What is the US up to with regard to Iran?

[Ironsided]

I'm just going off of actual activity from 1940's until now. Has the US challenged countries with large scale military in conventional warfare? No. Has it systematically gone for targets of opportunity in non-total war scenarios against otherwise overmatched nations?

Yes. It has done that specifically, many times. And who is it posturing against now, yet again?

What are you even saying here? Is it an attempted strawman? Are you asking for leniency on America because it could possibly done even worse? As Lexicus said historically both Korea and Vietnam, and add the ME. All large scale. Now. Add the drone wars. Add the funding of rebel activities. Add the trade war with China, add the crippling sanctions on Venezuela, add the accusations at Russia, add the recent withdrawals from international agreements and you have a virtual storm of threats to global safety.

 

[Lexicus]

He's been telling the world, thats why we're negotiating with him

He didn't tell me. Did he tell you? When?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What are you even saying here? Is it an attempted strawman? Are you asking for leniency on America because it could possibly done even worse? As Lexicus said historically both Korea and Vietnam, and add the ME. All large scale. Now. Add the drone wars. Add the funding of rebel activities. Add the trade war with China, add the crippling sanctions on Venezuela, add the accusations at Russia, add the recent withdrawals from international agreements and you have a virtual storm of threats to global safety.

No, I'm saying I don't believe USA is a credible threat to other major powers because it has never demonstrated a history or will to engage major powers with the same shenanigans it's done in other wars of self-interest since WW2. I'm not downplaying the atrocities.

The trade war with China and "accusations at Russia" do not belong in the same list as our actual wars or funding rebels. Venezuela is its own joke.

 

[Lexicus]

No, I'm saying I don't believe USA is a credible threat to other major powers because it has never demonstrated a history or will to engage major powers with the same shenanigans it's done in other wars of self-interest since WW2.

"since ww2" is kind of a massive exception though
Additionally you know we like non-stop threatened to destroy the other global superpower with nuclear weapons for like five decades straight, no big deal though I guess because those were commies and they had it coming

 

[yung.carl.jung]

only the best of intentions, clearly. good intentions. on both sides.

America and Israel are not global threats.

unless you're brown or chinese or poor or standing in the way of freedom™

No, I'm saying I don't believe USA is a credible threat to other major powers because it has never demonstrated a history

to engage major powers with the same shenanigans

arguable

No, I'm saying I don't believe USA is a credible threat to other major powers because it has never demonstrated a will to engage major powers with the same shenanigans it's done in other wars of self-interest since WW2. I'm not downplaying the atrocities.

now that's just being dishonest. it didn't happen, luckily for us all, but there were so, so many people who desperately did want the US to "engage major powers". just saying, General MacArthur literally did everything in his power to make the atomic bombing of both North Korea and China a reality. luckily people like him did not have their way.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"since ww2" is kind of a massive exception though

The USA was not an aggressor in WW2, and its participation was not special...in contrast to every conflict it's engaged since then. A scenario where allies are getting overrun by a dictator who is willing to slaughter millions is a massive exception in more ways than one.

Additionally you know we like non-stop threatened to destroy the other global superpower with nuclear weapons for like five decades straight, no big deal though I guess because those were commies and they had it coming

Yes, and vice versa. And the fallout from that would starve a substantial portion of the world on top of that. Nuclear arms isn't special to the USA/Israel though, a relatively large number of countries could do this now.

The thought of just the USA or just USSR having nukes during the cold war is not pleasant.

unless you're brown or poor or standing in the way of freedom™

That last one is the relevant one, as long as we all know what it "means". If you're living in Rwanda, you can feel pretty darned safe against aggression from US military presence/bombing for example. Lots of places like that. They never seem to get US attention. Being "in the way of freedom" seems to be something with consistent properties, though few things are as "free" as the definition of "freedom" in this context.

 

[Lexicus]

The USA was not an aggressor in WW2,

No? Are you under the impression that the US bombed and destroyed Japan and Germany, invaded Europe, island-hopped across the Pacific, in self-defense? You don't seriously think we did all that just out of the goodness of our hearts, either, I hope?

Yes, and vice versa.

Well, the power and threat was not symmetrical or anything close to it. The idea that the Soviet Union had anything close to parity in terms of nuclear weapons was known to be false by US officials in the 1950s and 60s, but they pretended otherwise for domestic political purposes.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

interesting about US intervention or non-intervention before WW2 is that Americans were willingly propping up fascist regimes in Europe, as a specific example I can point to spain, where the Francoist side had a huge problem with supply lines, and the US helped them out in a critical moment with lots of trucks and other transportation measures. the flow of the money pre-ww2 is something highly interesting and sadly absent from many scientific works dealing with the pre-ww2 climate in Europe.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No? Are you under the impression that the US bombed and destroyed Japan and Germany, invaded Europe, island-hopped across the Pacific, in self-defense? You don't seriously think we did all that just out of the goodness of our hearts, either, I hope?

We *got bombed* by Japan first, and invaded Germany in defense of an ally. In both of their cases these were belligerent nations that, if left alone, we could reasonably believe to be a direct threat. Not some threat to resources only or to the dollar, but having a credible chance to kill a lot of people we cared about.

Obviously it was not done out of the "goodness of our hearts". Can you find any example of such motivation in historical wars between human beings? The closest you get is when the defending side is literally just fighting for survival, and even that's less "goodness of heart" and more just a genuine motivation.

Well, the power and threat was not symmetrical or anything close to it. The idea that the Soviet Union had anything close to parity in terms of nuclear weapons was known to be false by US officials in the 1950s and 60s, but they pretended otherwise for domestic political purposes.

Of course. The economies weren't comparable either. Yet the "we do this and an enormous amount of people on both sides are going to die" was still a real factor regardless. Asymmetry isn't as meaningful when an enormous percentage of your side is still going to die.

interesting about US intervention or non-intervention in WW2 is that Americans were willingly propping up fascist regimes in Europe, as a specific example I can point to spain, where the Francoist side had a huge problem with supply lines, and the US helped them out in a critical moment with lots of trucks and other transportation measures. the flow of the money pre-ww2 is something highly interesting and sadly absent from many scientific works dealing with the pre-ww2 climate in Europe.

Probably has nothing on US conduct in South/Central America too. WW2 actions had a lot of reasonable necessity, but that shouldn't be mistaken for it being the actions of angels.

 

[Birdjaguar]

That wasn't Trump's deal, he was elected to make new deals. Bolton is the bluff, Trump hired a warmonger to scare other countries. He's the "Beware of Dog" sign on a fence with a hole in it. Bolton rattles the sword and Trump says "let's talk". Yes, he wants to appear tough, thats why he hired Bolton. Trump has admitted he has to moderate him, thats the good cop bad cop routine.

The only conflict he didn't inherit is the trade war and even many Democrats concede he's addressing a real problem with trade. I think you're misreading his motives, he's a deal maker and war is bad for his business. Less than 2 months before we invaded Iraq he was on Fox w/Neil Cavuto telling the President to focus on the economy and let the UN deal with Iraq.

Trump is not a deal maker. He thinks bullying is negotiating. Can you name any successful deals Trump has ever negotiated for which we actually know the terms? BTW, going to court is not negotiating.

How's the Nafta replacement going? Through congress yet?
How's that better healthcare for all deal going?
How about DACA?
How about the negotiations on the wall last winter? How did that go?
For two years Trump had republican control of both houses. He got a tax bill passed. Why no wall? Why nothing else? He couldn't even negotiate with Republicans.

To give him credit, his negotiations with Stormy Daniels went well. She got paid $130,000 for not having sex with him. I guess that is brilliant in Trump world.

Do you actually think that Bolton is there so Trump can play good cap bad cop? And Stephen Miller?

If Trump cared about US businesses other than coal, he would act differently. He only cares about how his actions impact his image. And BTW, war is great for the military industrial complex. Somebody on Fox telling the president something is irrelevant. He does what he wants. Te economy doesn't need Trump's help, he just needs to get out of the way stop trying look important by ripping up perfectly good deals and trying to do his own.

 

[Berzerker]

He didn't tell me. Did he tell you? When?

https://www.nknews.org/2019/04/kim-jong-un-open-to-third-summit-with-trump-but-wants-fair-deal-kcna/

How many summits before you start listening?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Can you find any example of such motivation in historical wars between human beings?

Of course, Napoleon's conquest of Europe was to bring the benefits of the French Revolution to the rest of the continent and if they hadn't resisted, all those years of fighting and death would have been avoided.


Link to video.

 

[Samson]

Help me understand what the Trump administration thinks it can achieve.

I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that the idea is to start a war soon before the elections, and so get his second term on a "don't change the horses midstream" ticket.

 

[Farm Boy]

He reigned in Bolton on Venezuela, I'm going to guess he's going to do that on Iran too unless something screwed up happens. I'm also going to guess he doesn't bend on sanctions and Iran accelerates its armament progress.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

NPR had the ambassador on earlier today. If I had to guess something something about a drone strike on a Saudi pipeline and some threat regarding shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. No clue.

Somebody is supposedly sabotaging ships. Looks like an incompetent false-flag considering that a carrier group is already on its way. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a was as part of the 2020 election campaign.

 

[Farm Boy]

Few things are actually impossible.

 

[Berzerker]

Trump is not a deal maker. He thinks bullying is negotiating. Can you name any successful deals Trump has ever negotiated for which we actually know the terms? BTW, going to court is not negotiating.

How's the Nafta replacement going? Through congress yet?
How's that better healthcare for all deal going?
How about DACA?
How about the negotiations on the wall last winter? How did that go?
For two years Trump had republican control of both houses. He got a tax bill passed. Why no wall? Why nothing else? He couldn't even negotiate with Republicans.

To give him credit, his negotiations with Stormy Daniels went well. She got paid $130,000 for not having sex with him. I guess that is brilliant in Trump world.

Do you actually think that Bolton is there so Trump can play good cap bad cop? And Stephen Miller?

If Trump cared about US businesses other than coal, he would act differently. He only cares about how his actions impact his image. And BTW, war is great for the military industrial complex. Somebody on Fox telling the president something is irrelevant. He does what he wants. Te economy doesn't need Trump's help, he just needs to get out of the way stop trying look important by ripping up perfectly good deals and trying to do his own.

Now I gotta defend everything he's done? Ofc going to court is negotiating, he's been making deals most of his life. I'm not privy to the details of those deals or the ones he's negotiating now. I dont think the wall was going to be built, it only became important as a political issue and bargaining chip. His business is not the military industrial complex. You dont think its relevant that he went on Fox to oppose Bush's war? I think it speaks volumes, sure sets him apart from Biden and Clinton.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Now I gotta defend everything he's done? Ofc going to court is negotiating,

No you don't. Courts are not negotiating. It is an abdication of negotiating to the courts or just an attempt to force your opponent to concede points to avoid a court judgement. It's just bullying via attorney's fees. Negotiating is working towards an agreed upon conclusion. Court decisions are not negotiations. Bullying is not negotiating.

...he's been making deals most of his life. I'm not privy to the details of those deals or the ones he's negotiating now. He's still negotiating trade. I dont think the wall was going to be built, it only became important as a political issue and bargaining chip. His business is not the military industrial complex. You dont think its relevant that he went on Fox to oppose Bush's war? I think it speaks volumes, sure sets him apart from Biden and Clinton.

Again, Trump claims he is a top deal maker, yet there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he has actually closed a great deal. His casino deals were all failures. his first two years dealing with his congress were all failures except taxes. ATM he is negotiating trade with Canada and Mexico, but he has yet to negotiate that deal with congress. Want to bet how it will turn out? He negotiations with China are failures so far. other than with Putin, can you name any successful negotiations he has concluded in two years?

Oh there is one I forgot: In 2008 he sold a mansion in Florida that he bought for $41 million to a Russian Oligarch for $95 million. It was a fabulous money laundering deal. Oh, the new Russian owner was approved in 2016 to tear the house down and subdivide the property. His freshly washed $100 million is now clean as can be.

 

[red_elk]

Were there successful negotiations with Putin? I must have missed something.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Were there successful negotiations with Putin? I must have missed something.

The Russian hooker tapes haven't been released yet, so I guess Trumpy did successfully negotiate a deal over those.