|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States44271 Posts
On June 21 2019 19:22 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2019 15:01 On_Slaught wrote:On June 21 2019 14:32 KwarK wrote:
There's plenty of airspace in America that the navy can safely fly drones in if they like. Do you recall the kids game of pulling punches and saying "I'm not touching you" over and over? It always ends in the asshole doing it getting slapped and then crying that the other guy was the aggressor because he didn't even touch him. The US got slapped for playing "I'm not touching you". Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There's plenty of airspace that is nowhere near Iran. This. I actually believe the Iranians on this one. The thing is a surveillance drone, so chances are it was trying to do its job and got too close, either on purpose or accident. It isnt a stretch to think it was on purpose given the number of hawks running things. Could be wrong, but as Kwark said there is a lot of air space it could have used instead. I'm curious... what airspace do you have in mind? Drones have limited ability to monitor what's going on (e.g., Iran allegedly attacking shipping vessels) when they are far away laterally, such as not over the Straight of Hormuz or perhaps, in the United States.
Maybe a country that hasn’t been threatening Iran, like Japan for example, could have their government employ an individual to go to Iran and explain that as part of their investigation they would be flying a drone over there including needing access to Iranian airspace. If asked politely and reasonably Iran could not justifiably refuse.
The US policy of involving itself unilaterally and disrespecting the sovereignty of every other state aren’t yielding good results.
|
United States44271 Posts
I’m amazed by the US gov outrage over Iran threatening to cease compliance with an agreement the US government repudiated unilaterally.
What did they think was going to happen when they pulled out if not this?
|
On June 21 2019 22:42 KwarK wrote:
I’m amazed by the US gov outrage over Iran threatening to cease compliance with an agreement the US government repudiated unilaterally.
What did they think was going to happen when they pulled out if not this?
You're assuming the primary people axing the Iran deal knew what was actually in the agreement when they pushed for repudiating it (beyond the high level soundbites) or that that somehow entered into their decision making or predictions about the consequences of doing it. It was done with internationally under Obama, that's all they needed to know. It's not like Trump has a functioning State Department to help with these things.
|
On June 21 2019 20:17 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
That drone had a family, and a factory where he grew up in. He will never get to know what it's like to be refitted with a more modern cpu and sensor package.
There was a time when manned spy planes getting found and shot down was an embarrassment for the US, now we're talking about a spy drone being shot down as a perfectly valid reason for bombing a country. Madness.
|
This Iran about-face seems pretty similar to Obama's red line. It comes after a number of threats from trump, including yesterday. I guess he didn't consider the casualty numbers until "ten minutes" before the bombs were supposed to drop.
|
In the past 100 years, practically every president has been reelected when in the midst of a war. FDR in 1944 (WW2), Nixon in 1972 (Vietnam), Bush in 2004 (Iraq, Afghanistan), Obama in 2012 (Syria + loose ends in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya).
Bush Sr. lost in 1992 (after the gulf war victory, and no more ongoing war).
Of course this is by no means statistically significant at a high confidence interval. But perhaps Trump is trying to force a war because he thinks it is a good way to get reelected.
|
|
|
On June 21 2019 23:19 Doodsmack wrote:This Iran about-face seems pretty similar to Obama's red line. It comes after a number of threats from trump, including yesterday. I guess he didn't consider the casualty numbers until "ten minutes" before the bombs were supposed to drop. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1142055388965212161
Man, who cares about casualties when you're cocked and loaded...
|
|
|
I’ve seen reporting that indicates that this whole Iran thing is merely a cover for pushing through the massive weapons deals to the UAE and Saudis. Seems plausible enough.
|
|
|
On June 22 2019 01:27 farvacola wrote:
I’ve seen reporting that indicates that this whole Iran thing is merely a cover for pushing through the massive weapons deals to the UAE and Saudis. Seems plausible enough.
Well, Saudis need better weapons so they don't have to resort to saws to deal with US based journalists
|
On June 21 2019 19:22 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2019 15:01 On_Slaught wrote:On June 21 2019 14:32 KwarK wrote:
There's plenty of airspace in America that the navy can safely fly drones in if they like. Do you recall the kids game of pulling punches and saying "I'm not touching you" over and over? It always ends in the asshole doing it getting slapped and then crying that the other guy was the aggressor because he didn't even touch him. The US got slapped for playing "I'm not touching you". Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. There's plenty of airspace that is nowhere near Iran. This. I actually believe the Iranians on this one. The thing is a surveillance drone, so chances are it was trying to do its job and got too close, either on purpose or accident. It isnt a stretch to think it was on purpose given the number of hawks running things. Could be wrong, but as Kwark said there is a lot of air space it could have used instead. I'm curious... what airspace do you have in mind? Drones have limited ability to monitor what's going on (e.g., Iran allegedly attacking shipping vessels) when they are far away laterally, such as not over the Straight of Hormuz or perhaps, in the United States.
I mean, if the goal was to surveil Iranian territory then the drone was certainly in the right place. However, as Kwark pointed out, we shouldn't then be surprised when a country reacts poorly to us going into their airspace uninvited. There's a reason these drones are unmanned.
Also, something about Trump's tweet with the casualties seems off. Dunno what it is but it feels like a child wrote it or something, more than even his normal tweets. Weird.
|
On June 22 2019 01:39 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2019 01:27 farvacola wrote:
I’ve seen reporting that indicates that this whole Iran thing is merely a cover for pushing through the massive weapons deals to the UAE and Saudis. Seems plausible enough. Well, Saudis need better weapons so they don't have to resort to saws to deal with US based journalists
This brought a smile to my face, which instantly disappeared the moment I realized what a stunning indictment of the state of things the humor in that statement is.
|
On June 22 2019 01:31 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2019 01:27 farvacola wrote:
I’ve seen reporting that indicates that this whole Iran thing is merely a cover for pushing through the massive weapons deals to the UAE and Saudis. Seems plausible enough. I could believe it. Hopefully the GOP members that voted against the sells stick to their guns
I'm pretty doubtful.
Trump will veto, and then there's not enough republican support to override the veto, so what'll happen is the republicans who are vulnerable in the next election get to throw up their hands and say they tried, while not actually accomplishing anything.
|
On June 21 2019 20:55 KwarK wrote:
The US policy of involving itself unilaterally and disrespecting the sovereignty of every other state aren’t yielding good results.
That depends heavily on what the US considers "good results". It's not apparent that the goal is to avoid armed conflict in the Middle East, or to avoid to imminent potential. Brinkmanship seems to be a popular strategy from the commander-in-chief personally, if not the administration in general.
It seems clear to me (and I think most folks outside the US) that this antagonistic policy is leading to serious decline in US international opinion and geopolitical power over time, but I'm not sure if decision-makers aren't willfully sacrificing future America for personal gain.
|
On June 21 2019 09:23 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2019 09:18 xDaunt wrote:
Listening to his comments this morning, it’s pretty clear to me that Trump is trying very hard to avoid a military confrontation with Iran. He went out of his way to give the Ayatollah an out, chalking up the shooting down of the drone to a “mistake” made by one of the generals. The problem with this, however, is that it may very well not be a mistake, and Iran is baiting us into military conflict. Trump may not have much of a choice but to respond militarily. It will be interesting to see what the response is. I wouldn’t be surprised if he decides to level Kharg Island. That would really hurt Iran. It was good to hear Trump give the Iranians an out. Something's not right with Iran's behavior right now. Maybe it's in response to sanctions, maybe it has to do with our basic proxy war with the Houthis through Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
Maybe it has to do with SA and USA pressuring Iran every step of the way, retiring from a nuclear deal and choking the country.
Put yourself in Iran's shoes for a moment (don't worry I know about hezbollah and overall terrorism funding) : your enemy neighbors and the rich bully from overseas are miles away from your coasts, sometimes even over your airspace, not respecting your country and sovereignty every step of the way. You are funding open or covert military actions or militia in other countries, so are the others. The world cop usually does its own stuff while caring about no ones feelings, ordering other countries around, building up and selling weapons to your closest enemies, parading its war vessels and spying drones miles from your coasts.
What would you do in their steps ? Just shut up, become a vassal state and surrender ? Like the USA would do that when it's all about liberty (its liberty, not others). No, you would try to continue to assert your own leadership over the region, fighting for influence against richer countries, so you get what you can : the support of questionable actors (like yourself). And overall, you defend your country. What would be the USA reaction if military vessels were juuuuust miles away from the coasts, at the limit of international waters ?
Currently the US has got a team at its helm that is doing the bidding of SA, every step of the way. What does SA want to do ? Gain leadership regionally by *all* means. The track record of the USA and SA at showing proof of wrongdoing is really bad.
I am telling you this while being currently stationed a few dozen miles from where the mines have blown up, and the drone has been shot. There is NO consensus, like there was in Syria, that Iran is the culprit of this shit. Same for the drone. There is clearly a lead-up to something, hopefully it ends up a nothingburger, but it is very rich to say a country is breaking a red line when you are pushing it the hardest you can to break that line. By trampling on their sovereign rights, asphyxiating their economy, complaining about nuclear industry when you just left the treaty, shoving military vessels and spy drones by their coasts.
"Trump may not have much of a choice" ? Don't reverse the situation, SA (through US) is baiting Iran to go to war. He had the choice to stay in the treaty, not fly drones that close (as if the US never had/has spy planes going over foreign air space), not listen to everything SA says, and the list is long.
Can you imagine that he may not have given Iran an opening by chalking up this to a "mistake" from Iran (when they clearly assessed it was intentional on their part), but tried to exit a self-created crisis as that drone might have effectively been in Iran's airspace ? Imagine that, and then look at what happened with the bombing threat just afterwards. It makes one afraid.
Oh, I forgot to mention that oil prices have to be kept rather high, for shale oil to be profitable... So disturbing the global oil market is actually overall beneficial to the US (and SA who is struggling a bit, with a recession and increased debt last year)... Take it as you will.
|
What's interesting on the Iran situation is that there's been no press briefing, no pentagon briefing, just tweets.
There's also no confirmed defense secretary.
|
On June 22 2019 05:00 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2019 09:23 Danglars wrote:On June 21 2019 09:18 xDaunt wrote:
Listening to his comments this morning, it’s pretty clear to me that Trump is trying very hard to avoid a military confrontation with Iran. He went out of his way to give the Ayatollah an out, chalking up the shooting down of the drone to a “mistake” made by one of the generals. The problem with this, however, is that it may very well not be a mistake, and Iran is baiting us into military conflict. Trump may not have much of a choice but to respond militarily. It will be interesting to see what the response is. I wouldn’t be surprised if he decides to level Kharg Island. That would really hurt Iran. It was good to hear Trump give the Iranians an out. Something's not right with Iran's behavior right now. Maybe it's in response to sanctions, maybe it has to do with our basic proxy war with the Houthis through Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Maybe it has to do with SA and USA pressuring Iran every step of the way, retiring from a nuclear deal and choking the country. Put yourself in Iran's shoes for a moment (don't worry I know about hezbollah and overall terrorism funding) : your enemy neighbors and the rich bully from overseas are miles away from your coasts, sometimes even over your airspace, not respecting your country and sovereignty every step of the way. You are funding open or covert military actions or militia in other countries, so are the others. The world cop usually does its own stuff while caring about no ones feelings, ordering other countries around, building up and selling weapons to your closest enemies, parading its war vessels and spying drones miles from your coasts. What would you do in their steps ? Just shut up, become a vassal state and surrender ? Like the USA would do that when it's all about liberty (its liberty, not others). No, you would try to continue to assert your own leadership over the region, fighting for influence against richer countries, so you get what you can : the support of questionable actors (like yourself). And overall, you defend your country. What would be the USA reaction if military vessels were juuuuust miles away from the coasts, at the limit of international waters ? Well said.
It's weird to say but I can't really blame Iran for some of the actions they are taking. They were in the Nuclear Deal and were doing everything to keep everyone else in it happy. They were being open about inspections and following the guidelines for what they could purchase. It appeared for 2015 and into 2016 that Iran was starting to turn around and clean up their act a bit, at least in some ways.
Then comes in the Trump administration, which accuses Iran of not following the Nuclear Deal anymore without substantiated evidence, backs out of the Deal based on this unsubstantiated claim, hammers Iran with sanctions which severely hurts their economy, and then brings up the spectre of war on a monthly basis while moving military forces closer and closer to Iran's borders. What are they supposed to do in response to this? They were doing everything right from 2015 up until 2017 and they got punished for it.
|
On June 22 2019 05:31 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
What's interesting on the Iran situation is that there's been no press briefing, no pentagon briefing, just tweets.
There's also no confirmed defense secretary.
Perfect time to get rid of your press secretary. Its just good management.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
