Iranians attempt to highjack a british fuel tanker

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785

Praying Mantis saw things escalate a lot. It didn't lead to invasion or war.

History? Facts? Those things have no place in this discussion.

If it was as easy to get into a war as some of these folks think we'd be on about World War XII by now.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: face23785

Did your POTUS just not call off an imminent strike on Iran ""allegedly"" to save the lives of 150 people about 10 minutes ago?

If we are not invading Iran then why all the kerfuffle?

I mean come on "They" have to invade somewhere, its kind of there bag these days.

Were you even able to keep a straight face typing that? Because a token strike is the same as an invasion right? And even the token strike got called off.

I suggest you look up what an invasion is. You seem ill-equipped to be in this conversation.

After our strike Iran would just sit down and throw their hands up, "they got us".

No, they'd hit our assets in the region and we would retaliate.

Just like Syria, right? Before we hit Syria there were all the same doom-and-gloom predictions about how they would retaliate and drag Russia into it and OMG WWIII!

Nothing happened.

Even if they did retaliate, that doesn't equal invasion.

So Syria was a success?

To elaborate, some of us are just tired of spending vast amounts of money for failed foreign policy.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: face23785

Did your POTUS just not call off an imminent strike on Iran ""allegedly"" to save the lives of 150 people about 10 minutes ago?

If we are not invading Iran then why all the kerfuffle?

I mean come on "They" have to invade somewhere, its kind of there bag these days.

Were you even able to keep a straight face typing that? Because a token strike is the same as an invasion right? And even the token strike got called off.

I suggest you look up what an invasion is. You seem ill-equipped to be in this conversation.

After our strike Iran would just sit down and throw their hands up, "they got us".

No, they'd hit our assets in the region and we would retaliate.

Just like Syria, right? Before we hit Syria there were all the same doom-and-gloom predictions about how they would retaliate and drag Russia into it and OMG WWIII!

Nothing happened.

Even if they did retaliate, that doesn't equal invasion.

So Syria was a success?

To elaborate, some of us are just tired of spending vast amounts of money for failed foreign policy.

Nice goalpost moving. The issue was whether a limited strike inevitably leads to war like ya'll always predict, and specifically an invasion. Wind the clock back a few years and the experts on here were all saying we couldn't do anything to Syria because it would start WW3 with Russia. They were wrong. They're wrong here too. We could hit Iran without having to invade them. Sorry to ruin your doom porn fantasies. We're not invading Iran.

a reply to: face23785

Nice goalpost moving. The issue was whether a limited strike inevitably leads to war like ya'll always predict, and specifically an invasion.

Oh sorry, i didn't know you're in charge of the goal posts... I forgot I wasn't allowed to still make valid points after you offered a (fair) rebuttal.

Be that as it may, if one were to give credence to Clark over a decade back, and Bolton's hawkish record... An invasion isn't outlandish.

Some of us are still trying to tackle debt rather than borrow more money for regions that don't concern us as much as other capable residents of said region.

Wind the clock back a few years and the experts on here were all saying we couldn't do anything to Syria because it would start WW3 with Russia. They were wrong. They're wrong here too. We could hit Iran without having to invade them. Sorry to ruin your doom porn fantasies. We're not invading Iran.

I dont think it would spark WWIII, just another costly failed endeavor.

Let Israel and Saudi Arabia use their bombs, money, and resources. It's their back yard after all... And both are more than capable.

Why is it that everyone who claims to be fiscal concervatives who are anti big federal government wish to give them a blank check any time some rougue country acts a little crazy?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

The post I was responding to originally was about invading Iran, and the next post was a false equivocation between the token strike Trump called off and an invasion. I didn't make those comments. I didn't set the goalposts. Stop making things up. You didn't rebut anything either. You failed to make any valid points regarding that and retreated to a cheap position about military spending, which is another topic entirely. That's textbook goalpost moving.

Again, nobody that matters is advocating invading Iran. Please stop making things up.

a reply to: face23785

Again, nobody that matters is advocating invading Iran. Please stop making things up.

John Bolton's 2015 NYT Op-ed-To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran.



I'm not making anything up, I have a different opinion than you based off of facts and track records.

You didn't rebut anything either. You failed to make any valid points regarding that and retreated to a cheap position about military spending, which is another topic entirely. That's textbook goalpost moving.

Funny you should whine about the decorum of debate after you came into the thread accusing others who don't share your opinion as being anti-American, or saying they think "America deserved 9/11". It's possible for people to be patriots while criticizing our continuing failed foreign policy.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

That article is behind a paywall. Post some excerpts where he says invade Iran, because the headline just says bomb. Bolton was also not anyone's advisor then. Got anything recent, while he's been part of Trump's team, of him saying we should invade Iran?

According to that General's speech, we invaded Iran, along with Syria and a bunch of other countries, 10 years ago. Are you seriously using that as "facts"?

We're not invading Iran. You can argue about our foreign policy # ups without making # up.

The day Iran actually hijacks a British vessel (commercial or otherwise) will be the day sentient extraterrestrial life reveals its existence/presence to humans here on Earth.

No chance.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
The day Iran actually hijacks a British vessel (commercial or otherwise) will be the day sentient extraterrestrial life reveals its existence/presence to humans here on Earth.

No chance.

Yeah it's not like Iran has the balls to seize a ship belonging to a major military power.

a reply to: face23785

I've maintained through the thread my concern is war with Iran, because it costs money. Your fixation is on invasion though I've said that's not out of the realm of possibility.

And yes, I think a Generals word who was close to the Bush administration counts as using facts especially when every other country on that list checks out.

Maybe you use the fact we didn't have a full scale invasion of Syria as some kind of a win, but the fact remains we've wasted 50~ billion there. And for what?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
The day Iran actually hijacks a British vessel (commercial or otherwise) will be the day sentient extraterrestrial life reveals its existence/presence to humans here on Earth.

No chance.

Yeah it's not like Iran has the balls to seize a ship belonging to a major military power.

Okay, fine, I stand corrected.

In any case, the UK is not combat ready anyway, so even if Iran committed such a daring act, they'd probably be talked down.

So far, it's "all talk" from our side (and the odd sanctions here and there). "War" is unnecessary, arduous and ill-advised at this current moment in time.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: face23785

I've maintained through the thread my concern is war with Iran, because it costs money. Your fixation is on invasion though I've said that's not out of the realm of possibility.

And yes, I think a Generals word who was close to the Bush administration counts as using facts especially when every other country on that list checks out.

Maybe you use the fact we didn't have a full scale invasion of Syria as some kind of a win, but the fact remains we've wasted 50~ billion there. And for what?

And again, the post I was responding to which started this entire exchange was about invasion. We're not invading. And his word doesn't check out. We were supposed to have taken over all those countries 10 years ago. We didn't. The only one we invaded was Iraq, and we don't even control them anymore. In fact, our influence with them is falling while Iran's is rising. None of that checks out.

ETA: I can't believe some of you guys still post that video in a serious manner. It's like the people criticizing Trump over # that either didn't happen or is at best exaggerated or misinterpreted. There's plenty of legit things to criticize about our foreign policy, and about Trump. Why waste your credibility on fringe issues?

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII
The day Iran actually hijacks a British vessel (commercial or otherwise) will be the day sentient extraterrestrial life reveals its existence/presence to humans here on Earth.

No chance.

Yeah it's not like Iran has the balls to seize a ship belonging to a major military power.

Okay, fine, I stand corrected.

In any case, the UK is not combat ready anyway, so even if Iran committed such a daring act, they'd probably be talked down.

So far, it's "all talk" from our side (and the odd sanctions here and there). "War" is unnecessary, arduous and ill-advised at this current moment in time.

It's a good thing we're not starting a war with Iran then.

originally posted by: AnakinWayneII

In any case, the UK is not combat ready anyway

You think that has any significance when dealing with Iran and the outside PTB and their plans for the future of that region? Totally laughable................. They got it all planned out as always

a reply to: face23785

ETA: I can't believe some of you guys still post that video in a serious manner. It's like the people criticizing Trump over # that either didn't happen or is at best exaggerated or misinterpreted. There's plenty of legit things to criticize about our foreign policy, and about Trump. Why waste your credibility on fringe issues?

Iran is a fringe issue? Not from where I'm sitting. And you keep saying we could just bomb them, that's an act of war my friend.

I understand that from your school of thought you can't understand why people won't trust the military could just strike Iran and call it a day after we put them in place. But from where I'm sitting, I can't believe you see that going off without a hitch given our track record.

How much money will we have to borrow for it? And maybe we could just bomb them and shut them up... But you also have to have contingencies for it to escelate further, which it very well could.

Why do we need to take this one when we can let our allies? Why do people insist we continue to stretch our military on non threats while the real threats gain power?

a reply to: CriticalStinker

No that's not what I call a fringe issue. What's a fringe issue is a video of a general saying we were gonna take over 7 countries by 10 years ago, which hasn't happened, and people posting it like it's evidence we did.

And yeah, I think the military can just strike places and call it a day, because the military answers to the President. When he told us to bomb Syria, we bombed Syria, and walked away. Of course it can escalate. No one is saying it's impossible for more to happen. But it can only get as serious as we want it to get. Iran has no global power projection. They can't send their navy or air force over here to attack us. And we're still not invading them.

a reply to: face23785

Iran and Syria are two very different countries. I don't think Syria is a fair analogy.

Iran could still hit our troops and or bases in the region to retaliate though. That would force escalation.

We haven't dealt with a country with the military capabilities (as you rightfully pointed out they're restricted to their region) in decades.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

There will be escalation, until one side decides enough is enough, and walks away. That's what happened during Praying Mantis. Iran launched Silkworms, after Reagan said that would be grounds for a major escalation, and both sides just pretended it never happened (the Pentagon and DC actively denied it happened), and both sides just walked away from each other.

We haven't dealt with someone in awhile, but Iran hasn't exactly been advancing in leaps and bounds since the 1980s. It wouldn't be pretty, but it wouldn't be a disaster either.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Iran has asymmetric capabilities they could use to retaliate, but as Zaph pointed out, it only goes until it's not worth it anymore. Iran has much more to lose than we do. We could degrade their defensive capabilities to the point that they become vulnerable to some of their regional adversaries, without much risk to ourselves. Iran doesn't want that. And all they've been doing lately is alienating the Europeans who were at least somewhat wishy washy on whether Iran needed a bitch-slap. We're getting more and more support for reining them in. If we, along with one or two allies such as the UK and France, decided to give Iran a bloody nose, they'd be very wise to just take their medicine.

ETA: On one hand folks like to claim it's not a big deal if Iran gets nukes because they're too smart to use them, but then they'll turn around and respond to limited strikes and get themselves into a conventional war with US and possibly its allies? Are they smart or not?

a reply to: Zaphod58

We haven't dealt with someone in awhile, but Iran hasn't exactly been advancing in leaps and bounds since the 1980s. It wouldn't be pretty, but it wouldn't be a disaster either.

Iran isn't innocent, and I'm not against someone putting them in their place, so long as that someone isn't my government with another blank check.

Maybe it's time to condition our allies that we're here if they need help, but our military doesn't serve as an extension of their agendas.

Iran can't reach out and touch us, so as far as I can tell, they aren't our problem.