Iran - Politics & Religion - Forums : Best Ever Albums

baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash

Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

Yeah, there's not going to be a war.

I pray your optimism is correct...
_________________
Add me on RYM

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

baystateoftheart wrote:

In a lot of ways, this feels like 2003 all over again. Karl Rove and Ari Fleischer were just talking up war in Iran on Fox. Much of the mainstream media has given the strike fawning coverage. Leaks have already revealed that the intelligence justification was "paper thin." Elected Republicans are either cheerleading or falling in line, and many elected Democrats are being spineless. We are headed for a totally unnecessary Middle Eastern war that would cost countless lives and dollars, has no good endgame, and would pour gasoline on existing anti-American sentiment and terrorism. The war is being launched with electoral (boosting re-election chances) and financial (benefit to the military industrial complex) considerations in mind.

But in other ways, it's far worse. Iran is orders of magnitude stronger than Iraq was in just about every way, so the war could be much longer and bloodier on both sides. The United States is weaker than we were then, ground down by endless war on multiple fronts and with allies rightfully alienated by erratic and unilateral actions. Trump is a less competent and more impulsive commander in chief than Bush, and unlike Cheney, Pence has no real sway. The assassination occurred without consent of Congress, which has not authorized force. Trump appears to have every intention to totally disregard the US Constitution with regard to war in Iran, fully emboldened by the lockstep support of his party throughout impeachment. He has just announced by Twitter that he has plans to commit war crimes, by striking (a symbolic, not strategic number of) targets based on their cultural significance to Iranians and not their military significance. Speaking of which, he has recently pardoned multiple war criminals, whom he calls patriots, sending the message that anything goes and no murder of innocent civilians is too depraved.

And of course, war is hell. It makes me sick thinking about the senseless bloodshed and staggering amount of human suffering that could be about to happen, furious at all the enablers who made it possible, and ashamed at the role America is playing in the world.

Well written.

I don't know what to think other than WTF.

I've been numb lately (last 2 years?) on the whole I can't believe Trump became president. I mean why pay off politicians when you can become one? This finally woke me from my desensitized allusion on how fucked we really are. It's ok though, I think Chief isn't wrong. We'll just walk blindly off a cliff some day though. Apathy in America; brought to you by an iPhone near you...

Tha1ChiefRocka
Yeah, well hey, I'm really sorry.

Location: Kansas

Hopefully. I do have some resoaning for my dumb optimism, but the only thing to do is sit and wait.

baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash

Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts

Tha1ChiefRocka wrote:

Hopefully. I do have some resoaning for my dumb optimism, but the only thing to do is sit and wait.

Not quite the only thing. If there's enough pressure from the American people and their representatives it could influence his actions. You could call your Senators in Kansas and tell them you're a conservative who wouldn't support this war and expects them to vote accordingly.

Seth, you could do the same in Utah (minus the conservative part if you want to be honest).
_________________
Add me on RYM

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

baystateoftheart wrote:

Not quite the only thing. If there's enough pressure from the American people and their representatives it could influence his actions. You could call your Senators in Kansas and tell them you're a conservative who wouldn't support this war and expects them to vote accordingly.

Seth, you could do the same in Utah (minus the conservative part if you want to be honest).

Luckily Romney hates Trump as much as I do, and even if I don't fully agree with all of his politics, he mostly isn't an insane conservative - pretty level headed actually. Perhaps I'd call Mike Lee's office, but honestly Utah is pretty corrupt when you always win the election. 90% of the time when folks do call Mike Lee's office he ignores it and chalks up said calls to the psychos cuz the average constituent clearly doesn't think like a logical person, how could they?!? I'm actually really lucky to have someone like Romney representing me, especially in this state.

Tha1ChiefRocka
Yeah, well hey, I'm really sorry.

Location: Kansas

That is true, there is something to do; I'm not usually thinking in that direction, but you've given me something to think about.

Interesingly enough, the two Senators from Kansas, Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran, might already vote in that way if it came to it, as they haven't been afraid to oppose some things by Trump in the past. Roberts is also retiring this year, and I don't think he'd like to go out on that note, but who really knows?

Obviously Sharice Davids, who represents my district, would be opposed. Steve Watkins would for sure vote for it, and I don't know enough about the other two to know what they'd do.

PurpleHazel

baystateoftheart wrote:

In a lot of ways, this feels like 2003 all over again. Much of the mainstream media has given the strike fawning coverage. Leaks have already revealed that the intelligence justification was "paper thin." Elected Republicans are either cheerleading or falling in line, and many elected Democrats are being spineless.

The mainstream media I've seen/read has not given the strike fawning coverage at all (don't watch Fox). Most of the foreign policy experts and pundits on mainstream programs say it was a mistake with far-reaching implications. I was skeptical of the intelligence justification from the start -- always assume the Trump administration's lying unless proven otherwise -- but journalists will get to the bottom of that soon enough -- Trump administration leaks like a sieve. Nancy Pelosi, the most powerful Democrat in the government, has come out strongly against the strike, as have all the leading Democratic presidential candidates.

Quote:

We are headed for a totally unnecessary Middle Eastern war that would cost countless lives and dollars, has no good endgame, and would pour gasoline on existing anti-American sentiment and terrorism. The war is being launched with electoral (boosting re-election chances) and financial (benefit to the military industrial complex) considerations in mind.

It's very possible it's a Wag the Dog scenario. But it's not 2003: after 18 years of Middle-Eastern wars, a majority of the public does not support another one. Many veterans like Trump because he's been pulling troops out of the Middle-East, a campaign promise of his. Most of the experts admit they can't predict what's going to happen next. Trump has just played with dynamite and it could just as easily blow up in his face as help get him reelected. I genuinely think Trump doesn't want a conventional war, but he's so childish, ignorant and erratic that if Iran hits us back in a way that really hurts and Trump thinks it makes his administration look bad -- a high-casualty terrorist attack, for instance -- I could see him strike high value targets in Iran, but even then there's not much proportionate Iran could do as long as we don't put boots on the ground (I list most of Iran's possible responses below).

I agree a conventional war's unlikely: It's not to Iran's advantage. The U.S. has a far superior air force and navy. Iran can hurt us by cyberattacks -- they've already launched some effective ones against us. They can can use their large missile arsenal against Sunni allies and Israel. They can hurt the West by disrupting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. And they can have some of the many proxy militias and terrorist groups it controls all over the world attack U.S. and/or allied soldiers and/or civilians. And there's a good chance the Iraqi government will vote the U.S. military out of Iraq.

baystateoftheart
Neil Young as a butternut squash

Age: 29
Location: Massachusetts

I can't say I follow mainstream media closely, but I saw some disturbingly credulous reporting from NYT and CNN.

You are correct that Democrats are almost entirely unified against it, which is different from 2003. By spineless I was referring to their rhetoric. There have been a lot of them strenuously emphasizing what an evil man the deceased was while only objecting to Trump in terms of procedure (bad he's not going through Congress, needs to share his plan, etc.).

You are correct that war may not actually be to Trump's electoral benefit. But there is reason to believe he thinks it will be. See all his comments warning that Obama would start a war with Iran to get re-elected.

Yes, an unconventional war still seems more likely at this point, but that could still involve tremendous loss of life.
_________________
Add me on RYM

PurpleHazel

I honestly haven't seen any positive coverage of the strike on CNN, the network news or MSNBC. Obviously, if CNN has a Trump supporter or Republican hawk/neocon on, they'll probably have good things to say -- but I haven't heard anyone say anything supportive.

Don't think there's anything wrong with saying Soleimani was a bad dude, as long as you're against the strike -- everyone except Trump supporters and hawks/neocons seem to believe there was no long term strategy to the strike, and are therefore against it.

As you probably know, it's been reported that Trump was presented with a list of options, with the strike being the most extreme, and to everyone's surprise Trump chose it.

baystateoftheart wrote:

You are correct that war may not actually be to Trump's electoral benefit. But there is reason to believe he thinks it will be. See all his comments warning that Obama would start a war with Iran to get re-elected.

Don't think you can go by Trump's comments from 2012, for many different reasons. But it is definitely possible he believes it'll have an electoral benefit.

Yes, sooner or later Iran will retaliate and lives will be lost. Beyond that, no one really knows what will happen. Hopefully Trump loses the election, and in a year, someone levelheaded will be in charge of foreign policy.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Wow - it's like my state has grown up/decided to grow a spine. Usually it's the hook line and sinker just do whatever the party says to do mentality. I realize this isn't your typical fanfare, but I feel if it were Chaffetz/Hatch no spine would have existed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/gop-mik...ike-2020-1