Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Iran tensions escalate

77 posts in this topic

US sends missile system and ship to Middle East as Iran tensions escalate

 

The military ship USS Arlington - which transports amphibious vehicles and aircraft - will join the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Gulf, officials say.

US B-52 bombers have also arrived at a base in Qatar, the Pentagon said.

It said the moves were a response to threats of possible operations against US forces in the region by Iran.

The US has given little information about the exact nature of the reported threat, which Iran has dismissed as nonsense, describing the deployments as "psychological warfare" aimed at intimidating the country.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-48235940?ocid=socialflow_twitter

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Once again the USA proves that it is the greatest threat to world peace. Instead of directing all of its energy to addressing climate change it creates more warfare. Shame in the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh yes we must fear climate change because liberals forgot if they ever knew that there are enough thermonuclear ICBMs stockpiled in the U.S., Russia and Europe to destroy are life on earth 150 times over.

melting antarctic ice shelves versus being reduced to irradiated rancid tapioca?

which is worse?

:D

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Nip, it IS possible, even with Iran, to use diplomacy and negotiation to diffuse a potential global crisis.  However, NObody can rattle their sabres at Mother Nature and get HER to stop what's going on in that quarter. 

And, as your boy "the Donald" sees illegal immigrants as MORE of a "crisis" than nearly 228,000 women, men and children dying in mass shootings in schools, churches, synagogues, work places and nightclubs(etc.) in the last 20 years, and his abject failure to get North Korea to "fall in line" by "acting" tough, he's gotta try his bluff somewhere else.  But, if ya ask me...

The REAL crisis is in the White House! 

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is another example of..


Gunboat diplomacy (or Big Stick diplomacy in U.S. history) refers to the pursuit of foreign policy objectives with the aid of conspicuous displays of naval power – implying or constituting a direct threat of warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"well, I'm no diplomat! I'm a combat soldier. that's all these jokers understand.

"you just let me handle it. you and ike are so soft about it! in ten days I'll have us at war with those sonsa****es and I'll make it look like it was their fault!

Image result for george c. scott patton


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not a "manufactured Iranian threat."  Iran has been subsidizing terrorist organizations throughout the Mid-East for decades.  They still are.  These groups have and will attack US forces in places such as Irag, Afghanistan and others.  They have also attacked US forces in other areas where the US in not involved in military operations.

The problem is that you have two bull-headed leaders who are unwilling or incapable of negotiating a peaceful solution.  Trump wants Iran to gut its defenses while simultaneously building up the offensive capabilities of Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf area nations.  At least that is the Iranian position and somewhat accurate.

The use of US Naval and Marine forces to protect or project American interest in foreign countries goes back to 1805 and sending the Navy and Marines to fight the Barbary pirates in Tripoli.

The US projects its forces because the rest of the world is either incapable or unwilling.  They have ceded that responsibility (and massive costs) to the US, for better or worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NipkowDisc said:

"well, I'm no diplomat! I'm a combat soldier. that's all these jokers understand.

"you just let me handle it. you and ike are so soft about it! in ten days I'll have us at war with those sonsa****es and I'll make it look like it was their fault!

Image result for george c. scott patton


 

And we would have had our A$$ES handed to us.  Patton was an outstanding combat soldier as long as someone higher up told him what to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheCid said:

This is not a "manufactured Iranian threat."  Iran has been subsidizing terrorist organizations throughout the Mid-East for decades.  They still are.  These groups have and will attack US forces in places such as Irag, Afghanistan and others.  They have also attacked US forces in other areas where the US in not involved in military operations.

The US projects its forces because the rest of the world is either incapable or unwilling.  They have ceded that responsibility (and massive costs) to the US, for better or worse.

To your first point: what evidence do you have that Iran has been subsidizing terrorist organizations in the past 10 years? Is there any evidence that says this? If so, I have not seen it. And no, "I know I saw it somewhere but now I can't find it" won't cut it. Iran has been in a more peaceful posture in regards to the US for quite some time, at least since the Obama-era treaty that Trump reneged on. They may be involved with other issues in their own region, with other regional powers, but that should not be our problem. 

Regardless of any environmental concerns, having to maintain an interest in the affairs of the Middle East is reason enough to try and get our nation off of fossil fuels. I would prefer having no obligations with that part of the world, and they should be allowed to decide their own destinies, be it revolution, war with each other, or peace.

As to your second part, who is asking the US to "project its forces" at this time? I know I'm not. What nation is asking us to spend our "blood & treasure" to threaten Iran? Maybe there is some credible threat that I'm not hearing about, but to me this sounds like the expected warmongering from Bolton, Kushner, Netanyahu, and the Saudi crown.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

To your first point: what evidence do you have that Iran has been subsidizing terrorist organizations in the past 10 years? Is there any evidence that says this? If so, I have not seen it. And no, "I know I saw it somewhere but now I can't find it" won't cut it. Iran has been in a more peaceful posture in regards to the US for quite some time, at least since the Obama-era treaty that Trump reneged on. They may be involved with other issues in their own region, with other regional powers, but that should not be our problem. 

Regardless of any environmental concerns, having to maintain an interest in the affairs of the Middle East is reason enough to try and get our nation off of fossil fuels. I would prefer having no obligations with that part of the world, and they should be allowed to decide their own destinies, be it revolution, war with each other, or peace.

As to your second part, who is asking the US to "project its forces" at this time? I know I'm not. What nation is asking us to spend our "blood & treasure" to threaten Iran? Maybe there is some credible threat that I'm not hearing about, but to me this sounds like the expected warmongering from Bolton, Kushner, Netanyahu, and the Saudi crown.

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/hezbollah-revolutionary-irans-most-successful-export/  This is only one, but google Iranian support of Terrorist and many more will pop up - Houthis, Hamas, Taliban for instance.  This support is a well know fact.  They also support Syria in opposition to US interests.

Unfortunately, as we learned in 1918 and ever since, what happens in the rest of the world can become our problem.  In addition, the world in global in social, economic and other facets.  We are part of the World, not just North America.  Going back as far as the Muslim conquest of Spain, there is no guarantee a power there might not expand its reach into Europe, Asia, the Americas, etc.

Yes, the U.S. is greatly to blame for the problems in that area, but we are involved and will be for a long time to come.  One factor that has not reached our shores yet is the massive migration of people from that area to Europe.  This is due to the wars and conflicts of the powers and groups in that area trying to "determine their destinies."

It goes far beyond fossil fuels, although for the foreseeable future that is a vital interest of the U.S.  It will take a minimum of 50 years (if then) for the U.S. to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. 

All of the foreign nations in Europe and North America gave this responsibility to the U.S, beginning in 1942.  That is how they were able to reduce their expenditures on their militaries by such huge amounts.

Hey, I don't disagree that the current situation was created by Trump pulling out of the nuclear deal and then listening to Kushner, Bolton, Pompeo, the Saudis, Netanyahu, etc., but we are here.  The Iranians have made credible threats against US forces and American citizens in that area.

When I was in the Army I was assigned to a unit for much of my time that specialized in the Middle East and especially Iran.  Trust me, they are a threat to US interests in the area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't think of a way of responding without being insulting, which I have been too often lately, so I'll just drop the issue, as I think I've already made my position clear.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

I really can't think of a way of responding without being insulting, which I have been too often lately, so I'll just drop the issue, as I think I've already made my position clear.

I can go back to the time when the Shah of Iran had special agents on the University of Kansas campus kidnapping Iranian students.

No history Works in isolation.

I imagine some of the same people who suffered under the US backed regime of the Shah of Iran are still alive and their family members have very good memories too.

Americans practice ostrich history, but other people in the world do not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheCid said:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/hezbollah-revolutionary-irans-most-successful-export/  This is only one, but google Iranian support of Terrorist and many more will pop up - Houthis, Hamas, Taliban for instance.  This support is a well know fact.  They also support Syria in opposition to US interests.

Unfortunately, as we learned in 1918 and ever since, what happens in the rest of the world can become our problem.  In addition, the world in global in social, economic and other facets.  We are part of the World, not just North America.  Going back as far as the Muslim conquest of Spain, there is no guarantee a power there might not expand its reach into Europe, Asia, the Americas, etc.

Yes, the U.S. is greatly to blame for the problems in that area, but we are involved and will be for a long time to come.  One factor that has not reached our shores yet is the massive migration of people from that area to Europe.  This is due to the wars and conflicts of the powers and groups in that area trying to "determine their destinies."

It goes far beyond fossil fuels, although for the foreseeable future that is a vital interest of the U.S.  It will take a minimum of 50 years (if then) for the U.S. to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels. 

All of the foreign nations in Europe and North America gave this responsibility to the U.S, beginning in 1942.  That is how they were able to reduce their expenditures on their militaries by such huge amounts.

Hey, I don't disagree that the current situation was created by Trump pulling out of the nuclear deal and then listening to Kushner, Bolton, Pompeo, the Saudis, Netanyahu, etc., but we are here.  The Iranians have made credible threats against US forces and American citizens in that area.

When I was in the Army I was assigned to a unit for much of my time that specialized in the Middle East and especially Iran.  Trust me, they are a threat to US interests in the area.

Houthis are the terrorists to you? They're fighting a Saudi Arabia-led invasion into their own country. The Saudi-Yemen Conflict is on the backs of the Saudis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

I really can't think of a way of responding without being insulting, which I have been too often lately, so I'll just drop the issue, as I think I've already made my position clear.

Guess we will have to agree to disagree.  It is unfortunate that the US and Iran are in these positions, but here we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the usual Donny the chicken hawk bs. We don't want war with Iran but we'll

get right in their faces and see what happens. I doubt anything very serious will. Iran is

a regional power which does what most regional powers do--throw their weight around

in certain situations and support groups who are considered allies. Sure Iran has supported

Hezbollah for years, for which I salute them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Until we fight and actively protest the military-industrial complex, we will not attain domestic initiative; universal healthcare, free college, infrastructure repair and construction, the launching of a green economy . . . nothing.
 
The US goes around creating tension so we have an excuse to build up its military. We will never accept peace because there is no profit in it.
 
This is what Eisenhower warned us of during his farewell speech. If the MIC can keep us scared, we will keep them fat. The MSM is complicit. They know on which side their bread is buttered. Why else would there be a commercial for the F-35 during the Superbowl, the most expensive ad slot on television? Viewers certainly can't go out and buy one. It's to get positive coverage of them in the news and to help push their agenda. And how about that tag line at the end of the commercial? "We never forget who we're fighting for." Subtext: So you better pay up or we'' go fight for somebody else. Therein lies the problem. How do we wrest control of our military budget away from the MIC that is controlling it without having them turn on us in the process?
 
The USA is the country equivalent of a terrified and paranoid backwoodsman who hordes 100 guns and rifles that he'll never actually use -- Or if he does, it will have a tragic ending.
 
And the Pentagon just asked for $30 million to pay wages to "moderate rebels" in Syria...because people might not really want to overthrow their government if the US doesn't pay them a good salary to do it.
 
The government should control the weapons manufacturers, not the other way around; that being said, the people should control the government.
 
It is now the Terrorism Industrial Complex. Just mention the T word and everyone jumps on board. And let’s remember what Eisenhower really wanted to call it. The Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
 
now i wonder why america loses so many wars all time when they spend so much on the military . XD Vietnam loss, iraq loss, afghanistan not going anywhere and i don't think america is winning the war on terror since we are creating it. So i guess we're losing?
 
the military industrial complex is the real and only terrorist !! they need to keep producing this enemy so they can sell more weapons and increase the millitary budget! if people stand up against the true terrorist there will be no more isis no more alqaida no more terrorisme! the true question is : to whoom profit the crime!? to whoom profit terrorism?! and the answer is easy the military industrial complex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

& so just WHO ARE these people??  :blink:

giphy.gif

They're copy and pasted from the YouTube comments of some video, I believe. If you click on their names, it takes you to their channels. See. This is from the Blazers Fan 22-

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

They're copy and pasted from the YouTube comments of some video, I believe. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the military industrial complex will have their wars (real threats or false flags) regardless who's president.  The next will inherit the same problems. 

I hope some butthole in the Middle East don't threaten some president's daddy. :wacko:

 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

Until we fight and actively protest the military-industrial complex, we will not attain domestic initiative; universal healthcare, free college, infrastructure repair and construction, the launching of a green economy . . . nothing.
 
The US goes around creating tension so we have an excuse to build up its military. We will never accept peace because there is no profit in it.
 
This is what Eisenhower warned us of during his farewell speech. If the MIC can keep us scared, we will keep them fat. The MSM is complicit. They know on which side their bread is buttered. Why else would there be a commercial for the F-35 during the Superbowl, the most expensive ad slot on television? Viewers certainly can't go out and buy one. It's to get positive coverage of them in the news and to help push their agenda. And how about that tag line at the end of the commercial? "We never forget who we're fighting for." Subtext: So you better pay up or we'' go fight for somebody else. Therein lies the problem. How do we wrest control of our military budget away from the MIC that is controlling it without having them turn on us in the process?
 
The USA is the country equivalent of a terrified and paranoid backwoodsman who hordes 100 guns and rifles that he'll never actually use -- Or if he does, it will have a tragic ending.
 
And the Pentagon just asked for $30 million to pay wages to "moderate rebels" in Syria...because people might not really want to overthrow their government if the US doesn't pay them a good salary to do it.
 
The government should control the weapons manufacturers, not the other way around; that being said, the people should control the government.
 
It is now the Terrorism Industrial Complex. Just mention the T word and everyone jumps on board. And let’s remember what Eisenhower really wanted to call it. The Military Industrial Congressional Complex.
 
now i wonder why america loses so many wars all time when they spend so much on the military . XD Vietnam loss, iraq loss, afghanistan not going anywhere and i don't think america is winning the war on terror since we are creating it. So i guess we're losing?
 
the military industrial complex is the real and only terrorist !! they need to keep producing this enemy so they can sell more weapons and increase the millitary budget! if people stand up against the true terrorist there will be no more isis no more alqaida no more terrorisme! the true question is : to whoom profit the crime!? to whoom profit terrorism?! and the answer is easy the military industrial complex

More baloney!  We do need to rein in the military-industrial-political complex, but these people do not have a clue about what they are blabbing.  Could respond to the misinformation above, but why bother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, mr6666 said:

& so just WHO ARE these people??  :blink:

giphy.gif

Nobodies with little, if any, qualifications about what they post.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TalkTalk123 said:

 

I assume the guy doing all the talking is Jimmy Dore, a self-described extreme liberal and anti-war COMEDIAN.  We spend more on military than Russians because we pay and support our troops and their families far, far, far better than the Russians or anybody else.  We also provide them with the best possible fighting and defensive equipment and facilities we can.  There is waste in DOD, but let's be fair.  US spends more because we are ASKED to do more by rest of the world, we have an all-volunteer military and the people believe it should be supported.

Incidentally, we won the Gulf War in 1991 because we had a clearly defined objective and we accomplished it quickly.  We did have allies, but US was the major component.

Might ad that many corporations that do not sell directly or even indirectly to the public have had public relations ads on TV and in print forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us