War with Iran Part II

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume we will strike Iran this weekend to distract from the illegal slush fund, horrible candidates Trump backed in primaries, war powers vote GOP had to run out of town to avoid, etc.

Quite possibly.

Gosh this is getting predictable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume we will strike Iran this weekend to distract from the illegal slush fund, horrible candidates Trump backed in primaries, war powers vote GOP had to run out of town to avoid, etc.

Quite possibly.

Gosh this is getting predictable

:

JD contribution: Whatever makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did everyone see Congressman Seth Moulton’s questioning of Adm. Cooper?

If you go on Seth Moulton’s FB, there’s a long video of the exchange in a MS Now segment that reminds us of John Kerry’s congressional testimony during the Vietnam war. The call back to Gen. Westmoreland was brilliant.

Moulton’s carefully crafted use of “was that part of the plan” was brilliant.

+1 This is so worth a watch, thanks for pointing it out.

No wonder we lose with people like this in charge.

Military officers don't make policy. The question is more along the lines of did senior officials at DoD, NSA, State, CIA and so on make it very clear to Hegseth, Rubio, Vance, and Trump that there is a world of consequences for joining Israel in a major war with Iran. And the closure of the Strait of Hormuz was a very obvious one. Among many other things. Like, our bases in the Persian Gulf are no longer viable, including the HQ of the Fifth Fleet. And energy and food prices will skyrocket if we do this. And as the war in Ukraine has demonstrated, modern war has changed a lot in recent years. And Iran is very advanced with drones and missiles.

These are very basic things. Any 25 year old analyst could map this out.

Did Trump, Vance, Rubio, and Hegseth not listen? Or is the Trump administration so bad that informed analysis doesn't even make it to policymakers. Vance and Rubio aren't idiots. I'm sure they knew all the likely consequences, and still supported this stupidity anyway. I have met worms with stronger spines than JD Vance and Marco Rubio.

And in the meantime, Iran and Oman are setting up a toll system for transit through the Strait of Hormuz. Nice gift we've given them.

The US military failed in Afghanistan. They failed in Yemen against the Houthi. Now they have failed in Iran. The US military was and is unprepared to fight on the modern battlefield because of poor planning, incompetence senior and middle level leadership. There was no secret about the drones and the inability of US inceptors to protect bases. Not one us military unit incorporated training against drones as seen in Ukraine. F-35s were being lit up by Iran weapon systems and are only able to fly 50% of the time. They waste $12 million missiles on empty buildings or blowing up a 2004 Toyota Tacoma.

Their job was to be prepared to fight and win. They have unlimited budgets, supposedly the best technology, senior leader who have be educated & trained for years and failed the mission. The US military is unable to substance operations longer vs 60 days. The blockade is a failure.

How can anyone objectively say the US military accomplished the mission? They spent over 200 billion in this operation and what are the facts on the ground? The strait is closed, the navy has to operate on the edge of their effective range, US bases in the region inoperable, gulf states in talks with China, Iran nuclear materials staying in Iran, Iran missile systems improving daily, etc, etc.

Yet no one can stand up and say you failed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I assume we will strike Iran this weekend to distract from the illegal slush fund, horrible candidates Trump backed in primaries, war powers vote GOP had to run out of town to avoid, etc.

Quite possibly.

They are dividing up $1.8 billion. If you are not in the room you do not get any money. They do not give a shit about Iran.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

He's trying to sound tough and ominous as pressure for Iran to agree to some half-baked deal.

He has no understanding that Iran doesn't assess circumstances and 'deals' using the same calculus as he does.

[Anonymous]

If the deal being floated earlier today is an indication, the US will be in a much worse position vis a vis the Middle East than it was this time last year or even three months ago.

But Trump will shout from the mountaintops that this will be a better deal than the JCPOA and his cultists will believe him.

[Anonymous]

I guess we’re he’s going to cave to avoid the war powers resolution. Mike Johnson probably told him he better end it before congress returns to save face. Obviously Iran knows all of this and that they have the leverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the deal being floated earlier today is an indication, the US will be in a much worse position vis a vis the Middle East than it was this time last year or even three months ago.

But Trump will shout from the mountaintops that this will be a better deal than the JCPOA and his cultists will believe him.

He needs a way to "declare victory" for the war to end.
Yes, we will be worse off than 3 months ago in reality.
But also, the war would be over, which is better than where we are now, or where we would be if the war continues.

[Anonymous]

Any deal that includes payments to Iran, any sort of tolling or control of the Strait of Hormouz or any allowance/acceptance for enriched uranium is "less" than where we were 3 months ago.

If iIan has any of this on their side, then they won the war.

[Anonymous]

Moulton is wrong. This is not anything like Vietnam. For one thing, the Viet Cong did not have a nuclear weapon and call for "Death to America." While it appears that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, we know they desperately want one and likely have the capacity to make one rather quickly. They also have and were getting more ballistic weapons that can reach Europe and could get some that could reach the US in the future.

And, almost 50,000 killed in Vietnam. We want no soldiers killed, but it could be here if Iran gets the weapon. They funded much of the terrorism in the Middle East, here, and in Europe.


This is not the same.

And, John Kerry's Congressional testimony at the time was way, way out of line. He may have been brave during his three or four months there, but he literally threw it all away when he returned. He was following the JFK model--but he was no JFK. Irony, that JFK also played a role in our activity in Vietnam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moulton is wrong. This is not anything like Vietnam. For one thing, the Viet Cong did not have a nuclear weapon and call for "Death to America." While it appears that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, we know they desperately want one and likely have the capacity to make one rather quickly. They also have and were getting more ballistic weapons that can reach Europe and could get some that could reach the US in the future.

And, almost 50,000 killed in Vietnam. We want no soldiers killed, but it could be here if Iran gets the weapon. They funded much of the terrorism in the Middle East, here, and in Europe.


This is not the same.

And, John Kerry's Congressional testimony at the time was way, way out of line. He may have been brave during his three or four months there, but he literally threw it all away when he returned. He was following the JFK model--but he was no JFK. Irony, that JFK also played a role in our activity in Vietnam.

There’s no evidence that Iran was suddenly closer to having a nuke than they were six months or a year before Trump arbitrarily decided to launch an illegal war.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moulton is wrong. This is not anything like Vietnam. For one thing, the Viet Cong did not have a nuclear weapon and call for "Death to America." While it appears that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, we know they desperately want one and likely have the capacity to make one rather quickly. They also have and were getting more ballistic weapons that can reach Europe and could get some that could reach the US in the future.

And, almost 50,000 killed in Vietnam. We want no soldiers killed, but it could be here if Iran gets the weapon. They funded much of the terrorism in the Middle East, here, and in Europe.


This is not the same.

And, John Kerry's Congressional testimony at the time was way, way out of line. He may have been brave during his three or four months there, but he literally threw it all away when he returned. He was following the JFK model--but he was no JFK. Irony, that JFK also played a role in our activity in Vietnam.

We have been hearing the bolded for 40 years. So, not likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moulton is wrong. This is not anything like Vietnam. For one thing, the Viet Cong did not have a nuclear weapon and call for "Death to America." While it appears that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, we know they desperately want one and likely have the capacity to make one rather quickly. They also have and were getting more ballistic weapons that can reach Europe and could get some that could reach the US in the future.

And, almost 50,000 killed in Vietnam. We want no soldiers killed, but it could be here if Iran gets the weapon. They funded much of the terrorism in the Middle East, here, and in Europe.


This is not the same.

And, John Kerry's Congressional testimony at the time was way, way out of line. He may have been brave during his three or four months there, but he literally threw it all away when he returned. He was following the JFK model--but he was no JFK. Irony, that JFK also played a role in our activity in Vietnam.

There’s no evidence that Iran was suddenly closer to having a nuke than they were six months or a year before Trump arbitrarily decided to launch an illegal war.

You are willing to take that risk. How close do they have to get for you to change your mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moulton is wrong. This is not anything like Vietnam. For one thing, the Viet Cong did not have a nuclear weapon and call for "Death to America." While it appears that Iran does not yet have a nuclear weapon, we know they desperately want one and likely have the capacity to make one rather quickly. They also have and were getting more ballistic weapons that can reach Europe and could get some that could reach the US in the future.

And, almost 50,000 killed in Vietnam. We want no soldiers killed, but it could be here if Iran gets the weapon. They funded much of the terrorism in the Middle East, here, and in Europe.


This is not the same.

And, John Kerry's Congressional testimony at the time was way, way out of line. He may have been brave during his three or four months there, but he literally threw it all away when he returned. He was following the JFK model--but he was no JFK. Irony, that JFK also played a role in our activity in Vietnam.

I am old enough to remember the claims that US bombs "obliterated" iran's nuclear capacity. Were Trump, Vance, Hegseth lying then, or now?