The New War with Iran

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If you guys haven’t yet, you should take a look at our Commander in Chief’s latest Iran tweets.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

If you guys haven’t yet, you should take a look at our Commander in Chief’s latest Iran tweets.

- Doc

Soooo...yeah.

I guess the worst case scenario here is our Commander in Chief, who infamously complained about the US's reluctance to use nuclear weapons if we have 'em, getting the country into a hot war with Iran, and then when Iran doesn't fold as quickly as he'd like, give the order to do what he thinks our previous leaders haven't because they're cowards.

[_honorentheos]

If you guys haven’t yet, you should take a look at our Commander in Chief’s latest Iran tweets.

- Doc

Good Jesus. I wish that wasn't real.

2020. yay.

As an aside: Whatever Trump may think about his direct foes in Iran, Soleimani wasn't an coward and was actively engaged in fighting. His replacements and Iran's leadership are cut from different cloth. Back when Trump was doing this initially with Kim, calling him Rocket Man and tossing civilization-ending threats around like a warm-up for a cage fight, I wondered where it would take us and felt some honest relief the rhetoric turned around. But that was between two people who had a lot more in common with each other than they have with the people whose lives are influenced by their behavior and rhetoric. Kim and Trump were the benefactors of powerful and/or rich daddies whose influence meant both turned out to be bullying blowhards who have never had to actually take a punch let alone really have their metal tested. Neither of them would ever put on fatigues and go out to the front in a shooting war. Trump doesn't seem to grasp he and Kim have a lot more in common than the leadership in Iran has with him. How will it play out? Were there a god, she wouldn't even know.

[_honorentheos]

I'm not sure what you two are arguing about. There doesn't seem to be much disagreement between you on the facts. I read what I presume was the same Wikipedia article about Iran and the Shah that Chap referred to.

I didn't follow the link to the wiki. The topic is one I'd spent time on extensively which certainly colored by reading of Chap's post as presented. The wiki backfills critical points that aren't included in the post at all, which noted British ownership of the oil fields, the nationalization of said oil but failed to note the primary role of the British government and BP in appealing to the US for help to regain that control after appeals to the UN had failed. It left quite a hole, in my opinion, which struck me as quite odd. And that doesn't include the disservice to the long-term impacts of British and Russian history in the region beginning the story does with the CIA coup in 1953.

If you don't follow the link to the wiki in Chap's comment, you basically have a narrative that skips over the role the British played in the coup, which I found rather unpleasant as far as presentation of the facts goes.

[_Jersey Girl]

Cam do you think the killing of Soleimani was justifiable?

[_honorentheos]

Justifiable and wise are two different things.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Cam do you think the killing of Soleimani was justifiable?

Of course, but Honor is correct, too. The guy has been killing US personnel since Afghanistan. BUT, it’d be akin to Iran running a suicide operation that kills our SecDef while in, say, Yemen or, I dunno, Kabul. It’s tricky, for sure.

I think the thing that makes it kinda sort of justifiable was he was in Iraq and he coordinated attacks against US personnel and the embassy which makes him an enemy combatant. A terrorist, really.

I just think when you’re the President you have to weigh the abstractions that come as a result of your actions. Will killing Soleimani now result in more carnage and will that result in foreign policy objectives, or will that action throw everything into chaos? This will probably have the latter effect, which makes this kill unwise from a geopolitical standpoint.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

Justifiable and wise are two different things.

Was I talking to you?
;-)

[_Jersey Girl]

Cam do you think the killing of Soleimani was justifiable?

Of course, but Honor is correct, too. The guy has been killing US personnel since Afghanistan. BUT, it’d be akin to Iran running a suicide operation that kills our SecDef while in, say, Yemen or, I dunno, Kabul. It’s tricky, for sure.

I think the thing that makes it kinda sort of justifiable was he was in Iraq and he coordinated attacks against US personnel and the embassy which makes him an enemy combatant. A terrorist, really.

I just think when you’re the President you have to weigh the abstractions that come as a result of your actions. Will killing Soleimani now result in more carnage and will that result in foreign policy objectives, or will that action throw everything into chaos? This will probably have the latter effect, which makes this kill unwise from a geopolitical standpoint.

- Doc

Thank you. Much appreciated.

[_MeDotOrg]

I’m literally counting down the posts before iwtt starts up with the Nazi stuff.

- Doc

Not knowing what iwtt stands for, I googled it. I assume you are not counting the Industrial Wastewater Treatment Technology Database as an anti-Semitic screed. Nor has the Indian Wheelchair Tennis Tour (headquartered in Bangalore) or the Iowa Walleye Tournament Trail been mentioned in any alt-right discourse.

Urban dictionary says 'I would that that', using the first 'that' as a wildcard for the verb of your choice.

There are 1496 registered users on MDB. Didn't have the heart to go through that list.

So I give up. To what does iwtt refer?