But that's how we got here.. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By late
#15058581
When Trump broke the JCPOA, he also levied severe economic sanctions against Iran. Basically economic war.

All the things Iran has been doing, shooting down a drone, messing with shipping, has been in response to those sanctions. They are in a fight to survive.

So when Trump said he wasn't going to respond, just lay on some new sanctions, he was escalating the conflict.

So while the Cult is high fiving, Iran is planning their next moves.

No, it's not over, it's hardly begun.

The rational way out of this is to drop the sanctions in return for starting negotiations.

Trump can't do that. The raw meat crowd doesn't want him acting sane.

So war it is.
#15058657
late wrote:When Trump broke the JCPOA, he also levied severe economic sanctions against Iran. Basically economic war.

All the things Iran has been doing, shooting down a drone, messing with shipping, has been in response to those sanctions. They are in a fight to survive.

So when Trump said he wasn't going to respond, just lay on some new sanctions, he was escalating the conflict.


There are no more sanctions he can impose. It's all empty talk for domestic consumption. There are only two ways the US could increase the sanctions:

1) Stop waiving exceptions to the sanctions regime and enforce extra-territorial secondary sanctions, for example by forcing Russia, China, India, etc., to stop trading with Iran. There is not a snow-ball's chance he hell these countries would comply.

2) Adopt a UN resolution to force all countries to impose sanctions on Iran. There is not a snow-ball's chance in hell that all security council members will agree to that.

Trump is a simple mind. He believes he just has to intimidate opponents with the wrath of the almighty US of A, and all resistance will crumble. He believes his adversaries will come crawling licking his feet to get some crumbs from his dinner table. No, that is not how geopolitics works.

Other than intimidation, he has no plan. If it doesn't work he has to beat a hasty retreat as in Syria, as in NK, as in China ... Iran knows that and can patiently wait for the US to be expelled from Iraq and Syria.


So while the Cult is high fiving, Iran is planning their next moves.

No, it's not over, it's hardly begun.


I think it is over, Trump may throw another tantrum and fire some missiles into the desert as a face saving measure before retreating.

Trump had lost before he even fired the initial salvo.

The rational way out of this is to drop the sanctions in return for starting negotiations.

Trump can't do that. The raw meat crowd doesn't want him acting sane.

So war it is.


The thing can escalate out of control by accident, even if nobody wants war. That is always the greatest danger. But Trump doesn't have the stamina for a full-scale war or for a global crisis that would hit the US economy during the election campaign.

The Iranians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, etc., they all know they can needle the US as much as they want, Trump will have to play it down because he can no longer afford to respond. He has used up his ammunition by an aggressive opening.
#15058659
Atlantis wrote:
There are no more sanctions he can impose. It's all empty talk for domestic consumption. There are only two ways the US could increase the sanctions:

1) Stop waiving exceptions to the sanctions regime and enforce extra-territorial secondary sanctions, for example by forcing Russia, China, India, etc., to stop trading with Iran. There is not a snow-ball's chance he hell these countries would comply.

2) Adopt a UN resolution to force all countries to impose sanctions on Iran. There is not a snow-ball's chance in hell that all security council members will agree to that.

Trump is a simple mind. He believes he just has to intimidate opponents with the wrath of the almighty US of A, and all resistance will crumble. He believes his adversaries will come crawling licking his feet to get some crumbs from his dinner table. No, that is not how geopolitics works.

Other than intimidation, he has no plan. If it doesn't work he has to beat a hasty retreat as in Syria, as in NK, as in China ... Iran knows that and can patiently wait for the US to be expelled from Iraq and Syria.




I think it is over, Trump may throw another tantrum and fire some missiles into the desert as a face saving measure before retreating.

Trump had lost before he even fired the initial salvo.


The thing can escalate out of control by accident, even if nobody wants war. That is always the greatest danger. But Trump doesn't have the stamina for a full-scale war or for a global crisis that would hit the US economy during the election campaign.

The Iranians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, etc., they all know they can needle the US as much as they want, Trump will have to play it down because he can no longer afford to respond. He has used up his ammunition by an aggressive opening.



You're prob right about the sanctions.

I don't agree with the rest. Iran will continue the asymmetric conflict, it has too. The sanctions were intended to bring the government down.

On the one hand, you have Iran, which has some very large bones to pick with us; on the other you have an ignorant fool with no impulse control.

It's a recipe for war.

Nice to have an engaging discussion for a change.
#15058667
late wrote:Iran will continue the asymmetric conflict, it has too. The sanctions were intended to bring the government down.


Iran will continue its asymmetric warfare and the US can't do anything about, except to withdraw and let others handle the problem.

US aggression strengthens Iran's regime because it justifies the regime to take tough measure for defending the country's sovereignty against foreign aggression.

Left in peace, the regime will have to deal with domestic problems and face opposition in Iran, Iraq and Lebanon.

I know Iranians, they are intellectually acute. They will fight the Mullahs to get their civil liberties back.

The best thing the US can do is to retreat, return to the JCPOA and drop the sanctions.
#15058668
I think logic too often dies in the darkness of extreme views. I'm highly conservative, but I generally don't approve of sanctions as they typically hurt the populace of a country far more than any regime. Indeed this was one of my primary issues with those who were against the second war in Iraq but who had been for sanctions. We're going to argue against killing people with machinery but starving them to death slowly over a matter of years is fine? It's ridiculous and, frankly, inhumane.

That said, the JCPOA was utterly worthless and nearly unenforceable for a variety of reasons not the least of which is a general difficulty in monitoring such activity. In essence it simply gave Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons if it chose to do so while the other signatories pretended it just wasn't so. That shouldn't come as a surprise as an, in some ways, very similar agreement with North Korea several years prior allowed them to accomplish exactly the same thing.

Outside of unilateral action it is going to be very difficult to prevent smaller states from obtaining nuclear weapons for the foreseeable unless and until the larger, nuclear capable powers come together and create some kind of cohesive plan on how to deal with these weapons in general moving forward.
#15058684
Atlantis wrote:There are no more sanctions he can impose. It's all empty talk for domestic consumption. There are only two ways the US could increase the sanctions:

1) Stop waiving exceptions to the sanctions regime and enforce extra-territorial secondary sanctions, for example by forcing Russia, China, India, etc., to stop trading with Iran. There is not a snow-ball's chance he hell these countries would comply.

2) Adopt a UN resolution to force all countries to impose sanctions on Iran. There is not a snow-ball's chance in hell that all security council members will agree to that.

Trump is a simple mind. He believes he just has to intimidate opponents with the wrath of the almighty US of A, and all resistance will crumble. He believes his adversaries will come crawling licking his feet to get some crumbs from his dinner table. No, that is not how geopolitics works.

Other than intimidation, he has no plan. If it doesn't work he has to beat a hasty retreat as in Syria, as in NK, as in China ... Iran knows that and can patiently wait for the US to be expelled from Iraq and Syria.




I think it is over, Trump may throw another tantrum and fire some missiles into the desert as a face saving measure before retreating.

Trump had lost before he even fired the initial salvo.



The thing can escalate out of control by accident, even if nobody wants war. That is always the greatest danger. But Trump doesn't have the stamina for a full-scale war or for a global crisis that would hit the US economy during the election campaign.

The Iranians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, etc., they all know they can needle the US as much as they want, Trump will have to play it down because he can no longer afford to respond. He has used up his ammunition by an aggressive opening.


Think it over the US showed a lot of restraint. Iran shot down a drone and they intercepted foreign oil tankers trying to block the free flow of oil. They have attempted to harass US war ships and attacked a US embassy. It wasn't until Iran killed an innocent American that the US took decisive action.
#15058763
syr74 wrote:
That said, the JCPOA was utterly worthless

and nearly unenforceable for a variety of reasons

not the least of which is a general difficulty in monitoring such activity.

Outside of unilateral action it is going to be very difficult to prevent smaller states from obtaining nuclear weapons for the foreseeable unless and until the larger, nuclear capable powers come together and create some kind of cohesive plan on how to deal with these weapons in general moving forward.



That is fiction.

We lacked diplomatic relations with Iran, and had periods of high tensions with Iran, since the fall of the Shah. They didn't like us, and they had damn good reasons not to like us.

The JCPOA changed that.

Further, arms control experts say this was the best arms control regime ever put into place. It's time for you to take a look at what actually happened. (You need sources that aren't crap)

There were nuclear inspectors in Iran. We put video into nuclear facilities.

Last I knew, the inspectors were still in Iran. While they say they have pulled out of the JCPOA, the activity you'd expect to see, if they were serious about getting a nuke, isn't happening. This was also true before the JCPOA. The Rev Guard wanted nukes, but the Mullahs kept the funding at a minimal level.

The US used to lead anti-proliferation efforts (with the exception of Reagan). The JCPOA is an example of that. But the usual things a president does are simply not happening with Trump.

This link is just an example, time to do your homework:
https://www.armscontrol.org/2015-08/section-3-understanding-jcpoa
#15058764
Finfinder wrote:
1) Think it over

2) the US showed a lot of restraint.

3) Iran shot down a drone and they intercepted foreign oil tankers trying to block the free flow of oil. They have attempted to harass US war ships and attacked a US embassy. It wasn't until Iran killed an innocent American that the US took decisive action.




1) Humor is a real improvement.

2) Escalation is kinda the opposite of restraint..

3) He's incompetent. He created this mess, and then let things slide. With an election coming up, decided he couldn't afford to look weak. Kelly wouldn't let Trump see an attack on Iran as an option. But the adults have left the building.

Iraq is telling us to get out. Just a few days ago, Iraq was talking about reducing Iranian influence...
#15058911
Atlantis wrote:Iran will continue its asymmetric warfare and the US can't do anything about, except to withdraw and let others handle the problem.

It may have escaped your notice, but the president just ordered the killing of General Qassim Soleimani--the leader of Iran's Quds force--and it was executed successfully. So apparently he can do something about it.

late wrote:They didn't like us, and they had damn good reasons not to like us.

The JCPOA changed that.

Yeah. Giving an entity $150B plus another $1.5B in cash does tend to make your stock go up a few points in their minds.

late wrote:Iraq is telling us to get out. Just a few days ago, Iraq was talking about reducing Iranian influence...

Who cares either way? Many of us are with Iraq in the sentiment of bringing US troops home.
#15058930
blackjack21 wrote:
1) It may have escaped your notice, but the president just ordered the killing of General Qassim Soleimani--the leader of Iran's Quds force--and it was executed successfully. So apparently he can do something about it.


2) Yeah. Giving an entity $150B plus another $1.5B in cash does tend to make your stock go up a few points in their minds.


3) Who cares either way? Many of us are with Iraq in the sentiment of bringing US troops home.



1) Way to miss the painfully obvious.. so can they.

2) It was their money, we unfroze their assets.

3) Because if Iran gets Iraq, they'll be within spitting distance of the Saudi. That means there is a distinct possibility of fighting a 3rd big war in Iraq.

Once again Trump has made a bad situation worse because he thought it would be good for him. This is a special kind of crazy, and a special kind of stupid.
#15058957
I think the OP is a bit too hysterical and interprets everything as a Trump failure, just like how I tend to exaggerate everything that is against China.

To illustrate both points simultaneously:

Fact: My Dad thinks this is a Trump win, as it possibly induces fear to the Chinese leadership, as they have to fear their own asses from American drones now.

Why this means the OP is hysterical: Apparently there are other people in the world -- but not necessarily pro-America or pro-Trump -- who approves Trump's action, or at least find it positive. Bite us.

Why this means I am hysterical: I get excited for my Dad's comment but, well, does China actually have to fear that, even if it is true that Trump can kill them on whim?
#15058989
syr74 wrote:That said, the JCPOA was utterly worthless and nearly unenforceable for a variety of reasons not the least of which is a general difficulty in monitoring such activity. In essence it simply gave Iran a free hand to develop nuclear weapons if it chose to do so while the other signatories pretended it just wasn't so. That shouldn't come as a surprise as an, in some ways, very similar agreement with North Korea several years prior allowed them to accomplish exactly the same thing.


The IAEA had full access to Iranian sites. Nobody saw the agreement as worthless except American hardliners who opposed the agreement because it exluded missiles and Iran's proxy warfare.
#15059041
@Patrickov Your dad is a bit out of touch with reality, there... The OP is not "hysterical", any more than you or your dad are.

Pretending that the Iranian thing would intimidate anyone is sheer silliness, least of all China, a nuclear and technological power.

China has powerful military drones but won’t use them like the US, analysts say
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... s-analysts
#15059043
Godstud wrote:@Patrickov Your dad is a bit out of touch with reality, there... The OP is not "hysterical", any more than you or your dad are.

Pretending that the Iranian thing would intimidate anyone is sheer silliness, least of all China, a nuclear and technological power.

China has powerful military drones but won’t use them like the US, analysts say
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/militar ... s-analysts
At least I acknowledge that as hysteria myself. My father apparently doesn't and firmly believes that the Chinese leaders (who are vastly unpopular here) should fear because they (in his view) are pariahs of the World and Americans will assassinate them if some kind of conflicts break out. And most importantly, the recent assasination shows how ACCURATE American drones are, most probably Chinese ones CANNOT match.

I assume he believes that if the leadership is gone there will be no one senior enough to make nuclear retaliation, and it is possible that the underlings will enter a dog fight among themselves instead.
#15059051
Patrickov wrote: And most importantly, the recent assasination shows how ACCURATE American drones are, most probably Chinese ones CANNOT match.
:roll: Unfounded speculation, on your part. A missile doesn't need to be accurate, like a sniper's bullet, and other bystanders were killed by this terrorist assassination. You act as though this technology is exclusive to the US. It's not.

China is not Iran. China knows this. USA knows this. China is an economic and nuclear power. Pretending they are in fear of USA is sheer hubris, or arrogance.

Patrickov wrote:I assume he believes that if the leadership is gone there will be no one senior enough to make nuclear retaliation, and it is possible that the underlings will enter a dog fight among themselves instead.
You think this is a viable tactic, and that China would not retaliate, in kind? Perhaps you are delusional, as well as hysterical, Honourable Sir.

Terrorist assassination is not a tool of a country that wants anything more than war, with everyone else. US allies will not condone every act the US does, as there are always repercussions, and these are not always as intended.

You can actually thank the USA for the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 disaster, as this was a direct consequence of their belligerence.
#15059059
Godstud wrote::roll: Unfounded speculation, on your part. A missile doesn't need to be accurate, like a sniper's bullet, and other bystanders were killed by this terrorist assassination. You act as though this technology is exclusive to the US. It's not.

China is not Iran. China knows this. USA knows this. China is an economic and nuclear power. Pretending they are in fear of USA is sheer hubris, or arrogance.

You think this is a viable tactic, and that China would not retaliate, in kind? Perhaps you are delusional, as well as hysterical, Honourable Sir.

Terrorist assassination is not a tool of a country that wants anything more than war, with everyone else. US allies will not condone every act the US does, as there are always repercussions, and these are not always as intended.

You can actually thank the USA for the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 disaster, as this was a direct consequence of their belligerence.



I agree that My Friend's argument is reasonable.

Meanwhile, I stumbled on the following report afterwards. I decide to translate it in order to let My Friends here know what some Chinese people actually think.

The Soleimani Assassination Gives New Meaning to "Let the leaders walk out first"

Just after the New Year, the Iranian General Soleimani and his close aides were assassinated by accurate American drones. The network and social media in China entered a heated discussion of this event, and found that it gives a new meaning to the idiom "Let the leaders walk out first".

About 25 years ago, a theatre in the city of Karamay, Xinjiang caught fire. Most of the 325 people killed in the fire were students. After the fire, some had claimed that the aides of local Leaders exclaimed "Let the leaders walk out first" during the evacuation, which caused a significant public outrage. From that time, the statement "Let the leaders walk out first" became an idiom illustrating how little the Leaders care about the Peoples' lives.

According to Radio Free Asia, the Mainland scholar Zhang Lifan was apparently the first to use this idiom in reporting the assassination of Soleimani. He tweeted, "the advance in military technology simplified war a lot. The development of this trend means that the human race no longer needs to fight world wars with tens of millions of casualties, or local wars that drag on for a long time. They only need to spend minimal costs and spottedly take out whoever they believe as 'warmongers' or 'terrorists'. This kind of 'beheading' operations which 'let the Leaders walk out first', probably made the dictators around the world fear to their sleep."

Afterwards, a lot of netizens use the same idiom to express their opinions.

"This is good. The American Imperialists' (美帝) beheading of Iran let people truly enter the era of 'letting the Leaders walk out first'! The era of dragging the people to die along with Leaders is going and not coming back".

"The American Imperialists' (美帝) invented 'letting Leaders walk out first'. In the past, war is initiated by wicked people, and fought / suffered by commoners. Now, they directly conduct beheading operations and eliminated sufferings of the common people. The accurate beheading also minimised common people's casualties. Now let the warmongers sacrifice themselves!"

According to RFA, "Chinese netizens opined on Twitter that, the Americans should make wider uses of such 'letting the Leaders walk out first' operations. Some netizens connected it to China and North Korea, and said from now on, the nightmares of tyrants and mobs have begun."

"Our Leaders' families and properties are in American soil. Therefore, if they 'let the Leaders walk out first', the consequences can be beyond thinking."

"Kill off Iran, North Korea, dismantle Chinese Communists and dismember Russia. No more dictatorships!"

One even made an antithetical couplet:

Up your head there's a drone.
We will see if you can still own.
Let the Leaders walk out First!



Source:
http://www.rfi.fr/tw/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B ... B%E7%BE%A9

Reference:
#15059068
late wrote:3) Because if Iran gets Iraq, they'll be within spitting distance of the Saudi. That means there is a distinct possibility of fighting a 3rd big war in Iraq.

Why? The United States doesn't need oil from Iran, Iraq or Saudi Arabia. Europe does. China does. Japan does. Why not let them fight for it instead. Then we can sit back, stroke our chins, and comment on how they fight and suggest that they may be engaged in human rights abuses. In fact, they are so gung ho about global warming, maybe losing access to Middle East oil won't bother them at all, as it will just motivate them to use non-petroleum energy sources instead. There are those pesky Gilets Jaunes, but they will fall in line when they see the wisdom of abandoning a hydrocarbon-based fuel system. Don't you agree?

Of course you do. If Saudi Arabia falls, we'd be saving the world from global warming. 8)

Rugoz wrote:Nobody saw the agreement as worthless except American hardliners who opposed the agreement because it exluded missiles and Iran's proxy warfare.

Iranian proxy warfare often = terrorism. That's why handing Iran that kind of funding wasn't a brilliant idea given they did not have to suspend terrorist activities.

Godstud wrote:You can actually thank the USA for the Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 disaster, as this was a direct consequence of their belligerence.

That's absurd. Iran is responsible for its own actions. Trump is not responsible, since he's just a Russian proxy anyway. You have to lay the blame where it lies: with Vladimir Putin.
#15059085
blackjack21 wrote:
Why? The United States doesn't need oil from Iran, Iraq or Saudi Arabia.



There are several reasons. First, Israel and the Saudi are our allies, and if Iran gets close to their borders they will go nuts. Second, the Saudi spend a ton of money on their military, but they can't fight. Iran can. Third, if Iran invades SA, a large percentage of oil production goes offline, setting off a global recession. Fourth, if Iran conquers SA, they can generate havoc simply by shutting off the flow of oil. Fifth, there is a high probability that at some point Israel will start throwing nukes, and that Iran will simply buy some and throw a few back. There is a lot of dumb in this world, letting things slide towards nuclear war is perhaps the dumbest.

There's more. I suggest you learn the basics before writing more fiction.
#15059092
blackjack21 wrote:That's absurd. Iran is responsible for its own actions. Trump is not responsible, since he's just a Russian proxy anyway. You have to lay the blame where it lies: with Vladimir Putin.
The airline being shot down would not have occurred had USA not done that terrorist assassination. Fact.

You're really happy to blame Putin for Trump, when it's convenient for you, aren't you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :knife: :knife: :knife:
#15059094
Godstud wrote:You're really happy to blame Putin for Trump, when it's convenient for you, aren't you? :lol: :lol: :lol: :knife: :knife: :knife:


:lol: :lol: :lol:

This made my day.

The problem the Trumpets have is that they can't keep track of all the lies. I'm know I couldn't.
Trump spills the beans

...his refusal to listen to the advice of those c[…]

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asse[…]

Impeachment in Wonderland

@blackjack21 Your responses do not address my […]

Dog lovers damage the planet

Kudos to you for rescuing a stray, Qatz. Our own […]