Does Trump provoke Iran as an election stunt?

[Xzi]

i was joking if you couldnt tell

Sorry, I did see that your flag was Mexico, but sometimes people set the wrong one. Obviously this is an issue that rustles my jimmies a bit.

 

[Rioluwott]

Sorry, I did see that your flag was Mexico, but sometimes people set the wrong one. Obviously this is an issue that rustles my jimmies a bit.

no problem it happens to everyone

 

[WeedZ]

Wait till theres a draft. They'll need the wall to keep americans here.

 

[Taleweaver]

Edited for clarity. While I don't presume it'll convince you, at least it might provide some insight as to why almost everyone knows that Trump starts this mess: Iran has consequently denied all the allegations of the US. And it has to be said: the US doesn't exactly bring much evidence to the table either. It's like they know how media works:

December 27th: *a bombing happens on K-1 air base*
Pentagon: oh noes! It's the Kata'ib Hezbollah! They're Iranian-backed, so we're under attack by Iran!!!!!
Kata'ib Hezbollah: erm...no? We were at home drinking tea, mate. We didn't bomb anyone.
Pentagon: ha! Good luck getting YOUR opinion on fox news, buddy.

Granted: this sort of parody is hardly more helpful than blatantly telling one-sided stories. But we've seen what happens if you blindly follow warmongering. And W. Bush at least attempted to bring some evidence as to why he was right into thinking Iraq was the enemy.

 

[wartutor]

Democratic Socialists: "maybe we should spend tax dollars on getting our citizens universal healthcare and tuition-free college."
GOP/MAGAts: "let's spend all our tax dollars on a wall in the middle of the fucking desert which will be completely decayed and useless inside of five years."

This wouldn't even be a debate in any country with a half-decent education system. It never ceases to amaze me how petty and spiteful some people can be. You would deny all of us the benefits of living in a wealthy, first-world country just to maybe keep out a few brown people seeking refuge. And then you don't even bother to call out the true source of the problem: neocon/neolib corporations continuing to hire illegal migrant workers en masse without shame. Nothing in this country will ever improve as long as our only god is money.

Yeah cause thats all i want is a wall lol guess my sarcasm was lost in text

 

[Gon Freecss]

It’s just a matter of time before you start hearing some say that it’s Trump’s fault that #Iran made a mistake and shot down a commercial airliner.

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) January 9, 2020

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

I wonder why Iran would use land-to-air missiles when attacking US bases. Let's see whether it was Iran. But Trump is indeed partly to blame if it is the case.
If you through a stone at a guy and he in turns throws a stone which hits a third person, you are not innocent.

 

[RaptorDMG]

I wonder why Iran would use land-to-air missiles when attacking US bases. Let's see whether it was Iran. But Trump is indeed partly to blame if it is the case.
If you through a stone at a guy and he in turns throws a stone which hits a third person, you are not innocent.

They likely turned air defenses on so that if the US attacked back they would be ready but we need to wait for Ukraine to be able to investigate the site and determine the cause

 

[notimp]

edit: oopsie! so many do-nothing democrats got triggered by my post ​

Misleading. Post sources. When attacking or seizing oil tankers, they probably do it, because they used seaways they have a claim to and didnt pay off officials.

Drones usually are shot down, when they are over your own country - illegally. (But thats not even a proper international incident these days, since they are fast and cheap enough that this happens so seldomly that no one really cares. And of course the are there to bomb military sites in Iran, and to do surveillance.

The attack in September could not be attributed to Iran, and they denied involvement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Abqaiq–Khurais_attack

The attack in December on US milit. bases was spearheaded by an iraqi militia which is believed to be financed by Iran ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_K-1_Air_Base_attack ) and was preceded by a US build up of troops in the region ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_Persian_Gulf_crisis ).

The embassy was occupied by protesters (/militia supporters) following another US event (airstrike) in the spiral of escalation: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/31/supporters-of-iran-backed-militia-storm-the-us-embassy-in-iraq.html
(There where no recorded deaths there. (?))

EFFING RIGHTWING NUTCASES POSTING SHITTY PR 2 RIAL UP IDIOTS FOR THEIR MONOTHEISTIC WORLD VIEW - still continuing in this forum in 2020.

Whats roughly happening is the following. US doesnt own shit there. Officially. US has no rights whatsoever to intervene on their own terms, militarily. Killing people in 'not your own country' - with an airstrike nevertheless is an international crime in peace times. US arent acknowledging the jurisdiction of any important international law tribunals on war crimes - so they arent acknowledging any international law, or any judges when it comes to what they want to do militarily.

Historically they had contracts with Saudi Arabia to "protect them" (major oil supplier), and of course they have a satellite state in the region with Israel, that was founded as recently as 1948.

Under Obama and Trump, the US has mounted efforts to slowly withdraw from the region, because they had become less dependent on foreign oil imports, and ruling by bombs is expensive.

Saudi Arabia especially, has fallen from grace in the public perception in the US. Which is usually caused by PR (or the lack of PR ) and usually isn't entirely by chance either.

Iran was rumored to be in military talks with Saudi Arabia. Israel freaked for the past two years, and the US very much had to redouble their efforts to keep powerstructures as they are in the region.

No one wants another war there. No one (europeans neither) want Iran to dominate the region.

Honcho not so bright big guy - airstrikerrrd an Irani general, while they were visiting Iraq while on a military diplomatic mission. Entirely illegal, entirely not in self defense, probably provoked (because high level talks between the party that fell from US' graces recently and iranian military).

But, as the US doesnt acknowledge the international criminal court and can "but I have the bigger gun" pretty much anyone in the world - we call those "extralegal killings".

To no openly commit an offense that would be answerable with actually going to war - you have to say "immanent danger", or else even your own people would start to ask questions.

Its entirely useless to ask - "who is to blame in this case", because we are talking about structural, military oppression of an entire region since the 1940s - by a foreign international power. But everything is cool, because it brought oil to the western nations at a stable and not overly atrocious price. And if it wouldnt have for the past 60 years, our economies would have collapsed within half a year.

Trump still an idiot for bombing away a diplomat from Iran, in Iraq - unprovoked. I mean - what happened to intrigue? Everything now a dick measurement contest?

 

[eyeliner]

Trump still an idiot for bombing away a diplomat from Iran, in Iraq - unprovoked. I mean - what happened to intrigue? Every thing now a dick measurement contest?

We was no diplomat. He was basically Kane from Command and Conquer.

And yes, it is a measuring test. Trump's USA outright killed a military mastermind just because:
They could
A message needed to be conveyed

In my apolitical mind, Trump's USA removed a valuable Iranian asset, basically the head of a very large chicken. In anyway you put it, Iran doesn't stand a chance now and can't go to war peeing missiles.

They lost a major strategist (some claim he was the best at it), and their enemy is right beside their border, in countries they can't just level without getting a military backlash.

See it this way:
What can Iran do? Bomb american bases right? They did. They were basically pee shooters. They can't invade Syria to tackle the americans head on, and can't surely bomb america from far away.

Iran is far from america, but america is just out of the border, with a whole lot of ground to bomb away.

 

[notimp]

We was no diplomat. He was basically Kane from Command and Conquer.

Partly true. He was military. But rumored to be on a military diplomatic mission. Some people say thats also not true, because he (as a general) would have been an unlikely candidate for those particular talks, but hey - high level brass has to meet up outside their own countries at times too. To talk.

US version is, that he was outside the country to plan more attacks. Evidence.. well.. The US senate oversight comitee saw none - and was not amused. (They should have had been presented with some a few days ago (under secrecy clause), some of them then went public and told the press, the meeting was an insult and a joke, they would have basically been told not to ask further questions).

Maybe diplomatic mission of the general killed is a lie a s well, who knows. The parties there are in conflict there for decades. Point being - you dont hear every day, that a miltary general of a country is bombed into thin air, while visiting a neighboring country. While none of the parties are officially at war with each other.

Also Kane from C&C was a fictional character. Disney villains usually don't exist in real life. And if you have accepted, that people should be killed because of their character - you haven't understood your "tradition of law" (in the west).

If you are made to think, that you do anything - because of a "very bad dude" - you were on the receiving end of propaganda.

'Evil' people with power - usually rectify them doing evil stuff by a concept called 'the lesser of two evils'. They usually don't want to go to sleep thinking, that they are evil either. Hence - the "Disney villain" (evil person) usually doesnt exist. (In a leading position in institutions - because they usually are supposed to filter out the picture book deranged type of person.)

 

[eyeliner]

Yes, evil people do exist, my friend. I love your ignorance, don't change.

I will keep fighting for you to keep your ignorance.

 

[RaptorDMG]

We was no diplomat. He was basically Kane from Command and Conquer.

And yes, it is a measuring test. Trump's USA outright killed a military mastermind just because:
They could
A message needed to be conveyed

In my apolitical mind, Trump's USA removed a valuable Iranian asset, basically the head of a very large chicken. In anyway you put it, Iran doesn't stand a chance now and can't go to war peeing missiles.

They lost a major strategist (some claim he was the best at it), and their enemy is right beside their border, in countries they can't just level without getting a military backlash.

See it this way:
What can Iran do? Bomb american bases right? They did. They were basically pee shooters. They can't invade Syria to tackle the americans head on, and can't surely bomb america from far away.

Iran is far from america, but america is just out of the border, with a whole lot of ground to bomb away.

Iran never stood a chance against America in the first place even with Souleimani.

If this had escalated (and hopefully it doesn't in future) Iran would like have targeted critical infrastructure to the US and the world in general instead of hitting a couple of buildings they would target oil refineries, docks, and airfields.

This would probably slow down the influx of US forces but the big damage would likely be economic as a lot of the world rely on oil from the Middle East so Iran may not be able to strike American citizens directly but they can still hit them if they want to.

As for invading Syria I doubt their goal would be invasion and more to kick out the US forces that already invaded Syria illegally.

 

[x65943]

Absolutely an election stunt and won't be the last this cycle either

 

[notimp]

Yes, evil people do exist, my friend. I love your ignorance, don't change.

I will keep fighting for you to keep your ignorance.

Strangely enough, I've looked into that as well. Most people who are willing to go to extremes have been exposed to those sort of traumatic events in their past as well - have been desensitized, or have less quarrals wanting to re-experience traumatic events, even if they induce them themselves. Usually those people are what you'd call 'burned' and dont get very high in bureaucratic ladders.

Then there are psychopths, and sadists (can be 'released' in a societally acceptable way these days) - and again, the bureaucratic process usually is designed to flush them out as well.

(When I was young and in the military, we were used as role playing extras in UN peace keeping mission training, where we would interrupt convoys haggle with the actual soldiers in training, and steal some of their stuff openly - if some of them lost their temper, we would report it, and those cats would be axed from being allowed to go abroad. Just as a small tidbit.)

Then there is a concept called division of power, or four eyes principal, or.. - so you get even less erratic decision making as a result.

Decision processes of dictators (where power is handed over in family succession) are a little different, but their internal logic isn't that of a madman either.

Also - there is a huge sensitivity gap between western societies, and lets say Iran, where people get killed every week at times, in acts of terror, or opposition. So boundaries extend.

But every time - you are told, that you have to get behind an act of lets call it counter terrorism, as the public, you are usually lied to to garner consent.


Now - there is an issue, where sensibilities clash. ('Why terrorism works' (I dont want to explain that)) f.e. and even an issue with sensibilities becoming warped over time (constante state of terror, or wars).

But I can assure you, that everyone wants to sleep at night - so their self images arent those of a villain. Villain is what gets constructed as a societal image.

And in crafting that, you have leeway.
--

Decision model of an absolutistic ruler: "I know whats best for my society" (decision processes delegated), smaller evil to kill off the rebels in one swoop. Immanent danger > more casualties allowed. Less precise weapons, more civil victims (there always are, there are no 'chirurgical strikes'). Greenlight it to get a war faster to be over, or to prevent getting toppled. Women and children die. You are coined a villain.

In wars different logic applies, there is also shock and awe used as an actual tool - but usually not as a long term strategic decision by higher ups. Long term oppression (think Ghaza), that might change as well. Logic is always "the lesser evil", or "dehumanizing "the enemy" (not thinking of them as humans anymore)".

In neither case the Disney Villain principle applies. If someone is baiting you with "good versus evil" distinguishing by "dudes" - they are usually engaging in propaganda. Humans have the propensity to become evil in extreme circumstances, and forget about it subsequently (dealing with trauma). Its usually not "a guy" thats the issue anywhere.

The same as it is usually not "a guy" that you should trust in, or that knows what to do, or that has to be protected from criticism.

Once you see, that the enemy is human as well - its not as easy to kill off a dude, by pronouncing that 'he was bad" - which coincidently, they always were in the end. That or marthyrs - isnt that convenient.

And there isnt a society on earth that would pronounce a psychopath to a position of "real" power, if they can help it.

Also read Hannah Arendt on "banality of evil". Its the same thing Freud came to grasp with in his later years. Its the propensity of "normal" humans to become evil situationally thats causing the issue.

 

[notimp]

Repairing relations.

The U.S. sent an encrypted fax via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran urging Iran not to escalate, followed by a flurry of back and forth messages.

The U.S. sent an encrypted fax via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran urging Iran not to escalate, followed by a flurry of back and forth messages. https://t.co/Vu08PyNLe9 via @WSJ

— Michael C. Bender (@MichaelCBender) January 11, 2020

(via fefe (german blogger))

 

[Hanafuda]

Absolutely an election stunt and won't be the last this cycle either

What's funny is you probably think the impeachment farce isn't an election stunt.

 

[x65943]

What's funny is you probably think the impeachment farce isn't an election stunt.

Full disclosure I have never voted Democrat in my life

Just because I think what Trump is doing is stupid does not mean I suddenly love the left

I voted R-Money in 2012 and Johnson in 2016

 

[IncredulousP]

I cant wait till he gets re elected for another term. Piss off all these trump hating people. Never in the history of the usa has there been people screaming impeach since before the president took office. Be funny as hell if he won a 2nd term

Literally, Republicans were calling to impeach Hillary before the elections. Don't be an idiot.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Full disclosure I have never voted Democrat in my life

Just because I think what Trump is doing is stupid does not mean I suddenly love the left

I voted R-Money in 2012 and Johnson in 2016

That's unfortunate to read. You seemed like a very sensible person. At least you're not blind to how ridiculous this whole shitshow of having a moronic traitor for president is.

 

[x65943]

Literally, Republicans were calling to impeach Hillary before the elections. Don't be an idiot.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


That's unfortunate to read. You seemed like a very sensible person. At least you're not blind to how ridiculous this whole shitshow of having a moronic traitor for president is.

Imho the Republican party before Trump was very similar to the Democrats before Sanders

A bunch of neocons trying to slice up the world

You know Bush and Clinton are actually good pals?

The polarization of US politics is new - and honestly in the past you didn't get much difference voting R or D

Now of course everything is very different. I didn't vote Trump and the Republicans have alienated me.

I voted Libertarian last time because I didn't agree with the stance of either large party.

Do I wish Hillary had won? Yeah she would have no doubt been a better president. For starters she wouldn't have alienated all of our closest allies.

You know - what do you find wrong about the Libertarians? Socially liberal, fiscally conservative. I think in practice it could be a good system.

Anyhow - in the end I think conservative and liberal policies in regards to the economy both work in different ways - and the most important thing is to keep growth. That means times for spending and time for saving.

The last thing I want to say is this. You should never find it unfortunate that our views diverge. We should encourage independent thought - telling someone you are disappointed in them for their beliefs either leads to alienation or coerced thought policing. I don't think any less of you just because you vote differently.