Buckle up for war, fellas...what happens next?

justincredible Honorable Admin
37,969 posts 179 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:19 AM

Moving the assassination of Iran's #2 to this thread.


8,788 posts 21 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:34 AM

I doubt we get war. There will be bluster and a lot of freaking out by people that dislike Trump, but I doubt we will see full scale war. 

More likely is a lot of rhetoric by the US and Iran and more small scale, secret events. 

j_crazy 7 gram rocks. how i roll.
8,623 posts 26 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:39 AM

long time coming... keep the cameras out and make quick work of these fuckers. don't make the same mistakes we made in vietnam and iraq/afghanistan the first go round and broudcast the shit live to the world for judgement.

2 quotes from Sherman play here.

“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman

iclfan2 Reppin' the 330/216/843
9,465 posts 77 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:39 AM

The guy certainly deserved to die. That said, I am only concerned about the additional loss of American lives this may cost.

As one would expect, the twitter reactions are absurd.

justincredible Honorable Admin
37,969 posts 179 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:55 AM

Twitter is absolutely absurd right now. I might need to step away for the day.

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:55 AM

Reports are that the Iraqis are celebrating this move.  If they are on board then we won thave to fight.  Iraq will (wink wink)

8,788 posts 21 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 9:14 AM
posted by Spock

Reports are that the Iraqis are celebrating this move.  If they are on board then we won thave to fight.  Iraq will (wink wink)

Yeah a war between Iran and Iraq will go well. The last one only lasted...check notes....nearly 8 years and several hundred thousand dead. 

Again, I doubt we have major war, just a ton of shit talking. 

QuakerOats Senior Member
11,701 posts 53 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 10:04 AM

 

There will be a lot of hot air and probably various strikes here and there, but I don’t see a war unless Iran really does something that is really, really stupid.

thavoice Senior Member
15,437 posts 41 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 10:09 AM

Iran leadership does not want an all out war.  He see's what Iraq has become, and how long we have been in Afghanistan, and they don't want us all up in their business.   I think we still see potshots, keeping on with their proxy wars, but I think they know how far they can go before we start setting foot on Iranian soil and making life very uncomfortable for their leadership.   

majorspark Senior Member
5,459 posts 28 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 11:59 AM

Some of these Democrats are sounding a lot like Vladimir Putin.

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 87 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 2:39 PM

Regardless, I have complete confidence in Fox and CNN to parade a bunch of politicians and military analysts to PROVE this was either a very good move, or a very bad move.

Time will tell.  I tend to agree Iran will, at most, fight this through proxy battles.  They have been getting more and more aggressive, and not just toward us.  I think they miscalculated that Trump was a spineless blowhard.

Again, I think most people misunderstand that the POTUS isn't devising or suggesting such acts.  He says yes or no.  Just like Obama greenlit the Bin Laden raid, which could also have had very negative repercussions (but didn't).

I think this is probably a big win for Trump.  On the other hand, the world feels as unsafe as it has since the Cold War.  But that's the reality as Iran and NK advance their nuclear strike capabilities.

8,788 posts 21 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 3:00 PM

Regardless, I have complete confidence in Fox and CNN to parade a bunch of politicians and military analysts to PROVE this was either a very good move, or a very bad move.

Yeah, the Washington pundit and thinktank machine is in full swing. 

Time will tell.  I tend to agree Iran will, at most, fight this through proxy battles.  They have been getting more and more aggressive, and not just toward us.  I think they miscalculated that Trump was a spineless blowhard.

Yeah, Trump likes to talk a big talk, but has backed down in most cases. He didn't in this case. Iran is now caught off guard after a massive loss. They will most likely attack in some asymmetric way.

Again, I think most people misunderstand that the POTUS isn't devising or suggesting such acts.  He says yes or no.  Just like Obama greenlit the Bin Laden raid, which could also have had very negative repercussions (but didn't).

Yes the President does not create options, that is what the military does, and correct he does pick the final option. I'll note, Obama had the choice of options on the Bin Laden raid (airstrike, drone strike, or SEAL Team) and he chose the SEAL strike, so at least give him credit for that. This option for an airstrike to knock this guy out has been on the books for years, Trump just decided to pull the trigger now. 

I think this is probably a big win for Trump.  On the other hand, the world feels as unsafe as it has since the Cold War.  But that's the reality as Iran and NK advance their nuclear strike capabilities.

Could be a win for him, but it all depends on how the U.S. responds now.  Also, good mention of North Korea. That Trump policy has totally failed. 

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 87 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 3:15 PM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Also, good mention of North Korea. That Trump policy has totally failed. 

I'd guess NK played a factor.  Like you said, this option has probably been on the table for years, and I think they looked at multiple failures in NK across at least 3-4 administrations and decided to take a stronger stance with Iran.

8,788 posts 21 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 3:25 PM

Trump is using this is a terrorist line on the legal justification for taking him out as he was planning attacks.  

I don't totally buy that. He was a member of a state's military arm. We killed basically the head of JSOC for the U.S. military equivalent. Also, what attacks were they planning and what is the evidence? These are murky waters on whether this was justified under international law or even U.S. law. 

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 87 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 4:08 PM
posted by ptown_trojans_1

Trump is using this is a terrorist line on the legal justification for taking him out as he was planning attacks. 

There's that, but after the WMD fiasco who's going to believe what evidence we provide?  I doubt that's really going to be an issue.

I think the bigger problem might be that he, at minimum, didn't inform Schumer. For the reasons you mention, that's a much bigger "abuse of power" to decide and deliberate on this unilaterally.  Of course the Executive has that power, but the stakes are awfully high to have not brought Congress into the loop.

 

By the way, for a change Trump's comments have been on point (so far).  Saying he did it to prevent war, etc.  I think the messaging has been really good, which is kind of unusual for Trump.

O-Trap Chief Shenanigans Officer
18,909 posts 140 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 7:07 PM
posted by QuakerOats

 

There will be a lot of hot air and probably various strikes here and there, but I don’t see a war unless Iran really does something that is really, really stupid.

You're assuming Iran themselves would do it, though.

They could just as easily fund a smaller, less-recognizable terrorist organization to do so.

One really only need to look at their relationship with Hezbollah to see that it's not without precedent.

Maybe we should instead be "small-government" in real life and not use our military on a front that isn't directly for defense.

 

 

 

iclfan2 Reppin' the 330/216/843
9,465 posts 77 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:19 PM
posted by gut

I think the bigger problem might be that he, at minimum, didn't inform Schumer. For the reasons you mention, that's a much bigger "abuse of power" to decide and deliberate on this unilaterally.  Of course the Executive has that power, but the stakes are awfully high to have not brought Congress into the loop.

C’mon man. 1) fuck all Congress. 2) fuck this specific dem congress. Why would or should Trump ask them for their opinion? Do you think Obama asked Congress opinion for all his attacks? No. Get outta here with showing Schumer or Nancy respect.  

Dr Winston O'Boogie Senior Member
3,345 posts 20 reps Joined Oct 2010
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:48 PM

We lost a lot of credibility with our WMD "proof". Saying he is a bad guy because we "have the evidence" won't mean a lot to much of the world. That said, in my opinion, this guy was revenge for the embassy protest/attacks. 

 

The problem is that there will always be a compelling reason to take some sort of action somewhere in the middle East. But there is no end to it. Let's say Iran gets put out of commission tomorrow. Does anyone honestly believe there won't be another crackpot "next man up"?  This region was diarrhea stew 1,000 years before we came on the scene. They are violent tribal people that follow a backward and hateful religion. Let them do whatever they're going to do to each other and stay clear of it. Israel, sorry but we're done carrying your water. 

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 87 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 8:57 PM
posted by iclfan2

Why would or should Trump ask them for their opinion?

Because he's not a king.  This is arguably an act of war, and Congress needs to approve that.

IMO this is worse than the whole Biden/Ukraine thing.   That was an abuse of power, whereas this could be a clear violation of the Constitution.

Spock Senior Member
5,271 posts 9 reps Joined Jul 2013
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 9:13 PM
posted by gut

Because he's not a king.  This is arguably an act of war, and Congress needs to approve that.

IMO this is worse than the whole Biden/Ukraine thing.   That was an abuse of power, whereas this could be a clear violation of the Constitution.

Sorry gut but you are wrong.  Obama declared this guy a stand alone terrorist during his 2nd term.  He did that so he could take him out.  Obama failed.  With him being a "terrorist" Trump doesn't need congress in the loop.

gut Senior Member
18,369 posts 87 reps Joined Nov 2009
Fri, Jan 3, 2020 10:00 PM
posted by Spock

Sorry gut but you are wrong.  Obama declared this guy a stand alone terrorist during his 2nd term.  He did that so he could take him out.  Obama failed.  With him being a "terrorist" Trump doesn't need congress in the loop.

The only non-right wing source for that I could find was Wikipedia.  The guard he was in charge of was labeled a terrorist organization...by the Trump Admin this past April.

Seems like the Obama designation may have had more to do with subjecting him to stronger sanctions, as the Wiki reference specifically mentions being listed as preventing people and companies from doing business with him or his affiliates.

So that said, he's the #2 military guy in a foreign country and we just assassinated him.  That's ostensibly a declaration of war, and according to the Constitution that right-wingers love so much that requires Congressional approval.

Login

Register

Already have an account? Login