Iran

#8,903
#8,903
MAD said:
I was responding to Easterns comment that it’s not in anyone’s interest except Iran's regional enemies. So in my opinion it is in the interests of the people living under the Islamic Republic in Iran.
Click to expand...
It's the desire of a portion of their population. Still no business of ours. If they want to overthrow their government more power to them. We can keep our money, soldiers, and equipment here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#8,904
#8,904
EasternVol said:
There's no valid reason for us to attack Iran at this point,
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with you here. Other than Iran's leadership being so erratic and bombastic as to be a perpetual "threat" (at least insofar as their rhetoric), I don't know what has changed over the last couple months to have our leadership put us in an "attack imminent" position. But, I confess, I have been distracted with other things and haven't kept up enough to speak confidently. Maybe something has changed significantly. I don't know.
EasternVol said:
or if there is it's well hidden.
Click to expand...
I do wonder about this. Perhaps the great Yuuuge airstrikes were not as successful as presented. Perhaps we have uncovered activity in areas we had not realized were active prior to those strikes. I do believe the leadership to know more than I know. When the Dems aren't bashing Trump about throwing his junk around it concerns me, because I have to have a reflective, "oh crap" moment if they are not fighting him. Maybe they don't want to be on the wrong side if they actually believe he is on the right side? And, if they believe Trump is on the right side, just how bad does the "wrong side" have to be?

When dealing with nukes and unstable leaders, one can get into Nostra-doh-nos pretty quickly.

EasternVol said:
If there's no valid reason to attack then it's not in our or anyone except Iran's regional enemies interests for us to attack.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree with you here. 1) See Persian Vol's post. Taking him at what he said, I don't think his dad (or those similarly situated) should be considered Iran's "regional enemies." They (apparently) would welcome regime change. 2) If there is a nuclear threat, well, see the discussion under "well hidden", above. That scenario could very well make it in our interests. (There are, or course, very valid concerns with the representations made by those in power within our government, and whether we should believe them. Both sides of the aisle have shown to be less than forthright with the American public on these issues, and mistrust of their representations, while unfortunate, are here to stay. It is their own fault.)

EasternVol said:
It may well open a Pandora's box.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

EasternVol said:
I'd expect some of our upstanding public servants to point that out.
Click to expand...
Also agreed. That is what worries me about the fact that they are not. What do they know that they are not telling us? And, if they were to tell us, how would I know if they were telling the truth?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and EasternVol
#8,912
#8,912
Ritzwatch said:
I don't disagree with you here. Other than Iran's leadership being so erratic and bombastic as to be a perpetual "threat" (at least insofar as their rhetoric), I don't know what has changed over the last couple months to have our leadership put us in an "attack imminent" position. But, I confess, I have been distracted with other things and haven't kept up enough to speak confidently. Maybe something has changed significantly. I don't know.

I do wonder about this. Perhaps the great Yuuuge airstrikes were not as successful as presented. Perhaps we have uncovered activity in areas we had not realized were active prior to those strikes. I do believe the leadership to know more than I know. When the Dems aren't bashing Trump about throwing his junk around it concerns me, because I have to have a reflective, "oh crap" moment if they are not fighting him. Maybe they don't want to be on the wrong side if they actually believe he is on the right side? And, if they believe Trump is on the right side, just how bad does the "wrong side" have to be?

When dealing with nukes and unstable leaders, one can get into Nostra-doh-nos pretty quickly.


I would have to disagree with you here. 1) See Persian Vol's post. Taking him at what he said, I don't think his dad (or those similarly situated) should be considered Iran's "regional enemies." They (apparently) would welcome regime change. 2) If there is a nuclear threat, well, see the discussion under "well hidden", above. That scenario could very well make it in our interests. (There are, or course, very valid concerns with the representations made by those in power within our government, and whether we should believe them. Both sides of the aisle have shown to be less than forthright with the American public on these issues, and mistrust of their representations, while unfortunate, are here to stay. It is their own fault.)


Agreed.


Also agreed. That is what worries me about the fact that they are not. What do they know that they are not telling us? And, if they were to tell us, how would I know if they were telling the truth?
Click to expand...
If the Iranian people want a new government, and it sure looks like they do, more power to them. I don't know that us attacking the current government would lead to a replacement government of the people's choosing though. It may just lead to a slaughter and maintenance of the status quo, which is worst case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and Ritzwatch
#8,913
#8,913
MAD said:
Dodging? You commented on something I didn’t say.
Click to expand...
You asked me to bring up US soldiers being in Iran with someone promoting it. I've assumed all along that you are extremely pro US military intervention in Iran. I'd call it war. So, pausing in case I'm wrong, I asked for clarification. If you are in favor of US military intervention then you are indeed in favor of US soldiers being involved as 40,000 of them are in the area now. So are you in favor or not?
 
#8,914
#8,914
volfanhill said:
You asked me to bring up US soldiers being in Iran with someone promoting it. I've assumed all along that you are extremely pro US military intervention in Iran. I'd call it war. So, passing in case I'm wrong, I asked for clarification. If you are in favor of US military intervention then you are indeed in favor of US soldiers being involved as 40,000 of them are in the area now. So are you in favor or not?
Click to expand...
My preference, precision strikes by Israel without US interference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, UT_Dutchman, volfanhill and 1 other person
#8,916
#8,916
EasternVol said:
If the Iranian people want a new government, and it sure looks like they do, more power to them. I don't know that us attacking the current government would lead to a replacement government of the people's choosing though. It may just lead to a slaughter and maintenance of the status quo, which is worst case.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with all of this.

I didn't start out to try to advocate for/against our involvement in any Iranian conflict. While I am absolutely opposed to Iran's current leadership, I don't know whether it is in our interests or not to get involved right now.

I simply found it silly for Huff to be reposting screen shots of posts that assert that Dem politicians are refusing to condemn our involvement because of their fealty to Israel. It is very likely to be way more complex than that.
 
#8,917
#8,917
EasternVol said:
If the Iranian people want a new government, and it sure looks like they do, more power to them. I don't know that us attacking the current government would lead to a replacement government of the people's choosing though. It may just lead to a slaughter and maintenance of the status quo, which is worst case.
Click to expand...

We aren't going to bomb the regime out of power; it will take US boots on the ground to remove them if that is Trump's ultimate goal.

My guess is that he wants to kill Khamenei, so he can declare "victory", and hope that his successor is akin to Delcy Rodríguez, which is unlikely unto itself.
 
#8,918
#8,918
MAD said:
My preference, precision strikes by Israel without US interference.
Click to expand...

If an American doesn't want America to interfere, it would seem pretty simple - stay out of it. The cowards of the world always want someone else to do it for them. My preference is for the U.S. to actually stop interfering which would be all support militarily, politically, and financially to the whole stupid area including Israel.
 
#8,922
#8,922
BeardedVol said:
We aren't going to bomb the regime out of power; it will take US boots on the ground to remove them if that is Trump's ultimate goal.

My guess is that he wants to kill Khamenei, so he can declare "victory", and hope that his successor is akin to Delcy Rodríguez, which is unlikely unto itself.
Click to expand...
That might be it. Assasinating a head of state is generally frowned upon, but Trump's completely amoral and he's apparently got Bibi in his ear so I wouldn't rule it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LSU-SIU
#8,923
#8,923
Sea Ray said:
If we get lucky and Iran gets careless we might be able to take him out with a drone
Click to expand...

Why?

This is complete failed American policy for 30-40 years, unless the policy is to create chaos and normally involves the killing of Americans at some point. I was very wrong, I though idiot Americans were done with all this foolishness.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top