Iran

[LSU-SIU]

We left a nest of vipers in tact in Iran. We are justified in taking out the IRGC, the Basij, and the top leadership. We can then reach out to the assembly leaders and opposition leaders, and negotiate changes in their governing structure/ constitution and hold new elections.

We should follow the same blueprint in Venezuela.

"We", no "you". Anyone can justify interfering with another country. What you are is pure evil in my book.

Just like I said in the Ukraine, go fight or you're just an evil puss.

 

[InVOLuntary]

uhmmmmm, what?

the germans had adopted unrestricted submarine warfare since late 1939. we lost a destroyer to German uboats more than a month before Pearl Harbor, the Reuben James. thats not counting all of the US merchant ships they sunk.

Has Iran not attacked our ships in the Persian Gulf?

 

[utvolpj]

Neocons were beyond foolish to sell the US on the Iraq war. But, that doesn’t in any way excuse Iran for conducting the IED campaign in Iraq.

It's all about bad foreign policy. We can't attack someone without expecting repercussions. The just happened to find the same battlefield we were on. Had we never gone there then there was no danger

 

[utvolpj]

Looks like the 2 were in Syria for the ongoing Operation Inherent Resolve that was formally established by.... Barack Obama.

Trump has had 5yrs to end it right?

 

[utvolpj]

NG troops go all over the world.

Sure but I see no point in the Iowa ng being in Syria on a perpetual basis. But if they are then I'm guessing casualties should be expected

 

[Orange_Crush]

if any of those countries did the reverse to the US, how would you consider it?

based on 9/11 I would say the majority of Americans would consider it an act of war, and rally around support of a counteroffensive war.

just because we are punching down to such an extreme level that our enemies are incapable of striking back doesn't make it any less of a war.

yall are splitting hairs down to the atom to try and defend every inch of Trump.

Actually, by the accepted definitions of war I've found, that's exactly what it means.

Britannica: (I've linked elsewhere.)

war, in the popular sense, a conflict between political groups involving hostilities of considerable duration and magnitude. In the usage of social science, certain qualifications are added. Sociologists usually apply the term to such conflicts only if they are initiated and conducted in accordance with socially recognized forms. They treat war as an institution recognized in custom or in law. Military writers usually confine the term to hostilities in which the contending groups are sufficiently equal in power to render the outcome uncertain for a time. Armed conflicts of powerful states with isolated and powerless peoples are usually called pacifications, military expeditions, or explorations; with small states, they are called interventions or reprisals; and with internal groups, rebellions or insurrections. Such incidents, if the resistance is sufficiently strong or protracted, may achieve a magnitude that entitles them to the name “war.”

I'll need to go back and review the context of your criticism. Is this a debate about the morality of the admin's decision? If so, I'll back out and leave you to it. Is it yet another "Muh, Trump! He promised no new wars and you cucks defend him after he lied to you on on the campaign trail!" argument?

If it's the latter, please see my other posts on the topic. He actually promised military actions for America's benefit. My links posted elsewhere state that (a) Trump was making the promises, and (b) his supporters supported the "rhetoric". So, if it's the latter criticism you're after, it fails on both counts. He's doing what he promised and his voters apparently expected.


Edited to add:

Thought so. While not you, this looks to be the genesis of the debate.

So “No new wars” was all a lie?

Shocked.

Figures.

 

[InVOLuntary]

uhmmmmm, what?

the germans had adopted unrestricted submarine warfare since late 1939. we lost a destroyer to German uboats more than a month before Pearl Harbor, the Reuben James. thats not counting all of the US merchant ships they sunk.

Also, what were the merchant ships carrying?

 

[LouderVol]

From what I can tell, the headline is "Muh! Trump promised no more wars". Seems appropriate to dissect that clim within context of whyat he actually claimed, which I've done in the VZ thread.

Equivocation is handy, yet not very good faith.

I have been alive long enough to recognize that just because the US doesn't call it a war, doesn't mean it isn't a war. I have lived long enough to see short operations turn into nightmare not-wars. I have been lied to, deceived, and manipulated to try and make me think wars weren't wars just because Obama didn't have any scandals. I have lived long enough to see the consequences of our "not wars" have the impact of wars on the "victim" nation.

I also try to take the opposing view point to see how I would feel about it, to provide some level of objectivity. hence why I ask about Trump getting kidnapped by Venezuela, that would be war. even if they were in and out in an hour with no occupying force left behind. and I hate Trump. There is no magical difference that would make one side doing it "war" and the other side doing it "not war", so I hold the consistent "war".

 

[Orange_Crush]

... I have been lied to, deceived, and manipulated to try and make me think wars weren't wars just because Obama didn't have any scandals. ...

Now that you've had the opportunity to get all of that off your chest, the question seems to be whether Trump lied to you... er... his supporters by promising no new wars... er... military actions whatsoever.

 

[LouderVol]

New needs arise. We can still address those without “war”.



I don’t see the problem. Y’all are playing this nonsense chicken little game where you falsely pretend everything is Iraq. It’s a joke. We don’t have to be fully passive to avoid another Iraq. There’s a ton of middle ground there

lol, what new need arose with Maduro?

considering that Iraq isn't enough the worst example one could use of our "not wars because its politically convenient to not call it such" its pretty telling you are having to stoop to that level. and it doesn't matter if there is middle ground, I never argued otherwise, if that middle ground is still unacceptable or "war".

if we are achieving ends in a foreign nation via violence with our military, its war. no matter what label you want to slap on it, or some formal declaration from Congress.

most of this board did not go so far out of its way to avoid calling something war in the past when it was Obama or Bush doing it.

 

[hog88]

Sure but I see no point in the Iowa ng being in Syria on a perpetual basis. But if they are then I'm guessing casualties should be expected

I'm sure they were on a rotation and not permanently assigned to Syria. Would you feel better if they were active duty troops?

 

[Orange_Crush]

lol, what new need arose with Maduro?

considering that Iraq isn't enough the worst example one could use of our "not wars because its politically convenient to not call it such" its pretty telling you are having to stoop to that level. and it doesn't matter if there is middle ground, I never argued otherwise, if that middle ground is still unacceptable or "war".

if we are achieving ends in a foreign nation via violence with our military, its war. no matter what label you want to slap on it, or some formal declaration from Congress.

most of this board did not go so far out of its way to avoid calling something war in the past when it was Obama or Bush doing it.

Was Obama or Bush being mischaracterizes as having promised no new military actions whatsoever, when they had actually campaign-promised military actions as deemed necessary?

 

[LouderVol]

Has Iran not attacked our ships in the Persian Gulf?

what's the price of tea in China have to do with this?

you made a bad argument, I called you out on it. it doesn't need to be anything more than that. Germany did attack us before Pearl Harbor, which removes the question of why attack germany at all argument.

 

[LouderVol]

Also, what were the merchant ships carrying?

the Reuben James wasn't a merchant ship. those were uniformed Americans killed by hostile German action.

 

[purp]

Trump has had 5yrs to end it right?

Sure.

But does that mean he gets all the blame for a military operation started under another president?

 

[utvolpj]

Sure.

But does that mean he gets all the blame for a military operation started under another president?

Yes he gets all the current blame if he can end it at any time. Calling out others for starting it is still valid too

 

[LSU-SIU]

Yes he gets all the current blame if he can end it at any time. Calling out others for starting it is still valid too

Its been going on the whole time even during Trump's first term.

They all know, they all are part of it, just like on Epstein.

 

[InVOLuntary]

what's the price of tea in China have to do with this?

you made a bad argument, I called you out on it. it doesn't need to be anything more than that. Germany did attack us before Pearl Harbor, which removes the question of why attack germany at all argument.

lol. I didn't make a bad argument, I pointed out your inconsistencies. You made the claim that we had the right to attack Germany because they attacked our ships. Iran has attacked our ships. They've also funded proxies that have attacked US assets.

 

[InVOLuntary]

the Reuben James wasn't a merchant ship. those were uniformed Americans killed by hostile German action.

And what was the Ruben James doing?

 

[VAVol85]

It's all about bad foreign policy. We can't attack someone without expecting repercussions. The just happened to find the same battlefield we were on. Had we never gone there then there was no danger

So your argument is that Iran was not targeting US soldiers with IEDs, but rather just “happened to find the same battlefield”? I can’t recall anyone ever making that argument before. Feel free to provide evidence because it seems that you are breaking new ground.