(01-03-2020 12:51 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Seriously, did anyone notice that the strike that killed the general was on Iraqi soil, and also killed the deputy commander of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq? Does anyone really think that Soleimani and al-Musahni were simply sharing yoga schedules, talking about grandkids, and eating crumpets when they were together?

I don't think anyone thinks that - have you seen otherwise? The news I've listened to/read indicates the strike was predicated on an imminent threat posed by Soleimani to US citizens in the region. From what I have heard, the imminent nature of the threat allows POTUS to act unilaterally.

I've been seeing Soleimani compared to one of the Joint Chiefs or the VP, which is why the strike is so consequential. Iran will almost certainly respond in some manner.

I guess having your Joints Chief or the VP on the ground in a hostile country actively planning hostile activity isnt such a great idea.

And yes, Iran probably will serve up an action in some manner. That seemingly has been the status quo for the last 12-15 years. Certainly was the action in the attack on the US Embassy.

Tell me something that is new. That is, aside from the fact that their Joint Chief or the VP who was on the ground in hostile territory *wont* be doing that anymore.

To me, the new thing is that we publicly killed a member of the Iranian government.

Are you arguing that this is not an important or notable action taken by the Trump administration?

I think it is an important and notable action. and a good one.

But I guess Obama would have looked the other way(crimea, Iran uprising) or sent some money to them(Iran agreement). IMO, not a good action.

You don't get rid of bullies by giving them your lunch money.

Not 100% sure what Obama would have done (and don't know why it matters). He obviously took decisive action with Bin Laden and used drones to kill Americans abroad. However, my gut tells me Obama had the chance to act in a similar way, but decided against it (especially given his desire to pass the nuclear deal).

We'll have to wait and see how Iran reacts - I think that will tell us whether it was a good choice or not. If there are no serious, long-term consequences then you're on the money that it will have been a good decision.

(01-03-2020 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess having your Joints Chief or the VP on the ground in a hostile country actively planning hostile activity isnt such a great idea.

And yes, Iran probably will serve up an action in some manner. That seemingly has been the status quo for the last 12-15 years. Certainly was the action in the attack on the US Embassy.

Tell me something that is new. That is, aside from the fact that their Joint Chief or the VP who was on the ground in hostile territory *wont* be doing that anymore.

To me, the new thing is that we publicly killed a member of the Iranian government that was on the ground in a combat zone in a non-friendly country actively directing a proxy war on the United States and that other non-friendly country.

FIFY. The thing about being killed is that it shouldnt be entirely unexpected when the person is on the ground in a combat zone in a non-friendly country actively directing a proxy war on the United States and that other non-friendly country.

Or should the fact that he is in the position in the Iranian government erect some sort of 'even though you are on the ground in a combat zone in a non-friendly country actively directing a proxy war on the United States and that other non-friendly country, you cant be touched' type immunity for some?

Quote:Are you arguing that this is not an important or notable action taken by the Trump administration?

It is notable. And stands in stark contrast to using the US Air Force to be renamed Brinks Armored and to shuttle $1.3 billion dollars to Iran for taking US military hostages ---

(01-03-2020 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 12:40 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I guess having your Joints Chief or the VP on the ground in a hostile country actively planning hostile activity isnt such a great idea.

And yes, Iran probably will serve up an action in some manner. That seemingly has been the status quo for the last 12-15 years. Certainly was the action in the attack on the US Embassy.

Tell me something that is new. That is, aside from the fact that their Joint Chief or the VP who was on the ground in hostile territory *wont* be doing that anymore.

To me, the new thing is that we publicly killed a member of the Iranian government that was on the ground in a combat zone in a non-friendly country actively directing a proxy war on the United States and that other non-friendly country.

FIFY. The thing about being killed is that it shouldnt be entirely unexpected when the person is on the ground in a combat zone in a non-friendly country actively directing a proxy war on the United States and that other non-friendly country.

Or should the fact that he is in the position in the Iranian government erect some sort of 'even though you are on the ground in a combat zone in a non-friendly country actively directing a proxy war on the United States and that other non-friendly country, you cant be touched' type immunity for some?

Quote:Are you arguing that this is not an important or notable action taken by the Trump administration?

It is notable. And stands in stark contrast to using the US Air Force to be renamed Brinks Armored and to shuttle $1.3 billion dollars to Iran for taking US military hostages ---

I don't get your point by adding all those adjectives - do those make this action less notable or important? When was the last time that the US took such action (with or without all those adjectives added)?

You seem to be defensive about me pointing out that the Trump admin made a pretty important and notable decision that could result in some significant consequences (either good or bad).

I don't fault Obama for not doing more about Crimea, or GWB for not doing more about Georgia. Our ability to act in that part of the world is extremely limited. We can't really exert a credible show of military force anywhere in the Black Sea because our primary mode of showing such force, sending a carrier strike force, would violate international law. We could deploy ground troops but that risks direct involvement and escalation on a huge scale. And the ability to impose meaningful economic sanctions is hugely impaired because Europe is so heavily reliant on Russian oil and gas. We can hassle them, but at the end of the day that is about it.

It's kind of like when Russia invaded Afghanistan. Jimmy Carter asked what were his options, and was told 1) nuke Moscow, or 2) boycott the Olympics. For once, I think he made the right choice.

I just wish those on the left were similarly tolerant of Donald Trump for playing the hand he has been dealt.

I would try to talk Putin into agreeing to a deal where he got Crimea and Donbas (with the proviso that the Sea of Azov remain international waters with free access to all flags), in exchange for allowing the remainder of Ukraine to pursue 1) NATO membership, 2) EU membership, and/or 3) union with Poland, which would accomplish both 1) and 2). I don't think Putin can do that, and I don't know that we have the leverage to force him, but I'd be interested to know just how far down that road he would be willing to go.

(01-03-2020 01:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Or should the fact that he is in the position in the Iranian government erect some sort of 'even though you are on the ground in a combat zone in a non-friendly country actively directing a proxy war on the United States and that other non-friendly country, you cant be touched' type immunity for some?

Kind of consistent with the notion that because someone might be running against you for president some day, investigating apparent corruption by a member of his family is out of bounds.

Quote:It is notable. And stands in stark contrast to using the US Air Force to be renamed Brinks Armored and to shuttle $1.3 billion dollars to Iran for taking US military hostages ---

Exactly.

(01-03-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, my gut tells me Obama had the chance to act in a similar way, but decided against it (especially given his desire to pass the nuclear deal).

We'll have to wait and see how Iran reacts - I think that will tell us whether it was a good choice or not. If there are no serious, long-term consequences then you're on the money that it will have been a good decision.

That Obama had a chance to act in a similar but passed because of his desire to make the nuclear deal is exactly one of the reasons I like Trump. I think it is better to be strong than weak. Better to active than passive, in the world of foreign policy.

Obviously, in this world sometimes we make good and correct decisions that do not work out. So of course your last paragraph is very true.

(01-03-2020 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, my gut tells me Obama had the chance to act in a similar way, but decided against it (especially given his desire to pass the nuclear deal).

We'll have to wait and see how Iran reacts - I think that will tell us whether it was a good choice or not. If there are no serious, long-term consequences then you're on the money that it will have been a good decision.

That Obama had a chance to act in a similar but passed because of his desire to make the nuclear deal is exactly one of the reasons I like Trump. I think it is better to be strong than weak. Better to active than passive, in the world of foreign policy.

Obviously, in this world sometimes we make good and correct decisions that do not work out. So of course your last paragraph is very true.

I'd argue that the Nuclear Deal was being active - just not aggressive. This is definitely an aggressive maneuver by Trump.

(01-03-2020 02:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'd argue that the Nuclear Deal was being active - just not aggressive. This is definitely an aggressive maneuver by Trump.

I'd argue that the nuclear deal was rolling over and playing dead in order to get a piece of paper.

Iran got a bunch of cash and the opportunity to continue their nuke program under an ineffective inspection regime. We got that piece of paper. Who won?

(01-03-2020 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think your overall theory doesn't line up with history. Clinton very clearly should have been impeached (IMO) because there was no question he lied under oath. However, public opinion generally remained against impeached (staying at around 60% against impeachment).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ame...peach-him/

So the point is that a strong case for impeachment doesn't necessarily translate to overwhelming public support of impeachment.

There are enough differences between a popular president and lying about a bj to an unpopular one (even within his own party, relatively) and bribery that you really can't use one incident and claim it's telling. The list of differences is immense.

But you DO make my point in some regard...
Despite public opinions and a low probability of impeachment, House Republicans put it before the Senate anyway because as you note, the evidence of the 'crime' was pretty clear. If Pelosi thinks the evidence is clear, she should be putting it forward, regardless of the outcome. History very clearly supports that.

You're free to come up with your own reason why she isn't doing so, but the fact that you don't agree with mine isn't really meaningful.

I believe she isn't because she knows it won't pass, but unlike under Clinton, she doesn't have the conviction of her beliefs (that he is a crook). She isn't willing to play if she isn't convinced she can win.

You can have your own opinion as to 'why', but it sure as heck isn't because of history. I believe it's because of polling data. If you disagree, you tell me why. If you say it's because she doesn't want to lose the next election, I'd use your own example that history doesn't support her failing to do her job because it might cost her her job.

(01-03-2020 02:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, my gut tells me Obama had the chance to act in a similar way, but decided against it (especially given his desire to pass the nuclear deal).

We'll have to wait and see how Iran reacts - I think that will tell us whether it was a good choice or not. If there are no serious, long-term consequences then you're on the money that it will have been a good decision.

That Obama had a chance to act in a similar but passed because of his desire to make the nuclear deal is exactly one of the reasons I like Trump. I think it is better to be strong than weak. Better to active than passive, in the world of foreign policy.

Obviously, in this world sometimes we make good and correct decisions that do not work out. So of course your last paragraph is very true.

I'd argue that the Nuclear Deal was being active - just not aggressive. This is definitely an aggressive maneuver by Trump.

I guess we could say that giving your lunch money to the bully is being active.

(01-03-2020 03:29 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 02:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, my gut tells me Obama had the chance to act in a similar way, but decided against it (especially given his desire to pass the nuclear deal).

We'll have to wait and see how Iran reacts - I think that will tell us whether it was a good choice or not. If there are no serious, long-term consequences then you're on the money that it will have been a good decision.

That Obama had a chance to act in a similar but passed because of his desire to make the nuclear deal is exactly one of the reasons I like Trump. I think it is better to be strong than weak. Better to active than passive, in the world of foreign policy.

Obviously, in this world sometimes we make good and correct decisions that do not work out. So of course your last paragraph is very true.

I'd argue that the Nuclear Deal was being active - just not aggressive. This is definitely an aggressive maneuver by Trump.

I guess we could say that giving your lunch money to the bully is being active.

Giving the bully pallets of bills coming from unmarked planes would also be considered being active with that standard.

(01-03-2020 03:14 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think your overall theory doesn't line up with history. Clinton very clearly should have been impeached (IMO) because there was no question he lied under oath. However, public opinion generally remained against impeached (staying at around 60% against impeachment).

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ame...peach-him/

So the point is that a strong case for impeachment doesn't necessarily translate to overwhelming public support of impeachment.

There are enough differences between a popular president and lying about a bj to an unpopular one (even within his own party, relatively) and bribery that you really can't use one incident and claim it's telling. The list of differences is immense.

But you DO make my point in some regard...
Despite public opinions and a low probability of impeachment, House Republicans put it before the Senate anyway because as you note, the evidence of the 'crime' was pretty clear. If Pelosi thinks the evidence is clear, she should be putting it forward, regardless of the outcome. History very clearly supports that.

You're free to come up with your own reason why she isn't doing so, but the fact that you don't agree with mine isn't really meaningful.

I believe she isn't because she knows it won't pass, but unlike under Clinton, she doesn't have the conviction of her beliefs (that he is a crook). She isn't willing to play if she isn't convinced she can win.

You can have your own opinion as to 'why', but it sure as heck isn't because of history. I believe it's because of polling data. If you disagree, you tell me why. If you say it's because she doesn't want to lose the next election, I'd use your own example that history doesn't support her failing to do her job because it might cost her her job.

I've already given you my opinion as to why...

Quote:So I think Pelosi is holding on to articles until the Senate explains how their hearings will occur, to try and get as favorable of an outcome as possible, so that moderate Republicans have a chance to influence the procedures. I think that because, even if Independents favored impeachment 70-30, there are enough Republicans in safe seats that Pelosi would still be worried about getting, what she views, as a fair trial.

I’m of two minds about this. The pictures and video of the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad was really disturbing. And digging deeper into the Iraqi politics was disturbing also. From what I understand, the rioters were representing the Iranian proxies (Shia I presume) trying to force a vote in the assembly and get the US out of the country.
Under this pretext and with the deaths of the US “contractors”, presumably at the hands, again, of the Iranian proxies... the President felt that the Iranians should pay a price. And their target certainly seemed (to us) to be appropriate. Supposedly he was the guy that orchestrated all of the proxies for Iran in the area. Our response wasn’t very diplomatic. It was pugnacious and probably felt to be “proportionate”.
The problem I see is that the Iranians are not helpless. They are not powerless. They are, in fact, very capable of exacting significant damage to the US and our citizens and interests. I doubt you will see much direct confrontation between US forces and the Revolutionary Guard. What you will probably see is repeated attacks against our citizens and soldiers in the Middle East and maybe here in North America. Assassination attempts. Attacks on our infrastructure. IT attacks. Not all at once. I expect it will be several things over several years. Sneaky stuff.
My take: our President and the administration decided that the best response to the situation would be to exact a price. Iran will exact a price, too.
It’s impossible to say, at this point, whether the prices that are paid are “worth it”.

once again.. the art of the fail

dont Tweet your playbook before you use it Donnyboy!

Quote:----------- 2011-2012 ---------------

In order to get [re-]elected, @BarackObama will start a war with Iran.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2011


With respect to Iran, we have all the cards--they are scared stiff! I can't believe we aren't able to negotiate (cont) http://t.co/J4jrLifR
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 6, 2012


I wonder if @BarackObama has promised Iran and China that he can be more flexible after his last election?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 28, 2012


Remember what I said about @BarackObama attacking Iran before the election--I hope the Iranians are not so (cont) http://t.co/0uQsm9t4
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 4, 2012


Just as I predicted, @BarackObama is preparing a possible attack on Iran right before November. http://t.co/ISaJp1xo
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 3, 2012


I always said @BarackObama will attack Iran, in some form, prior to the election.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 16, 2012


We have all the cards. Now is the time to make a great deal with Iran.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2012


Now that Obama’s poll numbers are in tailspin – watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2012


We should be able to negotiate a deal with Iran because they know we could blow them away to the Stone Age.They just don't believe we would.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 16, 2012


Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2012


----------- 2013 ------------------

I predict that President Obama will at some point attack Iran in order to save face!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 16, 2013


Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 25, 2013


President Obama must remember that the worst thing you can do in a deal is seem desperate to make it. Be cool, move slowly - and think! IRAN
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2013


President Obama seems so fawning and desperate to make a deal with Iran that lots of bad results can occur. Be cool and be careful!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2013


Remember that I predicted a long time ago that President Obama will attack Iran because of his inability to negotiate properly-not skilled!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 11, 2013

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/03...ran-093323

(01-03-2020 04:11 PM)greyowl72 Wrote:  I’m of two minds about this. The pictures and video of the attack on the US embassy in Baghdad was really disturbing. And digging deeper into the Iraqi politics was disturbing also. From what I understand, the rioters were representing the Iranian proxies (Shia I presume) trying to force a vote in the assembly and get the US out of the country.
Under this pretext and with the deaths of the US “contractors”, presumably at the hands, again, of the Iranian proxies... the President felt that the Iranians should pay a price. And their target certainly seemed (to us) to be appropriate. Supposedly he was the guy that orchestrated all of the proxies for Iran in the area. Our response wasn’t very diplomatic. It was pugnacious and probably felt to be “proportionate”.
The problem I see is that the Iranians are not helpless. They are not powerless. They are, in fact, very capable of exacting significant damage to the US and our citizens and interests. I doubt you will see much direct confrontation between US forces and the Revolutionary Guard. What you will probably see is repeated attacks against our citizens and soldiers in the Middle East and maybe here in North America. Assassination attempts. Attacks on our infrastructure. IT attacks. Not all at once. I expect it will be several things over several years. Sneaky stuff.
My take: our President and the administration decided that the best response to the situation would be to exact a price. Iran will exact a price, too.
It’s impossible to say, at this point, whether the prices that are paid are “worth it”.

Very simply, tell Iran, both publicly and privately, that if anything like that happens we will make Teheran glow in the dark for a millennium.

(01-03-2020 02:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, my gut tells me Obama had the chance to act in a similar way, but decided against it (especially given his desire to pass the nuclear deal).

We'll have to wait and see how Iran reacts - I think that will tell us whether it was a good choice or not. If there are no serious, long-term consequences then you're on the money that it will have been a good decision.

That Obama had a chance to act in a similar but passed because of his desire to make the nuclear deal is exactly one of the reasons I like Trump. I think it is better to be strong than weak. Better to active than passive, in the world of foreign policy.

Obviously, in this world sometimes we make good and correct decisions that do not work out. So of course your last paragraph is very true.

I'd argue that the Nuclear Deal was being active - just not aggressive.

The men of Munich were similarly active.
Their counterpart was similarly pleased.

(01-03-2020 06:08 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 02:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 02:01 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 01:03 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  However, my gut tells me Obama had the chance to act in a similar way, but decided against it (especially given his desire to pass the nuclear deal).
We'll have to wait and see how Iran reacts - I think that will tell us whether it was a good choice or not. If there are no serious, long-term consequences then you're on the money that it will have been a good decision.

That Obama had a chance to act in a similar but passed because of his desire to make the nuclear deal is exactly one of the reasons I like Trump. I think it is better to be strong than weak. Better to active than passive, in the world of foreign policy.
Obviously, in this world sometimes we make good and correct decisions that do not work out. So of course your last paragraph is very true.

I'd argue that the Nuclear Deal was being active - just not aggressive.

The men of Munich were similarly active.
Their counterpart was similarly pleased.

Exactly. +3

(01-03-2020 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Very simply, tell Iran, both publicly and privately, that if anything like that happens we will make Teheran glow in the dark for a millennium.

The fact that you advocate killing 8.85 million people (just in Teheran, forget surrounding areas including nuclear fallout) is pretty horrifying. I hope you are just using hyperbole. If you are so callous about killing that many people, it is kind of hard to have a reasonable discussion with you. Nuking a city of that size so much that it glows in the dark for a millennium can't be the answer.

And that's even ignoring the fact that my favorite Rice basketball player was Iranian. Kazemi is currently playing for a team in Tehran, so I guess it was nice rooting for him while he was here. Most of those people just want to live their lives like you and me.

(01-04-2020 02:02 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 05:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Very simply, tell Iran, both publicly and privately, that if anything like that happens we will make Teheran glow in the dark for a millennium.

The fact that you advocate killing 8.85 million people (just in Teheran, forget surrounding areas including nuclear fallout) is pretty horrifying. I hope you are just using hyperbole.

Actually, no I'm not, but not in the way you are suggesting. Where did I say anything about killing 9 million people? I said tell the Iranian leadership that we would if they don't behave. And make them believe it. The two are different things.

The only way to be absolutely certain of never having to do that is to make it abundantly clear that we will do precisely that if provoked. We have fought no-win wars in a namely-pamby fashion for so long that I am not certain we would be taken seriously, at least not at first.

I remember working with the Polaris/Poseidon/Trident missile subs. They have an interesting philosophy, if any of their missiles ever have to be launched, then the whole program has been a failure.

It's like human shields. As long as we are clearly not willing to risk collateral damage, the bad guys will continue to use them. Let the word get out that we will risk collateral damage to hit priority targets, and no more human shields.

So no, I don't advocate killing 9 million people. But I do advocate making Iran totally believe that we would do so if they provoke us.

Quote:If you are so callous about killing that many people, it is kind of hard to have a reasonable discussion with you. Nuking a city of that size so much that it glows in the dark for a millennium can't be the answer.

When the bad guys are crazy, you have to leave all options on the table. There is no way to have reasonable negotiations with them. The best result you can get is to scare the bejeezus out of them.

Quote:Most of those people just want to live their lives like you and me.

Yes, they do. Unfortunately they are not in charge. Perhaps if we had supported the rebellion there a few years ago, they would be. But they aren't, and we have to deal with who is in charge.

So, no, to correct your misinterpretation, I am not callously advocating killing 9 million people. But I am advocating making the Iranians believe that we would if they don't behave.

69/70/75 - don’t threaten it unless you will do it. First rule I learned (after many failures) as a parent and I think it applies to foreign policy when it comes to threats of nuclear war. I would rather a few hundred US soldiers die in targeted strikes (drone, middle, and elite incursions) against top Iran leadership if it comes to that then have the US be responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent civilians. The idea of the USA threatening to murder millions of foreign civilians in an attack that likely wouldn’t even take out that much of the Iranian leadership is disgusting to me and an insult to what I consider to be American values. If we start threatening to murder millions of civilians in the Middle East, good luck finding any allies in the area (especially after the USA’s abandonment of the Kurds). And I have no idea how you are going to convince the Iranians we might do it. Wave a magic wand? Do the hand thing from Wayne’s World and make funny sounds while wiggling your fingers? I wouldn’t believe it if I was them, but I would believe a threat of targeted attacks and strikes with elite forces designed to take out every top leadership member, with a warning that some degree of collateral damage would be acceptable to the USA under these circumstances. The message is back down or prepare to go underground like Bin Laden.