US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1553

On June 14 2019 23:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't see Trump invading Iran. He might do some (or even a lot of) airstrikes, but that's about it. He's clearly uninterested in getting the US engaged in a protracted shooting war. And that's not his style, anyway. The Trump doctrine is to use economic might to bludgeon geopolitical foes.

On June 14 2019 23:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I was pretty fucking upset with the decision to invade Iraq, but in a way, I felt like I couldn't hold it against the american population that was supportive of it, because you guys were lied to in a pretty damn encompassing manner. Or at least today I feel that way - 15 years ago I was a bit less diplomatic in how I phrased myself.

Invading Iran would be a significantly bigger mistake, with a significantly worse outcome, with a president claiming to have always been against the invasion of Iraq, with a voting base both remembering Iraq and claiming Trump was less hawkish and way less likely to get involved in some stupid war on foreign soil than his opponent was. And I have seen some Trump supporters say that they really hope he doesn't follow through on this.

Are any of the Trump supporters here even remotely supportive of an actual invasion of Iran?

On June 15 2019 01:47 Mohdoo wrote:
Can someone give me a good reason Iran would attack a Japanese ship? If proven true, that would give the US all the excuses it could ever ask for to blow Iran to bits.

Iran always barks, but never bites in a way they could actually suffer for. They always end up bending the knee and are mostly neutered. It is for a good reason. The US has consistently shown to be willing to hurt itself for defeating an enemy. We always are willing to invest more than is reasonable for poor gain. Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan being 3 great examples.

Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.


These new documents and tapes reveal what historians could not prove: There was not a second attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in early August 1964. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.

On June 15 2019 01:53 Sent. wrote:
False-false-flag?

On June 14 2019 23:20 xDaunt wrote:
I don't see Trump invading Iran. He might do some (or even a lot of) airstrikes, but that's about it. He's clearly uninterested in getting the US engaged in a protracted shooting war. And that's not his style, anyway. The Trump doctrine is to use economic might to bludgeon geopolitical foes.

On June 15 2019 02:11 Simberto wrote:


I love how launching bombs at other countries has been normalized in the US. It is just a thing you do, and totally not war. Yes, it is not "an invasion", but the only reason it is not "war" is because the other people can't shoot back for fear of the US escalating even further.

Throwing bombs on other countries is not okay. And it is not something that you just do if you are pissed off by another country.

On June 15 2019 02:19 GreenHorizons wrote:


And just what would Germany know about overzealous narcissistic leaders with supporters who identify with a belief in a supreme global hegemonic culture represented by their own perceived culture along with "amoral foreign policy"? /s

Bombing other countries in the furtherance of US interests is amoral according to xDaunt's worldview.

On June 15 2019 02:11 Simberto wrote:


I love how launching bombs at other countries has been normalized in the US. It is just a thing you do, and totally not war. Yes, it is not "an invasion", but the only reason it is not "war" is because the other people can't shoot back for fear of the US escalating even further.

Throwing bombs on other countries is not okay. And it is not something that you just do if you are pissed off by another country.

On June 15 2019 02:26 Danglars wrote:
None of this means you should approach Pompeo's conclusion with anything but extreme skepticism. See one grainy video, analysis + Show Spoiler + and timeline with boat attributions and classifications.

On June 15 2019 02:57 xDaunt wrote:


This isn't 2003 anymore. And if anything, 2003 was a unique time given that we were still living in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Circumstances have greatly changed since then. The American public is far more skeptical of government. There's also an element of war wariness. In short, the American people are turning back towards their traditional, isolationist tendencies. A president can get away with airstrikes and missile strikes in this kind of environment, because such limited actions have virtually zero impact upon Americans. But full scale invasion is a completely different story.

On June 15 2019 02:57 xDaunt wrote:


This isn't 2003 anymore. And if anything, 2003 was a unique time given that we were still living in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Circumstances have greatly changed since then. The American public is far more skeptical of government. There's also an element of war wariness. In short, the American people are turning back towards their traditional, isolationist tendencies. A president can get away with airstrikes and missile strikes in this kind of environment, because such limited actions have virtually zero impact upon Americans. But full scale invasion is a completely different story.

"They're exposed to the most gruesome things that you can think about that could happen on a battlefield," Brown said. "They find mass graves; they witness executions."

One Air Force survey found that among analysts engaged in this kind of work, nearly one in five had witnessed a rape within the past year. Some airmen reported witnessing more than 100 incidents of rape or torture, according Lt. Col. Cameron Thurman, the wing's surgeon.

"I mean that's warfare; it's clear and simple, and it's in HDTV," Brown said.

The airmen can't just look away; they're supporting and often helping to protect U.S. troops and their allies on the ground by watching out for threats, and guiding aircraft and drone pilots.

Thurman says observing the horrors of war, over and over again — even from a distance — carries a heavy burden.

"The recruiter told me that this was like working with photography. But ... it's not."

— Staff Sgt. Kimi

"You don't need a fancy study to tell you that watching someone beheaded, or skinned alive, or tortured to death, is gonna have an impact on you as a human being," Thurman said. "Everybody understands that.

On June 15 2019 02:26 Danglars wrote:
Don't attribute rational actor hypotheses to murderous Islamic states. That's one reason why Iran should not be dismissed. Assuming the predicate as Mohdoo does, it's a win on plausible deniability. The vague "ships were attacked" reasserts by proxy their very long term disputed claim on the strait of hormuz/surrounding areas, and delivers on threats they've made on ships operating there. Not the full "we have control" statement, just "maybe your ship gets mined and suffers damage around this area." And it drives the price of oil up, which Iran exports. Simultaneously, fears of backlash did not dissuade them from imprisoning navy personnel two years.

None of this means you should approach Pompeo's conclusion with anything but extreme skepticism. See one grainy video, analysis + Show Spoiler + and timeline with boat attributions and classifications.

On June 15 2019 03:29 Mohdoo wrote:

So why do anything at all if you want plausible deniability?

Iran is a murderous Islamic state, 100%. But there is a reason they haven't gone to war with the US yet. They don't want to be blown to pieces. There is no situation where Iran actually wants to go to war with the US.

On June 15 2019 03:34 Danglars wrote:

You’d be a fool to not act with a certain gray flag when that path is open to you. It’s another layer towards getting the desired results with less risk.

The problem is that these kinds of regimes take risks still. Iran munitions used to attack Israel and our troops in Iraq. Funding of Hezbollah and Hamas. I think the war weariness of America is known worldwide. They don’t think they’re at risk as long as it isn’t our vessels and deaths of our citizens. What are we really going to do with a Japanese merchant vessel and a level of citizen confusion on how sure the military is on boat and operator identification? Maybe a couple missiles. Just like Israel retaliating against Hamas. Leadership and military hardly impacted at all.

On June 15 2019 01:59 Mohdoo wrote:


I considered that, but I think no matter how you slice it, it makes them more vulnerable than anything else. If caught, it would be lights out. I truly believe that Iran would be totally fucking boned if they actually went after Japanese ship. It would likely mean more than the US conducting military strikes on Iran.