A possible Iran war with minimal US forces on the ground

[sub_thug]

Russians and Chinese don't think Iran is friend. I swear only idiot westerners who dislike saudi and Israel more tjmink that. Iran for them is way to hurt and 'stick' Israel and saudis.

Agreed. This is a way for anti-Israel and a lot of left-wing Americans to stick it to the people they don't like. This is about winning, not what's in the best interest of the country.

 

[sub_thug]

Of course it leads to "But the US", the US is the one that has invaded two countries bordering Iran and yet they're ones needling us? We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan at a time that we were beating the war drum for Iran too, was perfectly in their self interest to turn the Iraqi occupation into a quagmire to dissuade the US from invading Iran. Syrians did the same thing and guess what, it worked because Americans lost their appetite for war after Iraq.

Of course their regime is shit and oppressive and does ugly stuff but so do other regimes in the region that are our allies. Its clear the distinction between Iran and our allies like Saudi Arabia and Egypt has nothing to do with human rights or support for terrorism or any of that BS, its simply that they resist our hegemony in the region while our allies facilitate it.

We were never going to launch a 3-front war. That idea is preposterous. We had every reason to invade Afghanistan because 9/11 and going after Al-Qaeda. That decision is very defensible, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. As for the nation-building we did, well, that was a dumb decision. But us being there killing the foreign Arabs who were using Afghanistan as a base of operations makes total sense. Invading Iraq was a bad idea, but Iran 100% committed acts of war by funneling weapons, fighters, providing refuge for Shi'a fighters and leadership, and providing money into Iraq. Americans lost their appetite, but that speaks to the political will of Americans, not a justification for Iran's actions.

Like I said to another poster, it's not about the human rights. It's about having interests that align with ours. And every country in the world wants power. That's how it works. Iran's quest for power is such that when they experience victories, we lose something. When we are victorious, they lose something. When the Saudis have a victory, we can also experience victory. That's how alliances work. These sort of moral platitudes, in the face of reality in world, is why I totally fell out of love with liberalism.

 

[sub_thug]

You always say how we should jail or execute our politicians who do stuff that we don't agree with, even when what they did wasn't illegal. As a civilized country, we don't do that. I guess that's more of how you handle your problems in Mexico. How's that working out for you?

 

[Rod1]

You always say how we should jail or execute our politicians who do stuff that we don't agree with, even when what they did wasn't illegal. As a civilized country, we don't do that. I guess that's more of how you handle your problems in Mexico. How's that working out for you?

LOL at saying Bush did nothing illegal.

Neither did Hitler man, what a stupid argument, the US should waive Bush's immunity and let the Hague deal with him.

But then again the US only pretends to be better than Russia and China, in the end its the same, Vae Victis until the next top dog comes along.

 

[Rod1]

We had every reason to invade Afghanistan because 9/11 and going after Al-Qaeda. That decision is very defensible, and it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Iran tried to cooperate with the US in dealing with Al-Qaeda it was rebuffed. After being put in the axis of evil and seeing Iraq being invaded on BS pretenses i guess they believed they were next.

 

[Rod1]

Agreed. This is a way for anti-Israel and a lot of left-wing Americans to stick it to the people they don't like. This is about winning, not what's in the best interest of the country.

SecDef Mattis said the Iran deal is the best thing for the country's safety, but i guess you trust war criminals the most when it comes to foreign policy

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/mattis-iran-nuclear-deal-national-security/index.html

You guys are as clear as water, wave jingoism and patriotism when your goals are diametrally opposed to the benefits of the nation you live in.

Israeli firster i presume?

 

[sub_thug]

LOL at saying Bush did nothing illegal.

Neither did Hitler man, what a stupid argument, the US should waive Bush's immunity and let the Hague deal with him.

But then again the US only pretends to be better than Russia and China, in the end its the same, Vae Victis until the next top dog comes along.

He didn't do anything illegal. You won't change that.

 

[sub_thug]

Iran tried to cooperate with the US in dealing with Al-Qaeda it was rebuffed. After being put in the axis of evil and seeing Iraq being invaded on BS pretenses i guess they believed they were next.

This is total nonsense, but I expect nothing less. Iran was looking to expand its sphere of influence, eliminating Sunni sects that represented a threat to them. They weren't next, but whatever. You're the one who sees all Muslims as the same, so you're going to believe that they were next.

 

[sub_thug]

SecDef Mattis said the Iran deal is the best thing for the country's safety, but i guess you trust war criminals the most when it comes to foreign policy

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/03/politics/mattis-iran-nuclear-deal-national-security/index.html

You guys are as clear as water, wave jingoism and patriotism when your goals are diametrally opposed to the benefits of the nation you live in.

Israeli firster i presume?

I thought that the deal was the best of all the bad options on the table. It doesn't make it a good deal, but it was the best option at the time. When I did I say I was against the deal? Trying to paint me into a corner, I presume, because your small mind can't get beyond black and white terms? Stick to whining about the DEA.

 

[Rod1]

He didn't do anything illegal. You won't change that.

So waive his immunity then. Same with US soldiers immunity.

Dindu nuffin but go at great lenghts to avoid prosecution. Doesnt adds up.

 

[Rod1]

I thought that the deal was the best of all the bad options on the table. It doesn't make it a good deal, but it was the best option at the time. When I did I say I was against the deal? Trying to paint me into a corner, I presume, because your small mind can't get beyond black and white terms? Stick to whining about the DEA.

The time being late 2017? what has exactly changed?

 

[sub_thug]

So waive his immunity then. Same with US soldiers immunity.

Dindu nuffin but go at great lenghts to avoid prosecution. Doesnt adds up.

We aren't trying to protect ourselves, but we didn't commit any crimes. I don't know what kind of point you are trying to prove.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if many of your neighbors were involved in illegal activities, given the major business of Sonora.

 

[sub_thug]

The time being late 2017? what has exactly changed?

When did I say things had changed? I think that outside someone's covert actions that undermine the Iranian nuclear program, the deal is still probably the best option.

 

[Rod1]

We aren't trying to protect ourselves, but we didn't commit any crimes. I don't know what kind of point you are trying to prove.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if many of your neighbors were involved in illegal activities, given the major business of Sonora.

1.- LOL we "dindu nuffin" but sure as fuck we will use all our muscles to be above courts that can actually prosecute international crimes.

2.- On the other hand? Im sorry did i wandered into a parallel dimension where the US won the war on drugs?

Rising opiod crisis, rising meth use, rising violence in the inner cities, massive violations of civil rights, etc, etc.

Seriously are you trying to use the "Mexico drug war is a failure" whataboutism? Drug wars are a failure everywhere, just like your adventures in the middle east.

Also

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...ade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan

Not to mention past ventures like the Iran-Contra, seriously if we are talking about narco enabling states Mexico is just an amateur compared to the good ole U S A.

Oh wait, but its not illegal if the US Government does it.

 

[sub_thug]

1.- LOL we "dindu nuffin" but sure as fuck we will use all our muscles to be above courts that can actually prosecute international crimes.

2.- On the other hand? Im sorry did i wandered into a parallel dimension where the US won the war on drugs?

Rising opiod crisis, rising meth use, rising violence in the inner cities, massive violations of civil rights, etc, etc.

Seriously are you trying to use the "Mexico drug war is a failure" whataboutism? Drug wars are a failure everywhere, just like your adventures in the middle east.

Also

https://www.theguardian.com/news/20...ade-explains-the-us-uk-failure-in-afghanistan

Not to mention past ventures like the Iran-Contra, seriously if we are talking about narco enabling states Mexico is just an amateur compared to the good ole U S A.

Oh wait, but its not illegal if the US Government does it.

1. We have not committed crimes, and we're not giving fools like you the ability to prosecute us for crimes we didn't commit. What's the problem?

2. I bring up drugs because you love to point the finger at the US when you can't even handle your own people. You are an embarrassment. It's not about ending drugs. It's about not making it totally unchecked. When billions of dollars leave the US every year to head to narcos, that's a problem. We have a vested interest in killing those narcos. The War on Drugs sure went well in regards to Pablo Escobar. The US and Colombians made sure that fat fuck got a bullet in the head. I would love to see the narcos who own your neighborhoods and the people that work for them suffer the same fate, even if you count them among your friends and family.

 

[My2Cents]

For the first time the US has the luxury to go to war without being the majority of the forces on the ground but provide with about 10-12% of the ground forces.

The Iran Nuclear deal plus Irans global ambitions and the regional unrest it has created pushed things to a point of no return. A military confrontation at this point is as certain as the white wall on your room is white.

A similar campaign against the Kurds will soon enough come against Iranian IRGC regime. Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Indonesia and Malaysia will declare them as terrorist state and all the people and groups linked to it also. No U.N or International laws will be able to politically stand in the way of this intensive hunt and invasion on all individuals allied with the current IRGC led-regime and their political views and they are basically accountable for the destablization of the region and arming the houthis. They will probably declare war on them within the next 1-2 to year if not late this year. The US will mostly definitely join and take this huge opportunity to their advantage and to finally finish off a foe with the asistance of others who have issues with that same foe.

As a result Israel might attack south-Lebanon and even invade it while Yemen will also get fully invaded by the new Saudi coalition either hired Asian army or Egyptians.

Iran is away from war 1 missile launched into another region as it has been providing houthis and this will give the Saudis and their coalitions the green light on international laws to defend it's security against any terrorist entity. The Iranians will soon become Kurds 2.0 once blacklisted worldwide and then you will see an intense manhunt to follow. No International law, United nations, NATO or anyone will be able to contest this or deny it. The Saudi led-coalition will be absolutely in the right to put this to a stop just like how Turkey is hunting the Kurds everywhere they see them from Syria to Iraq. I forsee the Iranian IRGC and the Ayatul Khoemini supporters to come under 10-times larger man-hunt and blacklisted everywhere plus a very large invasion from different axis at the same time happening

What about leaving those countries alone? Remember Iraq etc??

 

[Sauron]

What was illegal about it?

Prove it. Prove that this covert action was conducted by the US. I'll give you a hint: You can't.

There was no UN security council resolution authorising it. Ergo illegal under international law.

 

[sub_thug]

There was no UN security council resolution authorising it. Ergo illegal under international law.

You don't need the UN's approval to go to war with someone. That's not how that works. The UN is a centralized embassy for making treaties, not an international government where countries need to ask permission to do things. International law is just a fancy way of saying that there are agreements that we all sign on to, but if we don't follow them, our friends may look at us differently in the future. There's no World Police or government that enforces those agreements. "International Law" is really a misnomer.

 

[JohnnySagebrush]

When did I say things had changed? I think that outside someone's covert actions that undermine the Iranian nuclear program, the deal is still probably the best option.

I’m having a hard time deciphering what you two are squabbling about, seeing as you both oppose war with Iran and support the Iran deal.

 

[Islam Imamate]

We were never going to launch a 3-front war. That idea is preposterous. We had every reason to invade Afghanistan because 9/11 and going after Al-Qaeda. That decision is very defensible, and it was absolutely the right thing to do. As for the nation-building we did, well, that was a dumb decision. But us being there killing the foreign Arabs who were using Afghanistan as a base of operations makes total sense. Invading Iraq was a bad idea, but Iran 100% committed acts of war by funneling weapons, fighters, providing refuge for Shi'a fighters and leadership, and providing money into Iraq. Americans lost their appetite, but that speaks to the political will of Americans, not a justification for Iran's actions.

I agree that Afghanistan was a defensible invasion and that Iraq was a bad one but the point is we put Iran on the so called Axis of Evil and then invaded one of those countries which to me sets a credible threat to Iran. In 2008 we had a major presidential candidate say "bomb Iran" and given we had done precisely that to two of Iran's neighbors is it crazy for them to perceive the US as a legitimate threat? Of course not.

And guess what, Iran actually cooperated with the US against Al Qaeda before we put them on the axis of evil

Like I said to another poster, it's not about the human rights. It's about having interests that align with ours. And every country in the world wants power. That's how it works. Iran's quest for power is such that when they experience victories, we lose something. When we are victorious, they lose something. When the Saudis have a victory, we can also experience victory. That's how alliances work.

Really? When the Saudis have a victory we do? That's preposterous, the regional policies of the Gulf countries have been a disaster. They backed Saddam against Khomeini, how did that work out? It didn't, it fucking backfired as Saddam failed in his counter-revolution against Iran and ended up invading the Gulf. They backed the Sunni militants in Iraq that coalesced into ISIS, was that a victory for the US? They've caused a humanitarian crisis in Yemen, is that a victory for the US?

These sort of moral platitudes, in the face of reality in world, is why I totally fell out of love with liberalism.

Nothing to do with moral platitudes ya goof, the policy you're advocating for has failed miserably. I guess being divorced from reality made liberalism less attractive.

The reason people call for allying with Iran over the Gulf is that the Gulf has shown itself to be a completely toxic influence on the region and the Muslim world more generally. They back the most destructive and insane of proxies that even want to kill them, their fucking sponsors. On the other hand, Iran tells its proxies to jump they ask how high. If we have to ally with a terrorist state I'd rather the one that can control its terrorists.