Iran Catch-All | IRAN WAR - US to BLOCKADE Strait

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 8K
  • Views: 291K
  • Politics 
This entire thread is about the iran war. Its totally political. How many comments have you made about the war that didn't totally focus on you same 20 adjectives of trump? 0 because you don't have a thought outside of trump.
Here's a good summary of your 'competent', thinking-outside-the-box POTUS on Iran. But we're full of hate, rage and TDS?

"The Trump administration chose to wage a war without deciding on its aims, mapping out a strategy, planning for contingencies or even being able to explain itself. The goal was regime change — until it wasn’t. The demand was unconditional surrender — until it wasn’t. Deadlines were issued and then erased. Threats of total destruction were made and then pulled back. Iran’s nuclear program was a casus belli in February, despite the fact that we were told by Mr. Trump that it was “obliterated” last June. The president called for an international coalition to open the Strait of Hormuz, then said the United States could go it alone, then said the waterway would somehow “open itself.” He claimed that the United States had already won the war, that the war would end soon and that the war would end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” As a headline in The Times put it, the president’s position on Iran “can change by the sentence.”

🎁 Opinion | Trump Is Turning America Into a Psychotic State
 
Will the (counter) revolutionaries in Iran be armed? How? With what? The IRGC seems largely loyal to the regime and unless it splinters into at least one separatist group, there will be no uprising. The Iranian people, no matter how they detest the regime, aren't going to be able to topple it themselves.

We have armed revolutionaries in the past (syria, nicaragua, libya) For practical purposes, the irgc is the regime. I don't know enough about the details to understand how to arm the citizenry. trump refuses to involve the kurds even though they are ready and willing if we provide air cover.

Why is israel refusing to commit ground troops, even if we use SF on isolated targets? israel is really the trigger point for the entire war.
We need to get compensated in some fashion from doing the ME's dirty work. trump should be asking the gulf countries to foot the bill
 
The question is not whether the United States spends more to fund NATO than Macedonia. The question is whether NATO protects our national security.

If we get no benefit from NATO, then we should leave NATO and quit whining about much we pay in to NATO compared to other NATO countries. If we get no benefit then why pay even $1 to NATO ?
we certainly get benefit. we should also have more say so than macedonia. we aren't leaving nato, but we will get some concessions.
 
It’s amusing hearing Trump etc complaining about having to spend so much on our military to offset the lack of funding among other NATO nations while also insisting we substantially increase our defense budget.
 
I know perspectives and viewpoints on this differ across the ideological spectrum but I've always been baffled that there are people who seem to truly believe that the United States is somehow getting shafted by NATO. NATO has been, IMO, perhaps the single most positively influential alliance in the history of the world that has directly enabled the last century or so since World War II to be the most peaceful, most prosperous, and safest era in human history. And the United States, as the de facto leader of NATO and the free world, has directly benefited in ways that are completely incalculable. Not only has the alliance prevented widespread global conflict from breaking out, but it has enabled the U.S. to become the world's premier economic superpower by ensuring stability in Europe, by facilitating safe transatlantic trade routes, by driving demand and a market for American defense technology, and by preventing regional conflicts that could disrupt the European market which is our largest trading partner.

As such, as an American, I feel like we are getting a phenomenal return on our investment in NATO. I am baffled that there are people who think that we are getting the short end of the stick. To me, it's a very elementary and infantile way of looking at the world, to feel that because the U.S. provides a disproportionate share of NATO's total defense spending, that other countries are "taking advantage of us." We contribute only about 16% of NATO's direct annual operating budget, which is roughly equal to Germany, but the perceived disproportion arises from the U.S. having a significantly larger overall defense budget than any of our European allies. That large defense budget, though, is used for global obligations beyond NATO’s collective defense.

I liken it to my own status as someone who gets disproportionately hammered by income taxes as a dual-W2 high income earner. I pay a lot more proportionately in taxes than people who are both infinitely wealthier than I am and people who earn significantly less than I do. But I see it as a blessing, not a curse, to be taxed and to have those tax dollars utilized to ensure the safety, security, and well-being of others. It's a great problem to have. Similarly, I see NATO as a great "problem" for the United States to have, as it has helped ensure the the America (and the world) in which I've grown up has been safer, more secure, and more prosperous than it otherwise would have been. And if the "price" to pay is that we spend more money than our peers, to me that seems like one of the best returns on investment that we could possibly have.
 
Here's a good summary of your 'competent', thinking-outside-the-box POTUS on Iran. But we're full of hate, rage and TDS?

"The Trump administration chose to wage a war without deciding on its aims, mapping out a strategy, planning for contingencies or even being able to explain itself. The goal was regime change — until it wasn’t. The demand was unconditional surrender — until it wasn’t. Deadlines were issued and then erased. Threats of total destruction were made and then pulled back. Iran’s nuclear program was a casus belli in February, despite the fact that we were told by Mr. Trump that it was “obliterated” last June. The president called for an international coalition to open the Strait of Hormuz, then said the United States could go it alone, then said the waterway would somehow “open itself.” He claimed that the United States had already won the war, that the war would end soon and that the war would end “when I feel it, feel it in my bones.” As a headline in The Times put it, the president’s position on Iran “can change by the sentence.”

🎁 Opinion | Trump Is Turning America Into a Psychotic State
I don't think i have disagreed with that and every bit of that is legitimate reason for criticism. where the hate, rage, and tds comes into play is disregarding that his hands were tied and the worse consequences that we would be facing if we had told israel have at it but we are sitting this one out. or that even if we sat it out gas prices would be where they are now. at least with our involvement we can influence the decline when we leave.

or in disregarding the reason he didn't spend weeks or months building nato consensus, or informing nato before going. you don't have to agree with his reasons, but they are valid and logical. hate and tds blocks prevents any critical analysis.
 
I don't think i have disagreed with that and every bit of that is legitimate reason for criticism. where the hate, rage, and tds comes into play is disregarding that his hands were tied and the worse consequences that we would be facing if we had told israel have at it but we are sitting this one out. or that even if we sat it out gas prices would be where they are now. at least with our involvement we can influence the decline when we leave.

or in disregarding the reason he didn't spend weeks or months building nato consensus, or informing nato before going. you don't have to agree with his reasons, but they are valid and logical. hate and tds blocks prevents any critical analysis.
There is zero chance Israel strikes without our backing.
 
I know perspectives and viewpoints on this differ across the ideological spectrum but I've always been baffled that there are people who seem to truly believe that the United States is somehow getting shafted by NATO. NATO has been, IMO, perhaps the single most positively influential alliance in the history of the world that has directly enabled the last century or so since World War II to be the most peaceful, most prosperous, and safest era in human history. And the United States, as the de facto leader of NATO and the free world, has directly benefited in ways that are completely incalculable. Not only has the alliance prevented widespread global conflict from breaking out, but it has enabled the U.S. to become the world's premier economic superpower by ensuring stability in Europe, by facilitating safe transatlantic trade routes, by driving demand and a market for American defense technology, and by preventing regional conflicts that could disrupt the European market which is our largest trading partner.

As such, as an American, I feel like we are getting a phenomenal return on our investment in NATO. I am baffled that there are people who think that we are getting the short end of the stick. To me, it's a very elementary and infantile way of looking at the world, to feel that because the U.S. provides a disproportionate share of NATO's total defense spending, that other countries are "taking advantage of us." We contribute only about 16% of NATO's direct annual operating budget, which is roughly equal to Germany, but the perceived disproportion arises from the U.S. having a significantly larger overall defense budget than any of our European allies. That large defense budget, though, is used for global obligations beyond NATO’s collective defense.

I liken it to my own status as someone who gets disproportionately hammered by income taxes as a dual-W2 high income earner. I pay a lot more proportionately in taxes than people who are both infinitely wealthier than I am and people who earn significantly less than I do. But I see it as a blessing, not a curse, to be taxed and to have those tax dollars utilized to ensure the safety, security, and well-being of others. It's a great problem to have. Similarly, I see NATO as a great "problem" for the United States to have, as it has helped ensure the the America (and the world) in which I've grown up has been safer, more secure, and more prosperous than it otherwise would have been. And if the "price" to pay is that we spend more money than our peers, to me that seems like one of the best returns on investment that we could possibly have.
your post encompases more than 1 issue. primarily benefit proportionality. nato refused to provide even the most basic help. Not allowing us to land and refuel, out of fear that is driven from their domestic policies on immigration. they were afraid of attacks from the muslim population they allowed in. the issue you raised is different from it even refusing to pick up our mail while we are out of town.
 
Trump must have TDS because he claims we did not go to war with Iran because Israel was going to attack anyway.
 
your post encompases more than 1 issue. primarily benefit proportionality. nato refused to provide even the most basic help. Not allowing us to land and refuel, out of fear that is driven from their domestic policies on immigration. they were afraid of attacks from the muslim population they allowed in. the issue you raised is different from it even refusing to pick up our mail while we are out of town.
Only once in the history of the alliance has Article 5 been invoked, and it was invoked on behalf of the United States, which led to our NATO allies sending their own troops to the Middle East to fight (and in some cases, die) on our behalf while fighting the global war on terror. To say that NATO refuses to provide even the most basic help is not correct. I know you were probably meaning it strictly in the context of this particular conflict, but to me it's all intertwined. Because there was no attack on the United States, and thus no invocation of Article 5, what incentive would any NATO country possibly have to risk losing lives and treasure (either abroad or at home) fighting a war that they did not want to start and did not agree with, against an adversary that they did not believe was enough of a threat to justify igniting an entire regional conflict that would directly threaten the global energy supply?
 
Maybe you could point to an example where North Macedonia or Iceland vetoed something we wanted NATO to do?
nope, I can't. because im getting ready to watch the golf tournament and not going to google that doesn't mean the current framework is equitable and doesn't need to be reworked in a manner that is more in line with our contribution and what we provide.
 
Will the (counter) revolutionaries in Iran be armed? How? With what? The IRGC seems largely loyal to the regime and unless it splinters into at least one separatist group, there will be no uprising. The Iranian people, no matter how they detest the regime, aren't going to be able to topple it themselves.
I'll bet Napoleon would agree that Allah, like God, is on the side of the best artillery.
 
I think it's a fair conversation to have about the contributions European countries make towards NATO. That's mostly related to recent threats by Russia and I do believe that many in Europe have responded with greater military spending, but there is likely room for more from their side. That said, like everything with Trump, he fucks it up by acting like a child. Not to mention he has all but abandoned Ukraine and provided immense cover for Putin. Heck, JD Vance is stumping for one of Putin's stooges right now. I also don't think it makes sense to count our entire defense budget as our contribution to NATO.
 
I believe we are closer to revolution in iran than many believe.
This is one of the things that so frustrates me about you (and many others).

You have no fucking idea whether Iran is close to revolution. You don't know anything about Iran's politics or sociology. In your sentence, believe roughly translates "I hope based on nothing." You know what? I don't know shit about Iranian politics either. There's no shame in it. None of us can know everything. None of us can know but a tiny, tiny slice of available knowledge.

I object to people expressing opinions about things they know nothing about. I don't do it, and neither should you.
 
Back
Top