Jump to content

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran.


Anastasis

Recommended Posts

I am just glad that people will be able to dust off their "STOP WAR NOW" yard signs.  10 years in the garage collecting dust was too long.  Somebody was eventually gonna have to step up, since drone strikes and cluster bombing brown people just wasn't eliciting enough political will to fire up the movement.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

I've long believed that Trump would start a war in order to get re-elected, but I think Fozzz and Roma are right. A conflict with Iran will be poorly received by the vast majority of Americans. 

 

 

I thought it was going to be NK. I think the country would have supported that one more. Maybe not supported it, but more so than another Middle East war. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

We'll see if the rumors are true about the US striking an Iranian nuclear facility.  If that happens then all bets are off as Iran is going to hit back hard.  

Nah, they'll be shocked and awed by our might. They'll cower into a fetal ball because only we Americans are brave and willing to fight.

If they're lucky we will launch another in a long line of liberation invasions. They'll love us then for freeing them! They'll have an election and vote! Voila! They're not a fully functioning western style democracy with solid institutions. 

Yay us!

All together now. What is the world we live in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

If Trump gets the GOP Senate to ratify a war in the MidEast, there should be public hangings. No, tarring, feathering, then public hangings. 

This would be mass murder. 

I'm not shy about using military force to smash any actual threat to the US. I don't say the above from a naive world view. 

I hate to believe that the electorate would support such a criminal endeavor. Hating to believe it doesn't meant I won't believe it when it happens.

 

I am fully convinced based on recent history that the Senate will stand up, take heed of history and its constitutional obligations, and vote against a war resolution.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, deech said:

I am fully convinced based on recent history that the Senate will stand up, take heed of history and its constitutional obligations, and vote against a war resolution.

 

1 minute ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

We're about to go full on "Hold my beer." 

Y'all work well together. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

The people were convinced by a deceitful president that Iraq was associated with 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction that they were plotting to use. I was against that invasion and it was a form of mass murder, but most wars are sold to the public as something that they are not (hell, look at how many people today deny that the Civil War was over slavery).

In this case, there really isn't even a fig leaf to cover the wanton cynicism and wickedness of starting this war.

The Iraq War is maybe the worst foreign policy decision in our history.

Vietnam says hey man what's up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was our only horrible policy, I said that it was our worst foreign policy. 

Even Vietnam had a lame justification: Stop the commies! That, IMHO, gives it an edge over Iraq. Both horrible and so wasteful of life.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

The Iraq War is maybe the worst foreign policy decision in our history.

Support for Indonesia’s invasion and occupation of East Timor would like to have a word with you...alone...in a dark alley somewhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I didn't say it was our only horrible policy, I said that it was our worst foreign policy. 

Even Vietnam had a lame justification: Stop the commies! That, IMHO, gives it an edge over Iraq. Both horrible and so wasteful of life.

 

The loss of American lives is my perspective on worst decision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The loss of American lives is my perspective on worst decision

It's a strong argument. The worse thing about Viet Nam is what we did to so many young Americans. It's horrible what we did to the Vietnamese, but I'm an American.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RomaVicta said:

It's a strong argument. The worse thing about Viet Nam is what we did to so many young Americans. It's horrible what we did to the Vietnamese, but I'm an American.

You could make cases for both. My initial reaction was just American loss of life (but the Vietnamese did suffer beyond that even).

The repercussions from Iraq are greater on a geo political scale however.  I  think you have to look down the road more than just 20 years to determine just how bad or good the invasion was. Does it ultimately establish a foothold of more democratic rule in the region ?  Currently I'd say that's tenuous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The loss of American lives is my perspective on worst decision

Yeah, I think it all goes into the pot: the loss of American lives, the loss of civilian lives, and the geopolitical step forward/backward represented by the war itself.

Losing a lot of lives in WWII, we can stomach.  Losing a lot of lives in Vietnam, accomplishing nothing, is harder to stomach.

Losing any American lives and/or ships in this possible Iran war, for NO good reason, likely resulting in many Iranian civilian deaths, AND costing us an incredible amount of global credibility, respect, and status in the world and the region....shit, it's a loser all the way down.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we could have made South Vietnam into the jewel of a country like South Korea, would it have been worth it? 

Vietnam gets a lot of hate but I can see why we felt justified in fighting that war AT THAT TIME.  We didn’t understand the distinction between Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism, we thought them to be monolithic.  They weren’t. 

Vietnam was so bad though the real tragedy was we didn’t learn our lesson. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

Yeah, I think it all goes into the pot: the loss of American lives, the loss of civilian lives, and the geopolitical step forward/backward represented by the war itself.

Losing a lot of lives in WWII, we can stomach.  Losing a lot of lives in Vietnam, accomplishing nothing, is harder to stomach.

Losing any American lives and/or ships in this possible Iran war, for NO good reason, likely resulting in many Iranian civilian deaths, AND costing us an incredible amount of global credibility, respect, and status in the world and the region....shit, it's a loser all the way down.

I'd agree. Loss of life has to be because of a greater good somehow. Viet Nam was nothing but a theoretical threat (Hind sight being 20-20 being and all).  

We have nothing to gain Invading Iran (unless there's something we don't know about, with regards to their nuclear program, and intent, and even then it's a shaky move).

Any invasion would result in more regional discord, and a terrorist recruitment bonanza for all the varied groups over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

If we could have made South Vietnam into the jewel of a country like South Korea, would it have been worth it? 

Vietnam gets a lot of hate but I can see why we felt justified in fighting that war AT THAT TIME.  We didn’t understand the distinction between Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism, we thought them to be monolithic.  They weren’t. 

Vietnam was so bad though the real tragedy was we didn’t learn our lesson. 

All of this is true (especially the difference between soviet and Chinese communism) , but a prosperous S. Korea hasn't made us any safer from a hostile NK.  

Viet Nam being used as a chess piece was bad enough, if even understood as to why at the time, but our gov't cost lives they knew didn't need to be lost. THAT is the true crime of Viet Nam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

It's a strong argument. The worse thing about Viet Nam is what we did to so many young Americans. It's horrible what we did to the Vietnamese, but I'm an American.

Is a Vietnamese life worth less than an American life?

Is an Iraqi life worth less than an American life?

Is an Iranian life worth less than an American life?

Not picking on you here.  But I'd be really interested to see a poll on this where people were somehow forced to answer truthfully.  I think the vast majority of Americans would answer "yes."

This is the problem with patriotism.  Whenever "the other" is worth less than "us," we have lost our way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Is a Vietnamese life worth less than an American life?

Is an Iraqi life worth less than an American life?

Is an Iranian life worth less than an American life?

Not picking on you here.  But I'd be really interested to see a poll on this where people were somehow forced to answer truthfully.  I think the vast majority of Americans would answer "yes."

This is the problem with patriotism.  Whenever "the other" is worth less than "us," we have lost our way.

No, but the decision to attack starts with the recognition your own citizens will die, so you better have a god damned, mother fucking, strong, imminent danger, national safety reason why you're going to invade a country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Is a Vietnamese life worth less than an American life?

Is an Iraqi life worth less than an American life?

Is an Iranian life worth less than an American life?

Not picking on you here.  But I'd be really interested to see a poll on this where people were somehow forced to answer truthfully.  I think the vast majority of Americans would answer "yes."

This is the problem with patriotism.  Whenever "the other" is worth less than "us," we have lost our way.

There is nothing in my post about the objective value of a life. Subjectively, we value those we know or have some association with over those with whom we have none.

Given a choice between having 1000 innocent Americans or 1000 innocent Swedes die. I'd choose the Swedes for death. I expect a Swede would choose the opposite.

The soldiers we sent to Viet Nam were not to blame for the policy. They were innocent and placed in a position by poor government. I'm sorrier we lost those guys than I am about the Vietnamese we killed. It's a marginal difference and has nothing to do with my opinion about the value of a life relative to their global location.

As to your questions, the answers depend upon whom you're asking. 

Your premise may be naive. I'm not saying that to be nasty.

Edited by RomaVicta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

There is nothing in my post about the objective value of a life. Subjectively, we value those we know or have some association with over those with whom we have none.

Given a choice between having 1000 innocent Americans or 1000 innocent Swedes die. I'd choose the Swedes for death. I expect a Swede would choose the opposite.

The soldiers we sent to Viet Nam were not to blame for the policy. They were innocent and placed in a position by poor government. I'm sorrier we lost those guys than I am about the Vietnamese we killed. It's a marginal difference and has nothing to do with my opinion about the value of a life relative to their global location.

As to your questions, the answers depend upon whom you're asking. 

Your premise may be naive. I'm not saying that to be nasty.

Right, but what we did to the Vietnamese bothers you less than what we did to American servicemen, as you said.  And I'm pretty sure most Americans would agree with you.  I'm equally sure that most people in most places would choose to save their countryman over someone from anywhere else if one of those two had to die.

There's nothing naive about this premise.  Actually, I'd love to believe it's not true, but that would be naive.

Again, I'm not picking on you.  Your post prompted a more general question/topic.

Edited by TexArcher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, TexArcher said:

Right, but what we did to the Vietnamese bothers you less than what we did to American servicemen, as you said.

That's not a statement about the relative value of their lives. All lives are generally of equal value.

It would bother me more if my brother died than if your brother died. I don't know you. I don't know your brother. I have little doubt that your lives are as valuable as my life and my brother's.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Nah, they'll be shocked and awed by our might. They'll cower into a fetal ball because only we Americans are brave and willing to fight.

If they're lucky we will launch another in a long line of liberation invasions. They'll love us then for freeing them! They'll have an election and vote! Voila! They're not a fully functioning western style democracy with solid institutions. 

Yay us!

All together now. What is the world we live in?

If we bomb them super hard they will convert to become evangelical christians, open up a string of Whataburgers in Tehran and bond with their new American friends on our shared hobby of finding cheap Canadian insulin online. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Bruh Man said:

I think this idiot is willing to do just about anything to delay his exit from office and inevitable prosecution. A massive Iran war might just be his Get Out of Jail Card. This country starts seeing red anytime we are at war - especially against the ME. His approval rating will go up because 'MERICA and he might just be able to convince enough of the stupid people in this country that stability is needed at the WH while we're in a cataclysmic conflict.

The Iranians aren’t a vastly-weakened Iraq of 2003.   A shooting war is gonna get a lot of American troops killed.  A lot of people who liked the war in Iraq got really cold feet when larger numbers of Americans started coming home in body bags.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

The Iranians aren’t a vastly-weakened Iraq of 2003.   A shooting war is gonna get a lot of American troops killed.  A lot of people who liked the war in Iraq got really cold feet when larger numbers of Americans started coming home in body bags.  

and the immediate economic effects of disrupted oil supply shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.   Look the fuck out. 

This avoidable escalation has to get scuttled immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, kevwun said:

I think a war with Iran would end up being more unpopular than Vietnam.

But this time instead of taking it out on the troops let's have about 10 million Americans all decide to exercise their 2nd amendment rights on Capitol Hill and the white house simultaneously. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, triplehorn said:

and the immediate economic effects of disrupted oil supply shipped through the Strait of Hormuz.   Look the fuck out. 

This avoidable escalation has to get scuttled immediately.

I'm genuinely curious to see what would happen to oil prices if a real war broke out with Iran. Obviously it would go up, but I'm ignorant to how much it would shoot up. Does our increased domestic production insulate WTI index from the OPEC basket? If so, to what extent? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

You could make cases for both. My initial reaction was just American loss of life (but the Vietnamese did suffer beyond that even).

The repercussions from Iraq are greater on a geo political scale however.  I  think you have to look down the road more than just 20 years to determine just how bad or good the invasion was. Does it ultimately establish a foothold of more democratic rule in the region ?  Currently I'd say that's tenuous.

Holy shit hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

What a fucking republican taint licking idiot. 

  • Like 4
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lagunamadre said:

I'm genuinely curious to see what would happen to oil prices if a real war broke out with Iran. Obviously it would go up, but I'm ignorant to how much it would shoot up. Does our increased domestic production insulate WTI index from the OPEC basket? If so, to what extent? 

Here's a hint. $3 a gallon again would seem like the good old days. 

You think they're going to let that great of an excuse to price gouge the American public go to waste? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

Holy shit hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahaha

What a fucking republican taint licking idiot. 

Go lick yer moms taint. 

You obviously didn't understand what I was stating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...