American Politics

Sanity Check

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
4,592
Age
41
Country
Akatsuki
But... the issue here isn't whether the iranian government is or isn't popular. By all accounts it isn't afaik. There is no narrative contradiction on that regard. The point is: Going to war with iran is by all accounts a terrible idea. Suleimani being an all around bad guy is not in question in this regard.
This part contradicts the narrative:

Trump said Friday he acted to stop a war rather than start one, although many observers saw the airstrike as a major escalation of tensions between the U.S. and Iran. American officials said they had intelligence Soleimani was planning a significant campaign of violence against the U.S.

It also accused Soleimani of approving orchestrated violent protests at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad
.
It admits Trump's actions may have been justified.

A less forced perspective than the anti Trump media bias normally permits.
 

Franz

Registered User
伝説メンバー / Densetsu / Legendary Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2015
Messages
12,499
Reaction score
11,270
Age
33
Gender
Male
Country
Italy
Iran could eliminate or rather sacrifice its men on the field, quietly blaming the USA and exacerbating tensions with local populations and then simply looking at everything as a spectator and then appearing as the savior of Islam ...

An open war with the US is not convenient for either of them.

Iran cannot win it and the US would end up at best in a Vietnam, with Iran being supplied by Russia and China and with land that would be unquestionable both logistically and for people willing to do anything.
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,897
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
This part contradicts the narrative:



It admits Trump's actions may have been justified.

A less forced perspective than the anti Trump media bias normally permits.
Those things aren't contradictory. It is perfectly reasonable that the general was an all around bad guy who was planning to target US citizens somehow (though as far as i can tell that claim hasn't been verified by any US intelligence agencies) but it is still a bad idea to target him and risk a war with iran.
 

Sanity Check

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
4,592
Age
41
Country
Akatsuki
Those things aren't contradictory. It is perfectly reasonable that the general was an all around bad guy who was planning to target US citizens somehow (though as far as i can tell that claim hasn't been verified by any US intelligence agencies) but it is still a bad idea to target him and risk a war with iran.

Why is it a bad idea?

I remember when democrats were calling for war with russia which sounds more ridiculous and insane than a war with iran. The media never criticized.

Democrats proposed war with iran years ago. Many didn't support a democrat run war knowing that terrorist groups like ISIS has grown far larger and more powerful under democrat leadership. Also knowing that democrats like Hillary routinely hung US troops out to dry as occurred in benghazi.

A war with iran under Trump with competent leadership who will put the lives of troops above political agendas and make a legitimate effort to end global terrorism is completely different. The reason why many americans who wouldn't support democrats proposed wars with iran or russia, would support Trump if he decided military action was warranted.
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,897
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
Why is it a bad idea?

I remember when democrats were calling for war with russia which sounds more ridiculous and insane than a war with iran. The media never criticized.

Democrats proposed war with iran years ago. Many didn't support a democrat run war knowing that terrorist groups like ISIS has grown far larger and more powerful under democrat leadership. Also knowing that democrats like Hillary routinely hung US troops out to dry as occurred in benghazi.

A war with iran under Trump with competent leadership who will put the lives of troops above political agendas and make a legitimate effort to end global terrorism is completely different. The reason why many americans who wouldn't support democrats proposed wars with iran or russia, would support Trump if he decided military action was warranted.
I've already said plenty of times why its a bad idea.

Democrats never called for war with russia. That is just false...

When did democrats propose war with iran? At least on the obama end that was never an option (only trump LIED about obama being willing to do this for political gain)... As for isis, it did get strength during obama's years but its decline also started during obama's years. The bulk of victories the US had over isis during the first two years of trump's presidency were over stuff that started over the obama years.

As for that third paragraph.... everything in it is absurd. If there was a war out there worth fighting (which at the moment I would argue is exclusively ISIS and nothing else) it shouldn't matter who is president. And I can't stress enough that it is simply factually incorrect that democrats wanted a war with iran or russia. Dunno about people who would support a war with either under trump but not under other presidents. i've never heard of such people but the very notion sounds outright moronic.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
I've never heard of or seen any Democrat call for war with Russia
 

Sanity Check

Registered User
英雄メンバー / Eiyuu Menbaa / Hero Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2019
Messages
2,159
Reaction score
4,592
Age
41
Country
Akatsuki
I've already said plenty of times why its a bad idea.
I'll offer a response which I declined previously.

And.... are you insane? iran shitting bricks? Iran is 4 times larger than iraq, has over twice its population, far more complicated terrain AND they also happen to have a real military (unlike iraq). Iraq was an unmitigated disaster and a stain on US history... But going to war with iran would dwarf that in every regard. As for trump not sending soldiers there.... I assume you mean the US can just do drone strikes and whatnot. But... to do that the US would still need allies over there to do the fighting. Now, I certainly don't know too much about the situation there but it doesn't seem likely that trump will find someone to do that for him after what he did to the kurds. I mean, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to trust the US at all after that. So IF there is a war the US will almost certainly have to send soldiers over there. With no expectation of help from most allied countries at that since this would end up being a consequence of trump backing out of the iran deal. Which almost every non US country on earth regards as catastrophically stupid.
The 2nd war with iraq was initially labeled an overwhelming success.

Where things went wrong was the US deciding to occupy iraq rather than withdrawing or utilizing an exit strategy.

The US has allies in the region like israel who have a high probability of participating due to their own self interests being aligned.

Democrats never called for war with russia. That is just false...
After the alleged russian collusion. Democrats labeled russian meddling in US elections an act of war. They criticized Trump as being too "soft" on Putin for utilizing diplomacy.


What normally happens after one country commits an act of war against another? War?

When did democrats propose war with iran? At least on the obama end that was never an option (only trump LIED about obama being willing to do this for political gain)... As for isis, it did get strength during obama's years but its decline also started during obama's years. The bulk of victories the US had over isis during the first two years of trump's presidency were over stuff that started over the obama years.

As for that third paragraph.... everything in it is absurd. If there was a war out there worth fighting (which at the moment I would argue is exclusively ISIS and nothing else) it shouldn't matter who is president. And I can't stress enough that it is simply factually incorrect that democrats wanted a war with iran or russia. Dunno about people who would support a war with either under trump but not under other presidents. i've never heard of such people but the very notion sounds outright moronic.
If I remember right. There was a situation years ago where iran purportedly hacked US drone communications and flew one of america's advanced protoype drones onto the ayatollah's front lawn. Recovering it intact so that iran could reverse engineer and replicate its hardware. Sometime after this occurred there was a media call for the US to declare war on iran. I don't remember 100% if democrats were involved but I think a few were. Americans were not fond of the idea knowing full well that the US military was very capable of increasing the deficit by many trillions without producing any tangible positive gains to society or civilization at large.

This is the type of event which normally occurs when democrats have a President in office. Weapons, hardware and billions of dollars are mysteriously lost and find their way into the hands of mexican drug cartels and terrorist groups. This is a big part of the reason why ISIS grew so large and powerful when Obama was President. Large sums of money, military grade weapons and equipment all disappeared from US military depots and mysterious found their way into the hands of groups like ISIS while the US military turned a blind eye to it.

Needless to say things are the complete opposite with Trump running things. ISIS is no longer receiving free aid from the US and its allies and troops are now making a serious effort to hunt and destroy terrorists in ISIS, iran and all over the world. Something that never happened when either Obama or Bush was acting President.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,212
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
I'll just leave this here...

--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

After the alleged russian collusion. Democrats labeled russian meddling in US elections an act of war. They criticized Trump as being too "soft" on Putin for utilizing diplomacy.

What normally happens after one country commits an act of war against another? War?
Trump didn't utilize diplomacy with Putin, he utilized handwaving and denial. Mainly because he didn't see the issue as detrimental to our democracy, he saw it as him admitting his presidency was less legitimate.

Not a single democrat was suggesting war with Russia. If they had been, maybe Trump would have a point in calling them crazy.

This is the type of event which normally occurs when democrats have a President in office. Weapons, hardware and billions of dollars are mysteriously lost and find their way into the hands of mexican drug cartels and terrorist groups.
Ah yes, I too remember Iran-Contra, which happened during the presidency of the Democrat Ronald Reagan.... oh wait...
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
I feel like Trump's doing it on purpose, but I have no idea why. I thought Trump made sense with pulling troops out, but he wants to put more troops back in? To kill and rape innocent civilians? And apparently few days ago Iran discovered a new oil field or something. Hmm
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---

Well, our dumbass president got our base attacked with his stupidity. Gotta love it.
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,897
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
Yep, iran went for US bases... that doesn't bode well. It's kinda interesting that no casualties have been confirmed at this stage, I suppose its possible iran targeted places within the bases which had low probability of having people inside? Now the wait for trump's response...
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,212
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
They're not US bases, they're joint bases. Early reports seem to suggest there's no US casualties, but Iraqi forces have suffered some.
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
And reports say Iran will attack Dubai and another location if US retaliates and Hezbollah will attack Israel.

Trump really fucked things up, jeez.
 

xi0

あの術
最終形態 / Saishuu Keitai / Final Form
Administrator
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Messages
65,177
Reaction score
30,212
Gender
Male
Country
Pyke
And reports say Iran will attack Dubai and another location if US retaliates and Hezbollah will attack Israel.

Trump really fucked things up, jeez.
They said they would if the US struck targets within Iran, to be precise.

Regardless of the choice Trump made then, this isn't what I would call a measured response from Iran either. Some suggest they're bluffing and they struck these targets intentionally knowing US forces wouldn't be hit... but who knows. Seems like they might have been pushed to retaliate in this way due to public outrage.
 

Newkerzy

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
7,546
Reaction score
5,403
Age
35
Gender
Male
Country
Indonesia
Yep, iran went for US bases... that doesn't bode well. It's kinda interesting that no casualties have been confirmed at this stage, I suppose its possible iran targeted places within the bases which had low probability of having people inside? Now the wait for trump's response...
Which is a smart move the dumbass wouldn't possibly think of doing. Now I ran basically can say, "yes, we're at war with the US, but we're going to abide by the playbook and minimize casualties as much as possible. The question is, can the US president do the same, the very same person who pardoned a soldier convicted of clear war crimes?"
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,897
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
Which is a smart move the dumbass wouldn't possibly think of doing. Now I ran basically can say, "yes, we're at war with the US, but we're going to abide by the playbook and minimize casualties as much as possible. The question is, can the US president do the same, the very same person who pardoned a soldier convicted of clear war crimes?"
At this point I have no idea whatsoever. My guess (though at this point it feels like a shot in the dark) is that either trump will take this as an attack and feel compelled to retaliate or.... perhaps he will think something along the lines of "PUSSIES, you didn't even dare to target americans! Victory is mine". Trump's twitter makes me think it might be the latter... I suppose that economic sanctions will follow as well. And the question will remain what iran will do next...
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
They said they would if the US struck targets within Iran, to be precise.

Regardless of the choice Trump made then, this isn't what I would call a measured response from Iran either. Some suggest they're bluffing and they struck these targets intentionally knowing US forces wouldn't be hit... but who knows. Seems like they might have been pushed to retaliate in this way due to public outrage.
Iran wanted revenge. I guess this is to show that they're not pushovers and have no problem with retaliating if we keep messing about.
 

kkck

Waifu Slayer
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
46,245
Reaction score
24,897
Gender
Hidden
Country
Fire Nation
So... to add to everything, mcconnel says he has the votes for his sham impeachment trial where they don't call any witnesses (and to that him openly admitting to collaborating with the white house on trump's defense which i can't understand why it isn't a crime). As far as I can tell democrat's only move now is to go back to the house and subpoena people from there... And hope that gets enough pressure on republicans to get a different senate result.
 

Newkerzy

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
7,546
Reaction score
5,403
Age
35
Gender
Male
Country
Indonesia
Quick question: did the Democrats do the same thing with Clinton back then?
 

M3J

MH Senpai
神のごとし / Kami no Gotoshi / Godlike
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
48,828
Reaction score
17,292
Gender
Male
Country
Akatsuki
Probably, but I hope you're not what-abouting Republicans trying to impeach Clinton for having an affair to Trump committing treasons/crimes
 

Newkerzy

Registered User
MH中毒 / MH Chuudoku / MH Addicted
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
7,546
Reaction score
5,403
Age
35
Gender
Male
Country
Indonesia
Probably, but I hope you're not what-abouting Republicans trying to impeach Clinton for having an affair to Trump committing treasons/crimes
Not really. Clinton's violations aren't even sufficient grounds for impeachment, as far as I know. Looking at it from a purely legal standpoint, Clinton's impeachment was justified insofar as a way to facilitate Lewinsky if she wanted reparations and a court trial. (I don't think she even wanted anything from Clinton?? Someone correct me on this, if I'm wrong.) But if you asked me if Clinton's affair was a legal justification for impeachment, I would say no.

I brought up the Clinton scandal because I'm wondering what their strategy here is going to be like. As far as I remember, Clinton was acquitted at the Senate level, so having gone through the same situation 20 years ago, I am wondering just what they have in mind about this. I might be remembering things wrong, so hopefully someone can clarify this.
 
Top