Iran War?

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
576
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
So, we come to the most important thing I've been considering, which is that I don't think the argument considers the reasons for the action. For example, exploding the deficit. Surely one can criticize the deficit explosion based on why, not just on that it happened. Between Obama, Bush II, and Trump exploding the deficit, there are pretty much 2 1/2 reasons. You may not agree with the reasons why each did it, but to say "they exploded it too" is far too simplistic, IMO. That's just an example.
Just wanted to +1 on this. I believe false equivalencies run pretty rampant in politics on both sides.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,327
Reaction score
2,081
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Just wanted to +1 on this. I believe false equivalencies run pretty rampant in politics on both sides.
De gustibus non disputandum est. -- jim
 

Morbii

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
502
Location
Gilroy, CA
Country
llUnited States
All of this boils down to "the ends justify the means" or "it's OK as long as I agree with it" which is EXACTLY the point I was making. If you're going to rationalize it with a "why" and then dismiss your objections, the other side can too and here we are. Either it's a firmly held belief or it's a negotiating point. I warned people when President Obama was ruling by Executive Order that the shoe would be on the other foot at some point and everyone was like "it's OK. Fuck Congress. We agree with where he is going". Now, you don't agree with Cheeto's direction and you're like "OMG!!!! Executive Orders are the devil!!!" -- jim
I completely disagree if reasoning is provided. One can then decide for themselves if they agree or not. One can like all of Obama’s and think Trump’s are foolish without decrying them altogether.

If it’s used as a blanket statement, you have no argument from me.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,327
Reaction score
2,081
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
I completely disagree if reasoning is provided. One can then decide for themselves if they agree or not. One can like all of Obama’s and think Trump’s are foolish without decrying them altogether.
Trump provides plenty of reasoning. You can decide for yourself. Of course, you'll disagree and dismiss his reasoning because your beliefs are not for sale for that currency. You sell out for a different form. -- jim
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
576
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Trump provides plenty of reasoning. You can decide for yourself. Of course, you'll disagree and dismiss his reasoning because your beliefs are not for sale for that currency. You sell out for a different form. -- jim
Did you find his reasoning for this action in Iraq sound? If the goal is to disengage from the "endless wars" I'm having a hard time drawing the line from A to B.
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,327
Reaction score
2,081
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Did you find his reasoning for this action in Iraq sound? If the goal is to disengage from the "endless wars" I'm having a hard time drawing the line from A to B.
We are having two different discussions in this thread at this point. That quote is related to the other one.

I am not arguing for or against the action in Iraq. You want to read a good article, try this one. Iraq is complicated. Iran is complicated. I personally think we have been in a one-sided shooting war with Iran since the revolution (perhaps you could go back to 1953). To date, Iran has been adrift in the vast sea of western indifference. Perhaps that's changing now. Perhaps that's good. Perhaps that's bad. I don't know. Too early to tell.

I saw an article today which suggested three possible conclusions for the missile attack:
  1. Khamenie over estimated his military and is surprised at the results.
  2. Khamenie recognizes that he needs to stand down as this is not a fight he can win suggesting he recognizes Soliemani is the cost of doing business.
  3. Kahmenie is seeking to push American over-confidence to ease a latter attack
One of the biggest watershed moments in Levant history occurred after Israel and Hizballah last went at it in earnest in 2006. After the dust settled, Nasrallah held one of his rallies and said (paraphrasing) "If I knew this was going to be the outcome, I would never have precipitated a conflict with Israel". All insurgencies start on the outside and get to focus on problems. They get to use those problems and shortcomings as fuel for their movement. But if they are successful (and Hizballah and the Iranian Revolution must be seen as a success from their perspective), you become the man. No longer is it enough to sit idly by and point out all the problems and issues. You now have responsibility to deliver to the people. Their unrest put you where you are now. You can't afford to let someone else stir that up. Nasrallah got that and apologized to the Lebanese people. Seeing what happened to Hizballah's strong hold in 2006 as Khamenie surely did, do you think he wants to risk the destruction of Iran? Personally, I think Iran will let this go (just like they did with Imad Mugneyeh) and play the long game. I may be wrong. Time will tell. Trump will be gone soon enough. -- jim
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
576
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
We are having two different discussions in this thread at this point. That quote is related to the other one.
Ok. I misunderstood. I thought you were referring to Trump's reasoning on this latest action and that we were dismissing it simply because it was Trump saying it.
 

Morbii

Elder Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
4,310
Reaction score
502
Location
Gilroy, CA
Country
llUnited States
Trump provides plenty of reasoning. You can decide for yourself. Of course, you'll disagree and dismiss his reasoning because your beliefs are not for sale for that currency. You sell out for a different form. -- jim
I'm referring to us, the plebians. If the rebuttal to a specific argument is a general "both sides do it", it's almost always just a deflection or a false equivalency.

Likewise, telling a first time voter that their "side" does it too doesn't mean anything.

You are right, though, I've veered off topic.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
820
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
All of this boils down to "the ends justify the means" or "it's OK as long as I agree with it" which is EXACTLY the point I was making. If you're going to rationalize it with a "why" and then dismiss your objections, the other side can too and here we are. Either it's a firmly held belief or it's a negotiating point. I warned people when President Obama was ruling by Executive Order that the shoe would be on the other foot at some point and everyone was like "it's OK. Fuck Congress. We agree with where he is going". Now, you don't agree with Cheeto's direction and you're like "OMG!!!! Executive Orders are the devil!!!" -- jim
Obama was not even close to the most EO issued.

Clinton issued over 370
Bush 43 issued 291 (anyone say anything then?)
Obama issued 276 w/ a Republican congress that said NO to everything he wanted (and still does)
Cheeto has issued 137

Context is everything
 

Sparafucil3

Forum Guru
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
9,327
Reaction score
2,081
Location
USA
First name
Jim
Country
llUnited States
Obama was not even close to the most EO issued.

Clinton issued over 370
Bush 43 issued 291 (anyone say anything then?)
Obama issued 276 w/ a Republican congress that said NO to everything he wanted (and still does)
Cheeto has issued 137

Context is everything
I never suggested he was. Perhaps you should examine the context in which that point was made ;). And yes, your point about President Bush 43's EO's and all the wailing over President Obama's EO's is the point I was making. We need to hold our own side to the same standard we hold the other. -- jim
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,068
Reaction score
820
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
I never suggested he was. Perhaps you should examine the context in which that point was made ;). And yes, your point about President Bush 43's EO's and all the wailing over President Obama's EO's is the point I was making. We need to hold our own side to the same standard we hold the other. -- jim
OK, I understand and completely agree.

I was never an Obama apologist and still refer to him as the Procrastinator-in-Chief but just like Reagan, Bush '41, Clinton, & Bush '43, Obama was and is a decent person overall. tRUMP isn't even close.

Once tRUMP is thrown into the gutter of history, all of his Orange kool aid gulping supporters will play down their 'support comments' as fast as rats jumping from a sinking ship. tRUMP was, is, and will always be a POS for a human being.
 

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
571
Reaction score
452
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
I see Iraq has asked us to leave in a non-binding way, and its prime minister has asked in a specific way. But the administration says it is staying. I guess we are back to being an occupying power again; so much for getting out of the ME.
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
3,631
Reaction score
576
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
I see Iraq has asked us to leave in a non-binding way, and its prime minister has asked in a specific way. But the administration says it is staying. I guess we are back to being an occupying power again; so much for getting out of the ME.
Does anyone happen to know on what legal basis (presumably an international one) the US has to deny the request? I see we're threatening to cut off access to their own money if they don't let us have our way.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
14,464
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
The US assassination of Qasem Soleimani may be the start of something right nasty.
If it was, should it have started by now?

Remember that WW1 did not start by design but by blunder and machismo.
Machismo can be orderly and purposeful. Ask Ronald Reagan. The trouble with any major undertaking is there will always be unintended consequences. Britain's brave stand in both world wars hastened the demise of its Empire, whether through colonies like Canada earning political independence in 1922, or by less amicable breakaways.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
14,464
Reaction score
1,221
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
I don't get why Trump had to stand on the rooftops and yell that he took out this Iranian general. I mean, why couldn't they have just taken him out and then act shocked and surprised and even offer to "help" with the investigation?
So you want the President to lie and be disingenuous?
 
Top