IRAN: Trump's war?

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Sunday, September 6, 2026 16:14
VIEWED: 23215
PAGE 11 of 42

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 23, 2019 3:15 PM

Trump was pretty clear when he was campaigning that Iran was the exception to his non-interventionist policy. (Not that Trump has made much success of troop withdrawal and non-intervention anyway.) Even Michael Flynn was pretty hot against Iran. Flynn was also pro-Erdogan.

Russia isn't really keen on a mideast conflagration. I keep reading that Russia and Iran have very different ideas on what they want the Mideast to look like, and Iran has in reality made good progress in completing the Shia Crescent by supporting Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. So there is good reason to try and thwart Iran's ambitions, and the current leaders of Iran may be just Trump-like enough to use "maximum pressure" themselves against Trump. Which, again, makes it all the more strange that Trump backed down.

I think what Russia has proposed to Iran is that they'll get around the sanctions by facilitating Iran's oil trade with Russia and with China, in an oil-for-goods deal that will blunt the sanctions worst effects. I don't know if that's good enough for Iran, or if the Iranian leadership really wants to bloody Trump's nose.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND

America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .

SECOND

Sunday, June 23, 2019 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Anyway, back to Iran.

I speculate that a reason why Bolt-on and Pompous are in the administration is because Trump figured they would eagerly back his Iran plans. Which makes Trump backing-down even more unusual. Someone must have made him see the light.

Trump is claiming nobody made him see the light because he will bomb Iran later:

President Trump criticized the media on Saturday for reporting that he halted plans for a military strike on Iran, tweeting that he had merely ordered the strike to not go forward "at this time."

In a tweet Saturday evening, the president appeared to indicate that a military strike on Iran could be possible in the coming days unless tensions between the two countries eased.

"I never called the strike against Iran “BACK,” as people are incorrectly reporting, I just stopped it from going forward at this time!" Trump tweeted.

The White House did not immediately return a request for clarification on the president's tweet.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/449876-trump-claims-media-
got-it-wrong-on-iran-strike-i-never-called-the

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SECOND

Sunday, June 23, 2019 6:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Trump was pretty clear when he was campaigning that Iran was the exception to his non-interventionist policy. (Not that Trump has made much success of troop withdrawal and non-intervention anyway.) Even Michael Flynn was pretty hot against Iran. Flynn was also pro-Erdogan.

FOX News Tucker Carlson thinks Trump did not bomb Iran because of America's upcoming Presidential Campaign.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 23, 2019 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:

"I never called the strike against Iran “BACK,” as people are incorrectly reporting, I just stopped it from going forward at this time!" Trump tweeted.

The White House did not immediately return a request for clarification on the president's tweet.

Seems pretty clear to me. What is to clarify?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Sunday, June 23, 2019 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:

"I never called the strike against Iran “BACK,” as people are incorrectly reporting, I just stopped it from going forward at this time!" Trump tweeted.

The White House did not immediately return a request for clarification on the president's tweet.

Seems pretty clear to me. What is to clarify?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Apparently, 6ix, you have never pointed a gun at someone who is also armed. It is a very poor strategy to then turn around and walk away. You might be shot in the back. Or not. As Trump would say, "We'll see."

Trump’s Catchphrase: ‘We’ll See’
www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000005877823/trump-catchphrase-we
ll-see.html

Maybe I should clarify: What will Trump do next? Then what after that? Then after that? Quite clearly, Trump has no long range plan. He needs to get one and then let the Iranians know what it is. Him saying "We'll see" will only motivate Iran to build in secret a huge stockpile of nukes as soon as possible. Then Iran will be respected by Trump in the same way as Kim Jong-un of N Korea. Maybe Kim will secretly sell Iran a dozen nukes in exchange for oil? It will be a win-win for Kim and Iran, but not what Trump was expecting and he will only have himself to blame for breaking a treaty with Iran.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

CAPTAINCRUNCH

Sunday, June 23, 2019 8:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Trump was pretty clear when he was campaigning that Iran was the exception to his non-interventionist policy. (Not that Trump has made much success of troop withdrawal and non-intervention anyway.) Even Michael Flynn was pretty hot against Iran. Flynn was also pro-Erdogan.

Russia isn't really keen on a mideast conflagration. I keep reading that Russia and Iran have very different ideas on what they want the Mideast to look like, and Iran has in reality made good progress in completing the Shia Crescent by supporting Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. So there is good reason to try and thwart Iran's ambitions, and the current leaders of Iran may be just Trump-like enough to use "maximum pressure" themselves against Trump. Which, again, makes it all the more strange that Trump backed down.

I think what Russia has proposed to Iran is that they'll get around the sanctions by facilitating Iran's oil trade with Russia and with China, in an oil-for-goods deal that will blunt the sanctions worst effects. I don't know if that's good enough for Iran, or if the Iranian leadership really wants to bloody Trump's nose.

I have yet to hear a single reason for why getting into a war with Iran is a good idea, or necessary. For why? I have not heard a single good idea, not even a bad idea - no motivation for it. Did Bolton have an Iranian neighbor that played their music too loud? "We need the oil." Nothing, not a single reason, not even a decent lie.
Let us know if you have a guess.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 23, 2019 9:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Apparently, 6ix, you have never pointed a gun at someone who is also armed.

Nope. Can't say that I have.

Armed or otherwise.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

SECOND

Sunday, June 23, 2019 10:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Apparently, 6ix, you have never pointed a gun at someone who is also armed.

Nope. Can't say that I have.

Armed or otherwise.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

Back in 1988, Ronald Reagan's Navy killed 290 people on Iran Air Flight 655. The Iranians have not forgotten, even if you and Trump never knew it happened. The Iranians have not forgotten that Trump pulled out of a nuclear treaty with Iran, while all the other countries that signed it did not. Today, Sunday, Trump is talking about some kind of economic deal with Iran. Iran can't trust him to keep his word on that or anything else. They aren't going to turn around for him so that he can shoot them in the back. Trump has managed to make it impossible for American diplomats, or the next President, to negotiate with Iran for many more years. And it is all because Trump hates Obama and the Iran nuclear treaty Obama signed. Trump wants his own version of that treaty, but he is not gonna get it now or ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-usa/iran-warns-of-risk-of-conf
lict-trump-sees-scope-for-deal-idUSKCN1TO0DX

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

SIGNYM

Sunday, June 23, 2019 10:32 PM

Quote:

Trump was pretty clear when he was campaigning that Iran was the exception to his non-interventionist policy. (Not that Trump has made much success of troop withdrawal and non-intervention anyway.) Even Michael Flynn was pretty hot against Iran. Flynn was also pro-Erdogan.

Russia isn't really keen on a mideast conflagration. I keep reading that Russia and Iran have very different ideas on what they want the Mideast to look like, and Iran has in reality made good progress in completing the Shia Crescent by supporting Iraq, Syria, and Hezbollah in Lebanon. So there is good reason to try and thwart Iran's ambitions, and the current leaders of Iran may be just Trump-like enough to use "maximum pressure" themselves against Trump. Which, again, makes it all the more strange that Trump backed down.

I think what Russia has proposed to Iran is that they'll get around the sanctions by facilitating Iran's oil trade with Russia and with China, in an oil-for-goods deal that will blunt the sanctions worst effects. I don't know if that's good enough for Iran, or if the Iranian leadership really wants to bloody Trump's nose.- SIGNY

I have yet to hear a single reason for why getting into a war with Iran is a good idea, or necessary. For why? I have not heard a single good idea, not even a bad idea - no motivation for it. Did Bolton have an Iranian neighbor that played their music too loud? "We need the oil." Nothing, not a single reason, not even a decent lie.
Let us know if you have a guess. - CC

I have a few guesses but I don't know how good they are. But in order to explain them I have to go back to three of our other MENA wars: Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

I don't think there was a single person in the GWB administration (except maybe GWB himself, who was just Cheney's sock puppet) who believed that Saddam had WMD or wanted to topple Saddam because he was a bad man. But clearly, the war was going to be prosecuted no matter how thin the excuses. And idiocy only goes so far in explaining why a whole host within the GWB administration supported this war: TPTB ... not the politicians, the REAL PTB .... have to support it too, or it's going nowhere. So I started looking for a reason WHY the global elite might want that war, and I found one: IF Saddam Hussein was found to be in substantial compliance with the UN's mandate that he destroy his WMD stockpile, THEN sanctions against Iraq would be lifted. ANd that's what Hans Blix's inspection was all about: It wasn't about GWB foaming at the mouth, it was about ending UN sanctions. And making future oil contracts possible because - ironically- Iraq's oil fields had been preserved by decades of sanctions. And there were, in fact, oil contracts with Russia and France that had been written up, and pens were poised to sign them as soon as Blix gave the go-ahead.

And that's why the closer Blix got to the end of his inspections, the more hyped-up the hysteria got: WMD! Mushroom cloud! East, west, north south somewhat of Baghdad! TPTB could not let that inspection be completed! (Don't forget, it was our bombs that drove Hans Blix out of Iraq, not Saddam Hussein.) What the western press didn't tell you was that Iraq's soon-to-be signed contracts with France and Russia meant that Iraq was to be paid in SOMETHING OTHER THAN DOLLARS. In this case, a basket of currencies including the Euro, and gold.

There goes the petrodollar!!

Libya. Obama. Same story. Not a single person in the Obama administration really believed that Moammar Qaddafi was "massacring his own people" and - quite frankly- if he had been they wouldn't have given two shits about it. Moammar had given up nuclear ambitions long before. So why was France, the US, and the UK so hot to trot to take down the Libyan government? Because Libya- the wealthiest nation in Africa, with the highest standard of living and education, where newlyweds got free housing - was about to emark on lau

6IXSTRINGJACK

Sunday, June 23, 2019 10:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Apparently, 6ix, you have never pointed a gun at someone who is also armed.

Nope. Can't say that I have.

Armed or otherwise.

Do Right, Be Right. :)
Back in 1988, Ronald Reagan's Navy killed 290 people on Iran Air Flight 655. The Iranians have not forgotten, even if you and Trump never knew it happened. The Iranians have not forgotten that Trump pulled out of a nuclear treaty with Iran, while all the other countries that signed it did not. Today, Sunday, Trump is talking about some kind of economic deal with Iran. Iran can't trust him to keep his word on that or anything else. They aren't going to turn around for him so that he can shoot them in the back. Trump has managed to make it impossible for American diplomats, or the next President, to negotiate with Iran for many more years. And it is all because Trump hates Obama and the Iran nuclear treaty Obama signed. Trump wants his own version of that treaty, but he is not gonna get it now or ever.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_nuclear_deal_framework
www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-iran-usa/iran-warns-of-risk-of-conf
lict-trump-sees-scope-for-deal-idUSKCN1TO0DX

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

lol

Do Right, Be Right. :)

PREV PAGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT PAGE