• Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.

How wars are prepared

notimp

Well-Known Member
OP
Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
5,779
Trophies
1
XP
4,419
Country
Laos
Highly interesting interview with the iranian intellectual elite about the incidence that would have caused war - if the democrats would not have reminded the Trump andministration, that they would not fund a war at this point in time:

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/21/trump_cancels_iran_strikes_after_drone

Video already starts at the correct timecode.

US quality media this time isnt on the side of the war mongers (I restrain from just calling them hawks in this case), which is also noted.


If you need quick background information. US wanted to get out of the middle east - they all but lost all the recent wars there, and now have energy independence in country - but their colonial outpost in the region (sorry Israel), has honest doubts, that it will survive as a state, once the americans are gone.

So now destroying iran is on the agenda again, as a prerequisite for america eventually leaving the region. Democrates currently are against funding this war. Europeans are as well.


The other side wants to tell stories of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction again, as well as of attacks on tankers, again, which arent plausible - but very emotional.

Currently all sides seem to cautiously agree, that war is on the US agenda - after the US presidential election.
 
Last edited by notimp,

Taleweaver

Storywriter
Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
8,684
Trophies
2
Age
43
Location
Belgium
XP
8,062
Country
Belgium
I was thinking of starting a thread on this as well. And I'm glad that source seems to cite the events as I perceive them, so I don't have to defend myself unneeded.

The first strike was the withdrawal from the US from the nuclear pact. Rather than providing proof that Iran did violate it, it just assumed they were right and threatened the other countries who just want to uphold the pact as normal.

Then there's that bombing on those ships. The US claims it's Iran, Iran denies. But this is two years under Trump administration, and the administration 's credentials are actually less than zero (meaning : they've got motives to divert the attention from the domestic mess.
I mean... The war on Iraq was a mistake, but it could get started because the rest of the world had no real reason to doubt the intelligence. Right now, it's just known that Pompeo and Bolton want war first, with an actual reason as an afterthought.

Next up : the shooting down of the drone. Again : either you believe an administration that lies on a daily basis (heck... Even Sarah Sanders admitted lying about sources), or a country that hasn't posed a threat in decades. The former say the done was over international waters and shot down without warning, the latter way it was over their state border and they were warned.

The thus far last part is also the most interesting one : Trump calling off an airstrike at the last moment. This is weird because I'm absolutely not used to Trump doing something right. It's not much to his credit as those potential 150 civilians wouldn't have been in danger if it wasn't for those American provocations to begin with (hey.... I forgot : of course there are more economic sanctions against the country, because of course there are). But still... It could've been worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,703
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,369
Country
United States
Currently all sides seem to cautiously agree, that war is on the US agenda - after the US presidential election.
There's no guarantee it's gonna be after. If Trump's poll numbers keep slipping, he's likely to see war with Iran as a way to help his re-election chances. Rarely does the US change presidents during wartime, and it worked for GWB.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ericthegreat

Taleweaver

Storywriter
Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
8,684
Trophies
2
Age
43
Location
Belgium
XP
8,062
Country
Belgium
There's no guarantee it's gonna be after. If Trump's poll numbers keep slipping, he's likely to see war with Iran as a way to help his re-election chances. Rarely does the US change presidents during wartime, and it worked for GWB.
I've thought about this as well, but I dare to say this could just be the exception.

The second golf war(1) happened in the aftermath of 9/11. While there was some international concern about the targeting of Iraq ("wait...why are you planning to strike on Iraq? Those clowns came from Afghanistan! :unsure:"), there was still some sympathy to the USA. International experts couldn't locate those "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that were touted about, but that could just prove they were hidden better than expected. Because the US intelligence had plenty of proof (even if that later turned out to be twisted to be in favor of the strike) and the USA was united behind Bush(2) it was hard to argue against it.

Compare that to now: the intelligence is undermined by the president, the US military thinks it's a bad idea to attack, Iran isn't as much of an isolated country (the nuclear deal is only abandoned by the USA), the trade war with China isn't a small endeavor and the USA is all but united (if Trump isn't pissing off US allies he's pissing off the USA public by sucking up to Russia or North Korea). Not to mention the fact that Trump manages to make W. Bush look intelligent by comparison.

So all in all: where is his basis for a war? Congress certainly isn't going to give a go for it. Democrat want to not only have him impeached but imprisoned as well. And at this time, just about the only way Trump can manage to get something done is by veto-ing the opposition. His attack on the media helped him in the short run when he came into office, but that card has been played. The result is that even fox news isn't enthousiast about branding anyone with concerns about war a traitor to the US cause.

It could also be (but maybe I'm naive) that people have actually LEARNED from the Iraq fiasco. Saddam was a dictator, but at least he kept the country relatively stable. Bombing the place and removing that guy created a vaccuum that was later filled with ISIS and similar terrorist groups that made Al Qaeda look like pansies. It doesn't take a genius to realise that doing the same thing in Iran will give the same result as in Iraq. So why wait four more years to vote in a democrat as president who will clean up the mess when you can do that in 2020 as well? :tpi:

Provided Trump isn't impeached and/or jailed before that time, obviously.

(1): if you want to call it a war, of course, as the US was so much stronger that it was basically the equivalent of a wrestler taking on a toddler
(2): I really didn't like it, but what was I really going to do aside protesting in the streets of Belgium? Our opinion simply didn't matter
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,703
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,369
Country
United States
So all in all: where is his basis for a war?
I don't think he has one...yet. Seems this administration is working on it, though, given the blame placed on Iran for the Japanese tanker explosion and now the drone we baited them into shooting down. If we had bombers in the air just for that, you can bet people in the White House are licking their lips at the chance to blame Iran for the next random extremist attack anywhere in the Middle East. One American death is more than enough for the warmongers in the Republican party to start beating their chests.

Congress certainly isn't going to give a go for it.
Trump says he doesn't need congressional approval to strike Iran, and unfortunately he is correct. Under GWB, executive powers were expanded to allow for that decision to be made unilaterally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Taleweaver

linuxares

The inadequate, autocratic beast!
Global Moderator
Joined
Aug 5, 2007
Messages
13,099
Trophies
2
XP
17,742
Country
Sweden
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

cracker

Nyah!
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
3,619
Trophies
1
XP
2,213
Country
United States
15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. None were from Afghanistan or Iraq.

Re this topic: If some Iranian was behind the oil tanker attack then it doesn't make any sense at all for it to have been state-sponsored since the Japanese PM was, at the same time this occurred, in trade talks in Iran. That would be a helluva way to negotiate... The crew said it was an airborne attack so it was from a plane strike or missiles being launched from land. I wouldn't doubt it being a third party that was trying to stir shit up.

The drone being shot down is quite an ambiguous event. The area where is was flying in has a very narrow international airspace. It is hard to say if it went into Iranian airspace or not. Besides that, we don't know if it was a normal spy mission or if it was meant to be passively aggressive — notwithstanding if it was armed or not.

What hasn't been mentioned in nearly any source is that there was also a U.S. spy plane carrying a crew of 35 flying in the area at the same time that Iran purposely left alone because they knew it was manned. It seems almost as if there was a plan to provoke killing U.S. citizens to start a war was engineered by warhawks. Hmmmmm...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,703
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,369
Country
United States
  • Like
Reactions: Glyptofane

cracker

Nyah!
Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
3,619
Trophies
1
XP
2,213
Country
United States
While not mentally incapacitated, there are practically neon signs pointing to him having various mental issues (read: narcissism, personality disorder,...).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,703
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,369
Country
United States
If Trump keeps us out of war with Iran he will be a better President the George Bush.
Only problem being that Trump is the one who has brought us to the brink of war with Iran in the first place, by reneging on the previous nuclear inspections deal both countries had agreed to. Then he appointed John Bolton and other known warmongers to key positions in his administration. Hardly praiseworthy if he somehow manages to solve a crisis that he created.
 
Last edited by Xzi,
  • Like
Reactions: cracker

Taleweaver

Storywriter
Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
8,684
Trophies
2
Age
43
Location
Belgium
XP
8,062
Country
Belgium
If Trump keeps us out of war with Iran he will be a better President the George Bush.
How about we make these sorts of claims until after his presidency? When he got in office, there were absolutely no tensions whatsoever with Iran. Now you're at the brink of war. It's also pretty cynical to call "not being at war TODAY" an achievement.
 

SG854

Hail Mary
Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
5,215
Trophies
1
Location
N/A
XP
8,104
Country
Congo, Republic of the
How about we make these sorts of claims until after his presidency?
Make if claims after Trump presidency ends? Doesn’t make sense. That’s not how if is used. It’s used before not after. If X happens then YZ.



Trump keeps saying he’s anti war that’s what he campaigned on. And keeps saying he doesn’t want war with Iran. He takes credit for bringing Troops back and avoiding interventionist wars. Which show his mindset on this. He listens to a lot of Fox News and Tucker Carlson, and Carlson is against war. There is right wing and left wing union against the establishment and neo conservatives, wanting to avoid war.
 
Last edited by SG854,

Ericthegreat

Not New Member
Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
3,453
Trophies
2
Location
Vana'diel
XP
4,239
Country
United States
Trump is correct. He have the right to start a war, but he need congress to help keep the war going. I'm baffled that one person have so much power.
I mean, you start a war, I think they kinda have to find it after that, now about Iran, I mean it's pretty bad, I'm guessing people died on those oil tankers? The UK seems to agree it was probably Iran. I know theyer mad about the nuclear agreement, but they cant kill people because of it, and expect we are all supposed to just be okay with that.
 

Xzi

Time to fly, 621
Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
17,703
Trophies
3
Location
The Lands Between
Website
gbatemp.net
XP
8,369
Country
United States
I mean, you start a war, I think they kinda have to find it after that, now about Iran, I mean it's pretty bad, I'm guessing people died on those oil tankers? The UK seems to agree it was probably Iran. I know theyer mad about the nuclear agreement, but they cant kill people because of it, and expect we are all supposed to just be okay with that.
No deaths from the Japanese oil tanker explosion AFAIK. The crew abandoned ship and was picked up by the US Navy.
 

Taleweaver

Storywriter
Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
8,684
Trophies
2
Age
43
Location
Belgium
XP
8,062
Country
Belgium
Trump keeps saying he’s anti war that’s what he campaigned on. And keeps saying he doesn’t want war with Iran. He takes credit for bringing Troops back and avoiding interventionist wars. Which show his mindset on this. He listens to a lot of Fox News and Tucker Carlson, and Carlson is against war. There is right wing and left wing union against the establishment and neo conservatives, wanting to avoid war.
Why do you still bother with what he says? The guy is a notorious liar.

What he did was tear up the nuclear treaty without reason. What he did was impose stricter economic sanctions. What he did was send a drone over their air space(1). What he nearly did was kill 150 innocent Iranians.


Besides...are we talking about Donald Trump here? Y'know...about this high, ski resort tan, blond and grumpy? All I hear him say when asked about a coming war with Iran are things like "I hope not" and "we'll see". Perhaps he campaigned against a war(2), but if so he has now delegated it to guys who actually do want war. And to be honest: I don't see him fire either Bolton or Pompeo anytime soon.


(1): yes, I know the US army claims the thing was over international waters. I'd say the same thing if my 150 million dollar toy was shot down over my neighbor's yard.
(2): I honestly couldn't say. His retarded antics like insulting his opponents and his pledge for a wall took up so much media coverage that "I'm against a war" was somewhat of a mundane footnote that didn't quite make it in international news
 
Last edited by Taleweaver,
  • Like
Reactions: Xzi

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum

General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    straferz @ straferz: Anybody know why this is happening to my ACWW town...