Time for War with Iran

[bongsaway]

It does look and sound like the same tactic that bush used to get us into a fiasco minus the weapons of mass destruction and bin laden and his buddy saddam. Ha ha ha ha. Stupid then, stupid now. Just keep up the hate talk about Iran long enough and the base will be itching for another united states invasion of a country trying to abide by the agreement made with obama and other countries. I can't imagine why countries in the middle east look at us as terrorists?

 

[snakestretcher]

Your fantasies are impressive. Time will demonstrate the truth, not a choir.

...said the drowning man, clutching at the last straw.

 

[snakestretcher]

So far Trump has less wars under his belt than the previous admin and has avoided going to war with Syria when both sides of the political aisle were calling for it.

Well it's about time he had one then, and this is his golden opportunity to be listed with all the other warmongering idiots. Why should other presidents have all the fun?

 

[snakestretcher]

The dispute over whether or not Iran was in full compliance with the agreement is quibbling over an irrelevancy; the core issue has been whether or not that agreement was a good deal (or at least a better deal than none). As such, being in compliance with a deal that in theory only delays, not eliminates, the development of Iran's nuclear weapons while lacking key verification requirements is cause enough to withdraw.

Mind you, I am not saying that just because Trump had cause he should have necessarily withdrawn from the agreement, even if it was a poorly negotiated or bad deal. But an agreement that removes sanctions levers against a country in return for narrow purposes has repercussions beyond that nuclear issues. Sanctions are a tool that can be used for a variety of inducements to cease aggressive behavior such as Iran's IRBM or ICBM ballistic missile development, terrorism and war against the US and allies, etc.). No agreement can stand if those same revoked sanctions must be (and have) reemployed because of new activities and aggressions.

So Iran got its 150 billion in frozen assets and funds, the west got a weak agreement that at best will delay, not end, the acquisition of nukes by Iran. Iran's still got the billions (that of which it has not spent on terrorism) and its seeming reaction to US voluntary withdrawal by the US and sanctions for terrorism is a shadow war of death and violence against the west.

So Europe will have to make a choice, either join the US in sanctions and military action OR cower and beg the Iranian's to stop hurting them. And in the meantime the Iranian government has a choice, either fully and honestly give up all future nuclear development and cease terrorism and proxy wars, or face a bleak economic future (assuming, of course, the euro's have a spine).

You can side with the US or with Iran; there is no viable third choice. So whose side are you on?

What nonsense! I live in Europe and I have yet to experience any pain from Iran. Where on earth do you get your information from? On this issue I'm certainly not siding with the US given your woeful record of lying in order to get public support for war. I didn't believe Cheney on the miraculously disappearing Iraqi WMD and I was proven right. I should believe Pompeo and especially Bolton, who has had a hard-on for attacking Iran for decades, now?
"Fool me once..." etc.

 

[Slyfox696]

You still don't get it.

Yes I do. You posted a lie and refuse to admit it. I get it just fine.

My analysis of the Iranian American issues has nothing to do with Trump.

You literally said:

Pray I am wrong, but don't be foolish and think this is all on Trump's rhetorical head. He did not pull out of that well violated agreement without good cause.

Why do you keep posting things that are not true when I can so easily prove them not true?

Call me a liar again and I will speak to the mods about a harassment trolling grievance.

I'm not calling you a liar, I am saying you posted a lie and refuse to admit it. Which is 100% the truth.

You said something which was provably false. Even after you were provided with concrete and definitive proof your statement was false, you continued to claim it was true. It was at this point you were knowingly posting a lie.

The Iranian government has freely admitted it has not been in compliance with the agreement since day one.

The IAEA and the US State Department repeatedly said they were in compliance. You are either making things up or you are using the most convoluted logic ever.

Being deaf and blind is your problem.

No, the problem is you are saying things which are not true. Stop saying things which are not true and you and I will get along nicely.

But as long as you choose to continue posting things which are not honest, then we're going to be at odds. I prefer honesty and truth, not what you are posting.

Your partisan inability to accept world views other than your own is only outdistanced by blind obstinacy to accept reality.

Do you even understand what the word "partisan" means? Because it appears you don't.

It is not "partisan" to say the Trump administration said Iran was complying with the deal. It is not "partisan" to say the regulatory agency tasked with monitoring Iran's compliance says Iran is complying. What IS partisan is to say Trump had good cause to back out of the deal when it is 100% false to say that, according to Trump's own State Department. YOU are the one posting partisan comments, comments completely contradicted by facts and reality.

Refusal to agree with you and accept your tunnel vision makes no one else a liar.

You're not disagreeing with me, you're disagreeing with the IAEA and the US State Department. You are disagreeing with them despite have ZERO evidence to support it.

You are not posting a lie because I don't like what you say...you are posting a lie because what you are saying is provably false. The fact you don't understand the difference is a you problem. But the fact is you posted a lie. It is indisputable.

 

[Somerville]

A bit of news (3 days old but still news for some) about one attack on a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz

Oil tanker captain disputes part of US account of attack

The captain of one of the oil tankers attacked in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday disputed part of the United States' account of the attack on Friday.

“Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object,” said Yutaka Katada, the president of ship operator Kokuka Sangyo.

Japanese tanker owner contradicts U.S. officials over explosives used in Gulf of Oman attack

The Japanese owner of a tanker attacked in the Gulf of Oman claimed Friday that it was struck by a flying projectile, contradicting reports by U.S. officials and the military on the source of the blast.
(. . .)
"We received reports that something flew towards the ship," said Yutaka Katada, president of Kokaku Sangyo Co. at a press conference. "The place where the projectile landed was significantly higher than the water level, so we are absolutely sure that this wasn’t a torpedo.

"I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship."

 

[jnug]

Who did not see this coming? A wonderful example of what happens when the President of the United States and thus the United States can no longer be trusted.

So here is one of my problem with this whole fiasco:
We supposedly were all clued in that there could be issues with oil shipments through those straits, right. Oceans are big places. But sea lanes and particularly though straights are not. They are generally quite restricted in space.

So, were we not watching from satellite or drone or were we watching and could not find a geopolitical angle to play from what we saw?

The Trump Administration was all in on pointing to the potential risks to oil shipping in that area. SO WHAT HAPPENED? Why is the only video we see of some digitally blurred footage of some boat next to a tanker pulling something off of it.

It strikes me that either the Trump Administration dropped the ball AGAIN as it has in Venezuela or has much more information than it is revealing because it does not suit its purposes to reveal it.

Meanwhile DonDon the Ignorant expects to walk into the G20 and cut bilateral deals that will bail his miserable butt end out of the trade and economic mess he is making for himself. Good luck with that one DonDon.

 

[maxparrish]

...

The IAEA and the US Government both said Iran was complying with the deal, so you posted a lie when you said Trump had a good faith basis for pulling out. You refusing to admit you posted a lie is a you problem.

No, it was the very debate between OldFatGuy and myself. If you don't have any idea what you are talking about, it is probably a good idea not to interject.

He didn't have cause. That is the point. Trump defenders are the worst liars.

The United States said Iran was complying and that the agreement was a win for the world.

So, in this case, I am siding with the USA when they say Iran was following the terms of a deal which made the world safer.

So I guess the question for you is why do you not believe the United States?

That was one of the most brain dead fulminations I have read in sometime. The point (which flew a mile over your head) is that "the very debate between" you two was quibbling over an irrelevancy to the op question over whether or not the recent events suggest a "time for war" with Iran. That you went into a meltdown over a point of fact, and screamed "liar" is of no interest to me, or most others.

And yes, he did have cause. That is my point. The agreement was badly flawed and ineffective in preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. In the long run, the deal did not make the world safer. Whether that cause was sufficient, at this point, to warrant leaving the deal is a matter of opinion.

Finally, that you side with the interests of Iran over that of the US is not a surprise, although in this recent attack on western tankers your boldness in siding with them is.

 

[maxparrish]

How do you think Europe will choose?

I am unsure. There is no upside for Europe to side with Iran. They have already ignored the US sanctions, and sided with the agreement and Iran's interests. Exactly what the Iranian national guard's attacks on European and Japanese shipping have to gain, other than the jihad'ist joy of violence, is unclear.

On the other hand, old Europe may be sufficiently cowed (except the UK) to meekly submit to the destruction of its flagged ships. At some point one would think that they cannot hide in the fantasy world that these attacks are from any other source than Iran. And one supposes that some of these ship owners have the power to change flags to someone who will defend them, if necessary.

So we will have to wait and see. If Europeans don't have the spine to fight back, we needn't do their fighting for them. And as long as no American flagged vessel or crew is attacked or killed, its not a direct US interest.

 

[maxparrish]

What nonsense! I live in Europe and I have yet to experience any pain from Iran.

Well then, perhaps you ought to alert the press that because some guy named "snakestretcher" who lives in Devonshire has not experienced any pain from Iranian attacks, there is no such thing as Iranian attacks.

Where on earth do you get your information from? On this issue I'm certainly not siding with the US given your woeful record of lying in order to get public support for war. I didn't believe Cheney on the miraculously disappearing Iraqi WMD and I was proven right. I should believe Pompeo and especially Bolton, who has had a hard-on for attacking Iran for decades, now? "Fool me once..." etc.

The information provided in common reference works, the internet, and mainstream news sources. For those sedated and living in the giggle house, it may be new information.

 

[Slyfox696]

That was one of the most brain dead fulminations I have read in sometime.

Clearly you do not read your own posts then.

The point (which flew a mile over your head) is that "the very debate between" you two was quibbling over an irrelevancy

It didn't fly "a mile over" my head, it was just wrong. It was wrong in multiple ways.

to the op question over whether or not the recent events suggest a "time for war" with Iran.

That was not the OP of the thread. Did you even read the OP?

The OP was clearly suggesting Trump is trying to manufacture reasons to attack Iran, regardless of whether there were legitimate reasons. Part of that discussion has to include Trump's decision to pull out of the Iran deal, because, as I said, there was no legitimate reason for doing so and reneging on the word of the United States and then re-imposing sanctions when Iran was complying is clearly intended to aggravate relations with Iran. My point fits squarely with the OP in the thread.

Is it hard to be craft a post which is so wrong in so many ways?

That you went into a meltdown over a point of fact, and screamed "liar" is of no interest to me, or most others.

It really is amazing how little Trump defenders care about the lies people tell.

It's not a "meltdown" to point out when someone says something which is untrue. You should examine why you feel it is.

And yes, he did have cause.

No, he didn't. That's the point.

That is my point.

Your point is wrong and stupid.

The agreement was badly flawed

A) No B) It was a deal the United States made and Trump reneged on.

and ineffective in preventing Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.

:lamo

Now you're going to start posting the same lie? It has already been established this statement is false. Why are you posting lies?

In the long run, the deal did not make the world safer.

Yes it did. You are now making things up, which is hilarious because since pulling out of the deal, tensions (according to the Trump admin) have only risen.

No matter how you stack it, you are wrong. SO wrong.

Finally, that you side with the interests of Iran over that of the US is not a surprise

A) That's stupid
B) That's a lie
C) A non-nuclear Iran is in US interests and Iran was complying with the deal
D) Why would you post something so stupid?

although in this recent attack on western tankers your boldness in siding with them is.

If you can provide a single piece of evidence I am "siding" with Iran by pointing out the United States government said Iran was complying with the deal, or that the regulatory agency tasked with monitoring Iran's compliance said Iran was complying with the deal, then I'll leave this forum yesterday.

Of course you won't, because your statement is a lie.

Trump defenders are the worst liars.

 

[jnug]

I am unsure. There is no upside for Europe to side with Iran. They have already ignored the US sanctions, and sided with the agreement and Iran's interests. Exactly what the Iranian national guard's attacks on European and Japanese shipping have to gain, other than the jihad'ist joy of violence, is unclear.

On the other hand, old Europe may be sufficiently cowed (except the UK) to meekly submit to the destruction of its flagged ships. At some point one would think that they cannot hide in the fantasy world that these attacks are from any other source than Iran. And one supposes that some of these ship owners have the power to change flags to someone who will defend them, if necessary.

So we will have to wait and see. If Europeans don't have the spine to fight back, we needn't do their fighting for them. And as long as no American flagged vessel or crew is attacked or killed, its not a direct US interest.

Just a reminder: THE ONLY COUNTRY to have invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty is .......The United States of America. There is no quibbling about the necessity of holding up our end of the NATO bargain. So that is a nowhere discussion.

Europe has in fact NOT ignored the US sanctions...surely not entirely....far from it.

It would be hard to imagine Iran not having something to do with the attacks in the Straits. On the other hand, its more interesting to me that claims by the US President and US Sec of State that would have been unilaterally accepted by allies as valid not more than ten years ago are now more than questioned. They are not anything like unilaterally believed. If anything they are looked at with a skeptical if not jaundiced eye.

As stated earlier, Iran is playing Europe off of the US. Trying to do what Putin has tried to do and what Donald has tried to do....drive a wedge between Europe and the United States. There ya' go....something all three countries are trying to do....ain't unity of purpose wonderful?

Iran is threatening to push nuke production past the JCPOA limits in an effort to push Europe to buy more of their fossil fuels and throw Idiot Donald and his entire whacked out policy over a barrel. The Iranians want to force the Europeans to make a clearer distinction in their choices....stop fence sitting in the certain knowledge that if Europe comes their way Fat Donald will take the bait and initiate more Weaponized Tariffs on Europe. DonDon's entire Weaponized Tariffs approach is really at the point of putting the US in untenable positions all over the globe. Meanwhile DonDon thinks he is going to head off to the G20 and sign all sorts of bilateral trade deals. Ah-huh....Sure Donald. Fly a 737 Max 8 over there why don't ya'.

 

[snakestretcher]

Well then, perhaps you ought to alert the press that because some guy named "snakestretcher" who lives in Devonshire has not experienced any pain from Iranian attacks, there is no such thing as Iranian attacks.



The information provided in common reference works, the internet, and mainstream news sources. For those sedated and living in the giggle house, it may be new information.

Yeah, just like the 'information' prior to Iraq was available everywhere, every bloody day for weeks. That was all lies too, or did you forget?

 

[Somerville]

With the high-resolution cameras on spy satellites, combined with the strategic and economic interests of the USA that just might cause one to think the USA would be focusing on satellite observation of the Straits of Hormuz, WHY is the only video we are seeing one taken from a drone flying over one of the attacked tankers? AND that video supposedly shows an Iranian crew removing a mine from the side of the ship. Seems to me, that if it actually was an Iranian crew removing a mine, WHY are they pulling it off?

 

[Obscurity]

Will this be Trump's War, the one designed to win 2020?

Iran. Venezuela. Lindsay Graham goes on fox and is trying to say we need to invade Venezuela.

This is absolute insanity.

 

[snakestretcher]

With the high-resolution cameras on spy satellites, combined with the strategic and economic interests of the USA that just might cause one to think the USA would be focusing on satellite observation of the Straits of Hormuz, WHY is the only video we are seeing one taken from a drone flying over one of the attacked tankers? AND that video supposedly shows an Iranian crew removing a mine from the side of the ship. Seems to me, that if it actually was an Iranian crew removing a mine, WHY are they pulling it off?

Maybe because it says 'Made in USA' on it? Call me a cynic but this incident also has 'false flag' written all over it.

 

[Somerville]

Maybe because it says 'Made in USA' on it? Call me a cynic but this incident also has 'false flag' written all over it.

When I first saw the news story and the photos, a question popped into my sailing-affected brain: Why are all of the attack points on the starboard side of the tankers? Iranian waters are to port of outbound ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Then there was the report from the Japanese ship which was attacked: the captain said they were hit by a missile, not a mine or a torpedo.

 

[snakestretcher]

When I first saw the news story and the photos, a question popped into my sailing-affected brain: Why are all of the attack points on the starboard side of the tankers? Iranian waters are to port of outbound ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Then there was the report from the Japanese ship which was attacked: the captain said they were hit by a missile, not a mine or a torpedo.

Yes, there's a lot to be suspicious about. Forgive me if I take US assignations of guilt with a huge dose of scepticism; precedent backs me up.

 

[jnug]

When I first saw the news story and the photos, a question popped into my sailing-affected brain: Why are all of the attack points on the starboard side of the tankers? Iranian waters are to port of outbound ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Then there was the report from the Japanese ship which was attacked: the captain said they were hit by a missile, not a mine or a torpedo.

Not sure it really matters. This has not been an effort to sink tankers. All the mines and what have you have been above the waterline. Whoever is doing it (possibly Iranians or those backed by Iranians) is sending a message.

As soon as DonDon ripped up the JCPOA he set himself up for this. DonDon has done a terrific job aiding Putin in driving a wedge between European NATO allies and the US and EU countries and the US. Now Iran is just riding that wave....threatening to increase nuke material production past the JCPOA marks while asking Europe to buy more of their Fossil Fuels.

Smooth DonDon....real smooth. You remind me of Chuck Wepner walking right into another Muhammad Ali Left Jab and you remind me of it daily.

 

[Somerville]

Not sure it really matters. This has not been an effort to sink tankers. All the mines and what have you have been above the waterline. Whoever is doing it (possibly Iranians or those backed by Iranians) is sending a message.

As soon as DonDon ripped up the JCPOA he set himself up for this. DonDon has done a terrific job aiding Putin in driving a wedge between European NATO allies and the US and EU countries and the US. Now Iran is just riding that wave....threatening to increase nuke material production past the JCPOA marks while asking Europe to buy more of their Fossil Fuels.

Smooth DonDon....real smooth. You remind me of Chuck Wepner walking right into another Muhammad Ali Left Jab and you remind me of it daily.

I do agree that Donnie, perhaps driven by a couple of nutters he has employed - can you say John Bolton? I'll bet you can. -- is doing a fantastic job screwing up stuff in the Middle East but why don't we have satellite images of Iranians, or others, placing those mines on the tankers? Mines float, just below the surface of the sea, ain't no way they go crawling up the side of the ships. Some of the sneakier type actually are self-propelled, enabling them to approach a target on their own, which has to be a large steel ship and not smaller fishing boats.

 

[Slavister]

I will go ahead and go all the way DOWN to the level of the President and predict that current sitting President will try to attack Iran to get reelected.
...
Seems a bit too soon to me but maybe they figure it will take 6 months to a year to prepare and to rally up the country.

It's been a little over half a year since that prediction in the OP... As I theorized back then, it was a bit too soon at the time. Now is a better time to get closer to reelection but not too close...

Trump attacks Iran

By killing Qasem Soleimani in Iraq, Trump committed the United States to a risky open conflict that at best could stop short of all-out war with Iran that could cause national security and economic shocks in the United States and across the globe.