US vs Iran

[betsy]

Just now, kactus said:

Get back to me when DT has sorted out the mess he has made at home by undermining the judge that overruled his ban. Never mind his foreign policies vis a vis Iran and the world....

You don't see to understand the predicament that is awaiting him.

I prefer to wait and see what happens.

If I'm not mistaken, you were among those who speculated Trump would never win in the election?

[bush_cheney2004]

The thread topic is U.S. vs. Iran, a historical circumstance not of President Trump's making.  

[kactus]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

I prefer to wait and see what happens.

If I'm not mistaken, you were among those who speculated Trump would never win in the election?

Whether I have or not is beside the point...I don't have the Crystal Ball so forgive me for not having speculated this correctly

[kactus]

The BAD things are happening with the chief in command not happy with the judge's decision on overruling the ban and trigger happy to comment on twitter undermining the judge... That tells a lot about the current circumstance in US and the president's competency in decision making vis a vis the rest of the world...

[CITIZEN_2015]

Any limited military strike on Iran will likely have devastating consequences for the region and the US of A itself if not the whole world. Trump administration must think long and hard and not to jump into rush or emotional decisions that may well result in total devastation of the region and the world. And this is not a speculation.

Edited February 5, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Any limited military strike on Iran will likely have devastating consequences for the region and the US of A itself if not the whole world. Trump administration must think long and hard and not to jump into rush or emotional decisions that may well result in total devastation of the region and the world. And this is not a speculation.

I don't think the Trump administration is capable of thinking long and hard about anything...

[CITIZEN_2015]

14 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't think the Trump administration is capable of thinking long and hard about anything...

Reagan too did a lot of tough talking before he became president but he was the one who actually started negotiating with Soviet Union. It is one thing talking tough during campaign and another to act during presidency.

Edited February 5, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Reagan too was saying a lot of things before he became president but he was the one who actually started negotiating with Soviet Union. It is one thing talking tough during campaign and another to act during presidency.

 

Off topic and erroneous, as President Reagan deployed air launched cruise missiles and Pershing II ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads to negotiate with the Soviet Union.  This was in addition to SDI.   President Trump has not escalated matters with Iran in any such manner.

[CITIZEN_2015]

It is NOT off topic as it relates to possible future actions by US against Iran. Now Iran situation is very different with USSR. Intimidation and war mongering will have a totally opposite effect and will move them AWAY from any negotiation. There are at least two governments in Iran and the hard line one prays for confrontation with US as they have been losing to moderates recently. What worked on Soviets will not work on Iran but have the opposite effect.

Edited February 5, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It is NOT off topic as it relates to possible future actions by US against Iran. Now Iran situation is very different with USSR. Intimidation and war mongering will have a totally opposite effect and move them AWAY from any negotiation. What worked on Soviets will not work on Iran but have the opposite effect.

 

President Reagan is dead and the Soviet Union no longer exists.  

If the United States wants war with Iran, then there will be war with Iran.   Iran would not fare well.

[kactus]

Trump can do f@ck all right now with all the domestic mess he has created in the first place....Homework start there...

[CITIZEN_2015]

Hard for you to understand that the past may predict the future especially when it comes to similarities. Anyhow it would be a grave mistake for the US to go alone in war with a regional superpower. 

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Hard for you to understand that the past may predict the future especially when it comes to similarities. Anyhow it would be a grave mistake for the US to go alone in war with a regional superpower. 

 

Iran would have difficulty handling an attack from Israel, let alone the most powerful nation in this solar system.  

[kactus]

43 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Hard for you to understand that the past may predict the future especially when it comes to similarities. Anyhow it would be a grave mistake for the US to go alone in war with a regional superpower. 

That's why these people like to troll by repeating that Israel does this Israel does that...Don't fall for the bait. Have seen these posts here for so long that makes the whole conversation futile...

Edited February 5, 2017 by kactus

[CITIZEN_2015]

Deleted.

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[CITIZEN_2015]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Iran would have difficulty handling an attack from Israel, let alone the most powerful nation in this solar system.  

You are wrong. Israelis have proven that they attack only if the enemy is defenseless. They made a lot of noises and threatened many attacks on Iran past many decades but they never went further than talk (unlike Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine,....) why because they were aware Of Iran's military ability to strike back real hard. We are talking about a limited strike by US. It will have NO positive effect only makes everything worse and much more dangerous for everyone. It will not result in regime change in Iran to the contrary will strengthen the hands of hard liners and then it would likely create a war between Iran and other regional powers like Saudis and Israel and God knows what else will follow.

ps - This forum has become so difficult to edit a post!!!!!

Edited February 5, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, CITIZEN_2015 said:

You are wrong. Israelis have proven that they attack only if the enemy is defenseless. They made a lot of noises and threatened many attacks on Iran past many decades but they never go further than talk (unlike Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine,....) why because they were aware Of Iran's military ability to strike back real hard. We are talking about a limited strike by US. It will have NO positive effect only makes everything worse and much more dangerous for everyone. It will not result in regime change in Iran to the contrary will strengthen the hands of hard liners and then it would likely create a war between Iran and other regional powers like Saudis and Israel and God knows what else will follow.

 

Actually, Iran proved to be militarily incompetent when attempting to bomb Iraq's Osirak nuclear power plant in 1980.   Israel did the job right in 1981 using weapons and tactics that Iran had not mastered.  

The U.S. can provoke Iran into a military mistake and then it is game on.   Israel can join in the fun if it wants to.

[kactus]

Yeah yeah yeah iran failed to bomb osirak and the mighty israel destroyrd it...well done! Can we move on

[CITIZEN_2015]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Actually, Iran proved to be militarily incompetent when attempting to bomb Iraq's Osirak nuclear power plant in 1980.   Israel did the job right in 1981 using weapons and tactics that Iran had not mastered.  

The U.S. can provoke Iran into a military mistake and then it is game on.   Israel can join in the fun if it wants to.

It shows how little you know and understand. Seriously did you post above?

In 1980 Iran military was non-existence as per massive executions of it Generals, massive post-revolutionary dismissals, and near civil war that followed the 1979 revolution not to mention military sanctions and lack of spare parts, training and military exercise by the air force and army in general. You compare Iran's army today some 40 years later with then. Seriously!!!!!!!!!

As I said a limited military strike on iran will only worsen everything for everyone. It won't achieve anything but devastation.

Edited February 5, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[bush_cheney2004]

Iran did bomb Osirak but effed up the operation so badly the plant was easily repaired by French contractors.

The U.S. has had standing operations orders and target packages for Iran's military sites and cities for many years.

Iran's military has not experienced significant warfare operations since the Iran-Iraq war, which it lost.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

...You compare Iran's army today some 40 years later with then. Seriously!!!!!!!!!

 

Seems odd then that someone above wanted to discuss Reagan and the Soviet Union from the same era.

[kactus]

Reality is we are where we are now. Drawing parralel to the past

22 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

It shows how little you know and understand. Seriously did you post above?

In 1980 Iran military was non-existence as per massive executions of it Generals, massive post-revolutionary dismissals, and near civil war that followed the 1979 revolution not to mention military sanctions and lack of spare parts, training and military exercise by the air force and army in general. You compare Iran's army today some 40 years later with then. Seriously!!!!!!!!!

As I said a limited military strike on iran will only worsen everything for everyone. It won't achieve anything but devastation.

This is the way conversation always gets derailed. I have seen that happen in this forum time and time again to provoke. Reality is if some of these american 'friends' start their homework before preaching others the world will be a much safer place. The election of Trumps in US is a mouthpiece for ultra far rights and conservatives in Europe and Iran and elsewhere...

[OftenWrong]

1 hour ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

As I said a limited military strike on iran will only worsen everything for everyone. It won't achieve anything but devastation.

Obama already tried to be friends with the Ayatollahs, but they laughed at him. They're not gonna be no friend of the Great Satan. There is only one thing these people understand- threats of violence. And that is exactly what Donald Trump is happy to give them.

[Rue]

8 hours ago, betsy said:

 

 I think there's more than meets the eye.  I wouldn't be surprised that Israel is already in on it with Trump.

I won't be surprised if one morning we wake up to the news that there's been a preemptive strike on Iran!

 

What will Iran's compadres do, after it's happened?  Like Russia as an example?  Is Russia willing to put it's neck on the block avenging Iran?  Especially when Trump's an ally against ISIS?  Russia will likely just grumble.....and let it go at that.

 

You think Trump's trying to be diplomatic with Russia for nothing?

Lol Israel has not and has no ties with Trump on anything. Foreign policy cooperation between Israel and the US deteriorated  during the Obama regime over the disagreement over Iran yes.

Netanyahu did not want Obama in office but for Israel there is very little practical difference who is in power in the US. Furthermore the US is not attacking Iran no matter how much noise Trump makes. He signalled that putting an oil man in as Secretary of State. No oil man is going to disrupt oil markets and cause problems in Iran cutting off oil supplies to China forcing it to  compete with other oil supplies going to the US. Aint gonna happen.

Israel's Netanyahu never hid his Republican biases. Never. Obama never hid his anti Likud pro Kadima biases in terms of Israeli political parties. Obama directly attempted to get Tzipi Levni elected and then her predecessor. He failed miserably. Furthermore A lot of Israelis support Netanyahu but do NOT and have never supported his desire to invade Iran. He knows that.If Israel genuinely thought Iran was a threat they would not have waited for the US. Israel took out a nuclear reactor being built in Syria without US assistance. They did the same in Iraq. Whether they seek to do the same in Iran I think is highly unlikely. Those stories all came from the Obama regime. I contend  the real concern was dirty bombs and germ warfare from Iranian financed terrorists not actual nuclear weapons in Iran..

I can take 2 men, a truck and one barrel and set off a bomb that sends nuclear radiation or germs into the air that does little infrastructure but can kill millions which in Israel would mean most of its population. You don't need a conventional nuclear weapon. One small missile with a chemical head from a friggin shoulder held launcher could do it.

Israel's concerns with Iran were over high seas issues. They worried along with India, Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Kuwait that Iran would sink or prevent the movement of oil vessels. Its why Germany sent state of the art submarines to Israel. Its why in fact the Chinese entered into a naval alliance with Israel just as India, Israel and Germany as well as the Saudis, British and UAE were about to take action against the Iranian navy at a time when Obama sat back.

China single handedly ended the issue. By forming a naval alliance with Israel while being Iran's no.1 oil importer, it assured them all their oil vessels would remain safe because China's oil supplies would have been damaged if the Iranians were attacked.

China then inserted a naval base in Djibouti down the road from the US one. It was one of the most major military moves China made and not a peep in the media.

It signalled Obama had been replaced by China as the peacebroker in the ME behind the scenes. Once China was involved within weeks Russia entered into a pact with Israel in Syria not to go anywhere near its border and to share intelligence over not just terrorists but Turkey.

People just do not get it. Russia and China have huge Muslim populations that threaten to separate and/or engage in terrorism and civil war so while they are allied with Iran and Syria they do so as part of a larger strategy to contain terrorism within their own borders with Muslims.

China and Russia were not about to alienate Israel and Egypt once its military took over because Israel and Egypt are the two strongest containers of terrorism in the mE right now not anyone else. Saudi Arabia and Iran will continue to engage in their proxy war. Israel and Egypt stay out of it and they warned everyone else too. Russia and China went in to protect oil needs not take sides. China could care less about Iran. It wants its oil.. Putin co uld care l ess about Syria, he needs a naval port to protect oil movement to China and Russia. Russia and China take 95% of the oil out of Iraq. not the US. Ask Obama how he allowed that.

I tell you how. He was a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. His friggin brother was the no. 1 financier for Sudan who exports all its oil to China.

The more you look the more you don't know. Israel has no allies other than at this point probably Egypt and Jordan. Harper of Canada and his regime was a solid ally. That was about it. No they are not in bed with Trump. To start with he hasn't been in office long enough to even contact Israel. His foreign office hasn't even begin to  operate. Its people are sitting in desks trying to find out what Obama's people did. That could take up to 3 years. In the interim Trump's agenda is unknown.

He's insulted his closest allies. There is zero reason to believe he won't insult Netanyahu as he does everyone else at the opportune time.

The last thing Israel wants is a half-cocked Trump triggering a nuclear  dirty bomb  gas attack on Israel by Iran.

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Rue

[betsy]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Israel took out a nuclear reactor being built in Syria without US assistance. They did the same in Iraq.

 

Man, I love Israel, what can I say?