Jump to content

Perpetual Middle East Geopolitical Quagmire Megathread


Hugo Stiglitz

Recommended Posts

@Thetexashammer’s position is that Trump was left with no other choice but to strike back at Iran. It ignores the fact that he was stuck in that position due to his own decisions. He was hellbent on dismantling a signature achievement of his predecessor (something that the entire international community agrees was achieving the results Trump desires) and was certain his genius and dealmaking ability would achieve a much greater deal.

That belief was, of course, dead wrong. It put Iran back on the path to a bomb, created more instability in the ME which has led to the deaths of more people and now has Trump doing something he promised he wouldn’t do: send more troops to the Middle East in preparation for yet another winless war.

and @Thetexashammer, a self-professed anti-war Republican, loves all of it. You see, he’s a real patriot. The rest of you are spineless appeasers.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Earnest question, and I'm not really familiar with this writer, but I am familiar with Dick Cheney- Is Iran really responsible for the deaths of 600 U.S. troops?

 

https://truthout.org/articles/lies-about-iran-killing-us-troops-in-iraq-are-a-ploy-to-justify-war/

I haven’t seen anything that directly supports the number, I’m guessing it was based on some sort of projection or estimation. 
 

That article seems to paint those deaths (or attacks) as a result of Hezbollah and not Iran. However, Iran funds, and otherwise supports Hezbollah and has been shown to participate in attacks with Hezbollah against US forces. I’m sure it would be difficult to pin down a direct number.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iran is going to respond.  They've been setting the table for 35 years.  There is a broad array of U.S. targets/interests in the region.  The September attack against the Saudis was a demonstration that the Iranians can hit what they want when they want to.  They might go after the naval station in Bahrain or the air base in Qatar. Both are easily within missile range. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Earnest question, and I'm not really familiar with this writer, but I am familiar with Dick Cheney- Is Iran really responsible for the deaths of 600 U.S. troops?

 

https://truthout.org/articles/lies-about-iran-killing-us-troops-in-iraq-are-a-ploy-to-justify-war/

I don't know, but based on that article about Soleimani in The New Yorker I think they might be counting all the way back to the marine barracks bombing in Beirut in the 80's when Reagan was president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason to think Iran wouldn't haven't supported killing US troops.  There is nothing unusual, or particularly immoral, about engaging in proxy wars. We are currently impeaching the President for holding up weapons to Ukraine, which they were using to kill Russian troops and Russian supported militias. If Russia were to do a missile strike on Congress, or the Pentagon, or the OMB - we'd all realize that is a next level escalation, and nowhere a proportional response.  But Americans have been trained to believe that there is something magical about killing Americans, that any response is justified.  It's not.  We send troops to war knowing that people will try to kill them.  Then we believe it's an immoral act when they are actually killed. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Tuco said:

There is no reason to think Iran wouldn't haven't supported killing US troops.  There is nothing unusual, or particularly immoral, about engaging in proxy wars. We are currently impeaching the President for holding up weapons to Ukraine, which they were using to kill Russian troops and Russian supported militias. If Russia were to do a missile strike on Congress, or the Pentagon, or the OMB - we'd all realize that is a next level escalation, and nowhere a proportional response.  But Americans have been trained to believe that there is something magical about killing Americans, that any response is justified.  It's not.  We send troops to war knowing that people will try to kill them.  Then we believe it's an immoral act when they are actually killed. 

What, you think we’re so innocent? 

or

Everyone does -- kills people, murders people, steals from you, steals from me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions: If, as many expect, Iraq's parliament votes to expel US forces from their territory, a) how will Trump respond, and b) should we leave, how would the American public respond to our departure?

Would it be one of relief that we've washed our hands of Iraq, or would Trump be seen as having lost the country?

In addition to my "just asking questions," we should also keep in mind that there remains the continuing threat of Iranian retaliation occurring during any of the above scenarios.

These are honest questions, and I'd like to hear the hivemind's thoughts. tia

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Saved Barack’s son too.

 

Iran isn’t going to do shit except piss down their leg.

But if they do, I assume if you’re young enough, you’ll be ready to enlist? And if you aren’t young enough and you have children who support the piece of shit and a war, they’ll be ready to enlist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

But if they do, I assume if you’re young enough, you’ll be ready to enlist? And if you aren’t young enough and you have children who support the piece of shit and a war, they’ll be ready to enlist?

I’m hoping they will randomly select my wife but not me. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

But if they do, I assume if you’re young enough, you’ll be ready to enlist? And if you aren’t young enough and you have children who support the piece of shit and a war, they’ll be ready to enlist?

None of that had anything to do with my post.  Except set up some circular logic argument. 

We’re  not at war.  We’re not going to war.  Bad actors in the world sometimes need to be dealt with through military action.  Same as has happened under every D President as well.

Save the histrionics.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

None of that had anything to do with my post.  Except set up some circular logic argument. 

We’re  not at war.  We’re not going to war.  Bad actors in the world sometimes need to be dealt with through military action.  Same as has happened under every D President as well.

Save the histrionics.

So, no, you won’t sign up. Gotcha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

None of that had anything to do with my post.  Except set up some circular logic argument. 

We’re  not at war.  We’re not going to war.  Bad actors in the world sometimes need to be dealt with through military action.  Same as has happened under every D President as well.

Save the histrionics.

Cite comparable examples meeting the following conditions where we a) are not already in direct armed conflict to b) use US Armed Forces to c) unilaterally kill a military leader of a foreign country.

The closest I can come up with is the bombing on Qaddafi's house in direct response to the downing of the plane over Lockerbie or the attempt on Saddam just before Iraq War 2.0 (both by Republicans btw). The rest might be CIA type of shit from the Cold War.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Cite comparable examples meeting the following conditions where we a) are not already in direct armed conflict to b) use US Armed Forces to c) unilaterally kill a military leader of a foreign country.

The closest I can come up with is the bombing on Qaddafi's house in direct response to the downing of the plane over Lockerbie or the attempt on Saddam just before Iraq War 2.0 (both by Republicans btw). The rest might be CIA type of shit from the Cold War.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/clinton-airstrike-impeachment/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reflecting a bit since the killing I generally agree with Tucker’s thoughts here. Our interests aren’t clearly served by escalation with Iran. Also, lol at Brian Stetler suddenly citing him. 

 

That said, I find it a bit disingenuous when people like PsychoBrisket dismiss the Embassy protest and other provocations. They didn’t breach the interior, guys. 

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/world/2020/01/02/us-embassy-baghdad-iraq-damaged-after-pro-iranian-militia-attack/2793991001/

The bottom line is these are tough calls to make, and there’s a reason this thread isn’t called the Middle East Thread of Brief Disputes Easily Resolved by Binary Decision Making. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tuco said:

There is no reason to think Iran wouldn't haven't supported killing US troops.  There is nothing unusual, or particularly immoral, about engaging in proxy wars. We are currently impeaching the President for holding up weapons to Ukraine, which they were using to kill Russian troops and Russian supported militias. If Russia were to do a missile strike on Congress, or the Pentagon, or the OMB - we'd all realize that is a next level escalation, and nowhere a proportional response.  But Americans have been trained to believe that there is something magical about killing Americans, that any response is justified.  It's not.  We send troops to war knowing that people will try to kill them.  Then we believe it's an immoral act when they are actually killed. 

Dude, it’s a war crime to kill American troops fighting in a foreign country. Enemy soldiers are supposed to lay down and die lest they be branded terrorists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bolverk said:

Questions: If, as many expect, Iraq's parliament votes to expel US forces from their territory, a) how will Trump respond, and b) should we leave, how would the American public respond to our departure?

Would it be one of relief that we've washed our hands of Iraq, or would Trump be seen as having lost the country?

In addition to my "just asking questions," we should also keep in mind that there remains the continuing threat of Iranian retaliation occurring during any of the above scenarios.

These are honest questions, and I'd like to hear the hivemind's thoughts. tia

a) how will Trump respond?

You're guess is as good as anyone's. He's got neocons in both parties that love war that will push for escalation all around him. He could also say fuck you guys and leave.

b) should we leave, how would the American public respond to our departure?

Abso-fucking-lutely. The vast majority of rationale people would celebrate leaving. Of course they'll be political posturing on either side in the media and on message boards but getting the fuck out of the middle East is the right move.

c) Would it be one of relief that we've washed our hands of Iraq, or would Trump be seen as having lost the country?

Massive relief. The middle East was "lost" long before Trump but some people would probably paint it as his failure for political reasons.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if Trump just says fuck it and leaves entirely from the ME, but also imposes full economic sanctions a la trade embargo with Cuba?

I'd love to see how that plays out. It could move the needle for a lot of jobs. Imagine spending the same amount as on oil from ME, but just on renewable development and production. Shit would be a new economic revolution. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, maninblack said:

a) how will Trump respond?

You're guess is as good as anyone's. He's got neocons in both parties that love war that will push for escalation all around him. He could also say fuck you guys and leave.

b) should we leave, how would the American public respond to our departure?

Abso-fucking-lutely. The vast majority of rationale people would celebrate leaving. Of course they'll be political posturing on either side in the media and on message boards but getting the fuck out of the middle East is the right move.

c) Would it be one of relief that we've washed our hands of Iraq, or would Trump be seen as having lost the country?

Massive relief. The middle East was "lost" long before Trump but some people would probably paint it as his failure for political reasons.

Thanks for responding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, immamac said:

What if Trump just says fuck it and leaves entirely from the ME, but also imposes full economic sanctions a la trade embargo with Cuba?

I'd love to see how that plays out. It could move the needle for a lot of jobs. Imagine spending the same amount as on oil from ME, but just on renewable development and production. Shit would be a new economic revolution. 

That'd be a horrible decision as well. Remember this cunt

 

Edited by maninblack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

What if Trump just says fuck it and leaves entirely from the ME, but also imposes full economic sanctions a la trade embargo with Cuba?

I'd love to see how that plays out. It could move the needle for a lot of jobs. Imagine spending the same amount as on oil from ME, but just on renewable development and production. Shit would be a new economic revolution. 

I can't possibly see him abandoning bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain nor him turning his back on corporate backers from the domestic fossil fuel industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I can't possibly see him abandoning bases in Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain nor him turning his back on corporate backers from the domestic fossil fuel industry.

Yeah that'd never happen unless there's some kind of massive global economic shift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, immamac said:

What if Trump just says fuck it and leaves entirely from the ME, but also imposes full economic sanctions a la trade embargo with Cuba?

I'd love to see how that plays out. It could move the needle for a lot of jobs. Imagine spending the same amount as on oil from ME, but just on renewable development and production. Shit would be a new economic revolution. 

We'll never leave the ME as long as China and Russia exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your bottom line is all that matters. They are tough calls. With complicated strategic implications and scenario-gaming involved. Every move prompts hundreds of potential countermoves. Chess was fucking invented in Persia - it’s a damned complicated region with shifting alliances and interests. Do you have any confidence that Dotard is aware of any of those, much less considered them?

 

Don’t make a move unless you’ve got your next several moves planned, based on the most likely anticipated responses. Dotard has done none of that, and you know it. That’s the goddamned problem here. It’s bad enough when we have people making strategic decisions based on bad assumptions. It’s worse when we have a man making them on NO assumptions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Your bottom line is all that matters. They are tough calls. With complicated strategic implications and scenario-gaming involved. Every move prompts hundreds of potential countermoves. Chess was fucking invented in Persia - it’s a damned complicated region with shifting alliances and interests. Do you have any confidence that Dotard is aware of any of those, much less considered them?

 

Don’t make a move unless you’ve got your next several moves planned, based on the most likely anticipated responses. Dotard has done none of that, and you know it. That’s the goddamned problem here. It’s bad enough when we have people making strategic decisions based on bad assumptions. It’s worse when we have a man making them on NO assumptions.

Maybe not. Him making random moves might be better than him making moves on bad assumptions.

I'll take a roll of the dice over this any day.

  • Like 1
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GRHorn said:

After reflecting a bit since the killing I generally agree with Tucker’s thoughts here. Our interests aren’t clearly served by escalation with Iran. Also, lol at Brian Stetler suddenly citing him. 

 

That said, I find it a bit disingenuous when people like PsychoBrisket dismiss the Embassy protest and other provocations. They didn’t breach the interior, guys. 

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/world/2020/01/02/us-embassy-baghdad-iraq-damaged-after-pro-iranian-militia-attack/2793991001/

The bottom line is these are tough calls to make, and there’s a reason this thread isn’t called the Middle East Thread of Brief Disputes Easily Resolved by Binary Decision Making. 

No no no. You can not ignore that we are in this cycle of escalation because Trump decide to trash an accord that was actually deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This wasn’t some unavoidable situation where Trump was forced to respond. He alone created this situation.

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

No no no. You can not ignore that we are in this cycle of escalation because Trump decide to trash an accord that was actually deterring Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This wasn’t some unavoidable situation where Trump was forced to respond. He alone created this situation.

Correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

1.) Claims the US media won't report on Iran's nuclear agreement violations, then posts 6 links, of which  5 are from the US.

2.) Did you read the articles you linked? Iran is not denying that they are in violation of the JCPOA, instead claiming that they started violating the agreement once Trump pulled his bitch fit and pulled out of the agreement agreed upon by Obama. Why the fuck should they agree to anything if the end result is additional economic sanctions being imposed because Trump hates Obama?

Quote

 

Iran has been open about its violations of the deal in recent months, announcing the moves before making them and allowing the IAEA to verify them.

Speaking at a U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York, Iran's deputy U.N. ambassador, Eshagh Al Habib, insisted that his country's moves are all "reversable."

They provide "opportunity for remaining JCPOA participants either to take serious practical steps to preserve the JCPOA or, along with the U.S., accept the full responsibility for any possible consequences," he said.

 

Have any links that discuss Iran's noncompliance between 2013 when the agreement was signed and mid 2018 when the US abandoned the agreement and added additional economic sanctions? The IAEA seemed to think they were in compliance. 

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-11-30/iaea-reports-yet-again-irans-compliance-jcpoa

So keep sucking Trump's cock (while pretending you don't like sucking Trump's cock) and see how wonderfully things end in Iran. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...