Will we? I think we all hope so.
 
Swagger897
Has the word, destabilization, never come across your screen at all? I've yet to see empirical data yet myself though that supports these sorts of claims, but I think it may have some merit.
Click to expand...

Seems like our presence hasn't exactly resulted in anything approaching stability, so I'm not seeing the destabilization aspect.
 
Northstar
Seems like our presence hasn't exactly resulted in anything approaching stability, so I'm not seeing the destabilization aspect.
Click to expand...

This is all depressingly familiar. I strongly suggest anyone who hasn't seen it yet watch Ken Burns documentary on the Vietnam war. It's a stark demonstration of how things can go inexorably & disastrously sideways.

The US is vulnerable to attack in the ME because it's in the ME ... & it's in the ME in order to protect its assets there, which are there because it's there. Crazy.
 
Murica. Kill or be killed. Protect the assets. Vote orange, vote the same as you. Protect your interests, you're still better than the opposition. Vote 'murica... the best DEFENCE is a good OFFENCE, vote 'Murica.. vote promoting your own wars... Vote war, vote domestic economic injection, vote likes, vote comments, vote shares... vote hypocrisy, vote affirmative action, vote death in the desert, vote Blair, vote war crimes, vote HATE, VOTE FEAR, VOTE FOR (OR AGAINST) WHAT THE MEDIA FED YOU WITH A PLASTIC SPOON... lap it up.. the plastic spoon was likely made in America, the land of the regulated, the land of the fearful... Give the children guns, save the population, 2 TRILLION in blood dollars... foreign wars, foreign corruption... signed and sealed, without a vote, America will kill you, it's the home, the home of the dogs of war.
 
MatskiMonk
Murica. Kill or be killed. Protect the assets. Vote orange, vote the same as you. Protect your interests, you're still better than the opposition. Vote 'murica... the best DEFENCE is a good OFFENCE, vote 'Murica.. vote promoting your own wars... Vote war, vote domestic economic injection, vote likes, vote comments, vote shares... vote hypocrisy, vote affirmative action, vote death in the desert, vote Blair, vote war crimes, vote HATE, VOTE FEAR, VOTE FOR (OR AGAINST) WHAT THE MEDIA FED YOU WITH A PLASTIC SPOON... lap it up.. the plastic spoon was likely made in America, the land of the regulated, the land of the fearful... Give the children guns, save the population, 2 TRILLION in blood dollars... foreign wars, foreign corruption... signed and sealed, without a vote, America will kill you, it's the home, the home of the dogs of war.
Click to expand...
Ayo I get your point but this post is edgier than a dodecahedron.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
618K
Strittan
Strittan
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
449 450 451
Replies
14K
Views
744K
Tired Tyres
Tired Tyres
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
792
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back