Jump to content

U.S. pulls staff from Iraq, says Iran gave 'blessing' for tanker attacks


webfact

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

How do you "know" that Iran didn't? Because they denied it?

Probably it hurts, but at the moment America and their Saudi friends are not more credible than Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 hours ago, Thakkar said:

120 k troops — it was, according to The Pentagon, “a range of options presented to the president” Trump, when asked directly, denied he was deploying said troops, but added that if he were, it would be “a hell of a lot more.”

I think that counts as a threat. 

 

 

I never said there was. But the threat was made. Prior to the Iraq war, Dick Cheney planted a story in The NYT, then quoted that story as a reason to be worried about Iraq. This is how it works. Someone sent a story to the press, the press reported, they walk it back a bit, then not quite by adding, “if it were happening, the numbers would be bigger”

 

Iranians (middle easterners in general) have long memories. Their belicose rhetoric is a result of the US actually having overthrown a duly elected Iranian government, actually supported for decades a brutal, corrupt dictator who oppressed the populace, then actually tried to undermine the Iranian government for almost 4 decades.

 

The Iranians are no choir boys either, but lets not pretend there is a balance of fault here.

 

edit:

adding:

do I think the US will go to war? Probably not. One, because there’s zero international support (Israel and KSA excluded), and, two, it’s not what Putin wants, and Trump so far has generally done what Putin wants as much as it has been in his power to do so.

 

About that 120,000 troop thing. Figures for the either Iraq wars were way higher. Considering the views that Iran is a different ball game, such a deployment, even if it was reality, would have been less than adequate for the task at hand. Doubt the Iranians are not well aware of either fact. Had there actually been 120,000 troops deployed, maybe. As rumor about a figure mentioned in a Pentagon briefing? Sorry, but no. It's not a threat, it's a joke. If it was actually meant as some sort of psychological warfare, then someone sucks doing what he does. And I'm all too aware of how such things work, thanks a bunch. No credible threat. At most, posturing aimed at voter base, maybe supportive elements among allies.

 

Generalizations about Iranians and Middle Easterners are cute. Of course, one would have to ignore the numerous times alliances are switched, tossed aside and the rest of this stuff, but hell, what's that compared to a "winning" argument. 

 

Iran's leadership's bellicose rhetoric is in place for the same reason most regimes taking up such a tone do it - focus public attention on an external enemy, divert public attention from their own failures. As for balances of fault, wouldn't know who audits such things, seems for a lot of posters the equation comes down to this - if Trump (or for the more hardcore, USA) is on side, than righteousness is automatically on the other, regardless of pretty much anything.

 

I concur that the USA will probably not go to war, if not mainly/solely for the reasons cited. IMO, the main thing is Trump willing to talk the talk, and there it stops. At least on some matters (military, for example). No idea whether this is down to being a bully/chicken, or figuring out that yet another prolonged war in the ME, is not a popular proposition (even among his base), or that casualties during election year could pan either way - the bottom line seems the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Probably it hurts, but at the moment America and their Saudi friends are not more credible than Iran.

 

Personally, doesn't hurt me one bit. And I'm fine with this proposition. Can't argue that it wasn't earned. But even so, seems like some people are more into assigning blame/responsibility based on their politics, rather than anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Personally, doesn't hurt me one bit. And I'm fine with this proposition. Can't argue that it wasn't earned. But even so, seems like some people are more into assigning blame/responsibility based on their politics, rather than anything else.

Well, if i was American, it would surely hurt me.

I am surprised about the apparent lack of dissent from American citizens against this overtly aggressive foreign politics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Morch said:

 

About that 120,000 troop thing. Figures for the either Iraq wars were way higher. Considering the views that Iran is a different ball game, such a deployment, even if it was reality, would have been less than adequate for the task at hand. Doubt the Iranians are not well aware of either fact. Had there actually been 120,000 troops deployed, maybe. As rumor about a figure mentioned in a Pentagon briefing? Sorry, but no. It's not a threat, it's a joke. If it was actually meant as some sort of psychological warfare, then someone sucks doing what he does. And I'm all too aware of how such things work, thanks a bunch. No credible threat. At most, posturing aimed at voter base, maybe supportive elements among allies.

 

Generalizations about Iranians and Middle Easterners are cute. Of course, one would have to ignore the numerous times alliances are switched, tossed aside and the rest of this stuff, but hell, what's that compared to a "winning" argument. 

 

Iran's leadership's bellicose rhetoric is in place for the same reason most regimes taking up such a tone do it - focus public attention on an external enemy, divert public attention from their own failures. As for balances of fault, wouldn't know who audits such things, seems for a lot of posters the equation comes down to this - if Trump (or for the more hardcore, USA) is on side, than righteousness is automatically on the other, regardless of pretty much anything.

 

I concur that the USA will probably not go to war, if not mainly/solely for the reasons cited. IMO, the main thing is Trump willing to talk the talk, and there it stops. At least on some matters (military, for example). No idea whether this is down to being a bully/chicken, or figuring out that yet another prolonged war in the ME, is not a popular proposition (even among his base), or that casualties during election year could pan either way - the bottom line seems the same.

Belicosity towards an external foe as a means to control internal dissent and bellicosity towards that foe because they are genuinely aggressive are not mutually exclusive. If anything, US aggression (or unqualified US support, in the case of theUS-installed Shah) allows the mullahs (or Shah) to sideline/suppress moderate, reforming forces within. The result in both cases is that the long suffering people of Iran can’t get a break, regardless of which administration is in The WH, or Tehran. Obama’s and John Kerry’s diplomacy, with help from the Europeans and the IAEA brought (alas, briefly) some hope for betterment.

 

The current US bluster, if you want to call it that, risks war and serves zero US national interests. It alienates European allies, rattles markets, bolsters narrow war hawk interests in Iran, Israel, KSA, and US arms industry—not to mention militant Shia and Sunni militant fanatics who actually want a religious war to settle a 1400 year old dispute. The US withdrawal from the multilateral international treaty on flimsy grounds also means that all future presidents will be hamstrung when negotiating anything. Even Trump doesn’t need this bluster except for some weird self affirmation, because his base is already solidly behind him anyway.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2019 at 2:11 PM, quandow said:

The trouble is his words have serious consequences around the world. His mere mention of sending 120,000 troops to the Middle East sets off alarm bells. Most of the time he's pulling stuff out his ass, but then he sets the Dow tumbling because he actually DID place tariffs on China. As far as being a bully, he's a bully with the largest and most powerful military this planet has ever seen. He doesn't need to be brave. He needs to be muzzled.

not muzzled, euthanized.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...